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.

Hermes opposes the appointment of Michael Dobson as Chair of Schroders

Home / Press Centre / Hermes opposes the appointment of Michael Dobson as Chair of Schroders

28 April 2016

Also recommends voting against a number of remuneration-related proposals at Shire, Weir Group and Tullow Oil AGMs

Ahead of four high-profile AGMs taking place today, Dr Hans-Christoph Hirt, Co-Head of Hermes EOS, outlines our opposition to Michael Dobson’s appointment as Chair of Schroders, and why we recommend voting against three remuneration proposals at AGMs today.

Following the appointment of Michael Dobson, the company’s former CEO, as Chair and the Board’s proposal to shareholders to re-elect him to the Board, we intensified our engagement with the company on Board composition. Key points our engagement team have raised include:

  • We are supportive of the appointment of Peter Harrison to CEO and the timing of the CEO succession process.
  • We also support the board’s intentions to recruit further Non-Executives, particularly seeking technology, international and plc experience. This commitment will lead to a majority independent board.
  • While we recognise the significant contribution that Michael Dobson has made in his tenure as CEO, we are not able to support the decision to appoint him as Chair. Although we recognise some of the key client, regulator and strategic partner relationships he holds, we do not believe that these justify a breach of a fundamental principle of UK corporate governance and best practice that a CEO should not become Chair of the company.

As such, at the Annual General Meeting of Schroders today, we have recommended that our clients vote against the re-election of both the Senior Independent Director, who led the Chair succession process, and of Michael Dobson.

We do not support the increase in salary of 25% for the CEO, Dr Flemming Ornskov, particularly given that his overall bonus potential is more than 10 times his basic salary and his total remuneration was over $21m last year. We believe that an incremental approach to salary rises is more appropriate and should reflect shareholder value creation over the longer term.

Weir Group
In the binding vote on the proposal to approve the remuneration policy, we are recommending to clients that they vote against, due to the proposed award of restricted shares which are not tied to performance targets. To focus on creating value over the long term, we believe that the company should have performance targets and apply the test of common sense if these prove to be unrealistic due to unanticipated market conditions.

Tullow Oil
We are recommending that clients vote against this year’s pay awards at Tullow Oil as we believe that the bonus award to executives (at 38% of the potential maximum), which equates to almost two times basic salary, is out of step with the decline in Tullow’s share price of approximately 80% over the last three years.  We feel that there is a good case here for downward discretion to have been applied by the remuneration committee to the mechanistic outcome of the remuneration policy.

For more information on our position regarding executive remuneration, please refer to our policy document:
Remuneration principles for building and reinforcing long-term business success (September 2015)

Share this post:

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Amy Wilson
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Andrew Parry
  • Claire Gavini
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Eoin Murray
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ilana Elbim
  • Ingrid Holmes
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Joseph Buckley
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martin Todd
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Neil Williams
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Peter Hofbauer
  • Philip Nell
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Crockford
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Yasmin Chowdhury

Find posts by category

  • eos
  • governance

Press contacts