The debate over executive pay at Stellantis didn’t end with the departure of Carlos Tavares. If anything, it simply changed names.
Tavares — who led PSA from 2014 and oversaw the 2021 merger between PSA and FCA that created Stellantis — was frequently criticized for his compensation package, including by French President Emmanuel Macron. At the time, scrutiny focused on the scale of his bonuses, even though most of his remuneration was performance-linked.
Under Tavares’ leadership, Stellantis delivered €13.4 billion in profits in 2021, €16.8 billion in 2022, and €18.6 billion in 2023. In that record year, he received €36.5 million — around 71.5% tied to performance incentives, including financial targets and reductions in average CO₂ emissions in Europe.
Even in 2024, his final year at the helm — when profits fell sharply but remained positive at €5.5 billion — he earned €23 million.
A different context, same controversy
Antonio Filosa took over as CEO in June 2025. In his first year, he received €5.4 million. The package included a €1.4 million base salary, €374,000 in benefits, and €1.5 million related to his prior role as COO of Stellantis’ North American division.
Unlike his predecessor, Filosa did not receive performance bonuses, as the group reported €22.5 billion in losses.
Still, criticism followed quickly. The United Auto Workers union pointed out that even without bonuses, Filosa’s annual compensation equates to what an average Stellantis employee in the United States would earn over roughly 82 years of work. A figure that, put bluntly, assumes someone could remain on the payroll until nearly 100 years old.
The broader issue
CEO pay has long been defended as a reflection of responsibility, pressure and risk — top executives can earn millions, but they can also be removed overnight. When results are strong, they are hailed as strategic masterminds. When profits fall or dividends shrink, admiration evaporates just as fast.
The contrast at Stellantis highlights a recurring tension in global corporations: executive compensation often remains high regardless of short-term volatility, while workers’ pay reflects long-term stability rather than performance spikes.
Whether justified by governance structures, contractual obligations or market competition for leadership talent, the optics remain powerful — especially in a year marked by heavy losses.
And in corporate optics, perception can sometimes weigh almost as much as the balance sheet.
Related News