ben

Diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) has not disappeared from organisational agendas, but it is under pressure. It feels more fragile, more contested, and harder to sustain than it did a few years ago.

In my recent webinar presentation to the IPA Employee Voice Hub, I framed the discussion around three questions:

• What is driving inclusion and fairness in organisations right now?
• How are current labour market challenges strengthening or complicating the case for DEI?
• And what would make DEI feel like core business, rather than an additional demand on resources?

The answers we arrived at in discussion with webinar participants were not straightforward.

What is really driving DEI now?

Our research at the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) shows that employer action on DEI is driven by a combination of environmental and operational factors. These include regulatory compliance expectations, access to niche markets, competition for diverse talent pools, productivity and innovation, maintaining brand reputation and legitimacy as an inclusive employer, and organisational values of equity and fairness.

But when we ask organisations what enables DEI to stay on the agenda, responses resoundingly point toward senior leadership commitment, compliance requirements, and the presence of committed internal champions. Workforce dynamics, particularly recruitment and retention pressures, also play a central role.

Ultimately, DEI persists not just because it is the “right thing to do” but because it is a core business concern. However, this connection is often implicit rather than explicit, and therefore vulnerable when pressures mount.

Why progressing DEI feels harder right now

Organisations today are trying to sustain DEI in a more challenging context. Economic pressures, geopolitical uncertainty and rising costs are driving a focus on short‑term performance, while constrained budgets limit investment. At the same time, talent shortages mean inclusion remains important but harder to prioritise. Meanwhile, wider shifts – such as the growth of AI and automation, changing expectations of work, and eroding employee trust – raise new questions about fairness and equity.

Against this backdrop, DEI can start to feel like an “additional” demand – something that competes for scarce attention and resources – rather than something embedded in how organisations operate.

What helps or gets in the way

If DEI is to be sustained in this challenging environment, we need to move beyond good intentions to core principles and effective processes. Our research highlights a familiar but still important set of enablers and barriers.

On the enabling side, culture and values matter, but they are not enough on their own. Leadership commitment, capable and confident line managers, active staff networks, and strong HR infrastructure (including workforce data) all play critical roles. Learning, development and collaboration support progress.

On the barriers side, the picture is equally clear: lack of resources and capacity, limited data and insight, and crucially, a lack of shared understanding of what DEI really means in practice. Unconscious bias and entrenched norms continue to shape everyday decisions. In some organisations, weak leadership engagement, a lack of role modelling, or a fear of self-disclosure among employees further undermine progress.

Moving from rhetoric to sustainability

In the webinar, I outlined a “back‑to‑basics” blueprint centred on three shifts HR and DEI champions can make.

1. From visibility to value

DEI efforts are often highly visible, but not always clearly connected to business outcomes. To sustain investment, organisations need to rebuild the business case in more concrete terms. This means reframing DEI in relation to issues leaders already care about: access to wider talent pools, retention of scarce skills, management capability, decision‑making quality, and the reduction of legal, operational and reputational risks.

It also requires better use of workforce data and diagnostics to identify where inclusion failures are creating inefficiencies. Rather than relying on abstract benchmarks, organisations need their own evidence of where DEI adds value.

2. Depth beats breadth

Sustainable change comes from understanding where inequality is actually being reproduced within the organisational system, and then focusing effort there. This requires a whole‑system perspective.

At IES, we have developed a Policy–Process–Practice (PPP) diagnostic framework that helps organisations take stock of where they are: policies set intent, processes operationalise fairness, but everyday practices and behaviours ultimately determine lived experience. Policies alone are not sufficient without robust processes and effective everyday practices.

Fewer interventions, implemented thoroughly and consistently, are likely to have more impact than a wide array of disconnected diversity initiatives.

3. Context is everything

There is no silver bullet for DEI that works for everyone. Sustainable approaches must be grounded in local organisational contexts – employee voice and lived experience, the realities of the relevant labour market, and the organisation’s specific strategic objectives.

It also means being alert to evolving practice on language particularly in contested environments. Investing in line manager confidence and capability is another key lever to improve governance, accountability and engagement over sensitive issues.

