Thames Water accused of ‘flimsy PR stunt’ over bonus as boss’s pay swells

Thames Water has been accused of conducting a “flimsy PR stunt” as it prepares to report that its chief executive has landed nearly double her annual salary with a £1.5m pay package – after announcing that she would shun her bonus amid intense criticism of Britain’s water companies.

Sarah Bentley said last month that she and the firm’s finance chief, Alastair Cochran, would forgo their bonuses and any payments due under long-term incentive plans for the 2022-23 financial year.

The company did not say how much the decision would personally cost Bentley but the previous year she received a £496,000 bonus.

But her latest pay packet, set to be announced next month, will state that her remuneration was swelled by one-off payments – collectively larger than last year’s bonus – as part of a “golden hello” incentive package used to lure her from rival Severn Trent.

Bentley joined Thames Water in 2020 after nearly six years at Severn Trent.

Thames Water reports show she received £548,780 last July as a “final buyout payment” to compensate for share awards she forfeited at Severn Trent, and £178,000 relating to Thames Water’s performance in the first two years of her tenure.

The payments mean that during the last financial year, even without the waived bonus, she will have received about £1.5m, including her £750,000 salary and a £90,000 cash pension payment. She also receives a car, travel allowance and other benefits such as healthcare cover.

Executive pay has proved a lightning rod for clean water campaigners who have condemned England’s water companies, which are under pressure to improve their pollution records after repeatedly discharging sewage into Britain’s rivers and seas.

Earlier this year, Thames Water was accused by the group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution of being “reliant on being able to use our rivers and streams as toilets to deal with problems caused largely by underinvestment and profiteering”.

Bentley and the bosses of South West Water and Yorkshire Water announced they would give up their bonuses on the same day last month.

Bentley said the eight-year turnaround plan she is leading “is not yet where I want it to be primarily due to significant headwinds from extraordinary energy costs, coupled with two severe weather events. These have hit our customer and environmental performance. Against this backdrop it simply doesn’t feel right to take my bonus this year.”

Gary Carter, a national officer at the GMB union, said: “The UK water industry is in a complete mess, with creaking infrastructure, a disgruntled workforce and effluent allowed to flow freely into our beautiful waterways. To see those responsible for this carnage pocket a king’s ransom is particularly galling. Ms Bentley’s announcement she won’t take a bonus, while at the same time trousering a huge total pay package shows, it was nothing more than a flimsy PR stunt.

“And while the boss takes a fortune, Thames Water hasn’t even got round to discussing water workers’ annual pay award, despite it being due next month. It’s obscene.”

Thames Water will confirm the makeup of Bentley’s pay – and set out her future remuneration – in its annual report, expected early next month. Her total package is expected to fall from the £2m she received in 2021-22, but outstrip the £1.2m she was handed the year before that.

Related: The Guardian view on England’s water companies: a badly broken system | Editorial

A Thames Water spokesperson said: “Sarah has made the personal decision to decline any incentive payments she may be awarded for the 2022-23 performance year. This includes the 2022-23 annual management bonus and the 2020-2023 long-term incentive plan. She will still receive the final buyout payment for loss of inflight awards from Severn Trent as this is unrelated to Thames Water performance.”

Water companies made an attempt to puncture the public anger over pollution levels last month, announcing a £10bn plan to plough funds into the biggest modernisation of sewers “since the Victorian era” to reduce spills of overflowing sewage into England’s waterways. However, the plan was criticised for passing the bill on to consumers.