Einde inhoudsopgave
Consensus on the Comply or Explain principle (IVOR nr. 86) 2012/1.2.2
1.2.2 Directive 2006/46/EC
mr. J.G.C.M. Galle, datum 12-04-2012
- Datum
12-04-2012
- Auteur
mr. J.G.C.M. Galle
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS364294:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Directive 2006/46/EC of 14 June 2006, amends the Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/ EEC, 86/635 EEC and 91/774/EEC (all directives concern regulation on annual accounts of companies).
The rules on the corporate governance statement and relevant liability involve amendments to articles 46a, 50b and 50c of EU Directive 78/660/EEC.
Preamble 10 of Directive 2006/46/EC states: 'That statement should at least provide shareholders with (...) information about the corporate governance practices actually applied'.
Sometimes for smaller listed companies only voluntary comply or explain principle or certain code provisions not applicable.(EU Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2007) 1021, 2007) (Latvia Corporate Governance Code 2010)
In line with this third driver the Commission wanted to enhance the corporate governance disclosures through a directive that states indirectly that EU countries must have a corporate governance code and directly that listed companies should be required to include a corporate governance statement in their annual report regarding the compliance with this code (EU Action Plan 2003, p. 13). Hence, as part of the EU Company Law Action Plan, Directive 2006/46/EC was adopted by the EU parliament and EU Council on 14 June 2006. Directive 2006/46/EC includes 7 articles that amend four other EU directives1,2 all concerning regulations on annual accounts.
With respect to the corporate governance statement the Directive states in preamble 10 that listed companies should be obliged to disclose an annual corporate governance statement as a specific and clearly identifiable section of the annual report that provides shareholders with easily accessible key information about the corporate governance practices actually applied. The corporate governance statement makes clear whether the company applies any corporate governance code. There is no need to impose the requirement of a separate corporate governance statement on undertakings drawing up a consolidated annual report. However, the information concerning the group's risk management system and internal control system should be presented. Subsequently, article 1(7) amending article 46a of Directive 78/60/EEC states that:
"A company whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (...) shall include a corporate governance statement in its annual report. That statement shall be included as a specific section ofthe annual report and shall contain at least the following information:
(a) reference to
(i) the corporate governance code to which the company is subject, and/or
(ii) the corporate code which the company may have voluntarily decided to apply, (...)
(b) to the extent to which a company, in accordance with national law, departs from a corporate governance code referred to under points (a)(i)(ii), an explanation by the company as to which parts of the corporate governance code it departs from andthe reasons fordoingso. (...)
Member States may permit the information required by this Article to be set out in a separate report published together with the annual report in the manner set out in Article 47 or by means of a reference in the annual report where such document is publicly available on the company's website. (...) The statutory auditor shall check that the corporate governance statement has been produced."
Of further relevance is that preamble 3 states that liability for drawing up and publishing annual accounts is based on national law. Appropriate national liability rules should be applicable to members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and Member States should remain free to determine the extent of this liability. Therefore article 1(8), amending article 50b and 50c of Directive 78/660/EEC, states that:
"Article 50b
Member States shall ensure that the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies of the company have collectively the duty to ensure that the annual accounts, the annual report and, when provided separately, the corporate governance statement to be provided pursuant to Article 46a are drawn up and published in accordance with the requirements of this Directive (...)
Article 50c
Member States shall ensure that their laws, regulations and administrative provisions on liability apply to the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies referred to in Article 50b, at least towards the company, for breach of the duty referred to in Article 50b. "
In summary and clear language the above means that:
the Member States should have a national corporate governance code applicable to listed companies;
the Member States must regulate that companies are obliged to have a corporate governance statement in their annual report, or in a separate report or on their website as long as a reference thereto is made in the annual report;
the corporate governance statement must at least state which corporate governance code the company is subject to and with respect to the code provisions not complied with an explanation of the reasons for doing so must be provided;
the statutory auditor has to check whether the corporate governance statement has been produced;
the Member States must ensure that the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies have collectively the duty to ensure that the corporate governance statement is drawn up and published in accordance with the requirements of the Directive;
the Member States must ensure that their liability regulation, applicable at least towards the company, applies to the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies with respect to a breach of the duty to draw up and publish the corporate governance statement.
