Category: ESG
Atlantic herring get their day in court—does it spell the end of Chevron deference?
On Wednesday, SCOTUS heard oral argument—for over three and a half hours—in two very important cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept of Commerce, about whether the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has the authority to require Atlantic herring fishing vessels to pay some of the costs for onboard federal observers who are required to monitor regulatory compliance. And they’re important because… why? Because one of the questions presented to SCOTUS was whether the Court should continue the decades-long deference of courts, under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, to the reasonable interpretations of statutes by agencies. The doctrine of Chevron deference mandates that, if a statute does not directly address the “precise question at issue” or if there is ambiguity in how to interpret the statute, courts must accept an agency’s permissible interpretation of a law unless it is arbitrary or manifestly contrary to the statute. Of course, the conservative members of the Court have long signaled their desire to rein in the dreaded “administrative state,” especially when agencies are advancing regulations that conservative judges perceive as too “nanny state.” And overruling Chevron is one way to do just that. (See, for example, the dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts in City of Arlington v. FCC back in 2013, where he worried that “the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed,” not to mention the concurring opinion of Justice Neil Gorsuch in the 2016 case, Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, where he referred to Chevron as an “elephant in the room” that permits “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power.” And then there’s Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s 2016 article, Fixing Statutory Interpretation, in which he argues that Chevron is a “judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.” See the SideBars below.) But, in recent past cases, SCOTUS has resolved issues without addressing Chevron, looking instead to theories such as the “major questions” doctrine. (See this PubCo post.) The two cases now before the Court, however, may well present that long-sought opportunity. Depending on the outcome, their impact could be felt far beyond the Marine Fisheries Service at many other agencies, including the SEC and the FDA. Will we soon be seeing a dramatically different sort of administrative state? To me, it seemed pretty clear from the oral argument that SCOTUS is likely to jettison or significantly erode Chevron. Among the most conservative justices at least, there didn’t seem to be a lot of interest in half-measures—been there, done that. (The concept of the Court’s limiting its decision to whether statutory silence should be treated as ambiguity, as some had hoped, did not even come up for serious discussion.) But what approach the Court might take—overrule Chevron with no alternative framework suggested, adopt a version of “weak deference” as outlined in a 1944 case, Skidmore v. Swift & Co., or possibly even “Kisorize” (as they termed it) Chevron by imposing some serious limitations, as in Kisor v. Wilkie—that remains to be seen.
Is ESG backlash triggering a change in policies or just a change in terminology?
As discussed in this article from the WSJ, The Latest Dirty Word in Corporate America: ESG, ESG backlash is driving many company executives to drop any reference to “ESG” and instead use terms like “sustainability” or “responsible business,” or opt for “green hushing” altogether. Citing an analysis from FactSet, the WSJ reported that, on “earnings calls, mentions of ESG rose steadily until 2021 and have declined since…. In the fourth quarter of 2021, 155 companies in the S&P 500 mentioned ESG initiatives; by the second quarter of 2023, that had fallen to 61 mentions.” But are companies just turning down the volume while still pursuing the same aspirations or have they trimmed their objectives too?
Are there best practices for linking executive compensation to climate goals?
In this new paper, Feet to the Fire: How Should Companies Tie Executive Compensation to Climate Targets?, from the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford, the authors looked at how some companies bolstered their commitments to climate action—the authors refer to it as “institutionalizing” their climate goals and commitments—by including climate-related metrics in executive compensation plans and agreements. The authors observed that, increasingly, even in the absence of regulation, companies have made voluntary pledges to reduce their carbon emissions. Citing MSCI, the authors report that about “half of large, publicly traded companies have established carbon emissions targets, and a third have pledged to achieve net zero emissions by 2030 or 2050.” But is there anything to these promises? Have any of these carbon reduction objectives been fully integrated into the company’s strategy, operations or corporate culture? One way that some companies have sought to realize their climate goals is by tethering them to a measure of compensation. These climate metrics can function as both a signal of seriousness to the public and a mechanism for bringing accountability. In employing climate metrics as performance conditions in compensation programs, are there best practices to effectively achieve the kind of “institutionalization” that the authors advance?
