Large Cap evalueringer: Her vil bestyrelserne forbedre sig

De 30 største børsnoterede selskaber har de seneste år markant forbedret deres informationskvalitet om evalueringsprocesser, og om hvad der konkret er kommet af forbedringsforslag af de årlige evalueringer. Økonomisk Ugebrev Ledelse bragte for nylig den årlige Top 100 Governance Rating, som viser, at en tredjedel af selskaberne har en meget høj oplysningskvalitet på anbefalingerne omkring evaluering. I denne artikel gennemgår vi eksempler på, hvad bestyrelserne fik ud af evalueringen.

I forhold til starten af de danske børsnoterede selskabers rapportering om god selskabsledelse med Nørby Udvalgets første anbefalinger fra 2001, er der sket en revolution omkring, hvordan bestyrelserne arbejder med god selskabsledelse. Og ikke mindst med kvaliteten af oplysningerne, når bestyrelserne fortæller, hvordan man arbejder med anbefalingerne og især om bestyrelsens selvevaluering.

I mange år kunne Økonomisk Ugebrev Ledelse år efter år i de årlige kortlægninger berette om en meget fodslæbende tilgang til selvevalueringer i de børsnoterede selskabers bestyrelser. Men det har ændret sig radikalt de seneste 2-3 år, hvor der er sket en voldsom professionalisering, så mange danske selskaber nu leverer en rapporteringskvalitet næsten på niveau med store internationale koncerner. Som det fremgår af tekstboksen på næste side, er to af de ti målepunkter i Økonomisk Ugebrevs årlige Governance Rating baseret på oplysninger om bestyrelsens selvevaluering, dels oplysninger om selve evalueringen og processen, og dels om resultaterne fra evalueringen. For hvert af de to målepunkter gives ét point for en detaljeret beskrivelse, og et halvt point for en summarisk beskrivelse. 30 af de 90 undersøgte selskaber får ét point for en detaljeret beskrivelse af processen, og 30 selskaber får ét point for en detaljeret beskrivelse af, hvad der kom ud af evalueringen.

Billedet er, at den højeste oplysningskvalitet typisk findes blandt Large Cap selskaberne. Men der er også selskaber i Mid Cap indeks og endda Small Cap indeks, som er med helt fremme i skoen ved oplysning om bestyrelsens selvevaluering, hvilket vidner om en seriøs og professionel tilgang til arbejdet med at optimere bestyrelsens sammensætning og arbejdsprocesser. Blandt andet Solar, Sparekassen Sjælland-Fyn, Zealand Pharma, Ringkjøbing Landbobank, Fynske Bank, Bang & Olufsen og Nilfisk.

Vi vil i det følgende gennemgå en stribe eksempler på, hvad bestyrelserne for de enkelte selskaber skriver om udbyttet af deres årlige selvevaluering:

A.P. Møller-Mærsks formand skriver, at “during September 2019, an externally facilitated Board evaluation process was conducted, among others covering the cooperation between the Board of Directors and the Executive Board, the Chairman’s role, the Board’s and Board committees’ work and an assessment of Board capabilities relative to those best supporting the com – pany’s strategy. All members of the Board of Directors participated in the evaluation and provided input via questionnaires, thus forming the basis of a comprehensive evaluation report. The results were discussed in plenary sessions by the Board of Directors and agreed improvements were implemented.”

Om konklusionen hedder det, at “the Board’s work has undergone a positive development in 2018-2019 by improving dynamics, engagement and the level of challenges and sparring offered by and among the Board of Directors and the Executive Board. The Board evaluation confirmed the alignment on the top strategic issues and continued focus on priorities and transparency. The results and conclusions from the annual Board evaluation form the basis for the Nomination Committee’s considerations and continued search for future candidates to the Board of Directors.”

Pandora skriver, at “The chair of the Nomination Committee directs the assessment process, and in 2019 the assessment was carried out by each Board member completing an anonymous questionnaire. The assessment covered topics such as Board composition, nomination process, competencies and overboarding. The assessment also included topics such as the Board’s involvement in risk and financial management, control and strategy, and committee work and personal contributions.” Videre hedder det, at ”the Board structure and committee work are effective and well-functioning, including interactions with Executive Management. The assessment indicated that further competencies within retail would be beneficial in order to continually respond to the rapidly-changing consumer landscape and dive deeper into brand execution and trendspotting.”

