公司治理專家談波音：董事會出了問題
Ellen Florian
2019-05-30
|
波音公司正在采取各種措施，幫助困境中的737 MAX系列飛機(jī)重新飛起。在去年10月獅航610航班和今年3月埃航302航班墜毀共造成346人喪生之后，引發(fā)的調(diào)查和訴訟仍在積攢。危機(jī)過后，氣惱的利益相關(guān)者和公司治理專家開始質(zhì)疑波音董事會的組成和反應(yīng)方式，也將一群過去總躲在密室里的人拉出來嚴(yán)厲拷問并施加壓力。
主要問題是：董事會是否應(yīng)該承擔(dān)至少部分責(zé)任？
“公司能走到這種地步，說明董事會出現(xiàn)了一些問題?！惫局卫碜稍児綱alueEdge Advisors的副主席內(nèi)爾·米諾表示?！暗阶詈?，責(zé)任還得落到他們頭上?！?/p>
董事會的存在是為了確保妥善管理公司。在安然公司垮臺和2008年金融危機(jī)之前，公司董事會一直是輕松且自我延續(xù)的機(jī)構(gòu)，其職能更像是一個俱樂部而不是監(jiān)督者。在經(jīng)歷各種事件之后，情況發(fā)生了巨大變化，隨著股東權(quán)利提高，董事會的獨立性提升，福利減少，監(jiān)督力度也有所提高。
波音的董事會顯然難稱公司治理的典范。為公司治理質(zhì)量排名的績效分析研究公司摩根士丹利資本國際（MSCI）的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，如果按1-10分打分，波音公司只能得5.4分。根據(jù)該評估結(jié)果，波音董事會在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500強(qiáng)公司中排名倒數(shù)第三位。然而，波音董事會成員的報酬豐厚。上個月薪酬調(diào)查公司Equilar調(diào)查《財富》美國100強(qiáng)發(fā)現(xiàn)，波音董事會成員薪酬中位數(shù)為34.6萬美元，排第23位。《財富》美國100強(qiáng)董事會薪酬中位數(shù)為318675美元。（波音公司并未回復(fù)置評請求。）
“我們發(fā)現(xiàn)波音的公司治理水平相當(dāng)一般?！盡SCI的執(zhí)行董事里克·馬歇爾表示： “即使公司狀況非常好，業(yè)績上佳利潤率高增速快，一旦公司陷入危機(jī)，如果董事會很弱也會難以應(yīng)付。現(xiàn)在就是這種情況?！?/p>
MSCI的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，波音董事會目前有13人，在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500公司里算人數(shù)較多的。標(biāo)普500公司的董事人數(shù)平均為10.75人，其中約80家公司的董事成員達(dá)到13人或更多。董事會規(guī)模越大，思考程序越復(fù)雜，決策也越困難，不夠靈活。
在更仔細(xì)觀察后會發(fā)現(xiàn)，波音董事會構(gòu)成有些讓人擔(dān)心?！翱雌饋硐袷莻€1999年的公司董事會，不像2019年的。”持有波音股票的米諾說。“就好像過去20年里毫無改革，從未提高審查力度，也沒有嘗試最佳實踐?！?/p>
董事會任職交叉
波音公司董事會中有三位董事同時擔(dān)任卡特彼勒的董事，波音公司的董事召集人戴維·卡爾霍恩也在是卡特彼勒公司的首席董事，另外兩位是波音公司的首席執(zhí)行官兼總裁丹尼斯·米倫伯格，還有馬里蘭大學(xué)的公共政策學(xué)院教授，也是布什政府第二任期的美國貿(mào)易談判代表蘇珊·施瓦布。波音的兩位董事也是萬豪國際的董事會成員，分別是大陸航空公司的前首席執(zhí)行官兼總裁勞倫斯·凱爾納和蘇珊·施瓦布（順便提一下，她也在聯(lián)邦快遞的董事會任職）。
為什么這一點很重要？公司治理專家認(rèn)為董事會任職重疊存在“軟性”客觀問題?！案鞣N任職交叉都是問題，因為會干擾客觀性?！碧乩A大學(xué)約翰·L·溫伯格公司治理研究中心的主任查爾斯·埃爾森表示。
波音公司在委托書中聲明，13名董事中有12名是獨立董事，符合紐約證券交易所獨立性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及其他補(bǔ)充標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。只有波音的首席執(zhí)行官兼總裁米倫伯格可以當(dāng)成內(nèi)部人士。埃爾森表示，嚴(yán)格來說波音的說法沒有問題。但在技術(shù)定義和客觀評估之間存在差別。“舒適與客觀性相關(guān)。走得越近，就越難不顧關(guān)系做出艱難的決定?！?/p>
與華盛頓聯(lián)系緊密
目前，在波音董事會的13位成員中，有四位之前擔(dān)任過政府官員：
· 2007年退休前，埃德蒙·吉安巴斯蒂亞尼二世曾經(jīng)擔(dān)任美國參謀長聯(lián)席會議前副主席，在軍方是排名第二的級別。2009年他加入了波音董事會。
· 蘇珊·施瓦布于2010年加入董事會，2006年至2009年她曾經(jīng)擔(dān)任喬治·W·布什政府的主要貿(mào)易顧問和談判代表。
· 卡羅琳·肯尼迪于2017年加入董事會，曾經(jīng)在奧巴馬政府擔(dān)任駐日本大使。
· 上個月波音公司最新選出的董事是卡羅來納州的前州長，也是特朗普駐聯(lián)合國大使尼基·海利，去年她突然辭職。在擔(dān)任州長期間，2013年她曾經(jīng)鼓勵波音公司擴(kuò)建工廠和壓制工會的行動。（里根政府時期的白宮辦公室主任肯尼斯·杜伯斯坦今年在年會上退休。）
“此時此刻，尼基·海利出現(xiàn)在波音董事會成員里讓我感覺很奇怪。” MSCI的馬歇爾表示。“想象一下，現(xiàn)在他們應(yīng)該非常關(guān)心全球貿(mào)易的能力才對?！?/p>
埃爾森提出的另一個警告信號是，董事會中有政治名門肯尼迪家族的后代，海利又是政治名人。公司治理專家認(rèn)為，聘請知名度高的董事會成員令人懷疑。值得關(guān)注的是，兩位董事都是由其他獨立董事，并非經(jīng)第三方獵頭公司推薦給治理、組織和提名委員會，人們普遍認(rèn)為由第三方推薦人選更有助于董事會持客觀態(tài)度，不用依賴其他董事說好話推薦。
埃爾森說：“董事會的職責(zé)就是監(jiān)督管理層，純粹簡單。要做到需要一系列技能。在航空航天公司任職，肯尼迪或海利是否具備必要技能？”他們?yōu)楣編砹四男┩饨缓驼?jīng)驗？“可以請他們當(dāng)顧問?！彼f?！八麄円_保管理層做正確決策。不是來提供服務(wù)的?！?/p>
正確的專業(yè)知識
MCSI的馬歇爾說，如果從事的行業(yè)格外注重安全問題，比如采礦、化工、汽車等，聘請有安全背景的董事會成員比較合適。
波音公司的董事會里誰具備安全領(lǐng)域的技能還不清楚。盡管波音公開宣稱安全是頭等大事，但在最新提交的委托書中，唯一提及“安全”之處還是登記股東參與年度會議的政策方面。
董事會的成員里哪些人最可能有安全方面的專業(yè)知識？羅伯特·布萊德韋是制藥公司安進(jìn)的總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官。阿特·柯林斯是醫(yī)療設(shè)備制造商美敦力的前總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官。戴維·卡爾霍恩曾經(jīng)在通用飛機(jī)發(fā)動機(jī)公司擔(dān)任首席執(zhí)行官（請注意，在設(shè)計737 MAX系列時，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)波音的是前總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官吉姆·麥克納尼，他也曾經(jīng)擔(dān)任過通用飛機(jī)發(fā)動機(jī)公司的老板）。
波音現(xiàn)任總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官丹尼斯·米倫伯格從工程師一路晉升。勞倫斯·凱爾納是大陸航空公司的前總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官。作為審計委員會負(fù)責(zé)人，嚴(yán)格來說凱爾納應(yīng)該對安全風(fēng)險負(fù)責(zé)。事實上，最近投票時股東咨詢公司Glass Lewis就建議投票反對凱爾納，指出“審計委員會在發(fā)現(xiàn)737 Max 8飛機(jī)相關(guān)風(fēng)險方面原本應(yīng)該發(fā)揮更積極的作用?！盜SS的委托分析建議投票支持包括凱爾納在內(nèi)的審計委員會成員，但應(yīng)采取“謹(jǐn)慎”態(tài)度。凱爾納再次當(dāng)選。
“啟動類似項目時，人們希望董事會提出很多尖銳的問題。”埃爾森表示。“其實涉及很多工程問題，這也是為什么在董事會里最好有懂專業(yè)知識的人負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督?！?/p>
最近波音總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官米倫伯格表示，上個月他要求董事會成立專門委員會“確保737-Max項目達(dá)到最高安全水平的政策和流程有效”，順便透露了董事會的成員里誰具備安全專業(yè)知識。專門委員會成員包括好事達(dá)保險的前首席執(zhí)行官愛德華·利迪、美國參謀長聯(lián)席會議前副主席吉安巴斯蒂亞尼、安進(jìn)的布萊德韋以及杜克能源公司的總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官林恩·古德。
波音在這群人的監(jiān)督下陷入危機(jī)。如今他們能否救波音于水火，尚待觀察。（財富中文網(wǎng)） 譯者：馮豐 審校：夏林 |
As Boeing takes steps to get its embattled 737 MAX aircraft up and flying again, investigations and lawsuits continue to pile up in the aftermath of October’s Lion Air Flight 610 crash and March’s Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accident, taking a total of 346 lives. The crisis has caused frustrated stakeholders and corporate governance experts to question both the makeup of the board, and how they’re responding— placing a collection of people who are used to operating in inner sanctums under intense scrutiny and pressure.
The main question: Is the board at least partially to blame?
