HEAVYWEIGHT funds house Standard Life Investments (SLI) has attacked BP's executive pay practices and demanded the oil giant make "significant improvements" to its remuneration policies.
However, other shareholders swung behind the oil giant at its annual investor meeting yesterday and gave its remuneration report 94.1% backing.
While BP chief executive Bob Dudley's pay fell 21.5% to $2.67 million (£1.7m) last year as a three-year bonus scheme was hit by the fall-out from 2010's Gulf of Mexico disaster, there remain concerns about his right to bonuses as high as 923% of his basic salary.
But the support given to BP suggests there is unlikely to be a repeat of last year's so-called shareholder spring, when investors rejected a number of pay reports.
Edinburgh-based SLI, which owns 1.3% of BP, voted against the remuneration report and against the re-election of remuneration committee chairman Antony Burgmans.
In all, investors representing 5.9% of shares voted against the pay report, half the 11.8% rebellion the previous year. Mr Burgmans secured 96.6% support.
Guy Jubb, head of governance and stewardship at SLI, said afterwards: "It is not about winning or losing the vote. It is about securing improvements and holding the board to account."
He earlier told the meeting: "We want to see the remuneration policies at BP strengthened. We are concerned that the executives have the potential to receive significant rewards for achieving unchallenging performance targets."
Mr Jubb called for simplification of targets used to determine executive pay. He said: "We want to see the remuneration committee raise its game and make significant improvements."
The row over pay comes as BP faces legal action in the United States over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil leak which occurred under previous chief executive Tony Hayward.
It has also scaled back its operations around the world although the North Sea remains one of its key regions.
Small investor John Farmer said BP's board "has not shown particular talent".
Earlier, shareholder adviser Pirc had called for a vote against the pay report.
BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg promised directors will listen to shareholders but said there is strong competition for talented oil executives.
Mr Burgmans said the maximum bonus pay-out had not been achieved over the past 10 years.
"923% I admit is a very high percentage," he said. "But the company would have to fire on all cylinders."
BP's annual meeting is often the scene of heated protests by green activists and campaigners on behalf of groups such as indigenous Canadians.
It was a more muted affair this year with just a solitary protest banner outside the cavernous Excel Centre in London's Docklands.
However, one woman who spoke out against BP's oil sands interests was ejected from the hall by security guards after protesting that the company had not answered concerns over pollution.
Gulf Coast campaigner Bryan Parras complained about the dearth of visits to the region by BP executives.
"A robust approach to deal with this would involve meeting with the communities that live there and not just a slick PR campaign," he said.
The wife of a US oil worker said: "The company still looks, smells and feels like Tony Hayward's BP."
Mr Dudley said: "There is fundamental change within the company."
A number of investors complained about the continuing legal action being taken against the company.
One described the legal claims as "excessive".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article