Solving the executive pay problem

The idea that executive pay can be "too high" is a touchy issue. While many regular Joes are seeing their jobs disappear, or have been forced to endure cut backs to salary and benefits, CEO pay continues to escalate. Bonuses in the financial sector - never popular among the general public - are largely back to their stratospheric pre-crisis levels, much to the chagrin of the tax payers who funded the bailouts that kept them in business. And there is the growing chasm between those at the top and the bottom of the pay ladder that helped galvanize the Occupy movement. According to one recent study, the gap between CEO and average U.S. worker pay was 325-to-1 in 2010. In 1965, it was 24:1.

The business community, of course, continues to argue that it should have the right to determine its own remuneration levels. The global market for executives, they say, forces them to offer high salaries to attract the top talent. But stagnant performance is prompting many to question the logic of that argument. Why should companies be rewarding top executives for failure when everyone else is tightening belts?

Unsurprisingly, regulators have started talking tough. But progress has been limited. Three years ago President Obama announced that he would cap the salaries of executives of companies in receipt of TARP balilouts, yet by 2010 could do nothing to stop those companies awarding huge bonuses, judged to be "ill advised" by his newly appointed pay czar. A more systematic approach was promised with the Dodd Frank financial regulation, but efforts to rein in pay have had limited success. After much sword rattling from senior British politicians, the announcement by the UK government on January 23rd of a new approach to regulating executive pay claims to be the start of a more concerted response to the problem. The trouble is, it is not a very convincing solution. And perhaps even worse, it is not at all clear what the problem really is that they are trying to solve.

The "problem" with executive pay is that it is in fact a whole set of related problems. And each of these require different types of solutions. Income disparity between high and low earners is one thing, whereas CEOs being rewarded for poor performance is quite another. Setting the pay of bailed out businesses is yet another. And so on.

Regulators have to work out which of these problems they are trying to solve and what the best combination of regulation, encouragement, incentives, and sanctions should be to achieve desired results. Take the problem of pay disparity and those troubling pay ratios.  Blunt regulation probably isn't going to be very helpful here. For a start no one really knows what the "right" ratio should be. A maximum permitted ratio of say 100:1 may be feasible in some industries, less so in others. And as many have pointed out, the unintended effects might be that companies start outsourcing any of the low wage jobs they still have to generate a lower ratio.

Incentives, such as tax breaks for companies reaching certain thresholds, may offer more potential, although it would be technically complicated to administer effectively. A pay-ratio credits type market could also be devised whereby those companies failing to meet their targeted ratio could buy credits from those that over-achieve theirs. Much like in carbon markets, these types of systems help to even out differences across industries.

The "transparency" option trumpeted by the current UK government speaks to a more typical way of government providing the framework for corporate social responsibility initiatives. In creating a mechanism for pay ratios to be compared across companies (such as through mandatory reporting of pay, and support for some type of league tables comparing performance) governments can spur companies to improve their ranking. This avoids any necessity of setting limits or levels of acceptable performance and instead relies on competitive forces to drive improvements. As with all these incentives type approaches, it remains up to companies themselves to determine how to improve their performance, whether through increasing the remuneration of lower paid workers or decreasing that of higher paid executives. It stops regulators getting directly involved in setting pay limits and enables businesses the freedom to determine what works best for them from a competitive point of view.

Of course, there are also other less direct ways to encourage better pay equity. George Monbiot the UK journalist and environmental campaigner has recently put forward a spirited defense of a "maximum wage". Others argue for incentives or regulations to encourage increased employee share ownership among the lower paid. Such initiatives avoid the risk of companies simply "gaming" the pay ratio statistics, but also run into other problems, such as resistance from the business community and difficulties in implementation. Still, there is plenty of scope for interesting and imaginative ideas to help solve this and the other executive pay problems, and the UK in particular seems to be at a crucial tipping point in terms of public support for change.

Where the current UK government's proposals largely fall flat is in their over-emphasis on enhancing shareholder control of executive pay. For a start this does nothing directly about pay equity (which is what the public wants) but rather focuses more on the problem of whether senior executives are being rewarded for poor performance. Whilst giving shareholders more input into executive pay is not a bad thing, first you need to have shareholders that are active participants in the companies they invest in. In our dispersed ownership model of financial capitalism where shares are often held for matters of minutes, hours, and days rather than months and years, we often simply don't have sufficient shareholder engagement for such initiatives to make all that much difference. Similar rules imposed by the Dodd Frank Act in the US have done little to curb executive pay.

Clearly the time is right for action on the manifold problems of executive pay. But for those seeking to tackle them, whether in industry, government, academia, or civil society, it is imperative that there is clarity on which problems are going to be addressed. And dealing with such complex issues is going to require more creativity in terms of solutions, and more joined-up-thinking in terms of the causes of those problems, than we've generally seen so far.

Photo by GDS Infographics. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Oil spills and externalities

What does business owe the world? OK, now that's a pretty big question. Where do you even begin to start the long list of demands and grievances that are stacking up against the corporate world? But this is the question that the Harvard Business Review has posed in a new online debate launched a week or so ago. It's a provocative starting point, and not simply (as some might have expected from HBR), an excuse to really ask 'What, if anything, does business owe the world?'.

With uncommon good timing, the debate kicked off with a lively exchange of blogs from invited contributors on the issue of externalities, and whether the internalizing of externalities - or moving from external to internal (e2i) costing of social impacts - is an appropriate expression of corporate responsibility. We say good timing because just as the first part of the debate was drawing to a close, the US began to experience one of its worst oil spills in history in the Gulf of Mexico. Now pollution is a standard example used to explain externalities - i.e. it imposes costs on those not party to the original transaction. So it is little surprise that the 'blame game' regarding responsibility for the current spill has already started. Obviously though, because this is the result of a specific accident rather than just standard run-of-the-mill everyday pollution, the questions over whether BP, the rig's owner and operator, should be held responsible are somewhat more straightforward. It should. US President, Barack Obama has said as much. In the discussion around whether firms should e2i, we need to consider social and environmental costs imposed on others from 'normal' business activity, not just accidents. So the question then becomes, should BP take responsibility for the impacts of its products (e.g. the pollution caused by burning its gasoline), for example by adopting a pricing model that accounts for the full environemntal costs of petrol.

The HBR debate seeks to tackle this question head-on. The first post is written by Chris Meyer and Julia Kirby and stems from their April HBR article arguing that companies indeed should focus on externalities. Or as they put it, "the true measure of corporate responsibility—and the key to a business’s playing its proper role in society—is the willing, constant internalization of externalities." This is nothing new in itself. A focus on externalities has been a feature of the CSR debate for some time. In fact in our CSR textbook, published a couple of years ago, we specifically identified "Internalizing or managing externalities" as one of the 6 core characteristics of CSR. So in one sense it's kind of disappointing that HBR is passing off standard business school textbook material as a "Big Idea". That said, the article (and blog) do accomplish an important task in bringing these ideas into the mainstream, and in a way that is readily digestible by executives. They also do a good job in stirring up some important debate on whether this is indeed the right way to go about CSR, and about how it can be practically accomplished.

Of course, the proposition that firms should consider e2i remains for some a distinctly controversial idea. In the HBR debate, Michael Schrage provides a lively, if slightly scatty, account of why in fact it's "the road to hell". In doing so, he makes some good points - and probably captures the understandable fears of many in the business community. But in presenting "the natural conclusion" of the e2i philosophy - that businesses become accountable for every social impact, however indirect, of their actions - his argument becomes somewhat shrill and reductionist:

"If everything is increasingly interrelated — and it is! — then who won't be aggrieved? Who won't be wounded? Who won't be disadvantaged? Who won't be harmed — or see themselves as harmed — in some meaningful way? What won't be an externality to some third party?"

Yes it's true that once you embark on a path of acknowledging some kind of responsibility for the 'side effects' or 'spillovers' of economic actions, it is difficult to determine a clear line in the sand beyond which you no longer have responsibility. But the point is that no one is saying that firms are responsible for ALL externalities, only that focusing on externalities helps identify those impacts where responsibilities are most critical, and where market mechanisms, namely pricing, can be leveraged to institutionalize that responsibility. It is intereting in fact that Schrager argues that e2i is about more government interference whereas in fact it is a market alternative to regulation. That is, rather than governments dealing with all the problems caused by economic activity, you make companies and consumers more responsible for their own actions by establishing a mechanism whereby the true costs of their activities are factored into the market price. It's no different from establishing a price for carbon, which is one of the best known recent examples of e2i pricing.

That a debate on externalities should provoke a row over government interference is perhaps not completely surprising given the orientation of HBR ... and the fact that their invited experts, for all their starry credentials, are all based in the US. It is hardly the best recipe for starting a conversation on what business owes the world (as opposed to say, what US business owes the US). Some different voices from other parts of the globe would be sure to enrich the debate (...so if that is you, then do take the opportunity to add your comments to the blogs). And you never know, with HBR's timing, by the time the debate gets to its final week's subject of "Are activists out of bounds?" we might have another very real case to discuss (... any activists reading this, now would be a great time to get "out of bounds"!)




Photo by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Reproduced under Creative Commons licence

Obamamania – the second round.

You know how are academics can be. Always quibbling. Always critical, oh yes, so crrrrrritttttical. Dissecting. Questioning. Skeptical. – Fine, occupational hazard you might call it. Or more to the point, a pain in the a**.

So lets put the cards on the table. We like Obama. Period. This new American president is in a class of its own. A cut above. The skeptics would say he is just another politician. True. Many of his statements are broad, emotional, inconcrete. But it’s hard to say that one can’t enjoy listening in to his press conferences and, by and large, observing how is doing the job.

Today it was Chrysler. Impressive is the language. Obama knows of the ‘stakeholder theory of the firm’. He is such a smart guy. When he was asked in London after the G20 summit about the end of the ‘Washington Consensus’ – he so smartly turned the question into the one he really wanted to answer. We also liked his statement about where ‘he stands’: not on the side of the hedge funds and investors who refused to give Chrysler more help, but on the side of the other ‘stakeholders’ (yes), who depend on the company.

Now whether FIAT taking over is really the solution – we have to wait. Fiat to the world of cars is not what the pizza is to the world of food, as Europeans will know. We don’t know if things will turn to the better for Chrysler now. By the way, their cars are crapp. But it’s fascinating to see how Obama is navigating his way through this. It’s such a relief after 8 years of Bush to see someone at a press conference of the most influential nation in the world – who is actually a smart guy.

So where does this leave us? I think the lesson is ‘Leadership’. This is where Obama is really stellar. He is a young guy, all things considered. And being black, in America, puts him not in the natural circles in Washington. But he has clear ideas, and uncompromised or untainted thinking. He will get immersed in the dirty rationalities of the political game. But nonetheless let’s hope he will stay the course. The only fear here is that he might face the Kennedy fate. A bullet from the people who are paid to protect him (if we can believe Oliver Stone for a second). Mhhh.

Ethics of executive pay limits

As discussed in our last blog, executive compensation is a hot ethical issue at the moment. There's been lots of talk about the ethics of excessive salaries, especially for the Wall Street 'fat cats' and the rogue's gallery of bosses who took home big bonuses whilst their firms went looking for government bailouts in the wake of the financial crisis.

But now we have a new ethical question: what about the solution proposed by Barack Obama this week? Should we applaud Obama's proposal to limit the compensation of all senior executives at any companies receiving 'exceptional' government loans to $500,000? Has Obama's executive 'paydar' hit ethical pay dirt?

The executive pay limit has certainly stirred a lot of debate. On the one side are those that view it as an appropriate response to protect the public interest given the amount of public money that is being pumped into failing companies. Many believe that government's have moral duty to ensure that the taxpayer's money does not simply disappear into the pockets of senior executives. On the other side are those that argue that the pay limit will burden already struggling firms with an inability to attract the best executive talent. As one analyst told Bloomberg Television "No one goes into Wall Street to save the world ... compensation is the motivating factor." These folks tend to think that governments shouldn't interfere in labour markets to 'fix' wages as this leads to unnecessary inefficiencies - and can harm the very industries that the government is seeking to rescue.

From an ethical point of view, and put rather crudely, this is largely a question of principles versus consequences. But given that we're off the page at the moment in terms of the usual 'rules of the game', this is pretty much an ethical free for all. No one really can say for sure what the rights or responsibilities are of governments in situations like this because we haven't got too many precedents to work it all out from. And who knows what the consequences will be when no one is very sure at the moment what's going to happen next anyway. These are uncertain times indeed. One thing we do know though is that if the big threat looming over all this is that Wall Street will lose it's best talent because the grass is, well ... greener elsewhere, then maybe we shouldn't really be all that concerned anyway. After all, executives that have no concern for the public interest, who think that paying themselves bonuses while their employees are being laid off is good management, and who pretty much launched us into the most devastating financial crisis of our times might not be exactly the kind of 'talent' we need right now.

But from our point of view, all this ethical to-ing and fro-ing is probably missing the bigger point anyway. The real issue here is not so much the rights or wrongs of the Obama proposal itself, but the bigger message it is sending about executive compensation and corporate governance. Read between the lines and what the US President is saying is this: 'the system isn't working right, so get your act together and fix it or we'll do it for you - and you won't much like the results if we do'. And it's not just in the US - according to the FT, European governments are beginning to float similar ideas too.

