Burberry Banks On Schulman Turnaround As Bumper Pay Package Revealed
Troubled U.K. luxury fashion brand Burberry has paid its new chief executive,
, over $3.5 million in his first nine months in the job, including nearly $515,000 in relocation costs, despite preparing for sweeping job cuts globally.
This year Schulman could earn up to $7.6 million if he meets bonus targets, excluding a $4.9 million potential bonus if he doubles Burberry's share price in three years, with the aim of re-entering the FTSE 100 on the London Stock Exchange, according to Burberry's annual report.
So far, the Burberry stock price has risen slightly ahead of its value at the start of the year but has recovered strongly from an April 2025 slump as fears over President Trump's tariffs took hold of the market.
He is also in line for close to $34,000 a month in housing allowances for just over a year on top of $193,000 to help him find a new home, around $163,000 towards transporting his effects from his previous home in New York, plus five months of housing allowance already paid.
The annual report also revealed that the company gave its former CEO Jonathan Akeroyd a payoff worth about $2 million, which equated to a year's notice including salary, pension and cash benefits, after he exited the company in July last year having failed in attempts to turn the company's fortunes around.
The former Versace boss took the helm in 2021 but departed less than three years after taking the role as Burberry has struggled to find its position in the new luxury market and has found its reliance on its heritage brand status decreasing in effectiveness with its global audience.
Although it defended the payouts, the optics for Burberry are tricky to say the least given that the substantial payments to senior directors come not long after Burberry revealed plans to cut 1,700 jobs worldwide by 2027, including cancelling the entire night shift of 170 people at its Yorkshire, north England raincoat factory, as it looks to return to profitability.
In all the company announced a plan to reduce Burberry's global workforce by around a fifth to bring $81 million in additional cost savings on top of a $54 million cost-cutting program that Burberry had announced in November.
The annual report showed that Burberry has already begun reducing its workforce, with the number of employees down by more than 870 to 8,459 year on year.
The company disclosed the cost-cutting measures plan last month when it revealed that it had fallen to an annual loss of just over $4 million in the year to March 29 2025 after a profit of over circa $566 million a year prior, as it wrestled with both a downturn in the global luxury goods industry plus poor brand diversification within its own merchandise offer.
Keen to put the brakes on its decline, Burberry brought Schulman, the former boss of U.S. fashion brand Coach, over to London in a bid to bring the famous check design back to the fore again.
Under a program called Burberry Forward, Schulman set plan to reset the brand expression to 'Timeless British Luxury' and 'It's Always Burberry Weather' outerwear [referencing its famous Burberry trench coat]
'The continued resilience of our outerwear and scarf categories reaffirms my belief that we have the most opportunity where we have the most authenticity. While we are operating against a difficult macroeconomic backdrop and are still in the early stages of our turnaround, I am more optimistic than ever that Burberry's best days are ahead and that we will deliver sustainable profitable growth over time,' Schulman said of the strategy.
For its part, Burberry said that stakeholders had backed its strategy despite the eye-watering figures at a time when staff are facing job cuts.
'The majority of shareholders appreciated the circumstances of Josh's recruitment and were supportive of the design of Josh's ongoing remuneration arrangements, the approach to his annual bonus for [the last year] and his recruitment award,' Burberry's directors said in the report as they stressed that they had consulted shareholders about the level of Schulman's pay.
Burberry said directors were 'mindful of the feedback received from some of our shareholders during the consultation and took this into account when determining the final level of bonus payout'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
New Study Reveals True AI Capabilities And Job Replacement Risk
The OECD has unveiled groundbreaking AI Capability Indicators that map artificial intelligence ... More progress against human abilities across nine key domains, revealing where AI currently stands and what's coming next. Imagine trying to navigate the digital transformation of your business using a compass that only points to "somewhere north." That's essentially what we've been doing with AI assessment until now. While tech companies have been throwing around impressive-sounding claims of superhuman performance in narrow tasks, business leaders and policymakers have been left squinting through the hype, trying to figure out what any of it actually means for the real world. The OECD has just delivered something we've desperately needed: a proper GPS system for AI capabilities. Their new AI Capability Indicators represent the most comprehensive attempt yet to create a standardized framework for understanding what AI can actually do compared to human abilities. Think of it as moving from vague headlines about "AI breakthrough" to having a detailed performance review that actually tells you something useful about real-world capabilities. Unlike the typical parade of cherry-picked benchmarks that dominate tech headlines, the OECD's approach cuts through the marketing noise. They've developed nine distinct capability scales that map AI progress against fundamental human abilities: Language, Social Interaction, Problem Solving, Creativity, Metacognition and Critical Thinking, Knowledge and Memory, Vision, Manipulation, and Robotic Intelligence. Each scale runs from Level 1 (basic, solved problems) to Level 5 (full human equivalence), with clear descriptions of what AI systems can actually accomplish at each stage. What makes this particularly helpful is how it sidesteps the technical jargon that usually makes AI assessment reports about as accessible as quantum physics textbooks. Instead of drowning in discussions of transformer architectures or neural network parameters, you get straightforward descriptions like whether an AI system can "adapt teaching methods to meet students' varying needs" or "handle objects of diverse shapes and materials in cluttered environments." The methodology behind these indicators is equally impressive. Over 50 experts across computer science and psychology spent five years developing this framework, combining rigorous academic research with practical, real-world applications. Here's where things get interesting and perhaps a bit sobering for those caught up in the AGI hype cycle. The assessment reveals that current AI systems are clustered around Levels 2 and 3 across most capabilities. We're not at the finish line; we're not even close to it. Large language models like ChatGPT score at Level 3 for language capabilities, meaning they can understand and generate semantic meaning with sophisticated knowledge, but they still struggle with analytical reasoning and have that persistent habit of confidently stating complete nonsense. It's like having a brilliant conversationalist who occasionally insists that gravity flows upward. In social interaction, even the most advanced systems barely reach Level 2. They can combine simple movements to express emotions and learn from interactions, but they're essentially sophisticated actors with no real understanding of the social dynamics they're performing. The vision capabilities tell an equally nuanced story. While AI can handle variations in lighting and target objects, performing multiple subtasks with known data variations (Level 3), it's still leagues away from the adaptable, learning-oriented visual intelligence that characterizes higher levels. For business leaders, this framework offers something really valuable: a reality check that cuts through vendor marketing speak. When a sales representative promises their AI solution will "revolutionize your operations," you can now ask pointed questions about which capability levels their system actually achieves and in which specific domains. The gap analysis between current AI capabilities and the requirements of specific business tasks becomes clearer when standardized benchmarks are in place. Consider customer service, where companies are deploying AI chatbots with the enthusiasm of gold rush prospectors. The OECD framework suggests that while AI can handle structured interactions reasonably well, anything requiring genuine social intelligence, nuanced problem-solving, or creative thinking quickly exposes current limitations. This doesn't mean AI isn't useful in customer service, but it helps set realistic expectations about what human oversight will still be necessary. It's the difference between using AI as a sophisticated tool versus expecting it to be a replacement employee. One approach leads to productivity gains; the other leads to customer complaints and public relations disasters. The framework also reveals opportunities that might not be immediately obvious. Areas where AI performs at Level 3 or higher represent genuine automation potential, while Level 2 capabilities suggest powerful augmentation opportunities. Smart businesses will use this intelligence to identify the low-hanging fruit while preparing for the longer-term implications of advancing capabilities. Perhaps nowhere are the implications more immediate and profound than in the field of education. The report's analysis of teaching capabilities reveals why educators are feeling simultaneously excited and terrified about AI's expanding role in classrooms. Many core teaching tasks require capabilities at Levels 4 and 5, particularly when it comes to adapting instruction to individual student needs or managing the complex social dynamics that make learning environments work. This creates a fascinating paradox worthy of a philosophy textbook: AI might be able to deliver standardized instruction more efficiently than humans, but the most transformational aspects of teaching, the inspiration, emotional connection, and creative problem-solving that actually change lives, remain firmly in human territory. The implications suggest we're heading toward a hybrid model that could fundamentally reshape education. AI handles routine instructional delivery, assessment, and administrative tasks, while humans focus on motivation, emotional support, creative problem-solving, and the kind of inspirational mentoring that transforms students into lifelong learners. This isn't displacement; it's specialization at a scale we've never seen before. The OECD's systematic approach provides something invaluable for strategic planning: a clear picture of what breakthrough capabilities we should be monitoring. The jump from Level 3 to Level 4 across multiple domains would represent a genuine inflection point, particularly in areas like creative problem-solving and social intelligence. What's especially revealing is how the framework illuminates the interconnectedness of different capabilities. True robotic intelligence, for instance, requires simultaneous advances across multiple domains. You can't have Level 5 robotic intelligence without corresponding progress in vision, manipulation, social interaction, and problem-solving. The framework also highlights capability areas where progress might stall or slow dramatically. Social interaction and creativity appear to have particularly steep curves between current performance and human-level capability. What the OECD has created is essentially a report card system for the AI age. Instead of being swept along by breathless predictions about artificial general intelligence arriving next week, we now have a framework for systematically tracking progress and understanding real-world implications. For businesses, this means more informed decisions about where to invest in AI capabilities and where to double down on human talent development. For policymakers, it provides a foundation for regulations and workforce planning grounded in evidence rather than science fiction. For educators, it offers a roadmap for preparing students for a world where human and artificial intelligence must work together effectively. The OECD framework isn't predicting exactly when AI will achieve human-level performance across all domains; that's still anyone's guess. Instead, it provides a common language for discussing AI capabilities and a systematic way to track progress that everyone, from CEOs to school principals, can understand and use. In a field notorious for moving fast and breaking things, having a reliable measurement system might just be what is needed.
