The shareholder vote on executive pay should be binding on the company. Currently, the "say on pay" vote is non-binding, and companies do not have to heed it and make changes to the executive compensation plan. New research has found the highest paid CEOs run the worst companies. In light of this, there needs to be real shareholder input.
The extraordinary high pay levels for CEOs needs to get under control and shareholders should be allowed to vote on executive pay. The impact of shareholder voting is a good monitor for CEOs who may not be accountable for their company's success or failure. The rewards for executives need to be tied to stock value and eliminate high bonus pay.
The question partly depends on your definition of "worst companies." Does the question refer to profitability? Or does the question refer to social responsibilities or other metrics? Each individual company is different, therefore they decide on how much the CEO gets paid. If a bank collapses and suffers financial losses of billions of dollars, then hires a new CEO, after two years they may still be turning the bank around so it may still be losing significant sums of money. Would that be classed as one of the "worst run companies". The shareholder vote on executive pay should not be binding because they don't always know best.
The shareholder vote on executive pay should not be legally binding. The CEOs of the worst running companies should not continually be rewarded for bad business decisions and management style. They should be held accountable for their actions and their pay should not be determined by the shareholder vote. Their pay should be based on their quality of work and business health, not by the vote of any directors or shareholders.