October 19 ,2015 | by Erin O’Neill

FTSE 100 remuneration arrangements face less opposition

FTSE remuneration arrangements face less opposition

New research by Deloitte shows that this year, fewer FTSE 100 companies have changed their remuneration arrangements than the year before.

The study found that only 17% of FTSE 100 companies have changed their arrangements in substantial terms. Last year, thirty-five companies implemented new incentive arrangements, but this year only 11 followed suit.

Shareholder support

These changes in behaviour have won the backing of shareholders, with 82% of companies gaining more than 90% of votes in support of annual remuneration reports this year; last year's figure was 79%.

Partner in the remuneration team at Deloitte, Stephen Cahill, commented: "This year’s report provides evidence that companies are listening to shareholders. This has led to the overall level of support for remuneration reports remaining steady and high, demonstrated by a median of 97% votes in favour."

Salary moderation

A note of moderation seems to have been adopted by companies, especially in larger concerns where 44% of executive directors received no change. The median increase in salaries of 2.2% favourably compared to 2014's 2.5%.

The Deloitte study found that overall, FTSE 100 companies had the backing of shareholders for their remuneration reports - and this year, fewer had less than 80% of votes in favour.


The report also noted that remuneration arrangements were simpler on the whole. This year, 21% of FTSE 100 companies now operate more than one long-term plan, a fall from 29% in the previous year.

Deloitte’s analysis also highlighted that when a low vote supporting remuneration arrangements was recorded, a key issue was the recruitment arrangements of the company.

Erin O’Neill

Erin O’Neill is an LSBF News Writer who reports on small business, careers, technology and education news.

Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn
There are no comments posted yet. Be the first one!
Please write your comment, minimum length 50 characters
Please insert your name
Please insert a correct email address
We couldn't process your comment, please try again later