[MUSIC PLAYING]
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the New Shape of Work podcast. My name is Gord Frost, and I'm the global reward solution leader at Mercer.
For those of you who are regular listeners, you'll know that for this year, I've been sharing the hosting duties with my colleague Kate Bravery. For those of you who missed the sounds of her voice this month, don't worry, she'll be back to host the next podcast in the series.
But for this month, I'm really pleased to be joined by two colleagues to join key issues in executive compensation and reward. So David Thieke is based in Dallas. He's our executive reward leader for the US and Canada. And Peter Boreham is based in London, and he's our executive reward leader for Europe. Gentlemen, welcome to the podcast today.
Thanks, Gord.
Thanks, Gord. Good to be here.
So guys maybe the first thing is, there's so much economic uncertainty and volatility that we're seeing in the markets today. How do you see companies adopting or adapting their executive rewards plans to the rapidly evolving business climate? David, why don't I start with you.
Thanks, Gord. What we're seeing is a number of companies, consciously or subconsciously, dusting off their COVID playbooks and using many of the key tenets that were employed during the pandemic a few years ago. And these strategies really center around a few key pillars, including maintaining flexibility. They're not necessarily rushing to do things as the markets and news keep shifting every day. And they're using the remaining time during the performance period to really monitor developments and ensuring that all the facts are understood, especially with the lack of certainty around many key topics, including their supply chain or other impacts to their business.
And then we're also seeing some assess their metric target setting. So maybe looking to do things like wider ranges around target, looking formally at things like permitted exclusions and formalizing the treatment of those exclusions to avoid potential adverse accounting and disclosure ramifications.
So those are really, Gord, from the US and Canada side, where we see companies starting to-- or where they are with respect to their thinking in this dynamic environment.
It's a bit less flexible, I'd say, for European listed companies, at least for their disclosed executives. Any discretion that's to the benefit of the CEO and the management team is typically treated with a degree of suspicion by investors and proxy advisors. So there needs to be quite a strong business case and ideally a track record of both positive and negative discretion.
Below the disclosed executive population, though, it's pretty similar to what you're describing, David. There's a lot more freedom to act.
I'd also say that this whole issue about unpredictability and volatility feels like the new normal. We've obviously had the COVID pandemic. We had the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We've got the current geopolitical uncertainty. It almost feels like the new normal. And I think some committees and boards are almost looking at a long-term de-risking of the package, particularly in Europe, where generally rewards have been more volatile in terms of year on year changes.
That's a really interesting point. And we are starting to see some of that reflected in the way these compensation programs are disclosed and structured and communicated to shareholders. So, Peter, I'm wondering, are you seeing any highlights of this or any evidence of this in the recent disclosure that's been issued for the most recent year?
It's been a pretty benign AGM season in Europe. We've not seen huge scandals. There have been a couple of companies that have had significant votes against on the basis of quantum, but generally it's been pretty good.
And I think one of the positive things is that the proxy advisor box ticking, while it's still a problem, it's getting better. We're seeing a bit more case by case from the proxy advisors and also from the investors. And the investors are saying, well, does this organization really compete globally for talent, and therefore does it need to have a more flexible approach to pay? And do we, as an investor, actually trust the board to make judgments on the pay of the CEO? And do we believe in the capability of the CEO? In which case, yeah, we'll give you a pass. Of course, if those conditions don't apply, they may come to a different conclusion.
Interesting. And David, what are you seeing?
Yeah, I would agree. In the US and Canada it's also been a fairly quiet proxy season this spring. What we do continue to see, though, is that companies and investors placing increased value in waiting on telling their compensation story and the compensation discussion and analysis. So much like Peter was mentioning, the successful disclosures that we see are often centered around as much about the how and why, with respect to the executive pay levels and program designs, as it is the quantum of how much the executives are paid. Obviously, there are some outliers there, much like there are in Europe, but that's in general, what we're seeing.
And I think that becomes even more important in an environment of uncertainty, where you might have to make some changes over the course of the year or potentially use discretion. Obviously then, building that trust, as Peter referenced earlier, that external advisors have in the board to make those kinds of judgments is all based on how well you communicate why you've done it, how you've done that, how that aligns with the business circumstances, and the interest of shareholders at the end of the day.
It's an evolution, isn't it? I think it's from disclosure to communication. What are we doing? Why are we doing it? What is the reason that this is actually shareholder in your interest? And that's a positive. We all read compensation disclosures for a living. They're pretty dull. And at least in the US and the UK, they're very patterned. But actually this is the opportunity for the board to tell its story.
And to take that a step further, it's also the opportunity, I think, for them to really rethink. Are there some more innovative practices that we should be leveraging as we think about our compensation design for executives? So not just following the same pattern that we might have followed for the last several years or the same pattern that we see within our peer group or within the industry. Have you seen any innovative practices, Peter, that you think are really interesting to note, particularly for some global organizations?
Yeah, I'm quite encouraged by the fact that we are seeing a bit more flexibility. There was a bit of a dark period where it felt pretty much every board was using the same cookie cutter. Whether this was a volatile company or a stable company, or it had a very long-term investment cycle or a very immediate payoff, it looked like the pay was always the same. That seems to be changing.
And particularly we're seeing organizations be a bit more thoughtful about long-term incentives. Is this a highly leveraged play because we've got a fantastic growth opportunity? I was talking to a client a couple of hours ago where that's exactly their context.
Or actually, are we extremely cyclical. And therefore, we need to do something that looks very different. One of my very cyclical commodities client actually abolished the annual bonus for their CEO, and they're just making very large awards of performance-granted stock, which replaces both the STI and the LTI. Wouldn't be suitable for most organizations, but it fits with their particular context.
Interesting. And, David, what are you seeing?
I would agree with Peter. Those general themes are also prevalent in the US and Canada. And I get this question sometimes about what makes the program innovative. And I think many people lean in towards innovative means that has the most bells and whistles or the shiniest object in the room. But sometimes what it means is that it could be streamlined and really targeted. And I think that's where we're seeing companies go and really make sure that whatever metrics they put in or the designs that they put in fit their situation and fit the purpose that they're designed for, much like Peter was describing.
I think historically there was more of this follow-the-herd type approach in the US, where companies would just bolt on this metric because it was the most prevalent in the market or their closest competitor added it to their program. And what that risks is diluting the overall program and the messaging and the focus around what is really important here.
So I think sometimes looking at it from an innovative way, it may be counterintuitive, but what we're seeing is some of the best programs are those that are more simple and streamlined.
It's interesting. It reminds me of a conversation I had with another organization just recently where they were saying, the plan has evolved over time. There's been multiple iterations. They've made changes and made additions and changed performance metrics. And now, this may not again, sound innovative, but they said, we're at the point now that we wanted to take a step back and ask, is this truly aligned to our business priorities? Is this driving the right behaviors at the end of the day? And do our executives actually understand how the plan works? And their concern is that the answer to those questions is currently no. Or they don't know the answer.
So I think bringing it back to basics, even though that may not sound so innovative, I think is actually important to remember it's not innovation for the sake of innovation. It's actually really bringing it back to, what's the purpose of the plan? How does it align to our business strategy? How does it align executives to shareholder interests? And do they actually understand how all of those things link together?
And so one of the things that I think is a challenge with that, just pivoting for a minute, and, Peter, I'd love your opinion on this first, is that's especially difficult in organizations that need to manage the dynamics between a global organization, with regional operations in different parts of the world and differing local country practices. So with the multinationals that you work with, how do they align those maybe diverging dots or bring that all together?
And maybe, Gord, I'll kick this one off. Since from the US, we're typically looking at things as being the highest common denominator, the highest payer, issues often arise around how we should be paid globally or under one scale, or should we pay locally in each of the companies that we operate. And that's in particular, with respect to incentive levels. And if you drill down even further, it's with respect to long-term incentive levels, where in the US it's been not widely known that we have the highest long-term incentive levels in the world.
For large multinationals, what we see is that a common approach is there's a level in the organization where effectively a figurative line is drawn. And everybody above the line, which would include executives, is on the global and the US pay structure. And just given the presence of the executives in the US most of the time and the transferability of these executives potentially across roles and geographies.
