The ethics

of pay in a
fair society
What do executives think?

www.pwc.com/ethicsofpay
Who were our respondents?
PwC, along with the London School of Economics,
surveyed a total of 1,123 executives around the world Age Countries and Regions
including 458 in Western Europe, 205 in North
Under 35 23% Australia 35
America, 121 in South & Central America, 170 in
35-39 22% Brazil 74
Asia Pacific, 89 in Middle East & Africa and 80 in
40-44 13% Canada 33
Central & Eastern Europe, and the report has been
China/HK 50
prepared based on these results. 45-49 15%
France 36
50-54 11%
Role Germany 102
5% 55-59 8%
Vice President India 54
3% 60-64 5% 35
14% Mexico
Senior Vice President C-Level exec 65+ 2% Middle East 31
Netherlands 72
Poland 30
25% Annual income Russia 50
Director
Under $150,000 40% South Africa 41
41% $150,000 – $349,999 33% Spain 31
Senior Management
$350,000 – $724,999 14% Switzerland 82
4% UK 100
Owner or partner $725,000 – $999,000 6%
US 120
8% $1m or over 7%
Others 147
President/CEO/Chairperson

Respondent role Industry sectors

Financial Services Manufacturing Technology Retail Healthcare Government
50% Executive directors
21% Non-executive directors
29% Neither 21% 17% 15% 7% 5%
7%
Gender Energy/Utilities Basic materials Communication Real estate Hospitality and Other
services leisure

68% Male
32% Female 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 9%
Contents
Introduction 04
Principles of distributive justice 06
Results 07
Four philosophical tribes 08
Do demographics matter? 10

Unmet aspirations 11

Key conclusions 12

How should companies respond? 14

Start a conversation 15
Introduction

For some time now, societal concern about levels of But as we showed in PwC publication Time to listen3 last
executive pay has been on the rise. Executive pay has been year, the public’s concern about inequality in different
a lightning rod for broader concerns about inequality regions is not correlated with the actual level of inequality,
and a ‘system rigged for the elite’ which has been the but rather with their view of their personal prospects.
backdrop to a number of recent elections and referenda Making society more equal may not help reduce the public’s
across the developed world. Books analysing the problem concern if questions of security and income progression are
– most notably Thomas Piketty’s ‘Capital in the 21st not addressed.
Century’ – have been catapulted out of academic circles to
the top of best seller lists. Indeed a recent article in Nature set out the wide body of
evidence that, in most people’s minds, more fair does not
Since the mid 1970s, real incomes in the bottom seven necessarily mean more equal4.
deciles of the global income distribution have risen by
between 20% and 80%1. And the proportion of the world’s Can companies therefore ignore inequality and just
population living on less than the World Bank’s poverty get on with the business of generating wealth, leaving
line of $2 a day has fallen from around 60% to 10%2. governments to deal with redistribution? Can they adopt
Globalisation and free trade have pulled extraordinary the Milton Friedman stance that ‘the primary social
numbers of people out of poverty across the world but real responsibility of companies is to make profit’? Or should
incomes for the world’s middle and working classes have they consider themselves as social entities in their own
stagnated or fallen, and so the greatest wealth generation right, where concerns of fairness and justice hold sway?
mechanism ever seen in human history is being called
into question. There is a tricky balance to strike. Markets matter and
companies that ignore the pay rates set by the market risk
This political context has led to a progressive tightening becoming uncompetitive in terms of cost or quality of talent.
on the rules on executive pay. ‘Say on pay’ is spreading But at the same time, the licence to operate of companies
rapidly around the world, tougher rules on deferral and across the developed world is being challenged, and will
clawback of bonus are spreading beyond just the banking become more so as automation takes its course. Inaction
sector, and publication of pay ratios is being used as a way to by companies will lead to the concept of “fairness” being
encourage boards to think more fully about the question of hijacked and equated to that of “equality” as we have
pay fairness. already seen with recent proposals to introduce pay ratio
disclosure in the US and UK.

1
Branko Milanovic, ‘Global Inequality: A new approach’, Belknap Press, 2016
2
OurWorldInData.org/world-poverty/based on analysis by Bourguignon and Marrison, ‘Inequaltiy among World Citizens, The American Economic Review, 2002 and World Bank data (Povcal Net)
3
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/human-resource-services/insights/time-to-listen.html
4
Starmans, C., Sheskin, M. & Bloom, P. Why people prefer unequal societies. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0082 (2017).

