Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.
Proxy Advisor Challenges Tesla’s Landmark Compensation Plan
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), one of the most influential proxy advisory firms, has recommended that Tesla shareholders reject Elon Musk’s proposed $1 trillion compensation package, marking the second consecutive year the firm has opposed significant pay arrangements for the controversial CEO. The recommendation comes as Tesla prepares for its November 6 annual shareholders meeting, where investors will decide on one of the largest executive compensation packages in corporate history.
The proxy firm cited “unmitigated concerns” with both the magnitude and design of the compensation plan, specifically questioning whether the package would effectively ensure Musk dedicates sufficient time and attention to Tesla. “Although one of the main reasons for this award is to retain Musk and keep his time and attention on Tesla instead of his other business ventures, there are no explicit requirements to ensure that this will be the case,” ISS noted in its voting guidance.
High-Stakes Battle Over Executive Compensation
The proposed package, which Tesla’s board introduced in September, represents an unprecedented approach to executive incentives. To unlock the full payout and additional voting control, Musk would need to achieve extraordinary milestones, including growing Tesla’s market value to at least $8.5 trillion—a figure that would make it one of the most valuable companies in history. The ambitious targets also include significant expansion of Tesla’s automotive, robotics, and robotaxi businesses.
Musk’s current holdings would increase to at least 25% of Tesla if he receives the additional shares outlined in the compensation plan. The CEO has explicitly threatened to develop products outside of Tesla if he cannot increase his equity stake, adding urgency to the compensation debate. This situation reflects broader industry developments in executive compensation and corporate governance.
Historical Context and Legal Challenges
This isn’t the first time ISS has opposed Musk’s compensation. Both ISS and fellow proxy firm Glass Lewis recommended shareholders reject Musk’s 2018 pay deal, though approximately three-quarters of investors ultimately supported that package. However, a Delaware judge struck down the 2018 plan earlier this year, citing Musk’s “undue influence” over the process and board conflicts of interest.
The legal battle continues, with Musk and Tesla appealing the ruling before the Delaware Supreme Court in October. Musk subsequently cited the compensation dispute as a factor in Tesla’s decision to move its corporate headquarters from Delaware to Texas. These governance challenges come amid significant market trends affecting corporate structures and executive oversight.
Broader Implications for Tech Governance
The ISS recommendation highlights growing concerns about corporate governance in technology companies where visionary founders maintain significant control. Tesla’s board chair Robyn Denholm has insisted that “no one but Musk can run the company,” reflecting the challenge boards face in balancing leadership retention with shareholder interests.
ISS also recommended against a separate proposal for Tesla to invest in Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, calling it “a highly unusual proposal both in terms of the request itself and the way it came to be on the ballot.” This recommendation comes as related innovations in artificial intelligence continue to transform multiple industries.
Divided Perspectives on Compensation Philosophy
Tesla responded sharply to the ISS recommendation, stating: “ISS once again completely misses fundamental points of investing and governance. It’s easy for ISS to tell others how to vote when they have nothing on the line.” The company has been actively promoting the compensation package, including sharing a video on X aimed at rallying shareholder support.
The debate occurs against a backdrop of evolving compensation models across the technology sector. As companies like Salesforce chart AI-fueled growth paths and other tech giants navigate executive compensation, Tesla’s situation represents a potential bellwether for how shareholders balance extraordinary performance incentives with governance concerns.
What’s at Stake for Shareholders
The compensation package, currently valued at more than $100 billion based on stock price fluctuations, was put to an advisory vote last year and received shareholder approval. However, investors are being asked to vote again to demonstrate continued support following the legal challenges.
In August, Tesla’s board granted Musk an interim award valued at approximately $30 billion designed to partially replace the original payment, though this would be forfeited if the original package is reinstated. These compensation discussions are happening alongside other significant recent technology sector developments that are reshaping how companies approach leadership incentives.
The November vote will not only determine Musk’s compensation but could signal broader shifts in how shareholders approach executive pay in founder-led technology companies. With ISS maintaining its opposition and Tesla aggressively defending the package, the outcome remains uncertain, though historical patterns suggest shareholders may again support Musk despite proxy advisor recommendations.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
