Say on Pay: ein Überblick über Gestaltungsoptionen, ökonomische Konsequenzen und Erkenntnisse aus Empirie und Laborexperimenten

Unter dem Stichwort Say on Pay (SoP) haben in den letzen Jahren die meisten Länder der EU und die USA den Aktionären Abstimmungsrechte im Zusammenhang mit der Vergütung des Top-Managements eingeräumt. Zwischen den einzelnen Ländern bestehen jedoch erhebliche Unterschiede hinsichtlich der konkreten Ausgestaltung des SoP. Dieser Beitrag diskutiert die Wirkungen unterschiedlicher Gestaltungsoptionen des SoP auf die Anreizgestaltung und den Nutzen des Managements und der Aktionäre im Rahmen eines einfachen linearen Agency Modells. Dabei erweisen sich das vorvertragliche bindende SoP und das bedingt verpflichtende, nachvertragliche bindende SoP gegenüber den anderen untersuchten Varianten als überlegen. Während das konsultative SoP an seiner mangelnden Durchsetzbarkeit leidet, bietet das nachvertragliche bindende SoP Anreize für opportunistisches Verhalten auf Seiten der Aktionäre und führt deshalb zu Wohlfahrtsverlusten. In Ergänzung der Modellanalyse wird ein Überblick über die wichtigsten empirischen und experimentellen Studien zum Thema SoP gegeben und deren Inhalt im Lichte der Modellergebnisse diskutiert. Most countries of the European Union as well as the US recently introduced shareholder votes on the remuneration of executives, also referred to as “Say on Pay” (SoP). Interestingly, legislators in different jurisdictions opted for quite dissimilar voting right regimes. We provide an overview of the main regulatory approaches and discuss the potential impact of variations in SoP design on the structure of compensation contracts and the utility of shareholders and executives. We find that pre-contractual SoP and conditional post-contractual SoP with binding consequences are in the best interest of shareholders. By contrast, advisory SoP typically suffers from lacking enforceability. We also find that post-contractual SoP with binding consequences results in efficiency losses because it fuels moral hazard on the part of shareholders. We complement the theoretical analysis with a discussion of recent empirical and experimental studies on Say on Pay.

Spatiotemporal dynamics: the need for an innovative approach in mountain hazard risk management

Starting with an overview on losses due to mountain hazards in the Russian Federation and the European Alps, the question is raised why a substantial number of events still are recorded—despite considerable efforts in hazard mitigation and risk reduction. The main reason for this paradox lies in a missing dynamic risk-based approach, and it is shown that these dynamics have different roots: firstly, neglecting climate change and systems dynamics, the development of hazard scenarios is based on the static approach of design events. Secondly, due to economic development and population dynamics, the elements at risk exposed are subject to spatial and temporal changes. These issues are discussed with respect to temporal and spatial demands. As a result, it is shown how risk is dynamic on a long-term and short-term scale, which has to be acknowledged in the risk concept if this concept is targeted at a sustainable development of mountain regions. A conceptual model is presented that can be used for dynamical risk assessment, and it is shown by different management strategies how this model may be converted into practice. Furthermore, the interconnectedness and interaction between hazard and risk are addressed in order to enhance prevention, the level of protection and the degree of preparedness.