In spite of earning an annual income of £16.9 million (€19.8 million), AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot, according to shareholder Rajiv Jain, is significantly undercompensated. Jain conveyed his sentiment to the Financial Times prior to the annual general assembly of the company, advocating for Soriot’s £1.8 million pay increase, which was subsequently approved by shareholders on Thursday, bringing his total compensation to £18.7 million.
Jain supports the notion that Soriot is drastically underpaid, taking into account the major recovery AstraZeneca has undergone since Soriot took the helm over 10 years ago. Advisory entities such as Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, however, voiced dissension, urging shareholders to vote against the raised pay offer.
The elevated remuneration has been deemed by the ISS as being without parallel within FTSE companies, with the recent boost further amplifying the disparity with other FTSE colleagues. Soriot’s compensation has been a point of contention for some time.
In the preceding year, an opposition of 40% of shareholders sprang up against a proposed salary boost amidst negative news concerning AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, despite the eventual approval of the latest pay agreement for Soriot.
Interestingly, a substantial dividend increase was broadcasted hours prior to the voting process, seen by Hargreaves Lansdown as a thinly veiled incentive.
Soriot, in his defence, might bring to attention the significant metamorphosis AstraZeneca has undergone during his dozen years of service. Such progress is exemplified by the company outperforming the FTSE 100. Supporters argue that comparisons with other FTSE entities is misguided, and despite earning below some of his American counterparts, Soriot remains the best-remunerated pharmaceutical executive in Europe.
With an income double that of Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen, the CEO of Europe’s highest-value company, Novo Nordisk, and a total accumulation of £135 million from his tenure at AstraZeneca, the term “significantly underpaid” might be a bit of an exaggeration.