If you can’t buy a house, why not go out for brunch? That seems to be the logic that’s fuelling a generation of new restaurant lovers, as research reveals that ‘broke, woke’ Gen Zers are making dining out part of their weekly routine.

According to Seven Rooms’ annual report into restaurant trends, over a third of Gen Zers now go out for dinner at least 3-4 times a month, compared to just over one-fifth of Gen X. Astonishingly, 15% estimate they visit a restaurant more than five times a month.

The news is good for the UK’s struggling hospitality businesses, who desperately need to attract and retain customers. But, the world’s first digital generation is a tough nut for marketers to crack. How can restaurants, pubs, and bars tap into the new cohort of foodies?

Gen Z dine out once a week

It used to be that a meal out was a special treat, reserved for celebrating birthdays or pay rises. But the Seven Rooms data suggests that Gen Zers (those aged 14-26) see the traditional lunchroom as an extension of their home kitchen.

According to Seven Rooms, 38% of Gen Z now dine out three times a month. Some still see dining out as an occasional treat, with 47% saying they go out for food just 1-2 times a month; nonetheless, that’s compared to 62% of millennials and 70% of Gen Xers.

What’s behind their lavish spending? It could be that young people feel less precious about long-term penny-pinching, and are instead prioritising present-day comfort; a new approach to personal finance that’s been labelled ‘soft saving’.

With owning a home increasingly out of reach, this generation is putting less away for house or family planning. A survey found that one in three aren’t even saving for retirement.

However, the generational divide could also be linked to the rise of online ordering, which has made Deliveroo drivers an increasingly common dinner guest at the front door.

Gen Z might also be sobering up. Switching to soft drinks, they have more money to spend on food. As young people drink less, they are seeking out ways to socialise that aren’t centred around alcohol — and landing on a sharing platter at Nando’s.

Customers seeking value

It’s tempting to believe the narrative that young people are big spenders, happy to blow their payslip on a pair of Uggs or a vial of baby botox. But, the Seven Rooms report also reveals that cost is certainly still a factor when it comes to Gen Z dining habits.

Gen Zers were most likely to care about access to free menu items, with 59% of respondents naming this their most important deciding factor when choosing a restaurant.

In comparison, millennials are most likely to want early access to reservations from loyalty programs, while Gen Xers care most about exclusive events and experiences.

Our list of the top food and drink trends for 2024 highlighted value for money as the best way to a customers’ heart (and stomach). Offering discount deals could be the key for restaurant businesses hoping to surprise and delight Gen Z eaters.

How you communicate with customers is also important. Moving away from the desktop, Seven Rooms found Gen Z prefers to be contacted by text to be told about exclusive offers, with 21% of respondents citing this as their preferred method of communication.

Good news for restaurants

That the next generation loves dining out is great news for SMEs. Brick-and-mortar firms are struggling as high street brands go into administration, and a loyal customer base could be the silver bullet to help them grapple with financial threats.

With the minimum wage pushing up staffing bills, and many companies struggling to hire for restaurant jobs, customer support is something to be celebrated.

Not catering to this audience is also a threat. We’ve highlighted how Gen Z are drinking less, and the loss of the boozy student following has contributed to the closure of many UK pubs. If the government’s outdoor smoking ban comes into effect, numbers could dwindle further.

Some may call it wasting your money; others would say it’s self-care. Whatever your view, the fact is that Gen Z’s larger appetite for dining out is propping up our local restaurants. Perhaps Eat Out to Help Out has become the post-COVID generation’s new mantra.

After a wet British summer, this week’s forecast predicts a gloomy start to autumn. In bad news for businesses, a cold ‘Arctic blast’ is set to send temperatures plummeting.

High street firms have already been dealing with slower consumer spending this summer. Record rain in June and July kept punters indoors, dampening seasonal events such as the Euro Championships, which hospitality businesses were relying on to spike sales.

When rain falls, sales numbers often follow. With temperatures set to drop sharply to single figures, retail and hospitality businesses should brace for glacial growth this arctic autumn.

Summer downpour, sales drought

Brits are famous for complaining about the weather. After a record soggy summer, though, UK retailers could be forgiven for joining in. As Q3 winds down, companies are now taking stock of their sales performance during the downpour. For many, the sales reports will make for grim reading.

At the end of July, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) revealed that prices fell for the seventh consecutive month in July, due to weak demand.

Even the giants are struggling. Last week, retail chain Primark revealed that sales in women’s clothing and footwear fell due to challenging weather in June. Profits at the budget retailer had been rising, while many other high street brands were entering administration. But AB Foods’ market share fell to 6.5% between January and June, as high street trade suffered.

Pubs, bars, and restaurants were also hit as consumers stayed indoors and away from beer gardens. Figures from the NIQ drinks tracker show a year-on-year drop of 5% in sales.

“The easing of inflation for consumers isn’t yet translating into extra spending, and the grey summer hasn’t given them many reasons to venture out to beer gardens and terraces,” said Jonathan Jones, CGA by NIQ’s managing director, UK and Ireland.

“Fingers will be crossed for a much brighter September and growth in confidence as we move towards the crucial final quarter of the year.”

Arctic blast could cool consumer spending

Jones might want to cross his toes too. All the signals are for a chilly autumn to set in, with temperatures expected to plummet to as low as 4C in the capital this week — in stark contrast to the 30C weather felt at the start of this month.

It’s a snap turnaround for businesses, who will now need to put away the deckchairs and grit their teeth for a season of slower spending.

Consumers will likely spend less on outdoor activities, which can mean everything from hiking to eating out. Al fresco dining will be avoided (unless you’re a hardy smoker) halving capacity for pubs and restaurants with outdoor seating.

Organisations who didn’t shift their summer stock, such as shorts and t-shirts, will need to clear out the inventory and start shifting window displays, as trends shift to cosy knitwear.

That said, some companies stand to benefit from the change. Analysts often refer to ‘the cold weather effect’; a phenomenon that results in consumers spending more during winter.

Most point to online shopping for the cause. With shoppers cooped up indoors, they may feel they are saving money, and feel justified to splash out on Deliveroo takeaways and next-day Amazon orders, boosting sales for ecommerce companies.

Winter Wonderland, business nightmare

The other side of the coin is that overheads will likely increase as businesses need to spend more on gas and electricity. Heating up your store or cafe is already one of the biggest expenses for businesses. With cold weather, the demand on utilities can double.

Jeremy Clarkson found this out recently when he was told that purchasing the necessary three-phase system to fuel his pub’s lighting and heating systems would cost £350,000.

In more extreme cases of cold weather, businesses may be forced to close or operate in reduced hours if staff are unable to get to work on time, or supplier deliveries are disrupted.

These might sound like downers, rather than disasters. But any impact on sales can have real consequences for retail and hospitality, both of which run on razor-thin profit margins.

Back in July, the new government confirmed its plans to reform business rates to cut bill payments and better support the UK high street. Small businesses will be hoping it is a big enough umbrella to weather this autumn’s incoming arctic storm.

Has your boss issued a return to the office mandate? Don’t judge them too harshly – they might just want you to attend the team social. According to a new survey, the majority of Brits now say that work-from-home policies are having a negative impact on their social life at work.

The Global Payroll Association (GPA) surveyed 1,000 employees for their views on remote work. Nearly four in five said they believe that WFH has damaged the social aspects of working, as fewer coworkers turn up to work events or sit together at lunch.

At numerous workplaces, bosses have been implementing return to office policies due to concern about the supposed WFH impact on output. However, the GPA results show that loss of pals, not productivity, is the real threat from remote work policies.

