Tag Archives: Leading Boards

10 important topics for board of directors in 2013

Posted on by

The havard law school forum gave ten good topics that board of directors should consider for the next years 2013.

“A fog of uncertainty hangs over U.S. public companies as 2013 approaches. The looming fiscal cliff, increased regulatory burdens, the ongoing European debt crisis, growing Middle East unrest and slowing global growth are just a few of the uncertainties companies will have to navigate as they chart a course for the coming year. Here is our list of hot topics for the boardroom in 2013:

1.Oversee strategic planning amid fiscal and economic uncertainty as America approaches the fiscal cliff

2. Assess the impact of mobile technology and social media on the company’s business plans

3. Address cybersecurity

4. Oversee the management of reputational risk

5. Set appropriate executive compensation as shareholders increasingly voice dissatisfaction with pay practices

6. Assess the impact of health care reform on the company’s benefit plans and cost structure

7. Ensure appropriate board composition in light of changing marketplace dynamics and increasing calls for diversity

8. Monitor the company’s need for, and ability to retain, key talent

9. Prepare for more government regulation

10. Manage information overload “

 

Read more: Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2013

Several keys questions for board members and their comittees.

Posted on by

The PwC (refer to Price water house Coopers) has published a report about the keys questions that a board should consider in order to carry out their governance duty.

 

Here you have the questions and a link to read the Pwc answer to this thematic.

 

1/ how is management evaluating and executing its strategic plan and risk management practices to address today’s competitive global marketplace?

 

2/What is the company doing to comply with anti-corruption laws and regulations?

 

3/How is management addressing contemporary accounting hot topics, including asset impairments, income taxes, and segment reporting, and ensuring the transparency and appropriateness of the company’s disclosures?

 

4/Does the audit committee engage in sufficient discussions and interactions with the external auditor in response to the current dialogue relative to audit quality and the reliability of financial reporting?

 

5/Has management considered the financial and business implications of the new tax law, and what is it doing with respect to the impact of potential corporate tax reform?

 

6/is the company effectively addressing the key opportunities and risks of IT?

 

7/Does management have processes in place to address cybersecurity risks?

 

8/what is the board’s approach to communications with shareholders and other stakeholders, and should it be reconsidered?

9/As regulatory bodies and lawmakers continue to discuss, propose, and enact laws and regulations, and shareholders continue to be active, is management analyzing possible effects and considering “no regrets” moves?

 

Here read the all report and answers: Key questions for board and audit committee members

 

The 2013 Director Compensation and Board Practices Report

Posted on by

The Conference Board, NASDAQ OMX and NYSE Euronext jointly released the 2013 edition of Director Compensation and Board Practices, a benchmarking study with more than 150 corporate governance data points searchable by company size (measurable by revenue and asset value) and 20 industrial sectors.

The report is based on a survey of public companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI), the Shareholder Forum and Compliance Week also endorsed the survey by distributing it to their members and readers.

The following are the major findings from the 2013 edition of the study:

