
Do you remember when Cheerios was one of the only packaged foods displaying FDA-confirmed nutritional information? It had a good reason to toot its own horn since its product is nutritious. Then, the FDA decided to require all companies to disclose nutritional information in the same was as Cherrios. This led to disclosures like this one from the new Hungry-Man breakfast:
:

Of course, companies making products like Hungry Man would never have disclosed their nutritional information before it was required. Unless it's a selling point, companies don't voluntarily disclose information. This is how I feel about the recent trend of companies voluntarily disclosing extra details about executive compensation.
According to The Wall Street Journal:
Many U.S. corporate directors are grumbling about complex new federal rules requiring more disclosure of executive pay, perquisites and retirement benefits. Yet a surprising number of major corporations are going beyond the requirements, offering investors additional details about compensation, in the name of improved transparency. Nearly 30% of proxy statements filed so far this year contain supplemental pay information, estimates Mark Borges, a principal at Mercer Human Resource Consulting.
Now, this raises an interesting question. Why would a board/management team that is looting its company and, to use the words of Daniel Loeb, using its shareholder's resources as a "honeypot" for extracting outrageous compensation disclose more than they have to in SEC filings? Answer: They wouldn't and they aren't.
If real changes are going to come in the areas of corporate governance and executive overcompensation, it will happen because American shareholders and mutual funds step up to the plate, and put pressure on companies and the SEC to come forward with more information. But voluntary extra disclosure is going to come from the companies that aren't the problem.