A final reflection

Ultimately, the question is not whether organisations are “doing DEI”, but whether they are focusing their attention in the places that actually matter. This requires that leaders go back to basics: listen to employees, use good data, and focus on the fundamentals that shape day‑to‑day inclusive practice. In a more constrained and uncertain environment, sustaining DEI will depend less on rhetoric and more on making deliberate, strategic choices.

Dr Meenakshi Krishnan, Principal Research Fellow, IES

June 2026

‘Change’ was the slogan of the Labour Party election campaign. The Employment Rights Act – passed in December 2025 – represents a real sea-change for employment relations and rights.  Within that Act, two comparatively small provisions denote a significant shift in how pay, terms and conditions will be set, by establishing the first statutory collective pay bargaining mechanisms in England since wage councils were abolished in the 1990s.

The Government aims to modernise the UK’s employment rights framework – to ‘rebalance’ the relationship between worker and employer. The introduction of two new sectoral bargaining bodies – for school support staff (SSS) and adult social care workers (ASC) – creates a new model of statutory collective bargaining.  The Government has indicated that further sectoral bargaining could follow if the approach taken in ASC is successful.

A new model of collective bargaining

For the last century and more, collective bargaining has been the term applied to the mechanisms that involve unions and employers reaching agreements between themselves on pay, terms and conditions. These agreements – known as collective agreements – are then incorporated into individual employees’ employment contracts.  We might call that ‘pure’ collective bargaining, and the new arrangements proposed for ASC workers and schools support staff qualify that approach in one significant respect.

This new form of collective bargaining in the new Adult Social Care Negotiating Body (ASCNB) and School Support Staff Negotiating Body (SSSNB) will still bring together the two sides, represented by trade unions and employer associations (like the LGA). However, a collective agreement will not be reached when the two sides agree, instead the agreements will require ratification by the relevant Secretary of State (for Health and Social Care or Education respectively) before becoming incorporated into the employment contracts of over one million workers who are covered by these bodies.

There will also be a government-appointed independent chair, and representatives of the relevant Secretary of State, in attendance when the Bodies meet. Critically, government will play a direct role by issuing a remit letter that sets the parameters for negotiations, contrasting with the ‘pure’ bargaining model where the trade unions’ issue a claim and the employers decide on their response. In the former model, the unions and employers set the parameters of any agreement, in this new model, the Government will do that.

Once the remit letter is issued, it will then be up to the two sides to negotiate and, hopefully, reach an agreement which will then go back to the Secretary of State for ratification. If ratified, this agreement – known as the Fair Pay Agreement (FPA) in the case of adult social care staff – will become statutory and provide new minimum rates of pay (or terms and conditions) for those workers within scope of the negotiation body.

Employers whose staff are in scope of the ASCNB and SSSNB are not able to opt-out of implementing agreements ratified by the Secretary of State although they can exceed the provisions agreed (just like employers can exceed provisions in the Local Government ‘Green Book’).

Adults social care ambition 

It has long been understood, and is well documented, that the adult social care workforce faces multiple problems, not least among them is low pay. For many years the majority of adult social care workers have effectively had their wages determined by the national living wage.

Everyone wants to have skilled, motivated, well trained and fairly remunerated workers delivering care that enables people to live with dignity. However, the latest annual Skills for Care workforce report shows us that care worker pay is still amongst the lowest in the economy and there are over one million workers delivering adult social care so any moves to improve pay are going to come with a significant price tag.

There is an ambition, widely shared, that addressing the working conditions, including pay and training, of ASC workers is key to meeting the increasing challenges of social care provision. The first FPA will, in some form, affect these million-plus adult social care workers, many of whom have never previously had their pay determined through collective negotiation.

One key challenge for the Government as it works through the detailed implementation of this policy, is how the Care Act responsibilities and delivery commitments of local government can continue to be met.  As presented, there is no place for local government’s role in ASC provision within the design of the negotiating body.  It is also not clear how the Government will ensure that any FPA doesn’t frustrate local government’s social care responsibilities, or how it will ensure that the total cost of FPA implementation is within the funding envelope if local government doesn’t have an appropriate place in the process.

There’s a lot riding on the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body and fair pay agreement, not just as an individual policy but as a factor in Casey Commission reforms, the NHS 10 Year Plan and, fundamentally, local government’s ability to manage the provision of ASC.

