Swiss aim to tackle high pay through shareholder democracy

You scratch my back, I'll ask the shareholder remuneration committee to vote to scratch yours.

Switzerland has followed the EU and implemented laws designed to curb high pay. But whereas the EU implemented a hard cap which only affected bonuses in the banking industry, the Swiss plan is both more wide-ranging and less heavy-handed in how it operates.

The key change is a requirement that companies give shareholders a binding vote on executive pay. Currently, pay is set by companies' boards, but now that the Swiss people have spoken, in a referendum which achieved a 68 per cent "yes" vote, one of the highest in the country's history, that is going to change.

The move will fight the so-called principal-agent problem, which is common throughout business and politics. In theory, shareholders entrust the board to make the right decisions on executive pay; if higher pay will lead to more value for the shareholders, perhaps by encouraging the best candidates, then the board should support it, but in most situations, the board should endeavour to keep costs down. Unfortunately, while the board members are entrusted by the shareholders to act in their interests, board members also have their own interests — which may conflict.

In this situation, the classic conflict is that a board member for one company may well be an executive for another, and vice versa. They end up in the situation where they are making decisions about the pay of people who make decisions about their pay, and it's not hard to see how that could result in pay going through the roof.

But handing control over to shareholders doesn't remove all principal agent problems. It all depends how institutional shareholders decide to act — and there's reason to believe they may not be much better. If you invest in a pension fund, you technically own several companies. But the right to vote on how those companies are run — and now, in Switzerland, on how much those companies' executives are paid — is held by the pension fund.

Such funds tend to be uncomfortable about exercising too much shareholder democracy. Partly, this is because they fall prey to the same problem that boards do: the executives who decide how to vote have their pay set by other executives voting on remuneration committees, and the whole backscratching saga continues only slightly abated.

But it is also a matter of privilege and viewpoints. Even if there is no chance of reciprocity, a highly paid financial executive is likely to have very different views on the appropriate level of pay for other highly paid financial executives compared to you or I. For shareholder democracy to really deal with high pay in the boardroom, it would need either a massive resurgence in private investors (not the best idea, since that would likely also result in a huge upswing in private investors losing all their money in the stock market) or institutional investors devolving much more say to their members.

The other requirements set by the Swiss referendum are likely to have more direct effects. In requiring annual re-elections for directors, they remove much of the inertia that can keep people in these extremely well-remunerated, largely ceremonial positions for years beyond their time. And in explicitly banning "golden hellos" and "goodbyes", the practice of awarding a large lump sum upon joining or leaving a company, they create a much more stable and manageable system of pay for the shareholders to oversee.

But fundamentally, tackling high pay — and by extension, inequality — requires tackling the fact that the rich choose how much to pay the rich. The best proposal to do that is something similar to the suggestion that employees ought to have a place on the company's remuneration committee. After all, they have just as much interest in the company being run well, because their jobs depend on it. But they also bring a viewpoint which is sorely lacking in these discussions, whether they are being held in Switzerland or Britain.

The city of Montreux, Switzerland. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Why it's a mistake to assume that Jeremy Corbyn has already won

The shadow chief secretary to the Treasury on why the race to be Labour's leader is far from over.

They think it’s all over.

But they’re wrong.

The fat lady has yet to sing.

The commentary and reporting around the Labour party leadership campaign has started to assume we have a winner already in Jeremy Corbyn. The analysis, conjecture, predictions/complete guesswork about what happens next has begun in earnest. So we have seen speculation about who will be appointed to a Corbyn shadow cabinet, and “meet the team” pieces about Jeremy’s backroom operation.

Which is all very interesting and makes for the usual Westminster knockabout of who might be up and who might be going in the other direction pdq...

But I think it’s a mistake to say that Jeremy has already won.

Because I hear that tens of thousands of Labour party members, affiliates and registered supporters are yet to receive their ballot papers. And I am one of them. I can’t remember the last time I checked my post quite so religiously! But alas, my papers are yet to arrive.

This worries me a bit about the process. But mostly (assuming all the remaining ballots finally land in enough time to let us all vote) it tells me that frankly it’s still game on as far as the battle to become the next leader of the Labour party is concerned.

And this is reinforced when we consider the tens of thousands who have apparently received their papers but who have yet to vote. At every event I have attended in the last couple of weeks, and in at least half of all conversations I have had with members across the country, members are still making their minds up.

This is why we have to continue fighting for every vote until the end – and I will be fighting to get out every vote I possibly can for Yvette Cooper.

Over the campaign, Yvette has shown that she has a clear vision of the kind of Britain that she wants to see.

A Britain that tackles head-on the challenges of globalisation. Instead of the low-wage low-skill cul-de-sac being crafted by the Tories, Yvette's vision is for 2m more high skill manufacturing jobs. To support families she will prioritise a modern childcare system with 30 hours of fully funded child care for all 3 and 4 year olds and she will revive the bravery of post war governments to make sure 2m more homes are built within ten years.

It's an optimistic vision which taps into what most people in this country want. A job and a home.

And the responses of the focus groups on Newsnight a few days ago were telling – Yvette is clearly best placed to take us on the long journey to the 2020 general election by winning back former Labour voters.

We will not win an election without winning these groups back – and we will have to move some people who were in the blue column this time, to the red one next time. There is no other way to do it – and Yvette is the only person who can grow our party outwards so that once again we can build a winning coalition of voters across the country.