Executive-Pension Governance Board Adviser

The mandate

The board is preparing two executive successions while redesigning benefits for globally mobile leaders. Historic defined-benefit promises, individual supplemental arrangements and transfer protections produce markedly different outcomes for executives with similar service. Some commitments exist only in appointment letters or expatriate side agreements. Directors need a coherent fairness and governance lens before approving retirement, retention and successor packages.

The adviser will help the remuneration committee distinguish accrued obligation, market positioning, mobility protection, retention value and avoidable enhancement. Reviews will connect plan rules, individual letters, service, transfer history, retirement timing and survivor benefits to the board’s stated reward principles. Advice supports decisions but does not replace actuarial calculations, trustee duties, legal interpretation or tax counsel.

Cadence consists of one monthly benefit-evidence review, one private chair discussion and participation in six remuneration, pension or succession sessions during ten months. Written challenge notes will arrive four working days before decisions. The adviser will respond to urgent questions within two business days when an executive departure, transfer or appointment changes the pension outcome materially.

The adviser has no line or executive authority, cannot promise benefits, amend plan rules, direct trustees, select actuarial assumptions, negotiate employment terms, approve disclosure or vote on remuneration. Committees and appointed officers retain those powers. The adviser may request comparison cases and flag an inconsistency, while formal entitlements and calculations remain with qualified specialists.

The ten-month term concludes after both succession packages and the benefit framework are determined. The chair may authorise one additional two-month review period if a succession date moves, following renewed independence checks. Pension-provider work, executive relationships, trustee appointments, actuarial mandates, pharmaceutical board roles and any remuneration linked to an outcome are conflicts requiring disclosure and possible recusal.

Why the board wants this voice

Legacy pension promises can drive larger succession outcomes than visible salary or bonus decisions. Internal teams understand individual histories but may defend arrangements they administer, while specialists answer narrower technical questions. The board wants independent reward judgment to connect fairness, retention and governance without usurping trustees or professional opinion holders.

What you will own

• Challenge benefit histories across base plans, supplemental promises, transfer protections, mobility allowances and appointment letters.
• Compare executives by service, role, location, contribution, retirement timing and risk without erasing valid plan differences.
• Test whether proposed enhancements address genuine retention or compensate twice for an already protected outcome.
• Examine early retirement, survivor, currency, transfer, vesting and forfeiture scenarios around each succession timetable.
• Press for clear authorities, specialist sign-offs, conflict controls, decision records and executive communication responsibilities.
• Frame market comparisons that separate pension value, cash replacement, tax assistance and ordinary remuneration positioning.
• Give directors decision papers showing accrued obligation, discretionary value, fairness tensions and unresolved specialist conclusions.

Candidate qualifications

• Advised listed-company remuneration committees on executive pensions, supplemental benefits and cross-border mobility protections.
• Interpreted complex benefit economics alongside actuaries, trustees, counsel and tax specialists without issuing their opinions.
• Distinguished accrued rights, market replacement, retention enhancement and discretionary board value in succession packages.
• Challenged individual arrangements embedded in legacy letters, transfers and expatriate agreements under confidentiality.
• Explained pension value and downside scenarios clearly to non-specialist directors and affected senior executives.
• Maintained independence from benefit providers, actuarial firms, trustees, executives and outcome-linked remuneration.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend six Zurich, Basel, London or Boston evidence sessions during the ten-month appointment.
• Will disclose provider, actuarial, trustee, executive, competitor-board and prior plan-design relationships.
• Brings executive pension governance at remuneration-committee level; general benefits administration is insufficient.
• Accepts no authority over entitlement, actuarial assumption, trustee action, employment negotiation or committee vote.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe an executive pension decision where accrued right and discretionary enhancement were initially conflated.
2. 49 words maximum. Which current or historic benefit relationship could require your recusal from this board?
3. 49 words maximum. How would you compare two succession candidates protected by materially different legacy plans?