Goodbye to watercooler chats?

Working from home has killed workplace culture. Or so the GPA survey would suggest. According to the findings, 78% of employees think that not visiting the office has made it harder for them to socialise and connect with colleagues.

Despite this, there is an overwhelming desire among employees to make friends at work, with 81% of employees saying that the social aspects of work are important to them.

Having a work friend can provide a supportive shoulder for employees to lean on. They might be a best friend who the worker takes regular tea breaks with, or just be someone to ask ‘stupid’ questions to. Either way, a work friend can make a bad shift feel bearable.

As well, strong bonds between co-workers are good for business. If employees feel comfortable around each other, they will feel confident to share ideas and speak up. They might also perform better, due to feeling more responsible for their colleagues.

Engagement crisis

Socialising is also crucial for wellbeing, by reducing feelings of isolation. That staff want to socialise with their colleagues, but are unable to do so because of home working, suggests that remote workplaces could be on the brink of a loneliness epidemic.

The threat is bad news for businesses. Workers are already suffering from The Great Detachment, with many staff members feeling disengaged and unmotivated.

Experts say that crafting a positive company culture is important to lift employees out of their funk. Without face-to-face interactions, though, this is much harder to do.

Indeed, 61% of those surveyed by GPA said they believe that socialising outside of normal work hours, such as after-work drinks, is vital for fostering a good working environment.

Melanie Pizzey, CEO and Founder of the Global Payroll Association, warns that “the social element of the workplace is starting to become extinct.”

“[Socialising at work] is extremely important, both when it comes to internal bonding within the workforce, and when nurturing those all important external relationships that can be so important in getting deals over the line.”

Return to the office?

Banning remote work might seem like the logical solution to the problem. But this approach can also negatively impact wellbeing, as Lloyds Bank discovered. After it issued a return to office (RTO) order last April, satisfaction levels at the bank dropped by 12%.

So, staff don’t want to give up flexible work as an employee benefit, but they also miss the social aspects of the workplace. It’s a Catch-22 for businesses.

If a habit of isolation has set in, firms need to find a way to change their culture without curbing staff freedom. Soft-touch RTOs include adopting a hybrid work pattern, where staff come in one or two days a week, or asking them to come in for specific meetings.

Bosses might introduce KIT days, similar to those arranged for employees on maternity leave, where colleagues can plan to travel into the workplace for the same time. Forward-thinking leaders might organise team-building events on these days as an incentive for remote staff to skip the lie-in.

Beware of office nostalgia

As the old office environment looks increasingly outdated, the workplace buddy is in danger of becoming an endangered species. It may be tempting for businesses to roll back remote work and go back to the days when the office Christmas party was still a thing.

In truth, the working world has moved far away from this time. Employers need to think creatively to address the issue and embrace flexible working, instead of running from it.

After showing us how gruelling the life of a UK farmer is, Jeremy Clarkson is finding out just how bitter running a pub can be. The Clarkson’s Farm presenter has opened up about the huge financial toll that his patriotic ‘all-British’ eatery, The Farmer’s Dog, has taken.

Clarkson had pledged to serve only food, wine, and beer “grown or reared by British farmers”, despite a warning from London restaurateur Jeremy King that it was “impossible”.

Writing in The Times yesterday, he revealed that his mounting COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) bill means he could now be losing £10 for every customer served.

Cash forecasting is a must-do for today’s cash-strapped businesses. Yet an unconventional decision by Clarkson to calculate his overheads using AI also appears not to have paid off.

British food ‘10x’ cost of imports

In an Instagram post last month, Clarkson proudly revealed the list of dishes that The Farmer’s Dog would be serving. The full list includes bar snacks such as sausage rolls, main meals like sausage and mash, and pub classics such as apple crumble for dessert.

However, some keen-eyed commenters were quick to point out that the initial post did not include a price list. “Looks great but the absence of prices makes me twitchy,” said one.

The Farmer’s Dog menu, complete with a suspicious lack of prices / Source: instagram.com/thefarmersdogpub

Clarkson’s bare-all column suggests the ex-Top Gear presenter has been left similarly ‘twitchy’ by the cost of his home-grown suppliers. He revealed that, while imported black pepper costs “about £10 a kilogram”, British-made black pepper costs “ten times more”.

“If I butcher one of my own pigs and turn it into sausages, each one of those sausages will arrive at the pub costing 74p. If I buy imported pig meat then the cost of a sausage is 18p”, he wrote, adding “[the] menu would bankrupt us in a matter of hours”.

Extreme rainfall this spring resulted in low yields on farms, causing the UK to face food price rises and producers to turn to imports.

Even this escape route has become less feasible. In April, the then-government unveiled a new, post-Brexit charge on small imports of products such as sausages and cheese.

Trade groups warned the move would increase business costs and food prices. It’s a prediction that appears to have come true, suggesting that even if Clarkson had imported his sausages, his menu wouldn’t have become much cheaper.

Lessons in AI

Alongside food costs, another expense that has crippled The Farmer’s Dog is energy rates. Hospitality firms can quickly guzzle up gas and electricity thanks to their equipment needs. Beyond just lightbulbs, pubs need to run fridges, grills and extractor fans.

As is common with a business premises, Clarkson was told his pub needed a three-phase system to accommodate the energy demands, at a cost of £350,000. On top of this, the business’ water supply quality is apparently so dire it needed a new pipe paying for.

Profit margins for pubs are already razor-thin; one reason why nearly 3,000 London bars and restaurants have closed post-COVID.

Facing these kinds of overheads, managers need accurate cash flow calculations. Unless, of course, you’re Jeremy Clarkson, who self-describes as “not a business-minded person.”

Recognising he would have to charge “£45 a hotdog” to make his money back, Clarkson says he “filled my heart with hope, asked an AI program to work out what the average price of lunch in a Cotswolds pub is, and just charged that.”

Pub struggles

Trusting an AI generator to guess your profit margins is the approach that a TV star earning £3m a year can risk. For a pub landlord, who earns an average salary of £33,477 a year, the consequences of a poorly-drawn out business plan are less easy to dismiss.

That said, the pub industry has become reliant on famous faces to platform its issues. Bake Off star Paul Hollywood was recently embroiled in a row after his wife decided to sell her family’s village pub. “It is a beautiful pub, but it is a business that is losing money”, he said.

But while Clarkson’s Fiasco might make entertaining TV, plummeting profits and sleepless nights are a reality for the nation’s remaining 40,000 pub owners.

Like Clarkson, many are reluctant to increase prices. Customers are tightening their wallets, and higher fees could be disastrous. Still, without a safety net to fall back on, hiked price lists are winning out in the debate about whether to raise, or freeze prices.

As long as sky-high supplier costs and energy rates continue to hit pub balance sheets, business owners are asking for empathy from customers. “Your lunch [is] costing us a lot more than it’s costing you. So please be kind”, says Clarkson.

113 Body Shop stores, and around 1,300 jobs, have been rescued after the vegan beauty brand fell into administration back in February.

The Body Shop was then put up for auction four months ago. Over the weekend, Sky News reported that a consortium led by the investments group Auréa had bought the brand out of administration for an undisclosed sum.

The Body Shop, which was first founded in 1976 by the late Dame Anita Roddick and her husband Gordon, has changed hands various times over the years.

This most recent acquisition means that the ethical beauty brand will be able to keep trading. So who is Auréa, and why has the group purchased the Body Shop?

Who has acquired the Body Shop?

Auréa is a specialist group that was co-founded by ‘Cosmetics King’ Mike Jatania in 2012, alongside partners Andrew Vagenas and Paul Raphael.

