Eight companies where executives are paid 1000 times more than employees

Research by Bloomberg reveals the extent of the pay gap between executives and employees at 250 companies.

Yesterday Swiss voters rejected a proposal to cap executive pay at twelve times that of junior employees. The referendum was opposed by 65 per cent of voters, and the turnout for the vote was surprisingly high – the highest in three years, in fact – at 53 per cent.

Earlier this year, Bloomberg conducted research into CEO to employee pay ratios at the top 250 companies from Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Needless to say, not one pays ordinary employees anywhere near a twelfth of their executives’ salaries – the lowest executive to employee pay ratio on the list is 173:1 (at Agilent technologies). Eight companies pay their executives over 1000 times more than they pay their average worker.

Six out of the top ten highest-ranked companies in terms of CEO:employee pay ratios are consumer companies. There are four clothing firms (JC Penney, Abercrombie and Fitch, Nike and Ralph Lauren) and two food companies (Starbucks and Yum! – which owns brands like Taco Bell and Pizza Hut). To take the example of Starbucks, its UK sales didn't suffer any long-term damage from news of its creative tax accounting, so it's unlikely to be too worried about the PR implications of its unfair pay scales - perhaps the average consumer, like Swiss voters, doesn't really care. I, however, am happy to boycott all six until their executives explain just how they are 800 times more valuable than their average employee.

Here is a list of the top ten companies with the highest CEO to employee pay ratios, according to Bloomberg’s research:

JC Penney Co. 1795:1
Abercrombie & Fitch 1640:1
Simon Property 1594:1
Oracle Corp: 1287:1
Starbucks: 1135:1
CBS Corp 1111:1
Ralph Lauren 1083:1
Nike 1050:1
Discovery Communications: 833:1
Yum! Brands Inc 819:1

The City of London. Photo: Getty.

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

When will the government take action to tackle the plight of circus animals?

Britain is lagging behind the rest of the world - and innocent animals are paying the price. 

It has been more than a year since the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to passing legislation to impose a ban on the suffering of circus animals in England and Wales. How long does it take to get something done in Parliament?

I was an MP for more than two decades, so that’s a rhetorical question. I’m well aware that important issues like this one can drag on, but the continued lack of action to help stop the suffering of animals in circuses is indefensible.

Although the vast majority of the British public doesn’t want wild animals used in circuses (a public consultation on the issue found that more than 94 per cent of the public wanted to see a ban implemented and the Prime Minister promised to prohibit the practice by January 2015, no government bill on this issue was introduced during the last parliament.

A private member’s bill, introduced in 2013, was repeatedly blocked in the House of Commons by three MPs, so it needs a government bill to be laid if we are to have any hope of seeing this practice banned.

This colossal waste of time shames Britain, while all around the world, governments have been taking decisive action to stop the abuse of wild animals in circuses. Just last month, Catalonia’s Parliament overwhelmingly voted to ban it. While our own lawmakers dragged their feet, the Netherlands approved a ban that comes into effect later this year, as did Malta and Mexico. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, North America’s longest-running circus, has pledged to retire all the elephants it uses by 2018. Even in Iran, a country with precious few animal-welfare laws, 14 states have banned this archaic form of entertainment. Are we really lagging behind Iran?

The writing has long been on the wall. Only two English circuses are still clinging to this antiquated tradition of using wild animals, so implementing a ban would have very little bearing on businesses operating in England and Wales. But it would have a very positive impact on the animals still being exploited.

Every day that this legislation is delayed is another one of misery for the large wild animals, including tigers, being hauled around the country in circus wagons. Existing in cramped cages and denied everything that gives their lives meaning, animals become lethargic and depressed. Their spirits broken, many develop neurotic and abnormal behaviour, such as biting the bars of their cages and constantly pacing. It’s little wonder that such tormented creatures die far short of their natural life spans.

Watching a tiger jump through a fiery hoop may be entertaining to some, but we should all be aware of what it entails for the animal. UK laws require that animals be provided with a good quality of life, but the cruelty inherent in confining big, wild animals, who would roam miles in the wild, to small, cramped spaces and forcing them to engage in unnatural and confusing spectacles makes that impossible in circuses.

Those who agree with me can join PETA’s campaign to urge government to listen to the public and give such animals a chance to live as nature intended.


The Right Honourable Ann Widdecombe was an MP for 23 years and served as Shadow Home Secretary. She is a novelist, documentary maker and newspaper columnist.