But what about the workers?

What have corporate accountability and shareholder activism to do with trades unions? Brendan Barber, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, believes a great deal and intends to raise their profile as a key campaigning issue both in the City and Westminster.

The TUC is preparing to publish its second annual report, which will highlight the voting patterns of fund managers at company annual meetings, and will hold a conference of pension trustees next month to assess how further pressure can be brought to bear on the investment community on behalf of pension scheme members.

'There has been a growing feeling in the trades union world about the importance of investment,' he says. 'Many unions are now seeing it much more as a collective bargaining issue.'

Fair enough, but what constituency does a union have in what appears to be a battle between City institutions and boardroom executives? 'The TUC has a responsibility on behalf of people who are members of schemes, who are also largely members of unions,' he says.

Indeed, he points out that the history of union campaigning for decent corporate pension funds means that those companies with schemes are most likely to be unionised.

'This is about recognising that trades unions have as powerful an interest as investors,' says Barber. 'Pensions are the deferred wages of millions of ordinary people. We need companies to be run for the long term, and there is a link between better corporate governance standards and better long-term performance.'

This also presents an opportunity to unions because a large number of pension fund trustees are either union members or active union officials. The TUC has contacts with 1,000 trustees, all of whom are union members, at more than 400 funds, with a combined £260bn under management. It is through this network that the TUC intends to increase pressure on fund managers to reveal more about how they vote, and thus increase pressure on companies to pull back from excessive payment for failure and promote the long-term interests of the companies they run.

'We need increased transparency and we need it for a purpose, so that pension fund trustees can exert oversight on how their investments are being looked after [by fund managers],' Barber says. 'The logic of this whole process is to have greater transparency, and the fund managers are pivotal to this because they can put pressure on companies.'

As you would expect, Barber attacks excessive boardroom pay of the kind rejected by GlaxoSmithKline shareholders last year. 'From our point of view there are broad questions about the acceptability of the packages available and how they compare with the terms and conditions of the workforce.

'Another concern is pension arrangements for company directors. The reporting is often not very full. Our view is that this is an area where there is a very powerful case for directors to have pension arrangements similar to those for the rest of the workforce.'

He points out that director pensions are often not linked to performance, and that while money-purchase schemes for employees attract company contributions of around 6 per cent on average, directors often see theirs at 20 per cent.

Barber also argues that greater scrutiny is also in the public interest: 'There is a link between good corporate governance and company performance. The public interest is that companies which deliver long-term value help us build a successful economy.'

Barber believes that recent examples of shareholder muscle - such as the ousting of Carlton boss Michael Green and the demise of Shell chairman Sir Philip Watts - indicate that the momentum for change is not diminishing after last year's stormy annual meeting season.

A year ago, when the TUC published its first survey of the voting patterns of fund managers at annual meetings, only 20 per cent of those polled completed questionnaires asking how they voted and requesting further information on how they applied corporate governance best practice on behalf of pension funds.

There was antagonism among some fund managers, who felt unions had no justification for demanding scrutiny of their voting records. Tom Powdrill, who liaises with pension fund trustees, says last year's low number of responses was for two reasons. First, many fund managers did not have the information on how they voted and, second, there are big differences in how they vote. It is the more active ones, which tend to vote against companies, that are more likely to respond.

Active fund managers such as Isis and Insight, whose officers are regularly quoted in the financial press along with union and co-op funds, are cooperative. The challenge is to get those that are passive to reveal their records.

Powdrill is, however, optimistic about this year's survey. Some 50 fund managers have been sent questionnaires, and he expects a return of 50 per cent. Seven who refused last year have already cooperated this time, he says.

Barber believes the increased pressure brought about by more openness has also had results. Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt has already forced companies to offer shareholders votes on annual remuneration reports. This, her supporters argue, did much to fire up last year's reporting season.

'The pressure for transparency is beginning to pay and there is a real possibility that Patricia Hewitt may back this up in legislation,' Barber says. He adds that the TUC wants to develop its activities in this area, spend more on them and increase pressure on fund managers.

The TUC would find it hard to devote resources similar to the pension fund and insurer groups, NAPF and ABI, which offer members comprehensive voting information services at annual meeting time. Last year, the TUC made only a handful of recommendations - voting against pay policies at HSBC, Glaxo, Corus and BSkyB. However, the plan is to increase coverage of the voting service. It is a long-term commitment, says Barber. You have to start somewhere.