The capital growth firm calls itself an investment platform “focused on beauty, wellness and longevity”. It also owns plant-based cosmetics firm Herbivore Botanicals, hair care company Scandinavian Biolabs, and make-up brand Decypher.

Owner Jatania is one of the UK’s richest businessmen. Alongside his three brothers – Vin, Danny and George, the Jatanias have an estimated net worth of £650m.

Jatania, the youngest of the brothers, became CEO of the family’s personal care brand Lornamead in 1990. The business was sold for a tidy $190m in 2013.

A company press release says the Body Shop deal represents the largest transaction to date for Auréa. As part of the acquisition, which was finalised late on Friday, Auréa Group will also gain control of the Body Shop’s assets in Australia and North America.

Alongside Vagenas and Raphael, Jatania will run the management team with Charles Denton, former CEO of Molton Brown. Denton has experience in bringing brands back from the brink. He previously took Molton Brown from near-collapse to a £170m business.

Buyers of the Body Shop

Auréa Group’s acquisition of the Body Shop brand marks the fourth occasion the company has changed hands in less than two decades. Here’s a brief overview of the Body Shop’s various owners over the years:

• L’Oréal: 2006-2016

The company’s chequered past began in 2006, when the Body Shop agreed to a £652m takeover by the global cosmetics manufacturer, L’Oréal.

At the time, the changeover proved controversial. The Body Shop’s ethical mission statement was seen to conflict with L’Oréal’s alleged history of animal testing.

• Natura & Co: 2016-2023

The L’Oréal takeover had an impact on the Body Shop sales. After profits nosedived in 2016, the Body Shop was sold for £877m to the Brazilian cosmetics giant Natura & Co.

Natura’s acquisition was seen as a fix for the Body Shop’s reputation. In 2014, Natura became the first publicly-listed B-corp. Jean-Paul Agon, L’Oréal CEO at the time, said Natura was “the best new owner [to] nurture the brand DNA around naturality and ethics”.

• Aurelius Group: 2023-2024

But in late 2023, Natura began to offload some of its assets. It sold the Body Shop in a cut price deal to private equity firm Aurelius for £207m.

Aurelius apparently found that the business was in worse financial shape than it thought. In February 2024, it placed the firm into administration less than three months after taking control from Natura, putting 2,200 jobs at risk. At the time, it owed £276m to creditors.

• Auréa Group: 2024 – ?

Auréa Group will now be hoping it can help to stabilise the company and ensure continuity after the past few years of disruptive changeovers and leadership shake-ups.

What’s next for The Body Shop?

According to reports, Auréa has lined up £30m in working capital from restructuring firm Hilco to fund the Body Shop’s future. This cash injection is sorely needed.

As we previously highlighted, the Body Shop is in serious danger of falling off a cliff edge. Some of its issues are not unique. The retail sector is under pressure at the moment due to declining customer footfall and tightened spending.

However, the Body Shop has struggled to stay relevant in an increasingly tight market. Like other legacy brands, such as Avon, it has failed to keep up with Gen Z buying trends, who have tended towards online-only competitors.

Now that the Body Shop has been dug up, its next task is to reassemble itself into an attractive, exciting space for cosmetics consumers – without costing an arm and a leg.

Amazon has confirmed it will raise minimum pay for warehouse staff and delivery drivers by 9.8%, two months after it was criticised for its alleged response to trade union membership.

The payday jackpot will bring the minimum wage for the ecommerce giant’s frontline workers to at least £13.50 per hour; 95p more per hour than the UK National Living Wage. It means that the minimum annual salary for full-time workers will be £28,000.

For years, Amazon’s domination of the ecommerce industry has been marred by criticisms over its treatment of employees. It will now be hoping that the pay windfall can serve to silence critics, and kickstart a new culture of positive employee-employer relations.

Amazon Pay Day

This recent pay hike is one of Amazon’s most generous yet. As well as raising the starting wage for new hires, the change means staff with at least three years’ service will earn between £13.75 and £14.75 per hour.

Amazon said, “we are increasing our minimum starting pay for all frontline employees [and] we continue to offer industry-leading benefits from day one.”

This is not the first time that Amazon has raised pay for its workers. In 2023, the company increased the minimum hourly rate to at least £11.80; its second pay hike in just six months.

In fact, conducting pay reviews has become a go-to move at Amazon in response to union pressure. GMB, the union that represents Amazon workers, has taken almost 40 days of strike action over the past 18 months, in protest at what it sees as poor working conditions.

Good shop, bad shop

Amazon’s company history is a tale of two halves. On the one hand, it is an ecommerce colossus. Its core values emphasise customer satisfaction and operational excellence. Meanwhile, Amazon Marketplace has helped to launch hundreds of small businesses.

On the flip side, managing a global workforce of roughly 1.68 million people brings more than a few HR challenges, and has resulted in more than a few PR scandals.

Various trade unions have reported that Amazon employees work gruelling shifts, and face a significantly higher risk of injury. Despite repeated pay rises for full-time staff, there has also been complaints of low pay, particularly part-time and seasonal workers.

The GMB recently carried out a union recognition ballot at the firm’s Coventry centre, campaigning for a minimum wage of £15 per hour. It narrowly lost by 49.5% to 50.5%.

Amazon’s company values claims to foster a culture of innovation and an inclusive environment for all employees. But recent HR controversies mean it has not been living up to these values. Now, its pay announcement suggests it is throwing money at the problem.

Commenting on the pay rise, GMB organiser Rachel Fagan said: “This is too little, too late from Amazon bosses who have been forced to act by worker’s industrial action.

“Amazon’s reputation is in the gutter over its treatment of its own workers and now company bosses are trying to plaster over the facts.”

Lessons for SMEs

Whether or not a pay boost will be enough to silence Amazon’s critics remains to be seen.

GMB may not be impressed, but thousands still apply to interview at Amazon each year. It was voted the top tech company where people want to work for 2024.

Amazon’s monopoly over the ecommerce market explains why its recruitment drive has not been impacted by the controversies. But for small businesses, for whom reputational damage can be far more disastrous, there is a lesson to be learned.

Amazon has allowed the situation with GMB to balloon. Its generous new pay package now looks to be a case of bowing to union pressure rather than genuine employer generosity.

Conducting regular pay reviews that are initiated by the employer, rather than staff dissatisfaction, will go further to convince workers you are an employee-focused business.

There is also the argument that money should not be the only way to win over staff. Amazon has raised pay multiple times since 2019, but its workforce challenges still remain.

Alongside wage hikes, more companies are rolling out attractive employee benefits to incentivise workers beyond salary and shape company culture. Prioritising wellbeing and investing in development can sometimes say more than a higher number in a pay slip.

The shoplifting epidemic continues around the UK as the number of thefts targeting retailers has hit an all-time high, prompting retailers to invest more in security and calls for harsher penalties on violent offenders.

But despite speculation of household desperation amid the cost of living crisis, supermarket giant Co-op is pointing the finger at organised criminal gangs.

The effect of shoplifting on UK supermarkets

The Co-op’s public affairs director Paul Gerrard said that crime has increased by 44%, while violence and abuse have risen by 35%.

“That level of crime in our stores is 1,000 incidents every single day” he stated. “That is the highest level we have ever seen, levels of abuse are at the highest level we have ever seen and violence has dipped slightly in 2024, but it is still a very high level.”

Iceland’s boss Richard Walker has also called for changes in data protection laws, to allow staff to share pictures of shoplifters on WhatsApp groups. He further added that he would take full responsibility for staff who face legal repercussions for sharing this information.

