Stellantis Investors Fume Over CEO Pay Amid Job Cuts, Plant Closures, Supplier Strife

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares’ pay increase has annoyed a subset of shareholders as the automaker positions itself for more layoffs and attempts to shift the production of electric vehicles to countries where labor is cheaper. Meanwhile, the automaker's unwillingness to renegotiate contracts with suppliers had created additional tension with its business partners.


According to reporting from Automotive News and Bloomberg, advisory firms Glass Lewis and Proxinvest are urging investors to vote against approving the €36.5 million ($39 million USD) compensation package. While investors previously voted against Tavares’s pay scheme two years ago (in a non-binding referendum), they appear to be doubling their efforts this time around.


Having increased by nearly 60 percent over the executive payout scheme from 2022, some investors are arguing that the CEO is making too much at the expense of its own domestic workforce. They are likewise irritated about a new incentive award worth €10 million tied to meeting electrification and software goals that haven’t been terribly popular with regular people.


As for the shifting production locales, we touched on this a little when we noted that the Alfa Romeo Milano ( now known as the “Junior”) had angered the Italian Business Minister due to being produced in Poland. However, Stellantis is also trying to shift EV assembly to places like Morocco due to their lower-than-average labor costs.


The argument is that European manufacturers that are pivoting to EVs have had difficulties making them profitable and have already invested heavily into their development. Lower overhead in terms of production costs are supposed to help them endure the onslaught of cheaper Chinese EVs that are assumed to flood the market as European governments effectively mandate electric vehicles.


Tavares has brought the matter up numerous times in the past, suggesting that Western automakers will need every tool at their disposal to compete with China. But investors have noticed its dwindling employment base and select financial decisions are making a lot of people upset.


“Investors, in particular European ones, are becoming increasingly sensitive to social aspects of corporates [sic],” Charles Pinel, CEO of Proxinvest, told Bloomberg in a recent interview. “They are even willing to accept lower dividends or to make efforts if the social context is complicated.”


From Bloomberg:


Last week, thousands of Italians joined striking workers near the carmaker’s base in the northern Italy, with Tavares and government clashing for months over plans to move EV production elsewhere. Stellantis is targeting reduction of its Italy workforce by 8 percent, or roughly 3,700 positions, according to the Fiom labor union. In the U.S., the company has initiated the termination of thousands of supplemental employees in Detroit, Toledo and Ohio, and is eliminating more positions in France, according to local unions.
The layoffs, which contrast with increasing executive pay and a higher dividend, may raise questions about remuneration practices “in addition to causing potential reputational risk for the company,” Glass Lewis wrote in a report last month.
Stellantis’ tough measures while raking in record profits have rankled workers who have complained about the cuts and increased work load, but also if of unsanitary conditions in certain plants, a lack of work gear and insufficient heating.


While Tavares’ plans to further streamline the company haven't been particularly popular, this has been the trend for many large automakers of late. General Motors has been trimming employment numbers for years and recently announced plans to abandon the iconic Renascence Center to set up shop within a smaller building. Ford has likewise seen a decline in staff, going from a peak of 202,000 employees in 2017 to a much leaner 177,000 by 2023.


In truth, we’ve seen these trends play out across entire markets — particularly among companies that have spent the last several decades consolidating power, subsuming the competition, and chasing automation. While that would certainly include Stellantis, this has also been the status quo for mega-corporations and their executive leadership for at least a generation.


“There’s a contract between the company and myself, just as there are contracts for soccer players and for Formula 1 drivers,” Tavares told reporters in northern France on Monday. “Also, 90 percent of my salary depends on the company’s results — this goes to show they aren’t that bad.”


We imagine that’s largely a matter of perspective and who you happen to be in relation to the situation. Suppliers certainly appear angry. With the company vowing to shift to all-electric vehicles, many long-held business relationships are falling apart. Making the matter worse is Stellantis refusing to adhere to suppliers demanding inflationary cost relief. While it’s understandable that the automaker is trying to reduce production costs in a period where people aren’t spending like they used to, suppliers are finding themselves running into operating costs they’re claiming are untenable as the larger entity profits.


Crain's Detroit Business reported that at least a couple Tier 1 suppliers have stopped shipping parts to the automaker in recent weeks out of protest. Legal challenges have also been raised on behalf of the manufacturer. Stellantis has alleged that its agreements with suppliers are binding, whatever the economic situations of the day might be. Conversely, the suppliers’ legal team have stated that the companies are effectively going bankrupt due to the automaker refusing to renegotiate inflationary cost solutions.


CEO Carlos Tavares has stated that suppliers will also need to tighten their belts as part of Stellantis’ overarching cost-cutting strategy and the company formally stated it wasn’t going to renegotiate supplier contracts in February. It doesn’t appear to have made the automaker popular with its suppliers. But Stellantis has alleged that the industry needs to think about long-term sustainability and claims plenty of businesses are on the same page.


"Many of our supplier partners understand that to overcome the challenges of vehicle affordability, they must operate with the same level of commitment to reduce their costs," Stellantis told Crain's. "However, some suppliers are threatening to disrupt our manufacturing operations by continuing to demand substantial price increases. Such actions undermine the collaborative spirit required to find opportunities to reduce and absorb costs in order to maintain affordability for our customers."


In the related legal battles, one judge has ordered a supplier of fasteners to resume shipment after production was stalled at the Toledo Assembly Complex. In the other, a judge denied the automaker's motion to force a manufacturer of gears and pinions to continue supplying the automaker. This matter has already forced several plants to go idle earlier in the year and may likewise stifle Stellantis’ transmission production in the coming weeks. Lawsuits have also been launched in Europe over suppliers butting heads with the company.


Again, the situation mimics what we’ve seen from numerous manufacturers over the last couple of years. But the fact that this has become relatively normal doesn’t seem to be making anyone feel better. If anything, the opposite appears to be true. However, fingering CEOs as the soul offender is always a short-sighted approach. Stellantis, like all major companies, has a board of directors (including a whopping four ESG committee members) and they're likewise responsible for what's happening to varying degrees. But it's easier, and often very convenient for a business to simply allow the CEO take all the heat.


[Images: Stellantis]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 16 comments
  • El scotto El scotto on Apr 17, 2024

    Do the Agnellis care about any of this?

  • TheMrFreeze TheMrFreeze on Apr 18, 2024

    I don't doubt that trying to manage a company like Stellantis that's made up of so many disparate automakers is a challenge, but Tavares asking for so much money is simply bad form. With the recent UAW strike and the industry still in turmoil, now is not the time.


    And as somebody with a driveway full of FCA products, I'd just like to say how much I miss Sergio and FCA. At least with him Chrysler and Dodge stood a chance of long term survival...

    • Jeff Jeff on Apr 18, 2024

      Agree Sergio did make the effort to keep Chrysler and Dodge alive. Even though the 200 and the Dart were discontinued at least the effort was made to have new products for both Chrysler and Dodge. The Pacifica is a nice van but it is not enough to sustain the Chrysler brand.


  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
  • Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.
Next