Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of advice that the remuneration consultants offer to the companies on executive pay. It explores how the advice offered affects the level of executive remuneration. Furthermore, it investigates whether the nature of advice offered forms part of the reasons why remuneration consultants have been criticised to be correlated with high executive pay.

This paper analysis the data obtained from interviewing remuneration consultants from prominent consultancy firms that operate in the UK and the USA.

This paper demonstrates that remuneration consultants’ advice on executive remuneration is not always objective. The nature of advice depends on whether the consultants have a balance of portfolio of companies (self-interest) or whether they have the courage to stand up to confrontations from the executives (fear of executives). This study shows that the purpose of using remuneration consultants in advising on executive remuneration is defeated. Also, the practice pushes up pay levels.

The research focused on large consultancy firm operating in the UK and/or the USA. Access to the participants was very difficult due to their busy schedules.

This paper demonstrates the effect that lack of best practice on benchmarking is partly responsible for the high executive pay levels.

This paper will inform companies on the nature of advice that remuneration consultant’s offer and its effect on pay levels. Secondly, it will provide the shareholders with vital information they require to vote on remuneration policy in the annual general meeting.

This paper demonstrates the effect that lack of best practice on benchmarking is partly responsible for the high executive pay levels. This paper will inform companies on the nature of advice that remuneration consultant’s offer and its effect on pay levels. Secondly, it will provide the shareholders with vital information they require to vote on remuneration policy in the annual general meeting. Lastly, it informs policymakers on the grey areas of practice that requires best practice.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors that remuneration consultants consider when selecting comparator groups for executive remuneration benchmarking. It explores how the different factors influence the level of pay and whether the factors encourage pay-for-performance. Furthermore, it investigates whether the factors used form part of the reasons why remuneration consultants have been criticised to be correlated with high executive pay.

This paper analysis the data obtained from interviewing remuneration consultants from prominent consultancy firms that operate in the UK and the USA.

This paper demonstrates that there is no uniformity in the factors used by remuneration consultants when selecting comparator groups for executive remuneration benchmarking. The paper shows that company performance is not a major factor considered justifying why executive pay is not linked to company performance. The paper further demonstrates that the factors that remuneration consultants consider in selecting comparator groups for executive remuneration benchmarking justify high pay and affirm that remuneration consultants are associated with high pay.

This paper demonstrates the effect that lack of best practice on benchmarking is partly responsible for the high executive pay levels and the weak link between pay and performance. This paper will inform companies on what to demand from remuneration consultants when hiring their services. Second, it will provide the shareholders with vital information that they need to vote on remuneration reports in the annual general meeting. Finally, it informs policy makers on the grey areas of practice that require best practice.

The present paper aims to question the rationale of paying a high remuneration to executives who are presiding over loss-making companies. The neoclassical wage model asserts that the remuneration of executive directors is positively related to their company’s financial performance. However, evidence suggests that executives can obtain a higher level of personal compensation regardless of how the company performs.

The relationship between executive remuneration and performance for viable but loss-making Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE)-listed companies has been studied for 2009-2011. The paper examines the determinants of the level of executive remuneration as well as discerns the strength of the remuneration–performance relationship, both at the overall and across various board hierarchical levels, using the JM sensitivity and HL elasticity models.

Results for univariate and multivariate analyses highlight that both the remuneration–performance sensitivity and elasticity are weak. Further, factors such as ownership structure, risk and industry class moderate the remuneration–performance elasticity. It seems that it is only the lower rung of executive directors whose cash remuneration gets adversely affected with the performance of the company.

The paper offers valuable insight into the complexities relating to the remuneration performance relationship by putting forth a multi-theoretical perspective. The fact that executives are drawing a whopping remuneration while their companies continue to report disappointing results suggests that a catalytic role has to be played by the government so as to ensure that executive remuneration policies and practices are consistent with the company’s long-term objectives and control environment.

This study aims to analyse the impact of company performance, company size, ownership structure, board characteristics and other company characteristics on the disclosure of managerial remuneration in 134 listed companies in India from the year 2003 to 2012.

A disclosure and compliance index is developed on the basis of 14 statements prepared regarding the disclosure of managerial remuneration in corporate governance reports of companies. The Papke and Wooldridge (2008) approach is adopted to estimate fractional response models, and fractional probit model is estimated using the generalised estimating equation approach, with an independent working correlation matrix to determine the effect of various company attributes on managerial remuneration disclosure.

The study shows that company size and the presence of remuneration committee are significantly related with the disclosure and compliance index of managerial remuneration. Remuneration disclosure is found to be time-dependent as time dummies for all years are found to be significant.

This study highlights the importance of the formation of remuneration committees on corporate boards. The findings of the present study can be used as inputs for promoting better compliance and comprehensive executive remuneration disclosure.

Nothing concrete in the field of managerial remuneration disclosure (to the best of researcher’s knowledge) has yet been done in an emerging economy such as India. This study aims to address this gap by deriving a disclosure and compliance index for managerial remuneration disclosure and examining the impact of various corporate attributes on it.

The paper aims to examine the role of human greed in the determination of executive remuneration in the UK.

The paper reviews the past and existing regulation and corporate governance recommendations on executive remuneration.

The paper demonstrates that the failure of regulatory mechanisms to curb excessive executive remuneration can be justified on the grounds of human greed. Greed is facilitated by the potential conflict of interest that exists as a result of the executives’ position in the company. The position of the law has given greed the opportunity to manifest, making it quite difficult for executive remuneration to be effectively regulated.

The paper adds to the existing debate on excessive executive remuneration by demonstrating that human greed is the basis of excessive executive remuneration on which limited literature exists.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect theoretically on a quarter-century of attempts to codify “best practice” standards related to oversight of and reporting on executive remuneration. Issues around the regulation of UK executive remuneration are analysed focussing on decision making by elite actors, informed by corporate governance codification artefacts and theoretical considerations inspired by notions of the social construction of reality.

Using documentary materials to trace evolution of executive remuneration regulation in the UK, consideration is given to the social antecedents of processes governing corporate board remuneration committee practices. The paper reconstructs the social construction of the UK Corporate Governance Code and draws on relevant theoretically inclined literature to help make sense of processes involved.

Shaping the problems, to be addressed as “legitimate problems”, is core to efforts intended to create “persuasive narratives” around how UK executive remuneration should be regulated.

The paper sketches an agenda for subsequent empirical “field” investigation to assess the social antecedents of UK executive remuneration outcomes.

Offering an alternative way of thinking about executive reward and on-going controversy as to how it may be legitimately regulated, informed by contextual considerations.

A novel look at executive remuneration from a social construction of reality perspective. Adding value to public debate on organisational effectiveness at a time of warnings from luminaries such as the Bank of England governor about the adverse social impact of “stateless companies” and calls for action against unfairness in income distribution.

This study extensively aims to investigate the effects of different aspects of corporate governance (CG) mechanism, including board size, executive directors’ shareholdings, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) duality, a family member as the CEO and/or chairperson of the board, independent directors in remuneration committee and number of board meeting, on executive directors’ remuneration in small firms listed on Bursa Malaysia (BM).

The sample of this study consists of 173 bottom-listed companies from Bursa Malaysia in Year 2010. The Year 2010 was chosen because the disclosure of remuneration committee activities and directors’ pay structure is required under the revised Malaysia Code of Corporate Governance, 2007. Furthermore, the period selected is after the global economic crisis (2008), which may have an effect on the remuneration structure in small firms. The ordinary least squares regression was used to estimate the relationship between remuneration as dependent variable and other independent variables.

A finding from this study reveals that there is a significant positive relationship between executive ownership and executive remuneration, and between board size and executive remuneration. The results provide evidence that the family members manipulate power and control remuneration in small firms. This indicates that the independent directors are not truly independent to monitor and control the firm activities, including minimizing the excessive remuneration.