Center for Political Accountability provides guidance on challenges of corporate political spending
As we begin this new year—a highly charged election year—it might be helpful to check out the Guide to Corporate Political Spending produced by the non-partisan Center for Political Accountability. The Guide, released last year, is designed to help companies through the thicket of decision-making about political spending, especially given the increasingly fractious political environment and the heightened scrutiny that companies face when they engage in political spending—especially where that spending may conflict with publicly espoused corporate values. The Guide addresses “the risks and challenges that management and boards face in establishing political spending policies, making spending decisions, conducting due diligence, and meeting the expectations of stakeholders.” The Guide identifies five challenges and then recommends various actions that companies should take in anticipation of or in response to those challenges. They are summarized below, but reading the Guide itself in full is always recommended.
Senators urge SEC to propose human capital disclosure regulations “without further delay”
In August 2020, as part of an overhaul of Reg S-K, the SEC adopted a new requirement to discuss human capital, taking a principles-based approach. (See this PubCo post.) For the most part, the initial response to the new requirement was underwhelming; early subsequent reporting suggested that companies “capitalized on the fact that the new rule does not call for specific metrics,” as “[r]elatively few issuers provided meaningful numbers about their human capital, even when they had those numbers at hand.” (See this PubCo post.) However, recent studies have shown some expansion of disclosure, with one study showing that the number of companies disclosing their EEO-1 workforce diversity data “has more than tripled between 2021 and 2022, from 11% to 34%” and that nearly three-quarters of companies in the Russell 1000 disclose some form of race and ethnicity data. Headway, but apparently not enough to deter Corp Fin from moving forward with a proposal to enhance company disclosures regarding human capital management. Or is it? The SEC’s most recent reg-flex agenda shows a target date for a proposal of April 2024, but that date represents a delay from previous target dates of October 2022, April 2023 and October 2023. In February 2022, Senators Sherrod Brown and Mark Warner, the Chair and a member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, submitted a letter to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, calling on the SEC to include in its proposal a requirement that companies report about—not just employees—but also the number of workers who are not classified as full-time employees, including “gig” workers and other independent contractors. (See this PubCo post.) Now, perhaps triggered by the latest SEC agenda, the pair have once again submitted a letter to Gensler, this time to make known that they “were disappointed to see that the SEC’s recently released fall 2023 regulatory agenda suggests the release of a proposed rule on ‘Human Capital Management Disclosure’ is likely to be delayed.” In this second attempt, they pressed the SEC “to act expeditiously to bring an improved human capital management disclosure proposal to a vote before the full Commission.” Will this letter goad the SEC into taking action on this rulemaking?
Happy holidays!
The CAQ has some ideas for improving audit committee disclosure
The Center for Audit Quality, working with Ideagen Audit Analytics, has just released a new edition of its annual Audit Committee Transparency Barometer, which, over the past ten years, has measured the robustness of audit committee disclosures in proxy statements among companies in the S&P Composite 1500. Why is that important? According to the CAQ, “numerous studies have identified a positive correlation between increased communication of audit committee oversight through disclosures in the proxy statement and increased audit quality.” Not to mention the interest of investors and other stakeholders in better disclosure. The bottom line, according to the CAQ, is that the level of voluntary transparency has continued to increase steadily in most core areas of audit committee responsibility, such as oversight of the external auditor, as well as in evolving areas, such as cybersecurity risk and ESG. But it could still stand some improvement. In light of the “current environment of economic uncertainty, geopolitical crises, and new ways of working,” the CAQ encourages audit committees to jettison boilerplate and “tell their story through tailored disclosures in the proxy statement…. For audit committees to enhance their disclosures, they should provide further discussion not just of what they do in their oversight of the external auditor but also how they do it.” In the Barometer, the CAQ offers some specific ideas on just how audit committees can improve their disclosure and enhance its utility.
