Persimmon’s culture ‘must change’
Persimmon has been told to change its corporate culture, following an independent review into the controversy surrounding the quality of the housebuilder’s homes and services.
The board had commissioned an independent review in April, which gathered views from suppliers, trade bodies, local authorities, customers, employees and civil servants. It forms part of an effort to address the scandal around poor build quality, customer service and significant payouts to executives.
“Many of Persimmon’s employees, customers and stakeholders wish Persimmon to change, and in a changing regulatory environment, Persimmon cannot afford the stigma of a corporate culture which results in poor workmanship and a potentially unsafe product,” said the report.
Persimmon has been told to change its corporate culture, following an independent review into the controversy surrounding the quality of the housebuilder’s homes and services.
The board had commissioned an independent review in April, which gathered views from suppliers, trade bodies, local authorities, customers, employees and civil servants. It forms part of an effort to address the scandal around poor build quality, customer service and significant payouts to executives.
“Many of Persimmon’s employees, customers and stakeholders wish Persimmon to change, and in a changing regulatory environment, Persimmon cannot afford the stigma of a corporate culture which results in poor workmanship and a potentially unsafe product,” said the report.
It said the board needed to monitor the “cultural health” of the organisation, with metrics such as staff turnover rates, absence rates and non-mandatory training uptake rates. It also said it needed to monitor the executive team on engaging with, and delivering, the business strategy.
Other suggested measures included group-level policies to govern the build process, and consulting with a remuneration specialist.
Roger Devlin, chairman of Persimmon, said: “The review found that Persimmon had focused on policies around inspections immediately before and after the sale of a home, rather than those governing build quality inspections.
“In my view, this is one of its central findings and I am encouraged that the company is already embracing the review’s recommendations in this area through significant operational investment and procedural change.”
Devlin said the group still has “work to do”, adding: “As we focus hard on the changes that we are making, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise once again to those Persimmon customers who have been affected in the past.
“This review – and the seriousness that we attach to its detailed findings – is an important moment for Persimmon as we continue to build a different business with an increased focus on our customers and wider stakeholders – becoming a business that prioritises purpose as well as profit.”
Stephanie Barwise QC of Atkin Chambers, and the leader of the review, said: “It is encouraging that during the period of review as we shared initial findings that the company began to take various steps to respond to certain issues.”
To send feedback, e-mail pui-guan.man@egi.co.uk or tweet @PuiGuanM or @estatesgazette
