Last year, in what became known as "the shareholder spring", Barclays' board was told it was "a disgrace to capitalism" and Aviva's directors were accused of being "more concerned about their remuneration packages than growing our business".

Not only were small investors venting their anger at eye-watering rewards for falling share values and disappointing or nonexistent dividends. Some previously silent large institutional shareholders, under pressure to explain poor returns, were starting to show their disapproval of big pay deals through their block votes. Simon Walker of the Institute of Directors went as far as describing this flurry of stroppiness as "capitalism renewing itself". By the summer high-profile casualties included Sly Bailey of Trinity Mirror and David Brennan of AstraZeneca.

This year, just like the spring weather, the shareholder spring has got off to a disappointing start. Yesterday BP marked that start of the annual general meeting season by securing more than 94% backing for a remuneration report that gives chief executive Bob Dudley the right to bonuses potentially totalling 923% of his basic salary. This was despite Edinburgh-based Standard Life Investments (SLI) voting against the report out of concern that "the executives have the potential to receive significant rewards for achieving unchallenging performance targets". SLI also called for the simplification of the 15 different targets used to determine executive pay.

It remains to be seen whether a more rebellious mood emerges at any of the forthcoming AGMs, including advertising giant WPP, where last year 60% of votes were cast in protest at the pay deal of chief executive Sir Martin Sorrell and Centrica, where five directors shared payouts totalling £16.4 million in 2012 after consumer gas prices rose by 6%.

It is profoundly distasteful that directors' pay is continuing to rise by about 10% a year while the performance of many listed companies trails behind, the global economy remains fragile and many workers have not seen a pay rise in years. This is not just about rewards for failure, which was the focus of anger two years ago. Today there is growing public anger about rewards for mediocrity. The bar is often set so low that it is hard for senior executives not to clear it.

Business Secretary Vince Cable's promised reforms, which come into force in October, have been watered down too far from the original proposals. They give shareholders a binding vote on pay but only after three years. Meanwhile companies continue to insist that they are dealing with a communications issue, rather than a system which unfairly rewards executives over shareholders.

Shareholders too need to be bolder, using their power to vote underperforming directors off boards, rather than merely attacking their reward packages. For too long remuneration committees have been little more than mutual back-scratching operations. Radical reform is needed to the way companies are managed and directors paid.