Last week the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors released its latest annual survey of CEO pay for the ASX200, reporting that CEO pay-packets increased significantly in 2017.

Headlines focussed on the big earners of course, with Domino's Pizza chief Don Meij taking out the honours for the highest paid Australian CEO with realised remuneration of $36.8 million.

But closer reading of the ACSI survey reveals some interesting CEO remuneration trends.

CEO fixed cash pay remained relatively static in 2017 with modest increases for ASX100 CEOs. This continues the low growth trend in CEO cash salaries previously reported.

CEO salaries have fallen ... wait, what?

Spare a thought for the lines of Don Meij: CEO fixed pay to general earnings fell from its 2008 peak of 32 times average adult full-time earnings to just under 23 times in 2017. ( Supplied: Domino's )

In fact ACSI reports that fixed pay of CEO's in top-100 companies has fallen from its 2008 peak of 32 times average adult full-time earnings to just under 23 times in 2017.

The bonus and equity-based elements of CEO pay packets are what increased significantly last year. These are tied to achievement of specific benchmarks such as profitability and share price performance.

To some extent CEO pay will increase because of growth in corporate profitability and this in turn is related to the low growth in Australian average wages.

However, this alone doesn't explain the spike in bonus payments last year, when most CEOs received a bonus and many bonuses were close to the maximum achievable. In 2017, 74 of the 80 ASX100 CEOs eligible for a bonus received one and almost 1 in 3 ASX100 CEOs received 80 per cent or more of their maximum bonus for the period.

Indeed, ACSI remarked that ASX100 CEOs were more likely to lose their job than their bonus in 2017.

Are CEO bonuses and 'wage theft' connected?

It seems then that in 2017, ASX200 CEOs shared in Australia's economic growth. But is this spike in executive pay while wages growth is static actually "wages theft", with executives as the favoured few enjoying the benefits of improved company and share price performance?

Keeping costs, including wage costs, to a minimum means that corporate profits are maximised and executives are rewarded for this via their "at risk" remuneration. But workers on a static wage don't share in these rewards.

Is this intrinsically unfair to the average Australian wage earner? And what can we do about it?

ASX corporate governance principles and recommendations say companies should "remunerate fairly and responsibly". But the focus is on fairness for investors rather than the public at large.

Similarly, shareholders are able to express concern over the size of executive pay packets through the Australian two-strikes legislation, whereby shareholders vote on the company's remuneration report at its annual general meeting. Any company receiving 25 per cent or more of "no" votes at two consecutive meetings must put a motion to shareholders to spill the board.

While it's great that investors have the ability to feedback to company boards about remuneration, neither the ASX principles and recommendations or the two-strikes legislation gives a voice to the community at large.

This is an important omission because investors are likely to focus on their own welfare (maximising the value of the company and therefore their own wealth) rather than concerns with wage equality and social justice across the community as a whole.

You may be working through your lunchtime just to keep your job, but at least someone's getting paid — most likely the boss. ( Four Corners )

Corporate types operate under 'social licence'

There are recent signs of improved ability for stakeholders other than shareholders to influence executive pay outcomes.

For example, as part of its current review of the corporate governance principles and recommendations, the ASX is currently considering changes to include a reference to the impact on the entity's social licence to operate if it is seen to pay excessive remuneration to directors and senior executives. It is also considering the suggestion that listed entities should benchmark their remuneration against that of their peers to verify that it is not excessive.

Maintaining the social licence to operate is increasingly at the forefront of modern corporate governance, and controlling excessive executive remuneration is just one part of restoring community trust in institutions and corporations.

There are already signs overseas that community sentiment about excessive corporate pay-packets is driving change in corporate boardrooms. For example, companies in the US are required to disclose the ratio of a CEO's annual total remuneration against the median of all employees.

Surcharge for big pay packets

In conjunction with this enhanced accountability about executive pay, the city of Portland, Oregon, has introduced an executive pay surcharge effective from 2017.

Under the surcharge, companies must pay an additional 10 per cent in taxes if their chief executives receive compensation greater than 100 times the median pay of all their employees. Companies with pay ratios greater than 250 times the median will face a 25 per cent surcharge.

Around the same time, California attempted, but failed, to enact a similar surcharge.

It's likely that this trend to impose restraint on "excessive" CEO pay will continue, just as globally, corporations are increasingly expected to play a much greater role in resolving societal issues such as gender equality and climate change.

In this context, paying CEOs massive bonuses when the average Australian worker is doing it tough is disappointing and out of step with the community expectations of business.

Julie Walker is an associate professor of accounting at the University of Queensland Business School.