First criterion the development of the company

Need to remove the stock. They induce choices contrary to the general interest and business. Indeed, the leader holding a stock is motivated by the increase in the value of the action of the company he leads. Corresponds to the general interest, even that of the company as such Certainly step, except by chance. The value of the action reacted more and more, including under the influence of pension funds, only performance in the short term, which is not guarantee of sustainability. For some pension funds invest in two years is already considered a long-term investment!

When we sacrifice the investment in research and development, which give positive results only much later, it reduces costs and increases the immediate profits. Then met love yields shareholders but it sacrifices the future of the company. Pension funds applaud. They generate returns and leave the capital of the company until the minor lack of innovations. Similarly, when it reduced its own funds by buying back its own shares, stock market applauded but business hinder its development opportunities. How can we give leaders an incitement to the destruction in terms of the companies they manage How can it be somewhat blind to not discern the perversity of such a system

In fact, the only case where the stockoptions could be regarded as legitimate is new technology shoots sometimes require specific, very sharp talent, but that these start-up companies are not in a State to pay. In this case, the stock options may be useful, if not being able to spread that over five years, seven up.

However, it is well conceivable that leaders should be paid for a significant portion of their remuneration by variable elements related to the success of the business, as long as everyone is his account, which is absolutely not the case with stock options.

But what is that makes a company What are stakeholders There are of course shareholders who provide the necessary capital, but also its clients and its employees. In addition, it is business as human societies, they have a duty to evolve, to plan for the future and to develop. It would be legitimate that the financial incentives granted to leaders are compatible with General, essential and legitimate interest. And feasible! It would be no doubt why the remuneration taken into account. It could include a share related to four criteria, in equal shares.

First criterion: the development of the company. It can be measured by the progress of the turnover. It represents in some way the satisfaction of the customers. Second test: payroll. It saves the couple wage-employment developments. Who could believe that a company is legitimate if it operates its employees, irreplaceable factors of its effectiveness Third test: the course of action. Ignore the interest of the shareholder would be stupid, but is not a reason for her sacrifice the company. Further, action by the system that I prefer to lead the shareholder to be faithful rather than to speculate. Fourth test: investment. Sacrifice investment and research is to live from expedients and mortgaging the future, ever more true today where developed countries are facing on the price of labour. Advance innovation is often the best guarantee for the future.

Note in passing that these criteria to reinforce each other and create a virtuous spiral that would justify a result engagement of the leaders. By contrast, there is no legitimacy to favour short-term management. How long will we encourage suicidal attitudes On the contrary, we finally decide to promote what is beneficial to the greatest number and this sustainably

To achieve this, it must first remove the stock via Act (except perhaps for the "shoots"). Then need to create a label validating the implementation of a process of engagement of the leaders according to the four criteria cited, by ensuring their balance. This label would signal the undertakings concerned to the employees seeking employment, clients knowing that the company has a policy in time with them and shareholders seeking sustainable investments more than speculative costs.

I believe deeply in the interest to set up a rule with virtue of sustainable behaviour change. To encourage the development of this positive spiral, could reduce the standard corporate tax rate. Shareholders is to regain even better that companies will be made more sustainable, while the race performance will shortly lead to the break-up of new bubbles. How many years does take to catch up with a stock market collapse by dividends "inspired" Is it not better to respect the general interest and develop our economy in a harmonious manner Perhaps this will change the habits of some leaders who manage in the short term, riveted on the stock market rating and, incised after gains in their stock, who dismiss with huge golden parachutes, at the time where we see the difficulties of the company, often generated by their short-termiste policy. Too bad for them. We need leaders and companies respecting and serving all stakeholders, not predators.