Skip to content

27 June, 2022

Subscribe Advertise About Us
  • My Account
  • Register
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
    • Categoriess

      • View All
      • Board Moves
    • Man presses plus sign

      News round-up: this week in governance

      Row over pay for non-execs; JD Sports governance overhaul; EU agrees on CSRD; and do...

    • Board members discussing ESG Stakeholder pressure increases urgency on ESG

      Experts say pressure to act on ESG is coming from regulators, investors and a new...

    • A group of diverse job candidates Diversity business case arguments may deter job candidates

      Performance-based and fairness-based arguments confirm that social identities "are a lens through which contributions will...

  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • Whistleblower in a crowd

      5 reasons for boards to implement a whistleblowing solution

      The right policy and reporting channel for whistleblowing increases awareness and offers protection. But the...

    • White-collar criminal in jail

      Into the mind of white-collar criminals

      It is estimated that high-level fraud costs the global economy over US$5trn every year. What...

    • notebook on boardroom table

      5 topics to improve the effectiveness of your board

      How many board meetings result in real progress for your company? Make sure these discussion...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • Why risk perception is vital

      It is easy to see the tragic situation unfolding in Ukraine in terms of a...

    • Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer Why emotional intelligence is essential for successful leadership

      Cold logic is not a vote winner for politicians or board members. Sir Keir Starmer...

    • Businessman in thinker pose What’s a company for? Milton Friedman responds

      The ongoing lively debate about corporate purpose has caused me to reflect further on the...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • Empty boardroom Many executives ‘fail to understand the role and value of boards’

      A recent webinar on board effectiveness discussed the mix of competence and courage required from...

    • Businessman looking at stormy sky Disaster or disruption? Crisis management requires clear definitions

      Identifying and categorising crises, and developing a methodology to deal with them, can help boards...

    • Sir Donald Brydon Sir Donald Brydon on audit reform, career NEDs and board relationships

      While bemoaning the "glacial" pace of audit reform, he hails the pandemic's transformation of communication...

  • Careers
      • View all
      • Selection
      • Board Moves
    • A group of diverse job candidates Diversity business case arguments may deter job candidates

      Performance-based and fairness-based arguments confirm that social identities "are a lens through which contributions will...

    • Directors waiting for an interview Gender diversity warning for FTSE All-Share Index

      Report from Women on Boards and Protiviti reveals half of FTSE All Share companies outside...

    • A group of directors in a boardroom Women take 54% of FTSE 350 board roles but fail to win ‘top jobs’

      Just 19% of chair, chief executive, chief financial officer or senior independent director roles went...

  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Corporate & Advisory Services
    • Stakeholder Engagement: A Roadmap for UK Plc Boards

      This guide aims to provide directors and their colleagues with advice on how to ensure...

    • Board Duties in Ensuring Company Engagement with Affected Stakeholders

      This guidance note gives a brief overview of the role of corporate boards of directors...

    • C-Suite Barometer 2021

      At the end of 2021, Mazars surveyed over 1,000 executives around the world for its...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Selection
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology
  • Magazine
      • View All
      • Sustainability Works
      • Tomorrow's Leaders
      • Renumeration Tightrope
      • Governance Ascendance
      • Sense In Sustainability
      • Invisible Enemies

Investors fail to challenge CEO pay

by Gavin Hinks on May 7, 2019

Large shareholders have had the right to challenge executive remuneration in the UK since 2013, but research shows that no pay policies in FTSE 100 companies have been defeated by investor votes since the law was introduced.

executive pay, pay, remuneration, pay ratios, corporate governance, finance

Image: Shutterstock

Back in 2012 the UK was in the grip of a debate about executive pay. The coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were determined to do something about it. Indeed, by 2013 UK shareholders had received powers to vent their frustrations over pay levels through “say on pay” measures in the Regulatory Reform Act.

