Ernst & Young human capital partner Bruno Cecchini says providing more information is the answer rather than forcing companies to give shareholders a binding vote on remuneration reports.

He said offering details such as what sort of performance targets were met for bonuses to be paid, even if only on a retrospective basis, would go a long way to opening up an exchange of views between the company and its shareholders.

''If you had appropriate disclosure and more transparent disclosure, then the market will be better informed and will be able to influence directors around executive pay,'' Mr Cecchini said .

''You should be encouraging dialogue between shareholders and the directors.''

He said calls for a binding vote on a company's remuneration report as a way to give shareholders a greater say were unfounded. He said there were ''no clear examples of where it has actually added a lot of value''.

''If you go down a binding vote [path], particularly on something as broad as a remuneration report ... you're not actually telling them what it is that you don't like,'' he said.

In an effort to curb exorbitant payouts to outgoing company executives, the Federal Government has said it will introduce legislation requiring payments exceeding one year's base pay to have shareholder approval.

Under present laws, company directors can receive payouts seven times their total annual remuneration upon the termination of their contract.

The Productivity Commission is to hold an inquiry into the broader issue of executive pay, with its report expected to be finished by the end of the year. Meanwhile, there was widespread community anger when Pacific Brands announced the sacking of 1850 staff in February, followed by revelations of pay rises to company directors. AAP