Bernard Looney CEO of BP should hang his head in shame, as pay doubled to £10m pay package “Kick In The Teeth” To The Consumer
BP chief executive Bernard Looney’s pay more than doubled to £10mn last year after the UK-listed energy major delivered a record $28bn in profits.
BP’s chief executive Bernard Looney received a pay package worth £10 million in 2021, more than double the previous year’s compensation. The substantial increase in Looney’s pay is in recognition of the company’s impressive performance, as BP delivered record profits of $28 billion last year.
Jonathan Noronha-Gant, the senior fossil fuels campaigner at Global Witness, said:
- “People everywhere struggling to feed their families or warm their homes in the harsh winter months, have every right to be angry that the CEO of a huge energy firm is netting millions of pounds in the pay”.
- “This enormous pay package is a kick in the teeth to all hard-working people being faced with a cost-of-living crisis”.
- “Nothing could be a starker example of the gross inequality that sits at the very heart of our broken energy system”.
- “For a rich few to be seeing their already extraordinary wealth bolstered, precisely because bills have been so unaffordable for the majority, is a twisted irony”.
- “At the very least the governments should be implementing a proper windfall tax on both profits and CEO pay.”
The announcement of Looney’s pay increase has sparked debate and criticism, with some arguing that such a large sum of money is excessive, particularly given the ongoing economic uncertainty and hardship faced by many people around the world. However, it is important to examine the context of the situation and understand why Looney’s pay has increased so significantly.
Firstly, it is worth noting that BP’s record profits were achieved despite the challenging conditions faced by the energy sector in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated economic disruptions caused a significant decline in global energy demand, leading to a sharp fall in oil prices. In this context, BP’s ability to deliver such strong financial results is a testament to Looney’s leadership and the efforts of the wider company.
Secondly, it is important to recognize that Looney’s pay increase is not simply a reward for delivering strong financial results. The package includes long-term incentives that are tied to the company’s performance over a period of years. This means that Looney’s pay is not guaranteed, and is dependent on BP’s continued success in the years to come. (Self-employed people do not have guaranteed incomes).
It is worth considering the wider context of executive pay. While the headline figure of £10 million may seem excessive, it is important to compare this to the pay of other executives in the industry and in other sectors. In many cases, senior executives in the energy sector are paid significantly more than Looney, and it is not uncommon for CEOs in other industries to receive much higher pay packages.
Overall, while the increase in Looney’s pay may be controversial, it is important to understand the context of the situation and the reasons behind the decision. BP’s record profits are a testament to the hard work and dedication of the company’s employees, and Looney’s pay is reflective of the role he has played in leading the company through a challenging period. Ultimately, the success of BP and the wider energy sector is crucial for the global economy, and it is important that companies are able to attract and retain talented leaders who can drive growth and innovation.
Why it is fair to have such an enormous pay increase whilst households suffer with the cost of living
As news of BP CEO Bernard Looney’s £10 million pay package makes headlines, there are concerns about the fairness of such a large increase in compensation, especially as many households continue to face the rising cost of living. However, it is important to recognize that executive pay is a complex issue, and there are several factors to consider when evaluating whether such pay increases are fair or not.
Firstly, it is important to understand that executive pay is not determined in isolation. Companies are often competing for top talent, and the salaries and bonuses they offer are often benchmarked against other firms in the industry. Therefore, it is important to consider the context in which such pay increases are given. In this case, BP is a global company operating in a highly competitive industry, and the company needs to attract and retain top talent to remain competitive.
Secondly, it is important to recognize that executive pay is often tied to company performance. In this case, the increase in Looney’s pay is a reflection of BP’s strong financial results in 2021. The company delivered record profits of $28 billion, despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the global economic downturn. Therefore, the pay increase can be seen as a reward for Looney’s leadership and the company’s overall success.
Furthermore, it is important to understand that executive pay is often determined by a complex set of factors, including the size and complexity of the company, the level of responsibility of the executive, and the potential impact of their decisions on the company’s future. Therefore, comparing executive pay to the cost of living for the average household may not be an apples-to-apples comparison.
It is important to note that executive pay is subject to scrutiny from shareholders and the wider public. In this case, the pay increase was approved by BP’s shareholders in a vote at the company’s annual general meeting. Therefore, it can be argued that the increase in pay is a reflection of the will of the company’s stakeholders.
While it is understandable that some may question the fairness of executive pay increases, it is important to recognize that this is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. Factors such as industry competitiveness, company performance, and executive responsibility all play a role in determining executive pay
Should there be a wage cap on people earning ridiculous amounts of money such as a windfall tax?
Whether or not there should be a wage cap on people earning extremely high salaries is a matter of debate, and opinions on the topic vary.
On the one hand, proponents of a wage cap argue that extremely high salaries are often disproportionate to the value that an individual contributes to society, and that such high salaries can exacerbate income inequality. They may also argue that a wage cap could help fund important social programs by generating revenue through taxes or other means.
On the other hand, opponents of a wage cap argue that it could stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as limit the potential earnings of individuals who have worked hard and taken risks to achieve success. Additionally, opponents argue that implementing a wage cap could be difficult to enforce and may lead to unintended consequences such as companies relocating to other countries with more favorable policies.
As for the idea of a windfall tax, this refers to a tax on large, unexpected gains that may result from events such as inheritance, lottery winnings, or stock options. While some argue that such a tax could help fund important social programs or reduce wealth inequality, others argue that it could discourage risk-taking and investment, ultimately harming the economy.
Ultimately, the decision on whether or not to implement a wage cap or windfall tax is a complex one that requires careful consideration of the potential benefits and drawbacks of such policies, as well as an understanding of the broader economic and social implications.
Should Bernard Looney have paid the windfall tax?
Whether or not Bernard Looney, the CEO of BP, should have paid a windfall tax is a matter of debate and would depend on the specific circumstances.
If Mr. Looney received an unexpected gain that qualified for a windfall tax, then he would be subject to the tax just like anyone else in a similar situation.
However, it’s worth noting that Mr. Looney’s compensation as CEO of BP would likely be subject to scrutiny and regulation by various governing bodies, and the specific details of his compensation package would need to be examined to determine whether or not it qualified for a windfall tax. Additionally, the idea of implementing a windfall tax on high earners, including CEOs, is a matter of debate and would depend on the specific policy proposals and circumstances involved.
How can Bernard Looney earn respect from people with such a high pay increase?
Bernard Looney, or any high-earning executive, can earn respect from people despite their high pay increase by demonstrating a strong commitment to their values, and by taking actions that demonstrate their commitment to social responsibility, fairness, and transparency.
One way to demonstrate a commitment to these values is by being transparent about executive pay and ensuring that it is fair and justifiable. This might include publishing pay ratios, disclosing how pay is determined, and demonstrating that the company is committed to providing a fair and competitive salary to all employees.
Another way to earn respect is by demonstrating a commitment to social responsibility through philanthropy or other charitable activities. This could involve supporting causes that are important to the company’s stakeholders or engaging in activities that benefit the wider community.
Additionally, demonstrating a willingness to listen to feedback and engage in dialogue with stakeholders can help build trust and respect. This might include engaging with employee groups, shareholder groups, or other stakeholders to discuss concerns and address issues that may arise.
Ultimately, the key to earning respect as a high-earning executive is to demonstrate a commitment to fairness, transparency, and social responsibility through actions that align with these values.
Should energy prices be reduced by companies like BP make profits
The question of whether energy prices should be reduced when companies like BP make profits is a complex issue that depends on various factors, including market conditions, supply and demand, and government policies.
In a competitive market, energy prices are generally determined by supply and demand, with prices rising or falling based on factors such as the cost of production, global demand, and the availability of alternative energy sources. As such, the profits earned by companies like BP are often linked to market conditions and may not necessarily reflect a lack of competition or price gouging.
Moreover, companies like BP play an important role in supplying the energy needed to power our economy, and they invest heavily in exploration, production, and infrastructure to ensure a reliable supply. Reducing energy prices could impact their ability to continue making these investments, which could ultimately harm the long-term supply of energy and negatively impact consumers.
That being said, governments and regulatory bodies can take steps to ensure that energy prices are fair and competitive, and to promote transparency in the pricing process. This might include implementing regulations on price setting, encouraging competition in the market, or promoting alternative sources of energy.
Ultimately, the question of whether energy prices should be reduced when companies like BP make profits is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the broader economic and social implications.
Why should people suffer and have to choose whether to eat or stay warm
It is a fundamental human right for everyone to have access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and warmth. No one should have to suffer or choose between these basic necessities.
