8 Amendments of Pascal CANFIN related to 2011/2181(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission's green paper on the EU corporate governance framework; believes that, given the diverse nature of existing national frameworks and individual listed companies, a proportional and flexible approach to corporate governance must be applied;
Amendment 12 #
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 whiRecognises that the financial crisis revealed a lack of effectiveness of existing corporate governance principles based on a 'comply or explain' approach; companies are accountable to the shareholders that provide their capital and are also required by law to report on their corporate governance practice;ncludes that a core of practicable and legally binding provisions are needed and must be complemented by soft regulation such as codes of best practices as well as reinforced supervision at national and EU level.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that codes of practice can delivercontribute to behavioural change and that the flexibility provided by codes allows innovation which can either draw on best practice throughout the EU, but or can also lead to race to the bottom; believes that a sharing of best practice should lead toinspire the development of an binding EU framework for corporate governance;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that existing codes should be strengthened and that more effective monitoring of codes and better quality of explanations are required; stresses that shareholders must remain central toplay effectively their role in the governance of companies and their role must be enhanced, not diminishedy should contribute more to responsible corporate governance; Amongst other things, shareholders should have the right to reject the remuneration policy defined by the remuneration committee at the general meeting; believes that shareholders should inform regulators when a company provides an unacceptable explanation for departing from a code of practice;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that there is a lack of long-term focus within the market and urges the Commission to review all relevant legislation to assess whether any requirements have inadvertently added to short-termism and to propose new legislative proposals to foster long term focus; in particular calls on the Commission to abandon the requirement for quarterly reporting in the Transparency Directive, which adds little to shareholder knowledge and simply creates short-term trading opportunities and to promote accounting rules that limit short term volatility of profits.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. As markets have proofed inefficient in determining appropriate levels of remuneration for higher echelons, calls for more transparency and comprehensive binding rules, addressing growing gaps between sustainable value creation and remuneration, in particular in but not limited to the financial sector.
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Following the efficient and innovative approach of Norway, calls on the Commission to propose binding rules to gender-balance corporate boards
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Considers that the corporate governance is not only the matter of shareholders and managers but should include all stakeholders. Employees, clients, social and environmental non- governmental organisations should be in a position to assess whether corporate governance is consistent with the long term interest of the company which implies further transparency, in particular for large companies.