\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Executive Compensation and Accounting Performance in French},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2017-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2017)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2017-01-15}
\title{Executive Compensation and Accounting Performance in French}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Yamina  Amarou}

             \affil[1]{  Univ.Sidi belabes, Algeria}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 10 December 2016 Accepted: 1 January 2017 Published: 15 January 2017}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The empirical study carried out on 37 French companies listed on the SBF120 index over the period 2015 analyzes the relationship between the accounting performance and the level of executive compensation. Our analysis demonstrated that the level of cash compensation (wages and bonuses) is affected by the size of the firm. In addition, it appears that certain governance variables negatively affect the level of executive compensation. In addition, and contrary to expectations, our results show that the ROA's accounting performance does not affect compensation.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{executive compensation, agency theory, size, performance.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
xecutive compensation is an essential part of the governance system, as it aligns the interests of shareholders with those of management. This link between the remuneration of managers and the performance of the company has been the subject of several studies which have produced contradictory results. Practically, existing empirical studies report contradictory evidence on the impact of corporate performance on executive compensation. Some studies have found a positive relationship between the level of executive compensation and performance (Crespi-Cladera and Gispert (2003)), others found no relationship between managerial pay and performance Dogan and Smith  {\ref (2002)},  {\ref Makinen (2005)}, \hyperref[b1]{Broye and Moulin (2010)}. Others, however, found relationships varying according to the performance measure used (Antle and Smith (1986)).\par
In France, where most French listed companies have proved to be family-run and often confused between control and management  {\ref (Boubaker, 2005)}, the results of these developments remain nuanced. On the one hand, Pigé's research (1994) has pointed out that the link is positive but of low magnitude. On the other hand, Poulain and Rehm  {\ref (2000)} and \hyperref[b0]{Albouy (2004)} announced the absence of the link. Hence, the question of the explicit determinants of executive compensation and its implicit link with performance in listed French family businesses proves to be of enormous importance. In particular, the treatment of this link remains timidly addressed in this specific field  {\ref (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1989} {\ref , Golderg and Idson, 1995} {\ref , Ramaswamy et al 2000} {\ref , Hirigoyen and Poulain-Rehm, 2000)}.\par
Author ?: Univ.Mascara, Algeria. e-mail: Amina\textunderscore dro@yahoo.fr\par
The objective sought by this article is to present the theoretical aspects justifying the remuneration policies of the managers of the companies and to question the implicit link between the remuneration of these managers and the performance in these companies. It is then necessary to present the theoretical framework that justifies the remuneration allocated to managers and its relation to the performance of the company. Finally, we propose an empirical analysis during the year 2015 that concerns 37 French companies listed on SBF120. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Review of Literature and Formulation of Hypotheses a) Agency theory}]{Review of Literature and Formulation of Hypotheses a) Agency theory}\par
In 1776, Adam Smith understood that a conflict of interest could arise between the owners and the nonowners in the company. This conflict of interest has arisen between two (or more) parties when one of these two parties (non-owner) acts either on its own or as the representative of the other (owner).  {\ref Berle and Means (1932)} in their work "The Modern Corporation and Private Property" highlight the predominance of the managerial firm as a mode of majority organization of capitalism. This firm is characterized by its dispersed ownership and by professional managers ensuring its operational management.  {\ref Jensen and Meckling (1976)} extend this analysis and consider that the firm is a contracting nexus, associating the firm with all the different providers of resources indispensable to the organization's functioning. They model the agency relationship by representing the link between the agent (managers) and the principal (the shareholders).\par
Therefore, the principal-agent literature postulates that compensation should be based on appreciable results and that contracts should be designed to motivate agents of better performance, therefore there should be a positive relationship between executive compensation and performance of the company. In the theory of the agency, the problem is to create an incentive structure that aligns the interests of shareholders with the benefits of the managers. To achieve this objective, a compensation contract is generally offered to managers to increase the wealth of shareholders (J \& M1990). In this context, performance improves.\par
According to the agency's theory, if a compensation contract reduces agency costs, the adoption of a compensation system by the firm should result in an increase in the wealth of shareholders. Also the decisions of the governed remuneration taken by the manager should lead to an improvement of the performance of the company. Once manager receive adequate compensation, it assumes they work harder and contribute to the company's performance increase.\par
Nevertheless, the remuneration contract is incomplete because it is impossible to predict all the situations in which the managers will have the opportunity to act from a perspective contrary to the maximization of firm value. From an agency perspective, this means that other governance mechanisms need to be put in place to control the agency's relationship and to prevent leaders from diverting the wealth of shareholders by making as Overinvestment in excess free cash flow  {\ref (Jensen, 1986)}. From a political-contractual perspective, this implies that the remuneration contract must recognize both shortterm and long-term performance, both accounting and market.\par
Many of the existing empirical research reported contradictory results when the relationship between performance and executive compensation starting with a survey by \hyperref[b13]{Lewellen (1970)} suggests that there is a considerable correlation between performance and wage levels of the framework. Additionally, they find these long-term remuneration elements had little effect on that reward-performance bond.  {\ref Lambert and Larcker (1987)} show that compensation (salary + bonus) is positively and strongly related to the measure of accounting performance (asset return), but moderately related to the measure of market performance (stock returns)\par
A study by Gerhart and Milkovich (1990) found that the composition of remuneration was performancerelated. The authors found that an increase of 1 percentage point in the return on assets (ROA) resulted in an increase in base salary of 0.2\% (\$ 142). Sloan (1993) the existence of a positive link between executive compensation and accounting indicators that contain less noise than stock market measures.  {\ref Doucouliagos and Hoque (2005)} found a positive association between pay and performance in the firm, Clarkson, Nichols and Walker (2006) find a positive association for 336 Australian firms for the period 1998-2004. Similarly, Dardour and Husser (2014) found a positive relationship. While Broye and Moulin (2010) demonstrated that the company's financial or stock market performance does not affect the remuneration of French executives for the year 2005. And others have found a negative relationship between executive pay and the ROA's accounting performance, for example  {\ref (B et al., 2006)}, its study was based on 174 Japanese firms from 1992-96.\par
Generally, the empirical results that link pay to performance, even positive and significant, are insufficient to consider that performance can play an important role in determining executive compensation. Based on these studies, we propose that:\par
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between executive compensation and the company's accounting performance is positive. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Description of the Sample}]{Description of the Sample}\par
Our initial work sample is made up of 37 companies listed on the French constituting the SBF120 index for the year 2015, it is limited to operating companies, mainly in industrial sectors and services. The choice of companies in our sample was random and simple. Data on variables are collected from the annual reports and reference documents of these firms. 
\section[{a) Defining Variables}]{a) Defining Variables}\par
In the framework of the model that we wish to develop, we start from the same theoretical postulate, namely that there is a relation between the remuneration of the managers and the accounting performance of the company, we want to justify our hypothesis and know Nature of this relationship. But first, we identify the dependent and independent variables of our model. 
\section[{i. The dependent variable}]{i. The dependent variable}\par
Since the Breton Act of 26 July 2005, listed companies have been obliged to publish the remuneration of corporate officers. Prior to this date, a similar obligation was imposed by the NRE law of 15 May 2001, but most companies were content with this global information, thus not making public the remuneration received individually for each proxy.\par
The total amount of compensation received by the managers during the reference year 2015 was obtained from the analysis of the annual reports, in our subject we use the normal log of executive compensation calculated by (Ln REM)). This amount of remuneration is understood to include the fixed part (salary) and the variable part (bonus, benefit in kind) of remuneration that have been disclosed in the annual reports and do not include so-called long-term incentives such as Allocations of free shares or stock options. First, we want to follow the work of Piketty (1997) and Landais (2007) on the effect of performance on pay (wage + bonus) irrespective of the long-term incentives. Compensation is due to the absence of observable annual data. The available data are indeed estimates made on the option values, with the Black-Scholes method generally; these estimates may deviate from the values that will actually be realized at the end of the option, this may have been particularly true for options granted prior to the 2008 crisis and whose underlying capital gains have fallen.\par
ii. Independent variables For the construction of our model, we used an independent variable and four control variables drawn from empirical studies to date. 
