Skip to content

ACCA Strategic Professional · Strategic Business Leader · The board of directors

Calder Group's non-executive directors currently receive a fee plus share options linked to the share price. Investors argue this may compromise their role. Which is the strongest governance argument against granting share options to non-executive directors?

The strongest argument is that share options link non-executives' rewards to share price performance, which may weaken their independence and objectivity when challenging executives and overseeing risk. Their role is oversight, so their pay should generally be a fee not dependent on short-term results.

  1. AOptions are taxed more heavily than cash fees
  2. BOptions may tie non-executives' rewards to short-term share performance, weakening their independence in challenging executives and overseeing riskCorrect
  3. COptions reduce the number of non-executives the company can appoint
  4. DOptions make it impossible to disclose remuneration in the annual report

Explanation

Non-executives should provide independent oversight. Performance-linked pay such as options can align their interests with the executives' short-term goals and compromise objectivity. The other points are not governance arguments: tax, board size and disclosure are not affected by this issue.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on The board of directors shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More The board of directors questions