The predecessor of the Say-on-pay law in the US was the UK. The British version of the say-on-pay law has been required since 2002 (8 years before the US). But the UK struggles with the fact that this law has a limited effect in the negotiations with the top executives. Because in the debate you have two sides: the pro-shareholder side and the pro-management side, both contradicting each other.
Andrew lund (a law professor) says that they have to change the focus , if they want to have a bigger effect on the pay package. He suggests that the shareholders have to vote on the pay package before the CEO is hired , because when you vote against someone he can take that as an insult. And when someone is insulted ,ther’s a chance that his work will suffer. But here appears the same problem as before (two sides problem). I hope that these two sides find their golden way through this remuneration problem.
Bram T'Hooft
source: www.theconglomerate.org/2010/08/brett-mcdonnell-on-lunds-say-on-pay.html
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten