Three Key TSR Incentive Design Considerations

Published by

As proxy advisors and shareholders continue to focus on improving the relationship between compensation and shareholder returns, and new pay for performance rules are finalized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, it is likely that more companies will consider adapting incentives based on Total Shareholder Return (TSR) principles. Ultimately, companies need to balance shareholder value creation with executive motivation and retention when deciding whether a TSR-based incentive plan is appropriate and aligns with the company’s compensation philosophy.

If TSR is utilized in a performance-based award package, companies need to consider the following three factors: whether TSR should be measured on an absolute or relative basis, the appropriate TSR performance hurdle, and whether there will be a cap on payouts based on absolute TSR performance.

1. Absolute versus Relative TSR. Absolute TSR requires the company to set stock price targets that must be achieved to earn a payout. Establishing an absolute stock price level at the beginning of a performance period can be challenging, as a declining stock market could make goal achievement difficult to achieve, while a “buoyant” stock market could make the absolute goal relatively easy to achieve. The challenge with relative TSR is that it requires the company to select a peer group or index that is appropriate for relative TSR performance comparisons. Identifying an appropriate comparator can be particularly challenging for companies in unique markets or industries with just a few competitors.

deloitteblogfigure1A well-designed TSR plan might provide that when a company achieves both low absolute TSR and relative TSR, little to no payouts would be allowed (Figure 1, box C); similarly, when absolute TSR and relative TSR performance are high, payouts would be sizable (Figure 1, box B).

In cases of high absolute TSR with low relative performance (Figure 1, box A), some type of reduction in payouts might be appropriate, as the company underperformed the stock market. Similarly, in cases of low absolute TSR and high relative TSR performance (Figure 1, box D), management could be rewarded for out-performing a down stock market.

Competitive practice, however, does not often combine these two concepts. Most plans are based on relative TSR, with no adjustment for absolute performance. The few companies that set absolute stock price (or TSR) goals do not consider relative performance. A few large companies have introduced payout caps when absolute performance is negative, a concept which is discussed below.

2.TSR Performance Hurdle. If absolute TSR is utilized, a company will need to decide a minimum stock price level that must be achieved to trigger a payout (e.g., the current stock price is $15, and a trigger price of $30 is established before a payout can be earned). Determining an absolute stock price, or TSR hurdle, should stretch the executive’s efforts, but should not be demotivating. That said, the performance of the overall stock market or the stock performance of the company’s industry sector can make the $30 target in the example either impossible or easy to achieve, which may not create the intended incentive.

For relative TSR, the company must decide the minimum level of relative performance compared to a peer group or market index that begins to provide a payout. This approach allows companies to avoid the need to set a specific stock price. However, it is important to remember that a relative TSR goal may not provide the intended motivation, as the goal is not as clear cut as the absolute stock price target (and, presumably, the underlying earnings or cash flow that must be achieved to support the target stock price).

deloitteblogfigure2A typical relative TSR performance curve for a US-based company is illustrated in Figure 2. The threshold level is often the most debated payout level on the performance curve, although competitive market practice suggests the 25th percentile is the most common threshold performance level. By way of contrast, a UK-based company would typically start payouts at 50thpercentile relative performance.

3. TSR Caps. In order to reward both relative and absolute performance, some companies with relative TSR plans have placed a cap on payouts when absolute TSR is negative. These caps often limit payouts to 100% of target despite the company’s ability to outperform in a down market, as shareholders lost value during the performance period.The obvious issue with this approach is the lack of symmetry. Specifically, if the share price increases significantly, but relative TSR is below the threshold level, no payouts will occur. Thus, shareholders will realize a significant increase in stock value and management does not receive a payout (contrast this result with stock options, where management would realize a significant amount of “intrinsic value”). The lack of symmetry and the general belief that out-performance in a down stock market should be rewarded has likely led companies to refrain from imposing caps on payouts.This may change as shareholders and the proxy advisory firms continue to apply pressure on companies to better align pay and performance. In addition, the SEC proposed rules required under Dodd Frank in July 2015 that when finalized will require disclosure of the relationship of pay and TSR (both relative and absolute). This disclosure could impact the design of incentive plans including TSR-based plans to further align realized compensation with shareholder returns (including the use of TSR caps).

Michael Kesner is principal and Jennifer Kwech is senior manager of Deloitte Consulting LLP’s Compensation Strategies Practice.


Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.
This presentation contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this presentation, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This presentation is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this presentation.

