Starbucks said Friday that Chief Executive Howard Schultz made $17.2 million during the company’s 2013 fiscal year, which ended last September.
The coffee titan made about 40 percent less than during the previous fiscal year, in which a retention grant boosted his pay to $28.9 million and made him the second most highly-paid CEO in the Northwest, after Nike’s Mark Parker.
Schultz’s compensation comes in the wake of Starbucks’ strongest financial performance ever, which included a 12 percent boost in revenue to a record $14.9 billion.
The results were marred only by the $2.8 billion Starbucks had to pay Kraft to settle a distribution dispute.
- More pet-food recalls linked to potential salmonella contamination
- Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage
- Man drowns in Lake Washington after hopping off boat
- Impressions from day 3 of Seahawks training camp --- Christine Michael, the center position, Tyler Lockett, and more
- After signing $43 million contract, Bobby Wagner admits he didn’t expect Seattle to draft him
Most Read Stories
Schultz’s compensation was split between $1.5 million in salary, a $2.25 million bonus, and about $13.3 million in stock and options. Other compensation, including insurance premiums, retirement-plan contributions and security amounted to nearly $216,000.
Chief Financial Officer Troy Alstead earned $3 million, down from $4.13 million in fiscal 2012. John Culver, the company’s group president for China and Asia Pacific, Channel Development and Emerging Brands, made $3.8 million, up from $2.8 million in the previous period.
Clifford Burrows, who heads Starbucks’ Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and Teavana units was paid $3.5 million, down from $4.2 million in fiscal 2012.
Jeff Hansberry, president for China and Asia Pacific, earned $2.4 million, down from $4.4 million in fiscal 2012.
Starbucks said in a proxy filing that two shareholder proposals are on the table at the next annual meeting, to be held March 19.
One would forbid political contributions destined to influence the outcome of any election or referendum to “reduce the corrupting influence of money in politics.”
The other would separate the roles of chairman and chief executive, a measure that echoes widespread investor agitation across the U.S. for more oversight of corporate chiefs by their boards.
Starbucks said its board opposes both proposals.
Ángel González; 206-464-2250 or email@example.com. On Twitter: @gonzalezseattle