IT’S a phenomenon we have witnessed time and again: shareholders revolting against excessive levels of executive pay. It has been glimpsed at institutions as diverse as B.P., WPP Plc, Goldman Sachs, estate agent Foxtons and betting company Paddy Power Betfair.
The irate shareholders are not alone. The High Pay Centre, an independent think tank, which asserts that growing differences in pay between high and low earners are neither fair nor proportionate, revealed last month that the Chief Executive Officers of FTSE 100 firms now have a median pay package of £4.3m, 140 times that of the average worker.
Theresa May’s government sought to capture something of the public’s mood on the issue last month when it revealed plans to make companies justify high levels of executive pay. Some of the plans were diluted versions of Mrs May’s declared intentions when she first arrived at Number 10, but at least it was encouraging to see a Conservative Prime Minister expressing such sentiments.
Further ammunition has now come in the shape of research by Lancaster University Management School. The correlation between high executive pay and good performance, it says, is “negligible”.
Although big company bosses took home pay rises of more than 80 per cent in a decade, performance as measured by economic returns on invested capital was less than 1 per cent over the period, it added. There was a “material disconnect between pay and fundamental value generation for, and returns to, capital providers.”
It would be folly to expect CEOs to capitulate in the face of all this agitation; the best-paid bosses are rather skilled at thwarting proposals designed to put a brake on the upward trajectory of their pay. But it is to be hoped that the new findings will fuel shareholders’ determination to hold them to account. All-powerful CEOs have had it their own way for much too long.
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 here