SEC’s Fall 2023 Reg-Flex Agenda is out—climate disclosure rules delayed again
The SEC’s Fall 2023 Reg-Flex Agenda—according to the preamble, compiled as of August 22, 2023, reflecting “only the priorities of the Chair”—has now been posted. And it’s Groundhog Day again. All of the Corp Fin agenda items made an appearance before on the last agenda and, in most cases, several agendas before that. Do I hear a sigh of relief? Of course, the new agenda is a bit shorter than the Spring 2023 agenda, given the absence of regulations that have since been adopted, including cybersecurity risk governance (see this PubCo post) and modernization of beneficial ownership reporting (see this PubCo post). At first glance, the biggest surprise—if it’s on the mark, that is—is that the target date for final action on the SEC’s controversial climate disclosure proposal has been pushed out until April 2024. Keep in mind that it is only a target date, and the SEC sometimes acts well in advance of the target. For example, the cybersecurity proposal had a target date on the last agenda of October 2023, but final rules were adopted much earlier in July. I confess that my hunch was that we would see final rules before the end of this year, but adoption this year looks increasingly unlikely (especially given that the posted agenda for this week’s open meeting does not include climate). Not surprisingly, there’s nothing on the agenda about a reproposal of the likely-to-be vacated (?) share repurchase rules, although, at the date that the agenda was compiled, the possibility of vacatur was not yet known. (See this PubCo post.) Describing the new agenda, SEC Chair Gary Gensler observed that “[w]e are blessed with the largest, most sophisticated, and most innovative capital markets in the world. But we cannot take this for granted. Even a gold medalist must keep training. That’s why we’re updating our rules for the technology and business models of the 2020s. We’re updating our rules to promote the efficiency, integrity, and resiliency of the markets. We do so with an eye toward investors and issuers alike, to ensure the markets work for them and not the other way around.”
Some highlights of the 2023 PLI Securities Regulation Institute
This year’s PLI Securities Regulation Institute was a source for a lot of useful information and interesting perspectives. Panelists discussed a variety of topics, including climate disclosure (although no one shared any insights into the timing of the SEC’s final rules), proxy season issues, accounting issues, ESG and anti-ESG, and some of the most recent SEC rulemakings, such as pay versus performance, cybersecurity, buybacks and 10b5-1 plans. Some of the panels focused on these recent rulemakings echoed concerns expressed last year about the difficulty and complexity of implementation of these new rules, only this time, we also heard a few panelists questioning the rationale and effectiveness of these new mandates. What was the purpose of all this complication? Was it addressing real problems or just theoretical ones? Are investors really taking the disclosure into account? Is it all for naught? Pay versus performance, for example, was described as “a lot of work,” but, according to one of the program co-chairs, in terms of its impact, a “nothingburger.” (Was “nothingburger” the word of the week?) Aside from the agita over the need to implement the volume of complex rules, a key theme seemed to be the importance of controls and process—the need to have them, follow them and document that you followed them—as well as an intensified focus on cross-functional teams and avoiding silos. In addition, geopolitical uncertainty seems to be affecting just about everything. (For Commissioner Mark Uyeda’s perspective on the rulemaking process presented in his remarks before the Institute, see this PubCo post.) Below are just some of the takeaways, in no particular order.
Gensler talks climate with the Chamber
In his introduction to a conversation late last week with SEC Chair Gary Gensler on “Climate Disclosure Developments: The SEC, California, and EU Extraterritoriality,” the President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets, observed that, although companies have voluntarily responded to investors by increasingly disclosing information on climate, now policymakers in different states and across the globe are working to impose a plethora of mandatory reporting requirements for climate disclosure. The thing is, they’re not consistent. While the Chamber supported disclosure of material climate information, he cautioned that the actions by these policymakers have created a real risk that companies will face duplicate, differing, overlapping and even conflicting requirements. The SEC’s proposal to enhance standardization of climate disclosure might offer some real relief on that score, and that makes it all the more important, he said, for the SEC to act within its authority. The potential for public companies to become ensnared in this labyrinth of overlapping and conflicting regulation was the apparent subject of this conversation. In the end, however, Gensler’s steady focus was on the remit of the SEC under U.S. law. Risks to issuers arising out of inconsistency with California and the EU—well, not so much.
It’s not over till it’s over: Petition filed for rehearing en banc on Nasdaq board diversity rule
As discussed in this PubCo post, on October 18, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the petitions filed by the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment and the National Center for Public Policy Research challenging the SEC’s final order approving the Nasdaq listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure. The new listing rules adopted a “comply or explain” mandate for board diversity for most listed companies and required companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” regarding the composition of their boards. (See this PubCo post.) Given that, by repute, the Fifth Circuit is the circuit of choice for advocates of conservative causes, the decision to deny the petition may have taken some by surprise—unless, that is, they were aware, as discussed in the WSJ and Reuters, that the three judges on this panel happened to all be appointed by Democrats. Yesterday, the Petitioners filed a petition requesting a rehearing en banc by the Fifth Circuit, where Republican presidents have appointed 12 of the 16 active judges. Not that politics has anything to do with it, of course.
You must be logged in to post a comment.