The Analysis of Changes in Director Compensation of Internet Corporations—Taking Alphabet as an Example

Authors

  • Hongzhou Lu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/56xqwy29

Keywords:

Director compensation, Internet companies, corporate performance

Abstract

As the rapid growth of the significance of the technology sector in global economies gained prominence, this research stems from the need to align director compensation with the internet industry's distinctive characteristics. This article sets US internet companies as research targets and Alphabet as an example. By exploring these factors through quantitative and comparative analysis, this research provides insights into how internet companies shape their compensation strategies to thrive in the digital era. The compensation approach for directors in US internet firms includes equity rewards, cash retainers, stock ownership guidelines, and performance-linked perks. Transparency, benchmarking, and alignment with strategy are vital. This structure aims to lure skilled directors, align interests with shareholders, and enhance governance amidst tech's rapid evolution. Alphabet, Google's parent company, has recently advanced director compensation. Stock options and RSUs are increasingly granted, aligning with industry trends. Cash retainers provide stability. Alphabet's focus on equity-based incentives mirrors broader tech trends. These changes underscore Alphabet's strategy to retain adept directors who shape the company's growth and direction. This research can be used to address how compensation practices reflect the industry's innovation pace, adapt to regulatory changes, and foster effective governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Smith J.K, Johnson A.B. Compensation trends in the U.S. Internet industry. Journal of Technology Management, 2020, 45 (2): 112-129.

Williams M.R, Anderson C.D. Equity-based compensation practices in tech startups. Journal of Compensation and Benefits, 2019, 28 (4): 210-225.

Taylor E.L, Brown S.R. Performance-linked bonuses and innovation in the Internet sector. Management Science, 2018, 64 (9): 4210-4227.

White L.C, Clark R.M. The role of additional perks in attracting tech talent. Journal of Human Resources Management, 2017, 32 (3): 187-202.

Jensen M.C, Murphy K.J. Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 1990, 98 (2): 225-264.

Faleye O, Hoitash R, Hoitash U. The costs of intense board monitoring. Journal of Financial Economics, 2011, 101 (1): 160-181.

Core J.E, Holthausen R.W, Larcker D.F. Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 2006, 51 (3): 371-406.

Bebchuk L.A, Fried J.M. Executive compensation as an agency problem. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2003, 17 (3): 71-92.

Boyd B.K, Bergh D.D, Ketchen Jr D.J. Board composition and technological innovation. Journal of Business Research, 2008, 88: 12-22.

Gillan S.L, Starks L.T. The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 2007, 19 (1), 55-73.

Kroll M, Walters B.A, Wright P. Toward a better understanding of director compensation: A study of factors influencing pay and its consequences. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2018, 26 (5): 333-345.

Larcker D.F, McCall A.L, Ormazabal G. Director pay dynamics. The Journal of Finance, 2015, 70 (2): 921-951.

Downloads

Published

22-01-2024