Government response: Corporate Governance Reform
14
remuneration reforms were introduced. Several quoted companies said that it was
not practical to engage bilaterally on executive pay proposals with all shareholders,
which could comprise many hundreds of investors, and that a targeted approach
focused on the largest institutional investors and on those providing advisory
services to investors was therefore appropriate. Those and some other respondents
argued that remuneration committees function most effectively through informal and
sensitive conversations with key shareholders and, where relevant, within the
company, and that introducing a new formal set of requirements could just lead to a
tick-box compliance approach. Data confidentiality was cited by some as a specific
reason for not allowing employees to attend remuneration committee meetings
either as participants or observers.
1.27 Most respondents thought that the chair of the remuneration committee should have
at least 12 months’ prior experience of sitting on a remuneration committee before
taking up the role of chair. However, a majority of business and investor
respondents felt this should be introduced on a ‘comply or explain’ basis through
the UK Corporate Governance Code rather than through legislation. They thought
that some flexibility was required to take account of the limited circumstances where
it might be appropriate to appoint someone with less experience. Examples
provided included circumstances where a fresh approach was needed to
remuneration policy, or where a company was finding it difficult to find a non-
executive director who was a good fit with their business and already had 12
months’ experience of a remuneration committee.
Question 4: Should a new pay ratio reporting requirement be introduced? If so,
what form of reporting would be most useful? How can misleading interpretations
and inappropriate comparisons (for example, between companies in different
sectors) be avoided? Would other measures be more effective?
1.28 The green paper invited views on the possible benefits and risks of requiring
companies to report the annual ratio of CEO pay to that of the wider workforce.
1.29 Just over half of respondents addressed this question, with a small majority in
favour of introducing some form of pay ratio reporting. The greatest support for pay
ratios came from institutional investors (asset managers and asset owners), wider
society groups, think-tanks and academics, and members of the public. Three
quarters of quoted companies were opposed to pay ratios. Business representative
bodies, professional bodies and advisers were fairly evenly divided on this question.
1.30 The main reason cited in favour of introducing a pay ratio was that it would provide
a new tool and incentive for companies, and in particular their remuneration
committees, to explain their overall approach to pay to investors and employees. In
the view of many supporters, a pay ratio of whatever size should be justifiable and