Carlsberg oplyser blandt andet om arbejdet i bestyrelsen, at “The Supervisory Board also expressed satisfaction with the focus on risk evaluation, strategy and direction-setting during Board discussions. The evaluation process led to a short catalogue of ideas for minor changes to the way the Supervisory Board works. These ideas were considered and, where relevant, implemented by the Supervisory Board.” Men der oplyses ikke konkret, hvad dette idékatalog indeholder.

Danske Bank skriver, at “the aim of the evaluation was to ensure, among other things, that the composition of the Board of Directors as well as the special competencies of each Board member enable the Board of Directors to perform its tasks. As the Board of Directors operates as a collegial body, its overall competencies and experience are the sum of the individual board members’ competencies and experience.” Videre hedder det, at “the results of the 2019 evaluation were generally positive, however, some areas for improvement became apparent from the results, and the Board of Directors will work on these in 2020.” Men formanden ønsker altså ikke at løfte sløret for, hvilke forbedringer der ses, heller ikke selvom det er en del af Fondsbørsens anbefalinger at oplyse dette.

Chr. Hansens bestyrelsesformand Dominique Reiniche skriver, at bestyrelsen skal have fokus på fremtidige kompetencer i bestyrelsen, og at successionsplanlægningen skal strammes: ”The 2018/19 evaluation resulted in a focus on reviewing and developing the strategy on an ongoing basis, securing the competitiveness of the remuneration of the Corporate Leadership Team, reviewing the competences desired for future board members and to strengthen the succession planning processes for the Board of Directors. The Chair of the Board held individual meetings with the other board members to review their performance.”

Ørsteds formand Thomas Thune skriver, at evalueringen i 2018 ”was a follow-up on the assessment carried out in 2018 with external assistance which focused on board structure, board governance and team and people dynamics in the board. The evaluation showed a high degree of satisfaction among the members of the Board of Directors and Group Executive Management. During 2020, the Board of Directors will, among other things, continue its focus on organisational development, succession and diversity. The Board of Directors has prepared an overview of the competences required on the board. In 2019, we added environmental, social and governance (ESG), to the list of required competences.”

ISS skriver følgende omkring bestyrelsesarbejde på trods af store udfordringer med at levere øget lønsomhed, der som bekendt har udløst et CEO-skifte: ”The overall outcome of the 2019 Board evaluation was a continued high level of performance on across all matters covered by the questionnaire as well as a significant level of trust, alignment and commitment of Board members. The quality and efficiency of the Board meetings increased in 2019 with more time allocated to discussions, improved balance between strategy and operations and continued strong alignment on strategic direction.”

I Bang & Olufsens regnskab oplyses om bestyrelsens selvevaluering, at ”the self-assessment also concluded that the Board of Directors continues to demonstrate industry knowledge and experience which is well suited to support Bang & Olufsen’s business and strategic direction. The evaluation also identified certain areas for improvement within the following areas: (i) increase focus on structured succession planning and talent development, (ii) ensure that relevant inspiration and data is sought outside the Company in specific areas where experience or insight is currently limited, and (iii) ensure that strong relations and cooperation are built between the Board of Directors and new members of the Executive Management Board.”

Governance Rating: Sådan har vi givet point.
I Økonomisk Ugebrevs årlige Top 100 Governance Rating indgår to målepunkter om bestyrelsens selvevaluering:

(3) Oplyses resultat af den årlige selvevaluering i bestyrelsen (anbefaling 3.5.1). Summarisk beskrivelse af resultater: ½ point. Udvidet beskrivelse af resultater: 1 point.

(4) Oplyses konkret om metode omkring evalueringen, systematisk, med ekstern assistance, med spørgeskema osv. (anbefaling 3.5.1). Summarisk beskrivelse: ½ point. Detaljeret beskrivelse: 1 point.

Tabellen med point over de 100 undersøgte selskaber i Governance Rating fremgår af Økonomisk Ugebrev Ledelse nr. 12/2020.