\section[{iii. The control variables}]{iii. The control variables}\par
Based on the existing literature, four control variables were selected:\par
In France, the influence of a controlling shareholder is in particular terms, since a large number of listed companies are controlled by a majority shareholder. In addition, numerous Anglo-Saxon studies confirm that a higher shareholding held by the control blocks has a negative influence on the CEO's remuneration \hyperref[b12]{(Lambert et al., 1993}  Ownership of majority shareholders (CONCEN) is owned by shareholders owning more than 5\% of the company's capital. We chose 5\% as do several researchers, such as \hyperref[b14]{Mehran (1995)}. Therefore, we have chosen the majority shareholder shareholders with more than 5\% voting rights.\par
The size variable is an element traditionally taken up in the literature inherent in this research theme and must also be taken into account when describing executive compensation \hyperref[b9]{(Jensen and Murphy, 1990;} {\ref Tosi et al., 2000;}\hyperref[b0]{Albouy 2004}). For the measurement of this variable, Crespi-Cladera and Gispert (2003) adopt the logarithm of the total turnover. So we measure the size (SIZE) by the logarithm of turnover.\par
In addition, the company's growth opportunities should also affect executive compensation. To the extent that managers are responsible for developing growth opportunities, they should be rewarded when these opportunities are indeed high (Smith and Watts 1992). The relationship between growth opportunities and the level of compensation should therefore be positive. We measure growth opportunities (MTB) through the market to book ratio, which measures the ratio between the company's market capitalization and the book value of its equity.\par
According to  {\ref Jensen (1986)}, the debt policy is also a mechanism of control exercised by shareholders. Indeed, an executive who would have a significant recourse to the indebtedness would be sanctioned in his remuneration. It is introduced as an observable risk measure in a study by  {\ref Harjoto and Mullineaux (2001)} and as a determinant of the remuneration of company executives. The measure of indebtedness (LEV) in our study is the ratio of Debt = total debts / total assets. 
\section[{IV.}]{IV.} 
\section[{Research Methodology}]{Research Methodology}\par
In the light of the studies of \hyperref[b2]{(Basu et al. (2006)},  {\ref Menon et al. (2006)}, the methodology adopted in our study is based on the multiple regression model. For this we used the following model:REM = ?0+ ?1 ROA+ ?2 CONCEN + ?3 MTB+ ?4 SIZE+ ?5 LEV + ? V. 
\section[{Results}]{Results}\par
Table \hyperref[tab_1]{1} presents descriptive statistics for our sample. Over the period of 2015, the SBF120 managers received an average annual total remuneration of ? 2001 million with a range of ? 118 million to a maximum of ? 35,000 million. It consists of 45\% in average base salary and 41\% in average annual bonus, with the remaining 15\% consisting of exceptional remuneration, attendance fees and / or benefits in kind. It can be seen that in most of the companies selected in our sample the bonus value is equal to the salary value but the payout is monthly whereas the bonus payment period remains according to the context of the company. It should be noted here that a number of managers do not receive variable compensation, either in the form of an annual bonus or stock options.\par
On average, accounting performance is very low compared to financial performance 15.11\% (Table \hyperref[tab_2]{2}), which leads us to conclude that the companies in our sample are based on the allocation of shares on the stock exchange.\par
As is known to French companies, the concentration of property shown in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{1} is relatively low. The average percentage of capital held by the concentrated majority shareholders is equal to 42\% (42\% of the voting rights). The standard deviation of this variable is 0.268, which shows that this variable is somewhat volatile compared to the others. This result confirms the particularity of the French context, namely a grouping of capital around a few shareholders (La Porta et al., 1999). Indeed, the absence of the majority shareholder in French companies increases the level of remuneration of the leaders.\par
According to the table, size as an important factor influencing the level of executive compensation is noticed very volatile with a standard deviation of 3.78\%. We also note that the level of debt held by companies is about 27.8\%, indeed the dispersion of this variable is important since it extends from 2\% to 85.8\% (Table \hyperref[tab_2]{2}), and this implies that the companies we have chosen rely on external means (indebtedness) on average 27\% in financing its investments.\par
The first of the independent variables to which we are interested in designing this model is the company's performance. We follow the study of Larker (2002), and Makinen (2005) in the measure of accounting performance, that they adopt the ROA as measure of this performance.\par
Finally, we note that more than half of the companies making up our sample are in the industrial sector 54\% and the rest of these companies are specialized in the services sector.  
