Netflix Approach to Governance: Genuine Transparency with the Board (download) by a radically different approach to information sharing” by management with the Board. Shareholders are largely left out of the equation.
Netflix Approach to Governance: Management
Netflix Approach to Governance has the appearance of a balanced look at how management shares information with the Board. There is no suggestion the approach can be widely copied. Says Larker,
I think it would be hard to put this type of system in place at older and more mature organizations. Innovative organizations that want and need the insights from board members can clearly adapt this type of approach. You need a CEO who wants a high level of discussion about strategy, etc., and is open to alternative points of view.
Transparency works at Netflix, at least in part, because CEO Reed Hastings understands board members would not have the confidence to make tough calls unless they have a better understanding of the company.
Transparency is hard to argue against, unless it leads to directors leaking information that reaches competitors. Larcker and Tayan interviewed CEO Reed Hastings and most of the board members. They describe two key features of what they appear to believe is remmanagement transparency.
Board members attend monthly and quarterly senior management meetings as observers. Communications to the board take the shape of approximately 30-page memos that are heavy on analysis and contain links to all relevant data on the company’s internal computer systems. (Another Netflix Disruption: A Transparent Board)
More frequent meetings with senior staff and more information allows Netflix directors to work more effectively, since they are better able to assess strategic developments. It is hard to tell what impact transparency is having on the company but,
Netflix has been enormously successful over the last five years. Revenues have nearly tripled, increasing to $11.69 billion from $4.4 billion at the end of 2013, while the market cap soared to $133 billion from $4.4 billion.
Directors like the approach.
The overall tone Reed has set, really from early days, is around transparency. … There is no editorializing. There’s no censorship.
It’s just a deep desire to hear rational, well-argued pros and cons of any decision.
No censorship and frank discussions between management and board; if other companies are not operating that way, why not? Equally important, why does that approach not carry through to the relationship between shareholders and the board?
Netflix Approach to Governance: Shareholders
Their research, part of the informative Stanford Closer Look Series, begins with the following sentence:
The hallmark of good corporate governance is an independent-minded board of directors to oversee management and represent the interests of shareholders.
The only other significant reference to shareholders comes later in the following sentence:
While fiduciary rules allow directors to rely exclusively on information provided by management, dynamics such as these can reduce the quality of that information and impair their ability to make good decisions on behalf of shareholders.
Even through the law allows directors to rely on what the CEO and other senior executives tell them, directors make better decisions when the company is more transparent – when they can observe meetings further down the chain and have more direct access to company relevant data. Yet, the Netflix approach to governance appears one-sided. Transparency and dialogue are missing when it comes to management and shareholders.
As I pointed out in a recent post, Netflix has repeatedly ignored shareholder votes. (Will Netflix Ignore Stockholders Again?) While proxy proposals are generally precatory, most companies implement those receiving a majority vote and often those that do not. The Netflix approach to governance appears to ignore proxy votes whenever legally possible.
- In 2014 a majority voted to declassify the board and to require a majority vote to elect directors.
- In 2015 similar proposals were voted and won. A majority of shareholders also voted against director Barton, who, although he lost, was up for reelection this year.
- In 2016 a majority of shares were voted in favor of proxy access, reducing supermajority vote requirements, and declassifying the board.
- In 2017 a majority of shares were voted in favor of proxy access, to declassify the board, to require a majority vote for electing directors and to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements. As far as I know, none of those proposals were implemented by the Board.
- In 2018 a majority of shares were voted in favor of the following:
- Reduce Ownership Threshold for Shareholders to Call Special Meeting (57%)
- Adopt Proxy Access Right (58%)
- Provide Right to Act by Written Consent (52%)
- Adopt Simple Majority Vote (85%)
- Amend Bylaws (72%) This was a binding proposal to require directors in uncontested elections to be elected by a majority of shares voted
Given the Netflix approach to governance with regard to shareholders, I expect the only proposal that will be adopted from this year is the binding proposal to require a majority vote in uncontested directors elections. The vote in favor surpassed the bylaw requirement of a two-thirds threshold.
Although I do not question the scholarship of
Netflix Approach to Governance: Other Views
- Netflix Shareholders Again Fail to Change Rules to Elect Board Members by Simple Majority Vote
- Consider Director Conduct at the 2018 Netflix annual meeting when you vote regarding directors in 2019
- Netflix Rejects Claims That Exec Bonuses Hurt Shareholders
- Netflix investors, once again, seek change in proxy access, voting rules
Is there metric to measure Good Corporate Governance? Please advise
There are many metrics available from many sources. One available for free is from ISS. For example, see the profile page of Yahoo Finance for Netflix, Inc.’s ISS Governance QualityScore as of July 1, 2018 is 10. The pillar scores are Audit: 2; Board: 10; Shareholder Rights: 10; Compensation: 10.
Corporate governance scores courtesy of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). Scores indicate decile rank relative to index or region. A decile score of 1 indicates lower governance risk, while a 10 indicates higher governance risk.