And for those that come in above the line, many US multinational companies just accept that those executives in non-US locations will be paid hypercompetitively versus a truly local based executive or local based talent.
Below the executive level, a number of the multinationals have established tiers or buckets or categories, especially for LTI grants, and it's usually expressed as a percentage of the US grant level. So for example, maybe this, a group of countries in Western Europe, would be 80% of the US grant level.
And what these do is that it allows for pay levels to be more closely aligned when the local country practices. But in speaking with a number of clients, they do admit that it can result in still the US multinational being hypercompetitive on a truly local basis. But that is just something that US multinationals just live with, and that can often be a value proposition when they do set up operations here.
Roles that are truly local, and meaning that they will not and cannot be sourced outside of a small area or the country, some multinationals will take a localized approach. But again, the balance here-- going back to our prior conversation around streamlining and not being overly complicated, the balance here is, is it worth the administrative effort to set up effectively a whole new pay structure in a country where maybe the headcount is not as large as would warrant something like that?
So again, that's just a general approach or there's variations beyond this, but that's how we see many large US multinationals address this concept.
Interesting. Peter, I'd love your perspective from the other side of the world. And that if the US companies all end up being hypercompetitive, the European company can't be undercompetitive. So how does a European company approach those same kind of challenges?
I think there are some cultural factors in play. And it also comes down sometimes to the strength of the brand in a particular market. But typically, European multinationals, the starting point will be European pay. And they will pay like European companies in most sectors. They'll then pay more to people in the US, typically by having higher incentive percentages for those US-based executives.
We have seen some interest in what David talked about, which is having a cadre of people who are basically paid like Americans. There are some difficulties with that. As David said at some point, you move into the top 100. When you move from position 101 to position 100, suddenly there's a huge discontinuity in pay. And of course, it's more expensive.
Where the US is a bigger influence is in these really globalized sectors, things like oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, technology, where European companies will tend to pay at a mid-Atlantic level.
But if they're listed companies, then of course their disclosed executives are subject to say on pay voting, and they can't go about giving 1,000% salary target LTI because they'll just lose their say on pay vote, which means that that's held down, which then creates compression below. So typically, pay is just a little bit lower in Europe.
But then the social context is very different in Europe. And I think sometimes this gets forgotten about. I remind the European clients I work with, look, university education, post-retirement health care, these things are cheap or free in Europe. They're very much not cheap or free in the United States. The pension provision is better in Europe, both on the social side and on the company side, and holidays are longer.
So, everybody wants a situation where they have French holidays and Swedish pensions and US LTI and Norwegian-based salaries. But that's not the real world, is it? You have to make a choice.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
So go ahead.
So one final thing, though, where I've seen this go a bit wrong, is where European companies decide that they'll aim for US pay levels with a European pay mix. That tends to lead you to a place where your base salaries in the US are absolutely insane. So your fixed costs are too high, and you can't fire people. And it's just the wrong approach for most companies.
I saw one of my clients last year, where they were paying somebody in the US a base salary that was 2 and 1/2 times what they were paying somebody in Germany. And that doesn't feel like the right answer. If the LTI is higher, do something with LTI.
I think those are all really good points. And I think this discussion just really emphasizes the importance of, first of all, having a really solid compensation philosophy that aligns back to your business strategy, your values, all of that kind of stuff, understanding who really is your market for talent and who you compete with.
You mentioned some markets, Peter, like oil and gas or energy or pharma, where there is much more of a global market for talent. And so the competitive dynamic is different. And then in other industries that may not be the case.
So I do think that thinking through all of these elements in a really careful way and thinking about it holistically, I thought you brought up a really good point of it's not even just base salary, annual bonus, LTI. Thinking about the broader context of where do your executives live and work, what's the cost of retirement, what are the other costs of living that they incur, does that impact your decision making, I think those are all very, very good points.
I'd love to get your points also or your thoughts, Peter, also on are you seeing increased flexibility from investors in the way that CEOs are paid? Because you talked about the fact that the institutional investors and others in the investor community have a quite set point of view. And I'd like your view on, is that changing or evolving?