Smaller stores have also been hit hard by shoplifting, with 57% of businesses losing over £250 in the past year, while 16% say they have lost between £1,000-£5,000. The ACS Crime Report 2024 also revealed that 5.6 million shoplifting offences were committed in corner shops last year.

Co-op blames organised crime for the rise in shoplifting

While some argue that the rise of shoplifting has been a result of desperation due to the current cost of living crisis, Gerrard stated that organisational crime is the primary cause of this drastic increase.

“There have always been people who steal to make ends meet and you could argue that happens more in a cost of living crisis, but that is not what is driving the 44% increase,” he commented. 

“What is driving it is people who are stealing to order huge volumes, people coming into our stores with wheelie bins, people coming into our store with builders bags to steal the entire confectionery section, the entire spirit section, the entire meat section.”

Gerrard also added that staff have been threatened and attacked when trying to stop shoplifters, sometimes with weapons like a knife or syringe. 

“I’ve had colleagues attacked with a medieval mace. We’ve had colleagues lose their eye or colleagues miscarry. This is a level of violence, abuse and threat that nobody in retail has ever seen before.” he said.

How the government and businesses are tackling in-store theft

The government has been taking steps to tackle violent shoplifters. It announced in April 2024 that it would invest £55.5 million in facial recognition technology. This includes £4 million for bespoke mobile units with live facial recognition that can be used in crowded areas to identify offenders. It also announced a new crime bill in July 2024, which would see tougher consequences for “low value” thefts of goods worth under £200.

Meanwhile, retailers have also come together to prevent shoplifting and staff abuse through Project Pegasus – a partnership between 13 high street stores to support local police in identifying organised crime groups operating in the area. This includes providing police with CCTV images for facial recognition checks.

Supermarkets like Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Co-op have also taken matters into their own hands through the use of technology. 

Both Co-op and Sainsbury’s have utilised artificial intelligence (AI) technology in their self-service machines to better monitor checkouts and make it more difficult for shoplifters to deceive self-checkout systems. Meanwhile, Tesco started adding security tags to shopping baskets to combat its own shoplifting problem.

As shoplifting incidents reach unprecedented levels across the UK, retailers big and small and the government are intensifying efforts to combat incidents and protect staff. Through the use of advanced technology, increased security measures and initiatives like Project Pegasus, the fight against organised crime and in-store theft continues.

The government has promised to introduce a set of reforms to employment law called ‘Make Work Pay’. Among the pledges, Labor will end the practice of making staff redundant and re-employing them on worse conditions.

Various large organisations have been accused of abusing the procedure, known as fire and rehire, in recent years. They include P&O Ferries and British Airways (BA).

In July, a new code of practice for employers was introduced by the previous government to combat bad actors. But Labour wants to go further. Below, we explain how fire and rehire works, why it happens, and what the rules are (and could become) for employers.

How does fire and rehire work?

Fire and rehire is where a business dismisses its employees only to immediately rehire them under new contractual terms, often for less pay.

Some businesses let staff go and then bring them back for non-nefarious means. Elon Musk seemingly regretted laying off his 500-strong Tesla Supercharger team in April and began rehiring them just one month later.

But fire and rehire refers specifically to a workplace trend where companies misuse the practice for their own gain. It gained attention during the pandemic, when firms were forced to end or pause employee contracts due to lost earnings.

After the world began to reopen in 2021, many businesses took these ex-employees back on. Some took advantage. They made the repeat hires sign contracts with updated terms of employment that were more favourable to the employer.

Organisations caught out for fire and rehire include P&O Ferries, which laid off 800 workers in 2022 and replaced them with cheap agency staff. Last month, BA lost an appeal after it was found to have used fire and rehire to force through a pay cut in the same year.

But fire and rehire can still happen at small businesses. Business owners might decide to cut pay, reduce holiday leave, or even introduce longer shift patterns in order to save money. And without union representation, this exploitation can fly under the radar.

Is fire and rehire illegal?

Fire and rehire is not currently illegal. There are specific cases where it may even be necessary. For example, if a business is facing bankruptcy, firing employees and then rehiring them on new terms might be the only way to restructure and avoid closure.

However, it’s important to note that fire and rehire is generally seen as controversial and unethical. The CIPD recommends it is used as “an absolute last resort”.

The policy is controversial because it backs employees into a corner. Most feel compelled to accept the changes to their contract rather than say no and risk being given the sack.

This Catch 22 can sour worker relationships and negatively impact employer reputation. Soon, thanks to the government’s Make Work Pay plan, it could also lead to penalties.

New code of practice for fire and rehire

In July, a new code of practice on fire and rehire policies, implemented by the previous government, came into force. It suggested guidelines for UK employers such as:

• Inform employees about proposed contract changes
• Contact dispute-resolution service ACAS for advice
• Re-examine the proposals

The new government has said that this code does not go far enough, and said it would take further steps to “end” fire and rehire if it won the election. The UK’s new business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, was a vocal critic of the P&O Ferries fire rehire controversy.

Labour’s vow sounds promising. But it is unclear what the ‘strengthened’ code of practice would look like. Labour has committed to introducing its Employment Rights Bill in its first 100 days, which gives it until 13 October 2024 to unveil the plans.

An outright ban is unlikely. But the government could restrict firing and rehiring to cases where it is vital for business survival. Cases of misuse would then lead to an employment tribunal, where guilty companies are usually made to pay 50% of the award money.

What should businesses do instead?

It is normal for employers to regularly review the terms and conditions of employee contracts. However, best practice dictates that any changes be made with the workers’ consent, and with the employee made fully aware of how it might affect their role.

Some companies choose to instil ‘flexibility clauses’. These allow business leaders a bit of wiggle room if they feel an employees’ role might need to change in future. For example, it might say that a worker might be asked to work from the firm’s sister office from time-to-time.

If a flexible clause has not been written into the contract, and the worker does not agree to the changes, a formal consultation is the next play. This is an opportunity for both parties to fully consider the repercussions of the changes and reach a mutual agreement.

Fire and rehire might be technically legal, but it is certainly ethically questionable. As Labour prepares to crack down on the practice, bosses tempted by the cost savings must now decide if the long-term losses for employers outweigh the short-term wins.

The hit BBC TV show Dragons’ Den has been on the air since 2005, with its newest season being aired in late January.

But while the business landscape has changed drastically in the last 21 years, the goal on the show is ultimately the same for entrepreneurs — pitching their business ideas to secure an investment.

But while a successful pitch is a huge win for contestants — and there have been plenty of successful businesses to come from the show — sometimes these investments don’t turn out as expected. Even with the Dragons’ support, there isn’t always a happy ending for businesses that were lucky enough to bag an investment.

Below, we outline 10 of the biggest Dragons’ Den investments that failed, showing that even expert backing doesn’t always equal success.

1. Gaming Alerts

Investor: Theo Paphitis
Amount secured: £200,000

Business: Gaming Alerts was an affiliate marketing company that specialised in promoting online bingo, casino, and poker platforms. It was founded by Ed Stevens and Emmeline Matthews in 2005, with the pair appearing on the show’s fifth season and seeking a £200,000 investment for a 10% equity stake. 

Outcome: after negotiations, Stevens and Matthews successfully secured the funding they asked for, but with 30% equity from Paphitis instead of 10%.

The investment went through and Paphitis continued to support the business. The mid-2000s marked the rise of online gambling platforms, with the sector reportedly being worth £1.8 billion in 2007; the same year that the UK’s Gambling Act was enforced. 

However, despite the large amount from Paphitis’s pockets, Gaming Alerts only lasted for another four years before dissolving in 2011. While no official explanation was released, its demise is likely due to the intense competition in the gambling market at the time.

