<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/11/10/2025-corporate-governance-incentive-design-survey/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 11:30:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>2025 Corporate Governance &#038; Incentive Design Survey</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/11/10/2025-corporate-governance-incentive-design-survey/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=2025-corporate-governance-incentive-design-survey</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/11/10/2025-corporate-governance-incentive-design-survey/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 12:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incentive plans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pay-versus-performance disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder engagement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=177587?d=20251110111917EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Executive Summary In reviewing executive compensation program designs and related corporate governance policies, companies should consider current market practices and recent trends to inform boardroom discussions. Meridian’s 2025 Corporate Governance &#38; Incentive Design Survey provides key insights into executive compensation and corporate governance. The Survey summarizes market practices at 200 large publicly traded companies across [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Tyler Papineau and Mark Riley, Meridian Compensation Partners, on Monday, November 10, 2025 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">Tyler Papineau and Mark Riley are Consultants at Meridian Compensation Partners. This post is based on their Meridian report.</p>
</div></hgroup><h3>Executive Summary</h3>
<p>In reviewing executive compensation program designs and related corporate governance policies, companies should consider current market practices and recent trends to inform boardroom discussions.</p>
<p>Meridian’s 2025 Corporate Governance &amp; Incentive Design Survey provides key insights into executive compensation and corporate governance.</p>
<p>The Survey summarizes market practices at 200 large publicly traded companies across all industries (referred to herein as the “Meridian 200”). These companies have median revenues and market capitalizations of $25.4B and $46.5B, respectively, making them a representative sample of the S&amp;P 500.</p>
<p>All information was gathered from annual proxy statements. Meridian has conducted a similar analysis annually since 2011, with minimal changes to the list of reviewed companies (97% of the 2025 Meridian 200 constituents were reviewed in 2024). This year-over-year consistency allows for the identification of emerging trends. For more details, please refer to the Profile of Survey Companies section.</p>
<h3>Governance Practices and Company Policies</h3>
<p><strong>Prevalence of Board Diversity Disclosures Decreases:</strong> 74% of companies disclose ethnic diversity statistics for current board membership, down significantly from 97% in 2024. This trend appears to coincide with changes in federal policy under the Trump administration as well as updated guidance from some institutional investors and proxy advisory firms regarding DEI-related expectations.</p>
<p><strong>Mandatory Retirement Age Policies Remain Common:</strong> Similar to last year, 79% of Meridian 200 companies disclosed a mandatory retirement age policy for board members. Most of these companies set the retirement age between 72 and 75, with a recent trend towards the older end of this range continuing.</p>
<p><strong>Independent Board Chair Used by Half of all Companies:</strong> 53% of Meridian 200 companies maintain a separation between the Board Chair and CEO roles. Among the companies that separate the roles, the majority (74%) appoint an independent director as Board Chair.</p>
<p><strong>Companies Cap Outside Board Seats:</strong> 92% of companies disclose director overboarding policies. These policies limit the number of public company board seats an incumbent director may hold.</p>
<p><strong>Most Companies Maintain Clawback Provisions Beyond the Dodd-Frank Requirements:</strong> In late 2023, NYSE- and Nasdaq-listed companies were required to adopt and implement a Dodd-Frank compliant mandatory clawback policy. 83% of companies choose to maintain policies or provisions that exceed the requirements of the mandatory policy. Companies’ expanded policies feature additional triggers (i.e., beyond financial restatement), cover a broader employee group and/or apply to more elements of compensation.</p>
<h3>Proxy Disclosures</h3>
<p><strong>Compensation-Related Shareholder Proposals Decline; Support Remains Low:</strong> In 2025, 14% of companies received at least one compensation-related shareholder proposal. Most compensation-related shareholder proposals continue to receive limited shareholder support.</p>
<p><strong>Nearly All Companies Engage in Shareholder Outreach:</strong> 96% of the Meridian 200 disclose shareholder outreach efforts. 50% of the Meridian 200 provide specific details on feedback received and/or actions taken as a result of the feedback.</p>
<p><strong>SEC “Pay Versus Performance” Disclosures Remain Consistent:</strong> Consistent with last year, most companies (80%) choose to compare TSR against an industry specific index and a strong majority of companies (92%) use graphical disclosure to depict the relationship between “compensation actually paid” and performance.</p>
<h3>Annual Incentive Plan Design Practices</h3>
<p><strong> Earnings Metrics Drive Annual Incentives:</strong> 88% of companies include an earnings metric in the annual incentive plan. On average, earnings metrics account for 50% of the overall plan weighting.</p>
<p><strong>Financial Metric Prevalence Remains Consistent:</strong> Consistent with previous years, the most prevalent financial performance metrics are operating income, revenue, cash flow and earnings per share (EPS).</p>
<p><strong>Non-Financial Measures Are Also Common; Types of Measures Vary Widely:</strong> Most companies (80%) also include non-financial measures in the annual incentive plan. 57% of companies include corporate operational/ strategic goals, while 43% of companies measure individual performance, either as a weighted metric (21% prevalence) or as a modifier (22% prevalence).</p>
<h3>Long-Term Incentive Plan Design Practices</h3>
<p><strong> Performance Awards Are the Primary LTI Vehicle:</strong> Performance-based awards continue to be used by nearly all Meridian 200 companies (99%) in the long-term incentive plan. On average, performance awards represent 62% of CEOs’ annual target LTI value.</p>
<p><strong>Standard Performance Period – 3 Years:</strong> It is most common (96%) for Meridian 200 companies to assess performance over a three-year measurement period. Typically, goals are set over the three-year cumulative period, rather than set as individual annual goals.</p>
<p><strong>Relative TSR Remains the Predominant Metric:</strong> 80% of companies include a relative TSR measure in performance awards. On average, relative TSR accounts for 54% of the overall plan weighting and most companies (92%) pair TSR with at least one other performance measure. It is more common for companies to incorporate relative TSR as a weighted metric (60% prevalence), rather than a modifier.</p>
<p>See the full report <a href="https://www.meridiancp.com/app/uploads/2025/10/2025-Corporate-Governance-Incentive-Design-Survey.pdf">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/11/10/2025-corporate-governance-incentive-design-survey/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