A new approach for school support staff 

There are over half a million school support staff working in maintained (local authority) and academy trust schools and most already have their pay awards set by collective bargaining through the National Joint Council (NJC) for Local Government Services (or ‘Green Book’) negotiations. Alongside councils’ use of job evaluation schemes, this system means that non-teaching school staff are paid in line with colleagues working for other parts of the council helping to ensure fairness and compliance with equal pay legislation.

The new SSSNB will take hundreds of thousands of support staff out of this existing form of national collective bargaining. They will then move into the new negotiating body that will be tasked with establishing fair rates of pay, national terms and conditions, training and career progression routes across the schools workforce, whether employed by local government or multi-academy trusts.  The existing approach taken for teachers – collective bargaining for terms and conditions but with pay set through a Pay Review Body process – is not directly affected by the SSSNB re-introduction.

Making sectoral bargaining work

Hopes and expectations of both the ASCNB and the SSSNB are high. The scale of investment required – financial and skills – should not be underestimated.  On both counts, and for both bodies, there are increasing concerns in the sector.  If the correct provisions aren’t made for these bodies and preparation is inadequate, these approaches to sectoral bargaining could be seriously flawed.

As described above, both are dependent on a Secretary of State remit and, crucially, the funding envelope provided by the government. The initial figure of £500 million that has been announced for the first ASC fair pay agreement in 2028/29, may leave many disappointed as to the level and pace of change that can be achieved. Councils are understandably concerned that they will not be fully funded for all the costs of implementing the agreements reached by these two bodies, putting additional pressure on already fully stretched budgets.

The LGA believes that effective collective bargaining can really deliver – for workers, employers, councils, the local economy and the public. It can help to ensure transparency and trust in pay and reward; it frees up employers from engaging in time-consuming pay negotiations on a local basis. It can also be one of the elements in delivering equality and helping employers to recruit and retain their employees. When a deal is agreed through the recognised unions it enables employees, as well as employers, to have a voice in determining their pay.

Employers and unions, as well as the Government, are investing substantial time and effort in ensuing that these new sectoral bargaining bodies work. Delivering on this will require the funding and long-term support from the Government necessary to achieve real change. Only this will ensure that disappointment is avoided and that discontent doesn’t develop into costly workplace conflict.

It is to ensure that these new forms of bargaining get off to the best start, that the LGA continues to set out that local government’s role in these new bodies is critical to delivering and embedding these new ways of determining pay.

Naomi Cooke, Head of Workforce at the Local Government Association

June 2026

Strong employee voice helps organisations make better decisions, manage change more effectively and build trust at work. To understand how this works in practice, we asked employee representatives, forum and staff council chairs, and others involved in voice arrangements to share their experiences via an online survey.

Why do people become employee reps?
Most told us they step into the role for a simple reason: to support and represent their colleagues. Many also highlighted the chance to learn new skills and contribute more widely to their organisation, underlining the shared value of effective employee voice for both individuals and employers.

More than the legal minimum
The survey also shows how employee forums are evolving. Discussions increasingly go beyond areas where consultation is legally required, such as redundancies or TUPE. Instead, employee representatives are often involved earlier, helping shape proposed changes and working with employers to co‑create new policies and approaches.

Support on the ground
Many respondents described the important day‑to‑day role that reps play, including supporting colleagues through disciplinary and grievance processes and attending formal meetings with them.

What holds people back?
While recruitment of employee representatives is generally not seen as a major issue, respondents did identify common concerns, including:

• finding enough time alongside their day job
• confidence speaking up with senior leaders
• understanding financial or commercial information
• handling complex information and communicating it clearly

Building confidence and capability
Encouragingly, many of these barriers can be addressed. Most respondents reported receiving training when they started their role, which helped them feel more confident and effective. IPA’s experience shows that training for employee representatives, alongside workshops for line managers and senior leaders, plays a key role in supporting meaningful, informed and constructive employee voice.

April 2026

To find out more about how IPA’s training can support your employee forum, contact [email protected] 

Over the past decade, online retail has expanded significantly, driving demand for fulfilment warehouses that process large volumes of small, varied orders. Given the size and growing importance of the UK e-commerce fulfilment sector, interest in exactly how work is organised within the industry – and its implications for employee involvement and participation – have grown too.