2. The Generating Company

Investors: Peter Jones and Theo Paphitis
Amount secured: £160,000

Business: a UK-based touring circus ensemble founded in 2001 by Paul Cockle, who appeared on the first series of Dragons’ Den with the hopes of securing a £160,000 investment for a 40% equity stake. 

Outcome: Cockle got his wish and The Generating Company went on to produce large-scale productions around the world, including the “Voyage de la Vie” in Singapore and “Aqua” in Shenzen, China.

However, despite its long-running success, the curtain eventually closed for good for the business, as it later dissolved in 2015. Fortunately, Cockle is still in show business and he now works as a producer, continuing to create and host shows around the world.

3. Umbrolly

Investors: Peter Jones and Duncan Bannatyne
Amount secured: £150,000

Business: in the very first episode to air, Charles Ejogo was the first to enter the Den and pitched his business idea for Umbrolly, an umbrella vending machine designed to save the day when unexpected rain strikes.

Outcome: Ejogo’s pitch successfully secured a £150,000 investment from Jones and Bannatyne. While the offer fell through later on, Ejogo was undeterred and Umbrolly later secured a deal to install 150 machines across the London Underground network. It was even nominated for a British design award in 2007.

Unfortunately, the clouds rolled in for Umbrolly in 2010, as the business was forced to dissolve after losing its UK operating partner. However, it still offers consultative services and sells its products overseas, and Ejogo has become a renowned public speaker.

4. Elizabeth Galton Ltd

Investors: Duncan Bannatyne and Rachel Elnaugh
Amount secured: £110,000

Business: another OG from the first series, founder Elizabeth Galton entered the Den in 2005 seeking a £110,000 investment for 20% equity for her luxury jewellery business.

Outcome: Galton shocked the Dragons with her oversized metallic cockroaches, which looked a lot like twisted garden sculptures. Bannatyne and Elnaugh were prepared to offer the desired amount but wanted 30% equity in the business. Galton agreed, but later rejected the offer following Elnaugh’s financial difficulties with her own company, Red Letter Days.

The financial crisis led the business to dissolve in 2008, but Galton has gone on to build a successful career in brand development, marketing and design, working with prominent brands like Links of London and Radley. She also now owns her own consultancy firm, Black Manta, offering coaching and strategic advice.

5. First Light Solutions

Investors: Richard Farleigh
Amount secured: £100,000

Business: appearing in the show’s third season, First Light Solutions was a technology company that specialised in sonar-based man-overboard detection systems, with a mission to improve maritime safety by providing real-time alerts when someone fell overboard.

Outcome: founder Matthew Hazell expected the company to hit a £63 million valuation. While this ambitious expectation raised eyebrows among the Dragons, Farleigh saw potential in the business and invested £100,000 for a 30% equity stake. 

Having appeared on the show in 2006, First Light Solutions’s idea was certainly an innovative one, considering it was years before artificial intelligence (AI) really took off. While the idea was ahead of its time, the company’s journey was short-lived, as it was forced to abandon ship in 2012, dissolving from the Companies House register. However, Hazell still seems to be active in business and is involved in multiple solar projects.

6. Foldio

Investor: Theo Paphitis
Amount secured: £80,000

Business: founder Christian Lane entered the Den in 2007 with Foldio – a unique stationary folder product designed to halve the size of paperwork by curving rather than creasing it. At the time, Lane was the youngest contestant to appear on the show at just 19 years old.

Outcome: impressed by the idea, Paphitis invested £80,000 for 35% equity, and Foldio products were later sold at Ryman – the stationary store owned by Paphitis. However, according to Foldio’s Companies House filing history, the business ceased trading in 2015.

Fortunately, this didn’t deter Lane from the business world, as according to his about.me profile, he now owns Smarter, which develops and sells WiFi-enabled kitchen appliances like smart kettles, coffee makers and fridge cameras.

7. Lovebomb Cushions Ltd

Investor: Tej Lalvani and Jenny Campbell
Amount secured: £80,000

Business: Lovebomb Cushions was a simple novelty products business that appeared on the 15th season of Dragons’ Den, founded by Sarah Agar-Brennan. Its core purpose was to create emoji-inspired plush goods — mainly soft cushions and related novelty items licensed from The Emoji Company.

Outcome: Agar-Brennan pitched for £80,000 in exchange for 30% equity and successfully secured investment from Tej Lalvani and Jenny Campbell. However, the company later struggled commercially as financial challenges continued after the show. As a result, Lovebomb Cushions eventually entered liquidation and dissolved in 2021. Today, Agar-Brennan is the Head of Commercialisation and Business Development at the University of Hull.

8. Hamfatter

Investor: Peter Jones
Amount secured: £75,000

Business: Hamfatter is a Cambridge-based pop and rock band, who appeared on the show in 2008 to seek an investment of £75,000 to fund their album and marketing efforts.

Outcome: Hamfatter’s single “The Girl I Love” managed to reach number three on the UK indie singles chart. But the band faced criticism for the way it raised funds, with negative comments from The Guardian (plus a dig from NME over its “annoying” name), and its corporate fundraising didn’t exactly align with the band’s ‘indie’ persona.

While it appears Hamfatter are still together, the band hasn’t released a full album since 2011, and their return on investment is looking poor. Jones likely now regrets his roles in the band’s story. In 2019, Hamfatter reportedly had a net worth of just £100k.

9. The Running Mat

Investor: Deborah Meaden and Kelly Hoppen
Amount secured: £50,000

Business: fitness instructor Donna Kerr-Foley entered the Den in 2013 with the Running Mat — a portable, wearable exercise mat designed to make outdoor workouts easier by letting people run and then fold out a cushioned mat for exercises without getting dirty or wet.

Outcome: Kerr-Foley successfully secured £50,000 from Deborah Meaden and Kelly Hoppen in exchange for a 40% equity stake. However, the Running Mat dissolved just four years after its appearance in the Den.

According to Companies House, Kerr-Foley has been appointed as director for two other health and fitness companies — Good Life Leisure and Health Matters — but these have also since dissolved.

10. Zeven Media

Investor: Deborah Meaden
Amount secured: £50,000

Business: co-founded by brothers Josh and Hyrum Cook, Zeven Media was a photobooth business that appeared on Dragons’ Den in 2015 — offering photobooths that allowed users to instantly share them to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Outcome: the brothers accepted a £50,000 investment from Meaden for 25% equity, aiming to use the funding to expand the business and develop new products (such as contactless payment photo booths) for events, retail spaces, and long-term installations.

However, despite a significant period of growth — including securing clients and even opening a new office in London — the dream came to an abrupt end for the brothers in 2016 as the company went into voluntary liquidation and was later dissolved in 2020. While Hyrum went on to launch activewear brand, Adanola, Charlie’s Companies House profile suggests he hasn’t started another venture.

Not every pitch hits the jackpot

Dragons’ Den has given many new businesses the chance to shine, but as these stories show, not every investment turns into a success. Even with the Dragons’ support, things don’t always go as planned — whether it’s unexpected challenges or just bad luck.

These examples remind us that starting a business can be unpredictable, and sometimes things just don’t work out, no matter how much backing you have. 

Still, even though these businesses didn’t work out, many of these entrepreneurs went on to launch new ventures, enter new industries or use their experience to mentor others. As you’ll often hear in the world of business, a setback isn’t the end — it’s just part of the journey.

You’ve seen the failures, now check out the most successful Dragon’s Den pitches and meet the entrepreneurs who turned their TV dream into a thriving reality.

