1 / 68

Corporate Governance comparison: Germany, Sweden and the USA

Corporate Governance comparison: Germany, Sweden and the USA. Tommy Olsson Benjamin Wenzel Max Riemschneider January 13 th 2014 . Agenda. Introduction Corporate governance in Germany Illustrative example: Generali AG Corporate governance in Sweden

floyd
Download Presentation

Corporate Governance comparison: Germany, Sweden and the USA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Corporate Governance comparison: Germany, Sweden and the USA Tommy Olsson Benjamin Wenzel Max Riemschneider January 13th 2014

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Corporate governance in Germany • Illustrative example: Generali AG • Corporate governance in Sweden • Scandinavian corporate governance scandals • Corporate governance in the USA • Illustrative example: Motorola Solutions Inc. • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the USA in the following areas: • Board system • Corporate ownership • Takeovers • Major legislation

  4. Corporate Governance in Germany

  5. CorporateGovernanceDefinition • The system of rules, practices and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. Corporate governance essentially involves balancing the interests of the many stakeholders in a company - these include its shareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government and the community. Source: Investopedia (2013)

  6. Framework in Germany • Rights of Shareholders • Takeovers • Examinationboard • Supervisoryboard • Laws • Regulatory Institutions • Codex

  7. Rights of Shareholders • Participation in annualgeneral meeting • Decisionsregardingsupervisoryboardmembers, choosing of the auditors and use of the annual profit • Stockholders > 5% can set up topicsduring the general meeting Source: Deloitte – CorporateGovernanceDeutschland (2013)

  8. Takeovers • Board has no right to avert a takeover • Exceptions: • Search for a « white knight » • Measures to prevent a takeovergranted by general meeting • Stocklistedcompanies have to disclosetakeover obstacles in annual report Source: Deloitte – CorporateGovernanceDeutschland (2013)

  9. Examinationboard • 9th May 2009 - Bilanzrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz – BilMoG • Capital marketorientedcompaniesneedat least one independantsupervisory or examinationboardmemberwithknowledge in auditing Source: Deloitte – CorporateGovernanceDeutschland (2013)

  10. Supervisoryboard • BilMoG: concretetasks for supervisoryboard: Surveillance of the intern control system, risk management and the annualauditing • >500 employeesproportionalelection by stockholders and employees • Supervisoryboarddecidesboardmembers Source: Deloitte – CorporateGovernanceDeutschland (2013)

  11. Laws • „Gesetz über die Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer(Mitbestimmungsgesetz - MitbestG)“ • „Gesetz über die Drittelbeteiligung der Arbeitnehmer im Aufsichtsrat(Drittelbeteiligungsgesetz - DrittelbG)“ • „Gesetz zur Modernisierung des Bilanzrechts (Bilanzrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz –BilMoG)“ Source: Gesetzeim Internet – Bundesrecht (2013)

  12. Regulatory institutions • German Reporting Standards Committee e.V. (DRSC) • German federal financial supervisory agency(BaFin) • Test Center foraccounting (DPR)

  13. Deutsche Corporate Governance Kodex • system of rules created by the Federal Republic of Germany that contains recommendations and ideas for good conduct, control and management of a company, especially for companies that are listed-on the stock exchange. Source: Corporate Governance Code (2013)

  14. Deutsche Corporate Governance Kodex • Adresses all main critical points of Germancorporategovernancesuch as • Insufficientconsideration of stockholderinterests • The dual corporate structure of board and supervisoryboard • Missing transparence of Germancompanies • Insufficientindependanceof German supervisoryboards • Codex is only recommendation about best practice, no law, not legally binding Source: Corporate Governance Code (2013)

  15. History • Kontrolle – und Transparenzgesetz – first law in Germany regarding Corporate Governance, in 1998 • e.g. accountabilityofsupervisoryboard, boardandauditors was extended • publishing the risk structure of a company in the annual report • 2001 creation of government commission “Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex” • financed by the economie, independent from the government • free in the decision what should be included in the Codex • members are not politicians • “Corporate Governance Kodex” in 2002 and handed it over to the government Source: Corporate Governance Code (2013)

  16. History • Every year, the commission meets at least once and discusses possible changes of the Codex • e.g. in 2009 more attention to diversity in board, hence more women • limitation of variable salary part of a board manager should have an upper limit – recommendation • application in the economy: Source: Corporate Governance Code (2013)

  17. Examples • Siemens • “Declaration of Conformity by the managing board and the supervisory board of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft with the German Corporate Governance Code” • Telekom • More women in higher positions (at least 30% of management positions) Source: Siemens (2013), Telekom (2013)

  18. Generali AG • Generali Deutschland: • Deutsche CorporateGovernanceKodex • Everystocklistedcompany– yearlycompliancestatement

