By Carreen Winters
The new say on pay provisions have empowered shareholders to issue their own wake up call to boards and CEOs. Last year, shareholders only rejected two percent of compensation packages. In the U.K., at least three CEOs have been ousted in the last month over executive pay. In the U.S., Citigroup shareholders held a non-binding vote rejecting an executive compensation package that totaled $15 million, in the wake of the bank’s poor stock price performance and a lackluster recovery from the crisis.
Shareholder activism hasn’t been confined to rejecting remuneration. A Yahoo! shareholder has demanded the documents involved in the hire of CEO Scott Thompson after it was revealed pieces of the CEO’s professional bio may have been fabricated.
Investors of Indian tech company Infosys are clamoring for changes to the corporate culture to return the company to profitability.
It’s not just shareholder activists, but activists turned shareholders, in some cases buying single shares of companies to gain admittance, participate in votes, and cause disruptions at shareholder meetings around the country. What used to be a perfunctory event has turned into blog fodder and backdrops for the nightly news.
All indications suggest this is only the beginning of a global movement of shareholder unrest. Frustrations will continue to rise, fueled by income disparity, political pressures, and the Occupy movement.
These trends pose some interesting questions: will revolts die down as the economy picks up? Or does this mark a fundamental change in how companies communicate with shareholders? Will they need to campaign just like anyone else to shore up shareholder support of new proposals, executive pay increases, even CSR and sustainability programs? Will CEOs approach shareholder meetings like a Presidential candidate approaches Super Tuesday – counting votes, and crossing fingers?
It’s hard to argue that giving shareholders a greater voice in the process is a bad thing. But the current trend seems to pose more questions than answers. Is “say on pay” effective or disruptive? Or is it yet another example of a proposal’s intent being diluted or altered when it comes to practical implementation? Will we see CEOs “campaigning” for their jobs, and their pay?
Or will executive compensation be restructured to fall just below the “friction point” for shareholder approval?