Bob Dudley is usually pretty good at PR. The BP boss took the helm of the FTSE 100 oil major just after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster – the biggest oil catastrophe in history – when its reputation was in tatters. Since then, the American executive has had to steer the company during an eye-wateringly difficult commodities rout, with the future of the oil market still in question.
At results conferences he usually made an effort to greet all us journalists individually, with a little comment to show that he actually registered who we were (“Ah City AM is a great paper” he said, having seen my name badge), something which I have found that few CEOs bothered to do.
But today it seems that he’s lost his touch. Unsurprisingly, the majority of shareholders voted against BP’s remuneration policy, which proposed hiking Bob’s pay up by 20 per cent to almost $20m (£14.1m) for 2015.
Put this figure alongside BP’s mammoth $5.2bn loss last year and 7,000 job cuts and it looks bad. Marie Antoinette bad.
I’ve seen commentators today argue that poor, overworked Bob has had a tougher time of it last year than a CEO would during a commodities boom (which is undoubtedly true) so he deserves the extra cash.
With this, I whole-heartedly disagree. I am sure that Bob’s job has been more stressful than any of us can envisage; trying to satiate employees, shareholders and everyone else while oil prices remain so painfully low must be nearly impossible. But I cannot imagine anyone in any other job being able to justify earning MORE money by arguing that the company – and their industry – is doing badly.
If that were the case, most journalists in the country would have been raking it in over the last decade, let alone supermarket employees etc etc. There are plenty of people all over the country working harder in tough conditions – this is no excuse for higher remuneration amid a backdrop of job cuts.
The other factor making Bob look bad is that his counterpart at FTSE 100 competitor Royal Dutch Shell, Ben van Beurden, took a whopping pay cut last year to €5.6m (£4.5m).
When we’re talking about such huge, incomprehensible sums it seems unfathomable why Bob would not have followed suit. He’s not stupid; he must have realised what the reaction would have been.
I’m not left-wing by any means – I support wealth creation and capitalism. But surely taking a salary of, say, a mere £5m would be enough for Bob and his family to live in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to, while sparing his reputation?
For sadly I think today’s events show that Bob now appears out of touch with his shareholders and – even worse – that he doesn’t care.