  19. Generali AG • « Since the publication of last yearcompliancestatementaccording to §161 AktG , the Generali Deutschland Holding AG has agreed to the recommendations of the DeutscherCorporateGovernanceKodexwith exceptions. » Source: Generali Deutschland (2013)

  20. Generali – Examples for exceptions • « An individualpresentation of the remuneration of the supervisoryboardmembers as well as their possible other business relationshipswill not becarried out. » • Structure of remuneration of supervisoryboardisshown in annual report • Showingamount no valuableadditional information Source: Generali Deutschland (2013)

  21. Generali – examples for exeption • « Retrospective changes of the objectives are not excluded » • Possible major changes • Reconsideration of objectives maybeuseful • « Objectives regarding the composition of the supervisoryboardwill not bedetermined » • Best knowledge and competenceshallbecriteria, not social or cultural influence Source: Generali Deutschland (2013)

  22. Generali - remuneration • Remunerationisaimedatsustainablesuccess • Long-termstability of the companyis the objective • No incentives to enter highrisk positions through variable remuneration parts Source: Generali Deutschland (2013)

  23. Generali - remuneration • Salaryboard: 40%-50% variable • Year bonus plus long-term bonus • objective: Succes of the group (85%), individual objectives (15%) Source: Generali Deutschland (2013)

  24. Generali - Compliance • Ethics – codex – correctness, honesty, impartiality, professionalism • Behavioral codex – duties for employees:confidentiality, appraisal interview • Trainings for betterimplementation • Compliance-Officer – contact for compliance questions • Lawyers as ombudsmen– suspicion of complianceirregularities Source: Generali Deutschland (2013)

  25. Alternatives • Additional to Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex (DCGK): • Public Corporate Governance Codex ofthe Federal State • Governance Codex for familycompanies • CorporateGovernance Codex for Asset Management-companies Source: Bundesfinanzministerium (2013), KodexfürFamilienunternehmen (2013)

  26. Research institutions • Berlin Center of Corporate Governance (BCCG) • Center for Corporate Governance - HHL Leipzig Source: Berlin Center of CorporateGovernance(2013), Center for CorporateGovernance Leipzig (2013)

  27. Summary • Corporate governance in Germany • Dual system • Participation and election – supervisoryboard • No election of board • DCGK – « comply or explain » • Mulitplelaws and institutions • Growing importance • Application of codex

  28. Corporate Governance in Sweden

  29. Stylized governance characteristics of the Nordic countries Source: Thompson & Conyon (2013)

  30. 1990’s – The establishment of Swedish Corporate Governance • The Swedish Shareholders Association published the first Swedish ownership policy in March 1993. • Set of guidelines for the ownership role within listed companies. • Most significant Swedish institutional investors followed and issued similar guidelines. • First Practical implication in the Volvo Renault deal in 1993. • Several new compositions of rules, guidelines and recommendations for Corporate Governance followed, from example: • The Swedish Industry and Commerce Stock Exchange Committee • The Swedish Securities Council • The Stockholm Stock Exchange • The Swedish Academy of Directors (Good Board Practice, 2003) • The Swedish Company Act (2005) Source: Corporate governance board (2013)

  31. The Swedish System of Governance • The four governance bodies • The Shareholders' Meeting • The Board of Directors • The Chief Executive Officer • The Controlling Body: • The Auditor, appointed by the Shareholders' Meeting. Source: Corporate governance board (2013)

  32. The Rights of Shareholders 1/2 • Eachshareholderhas the right to participatein the annualgeneral meeting (AGM) • Anyshareholdercanaddtopics to agenda • Shareswith or withoutvotingrights • Majorityvoting system • Proxy right Source: Corporate governance board (2013)

  33. The Rights of Shareholders 2/2 • Responsibilities: • Electmembers of board, • Electauditors. • Set feesalsoat the AGM. • Extraordinarygeneral meeting • Requested by a shareholderminority of at least 10% Source: Corporate governance board (2013)

  34. Nomination Committee • Elected by the annual general meeting (AGM) • Important link in looking after shareholders interests at AGM. Responsibilities: • Propose candidates for the following positions: • The chairman of the board • Board of directors • Auditors. • Suggests fees and remunerations for each position Nomination Committee Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Deloitte (2013)

  35. Examinationboard 1/2 Under Aktiebolagslagen • The examination board must be made up by directors from the Board of Directors. • Must at least consist of two members from the board, who may not be employees. Eg. CEO • Requirement to have at least one independent and unattached member with experience in accounting or auditing Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Deloitte (2013)

  36. Examinationboard 2/2 • Major areas of responsibilities: • Monitoring financial reporting • Monitor the internal audit controls • Review and monitor the auditor Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Deloitte (2013)