Living in a Material World

Published by

Veena Ramani

It is clearer than ever before that sustainability practices can affect corporate value. That was the main thread of a panel that I led at the National Association of Corporate Directors’ 2016 Global Board Leaders’ Summit in Washington, D.C. My co-panelists Christianna Wood, director at H&R Block, and Seth Goldman, founder of Honest Tea, and I discussed the potential risks and opportunities that environmental and social issues pose to companies.

Sustainability is a broad term, and not every environmental or social issue belongs on the board agenda. But when an environmental or social issue has the potential to affect corporate revenue and earnings in the short and long term, sustainability absolutely should be on the table.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to materiality, and this is where corporate directors have a critical role to play.

Materiality is about determining a company’s priorities. As fiduciaries responsible for overseeing a company so that it not only survives but also thrives in the long term, directors have a responsibility to assess whether a company is making the right choices.

But the much harder question is: When does an environmental or social issue rise to the level of being material?

Here are some steps directors can take to drive discussions about whether sustainability issues are material to the companies that they oversee.

1.) Understand how sustainability is being integrated into your company’s efforts as a way to identify material issues.

There are a few ways to do this. Directors could point management towards the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board’s Company Implementation Guide, which provides a great starting point for companies to assess whether certain sustainability factors could be considered material for the purposes of the company’s financial filings. Directors could also integrate themselves more meaningfully into corporate efforts aimed at identifying material sustainability issues. They could provide perspectives on the connections between sustainability factors, corporate strategy, risk, and revenue.

2.) Include key issues being raised by critical stakeholders in the materiality exercise. 

While a broader range of stakeholders is raising a variety of issues these days, the financial community is a particularly critical constituency to direct attention towards. As we discussed in our panel, the U.S. investor community is starting to make the connections between sustainability and the financial value of companies in their portfolios. During the 2016 proxy season, close to 400 shareholder resolutions on climate change and other sustainability issues were filed. Large investors including CalPERS, CalSTRS and State Street Global Advisors are asking their portfolio companies to put directors with climate expertise on their boards.

In addition to tracking broad sustainability trends that investors are paying attention to, prudent directors could consider opportunities to engage directly with key shareholders to get a sense of issues specific to the company and the industry. Directors could also track and engage with the broader activist and advocacy community as a risk management exercise.

3.) Weigh in on the time frame over which issues are considered to be material.

Since the board in particular is responsible for long-term corporate performance, directors play an important role in examining whether their company’s materiality process focuses on considering issues over the long or short term.

Overall, momentum is building to adopt a more long-term view to encourage companies and boards to think more broadly about sustainability and materiality. The recently released Commonsense Corporate Governance Principles, which are backed by major U.S. companies including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Berkshire Hathaway, and Blackrock, support the move to long-term thinking. And more companies including Unilever, Coca Cola, and National Grid are moving away from the practice of issuing quarterly guidance specifically to encourage investors and other stakeholders to adopt long-term thinking.

4.) Disclose details on what you consider to be your company’s material priorities.

Noting that determinations of materiality depend on whom the company considers to be its most significant stakeholders, governance experts are starting to call on corporate boards to release a statement noting critical audiences that the company is oriented towards and issues that the corporation is prioritizing. Companies like the Dutch insurance company Aegon have started to issue such statements.

The process of helping to identify the right issues is just a first step in a director’s responsibility on materiality. Directors have an important role to play in ensuring that material issues, when identified are integrated into board deliberations on strategy, risk, revenue and accountability systems. However, getting to the right issues lays an important foundation for the company and its key stakeholders to build on.

Veena Ramani is a senior director at the sustainability nonprofit Ceres. She runs the organization’s program on corporate governance. She recently authored the report View From the Top: How Corporate Boards Engage on Sustainability Performance.

Help Your Company to Face Its Future Confidently

Published by
Jim DeLoach

Jim DeLoach

The uncertainty of looking to the future presses boards to consider how confident their senior executives and supporting teams are in executing strategy. How can the board help the companies they oversee to face the future with a greater sense of confidence?

