The myth of shareholder stewardship
new HPC analysis shows investors are not interested in tackling inequality and excessive executive pay
Measures introduced by the coalition government giving shareholders the power to tackle excessive executive pay have flopped, according to HPC research
So-called ‘say on pay’ reforms gave shareholders new powers to veto pay policies in votes at company AGMs. However, our analysis found that between 2014 and 2018- the first five full years of the ‘say on pay’ regime - every single FTSE 100 company pay policy put to AGMs was approved by shareholders.
The research also found that:
- Across more than 700 pay-related resolutions voted on at AGMs over the same period, the average level of shareholder dissent was just 8.8%.
- Only 11% of pay-related resolutions attracted ‘significant’ dissent levels of over 20%.
- Only 6 advisory votes on the pay packages awarded in previous years were defeated over the period, barely 1% of the total. The average level of dissent was 9.3%
The findings come despite median levels of CEO pay reaching £3.9 million in 2017 (the most recent year for which full figures are available) an increase of 11%. This is approximately 137 times the annual salary of the typical UK worker. Polling has repeatedly shown public support for more meaningful measures to address very high pay and economic inequality, including caps on top pay and worker representation on company boards, and our research will strengthen the case for such measures.
Since 1 January 2019 the average FTSE 100 CEO has earned:
Income inequality in the UK
Wealth inequality in the UK
- Blog: Where is the ‘social’ wellbeing in ESG reporting?
HPC Head of Policy and Research, Ashley Walsh, blogs on the quality of workforce disclosures among FTSE 100 firms.
- Top Dogs and Fatcats: the debate on high pay
High Pay Centre essay featured in collection published by the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank
- HPC in the media: the myth of shareholder stewardship
Our analysis of shareholder voting patterns makes the case against a corporate governance system policed by dis-engaged investors