4 PwC
Moreover, the best companies know that fair treatment PwC chose senior executives as its target audience for
of employees, approached in a commercial way, is an two reasons. First, most research on attitudes to fairness
important component in employee engagement and focus on the general population. PwC wanted to see if
enhanced productivity5. There is a positive agenda for business leaders have a fundamentally different view. But
companies to embrace here too. second, senior executives play a critical role in determining
the culture of their business and its sense of purpose.
If companies are to play a role in ensuring pay fairness and Understanding their views on fairness is therefore central
a just distribution of income, they will need to figure out to understanding what can realistically be achieved within
what these concepts actually mean in tangible terms. ‘Fair’ companies in this area.
is a morally and politically loaded term, which must be
handled with care in a corporate context. It does not mean The approach builds on a PwC study of a few years ago into
pushing companies towards some socialist utopia. But if the Psychology of Incentives, which, as well as this report,
more fair is not more equal, what is it? To better understand was also carried out with LSE6. That study gave great
this question, we need to get to grips with some of the moral insight to how executive pay should be designed to motivate
principles which underlie the concept. executives. PwC hope that this study will play a part in
helping companies develop a motivating reward strategy for
Fortunately, philosophers have been debating these the whole company.
questions for centuries and provide much material to draw
on. So over the last year, in collaboration with Dr Alexander The research explores the attitudes to fairness and
Pepper, Professor of Management Practice at the London distributive justice in companies and society. As well as
School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and Dr shedding light on current attitudes to fairness, our findings
Susanne Buri, Assistant Professor in the Department of will help companies develop a new language to explore
Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method, PwC conducted what they mean by ‘fair’. This will help them to engage
a series of thought experiments with over 1,000 senior with their employees as they build remuneration structures
executives within large, multinational organisations on that are fair, just and meet employee as well as wider
distributive justice: the principles by which institutions and societal expectations.
governments distribute income among their constituents.
Developed economies face nothing less than a challenge
to capitalism as we know it. To respond to this challenge,
companies need to know what they mean by fair. We hope
this research helps them to figure this out.

5
Edmans, A. (2012), ‘The Link between Job Satisfaction and Firm Value, with Implications for Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management
Perspectives 26, 1-1
6
Making Executive Pay Work, The Psychology of Incentives, http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/people-organisation/publications/making-executive-pay-
work-the-psychology-of-incentives.html

“The top positions are the think heads for any organization. It is very
important that they are properly recruited and optimally paid.”
Senior Manager, financial services business, India

The ethics of pay in a fair society – What do executives think? 5

Principles of distributive justice

ere is re t e lt of liter ture in t e field

of political philosophy dealing with the matter of
Entitlement Efficiency
distributive justice. PwC drew on this literature to
structure the thought experiments for participants All voluntary transactions are just The income distribution should lead to an
around six key principles of distributive justice, shown With the late Robert Nozick as its most famous efficient lloc tion of l our
opposite. These represent the span of theories, although exponent, this theory turns the approach to This theory ostensibly has no distributive principle,
they are not comprehensive. To simplify the survey, we distributive justice on its head: rather than but its real one is this: that efficiency is to be put
did not include some of the most extreme theories – for asking, how can we justify a transfer of money before any other distributive consideration. What
example complete equality of outcome. from A to B, it instead asks, how can we justify the market decides is what is right, as this will
interfering with this transfer in the first place? create the greatest wealth for the greatest number.
Survey respondents were taken through a series of Any transfer between willing agents is just.
thought experiments to evaluate their attitudes to, and
prioritisation of, these principles of distributive justice in
relation to their company and society; as it is, and as they
Just desert Equal opportunity
would wish it to be.
People who achieve more deserve more Outcomes are fair provided the starting point is
The basis of desert theory is that there ought to This theory sees market competition as fair game,
be a like-for-like relationship between one’s work so long as there is a level playing field. Certain
contribution and the reward one gets in return: advantages which arise out of luck, such as what
what you put in is equal to what you get out. postcode someone was born in, or the school
Moreover, those who are more productive but they went to, should have as little to do with their
work less hard deserve more than those who work future economic opportunities as possible.
hard but are less productive.

