More than one in 10 fail to back Shell's executive pay
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Shell became the latest company to receive a bloody nose yesterday, as more than a tenth of the oil giant's investors failed to approve the pay awards of its top-level executives.
Despite Shell reporting a 54 per cent jump in profits last year, just over 9 per cent of investors voted against the pay award for chief executive Peter Voser which more than doubled over the period. Including abstentions, 11 per cent of shareholders failed to back Shell's remuneration report.
"I think it is excessive," said John Farmer, a Shell shareholder, about Mr Voser's €11.7m (£9.4m) total pay award – up from €5.2m in 2010 – helped by a €4.6m payout as three lucrative, long-term incentive plans vested. In 2011, Malcolm Brinded, who stepped down as head of exploration and production in April, received a total of €11.4m.
Although it was considerably smaller than the majority votes against some recent remuneration reports – such as Aviva and Pendragon – opposition to Shell was well up on last year, when the no vote came to just 1.24 per cent.
The rise in opposition came against a backdrop of growing shareholder resistance to large executive payouts, and, in part, on the recommendation of investor advisory group PIRC which guided investors to oppose Shell's remuneration report for 2011. "Combined remuneration is excessive in the year under review with the CEO receiving annual incentive and conditional LTIP (long-term incentive plan) awards worth 526 per cent of salary," PIRC said in its report ahead of the Shell AGM.
A Shell spokesman said: "Shell's remuneration policy firmly links executive compensation with the performance of the company, and the 2011 outcomes reflect what was a positive year."
Last week, investors revolted against insurance giant Prudential, the oil explorer Cairn Energy and the engineer Cookson. These revolts were the latest in a series which also included very bloody noses for Barclays and William Hill, the bookmaker.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments