Unilever, the FTSE-100 consumer goods giant behind Marmite and Lynx, is facing an investor backlash over its new chief executive’s multimillion pound pay package.

Sky News has learnt that ISS, a leading proxy adviser, has recommended that shareholders vote against Unilever’s remuneration report at its annual meeting later this month.

Sources familiar with ISS’s report on Unilever’s AGM resolutions say the agency objects to the discount of just €50,000 that the Ben & Jerry’s owner has applied to the base salary of Fernando Fernandez, compared to Hein Schumacher, his predecessor.

Tariffs latest: Trump claimed world was ‘kissing my a**’ for deals

Unilever surprised the City in February when it announced Mr Schumacher would leave after just two years in the job, amid frustration in its boardroom about the pace of growth.

In an accompanying statement, Unilever said Mr Fernandez – previously the chief financial officer – would be paid a basic salary of €1.8m, modestly lower than Mr Schumacher’s €1.85m.

In a summary of ISS’s report, the proxy adviser said Mr Fernandez’s “base salary as new CEO is significant and represents a small discount to the former CEO Hein Schumacher’s base salary”.

“The company does not appear to have sufficiently accounted previously raised shareholder concerns on the CEO role’s pay arrangement when setting Mr Fernandez’s remuneration.”

Unilever had also “disapplied time pro-rating” in respect of former executive directors’ long-term share awards, meaning that the company could have legitimately decided to award them smaller amounts of stock than it did.

On Wednesday afternoon, shares in Unilever were trading at around £44.79, giving the maker of Magnum ice cream and Persil washing-up liquid a valuation of close to £115bn.

Unilever did not respond to a request for comment.

Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs last week spooked the markets. 

Stock markets tumbled on Monday, with most US markets down and stocks in Hong Kong falling 13.2%, their worst day since 1997 during the Asian financial crisis.

There was slight growth in Asian and UK markets on Tuesday, but recovery is still a way off after a steep decline in reaction to Mr Trump’s tariffs on goods imported to the US, which he announced last week.

Tariffs latest: Follow live updates

US economists at Goldman Sachs raised their assessment of the odds that America will tip into recession to 45%, up from 35% the week before.

And if most tariffs aren’t reduced or negotiated away, “we expect to change our forecast to a recession”, Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius said in an analyst note.

Other economists are raising similar alarms, with JPMorgan putting the odds of a US and global recession at 60% and projecting inflation will reach 4.4% by the end of this year, up from 2.8% currently.

How do you know if a recession has begun?

The most commonly used definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of economic contraction – or “negative growth” – in gross domestic product (GDP).

To break that down, GDP is the total value of goods and services produced over a specific time period. When it goes up, the economy is considered to be doing well.

When it goes down – negative growth or economic contraction – it’s not doing well. And when it doesn’t do well for six months, it counts as a recession.

In the US, the National Bureau of Economic Research is the body which officially declares a recession – taking in a variety of economic data, not just GDP, defining it as “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months”.

Currently, there are no signs the US or global economy is in recession, and it remains unknown if tariffs will have a large enough impact to knock America’s into reverse.

But it is this uncertainty that has the potential to cause the most damage.

“People are all at sea,” Sky News Business Live presenter Darren McCaffrey told the Sky News Daily podcast.

Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app

“No one can quite work out whether President Trump wants a genuine rewiring of globalisation, what the consequences of that will be for the US and globally, and that these tariffs will remain permanent, or whether this is part of a negotiating tactic.

“That’s what no one can work out. That uncertainty is difficult, and it is going to cause damage.”

Stockbroker Russ Mould added that the markets are hoping the Trump administration is planning to use tariffs as a way of extracting better trade deals from existing trade partners. If this happens, it would help restore global trade to what’s been the standard in recent decades.

What could a global recession mean?

If the US and the rest of the world falls into recession – even if the UK doesn’t – it will “fundamentally mean we will all be poorer in the future,” McCaffrey said.

