Reviewing executive remuneration decision-making and reporting: implications for theory and practice

Stephen J. Perkins, Susan Shortland
{"title":"Reviewing executive remuneration decision-making and reporting: implications for theory and practice","authors":"Stephen J. Perkins, Susan Shortland","doi":"10.1108/joepp-08-2023-0334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this viewpoint is to comment on the implications of the Financial Reporting Council’s (FRC) Review and Consultation Documents expected to update regulation governing the determination/reporting of executive remuneration in UK stock market listed companies. Practical points from actors involved in executive remuneration decision-making/reporting are presented, set within the context of neo-institutional theory.Design/methodology/approachThis qualitative research systematically analyses UK Corporate Governance Codes, the FRC’s recent Review/Consultation and peer-reviewed published studies of executive pay determination based on in-depth interviews with non-executive directors, institutional investors, executive pay advisers and human resources (HR) professionals.FindingsFurther regulation, while providing coercive influence over executive remuneration decision-making, is likely to lead to only limited change in processes and reporting due to benchmarking, the make-up of Remco membership and shareholders' preferences. Mimetic and normative isomorphic forces work against coercive isomorphism leading to resistance to change as decision-makers strive to safeguard their social status/reputations.Practical implicationsReviewing executive remuneration package components and paying attention to company strategy, sustainability and values in pay determination are welcomed but recognised as difficult to achieve. Drawing upon a wider range of information sources/voices can assist in broadening the discussion. HR professionals can help widen stakeholder input to executive remuneration decision-making.Originality/valueThe authors’ viewpoint is grounded in peer-reviewed empirical data that draws directly upon the views/experiences of executive remuneration decision-makers to identify problems in adhering to FRC recommendations for change. The authors extend the meta-theoretical perspective of neo-institutional theory – specifically institutional isomorphism – as providing explanatory and predictive power to understand executive pay decision-making.","PeriodicalId":514623,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance","volume":"43 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/joepp-08-2023-0334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this viewpoint is to comment on the implications of the Financial Reporting Council’s (FRC) Review and Consultation Documents expected to update regulation governing the determination/reporting of executive remuneration in UK stock market listed companies. Practical points from actors involved in executive remuneration decision-making/reporting are presented, set within the context of neo-institutional theory.Design/methodology/approachThis qualitative research systematically analyses UK Corporate Governance Codes, the FRC’s recent Review/Consultation and peer-reviewed published studies of executive pay determination based on in-depth interviews with non-executive directors, institutional investors, executive pay advisers and human resources (HR) professionals.FindingsFurther regulation, while providing coercive influence over executive remuneration decision-making, is likely to lead to only limited change in processes and reporting due to benchmarking, the make-up of Remco membership and shareholders' preferences. Mimetic and normative isomorphic forces work against coercive isomorphism leading to resistance to change as decision-makers strive to safeguard their social status/reputations.Practical implicationsReviewing executive remuneration package components and paying attention to company strategy, sustainability and values in pay determination are welcomed but recognised as difficult to achieve. Drawing upon a wider range of information sources/voices can assist in broadening the discussion. HR professionals can help widen stakeholder input to executive remuneration decision-making.Originality/valueThe authors’ viewpoint is grounded in peer-reviewed empirical data that draws directly upon the views/experiences of executive remuneration decision-makers to identify problems in adhering to FRC recommendations for change. The authors extend the meta-theoretical perspective of neo-institutional theory – specifically institutional isomorphism – as providing explanatory and predictive power to understand executive pay decision-making.
审查高管薪酬决策和报告:对理论和实践的影响
目的本观点旨在评论英国财务报告委员会(FRC)的审查和咨询文件的影响,这些文件预计将更新英国股票市场上市公司高管薪酬决定/报告的管理条例。本定性研究在对非执行董事、机构投资者、高管薪酬顾问和人力资源(HR)专业人士进行深入访谈的基础上,系统分析了英国《公司治理准则》、英国财务报告委员会(FRC)近期发布的《审查/咨询文件》以及同行评审发布的有关高管薪酬确定的研究报告。研究结果进一步的监管虽然会对高管薪酬决策产生强制影响,但由于基准、Remco 成员的构成以及股东的偏好,可能只会在程序和报告方面带来有限的变化。模仿和规范同构的力量与强制同构的力量相抵触,导致决策者努力维护其社会地位/声誉,从而抵制变革。利用更广泛的信息来源/声音有助于扩大讨论范围。人力资源专业人士可以帮助扩大利益相关者对高管薪酬决策的投入。原创性/价值作者的观点以同行评议的经验数据为基础,直接借鉴了高管薪酬决策者的观点/经验,找出了在遵守 FRC 改革建议方面存在的问题。作者扩展了新制度理论--特别是制度同构--的元理论视角,为理解高管薪酬决策提供了解释力和预测力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信