Responsabilité sociale des entreprises | Page 8

Drôle de question qui vient d’un article publié sur : « How To Be A Stakeholder-Driven Company During the Coronavirus Pandemic » (Just Capital, Alison Omens, 11 mars 2020). La question est pertinente et une vraie RSE est à ce prix : prendre en compte les salariés !

Extrait :

What should companies be doing?

First, paid sick leave. Every worker, regardless of classification, needs access to paid sick leave. And with too few tests available and concerns about hospital overuse, it can’t only be available when a worker has a proven case of COVID-19. We’re seeing announcements from companies like Walmart and Darden Restaurants on new sick leave policies. Fundamentally in this environment, workers need 14 days of leave. Companies should also press Congress to implement sick leave universally. This will level the playing field for those companies that are committed to doing the right thing for their workers and communities.

Second, we’re seeing many tech and white collar companies encourage or require employees to work from home. Those companies must also be thinking about their contractors, vendors, and suppliers. We’ve seen companies like Microsoft and Alphabet pledge to cover lost wages of hourly workers at their headquarters. Every company should include this as part of their calculation over the coming days and weeks. Stakeholder-run companies connect the interests of their workers to their suppliers and communities, and this is a critical example of that. 

And third: Companies need to know the financial security of their workforce and ask if their workers are making ends meet each month. JUST Capital can help with conducting a financial stress test. This is the moment where recommendations like storing up a month’s worth of food is simply not possible for workers in financial distress. We know that 40% of Americans can’t afford a $400 emergency and according to our initial estimates, 10.4 million people (of the 20 million overall) who work at Russell 1000 companies do not make enough to support a family of three, even with a spouse working part time. It goes without saying that a pandemic is one of those emergencies – necessitating that people obtain additional medication, food, and healthcare. 

À la prochaine…

Le 13 mars 2020, le professeur Claude Francoeur a publié une intéressante tribune dans le quotidien La presse + intitulé : « Place aux femmes et aux jeunes en gouvernance ! ». Malgré l’actualité de ce thème, le statut quo domine malheureusement dans les pratiques des entreprises canadiennes.

Résumé :

Les boys clubs – en particulier, ceux qui sont systématiquement entretenus dans les conseils d’administration (C.A.) de nos plus grandes entreprises – ont récemment fait l’objet de vives critiques. On leur demande de briser ces cercles fermés en faisant entre autres davantage place aux femmes. Malgré ces revendications, les C.A. des entreprises canadiennes demeurent très homogènes, la grande majorité des administrateurs étant encore et toujours des hommes !

À la prochaine…

Bel article proposé par la professeure Tsuk Mitchell, Dalia : « From Dodge to eBay: The Elusive Corporate Purpose » (Virginia Law & Business Review, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 155-211) ! Cet article revient sur la fameuse mission des entreprises en confrontant les visions économiques et socio-politiques qui expliquent une lecture différentes de son contenu.

Résumé :

This article examines the history of the law of corporate purpose. I argue that the seemingly conflicting visions of corporate social responsibility and shareholder wealth maximization, which characterize contemporary debates about the subject, are grounded in two different paradigms for corporate law — a socio-political paradigm and an economic-financial one. Advocates of the socio-political paradigm have historically focused on the power that corporations could exercise in society, while those embracing the economic-financial paradigm expressed concerns about the power that the control group could exercise over the corporation’s shareholders. Over the course of the twentieth century, scholars have debated the merits of each of these paradigms and the concerns associated with them, while judges drew upon the academic and, more importantly, the managerial sentiments and concerns of the era to attach a purpose to corporate law’s doctrine, that is, the ultra vires doctrine in the early twentieth century, the enabling business judgment rule by mid-century, and the laws applicable to evaluating managerial responses to hostile takeovers at the century’s end. Ultimately, the cases seemingly addressing corporate purpose did not endorse wealth maximization or social responsibility as objectives. Rather, they empowered corporate managers to set corporate goals without interference from shareholders or the courts.