He added that Britain especially has not had a prolonged period of serious economic growth for a long time – held back by the financial crisis in 2008, the shock of Brexit, COVID, the Ukraine war and now US tariffs.

However, it is not all doom and gloom.

Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app

“The markets will always find a way,” McCaffrey says.

“The US is the world’s largest economy, but it is only 13% of global trade. Countries like China, Vietnam, Cambodia and others with high tariffs will find new markets. And one of the places that benefit from that in the short-medium term could be the UK.

“It will also force big wealthy blocs – the biggest of which is the EU – to look for new markets. Canada is also suggesting they would like a trade deal with the UK.

“This will cause damage to the US economy more than anywhere else, because other countries will want to be more reliant on more stable partners. As always with economics, there are winners and losers and ultimately the market will find a place for lots of these goods.”

How could the UK best prepare for potential recession?

Instead of retaliatory tariffs, the UK is looking to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with the US, Russ Mould explained, calling that “the UK’s primary goal”.

But if the UK is stuck with tariffs in the long-term, Mr Mould said it would be wise to consider deals with other countries.

He said: “Statistics show that 87% of global trade does not involve US, so maybe you can look elsewhere for trade deals with countries who also feel they have been badly treated by tariffs. I would guess India would be at the top of that list.

“The question is how quickly can trade deals be struck, given the fact the UK has been casting the net around for the last five years without a huge amount of progress.”

Read more:
Everything you need to know about Trump’s tariffs
What China could do next as Trump’s tariff war ramps-up
A major economic shock is happening thanks to Trump

Mr Mould added that the recipe for economic growth in any market is the growth of the labour force coupled with productivity growth.

“In terms of productivity, [leaders] are probably looking at targeted tax breaks for investment and to stimulate research and development. Other positive things for long-term benefits include examining infrastructure and transport access,” Mr Mould said.

“In terms of encouraging labour participation, you are into the deep waters of whether it is education or tax breaks for child care. All of those are very long-term solutions to a potential near-term challenge.”

Listen to the full Sky News Daily episode here

Retail tycoon Sir Philip Green’s human rights were not breached when he was named in parliament as the holder of an injunction against the Telegraph newspaper, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled.

The former Topshop boss previously obtained a court injunction preventing the Telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct made against him by five ex-employees who had agreed to keep the details of their complaints confidential under non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

Sir Philip “categorically” denied any unlawful sexual behaviour.

However, he was named as the businessman behind the injunction in parliament in October 2018 by Labour peer Lord Hain who used parliamentary privilege.

Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for members of both the House of Commons and House of Lords and is in place to ensure MPs and peers can go about their work without fear of being sued or prosecuted for contempt of court.

Sir Philip brought a complaint to the ECHR, with lawyers for the Monaco-based businessman challenging the absence of controls on the power of parliamentary privilege to reveal information covered by an injunction.

On Tuesday, the ECHR ruled against Sir Philip.

In a unanimous decision, eight judges in Strasbourg found the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been violated.

A majority of the judges also found that his complaints brought under Article 6, the right to a fair hearing, and Article 13, the right to an effective remedy, were “inadmissible”.

NDAs are legal contracts often used by companies to preserve confidentiality. If the contract is breached, the party breaking the agreement could be liable for damages in the form of hefty financial compensation.

Read more from Sky News:
Trump’s tariffs: what you need to know
Warnings of retail closures over NI hike

Following the ECHR ruling on Tuesday, Lord Hain said: “I’m really pleased that the Strasbourg Court [has] defended parliamentary privilege.”

Sir Philip became one of the UK’s best-known retail tycoons when he bought department store group BHS in 2000 and Topshop owner Arcadia Group in 2002.

But his reputation was damaged by the collapse of BHS after he sold the chain for one pound in 2015 to a businessman who had previously been declared bankrupt.

Arcadia Group subsequently went into administration in 2020.

Sky News has approached Sir Philip’s representatives for comment on Tuesday’s ruling.