According to The Times, company chairs fumed over the new law: “Giving outsiders a say on pay would be the last straw,” wrote one opinion writer. In the Financial Times meanwhile, another writer suggested pay was ripe for reform because “large shareholders have at last started to flex their muscles over spurious performance targets and from New York to London they are demanding change”.

Except it seems things didn’t really change much. According to a report out this weekend from a think tank, the High Pay Centre, while the UK’s “say on pay” measures have been around for five years, little has moved on.

Provocatively titled The Myth of Shareholder Stewardship, the report reveals that during those five AGM seasons no FTSE 100 remuneration policy was defeated during shareholder votes. Indeed, the average level of dissent was just 9.3%. Only around one in ten pay-related shareholder resolutions received “significant” dissent of 20% opposition or more.

The average CEO pay ratio to their own employees’ has gone from 59:1 in the late 1990s, to 145:1 today

The High Pay Centre says the results come despite median CEO pay levels reaching £3.9m in 2017, 137 times the annual salary of the typical UK worker. The average CEO pay ratio to their own employees’ has gone from 59:1 in the late 1990s, to 145:1 today.

The think tank cautions there is growing public concern about pay levels and inequality in the UK. The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer found that excessive executive pay was the biggest reason cited for a lack of trust in business. Moreover, the High Pay Centre believes it is “difficult” to establish a link between high pay and performance.

What worries the think tank most is that shareholders have simply failed to intervene, leaving executive pay soaring.

“Our analysis shows conclusively that, although executive pay levels have remained at provocatively high levels, shareholder pressure has been virtually negligible, with most pay packages and the policies that result in them waved through without serious opposition. In this respect, shareholder say on pay has failed.”

Cultural bias

The High Pay Centre believes there could be a number of reasons for this. There could be a “subconscious bias” in favour of highly paid execs because investment managers too exist in a culture of high pay.

Asset managers may also be risk averse: high pay levels are more tolerable than the fall-out from losing a a good chief executive over pay issues.

The High Pay Centre also believes there may be too little resource among fund managers to engage properly with boards. Those that do have too little influence to make a difference. “Our research shows that even the largest institutional shareholders with the greatest resources to engage with investee companies typically constitute a fraction of the shareholder base, meaning that action on top pay requires the engagement of multiple different shareholders,” it says.

There is broad agreement that engagement on pay is not exactly the highest priority among investors. However, a recent report from the House of Commons business committee concluded that more stewardship goes on behind the scenes, meaning change would not always be reflected in dissenting shareholder votes.

“With rising inequality and lack of trust in the business and finance sectors, ensuring that the structure of executive pay is appropriately screened is an essential role for investors”

—Fiona Reynolds, PRI

A further survey has found that 75% of those companies rocked by a “significant” dissenting vote against pay policy took action the following year. The Investment Association, a professional body for investment managers, has noted in the past there is more dissent in FTSE 250 companies than their FTSE 100 colleagues. Overall, MPs concluded that there is more action on pay than seems apparent, but not enough.

“We welcome the increased attention on executive pay but recognise that much more engagement will be required to drive a more enlightened and acceptable approach to executive pay,” the MPs’ report.

Fiona Reynolds, chief executive of Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), a body that works to help investors incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into investment decisions, takes the same stance as MPs. She says that voting against excessive pay is “on the rise” but these practices “are not always applied consistently”. She adds that active and engaged investors are countered by those “seeming to rarely if ever vote against pay increases”.

According to Reynolds: “With rising inequality and lack of trust in the business and finance sectors, ensuring that the structure of executive pay is appropriately screened is an essential role for investors.”

Regulatory pressure

MPs on the business committee had a list of recommendations for fixing engagement on pay. They called for measures to ensure remuneration committees report on engagement with investors and their reports monitored by a regulator (the successor to the Financial Reporting Council).

They also want to shift responsibility for engagement from asset managers to asset owners. The committee wants a review of the UK’s stewardship code to ensure owners report publicly on their objectives, including those in relation to executive pay. It also wants the regulator to take action against owners who fail to sign up to the new code.

