Activities of Philippe DE BACKER related to 2011/2181(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on a corporate governance framework for European companies
Amendments (28)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of creating a more transparent, stable and reliable corporate sector able to take economic, social and ethical concerns into account in its practices;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that, in the wake of the financial crisis, lessons can be learned from the principal shortcomings in the business world;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that, in the wake of the financial crisis, lessons can be learned from the principal bankruptcies in the business world;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Advocates, nonetheless, a certain restraint in this context and calls for every proposal to be assessed very critically in the light of the objectives to be attained and the cost-benefit ratio of such proposals;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that, in the wake of the financial crisis, lessons can be learned from the principal bankruptcies in the business world;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Advocates, nonetheless, a certain restraint in this context and calls for every legislative proposal to be assessed very critically in the light of the objectives to be attained and the cost-benefit ratio of such proposals;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses the need to achieve better functioning of, and compliance with, existing governance rules and recommendations rather than imposing binding European corporate governance rules;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Advocates, nonetheless, a certain restraint in this context and calls for every legislative proposal to be assessed very critically in the light of the objectives to be attained and the cost-benefit ratio of such proposals;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses the need to achieve better functioning of, and compliance with, existing governance rules and recommendations rather than imposing binding European corporate governance rules;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Does not consider a ‘one size fits all approach’ to be helpful in view of the considerable diversity of companies within Europe and in particular the difference between listed and unlisted companies;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses the need to achieve better functioning of, and compliance with, existing governance rules and recommendations rather than imposing binding European corporate governance rules;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Is convinced that voluntary codes of conduct are the most efficient way of achieving good corporate governance;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Does not consider a ‘one size fits all approach’ to be helpful in view of the considerable diversity of companies within Europe and in particular the difference between listed and unlisted companies;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Expresses a preference, in this context, for the ‘comply or explain’ method; considers that, as part of this, businesses which have a justified reason not to comply with corporate governance regulations should explain in detail the decisions in question and describe the alternative solutions that they have adopted;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Is convinced that voluntary codes of conduct are the most efficient way of achieving good corporate governance;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Expresses a preference, in this context, for the ‘comply or explain’method; considers that, as part of this, businesses which have a justified reason not to comply with corporate governance regulations should explain in detail the decisions in question and describe the alternative solutions that they have adopted;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 g (new)
Paragraph 1 g (new)
1g. Considers that this ‘comply or explain’ method will benefit most from a monitoring system which assigns priority to transparency and under which it is possible to ensure that information is reliable and of high quality;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that a ‘comply or explain’ approach is the most appropriate framework to apply to EU listed companies, providing a firm regulatory framework in which companies are accountable to the shareholders that provide their capital and are also required by law to report on their corporate governance practice; considers that this ‘comply or explain’ method will benefit most from a monitoring system which assigns priority to transparency and under which it is possible to ensure that information is reliable and of high quality;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that corporate governance should, among other things, facilitate relations withcan facilitate relations with a company’s various stakeholders, including employees, who contribute to, and are dependent on, their company’s success and performance, and is disappointed that this aspect was completely ignored in the Green Paper;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that a basic set of EU corporate governance measures should apply to all listed companies, no matter what their sizeDoes not consider a ‘one size fits all approach’ to be helpful in view of the considerable diversity of companies within Europe and in particular the difference between listed and unlisted companies;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is of the opinion that employee participation in decision-making should be promoted and strengthenedrespected in line with national and European law, as should co- determination schemes;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for greater gender diversity in company boardsdiversity and complementarity of expertise and experience in company boards, and for attention to be devoted to sufficient gender diversity within them;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is of the view that the inclusion of stock options as part of remuneration schemes should be minimised, and a sustainable remuneration policy is desirable and should be based on the long-term functioning of the individeually phased out and replaced by sustainable long-term remuneration policies; supports, however, the promotion of voluntary employee share ownership schem and his company; considers that companies should be free to decide their remuneration policies, including the possibility of offering share options, and that the use of share options in remuneration policy should be properly disclosed and subject to minimum vesting periods in order to avoid conflicts of interest;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – introductory part
Paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. Supports full and mandatory:
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – indent 1
Paragraph 7 – indent 1
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – indent 2
Paragraph 7 – indent 2
– external evaluation of the boards and management committees of listed companies, to be carried out at least every three years, along with an (annual) evaluation carried out by the board itself in accordance with the Commission’s recommendations1;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – indent 3
Paragraph 7 – indent 3
– disclosure of all board members’ business activities, including activities connected with more than onell posts held on other boards;