Workplaces across the globe are rolling out creative employee benefits. But one marketing agency has gone a step further, by paying for staff to go on Tinder dates.

Whiteline Group in Thailand is the business, and it’s calling this unique perk ‘paid Tinder leave’. The move aims to boost staff wellbeing; a logic that may draw scepticism from anyone who has tried online dating today.

The marketing agency may simply be after some positive PR from the announcement. But the policy also says a lot about just how far companies are willing to go to improve morale and employee engagement in an increasingly detached work culture.

Tinder Leave

Launched in 2012, Tinder has become one of the world’s best-known dating apps. Similar to holiday entitlement or sick leave, workers at Whiteline Group will be given paid time off during the workday in order to pursue romantic connections established on the app.

According to the agency’s LinkedIn page, Whiteline Group has made the perk available to its 200 staff members to use from mid-July until December.

It is unclear how many days off employees will be able to take (although one user has estimated that men and women will go on one Tinder tryst per month, on average).

Source: LinkedIn/Whiteline Group

The perk has apparently been introduced due to employee demand. One staff member reportedly complained she was too busy to date, says the New York Post. In response, the company’s leadership decided to introduce Tinder Leave.

As well as being able to clock in and out of the office job, Whiteline has also pledged to purchase six-month long Tinder Gold and Tinder Platinum subscriptions for all its staff, to give those who are unlucky in love a better chance at being able to use the perk.

One Whiteline employee has already shared a video on TikTok explaining how she used the perk to go on a date during the day. She and her partner took a walk in the park, where he then fed her watermelon on a skewer. Well, they can’t all be winners.

Tinder Aid

A recent survey of Gen Zers who use dating apps found that 90% feel frustrated with the time they spend on the apps, versus what they see as poor pay off. Perhaps Tinder leave will help by giving employees time back to pursue romantic interests.

That appears to be Whiteline’s thinking. If employees can use the app to find “the one”, they will feel happier and more motivated at work, and their output will increase as a result.

Organisations are increasingly taking stock of how their employees are feeling in today’s business climate. Awareness is growing around how poor mental health can cause workers to engage in presenteeism, defined as doing performative work despite being unproductive.

In the UK, this engagement crisis has become so prevalent it has a name: The Great Detachment. Some studies have even estimated that, in firms where a culture of presenteeism takes hold, one day in every working week could be lost to poor productivity.

Paying for staff to go on a candlelit dinner is an extreme example of how companies are working to tackle the engagement crisis. But the ‘Tinder leave policy displays a level of ingenuity that some UK companies may feel inspired to emulate.

Love connection?

There is another, less romantic reason that Whiteline has unveiled this policy. As well as wanting its employees to forge new connections, it could also be trying to ‘match’ itself with prospective new workers as part of the world’s wackiest recruitment process.

Whiteline Group’s LinkedIn page shows that the company is currently hiring for 13 new roles. Offering eye-catching, unique perks can be a smart way for businesses to snare talent.

Research suggests that company benefits are becoming almost, or as, important as pay for job seekers. Whiteline’s Tinder leave policy has made headlines across nearly every continent, setting it apart from competitors and giving it a major boost in attracting top applicants.

Here in the UK, Office for National Statistics (ONS) data has found that half a million workers are currently out of the workforce. This drain on talent has left many firms struggling to plug hiring gaps and source the skills required for company growth.

In such a tight labour market, anything business owners can do to ensure that a candidate ‘swipes left’ on your company is worth taking note of.

It’s not everyday you meet a technology company that wants to help you switch off your work devices. But YourBusinessNumber, or YBN, is not your normal startup.

The telecommunication company is on a mission to improve work-life balance with its simple, but smart, idea. It gives users a second business number to use with WhatsApp Business on the same phone, creating a clearer delineation between work and play.

“With everyone on their phones all day, especially WhatsApp, no-one really fully switches off,” says cofounder George Lineker. “We allow people to have a separate work number on their phone to use with WhatsApp Business [and] disconnect from work out of hours”.

The objective will chime with modern workers and entrepreneurs burnt out by an ‘always-on’ work culture that says work calls, emails, and texts must be instantly answered. Moreover, the UK government, whose ‘Right To Switch Off’ initiative is gaining momentum.

“Where appropriate, we fully support the right to switch off – and have seen it work well in places like France,” says Lineker. “Businesses need to provide a gap between personal communication. Enabling WhatsApp Business on personal phones creates that divide.”

“People feel they can’t ignore work messages”

In a recent survey of 2,000 employees, 54% said they expect to work while on annual leave, thanks to team members sending them work-related texts and emails.

The trend can be linked to remote working. With staff able to take their devices home with them, it has become harder to set healthy boundaries on availability. That pressure doubles if requests from colleagues or clients are being sent to the worker’s personal number.

“I’ve heard from many people about how they receive work messages on their personal WhatsApp at night or on weekends, which they don’t feel they can ignore”, Lineker says.

It’s a similar story for small business owners. Entrepreneurs will often run their companies from a personal number, using apps such as WhatsApp Business, in order to avoid the hassle of carrying a second phone and forking out for two business mobile contracts.

Recognising an obvious customer need, Lineker and his cofounder, Sebastian Lewis, decided to set up YBN. Now in its third year, the startup debuted at #43 in the Startups 100 Index this year, and has garnered 12,000 subscribers across the UK and US since launch.

“We receive a lot of great feedback from customers, the most valuable is how quick and simple it is to set up,” says Lineker. “Ultimately, the driving force behind [our] success is having a product that is affordable, fast and simple to use.”

“We want to be on billboards”

Starting a successful business is never a mean feat. But like all post-COVID startups, YBN has had to navigate some particularly tough terrain; finance being one of the biggest. While they have managed to raise £1m in funding, Lineker and Lewis have stayed cautious.

Lineker describes “trying to strike the perfect balance between cash flow, expansion and dilution” as a key challenge. Not that the brand is not targeting growth. Both founders want to broaden their audience by 8,000 this year, requiring a savvy approach to advertising spend.

“Our digital ads campaigns are crucial to growing the subscriber base and reaching 20,000 customers by the end of the year”, says Lineker. “Ultimately we want to be on billboards and the London Underground, but we’re not at that level yet.”

Thankfully, a slower approach to scale-up has paid off. Fast-growth startups such as Cazoo have run aground into today’s shrinking economy. YBN has instead adopted the mantra that “working with a brilliant team takes time.”

“Finding people via recommendation and word of mouth is often slower,” adds Lineker, “[but] it has meant we have built a great team.”

“Startups 100 generated huge customer interest”

Alongside having a “brilliant” team, Lineker also pays tribute to the Startups 100 Index, describing it as an “incredible platform for startups and SMEs.

“Being featured gave YourBusinessNumber huge awareness and credibility” says Lineker. “This increased the interest in the business and generated a lot of new customers”.

With YBN now hoping to roll out an eSIM product next year, and expand into new markets in the coming months, Lineker’s comments are a great reminder of how business prizes like the Startups 100 can serve as a guerilla marketing tactic for new startups.

Compared to the expensive and time-consuming process of traditional advertising, submitting an entry to a free business index or awards ceremony can be a highly cost-effective way to market a startup to investors, customers, and even partners.

Find out what other benefits the upcoming 2025 Startups 100 Index could bring to your business, as well as how to apply.

As the cost of living crisis eats into wages, salary has never been more important for staff. Yet a new survey suggests that thousands of UK employee payslips have been calculated incorrectly or sent late this year.

Payroll provider Remote surveyed 1,006 UK workers as part of its State of Payroll report. The findings show that 40% of respondents have experienced a payroll mistake in the past 12 months. Moreover, 59% say they have encountered two or more during this period.

