6.3 Say-on-pay and disclosure requirements
4 min read•july 31, 2024
Executive compensation is a hot topic in corporate governance. give shareholders a voice on executive pay packages, aiming to boost transparency and accountability. Companies must now disclose detailed info on exec comp, including salaries, bonuses, and stock awards.
These changes have shaken up how companies handle executive pay. Many have tweaked their practices to align with shareholder expectations, using more performance-based awards and engaging more with investors. But critics argue might lead to cookie-cutter comp plans and short-term thinking.
Say-on-Pay in Corporate Governance
Purpose and Implementation of Say-on-Pay
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Implementation of Say-on-Pay
Accountability - Praxis Framework View original
Is this image relevant?
Open Government: Transparency and Accountability Explained | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original
Is this image relevant?
#opengov (publicity, accountability, transparency) venn di… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Accountability - Praxis Framework View original
Is this image relevant?
Open Government: Transparency and Accountability Explained | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Implementation of Say-on-Pay
Accountability - Praxis Framework View original
Is this image relevant?
Open Government: Transparency and Accountability Explained | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original
Is this image relevant?
#opengov (publicity, accountability, transparency) venn di… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Accountability - Praxis Framework View original
Is this image relevant?
Open Government: Transparency and Accountability Explained | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Say-on-pay functions as a corporate governance mechanism allowing shareholders to vote on executive compensation packages
- Enhances transparency and accountability in executive compensation practices by providing shareholders with a voice in the remuneration process
- Votes can be binding or non-binding depending on jurisdiction and company policies
- Frequency varies with some companies holding annual votes while others opt for less frequent intervals (biennial or triennial)
- Serves as a tool for shareholders to express approval or disapproval of executive compensation policies
- Impacts board decision-making, executive compensation design, and overall corporate governance structures
Implications and Variations of Say-on-Pay
- Influences compensation committee decisions by increasing awareness of shareholder perspectives
- May lead to more conservative compensation practices to avoid negative shareholder reactions
- Varies globally with different countries adopting unique approaches (UK requires binding votes, while US mandates advisory votes)
- Can affect company reputation and investor relations based on voting outcomes
- Prompts companies to enhance communication with shareholders regarding compensation philosophy and practices
- May influence recruitment and retention of top executives by shaping compensation packages
Disclosure of Executive Compensation
SEC Mandated Disclosures
- requires detailed disclosure of executive compensation in proxy statements and annual reports for publicly traded companies
- (CD&A) explains company's compensation philosophy, policies, and decision-making processes in proxy statements
- introduced additional requirements including CEO pay ratio and pay-versus-performance disclosures
- Companies must provide breakdown of compensation components (base salary, bonuses, stock awards, option awards, perquisites)
- Disclosure extends to compensation policies and practices related to risk management and potential impact on company's risk profile
- Requires reporting of performance metrics used to determine variable compensation
International and Comprehensive Disclosure Requirements
- International variations exist with different jurisdictions implementing specific rules for executive compensation transparency
- European Union adopted Shareholder Rights Directive II enhancing disclosure requirements across member states
- Some countries require disclosure of individual executive compensation while others allow aggregate reporting
- Comprehensive disclosures often include peer group comparisons used for benchmarking compensation
- May require disclosure of potential severance payments or change-in-control provisions
- Some jurisdictions mandate disclosure of the ratio between executive and average employee compensation
Transparency's Impact on Executive Pay
Effects on Compensation Practices
- Enhanced disclosure requirements led to more detailed and comprehensive reporting of executive compensation packages
- Prompted many companies to reevaluate and adjust compensation practices to align with shareholder expectations and market standards
- Contributed to development of more sophisticated performance metrics and long-term incentive plans
- Led to implementation of clawback provisions and other risk-mitigation measures in executive compensation packages
- Increased use of performance-based equity awards rather than time-vested stock options
- Encouraged adoption of executive stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements
Shareholder Engagement and Market Influence
- Facilitated more meaningful dialogue between shareholders and boards of directors on executive pay issues
