No HR professional is exempt from the planning.
Take the work out of creating and maintaining an employee handbook.
SHRM Seminars will host HR education every month in San Francisco this fall! Select the program that meets both your scheduling and development needs.
Join us, September 27 - 28.
Investors see room for improvement, seek enhanced disclosure
While agreeing that the U.S. executive-pay model has improved over the past five years, corporate directors and institutional investors remain divided over several key aspects, including the impact of
say-on-pay voting, according to a new survey by consultancy Towers Watson and Alliance Advisors, a proxy solicitation firm.
More than 120 corporate directors and 30-plus institutional investors with combined assets under management exceeding $12 trillion participated in the survey, taken in October and November 2013.
Among the findings: Most directors (91 percent) and shareholders (97 percent) believe that the executive-pay model has either stayed the same or changed for the better since required say-on-pay shareholder voting began, in 2011. Additionally, the percentage of directors (89 percent) and investors (59 percent) who think executive pay is sensitive to corporate performance has increased by roughly 50 percent since 2008, when a similar survey was conducted.
However, the two groups disagree on several fronts, including the degree of alignment between company performance and strategy, the pay-setting process and whether executive-pay levels are too high. For instance, the survey revealed:
“Given the strong level of shareholder support for say-on-pay votes the last three years, directors firmly believe they are doing a good job of addressing executive-pay issues and that revisions to the executive-pay model are generally working well,” said Andrew Goldstein, central division leader for executive compensation at Towers Watson, in a media statement. “Investors, however, seem to want an even greater voice in the pay-setting process and also improved communication between companies and shareholders.”
Improving the Process
Among the findings relating to improving executive pay-setting:
“These disconnects may stem from the fact that many investors aren’t fully informed about wha goes into the pay decision-making process at many companies,” said Reid Pearson, executive vice president at Alliance Advisors. “It seems clear from the survey responses that both groups of stakeholders feel the U.S. pay model has improved in recent years, but investor perceptions have not caught up with the view in the boardroom. This suggests that companies need to do more to help investors understand the challenges boards face in aligning pay with performance and setting appropriate pay levels, reinforcing the need for greater transparency and engagement.”
The survey also found a disparity in how directors and investors view say-on-pay’s impact on shareholder relations:
There were, however, some noteworthy areas of agreement between directors and major institutional investors. For example, a majority of respondents in both groups see the need for more disciplined target setting and for greater consideration of strategic, nonfinancial performance measures in annual and long-term incentives.
Moreover, neither directors nor investors think that the controversial Dodd-Frank
CEO pay ratio disclosure rule will help improve the executive-pay model.
Stephen Miller, CEBS, is an online editor/manager for SHRM.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
HR Education in a City Near You
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies