Internal corporate metrics for comparing and benchmarking unit costs between sites and with competitors don't take board remuneration into account.  Workers pay rates tend to be determined by collective agreements, national agreements, and local market conditions, and thus not under the direct control of the board. However a 10% increase in worker remuneration in a large business could cost Billions whereas a few million extra for the CEO is peanuts by comparison.  Most Main Board directors don't involve themselves in projects/decisions below c. €50 Million.  It would be beneath their dignity.

One Director I knew blew £100M on an IT project to "e-transform" the business with virtually no positive benefits for the business other than the "learnings" gained.  I am not aware of it having adversely effected his career although he has recently left the business - c. 7 years later- which is several lifetimes in terms of the corporate career culture nowadays.  So no-one would have remembered his earlier project in any case..

notes from no w here

Properly, CEO compensation is still a "remuneration cost"

Salary (a "remuneration cost") is a component of Operating Expenses. Salary is however only a portion of total compensation afforded employees. Stock options, for example, are not an operating expense. Allocation of certificates held or withheld from future issues is a Balance Sheet (credit event) description of total assets.

Deferred cash compensation and schedule distribution typically are not represented in any one consolidated financial statement, as corporate officers routinely reserve disclosure of profit (loss) attributable to the activities of special purpose entities (SPEs) such as bonus pools and subsidiary trust funds in which "c-level" (recall Hank Greenberg, AIG) hold ownership interests.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.