2010年5月26日水曜日

社外取締役の独立性のガイドラインの作成の意味

「社外取締役の独立性」ということに日本では大いに誤解があります。というか、企業統治の原則がまだまだ理解されていないのです。例えば教科書レベルの知識で、監査法人の出身者が社外取締役や社外監査役になること、顧問弁護士やメインバンク出身者やコンサルティング契約を結んでいる人物が、社外取締役になることなどは、「独立性」を失わせると考えます。私はHOYA株式会社に対し、北米の上場企業では一般的になっている「会社独自の独立社外取締役の独立性の定義」の作成を指名委員会が行うことを求めることにしました。

一般的に、例えば現在の監査法人の出身者が、報酬を受けながら監査の過ちを指摘することは難しいと思います。一方で、現監査法人(トーマツ)とは別の監査法人出身者の公認会計士が社外取締役に入れば、相互チェックする体制としては、非常に望ましいことになるのです。特に当社の場合は、「買収したペンタックスの業績が急速に悪化して、取締役や執行役の責任問題になった。このままだと自分の責任問題にもなりかねない。売掛金を操作したり、Off-balance sheetで在庫を操作して、業績が回復したことにしよう」とかのインセンティブが強いので、チェックする側としては、要注意です。弁護士についても同じで、一般的に顧問弁護士は、経営陣のイエスマン化し、「弁護士も納得したという大義名分を与えるだけの存在」になり下がることが多いのですが、顧問契約のない弁護士が社外取締役ならば、そういった危険性は大幅に低減されます。

例えば、リスクメトリクス社による、日本企業での社外取締役の独立性の考え方は、以下のように開示されています(この点については、石田猛行氏の商事法務の論文などを参照ください)。
リスクメトリックス グループが採用する「独立性」の原則的な考え方は、その会社と社外取締役との間に、社外取締役として選任されること以外に関係がないことです。日本においては、上記の考え方を形式的な要件として整理した場合、たとえば、下記に該当する場合は独立していないと判断されます。
1. 会社の大株主である組織で、現在働いている、もしくは過去に働いたことがある
2. 会社のメインバンクや借入先で、現在働いている、もしくは過去に働いたことがある
3. 会社の主要な取引先である組織で、現在働いている、もしくは過去に働いたことがある
4. 会社の監査法人において、過去に働いたことがある
5. コンサルティングや顧問契約などの取引関係が現在ある、もしくは過去にあった
6. 親戚が会社で働いている

北米企業が指名委員会を通じて取締役を選出するときには、「社外取締役としての独立性」に重きを置いています。取締役選出の基準に「会社経営から独立したメンバー」の最低割合を定めたり、「独立性」の定義をはっきりと示しています。あと出身会社と社外取締役になる会社との間で取引関係があると、「独立」とはみなされにくくなります。この独立性の独自基準(証券取引所の基準よりも厳格なガイドライン)を作成し、IRを行うことは北米企業では一般的です(以下インターンでリサーチを行っている方の助力を借りました)。

例:ウォルマートのガイドライン(選出基準の第一項目)
1. Director Qualifications
The Board will have a majority of directors who meet the criteria for
independence required by the New York Stock Exchange. The Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for reviewing with the Board, on an annual basis, the requisite skills and characteristics that the Board seeks in Board members as well as the composition of the Board as a whole, including an annual evaluation of whether members qualify as independent under applicable standards. During the course of a year, directors are expected to inform the Board of any material changes in their circumstances or relationships that may impact their designation by the Board as independent.

例:GEのインデペンデントの定義
4. Independence of Directors
A majority of the directors will be independent directors, as independence is determined by the board, based on the guidelines set forth below.
All future non-management directors will be independent. GE seeks to have a minimum of ten independent directors at all times, as independence is determined by the board based on the guidelines set forth below, and it is the board’s goal that at least two-thirds of the directors will be independent. Directors who do not satisfy GE’s independence guidelines also make valuable contributions to the board and to the Company by reason of their experience and wisdom.
For a director to be considered independent, the board must determine that the director does not have any direct or indirect material relationship with GE. The board has established guidelines to assist it in determining director independence, which conform to or are more exacting than the independence requirements in the New York Stock Exchange listing requirements (NYSE rules). In addition to applying these guidelines, the board will consider all relevant facts and circumstances in making an independence determination.
The board will make and publicly disclose its independence determination for each director when the director is first elected to the board and annually thereafter for all nominees for election as directors. If the board determines that a director who satisfies the NYSE rules is independent even though he or she does not satisfy all of GE’s independence guidelines, this determination will be disclosed and explained in the next proxy statement.
In accordance with NYSE rules, independence determinations under the guidelines in section (a) below will be based upon a director’s relationships with GE during the 36 months preceding the determination. Similarly, independence determinations under the guidelines in section (b) below will be based upon the extent of commercial relationships during the three completed fiscal years preceding the determination.
(c) copyright 2010 general electric company governance principles | page 3
a. A director will not be independent if:
i. the director is employed by GE, or an immediate family member is an executive officer of GE;
ii. the director receives any direct compensation from GE, other than director and committee fees and pension or other forms of deferred compensation for prior service (provided such compensation is not contingent in any way on continued service);
iii. an immediate family member receives more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from GE;
iv. the director is affiliated with or employed by GE’s independent auditor, or an immediate family member is affiliated with or employed by GE’s independent auditor and such immediate family member personally works or worked on GE’s audit; or
v. a GE executive officer is on the compensation committee of the board of directors of a company which employs the GE director or an immediate family member as an executive officer.
b. A director will not be independent if, at the time of the independence determination, the director is an executive officer or employee, or if an immediate family member is an executive officer, of another company that does business with GE and the sales by that company to GE or purchases by that company from GE, in any single fiscal year during the evaluation period, are more than the greater of two percent of the annual revenues of that company or $1 million.
c. A director will not be independent if, at the time of the independence determination, the director is an executive officer or employee, or an immediate family member is an executive officer, of another company which is indebted to GE, or to which GE is indebted, and the total amount of either company’s indebtedness to the other at the end of the last completed fiscal year is more than two percent of the other company’s total consolidated assets.
d. A director will not be independent if, at the time of the independence determination, the director serves as an executive officer, director or trustee of a charitable organization, and GE’s discretionary charitable contributions to the organization are the greater of $200,000 or one percent of that organization’s annual consolidated gross revenues during its last completed fiscal year. (GE’s automatic matching of employee charitable contributions will not be included in the amount of GE’s contributions for this purpose.).

これら独自ガイドラインにより、機関投資家か個人株主かを問わず株主へ対して、「外部からの客観的な監査力」を示すのが、当たり前になっているのです。

1 件のコメント:

Falk Lumo さんのコメント...

Hi Yamanakasan,

I can't say I understand everything you posted but you may be interested to hear that we in the Pentax community took notice of your blog article and proposal to change things at Hoya.

You have not been happy with the Pentax aquisition but now that it is Hoya, you may have an interest to learn more about what Pentax Imaging is all about. Esp. as you express an interest to learn about science and technology as well. One of the largest assets of Pentax is its loyal and internet affine user base.

Here is a link to our discussion, if you want to have a look or want to contribute:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/102814-hoya-founders-grandson-calls-pentax-acquisition-failure.html

Greetings,
Falk