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 2017, 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.

Shortening executive contracts is short-sighted

Home / EOS Blog / Shortening executive contracts is short-sighted

15 April 2015


Few could argue against the logic that highly performing executives deserve to be well-paid. Where to draw the line between well-paid and over-paid is a discussion for another day. But paying executives generously for mediocrity, or even failure, is difficult for investors to swallow.

A clean break

Too often, it seems remuneration committees find themselves in this position. The chief executive is underperforming or, as in the situation at Tesco earlier this year, there are allegations of wrong-doing. In these cases, a clean break from the executives is the best option. So it is somewhat inconvenient that senior executives routinely have year-long employment contracts. The price of showing them the exit door early is a handsome pay-off.

Pressure for shorter contracts

But changes may be on the horizon. According to some institutional investors, big payments for failure will become a thing of the past and executive contracts will be reduced to six or even three months. So convinced are they of the logic of this approach that they intend to vote against companies that do not fall into line and refuse to shorten executive service contracts to less than twelve months as soon as 2016.

Undeniably, the argument has some merit. It seems unfair that executives enjoy many times more job security than their workforce. Shortening contracts is a small step on the road to addressing some of the inequalities of the labour market and restoring public confidence in big business. As for arguments about continuity, perhaps snappier exits will be the push boards need to dust off their succession plans more regularly.

Measured approach

However, at Hermes EOS we are not yet convinced that this is the right approach. In an era of short-termism, reducing notice periods seems to send exactly the wrong message to companies about the expected tenure of chief executives. Investors may seek to wield the axe after far shorter periods of underperformance, to the detriment of long-term corporate decision-making. And what sort of compensation will directors who are being asked to cut their contracts – increasing the already high risk of taking on a senior role – expect?

We will continue to question remuneration committees to ensure that they will not over-pay departing executives who have underperformed. This would include imposing a duty to mitigate, if the individual in question obtains alternative employment during the notice period. But more particularly, boards must have the discretion to claw back or withhold payments if appropriate. At Tesco, there was insufficient evidence to establish gross misconduct by the individuals in charge, so, despite an ongoing investigation, the company was obliged to make payments in lieu of the 12-month notice period to the CEO and CFO.

Shortening contracts across the board looks heavy-handed. It is far better for remuneration committees to have the tools they need to take sensible decisions in exceptional situations.

Share this post:

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Amy Wilson
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Claire Gavini
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Emma Hunt
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ilana Elbim
  • Ingrid Holmes
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Joseph Buckley
  • Kimberley Lewis
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Maxime Le Floch, CFA
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Michael Viehs
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Peter Hofbauer
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Yasmin Chowdhury

Find posts by category

  • governance