Australien indfører stewartship code for kapitalforvaltere og pensionsselskaber
“Australia’s Financial Services Council (FSC) which represents the country’s fund management and pensions industry has launched an Internal Governance and Asset Stewardship Standard for investment managers and asset owners. This is the first stewardship code introduced in Australia and the FSC noted that the country had lagged behind Asian markets including Japan and South Korea as well as other countries such as the UK, US, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Brazil. The FSC said that its asset stewardship standard, which has incorporated the strongest stewardship and governance elements from these jurisdictions, is mandatory for all its asset manager members. The anticipation is that other non-member fund managers will also wish to sign up to the standard. The FSC said that implementing the standard would boost the global standing of these asset managers, and at the same time, the standard aimed to strengthen consumer confidence in Australian financial services and ensure the long term sustainability of the industry.The Standard requires a non-prescriptive disclosure, utilising a ‘comply or explain’ rationale, where asset managers will, where relevant within their business practices, be required to either describe the policy underlying their practices or explain why they are not relevant to them.”
Ansatte i UK mener at deres virksomheder skal tænke i ESG
Nearly half (47%) of UK staff can achieve higher environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards without sacrificing profitability, according to research carried out by Opinium on behalf of the Better Society Awardsand Citigate Dewe Rogerson. The online survey which questioned a panel of respondents comprising owners, chief executives and directors as well as other staff, also revealed that more than half (52%) of workers believe companies should consider ESG issues because it is morally the correct thing to do. However, one in eight of respondents (12%) said profits should be impacted if necessary to raise such standards but a quarter (24%) said they would be unwilling to accept sacrificing profitability for the sake of ESG. Around two in five (38%) of the UK workers believe their company’s consideration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues has risen overthe last five years.”
Selskaber med flere aktieklasser ekskluderes fra store amerikanske aktieindeks
“S&P 500 index bars companies with multi-class shares Companies with multi-class shares will no longer be included in the S&P 500 index following a new policy change. This decision by S&P Dow Jones Indices (S&P) follows several high-profile initial public offerings in 2017 in which multi-class shares were issued. Many investor groups have been outspoken in their support for a one-share, one vote structure, citing concerns that multi-class shares would decrease an investor’s ability to have a voice in company decisions,” skriver PWC. Earlier this year, the Council of Institutional Investors wrote letters to FTSE/Russell and MSCI (a global provider of research-based analytics and indexes) to urge them to open public consultations for exchange eligibility when issuing common stock with different voting rights. Critics of the move by S&P are concerned that not allowing these companies in the index might lead to an inaccurate portrayal of the overall market.”
Børsnoterede selskaber med adskilt formand og CEO rolle performer ikke værre eller bedre end selskaber med adskilte roller
Ny analyse med titlen “ CEO/CHAIR – MAN STRUCTURE & COMPANY PERFORMANCE ” konkluderer, at ”as is evident by our research, separating the CEO and chairman roles is not correlated with a greater rate of change in dividend adjusted index value (i.e., outperformance). This appears to corroborate the view of the Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise that there is no single board leadership structure that is superior in achieving the appropriate balance between the board and CEO functions and providing the oversight that leads to corporate success. Based on our research, therefore, there does not appear to be any compelling economic reason for public companies to adopt any particular CEO/chairman structure. Instead, each company should continue to tailor its leadership structure to its own facts and circumstances at any given point in time.”
Morten W. Langer