Greed, Accountability and Say on Pay
Chapter 10: The advantages and limits of say on pay as a regulatory technique
When say on pay was fi rst introduced in the UK, at least one interviewee thought ‘That’s a stupid idea. What’s the point of that?’ A similar view was expressed in submissions to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in 2004 that considered the bill to introduce say on pay into Australian law: If the objective of the proposed changes is to provide shareholders with an opportunity to express their views on remuneration, then a provision requiring the chair to invite debate on this topic is far more appropriate than a ‘chocolate teapot’ provision, such as s 250R(2), which simply permits the board to pay lip- service to the members while incurring substantial and unnecessary costs for the company. The UK corporate governance manager first quoted above soon came to see the value of the advisory vote:
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.