Singling out Sainsbury’s over the living wage may not be that pragmatic

theguardian.com:

That’s part one of Sainsbury’s interesting week out of the way: a trading update that showed a drop in sales amid the squeeze on consumers’ budgets but, critically, also contained a prediction that profits for the financial year will arrive within the previously advertised range of between £630m and £690m. Part two should be more lively because Thursday’s annual meeting will consider, in a roundabout way, how the spoils should be divided fairly.

The campaign group ShareAction has tabled a special resolution that would force Sainsbury’s, against the will of its board, to become an accredited “real living wage” employer. Half the companies in the FTSE 100 index are members of the Living Wage Foundation, which sets voluntary rates above legal minimums. Why can’t an upright supermarket chain that boasts about wanting to “make a difference to our colleagues and communities” also sign up?

Put like that, the proposal is obviously appealing. The supermarket sector is almost the definition of a defensive, stable and profitable core of the economy. It ought to be able to commit to set minimum pay permanently at standards that relate to the real cost of living. In a year in which low-earning supermarket workers will be worse off as a result of inflation, national insurance rises, tax threshold freezes and so on, this feels in theory like an ideal opportunity to take the oath. The campaign has picked its moment well.

It has also, unfortunately, used an instrument that is too blunt. A shareholder resolution that applies to one company – and one company only – doesn’t work in practice. Simon Roberts, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, won’t generate popular sympathy on account of his fat-cat pay packet of £3.8m last year (definitely too