Although an enormous step for the comply or explain principle in becoming a central element of EU corporate governance, the Directive makes differences in implementation possible and lacks detail on certain aspects which are the subject of further research in the underlying study. Obviously the advantage of a directive is that in formal terms the results to achieve lie firm, but the implementation is a national matter where country specifics can be taken into account. Items of further interest are:
whether and for what reasons the Member States have laid down the implementation in their national legislation or listing rules, since article 5 of the Directive makes implementation in laws, regulations and administrative provisions possible;
whether and how the rules on duty and liability for the corporate governance statements are implemented especially since preamble 3 states that Member States should remain free to determine the extent of this liability;
the practice of monitoring and supervision on the (contents of the) corporate governance statement, since the Directive only directs the external auditor to check whether the statement has been produced;
how the implementation works in practice, since no guidelines on a certain layout or choice for a specific disclosure of the corporate statement are provided for in the Directive, nor specifics on the quality and manner of explanations for non-compliance and whether the explanations for deviations involve the future and/or past compliance,3 and
that an article of revision or review is not provided for in the Directive.
The Member States should have brought into force the laws, regulations and provisions necessary to comply with the Directive 2006/46/EC by 5 September 2008 at the latest. This implies that today all Member States should have a national corporate governance code with a mandatory comply or explain principle; apart from Latvia this is indeed the case (see table 1.2.2 below).
Member State Status quo4
Specifics
Austria
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Belgium
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Rules of EU Directive 2006/46/EC implemented only since 2010 (Belgisch Staatsblad 2010, 2270922719 and 39622-39699)
Denmark
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Germany
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Estonia
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Greece
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Rules of EU Directive 2006/46/EC implemented only since 2011 (Law 3873/2010)
Finland
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
France
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Hungary
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Italy
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Ireland
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Latvia
CG Code with voluntary comply or explain
Lithuania
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Luxembourg
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Rules of EU Directive 2006/46/EC implemented only since 2009 (Credit Account Act of 29 May 2009)
Malta
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
The Netherlands
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Poland
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Sweden
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Slovenia
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
Slovakia
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
UK
CG Code with mandatory comply or explain
The above shows that in recent years the principle has become a central element in the EU, initiated by driving forces such as the corporate scandals, developments towards one single EU market and a modern regulatory framework. Some argue that currently severe difficulties are being faced to come to one single EU market: such as the increasing impact of the Anglo-American ideology on shareholder value (Clarke 2007, p. 170 and 173), as well as increasing influence of institutional investors, privatisation and shareholders activism (Clarke 2007, p. 192). The EU and US corporate governance can no longer be regarded as pure opposites and do cross-fertilize each other. In addition, the financial crisis has possibly resulted in protectionism that prevents the further development of one single EU market. The crisis has taught us that sufficient disclosures are necessary to achieve public confidence in financial reports, EU-wide comparability and even to facilitate the - today more than ever - necessary cross-border investments. Recently, the EU Commission confirmed the above in its 2011 Green Paper on the EU corporate governance framework. The EU Commission assessed the effectiveness of the current EU corporate governance framework consisting of national corporate governance codes and Directive 2006/46/EC and concluded that the comply or explain principle does underpin the EU corporate governance framework (EU Green Paper 2011). However, recent study shows that the explanations for deviations are not satisfactory (over 60%) and in many Member States insufficient monitoring of the application of the codes exists (EU Green Paper 2011). Therefore, a common understanding of the principle'sscope and the conditions that need to be put in place for it to work effectively is the next goal to aim for.