Own 1 TCS Share, Gain a Voice: How Every shareholder Can Hold Management Accountable for uncertainty in hikes to employees

It's not an either/or situation. Asking reasonable questions about company decisions is part of healthy corporate governance, whether you stay or leave. A shareholder's right to information exists precisely because transparency matters. Some may indeed choose to look elsewhere, but others who are committed to the organization's long-term success deserve answers too. Both preparing for your future AND seeking accountability in the present are valuable uses of your time - they aren't mutually exclusive.

It might not make much difference, but asking the right questions has always been the first step toward accountability and fairness.

True, management isn't legally obligated to answer every query, but there's value beyond immediate responses. Under SEBI regulations, shareholder questions on material matters often become part of formal disclosure requirements. When multiple small shareholders raise similar concerns, companies must address them in quarterly earnings calls or regulatory filings. Consider the 2019 Yes Bank case where persistent small shareholder questions about asset quality eventually forced greater transparency, despite initial resistance. And while promoters hold significant voting power, shareholder questions create documented concerns that board members must consider under their fiduciary responsibilities. The act of questioning itself creates accountability, even when immediate answers aren't provided.

You make a fair point about screening - but Indian corporate history shows even "screened" questions can create real change. Take the Fortis Healthcare case from 2018: two minority shareholders holding just 12% managed to remove a director and appoint three new ones after consistently questioning the company's sale process. Or consider how Infosys founder-shareholders' persistent questions about executive severance packages eventually led to leadership changes despite initial resistance.

Even unsuccessful campaigns create pressure - in 2017, 45 out of 100 Nifty companies faced at least one resolution where 20%+ shareholders opposed management. Each question creates a record and demonstrates collective concern.

You're right that viral media attention helps enormously - but that attention often starts with formal complaints that create paper trails. The most effective approach combines both: formal channels establish legitimacy while public pressure amplifies the message.

Remember: corporate boards have fiduciary responsibilities that even sophisticated screening can't completely circumvent when enough shareholders raise similar concerns through proper channels.

Yes, smart shareholders absolutely should care about employee compensation. Here's why:

1. TCS's own annual reports show talent retention directly impacts delivery quality and client satisfaction - both key to shareholder value.

2. Employee salary costs represent over 50% of total expenses - making compensation strategy a material financial decision affecting profitability.

3. High attrition rates (currently 13.3%) increase hiring and training costs, which directly impacts margins.

4. Research shows companies that consistently invest in employee compensation outperform industry peers in long-term shareholder returns.

5. TCS's own CEO stated Calendar 2025 "should be better" than 2024, contradicting the uncertainty narrative used to defer hikes.

6. The company won orders worth $12.20 billion in Q4 alone with a strong book-to-bill ratio of 1.6.

7. TCS already promoted 1/6th of its workforce in FY25, showing business conditions support employee investment.

8. Industry analysts consistently cite talent quality as TCS's competitive advantage - which requires competitive compensation to maintain.

9. Companies with reputation for fair employee treatment during downturns recover faster when markets improve.

10. The contradiction between a 72.6% dividend increase and delayed employee compensation raises governance concerns that institutional investors increasingly monitor.