Gouvernance | Page 6

L’auteur américain Robert Reich a pris sa plume pour dénoncer la situation de GM et le fait que les actionnaires sont encore les victimes d’une gouvernance critiquable : « Robert B. Reich: GM is the story of the American worker » (The Baltimore Sun, 23 septembre 2019). Une belle réflexion que je vous fait connaître ici.

Extrait :

When GM went public again in 2010, it boasted to Wall Street that 43 percent of its cars were made outside the United States in places where labor cost less than $15 an hour, while in America it could now pay « lower-tiered » wages and benefits for new employees. The corporation came roaring back. Over the last three years it’s made $35 billion in North America. But its workers are still getting measly pay packages, and GM is still outsourcing like mad. Last year it assigned its new Chevrolet Blazer, a sport utility vehicle that had been made in the United States, to a Mexican plant, while announcing it would lay off 18,000 American workers. Earlier this year it shut its giant plant in Lordstown, Ohio, which Donald Trump had vowed to save. « Don’t move. Don’t sell your house, » he said at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, in 2017. GM is still getting corporate welfare — since Trump took office, some $600 million in federal contracts and $700 million in tax breaks (including Trump’s giant corporate tax cut). Some of this largesse has gone into the pockets of GM executives. Chairman and CEO Mary Barra raked in almost $22 million in total compensation last year. Last month, the Business Roundtable — a confab of American CEOs, on whose executive committee Barra sits — pledged to compensate all employees « fairly » and provide them « important benefits. » Why should anyone believe them? For 40 years these CEOs have fought unions, outsourced jobs abroad, loaded up on labor-replacing technologies without retraining their workers, and abandoned their communities when they could do things more cheaply elsewhere. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos signed the same statement. Last week, Amazon-owned Whole Foods announced it would be cutting medical benefits for its entire part-time workforce — at a total savings of about what Bezos makes in two hours. Corporate profits have reached record levels, but nothing has trickled down to most workers. Profits now constitute a larger portion of national income, and wages a lower portion, than at any time since World War II. These profits are generating higher share prices (fueled by share buybacks) and higher executive pay, resulting in wider inequality. The richest 1 percent of Americans own about 40 percent of all shares of stock; the richest 10 percent, around 80 percent. The demise of unions explains much of this. In the mid-1950s, over a third of all workers in the private sector were unionized. This gave them substantial bargaining power to get higher wages and benefits. Today, just 6.4 percent of private-sector workers are unionized, eliminating most of that bargaining power. Researchers have found that between 1952 and 1988, almost all of the rise in share values came as a result of economic growth, but from 1989 to 2017, economic growth accounted for just 24 percent of the rise. Most of the increase has come from money that otherwise would have gone to workers. America’s shift from farm to factory was accompanied by decades of bloody labor conflict. The subsequent shift from factory to office and other service jobs created further social upheaval. The more recent power shift from workers to shareholders — and consequentially, the dramatic widening of inequality — has happened far more quietly, but it has had a more unfortunate and more lasting consequence for the system: stagnant wages, abandoned communities and an angry working class vulnerable to demagogues peddling authoritarianism, racism and xenophobia. Donald Trump didn’t come from nowhere, but he’s a fake champion of the working class. If he were the real thing, he’d be walking the picket line with GM workers.

À la prochaine…

Comme à son habitude, le professeur Michel Albouy livre une analyse fort intéressante. Cette fois, cette dernière porte sur le manifeste du Business Roundtable (association regroupant 181 dirigeants (CEO) de grandes entreprises américaines) publié le 20 août 2019 : « Les grands patrons américains veulent-ils vraiment mettre à égalité actionnaires et RSE ? » (Les Échos, 20 septembre 2019).

Extrait :

Position d’arbitre

Doit-on prendre pour argent comptant ces belles déclarations ? N’est-ce pas un nouveau «green washing» ? Beaucoup, et à commencer par les salariés de leurs entreprises, en doute. Certains spécialistes et chercheurs de gouvernance d’entreprise également. C’est notamment le cas du professeur Zingalès de l’université de Chicago qui pense que l’appel de ces dirigeants à redéfinir le rôle de l’entreprise n’est pas dénué d’arrières pensées

L’idée consistant à faire des dirigeants les arbitres des intérêts – éventuellement divergents – des différentes parties prenantes de l’entreprise revient à les exonérer de leurs obligations à l’égard de leurs mandants que sont les actionnaires. Ainsi, telle insuffisance de rentabilité et/ou de croissance pourra être expliquée par les enjeux sociétaux auxquels il faut répondre impérativement.

