Is Your Compensation Committee’s Outside Advisor Independent?

Much has been written about the need for boards and compensation committees to seek advice from outside advisors who are independent of management. For example, the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Executive Compensation and the Role of the Compensation Committee suggests that compensation committees consider engaging an independent compensation consultant who is hired by and who reports directly to the committee and who has not been retained by the company in any other capacity. The failure to use outside advisors was cited in both the complaints filed against Cendant and Disney (re: Executive Compensation) as further evidence of the compensation committee’s failing.

As these guidelines suggest, compensation committees that consider engaging outside advisors should assess not only the advisor’s experience and expertise but also the advisor’s independence. This is no small matter. It is the rare advisor who is willing to tell the emperor that he has no clothes – or in the corporate world of today, that the CEO’s pay package is too high or has been compared to an inappropriate set of companies. The controversy over Mr. Grasso’s pay is a case in point.

The fees that executive compensation advisors receive often represent a small portion of the overall fees received by the advisor from the company. As might be expected, these advisors may be reluctant to risk management’s displeasure by challenging the executive pay program. As a result, compensation committees should periodically assess their advisor’s independence. In the case of compensation advisors, Richard Breeden suggests in his MCI Report that this should occur in conjunction with the compensation committee’s review of the advisor’s performance.

The following is a checklist that can be used to assess an outside advisor’s independence:

The advisor should be free of any relationship with the Company or its management that may impair, or appear to impair, its ability to provide independent advice to the compensation committee. In addition:

  • No officer or shareholder of the advisor should be a current or former (within the prior three years) employee or a more than 1% shareholder of the Company or any affiliate of the Company.
  • No officer or director of the Company should be a current or former (within the prior three years) officer or shareholder of the advisor.
  • No officer or shareholder of the advisor should have a familial relationship with any executive officer or director of the Company.
  • The advisor should not receive remuneration from the Company, directly or indirectly, other than for advisory services rendered to, at the direction of, or with the approval of the board or compensation committee.

Related

At an Inflection Point: Long-Term Incentive Design Post-ISS/Glass Lewis Ascendancy

Download a pdf of this article » For more than a decade, long-term incentive programs have largely converged around a single model: a mix of restricted stock units (RSUs) and performance-based awards (primarily PSUs), with 50% or higher weighting on the PSUs. The convergence on this model was driven more by proxy advisor expectations than business strategy. Two recent developments signal a major shift toward flexibility and innovation: ISS Policy Updates: ISS’s 2026 benchmark equity mix policy now recognizes that

Read More

Updating Proxy Advisor Peer Groups Ahead of 2026 Annual Meetings

Download a pdf of this article » For companies holding annual meetings February 1, 2026 through September 15, 2026, ISS’s peer group submission window is now open, through 8 PM ET on Friday, November 21st. We anticipate Glass Lewis’s window will also open in the near future. During this period, companies can update their self-constructed compensation peer groups for use in proxy advisors’ upcoming executive pay assessments. Absent a submission, both ISS and Glass Lewis will default to the peer

Read More

Have we reached the end of standardized proxy advisor voting recommendations? The looming ISS and Glass Lewis policy shifts

Download a pdf of this article » Overview In October, Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis & Co., Inc. (“Glass Lewis”) each announced major changes to their governance research models that mark a decisive shift away from standardized “benchmark” voting recommendations, towards a broad reorientation of the proxy advisor landscape centered on investor-specific customization – a change that is consistent with investors’ diversifying views regarding compensation program design that have led to questioning legacy views regarding the effectiveness

Read More

Glass Lewis Publishes 2025 Policy Survey

Download a pdf of this article » Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) recently announced the opening of its 2025 Policy Survey. Glass Lewis conducts its annual policy survey to inform its Benchmark Voting Policy Guidelines and to gather diverse perspectives on evolving governance and compensation practices. The 2025 survey covers a wide range of topics relevant to both proxy voting and broader stewardship efforts. While some questions are tailored to institutional respondents, Glass Lewis welcomes input from all market

Read More

Connect with us

Receive our periodic news and publications

"*" indicates required fields

Name*

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive emails from us. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact