Ethical choices in the design and administration of executive compensation programs

Within the past few years, executives have come under increased scrutiny and criticism for the levels of compensation they receive. At the same time, corporate practices surrounding the design and review of executive compensation programs have received increased attention. While some recent executive misconduct has involved violations of the law, many academics and other corporate critics view the issues involving executive compensation more from an ethical than a legal perspective. Several dimensions of the executive compensation decision process offer significant opportunities for ethical choices. This article identifies the major components of executive compensation and highlights decision points in the design and administration of each component where ethical issues may arise. Proposals to reduce the potential for ethical misconduct are also offered.     

Corporate spinoffs and executive compensation

This paper investigates the impact of corporate spinoffs on executive compensation. We find no significant association between executive compensation and stock returns prior to spinoffs, but a significant positive association between the two afterwards. We also find evidence that corporate governance generally improves after the spinoff. In addition, the positive association between executive compensation and stock returns is more pronounced for firms with greater improvements in their corporate governance. Overall, our findings support the notion that spinoffs create value by reducing agency costs.     

Corporate Governance, Ethics, and the Backdating of Stock Options

Backdating of stock options is an example of an agency problem. It has emerged despite all the measures (i.e., new regulations and additional corporate governance mechanisms) aimed at addressing such problems? Beyond such negative controlling measures, a more positive empowering approach based on ethics may also be necessary. What ethical measures need to be taken to address the agency problem? What values and norms should guide the board of directors in protecting the shareholders’ interests? To examine these issues, we first discuss the role values and norms can play with respect to underlying corporate governance and the proper role of directors, such as transparency, accountability, integrity (which is reflected in proper mechanisms of checks and balances), and public responsibility. Second, we discuss various stakeholder approaches (e.g., government, directors, managers, and shareholders) by which conflicts of interest (i.e., the agency problem) can be addressed. Third, we assess the practice of backdating stock options, as an illustration of the agency problem, in terms of whether the practice is legally acceptable or ethically justifiable. Fourth, we proceed to an analysis of good corporate governance practice involving backdating options based on a series of ethical standards including: (1) trustworthiness; (2) utilitarianism; (3) justice; and (4) Kantianism. We conclude that while executive compensation schemes (e.g., stock options) were originally intended to help remedy the agency problem by tying together the interests of the executives and shareholders, these schemes may have actually become “part of the problem,” and that the solution ultimately depends upon whether directors and executives accept that all of their actions must be based on a set of core ethical values.     

Are Stock Options Grants to CEOs of Stagnant Firms Fair and Justified?

Prior research has examined several ethical questions related to executive compensation. The issues that have received most attention are whether executives’ pay is fair and justified by performance. Since more recent studies show that stock options grants constitute the single largest component in executive compensation, we examine the relations of these grants to economic determinants and corporate governance for firms in the stagnant stage of their lifecycle. We find that, on average, stock options grants comprise a significant portion of annual CEO compensation (26.4%) for stagnant firms. We also find that economic (corporate governance) factors explain less (or more) of the cross-sectional variation in stock options grants for stagnant firms than for growth firms. Furthermore, we document lower pay-performance sensitivity (i.e., weaker incentive alignment) and no improvement in future firm performance from past stock options grants to CEOs of stagnant firms. In particular, our study provides empirical evidence on some inefficiencies associated with stock options grants to CEOs of low potential (stagnant) firms, a long-standing concern of business ethics researchers (Moriarty, 2005; Nichols and Subramaniam, 2001; Perel, 2003). Our results also provide support for the corporate governance reforms discussed in Matsumura and Shin (2005), especially those proposed provisions that curtail the power of CEOs in the governance of firms.     

Does ‘Best Practice’ in Setting Executive Pay in the UK Encourage ‘Good’ Behaviour?

We examine how UK listed companies set executive pay, reviewing the implications of following best practice in corporate governance and examining how this can conflict with what shareholders and other stakeholders might perceive as good behaviour. We do this by considering current governance regulation in the light of interviews with protagonists in the debate, setting out the dilemmas faced by remuneration-setters, and showing how the processes they follow can lead to ethical conflicts.Current ‘best’ practice governing executive pay includes the use of market benchmarks to determine salary and bonus levels, significant levels of performance-related pay, the desire for executives to hold equity in their companies, the disclosure of total shareholder return compared to an index, and a perceived need for conformity, in order to grant legitimacy to policies. Whilst each of these may in some circumstances lead to good practice, each has the potential to cause dysfunctional behaviour in executives. Overall, we conclude that although best practice might drive good executive behaviour that coincides with the company’s and key stakeholders’ objectives, there are many reasons why it should not.     

