The story reads like a script from a luxury drama—an acclaimed new chief executive, a storied British fashion house in turmoil, and a relocation package that rivals the annual wage of many employees. At the center stands Joshua Schulman, Burberry’s chief executive since July 2024, whose nearly £400,000 “relocation allowance”—revealed just as 1,700 staff face redundancy—has ignited a storm of public and stakeholder scrutiny. The juxtaposition of executive privilege and workforce pain raises profound questions about leadership, optics, and the future of British luxury.
Arrival and Upheaval: Joshua Schulman’s Entry at Burberry
Joshua Schulman is no stranger to the world of high fashion and corporate reinvention. With a pedigree that includes top roles at Coach and Michael Kors, Schulman was tapped to steer Burberry’s fortunes at a time of acute challenge. In July 2024, he assumed the helm, tasked with revitalizing a brand synonymous with British heritage but plagued by sharp declines in profitability and global sales—most notably in the once-booming Chinese market.
Yet, barely had Schulman settled into his office before Burberry’s annual report disclosed a staggering “relocation allowance” of £389,515 to facilitate his move from New York to London. This sum, augmented by a further £48,052 for “relocation tax advice” and £6,319 in temporary accommodation costs, was part of a comprehensive package that also covered school fees and the shipment of personal belongings.
The timing of these revelations was nothing short of explosive. Weeks earlier, Burberry announced a sweeping cost-cutting initiative that would see 1,700 jobs—almost one in five roles—eliminated worldwide. Hundreds of these would come from the company’s own London head office.
The Numbers: A Costly Move in a Time of Austerity
The figures bear repeating, for they are as jarring as they are emblematic of the widening gap between executive suites and shop floors. Burberry’s annual profits plummeted by 117% to £66 million, down from £143 million the previous year. The profit nosedive was attributed to falling sales in China and other vital markets, forcing the company into a defensive posture.
In this climate, Schulman’s relocation support—totalling well over £400,000—stands out not only for its scale but for its symbolism. The payments included:
- £389,515 “relocation allowance”
- £48,052 for “relocation tax advice”
- £6,319 for temporary accommodation
- Additional coverage for school fees and shipping costs
All told, Schulman’s total pay package for the year soared to £4.4 million, encompassing his salary, bonus, long-term incentive shares, and the headline-grabbing relocation payments.
Corporate Justification vs. Human Cost
Burberry’s annual report was quick to frame the payments as a “one-off” measure—an essential incentive to secure Schulman’s transatlantic move and ensure his family’s comfort as he assumed one of fashion’s most scrutinized roles. “The relocation support provided to Joshua Schulman is in line with Burberry policy for key senior appointments that require international moves and was disclosed in full in our annual report,” a company spokesperson stated.
But such official rationalizations have done little to quell a growing backlash. Employee representatives and some investors have openly questioned the appropriateness, if not the morality, of such largesse at a time when the livelihoods of 1,700 workers—many with years of service—hang in the balance.
The optics are inescapable: executive privilege at its zenith, juxtaposed against the vulnerability of ordinary workers. For many, it is a microcosm of the broader tensions roiling the luxury sector, where global brands must walk a tightrope between attracting top-tier talent and maintaining credibility with their workforce and the public.
Inside the Boardroom: Policy or Tone-Deafness?
Relocation packages for senior executives are hardly new—especially at the upper echelons of multinational luxury brands. The rationale is pragmatic: to attract and retain leaders with a global perspective, companies must sometimes shoulder the considerable costs of cross-continental moves. In Burberry’s case, the policy was clear and the payment transparent.
Yet, context is everything. Announcing such a substantial payout mere weeks after confirming mass redundancies undermines the spirit of shared sacrifice and strategic renewal. For critics, it smacks of tone-deafness—a failure to grasp the symbolic power of leadership decisions in a highly visible, brand-driven industry.
This disconnect is amplified in times of crisis. Schulman’s own pledge to “protect our UK manufacturing base” and invest in the business is now forced to compete, in the public imagination, with headlines of executive windfalls and employee despair.
The Broader View: Leadership, Optics, and Accountability
The Burberry episode is more than a singular controversy; it is a case study in the complex relationship between leadership incentives, corporate strategy, and public accountability. In a post-pandemic era where luxury brands are increasingly scrutinized for their social and economic impact, the stakes have never been higher.
Schulman’s compensation package—while contractually justified and policy-compliant—may ultimately be judged less on its financial logic than on its social resonance. As Burberry battles to regain its footing amid falling sales and shifting consumer expectations, the ability of its leadership to inspire confidence and foster a sense of shared purpose will be under the microscope.
Burberry’s annual report insists on the necessity of Schulman’s relocation, framing it as an investment in the company’s future. But for the 1,700 employees left searching for new opportunities, the distinction between necessary and excessive may feel academic at best.
What’s Next for Burberry—and for Luxury Leadership?
Looking ahead, the challenge for Burberry—and for Schulman personally—will be to rebuild trust, both internally and externally. The brand’s promise to “protect” its UK manufacturing base must be honored not just in press statements but in tangible action. Investment in innovation, workforce development, and transparent communication will be essential.
For the wider luxury sector, the episode offers a cautionary tale. As executive mobility becomes more common and the costs of leadership recruitment soar, companies must weigh not just the financial returns but the reputational risks of such decisions. In an age of radical transparency, what is disclosed in the annual report is swiftly dissected—and judged—on social media and in the court of public opinion.
The question is not whether Schulman deserved his relocation allowance, but whether the timing and optics of such rewards are compatible with the values Burberry aspires to project. In fashion, as in business, perception is reality.
Conclusion: Lessons in Leadership and Perception
The revelation of Joshua Schulman’s £400,000 relocation package at the height of mass layoffs is a moment of reckoning for Burberry. It exposes the tensions between corporate policy and public sentiment, between the needs of a global business and the expectations of a loyal workforce.
As Burberry charts a path forward, the lessons are clear: leadership is as much about narrative and empathy as it is about numbers. In the high-stakes world of luxury fashion, every decision—especially those involving executive privilege—carries weight far beyond the balance sheet. The eyes of the industry, and the world, are watching.
