
Exclusive: Nestle chair's exit followed rising unease over direction, investors say
Support for Bulcke, 70, was ebbing away due to doubts about Nestle's recovery after the pandemic, when sales volumes flagged in 2023 as the world's largest packaged food maker increased prices to offset rising raw material costs, four Nestle investors said.
There was also discontent over Bulcke's loyalty to Schneider during that tough period, as well as Nestle's practice of making former CEOs chairmen, they said. Schneider was eventually ousted last August and replaced by Nestle veteran Laurent Freixe.
The maker of Nescafe instant coffee and KitKat chocolate bars said on June 18 that Bulcke, CEO from 2008 to 2016, would step down as chair in April 2026 and be replaced by vice chairman Pablo Isla, a former chairman and CEO of Spanish fashion retailer Inditex (ITX.MC), opens new tab.
"Nestle is not in crisis mode, but it's the right time for a change," said Ingo Speich, head of sustainability and corporate governance at Deka Investment, a top-30 Nestle investor which voted against Bulcke at this year's AGM on April 16.
"We are big supporters of independent chairmen, but after being on the board for more than a decade, Bulcke was no longer independent," added Speich. "Nestle has been too much like a closed shop in the past."
Bulcke was not available to comment on this story.
His departure will mark the end of a near 50-year career that saw him rise from marketing trainee to the very top.
Responding to a Reuters request for comment on this story, Nestle spokesperson Christoph Meier said Bulcke chose not to seek re-election at a time when Freixe was well established, and the company's strategic direction was clear and firm.
"This timing ensures a smooth transition, providing ample time and space for the new leadership team to settle in," Meier said, noting the firm had reviewed its succession plans in June.
But the timing of Bulcke's exit - announced soon after he was re-elected for another year, and a year before his mandatory retirement age - was unusual, analysts and investors say.
Bulcke, chairman since 2017, was due to retire in 2027 under Nestle's rules.
Several top-30 investors told Reuters they had been unhappy with Bulcke for years, with some seeking his departure either privately or at shareholder meetings.
"The time has been right for Mr. Bulcke to step aside for quite some time," said one, who declined to be named.
Bulcke's shareholder backing has been declining. In April, he won re-election with 84.8% shareholder support. While apparently substantial, it was well below the level chairs usually get in Switzerland. In 2017, he received almost 96%.
"This was a clear sign that many investors did not appreciate him anymore," the investor said. "He shouldn't have been chairman in the first place - we don't like a CEO becoming chairman without cooling off periods."
Two previous powerful Nestle chairmen, Peter Brabeck and Helmut Maucher, had also been CEO.
"Chairmen who are former CEOs can be resistant to change," said Kuno Schedler, a corporate governance expert at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Shareholders also criticised Bulcke's decision to retain Schneider when Nestle's performance struggled after 2022.
Adding to the disquiet were scandals such as Nestle's use of banned treatments to purify bottled water in France, and supply chain problems in the United States. Yet when Schneider was finally let go, it came as a shock.
"Safe haven companies like Nestle should never surprise the market," one shareholder said. "The former CEO was doing roadshows with investors shortly before he had to go."
Shareholders have also been concerned by the performance of the group's share price - which fell 42% between 2022 and 2024 - lagging rivals like Unilever (ULVR.L), opens new tab and Danone (DANO.PA), opens new tab which gained 15% and 19% respectively.
Investors were also worried about high debt which threatened future payouts. Net debt at the end of 2024 was 2.9 times adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and Amortization, up from 2.5 times at the end of 2023.
"Shareholders only want one thing: returns. And if they're not there, then people are unhappy," said one investor.
Investors and analysts said incoming chair Isla showed strong leadership at Zara-owner Inditex, cheering a potentially fresh approach to driving growth at Nestle.
One of Isla's first priorities will be to define the profile of the next CEO, said Vontobel analyst Jean-Philippe Bertschy. Freixe is 63, so questions have been raised about how long he will remain in the top job.
Other tasks will include deciding what to do with Nestle's roughly 40 billion euro ($47.11 billion) stake in French cosmetics giant L'Oreal (OREP.PA), opens new tab, and whether to keep the company's struggling frozen foods business.
"We need better execution at Nestle," said Simon Jaeger, a portfolio manager at Nestle investor Flossbach von Storch. "That's why it's good to have a breath of fresh air in the position of chairman.
"Inditex is one of the best-managed companies in an ultra-competitive sector. Pablo Isla played a leading role in this. And because he already knows Nestle, he is a good solution."