  • Directors are best compensated in the energy industry, but company size can make a huge difference. Computer services companies are the most generous with full value share awards, but equity-based compensation is widely used across industries and irrespective of company size.
  • Stock options are not as favored as they used to be, except by the smallest companies Increasing skepticism on the effectiveness of stock options and stock appreciation rights as long-term incentives has led to their decline, especially in the last few years.
  • Additional cash retainer for board chairmen is seldom offered by larger companies, which are more likely to reward lead directors.
  • A corporate program financing the matching of personal charitable contributions is the most common among the director perquisites reported by companies.
  • While many nonexecutive directors have C-suite experience, former or current CFOs are less represented than expected in the board of financial services companies.
  • Larger financial services companies often set stricter director independence requirements than national securities exchanges.
  • While larger companies continue to combine CEO and board chairman positions, three-quarters of financial institutions have appointed an independent lead.
  • Majority voting is being increasingly embraced even among smaller companies, but incumbents failing to obtain the required votes are rarely expected to resign.
  • According to the director nomination policy of large companies, diversity matters as much as business skills. Yet, aside from some level of female representation, corporate boards remain remarkably uniform.
  • Most smaller companies save board search firm fees and use personal connections to recruit new director nominees.
  • Proxy access rights and reimbursement of solicitation expenses remain marginal practices.
  • While traditional takeover defenses (including poison pills and board classification) are being dismantled, large financial companies tend to restrict action by written consent and prohibit special meetings called by shareholders.
  • Directors of large company boards take a corporate aircraft to travel to board meetings, unless it is a financial institution.
  • Financial services companies of all size are ahead in the use of secure online technology for intra-board communication.
  • While an annual say-on-pay vote appears to be the standard for most companies, almost one-third of the smallest financial institutions opt for a less frequent consultation of shareholders.
  • While designing new executive compensation policies, large financial companies set equity retention periods and go above and beyond regulatory requirements in the formulation of contractual clawback clauses.
  • Large companies are more likely to enforce anti-gross-up policies.
  • Compensation benchmarking disclosure also tends to be a feature of larger companies, with industry and company size the most frequently used criteria in the selection of the peer-comparison group.
  • Compensation consultant fees tend to be lower than the amount for which disclosure is required.
  • While directors of smaller companies collaborate directly with management in the business strategy setting process, larger company boards review strategy more frequently than others.
  • Frequency of risk reporting to the board and institution of chief risk office reveal the differing state of risk governance practices among industry groups.
  • Responsibility for sustainability oversight depends on company size, with larger companies elevating it to the board committee level and smaller companies delegating it to the CEO.
  • Environmental impact and, for financial services companies, data security are among the main sustainability items in board agenda.
  • Boards of directors at almost half of the smallest companies (as measured by annual revenue) do not review political contribution practices, while formal policies for senior business leader are seldom in place.
  • Small companies do not have a board process for the systematic and periodic review of their CEO succession plan.
  • Formal policies on board retention of the departing CEO are uncommon, except in large companies where the CEO is formally required to also leave the board.
  • Formal board-shareholder engagement policies begin to emerge, and may include the requirement for director to actively participate in annual shareholder meetings as well as the adoption of a protocol detailing when and how shareholder can reach out to directors and expect a response to a material query.
  • Large financial companies are less inclined to use an over-boarding policy as it may impair their ability to attract director talent.
  • More than one-third of companies with less than $100 million in revenue do not periodically evaluate their director performance.
  • Approximately two companies out of 10 require their board members to attend some type of continuing education programs to remain abreast of regulatory and compliance developments.
  • As the workload and challenges facing board committees increase, member rotation policies remain infrequent.

 

This article is an extract from : The 2013 Director Compensation and Board Practices Report , the harvard blog.

 

Drag your corporate boards into the digital age

Posted on by

The Globe And Mail published the Monday, Feb. 25 2013 a new article about Leading Boards !!! By Ivor Tossell.

ipad-user

When corporate directors need to read up on company affairs in the run up to a board meeting, they can find themselves sitting on telephone books’ worth of paperwork. Never mind reading it – it also needs to be delivered and securely disposed of afterwards. Enter Leading Boards – content management software tailored to help boards of directors and built for the age of the iPad.

The goal is better governance, says Jean-Marc Félio, the company’s president: A more-informed board will make better decisions, and the sooner new directors can be brought up to speed on a board’s decision-making history, the sooner they’ll step up and offer effective guidance.

“Directors don’t have access to information. You have a new director coming in, it will take three to six months before they’re up to date,” he says. “Giving them access to their archives is already a big change.”

Leading Boards acts as both a security-minded information repository and a decision-making hub. Many of its features, which include access to old minutes and files, the ability to search documents by content and collaborative document-editing, are available through its regular web interface. But Mr. Félio puts his firm’s emphasis on its iPad app, which takes advantage of the touch interface to offer document-management tricks such as highlights and annotations. (In the interests of security, annotations are purged after a meeting has run its course, and documents returned to their original state.)

In addition to offering full access for board members, the software can act as a venue to create a virtual meeting space that puts specific users together with just the documents they need to see; anxious stakeholders, for instance, can be invited to a session with two or three directors, and just the relevant documents from the archives. Alternately, a suitor interested in buying a stake in the company could be given an account on the system allowing access for due diligence.

It also tackles the decision-making process itself, letting boards create structured debates, in which a question is mooted and members can add arguments into ‘pro’ and ‘con’ lists. After the meeting, the decision-making process is expunged, leaving only its result for the record.

The six-person startup’s software is used by about 60 companies in Canada and beyond. Mr. Félio says its touch-based capabilities are important in speeding adoption among board members – not always the youngest members of an organization, nor the most eager to embrace technology. The company experimented with buying small computers for clients, but found that, regardless of the training Leading Boards offers, the iPad was far more intuitive.

“There is one old board member who called and said ‘I don’t need your training any more. My five-year old granddaughter taught me.’”

See the article: Montreal startup drags corporate boards into the digital age

Major Differences Between Roles of Direction and Management

Posted on by

In this article, we will remind the principal differences between the boards of directors and the management of the company.