In Europe for the last-- really since the global financial crisis, we've had a bit of a straitjacket on compensation. And we have these binding votes on compensation policy, where every four years in the EU, three years in the UK, you get the policy approved. And once that's approved, you cannot go outside it without shareholder approval.
And that held down executive compensation probably a bit too much in terms of level. But it also led to a cookie cutter, where certain things weren't allowed. And some of the things that weren't allowed always felt a bit arbitrary to me. There wasn't always a lot of logic to it.
But there was a bit of a change really. In late 2023, investors, regulators, other stakeholders started to fret about public markets in the US being much healthier than public markets in the UK, in the EU. Things like the IPO of ARM, a long-term Mercer client, but it was re-IPOed in the US, having previously been listed in London, being headquartered in the UK, being incorporated in the UK. I think that really focused minds.
Now of course, businesses like ARM list in the US for a variety of reasons, and I wouldn't say that CEO or director compensation were anywhere near the top of the list. Nevertheless, for dynamic, high growth companies in things like tech and life sciences, there's a lot to be said for having that greater flexibility in the US.
Now, since then, we have seen some companies, initially in the UK primarily, get a bit more flexibility for the investors. They've gone along and said, look, we are competing globally for talent. We are in a globalized sector. We have significant US operations. We'd like to do this thing. Will you support us? And actually, we've seen quite strong support where there's been a business case and where the board has gone out and socialized what it's planning to do with investors and proxy advisors.
And some of the degrees of freedom just would have been unthinkable two or three years ago. So I feel quite optimistic about that. It's been slower in the rest of Europe than the UK, but I know that boards in continental Europe are looking there, again, particularly in sectors like life sciences, tech, energy, where the US is a very significant influence.
Interesting.
And, Gord, I would just build on that, from the US perspective, as Peter mentioned, you could argue that we had the most flexibility, just if you think of us as the highest common denominator. We only have that advisory vote on say on pay, which is still important, but it's not as binding, or it won't put the straight jacket on you necessarily like the binding votes in UK and Europe will.
But we have seen, with some of our Canadian organizations, given their proximity to us, then becoming more attuned to practices and pay levels in the US and saying, listen, our talent can basically drive across the border. So if we're going to go out and try to recruit that or be competitive in this global talent market, we do need to maybe be a little bit more flexible, and you'll start seeing that. And it played out as some of the larger Canadian publicly traded organizations have added US companies to their peer group, despite what the proxy advisors may say or think about that.
So I think we are seeing this maybe opening up a little bit in Canada, to looking at, being more flexible and realizing that the US market is a viable one for their executive talent.
And look, I think it makes perfect sense. And again, it comes back to the discussion of what is your market for talent, who do you compete with for talent, where do you source people from or potentially lose people to. And that does have to drive a lot of that decision making.
And ultimately, to me, there's a couple of things that I would take away. I think, first of all, the fact that you do need to understand your business context, you need to understand what's important for your business and aligns to your business objectives. But then again, you need to understand different organizations are active in different parts of the world, have different stakeholders, have different relationships that are important to manage.
And that ultimately, I think, ensuring that you're getting good advice, whether it's from a legal opinion, internal legal counsel or external legal counsel, ensuring that there's a number of stakeholders around the table that are contributing to these decisions is really important at the end of the day.
And then maybe if we could just end on one other topic that I think is top of mind. Everybody's talking about AI these days. I think AI weaves its way into all of our podcasts, in one way or another.
And so one of the questions that I've received recently, and I'd love both of your opinions on this, is what happens in an executive situation where AI is impacting the business? Leaders are making decisions around potentially workforce changes as a result of automation or as a result of AI changing the way that work gets done. Potentially, that could impact jobs and could result in potentially some job losses, but that ultimately then, the company potentially could have productivity improvements or become more profitable as a result. And then at the end of the day, executives get paid bonuses. And you can't necessarily draw a direct line between the executive was paid a bonus while laying off this group of workers. But I think a lot of external stakeholders do make that direct connection.
And I wonder what your perspectives are or how you think that would be seen in the different markets that you primarily work in? So maybe, David, I'd love to start with you, and then switch to Peter to close us off there.
