{"title":"The Commission’s Evaluation of the Financial Executives’ Remuneration Policy and the Amendments of Directive No 2019/878","authors":"C. Petrucci","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Commission evaluation of EU policies has become an important practice for the review of EU rules. This article is a case study of the 2016 evaluation of the remuneration rules applicable to financial executives (Directive No 2013/36 – CRD IV), which led to their amendments made by Directive 2019/878. These amendments have been negligible and despite the efforts of private interest groups operating in the financial sector, the so-called bonus cap has been maintained. This article explores the dynamics amongst the actors involved in the evaluation of the remuneration policy (Commission, European Banking Authority, and stakeholders) and provides an account of the factors that shaped such evaluation. This paper argues that the influence of private interest groups was limited. Although the bonus cap is a contested policy, and the evidence of its impact ambiguous, it still enjoys legitimacy.\nFinancial executives’ remuneration policy, CRD IV Bonus Cap, Commission evaluation, Amendments of Directive No 2019/878.","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Commission evaluation of EU policies has become an important practice for the review of EU rules. This article is a case study of the 2016 evaluation of the remuneration rules applicable to financial executives (Directive No 2013/36 – CRD IV), which led to their amendments made by Directive 2019/878. These amendments have been negligible and despite the efforts of private interest groups operating in the financial sector, the so-called bonus cap has been maintained. This article explores the dynamics amongst the actors involved in the evaluation of the remuneration policy (Commission, European Banking Authority, and stakeholders) and provides an account of the factors that shaped such evaluation. This paper argues that the influence of private interest groups was limited. Although the bonus cap is a contested policy, and the evidence of its impact ambiguous, it still enjoys legitimacy.
Financial executives’ remuneration policy, CRD IV Bonus Cap, Commission evaluation, Amendments of Directive No 2019/878.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.