actualités internationales | Page 9

Bel article publié le 1er avril 2020 dans la Harvard Business Review intitulé : « Coronavirus Is Putting Corporate Social Responsibility to the Test ». La RSE passera-t-elle le texte de l’empirique ?

Extrait :

A great many large companies talk about having a social purpose and set of values, or about how much they care for their employees and other stakeholders. Now is the time for them to make good on that commitment. Research suggests that people only truly believe that their company has a purpose and clear values when they see management making a decision that sacrifices short-term profitability for the sake of adhering to those values.

(…) Here are some things that companies can do to help their employees, small suppliers, health care providers, and communities.

Employees. What companies do to help their laid-off employees  — above and beyond what is required or expected — will be remembered and repaid in increased loyalty, higher productivity, and a lasting reputational benefit for many years to come.

Continuing to pay wages, even at less than full pay, is one option. Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, and Lyft have all made commitments to continue payments to hourly workers for at least the first two weeks of lockdown. This is essential not only as a matter of corporate responsibility; it will also substantially reduce the costs of rehiring employees when the economy returns to normal.

Lending money to employees is another option. Left on their own, many employees will turn to the exorbitant charges of credit card debt and payday lenders who will levy a 20%-plus interest rate at a time when corporations can borrow at 2% or 3%. That difference in interest rates can be the difference between bankruptcy and economic survival. Corporations should use their corporate credit and collateral to arrange low- or no-interest loans to their employees. They should calculate employees’ take-home pay after payroll deductions, and ask their banks to make loans available equal to a month of net wages at 3% interest, guaranteed by the corporation. Employees can pay the loans back over the next year out of their salaries when they return to work.

In all likelihood, very few of a company’s employees will actually require medical care, but if they have no insurance, that too can bankrupt them. Companies should offer to cover the medical expenses of all non-insured employees — probably somewhere between 2% and 5% will actually incur significant bills, and companies can negotiate with their insurer an additional premium to cover them. Sadly, employees may also need help to cover funeral costs for the few who succumb.

Small suppliers. Companies should offer advance payments to their small suppliers, giving them cash today for goods that they will need when they return to production. It’s the corporate equivalent of buying gift cards to keep your local store in business.

Health care providers. Some parts of the world face severe shortages in basic medical supplies, but as a global company you have access to resources everywhere. The need for masks in China and South Korea has waned while it is still growing in the United States and Europe. Companies should purchase and ship supplies from where they are available to where they are needed. They should tap their inventory of whatever they have that might help, send it where it will do the most good, and take the loss.

Communities. Major corporations should use their foundations to aid food pantries, free clinics, and other nonprofits in addressing immediate needs of the communities where they have operations.

Pour rappel, j’ai publié récemment un billet de blogue sur Contact partageant mes réflexions sur les liens entre COVID-19, entreprises et RSE : « La RSE à l’heure de la COVID-19 » (26 mars 2020).

À la prochaine…

En ce début d’avril 2020, le Forum Économique Mondial vient de publier une déclaration sur les principes parties prenantes qu’il entend promouvoir durant la crise du COVID-19 : « Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era ».

Extrait :

To this end, we endorse the following Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era:

− To employees, our principle is to keep you safe: We will continue do everything we can to protect your workplace, and to help you to adapt to the new working conditions

− To our ecosystem of suppliers and customers, our principle is to secure our shared business continuity: We will continue to work to keep supply chains open and integrate you into our business response

− To our end consumers, our principle is to maintain fair prices and commercial terms for essential supplies

− To governments and society, our principle is to offer our full support: We stand ready and will continue to complement public action with our resources, capabilities and know-how

− To our shareholders, our principle remains the long-term viability of the company and its potential to create sustained value

Finally, we also maintain the principle that we must continue our sustainability efforts unabated, to bring our world closer to achieving shared goals, including the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. We will continue to focus on those long-term goals.

À la prochaine…

Très intéressant article du Financial Times au titre très clair : « Investors and politicians demand coronavirus pay cuts » (4 avril 2020). L’Angleterre démontre un changement de perspective dans le domaine de la rémunération de la haute direction… Un exemple à suivre ?

À la prochaine…

L’influent ICGN a pris récemment position sur les conséquences du COVID-19 pour la gouvernance d’entreprise, sachant que ce réseau international fait de cette pandémie un risque systémique (rien de moins !). Vous pourrez lire les préconisation de l’ICGN dans le document suivant : ICGN Viewpoint, « Coronavirus as a new systemic risk: implications for corporate governance and investor stewardship », 12 mars 2020.

Extrait concernant les investisseurs

Despite these negative economic events investors should avoid focusing on the crisis in terms of its short-term shareholder value implications. It is here where a long-term perspective, and perhaps a grounding ethics and values more generally, should also guide investor responses. In the language of modern finance, this may be less an opportunity for investors seeking alpha generation in individual companies than it is a question of addressing ‘beta’ issues—the volatility/stability of the markets and financial system as a whole. This may be fiendishly complicated, but an important guiding principle for investors relates to their fundamental fiduciary duty of care to their beneficiaries. This confirms the importance of taking a long-term perspective, since most ICGN Members, and large institutional investors more generally, are managing assets for pension plans or retirement saving plans, where the investment horizon is intrinsically long-term, or in theory infinite.

It is beyond the scope of this Viewpoint to suggest specific investment or trading strategies for investors in addressing the impacts of COVID-19. There is no generic solution. These will differ depending on individual investor mandates and beneficiary requirements. But from the perspective of investor stewardship and fiduciary duty — and consistent with ICGN’s Global Stewardship Principles and Policy Priorities3 — it is fair to suggest that in reacting to this crisis investors should generally seek to maintain an approach that promotes long-term investment horizons and sustainable value creation for individual companies and markets.

As a practical matter this requires investors to appreciate that companies will be facing difficult questions in response to the impacts of COVID-19. The first priority for managers and boards will be to ensure the company’s own financial sustainability. Investors must also understand that capital allocation questions may surface where compromise is required. Companies may have to choose between cutting dividend payments, cutting capital spending or cutting costs, possibly leading to redundancies. Investors should demonstrate support for companies as they navigate potentially acute financial threats and market pressures. Investors should also avoid encouraging companies to undertake undue risks that might provide a short-term investor benefit but could also jeopardise a company’s financial stability or the sustainability of its business model. This reflects not only some level of enlightened self-interest, but also the moral imperative to contribute positively to the broader threats to public health and social stability.

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…