Entrepreneur
22 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
Breaking the Cycle of Early Business Failure: Centida BI & Analytics on the Power of Data-Driven Planning
When organizations lack the tools to adjust plans based on shifting market realities, it doesn't matter if due to new regulations, inflation spikes, or geopolitical developments, they're planning blind You're reading Entrepreneur United Kingdom, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. Numerous new businesses open doors with ambition, vision, and optimism every year. Unfortunately, approximately 20% fail within the first year. Similarly, about 50% don't survive beyond five years. Cash flow issues, poor marketing, or misreading customer needs are some of the usual reasons behind this trend. However, the underlying cause can run deeper. The failure can stem from decision-making, which, in today's fast-moving environment, is impossible without data. Centida BI & Analytics, known for management consulting and strategic technology implementation, has observed why the business mortality rate is so high. Founded and led by seasoned experts, it has built a unique, integrated approach that combines business expertise and cutting-edge analytics. CEO and Managing Director Christian Barte has leveraged his over two decades in executive finance and management roles across international enterprises to inform Centida's approach. He has vast experience in unlocking business performance, from building profitability analytics systems at global telecoms to leading finance transformation initiatives at multinational corporations. With a strong educational foundation spanning business schools in Germany, France, and the United States, Barte brings a global perspective to local business challenges. His formal training in artificial intelligence (AI) and data visualization further equips him to guide clients through today's AI-powered business environment. Alongside Barte is CTO and Managing Partner Ilya Fedorkov. His background in digital transformation and data science positions him at the forefront of business intelligence (BI) innovation. His hands-on expertise in performance management, financial controlling, and enterprise-wide data strategy ensures that Centida's technical solutions are truly transformative. This leadership has enabled Centida to learn about trends in the business environment, including the reasons companies fail. The company recognizes that many of the failures revolve around the inability to utilize data effectively. One can argue that technology evolves by the week. Hence, businesses clinging to static planning models or outdated tools are at a disadvantage. Rigid annual budgets, manual forecasting, and intuition-based decision-making leave organizations vulnerable to disruption, especially when competitors are leveraging real-time data and AI-enhanced insights. Economic volatility heightens the stakes. Modern businesses must plan accordingly with supply chain upheavals and unpredictable customer payment behaviors in mind. "When organizations lack the tools to adjust plans based on shifting market realities, it doesn't matter if due to new regulations, inflation spikes, or geopolitical developments, they're planning blind," says Fedorkov. Centida also points to overengineering products or services without clearly understanding market demand as another issue. "A technically brilliant product will still fail if it doesn't meet a real customer need," Barte states. Companies usually falter in their go-to-market strategy because they don't truly understand their customer, their pricing flexibility, or the most effective sales channels. "Even businesses with enough funding might struggle to generate cash flow if there's no clarity, especially if they underestimate working capital needs or overestimate the speed of returns," Barte adds. Centida notes that these issues aren't exclusive to startups. Mid-sized and enterprise-level companies can face similar risks, especially when leadership changes or market stagnation sets in. Barte shares an example: "There's a trend in accounts receivable delays, where larger buyers now push payment terms from 30 to 180 days. For suppliers who don't account for this liquidity gap in their planning, the consequences can be fatal." What's the solution? Centida asserts that it begins with recognizing that data isn't just a support tool. It's the core of modern business strategy. Data analytics enables organizations to move from reactive to proactive planning. It eliminates guesswork, clarifies direction, and provides early warnings when performance veers off course. When properly applied, data aligns operations with strategic goals, provides realistic scenario planning, and ensures business decisions are made on facts. "You need to adapt if you want to survive in this landscape. And data is the key to adaptability," Fedorkov remarks. Centida operationalizes this philosophy, distinguishing itself by the way it works with clients. If other firms deliver cookie-cutter dashboards or plug-and-play solutions, Centida engages deeply with the business itself. It doesn't only translate business needs into information technology (IT) requirements. The firm speaks both languages fluently. This eliminates the information gaps that typically emerge in large-scale implementations. "Our approach of combining the strategic vision of consultants with the technical know-how of systems architects means we design solutions that reflect what's actually needed," Barte says. This comprehensive approach is why Centida is seen as a partner of choice for organizations struggling with uncertainty. Indeed, most businesses fail not because they lack ambition but because they lack insight. Centida BI & Analytics empowers organizations with the intelligence, structure, and agility they need to thrive in a fast-changing world. The Centida founders further share insightful advice for business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs. Fedorkov emphasizes that the foundation of a resilient business lies in uniting data and decision-making under the same roof. "Get rid of silos and ensure that your business teams take ownership of data-driven processes, not just IT," he says. "It's important to develop a solid understanding of the data you rely on." The most successful cases he's seen are when business people actively shape and guide the digital solutions they use, not delegate them. True resilience emerges when data and business expertise are intertwined, owned, and steered from within the organization. Meanwhile, Barte's advice centers around radical customer focus. He urges entrepreneurs to invest substantial time, then double it, into understanding who their customers truly are. "Knowing your product isn't enough," he states. "Knowing how to reach the right people through the right channels, partners, and tools is essential." Beyond that, he stresses the importance of building an adaptable model that guides one's business strategy and helps track its real-time performance. He adds: "If your efforts drift off course, that model should show exactly where and why, so you can recalibrate fast and keep moving forward."
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The UK Confronts the Reality of Rearming
The UK is facing the stark reality of rapidly rearming - after decades of under-investment in its military. As Caroline Hepker explains, there's little detail on where that money will actually come from. (Source: Bloomberg)