Il y aura toujours une bonne explication pour justifier des performances financières insuffisantes. En demandant aux dirigeants de rendre des comptes à tout le monde (actionnaires, créanciers, employés, fournisseurs, collectivités publiques, etc.) et de justifier leurs actions, on place ainsi les dirigeants en position d’arbitre entre des intérêts divergents et sans véritable contre-pouvoir, celui des actionnaires.

Pourtant ces derniers ne sont pas des parties prenantes comme les autres : elles sont les seules à ne pas avoir de relation contractuelle avec l’entreprise et ce sont des créanciers résiduels. A ce titre ils doivent avoir un œil sur l’ensemble des contrats que passe l’entreprise avec ses parties prenantes afin d’avoir en fin de compte des résultats satisfaisants. Cet œil est justement le conseil d’administration.

Les mains libres

En fait, rien n’empêche les entreprises de «délivrer de la valeur aux consommateurs», «investir dans leurs salariés», «négocier de manière juste et éthique avec leurs fournisseurs» ou encore «supporter les communautés dans lesquelles nous vivons». L’intérêt à long terme des actionnaires convergeant avec l’intérêt de l’entreprise, il convient avant tout, selon le professeur Zingales, d’éviter que les dirigeants profitent de la situation pour agir à leur guise sans le contre-pouvoir des actionnaires, générant ainsi d’importants coûts d’agence pour l’entreprise.

Contrairement à la vulgate véhiculée par les tenants d’une réforme de l’entreprise qui voudraient remiser les actionnaires au rang de simple partie prenante, l’intérêt à long terme des actionnaires passe par une prise en compte des attentes de leurs clients, mais également de leurs employés et de leurs fournisseurs. Car comment créer de la valeur pour les actionnaires sans de bons produits et clients satisfaits, sans salariés performants et motivés et sans fournisseurs fiables et de qualité ?

À la prochaine…

M. Gérard Fillion livre une belle réflexion sur l’irresponsabilité des grandes entreprises pharmaceutiques dans un article paru hier : « Opioïdes : l’avidité des pharmaceutiques » (Radio-Canada, 29 août 2019).

Extrait :

(…) Nous savons aujourd’hui que plusieurs pharmaceutiques ont fait croire à des milliers de médecins que les bénéfices des opioïdes étaient supérieurs à leurs effets néfastes. Elles ont sous-estimé les risques, notamment ceux associés à une dépendance marquée à ces médicaments. Des documents déposés en cour aux États-Unis montrent clairement que des entreprises savaient qu’il y avait des risques majeurs de dépendance.

Non seulement elles connaissaient les risques, mais elles ont fait fi des dangers pour encourager les médecins à prescrire toujours plus d’opioïdes. Le jugement rendu en Oklahoma en début de semaine est troublant.

(…) Au nom du profit, une crise épouvantable a été créée. C’est certainement la part la plus sombre de notre système économique.

À la prochaine…

Le 7 mars 2019, ecoDa a pris position sur le devoir de loyauté des administrateurs : « ecoDa’s position paper on Directors Duties »

Extrait :

ecoDa supports the fundamental concept of Corporate purpose. However the European Commission should propose policy principles and refrains from trying to standardize directors’ duties among Member States and sectors. ecoDa believes that soft law through Corporate Governance codes is more suitable to adapt to an evolving context.

Acknowledging that shareholders define the company’s purpose does not mean neither that the interests of other stakeholders should not be taken into account by the directors when fulfilling their duties towards the company. On the contrary, there is no doubt that boards are taking such interests into account to an extent deemed consistent with the company’s purpose. Basically, there is a sound business case for more social and environmental involvement. Understanding consumers’ expectations and employees’ aspiration is becoming a prerequisite to become more innovative, to attract the right talents and to ensure sustainability in the long run. It is obvious that companies cannot be run in a sustainable manner if boards ignore the context in which they operate.

Therefore, the European Commission should refrain from trying to harmonize the fundamental concept of corporate interest and directors’ duties due to the very important legal differences across Europe and the different contexts across sectors. No law should hold directors accountable to several “principals”, arguably with often mutually contradictory interests. The board can solely be accountable to the company for the discharge of its duty to promote the purpose of the company. If the criteria for liability are not clearly defined, the boards will be liable to nobody for nothing or to everybody for anything. “Being liable to everybody means being liable to nobody”. Legal certainty is the basis of a competitive economic environment.

