IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecolab/v23y2012i2p99-116.html

Executive Remuneration Developments in Australia: Responses and Reactions

Author

Listed:
  • Savo KovaÄ ević

Abstract

Rewards for Australian executives continue to stir debate. A recent Australian government response to pay concerns was to call on the Productivity Commission (PC) to investigate the oversight, accountability and transparency of remuneration practices. At least two PC-related outcomes were controversial: the ‘two strikes' and ‘clawback’ proposals. This article considers the reactions of two key stakeholders, namely the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Business Council of Australia. The views of these two organisations reflect an ongoing evaluation of rules- and principles-based governance structures. Asserting the need to consider alternate analytical models when studying executive pay, the present article concludes with several questions about the intent(s) driving remuneration reforms and their possible consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Savo KovaÄ ević, 2012. "Executive Remuneration Developments in Australia: Responses and Reactions," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 99-116, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:99-116
    DOI: 10.1177/103530461202300208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/103530461202300208
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/103530461202300208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruth Bender, 2004. "Why Do Companies Use Performance‐Related Pay for Their Executive Directors?," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(4), pages 521-533, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alcindo Mendes & Rogério João Lunkes & Leonardo Flach & Silvana Dalmutt Kruger, 2017. "The influence of remuneration on the behavior of hospital employees in Brazil," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 62(1), pages 207-221, Enero-Mar.
    2. Brian G. M. Main & Calvin Jackson & John Pymm & Vicky Wright, 2008. "The Remuneration Committee and Strategic Human Resource Management," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 225-238, May.
    3. Ruth Bender & Lance Moir, 2006. "Does ‘Best Practice’ in Setting Executive Pay in the UK Encourage ‘Good’ Behaviour?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 75-91, August.
    4. Sikka, Prem, 2010. "Smoke and mirrors: Corporate social responsibility and tax avoidance," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 153-168.
    5. Walker, James & Wood, Geoff & Brewster, Chris & Beleska-Spasova, Elena, 2018. "Context, market economies and MNEs: The example of financial incentivization," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 21-33.
    6. James J. Cordeiro & Rajaram Veliyath & Jane B. Romal, 2007. "Moderators of the Relationship Between Director Stock‐Based Compensation and Firm Performance," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(6), pages 1384-1393, November.
    7. Mallin, Chris & Melis, Andrea & Gaia, Silvia, 2015. "The remuneration of independent directors in the UK and Italy: An empirical analysis based on agency theory," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 175-186.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:99-116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.