According to the stats, the UK has had a workplace productivity problem since 2008, but a new HR buzzword has emerged, linked to employee engagement, that makes the productivity puzzle even harder to crack.

Fauxductivity describes employees who exaggerate how much work they do or have to do. This ‘work’ is often tasks that don’t help businesses increase productivity or profits.

It has hit the spotlight due to recent mandates from major employers such as Amazon and Barclays ordering workers to return to the office. The trend links to another,‘the great detachment,’ characterised by employees not feeling invested in their roles and coasting as they are not required or directed to focus on specific tasks.

Recent research by Workhuman of 3,000 UK, US and Irish full-time employees found 67% deny they fake activity, but 48% of managers say faking activity is a common issue on their team. That still means 33% of workers admit to fauxductivity, perhaps unsurprising when 37% of managers and 38% of executives also fessed up!

Below, we examine what is fauxductivity, why is it happening, can managers spot fauxductivity and how can fauxductivity be reduced.

What is fauxductivity?

Fauxductivity is the phenomenon of workers presenting the appearance of barrelling their way through productive activities at the expense of efficiently completing real work.

The term has close associations with another manifestation of modern workplace culture, presenteeism, which also impacts productivity. Presenteeism is when workers continue to work but do so in an unproductive way.

Fauxductivity can manifest itself in workers conducting surface-level activities and avoiding getting to the central part that solves the task.

Why is fauxductivity happening?

One theory is that with more people working from home during the pandemic, workers got into fauxductivity habits and are finding it difficult to break them. Back at the office, co-workers and managers spot fauxductivity and those still working remotely continue to follow some fauxductive traits, which managers don’t notice.

Some experts believe fauxductivity is influenced by workplace culture rather than worker’s habits. A worker’s lack of enthusiasm can be caused by a lacklustre workplace culture and uninspiring bosses who don’t outline a career path for them. Therefore, the worker just treats their job as way to earn an income before their next career step.

Can managers spot fauxductivity?

It can be difficult to spot because employees can exaggerate, even fake their workload. Some managers avoid or don’t have time to identify the real situation.

It is not a great employee retention strategy to micromanage your team or follow them around like Sherlock Holmes, but there are clues that suggest people could be indulging in fauxductivity.

• Do they regularly broadcast how busy they are while at the watercooler?
• Do they ‘go through the motions’ of replying to emails out of hours without solving anything?

And what about the managers themselves, who can be just as prone to fauxductivity?

• Do they stumble from email to email, meeting to meeting, without achieving results and solving problems?
• Do they obsess over process at the expense of results or create layers of bureaucracy that hinders problem solving?

How to resolve fauxductivity

Companies can improve company culture to drive productivity. Employee engagement and teamwork, through mentoring, one-to-one manager/worker sessions and social activities can help achieve this.

Offering employees a vision of where the company is going, how they can be a part of it and be rewarded can motivate staff to really achieve and be productive.

Managers can also maintain work schedules, check carefully about what productive work employees have, ask to see it, create deadlines and request staff to report specific outcomes. SMART objectives or OKRs are an excellent way to motivate employees and get results delivered.

Managers themselves should focus on outcomes rather than processes. They can be creative in tackling problems and be open to suggestions from employees, so they feel part of solving productivity rather than being a cause.

Conclusion

Fauxductivity is an actual thing. It is the exaggeration of work so a worker looks productive.

What causes it is less clear, but poor communication and unclearly defined staff roles contributes, alongside some employees’ willingness to go through the motions at work, if they get paid for it.

Solving fauxductivity requires companies to offer employees vision and show the steps staff can take to be rewarded for performing well. Employers should focus on employee wellbeing, engagement, outcomes and providing workers with targets and structure to their roles.

Benjamin Salisbury - business journalist

Benjamin Salisbury is an experienced writer, editor and journalist who has worked for national newspapers, leading consumer websites like This Is Money and MoneySavingExpert.com, business analysts including Environment Analyst, AIM Group and written articles for professional bodies and financial companies. He covers news, personal finance, business, startups and property.

The chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is expected to announce a rise in employer contributions towards national insurance, as speculation mounts about the imminent budget.

During the government’s international investment summit earlier this week, Reeves stated that this increase wouldn’t be ruled out and that businesses would need to understand its necessity.

“You know there is a £22bn black hole over and above anything we knew about going into the election that we need to fill, and that’s not just a one year, that persists throughout the forecast period,” she said. “So we are going to need to sort of close the gap between what government is spending and bringing in through tax receipts.”