Source: Guide Pratique de Médiatisation du Gouvernement D’Entreprise

DIRECTORS

MANAGERS
Decision-Making Required to determine the future of the organization and protect its assets and reputation. They also need to consider how their decisions relate to stakeholders and the regulatory framework. More concerned with implementing board decisions and policies.
Duties,Responsibilities They have the ultimate responsibility for the company’s long-term prosperity. Directors are normally required by law to apply skill and care in exercising their duty to the company and are subject to fiduciary duties. They can be personally liable if they are in breach of their duties or act improperly. They can be held responsible sometimes for the company’s acts. Not usually bound by directional responsibilities.
Relationship withShareholders Shareholders can remove them from office. In addition, a company’s directors are accountable to the shareholders. Appointed and dismissed usually by directors or management; they seldom have any legal requirement to be held to account.
Leadership Provide the intrinsic leadership and direction at the top of the organization. Day-to-day leadership is in the hands of the CEO; managers act on the director’s behalf.
Ethics, Values Play a key role in determing the company’s values and ethical positions. Must carry out the ethos, taking direction from the board.
CompanyAdministration Responsible for the company’s administration. Related duties associated with the company’s administration can be delegated to management, but this does not relieve the directors of their ultimate responsibility.
Statutory Provisions In many countries, there are numerous statutory provisions that can create offenses of strict liability under which directors may face penalties if the company fails to comply. These statutory provisions do not usually affect managers.

What is the purpose of a board?

Posted on by

Board_table

“The purpose of the board is to do governance, the process carried out by a group of people to ensure the health and effectiveness of the corporation.

 

It doesn’t matter what type or size of organization. It doesn’t matter if you’re young or emerging or highly sophisticated. The board does governance at its meetings. In fact, the only time that governance happens is when the board convenes at its meetings.

 

What are the elements of governance, the processes of ensuring the health and effectiveness of the corporation? These are things like defining values, mission, vision, and overall direction – and adhering to same. These are things like defining the rules of governance, e.g., bylaws, policies, recruitment and election of board members. Defining the performance expectations of board members. Hiring, appraising, and setting compensation for the executive director. So what do you talk about at your board meetings? (…)

 

The board may talk about information provided by staff. And it’s up to the staff to put together the right information, to explain trends and their potential implications. (…)

 

Board meetings require intentional design and good facilitation. Board meetings should be a gathering of wise and experienced people who talk about important things. Sometimes the board makes decisions. Sometimes the board learns and explores through conversation, preparing to make decisions in the future. Definitely, board members ask strategic questions, even cage-rattling questions. Board members probe to ensure that they are drawing on information that is accurate, insightful, and useful. (…)

 

How about these questions for periodic board meeting agendas?

1.            How is our adaptive capacity?

2.            How are we foreseeing the unforeseeable?

3.            How effectively do we recognize, anticipate, prepare for and respond to different       situations?

4.            How effectively do we anticipate unintended consequences?

5.            What might have once been inconceivable – but now seems as if it might become       inevitable?

6.            What is of concern that, if we don’t address it, can become alarming?”

 

This article is extract from: What Do You Talk about at Your Board Meetings?

Peter Hadekel: Montreal startup develops governance tool

Posted on by

 

This article come from Thegazette, write by Peter Hadekel

MONTREAL — Better corporate governance has become a top objective of just about every publicly traded company. Boards of directors are more scrutinized than ever before by analysts, shareholders and regulators.

Amid an outbreak of corporate fraud over the last decade, legislative changes have placed a lot more responsibility and accountability on the shoulders of directors.

Now, a small Montreal startup has identified a way to help boards work more efficiently and with greater transparency

The business, known as Leading Boards, started four years ago under entrepreneur Jean-Marc Félio after he had served as director of a non-profit organization.

At the time, the organization needed to distribute a number of documents to directors and Félio realized that a digital system for sharing and archiving documents would make sense.

He spent a couple of years developing a software program with an information-technology specialist and then took eight months testing the product with a range of small, medium and large enterprises.

At the end of 2010, Leading Boards began to commercialize the system and has signed 60 clients so far — many of them either publicly traded firms or non-profit institutions.

The system is a secure “board portal” that reduces or eliminates printouts and multiple copies of documents. It can eliminate courier service costs and reduce meeting preparation time, Félio says.

“Just look at the amount of paper that is sent to the board of a large company — it’s the equivalent of about two telephone books every month.”

Directors often find they need to consult a corporate document of some kind only to find that it’s not at hand and they need to have it sent. They get another set of the same binders when they come to a board meeting.

That wastes even more money. Document costs can run to more than $15,000 a year for a single committee of seven directors.