($1 = 0.8490 euros)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Car finance payouts limited, but lenders aren't off the hook
There may well be a few sighs of relief from senior finance company and banking executives following the Supreme Court's ruling, but it is unlikely you will hear the champagne corks verdict does almost certainly reduce the potential compensation bill significantly. Lenders no longer face the prospect of having to pay £30bn to £40bn to aggrieved car buyers. The likelihood of the government stepping in also appears to have receded the industry is not off the hook. The Financial Conduct Authority may still open a redress scheme for cases where dealers had a financial incentive from lenders to ramp up interest rates on loans as much as possible. The Supreme Court's ruling also upheld one consumer claim, in which the commission payments were deemed unfair – and that could provide a template for others to follow. All of this means the compensation bill could still be in the Supreme Court's intervention has been eagerly awaited since October, when the Appeal Court issued a verdict in three test cases which could have triggered an avalanche of compensation each case, people who had bought cars on finance claimed they were partially unaware that the deal had involved a commission payment being made by the lender to the car dealer. They claimed that in law the commissions amounted to bribes, or secret Appeal Court judges agreed, essentially saying that commission payments made by a finance company to a dealer for arranging a car loan were illegal if the car buyer had not given his or her "informed consent".They also concluded that a car dealer had a "fiduciary duty" towards the car buyer when it came to arranging a car loan. In other words, the dealer should set his or her own interests aside, and act purely on the customer's meant that millions of car buyers could potentially claim compensation – if they could show that the dealer had not specified what commission payments they were receiving for lining up a finance deal. It was not enough for the details to be buried in small had feared that this would lead to an avalanche of claims against them – and that the same arguments could be used to challenge other kinds of consumer finance agreements as well, potentially increasing the compensation bill still the Supreme Court threw very cold water over those arguments. The President of the Court, Lord Reed, dismissed the idea that car dealers had a "single minded duty of loyalty" to their customers, and insisted they "plainly and properly" had personal interests in the finance agreements they were involved ruling clearly blocks off what could have been a very wide avenue for compensation claims. However, the court did side with one of the claimants. In the case of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker, it decided that the finance agreement was "unfair" under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act. This was because the size of the commission payment was very large, and because Mr Johnson had been misled about the relationship between the dealer and the lender. He was, they said, entitled to say this could open the doors for other cases in which the commission payments are seen to be is also a key question the Supreme Court ruling does not answer. This is what should happen in cases involving so-called Discretionary Commission Agreements (DCAs). These were finance deals in which the car dealer could set the interest rate of a loan, within a set scale. The higher the rate, the more commission they would be paid – and the customer would be unaware of the Financial Conduct Authority banned such deals in 2021. It is now considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who were affected by them. If it goes ahead, millions of car buyers could still have a claim, though it is not clear how much compensation they would to Richard Barnwell, a financial services advisory partner at accountancy firm BDO, the bill could still be substantial."We believe there is still a potential for redress, for example, if discretionary commission arrangements are deemed to be an unfair relationship, redress could still be from to £5bn to £13bn or more," he analysts agree. According to Martin Lewis, who runs the MoneySavingExpert website, "the Supreme Court has certainly narrowed the number of people who will be able to reclaim car finance. I think you're probably talking the lower end of £10bn, as opposed to £40bn."That £10bn would still be a significant figure. But the finance industry appears to have avoided the potential free-for-all rush to claim compensation the earlier verdict had threatened to spark while the Treasury says it will "work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers", the BBC understands that the likelihood of the government intervening with retrospective legislation to protect financial firms has now diminished law of bribery only applies to persons who owe a single-minded duty of loyalty and are therefore bound to have no personal interest in the matter that they are dealing the present case the car dealers plainly and properly have a personal interest in the dealings between the customers and the finance companies.


Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Euronext eyes Stock Exchange bid amid deals frenzy
Euronext would consider buying London's stock market if it is put up for sale. Chief executive Stephane Boujnah said London Stock Exchange's parent had shifted towards data and analytics services. His comments come amid a crisis in the City amid a takeover frenzy. New York has been the primary destination for defectors, with fintech darling Wise its most recent scalp. Delivery giant Just Eat and travel operator Tui have both chosen European capitals in recent years. Euronext operates across Europe and recently offered to buy Athens Stock Exchange for £360m. Boujnah described Euronext as 'home sweet home' for firms bridging domestic industries and international markets. He noted that the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG), which owns the UK stock market, has increasingly shifted towards data and analytics following its acquisition of Refinitiv in 2021. But LSEG boss David Schwimmer said 'it gets a lot of focus, a lot of attention, a lot of capital and a lot of support'. LSEG's 'broader scale' allows it to work on the exchange's behalf in dealings with companies, ministers and regulators, he added.


Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Watch shares plummet as tariffs hurt Switzerland
Shares in Watches of Switzerland plunged after Donald Trump whacked a 39 per cent tariff on Swiss imports – hitting it with the toughest tariffs in Europe from August 7. The stock fell 6.8 per cent, or 23.8p, to 326.8p, deepening the gloom around the luxury industry. Shares in the group, which sells brands Rolex, Cartier and Audemars Piguet, and is advertised by actress Dakota Johnson (pictured), have plunged 23 per cent since Trump first announced tariffs on April 2. Analysts at Barclays said this could be a 'significant headwind' for the London-listed company as brands will be likely to raise prices. It had been opening US showrooms after being bitten by waning demand for watches and jewels, especially in the UK and Europe. Swiss luxury group Richemont also fell by 2.6 per cent.