Some of Britain's leading companies are facing strong criticism in the coming weeks as institutional investors rail against "fat cat" pay in UK boardrooms.

As companies prepare for their annual meetings, the National Association of Pension Funds, which represents a fifth of all investors, is urging shareholders not to support pay awards to directors of Barclays, Shell, Schroders and Reuters.

Forum Response: National Association of Pension Funds

A spokesman of NAPF told ePolitix.com: "The NAPF has no objection to world-class awards as long as they are matched by world-class performance

"The reason why we recommend to our members to abstain or vote against excessive remuneration packages is that we believe that (a) there has not been a world-class performance or (b) good corporate governance has not been followed.

"Where we withhold support for particular AGM resolutions suggests either performance criteria for directors are not particularly challenging or rewards for failure are too generous.

"We have also sought to draw attention to instances where there are question marks over the independence of non-executive directors. Corporate governance in the UK is a world-leader and the NAPF is working to ensure that it stays this way."

Forum Response: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

John Davies, head of business law of ACCA, told ePolitix.com: "When the shareholder vote on boardroom pay was first mooted by the government, many felt that, because the vote would have no legal force, it would be toothless, and that the support of institutional investors would make up for any isolated grievances expressed by small shareholders.

"As it happens, the shareholder vote seems to be achieving what best practice guidance has not so far been able to achieve. Boards are having to explain and defend their pay policies and practices and relate them to their actual performance in creating shareholder wealth - where there is no correlation between directors' pay and company performance, shareholders are fully entitled to register their concerns.

"The signs are that the simple prospect of attracting bad publicity and organised opposition is already making companies think again about what is and what is not reasonable pay for those running top companies. Although decisions must ultimately remain with boards themselves, this trend towards transparency and performance justification is welcome."