UK – A UK charity has questioned whether institutional investors will engage with listed companies to tackle high pay, noting inconsistent voting patterns when it comes to remuneration packages.

'The Missing Link', a new research paper published by FairPensions, hoped to address the "myths" surrounding the summer's Shareholder Spring and argued that investors were reluctant to assume new, binding voting powers on executive pay.

FairPensions chief executive Catherine Howarth said responses to pension fund members about the level of shareholder engagement were often "inadequate and dismissive".

The report also said there was "little consistency" in what drove a shareholder rebellion – contrasting the defeat suffered by advertising agency WPP over chief executive Martin Sorrell's potential bonus of 500% with low resistance to BP's remuneration report, granting its chief executive, Bob Dudley, the opportunity of an additional reward in excess of 900% of base pay.

"In light of this evidence, one must ask whether this year's handful of rebellions was really the manifestation of a newly robust and coherent stewardship approach – or whether they owed more to the intense political and media spotlight on the issue of pay," the report said. " Will change be sustained in future years, when the spotlight has moved on?"

The report continued that the recent introduction of a binding vote on remuneration every three years was subject to a "clear majority" opposing such plans on the part of investors.

It noted that the reasons for objecting to the binding vote fell into two contradictory camps of believing existing engagement was sufficient and arguing that the existing powers were not being used by investors.

Howarth added: "This research reveals that the government has handed additional powers to shareholders who are reluctant to use them."

She said it was necessary to allow pension fund members to access information on how funds voted on pay matters.

"As our report shows, even when they take the trouble to ask their fund, the responses received are often inadequate and dismissive," she said.

The report also highlighted what it regarded as an "inconsistent" approach by 20 leading asset managers to disclose voting details.

For example, while Threadneedle said it opposed the pay package of Andrew Moss that led to his departure as chief executive of insurer Aviva, it did not disclose its voting position on nine other pay packages for companies including Rolls Royce, Barclays and newspaper group Trinity Mirror.

In contrast, only five companies – Aberdeen Asset Management, F&C, Fidelity, Hermes and Legal & General – disclosed all 10 of its voting positions.

Scottish Widows had disclosed all but one of its positions, with the final stance awaiting publication.

"Within asset managers (reading across the rows of the table), there does not always seem to be a consistent approach to bad practice from one company to the next," the report said.

"It is notable that only the Co-operative Asset Management – a fund well known for its committed approach to stewardship – voted against Rolls-Royce, whose remuneration report included a 'golden hello'.

"It is arguable that good performance masked poor practice, as at Rolls Royce."

However, referring back to the instance of Martin Sorrell's defeat, the report continued: "But performance variation does not explain the contrast between the experience of WPP and BP – if anything, this should have favoured WPP."

In explaining the defeats, FairPensions noted the share price of such companies.

"This pattern is scarcely more encouraging – the obsession with short-term share price movements is exactly what advocates of a more long-term, responsible capitalism are seeking to move away from," it said.

Topics