This was the starting point for our major ESRC research project that has been looking at the warehouse industry. For instance, in one particular study within the project we interviewed senior managers in 35 UK-based small and medium-sized third-party logistics fulfilment companies, looking at how labour processes were organised in the sector. The study focused on UK-owned firms operating in a market shaped by Amazon’s dominance, especially in delivery speeds and customer expectations, and asked whether smaller fulfilment firms copy Amazon’s organisational model or develop their own approaches to organising work.

Frontier of robotics?

Public and policy debates have often predicted that warehousing would become a major frontier of robotics and automation. High-profile examples of automated logistics systems, especially those linked to Amazon and Ocado, reinforced expectations among many academic and media commentators that warehouse work would soon be transformed by robots and advanced automation.

Our research however into smaller fulfilment firms showed that direct imitation of Amazon’s labour process practices firms was limited. The firms studied lacked the scale, technical infrastructure and analytical capacity to implement highly data-driven systems such as individual productivity metrics or algorithm-based performance monitoring.

Managers argued that such approaches would yield limited benefits given the variability of orders in their warehouses. Performance was instead assessed by managers through broader service-level agreements and team outputs rather than through individual metrics. Robotic automation was rare among the studied firms and its potential for adoption low. High costs, uncertain returns, building limitations and varied products made robotic systems impractical.

Instead, what we found was that smaller firms rely on warehouse management systems to arrange human worker tasks, picking routes and inventory, and that the sector is characterised by a hybrid model combining software-based coordination with flexible labour. Amazon’s influence is felt within the sector chiefly through market forces, particularly expectations for rapid delivery, rather than through the direct diffusion of its labour process practices.

Employee voice

The findings from our study into smaller fulfilment firms also showed that even though human workers remain essential to executing and adapting operational processes, highly developed employee voice systems among smaller companies were rare. Most improvements were driven by operational managers, with limited opportunities for workers to participate in decision-making. Thus, employee involvement existed but was unstructured, manager-led and improvised, lacking institutionalised mechanisms for participation.

So how can worker voice be strengthened in the warehouse industry? Another study within our ESRC project included interviews with workers and supervisors in a range of UK warehouses of different sizes (e.g., third party logistics, online retail, retail) and highlights practice recommendations that line managers and senior managers can adopt to strengthen and benefit from worker voice. The recommendations break down into two broad areas:

One: Evaluate how individual and collective channels can be combined 

The data from the second study shows some scattered examples of voice in UK warehouses. But overall, workers usually stated that they had very limited impact on organisational decision making, despite the formal and informal voice channels available. We found that combining individual voice with collective voice channels can strengthen worker voice and improve work experiences. In our sample, the voice channels available to workers were usually individual/team based direct voice channels (e.g. one on one meetings with managers, employee surveys, digital apps), with some use of collective channels such as unions and employee forums.

The new union rules in the Employment Rights Act provide an opportunity for organisations to consider how they can begin working with unions or working better with unions. In our data there were examples of collective bargaining over issues such as pay and work scheduling. In some cases, supervisors worked with trade union representatives to resolve day-to-day matters more informally and efficiently.

Two: Review the role of worker voice in performance management practices 

In the second study we found that performance management practices were adopted and regularly discussed by workers, and that performance management expectations could impact injuries, accidents, errors and turnover intentions. Yet, workers very rarely had influence over performance management practices, including how they were rewarded for meeting or exceeding expectations.

A range of performance management practices were adopted. For instance, workers could have explicit hourly targets, where digital technologies such as digital scanners or voice picking systems monitored the number of items they scanned in real-time. More informal performance management approaches were also adopted that did not rely on real-time monitoring but which were productive. Significantly, we found that involving workers in how their performance was evaluated and rewarded can help organisations ensure fairness and improve retention.

Future research

Further research is now needed into how voice practices are experienced by different groups of workers in warehousing. For example, we found that workers on non-standard employment contracts such as agency workers and temporary workers can fear the potential implications of speaking up. Meanwhile, another area that also requires further attention is the skills that senior managers and line managers in non-union organisations need to develop in order to work effectively with unions.

