SHAREHOLDERS HAVE been handed greater power over companies’ executive pay policies as part of a package of reforms announced by business secretary Vince Cable.
The government has promised the most comprehensive reforms of the framework for directors’ remuneration in a decade that will give shareholders binding votes on pay policy and force companies to make executive remuneration policies more transparent.
Measures unveiled by Cable include forcing companies to hold a binding vote on pay policy at least once every three years. The vote will be held annually unless businesses choose to leave their remuneration policy unchanged.
Under current rules, shareholder pay votes are only advisory, which means companies can ignore the ire of their investors if they so wish. Now, once a policy is approved companies will not be able to make payments outside its scope. If a company chooses to change its pay policy, it will have to put it before shareholders for re-approval.
It was believed that Cable had intended to force a compulsory vote on boardroom pay every year, however , a spate of boardroom rows over the disparity and high pay has seen three FTSE chief executives – Andrew Moss at Aviva, David Brennan at AstraZeneca and Sly Bailey at Trinity Mirror – ousted from their positions, has seen him row back slightly.
“In January we kicked off a national debate aimed at encouraging shareholders to become more actively engaged as company owners in better aligning directors’ pay with performance. I have been greatly encouraged by the ‘shareholder spring’ and I want to see that momentum sustained. That is why I am bringing forward legislation to strengthen the powers of shareholders through a binding vote on pay.” Cable said.
Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna criticised the plans for falling short of demands for an annual binding vote, which was also favoured by investor body Pirc. However, Tom Powdrill, spokesperson at Pirc, generally welcomed the announcement.
“We favoured an annual vote and we still think it could be simpler. However, the way it has been structured means there is the necessary level of accountability. There are safeguards built in,” Powdrill said.
Not everyone was in favour of the proposals. According to Jo Iwasaki, ICAEW’s head of corporate governance, Cable’s plan to force shareholders to hold a legally-binding vote on executive pay every three years is unnecessary.
“Recent events have shown that shareholders already have sufficient power to change company policy on pay if enough of them feel they need to. There is a role for legally binding votes on an ad hoc basis – for example if a board were continuously ignoring the wishes of shareholders – but demanding them as a matter of routine could damage relations between shareholders and the remuneration committee.
“Also, initiatives on shareholder engagement must take into consideration the modern, complex, nature of share ownership. ‘Shareholders’ should not be seen as a single, homogenous, group, when they might include a range of institutional investors, hedge funds, private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, activist investors and intermediaries including proxy agents.”
As part of their pay policy, companies will have to clearly explain their approach to exit payments, which will also be subject to the binding vote. When a director leaves, the company will have to promptly publish a statement of payments the director has received. Companies will not be able to pay exiting directors more than shareholders have agreed.
According to Powdrill, this should go come way to curbing the risk of executives being “rewarded for failure”.
Alongside the binding vote on policy, shareholders will continue to have an annual advisory vote on how pay policy was implemented in the previous year. Should it fail the advisory vote it must resubmit the pay policy to shareholders in a binding vote the following year.
Companies will have to report a single figure for the total pay directors received for the year. This figure will cover all rewards received by directors, including bonuses and long term incentives. Companies will also have to report details of whether they met performance measures and a comparison between company performance and chief executives’ pay.
The government intends all these reforms to be enacted by October 2013.
The biggest threat of turmoil relates to uncertainties over the US November elections. The markets will have to seriously consider the possibility of Donald Trump being elected
As the British government starts the complex process of considering the form of the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union (EU), one issue will be foremost in the minds of exporters – tariffs
Anthony Harrington examines the actions trustees and sponsors of defined benifit pension schemes should take in response to Brexit
The abrupt swing - from gloom and despondency after the Brexit result became known, to a mood of complacency now - is premature and deceptive, writes David Kern