À la prochaine…

Les fonds d’investissement apportent-ils réellement leur soutien aux critères lorsqu’ils exercent leur vote ? Voilà une belle à laquelle un auteur apporte malheureusement une réponse négative : Caleb Griffin, Environmental & Social Voting at Index Funds (February 14, 2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=. On est donc encore loin des voeux affichés par les gros joueurs de l’industrie semble-t-il…

Résumé :

This Article demonstrates that, despite a considerable marketing focus on their E&S efforts, overall support for E&S proposals is low for the Big Three.

In the 2018-2019 proxy season, Vanguard’s largest funds supported 7.5% of unique shareholder E&S proposals, while State Street’s largest funds supported 22.7% of such proposals and BlackRock’s largest funds supported 7.1% of such proposals. Other funds support E&S proposals at far higher rates (e.g., Deutsche Bank at 77.9%) and far lower rates (e.g., Dimensional at 0%). Given that funds have a fiduciary duty to vote in the “best interests” of their investors, which fund got it right? The surprising answer is that no one knows—not even the funds themselves. Only by blind luck could these funds, who seek no input from their investors and make no serious attempts to discern investor preferences, be accurately reflecting investors’ interests with their voting behaviors. What are the odds that all, or even the majority, of Vanguard’s investors would benefit from just 7.5% of shareholder E&S proposals while State Street’s shareholders would benefit from 22.7% and Deutsche’s shareholders would benefit from 77.9%? What is the likelihood that BlackRock’s SRI investors would be satisfied with support for 27.7% of E&S proposals while Vanguard’s SRI investors were satisfied with support for 2.2% of such proposals? Is it probable that Guggenheim’s investors are well-served by 77.9% of SRI activities while Dimensional’s investors were well-served by exactly 0% of them?

Ultimately, this Article concludes that it is a convenient myth that index fund stewardship teams are even marginally constrained by the “best interests” standard when voting on E&S proposals, and likely other proposals as well. The truth is that these index funds, possessing the power to decide the fate of most E&S proposals, can do as they wish with that power. The status quo urgently needs change to ensure that index funds are truly acting in investors’ best interests. This Article proposes that such constraint should come in the form of greater input from index fund investors.

À la prochaine…

Les affaires.com ont offert une belle actualité sur la taxation des GAFA ; « Taxation mondiale des entreprises: vers un taux minimum de 12,5% ». Dans la même période, l’OCDE a proposé d’importants changements au régime fiscal international (voir ici cette actualité sur le site du cabinet Osler). Le Pilier 1 des propositions porte sur la nouvelle répartition des droits d’imposition entre les juridictions du marché. Le Pilier 2 est destiné à faire en sorte que les entreprises qui ont des activités à l’échelle internationale soient assujetties à des taux d’imposition minimaux. Le 8 novembre 2019, l’OCDE a publié un document de consultation publique sur son Pilier 2 : Proposition globale de lutte contre l’érosion de la base d’imposition (« GloBE »). Comme la proposition GloBE pourrait avoir des répercussions fondamentales sur l’ensemble du régime fiscal international, les multinationales devraient en surveiller étroitement l’évolution.

Extrait

La dernière proposition de l’OCDE sur la taxation des multinationales, en particulier du numérique, «est la meilleure base possible» pour aboutir à un accord mondial, selon Bruno Le Maire, ministre français de l’Économie.

«Nous devons trouver un accord sur deux points essentiels: la méthode d’imposition et le taux d’imposition. (…) S’agissant de la méthode d’imposition des entreprises, nous estimons (…) qu’il faut privilégier une taxation par pays. S’agissant du taux, nous proposons comme taux de référence 12,5%», a déclaré le ministre à l’occasion des 10 ans du Forum mondial sur la transparence fiscale organisé par l’OCDE à Paris. Un taux minimum mondial « est un rempart contre le dumping fiscal » entre les Etats, a-t-il défendu.

Ce chiffre de 12,5% représente «un bon point de départ et une bonne référence», a ajouté M. Le Maire, estimant que les États en train de négocier sous l’égide de l’OCDE étaient «tout près d’un compromis» sur le sujet.

À la prochaine…