Dr Emma Hughes, University of Manchester

For more information about the project contact [email protected] 

March 2026

Researchers involved in the project:

Niall Cullinane is a Professor of Organisation, Work and Leadership at Queen’s University Belfast

Emma Hughes is a Senior Lecturer in Employment Studies at the University of Manchester and a member of the Work and Equalities Institute

Tony Dundon is a Professor of Human Resource Management and Employment Relations at the University of Limerick/University of Manchester and a member of the Work and Equalities Institute

Debra Howcroft is a Professor of Technology and Organisation at the University of Manchester and a member of the Work and Equalities Institute

Conor McCabe is a Research Fellow at Queen’s University Belfast

 This project was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/W009684/1).

Over the last three years, a team at Strathclyde Business School has completed a major research project on employee voice funded as part of the ESRC Transforming Working Lives programme (2022-2025).  The project brought together a team of Strathclyde researchers, as well as external partners including the IPA, CIPD, and representatives of unions, government, employers and civil society organisations.

The study asked several questions:

• Do workers feel informed about what is going on at work?
• Do they feel they have the means to express themselves?
• Can they influence decision making?
• Have new opportunities for voice emerged?
• Do workers value voice opportunities?
• What factors influence whether speak up about issues?

To help answer these questions, the research team conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with workers in west of Scotland, alongside analysis of quantitative data, including from nationally representative surveys of employees.

Conducting over 200 qualitative interviews enabled the team to develop detailed employer case studies across a range of sectors including retail, hospitality, social care, and a local authority. This allowed comparisons to be made across a range of different settings (union/non-union, large/small, public/private) and types of worker. This included managers, employee representatives and frontline workers.

Key findings included:

• Workers revealed that despite voice opportunities varying by organisation and sector – ranging from union representation and employee surveys to open door policies and informal interactions – they generally felt informed about what was going on, and also that they could make their views known.  
• A common concern, however, was that even when they were able to express themselves and felt genuinely listened to, they were less confident that their views would make a difference to some matters. This was especially apparent in relation to key employment relations issues such as pay, working conditions and job security.
• A feeling that their views would not make a difference was one of the main reasons workers gave as to why they might choose not to raise concerns or make suggestions at work (others included not wanting to cause trouble or to be seen to complain).

To test the broader generalisability of our interview findings, the team conducted a representative survey of Scottish workers. This was built on the work that the CIPD had developed (the UK Working Lives Survey, a nationally representative survey of job quality). Key findings from this analysis were:

• The majority of workers reported various voice opportunities, with direct mechanisms such as meetings and employee surveys and informal interactions with managers the most common, especially outside the public sector.
• While the majority of workers thought conversations with managers, team meetings and trade unions were effective, a minority thought employee surveys or HR were effective.
• The vast majority of respondents agreed that unions can make a difference to workers today, and most union members believed that their union is effective at representing members.
• Interestingly, a majority of workers in non-union workplaces also said they would vote for a union if an election was held tomorrow.

In short, while a combination of direct and informal voice mechanisms were present in most workplaces, and were found to be valued by employees, a large unmet demand for collective union representation remained.

The limits of direct and informal voice are also evident in our qualitative data. For example, in the largely non-union outsourced private social care sector, workers mainly expressed their views and raised issues through ad hoc phone communication with their manager or at scheduled supervision meetings.  Some employers in the sector had introduced in-house non-union employee representation forums, partly in response to the evolving regulatory agenda, but their effectiveness in addressing pressing concerns such as pay, work intensity, insecurity and working time was questioned.  

One reading of our data is that, while direct and informal channels have value, they are not well-suited to addressing the types of issues employees felt they have limited influence over, such as pay and working conditions. The appetite for union representation leads us to question the effectiveness of current voice practices, and suggests that a combination of individual and collective voice channels appears to be desired by most workers.

These findings from Scotland are important for employers committed to developing effective voice arrangements, and are particularly timely in the context of the UK Government’s Make Work Pay plan, the Employment Rights Act, and the Scottish Government’s Fair Work Agenda.  

This project was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council ES/W009951/1.

For more information about the project or findings contact [email protected] 

We all like the sound of having or giving ‘a voice’ but what do we really mean by employee voice and what might employers and HR leaders usefully aim for?

Why does employee voice matter?

To answer these questions, it helps to first reflect on why employee voice is worth pursuing. 