Moreover, the committee wants the new regulator to broadly exert “significant downward pressure” on pay levels by reviewing its own guidance to companies on remuneration.

But MPs also identified a much more fundamental point. “At present, we do not believe that the incentives of all those involved in the investment chain are sufficiently aligned and attuned to the wider social responsibilities of companies.” That’s a much deeper point and one likely to take more time to resolve.

That all being said, it is clear that there is further pressure to come on pay issues. Engagement is increasing but the UK is yet to put in place a new governance and financial reporting regulator to succeed the FRC.

Once it’s up and running it may yet bring a renewed assault on pay levels, along with a new stewardship code forcing assets managers and owners to play a greater role. Pay will remain a fixture of the governance agenda for the foreseeable future.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Blackrock warns FTSE 350 to link pay to performance
    January 16, 2017
    Blackrock

    Blackrock tells FTSE 350 that misalignment of executive pay with long-term performance casts doubt on the quality of boards.

  • Average US CEO pay increases to $21.3m
    August 21, 2020
    A pile of hundred dollar bills

    Bosses in the top 350 US companies have seen their remuneration rise by 14%, with the ratio of CEO pay to average US worker income now 320:1.

  • Australian investors angry over exec pay
    November 10, 2016
    Commonwealth Bank of Australia

    Shareholder activism is growing over executive remuneration under Australia's "two-strike" rule.

  • Companies made 'fake cuts' to CEO pay during pandemic
    March 30, 2022
    CEO in face mask

    Study shows US bosses who took salary cuts in 2020 saw no overall reduction in compensation once other elements were taken into account.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

CEO pay, executive remuneration, FTSE 100, High Pay Centre, investor activism, pay inequality, shareholder votes

Search


Sign up to our Newsletter

Receive independent news, thoughtful journalism & expert insights about leadership, corporate governance & key boardroom issues straight to your inbox every week.

SIGN UP

Follow Us


 

 

 

 

Most Popular

  • Stakeholder pressure increases urgency on ESG
  • IoD calls for voluntary code of conduct for board directors
  • News round-up: this week in governance
  • 5 reasons for boards to implement a whistleblowing solution
  • Why risk perception is vital

 


 

Featured Partner Profile

Diligent

Diligent

Diligent Corporation, which was founded in 2001, is headquartered in New York, NY with a European HQ in London. Diligent’s modern governance platform empowers leaders and teams at every level of the organisation to digitally transform and create ...

Featured Partner Resources

Board Transformation 2021: Leadership in Transition

There can be little doubt that the global Covid-19...

Digital Boards: How Technology Adoption is Driving Culture Change and Resiliency

Digital tools proved their worth to boards during ...
EQ 2021 AGM Season report

2021 AGM Season: Successful AGMs in the Pandemic and Beyond

With the impacts of Covid-19 hitting just as the s...
Leadership in AI report

Leadership in AI 2021

This report from Board Agenda and Mazars, in assoc...
Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

In the uncertain times at the height of any crisis...
Board Directors Guide to D&O Liability Insurance - November 2020 - AIG & Board Agenda

Board Directors' Guide to D&O Liability Insurance

Directors face liability over a range of new threa...
Leadership-in-Risk-Management-Board-Report

Leadership in Risk Management: Board Report

Board Agenda, in association with Mazars and INSEA...
Director's Guide to Internal Investigations

A Director's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations

An internal investigation must be handled meticulo...

Global Business Complexity Index 2021

The Global Business Complexity Index 2021 provides...

 


 

ADVERTISE – FREE CORPORATE LISTING

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
ADD

ADVERTISE – PROMOTE YOUR REPORTS & WHITEPAPERS

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
Add Resource

Register Free

Register to receive free article views, selected resource downloads, and all the latest news alerts straight to your inbox. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Corporate & Advisory Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Sitemap
|