Conflict of duties between nominee directors and company law

City AM reported on 20 April on a call to shareholders by Pensions Industry Research Consultancy (PIRC) to vote against the re-election of directors of Anglo-Swiss miner, Xstrata plc who are nominees of (soon to be floated) Glencore. They argue that these directors are not independent enough. This simply exemplifies a long-standing incongruity in company law and governance. The Companies Act 2006 makes clear that a director's duty is to the company they serve - so how can the nominee of another company and likely shareholder possibly be carrying out their duty? They are nominated in order to represent that other company, otherwise why would they be nominated? But this is blatantly incompatible with the legal position.

Appointment of Non-Executive Directors - how little has changed

Non-executive directors are in the front-line of corporate governance. A critical part of their role is to probe and challenge the executive directors - to hold them to account and to apply common sense and specialist expertise to test the appropriateness of their strategies.

The Higgs Report into the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors and the Tyson Report on their recruitment and development, both published in 2003, addressed issues of board composition. The latter, in particular, talked about the importance of board diversity to better decision making. In this it echoed the views of others, such as Tomorrow's Company. It talked about things such as defining skills or perspectives that are lacking in the board and going out and recruiting against that brief, It talked about being prepared to recruit from people who possess the right skills and qualities but who may have worked below board-level in their careers or have worked as consultants or advisers to businesses.

So have things changed with the passage of eight years and in light of the increased focus on corporate governance? Not a bit of it. British boards still have very few women but they also have very few of anything other than British, white, middle class, heterosexual men who share a very limited background and have all pursued very similar career paths. I know someone who is exploring the possibility of taking on one or more NED positions and she has been told by headhunters that, in reality, very few appointments result from search assignments. Companies don't want to pay. Just as Tyson reported in 2003, over half of appointments result from a tap on the shoulder by someone you know. Another person I know, who is looking for an NED role finds that his lack of previous main board experience is a huge impediment; this despite having served as a divisional MD for a large quoted company.

If non-executive directors really are important - and I believe they are - then this lack of diversity and lack of change is a real problem. I don't have a solution. I don't think legislation or regulation is appropriate but cannot think how we combat this damaging rigidity in our economic and social fabric. Tyson suggested measuring and reporting board background and composition on the basis that people manage what is measured. I am not sure that would work either but it is surely worth a go - however nothing has happened in this respect in eight years. Any ideas?

Shareholder rebels over executive pay

I would link this post to the headline in the Sunday Times, but it is hidden behind a paywall. The article about Standard Life, the biggest sharteholder in Rio Tinto, criticising "the mining giant for handing bosses generous rewards for hitting 'unchallenging' targets. It follows 41% of votes going against last year's remuneration report. The issue raises some interesting questions;

• Should shareholder votes on the remuneration committee's report be binding instead of just advisory?
• Should public companies treat these expressions of shareholder dismay rather more seriously?
• Does the lack of board responsiveness itself point to serious governance issues? For example are the non-executive directors actually doing their job or are they merely cheerleaders for the board?

As time passes and we see more of this, I suspect there will be a growing consensus for reform. The big problem is that shareholders will rarely vote against the reappointment of directors. By the time a company is performing badly enough to warrant that, the shareholders simply sell and leave a takeover to institute reform. However that discipline does not help when a company is performing reasonably well, yet shareholders are unhappy about outrageous remuneration packages. What is needed is a mechanism that produces more active non-executive directors who are not all part of the club who vote each other outrageous remuneration. It is not even always that directors sit on each other's boards or are personal friends. They just have similar backgrounds and similar interests and believe that high remuneration for pedestrian performance is ok because that is the deal they have themselves received in their day jobs.

This is an argument for boardroom diversity

Financial Advisers in the Corporate Governance Process

The role of financial advisers in the corporate governance of listed companies ought to be a pivotal one. I am not so old but still remember a time when investment banks (or merchant banks, as they were known then) were often paragons of rectitude and the more reputable ones would not deal with a company if they felt it was acting improperly: not illegally, just improperly. Really, it is true. Of course, there were some that sailed close to the wind even then. I remember the time when I was involved in negotiating to buy Hard Rock Cafe and, at the very end of the deal - when everything was agreed - the advisers acting for the vendor raised the issue of their fees. Apparently they were not being paid by the vendor, having set up the deal speculatively, and wanted to land us with the extra cost. We were shocked. There was nothing illegal in this, just not quite cricket to leave it so late to tell us. Still, it was Drexel Burnham and Lambert and when you dealt with them you knew you were in the wild west.

Since then everyone has become inured to revelations about financial advisory firms. A recent Harvard Law blog examines the recent court case arising from Barclays behaviour in the del Monte takeover - where they advised and also misled the del Monte board. I would not have imagined that of Barclays in the past. And of course there is the opprobrium heaped on Goldman Sachs for selling investments to clients at the same time as other parts of their organisation described the securities in unflattering terms. Still, a City connection recently offered the opinion that people prefer not to deal with advisers they don't trust; and that over the next few years one may see the deal flow to some of these major institutions dwindling in quality and quantity as boards of directors go back to seeking advisers they can trust.

An interesting thought.