Sufficiency Maximin
Guarantee a minimum standard of living for all Distribute income to make the worst off in
Sufficiency has as its ethos the idea that any state society as well-off as possible
“Without falling into a socialist ideology, or system whose constituents are not able to lead The brainchild of political Philosopher John
all the employees of a company contribute a dignified life is fundamentally immoral. Once Rawls, maximin states that inequality should
actively to its success, so too great a disparity this minimum quality of life is guaranteed for only exist to the extent it makes the worse-off in
all, however, society has fulfilled is obligations society better off: a strong test. This is achieved by
in wages is unjust and counterproductive.” towards distributive justice. harnessing the productive capacity of the better
Director, Manufacturing, Switzerland off, through the preservation of some level of
6 PwC monetary incentive.
Results

All principles secured at least some support from half the Results for principles that were viewed as just in the context of a participant’s ideal company or society are shown below:
Society 1% 5% 46% 37%
respondents, although some were more favoured than Just desert
Company 2% 39% 52%
others. Entitlement, which gives companies the freedom Proportion of respondents agreeing that a principle is important in their company or society
Society 3% 12% 40% 32%
to pay their employees as they please, and imposes no Sufficiency
Company 2% 6% 44% 39%
obligation on society to intervene in wealth outcomes, is
Society
Society 1%
1% 5%
5% 46%
46% 37%
37%
le st supported n t e s me r c et is imin ic Just
Just desert
Just desert
Maximin
desert
Society
Company 10% 1% 5%
23%2% 29%
46%
39%
23% 37%
52%
Company
Company 10% 2%
24%2% 39%
28%
39% 19% 52%
52%
argues for allowing inequality only to the extent that it
Society 3% 12% 40% 32%
maximises the welfare of the least well-off. Doing nothing Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Society
Society 8%
3%
3%
12%
24%12%
40%
40%
29% 20%
32%
32%
Entitlement
Sufficiency Company
Company 2%
2%23% 6%
6% 44%
44% 39%
39%
to help the least well-off is as unfavoured an idea as doing Company 8% 2% 6% 44%
30% 20% 39%
everything to help the least well-off. Society
Society 10% 1%
23% 5% 46%
29% 23% 37%
Just desert
Maximin Society
Society 10% 23%12% 29% 23%
Maximin
Efficiency
Maximin Company
Company
10%
10%
3% 1%
23%
24%2%5% 29%
43%
46%
39%
28%
23%
19%
25%
37%
52%
Just desert Company 10% 24% 28% 19%
Company 10% 1%24%2%
7% 28%
46%
39% 19% 30%
52%
The four more moderate principles of Efficiency, Just Desert, Society
Society
Society 8% 3% 24% 12% 40%
29% 20% 32%
Sufficiency
Equal
Entitlement
Entitlement Society 8%
8% 3% 24%12%
2%
24% 4% 29%
40%
32%
29%
20%
20% 32%
55%
Equal Opportunity, and Sufficiency, were the most favoured Entitlement
Sufficiency
opportunity
Company
Company
Company 8%
8%
2%23%
23%
6% 44%
30%
30% 20%
20%
39%
Company 8% 2%23% 6%
1% 8% 44%
40%
30% 20% 39%
42%
by a considerable margin. Respondents typically favoured Society 29% 23%
Maximin
Efficiency Society 40%
Society
10% 20%
3%
3%
23%12%0%
12% 43%
43% 20% 40% 25%
25% 60% 80%
three or more principles. Efficiency
Efficiency
Maximin
Society
Company
Company
10%
10% 3%
1%24%12%
23%
7%
29%
43%
28%
46%
23%
19% 25%
30%
Company 10% 1% 7% 46%
28% 19% 30%
Company 1%24%7% 46% 30%
Equal
Equal Society
Society 8% 24%
2% 29%
32% 20% 55%
Respondents supported multiple principles simultaneously, Entitlement
Equal Society
Society 2% 4%
4% 32% 55%
opportunity
opportunity
Entitlement Company
Company 8%
8% 1%
2%
24% 4%
23% 32%
29%
30%
40%
20%
20% 55%
42%
opportunity Company 1% 23% 8%
8% 40% 42%
even though, on the face of it, many of the principles are in Company 8% 1% 8% 40%
30% 20% 42%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
conflict. This shows that attitudes to fairness are complex Efficiency Society 40%
40% 20%
20%
3% 12%0%
0% 43% 20%
20% 40%
40% 25% 60%
60% 80%
80%
Efficiency Society
Company 3% 1% 12%
7% 43%
46% 25%
30%
and multidimensional. A single principle cannot describe Company 1% 7% 46% 30%
the richness of human attitudes in this area. Hence more Equal Society 2% 4% 32% 55%
Equal
opportunity Society 2% 4% 32% 55%
fair does not mean more equal. To develop an outcome opportunity
Company Strongly disagree1% 8%Disagree 40% Agree Strongly 42%
agree
Company 1% 8% 40% 42%
that is seen as just requires subtle trade-offs across 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
many dimensions.

