Crozier vs. Garnier
During the research for a project I'm working on I found myself looking through GlaxoSmithKline's accounts. Remembering the debate over the Public Sector Rich List I got curious and wondered just how much JP Garnier - the reputedly well-paid boss at a big private company like GSK - gets paid. The figure is $5,413,000. That's a lot of money, not bad if you can get it. However, GSK are really massive and, after you've converted it to pounds, wondered how much more it was than the £1,256,000 that Crozier takes home in total remuneration.
I've done those calculations. They are entirely reliable with the proviso that the exchange rate is today's rather than last year's. Royal Mail revenue and operating profit figures are from their accounts:
(click to enlarge)
What that shows is that Royal Mail pay Crozier more compared to their profit and revenue than GSK pay Garnier. Adam Crozier is, at least compared to JP Garnier, well paid even relative to the scale of the company he is running. Even at the very top end the public sector now pays really well.
Given that public sector organisations don't depend on success in the market to attract customers or strong financial results to attract shareholders there is no reason to assume these salaries are likely to be justified.
So perhaps he is going to deal with the fraud and cheating that took p[lace in GSK clinical drug trials ? (GSK's study 329 of Seroxat, Avandia .....). CEOs who drive both the science on which they depend and the credibility of the medical profession into the ground in the process. Bad economics apart from bad ethics.
Posted by: P Berton | December 15, 2007 at 08:09 AM
Quite. Someone has to be paid to take the flack for corporate manslaughter.
Posted by: richard | December 15, 2007 at 08:14 AM
It seems GSK are covering their ASSets now.
You can download the following pdf file from their website:
Promotion of Medicines Code of Practice 2nd Edition 2007
I'd like to bring to your attention Page 6: (Clause 4 - 4.10)
"It must not be stated that a product has no side-effects, toxic hazards or risks of addiction or dependency."
Hmmm, moving the goalposts yet again eh?
Fid
Download file here also:
http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2007/12/liar-liar-your-pants-are-on-fire-ali.html
Posted by: BOB FIDDAMAN | December 15, 2007 at 08:31 AM
The captions on the last two columns are inverted.
Posted by: Colin | December 16, 2007 at 09:25 AM