Executive compensation has been a hot-button issue for several years, and the final crop of fiscal year 2007 proxy statements filed in March and April did little to quell the cry for reform from industry watchdogs, activist shareholders and the general public.

In the high-tech industry alone, dozens of CEOs came away with multimillion dollar compensation packages, pumped up by huge stock and option awards. 

"Half of these companies had horrible years for their stockholders, yet the CEOs still walk away with sinful amounts of money," voiced one Network World reader in response to our compilation of CEO compensation  at 30 network-industry companies. "As an investor, I would like more accountability from the executives of publicly held firms. By accountability, I don’t just mean that they have to certify their financial reports. I mean they shouldn't get a bonus unless they have improved the investors’ positions."

Such comments echo complaints that have been voiced for years. "Executive compensation is under attack and has been for a number of years," says Nora McCord, a consultant at Steven Hall & Partners, which specializes in executive compensation consulting.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has tried to compel companies to be more transparent about how (and how much) their top executives are compensated, implementing new rules in the past few years around what must be reported.

For example, the SEC now requires companies to not only disclose that a performance-based award is tied to revenue but also to disclose the dollar amount of the revenue target.

This is one of the more controversial new SEC regulations, McCord says. "On the one hand, it's better for shareholders to know how company resources are being spent and how executives are being incentivized. But on the other hand, you run into situations where a company might be giving guidance from an earnings management perspective." Disclosing revenue targets also could conceivably put a company in a compromised position should it find itself the object of a takeover attempt, for example.

Still, most companies accept the idea of making CEOs and other top executives more accountable for their compensation, McCord says.

"What we see among our clients is an attempt to make the earn-outs harder, make the targets tougher," she says. An executive might be required to not only hit the previous year's target but also surpass it by some percentage in order to receive an award, for example. "We also see efforts to create greater accountability around the process."

Some companies also are making moves to involve shareholders in the compensation process. The so-called "say on pay" approach lets stockholders vote for or against a company's compensation formula. Most recently, shareholders of insurer Aflac, for example, approved the company's pay-for-performance compensation policies and procedures. A full 93% of votes were cast in favor, with only 2.5% against, the company reported this week.