Forum
distribution:
Another expert explains legal foundations for rediscovered FCS
(Fundamental Common Sense)
|
For recent Forum observations of published professional views relating to
"stakeholder" theories of corporate governance, see
-
August 28, 2020,
Randi Val Morrison of Society for Corporate Governance, posting in
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance: "BRT Statement
of Corporate Purpose: Debate Continues" [Documented foundations of
"stakeholder" respect in rediscovered FCS (Fundamental Common Sense)]
-
August 24, 2020, Peter Atkins, Marc Gerber and Kenton King of Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, posting in The Harvard Law School Forum on
Corporate Governance: "Stockholders Versus Stakeholders—Cutting the
Gordian Knot" [Offering professional guidance for rediscovery of
FCS (Fundamental Common Sense)]
-
August 12,
2020 TheCorporateCounsel.net: "BRT’s 'Corporate Purpose'
Statement- What Did CEOs Intend-" and "Corporate Purpose: Take 2 for the
'Takeover Titans'?" [Professional views
of "corporate purpose" proclamations and bandwagon opportunities]
-
August 6, 2020, Lucian
Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita published in The Wall Street Journal:
"‘Stakeholder’ Capitalism Seems Mostly for Show"
[Academic analysis discourages reliance on "stakeholder" governance to
support stakeholder interests]
-
July 1, 2020 TheCorporateCounsel.net: "Tangible 'Corporate
Purpose': Investor Views" [Corporate management view of "corporate
purpose" and "stakeholder" debates]
|
Source:
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, September 7, 2020 posting |
CEO Leadership: Navigating the New Era
in Corporate Governance
Posted by Thomas A. Cole (Sidley Austin
LLP), on Monday, September 7, 2020
Editor’s Note:
Thomas A. Cole is senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP. This
post is based on his recently published book, CEO Leadership:
Navigating the New Era in Corporate Governance (University of
Chicago Press). |
At the end of 2019 (which now seems so long ago), my
book CEO Leadership: Navigating the New Era in Corporate Governance was
published by The University of Chicago Press. My target audience is current and
future CEOs and board members, those who advise them and those who teach law and
business school students who aspire to those positions. My book is a combination
of (i) a summary of the seminar on corporate governance that I teach at The
University of Chicago Law School, (ii) a summary of a seminar on leadership that
I taught to undergraduates at the University and (iii) what I have observed and
learned in more than 40 years of advising the CEOs and boards of public
companies.
The
13 chapters of my book are divided into four parts:
-
Part I is entitled “The Policy, Law, and Market Forces That Have Created the
New Era In Corporate Governance”. My point in this section of the book is that
politics and market forces are at least as important as law (corporate and
other) in shaping what how corporate governance has evolved. That said, some
legal developments can be characterized as evolutionary in nature (the common
law tradition), while other legal developments are revolutionary (Smith v. van
Gorkom and Sarbanes Oxley). The most important market development came in the
early to mid-1990s, when institutional ownership of public equities for the
first time exceeded household ownership and was accompanied by the ascent of
the proxy advisory services. I also discuss the critical threshold issue of
“for whose benefit are corporations to be governed?”, noting that that
question is often conflated or confused with another question—“to whom are
duties owed?” My answer to the former question is that corporations are to be
governed for the benefit of the shareholders, but that directors and officers
have wide latitude to take actions that benefit non-shareholder stakeholders
(the “other constituencies”) so long as there is some reasonable nexus to
long-term shareholder value. My answer to the latter question is that duties
are owed to all of a corporation’s constituencies, but that duties to
non-shareholder stakeholders are derived from very specific laws, regulations
and contractual provisions, whereas generalized fiduciary duties are
appropriately owed only to shareholders.
-
Part II is entitled “The Board-Centric
Corporation”. I define corporate governance largely in terms of
decision-making authority. In this part, I discuss the change, that started in
the mid-1980s, from management-centric to board-centric decision-making over
the “big issues” (strategy, succession, compensation, risk oversight and
material transactions). I note the risk that some boards can inappropriately
cross the line into decisions best delegated to management teams, but assert
that where the line should be drawn will vary from company to company and is a
function of a number of factors. In an observation that has elicited many
chuckles, I state that good board involvement is like spelling “banana”—you
have to know when to stop. In this section of the book, I discuss how to
assemble and operate an effective board, as well as standards of conduct,
standards of judicial review, director accountability and the suite of
protections against director financial exposure.
-
Part III is entitled “Activism and the Threat
of Shareholder-Centricity”. Here I discuss the different types of
activists—governance, CSR and financial—and their tools. I note the
synergistic relationship between governance and financial activists. I argue
against giving shareholders authority over decision-making (beyond that which
is required by statute). Among the reasons I give are the following—in most
instances, shareholders have no fiduciary duties to their fellow shareholders
and thus can act in their own unbridled self-interest; shareholders might
force decisions but not be around to live with adverse consequences;
shareholders are not necessarily fully informed or expert in the issues they
are pushing; and the problem of “empty voting”.
-
Part IV is entitled “Challenges to CEO
Leadership”. I discuss the critical difference between leadership and
management, and note that boards that cross the line (see Part II) and
pressures from financial activists can impede the ability of CEOs to lead and
to focus on the long-term. To address these concerns, I state that CEOs and
boards need to have a common understanding of the purpose of governance, the
requirements and appropriate limits of board-centricity and how to be prepared
for shareholder activism. As to the last point, I argue that CEOs and boards
need to accept activists’ good ideas, but also know how and why to resist the
bad ideas. I urge CEOs to develop an effective partnership with their
non-executive chairs/lead independent directors. In this section, I also
report on my decidedly unscientific (but nevertheless hopefully useful)
confidential survey of CEOs. One of the key observations from that survey is
that CEOs have to spend a tremendous amount of time dealing with corporate
governance issues and that they do not always find that to be time well spent
in terms of advancing the business of the company. I worry that the
combination of these factors is driving some CEO-level talent away from public
companies.
A
longer summary of my book appeared in the March/April 2020 edition of The
Corporate Board magazine.
Harvard Law School Forum
on Corporate Governance
All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by
their respective owners. Other content © 2020 The President and
Fellows of Harvard College. |
|
|
|