Now, it is unlikely that any of these governments will step further than paycaps in bailed out institutions - after all this is where they have a more direct stake. But the writing is on the wall that they will have their eyes on deeper governance reforms if firms continue to revel in what Obama calls 'shameful' compensation deals. Smart firms and industry bodies, not to mention the more forward thinking think tanks and reformers, should be taking this opportunity to get ahead of the curve and start crafting a new moral direction for corporate governance. The deeper questions about what kinds of success should exec comp be rewarding, and how should this be structured to achieve fair rewards for all stakeholders need to be back on the front burner - and quickly so. Time is of the essence before another dirty bomb gets launched into mangled mess of Wall Street.


Photo copyright David Paul Ohmer. Reproduced under Creative Commons license

‘Shameful’.

That was President Obama’s comment on this week's news that Wall Street Bankers had been paid a total of $18.4bn in bonuses for 2008. The very banks in fact that had just received a multibillion dollar bailout package from the government, i.e. the American taxpayer. The most blatant case being Merrill Lynch (annual loss 2008: $15.3bn) which paid bonuses earlier than normal in December, just before being taken over by Bank of America with expected new government funding of $20bn.

The news came on the day when we discussed the corruption perception index of Transparency International in class at Schulich. We had a nice discussion why it is that often poor countries range high on the list and one student suggested that in poorer countries bribes are just that much more seductive as people are relatively poorer, and therefore more tempted to take advantage of a situation. But its not just poverty: comparing Sweden and Italy – countries of similar wealth one could argue – it is interesting to see the difference of more than 4 points on the 10 point scale. Italy is a more collectivist culture, where family ties and long term relationships matter more than in individualistic and meritocratic countries.

From an ethical perspective the question really is: why is it so much more corrupt to succumb to the temptations of poverty or to give preferential treatment to friends and family (earning you a bad score on the TI index) than to do what has been standing practice in business now for decades: to reward managers according to the market performance of the assets under their fiduciary trust?

These practices raise eyebrows and produce anger (one has hardly seen Obama so agitated in 2 years on the campaign trail) now where these bonuses come directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets and happen in the face of utter failure of the rewarded managers. But in our view it just exacerbates the general issue: what exactly is the ethical justification for the explosion of executive compensation particularly in the Anglo-Saxon parts of the world? Being rewarded for success – fine. But more often than not, the link between stock prices and individual managers’ performance is more than tenuous.

This ‘height of irresponsibility’ (Obama) will ask for new rules for the game. Obama will hardly avoid addressing this problem of executive compensation. Certainly in the eyes of most Americans (and the rest of us, for that matter) there is something deeply questionable about these practices. Bank of America CEO Thain has resigned over the scandal. Whether he paid back his bonus though was not reported…

Bailout – Who’s next?

So, you know by now that a little ‘Obamania’ has also infected Crane and Matten. But why not enjoy the honeymoon while it lasts. It might be over sooner than later. Among the many daunting tasks the new administration will have to face – the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, foreign relations – one of the most difficult animals for Obama to tame reared its ugly head last week: the American auto industry.

Now it makes perfect sense that at a time when Washington is handing out blank cheques to troubled banks, Detroit’s CEOs thought it worth a try to get next in line. And in fact their companies are in dire straits. Poor quality, fierce competition from the Far East and Europe, bad environmental performance of their products, high healthcare costs – these are just some of the issues which have led to the current situation. None of which is really new and good management could have addressed these problems years, if not decades ago.

But the appearance of the CEO’s of the big three on Capitol Hill last week points at a bigger issue Obama will have to face. It is good to see this in a broader context and to pull Stan Luger’s brilliant analysis of ‘Corporate Power, American Democracy, and the Automobile Industry’ from the shelf again. The book analyses the influence on political decision making by the US car industry over most of the 20th century. It puts the recent efforts of the industry in the context of longstanding direct political intervention, lobbying and coalition building.

Last week’s events then point to one of Obama’s biggest challenges, to deliver on bringing ‘change’ to Washington. And for a democrate President, this is no easy task. After all, car companies still are massive employers. Michael Moore’s ‘Roger and Me’ showed years ago what happens to towns in America’s industrial heartland when car companies close shop. In that sense then Obama’s success will in some way depend closely on creating jobs – which in fact is one of his big promises.

Here is the tricky bit: the political power of business in modern democracies is more than just lobbying or other ways of direct influence. In his book (p. 25) Luger quotes the sociologist Claus Offe on this point:

‘The entire relationship between capital and the state is built not upon what capital can do politically via its association […] but upon what capital can refuse to do in terms of investment.’

So every politician needs business to thrive and to invest in order to secure jobs and tax revenue. To deal then with this crucial contribution of business from the political end is a much more complex job for Obama than it seems.

