[ad_1]
A post by guest blogger Pieterjan Heynen
Based on the annual reports of Belgian listed companies, Guberna and VBO recently conducted a study in order to determine to what extent the recommendations of the Belgian Corporate Governance Code are being observed. Particular attention was paid to Recommendation 7.6, a relatively new provision which was introduced into the Code in 2020. This Recommendation states that non-executive directors should receive part of their remuneration in shares. However, the Guberna and VBO study showed that this provision is currently one of the least complied with in the Code, since only 15% of Belgian listed companies include shares in the remuneration package of their non-executive directors.
In response to the low level of application of this recommendation, we conducted a more in-depth empirical study, complemented by theoretical and comparative findings. The results of our analysis will be presented at a conference on “Recent Trends in the Remuneration of Executives and Directors”, which will take place at the University of Antwerp on 23 May 2024 (see also here). Our focus was on the compensation of independent directors, who, as non-executive directors, also fall within the scope of Recommendation 7.6. At first glance, this may sound surprising. The “explanations” of companies that do not comply with this recommendation sometimes state that they do not provide for remuneration in shares, precisely because they do not want to jeopardize the independence of their independent directors…
Is this skepticism justified? Does equity compensation inevitably impair a director’s independence? Answering this question requires a good understanding of the role and functions of independent directors. After all, they are key players in Belgian listed companies and form a de facto majority on most boards. Moreover, the Belgian Code for Companies and Associations (CCA) assigns them specific roles in related parties transactions and audit, remuneration and nomination committees.
From these specific legal tasks, it can be inferred that independent directors have a role to play as “mediators” in two of the three well-known principal-agent conflicts of corporate law. On the one hand, they should act as a buffer between the executive management of the company and its shareholders, as a kind of additional control mechanism. This follows, among other things, from their presence on the audit and remuneration committee. On the other hand, they also appear to mediate the second principal-agent conflict, between the controlling shareholder and minority shareholders, which follows from their involvement in related party transactions.
Taking these tasks as a starting point, it may indeed be interesting to remunerate independent directors in shares. In this way, they are no longer merely mediators in the principal-agent problems mentioned above, but instead they become principals themselves. An independent director who is also a (small) shareholder may experience an important additional incentive to look after the interests of all small shareholders.
However, not everyone will agree with this view. For example, it could also be argued that independent directors should not only look after the interests of minority shareholders, but that because of their independence, they are rightly positioned to take into account a broader, societal interest as well. According to this view, their role includes the observation of the interests of all the company’s stakeholders. Consequently, remuneration in shares could be counterproductive in such a case, because it could narrow the focus of independent directors to the interests of shareholders, while overlooking other stakeholders.
Thus, the question of whether independent directors have a narrow or a broad role, focusing on the interests of shareholders or of all stakeholders, respectively, cannot be answered unambiguously. Moreover, a comparative law analysis shows that legal systems often provide different answers to this question. In our presentation we examine these different approaches that can be found in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and the US. We will also look at results from economic research. Does equity compensation incentivize independent directors to better perceive their role? Or does it have only a minor impact on their attitude on the board?
Based on these theoretical, comparative law and empirical findings, we take stock of Recommendation 7.6 of the Belgian Corporate Governance Code regarding equity compensation for independent directors.
This blogpost is based on a joint research project with Pieterjan Heynen, Tom Vos and Theo Monnens.
Pieterjan Heynen
Jan Ronse Institute
KU Leuven
[ad_2]
