Affinity Water Faces Scrutiny as CEO’s £1.6 Million Pay Packet Raises Eyebrows Amid Financial Concerns

14 July 2025

In a year when the British water industry is under intense scrutiny over rising consumer bills, ballooning debts, and frequent pollution scandals, Affinity Water’s recent decision to more than double its chief executive’s pay has ignited fresh controversy in both the business and political spheres. The news broke on July 14, 2025, when reports emerged that Affinity Water, one of England’s major water suppliers, had awarded its CEO, Keith Haslett, a compensation package of £1.6 million for the financial year ending in March. This sum, which includes a striking 29 percent annual bonus increase and a £503,000 retention payment, comes at a time when the company faces what its regulator describes as “elevated concern” over its financial health.

Affinity Water, which provides water to more than 3.8 million people across London and the southeast, finds itself in the crosshairs of both Ofwat and the public. The regulator, Ofwat, highlighted in its latest report that Affinity’s debt-to-asset ratio has soared to a precarious 75 percent, one of the highest in the sector, at a time when the water industry’s financial structure is coming under increased government and regulatory pressure. Ofwat has classified Affinity Water as being under “elevated concern,” a designation that reflects not just its heavy debt load but also its exposure to risk from rising interest rates and operational pressures. In simple terms, Affinity is borrowing more and more in an era when the cost of borrowing is going up, making the company’s financial resilience a matter of urgent public interest.

Against this backdrop, the announcement of Haslett’s pay package struck a nerve. For the 2024-2025 financial year, the CEO’s total remuneration increased from just under £800,000 in the previous period to a remarkable £1.6 million. The sharp increase was fueled by a retention payment of more than half a million pounds, designed to keep Haslett in the top job as the company navigates an increasingly turbulent regulatory environment. This retention bonus is in addition to his regular pay and a 29 percent uptick in his annual bonus, the latter coming at a time when many households served by Affinity Water have faced higher bills and growing concerns about service quality.

The decision to grant such a lucrative package has generated significant criticism, especially considering Affinity Water’s financial struggles and the broader context of public dissatisfaction with the sector. Environmental campaigners and consumer groups were quick to point out the disconnect between executive rewards and public outcomes. They argue that generous bonuses and retention payments send the wrong message at a time when water companies are under fire for not doing enough to tackle pollution, leaks, and customer complaints. Affinity, like many of its peers, has faced frequent questions about its investment in infrastructure and its record on addressing sewage spills and water supply interruptions.

Ofwat, for its part, issued a statement that did not mention Haslett by name but made clear its position on executive pay in the water industry. The regulator emphasized that any rewards should reflect genuine performance and improvement for customers and the environment, not simply financial engineering or the retention of key personnel. Ofwat has been under mounting pressure itself to take a tougher stance on companies seen as putting shareholder and executive interests ahead of public service, particularly as political parties make water industry reform a campaign issue ahead of the next general election.

Meanwhile, Affinity Water’s board defended its decision by arguing that retaining top leadership is essential during a period of significant industry and regulatory change. The company points to ongoing efforts to improve water quality, reduce leakage, and invest in infrastructure. Supporters of the retention payment claim that continuity at the top is critical for delivering long-term improvements, particularly as the sector grapples with demands for cleaner rivers, more resilient supply networks, and the integration of new environmental standards.

Still, the optics of the situation are difficult to ignore. In recent months, public anger over sewage discharges, water shortages, and rate increases has reached a boiling point, with many calling for the renationalization of water utilities or, at the very least, much stronger regulation of executive pay and company finances. The Affinity Water pay controversy is likely to add fuel to those calls and keep water industry reform high on the agenda for regulators and policymakers in the months ahead.

As Affinity Water looks to the future, the company faces a delicate balancing act: maintaining financial stability, meeting regulatory expectations, addressing customer concerns, and justifying executive rewards in a sector where public trust has been badly shaken. For now, the debate over Haslett’s pay package is more than a headline—it is a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over how essential utilities should be managed and who ultimately benefits from their success.