// John Lewis scraps bonus following huge loss for the year to January 28
// The retailer blamed the “economic backdrop and inflationary pressures” for the decline
John Lewis Partnership has plunged to a loss of £234 million and admitted it could not afford to pay staff their traditional annual bonus.
Excluding exceptionals, the biggest one being a write down in the value of Waitrose stores, losses were £78m. It had made a £181m profit last year.
Sales across the partnership by 2% to £12.25 billion overall and were down 3% at Waitrose for the year to January 28.
John Lewis blamed the “economic backdrop and inflationary pressures” for the decline.
The partnership revealed it was accelerating its efficiency savings programme from £300m to £900m by 2026, however finance director Bérangère Michel said this would “impact the number of partners”.
The partnership did not give details into the numbers of jobs that would be cut, although chair Sharon White said it would be linked to efficiencies made.
“As we get more efficient, less time will be spent on processes such as replenishment and night-time picking. Less time means fewer partners,” she said.
Subscribe to Retail Gazette for free
Sign up here to get the latest news straight into your inbox each morning
Last year, the bonus was worth 3% of salary. However, there was no bonus for the 74,000 partners in 2021 either.
The group‘s chair Sharon White said it had been a “tough” time. However, she maintained the balance sheet remains strong, with £1 billion of cash on hand.
She admitted that some of the group’s problems are self-inflicted.
“It is also the case that we had some set-backs. Product supply challenges and a major fire in our Brinklow warehouse hit availability in Waitrose last summer. This was recovered through autumn and availability is now strong,” White said.
“I am sorry that the loss means we won’t be able to share a bonus this year or do as much as we would like on pay.
“We’ll continue to help with the cost of living in other ways – the financial assistance fund will stay at £800,000 (a doubling) and there is support for travel, childcare and living costs,” she added.
Over at Waitrose, White said the grocer attracted more customers, “but they bought less”.
The loss came from poorer trading and a write down in the value of Waitrose stores.
White said she noticed shoppers shifting some of their grocery spending to the discounters.
6 Comments. Leave new
Sharon White should be first to go !!
Is the senior leadership team really in store enough…on-shelf availability is most definitely not ‘now strong’
I think more self blame is needed Ms White.
It does not feel like partnership any more to start with … another thing … does SHE really think that partners would stay until midnight to do the job?? Well… We have lots of 16-18 years old who work there … Does SHE know that? and other people who have been working there for 5-10 or more years and would not be willing to change their hours … so … who would do the the job then? Agency ? They are paid more than night shift staff… so where are the savings?? Is SHE aware that not everyone owns the car? … Surprise, surprise but some people travel by trains … ending shift at midnight would not help … ♀️
The £800,000 only helps partners in very short term as they do need to pay back the money they loaned from the partnership this is just false economy for the partner. Also pay for partners, if there is to be no pay increase the partnership will continue to see partners leave and these are your long serving partners with heaps of experience. So yes John Lewis or I should say Sharon White you have hit the nail on the head when you say the problems are self inflicted. Bad management and leadership from the top and at branch level.
If any jobs are to be cut they need to start at the top and work down. Only store position that should be under threat is GSM role as essential it’s the same as an area manager and again area & regional management roles should be under threat/cut first as they control the stores along with the directors. Also cutting directors/regional/ area jobs would be far more cost effective than cutting in store jobs.