Corporate Governance,Ethics, and the Backdating of Stock Options

Backdating of stock options is an example of an agency problem. It has emerged despite all the measures (i.e., new regulations and additional corporate governance mechanisms) aimed at addressing such problems? Beyond such negative controlling measures, a more positive empowering approach based on ethics may also be necessary. What ethical measures need to be taken to address the agency problem? What values and norms should guide the board of directors in protecting the shareholders’ interests? To examine these issues, we first discuss the role values and norms can play with respect to underlying corporate governance and the proper role of directors, such as transparency, accountability, integrity (which is reflected in proper mechanisms of checks and balances), and public responsibility. Second, we discuss various stakeholder approaches (e.g., government, directors, managers, and shareholders) by which conflicts of interest (i.e., the agency problem) can be addressed. Third, we assess the practice of backdating stock options, as an illustration of the agency problem, in terms of whether the practice is legally acceptable or ethically justifiable. Fourth, we proceed to an analysis of good corporate governance practice involving backdating options based on a series of ethical standards including: (1) trustworthiness; (2) utilitarianism; (3) justice; and (4) Kantianism. We conclude that while executive compensation schemes (e.g., stock options) were originally intended to help remedy the agency problem by tying together the interests of the executives and shareholders, these schemes may have actually become “part of the problem,” and that the solution ultimately depends upon whether directors and executives accept that all of their actions must be based on a set of core ethical values.     

国外CEO权益报酬研究的进展与启示

对管理者、特别是CEO的报酬和激励是公司治理的一个重大问题.文章在总结国外众多关于CEO权益报酬的文献基础上,主要从权益报酬激励及其效应、CEO股票期权的价值确定、CEO权益激励水平的决定、关于权益报酬有效性的争议等方面就国外的最新研究进行了综合评述,在此基础上分析了对我国公司的高管人员实行权益报酬的借鉴和启示.     

The Effect of Ethical Fund Portfolio Inclusion on Executive Compensation

This paper divides firms in the Standard and Poor’s 500 (S&P 500) into two groups based on inclusion in or exclusion from the Domini Social Index (DSI). Inclusion in the DSI is interpreted as a positive indicator of ethical status. Using data for the 1992–2003 period, I provide evidence that chief executive officer (CEO) compensation, other executive compensation, and director compensation tend to be lower in DSI firms than in other firms in the S&P 500. This applies to the unconditional group averages (and medians) and is particularly striking given that DSI firms as a group had better financial performance than the other firms. This finding is also true in a regression framework that controls for other influences on compensation, including firm size and financial performance. In a regression context, the estimated discount for CEOs of DSI firms is approximately 12% for both current compensation (salary and bonuses) and total compensation (including the value of options). These results are consistent with the expectation that some senior executives require a “compensating differential” to accept positions in firms with less attractive ethical status. It is also consistent with the expectation that some firms with positive ethical status might use more restraint in setting executive compensation.James Brander is the Asia-Pacific Professor of International Business in the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia. An economist, his research areas include international trade, industrial organization and finance. He is a former editor of the Canadian Journal of Economics and has published widely, including the textbook “Government Policy Toward Business”.     

The influence of firm and executive characteristics on performance-vested stock option grants

Motivated by the considerable changes over the last two decades in the form and composition of executive remuneration schemes and the increasing use of performance-vested stock options (PVSOs), this study examines the determinants of PVSO grants. Using data on 4193 executive-year observations of 1373 executive directors in 243 FTSE 350 non-financial companies from 1999 to 2004, I examine the factors that influence PVSO grants at both the firm and the executive level. While controlling for unobservable industry, firm, and executive level fixed effects, the evidence shows that the PVSO grants awarded to individual executives are associated with observable features of corporate governance and indicators of managerial power. More specifically, the results support the following statements: (1) good corporate governance structures facilitate the use of PVSO plans; (2) the proportion of PVSO grants in the total compensation package is smaller for top mangers with more controlling power; (3) PVSO plans are less frequently used to compensate managers who are approaching their retirement and/or have a large equity stake in the firm; (4) relative to non-CEO executives, CEOs are more likely to be rewarded with PVSOs.     

Boards of Directors’ Self Interest: Expanding for Pay in Corporate Acquisitions?

