It's a sign of the times. Whole Foods Markets CEO John Mackey in a letter to his employees, republished in Fast Company, has announced that he is taking a massive pay cut - to just $1 a year.

"The tremendous success of Whole Foods Market has provided me with far more money than I ever dreamed I'd have and far more than is necessary for either my financial security or personal happiness.... I am now 53 years old and I have reached a place in my life where I no longer want to work for money, but simply for the joy of the work itself and to better answer the call to service that I feel so clearly in my own heart. Beginning on January 1, 2007, my salary will be reduced to $1, and I will no longer take any other cash compensation.... The intention of the board of directors is for Whole Foods Market to donate all of the future stock options I would be eligible to receive to our two company foundations."

What a contrast to the way American companies have been rewarding failure, writes Andrew Clark from The Guardian. The latest, he says, is the outgoing chief executive of the Dell computer company, Kevin Rollins, who is walking away with millions of dollars.

So if Mackey's new pay packet is a sign of the times, will 2007 the year they prick the CEO pay balloon? That's the question raised by AP writer Ellen Simon.

"Will Robert Nardelli and Henry A. McKinnell do for executive pay what Enron Corp. did for corporate governance? Just as Enron Corp.'s meltdown led to tougher corporate governance regulations, the eye-popping packages those executives received when they exited CEO jobs at Home Depot and Pfizer have caused everyone from President Bush to professional compensation consultants to suggest runaway pay needs to be reined in.

"Investor activists are buzzing about potential solutions, including shareholder advisory votes on executive pay packages and the end to provisions that give executives huge windfalls when companies are sold. And a handful of companies have shown a new willingness to talk to advocates about pay changes."

Certainly the idea of non-binding votes from stockholders is an interesting one and it's now being considered by a group of top companies including Intel, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Schering-Plough, American International Group, jpmorgan Chase, and Colgate-Palmolive, reports BusinessWeek.

The system is used in Great Britain and was introduced in Australia in 2005 when they changed the Corporations Act to ensure that the adoption of the company's remuneration report would be put to a non-binding vote at the company's annual general meeting.

The votes might be non-binding but it's had a great impact on Australian boards. As my colleague Stephen Bartholomeusz said in his column last year:

"Boards will ignore the message of a large protest vote at their peril. Repeated strong protest votes against remuneration reports will inevitably develop into wider resistance and ultimately to opposition to the incumbent directors and their re-election."