Bosses might tell themselves otherwise, but pay is often the most important factor for staff morale. If an employee gets paid the wrong amount or at the wrong time, the impact can be devastating for both the individual’s financial wellbeing, and wider company culture.

Pay failures cost employers

Most of us view our payslips each month or week we are paid. But aside from a quick glance, few workers will actually dive into the complex information shown, such as tax brackets and National Insurance contributions (NICs).

For HR teams, underpaying an employee might be just a bad day at the office. But if you’re an employee, a delay on earnings can cause you to make late payments for bills like rent, or force them into an overdraft. You might also have a family to feed.

As a result, the Remote survey shows that 59% of employees in the UK reported additional stress, anxiety, and family pressures directly resulting from delayed payments.

In some cases, this has led to workplace conflict. 42% of UK respondents think payroll mistakes have negatively impacted their relationship with bosses. 15% of employees even told Remote they have less trust in the company after experiencing a payroll issue.

Asda pay fail

For a first-hand look at how pay mistakes can affect employee morale, just look at Asda. The grocery retailer is one of the largest supermarket chains in the UK, yet many of its 145,000-strong workforce received incorrect payslips this year.

When Asda migrated to a new payroll system in March, a technical glitch resulted in approximately 10,000 workers being underpaid. The Telegraph reported that some Asda team members had two weeks’ worth of wages erroneously deducted from their payslips.

Occasional payment glitches may be forgiven. Yet GMB, the union that represents Asda staff, said some teams were still facing wage errors three months after the IT glitch. Despite these pay failures, Asda apparently has no problem offering a reported CEO salary of £10M.

In May, Nadine Houghton, GMB National Officer said: “[Asda’s response] is a blatant disregard for the stress and worry they have put on low paid workers who have had to worry about paying the bills and feeding their family when not being paid properly.”

What are the rules if an employee is paid wrongly?

We’ve discussed the repercussions if a worker does not receive enough money in their payslip, but the result can be just as bad if a worker is mistakenly overpaid.

In most cases, employers have the right to claim back any extra money that is paid out. However, the situation should be handled delicately – bosses should not deduct money from future wages without first letting the employee know.

Workers may also feel stressed about suddenly having to pay back a large chunk of their salary. A repayment plan is the fairest and most flexible way to get the money back.

If a worker is underpaid, the mistake is likely to go unnoticed if the individual doesn’t pick up on the error. For employers, fixing it quickly is important to preserve staff relationships and for compliance. Paying under the minimum wage can lead to serious penalties.

Concerned about payroll mistakes? Technology can help. Read about the best small business payroll software and how it improves accuracy when calculating wages.

Iceland boss Richard Walker has called for laws to allow images of violent shoplifters to be shared on local WhatsApp groups.

Walker has criticised the current data protection laws, which don’t allow businesses to share images of shoplifters publicly. 

The Information Commissioner’s Office advised that images can only be shared if “necessary and proportionate”, but sharing images of alleged shoplifters – on both shop windows and social media – was not likely to be proportionate. 

But as shoplifting and violence against shop workers is on the rise, what can retailers legally do to protect their businesses and staff?

The rise in shoplifting and assault on staff

The number of shoplifting incidents in England and Wales has reached a 20-year high. The police recorded 443,995 offences in March 2024 – a 30% increase compared to the 342,428 incidents logged the previous year. However, just 431 shoplifters were given fixed penalty notices in March 2024 – a steep decrease of 98% from 19,419 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, violence and abuse against shop workers is increasing. The British Retail Consortium Report 2024 revealed that there were around 475,000 incidents (1,300 a day) in 2022-2023, a significant increase from 870 a day in 2021-2022. It also revealed that retailers spent £1.2 billion on measures including CCTV cameras, increased security staff and body cameras. 61% of respondents to its survey described the police response to these incidents as either poor or very poor.

It’s also been reported that many UK stores are purchasing goods from “professional shoplifters”. Businesses, particularly smaller stores, have been buying stolen items from Facebook and WhatsApp groups. The Association of Convenience Stores (ACS) stated that high-value items like meat, cheese and alcohol were targeted the most and that repeat offenders were stealing “to feed addiction problems”. 

Labour’s latest crime bill

The government announced a new crime bill in July 2024, targeting people who steal goods worth less than £200, while assaulting a shop worker will become a specific offence. The new policy will be a reversal of the 2014 legislation, in which “low value” thefts were subject to less serious punishment.

While this proposal can be good news for both large and smaller retailers, others have raised concerns about penalising people struggling to make ends meet, particularly during the cost of living crisis.

Dan White, Campaigns & Policy Officer for Disability Rights UK, said: “Thousands of people are still in poverty including disabled people and carers and they are still struggling to make ends meet due to the lowest benefits in Europe, low incomes, high energy costs, food inflation and rising rents and mortgages”, adding that some are “out of options to survive”.

“Labour politicians need to pause and understand the symptoms of why some people are resorting to desperate measures,” he added. “They need to focus on cause and effect, look at the root causes and tackle the deep inequalities within our society.”

What are the current data protection laws?

Current data protection laws in the UK enable retailers to share criminal offence data to prevent or identify crime, but only if it’s necessary or proportionate.

“We want businesses to be able to take action to prevent crime, but we want people who aren’t breaking the law to be able to go about their day without unjustified intrusion.” The ICO’s blog reads. 

It further clarified that sharing details with the police, a manager of another store and shopping centre security guards is deemed appropriate. However, public disclosure is less likely to be justifiable, such as posting images in staff rooms, sharing pictures on messaging platforms or publishing on social media. Retailers must adhere to data protection principles, such as ensuring the accuracy of the information and limiting the retention period of any shared images. 

This means that while businesses can work with law enforcement and other relevant parties to address shoplifting, they must carefully balance these actions with the privacy rights of individuals, avoiding practices that could lead to potential data breaches, reputational harm or legal repercussions.

Iceland boss will “take the rap” for employees sharing images of shoplifters

Walker has further stated that he will “take the rap” for any employees who face prosecution for sharing images of shoplifters.

Describing the the data protection laws as “stupid”, Walker told employees to post these images, and that he’d take responsibility for any staff who face legal consequences as a result.

“We are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs,” he commented on Woburn Partners’ Lessons in Leadership podcast.

“When these images are on your CCTV, it’s absolutely proven,” he added. “You watch someone pick something up, put it under their coat or whatever they do, and walk out or become aggressive to store staff if they’re stopped.

“Obviously you’d like to absolutely share those images. I’ve told my colleagues to do it anyway and I take the rap if there’s a problem. It’s a stupid law.”

As shoplifting crime increases, there is a growing call to revisit data protection laws and properly punish those committing theft. But as concerns about privacy rights and those living in poverty remain, policymakers and retailers are caught between a rock and a hard place when making decisions on tackling the country’s ongoing shoplifting dilemma.

Innovate UK, the national innovation agency, has U-turned on its decision to award just half of the 50 grants in its ‘Women In Innovation’ funding competition for women entrepreneurs.

The organisation received 1,452 applications and had “up to £4m” in funding available to give to the winning entrants. But despite clear appetite from female founders, it emerged over the weekend that only 25 of the grants had been awarded, leaving 25 unaccounted for.

On Monday afternoon, the non-departmental public body released a statement confirming that all remaining £75,000 grants will now be awarded. The change comes mere hours after hundreds of founders signed an open letter calling for “urgent reform” of Innovate UK.

