Skip to content

CS Professional · Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) - Principles and Practice · Board's Accountability on ESG

Meera Foods Ltd links 20% of its executives' bonus to an ESG score. Over two years the score rises sharply, but the ESG data is self-reported by the operations team, with no review by internal audit or an independent assurer, and the targets were lowered mid-year. What is the main governance concern for the Board?

The key concern is that pay may reward unreliable outcomes. ESG data was self-reported without independent assurance or internal audit review, and targets were lowered mid-year. The Board and its remuneration committee must ensure data integrity and target discipline; the weight itself is not unlawful and a higher score alone proves nothing.

  1. AThe bonus weight of 20% is illegal for any listed company
  2. BESG metrics must never form part of remuneration
  3. CThe incentive may reward unreliable results because data lacks independent assurance and targets were changed, so Board oversight is weakCorrect
  4. DThe score rose, which proves the strategy is working

Explanation

Incentive links are credible only when data is reliable, assured and targets are set with discipline. Self-reported data and mid-year lowering of targets can reward apparent rather than real performance. The 20% weight is not itself unlawful, and ESG metrics can legitimately be part of pay.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Board's Accountability on ESG shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Board's Accountability on ESGFree diagnostic mock

More Board's Accountability on ESG questions