This study examines how the corporate governance (CG) affects remuneration among 173 small firms in Malaysia based on market capitalization, for one year, 2010. Hence, the results may not be generalizable to other periods or types of the companies. This shows the possibility of the absence of some additional variables in the research model and hence a limitation to the findings of the study. Although the study is being parsimonious in the choice of relevant variables, prior literature serves the guide in the selection of the used variables. This therefore gives room for future research using the potential omitted variables. Furthermore, the study focuses on total remuneration, such as fees, salaries, bonuses and benefits in kind, which makes aggregate directors’ remuneration. However, this study did not consider the remuneration related to stock options. Finally, this study only uses secondary data; hence, it could be interesting to use other instruments to collect data like a questionnaire to add more weight to the research. This study only uses one-year data; therefore, impact of changes between years cannot be analysed.

Results of the study provide evidence that the family members manipulate power and control remuneration in small firms. They reduce the effectiveness of non-executive directors because most of them are appointed by a family member and not socially responsible to their stakeholders.

This paper aims to examine the two different approaches adopted in the UK to regulate directors’ remuneration. The paper also aims to explore the two approaches to understand which one better regulates directors’ pay and why. It provides an account of the two approaches’ evolution, effectiveness and challenges towards the regulation of directors’ remuneration. The paper will also make some recommendations on both approaches and the way forward to better regulate directors’ remuneration.

The paper reviews various corporate governance codes, its recommendations on directors’ remuneration, its effectiveness and the challenges it face in regulating directors’ remuneration. The paper also reviews provisions of the Companies Act 2006 on directors’ remuneration, its effectiveness and challenges faced.

The paper finds that corporate governance adopts a better approach to regulating directors’ pay than the Companies Act 2006 because it targets the pay setting process. However, the existence of grey areas and lack of enforcement procedure poses a challenge on its effectiveness. The Companies Act 2006 is unable to regulate directors’ pay adequately because it adopts a corrective approach and it considers directors’ remuneration as a management responsibility.

The paper offers an up-to-date assessment of the two approaches to regulating directors’ pay in the UK. It highlights the challenges faced by both approaches and which approach could regulate directors pay better and its challenges. The paper further makes recommendations on how the regulation of directors’ remuneration can be effective in the UK.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of family directors and independent directors on executive remuneration of listed family firms in Malaysia, and their involvement in remuneration committee on executive remuneration.

Fixed effect estimation is employed to examine 1,395 firm-year observations from 2010 to 2014.

Family and independent directors do not have statistically significant influence on executive remuneration. Rather, family ownership exerts a significant positive influence on executive remuneration. This study also reveals that the interaction of family CEOs with the family directors on remuneration committee exerts a significant positive influence on executive remuneration.

The measurement of executive remuneration excludes the share options due to the non-disclosure of this information in the annual reports.

The findings would be useful to the policy-makers and regulators in appraising the governance measures of remuneration arrangement.

This study premises on the Type II agency conflict between controlling shareholders and minority shareholders. Independent directors could not mitigate the Type II agency conflict via the governance of executive remuneration. They are not the effective governance mechanism that the minority shareholders can rely on. The additional analyses provide theoretical implication that the pervasive Type II agency conflict is ameliorated when the CEOs do not have family relationships with the controlling family shareholders.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the various proposals to regulate executive pay in the UK. Situated within a corporate governance context, it focuses on using shareholder empowerment as a mechanism to formulate a regulatory strategy to quell the continued furore that surrounds the issue.

Using an expansive array of different academic materials, the paper adopts the approach of using critical analysis to provide an original insight into the popular and contentious issue of executive remuneration.

The paper finds that the UK Government’s current proposal to regulate executive remuneration, via the shareholder empowerment device of a binding vote on remuneration, will primarily consist of symbolic rather than practical significance.

The paper provides important social implications, as it provides a new prospective and insight into the well-covered issue of executive remuneration.

The paper draws on a host of traditional and modern academic materials to create a new viewpoint on the issue of remuneration. Moreover, the paper is original insofar that it ties the issue of shareholder empowerment into the conceptual design and formulation of company law and corporate law theory.