  37. Board of Directors1/2 • Swedish corporate government system: • Third alternative to the unitary and dual system • Mandatory employee representation (at more than 35 employees) • Non executive members • Main Responsibilities: • Elect the CEO • Supervise the CEO’s day-to-day work • Supervise entire management day-to-day work • Strategic decisions • Carries the ultimate responsibility Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Deloitte (2013)

  38. Board of Directors2/2 • Consequences of Swedish system • More power than traditional supervisory board • Balanced by the absence of executive power as in unitary boards Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Deloitte (2013)

  39. CEO – Chief Operating Officer • Subordinated the Board and AGM • Responsibilities: • Elects executive management • Reports to the board • Runs the day-to-day activities • Restrictions: • May be member of the Board, but not as chair • Receives relatively low and fixed pay Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Davies, Hopt, Nowak, van Soling (2013) Deloitte (2013)

  40. Laws and guidelines 1/2 • Swedish corporate governance rests upon the two following legislations: • The Swedish Companies Act (Sw: Aktiebolagslagen (ABL)January 2006 ) • Involves basic rules of the company's organization • Eg. Defining the governing bodies, their tasks and the responsibility of each position • The Swedish Corporate Governance Code (“The Code” 2010) • Serves as a complements to the law with rules • More demanding • “Comply or explain” • Additional guidelines: • “Guidelines for Good Board Practice” (January 2003) Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Davies, Hopt, Nowak, van Soling (2013) Deloitte (2013)

  41. Regulators • Financial Supervisory Authority (Finansinspektionen) • The Swedish Securities Council (Aktiemarknadsnämnden) Source: Aktienamnden (2013) Finansinspektionen (2013)

  42. Take-over rules • The Swedish Code must follow the standards set up by EC Takeover Directive (2004/25/EG) • Focus of legal rules: • Protection of minority owners • Healthy restructuring processes. • Responsibility of Board: • No right to avert takeover unless decision from the Annual General Meeting. • Rules of defense mechanism: • “May not take measures which are intended to impair the conditions for making or implementing the takeover bid.” • Approval from AGM, allows to implement strategy to avert a takeover as long as it do not break the first rule. • May search for “White Knight” Source: Bolagsstyrning (2013) Corporate governance board (2013) Davies, Hopt, Nowak, van Soling (2013)

  43. Volvo – Renault Deal 1/2 • Volvo Chairman Per Gyllenhammar and Renault General Director Louis Schweitzer worked out deal to merge Volvo and Renault • Planned for three years, however without the involvement of managers nor shareholders. • No benefits were proven for the shareholders in Volvo, • Leaks stated that profit was suffering from the proposed merger. Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Businessweek (1993)

  44. Volvo – Renault Deal 2/2 • Shareholder reaction: • Feared merger would depress Volvo shares • Golden Share entitlement of French Government • No guarantees of Renaults privatization • Midlevel-managers disapproved and leaked unbalance in technology sharing • Result: • Volvo CEO SörenGyll and other top-managers, ”disposed” Per Gyllenhammar as Chairman through the support of major investors. • Newly created guidelines in Corporate governance helped shareholders pull the hand break for the deal. Source: Corporate governance board (2013) Businessweek (1993)

  45. Skandia Scandal 2003 • At the time he biggest Nordic Insurance Company • Fraud of leadership: • The CEO , L.E. Peterson and board of directors, revealed for shareholders that they lifted salaries for $ 37 million • L.E. Peterson however secretly lifted the double amount. • Acquired luxury apartments for family and friends at the expense of Scandia. • Consequences: • Chairman of Scandia fired for not having monitored the CEO properly. • Scandia already hit by financial crisis, suffered crashing stock prices, and later lowered credit rating. Source: The Economist (2003)

  46. Corporate Governance of Ericsson Source: Ericsson (2013)

  47. Corporate Governance of Ericsson Overview • Biggest shareholders: • Wallenberg group 20% • Handelsbanken 20% • Board: • 12 Members plus Chair • Management: 1 Spot – CEO • Trade Unions: 3 Spots • Wallenberg Group: 2 spots • Handelsbanken: 2 spots • AGM 4 spots (often reserved for foreigners) • Members receives a fixed fee • 4 Women on board Source: Ericsson (2013) Ericsson History (2011) Norden (2009)

  48. Ericsson Remuneration • Remuneration at Ericsson is based on the principles of • Performance • Competitiveness • Fairness • For senior management the total remuneration consists of: • Fixed salary • Short-term variable remuneration • Long-term variable remuneration • Pension • Other benefits Source: Ericsson (2013)

  49. Corporate Governance in the USA

  50. Corporate governance in the USA • The board of directors - Introduction • Primary mechanism of control in US firms • Ensures firm follows the shareholders best interests • Elected by the shareholders • Variable size (average of about 10) • CEO almost always part of the board Source: Thomsen, Conyon (2012)

More Related