Director compensation can potentially represent an ethical minefield. When faced with supporting strategic decisions that can lead to an increase in director pay, directors may consider their own interests and not solely those of the shareholders to whom they are legally bound to represent. In such cases, directors essentially become agents, rather than those installed to protect principals (shareholders) from agents. Using acquisitions as a study context, we employ a matched-pair design and find a statistically significant difference in outside director compensation between acquiring and control firms. Outside directors of acquiring firms earn more than twice as much as their counterparts in the matched-sample. S. Trevis Certo is an associate professor and Mays Research Fellow in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. in Strategic Management from the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. His research focuses on corporate governance (boards of directors, ownership structure, and CEO compensation), top management teams, initial public offerings (IPOs), and research methodology. Richard H. Lester is a clinical associate professor and Director of Academic Entrepreneurship Programs in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. degree in Strategic Management from the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. His current research interests focus on corporate governance, upper echelons and entrepreneurship. Catherine M. Dalton holds the David H. Jacobs Chair of Strategic Management in the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. She also serves as Editor of Business Horizons, as Research Director of the Institute for Corporate Governance, and as a Fellow in the Randall L. Tobias Center for Leadership Excellence. She received her Ph.D. degree in Strategic Management from the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Professor Dalton's research is in corporate governance, with particular expertise in board composition, board leadership structure, executive and director compensation, and firms' ownership structures. Her research spans all types of organizations, including entrepreneurial firms, small businesses, large public corporations, and private organizations. Dan R. Dalton is the founding Director of the Institute for Corporate Governance, Dean Emeritus, and the Harold A. Poling Chair of Strategic Management in the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. He is a Fellow of the Management in the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. He is a fellow of the Academy of Management and an inaugural member of its Journals Hall of Fame. Professor Dalton is widely published, with over 280 articles in corporate governance, business strategy, law, and ethics. Additionally, his work has been frequently featured in the business and financial press including, Business Week, Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Economist, Financial Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the Washington Post. Professor Dalton regularly addresses public, corporate, and industry groups on corporate governance issues.     

Imperfect markets: Business ethics as an easy virtue

This paper marks a radical diversion from the large body of prevailing literature in business ethics which primarily views the issue in individual-personal terms, i.e., corporate executive and employee, and suggests that making corporations more ethical would primarily come through changes in executive behavior. While this approach has strong intellectual roots in moral philosophy and religion, it fails in explaining the persistence of unethical and illegal behavior among corporations of all sizes, financial health, competitive market conditions, and, level of individual executive compensation. This paper argues for a fundamentally different approach to understanding ethical behavior, or lack thereof, among corporations and their executives. It is asserted that an overwhelmingly large rationale and/or inducement for proactive ethical business behavior is rooted in competitive aspects of particular markets, and industry structures prevailing in those markets. Furthermore, while highly competitive markets may promote efficiency, they do not guarantee ethical behavior and may indeed provide greater opportunities and incentives for unethical business behavior. Thus, by following the current prognosis, we could be wasting enormous resources in terms of teaching business ethics, and creating and imposing corporate codes of conduct. We assert that these approaches would at best make a marginal improvement in the ethical performance of corporations while at the same time exacerbate the problem by ignoring more fundamental, structural issues. Imperfect markets, with their above-market profits, are a necessary but insufficient condition for corporations to behave ethically. It is only under conditions of imperfect markets that individual executives can play an important role in guiding their corporations toward greater ethical norms. These are undertaken for a variety of reasons, including, protecting a corporation's good name, public expectations, competitive norms, and, corporate culture and individual executive's predilections, to name a few.S. Prakash Sethi is Professor and Acting Director, Center for Management, Baruch College, The City University of New York. He has widely published in the areas of corporate social responsibility, international business, business ethics, and corporate strategy and public policy. His most recent publication isMultinational Corporations and the Impact of Public Advocacy on Corporate Strategy: Nestle and the Infant Formula Controversy (Kluwer, 1994).     

上市公司高管薪酬指数研究

高管薪酬问题是公司治理理论的核心,如何科学、客观、准确地评价高管薪酬是理论界和实践界共同关注的焦点。通过计算2008年1 581家上市公司的高管薪酬指数,提出基于公司业绩的高管薪酬指数,并分行业、地区和所有制性质分析了上市公司高管薪酬指数的特点,本文认为对高管薪酬的评价不能简单地使用高管薪酬绝对值,而应充分考虑高管薪酬与企业业绩的匹配程度。     

The Effects of Fraud and Lawsuit Revelation on U.S. Executive Turnover and Compensation

This study investigates the impact of fraud/lawsuit revelation on U.S. top executive turnover and compensation. It also examines potential explanatory variables affecting the executive turnover and compensation among U.S. fraud/lawsuit firms. Four important findings are documented. First, there was significantly higher executive turnover among U.S. firms with fraud/lawsuit revelation in the Wall Street Journal than matched firms without such revelation. Second, although on average, U.S. top executives received an increase in cash compensation after fraud/lawsuit revelation, this increase is smaller than that of matched non-fraud/lawsuit firms. Third, fraud/lawsuit firms were more likely to change top executive when chief executive officer (CEO) was not the board chairman and CEO had been on the board for a short time. Fourth, fraud/lawsuit firms were more likely to reduce their executive cash compensation when profitability was low, firms were involved in fraud, the compensation committee size was small, and the board met more often. These findings indicate that although, in general, U.S. fraud/lawsuits firms did not reduce their executive cash compensation, those involved in fraud were more likely to reduce their executive cash compensation than to change their top executives. The finding, that ethical standards is not a significant factor for U.S. executive turnover nor compensation reduction, suggests that ethics appears to play no part in the board’s decisions, and that U.S. firms may have ethical standards in writing but they do not implement nor enforce the standards.     

