Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings


Forum distribution:

Academic research confirming observations that "Say on Pay" votes reflect general support of management



Source: The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, October 30, 2017 posting

Is Say on Pay All About Pay? The Impact of Firm Performance

Posted by Jill E. Fisch (University of Pennsylvania), Darius Palia (Rutgers Business School), and Steven Davidoff Solomon (University of California, Berkeley), on Monday, October 30, 2017

Editor’s Note: Jill E. Fisch is Perry Golkin Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School; Darius Palia is Professor of Finance at Rutgers University; and Steven Davidoff Solomon is Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law. This post is based on a article authored by Professor Fisch, Professor Palia, and Professor Davidoff Solomon, forthcoming in the Harvard Business Law Review.

In Is Say on Pay All About Pay? The Impact of Firm Performance, we seek to answer the question whether “say on pay” votes really focus on executive compensation. As policymakers evaluate the decision whether to retain say on pay, it is worth examining more carefully the information that shareholders convey through their vote on executive compensation, a question we examine in this article. We find that, although pay plays a role in voting results, the say on pay vote is largely a means for shareholders to express dissatisfaction with firm performance.

U.S. issuers have now been required to provide shareholders with the opportunity to cast an advisory vote on executive compensation—say on pay—for five years. The effect of say on pay remains heavily debated. Shareholders rarely reject compensation plans; they fail to receive majority support at fewer than 2% of issuers. Rather, shareholders at the overwhelming majority of issuers vote to approve executive compensation, and the average percentage of votes in favor exceeds 90%. The link between say on pay and CEO compensation is unclear—CEO pay continued to rise for the first several years after Dodd-Frank, declined in 2015 and, most recently, in 2016, rose to record levels.

Even in cases in which compensation packages fail to receive substantial support, the effect of a low say on pay vote is unclear. Academic studies have reached inconsistent results but have generally failed to find conclusive evidence that issuers reduce executive pay packages in response to lower approval rates. Studies suggest, however, that issuers modified the structure of executive pay packages in response to the say on pay mandate, in particular, concentrating a greater component of pay in restricted stock and stock options. It is not clear, however, that this higher concentration of equity-based pay makes it truly performance-based or that the modifications are increasing shareholder value.

We analyze say on pay votes of S&P 1500 companies between 2010 and 2015. As might be predicted, we find that both excess compensation and pay-performance sensitivity affect the level of shareholder support for executive compensation packages. More surprisingly, however, we find that, even after controlling for these variables, a critical additional driver of low shareholder support for executive compensation packages is the issuer’s economic performance. Say on pay votes reflect, to a large degree, dissatisfaction with firm performance, and not solely pay.

We further test the role of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) voting recommendations. We identify two important results. First, as with voting outcomes, ISS recommendations are driven by an issuer’s economic performance, independent of pay-related variables. Second, we show that ISS’s evaluation of the CEO’s pay-performance sensitivity uses an ex post measure of sensitivity and, as such, appears to differ from shareholder preferences.

Our findings have important implications. First they suggest that shareholder voting may be a poor tool to address public concerns about the size and structure of executive compensation. Because of the key role of economic performance in explaining say on pay voting outcomes, the say on pay vote operates as a signal of investor dissatisfaction with executive pay only in poorly-performing companies. So long as the issuer is performing well, even if executive pay is too high or insufficiently tied to performance, these concerns will not lead investors to vote against the pay package. To the extent that say on pay is about curbing problematic compensation, it seems to be a rough and inadequate tool.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, shareholder support for executive pay seems to be highly correlated with an issuer’s short term stock performance. Shareholders appear to focus substantially on performance and to be punishing executives, through say on pay, for poor performance rather than excessive pay. To the extent that the say on pay vote heightens executives’ incentives to focus on short term stock price at the potential cost of working to enhance long term firm value, it may be counterproductive.

The complete article is available here.


Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by their respective owners. Other content © 2017 The President and Fellows of Harvard College.



This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.