“By virtue of the fact that this company has ended up where it is, there is something wrong with the board, says corporate governance expert Nell Minow, Vice Chair of ValueEdge Advisors. “At the end of the day, the buck literally stops with them.”
A board of directors exists to make sure a corporation is being managed properly. Before the Enron meltdown era and the financial crisis of 2008, corporate boards were known to be cushy, self-perpetuating bodies that functioned like a club rather than an overseer. Much has changed since then as shareholder rights advances have brought more independence, fewer perks, and more oversight.
Boeing’s board is hardly a paragon of corporate governance. According to performance analytics research firm MSCI, which ranks the quality of governance, Boeing scored 5.4 on a scale of 1-10. Based on that assessment, Boeing’s board falls in the bottom third of S&P 500 companies. Yet Boeing board members get plum pay. An Equilar study conducted last month on the Fortune 100, found median pay for Boeing directors was $346,000, which ranked as the 23rd highest. Median for all directors in the Fortune 100 was $318,675. (Boeing did not respond to a request for comment.)
“We’re looking at an average governance structure, says Ric Marshall, executive director at MSCI. “Even with the best companies, performing really well with great profit margins and great growth, a weak board is going to struggle when that company runs into a crisis situation. And that’s what we’re looking at here.”
Boeing’s Board currently stands at 13 directors—on the larger side of S&P 500 companies, according to MSCI. The average is 10.75 directors, but approximately 80 companies in the S&P 500 have 13 or more. The larger the board, so the thinking goes, decision-making becomes more difficult and less nimble.
A more detailed look reveals some concerning details around Boeing’s board composition. “This looks like a board that is right out of 1999 instead of 2019,” says Minow, who owns shares of Boeing stock. “It’s as though the reforms and the additional scrutiny and the best practices of the last 20 years kind of passed them by.”
Board Interconnections
Three Boeing directors sit on the board of Caterpillar: Boeing’s lead director, David Calhoun, who is also the lead director of Caterpillar, Boeing’s CEO and Chairman Dennis Muilenburg, and Susan Schwab, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and former U.S. Trade Representative in the second Bush Administration. Two of Boeing’s directors sit on the board of Marriott International: Lawrence Kellner, former CEO and Chairman of Continental Airlines and Susan Schwab (who, by the way, also serves on the FedEx board).
