CEO Pay in South Africa is Going ‘Moonshot,’ but are Shareholders Winning?
If you’ve been following CEO pay in South Africa lately, it’s starting to feel slightly out of step with reality.
In South Africa, the incoming CEO of Woolworths Holdings Limited could earn up to R100 million in incentives. Globally, companies like Prosus are leaning into so-called “moonshot” remuneration structures, where the upside is significant if ambitious targets are met.
On paper, the logic is sound: pay for performance. Reward outcomes rather than tenure.
The tone in the media is also starting to shift. In a recent Currency article on executive pay, journalist Ruby Delahuntquestioned whether current remuneration models are truly delivering on their promise, noting that the economics of CEO pay can feel “more gravy train than performance engine”.
That framing is uncomfortable, but it reflects a broader shift in how these packages are being viewed, not just by investors, but by the public as well.
Looking at Woolworths helps bring that into focus:
CEO Pay South Africa: Why Woolworths Raises Bigger Questions
The share price has been under pressure, down more than 11% over the past year and close to 24% over three years, with a notable drop in the last quarter alone.
While this does not point to a business in decline, it does raise questions about consistency in shareholder returns.
Against that backdrop, the scale of the incentive structure becomes more difficult to ignore. It prompts a straightforward question: what exactly is the new CEO expected to do differently?
The reality is that the retail playbook is well established. Margin management, supply chain optimisation, private label growth and store footprint decisions have all been part of the strategy for years.
If a meaningful re-rating of the share price is now being priced into executive pay, the expectation must be that something materially changes. Whether that comes from strategy, execution, or simply better timing is less clear.
This is not just a Woolworths issue. It reflects a broader pattern in the South African market.
Recent reporting, including analysis published by Currency, has highlighted how often CEO pay continues to rise even when company performance does not follow the same trajectory.
In a number of JSE-listed businesses, executives have been paid more in years where profits moved in the opposite direction, which raises valid questions about how closely pay is really tied to outcomes.
Why JSE Executive Remuneration Keeps Rising
The justification for these packages tends to follow a familiar structure.
Performance-linked incentives are designed to align leadership with shareholder outcomes, but in practice those outcomes are often influenced by macroeconomic conditions and market sentiment as much as by management decisions.
The “scarce skills” argument is also frequently used, with boards pointing to the need to attract top talent, although this can just as easily reflect gaps in succession planning.
Benchmarking then reinforces the cycle, as no company wants to sit below the median, creating an upward drift in pay over time.
The complexity of modern remuneration structures adds another layer of difficulty.
Between deferred bonuses, share-based incentives and multiple performance hurdles, it is not always easy to determine what success actually looks like.
In some cases, the metrics themselves can create unintended incentives. A strong market can lift share prices regardless of underlying performance, while adjusted earnings measures can exclude costs that would otherwise affect the outcome.
The result is that targets can be met without a corresponding improvement in the quality of the business.
In a market like South Africa, this becomes even more relevant. Share prices are shaped by currency movements, global capital flows and investor sentiment, which makes it harder to isolate the impact of leadership decisions.
This leads to a more fundamental question about what is really being rewarded.
Are Shareholders Really Winning From Moonshot Pay?
Executive pay is also becoming more visible.
It is no longer confined to annual reports, but increasingly forms part of a broader public conversation around fairness, governance and accountability.
When large payouts are made without clear outperformance, the response is often immediate.
At the same time, shareholder influence remains limited. Votes against remuneration policies at annual general meetings are often advisory, and there have been several instances locally where companies have proceeded with payouts despite clear opposition.
For listed companies, this is where remuneration communication becomes as important as remuneration design itself.
Investors are increasingly interrogating not just the payout, but the board narrative used to justify it. Weak remuneration messaging can quickly shift from a governance issue into a broader reputation issue — particularly in a market where public scrutiny is intensifying.
This is where strong investor communications support can help boards frame performance-linked pay in a way that can withstand stakeholder scrutiny.
If these structures are intended to serve shareholders, they need to hold up under pressure.
What Better CEO Pay Structures Should Look Like
There is nothing inherently wrong with performance-based pay.
Strong leadership should be rewarded when it delivers meaningful results.
The challenge lies in how that performance is defined and measured.
Targets need to be genuinely stretching and linked to long-term value creation. Metrics should be clear enough to interrogate, and boards need to be willing to challenge assumptions rather than simply endorse them.
At the moment, the system appears to be drifting in the opposite direction.
CEO pay in South Africa is becoming more ambitious and more complex, while the link to consistent performance remains uneven.
Without a tighter connection between the two, there is a risk that these “moonshot” structures continue to deliver significant rewards without equally strong outcomes.
In that scenario, shareholders are left carrying the gap.
Why This Calls for More Than a Standalone PR Tactic
For many businesses, the real challenge is not securing a single media mention but building the kind of credibility that holds up across media, search, stakeholder engagement, and long-term reputation management. That is where Decusatio is well-positioned to help.
Through its group structure, Decusatio brings together specialist capabilities across Human Capital, Investor Communications, Impact Investment Solutions and broader growth advisory support, while its Gauteng-based Investor Communications team focuses specifically on B2B strategic communications, media engagement and reputation-led storytelling. Decusatio Human Capital Solutions also offers services including recruitment, outsourced HR, B-BBEE and skills development support, which means clients can work with a partner that understands not only how to shape a strong external narrative, but also how internal capability, governance and leadership positioning influence that story in the market.
For organisations trying to turn communications into something more durable than visibility, that joined-up perspective can be a meaningful advantage. Contact us to see how we can help you impove your communications strategy in the second quarter of 2026.