À la prochaine…

Dans un article du Financial Post de janvier 2019, Terence Corcoran revient sur les thèses de Milton Friedman pour les appuyer au travers d’arguments intéressants. Je vous invite à lire son analyse dans l’article suivant : « Milton Friedman is right, profit is a company’s only purpose » (Financial Post, 19 janvier 2019)

Petit extrait :

There is nothing in the redefine-capitalism movement that was not identified almost 50 years ago by Friedman as a danger to markets and economic freedom. The concepts and principles reviewed in his 1970 essay, ignored by Mayer and all the reformers, are as relevant today as they were then.

Generally, Friedman would have no problem with corporations that engage in virtue signalling. For example, Gillette’s “toxic masculinity” ad is an obvious attempt to sell products by piggybacking on a controversial social issue. Gillette is acting out of self-interest.

Friedman declined to denounce such corporate attempts to “generate goodwill” and draw attention to their products, although he warned that the strategic pursuit of social approval and conflict amounted to “hypocritical window-dressing.”

It is utterly false to portray corporations as manufacturers of profits at the expense of society. Today’s corporations, from Microsoft Corp. to GM to Amazon.com Inc., survive by producing goods and services that feed, clothe, transport, entertain and otherwise provide benefits to billions of people.

The corporate adoption of social purposes would take focus away from these core business purposes. Worse, expanding the number of corporate purposes places an undesirable undemocratic framework on corporate executives. As Friedman saw it in 1970, giving social and political responsibilities to business leaders installs unelected corporate managers in positions of unelected power

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, je vous invite à lire l’article suivant publié sur l’Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation : « Everything Old is New Again—Reconsidering the Social Purpose of the Corporation » (par Gregory J. Holly, 12 mars 2019).

Petit extrait :

At a time when trust in US business is at an all-time low, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer, the idea that the corporation should be run solely for the benefi of the shareholders is being questioned, including by large institutional shareholders

While the social interests that a corporation serves and the interests of shareholders are often viewed as being in tension, when viewed outside of a short-term perspective, social interests and shareholder interests are often aligned. After all, corporations do not succeed by consistently neglecting the expectations of employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and local communities, but neither do corporations attract necessary capital from equity markets if they fail to meet shareholder expectations of a competitive return. Increased focus by investors on the broader societal impacts of their portfolio companies may help assuage underlying concerns about the responsible use of significant economic power by corporations—and large institutional investors—but a common set of appropriate metrics that look beyond shareholder return have not yet developed. Until they do, shareholder value will remain the primary polestar for assessing boards and managers and holding them accountable. At the same time, it is clearly in the common interest of investors and corporations to address societal expectations, reduce tensions and build trust in our important economic institutions. Institutional investors can play a key role in helping corporations navigate this difficult terrain by emphasising in specific terms the key environmental and social factors that are meaningful to their investment decisions.

À la prochaine…

Dans le Financial Times, Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson propose un article ô combien enrichissant montrant que les choses commencent à changer en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise : « For 50 years, companies have been told to put shareholders first. Now even their largest investors are challenging that consensus ». L,article est intitulé « Beyond the bottom line: should business put purpose before profit? » (4 janvier 2019) et je vous le recommande chaudement.

In sum, the purpose-first  movement is still far from ubiquitous and lacking in reliable data, but is the pursuit of something beyond profit worse than Friedman’s singular focus on shareholder returns? Encouraging companies to have a clear mission, consider their communities and steer their innovative impulses to good ends may not add up to systemic change, but it is surely better than the alternative.Critics such as Giridharadas would rather society concentrate on restoring politics as the forum through which we address its challenges. But for as long as politicians are viewed with more suspicion than chief executives and investors, the purposeful capitalists may be our best hope.Consumers, employees and campaigners are already learning how effective they can be in pushing companies to balance other stakeholders’ concerns with their returns to shareholders. Companies, in turn, have discovered that doing so can improve their reputations, persuade investors that they have a sustainable strategy and, ultimately, benefit their bottom line.When corporate America is paying chief executives 168 times as much as the median employee, steering the windfall from a historic tax cut to options-boosting buybacks and consolidating into ever larger groups, executives claiming to be solving society’s ills can expect pushback.The pursuit of purpose will not end the questions over how much chief executives should earn, what wages and taxes companies should pay or how much corporate power society will tolerate. Nor will investors stop judging chief executives by their share prices. But 50 years of putting shareholders first left corporations little trusted by non-shareholders and many are ready to try something different.As companies’ self-interest converges with the interests of other stakeholders, those who would improve the world have a chance to get some of the world’s most powerful instruments for change onside. They should grasp the opportunity business’s moral money moment has given them.

À la prochaine…

Ivan