Of course, for small businesses struggling with high overheads, the prospect of increased NIC will feel daunting. We’ll break down the likely impact in this guide.

How would a NIC increase affect employers?

Employers are already required to pay a portion of NI contributions for each employee. When NI rates increase, the cost of hiring employees rises. This could negatively impact a company’s overall wage bill, and increase pressure on its operating budgets, particularly if it employs a large workforce.

The current National Insurance contribution rate is 13.8% on earnings above a threshold of £9,100 per year. For example, if a business pays an employee £30,000 annually, the employer would contribute £2,884.20 per year towards NIC. That’s assuming the employee isn’t under any NI relief schemes, such as those for apprentices or younger workers.

Employers facing high overheads and rising staffing costs may already feel significant financial pressures. An increased cost of employing staff, alongside other factors such as rent, utilities and supply chain expenses, would have a detrimental effect on a company’s profit margins. To offset all of this, it’s likely businesses would be forced to raise prices for customers; reduce their hiring; offer smaller starting salaries for new staff, or even consider layoffs to control the costs.

Chief executive of UK Hospitality Kate Nicholls said that the increase would “particularly hammer sectors like hospitality, where staffing costs are the biggest business expense”.

She added: “Hospitality businesses are much less able to stomach yet another cost increase when they’re already managing increases in other areas like wages, food, drink and energy.”

Andy Fishburn, Managing Director at Virgin StartUp, also commented that the increase could hinder small businesses and SMEs from growing.

“While this expected rise in employer’s National Insurance will provide an immediate short term boost to the government’s coffers, it will also impact new businesses that are looking to increase the number of people they employ, potentially curtailing their plans to grow and scale over the next few years,” he said.

What could be the impact on employees?

An increase in National Insurance contributions could also have unfavourable effects on employees. Most notably, workers could see a reduction in their take-home pay, if their employer chooses to slow the rate of pay increases or offer smaller starting salaries for new hires. Considering the current cost of living crisis, this could create even more financial strain.

“With inflation still not entirely snuffed out this could ramp up the cost-of-living pressures on working families,” Rob Morgan, chief investment analyst at Charles Stanley, commented.

“However, the effects are not clear cut. Employers consider the total cost of an employee, which includes employer NICs and pension contributions. If these were to increase it could lead to businesses restricting new hires, limiting pay rises or scaling back pension payments. Yet some may instead look to pass these costs on in terms of higher prices.”

The added financial pressure on employers could also lead to reduced hours or even redundancies to cut back costs – leading to employees feeling uncertain about job security. 

Employers may look to adjust employee perks and benefits packages as well, including cuts to bonuses or even to additional pension contributions, which could harm both employee satisfaction and financial wellbeing.

Labour’s manifesto for “working people”

Reeves stated that part of Labour’s election pledge was not to increase NI for “working people”. 

“We were really clear in our manifesto that we weren’t going to increase the key taxes paid by working people, income tax, insurance and VAT,” Reeves said.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer also stated that the government made an “absolute commitment” to not raise taxes on working people and that the first Labour budget would “prioritise stabilising the economy, fixing the foundations and growing our way to a better While the increase in NICs is intended to address a significant national budget deficit, it could further strain employers already struggling with high overhead costs.

In turn, this poses the risk of reduced hiring, limited wage growth, redundancies and cuts to employee benefits. As the government tackles the “black hole” in its budget, a difficult decision lies on its shoulders to balance the urgent need for generating revenue with the potential consequences for economic stability and the wellbeing of both businesses and workers.

However, others have argued that increasing employers’ NIC is a “straightforward breach” of Labour’s manifesto pledge.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said: “I went back and read the manifesto and it says very clearly ‘we will not raise rates of National Insurance’. It doesn’t specify employee National Insurance.”

Meanwhile, Alex Veitch, director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, added that raising NICs would “hobble growth and lead to businesses having less money to invest in their staff”.

“Firms are run by working people,” he said. “Nearly all UK companies are small, with many family-owned, and they are the anchors in our local economies.”

Craig Beaumont, executive director at the Federation of Small Businesses, commented: “You don’t get to a pro-small business budget without the government honouring its cast-iron manifesto commitment to not increase National Insurance contributions, including on small employers.”

Fishburn added: “Labour’s Manifesto pledged to not raise taxes for ‘working people’, and we need to remember that small businesses are run by working people who are looking for the government for reassurance that the UK is committed to helping startups thrive.”

Many of the most successful businesses didn’t start with grand offices or huge investments.

Instead, they began at the kitchen table from home, while the founders juggled full-time jobs. They saw an opportunity, pursued their passion and turned their business ideas into thriving companies.

To give you inspiration for starting your own business, we’ll explore seven companies that began as side hustles and grew into industry-leading brands.

1. Innocent Drinks

Founder(s): Richard Reed, Adam Balon and Jon Wright
Started as: A weekend project while working full-time

Innocent Drinks was founded in 1998 during a snowboarding holiday. The founders were working in advertising and consulting at the time and set up a smoothie stall at a London music festival. Above the stall, the sign read: “Should we give up our jobs to make these smoothies?” and customers were asked to vote by placing their empty bottles in a “Yes” or “No” bin. When most people voted “Yes”, the founders went all in and started selling their smoothies to local stores.

In the early stages, the brand went through several name changes. It was first called “Fast Tractor”, followed by “Hungry Aphid”, “Nude” and “Naked” before the founders finally agreed on “Innocent” nine months later.

The first three cases of Innocent were sold to a local sandwich bar, Out To Lunch. It was then later sold to major supermarket chain Waitrose and within just a few months, it became so popular that it started getting stocked around numerous other stores across London and eventually the rest of the UK.

Innocent began working with Coca-Cola in 2009, which purchased a 20% share in the company. Coca-Cola gradually increased its stake in Innocent, before eventually taking full ownership in 2013.

2. Amstrad

Founder(s): Lord Alan Sugar
Started as: Side hustle while working different jobs

Any business owner or entrepreneur knows about Alan Sugar. While he’s mainly recognised as the host of The Apprentice, he also founded Amstrad – a consumer electronics company that sold a range of home computers, hi-fi systems, amplifiers and televisions. Its name was chosen as a combination of “Alan Michael Sugar Trading”.

Sugar founded Amstrad in 1968 when he was 21. It initially began as a side hustle while he was working different jobs, including at a greengrocer and selling car accessories. He started by selling car aerials and electronics out of the back of a van, taking advantage of London’s growing demand for affordable technology products.

The company began selling cheap hi-fi systems and car stereo cassette players in the 1970s. But it was the 1980s that proved to be Amstrad’s golden era after it expanded into the personal computer market with the launch of the Amstrad CPC 464  – an all-in-one system that came with a built-in cassette desk and monitor. Following its success, Amstrad launched a series of other computers, its next major hit being the Amstrad PCW in 1985. Millions of units were sold, and the company was able to capture a significant share of the business PC market.

BSkyB purchased Amstrad for £125 million in 2007 and the company is no longer trading, although Sugar announced in March 2024 that he was planning to revive the brand with his grandson.

3. Gymshark

Founder(s): Ben Francis
Started as: A side hustle while studying at university

Ben Francis founded Gymshark in 2012 while studying at Ashton University and working as a pizza delivery driver. Initially, the company sold supplements and clothing through dropshipping, but after questioning the quality of the clothes, Francis saw an opportunity to design and sell his own gymwear, despite not having a formal background in fashion.

From there, Francis developed his first business plan and started sewing, screen printing and delivering the products himself. The Luxe Fitted Tracksuit product was a turning point for the company, as it quickly gained popularity among fitness enthusiasts and fashion-conscious consumers alike.

As demand started to grow, Francis expanded Gymshark’s product line – focusing on creating high-quality, stylish activewear that combined functionality with fashion. The brand’s growth was further fueled by social media marketing and collaborations with fitness influencers, utilising platforms like Instagram and YouTube to reach a broader audience and connect with customers in a more personal and engaging way.

Gymshark has now grown into one of the most recognisable fitness apparel brands globally, worth over £1 billion.

4. BrewDog

Founder(s): James Watt and Martin Dickie
Started as: A small home-brewing project

BrewDog was founded in 2007. Its founders, James Watt and Martin Dickie, were frustrated with the lack of good craft beer in the UK, and so decided to start brewing their own. 

At first, they brewed in small batches and sold their beer from the back of a van. A year later, The Portman Group – the UK’s regulator for alcohol labelling, packaging and production – banned the product, but BrewDog continued trading and exporting its beers to Sweden, Japan and America. It also became Scotland’s largest independent brewery.

BrewDog later opened its first bar in Aberdeen in 2010, before expanding to Edinburgh, Glasgow and London the following year. More bars and breweries continued to open over the next few years, including overseas in countries like Germany, Australia and the United States. It also launched its Equity for Punks crowdfunding initiative in 2017, allowing fans and customers to invest in the company and become shareholders.

