Tags

  • Published on

    IGW'15: Opening Keynote

    Conferences Ethics Governance Leadership Management Performance Research Strategy
    The second International Governance Workshop got underway at Toulouse Business School, Barcelona Campus on Thursday 11 June 2015. Professor Morten Huse, an esteemed corporate governance scholar from Norway, provided the opening day keynote. Huse has been studying boards for a long time—the mid 1970s—so when he speaks, people tend to listen. Here's four of the points from his talk:
    Huse's talk set the scene for a lively debate through the balance of the conference. It will be very interesting to see how this develops.
    • The dominant logic of modern boards—independence and opportunism—has not delivered any significant value to shareholders over time. Rather, it has driven short-termism, strong norms of privacy and mis-trust.
    • The conception of corporate governance as a set of rules and regulations to keep management honest needs to be replaced. Instead, boards need to think and behave in terms of becoming value-creating teams.
    • A fundamental shift is starting to occur, if you look closely: Evidence is starting to emerge to suggest that boards that lead, seek to create value and are involved in the strategic management process are more likely to make positive and meaningful contributions. However, this is not guaranteed, as boards are comprised of people and complex interactions, and external forces exert influence as well.
    • Huse suggested that a common language is required. Too often, a speaker says 'X' only to find that other directors hear 'X', 'Y' or even 'Z'. He went on to overlay a common language and important board tasks over the value creation process (the value chain, if you will).
  • Published on

    Martin Wolf at ICGN'15: "Let a hundred flowers bloom"

    Accountability Ethics Governance Leadership Management Performance Societal Wellbeing
    Martin Wolf CBE, Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator at the Financial Times, delivered a rousing keynote talk to wrap up the final day of the ICGN annual conference. After observing that the limited liability, joint-owned corporation had been the cause and consequence of almost all economic activity over the last two hundred years, Wolf posed and commented on four questions. He qualified his comments by saying that he expected they might raise some profound questions. Indeed, some of Wolf's comments were controversial—the evidence being the questions asked by some members of the audience after he finished speaking.
    What is a limited liability corporation? They are a semi-permanent entity designed to outlast small-medium enterprises (because founders retire—the corner store conundrum) and markets, and they are a construct for the consolidation of relational and implicit contracts. Their genius is the importation of older hierarchical forms (to get things done) into the market system. With scale comes efficiency, endurance and effectiveness (but not always!).
    What is their purpose? The apparent purpose of the LLC is to generate economic value. However, this is insufficient. Wolf asserted that LLCs should also pursue a wider remit, by seeking to 'add value' in social terms (through the provision of payments for services rendered—wages and salaries—for example).
    What is their operational goal? The oft-quoted goal, of maximising shareholder returns, is far too simplistic, according to Wolf. It is selfish and can only lead to failure elsewhere in society. Rather, the operational goal of LLCs needs to include ethical constraints to protect all participants and in so doing ensure the good of society (at no point did Wolf pursue or even imply any form of Marxist agenda).
    Who should control them? Economically, shareholders bear residual risks following corporate activity and, therefore, shareholders should possess control rights. Wolf challenged this commonly-held view as folly because shareholders are unable to exert full control over the affairs of the corporation. Managers may manipulate the affairs of the company, sometimes to the detriment of shareholders and other stakeholders. Short-term incentives, implemented to motivate managers towards the maximisation of shareholder returns, rarely position the company for longer-term success.
    Wolf concluded by saying that LLCs are a wonderful construct. However, he went on to say that the two associated doctrines (of shareholder control and value maximisation) are unhelpful because they are too short-sighted. He told the shareholders in the room that "it is in your interest not to control the corporation completely". Other parties—large bondholders, for example—also bear residual risks. Why would they not have decision rights?
    Wolf's comments were demonstrably controversial (amongst some of the audience at least). However, the poor reputation of big business amongst the general populace suggest Wolf's comments might be closer to the 'truth' than what many in the audience might care to admit. 
    Wolf closed with this demanding challenge: A better approach might be "to let a hundred flowers bloom", so that the best [control] model might rise up and be applied for a given situation—the beneficiary being society at large.
  • Published on

