“You get what you pay for.”
This axiom has guided my views on executive compensation since my time on the
Vancity Credit Union
board
in Vancouver, BC, in the 1990s. Back then, the board of directors of the
world’s largest community-based credit union was struggling to motivate its
executives to deliver on its social mission. Then a breakthrough moment
occurred: We discovered that all our compensation incentives were directed
solely at financial performance, with no incentive focusing on the social
numbers. Once we figured this out, we swiftly incorporated social impact into
the CEO’s long-term incentive plan. That accelerated the financial institution’s
pivot to becoming a global leader in social impact banking – a position it has
held since.
Fifteen years later, and long-retired from the Vancity board, I was
commissioned to study the social and environmental components of the
S&P/TSX-60,
Canada’s stock market index of 60 large companies listed on the Toronto Stock
Exchange. The results at the time were very discouraging: While over half of
the companies mentioned considering sustainability factors in their executive
compensation decisions (57 percent), only 40 percent showed use of
pre-established sustainability metrics, targets and/or weightings for incentive
pay within their annual incentive plans (and, by the way — most of those were
for injuries, deaths, spills and leaks).
Fast-forward to 2020, and the
study
conducted by Willis Towers Watson’s Global Executive Compensation Analysis
Team on S&P 500 Highlights — ESG Incentive Metrics. It found that 50 percent
include ESG (environmental, social and governance) metrics in annual incentive
programs, up from the 40 percent in my 2013 study. It also found that four
percent include ESG metrics in long-term incentive programs, up from zero
percent in my research (note that this summer, Hugessen Consulting published
a similar review of the
TSX60,
which replicated my 2013 study; and found that now 60 percent of Canadian
issuers have weighted ESG performance metrics in their incentive plans, with
only 3 companies including ESG metrics in their long-term incentive plans).
So, while we are definitely seeing progress, it’s not enough — if the fallout
from the global pandemic is any indication. Boards and their compensation teams
and advisors are falling hopelessly short of their stakeholder and shareholder
expectations.
All this while the bar is moving even higher, as revealed by this compelling
Harvard Business Review
article by
Seymour Burchman — a managing director with Semler Brossy Consulting
Group, an executive compensation firm based in California.
As Burchman says, “Let the mission guide you.” He argues, and I agree, that if
you design your incentive plans around your mission (I now call it
purpose),
attaching targets and incentive payouts to achievement of your mission/purpose,
you would allow for “long-term transformation; agile course corrections; and the
building, operation and constant reshaping of stakeholder-rich ecosystems.”
With 10 years’ experience directing and advising purpose-driven companies, most
recently with the Social Purpose Institute, I am
equally unequivocal on this matter. First, find your core
purpose
— the societal reason your company exists. Then, set long-term goals against
your purpose. Finally, define the targets, metrics and KPIs (key performance
indicators) to get you there; and embed these in annual and long-term incentive
plans.
It is good to see compensation advisors get up to speed on this issue. I expect
more boards and compensation committees will become adept at defining and
realizing a purpose business model through compensation schemes in the years
ahead. Society awaits.
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Published Sep 23, 2020 8am EDT / 5am PDT / 1pm BST / 2pm CEST