How should regulators deal with entrenched company executives?

The regulatory framework for corporate governance, both in Australia and internationally, shifts between rules based regimes and principles based approach. The rules based regimes are typified by legislation that imposes mandated compliance based rules, such as the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Other regimes, such as Australia’s CLERP 9 and the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s principles, have opted for a disclosure approach. This paper examines these approaches in the context of the non-binding vote rule, which arguably combines aspects of both. The study’s methodology empirically considers evidence relating to actual voting patterns as well as case study examples of the non-binding vote’s effectiveness. Significantly, our analyses show that from its inception, the non-binding vote was effective in motivating management to change the remuneration package to one they perceived as more acceptable to shareholders and that the non-binding vote is an effective regime to manage CEO remuneration (and by extension) executive remuneration.