Certainly. Just to illustrate this, assume a small and simple multinational company that has headquarters and marketing (100 staff) in the US and manufacturing workforce (150 staff) in Vietnam. That's all the workforce.

The median salary in the company will be about $200 per month (because a majority of workforce is in a low-pay country). If the CEO makes $250,000 per year (which is not particularly much for a company of this size), she'll earn an outrageous 100 times as much as the median in the company.

Now let's assume that activists are unhappy with this 100 times difference and there's a boycott in order to reduce the CEO pay in proportion to workers. Guess what will happen?

Half of the workforce in Vietnam is kicked out and the gap in production is bought from a manufacturing partner in Pakistan (where the workers will earn $150 per month).

CEO pay is unchanged, but the median pay is now $2500 (pay of a not-high-status sales assistant in US). The CEO now earns only 10 times as much as the median worker!

Did things improve for the poor workers? Well, you could say so, because some people in Pakistan got a job, but the actual outcome still is that the people who work on the product now get less than before.

Road to hell is paved with good intentions, and naive activists are hit by the law of unintended consequences. Yes, the CEO-to-median figures are not very meaningful for a multinational company.