HomeAbout usProjectsPublicationsNewslettersConferencesMediaNewsContactSearchLogin
News
Search
Sign up for Newsletter
29 September 2011
SRI-Adviser: Council of Institutional Investors Analyzes Say-on-Pay Proposals
Source: www.sri-adviser.com

by Robert Kropp

A report from the CII finds that pay for performance issues were cited most often by institutional investors as the reason for voting against management proposals.

2011 was the first year in which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required that public companies hold shareowner votes on executive compensation. For sustainable investors and corporate governance advocates, the results were disappointing, as more than 90% of management proposals on the issue passed by an overwhelming majority.


As the shareowner activist Robert AG Monks stated in a recent speech, "The ugly reality (is) that many institutional shareholders—conspicuously those considered educational and philanthropic leaders—simply choose not to function as stewards of the equity shares in their portfolios."

Those institutional investors that do make the effort to vote their shares, along with investment management firms, proxy advisers and solicitors, and company officials, were surveyed in a recently published report that analyzes proposals rejected by a majority of shareowners at 37 companies in votes between January and July 2011.

The report, commissioned by the Council of Institutional Investors (CII) and authored by Farient Advisors, found that one-quarter of the management proposals rejected by shareowners occurred at companies in the real estate, homebuilding, or construction-related sectors; "industries," the report states, "that were hit hard in the economic downturn and mostly are still hurting." Prominent companies whose proposals were rejected include Constellation Energy, Freeport McMoRan, and Hewlett-Packard.

The authors asked investors—public pension plans, mutual funds, and union pension funds, with collective assets under management in excess of $7.9 trillion—how they decided on their votes at the 37 companies where management proposals were rejected.

According to the report, the factors most often cited by the investors were a disconnect between pay and performance (92%); poor pay practices (57%); poor disclosure (35%); and inappropriately high level of compensation (16%).

The investors also said that they focused on CEO pay, and viewed their vote as an opportunity to voice their concerns rather that deliver a referendum on the oversight of Boards of Directors.

"Boards at companies where say-on-pay proposals garnered significant opposition should be reaching out to their investors to discuss their concerns," Ann Yerger, executive director of the CII, said. "They should also review their pay practices and consider appropriate changes." The Council identifies itself as "a leading advocate for say-on-pay," according to the report.
News
7 April 2011
SRI-Adviser: Pax World Launches Campaign to Promote Gender Diversity of Corporate Boards
6 April 2011
SocialFunds: New CDP Initiative Requests that Companies Move Beyond Reporting to Action on Climate Change
6 April 2011
Responsible-Investor: RI Briefing, April 6: FTSE launches ESG ratings service
6 April 2011
Responsible-Investor: Investor coalition to vote down BP report and accounts next week in protest at Deepwater response
5 April 2011
SRI-Adviser: Shareowner Activists to Bypass Proxy Ballot in Addressing Board Membership at Chamber of Commerce
5 April 2011
Responsible-Investor: €5trn investor group presses global top 500 companies on greenhouse gases
4 April 2011
SocialFunds: 2011 College Sustainability Report Card is Published
2 April 2011
SRI-Adviser: Investors Urge Congress to Let EPA Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1 April 2011
SocialFunds: SEC Allows Proposal for Genocide-Free Investing on JPMorgan Proxy Ballot
31 March 2011
SRI-Adviser: Appleseed Fund Launches Institutional Share Class
[1]​[2]​[3]​[4]​[5]​[6]​[7]​[8]​[9]​[10]​[11]​[12]​[13]​[14]​[15]​[16]​[17]​[18]​[19]​[20]​[21]​[22]​[23]​[24]​[25]​[26]​[27]​[28]​[29]​[30]​[31]​[32]​[33]​[34]​[35]​[36]​[37]​[38]​[39]​[40]​[41]​[42]​[43]​[44]​[45]​[46]​[47]​[48]​[49]​[50]​[51]​[52]​[53]​[54]​[55]​[56]​[57]​[58]​[59]​[60]​[61]​[62]​[63]​[64]​[65]​[66]​[67]​[68]​[69]​[70]​[71]​[72]​[73]​[74]​[75]​[76]​[77]​[78]​[79]​[80]​[81]​[82]​[83]​[84]​[85]​[86]​[87]​[88]​[89]​[90]​[91]​[92]​[93]​[94]​[95]​[96]​[97]​[98]​[99]​[100]​[101]​[102]​[103]​[104]​[105]​[106]​[107]​[108]​[109]​[110]​[111]​[112]​[113]​[114]​[115]​[116]​[117]​[118]​[119]​[120]​[121]​[122]​[123]​[124]​[125]​[126]​[127]​[128]​[129]​[130]​[131]​[132]​[133]​[134]​[135]​[136]​
Sustainable Investment Research Platform
Provided by Webforum