AstraZeneca has suffered a shareholder revolt over pay at its annual general meeting (AGM) for a second year running.
The pharmaceutical giant is set to pay chief executive Pascal Soriot £9.4 million and at the AGM 35% of votes cast went against the firm's remuneration report.
The firm said it was "disappointed" by the result because it had made significant changes to its pay policy after engaging with shareholders.
In a statement, AstraZeneca said: "The remuneration committee has already engaged with a number of shareholders to understand the reasoning behind their decisions not to support the remuneration report and will continue to engage with shareholders during 2018 to determine how best to address their concerns."
Shareholders also rebelled against AstraZeneca's pay plans last year, when Mr Soriot was in line to receive £14.3 million. Almost 40% of shareholder votes came out against the remuneration report.
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), the advisory group, said there had been an attempt to address some investors' concerns since last year, but that there were still issues around how targets were disclosed.
Pensions and Investment Research Consultants also advised shareholders to reject AstraZeneca's pay report.
AstraZeneca's shares fell at the open after it revealed first-quarter profits had slumped 36% year-on-year to 374 million US dollars (£277 million), saying it was hit by falling margins, administrative costs and increasing competition.
Revenues came in at 5.17 billion US dollars (£3.83 billion), missing consensus estimates of 5.18 billion US dollars (£3.84 billion).
Andy Smith, analyst at Edison Investment Research, said Mr Soriot's retirement "may not be many more earnings disappointments away".
Steve Clayton, fund manager at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "This year should see the company return to growth, but not until the second half.
"Crestor, the company's flagship super-statin, is coming off-patent and the sharp drop in sales here is masking growth in newly developed and launched products."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here