Unpack the debate

Debate 3

Have classic short-term incentive and long-term incentive frameworks passed their use-by date?

For decades, the standard executive remuneration framework has remained remarkably consistent. Across most ASX-listed organisations, executive reward comprises three components: fixed remuneration; a short-term incentive assessed annually and delivered through a combination of cash and deferred equity; and a long-term incentive typically assessed over three years, although some companies use four-year or longer periods.

Yet the business environment in which those frameworks operate has changed dramatically.

Global pandemics, geopolitical instability, inflationary shocks, supply-chain disruption, technological transformation and shifting workforce expectations have challenged the assumptions underpinning executive incentive design. At the same time, Boards face increasing scrutiny from shareholders, proxy advisers and regulators regarding both the outcomes delivered by these frameworks and the conduct and behaviours they encourage.

This raises a fundamental question.

Has the classic short-term incentive and long-term incentive model become a governance convention that organisations continue to apply because it is familiar, rather than because it remains the most effective form of incentive?

Debate 2

The Australian two-strikes rule: Governance safeguard or productivity handbrake?

Executive remuneration remains a critical and contentious issue in Australia, shaped prominently by the two-strikes rule, a unique regulatory framework introduced in 2011.

On one hand, see how the two-strikes rule enhances accountability: it empowers shareholders by enabling collective action against poorly justified pay packages without dictating remuneration design. Discover how this has driven real reductions in CEO fixed pay, increased transparency, and fostered ongoing dialogue between boards and investors. Rooted in Australian values of fairness and responsibility, the rule promotes a balanced approach where boards retain discretion but must clearly articulate pay frameworks aligned to long-term value.

On the other, explore critiques that the rule has become a handbrake on productivity and innovation. Learn why the 25% dissent threshold may amplify vocal minority influence, leading to risk-averse, standardised pay structures that dull the pay-for-performance link. Understand concerns that the rule consumes executive time, drives talent offshore, and allows pay votes to be used as proxies for unrelated shareholder grievances, undermining its original intent.

Ultimately, should Australia maintain its distinct governance mechanism emphasising fairness and accountability, or recalibrate executive pay rules to better attract and retain global talent in a competitive market?

Debate 1

Should ASX-listed companies adopt globally competitive executive remuneration structures?

This is one of the most pressing issues in Australian corporate governance: Executive pay.

Should Australia-based ASX-listed companies align their remuneration practices with global standards or continue their uniquely Australian course?

On one side, discover the case for globally competitive pay: how attracting top-tier talent in a global market demands bold, internationally benchmarked compensation strategies. Learn from real-world examples and how the regulatory challenge posed by Australia’s “two strikes” rule creates a climate of caution and impacts the ability to compete for global talent.

On the other, explore the argument against going global: why Australia’s cultural values of fairness and egalitarianism make aggressive pay practices risky. Examine typical CEO-to-worker pay ratios in Australia and the US and see how local governance frameworks promote transparency and equity, offering a model for sustainable, socially responsible executive compensation.

Should Australia continue to define its own executive pay norms or follow the global tide?