Attitudes to fairness in companies and societies were

strikingly similar. The idea that companies create wealth
and societies distribute it did not seem to hold water even
amongst this senior population. Companies are viewed
as social entities in their own right, a microcosm of the
distributional challenges faced at the level of society. “It’s fine to compensate executives at a very high level as long as they
create value for all stakeholders.”
Director, Education Business, USA

The ethics of pay in a fair society – What do executives think? 7

Four philosophical tribes
Clustering the data
The statistical analysis allows us to identify clusters in the data where groups of like minded The charts show, for each tribe, the importance of each principle, with values closer to the
people take a similar perspective on the different dimensions of fairness shown above. centre of the spider diagram representing less important principles and values closer to the
The data broke into four clear and broadly equally-sized clusters. outer edge representing more important principles.

There are overlaps between the attitudes to distributive justice set out in these clusters.
But they reflect four distinct views of what people expect from their company and society.

Idealist Communitarian
Distribution of wealth should lead to moral outcomes. Individuals should receive All members of a community should have an income that is sufficient for them to
rewards based on their contribution, but all members of a community should have lead a dignified life. Equal opportunities are important – nobody should be at a
an income that is sufficient for them to lead a dignified life. Inequality should be disadvantage because of the circumstances of their birth. An efficient outcome for the
accepted but as a means to making the worst-off as well-off as possible. Efficiency is community overall matters. Individual talent and contribution is not an important
not an important criterion by which outcomes should be judged. criterion for allocating economic benefits.

Just Desert Just Desert

Equal Equal
opportunity Sufficiency opportunity Sufficiency

Efficiency Maximin Efficiency Maximin

Entitlement Entitlement

Diagram Sources Sur ey e Et ics of pay in a fair society o em er

8 PwC
 “Organisations where the gap between the highest paid and the
lowest paid employees is too high create frustration and mistrust and
are de-motivating.”
Director, Public sector organisation, Switzerland

ree r eteer eritocr t

Provided there are equal opportunities for all, talented people deserve to receive Provided all members of the community have an income that is sufficient for them
income in line with their contribution. Market efficiency is important in determining to lead a dignified life, individuals are entitled to receive economic benefits because
how income should be allocated. No one is automatically entitled to income or of their efforts and contribution. Equal opportunities are important – nobody should
wealth. The economic system does not owe anyone a living, nor need it improve the be at a disadvantage because of the circumstances of their birth. Efficiency is not an
lot of the least well off in the community, provided it is efficient overall. important criterion by which outcomes are judged, and the distribution of wealth
need not be to the benefit of the least well off in the community.
Just Desert Just Desert

Equal Equal
opportunity Sufficiency opportunity Sufficiency

Efficiency Maximin Efficiency Maximin

Entitlement Entitlement

Diagram Sources Sur ey e Et ics of pay in a fair society o em er

The ethics of pay in a fair society – What do executives think? 9

Do demographics matter?

Universalism reigns Proportion of each age bracket in the different philosophical tribes
Analysis shows that the data is remarkably consistent
across a range of demographic dimensions. There were no
100% Meritocrat
significant differences by:

• Gender 80% Free Marketeer

• Territory
• Earnings level
60% Communitarian
This does suggests that the dimensions of fairness and the
desired balance between them hold universal appeal.
40% Idealist
However, there was one significant demographic predictor
of which philosophy of fairness was most favoured: Age. 20%
The under 40s were far more likely to be Idealists than any
other age group and the over 50s were far more likely to be
Free Marketeers. 10%

This is significant in the current debate about

intergenerational fairness between Gen X and Y and 0%
the baby boomers. Ideas about distributive justice differ Under 35 35-39 40-44 45-49 55-59 50-54 60-64 65+
markedly, with the younger population significantly more
circumspect about trusting the market to produce a morally
desirable result, and wanting stronger protection for the less
well-off. By contrast the older generation are more likely to
put more faith on the effectiveness of market outcomes.

