Over 60 boards have proactively adopted “say on pay” in addition to those institutions that are required to offer shareholders an advisory vote on compensation by virtue of the TARP funds they received. Congress has advanced legislation to mandate such advisory votes at all public companies. Clearly, the tide is with granting shareholders the opportunity to express their opinion about the board’s handling of executive compensation.
An investor network comprised of public pension funds, labor funds, asset managers, and representatives of public companies formed a working group and spent almost three years studying the ramifications of a say on pay vote. The companies on this working group including Intel, Prudential Financial, and most recently Colgate have enacted some form of say on pay.
“Our intention is to hold the board’s feet to the fire, so that they are asking management questions on our behalf to protect our interests,” said Anne Sheehan Director of Corporate Governance of CalSTRS. “There is a shift in communication responsibility, board members should talk to shareholders.”
She recognizes that such dialogue with shareholders could be time consuming. Certainly boards should have some kind of mechanism to talk to their ten largest shareholders, she said. But smaller shareholders should have some kind of unfiltered access to the board, through a website or other method.
To the many boards that have been reluctant to adopt an advisory vote, Timothy Smith, Senior Vice President of Walden Asset Management says that the advisory vote has become a more normalized response to the executive compensation issue and is not the fringe idea it was considered several years ago. “There’s a strong business case to adopt say on pay,” says Smith. “It’s a good defensive strategy and removes the potential for a conflict with shareholders.”
To the boards that counter that such a vote doesn’t tell the board anything, Smith responds: “Yes, an advisory vote is a simple yes or no. But you should know where your shareholders stand on your compensation issues. You should never be caught not knowing what your shareholders think. You should know that before the vote.”
Engaging with shareholders on key issues is what boards should be doing anyway.