So I think this AI and its impact on organizations is still, to some degree, on the bleeding edge. We've seen some impacts, but I don't think we really understand all of the impacts right now.
So I think as it relates to the concepts you're talking about is as this trend evolves, I think everybody is going in that or most people are going in that direction. The messaging and the change management around the dynamic you describe will be something that will be very key. Because to your point, Gord, if something looks like a headcount reduction is triggered by AI to drive payouts, a very simplistic point to point connection, it's probably going to bring some unwanted scrutiny. And so I think companies-- or you're going to see companies look towards leaning in on concepts like business improvement and value creation versus looking at it as quote, "just" a cost-cutting measure at the end of the day." But certainly something that companies are going to have to deal with as if this AI trend continues to play out.
Peter, your thoughts on that?
Attitudes towards this I think are slightly different in Europe to the US. Historically, investors have tended to react quite badly where there have been significant layoffs at the same time as big bonus payments to executives. There was a French company that got into trouble for this a couple of years ago. And I think there's an expectation that companies need to think about their wider social responsibilities, not just about their short-term costs.
But look, I agree with David. We're at the bleeding edge with all this. We're not exactly sure where this is going to end. And I suspect any predictions we make at this point are going to be proved to be wrong ultimately.
None of US has a crystal ball. And especially in today's environment with so much volatility and so much change, certainly AI is part of that, but it's just one of the main factors that's impacting organizations right now.
Maybe just some closing thoughts. In the world that we're living through today, are there any things that organizations might not have thought of because they haven't lived through this volatility so recently? Or maybe if it's new and different, are there any things that you think we should leave as a parting gift to our listeners today of things to be thoughtful of through the balance of the year? Peter, maybe I'll start with you, and then we'll just finish off with David.
It feels to me like organizations should just be thinking about the robustness of their incentives. How are they going to behave in a much wider set of circumstances than they normally think about? How robust are we to those extreme situations?
And that could be extreme on the upside as well as extreme on the downside. Are we comfortable with how this is going to play out? What's in the toolkit to moderate those things if in fact, we think we need to moderate?
And just a focus as well I think on does that apply differently at different levels? I think the extreme volatility in payout for top executives linked to performance is fine. But when you get down to that n minus 2, 3, 4 level, I'm not sure that extreme volatility is necessarily appropriate, because it's probably down to good or bad luck, rather than the decisions that you've taken.
David, any thoughts you have?
I would say there's generally two. I agree with what Peter said. I think bringing the remuneration committee or compensation committees along with the journey here and getting their buy in on potentially what are inclusions or exclusions at the end of the day will be good. Things like tariffs certainly haven't played out if they hold to what has been the headline percentages. They haven't played out at those levels before. So really making sure that everyone's informed to make that judgment call, if there is one needed at the end of the day, will be important.
And then the second one, we've seen the stock market that has been very resilient in the face of some of this volatility, at least from the US perspective. But there are probably some organizations that will or have been impacted.
And just as a thought here is just around ensuring that your share pool under your equity plan has sufficient reserve in case the stock price were to take a decline. Most companies go out and get these approved at their annual meeting, so it's basically once a year shot. And just understanding what the capacity or dry powder is there and making sure you go early enough to not have to need a special meeting. Or worst case, you run out of shares to grant because the market volatility does introduce some headwinds to your stock price. So those were two things that I think companies should just be thinking about in these times as they move forward.
Thank you. I think those are great, great thoughts. And the one I would just add to the list for our listeners is some of the clients that I'm working with, they're doing a lot more scenario analysis. So they're thinking about, if the market goes in this direction, if the market goes in that direction, if this happens, if that happens, they're doing more scenario planning and then communicating the outcome of that to their remuneration committee or their HR committee of the board so that all the stakeholders are well aware of the potential outcomes of different courses of action and where decisions may be needed and things like that. So all really good advice.
So look, with that, I think we've had a great discussion today. I want to thank both Peter Boreham and David Thieke for joining me. I want to thank all of our listeners for joining as well to the New Shape of Work podcast. Can find us on all of your favorite podcast channels, and look for us next month as well. Thanks, everyone. Have a great day.
[MUSIC PLAYING]