Nowadays, BrewDog operates numerous bars and breweries worldwide and is recognised as one of the largest independent craft beer brands globally, worth around £1.62 billion.

5. Moonpig

Founder(s): Nick Jenkins
Started as: A creative hobby to counter the day job

Nick Jenkins started Moonpig in 2000 as a side project while working in finance. The name “Moonpig” originated from his nickname at school and was created to allow customers to personalise greeting cards. The collapse of the dot-com bubble made progress difficult at first, but Jenkins was able to raise investment from private investors and venture capital, and his business was eventually able to make profits in 2005.

Later down the line, Moonpig expanded its products by offering gifts to attach to cards in 2007 and has since extended its product range to include flowers, wine, vouchers and more. That same year, the company was responsible for 90% of the online greeting card market in the UK.

As for Jenkins himself, he went on to become a “dragon” for the popular BBC Two business series Dragons’ Den in the thirteenth and fourteenth seasons. He also sold Moonpig in 2011 to online photo printing company Photobox for around £120 million. Ten years later, Moonpig was admitted to trading on the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market for listed securities – marking a significant milestone in its growth and giving the company the opportunity for further expansion.

6. Deliveroo

Founder(s): Will Shu and Greg Orlowski
Started as: An idea that needed time to develop

Deliveroo was founded in 2013 by Will Shu and Greg Orlowski. Nine years earlier, Shu was working as an investment bank at Morgan Stanley and had moved from its New York office to London. Frustrated with the lack of good food delivery options in the city, he recognised the need for a service that allowed customers to order and have food delivered to their door quickly.

However, it wasn’t until 2013 when Shu and his business partner Orlowski finally had the technology available to put this plan into action – first launching its services in London with a small selection of restaurants. Shu initially delivered the food himself to ensure quality and understand the logistics of the business.

Within just the first year, Deliveroo quickly gained traction – expanding to several neighbourhoods across London and establishing partnerships with various restaurants. In 2015, it raised its first significant funding round of $25 million (£19m) from Hoxton Ventures, which was used to expand into new cities and improve its technology and logistics. In the same year, its service extended to cities across Europe, Asia, Australia and The Middle East.

Now, Deliveroo operates in 12 countries across the world and is partnered with 183,000 UK restaurants as of July 2024.

7. Not On The High Street

Founder(s): Holly Tucker and Sophie Cornish
Started as: A side project while working full-time

Holly Tucker and Sophie Cornish started Not On The High Street in 2006 from Tucker’s kitchen table – Tucker working in advertising and Cornish working in publishing at the time. 

The pair noticed a gap in the market for unique, handmade goods and wanted to create a platform for small creative businesses to reach a wider audience. While it faced fierce competition from the likes of Amazon and eBay, its core values in giving exposure to small businesses didn’t slow it down.

By 2010, the NOTHS website attracted thousands of customers, and its reputation as a destination for creative and personalised gifts spread. Four years later, the company launched its first overseas marketplace in Germany, with more than 100 German partners on board.

NOTHS now has more than 4 million customers, and its UK-based marketplace has over 38 million unique visitors per year. The company also announced in September 2024 that it was partnering with Deliveroo to offer its customers on-demand delivery for certain gifts and products.

These seven companies prove that a side hustle can grow into something bigger than its humble beginnings. Whether you’re working on a side project or dreaming of launching your own venture, these stories show that with the right mindset, you can succeed. 

Your next big success could start with a simple idea, and who knows? You might just end up on our next Startups 100 list!

Trinny Woodall, founder and CEO of beauty and skincare brand Trinny London, has recently launched her highly anticipated “Thriving in Business” course on the BBC Maestro.

As a founder, the journey to starting a business can feel isolating, and finding the right support network can be challenging too. There’s a lot of pressure to make important decisions and navigate uncertainties – not to mention wearing multiple hats to ensure everything runs smoothly. That’s why having access to real-world advice and mentorship can make all the difference. 

Woodall is a renowned name in the beauty industry. While notorious for her brutally honest advice, she’s also hailed for her personalised beauty solutions that empower women of all ages. Now, she’s sharing the secret of her success in her latest course.

From broadcaster to businesswoman

After co-hosting the popular TV show “What Not to Wear”, Trinny founded her Trinny London business in 2017.

With a customer base of around 1.2 million worldwide, the brand is known for its stackable, easy-to-use makeup products. Its unique approach – including its Match2Me tool to help find makeup tailored to their skin tone, hair and eye colour – has resonated with consumers and driven its rapid growth towards becoming a leader in the beauty industry.

