Designing a peer group for compensation benchmarking: A short guide


The scrutiny on executive compensation in recent times has made it necessary for issuers to ensure their companies’ executive pay reflects performance and aligns with the market. So an appropriate peer group for performance benchmarking, compensation programme design and other compensation decisions is essential.

Designing a peer group for compensation benchmarking: A short guide

There are two types of peer groups companies should consider: compensation peer group and performance peer group. A compensation peer group could be used:

  • As an input to design short- and long-term pay programmes;
  • To determine base salary ranges, annual incentive targets and long-term incentive award mix;
  • To assess the competitiveness of total direct compensation awarded to executives;
  • To assess the talent and recruitment practices.

The performance peer group is used to measure the company’s relative performance to determine the payout of awards, typically long-term incentives. Whether a company uses only the compensation peer group or both, it’s important that it selects the appropriate criteria to form a peer group that reflects the business.

Selecting a compensation peer group

First, the company should start with a group of direct competitors in their sub-industry, using the Standard & Poor’s Global Industry Classification Standard. It’s also useful after this step to look at the peers of these competitors (peers of peers) since they will most likely compete with the company in some ways. However, this practice can lead to industry-wide executive compensation levels being dependent on companies referencing each other, creating a “vicious-cycle” where it is difficult to crack down the high compensation levels in perpetually overpaying industries.

As a subsequent step, the company should extend its search to the related industries or the general industry to gather a list of companies which has operationally similar business models and might compete with the company for talents.

These potential peers should then be refined by size, which can be market capitalisation, total revenue or, in case of financial services companies, asset base. These peers should fall into an appropriate range in terms of size, typically 0.5 to 2 times the size of the company, to be a suitable comparator. Having many “too large” companies compare to your own in the peer group may lead to executive compensation being inflated since larger companies tend to grant larger amount of pay. The opposite holds true when peer companies used are “too small.”

The peers can also be refined further by country, number of employees, EBITDA, and/or other financial metrics. Unsuitable companies should be removed from the list and the company will end up with an appropriate peer group for compensation decision-making. If the list is too small for any meaningful comparison, the company can expand the search to include companies outside of the company’s industry, refine them using the criteria mentioned above and add them to the first list of peers. The final peer group should generally consist of 12 to 20 companies.

This peer group should be reviewed at least annually to ensure the appropriateness, especially when the company or its peers have gone through major mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures. The company will have to re-evaluate its current peers in terms of industry fit and size in order determine their appropriateness and subsequently replace some peers or add new peers if necessary.

Selecting a performance peer group

The steps in composing a performance peer group are like that of compensation peer group. The company can choose to use the same compensation peer group for performance evaluation. However, since relative performance is often measured over a period, M&A activities within the peer group may create issue for performance comparison.

The company should consider using an index as a comparator given its dynamic nature. The index could be a broader index of which the company is a part, such as the S&P 500, or a sub-index of which the company is a part, such as S&P 500 Financials or S&P 1500 Media.

Reflecting the business

Peer group selection is an important but often challenging part of the executive compensation process. Given the close attention to executive compensation from investors, regulators, and the public as well as the increase in transparency of disclosure, companies should be mindful when choosing the criteria used in selecting peers.

A good peer group used in compensation benchmarking will establish executive compensation that aligns with the market and rewards high performing executives rather than rent-seeking ones. Nevertheless, companies should realise that there is no “perfect-match” for peers and hence, companies should try their best to compose a peer group that reflects their business as closely as possible to ensure the appropriateness of any compensation benchmarking resulting from such peer group and ultimately, the appropriateness of the executive compensation.

This article is provided by Diligent.


Associated Supplier




Read the next article

Sponsored By

Topic Categories


Related Articles

Five steps to better pay benchmarking

Big data & pay benchmarking - what do they have in common?



Sponsored Articles



Editor's Picks

The biggest workplace menopause challenges and how to tackle them

The importance of workplace savings in improving financial resilience

The power of creating ‘peak’ employee experiences


Join our community

 

Sign up for REBA Professional Membership and join our community

Professional Membership benefits include receiving the REBA regular email alert, gaining access to free research and free opportunities to attend specialist conferences.

Professional Membership is currently complimentary for qualifying reward and benefits practitioners. 

Join REBA today