Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

How Executive Directors' Remuneration is Determined in Two FTSE 350 Utilities

By Ruth Bender

Abstract

This paper contributes to the literature on directors' remuneration by reporting the results of interview-based research carried out with executive and non executive directors at two listed UK utilities, and their advisors. The findings on how directors' pay is set reflect aspects of both economic and social- psychological theories. They show that the level and structure of remuneration were clearly influenced by the market, and highlight the problems of determining a suitable comparator market. Institutional theory influences were identified in the level and structure of the pay, and the way in which trends in practices influenced the protagonists. Furthermore, the way in which the companies' policies were tailored to their corporate strategies was consistent with contingency theory

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Year: 2003
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/960
Provided by: Cranfield CERES
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001). A Model of the Processes of Setting Remuneration for Executive Directors. Presented at the British Academy of Management Conference,
  2. (1997). ABetter Way to Pay CEOs?
  3. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review, doi
  4. (1985). Case Research in Marketing: Opportunities, Problems and a Process, doi
  5. (1995). CEO Salary Increases May be Rational After All: Referents and Contracts doi
  6. (1998). Committee on Corporate Governance: The Combined Code. London: London Stock Exchange,
  7. (1995). Developing a Winning Partnership. London: DTI Innovation unit.
  8. (1995). Directors’ Remuneration: Report of a Study Group Chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury. doi
  9. (1995). Do our Bosses give Value for Money?
  10. (1994). Executive Compensation: a Reassessment and a Future Research Volume
  11. (1998). Executive Share Schemes: Trends
  12. (2000). How Much Does Performance Matter?
  13. (1998). How Much Does the CEO Matter? The Role of doi
  14. (1974). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. doi
  15. (1998). Managerial Compensation and Firm Performance: a General Research Framework, doi
  16. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, doi
  17. (1998). Market Comparison Earnings and the Bidding-Up of Executive Cash Compensation: Evidence from the United Kingdom, doi
  18. (1957). Models of Man. doi
  19. (1997). Reframing Executive Compensation: an Assessment and Outlook, doi
  20. (1997). Senior Executives and their Long-Term Incentive Plans. doi
  21. (2001). Sharing in the Boardroom.
  22. (2002). Statutory Instrument doi
  23. (1996). Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations. St Paul: doi
  24. Street Consultants (2002a) Paying for Performance: Executive Long-Term Incentives
  25. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, doi
  26. (2002). The Role of the Regulator.
  27. (1995). The Social Organization of Boards of Directors, doi
  28. (2002). The Unintended Consequences of Culture Interventions: A Study of Unexpected Outcomes, doi
  29. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, doi
  30. (1987). Toward a Contingency Theory of Compensation Strategy, doi
  31. (1963). Towards an Understanding of Inequity, doi
  32. (2003). We preach more about corporate democracy than we practise.” Peter Peterson, Chairman,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.