Why Severn Trent’s soaring executive bonuses matter and what they say about our rivers

Across the Midlands and wider UK, communities are increasingly vocal about sewage pollution, river health, and the accountability of water companies. Yet at the very same moment public trust is collapsing, Severn Trent has chosen to significantly increase the bonus potential for its new chief executive, James Jesic, a move that has sparked widespread anger and raised serious questions about priorities inside the company.  

This post explores what has changed, why it matters, and how it fits into the wider debate about water company performance and environmental responsibility.

A major increase in executive rewards

In its most recent annual report, Severn Trent confirmed that Jesic’s long‑term incentive plan (LTIP), the part of his pay linked to performance over several years has been doubled from 200% to 400% of his salary.  

This single change means:

• Jesic’s maximum annual pay could reach £4.8 million, once salary, bonus, LTIP, benefits and pension are included.

• His potential earnings now exceed those of his predecessor, Liv Garfield, whose highest annual pay was £3.9 million.  

Severn Trent has framed this as necessary to “attract and retain leadership talent” but the timing, coming after years of sewage spills and public frustration, has intensified scrutiny.

Why this is controversial

1. Record sewage discharges

Public anger over sewage pollution has been rising for years. Water companies collectively recorded hundreds of thousands of spills, and Severn Trent itself has faced repeated criticism for environmental failures.  

2. Bonus bans for environmental failures

Jesic’s predecessor was blocked from receiving bonuses due to environmental performance issues. Ofwat introduced these bans to ensure companies could not reward executives during periods of serious pollution incidents.  

Severn Trent complained that the ban was “disproportionate” arguing that even a single major pollution incident could wipe out an entire year’s bonus.  L

3. Environmental criteria quietly removed

At the same time as increasing Jesic’s LTIP, Severn Trent removed an environmental performance measure from the criteria used to determine future bonuses.

This means environmental outcomes, such as sewage spills, no longer directly affect executive reward.  

4. Public perception and trust

Campaigners have been clear, multimillion‑pound pay packages feel incompatible with the scale of environmental harm.

James Wallace of River Action said the public will “rightly question” such rewards when companies record tens of thousands of sewage spills.  

What Jesic has already earned

Jesic became CEO in January 2026 with a base salary of £775,000.

In his first three months, he received £740,000 in salary and bonuses, payments unaffected by the bonus ban because he was not CEO during the incidents that triggered it.  

His annual bonus potential has technically been reduced (from 120% to 100% of salary), but the doubling of the LTIP more than compensates for this, dramatically increasing his overall reward package.  

What this means for communities and rivers

The increase in executive bonuses sends a clear message about corporate priorities and it’s not one that aligns with public expectations for environmental stewardship.

It raises questions such as:

• Why are bonuses rising when pollution incidents remain high?

• How can environmental criteria be removed at a time when rivers are in crisis?

• What incentives exist for genuine improvement if executive pay is insulated from environmental performance?

For communities across Leicestershire and beyond, this is not just a debate about numbers, it’s about trust, accountability, and the future health of our rivers.

Final thought

At a time when volunteers, citizen scientists, and local groups are working tirelessly to monitor and protect waterways, the decision to increase executive bonuses feels completely out of step with public sentiment.

If water companies ever want to rebuild trust, they must demonstrate that environmental performance is not an optional extra, it must be at the heart of how leadership is rewarded.