\section[{a) Compensation and Performance}]{a) Compensation and Performance}\par
This section analyzes the test results of our research hypothesis on the impact of the company's accounting performance on total executive compensation, the results of the regression of our model are given in Table \hyperref[tab_3]{3}.\par
The results of the compensation estimate indicate that the model applied to our study sample is globally significant, its coefficients of determination are R² = 26.30\% and the Fisher F statistics are significant at the 5\% threshold for this model.\par
Thus, the adjusted R² value is 0.145 indicates that 14.50\% change in total compensation is explained by the variation in the explanatory variables used in this model. And the presence of a significant constant at the 1\% threshold with a very high positive coefficient  {\ref (13.76}) implies that the level of total compensation is explained by other governance variables that we have not used.\par
The coefficient of performance is negative and not significant (-0.52), this leads us to say that the accounting performance has no relation with the compensation of the managers in the companies of our sample. This result confirms previous studies by  {\ref Menon et al. (2006)}, Makinen (2005), Broye and Moulin (2010) that there is no correlation between total compensation and accounting performance.\par
Whereas, we find more studies that found that the change in compensation was explained by the change in accounting performance (Ramasway et al.  {\ref (2006)} and Ghosh (2003), \hyperref[b5]{Dardour and Husser (2014)}.\par
Statistical results show that the size of the firm, as measured by the logarithm of total assets, positively and significantly affects the relationship between total compensation and performance, these findings corroborate the work of Leonard (1990), Yermack 2004), Kubo and \hyperref[b10]{Kato (2006)}, which indicate that the level of total compensation increases significantly with the size of the firm. Thus the other control variables specific to the firm (debt, ownership structure) are all nonsignificant.\par
Moreover, the review of statistical tests, allows us to refuse our underlying assumption that executive compensation has no relation to the accounting performance.  
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
This article was devoted to empirically studying the relationship between accounting performance with executive compensation policies.\par
The study in question is based on a sample of 37 French companies included in the SPF 120 index over a period of one year. This method was conducted using a multiple regression technique to capture the relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance.\par
From this study, we have shown the contradiction of previous studies for the impact of the accounting performance on the total remuneration of the managers In addition, this study indicates that the level of the total remuneration of the managers (salary and bonuses) is relatively unrelated to improved performance.\par
Regarding control variables only the size of the company has a favorable effect on the level of remuneration. 
\section[{Bibliography}]{Bibliography}\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.1452261306532663\textwidth}P{0.038442211055276385\textwidth}P{0.11959798994974874\textwidth}P{0.1836683417085427\textwidth}P{0.1879396984924623\textwidth}P{0.1751256281407035\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep MINIMUM\tabcellsep MAXIMUM\tabcellsep MEDIAN\tabcellsep SD\\
SALAIRE\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 597000,00\tabcellsep 12810891,200\tabcellsep 600814,22286\tabcellsep 21773849,4615\\
BONUS\tabcellsep 35\tabcellsep ,00\tabcellsep 12800000,000\tabcellsep 514321,95714\tabcellsep 21789581,9504\\
REM\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 118380,00\tabcellsep 35000000,000\tabcellsep 2001872 ,31429\tabcellsep 71683982,6864\\
N valide (listwise)\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.08873626373626374\textwidth}P{0.05137362637362637\textwidth}P{0.1728021978021978\textwidth}P{0.18214285714285713\textwidth}P{0.18681318681318682\textwidth}P{0.16813186813186812\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep MINIMUM\tabcellsep MAXIMUM\tabcellsep MEDIAN\tabcellsep SD\\
ROA\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep ,01230\tabcellsep 1,0681\tabcellsep ,15114\tabcellsep ,20648\\
MTB\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep ,00068\tabcellsep 10,4483\tabcellsep 1,69553\tabcellsep 2,21804\\
CONCEN\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep ,01370\tabcellsep ,99200\tabcellsep ,418929\tabcellsep ,268070\\
SIZE\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 3,6546\tabcellsep 25,0663\tabcellsep 20,5010\tabcellsep 3,78152\\
LEV\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep ,02166\tabcellsep ,85896\tabcellsep ,278309\tabcellsep ,190778\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3520710059171598\textwidth}P{0.23639053254437867\textwidth}P{0.26153846153846155\textwidth}}
VARIABLES\tabcellsep COEFFICIENTS\tabcellsep TEST-STUDENT\\
constante\tabcellsep 13,768\tabcellsep 7,69***\\
ROA\tabcellsep -0,528\tabcellsep -0,393\\
MTB\tabcellsep -0,353\tabcellsep -1,745**\\
CONCEN\tabcellsep -0,474\tabcellsep -0,410\\
SIZE\tabcellsep 0,077\tabcellsep 1,034*\\
LEV\tabcellsep -1,564\tabcellsep -0,923*\\
R²=0,263\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
R²ajust=0.145Fish=2,218**\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: *]} 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{( ) 2017 © 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US) 1} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Kato and Kubo ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘CEO compensation and firm performance in Japan: evidence from new panel data on individual CEO pay’.  		 			T Kato 		,  		 			K Kubo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Japanese and International Economies}  		2006. 20 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Basu et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Corporate governance, top executive compensation and firm performance in Japan},  		 			S Basu 		,  		 			L S Hwang 		,  		 			T Mitsudome 		,  		 			J Weintrop 		.  		2006.  	 	 (Working Paper) 
\bibitem[Murphy (1985)]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Corporate Performance and Managerial Remuneration: An Empirical Analysis’.  		 			Kevin J Murphy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Accounting and Economics}  		1985. April. 7 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Doucouliagos et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Directors' Remuneration and Performance Australian Banking, Faculty of Business and Law},  		 			H Doucouliagos 		,  		 			S Askary 		,  		 			J Haman 		.  		2006.  	 
\bibitem[Peter and Swan ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{Does Executive Compensation Disclosure Alter Pay at the Expense of Incentives?},  		 			L Peter 		,  		 			Swan 		.  		2006.  		 			University of New South Wales and University of Hong Kong 		 	 
\bibitem[Clarkson et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Evidence on the Link between CEO Remuneration and Company Performance},  		 			Clarkson 		,  		 			S Nichols 		,  		 			J Walker 		.  		2005.  		 			The University of Queensland Brisbane, Qld. Australia 4072 		 	 
\bibitem[Murphy ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Executive Compensation’.  		 			K Murphy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Handbook of Labor Economics}  		1999. 3.  	 
\bibitem[Core et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Executive equity compensation and incentives: a survey},  		 			J Core 		,  		 			W Guay 		,  		 			D Larcker 		.  		2002.  		 			University of Pennsylvania 		 	 	 (Working Paper) 
\bibitem[Lambert et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		 			R Lambert 		,  		 			D Larker 		,  		 			K Weigelt 		.  		\textit{The structure of organizational incentives», Administrative Sciences Quarterly},  				1993. 38 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jensen and Murphy ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Performance pay and top-management incentives’.  		 			M C Jensen 		,  		 			K J Murphy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Political Economy}  		1990. 98  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dardour and Husser ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Politique de rémunération incitative du dirigeant et divulgation d'information RSE. Management \& Avenir, n°71},  		 			A Dardour 		,  		 			J Husser 		.  		2014. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Broye and Moulin ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Rémunération des dirigeants et gouvernance des entreprises: le cas des entreprises françaises cotées, Finance, Contrôle, Stratégie, n° 13},  		 			G Broye 		,  		 			Y Moulin 		.  		2010. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Albouy ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{Rémunération des dirigeants et performance boursière, Analyse Financière, n°10},  		 			M Albouy 		.  		2004. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jensen and Meckling]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure’.  		 			M Jensen 		,  		 			W Meckling 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Financial Economics}  		3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mehran ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘«Executive Compensation Structure, Ownership, and Firm Performance»’.  		 			H Mehran 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Financial Economics}  		1995. 38 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lambert et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘«How Sensitive Is Executive Compensation To Organisational Size?’.  		 			R Lambert 		,  		 			D Larker 		,  		 			K Et Weigelt 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic Management Journal}  		1991. 12 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lewellen and Huntsman ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘«Managerial pay and corporate performance’.  		 			W G Lewellen 		,  		 			B Huntsman 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Economic Review}  		1970. 60 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gomez-Mejia et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘«The Determinants Of Executive Compensation In Family-Controlled Public Corporations’.  		 			L R Gomez-Mejia 		,  		 			M Larraza-Kintana 		,  		 			M Et Makri 		.  	 	 		\textit{Academy of Management Journal}  		2003. 46 p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}