Unilever Says It Can't Hire Top US Talent Due to Strict UK Pay Rules — Even as CEO Could Earn €23.8M

Unilever has admitted it is struggling to recruit senior American executives because its pay structure, constrained by UK corporate governance rules, cannot compete with what US candidates already earn. The consumer goods giant, whose brands include Dove, Hellmann's and Domestos, disclosed in its annual report that it had encountered 'live examples of US candidates whose current pay packages are unaffordable without creating significant relativity or pay compression issues.'

The admission comes as the company simultaneously proposes an overhaul of executive pay that could see chief executive Fernando Fernández earn as much as €23.8 million (approximately £20.5 million / $27.3 million) — a figure that highlights the growing disparity between what Unilever is willing to pay at the very top and what it says it cannot offer to the American talent it needs below it.

Zero Americans at the Top

Susan Kilsby, chair of Unilever's remuneration committee, was direct in her assessment. 'We currently have no US-based individuals on the top executive team and only 7 per cent of the next level of leadership are US-based,' she said.

Kilsby went further, describing how two specific US candidates interviewed by Unilever held pay packages close to or exceeding the CEO's compensation level, and came with additional benefits including significant housing and schooling support, as well as fewer restrictions — such as no requirement for bonus deferrals. These are standard features of American executive contracts that sit uncomfortably within the boundaries of UK remuneration policy.

The US market is not peripheral to Unilever's ambitions. The company has described it as a 'critical growth engine' accounting for around 20 per cent of total revenue, with plans to add between 20 and 30 new employees across its top three executive tiers, particularly in beauty and well-being.

A Pay Structure Under Pressure

Unilever's proposed changes to Fernández's pay package would lower short-term compensation while significantly increasing potential long-term payouts. In 2026, if Fernández hits the maximum performance threshold, his pay could top €18 million (approximately £15.5 million / $20.7 million). If Unilever's share price also rises by 50 per cent, his total compensation would surpass €23 million (approximately £19.8 million / $26.4 million). In 2025, he received €5.6 million (approximately £4.8 million / $6.4 million) — though he only assumed the chief executive role in March 2025, having previously served as chief financial officer.

The proposed overhaul requires Unilever to revise its three-year remuneration policy a year earlier than scheduled. Shareholders will be asked to vote on the proposal at the upcoming annual meeting, and under UK rules, such votes are binding.

Unilever is not alone in facing this pressure. The average FTSE 100 chief executive earned £3.8 million (approximately $5.1 million) the previous year — a fraction of the average $16.7 million (approximately £12.5 million) taken home by S&P 500 counterparts. The disparity has prompted a growing number of British multinationals to push for pay reforms, with Unilever now among the most prominent.

Shareholder History Complicates the Ask

Unilever's relationship with its shareholders on pay has not always been smooth. At the 2024 annual meeting, roughly 60 per cent of investors voted to reject the pay package proposed for then-incoming chief executive Hein Schumacher — one of the more significant shareholder rebellions seen among FTSE 100 companies in recent years. That vote forced the company to freeze Schumacher's base salary and shift towards more performance-linked rewards, a philosophy that now underpins the current proposal for Fernández.

A Unilever spokesperson said the revised policy 'places greater weight on variable and long-term incentives, creating a simpler and more transparent structure' aligned with the company's global peers, adding that the company is 'confident the new policy will support the delivery of our growth strategy and help drive top-third shareholder returns.'

The Unilever pay debate sits at the intersection of two pressures reshaping British boardrooms: global competition for executive talent and the UK's relatively rigid corporate governance framework on remuneration. As multinationals with major US operations seek leaders who can compete in the American market, the constraints that once distinguished British companies from their US counterparts are increasingly cited as structural disadvantages. How shareholders respond to Unilever's proposal may set a precedent for how other FTSE 100 firms approach the same dilemma.