PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Are binding "say on pay" votes coming to the U.K.?

| No Comments


Jarrett Dieterle
Legal Intern, Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute's Proxy Monitor project tracks, among other things, shareholder votes on executive compensation packages. These so-called "say on pay" votes are now mandated under Dodd-Frank. Even before Dodd-Frank however, say on pay votes became more popular in the U.S., borrowed in large part from the established British practice.

Like in the U.S., say on pay votes are merely advisory in Britain - but moving forward this could change. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some 60% of shareholders of the British advertising agency WPP voted against the company's 2011 executive compensation package. As the article goes on to note, "[The] U.K. government is consulting on plans to give investors more control over pay."

These plans appear to stem from a Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) "consultation document," which recommends making say on pay votes in Britain binding. The BIS report advances the following proposal:

The Government proposes to address the shortcomings of the current advisory vote by giving shareholders a binding vote on a company's remuneration policy. Companies will have to set out, at the start of the year, a proposed pay policy for the year ahead, including potential payouts and the performance measures that will be used. This will be put to an annual shareholder vote. Any proposed changes to remuneration policy for the forthcoming year will be contingent on the resolution being carried and companies will be required to act within the scope of the remuneration policy agreed by shareholders at the start of the year.

While it is unclear whether Britain will ultimately adopt binding shareholder votes, Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated support for the idea in the past.


Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.