Month: July 2025

Amazon’s use of warehouse robots has surged to more than one million, putting them on par with the number of human workers and signalling a pivotal shift in the ecommerce giant’s operations towards AI-driven automation.
The milestone, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, marks a turning point in Amazon’s warehouse operations, where automation now supports roughly three-quarters of all deliveries. The company has long emphasised that its robots work “alongside humans”, helping to reduce physical strain by taking on repetitive tasks such as lifting and sorting heavy packages.
Amazon says the expansion of robotics will not eliminate jobs but instead shift demand towards more technical roles. The company plans to increase hiring for technicians and maintenance staff to service its growing fleet of robots.
“Robots in our fulfilment centres are designed to assist, not replace,” said an Amazon spokesperson. “They make the workplace safer and more efficient, enabling our employees to focus on more engaging and less physically demanding tasks.”
However, Amazon’s march towards automation is not limited to its warehouses. Chief executive Andy Jassy signalled in June that the company’s corporate workforce is also set to shrink due to AI, saying: “We will need fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today, and more people doing other types of jobs … in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company.”
The technology powering Amazon’s robotic surge is evolving quickly. The company announced on Monday that its latest AI-driven software has increased robot speeds by 10 per cent. One of its newest models, Vulcan—unveiled in May—is Amazon’s first robot with a “sense of touch,” which helps it handle inventory more precisely.
Despite the acceleration in automation, Amazon continues to expand its physical footprint and employee base in the UK. It has pledged to invest £40 billion in the UK over the next three years, including the opening of four new fulfilment centres, each expected to create up to 2,000 jobs. It currently employs more than 75,000 people across the country.
Part of this expansion includes the introduction of drone deliveries, which are expected to begin in Darlington. Amazon says that while these newer sites may have smaller employee footprints due to their increased automation, they are crucial for delivering orders with greater speed and efficiency.
“As we’ve hired hundreds of thousands of new employees over the past decade, we’ve also expanded into new types of sites — like sub-same-day fulfilment centres and delivery stations — which have smaller employee footprints and help us deliver with greater speed,” said the company.
The balancing act between automation and employment remains a subject of global interest. While Amazon maintains that robotics will create new opportunities in technical and engineering roles, it faces increasing scrutiny over the broader implications of AI adoption—particularly on job security, workplace conditions, and the future shape of its workforce.
Read more:
Amazon’s robots on verge of outnumbering human warehouse staff as AI ramps up

Santander has announced a £2.65 billion all-cash deal to acquire TSB from Spanish rival Sabadell, marking another significant move in the wave of UK banking consolidation.
The takeover, which is expected to complete in the first quarter of 2026 subject to regulatory approval, will see Santander absorb TSB’s five-million-strong customer base and expand its UK footprint further.
The acquisition price comfortably exceeds the £1.7 billion that Sabadell paid to acquire TSB in 2015, and comes amid mounting pressure on Sabadell as it attempts to fend off an €11 billion hostile takeover bid from Spanish heavyweight BBVA.
Sabadell confirmed the deal on Wednesday, just a week after acknowledging that it had received expressions of interest for TSB. Barclays was among the formal bidders, but Santander ultimately secured the agreement.
In a statement, Banco Sabadell said the sale would unlock value and allow it to propose a special dividend of €0.50 per share—around €2.5 billion—at a shareholder meeting scheduled for next month. The deal was first reported by Spanish business daily Expansión.
The move reinforces Santander’s long-term commitment to the UK market. Dame Ana Botín, executive chairman of Banco Santander, said: “The acquisition of TSB represents a continuing strategic commitment to our customers in the UK. It strengthens our franchise in a core market through the acquisition of a low-risk and complementary business that adds to our diversification.”
TSB CEO Marc Armengol welcomed the news, stating: “TSB is a UK success story, providing excellent service to more than five million customers. This announcement marks the beginning of a new chapter as part of a major group like Santander.”
The deal will bring together two sizable mid-tier UK retail banking operations. TSB had total assets of £46.1 billion at the end of 2023, with £36.3 billion in loans and £35.1 billion in deposits. Santander UK is already a significant player in the sector and is expected to gain considerable economies of scale from the merger.
The acquisition also continues the momentum of consolidation in UK banking, following Nationwide’s £2.9 billion acquisition of Virgin Money UK, Coventry Building Society’s £780 million takeover of the Co-operative Bank, and NatWest’s and Barclays’ recent purchases of banking arms from Sainsbury’s and Tesco, respectively.
Despite interest from NatWest and Barclays in its own UK retail operations last year, Santander had rejected those bids due to disagreements on valuation. The decision to grow instead via acquisition of TSB signals confidence in its UK strategy.
TSB, which traces its heritage back to 1810, was formerly part of Lloyds Banking Group before being spun off and floated in 2014 as a condition of Lloyds’ government bailout during the financial crisis. It was later snapped up by Sabadell.
The Santander-TSB deal is expected to receive close regulatory scrutiny but is seen as a natural fit by industry analysts. With Sabadell refocusing on its domestic market and Santander doubling down on UK expansion, the transaction could reshape the UK retail banking landscape further as the sector continues to consolidate.
Read more:
Santander agrees £2.65bn deal to buy TSB from Sabadell

Let me start with this: most bias isn’t loud. It doesn’t storm into the room or make a scene. It’s subtle. It hides behind compliments, casual comments, and unspoken assumptions. And that’s exactly why we need to prioritise talking about it. In today’s workplaces, many of us genuinely want to be inclusive. We pride ourselves on being
self-aware, open-minded, and fair. But bias isn’t always about conscious discrimination. More often, it shows up in the small things — in who we make eye contact with, who we defer to in conversation, or whose ideas we quietly overlook.
Bias doesn’t just live in hiring practices or performance reviews — it creeps into how we speak to each other, who we trust, and who we assume holds the authority in the room. And even when it’s unintentional, it’s no less powerful. In fact, that’s what makes it so difficult to address.
These small moments shape workplace culture. They influence how people feel — whether they feel heard, respected, and seen. And they have real consequences. Over time, they impact who gets invited to the table, who feels comfortable speaking up, and ultimately, who progresses.
What makes this even more complicated is how hard it can be to call out. When bias is subtle or unconscious, raising it can feel awkward or even risky. You’re often left wondering if you’re being too sensitive, or worse, made to feel like the problem for pointing it out.
I’ve experienced it firsthand. I’ve been in business conversations where I was leading the discussion — until my husband joined me. Suddenly, the conversation shifted toward him, as if the authority had walked in with him. I’ve had visitors to my company assume someone else — usually male — must be the owner. These aren’t isolated incidents. And I know many others, across genders, ages, and backgrounds, have similar stories.
Unintentional bias doesn’t discriminate. It affects women, yes. But it also affects younger professionals who are spoken down to, older colleagues who are overlooked for being “outdated,” introverts mistaken for lacking confidence, and people from diverse ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds whose voices may not fit the dominant culture of the room. It doesn’t always come from malice. Often, it comes from familiarity, habit, or a lack of exposure to difference.
Sometimes the bias shows up in meetings — where the same voices are heard over and over, while others remain on the margins. Sometimes it shows up in casual conversation — when assumptions are made about someone’s role, capability, or priorities. And sometimes, it’s in who we turn to for validation, feedback, or final decisions.
The challenge with these forms of bias is that they can feel so ordinary. They’re not big enough to warrant a complaint, but they chip away at people’s sense of belonging. When you experience these moments repeatedly, they become exhausting. You start to anticipate beingoverlooked, dismissed, or misunderstood. And that anticipation can hold people back from contributing, taking risks, or even staying in a role long-term.
So, what can we do?
First, we can listen more carefully. Not just to what’s being said, but to who is saying it — and who isn’t being heard. We can be aware of patterns: are certain people regularly interrupted?
Are some ideas dismissed until repeated by someone more senior or familiar? Second, we can challenge our own assumptions. Before making a judgement about someone’s ability or credibility, ask yourself: am I basing this on evidence, or on a stereotype I haven’t questioned? Am I hearing this person clearly, or filtering their voice through a bias I didn’t realise I had?
Third, we can be more intentional about inclusion. That means actively inviting quieter voices into conversations, giving credit where it’s due, and making space for different communication styles. It also means acknowledging when we get it wrong — and being open to feedback without defensiveness.
And finally, we can keep the conversation going. It’s easy to treat bias as a box to tick or a workshop to attend. But real inclusion is a daily practice. It’s built in every meeting, every interaction, every decision.
These efforts don’t have to be perfect to be meaningful. Sometimes it’s just about pausing before reacting. If someone raises a concern, instead of getting defensive, we can respond with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about what you noticed?” That small shift — from defensiveness to dialogue — can make all the difference.
It’s also helpful to understand that addressing bias doesn’t mean pointing fingers. It’s not about blame. It’s about learning. We all have blind spots. We’ve all absorbed messages, assumptions, or social cues that we didn’t even realise were shaping our thinking. The goal isn’t to be flawless — it’s to be willing to reflect and grow.
Leaders in particular have a crucial role to play. The way they handle feedback, distribute opportunities, and model inclusive behaviour sets the tone for the whole team. But you don’t have to be a manager to make a difference. Every one of us contributes to the culture we work in. Inclusion is everyone’s responsibility. Creating a more inclusive workplace doesn’t require sweeping reforms or complex HR
initiatives. It begins with awareness. With slowing down, paying attention, and having the humility to admit we all have blind spots. It’s in how we speak, who we notice, and whether we’re really listening.
Because when people feel seen and valued for who they truly are — not just who we assume they are — we create a workplace that works better for everyone.
Read more:
“Did You Mean That Like That?” Conversations – Recognising Unintentional Bias in Business

UK food price inflation accelerated in June as soaring temperatures and extreme weather hit fruit and vegetable harvests, pushing up prices at supermarket tills.
New figures from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) show annual food price inflation climbed to 3.7% in June, up from 2.8% in May. This marks the first overall rise in shop price inflation in nearly a year, as consumers continue to feel the squeeze from climate-related crop disruptions and wider cost pressures.
Retailers have directly linked the increase to hot, dry weather reducing crop yields, in a sign that the climate crisis is beginning to exert a more visible and lasting impact on UK food prices.
Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the BRC, said: “We predicted a significant rise in food inflation by the end of this year, and this has been accelerated by geopolitical tensions and the impacts of climate change. Retailers have warned of higher prices for consumers since last year’s autumn budget and the huge rises to employer national insurance costs and the national living wage.”
The steepest increases in wholesale prices were seen in seasonal fruits, with gooseberries up 243% annually, blackberries up 25%, raspberries up 15%, and apples and strawberries up 7% and 3% respectively.
Volatile and extreme weather patterns are becoming increasingly costly for UK farmers. In addition to the effects of drought and high heat, wet weather during key planting seasons caused almost £1.2 billion in crop losses last year, according to industry estimates.
The impact of climate breakdown is now being felt globally, with poor harvests and geopolitical conflicts affecting supply chains and commodity prices. Earlier this year, high global temperatures led to a spike in chocolate prices as cacao crops in West Africa suffered, while coffee prices surged due to adverse weather in Brazil and Vietnam.
In the UK, the latest rise in food prices comes on top of significant business cost pressures. Retailers have repeatedly warned that recent fiscal policy decisions are forcing their hand on pricing. Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget introduced a £25 billion increase in employer national insurance contributions and a 6.7% rise in the national living wage from April.
Mike Watkins, head of retailer and business insight at NielsenIQ, which helps compile the BRC’s monthly figures, noted that weather and wider supply chain changes were contributing to inflation. “While the current spell of good weather is helping to boost demand at many retailers, rising prices could become a concern if consumer willingness to spend declines later in the year,” he said. “Which means we can expect retailers to reinforce their value-for-money messages over the summer.”
Total shop price inflation, which includes non-food items, rose to 0.4% in June, up from a slight deflation of -0.1% in May. Analysts expect retailers to continue balancing price pressures with consumer demand, particularly as economic uncertainty and environmental volatility persist.
Read more:
UK food prices rise as hot weather slashes harvest yields, say retailers

Tech companies including Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir proposed a range of futuristic—and controversial—ideas for managing UK offenders at a closed-door meeting with the justice secretary, it has emerged.
According to minutes seen by The Guardian, representatives from over two dozen technology firms met with Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Prisons Minister James Timpson in London last month. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is seeking “innovative” ways to address the crisis of overcrowded prisons and stretched probation services. One radical idea raised was the use of subcutaneous implants to track offenders in real time.
Other suggestions included using robots to manage prisoners, AI-powered rehabilitation assistants, and autonomous vehicles to transport inmates. Ministers framed the discussion as exploring what a “digital, data and technology-enabled justice system” might look like by 2050.
Mahmood reportedly told companies she wants “deeper collaboration between government and tech to solve the prison capacity crisis” and “scale and improve” offender tagging technologies to promote rehabilitation. The MoJ later said the session was intended to foster dialogue and not policy-setting.
Tech firms also floated the use of high-powered quantum computers to predict future criminal behaviour and automate sentencing calculations within the strained probation service. However, some at the meeting warned of “dystopian outcomes” if such tools were misapplied.
The meeting, hosted by the tech lobby group Tech UK, included representatives from IBM, Serco and tagging and biometric firms alongside major Silicon Valley players. Another session, dubbed an “innovation den”, is planned this week, where ministers will hear 20-minute pitches from technology companies.
Human rights groups expressed alarm at the proposals. “It is chilling to know that justice ministers have sat with the tech sector to discuss using robots to manage prisoners, implanting devices under people’s skin to track their behaviour, or using computers to ‘predict’ what they will do in future,” said Donald Campbell, director of advocacy at Foxglove, the non-profit that uncovered the meeting through a Freedom of Information request.
He added: “The idea that tech companies can produce tools to ‘predict’ crime has been discredited time and again – it is disappointing to see the MoJ so willing to listen.”
Mahmood has previously expressed openness to biometric surveillance tools, including gait recognition, which analyses people’s movement patterns to anticipate behaviour.
An MoJ spokesperson said: “As the public would rightly expect, we continue to explore technology that will help us cut crime, effectively monitor offenders and keep the public safe.”
Tech UK defended the initiative, saying it was part of efforts to “create a fairer, better and more effective justice system” and stressed that “transparency, accountability and public trust” must underpin any future use of technology.
Major tech companies involved—including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and Palantir—declined to comment on their involvement. Serco, which also attended the meeting, said: “We will not be commenting on this activity.”
Read more:
Tech giants propose under-skin tracking and AI policing in radical justice overhaul

The ninth day of the ongoing High Court trial between PPE Medpro and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) turned attention to the government’s handling of surplus PPE stock—specifically, why no effort was made to repurpose or sell the £122 million-worth of gowns supplied by PPE Medpro.
Two expert witnesses, Andrew New for the DHSC and Igor Popovic for PPE Medpro, gave conflicting views on what could—and should—have been done with the gowns once delivered.
Andrew New, chief executive of Supply Chain Coordination Limited (SCCL), the body tasked with managing PPE distribution during the pandemic, confirmed that by December 2020, the UK government held an excess of approximately 500 weeks’—or nearly 10 years’—worth of surgical gowns.
“That is correct,” New admitted, when asked whether the stockpile reached half a millennium of weekly demand.
Despite this oversupply, New confirmed that no effort had been made to repurpose or resell the PPE Medpro gowns, which were delivered to government agents in 2020. He argued that repackaging and relabelling would have been impractical and uneconomic, given the broader logistical challenges faced during the pandemic.
“It’s not just a question of would you pay the money,” he said. “Would you divert management attention to that activity whilst managing other complex tasks?”
Pressed further by PPE Medpro’s counsel Ashley Cukier, New conceded that any third-party buyer would require access to documentation on the product’s specifications and storage history. Yet DHSC has failed to disclose any such information in court — a core issue raised repeatedly throughout the trial.
“If I was buying the product… I would expect to be able to see those records if I needed it,” New acknowledged.
Economist and former NHS adviser Igor Popovic, appearing for PPE Medpro, laid out a very different scenario. In his expert valuation report, Popovic concluded that the gowns could have been sold on the UK market as non-sterile surgical gowns, even if they were not compliant with sterility standards.
After accounting for repackaging and relabelling costs, he estimated the net resale value at £85.8 million.
“Subtracting the cost of repackaging and relabelling (£16,250,130)… I arrive at the net value point estimate in this scenario of £85,816,820,” his report stated.
Popovic also criticised the government for waiting until 2022 to begin selling off excess PPE, by which point prices and demand had plummeted. He noted that earlier resale attempts—during periods of higher demand—could have recouped significantly more taxpayer money.
“It is not clear to me why the Claimant only began selling off excess stock… in 2022,” he wrote. “When the demand and price for PPE were significantly reduced, rather than at a time of high demand.”
The testimony builds on PPE Medpro’s broader argument that the DHSC failed to mitigate its own losses. Despite rejecting the gowns, the government made no attempt to assess their usability in non-sterile settings, explore resale options, or retrieve documentation to facilitate any onward use — all actions that might have reduced the alleged financial exposure.
That failure, PPE Medpro contends, not only undermines the government’s breach of contract claim but also points to a wider pattern of poor inventory management and missed opportunities to recover public funds.
As the High Court trial moves into its final stages, questions around the government’s decision-making, transparency, and post-delivery handling of PPE Medpro’s gowns continue to dominate proceedings.
The central question remains: was this a breach of contract by a supplier — or a failure of oversight by the state?
Read more:
DHSC accused of wasting PPE Medpro gowns as experts reveal missed £85m resale opportunity

Barclays is back in court this week seeking to overturn a landmark Financial Ombudsman ruling concerning undisclosed commission payments in motor finance—a case that could open the floodgates to hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation claims.
The appeal comes after the bank lost a High Court challenge in December, when Mr Justice Kerr dismissed its application for judicial review and ruled against Barclays on all three grounds of its case. A costs order was also made against the bank at the time.
At the heart of the dispute is a complaint made to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) by a customer who purchased a second-hand Audi through Arnold Clark. The customer claimed they were not informed that their loan agreement with Clydesdale Financial Services, a subsidiary of Barclays, included a commission payment of nearly £1,600 to a credit broker.
The FOS upheld the complaint in 2021, stating that the commission was not clearly disclosed and therefore unfair under consumer credit rules. In response, Barclays sought a judicial review, fearing the ruling could set a precedent for widespread claims related to similar finance agreements made between 2010 and 2019.
Barclays has now returned to court, appealing Mr Justice Kerr’s decision. The appeal is being heard at the Court of Appeal over two days this week, with a judgment expected later in the year.
An analyst from RBC Capital Markets has estimated that the potential cost to Barclays could reach up to £250 million if the ruling leads to a wave of successful complaints and compensation payouts. The case is also being closely watched by other lenders, many of whom have offered similar commission-based finance arrangements.
The ongoing legal saga runs in parallel with an even bigger motor finance case that reached the Supreme Court in April. That separate case, concerning hidden commissions paid by car dealers and finance companies, could have even wider ramifications for the UK’s consumer credit industry. A ruling in favour of consumers could force lenders and motor dealers to pay out as much as £30 billion in compensation, according to some industry estimates.
In anticipation of potential losses, several high street banks and car finance companies have begun setting aside large financial provisions. Some lenders have temporarily suspended handling similar customer complaints pending the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected next month.
Adding to the controversy, HM Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case earlier this year but was rebuffed by the court in February. Government officials had raised concerns about the broader implications of a ruling against lenders, fearing it could destabilise the financial sector.
For Barclays, the latest legal challenge is part of a growing list of regulatory and reputational pressures. If the appeal is unsuccessful, it may further expose the bank—and the wider industry—to an avalanche of consumer complaints and financial liabilities tied to historic motor finance practices.
Read more:
Barclays launches appeal over motor finance commission ruling

Pottery Barn, the world’s largest digital-first and design-led sustainable home retailer, is set to enter the UK market for the first time, with an online launch planned for Autumn 2025.
The move marks a significant step in the global expansion of the iconic American brand and will bring its signature style of classic, high-quality home furnishings to British customers.
In an announcement today, Pottery Barn confirmed that its UK website will feature a curated selection of its most popular offerings, including furniture, bedding, lighting, décor, and gifting items. The collection has been carefully chosen to meet the needs and aesthetics of the UK customer, combining timeless design with functionality for modern living.
Laura Alber, President and CEO of Williams-Sonoma, Inc.—Pottery Barn’s parent company—said: “We are committed to long-term growth and expanding the reach of our brands where we see meaningful market opportunity. We believe great design and quality craftsmanship have universal appeal and we look forward to bringing Pottery Barn’s signature aesthetic to the UK.”
The UK launch will also include Pottery Barn’s complimentary design services, offering customers personalised interior styling both online and in-home. This service, already a key feature of the brand’s offering in North America, is expected to appeal to UK shoppers looking for expert guidance to create stylish, functional spaces at home.
Monica Bhargava, Pottery Barn President, said the launch has been tailored specifically for British homes and lifestyles. “Our curated assortment for the UK market celebrates Pottery Barn’s commitment to helping customers inspire great style for spaces small and large that are beautiful and functional,” she said.
“Whether furnishing a new flat, refreshing a family home, or entertaining with family and friends or thoughtful gifting, we are proud to be providing the UK market with thoughtfully designed pieces that meet the needs of modern living.”
Founded in 1949, Pottery Barn is known for its approachable luxury, sustainability-led design principles, and emphasis on quality craftsmanship. The brand has built a loyal following in the US and has expanded internationally in select markets. Its digital-first approach, combined with a focus on personalised service, positions it well to appeal to British customers looking for style, substance, and convenience when shopping for their homes.
The upcoming launch will also introduce UK shoppers to Pottery Barn’s seasonal collections and gifting ranges—just in time for autumn and winter interiors.
More details, including the official launch date and product range, will be announced closer to the launch at www.potterybarn.co.uk.
Read more:
Pottery Barn to launch in the UK in Autumn 2025, offering curated furniture and free interior design services