Almost 50% of over-65s identified themselves most strongly

with pro-market principles, while less than a third of under
35s did the same. The further we go down the age groups
of respondents, the more likely they are to distribute “The workers do all the work and the CEO receives all the
away from market outcomes and towards more socially
rewards. Look after your workers and they will look after
orientated outcomes.
your company as if it is their own.”
Senior Manager, Retail, South Africa
10 PwC
Unmet aspirations

What people want; what companies and societies do Proportion of people who think that their company is not delivering on a principle of
Companies, as well as societies, are not always living up fairness they think is just
to people’s hopes of them. Typically a quarter to a third of
people feel that companies are not delivering principles of
Maximin 25%
fairness that they deem to be important.
Sufficiency 21%
The same is true for societies to an equal if not greater
extent. This all suggests that citizens have strong
Equal opportunity 26%
expectations of fairness from both companies and societies,
that are not always being met. In both companies and
Just desert 16%
society, equal opportunity was the principle where there
was the biggest gap between aspiration and reality. Fully Efficiency 17%
40% of respondents that consider equal opportunity to be
important did not consider the principle to be implemented Entitlement 10%
in their society. The corresponding proportion for
companies was little over 25%. Other principles with a
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
sizable gap between aspiration and reality were Sufficiency
and Maximin. Market-based principles of distribution were
felt to be more effectively implemented. Proportion of people who think that their society is not delivering on a principle of
fairness they think is just

Maximin 33%

Sufficiency 41%

Equal opportunity 41%

“I believe in pay for performance (for contribution, effort,

Just desert 30%
expertise, etc.). Those that don’t want to work hard, make Efficiency 30%
sacrifices and take advantage of opportunities shouldn’t
be rewarded at the same level as those that are willing to Entitlement 23%
do more.”
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
C-suite exec, Manufacturing, USA
The ethics of pay in a fair society – What do executives think? 11
Key conclusions

Fairness is multi-dimensional There are four fairness tribes

The findings demonstrate that as far as the survey respondents Participants cluster into four distinct tribes when it comes to
were concerned, there is no single catch-all principle of their perceptions of what is fair:
distribution. For instance, for questions related to Society, the
majority of the respondents (93%) agree with more than one Idealist: Distribution of wealth should lead to moral outcomes.
principle, with 82% agreeing with three or more. Individuals should receive rewards based on their contribution,
but all members of a community should have an income that
Views of distributive justice are multidimensional and complex. is sufficient for them to lead a dignified life. Inequality should
There is much more to fairness than equality. Yet the debate on be accepted but as a means to making the worst-off as well-off
fairness is at risk of being hijacked by a one-dimensional view as possible. Efficiency is not an important criterion by which
based on pay ratios. It is in companies’ interests to develop a outcomes should be judged.
much fuller narrative on what they mean by fairness and how
Communitarian: All members of a community should have

82%
they are delivering on that for employees.
an income that is sufficient for them to lead a dignified life.
Equal opportunities are important – nobody should be at a
Agree with three disadvantage because of the circumstances of their birth.
or more An efficient outcome for the community overall matters.
principles Individual talent and contribution is not an important criterion
for allocating economic benefits.

Free Marketeer: Provided there are equal opportunities for

all, talented people deserve to receive income in line with their
contribution. Market efficiency is important in determining
how income should be allocated. No one is automatically
entitled to income or wealth. The economic system does not
owe anyone a living, nor need it improve the lot of the least well
off in the community, provided it is efficient overall.

Meritocrat: Provided all members of the community have

an income that is sufficient for them to lead a dignified life,
individuals are entitled to receive economic benefits because
of their efforts and contribution. Equal opportunities are
“A CEO takes all the corporate risk – why would they take a job that important – nobody should be at a disadvantage because of
could see them in prison for little or no pay? ” the circumstances of their birth. Efficiency is not an important
criterion by which outcomes are judged, and the distribution
Senior Manager, Defence company, UK of wealth need not be to the benefit of the least well off in
the community.
12 PwC
 The generations view fairness very differently Principles of fairness apply to companies
Demographic factors generally do not predict attitudes Survey participants didn’t subscribe to the view that the role
to fairness. We found remarkable statistical consistency of companies is to make money and of the state to redistribute
by territory, gender, level of earnings. This suggests some it. Instead, respondents think companies have a broadly equal
universal principles apply. The major exception to this is responsibility in providing a fair pay structure among their
age, which was the only demographic factor that provided employees. Companies are seen not to live outside of, but to be
statistically significant indication of the philosophy of fairness very much a part of, society and are expected to act justly.
to which an individual would subscribe.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the young are much more likely to be
Idealists, with the prevalence of free-marketeers increasing
with age. This provides a challenge to companies seeking
to develop an approach that works for three generations in
one workforce.