Unfortunately, poverty and inequality are persistent problems that can make it difficult for some people to access these basic needs. Many factors contribute to poverty and inequality, including systemic issues such as income inequality, lack of access to education and job opportunities, and inadequate social safety nets.
To address these issues, it’s important for governments, businesses, and individuals to work together to promote policies and initiatives that ensure access to basic needs for everyone. This might include initiatives such as affordable housing programs, free or subsidized food programs, and access to energy assistance programs to help people stay warm during cold weather.
Furthermore, addressing poverty and inequality requires a commitment to systemic change, including policies and initiatives that promote economic growth, provide access to education and job opportunities, and create a more equitable and just society.
In short, no one should have to suffer or choose between basic necessities such as food or warmth, and addressing poverty and inequality requires a collective effort to promote social and economic justice and ensure access to basic needs for everyone.
If people cannot afford to warm their homes because of rising energy costs who is to blame?
The issue of who is to blame for rising energy costs that make it difficult for people to afford to warm their homes is complex and multifaceted. It involves a variety of factors, including market conditions, supply and demand, government policies, and global economic forces.
One factor that contributes to rising energy costs is supply and demand. If there is an increase in demand for energy and a decrease in supply, this can drive up energy costs. Additionally, global economic forces, such as changes in oil prices or geopolitical tensions, can impact energy costs and make it difficult for some people to afford to warm their homes.
Government policies can also play a role in energy costs. For example, taxes on energy production and consumption can impact the price of energy, as can regulations on production and distribution.
Furthermore, the energy industry itself plays a role in setting energy prices. Energy companies are responsible for setting the prices of the energy they produce, and these prices are influenced by market conditions, production costs, and other factors.
In short, there are many factors that contribute to rising energy costs, and it is difficult to assign blame to any one group or individual. However, it is important for governments, energy companies, and other stakeholders to work together to promote policies and initiatives that ensure energy is affordable and accessible for everyone, especially for those who may be struggling to afford basic needs such as heating their homes.
Who decides on Government Policies?
Government policies are typically decided by elected officials, such as members of parliament, congress, or other legislative bodies, who represent the interests of their constituents. The process of developing government policies often involves a complex set of negotiations and consultations between different government departments, stakeholders, and interest groups.
In democratic countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and many others, the policy-making process is designed to be transparent and inclusive, with opportunities for public input and feedback. This might include public consultations, hearings, and other forms of engagement with citizens and stakeholders.
However, the actual process of decision-making can be influenced by a variety of factors, including political ideologies, interest groups, and other pressures that can impact the decision-making process. This can lead to debates and disagreements within government and among stakeholders, which can result in compromises and adjustments to policies.
Ultimately, government policies are intended to reflect the needs and priorities of the society they serve, and are developed through a complex and often iterative process of consultation, negotiation, and decision-making.
Personally speaking, I think it is disgusting to be paid obscene amounts of money whilst the rest of the citizens of the UK are struggling to put food on their tables, having to decide to miss out on meals to keep their homes warm.
Governments and energy suppliers work hand in hand. The shareholders often blue chip companies make decisions for the rich to get richer and the poor to be poorer.
This makes me sick to the stomach and these CEOs should walk to the hall of shame. No one on this planet can say these CEOs work harder than the rest of the ordinary business owners in the UK. These blue-chip CEOs are pencil pushers, have a chain of command, and are backed by governments.
The package, which far exceeded the £4.457mn Looney received in 2021, yet could have been even higher. The remuneration committee said it had “exercised its discretion” to reduce the annual bonus and long-term share award by a combined £746,000, in part due to four fatalities at BP facilities during the year.
BP chief earns £10 million in pay as energy firms are ‘netting millions of pounds in pay’ whilst families struggle – London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com
BP chief Bernard Looney’s pay doubled to £10mn last year | Financial Times (ft.com)
The bp brand | Who we are | Home
Blue Chip Meaning and Examples (investopedia.com)
‘Greedy’ Labour council awards cabinet members 45 per cent pay rise (telegraph.co.uk) Further evidence that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and there is a social divide.
Children share soiled beds while parents survive on leftovers as families struggle in cost of living crisis (msn.com)
Do you want articles written on finance, economics, politics, and energy, oil companies or do you want to invest in us, just drop us a line!
#bp #bpoil #oilcompanies #petrolprices #costofliving #energysuppliers #inflation #brexit # bernardlooney #bpceo #shareholders