Share plans and incentives expert Lynette Jacobs of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law, said: "Although the new IA Principles have not introduced anything fundamentally new, they place greater emphasis on certain themes which have been on remuneration committees' agendas for a few years. However, the new IA Principles are clear that shareholders expect remuneration committees to take faster and more concrete action towards achieving these goals".
The updated principles recommend that remuneration committees be given discretion to cap vesting at a specific monetary value. Committees should decide on the level at which this discretion would be exercised, and how it would be implemented on an individual basis. Committees continue to be encouraged to use discretion in relation to variable pay awards where the business "has suffered an exceptional negative event", which now explicitly includes health and safety failures and other events which impact on the company workforce.
Remuneration committees continue to be encouraged to spell out the circumstances in which 'malus and clawback' provisions, allowing for performance-related remuneration to be withheld, reduced or recovered, will apply. Malus and clawback provisions will vary by company, although the principles now directly refer to the examples given in the Financial Reporting Council's guidance on board effectiveness misstatement of accounts, serious reputational damage and corporate failure.
In last year's update, the IA set out its expectation that pension contributions for executive directors should be aligned with the majority of the company's workforce. It is now expecting remuneration committees to put a credible action plan in place to align pension contributions for incumbent directors with the majority of the workforce by the end of 2022. Annual reports should disclose the pension contribution rate available for the majority of the workforce, and explain how that figure has been derived.
James Sullivan-Tailyour of Pinsent Masons said that the 2022 deadline "may be a challenge for companies with long-standing directors whose employment contracts entrench their pension contribution entitlements".
"However, institutional investors have made very clear that they expect companies to be taking decisive action on directors' pension arrangements, and that directors should not be receiving compensation for reduced pension entitlements," he said.
Best practice is for directors' employment contracts to retain flexibility for the remuneration committee to alter pension contribution rates, but where that is not the case companies will need to consider what other tools they have at their disposal to reduce pension entitlements for incumbents," he said.