A company rewarding its leadership for hitting financial targets has decided climate targets can wait.
At the intersection of luxury revival and environmental retreat, Burberry's board has constructed a reward architecture that tells two stories at once: a fashion house pulling itself back from financial ruin under new leadership, and a corporation quietly extending its climate commitments by a decade while celebrating the return of profit. Joshua Schulman's potential £12.2m package reflects genuine operational progress, but the simultaneous delay of net-zero targets from 2040 to 2050 raises an older, harder question about which timelines a company chooses to treat as urgent.
- A luxury brand that lost £66m the year before Schulman arrived has swung to £49m in pre-tax profit, creating the conditions for one of the FTSE 100's more striking executive reward packages.
- The proposed scheme — potentially tripling his pay to £12.2m if share prices rise 50% and revenues reach £3.1bn by 2029 — has drawn scrutiny for its scale even as the remuneration committee defends it as reasonable by global luxury standards.
- Buried in the same annual report is a quieter retreat: Burberry's carbon neutrality deadline has slipped a full decade, from 2040 to 2050, framed as a 'pragmatic response' to a better understanding of its emissions — language critics may read as corporate euphemism.
- Burberry joins Unilever and BP in a growing pattern of major firms scaling back climate pledges, normalising delay at precisely the moment scientific consensus demands acceleration.
- Shareholders will vote on the pay scheme in July, leaving open the question of whether the financial turnaround narrative will be enough to quiet concerns about the widening gap between executive reward and environmental accountability.
Joshua Schulman arrived at Burberry in July 2024 tasked with rescuing a struggling luxury brand. The results have been tangible: a swing from a £66m loss to £49m in pre-tax profit, £80m in annual cost savings, a leaner store network, and recovered momentum in China and North America. The board has decided this progress warrants significant reward.
In his first full year, Schulman earned £4m — base salary, a cash bonus, and relocation support for his move from New York. But the new scheme outlined in Burberry's May annual report is considerably more ambitious. If he hits stretching performance targets and the share price rises 50%, his total pay could reach £12.2m over three years. His target pay is set at £6.4m, which the remuneration committee chair described as both incentivising and reasonable by global luxury standards. Finance director Kate Ferry's package follows a similar trajectory, potentially reaching £5.6m.
The same report, however, carried a less celebrated disclosure. Burberry has moved its carbon neutrality deadline from 2040 to 2050 — a full decade's delay — describing the revision as a refined and pragmatic response to a deeper understanding of its emissions across the value chain. The previous leadership had pledged net positive climate impact by 2040 and a 46% cut in indirect emissions by 2030. Those ambitions have now been softened.
Burberry is not the first major company to make this kind of retreat — Unilever and BP have done the same — but the timing sharpens the contrast. A company constructing multimillion-pound incentive structures around financial milestones has concluded that its climate milestones can wait another decade. Schulman's operational strategy, built around Burberry's heritage products and a withdrawal from discounting, appears to be working. Whether shareholders endorse the pay scheme at the July annual meeting will be the next test of how that story lands.
Joshua Schulman arrived at Burberry in July 2024 with a clear mandate: fix a luxury brand in trouble. The British fashion house had been bleeding money—a £66m loss in the year before his arrival—and losing ground to competitors. Within months, the turnaround began to show. By March 2026, Burberry had swung to a £49m pre-tax profit, shed £80m in annual costs, trimmed its store footprint, and won back customers in China and North America through what the company calls its Burberry Forward campaign. The numbers looked good enough that the board decided to reward him handsomely.
In his first full financial year, Schulman earned £4m. That included £1.2m in base salary, a £2.3m annual cash bonus, and £299,000 in relocation assistance for his move from New York. But the real money lies ahead. Under a new bonus scheme unveiled in Burberry's annual report published in May, Schulman could earn up to £12.2m over the next three years if he hits what the company calls "stretching performance targets" and the share price rises by 50%. His target pay is set at £6.4m, placing him at the upper end of FTSE 100 compensation but toward the lower end among global luxury peers—a distinction the remuneration committee chair, Danuta Gray, emphasized when defending the package as both "appropriately incentivising" and "reasonable."
The new scheme stacks two layers of incentive. His existing share bonus, capped at 162.5% of salary, is being slightly reduced to 150%. On top of that sits a fresh long-term award worth up to 300% of his salary, contingent on pushing Burberry's annual revenues to £3.1bn by 2029. From July, his base salary will also tick up 3% to £1.24m. The finance director, Kate Ferry, is getting similar treatment: her pay more than doubled to £2.5m last year and could reach £5.6m if targets are met and the share price climbs 50%.
Yet the same annual report that outlined these generous packages also contained a quieter announcement that drew less fanfare. Burberry has pushed back its deadline to become carbon neutral by a full decade, moving the target from 2040 to 2050. The company's predecessor leadership—under Jonathan Akeroyd, whom Schulman replaced—had pledged five years earlier to achieve net positive climate impact by 2040 and cut indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 46% by 2030. The new framing is softer. Burberry now says it has "refined" its climate targets to "reflect a greater understanding" of emissions across its value chain, and describes the revised goals as a "pragmatic response to external factors."
Burberry is not alone in this retreat. Unilever and BP have made similar moves, scaling back climate commitments in recent years. The company's report positions the delay as a business decision, noting that it assesses climate change as a "principal risk" but apparently one that can be managed on a longer timeline. The irony is sharp: a company rewarding its leadership with multimillion-pound packages for hitting financial targets has decided that hitting climate targets can wait another decade.
On the operational front, Schulman's strategy appears to be working. Sales held flat at £2.4bn year-on-year when adjusted for currency effects, but the company achieved this by moving away from discounting and focusing on core products—trench coats, scarves, the items that define Burberry's identity. The turnaround is real. Whether the board's confidence in his future performance, reflected in the size of his potential payout, will prove justified remains to be seen. Shareholders will vote on the new pay scheme at the company's annual meeting in July.
Notable Quotes
We have refined our climate targets to reflect a greater understanding of greenhouse gas emissions across our value chain— Burberry annual report
Schulman's reward scheme has been chosen so as to be appropriately incentivising and aimed to retain him by improving his pay position relative to those heading the brand's luxury peers— Danuta Gray, chair of Burberry's remuneration committee
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a company that's just returned to profit feel the need to offer its CEO a package that could triple in three years?
Because they're competing for talent in a global market. Schulman came from Coach, a major American brand. If Burberry wants to keep him, they have to match what he could earn elsewhere—or come close.
But he's already turned the company around. Shouldn't that be enough?
In theory, yes. But boards think in terms of retention and future performance. They're saying: we want you to keep doing this, and we want you to stay while you do it.
And the climate targets? Why push that back by a decade?
The company calls it pragmatism—a better understanding of their emissions across the whole supply chain. But it's also convenient timing. You announce the financial wins and the executive pay in the same report, then quietly move the climate deadline.
Is that cynical?
It's realistic. Companies face pressure on multiple fronts. When one becomes harder, they recalibrate. Burberry's doing what Unilever and BP have done. It's a pattern.
So what's the real story here?
A CEO who's delivered results is being paid like one. But the company's definition of success—what matters enough to reward, what can wait—tells you something about where their priorities actually lie.