GlaxoSmithKline’s new chief executive, Emma Walmsley, will be paid 25% less than her predecessor, Sir Andrew Witty. Britain’s biggest pharmaceutical company said her potential £8.8m a year pay deal was lower than Witty’s, which carried a maximum total of £11.6m, because she was less experienced than her predecessor, who spent eight years as chief executive. GSK added that investors had asked the company to show restraint on executive pay. Walmsley will be the most powerful woman in the pharmaceutical industry when she takes the helm next month after her promotion from head of GSK’s consumer healthcare business, whose products include Sensodyne toothpaste and Panadol painkillers. Urs Rohner, the non-executive director who chairs GSK’s remuneration committee, said: “Taking into account the fact that this is Emma’s first CEO role, reductions have been made to all elements of her remuneration package in comparison to Sir Andrew’s current arrangements. Her overall package for 2017 will be approximately 25% less than that received by Sir Andrew.” According to the annual report, her pay consists of four pay components: a £1m basic salary, which is 10% lower than Witty’s; 20% of her salary paid into her pension, which GSK says is “significantly lower” than Witty, who has a more generous defined benefit arrangement; an annual bonus worth up to 100% of her salary, or 200% in exceptional circumstances – less than the 125% of salary that Witty could have achieved; and a long-term incentive plan award of shares worth up to 550% of her salary, less than the 700% grant that Witty could have received. Rohner indicated that the new chief executive could expect pay rises in the future. “It is the committee’s intention to keep Emma’s package under review in the coming years subject to her development and performance in the role,” he said.
The new CEO of pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Emma Walmsley, will receive a pay deal worth 25% less than that of her predecessor, Sir Andrew Witty. Walmsley, who will become the pharmaceutical industry’s most powerful woman when she takes up her post eight years, will potentially receive £8.8m ($10.8m) a year, compared to Witty’s maximum £11.6m. GSK claimed that Walmsley’s reduced pay was due to her being less experienced than Witty. The company also stated that investors wanted to see restraint in relation to executive pay.