Naspers has secured approval for a $100 million executive pay package despite a significant revolt by ordinary shareholders, utilizing a dual-class share structure that grants specific shares 1,000 times the voting power of others.
The remuneration measures passed with approximately 92% total support, effectively neutralizing a rebellion where roughly 66% of ordinary investors voted against the awards.
The outcome follows a contentious period of scrutiny regarding the company’s executive compensation policies and the disproportionate influence held by a small group of high-vote shareholders.
The disparity in voting power is a central feature of the company’s governance, allowing the board to push through strategic and financial decisions even when the majority of the public share register expresses disapproval.
The $100 million award is part of a broader remuneration framework designed to align executive incentives with long-term value creation, though ordinary investors have argued the figures are excessive relative to performance metrics.
This clash highlights the inherent tension in the Naspers corporate structure, where voting control is decoupled from economic ownership.
The Impact of Concentrated Voting Power on Governance
Dual-class share structures are increasingly common among global technology giants, allowing founders or early investors to maintain control without owning a majority of the company’s equity.
While the Johannesburg Stock Exchange allows for various listing structures, the use of 1,000-vote shares creates a scenario where the preferences of ordinary retail and institutional investors can be completely overridden.
In this instance, the sheer volume of votes attached to the high-weighted shares turned a potential defeat into an overwhelming victory on paper.
Institutional investors and proxy advisory firms have previously raised concerns that such structures reduce accountability and can lead to management becoming insulated from shareholder pressure.
The Naspers case is particularly complex due to its intricate relationship with Prosus, the holding company through which it owns a massive stake in the Chinese tech giant Tencent.
For years, Naspers has struggled with a valuation discount, where the market value of the company has trailed the value of its underlying assets.
Critics argue that the company’s governance structure, including the control exerted through high-vote shares, contributes to this discount by limiting the ability of outside shareholders to force structural changes or dividend shifts.
The board has consistently defended its remuneration policy, stating that attracting and retaining top-tier global executive talent requires competitive compensation packages that reflect the scale of the business.
The current dispute over the $100 million award reflects a broader global trend of “Say on Pay” movements, where shareholders demand more transparency and a genuine voice in how executives are rewarded.
However, the Naspers result demonstrates that “Say on Pay” is effectively symbolic when a dual-class system is in place.
The company is expected to continue its current strategic trajectory, with the board unlikely to modify the voting structure in the near term given the protection it provides to current leadership.
Market analysts suggest that unless the company can significantly narrow the gap between its share price and its net asset value, friction between ordinary investors and the controlling block will persist.
The next phase of shareholder engagement will likely focus on the execution of the company’s share buy-back programs and the ongoing effort to unlock value from its Tencent investment.
Explore more Companies stories and analysis from Business Elites Africa.
