Under CEO Pascal Soriot's leadership, AstraZeneca finds itself under scrutiny for the £17 million ($21 million_ pay package he received. The Guardian reports that this finding triggered a debate on executive compensation and corporate governance within the pharmaceutical giant.
Soriot's substantial remuneration, including salary, benefits, and bonuses, has raised eyebrows among corporate governance experts and observers, especially given its disproportionate scale compared to the minimum wage and the salaries of many of his colleagues.
Defenders of Soriot's pay package point to his leadership during pivotal moments in AstraZeneca's history.
When Soriot assumed the helm in 2012, the company faced significant challenges, including a thin pipeline of new drugs and a hostile takeover attempt by US rival Pfizer in 2014.
Under Soriot's guidance, AstraZeneca successfully fended off the takeover bid and embarked on a strategic journey to rebuild its drug portfolio. This effort culminated in substantial revenue growth, driven by successful drugs like Tagrisso and advancements in oncology treatments, significantly contributing to the company's profitability.
Moreover, AstraZeneca emphasizes that Soriot's compensation is aligned with the company's performance and shareholder value creation.
The company highlights a 40% total shareholder return over the past three years, surpassing averages in Europe and globally. The remuneration structure, including discretionary bonuses and company shares, is contingent upon achieving specific performance metrics to ensure sustainable business growth and deliver value to shareholders.
READ NEXT: Drugmakers, Including Pfizer and Sanofi, Set to Raise US Prices on at Least 500 Drugs in January
Critics Over Soriot's Pay Package
Despite these justifications, the debate over Soriot's pay package underscores broader concerns about transparency, fairness, and accountability in executive compensation practices.
Critics, including Andrew Speke from the High Pay Centre, argue that Soriot's earnings, estimated to be around 1,000 times more than a minimum wage worker and significantly higher than many of his employees, are not justifiable.
They question whether Soriot's contributions merit such hefty compensation, particularly when compared to the collective efforts of the company's workforce, whose expertise and hard work are integral to AstraZeneca's successes.
Stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the public, increasingly demand greater clarity and scrutiny regarding the rationale behind executive pay decisions and the broader societal implications of income disparities within corporations.
Join the Conversation