We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2016, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Home / Hermes EOS Blog / First anniversary lessons

20 November 2014


It has now been just over a year since the introduction of the new remuneration reporting and voting regime in the UK. The new rules require companies to report more detail and give investors a greater say over how pay is set. But has it resulted in positive change?

What is clear is that with more disclosure requirements, reporting on remuneration has not become any shorter. While reducing the reporting burden was never the aim of the regulations, it does not fit squarely with a general desire for more concise reporting.

This begs the question – have the regulations led to better communication? The answer to this is not black and white and depends on how companies have approached the challenge.

At one end of the spectrum, we see those who have treated it as a compliance exercise, sticking with boilerplate legalese, precisely the sort of disclosures that can be deemed clutter. At the other end, some companies have taken the opportunity to use the new regulations as a platform to review their communications on how their pay supports a performance and culture that generates long-term value for investors. So a focus on length alone does not provide a useful answer. In our experience, the most valuable reporting tends to come from the narrative section in the committee chair’s introduction, which some companies have been doing for a while now.

The regulations have certainly encouraged more proactive engagement from companies given that shareholders now have a binding vote on the remuneration policy. Again, some of this has been good, some not so good. Engagement on how remuneration structures are right for the company at hand is valuable; engagement asking for a rubber stamp on the policy report is less so. The latter approach is also less likely to promote engagement that will support innovation in remuneration, to the detriment of the whole process.

We are now at the end of year one. Companies have been grappling with how best to disclose, while investors have been finding out how to use the new powers given to them. What is essential is that both sides engage in dialogue over the coming years to ensure valuable disclosures, which allow them to discuss pay in the context of the company and its strategy rather than tinkering around the edges in order to push through a policy vote. This will be the real mark of success.

Share this post:

Find posts by author

  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Emma Hunt
  • Freddie Woolfe
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Jennifer Walmsley
  • Jon Brager
  • Justine Lutterodt
  • Karin Ri
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Lui Goldie
  • Mais Hayek
  • Manuel Isaza
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martina Macpherson
  • Matthew Doyle
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Viehs
  • Naheeda Rashid
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nina Rehrbein
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Victoria Barron

Find posts by category

  • Select category
  • governance