Why companies should give their investors a say on climate as well as bosses pay
The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) is backing an initiative aimed at forcing companies to submit climate action plans led by TCI, one of the market’s feistiest hedge funds. Others should join them, argues James Moore
Which is more important for investors: a say on pay or a say on the climate crisis?
The answer, obviously, is the climate crisis. Excessive executive pay is an ongoing bugbear that deserves all the attention it gets. There is no evidence that bloated awards enhance either corporate or economic performance, rather they waste shareholders money and are frequently antithetical to their long-term interests. That’s particularly true when packages are badly put together and incentivise the wrong sort of executive behaviour. I refer you to the pre-financial crisis banking industry for perhaps the best example of that happening, but there are plenty of others.
That so few fund managers are willing to make a fuss about poor practice, even today, might have something to do with the bloated pay packages they themselves are fond of. But I digress, because even the most grotesque and damaging examples of executive excess pale by comparison to the impact the climate crisis is going to have on the global economy and thus on the investment returns shareholders seek. Really, it isn’t even close.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies