In Sir Geoffrey's case, (and that of his co-director Nigel Whittaker) this is the problem. The amount in question, £4,000 a year, is small, at least in comparison with a £1.3m pay package for Sir Geoffrey last year. The company says it was "a mistake" not to disclose the payments to shareholders. Given that the payments began in 1983, this means that Kingfisher has been making the same mistake annually for 11 years. Is this failure to include the perk in the director's remuneration note in the annual report more than a wrist-slapping offence?
At the moment institutional investors are turning a blind eye. They cannot afford to rock the boat further at a company that has already thrown its chief executive and finance director overboard in the past two weeks and which would almost certainly havegreat difficulty finding a replacement for Sir Geoffrey - indeed, a shortage of candidates may well be why he was kept on and given another chance to prove himself. To lob another director (or two) into the heaving sea would leave Kingfisher looking even more like a rudderless ship than it does already.For the time being, then, Sir Geoffrey, has a dispensation from shareholders to get on with running the shop. But in the longer term this little spat over undeclared remuneration could tip the balance against him. People have lost their jobs for less.Reuse content