Ever since 2001, when France enacted a law requiring listed companies to reveal their executives' pay packages, newspapers have had a field day denouncing greedy bosses. Not only are fixed salaries revealed, but so are bonuses, fees for serving on boards of directors, returns on stock options, pension packages and other perks, such as corporate jets or chauffeur-driven cars. But executive remuneration has usually faded from view once the journalistic spotlight shifts elsewhere -- that is, until now.
This year, executive heads have started to roll. In June, Antoine Zacharias, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Vincy, France's biggest public concessions and construction company, was obliged to resign when a majority of the board of directors judged his remuneration to be outrageous: a salary of 4.3 million euros (US$5.5 million), retirement bonus of 13 million euros, pension of 2.2 million euros and stock options estimated at 173 million euros. But the focus of debate was an exceptional bonus of 8 million euros that he requested after successfully executing a financial operation at the end of his tenure.
More recently, Noel Forgeard, the French co-CEO of the Franco-German aeronautical and defense company EADS, was forced to resign under a cloud of suspicion: He sold his EADS shares in March, before the company announced a costly delay in production of the Airbus A380. Whether Forgeard acted illegally is still under investigation, but with the announcement causing the share price to plummet by 26 percent overnight -- wiping out 5.5 billion euros of the company's value -- his position became untenable.
Such events have brought old questions back to the fore in almost every rich country: Are bosses being paid too much? Should laws governing stock options be reformed? Although the circumstances are different, the fundamental issues are always the same, for they touch on questions of legitimacy and morality. If remuneration is perceived as unjust, trust in the capitalist system will suffer.
The French debate about executive compensation is particularly striking in this respect, because managers' salaries are in fact lower than those paid to their German, British and US counterparts, and their remuneration has grown in step with corporate share prices, increasing six-fold in 25 years. Moreover, like managers everywhere, their responsibility is great, making their positions less secure, while companies must compete for the relatively few good ones, driving up their price.
But critics argue that the best managers are not necessarily the best paid, that the market for them is not transparent, and that boards of directors are often partial to their presidents when setting compensation. Likewise, they insist that mergers and acquisitions, which make big companies bigger, should not be motivated by salary considerations, and that "golden parachutes" should not be granted to failed managers. More fundamentally, they claim that it is simply immoral that bosses should earn as much in a day as their employees do in a year. No manager is a superstar, a Tiger Woods or Michael Schumacher, of the boardroom.
Stock options, too, often stir passionate criticism. Allowing managers to buy shares at prices fixed in advance was intended to align their interests with those of other shareholders by giving them a personal stake in building the value of the company. But, for some managers, stock options have created an incentive to inflate profits and hide losses, thereby enriching themselves artificially while jeopardizing their companies and other shareholders.
The question is not specific to France. In the US a recent study by two university professors showed that more than 25 percent of the companies reviewed had manipulated the dates of stock-option allowances to increase the profits of the beneficiaries. The US Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Department of Justice apparently decided to fight the "backdating" practices, which were especially common in Silicon Valley.
In France, a law adopted last year requires that severance pay for company managers now be subject to a shareholder vote, and the EADS scandal has spurred consideration of further legal changes. A bill proposed by former prime minister Edouard Balladur seeks to eliminate perverse incentives by barring corporate officers from exercising their stock options until they leave the company. Jacques Chirac, more cautiously, stated that stock options should be legally encadres (framed). Others suggest broadening the scope of stock options to include more employees. Some socialists are more radical, advocating, as Laurent Fabius recently did, the suppression of stock options.
The problem with legal measures, however, is that they can have pernicious side effects and unintended consequences, especially when they are tailored to a particular crisis. The state's function should be to enact and enforce laws on corporate governance and taxation of managers' compensation. In all other areas, legislation cannot serve as a substitute for the exercise of common sense, discernment and responsibility by a company's board of directors.
But if we must have laws to bolster our ethics, their guiding principle should be that remuneration is always linked to the performance and services it is intended to compensate. Only measures that ensure that companies reward true merit will be considered legitimate by employees, shareholders and the public.
Raphael Hadas-Lebel is chamber president in the Conseil d'etat and an associate professor at the Institut d'etudes politiques in Paris. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent any official position.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with