Leading Boards puts together a complete archive of documents ranging from agendas and minutes of meetings to financial statements, directors’ committee reports and corporate policy statements.

The system has been developed with the practical needs of directors in mind. “You get powerful search engines, information sharing, quick, easy access,” Félio says. Agendas are interactive and directors can write personal or shared notes in a “Post-it” style.

Perhaps the biggest gain is increased transparency. The system can be set up to allow different levels of access, whether by shareholders, regulators or fellow directors.

It’s best suited for iPads and tablets, he says.

Félio worked in film and television and taught communications at the university level before taking the entrepreneurial plunge. He financed the startup out of his own pocket but recently got an additional investment from an angel investor to help him develop the market.

Leading Boards is not the only player in this game. Two other software providers — BoardBook and BoardVantage — service the market for Fortune 500 companies in the U.S.

But Félio hopes to capitalize on the market in Canada for smaller, listed companies that need to save time and money on governance and compliance.

Among clients that have recently signed up are two publicly traded mining companies in Quebec: Argex Titane Inc. and St-Georges Platinum & Base Metal Ltd. Both companies said they expect the software package will wind up improving board governance.

The trilingual nature of the software package, offering English, French and Spanish capabilities, will open up new avenues of growth in Europe and Latin America, as well the Middle East and North Africa, Félio believes. He is already in discussions with a firm about a joint venture to sell the product in France.

The company hosts the web-based system for clients who pay an annual service fee. It has about half a million dollars in annual revenue so far and six employees, expecting to double in size every year.

Among the non-profit or public organizations using the system is Montreal’s Palais des congrès, he said. Expressions of interest have come from a number of other provincial agencies.

E-Governance: Boards of directors now turn to board portal to work smarter, safer and… greener !

Posted on by 

Published in 20/20, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME) magazine.

A recent Deloitte study indicates technology is getting more and more popular in boardrooms. For a long time, directors were resistant to changes

If, nowadays, laptops and tablets are commonly used by directors in many companies, the major change is really the emergence of board portals. It’s more than a “tech trend’’ — it’s about governance.

Among the tough new regulations that have appeared in recent years, the Sarbanes-Oxley regulation started a new era for companies (public or private), governmental agencies, and even non-profit organizations. Their directors now all face the same challenge and have to perform their duties in a productive and safe environment. Forget time and distance, they have to be available and up-to-date with the organization’s documentation to make accurate decisions when needed, and sometimes — most of the time — fast. They are advisors and also decision-makers.

To address this new paradigm, board portals have ­recently appeared in the boardrooms of companies among the Fortune 500. A few American competitors actually share their same “sweet-pot’’ — the international financial centers like New York, London and Singapore — but ignore the balance of the market.

Leading Boards, a Canadian company based in Montreal, provides a powerful, easy-to-use and secure board portal to meet the needs of an untapped market in Canada and abroad, especially in emerging countries. Leading Boards realized that not only the Fortune 500 but also medium-sized companies and junior public companies were in need of tools like board portals to better equip their boards and committees.

Leading Boards designed a priced multi-language unique board portal to address that market. And the demand is growing with companies always looking to be one step ahead.

“It’s more an investment than a cost,” says CEO Jean-Marc Felio. “With the introduction of the iPad version, directors are browsing in archives with the keyword search tool. They are a lot more efficient for the benefit of all.”

Argex Titanium has recently decided to have their audit committee and board of directors work with a board portal, and chose Leading Boards.

“At Argex, we have directors and committee members in different cities and even different countries,” explains Robert Guilbault, chairman of Argex Titanium. “Leading Boards helps them work, collaborate, and prepare their meetings wherever they are, anytime they want. It’s easy-to-use, available on iPad, and bilingual. Leading Boards was a natural answer to our needs, and comes with great training and support service.’’

The board portal also makes life easier to newly ­appointed directors who can, at their leisure, have access to the “memory” of the company and become familiar with past issues, decisions, and documents, and be well prepared to take decisions on current situations.

Last but not least, Leading Boards brings a “paperless’’ solution to boards and committees which helps control their financial impact as well as their ecological impact. A green ­solution turns out to be an investment that will carry its own returns.

After a year of commercialization and several hundred users later, Leading Boards entered into a partnership with Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) and now equips the CME board of directors and its audit committee as well.

“This partnership enables CME to provide our members ­preferred prices with Canada’s best software for the ­management of boards and committees,” says CME President & CEO, Jayson Myers.

To learn more about Leading Boards or to ask for a live demo, call 1-855-404 5377
or visit its website: www.leadingboards.com

Source: 2020magazine

Initiatives to Place Women on Corporate Boards of Directors

Posted on by

By R. Christopher Small,

The Harvard’s blog on corporate governance wrote an article about the initiatives to place women on corporate BoDs.