- Proxy advisory firms gained influence by leveraging increased transparency to provide recommendations on say-on-pay votes
- Enabled shareholders to make more informed decisions regarding executive compensation approval
- Increased media scrutiny and public awareness of executive pay practices
- Led to development of shareholder engagement programs focused on compensation issues
- Influenced institutional investors to develop their own guidelines for evaluating executive compensation
Effectiveness of Say-on-Pay
Impact on Compensation Decisions
- Demonstrated varying levels of effectiveness in influencing executive compensation practices across companies and industries
- Advisory nature of many votes limits direct impact but exerts significant pressure on boards to address shareholder concerns
- Companies receiving low shareholder support often engage in subsequent dialogue and make adjustments to compensation practices
- Effectiveness measured by examining changes in compensation structures, , and overall shareholder returns over time
- Led to increased prevalence of performance-based compensation and reduction in certain perquisites (corporate jets, country club memberships)
Criticisms and Limitations
- Critics argue say-on-pay may lead to homogenization of compensation practices
- Potential for short-termism in executive decision-making to meet short-term performance targets
- Effectiveness varies across different markets and regulatory environments
- Influenced by factors such as institutional investor engagement and proxy advisory firm recommendations
- May not adequately address concerns about overall magnitude of executive pay
- Some argue it creates a "check-the-box" mentality rather than fostering meaningful dialogue on compensation philosophy
Key Terms to Review (19)
Advisory vote: An advisory vote is a non-binding vote that provides shareholders with an opportunity to express their opinions on matters such as executive compensation and corporate governance policies. This type of vote serves as a tool for communication between shareholders and management, influencing decisions without having the power to enforce changes directly. While it reflects shareholder sentiment, the outcomes do not obligate the company to act on the results.
Binding vote: A binding vote is a formal decision made by shareholders or stakeholders that is legally enforceable and requires the company to act according to the outcome. This type of vote is significant in corporate governance as it ensures that management is held accountable to the preferences of shareholders, particularly regarding critical issues such as executive compensation and strategic decisions.
Board oversight: Board oversight refers to the responsibility of a company's board of directors to monitor and guide the management's activities, ensuring that they align with the interests of shareholders and the long-term goals of the organization. This concept encompasses various dimensions of corporate governance, including risk management, strategic direction, and compliance with regulations. Effective board oversight is crucial for maintaining accountability, fostering transparency, and promoting ethical conduct within the company.
Compensation discussion and analysis: Compensation discussion and analysis refers to a section within a company's proxy statement that provides detailed information about executive compensation practices, policies, and decisions. This analysis helps shareholders understand how compensation aligns with the company's performance, ensuring transparency and accountability in pay structures. By offering insights into the rationale behind compensation packages, this discussion aims to foster trust between executives and stakeholders, particularly in light of say-on-pay votes.
Dodd-Frank Act: The Dodd-Frank Act is a comprehensive piece of financial reform legislation enacted in 2010 in response to the 2008 financial crisis, aimed at improving accountability and transparency in the financial system. It seeks to prevent excessive risk-taking and protect consumers, thus playing a crucial role in corporate governance and financial stability.
Equity compensation: Equity compensation is a form of non-cash payment that gives employees an ownership stake in the company, often in the form of stock options, restricted stock units (RSUs), or other equity instruments. This type of compensation aligns the interests of employees with those of shareholders, motivating employees to contribute to the company’s long-term success. It also serves as a tool for attracting and retaining talent, especially in competitive job markets.
Excessive Pay: Excessive pay refers to remuneration that is considered unreasonably high in relation to an individual's responsibilities, contributions, or the financial performance of the company. This concept has gained attention as stakeholders, including shareholders and regulatory bodies, increasingly scrutinize compensation practices, particularly in light of say-on-pay votes and transparency requirements that aim to align executive pay with company performance and shareholder interests.
Executive Pay Ratios: Executive pay ratios refer to the comparison of the compensation of a company's CEO or top executive to the compensation of the median employee within that company. These ratios have gained attention as they highlight disparities in pay within organizations, often leading to discussions about fairness, equity, and the implications of excessive executive compensation on employee morale and corporate governance.
Institutional Shareholder Services: Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) is a leading provider of corporate governance and responsible investment solutions, offering services that help institutional investors make informed voting and investment decisions. ISS plays a critical role in shaping corporate governance practices by providing analysis and recommendations on shareholder proposals, executive compensation, and other governance matters. This influence extends to encouraging engagement between shareholders and management to promote best practices in corporate governance.
Pay Equity: Pay equity refers to the principle of ensuring that individuals receive equal pay for work of equal value, regardless of gender, race, or other personal characteristics. This concept is vital for promoting fairness and equality in the workplace, and it is closely tied to regulations that require transparency in executive compensation and how it relates to overall employee pay structures.
Pay-for-performance alignment: Pay-for-performance alignment refers to the compensation strategy where an individual's pay is directly tied to their performance and the overall success of the organization. This approach aims to motivate employees to enhance their productivity and align their interests with those of shareholders, creating a stronger connection between pay and company performance. By doing this, organizations hope to improve accountability and ensure that executives are incentivized to act in the best interests of stakeholders.
Performance-based pay: Performance-based pay is a compensation strategy where employees, particularly executives, receive financial rewards tied directly to their individual or organizational performance. This approach aligns the interests of employees with those of shareholders and aims to incentivize improved productivity and achievement of strategic goals. By linking pay to performance metrics, companies hope to motivate executives to enhance company profitability and shareholder value.
Proxy statement: A proxy statement is a document that a company is required to provide to its shareholders, containing important information about matters that will be voted on at the company's annual meeting or special meeting. This document typically includes details about executive compensation, board of director nominees, and any other significant corporate actions that require shareholder approval. Proxy statements are essential for ensuring that shareholders can make informed decisions regarding their voting rights.
Say-on-pay: Say-on-pay refers to a corporate governance mechanism that allows shareholders to vote on the compensation of executives, specifically in relation to their pay packages. This process aims to increase transparency and accountability in executive compensation, aligning the interests of shareholders with those of company management. The concept is deeply tied to the structures of executive compensation packages, disclosure requirements for companies, and the regulations established by the Dodd-Frank Act.
Say-on-pay votes: Say-on-pay votes refer to shareholder votes that give investors the opportunity to approve or disapprove of a company's executive compensation packages. These votes are a key aspect of corporate governance, aiming to enhance transparency and accountability regarding how executives are compensated. By allowing shareholders to express their views, say-on-pay votes encourage companies to align executive pay with performance and long-term shareholder interests, ultimately influencing corporate governance practices and institutional investor behavior.
SEC Rule 14a-21: SEC Rule 14a-21 is a regulation established by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that mandates public companies to hold advisory votes on executive compensation, commonly known as 'say-on-pay' votes. This rule aims to enhance transparency and accountability in corporate governance by allowing shareholders to express their views on the compensation packages of top executives, thus influencing company policies and practices regarding executive pay.
Securities and Exchange Commission: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a U.S. government agency responsible for enforcing federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry. It plays a crucial role in protecting investors, maintaining fair markets, and facilitating capital formation. The SEC's activities directly influence the behavior of key stakeholders in corporate governance, ensure transparency in executive compensation practices, and set requirements for companies seeking to list their shares on stock exchanges.
Shareholder activism: Shareholder activism refers to the efforts by shareholders to influence a corporation's behavior by exercising their rights as owners. This activism often includes actions such as submitting proposals, engaging in discussions with management, and sometimes voting against management decisions, all aimed at promoting changes that align with the shareholders' interests. Shareholder activism is increasingly important as it ties closely to issues like corporate governance, financial performance, and ethical practices within companies.
Transparency in compensation: Transparency in compensation refers to the clarity and openness with which companies disclose the pay and benefits provided to their executives and employees. This concept promotes accountability by allowing stakeholders to understand how compensation is determined and its alignment with company performance, thereby fostering trust and reducing potential conflicts between executives and shareholders.