Innovate UK: “we prioritised wrongly”

In a 376-word statement on its LinkedIn page, Innovate UK confirmed yesterday it would 

be funding a total of 50 awards, representing the original £4m committed. It also apologised for “the concern and frustration that we have caused.”

Source: linkedin.com/company/innovateuk

While reasoning for the decision has not been revealed, the statement hints that it may have been due to financial constraints.

“As public funders, we must manage our budgets carefully”, reads the post. “The decision to only award this number was a mistake and we prioritised wrongly.”

According to the organisation, it will now set about contacting the next highest-scoring 25 successful applicants to confirm funding, starting immediately.

It will have no problem finding the additional applicants to support. Innovate UK also stated that this year’s competition had received its highest response to date, revealing (ironically) that plenty of women innovators are fundraising this year.

Swift action following campaign

Innovate UK had received criticism for a ‘holding statement’ it shared on its LinkedIn page on Monday morning. In the post, it promised to update unsuccessful applicants “this week”. This prompted one founder to criticise the Innovate UK response as a “total comms sh*tshow”.

On Saturday, femtech founder Emma Jarvis wrote on LinkedIn calling on Innovate UK to award the full 50 awards. The post attracted over 800 likes and 111 reposts from fellow LinkedIn users, and gained traction among both men and women entrepreneurs.

On Monday afternoon, an open letter appeared on LinkedIn, calling for “urgent reform” to Innovate UK. The campaign is spearheaded by Becky Lodge, who is founder of Little Kanga and StartUp Disruptors, alongside investor experts Zandra Moore and Tara Attfield-Tomes.

Named Let’s Fund More Women, the campaign resulted in hundreds of posts from investors, founders, and supporters, successfully putting pressure on Innovate UK to act swiftly.

Source: linkedin.com/company/innovateuk

After the Innovate UK announcement, many commented to thank those in the organisation for listening to their concerns. “What fantastic news, and a thank you to those in the community who contacted Innovate UK and fed our concerns back”, wrote one founder.

Innovate UK “needs to reflect”

While a positive outcome has been reached, the fact is that Innovate UK came close to underdelivering nearly £2m in funding for female founders. Questions are already being raised about how and why it chose to cut funding for a women-led competition.

Innovate UK funding for 2020 to 2021 reportedly totalled £885m. If it spends the same amount this year, the Women in Innovation awards will represent just 0.4% of its budget.

“Innovate UK needs to reflect on who participated in the board meeting where the decision was made on how to “carefully” manage the budget,” one female founder wrote in response to the Innovate UK statement. “Who was it that made those prioritisation choices?”

Accessing early-stage funding as a female founder is already a challenge. Startups data has found that the gender funding gap in 2024 means that female founders will raise, on average, six times less in funding than male entrepreneurs.

Earlier this year, the government attempted to roll out changes to angel investors that would have made it even harder for female-led businesses to raise money. Thankfully, in a move that Innovate UK has now echoed, it U-turned at the final hour.

In this context, Innovate UK has been vital for levelling the playing field for female-led businesses. As the organisation shared in its post, one in three successful applications to Innovate UK competitions are now led by women, compared to one in seven in 2016.

3 September update — following the backlash, Innovate UK confirmed it would pay all 50 of the promised grants late on Monday afternoon.

“Disheartened” entrepreneurs are calling out Innovate UK online, after it delivered just half of the number of promised grants for women business owners in a funding competition.

Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation, said it would offer 50 Women in Innovation Awards to women-led SMEs. Each winner gets £75,000 to “support women who are at a critical stage”. But it has since been revealed that only 25 awards were given out.

In a viral LinkedIn post, femtech founder Emma Jarvis called on Innovate UK to deliver the 50 grants promised, describing the turnout as a “gut punch” to entrants.

“Women led businesses are consistently underfunded, despite the fact that they are addressing some of the most pressing challenges in society,” she wrote. “We shouldn’t be competing for just 25 spots.”

Source: linkedin.com/in/emmajarvismba/

What are the Women in Innovation awards?

That it is more difficult for women entrepreneurs to raise money than men is a well-known fact of the business world. Startups data, taken from our Startups 100 Index, has shown that men can expect to secure six times the amount of funding raised by women, on average.

Since 2016, the Women in Innovation awards have pledged to help bridge this gender funding gap. For 2024, 50 grants were available, amounting to an overall pot of £3.75m.

It has been reported that 1,452 female founders applied for the grants in total; a measure of how hard-fought the funding landscape is for women entrepreneurs.

But with just 25 winners chosen so far, applicants have been left confused over what has been done with the remaining amount.

It could be an issue of quality, but this theory is suspect. Last year, Innovate UK managed to find 50 ‘suitable’ winners from a considerably shrunken pool of just 900 applicants.

Over the weekend, hundreds of founders – both men and women – took to LinkedIn to decry what serial founder Emma Sayle described as “a man made virtue signalling attempt to placate us angry female founder folk.”

Innovate UK criticised for response

In response to the drama, Innovate UK published a brief statement on its LinkedIn page over the weekend, acknowledging the “confusion and concern,” the mess has created.

“That’s on us and we own that. Sorry that it’s impacted so many people,” the post reads.

The organisation has promised to share a full update this week to explain the thinking behind halving its grant money. However, commenters immediately hit back at what Sayle described as a “total comms sh*t show”.

Source: linkedin.com/in/emmasayle

Sanjay Lobo MBE, founder of the Startups 100-listed business, OnHand, also weighed in on the Innovate UK LinkedIn statement. “Way forward seems straightforward to me,” he wrote.

“1. Fund a further 25 high-scoring female founders, 2. Apologise to the applicants (the above is not that), 3. Listen to the mass of feedback [and] commit to improvements.”

Screenshots from WaybackMachine, a digital archive, suggest that Innovate UK may have changed the wording on at least one of its web pages to “up to” 50 women as late as 9 July.

Screenshots showing how the Innovate UK website changed between 13 June and 9 July 2024 (Source: web.archive.org)

“Where has the other £1.8m gone?”

As a non-departmental public body, UK Research and Innovation is funded by a grant-in-aid from the UK government, meaning the money must be used for specific purposes.

Innovate UK has previously stated that the competition “may not be able to fund all the proposed projects”. However, that 50 awards have been handed out in previous years suggests that finance had not previously been an issue.

Ingrid Murray, angel investor and co-founder of Confused.com, has speculated that Innovate UK funding has been cut. On Sunday, Murray wrote on LinkedIn, “Where has the other £1.8m gone? [..] Could it be Government cost cutting, the pot halved at short notice?”

Ahead of the summer election, Labour pledged to launch a review of the financial exclusion of women in business if elected. Now in government, it has yet to confirm these plans.

Commenting on the controversy, Patricia McGirr, founder at Repossession Rescue Network, said entrants “deserve more than lip service, they deserve the support they were promised.”

“Make some noise”

So far, nearly 800 people have liked and shared Jarvis’ original post. Founders are now coming together to campaign for Innovate UK to deliver the 50 awards originally specified.

On Sunday, Jarvis shared a link to an online survey for supporters to have their say about the Innovate UK debacle. Questions include ‘Would you recommend Innovate UK to another female founder’ and ‘How would you rate your experience with Innovate UK?’.

“If you are a female founder or a supporter of female innovation, I would be grateful for you to make some noise about this issue,” wrote Jarvis.

“These founders are not just participants in a competition they are leaders, innovators, and change makers who deserve to have their work supported and recognized.”

On Monday afternoon, founder Zandra Moore shared an open letter calling for greater transparency from future Innovate UK awards.

This story is still developing. We’ll keep you posted with any updates about the unfolding Innovate UK controversy on this page.