    ICGN'15: A timely call to action

    Accountability Ethics Governance Management Performance Strategy
    Image description
    Robert AG (Bob) Monks is a experienced shareholder activist and pioneer in corporate governance. The tall octogenarian has spent a lifetime influencing boards and board performance, especially in corporate America. Monks was invited to deliver the keynote address the ICGN conference.
    Monks, a gifted orator, spoke from the heart, and he had the gathered delegates enthralled as he did so. Reviving memories of the wartime leader Winston Churchill, Monks reminded delegates that, while they had come far, they were not at the end (ie. 'arrived') nor were they at the beginning of the end. They were, he said, "at the end of the beginning". He went on to suggest:
    • Boards and shareholders (particularly institutional investors) had barely started on the journey of convincing management that an engaged shareholder more likely to be helpful than a hindrance. I suspect this was a wake-up call for many, particularly those that think they 'do' corporate governance well and that shareholders should be kept at arms' length.
    • Too many chief executives and executive teams had autocratic control of the levers of power. They were feathering their own nest and allocating resources in favour of short-term outcomes—and boards were allowing chief executives to get away with such behaviours. Thus, chief executive accountability is largely a myth.
    • Much of what actually happens in boardrooms is not corporate governance or even an approximation of corporate governance. Rather it is a shadow play, orchestrated to give he appearance of the board doing the things that it should be doing. The statement that corporate governance is a high-profile smokescreen was as telling as it was damning. 
    Monks continued by offering several recommendations to the audience (comprised largely of institutional investor representatives but also other participants in the corporate governance community including academics and advisors). He said that shareholders need to be genuinely engaged (by specifying what they want from their investment); that integrated reporting is crucial (to provide clarity around actual business performance); and, that all publicly-listed companies need to have real (identifiable) owners (to satisfy the engagement challenge.
    Monks received a standing ovation from some of the delegates, such was the power of his oratory and the high esteem in which he is held. One surprise: neither value creation or strategy was mentioned. I wonder what Monks thinks about these activities and the board's role therein. Rather than guess, I'm going to ask him. Congratulations to the conference organisers for securing Bob Monks' contribution to the debate.
  • Published on

    ICGN'15: On global governance reform

    Accountability Conferences Ethics Governance
    Sophie L'Helias, Senior Fellow, Governance at Governance Board chaired a very interesting panel discussion. The panel was asked to discuss whether corporate governance had progressed or regressed over the last twenty years (since ICGN was formed). The opening observation was that much had changed, yet much remained the same:
    • Investors hold more power now than they did twenty years ago. Shareholders—institutional investors in particular—now know they can exert influence and many are starting to take this role quite seriously.
    • While activism brings its own challenges (including battles during proxy season), the notion of trying to hold a company and its board accountable for company performance is something institutional investors and smaller shareholders are increasingly aware of.
    • Transparency, accountability, fairness and responsibility are four key principles that feature more often now than in the past. However, the application of such principles is by no means universal.
    • The conceptualisation of corporate governance remains, in the main, one of a policy framework within which shareholders seek to exert influence over performance and outcomes. [note: In this regard, the investor community seems to be some distance behind the research that suggests corporate governance is far more than a structure or a process or a policy framework.]
    • Calls for 'responsible investing' and responsible use of the three capitals—financial (money), human (people) and natural (environmental)—are much more prevalent than ever before.
    This first panel session of the conference provided an interesting opening play, upon which later discussants could build (or otherwise!). The main takeaway for me was that shareholders and boards need to 'grow up'. Looking over the fence at each other (and, in some cases, simply ignoring each other) is not a healthy context for either productive ownership or effective control. Boards were created to bridge between owners and managers, yet many boards seem to be far more interested in pursuing their own interests and priorities (than acting in the best interests of the company or the shareholders). While we appear to have come far, we still have much to learn.
  • Published on

    Selling a major company asset to a director, and doing so properly

    Accountability Ethics Governance Leadership
    Is it ever OK to sell a major company asset to one of the company's directors? One must be careful, very careful. The safe answer is probably 'no', because the proximity of conflict is ever-present and the question of whether the transaction satisfies the director's duties provisions (to act in the best interests of the company) sets a very high bar to clear.
    However, a recent case in New Zealand suggests that such transactions can be completed, and well, if certain provisions are satisfied. In this case, Dorchester Property Trust (DPT) wanted to sell one of its properties the Goldridge Resort Queenstown (GRQ). A DPT director wanted to acquire the asset. The DPT board acted cautiously. The director took no part in determining whether the asset should be offered for sale, and was excluded from the process of assessing acquisition offers. As such the board's handling of the matter satisfied the related party transaction requirements.
    While some investors were a bit scratchy over some some matters (see the article), few if any concerns over the GRQ transaction have been raised. This suggests that the board handled the matter well, in both a legal and a moral–ethical sense. Well done to the DPT board.
  • Published on

    Executive pay: is Thodey's call a signal that enough is enough?

    Accountability Ethics Governance Performance
    David Thodey, outgoing chief executive of Telstra, has just gone on record: CEO pay is out of control. Swimming against the tide, Thodey said his remuneration was indefensible, and called for change. A cynic might suggest that it is all very well for Thodey to say these things, especially after he pocketed $27M while he was the chief executive. Nevertheless, Thodey's call is not unique. One in four chief executives think that time is more important the money.
    Is Thodey's call, and those of others, a harbinger of change to rein in executive pay? I hope so. History tells us that gross disparities between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' can lead to uprisings and, potentially, bloodshed. The French revolution, Bolshevik Revolution and the Arab Spring are notable examples, although there are many others. To make some adjustments now may be just the pressure release valve that many in society are looking for.