During my time at CIPD, one project I led was the UK Working Lives survey, developed with colleagues at Warwick University and published as the Good Work Index. We set out to give a comprehensive picture of job quality in the UK, structured around seven dimensions: pay and benefits, contracts and terms of employment, job design, workplace relationships, health and wellbeing, work–life balance, and employee voice. I still think it’s a nice framework and it’s since been adopted elsewhere.

When we first analysed the data, one question kept resurfacing: why does voice matter? Is it valuable because it drives other aspects of job quality? Or does it have intrinsic worth? Some have asked a similar question of democracy: does it matter because it improves outcomes like education or health, or simply because it matters in its own right?

Our analysis gave support for both views. Holding all other job quality factors constant, employee voice had a meaningful association with outcomes such as job satisfaction and discretionary effort. This suggests it has inherent worth irrespective of its utilitarian value. Being heard signals that we matter – not just as resources, but as humans.

But we also saw that voice also had instrumental value. It influenced other dimensions of job quality, particularly pay, contracts and the nature of work. Voice is powerful when it’s meaningful and carries the genuine possibility of influence.

What of the business benefits? (We’re often told that if there’s no business case, you’ll get no buy-in from employers. I don’t hold to that; ethics are an important driver in their own right; but it’s still an obviously important question.) There’s a plausible model here: recognise me as a human, give me some self-determination, enable me to shape my work, and I will bring more focus and drive. Voice is not a luxury. It is a foundation for healthy employment relations, motivation and commitment.

So what do we mean by “voice”?

To understand employee voice, it helps to consider what it is being contrasted with. One comparison is voice versus exit. Just as customers can complain or switch providers, employees can speak up or leave. Voice is a mechanism for improvement, whereas exit is a mechanism for escape.

Another is voice versus silence. Silence is often framed as “put up or shut up”, but it is rarely that simple. Speaking up carries risks for individuals – you’re sticking your neck out. Employee silence may be self-protection, more than apathy.

Both comparisons are useful, but they don’t really explain how voice shapes job quality. For that, a more relevant comparison is voice versus autonomy. Autonomy, also called job discretion or decision latitude, is the ability to directly shape one’s work. Voice, by contrast, is the ability to influence decisions made by others. Both are forms of influence that matter and together, they form a broader landscape of voice and choice. Sometimes the best option is to loosen managerial control and give workers more direct influence. For example, if someone wants to work in a particular way or location, does that really need managerial approval? But autonomy is not always possible. Organisations require coordination and it rarely works if individuals are all off doing their own thing. But in those cases, voice becomes essential.

Our survey analysis confirmed this contextual view. Voice had a more positive influence on terms and conditions of employment, while autonomy had greater influence on work–life balance. Different forms of influence matter in different domains.

What should organisations aim for?

A question that follows is: what should organisations try to achieve through an architecture of voice and choice?

From the employee perspective, there can be an assumption – particularly from trade unions – that more influence is always better. But organisations often need managerial control (work must be coordinated) and the power imbalance between employers and employees is a structural reality. A better aim is arguably to create a healthy employee relations climate in which high-performing teams can thrive and, at the same time, individuals and communities can thrive as humans. In adversarial contexts, where employers act in bad faith or conflicts of interest are acute, maximising employee influence may be necessary and justified – if an employer refuses to budge, employees or their reps will understandably push as hard as they can. But in contexts were employee relations are constructive, the aim should be balance, potentially even partnership. Mutual gains are not always possible, but they may be more realistic than often assumed, and when achieved, they create more resilient organisations.

For employers seeking business benefits, there’s an important caveat: you cannot pursue employee voice for this alone. It’s essential to recognise the intrinsic value of voice and its value for job quality. If voice is treated as a tool for productivity rather than a recognition of humanity, employees will see through it. The productivity benefits may be real, but they are a biproduct of genuine respect, not a substitute for it.

Employee voice is not soft – it can be hard to practise and has tangible real-world outcomes. The challenge for employers is to design systems of voice and choice that are genuine, balanced between each other and balanced with managerial control. This requires a close understanding of the demands of the job. It also needs reflection and probably starts with managers asking the question: ‘What do you need?’

Jonny Gifford

Principal Research Fellow, IES

March 2026

Why Employee Voice Matters More Now Than Ever

The past decade has been defined by volatility. From the financial crisis to Brexit, from the shock of the pandemic to the rapid acceleration of AI, disruption has become the backdrop to working life. The word unprecedented has been used so often that it has almost lost its meaning. In this environment, it has become increasingly clear that uncertainty is the new normal.