Confidence is neither a cliché nor an assertion of mere optimism. Rather, it is a quality that drives leaders and their companies forward. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the state of feeling certain about the truth of something” and “a feeling of self-assurance arising from one’s appreciation of one’s own abilities or qualities.” This definition focuses on the board and management’s appreciation of the collective capabilities of the enterprise, including the ability to carry out a company’s vision. It raises three fundamental questions:

  • Do we know where we’re going directionally and why? Are our people committed to achieving a common vision that is clearly articulated, meaningful, and aspirational?
  • Are we prepared for the journey? Does our staff have the capabilities to execute our strategy? Do we have a great team, a strong roadmap, and the required processes, systems and alliances, and sufficient resources to sustain our journey?
  • Do we possess the ability, will, and discipline to cope with change along the way, no matter what happens? Does our board have the mental toughness to stay on course? Is our management team agile and adaptive enough to recognize market opportunities and emerging risks, and capitalize on, endure, or overcome them by making timely adjustments to strategy and capabilities?

Definitive, positive responses to these questions from the board will enable confidence across the organization.

Looking back on experiences working with successful companies, seven attributes were identified that organizations must have when facing the uncertainty of future markets.

How to Build the Foundation for Confidence

  1. Confident organizations share commitment to a vision. Commitment to a vision provides a shared “future pull” that is both inspiring and motivating. This perspective fuels enterprise-wide focus and energy to learn, which encourages participation and altruistic camaraderie. An effective vision crafted by the board and executive team leads people at all levels of a company to recognize that the enterprise’s success and their personal success are inextricably linked.
  2. Confident organizations have a heightened awareness of the environment. A confident organization constantly reality tests its market understanding by facilitating effective listening to customers, suppliers, employees, and other stakeholders. Boards should encourage companies to generate sources of new learning, encouraging systemic thinking in distilling and acting on the environment feedback received, with the objective of driving continuous improvement. The confident organization fosters a culture of sharing and supports formal and informal continuous feedback loops to flatten the organization, get closer to the customer, and promote a preparedness mindset.
  3. Confident organizations align their required capabilities. It is a never-ending priority of the board to ensure that the right talent and capabilities are in place to achieve differentiation in the marketplace and execute strategies successfully. Capabilities include an enterprise’s superior know-how, innovative processes, proprietary systems, distinctive brands, collaborative cultures, and a unique set of supplier and customer relationships.

How to Sustain Confidence

Achieving a foundation of confidence is necessary, but alone is not enough without concerted efforts to sustain confidence. Astute directors and executives know that the ability, will, and discipline to cope with change are also needed to sustain their journey. Those winning traits are enabled by the attributes below.

  1. Confident organizations are risk-savvy. The confident organization is secure in the knowledge that it has considered all plausible risk scenarios, knows its breakpoint in the event of extreme scenarios, and has effective response plans in place (including plans to exit the strategy if circumstances warrant). Most importantly, the confident organization should have an effective early-warning capability in place to alert decision-makers of changes in the marketplace that affect the validity of critical strategic assumptions. In a truly confident organization, no idea or person is above challenge and contrarian views are welcomed.
  2. Confident organizations learn aggressively. Confident organizations improve their learning by: creating centers of excellence; embracing cutting-edge technology to drive the vision forward; fostering an open, transparent environment of ongoing knowledge sharing, networking, collaboration, and team learning; perceiving admission of errors as a strength and requiring learning from the missteps; and converting lessons learned into process improvements. Aggressive learning stimulates the collective genius of the entire enterprise.
  3. Confident organizations place a premium on creativity. Innovation should be an integral part of the corporate DNA of the confident company, and should be evidenced by setting accountability for results with innovation-focused metrics at the organizational, process, and individual levels to encourage and reward creativity. Companies committed to innovation have the creative capacity to take advantage of market opportunities and respond to emerging risks. When innovation is a strategic imperative, companies empower and reward their employees to take the appropriate risks to realize new ideas without encumbering them with the fear of repercussions if they aren’t successful.
  4. Confident organizations are resilient. Confident organizations have adaptive processes supported by disciplined decision-making, and are committed to adapt early to continuous and disruptive change. They have the will to stay the course when the going gets tough, and are prepared to act decisively to revise strategic plans in response to changing market realities. They do not allow competitors to gain advantage by building large capital reserves, having great relationships with their lenders, and by cultivating trusting relationships with their customers, vendors and shareholders. The strategies that their boards approve include triggers for contingency plans that directors and management will implement if certain predetermined events occur or conditions arise.

In summary, the speed of change continues to escalate, creating more uncertainty about future developments and outcomes. If there was ever a time for a board to assess an organization’s confidence, we believe it is now. It’s one thing to have a confident CEO, but if the people within the entity lack confidence, the organization itself may not have the creativity and resiliency needed to sustain a winning strategy.

Jim DeLoach is managing director with Protiviti, a global consulting firm.