Why does this matter? These overlaps are what corporate governance experts consider “soft” objectivity issues. “Any cross relationship is a problem because it interferes with objectivity,” says Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
Boeing states in its proxy that 12 of 13 directors are independent, in line with New York Stock Exchange independence criteria along with other supplemental standards. Only Muilenburg, Boeing’s CEO and Chairman, is deemed an insider. And technically, they’re correct, says Elson. But there’s a difference between a technical definition and an objective assessment. “Coziness and objectivity are related. The closer you are, the harder it is to step back and make the hard decisions because of those relationships.”
Strong Ties to Washington
Four of the 13 Boeing directorships are currently occupied by former government officials:
· Edmund Giambastiani Jr., former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the second highest ranking officer in the military before he retired in 2007 joined Boeing’s board in 2009.
· Susan Schwab, who joined the board in 2010, was George W. Bush’s main trade adviser and negotiator from 2006 to 2009.
· Caroline Kennedy, a director since 2017, was the former ambassador to Japan during the Obama Administration.
· And Boeing’s newest director elected last month is Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina and President Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations until she abruptly resigned last year. While governor, she provided incentives in 2013 for Boeing to expand its factory and opposed union organization. (Kenneth Duberstein, a former Chief of Staff in the Reagan White House, retired at the annual meeting this year.)
“Nikki Haley strikes me as an odd choice to add to the Boeing board at this point of time., says MSCI’s Marshall. “You have to imagine that they are very concerned about their ability to trade globally.”
Another warning sign for Elson is that Kennedy, scion of a famous political family, and Haley are political celebrities. Hiring board members with strong name recognition is viewed with suspicion by corporate governance experts. Notably, both of these directors were referred to the Governance, Organization and Nominating Committee by other independent directors, rather than by a third-party search firm, which is considered a better practice for achieving board objectivity than a good word from another director.
Says Elson: “The board is there to monitor management, pure and simple. You need skill sets to do so. In an aerospace company, do either [Kennedy or Haley] have those necessary skills?” What about the diplomatic and government experience they bring to the company? “Hire them as a consultant,” he says. “They’re there to make sure management does the right thing. They’re not there to provide services.”
The Right Expertise
Companies that operate in an industry where safety is a major issue—mining, chemicals, autos—benefit from having board members with a background in safety says MCSI’s Marshall.
Determining who on Boeing’s board has those skills isn’t spelled out. Despite the company’s references in public to safety being a priority, the only reference to “safety” in the company’s most recent proxy are the admission policies for shareholders of record to attend the annual meeting.
Best guess for the slate of directors who might have relevant safety expertise? Robert Bradway is the Chairman and CEO of drugmaker Amgen. Art Collins was the former Chairman and CEO of medical device maker Medtronic. David Calhoun used to be the chief executive of GE Aircraft Engines (as a side note, former Boeing Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney who was in charge when the 737 MAX was conceived also used to be the boss at GE Aircraft Engines).
Current Boeing Chairman and CEO Dennis Muilenburg came up through the ranks of Boeing as an engineer. And Lawrence Kellner is the former Chairman and CEO of Continental Airlines. As head of the audit committee, Kellner was technically responsible for the safety risks. In fact, shareholder advisory firm Glass Lewis recommended voting against Kellner in the most recent ballot, citing that “the audit committee should have taken a more proactive role in identifying the risks associated with the 737 Max 8 aircraft.” ISS’s proxy analysis recommended voting for all audit committee members including Kellner, but “with caution.” Kellner was re-elected.
“When you engage in a project like that, you would expect a lot of tough questions from the board,” says Elson. “There are a lot of engineering questions, and that’s why you would want people on the board who have some specialized knowledge to monitor it.”
Boeing Chairman and CEO Muilenburg recently gave some indication of who on the board has safety expertise when he asked the board last month to form a committee to “confirm the effectiveness of our policies and processes for assuring the highest level of safety on the 737-MAX program.” The committee is comprised of former Allstate chief exec Edward Liddy, former Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman Giambastiani, Amgen’s Bradway, and Duke Energy Chairman and CEO Lynn Good.
They were looking after the company when it fell into crisis. It remains to be seen if they’re the people who can pull Boeing out of this mess. |
財富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識產(chǎn)權(quán)為財富媒體知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可，禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載、摘編、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