Research consistently shows that organisations with strong employee voice cultures navigate turbulence more effectively, innovate more rapidly, and build a resilience that can withstand shocks.

What the Data Tells Us

Findings from the Engage for Success (EFS) annual survey highlight the importance of voice. Drawing on data from a representative sample of the UK working population since 2022, the annual survey consistently shows that organisations with strong voice cultures are more resilient, productive, innovative, and trusted.

Across all sectors and organisational sizes, employee voice matters. It drives engagement, strengthens psychological safety, reduces risk and enhances overall performance.

Voice drives engagement

Findings highlighted a clear relationship between engagement and employee voice, especially when this involves a broad range of methods used by the organisation. Employees who had access to five or more methods of employee voice had an average Engagement Index score of 68%, compared with 57% among those who had access to only one or two channels.  An organisation that uses multiple methods to connect and listen to its employees shows that voice is not just a tick box, but vital to its organisational culture.

Voice enables better organisational decisions

Voice is strongly associated with psychological safety, discretionary effort and innovation. Employees who feel heard are more likely to stay, trust leadership, and contribute ideas that support better organisational decisions

Voice reduces risk

Where voice is weak, silence takes hold and can result in presenteeism, disengagement, and unmanageable job stress. Notably, employees with high levels of unmanageable job stress were 23% less likely to believe their organisation actively seeks employee perspectives and 24% less likely to trust leadership on ethical issues.

Importance of leadership

Findings highlight how visible leaders who listen, act, and communicate transparently create trust and it is important that this is consistent throughout the organisation. Consistently, employees rate their line managers as more responsive than senior leaders, underlining the importance of proximity, relationships and everyday communication.

Why Practice Bundles Matter

Employee voice is one of the Engage for Success Four Enablers of Engagement, alongside strategic narrative, engaging managers, and organisational integrity. Established in the MacLeod Report (2009), the annual survey has shown that the Four Enablers are as valid now as they were at the time of the original report.

In addition, the data shows that bundles of practices, rather than individual mechanisms, have the strongest impact on employee engagement and resilience. During the pandemic, organisations that used multiple voice channels saw far smaller drops in engagement than those that used the minimum required. While meetings, annual surveys, and town halls are the most common, anonymous feedback routes and focus groups have the biggest impact. Findings also show that pulse surveys, digital forums, and open dialogue platforms are underused despite their ability to surface insights quickly and inclusively. There is also a connection between engagement and collective voice, and union recognition.

Employees who experience multiple voice channels report higher psychological safety, greater trust in leadership, and stronger confidence in ethical practice. Where leaders and managers actively prioritise people issues, engagement levels reach 77% and unmanageable job stress falls to 5%. Where neither prioritises people, engagement drops to 45% and unmanageable job stress rises to 26%. This is a stark difference.

Voice, Whistleblowing and the Cost of Silence

Strong everyday voice reduces the need for whistle-blowing because concerns are raised early, before they escalate into risk.

The EFS annual survey uncovered a troubling insight. Half of managers said they had remained silent about work-related concerns for fear of negative consequences, and two-thirds believed nothing would change even if they did speak up. Silence was strongly associated with lower engagement, higher stress, and reduced willingness to contribute to ideas.

Weak voice cultures, by contrast, often result in higher instances of unreported misconduct, unresolved conflict and ethical breaches.

Employee Voice as a Driver of Organisational Health

Employee voice is not merely about communication; it is about organisational health. Frontline employees often know where processes are failing, where customers are dissatisfied, and where risks are emerging. When they feel psychologically safe to speak up early, problems can be solved before they escalate. Healthier organisations are more adaptable, more innovative, and more resilient over time.

Employee voice enhances decision-making, strengthens ethical practice, accelerates innovation, and builds resilience. In a world where uncertainty and turbulence is the norm, organisations that listen – deeply, consistently, and with intent – are those best placed to weather the storm. 