In this sense, with the bailout of the banking industry and potentially others we might witness a watershed in contemporary capitalism: a return of the government as a key player in business. The last three decades have seen the exact opposite with most governments privatizing large parts of the public service delivery and divesting from their business interests. In some ways the bailouts then might even have this one positive effect: corporations apparently have such an importance for the wellbeing of a society that the government has to ‘rescue’ them in a situation where their survival is threatened. Acknowledging this, and granting the government a controlling stake in these companies might actually reverse one important trend of the last years. Rather than accepting a growing influence of business on politics we might actually see the reverse: that we as citizens, represented by democratic governments, regain control of a corporate world which for too long has put shareholder’s and manager’s interests ahead of many legitimate interests of wider society.

Now that sounds a bit like a utopia. And the perspective of more governmental influence on corporations will make most hard nosed business people cringe – isn’t that what socialism was about? Not quite – but anyway: it is essentially what banks and automakers in the US and elsewhere are currently asking for!

Barack Obama to be a boost to CSR?

As many people have remarked, last week's election of Barack Obama to the US Presidency was a historic event. One of the questions we have been musing on though is what exactly an Obama Presidency might mean for business ethics and CSR in the future. The George Bush years are certainly finishing with a nasty bang in terms of the financial crisis and the legacy of ethical mismanagement, as we have discussed in previous blogs. That said, for better or for worse, the free market agenda endorsed by Bush has clearly provided plenty of scope for voluntary CSR initiatives ... and for a fair dose of corporate irresponsibility. So it is perhaps no coincidence that the last eight years have seen the issue of responsible business come to the fore like never before. Without regulatory oversight, business self-regulation has been the main game in town for those seeking responsible practice.

So what of the future then under Obama? Much has been made of the President-elect's commitment to climate change mitigation strategies (specifically cap-and-trade legislation). Andy Savitz, writing in Ethical Corporation recently, suggested that would be the area where he would be likely to make immediate impact:

"Climate change, one of his recurrent campaign messages, is the easiest and most dramatic way for president Obama to deliver on his promise of bi-partisanship at home and to show the rest of the world that we are back in the international relations business. The financial mess may slow it down, but we can expect to see a complete turnabout in Washington, with national cap and trade legislation and the emergence of the US as a leader in the global climate change negotiations."

But there are also many other areas where, we might see the change that Obama promises having an impact on CSR - from health care reform (where private sector responsibilities might be fundamentally reshaped), to labour conditions (where minimum requirements may be put on foreign imports), to clean technology and "green jobs" (where companies may face new incentives and disincentives to accelerate sustainability and oil independence).

So perhaps it was no surprise then that a survey conducted at last week's Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) conference reported that almost nine in ten of the survey's 400 or so respondents welcomed Obama's election as promising a positive impact on advancing CSR. But the scale of optimism was quite remarkable given the circumstances of the financial crisis. Plus, this anticipation of an Obama boost to CSR is matched by an increased expectation of business regulation. The same survey reported that an overwhelming majority (94 percent) anticipated increased government regulation of issues related to corporate responsibility, including climate change (86 percent) and corporate governance and financial transparency (83 percent).

So what's going on here? On the one hand, we see expectation of more CSR, which is typically associated with voluntary activity beyond that required by law. On the other, we're also seeing greater expectation of regulation itself - which according to many would be seen as an alternative to voluntarist CSR. Its an interesting confluence, which at some level is perhaps a reflection of an underlying conviction that the US could move towards an approach to CSR where different constellations of regulation, self-regulation, and voluntarism are developed at the industry level through multipartite initiatives. Certainly, one of the main areas that we see enthusiasm for Obama from the CSR movement is his commitment to a unifying agenda, which many see as promising a new era of collaboration between business, government, and civil society.

The first test of this will probably be in the automotive industry, where the failing "big 3" car companies are seeking financial assistance, and where Obama could potentially see millions of people lose their jobs in the first year of his presidency. At present the rhetoric is still about protecting ordinary workers and ensuring that the car industry remains both economically and environmentally sustainable within a broader agenda of reducing America's oil dependency (which for Obama appears to be more about developing renewable energy sources than military manoeuvring in the Middle East). But there are going to be tough choices to be made here, and it is uncertain yet whether the new administration will have the skill (or the time) to develop a sophisticated package that manages to simultaneously save the industry, protect jobs in the long term, AND turn the American car giants around into sustainable innovators. Whatever the outcome, it appears that we will be getting deep insight into Obama's real impacts on CSR sooner rather than later. Its going to be an interesting few months...