IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dug/journl/y2010i25p35-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

International comparison of the remuneration system disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Simona FRANZONI

    (University of Brescia)

Abstract

This research is aimed at assessing whether rules and recommendations adopted in European Countries (France; Germany; Italy; Spain; United Kingdom) and non-European Countries (Canada; Japan; Russia; United States) enable companies to have a regulatory framework as a guarantee of information completeness, so that anyone can, on the one hand, assess if the company is transparency-oriented and, on the other, to facilitate the comparison of remuneration systems with other companies in other European contexts or non-European Countries. Finally, this paper aims to examine how the listed companies, operating in the public utilities sector, have implemented remuneration systems disclosure in the corporate behaviour in order to assess if, European and non-European listed companies surveyed behave in conformity with transparency provisions and assure stakeholders, information completeness.

Suggested Citation

  • Simona FRANZONI, 2010. "International comparison of the remuneration system disclosure," EuroEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 25, pages 35-44, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:dug:journl:y:2010:i:25:p:35-44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/euroeconomica/article/view/629/576
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian J. Hall & Kevin J. Murphy, 2003. "The Trouble with Stock Options," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 49-70, Summer.
    2. Daniela Salvioni & Luisa Bosetti, 2006. "Corporate Governance Report and Stakeholder View," Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, Niccolò Cusano University, issue 1 Corpora.
    3. David Aboody & Mary E. Barth & Ron Kasznik, 2004. "Firms' Voluntary Recognition of Stock‐Based Compensation Expense," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 123-150, May.
    4. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & Jesse M. Fried & David I. Walker, 2002. "Managerial Power and Rent Extraction in the Design of Executive Compensation," NBER Working Papers 9068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Lucian Bebchuk & Jesse Fried, 2002. "Power, rent extraction, and executive compensation," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 3(03), pages 23-28, October.
    6. Baruch Lev, 2003. "Corporate Earnings: Facts and Fiction," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 27-50, Spring.
    7. Brian J. Hall & Kevin J. Murphy, 2003. "The Trouble with Stock Options," NBER Working Papers 9784, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Gugler, Klaus (ed.), 2001. "Corporate Governance and Economic Performance," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245703, Decembrie.
    9. O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), 1999. "Handbook of Labor Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fornasari, Tommaso, 2020. "Il ruolo dei comitati di responsabilità sociale nella corporate governance [The Role of CSR Committees in Corporate Governance]," MPRA Paper 111192, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xavier Gabaix & Augustin Landier, 2008. "Why has CEO Pay Increased So Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(1), pages 49-100.
    2. Otten, J.A. & Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., 2007. "Extending the Managerial Power Theory of Executive Pay: A Cross National Test," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-090-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Kevin J. Murphy & Jan Zabojnik, 2006. "Managerial Capital And The Market For Ceos," Working Paper 1110, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    4. Andrea Melis & Silvia Carta & Silvia Gaia, 2012. "Executive remuneration in blockholder-dominated firms. How do Italian firms use stock options?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(3), pages 511-541, August.
    5. Merz, Alexander, 2017. "What have we learned from SFAS 123r and IFRS 2? A review of existing evidence and future research suggestions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 14-33.
    6. Andrea Melis & Silvia Carta, 2010. "Does accounting regulation enhance corporate governance? Evidence from the disclosure of share-based remuneration," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 14(4), pages 435-446, November.
    7. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & Jesse M. Fried, 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 71-92, Summer.
    8. Abdelaziz Elmarzougui, 2006. "Evolution et sensibilité des stock-options : cas du marché français," Working Papers hal-04138526, HAL.
    9. de La Bruslerie, H. & Deffains-Crapsky, C., 2008. "Information asymmetry, contract design and process of negotiation: The stock options awarding case," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 73-91, April.
    10. Matolcsy, Zoltan & Riddell, Suzanna & Wright, Anna, 2009. "Alternative explanations for the association between market values and stock-based compensation expenditure," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 95-107.
    11. Sebastien Valeyre, 2020. "Refined model of the covariance/correlation matrix between securities," Papers 2001.08911, arXiv.org.
    12. Dietl, Helmut M. & Duschl, Tobias & Lang, Markus, 2011. "Executive Pay Regulation: What Regulators, Shareholders, and Managers Can Learn from Major Sports Leagues," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 1-30, August.
    13. Voulgaris, Georgios & Stathopoulos, Konstantinos & Walker, Martin, 2014. "IFRS and the Use of Accounting-Based Performance Measures in Executive Pay," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 479-514.
    14. Sebastien Valeyre & Denis Grebenkov & Sofiane Aboura & Francois Bonnin, 2016. "Should employers pay their employees better? An asset pricing approach," Papers 1602.00931, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2016.
    15. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Achim Hendriks & Susanne A. Welker, 2014. "Effects of Executive Compensation Complexity on Investor Behaviour in an Experimental Stock Market," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 625-645, December.
    16. Andergassen, Rainer, 2008. "High-powered incentives and fraudulent behavior: Stock-based versus stock option-based compensation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 122-125, November.
    17. Chen, Chia-Wei & Yi, Bingsheng & Lin, J. Barry, 2013. "Media coverage, board structure and CEO compensation: Evidence from Taiwan," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 434-445.
    18. Ng, Lilian & Sibilkov, Valeriy & Wang, Qinghai & Zaiats, Nataliya, 2011. "Does shareholder approval requirement of equity compensation plans matter?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 1510-1530.
    19. Michael L. Bognanno, 2010. "Executive Compensation: A Brief Review," DETU Working Papers 1002, Department of Economics, Temple University.
    20. Hongfei Tang, 2014. "Are CEO stock option grants optimal? Evidence from family firms and non-family firms around the Sarbanes–Oxley Act," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 251-292, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dug:journl:y:2010:i:25:p:35-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Florian Nuta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fedanro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.