Dr Sarah Pass

Senior Lecturer HRM, Nottingham Trent University

November 2025

In recent years, traditional forms of worker participation have been eroded with a reduction in trade union influence, new hybrid working arrangements, the introduction of new technology, and changes in job design. Yet workers have higher expectations of ethical conduct and practices and are keener than ever to find their voice. At the same time, for European countries with an aging workforce demographic, keeping people in work, healthier for longer is a key challenge. The delivery of decent, fulfilling and safe work is therefore an essential focus.

From the occupational safety and health (OSH) perspective, the arguments for including the worker voice in organisational decision-making has never been stronger and resonates internationally.  In Europe the legislative model requires the development of:

• safe workplaces;
• appropriate competency;
• procurement of safe equipment; and
• implementation of safe systems of work.

The European model promotes worker consultation to achieve these goals. High quality consultation includes a regular analysis to review the identification of risk, its assessment and the adequacy of risk control. Tapping into the expertise of the worker ensures that there is an understanding of work as it is done and not work as it is imagined.

The personal and active involvement of a senior leader in this process provides authenticity and builds worker trust in the system. IOSH has identified 10 principles of OSH that govern the design of safety management systems, including prevention, commitment and collaboration. It explains to workers what systems and management approaches are needed and what they must do to contribute too.

While being legally compliant will help prevent financial loss (e.g., production interruption, sickness absence, increased insurance costs), the benefits of aiming at standards beyond compliance can include  recruiting and retaining talent, stronger employee engagement and wellbeing, improved productivity, and reputation enhancement, which together can drive profitability. A management team cannot achieve such positive benefits by sheer force of will. Goals can only be achieved through authentic leadership and a fully engaged and motivated team of workers supported with effective communication. Viewed in this way, the worker voice is fundamental to the operational performance of any organisation.

Employee wellbeing

Wellbeing is an emotional state that is different for every individual depending on their resilience. As a subset of wellness, mental health is not a binary condition but is a continuum being stretched and relaxed through the stages of healthy, coping, struggling and being unwell. Feelings of failure, rejection, loneliness or undue pressure at work cause emotional wounds that diminishes a sense of wellbeing and worker belief that their work is decent and fulfilling. Merely assessing the management standards in a stress risk assessment which doesn’t result in the effective control in operational management is inadequate.

A wellbeing system design often involves workers informing the organisation when they are feeling bad. The provision of mental health first aiders and employee assistance programmes are not preventative controls, they are recovery controls. We need to react when things are changing, not after they have occurred and illness suffered. Early intervention has challenged traditional practice and led to the adoption of a people-centred approach involving the worker voice. This is about reducing the stigmatisation around mental health by educating our managers to identify adverse change and make changes to alleviate pressure before it effects workers. Workers must be open about their feelings and involved in analysing the workplace stressors and help to identify actions to mitigate risk.

Organisations must identify the competencies and skills needed to build resilience throughout the workforce. These include mindful self-regulation, healthy habits and social integration (including how workers interact with their colleagues). These competencies overlap with leadership, management and employee development programmes. They require a cross-cutting cohesion between different organisational policies and business rules too (e.g., dignity at work, recruitment, grievance, health and safety, procurement). Project management processes must include team building and managing change considerations during the inception and planning phases, not just at the implementation stage. The principle running through all these considerations must be to use the worker voice to design out or reduce risk.

In conclusion, the worker voice is vital if the infrastructure in organisations is to be resilient and decent work is to be achieved. Decent work is a social concept, so people need to be involved in its definition in order to understand and work towards achieving it.  Some key questions for your organisation:

• Do you have worker representation?
• Do you employ work consultation groups or committees?
• Do you have an adequate means for workers to report concerns and offer solutions?
• How quickly do you follow up on worker-led reports?
• How well do you explain decisions when workers offer solutions? 

Workers make meaningful contributions when they are well-informed, feel psychologically safe, and have trust in the intentions and effectiveness of their leaders. Being able to answer these questions positively will drive a positive and inclusive culture that delivers tangible benefits for the workforce and the organisation.

Duncan Spencer CFIOSH, Head of Advice & Practice, Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

Further reading

Towards a healthy future of work: evolution or revolution

Sustainable development

OSH as a fundamental right

The road to safe and health work: principles of good occupational safety and health

The healthy profit: how investments in safety, health and wellbeing are giving businesses the edge

Work-related stress and how to manage it

Mental health first aid in the workplace