You may have heard about the idea of quota system  for women in Boards (France for example), but now in Austriala another program is considered : The Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) has adopted a “comply or explain” diversity disclosure requirement which emphasizes gender diversity.

“In the paper, Initiatives to Place Women on Corporate Boards of Directors, forthcoming in the Australian Corporate & Securities Law Review, I investigate initiatives to place women on corporate boards. In the United States, the representation of women on corporate boards of directors has been flat for 6 years now. By contrast, elsewhere around the world the topic is a hot button issue. This includes Australia where the proportion of board seats held by women has suddenly jumped from 8% in 2010 to nearly 14% today. The Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) has adopted a “comply or explain” diversity disclosure requirement (for emphasis termed an “if not, why not” disclosure requirement), which emphasizes gender diversity. The requirement is even more stringent than the London Stock Exchange (LSX) comply or explain regulation adopted after the Lord Mervyn Davies Report on women in corporate governance appeared in February 2011. The Australian Institute of Company Directors also has instituted a mentoring/sponsorship program, the first of its kind in the world, designed to obtain board seats for women. This article reviews these Australian as well as global developments, including enactment of quota laws (especially Norway and France), certificate and pledge programs (“Rooney Rules”), and hard law disclosure requirements (United States).

As part of a study group which includes governance scholars from Norway, the UK, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, we interview women company directors, along with company chairpersons and representatives of adjective organizations interested in the subject of diversity on corporate boards of directors. Examples of adjective organizations who have undertaken efforts to place women on corporate boards are, in the U.S., Catalyst, Inc., or Women Corporate Directors (WCD), or in Australia, the Institute of Company Directors (AICD) or the Australian Business Council (ABC). The expected outcome of our study group endeavor is to describe how various women actually have attained elevation to corporate boards and senior management positions, as opposed to the anecdotal and other non-empirical accounts which have dominated the literature to date.

In 2010, at the New South Wales State Library in Sydney, the group interviewed 16 women who serve as directors of publicly held companies, 5 company chairmen, and 4 representatives from adjective organizations. A subsidiary goal is to repeat the process in several countries, developing a comparative as well as empirical model of pathways for women to corporate board seats.”

To read more : blog.law.havard.edu

What to do With Proxies That You Get in the Mail

Posted on by

By Sheyna Steiner,

On the bankrate website, Sheyna Steiner deals about the next question :
Why your proxy vote matters in proxy season?

“ Proxy season may be winding down, but next year’s voting season will be here sooner than you realize. If you’re at all interested in influencing corporate governance, then learn the ins and outs of proxy voting before your company’s meeting or before next year’s ballots arrive in the spring.

For small-time owners of common stock in companies, it can be easy to discount the importance of participating in corporate governance. Why should management at Exxon Mobil Corp. care about the votes from a shareholder with a measly 100 shares, for instance? But adding your voice to those of other shareholders, big and small, can get attention and influence the decisions of the board of directors, the management and the social and environmental direction of the company.

What is a Proxy? Why Do You Vote It?

Before the annual shareholder meeting, packets of information containing the proxy statement are sent to all shareholders. The proxy statement contains information about the topics to be covered at the annual meeting, including nominations for the board of directors and the pay packages of the top five executives. There are also proposals from management as well as shareholder proposals.

Also included in the mailing is background information on the issues.

The shareholder then fills out the proxy ballot, also known as a voting instruction form, and sends it back.

Alternatively, shareholders can vote by phone or over the Internet.

The various issues up for a vote every year receive different treatment from management. For instance, while the votes for directors on the board are binding, the say on pay vote and those on shareholder resolutions are considered advisory.

For the advisory votes, “there’s nothing legally binding where the company has to make a change. But even if there are just 20% of shareholders who voted in favor of a certain initiative, that’s a lot. When a portion of your shareholders get together in support of an issue, that warrants discussion at least,” says Jessica Clarke, advocate relationship manager at Moxy Vote, a proxy voting research firm.”

The author continue the analyse with the shareholder initiatives and their power over decisions

Shareholder initiatives

“Anyone who owns $2,000 worth of a company’s stock for one year can submit shareholder resolutions to be voted on at the shareholder meeting. Shareholder initiatives span many different environmental, social or governance issues.

Like most investment mailings, proxy voting materials tend to be complex and a little esoteric. In most cases, the nominations for the board of directors are not particularly well-known people, and the other issues up for a vote can also require some research…”

Read the full article on the bankrate website