News

Can private development rebuild not just infrastructure, but also trust within local communities? It’s a deceptively simple question, but one that cuts to the heart of modern urban life.

Across the UK—and much of the world—town centres have hollowed out, their vitality sapped by shifting economies, online retail, and a pervasive sense of disconnection in how we live and work. In this context, developers are often viewed as villains, demolishing characterful spaces for profit-driven sprawl.

For decades, Michael Shanly has quietly built a legacy of transformative development that in many ways seems to reject the industry’s worst impulses. His work is rooted in practical solutions and a meticulous attention to detail that places purpose alongside profit. Chapel Arches, a landmark regeneration effort by Shanly Homes in Maidenhead, offers a compelling example of how private development can align with public interests.

The Start of Shanly Homes

As a boy in West London, Michael Shanly would cycle past a derelict house each day, its peeling paint and boarded-up windows a stark reminder of neglect. Most people would see decay and move on, but Shanly saw something else: potential. “One day, I want to buy that house and do it up,” he thought to himself. Where others saw something broken, he imagined what it could become.

The instinct to recognise potential and rebuild with purpose would define Shanly’s life. It guided him as a young man working two jobs to save enough to purchase his first property, the refurbishment and sale of which laid the foundation for his enduring legacy, Shanly Homes. His resourcefulness proved indispensable during the 1974 property crash, leading to the creation of Sorbon Estates—a long-term investment business built to endure the challenges of an ever-changing property market.

Shanly’s philosophy is equal parts pragmatism and vision. It rests on the principle that true development is not about speed or cost-cutting, but about crafting spaces with lasting value that meet the needs of their communities and endure for generations.

Revitalising a Historic Town

Maidenhead is the story of a town shaped by connectivity and adaptability. Its strategic location—first as a Roman settlement and later as a medieval hub on the Great West Road—made it a critical link for trade and travel. Over the centuries, it evolved from a riverside hamlet to a bustling coaching town, and later into a sophisticated Thameside resort with the arrival of the railway.

In more recent times, the town suffered a period of significant decline in the modern era. Decades of piecemeal redevelopment stripped away much of its historic character, replacing it with a “clone town” identity—dominated by chain stores and lacking unique local businesses. The disused Maidenhead Waterways that were once a defining feature of the town had become a symbol of neglect, falling into disrepair and diminishing the town’s sense of place.

Efforts to address Maidenhead’s need for revitalisation began in 2008 with the formation of the Partnership for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead (PRoM), of which Michael Shanly is a founding member. The Chapel Arches project, developed by Shanly Homes, was introduced to address these challenges, focusing on revitalising the waterways and enhancing the town’s commercial and residential appeal.

Chapel Arches and Its Impact

Chapel Arches represents a significant shift in how town centres are reimagined. While many regeneration projects focus on flashy retail complexes or isolated housing developments, this initiative adopted a mixed-use approach to create a vibrant community hub with enduring appeal. Spanning three main phases—Waterside Quarter, The Picturehouse, and Chapel Wharf—the development has delivered 259 new homes and 30,000 square feet of commercial space to the heart of Maidenhead.

Chapel Arches has revitalised Maidenhead’s waterways, combining restoration with contemporary design to celebrate the town’s distinctive character. Around a large basin, which serves as the centrepiece of the development, are spaces designed to support both residential life and community activities. A newly constructed footbridge improves connectivity, while a 200-seat waterside amphitheatre, built by Shanly Homes, provides a communal space for public gatherings. Businesses such as Coppa Club and Bakedd artisan bakery have moved into the commercial units, helping to redefine the area as a destination in its own right.

The impact of Chapel Arches has been transformative. Nearly a million visitors now pass through the area each year, and the project has received significant accolades, including the RICS Regeneration Award and the Maidenhead Civic Society Design Award, for its role in positioning Maidenhead as a model for modern regeneration.

Development with Purpose

Chapel Arches illustrates how targeted investment and thoughtful design can transcend the act of constructing developments, delivering lasting change in communities. Large-scale, profit-driven projects often leave behind generic spaces that fail to reflect the unique needs of the communities they serve, but in concentrating efforts on towns like Maidenhead, Michael Shanly has challenged the prevailing narrative of globalised, one-size-fits-all development.

True regeneration goes beyond bricks and mortar, requiring developers to engage with a town’s history while also imagining what it could become—not just for the next quarter, but the next generation. Shanly’s work demonstrates this principle in action, reflecting a commitment to creating spaces that are not only functional but closely tied to the identity and needs of their surroundings. It’s an approach rooted in humility: the belief that development should integrate into a community, rather than impose upon it.

Chapel Arches demonstrates that when private enterprises approach development with intention they can move beyond the typical profit-driven model and become a catalyst for creating spaces where people can connect and thrive. Shanly has set a powerful example for the industry, offering a blueprint for development rooted in community impact and long-term vision. Adopting this mindset can see developers become deeper ingrained in the communities they shape, driving sustainable revitalisation.

Read more:
Michael Shanly’s Commitment to Purposeful Development Realised in Chapel Arches

Investing in business ventures, especially in rapidly evolving sectors like artificial intelligence (AI), renewable energy, and emerging tech, offers exciting opportunities.

However, with high potential returns comes an inherent level of risk. Understanding and assessing these risks is crucial for making informed decisions that align with your financial goals.

Identify the Type of Investment Risk

Investment risks can be categorized into several key types:

Market Risk: The possibility of losses due to market fluctuations.
Operational Risk: Risks arising from internal business failures, such as management issues or technical problems.
Credit Risk: The potential that a business will fail to meet its financial obligations.
Regulatory Risk: The impact of changing laws or regulations, especially relevant in tech and AI sectors and is why there are many opportunities investment trust in these areas.
Technological Risk: In industries like AI, rapid advancements can render current investments obsolete.

Understanding which risks are most relevant to your investment helps tailor your evaluation process.

Analyze the Business Model and Industry Trends

Evaluate the sustainability of the business model:

Revenue Streams: Are they diversified or dependent on a single source?
Scalability: Can the business grow efficiently without proportionally increasing costs?
Market Demand: Is there a proven need for the product or service?

In future-focused sectors like AI, assess how the business aligns with technological trends. Does it have a competitive edge, such as proprietary algorithms or unique data sets?

Conduct Financial Due Diligence

Examine the financial health of the business:

Profit and Loss Statements: Look for consistent revenue growth and profitability.
Cash Flow: Strong, positive cash flow indicates financial stability.
Debt Levels: High debt can be a red flag, especially in volatile markets.

For AI startups, consider burn rates and funding sources. Are they reliant on continuous venture capital, or do they have sustainable revenue?

Evaluate the Management Team

Strong leadership can mitigate many risks. Assess:

Experience: Does the team have a proven track record in the industry?
Vision: Are they forward-thinking, especially in dynamic fields like AI?
Adaptability: Can they pivot strategies in response to market changes?

Consider External Factors

Macro-environmental factors can significantly impact investments:

Economic Conditions: Interest rates, inflation, and economic cycles.
Geopolitical Events: Trade policies, political stability, and global conflicts.
Regulatory Landscape: Especially for AI, data privacy laws and ethical considerations are critical.

Use Quantitative Risk Assessment Tools

Leverage data-driven tools to quantify risk:

Value at Risk (VaR): Estimates potential losses in a given timeframe.
Scenario Analysis: Examines potential outcomes under different conditions.
Sensitivity Analysis: Determines how changes in key variables affect performance.

Diversify Your Investments

Mitigating risk often involves diversification:

Sector Diversification: Don’t put all your capital into a single industry.
Geographical Diversification: Spread investments across different regions.
Asset Class Diversification: Combine traditional assets with future-oriented ventures like AI.

Final Thoughts

Assessing investment risk, particularly in innovative sectors like AI, requires a blend of traditional financial analysis and forward-looking strategic evaluation. By identifying key risks, analyzing business models, and leveraging both qualitative and quantitative tools, investors can make smarter, more resilient decisions that stand the test of time.

Read more:
How to Assess Investment Risk: A Guide for Business Ventures and Future Opportunities

I remember once stepping off a transatlantic flight, still reeling from the rictus grins and endless refills of lukewarm coffee offered to me by the BA cabin crew, only to be greeted by a sea of disapproving faces at Heathrow.

My sin? Possibly existing, or maybe just trying to queue for passport control in the wrong lane. The moral of the story? There’s no shortage of ways the British can make you feel you shouldn’t have bothered, especially when you’re accustomed to the almost comical “Have a great day!” one gets in the States.

But here’s the rub: customer service matters. It really, really does. It matters not just because it gives your clients an immediate sense of whether you actually care about their custom, but because in a world where companies are jostling like punch-drunk boxers in a ring, being that little bit friendlier might be the difference between an uppercut that floors the competitor or being left, dazed and drooling, as your prospective customer wanders off to the chap next door.

Of course, we British like to say we’re polite. We queue, we mutter “thank you” when receiving short change from a bus driver, and we gush “so sorry” when a stranger treads on our foot. But politeness and customer service aren’t identical twins. One’s a formal courtesy – that benign acceptance of a neighbour’s savage new hedge sculpture, or a dull relative’s account of their bunions – whereas the other is a more deliberate, structured approach to treating customers well. Actual, genuine, helpful niceness. This is where we struggle.

Let’s be honest about it: American businesses, from the smallest diner in Boise, Idaho, to the glitzy mega-stores of Manhattan, generally do it better. They have a method – a downright formula. You enter a shop and someone greets you. They smile broadly (all teeth, no cynicism), ask you how you’re doing, and inquire if they can assist you. Sometimes it’s syrupy, sometimes a bit forced, but by and large, you walk out feeling a tad better, or at least not guilty that you darkened their door. Contrast that with the classic British “You all right there?” half-delivered from behind a stack of paperwork, while the assistant pointedly ignores the existential pain creeping across your face because you just want to find a size 10 in that jacket.

That’s not to say the entire British retail sector is manned by glowering gargoyles. There are stellar examples of marvellous customer service in the UK – the independent bookshop with staff who’ll recommend exactly the novel you didn’t know you wanted; the wine merchant who’ll steer you away from the half-priced Aussie plonk and gift you with a gem for the weekend dinner party. But these shining examples too often feel like delightful anomalies, rather than the norm. And that’s a problem. Why? Because in a globalised marketplace, people notice. They talk. They tweet. They Instagram. They do everything short of hiring an aircraft trailing a banner that says “Sally’s Shoe Shop in Sloane Square is dire,” and that can seriously hurt your bottom line.

So, why is it so important to improve customer service in British business? For one, consistency builds trust. If you know that every time you pop into a particular café you’ll be treated like an actual human being – with a smile, a dash of warmth, and a readiness to fix things if they go awry – you’re far more likely to come back. Then there’s loyalty. People want to spend their money where they feel valued. Who knew it would be so radical to make customers feel appreciated for shelling out their hard-earned wages?

Another reason is brand image. Slick marketing campaigns and glossy brochures might lure people in once, but it’s the in-store or on-the-phone interactions that cement their lasting impression. In an era when everything’s just a quick Google search away, you can be sure that if someone’s had a rotten experience, they’ll brandish their smartphone and pen a scathing review before you can say, “I’m sorry, how can I make it right?” Reputation, as the old cliché goes, is everything.

Now, let’s talk about the practical side. Is it really that hard to be nice to people who want to give you money? Is it that exhausting, that soul-destroying, to say, “Good morning, how can I help?” or “Have a lovely day”? Maybe the fear lies in the perceived American-ness of it all – that ultra-chirpy, grinning-from-ear-to-ear approach that can, admittedly, grate on British nerves. Yet there’s no need to go full Disneyland – no one’s suggesting you fling confetti at customers as they walk in. But a baseline of genuine pleasantness? That shouldn’t be such an ordeal.

Training is crucial. Invest in it. Proper induction for new staff, where they learn not just product knowledge but how to engage with customers in a friendly, attentive way, paying attention to detail and following up promptly. Teach them to listen – really listen – because there’s nothing more infuriating than explaining your predicament in meticulous detail, only to be met with a blank stare that says, “I stopped listening ten minutes ago.”

And here’s a radical notion: empower staff. Give them permission to fix problems on the spot without needing to consult seven different managers or, worse, a call centre in a different time zone. Customers love a quick resolution; it proves you value their time and want to make things right. And guess what? When employees feel valued and trusted themselves, they tend to pass that good energy along to the customers.

In short, British businesses could learn a thing or two from the Yanks about consistency and cheer. We have it in us to be the best hosts in the world – we’re the land of charming tea shops and faultless B&Bs, after all. So perhaps it’s time we channel that famed hospitality into mainstream business culture. Let’s banish the scowl behind the counter, the resigned sigh on the phone, and raise a swift cup of (perfectly brewed) tea to the notion that being pleasant pays dividends. It’s not that hard. So let’s do it. And let’s enjoy the benefits that come with delivering quality service: repeat business, sparkling reviews, and the distinctly satisfying knowledge that we might just be giving our American cousins a run for their money. Cheers to that.

Read more:
Cheer up, Britain! Why customer service really matters—and it’s not that hard to get right

Ed Miliband, the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, has declined to reveal his personal view on the controversial third runway at Heathrow, despite Labour’s public backing of airport expansion.

Under Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s push for economic growth, the Labour government last month confirmed its support for a larger Heathrow. Yet when pressed on whether his personal position had shifted since he blocked a similar move in 2010, Mr Miliband invoked collective responsibility, calling himself “part of the decision-making process” and insisting he “abides by” the government line.

Mr Miliband emphasised that approval for Heathrow’s expansion may still be “some years off”, pending strict assessments of carbon budgets and local environmental standards. Speaking on Sky News, he added that Heathrow must present viable plans if a third runway is to go ahead. The issue highlights the government’s struggle to reconcile economic ambitions with its environmental agenda, while Mr Miliband himself refused to reiterate his past opposition.

Questions over the proposed Rosebank oil field – a project Mr Miliband previously called “a colossal waste of taxpayer money” – saw him again refrain from giving his personal opinion. Instead, he argued that ministers must follow “proper process”, with decisions taken “in a fair and objective manner”.

Rejecting the idea that the UK faces a stark choice between economic growth and the pursuit of net zero, Mr Miliband portrayed clean energy as “the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century”. He also announced a consultation aimed at ensuring all rental properties achieve at least a C rating for energy performance. Landlords could face higher renovation costs, which might be passed on to tenants, but Mr Miliband defended the policy as “fair” and essential for tackling damp, mould and spiralling energy bills.

Read more:
Miliband refuses to reveal his personal view on controversial third runway at Heathrow

Forma-Care (UK) Ltd, a leading supplier of continence care products to the NHS, has secured a significant funding package with the support of Leonard Curtis.

The arrangement marks over £5m of funding raised in recent years, ensuring the Durham-based firm can accelerate its growth strategy, invest in product innovation, and strengthen supply chains amid market pressures.

The partnership between Forma-Care and Leonard Curtis goes back six years, when the business was first established. Its unique ‘single-debtor’ financing model, structured without personal guarantees, required a bespoke solution underpinned by proven ledger performance and clear future potential. Working in close collaboration with funders including Cynergy Business Finance and Abcor Finance, Leonard Curtis secured an initial credit line, with an additional facility to follow.

Wayne Dobson, managing director of Forma-Care, said: “Leonard Curtis has been with us since the very start, and the team’s unwavering support has been instrumental to our success. This funding package will allow us to continue growing, innovating, and meeting the evolving needs of our customers.”

Phil Trueman of Leonard Curtis added: “The package we have helped the business secure puts them on a firm financial footing to continue its development journey.”

Read more:
Durham medical supplier clinches multi-million pound funding boost

Headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh has said Bridget Phillipson had ‘no interest’ in finding out why Michaela Community School was so successful.

Speaking on GB News, Katharine Birbalsingh said: “Academies have raised standards in England so enormously that on international league tables like Pisa, we’ve moved from 27th to seventh in maths. Or on Pearls, we are now considered to be best in terms of reading, having been way down the international charts 15 years ago.

“All of these reforms that happened in the last decade and a half, making schools into academies, are responsible for that success.

“We get 800 visitors a year at Michaela from all over the world, and so do lots of really good schools in England because of the amazing work we’re doing, thanks to the freedoms we’ve got.

“That’s what makes an academy. The school leaders have freedoms that allow them to give a bespoke and tailored offer to their particular community.

“Bridget Phillipson is now going to take those freedoms away from our academies, which essentially makes them into schools.

“So when she claims to say, ‘I love academies’, but then, at the same time, is taking away the freedoms from academies that makes them academies, she’s essentially turning us into schools.

“So it’s just not true, she doesn’t love academies.

“[The meeting] was very disappointing. She wouldn’t name a single top school that she’s been to visit. She said that the record of her school visits was for public knowledge, and you could find it. I can’t find it.

“I don’t know what school she’s ever been to, and I don’t know why she couldn’t just say, ‘I’ve been to these top schools.’ I presume it’s because she’s never visited any of the top schools.

“She seemed quite proud of the fact that she’d been to schools that were underperforming and I have no problem with her going to those schools.

“But I’ve invited her three times to come and see Michaela. Why not come and see what we’re doing and learn from what we’re doing?

“My deputy, who was with me, spoke about how last year, we got 52% grade nines, and how Eton got 53% grade nines. So we’re basically matching Eton.

“At no point did she probe and say, ‘Tell me, what is it you did exactly? Was it your teaching methods? Was it your strictness, because you’re known as the strictest Headmistress? Is it your values?’

“There was no interest at all in what we’re actually doing and finding out what are those key ideas that could be rolled out across schools.

“We talked about the curriculum, and she said ‘it’s a floor, not a ceiling.’

“And I said, ‘So which school is it that does not meet your floor core curriculum and does not offer a core curriculum to children?’ She couldn’t name that school, because I don’t believe that school exists.

“All schools offer a floor core curriculum. So what is the problem she’s trying to fix?

“What she wants is uniformity across the school system, which is owned by central government. When I call her a Marxist, what I mean is she’s taking the few freedoms we’ve got as head teachers and as school leaders and is returning them to government.

“Because she, as Education Secretary, knows better what my children need than I do, and I disagree with her. We offer the tailored approach with regard to our curriculum, with regard to the way in which we hire teachers, with regard to our pan (pupil admission numbers).

“We have 120 kids coming into our school every year. If the local school next door is not very good and has 100 kids instead of 120, with the changes she’s making, she could take 20 of our places and put them with that other school.

“I said to her, ‘What would you say to a mother who is desperate to get her child into a good school that used to have 120 places, but you’ve now made it 100 places in order to help out that other school that isn’t very good. What do you say to this woman?’

“Well, the answer she gave was completely inadequate. There is no other answer. You’re reducing the number of places in good schools.

“The point is that these ideas do work for everybody. Having good discipline in your school works for everyone. Having teachers lead the learning works for everyone.

“I understand different intakes are different, and it’s precisely that that I’m arguing. But there are certain basics that work.

“And the only way you can get those basics happening everywhere is not by her telling people what we should do from central government, it’s by giving school leaders freedoms, so they have a sense of responsibility and ownership for their schools, and then they can be held accountable for what they deliver.

“If, on the other hand, she makes us all be exactly the same, there is no accountability and there’s no sense of responsibility.”

Read more:
Bridget Phillipson thinks she knows better than successful head teachers

Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to pursue a pioneering trade agreement with Donald Trump focused on digital services, according to Gareth Thomas, the exports minister.

The move comes amid a looming threat of global trade tensions, yet ministers insist there are “definitely possibilities” of forging lucrative ties with the world’s largest economy.

Mr Thomas said: “There are always possibilities of doing deals in the US, certainly around digitalisation and services. We’ve got a lot to offer and a lot of areas where we could work on, so there are definitely possibilities. We’ll have to see how those play out over time. But it’s in the US’s interests as well as the UK’s interests for us to work together.”

Government insiders suggest the Labour leader has already raised trade issues with Mr Trump, who in turn has hinted a deal can be “worked out” while claiming he and Sir Keir are “getting along very well”. Washington sources believe a partial agreement could be achieved within months, particularly if negotiations focus on technology, digital trade and services — the areas seen as most promising for UK exporters.

Britain’s bid to secure a comprehensive pact has faltered in the past, derailed by disputes over agricultural standards relating to chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef. An attempt to sign a full free trade deal with Mr Trump during his first term stalled once Joe Biden took office, prompting UK ministers to explore more limited arrangements.

Digital services are seen as a gateway for growth, with the US already the UK’s single largest trading partner. British exports to America hit £182.6bn in the year to November, with services accounting for 69pc, underscoring the potential for a tech-focused deal. The digital trade agreement the UK signed with Singapore in 2022 is touted as a possible blueprint: it streamlined regulations for professional and financial services, law firms, banks and tech companies.

However, the UK’s digital services tax – which raises nearly £700m by targeting revenue generated by companies like Google and Meta – will likely prove a sticking point. Mr Trump and technology magnate Elon Musk have both voiced their opposition to the levy. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to review the tax in the event of a trade breakthrough.

Meanwhile, Sir Keir has established a “mini-Cabinet” tasked with persuading Mr Trump to reach a favourable arrangement, in line with growing optimism among senior Labour figures that a pragmatic, sector-based pact stands a stronger chance of success than a full-blown deal. Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington would also, the Government believes, bolster Britain’s advantage through his extensive trade background.

Despite the push for closer ties with the US, Mr Thomas cautioned that the UK should not have to choose between Washington and Brussels if new trade wars flare up. “We should essentially choose both. There are things we could do to improve the trading relationship with the EU, which we should crack on with,” he added.

Industry experts concur that services exports, boosted by digital channels such as websites, apps and cloud computing, offer a significant opportunity for British growth. HSBC’s head of global trade solutions, Stephanie Betant, said: “Services really are an opportunity for the UK. It’s a big services economy but it exports less services than it produces. What we also know is that in global trade, services are growing faster than goods, so it’s a growing opportunity.”

The UK is the world’s second-largest services exporter, and since leaving the EU, its services exports have thrived while goods trade has lagged behind comparable nations. Ministers now hope a fresh diplomatic drive could deliver a modern digital services agreement with the US, revitalising Britain’s international trade prospects despite the ever-present risk of tariff flare-ups on both sides of the Atlantic.

Read more:
Starmer targets digital trade deal with Trump as ministers plot US pact

Plans to roll out ten additional banking hubs across the North East and Cumbria have been unveiled, in a bid to support customers and businesses left behind by widespread branch closures.

The proposed sites include Barnard Castle in County Durham, Cockermouth in Cumbria, and Whitley Bay in North Tyneside.

Operated by the Post Office and supported by major banks, each hub offers essential services such as cash withdrawals, bill payments and deposits, alongside scheduled days when high street bank representatives are on-site to handle more complex transactions.

Retired engineering director Phil Dunn, who regularly uses the banking hub in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, said it caters to “most” of his financial needs. “You can’t do everything in the banking hub, but you can do most things,” he noted. “If we need to do anything greater, we go to the main branch in Darlington, but generally nine times out of ten we can do it here.”

Research from consumer group Which? indicates that 212 bank branches have closed in the North East since 2015. Link, the national body responsible for identifying hub locations, reports that five million people in the UK still rely on cash “day in, day out,” with many using it to manage household budgets. Factors such as local deprivation levels and an older demographic are key considerations when deciding where to establish new hubs.

Alongside the Newton Aycliffe site, hubs in Maryport and Ulverston (Cumbria) and a temporary site in Ferryhill (County Durham) have already opened. Another ten are planned, including hubs in Alnwick and Amble (Northumberland), and Crook and Stanley (County Durham).

Banking hub director, Paul Culverwell, said that although online services have grown, face-to-face advice is still vital: “A lot of people really appreciate having a person in front of them to talk over concerns like mortgages and complex financial queries.”

Read more:
Banks pledge more hubs to meet community cash needs

Nissan appears ready to pull out of talks over a planned merger with Honda, valued at £46 billion, amid mounting tensions and a desire to find a better-suited ally for its push into electric vehicles (EVs).

The two Japanese carmakers announced in December they were exploring a tie-up alongside Mitsubishi to form the world’s third-largest automotive group by annual sales, but negotiations have stalled.

According to an individual with knowledge of Nissan’s strategy, the company is now pursuing alternative partners. This search could extend beyond traditional automotive groups, with Taiwan’s Hon Hai Precision Industry — better known as Foxconn — mooted as a potential candidate. Some Nissan board members reportedly view Foxconn favourably; however, sources suggest a US tech partner may ultimately be preferred.

A Honda–Nissan merger was originally seen as a response to intensifying competition in EV technology, particularly from Chinese manufacturers. Yet multiple obstacles, including the perceived imbalance between Japan’s second- and third-largest carmakers, appear insurmountable. Honda remains five times larger by market value, while Nissan has been battling turmoil, falling profits, and the legacy of offering hefty discounts in its key North American market.

Analysts say Nissan’s poor performance undermines its bargaining power. Todd Duvick, head of autos research at rating agency CreditSights, notes that if Honda were to acquire rather than merge, cost-cutting could lead to steep job losses, particularly among Nissan’s senior ranks. Such a takeover would also restrict the scope for Nissan’s existing shareholders to benefit from any turnaround.

Another complicating factor is the shareholding held by Renault, a hangover from the previously triumphant Renault–Nissan–Mitsubishi alliance headed by Carlos Ghosn before his dramatic arrest and subsequent flight to Lebanon. Nissan’s prolonged leadership struggles have exacerbated financial woes, prompting chief executive Makoto Uchida to plan 9,000 global job cuts as part of a restructuring drive.

Both Honda and Nissan will release their respective earnings on 13 February. Honda acknowledges “various discussions” are under way and expects to confirm or clarify plans by mid-February. Nissan has so far declined to comment.

Read more:
Nissan looks set to abandon Honda merger as search for EV partner accelerates

Riverford, the employee-owned organic vegetable box company, will reward its workforce with a £1.3 million profit share after seeing pre-tax profits more than double to £5.3 million.

With sales climbing 11 per cent to £110 million for the year to 4 May 2024, each of the 1,000-plus staff stands to receive about £1,000, up from a total payout of £500,000 last year.

Founded in Devon in the late 1980s by Guy Singh-Watson, Riverford initially supplied vegetables to supermarkets before delivering produce to about 30 households from an old Citroën van in 1993. Today, the company competes with the likes of Abel & Cole and Oddbox, delivering more than 70,000 boxes during peak periods and priding itself on ethical practices—staff receive at least the real living wage and take part in business decision-making.

Riverford attributes the improved financial performance to loyal customers spending more, with prices rising by an average of 5.6 per cent in mid-2023 amid higher energy, fertiliser and labour costs. Despite growing competition from supermarkets, the business managed a “period of stabilisation” after the pandemic’s online-shopping boom subsided.

Lucinda Turner, Riverford’s commercial director, said increased profits reflect “more people choosing quality, organic food, seasonal eating, and fairness to farmers.” She added that the company tried to shield core items from price hikes “to keep organic food as accessible as possible,” even as a 10 per cent increase in the real living wage lifted labour costs by £2.7 million.

Having become majority employee-owned in 2018, Riverford completed the transition last year when Singh-Watson sold his remaining 20 per cent stake for £8.5 million. The company’s workforce, now standing at 1,023, is sharing in the larger profit payout under Riverford’s staff-ownership ethos.

Looking ahead, the firm continues to invest in sustainability by expanding its solar power capacity to over 1 megawatt across several sites, increasing its fleet of electric delivery vans and planting 10,000 trees. Turner expects these steps to bolster Riverford’s credentials as it contends with rising competition in the organic and ethical food sector.

Read more:
Riverford rewards staff with £1.3m windfall as organic veg box profits surge