King's College London

The report, ‘Is working from home working?’, which cites original research by academics at King's Faculty of Social Science and Public Policy and King’s Business School, including a team of researchers at the business school’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership (GIWL), concludes that home working could support the Government’s plans to get people back into work, by enabling people to work who might not otherwise be able to do so.

The report highlights that:

• Hybrid working can be the “best of both worlds” compared to fully remote or in-person work, but only if done well;
• Not everyone can work from home and access to it is unequal, with levels higher among professionals, university graduates, and those living in London;
• Many return-to-office mandates amount to formalising hybrid working, rather than a return to full-time office attendance;
• Remote and hybrid working can help employers with recruitment and retention, but can present challenges for collaboration and management;
• Changes to flexible working requests under the Government’s Employment Rights Bill could risk “years of litigation” at employment tribunals, unless the legislation is defined clearly and effectively;
• There is no “one-size-fits all” answer to the question of working from home and productivity.

The Committee has recommended that the Government:

• Set out whether remote and hybrid working are being considered as part of existing initiatives to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions back into work;
• Promote and incentivise employer investment in management training to support effective remote and hybrid working, including by reconsidering its proposed cuts to apprenticeship programmes focused on leadership skills;
• Review the relationship between its 60% office attendance policy for civil servants and cuts to government office space;
• Avoid major further regulation or legislation on home working, but publish updated guidance to help employers;
• Implement its changes to flexible working requests under the Employment Rights Bill in a way that considers the impact on employment tribunals;
• Assign ministerial responsibility for the gathering of more detailed data on remote and hybrid working.

The report also includes additional recommendations on increasing investment in broadband, addressing the shifts in demand for transport created by hybrid working, and tackling the risks AI may pose to remote jobs in the future.

Dr Cevat Aksoy, Lecturer in Economics in the Department of Political Economy, Faculty of Social Sciences & Public Policy, who specialises in labour markets, economic inclusion, and the future of work, supported the Committee’s inquiry in his role as Policy Advisor.

The new report draws on findings from the Global Survey of Working Arrangements (G-SWA), the world’s leading cross-country survey tracking the evolution of remote work practices and their implications for workers and firms across the globe – of which Dr Aksoy is a co-founder.

Dr Cevat Aksoy said: “The report offers one of the most comprehensive assessments to date of how remote and hybrid work are reshaping the UK labour market. As Policy Adviser to the House of Lords, I worked with the Committee to evaluate expert evidence, engage with employers, unions, and researchers, and interpret new data on home-based work, productivity, and wellbeing.

Also among the King’s experts who gave oral evidence to the Committee is Professor Heejung Chung, Director of the GIWL. The GIWL, which is cited heavily throughout the report and whose work is also reflected in submissions by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and others, has conducted extensive research around remote and hybrid working.

Its work has in particular explored the impact it has on gender equality, inequitable access to remote working for BAME workers, how hybrid working can affect productivity levels, and the importance of recognising how remote working opportunities can help support people with caring responsibilities, disabilities and long-term health conditions.

Professor Heejung Chung said: "Our work has been crucial in identifying both the opportunities and risks of remote working. We have shown how it can enhance workforce participation among those previously unable to work, particularly mothers. However, our research also reveals the challenges: the blurring of work-life boundaries, career penalties due to flexibility stigma, and the exacerbation of gendered divisions of labor when mothers working from home shoulder both paid and unpaid responsibilities. We welcome the recommendation to establish a Flexible Working Task Force.

Professor Kim Hoque, Professor of Human Resource Management at King’s Business School, gave evidence to the Committee too. Professor Hoque has researched and published widely in the human resource management, employment relations and EDI fields and is co-founder of the Disability Employment Charter.

The report highlights Professor Hoque’s expertise in how to close the disability employment gap, noting the difficulties which disabled people currently face in accessing remote and hybrid working, given how few jobs are advertised on a remote and hybrid basis.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market, who chaired the Home-based Working Committee, said: “Effective management of hybrid working is key in allowing people to reap the collaborative benefits of attending the office as well as the flexibility to work from home. If it is done well, hybrid working has the potential to be the best of both worlds. However, due to under-investment in management training, the skills needed to successfully manage hybrid working are lacking. We’ve asked the Government to address this by reconsidering current cuts to relevant apprenticeship training or coming up with a suitable alternative to encourage training investment.

“The increased flexibility of remote and hybrid working can be especially beneficial to people with disabilities and to parents or carers, and may help them to work where they couldn’t previously. If the Government wants to encourage more people back into work, then it should look into the potential of remote and hybrid working alongside existing back to work initiatives.”