• by Richard Whitman , Columnist, June 9, 2015

In 2012, 60 percent of WPP shareholders rejected Martin Sorrell's $66 million salary. In 2014, that percentage was 30. This week at WPP's annual shareholder meeting, just 22 percent of shareholders refused to back Sorrell's compensation package.

One shareholder, Ashley Hamilton Claxton from Royal London Asset Management, said: "There is no doubt that Martin Sorrell is a successful CEO who has created value for shareholders, but sometimes investors need to ask themselves 'when is enough enough?' In our view, 43 million pounds is more than enough."

WPP defends Sorrell's salary, saying more than 90 percent of it is linked to the company's performance. Sorrell himself pointed out that a $1,500 investment made 20 years ago would return $24,348 today. He compared that to the approximately $13,211 that Omnicom, Publicis, Havas and IPG investors would have made during the same time period. 

While Sorrell may certainly have contributed to WPP's success, some shareholders think executive compensation has gotten out of hand. Shareholder Albert Goodey said Sorrell's compensation is "objectionable” and added: "I understand he's built the company, but it sets a terrible example in the marketplace. You have to pay good salaries to get the right people, but executive pay has got out of bounds."

And while Sorrell certainly seems to be doing just fine running WPP, he is 70 and he's not going to run WPP forever. On the subject of succession, Standard Life Investment Head of Governance Guy Jubb said, "For now, we support the board's position that Sir Martin is the right person to lead the company. But we believe the board, including Sir Martin, has a responsibility to demonstrate with conviction how it is managing both the art and the science that is needed to confront the 'succession elephant.' "