Underpaid and Corrupt Executives in China’s State Sector

This study examines the role of executive compensation in public governance. We collect data on corruption cases that involve top-level executives in Chinese listed state-controlled firms. We find a significant positive relationship between underpayment of executives and the likelihood of an investigation into corrupt behavior. We also show that corruption is positively associated with firm performance and that the relationship between underpayment of executives and corruption is influenced by firm performance, suggesting that top managers are more likely to engage in illicit behavior if they are compensated poorly while the firms under their control perform well. Finally, we find that pay-performance sensitivity decreases when top executives are involved in corruption investigations, indicating a lack of pecuniary incentives. Our empirical findings point toward an important relationship between executive compensation and corrupt behavior, thus providing valuable input to the understanding of executive pay and its effects in China’s state sector.     

Determinants of related-party transactions: Evidence from China’s listed companies during 2002–2006

This study attempts to shed light on the relationship between related-party (RP) transactions and internal governance factors of China’s listed companies. An analysis of a sample of 69 049 RP transactions during 2002–2006 reveals strong evidence that the likelihood of RP transactions is higher for companies with high concentration of ownership, but lower for companies with strong bargaining power of the second and third largest shareholders. There is also clear evidence showing that large compensation for outside directors is associated with greater size of RP transactions, whereas increased average compensation for the three top executives tends to decrease the number of RP transactions. Our results also reveal that the pluralism arraignment, i.e. the same person holding both positions of the board chairman and the chief executive, increases the size of RP transactions significantly. This finding suggests that pluralism reduces the balance of power in corporate governance.      

管理层权力、TMT网络与高管薪酬

文章基于管理层权力理论和社会网络理论,以2010〖KG-*4〗-〖KG-*6〗2014年我国A股上市公司为样本,实证检验了管理层权力对高管薪酬的影响,并考察TMT网络的调节作用。研究发现：管理层权力显著提高了高管薪酬水平,但显著降低了高管薪酬业绩敏感度;而TMT网络显著增强了它们之间的相关关系。研究为管理层权力与高管薪酬之间关系的研究提供了增量证据,为完善我国高管薪酬激励制度、抑制管理层权力、规范高管之间的兼任行为提供了参考和借鉴。     

Corporate Governance,Agility, and Survival

Abstract

Most corporate research has focused on (i) dimensions of governance that are relatively easy to measure (e.g., ownership structure, boards of directors, and executive compensation) and (ii) the role that governance arrangements play in mitigating agency costs. This paper takes an evolutionary perspective to corporate governance in which the concept of corporate agility, i.e., the ease with which firms adapt to changes in their respective environments, plays a prominent role. I argue that decentralization, which is understudied in the literature, promotes agility and predict that it is directly related to corporate performance and survival during periods of rapidly changing environments. The paper also discusses how some governance features that often are viewed through the lens of either mitigating or exacerbating agency costs are cast in a different light when their effects on corporate agility are considered.     

Corporate governance in the post Sarbanes-Oxley period: Compensation disclosure and analysis (CD&A)

In recent years, the entire fabric of corporate governance, certainly in the United States, has dramatically changed. With the passage of what has colloquially become known as SOX (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), US-based corporations have operated under stricter governance guidelines than at any previous time, especially as regards the structure of boards of directors and financial oversight of the corporation. A now perennial governance “hot button” issue not addressed by SOX is concern over continually rising executive compensation. Until the 2006 adoption of new compensation disclosure guidelines by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it had been nearly 15 years since federal attention had been devoted to compensation guidelines or regulations. Beginning with 2007 filings, US corporations must now include a Compensation Disclosure and Analysis (CD&A) section. The intent behind the CD&A is to provide investors access to clear explanations of executive compensation and the philosophy that underlies compensation. As often happens, this good intent is accompanied by several unintended risks that may mitigate the effectiveness of the CD&A.     

Institutional change and corporate governance diversity in China’s SOEs

This study investigates the impact of different types of state ownership on corporate governance, with particular reference to state-owned enterprises in China. Our findings are that Chinese institutional reforms have produced diversified state ownership regimes. We argue that different types of government ownership exert different influences on ownership structure and executive shareholding. The study contributes to corporate governance research by challenging the conventional definition of state ownership and proposes that corporate governance studies should incorporate changing institutional environments in emerging economies.