Directors Assess Long-Term Election Implications
This is the second post in a series addressing the short- and long-term impacts of the 2016 presidential election. Read the first post here.
Directors gathered to discuss the impact of the recent presidential election on November 16, 2016 with audit and risk professionals from accounting firm EisnerAmper. While immediate-term changes were pressing on the minds of directors, they also discussed strategies to address societal and business challenges that coalesced around the following topics.
Can Corporations Bring Back Modern Manufacturing Jobs?
Directors were skeptical that the type of manufacturing jobs that have fueled American economic growth since the end of the second World War would ever return—and asserted that changes in trade agreements may directly impact the ability to create jobs.
EisnerAmper Chief Risk Officer Peter Bible outlined how the developing administration of President-elect Donald Trump could affect the ability of American companies to export their goods. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “is basically on hold now” said Bible. “He wants tariffs on China and Mexico, wants to renegotiate NAFTA, and reconsider the U.S.’s involvement in international trade agreement.” Bible also pointed out that the president can act unilaterally on trade agreements, thus negating congressional checks on trade decisions.
Jill Wittels, chair at eMagin Corp., voiced concern about the pace at which companies could replace factories to offset the impact of tariffs and build more jobs for Americans. “Imposing currency restrictions and tariffs on goods coming in from China, South America, or other parts of Asia would be highly disruptive,” Wittels said. “You don’t instantly create replacement factories in the U.S. at a comparable cost.”
Robert Klatell, chair of TTM Technologies, concurred. “Realistically speaking, there is not that much flexibility. We cannot create in the United States the scale of manufacturing that exists in China,” Klatell said. “We don’t have the people or the capital to do it. We’ve rarely had a government willing to support manufacturing the same way that China has in the past 10 to 15 years.”
William Leidsdorf, director at Icahn Enterprises, offered a different viewpoint. “I think you have to look at how Congress may change or water down the president’s decisions,” Leidsdorf said. Trump “is a businessman. He’s a pretty good negotiator. He’s going to go in [to the presidency] and say he’ll do a lot of things and then negotiate.”
Educating the Workforce
Re-educating the American workforce has been a ubiquitous topic at roundtables co-hosted by NACD throughout 2016. This event was no exception.
A vigorous discussion about the modern workforce was ignited when Carol Robbins, principal of financial services strategic advisory group CER Consulting, cited the invention of a garment-sewing robot as a groundbreaking technology likely to replace countless garment manufacturing workers around the world. Sharon Manewitz, principal and executive director at Manewitz Weiker Associates, a firm that consults with struggling companies, responded: “But who will make the robots? Will they be made here? We need corporate America to help educational institutions change the nature of education in America” to meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy.
The ability of the workforce to be retrained for modern jobs, and how automation will continue to disappear unskilled and lower-skilled positions, was discussed at length. Klatell, however, looked to the future. “Some people won’t make the transition, so we should be focusing on their children,” Klatell argued. “Hopefully, we can get their kids through school with a more meaningful education to make them more employable.”
Laurie Shahon, president of Wilton Capital Group, placed a board lens on some companies’ struggle to fill open positions in certain fields. “Human capital is an issue boards have to deal with,” Shahon said. “We see jobs available in financial services and other industries, but they can’t be filled because there aren’t sufficient qualified people to fill them. The board can and should present alternate cases in its strategy planning to address these changes.”
If Trump makes good on his campaign promises, deregulation is expected under the new administration and the forthcoming Republican majority congress. How long, though, can directors anticipate deregulated policies to last? Bible pointed out that the current administration might attempt to press through lingering Dodd-Frank provisions. However, he warned that deregulation could cause disruption. “These things are deeply rooted, with a lot of capital behind them,” Bible said. “You can’t just say ‘poof—gone.’ It’s impossible.” Practices that companies have implemented as a result of post-financial crisis legislation [such as the Dodd-Frank Act of 2012] are likely not to disappear as governance best practices because companies invested time, energy, and money to comply with them.
Meanwhile, directors in the room considered what impact deregulation might have on enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other international business policies by the Department of Justice. Andrea Bonime-Blanc, founder of GEC Risk Advisory, reminded attendees that enforcement of the FCPA, the False Claims Act, and other laws has been on the rise lately. “People are asking, ‘What’s going to happen with FCPA enforcement?’” Bonime-Blanc asked. “Companies can’t just say ‘oh, let’s stop worrying about bribery.’”
Bible responded: “I believe that the FCPA will continue to be enforced as a worldwide standard, and that the new administration’s focus is going to be on executive compensation and on market regulation. I don’t think there will be an increase or a decrease in enforcement.” If anything, Bible indicated that directors should be concerned about the risk of tax repatriation from companies that have moved their headquarters offshore. “Is everyone familiar with how the overseas tax issue works?” Bible asked. “There is $2.6 trillion in money offshore, and $500 billion of that is held by tech companies. There are drives to get that money back into the U.S. economy that can be done without addressing the entire tax structure.”
Don’t Give Up on Culture of Inclusion
The social unrest incited or revealed by the vitriolic presidential election was discussed in the context of the culture of inclusion and tolerance that their companies have invested in building for decades. Aside of the moral imperative felt by many attendees, the disruption of hard-won corporate culture by internal or external actors could present a reputation risk to the company.
Wittels noted that a popular American shoe company had been endorsed by an incendiary website littered with forms of hate speech after a senior manager at the shoe company stated that it felt the country was moving in the right direction under the incoming president. While the company released statements strongly stating its commitment to principles of inclusion, “there are comments about boycott,” Wittels said. “This is a real reputational risk, and a risk with consumers, that could instantly in this communication age go viral and affect the bottom line.”
Klatell returned to the question of the board’s responsibility to ensure that the CEO, his direct reports, and management across the organization are responsible for maintaining a culture of respect, dignity, and inclusion. In the face of employees who may be looking to throw principles of inclusion out of the door, Klatell said: “I’d hope that most companies would stand up and say ‘No, this is what we stand for, and this is how we behave.’”
To see the full list of participants, please click here.