ING scrapped its CEO's 50% raise after customers fled and politicians blasted it

In March 2018, ING's supervisory board withdrew the proposed 50% pay rise for chief executive Ralph Hamers, which would have taken his base salary to €3 million — 30 times that of the average bank employee, whose most recent deal had given staff a 1.7% rise. Hundreds of customers were thought to have closed their accounts in protest, and the proposal was condemned as 'arrogant' and 'out of touch' by politicians across the political spectrum.

The board's statement conceded the point in full: 'We realise we have underestimated the public response in the Netherlands on this clearly sensitive matter. To prevent an ongoing public discussion damaging ING and its employees, the supervisory board has reconsidered its proposal.' It pulled the item from the AGM vote, with chairman Jeroen van der Veer taking responsibility — 'We as supervisory board are responsible for this proposal and regret the commotion caused by it' — and promising to 'carefully assess' a sustainable, competitive remuneration policy.

The retreat was welcomed at the top of the Dutch state: Prime Minister Mark Rutte endorsed the decision, and finance minister Wopke Hoekstra — who had threatened to look into measures preventing such pay rises in future — called it 'the only appropriate response'.

The ratio, not the amount, was the mistake: 30 times the average employee's pay at a bank the public associated with state support invited exactly the reaction it got.

Customers voted with their feet — hundreds of account closures turned an AGM agenda item into a consumer boycott story.

Politicians across the spectrum attacked the proposal, with the finance minister openly weighing legislation to block such raises.

The board's own admission — 'we underestimated the public response' — acknowledged it had misread a sensitivity it was paid to price in.

Pay ratios are public trust in numbers: proposing 30x the median salary while staff got 1.7% handed a state-rescued bank a fight it could only lose by surrendering.

The proposal never reached the AGM vote. The supervisory board began work on a 'sustainable and competitive' remuneration policy, while Hamers stayed on under his existing terms — with the board saying nothing on whether he had asked for the rise in the first place.