Abstract
Using a sample of ASX 500 firms over the 2005–2019 period, we document substantial variation in the use of performance targets within Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation contracts, contrasting firms advised by Big 4 accounting entities with other compensation consulting firms. Firms that engage a Big 4 accounting firm are more likely to implement explicit non-financial performance targets within the short-term incentive plan, effectively minimising opportunities for post hoc justification. They also favour the incorporation of relative performance targets that mitigate pay for luck in the long-term incentive plan. Firms that engage a Big 4 accounting firm demonstrate a similar pay-for-performance relation to firms that do not engage a compensation consultant, while firms engaging non-Big 4 consultants exhibit a lower pay-for-performance relation. Our findings suggest that Big 4 accounting firms provide compensation recommendations that encourage the alignment of interests between managers and shareholders.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1294-1332 |
| Number of pages | 39 |
| Journal | Australian Journal of Management |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 7 Oct 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2025 |
Bibliographical note
© The Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.Keywords
- Big 4 accounting firms
- CEO compensation
- CEO contracting
- compensation consultant
- efficient contracting
- pay-for-luck
- performance targets
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'CEO performance targets: The impact of Big 4 accounting firms versus other compensation consultants'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver