The report was voted down by 54 per cent of proxy votes and a majority of voters at the AGM, and gives AWB an unwanted record as one of just a handful of Australian companies to have its remuneration report voted down.

One of the prickly topics was the issue of executive bonuses and raises in director’s fees, following up from the big losses.

But while the voting-down will have no direct consequence to director payouts, it is an embarrassing blow to the reputation of the already embattled grains exporter.

Along with this, changes to the performance rights of AWB managing director Gordon Davis also came under fire.

Rex McKenzie, of the Australian Shareholders Association (ASA), questioned the method of calculating how Mr Davis’s bonuses were calculated, saying the system of using returns on funds employed (ROFE) instead of earnings per share altered the arrangement.

“As shareholders, we get paid per share - this system allows the exclusion of significant items, which in this year is a big thing.”

AWB chairman Peter Polson said this decision was made because it was decided it was not fair to burden Mr Davis with significant items occurring before he was in charge of the company.

Executive bonuses were predictably unpopular in light of the losses the company incurred.

Mr Polson said many of the bonuses had been capped, and salaries had not been increased as a result of the company’s poor year, and pointed to significantly lower payments, such as Mr Davis’s cash bonuses falling from $902,000 in 2008 to $280,000 in 2009.

But given the performance of the company, shareholders were not happy to see $3.1 million paid out in bonuses.

Mr Polson also tried to point out that performance bonuses were not paid solely on financial results, but also on other key performance criteria, such as safety, but was derided from the floor for this take on the remuneration.

Shareholder activist and failed AWB board candidate Stephen Mayne also questioned the issue of retention payments to staff, saying AWB’s corporate salary expenditure was higher than most listed companies.

“It appears as though you are saying these retention payments are needed for employees to endure the odium of working for AWB,” he said.