38% 8% 48%
of under 35s of over 65s were of over 65s were
were clustered clustered as clustered as Free
s de list Communitarian r eteer

“Placing an arbitrary limit on executive pay is sadly necessary. A Board

of Directors is at serious risk of operating in a moral vacuum. It rarely if
ever has sufficient time or the experienced intellectual talents to resist
the mutual flattery that lies behind excessive pay packages.”
Senior vice president, Natural Resources Business, US

The ethics of pay in a fair society – What do executives think? 13

How should companies respond?

‘Fairness’ is a morally and politically loaded term

and means different things to different people. It is a 1. Develop fairness principles 2. Translate into tangible people policies
concept that is easily high-jacked by special interests
and one-dimensional views, as we’ve seen recently with Boards need to translate the key principles of Fairness principles will come alive through their
the pay ratio proposals in the US and UK. fairness into their own business, and decide expression in tangible people policies such as
which is relevant to them given their business, living wage adoption, pay-for-performance, worker
But questions about fairness, and the role companies workforce, and culture. Different businesses will security, equal pay and so on. Companies should
have to play in this, are not going away any time soon. place different weights on the dimensions, which identify the concrete policies that support their
Fairness matters, and executives expect companies to should be tailored to each company’s purpose, board-approved fairness principles.
play a role in distributional justice and fairness rather culture, and strategy.
than just leaving it to governments. Responding to
this instinct is an important part of rebuilding trust
in business. But beyond this, there is an opportunity 3. Measure and monitor 4. Engage with employees
to cre te more en ed or force it enefits for
long-term value and productivity. So what should Develop metrics that enable progress towards We have identified four common philosophies of
companies wanting to address this issue do? We see fairness to be measured and monitored. This can fairness that people hold. The most appropriate
four key steps. include objective outcomes such as equal pay fairness principles for the company will depend
statistics, social mobility in the organisation, on employee attitudes and culture. Engage
pay ratios, market positioning, and so on. with employees to find out what fairness means
Developing a ‘fairness dashboard’ can help with to them and use the insight to refine company
accountability and reporting. fairness principles.

PwC will share more detail in coming publications on how these four steps can be brought to life in practice. This is a difficult
area and there will be some who argue it is a debate that has no place in a commercial business context. But we would argue
that the public and political debate on fairness is here to stay, and will influence public policy relating to the corporate sector.
Companies should therefore consider their perspectives on this debate. The first step for each company is to figure out exactly
what fairness means for them.

“It is too difficult to say what people should or should not make, it has to
decided by the job, the performance and what the business is worth.”
Director, Healthcare Business, USA

14 PwC
Start a conversation

Scott Olsen North America Western Europe Central & Eastern Europe Australia
Global Reward Leader
+1 646 471 0651 Jerry Alberton Fiona Camenzuli Alla Romanchuk Emma Grogan
[email protected] +1 416 365 2746 +44 (0) 20 7804 4175 +7 (495) 232 5623 +61 28266 2420
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Tom Gosling
Partner, Craig O’Donnell Robert Kuipers Middle East South & Central America
Reward and Employment +1 617-530-5400 +41 58 792 4530
+44 (0) 20 7212 3973 [email protected] [email protected] David Suarez Roberto Martins
[email protected] +971 4304 3981 +55 11 3674-3925
Phillippa O’Connor [email protected] [email protected]
Justine Brown Moises Perez +44 20 7213 4589
Director, Future of Work +52-5552636000 [email protected] China/Hong Kong Africa
research programme [email protected]
+44 113 289 44233 Alex Penvern Johnny Yu Martin Hopkins
[email protected] +45 61200128 +86 (10) 6533 2685 +27 11 7975535
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Janet Visbeen South East Asia

+31 (0) 887926429
[email protected] Nicky Wakefield
+65 6236 7998
[email protected]

India

Padmaja Alaganandan
+91 80 4079 4001
[email protected]

The ethics of pay in a fair society – What do executives think? 15

www.pwc.com/ethicsofpay
t our purpose is to uild trust in society and sol e important pro lems e re a net or of firms in countries it more t an
223,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services. Find out more and tell us what matters
to you by visiting us at www.pwc.com.

This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You
s ould not act upon t e information contained in t is pu lication it out o tainin specific professional ad ice o representation or
warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the
extent permitted by law, PwC does not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or
anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.

ll ri ts reser ed refers to t e net or and or one or more of its mem er firms eac of ic is a separate
legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

Design Services 30857 (10/17).