Trinny’s own entrepreneurial journey also adds to her credibility as a businesswoman. Having spent years developing her makeup formulas, she was committed to every aspect of the business and its product – from building its mission statement of giving “everyone the tools they need to feel their best” to ensuring that each product was practical, inclusive and tailored to meet different customer needs.

Since its launch, Trinny London has grown into a highly successful global beauty brand – valued at around $250 million (£192m). It has also gained a loyal following, won countless awards (including CEW Digital Innovation Award and Natwest Everywoman Brand of the Future) and has been recognised as one of the fastest-growing brands in Europe.

Thriving in business: what you need to know

Sometimes, the best advice is from first-hand experience. Through bite-sized lessons, Trinny takes you through the most important stages of running a business – from securing investment and choosing the right business ideas to designing authentic products and crafting effective marketing strategies.

• Learning from your setbacks: Running a business is never a smooth journey. There will be ups and downs, but it’s important to take any setbacks as a learning curve, as this will help build your knowledge and expertise on the best (or worst) approaches you can take as a business.
• Choosing the right idea: Most businesses develop from a concept or an idea. You might have one or ten different ideas floating around, but the one you choose in the end should be the most profitable, scalable, adaptable and solve any customer pain points.
• Researching your market: Part of running a successful business is knowing and attracting your target audience. That’s why market research plays a critical role in this, as you’ll get a better understanding of your customer needs and preferences, understand your competitors’ strengths and weaknesses (and any potential gaps in the market) and make informed decisions that are consumer-focused.
• Perfecting your marketing: This includes how to build your marketing strategy, which is essential for developing your products based on customer needs, determining the most effective marketing channels to get the best return on investment (ROI) and gaining a competitive advantage.
• Finding and convincing investors: Gaining investment is a critical part of your business journey. Finding the right investors isn’t just about the money. Rather, they can also bring a good level of expertise to your sector and guide you in reaching your goals and objectives.
• Evolving your product range: You might have a great product now, but it’s important to remember that the market is constantly changing. That’s why you should stay adaptive and expand your product offerings to attract new customers, better position yourself in the market and accelerate your online growth.

“I’m thrilled to share what I’ve learned on my journey as an entrepreneur,” Woodall said in a statement. “I want to show how we can be fearless and enjoy every aspect of our lives while achieving our goals, whether in business or personally.”

Last month, the co-founder of startup incubator Y Combinator, Paul Graham, posted an essay in which he coined the term “founder mode” and discussed its benefits for businesses.

Since the essay’s release, the phrase has been making waves across the internet, sparking a heated debate about how much founders should involve themselves in the running of an enterprise. Some have argued the benefits, such as ensuring the original vision remains intact, whereas others believe it poses the risk of micromanagement within a company’s organisational culture.

We’re going to look at what “founder mode” means and the potential advantages and pitfalls for businesses. how does it differ from typical business operations?

Key characteristics of founder mode

Founder mode is a management style where a founder or chief executive runs the company with a hands-on approach – interacting with employees across the organisation, not just their direct reports. 

Founder mode is particularly popular among startup cultures or companies that adopt a flat hierarchy structure. Its main characteristics include:

• Being deeply involved: Hands-on leaders who are actively involved in all aspects of the business, constantly reviewing data and having a strong curiosity about what makes the business work.
• Guarding the vision: A company’s operations rely heavily on its vision, mission statement and core values. Founders who adopt this approach want to make sure that the organisation sticks with these elements and doesn’t stray away from them during everyday work.
• Intentional interactions: Founders interact with everyone in the business regardless of their level and position. They’re also available to be reached by anyone and will respond personally.
• Skip-level meetings: Founders will meet directly with employees, bypassing middle management. These are designed to help leaders hear directly from employees, build a relationship and gather feedback.

Famous examples of founder mode in action

Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs reportedly ran an annual retreat for 100 of the “most important” employees at the company, not all of whom held senior leadership positions. The point of these retreats was to hold open discussions about the future direction of Apple, allowing employees from diverse backgrounds and different levels to share their ideas.

Brian Chesky, CEO of AirBnB also held a talk at a Y Combinator event in September, where he shared a story on how he was advised to run the company. This boiled down to “hire good people and give them room to do their jobs”. The results of this delegating leadership style were less than favourable, and through studying and applying how Jobs ran Apple, Chesky was able to improve AirBnB’s cash flow margin.

Why is founder mode beneficial?

There are several benefits of founder mode, especially in the early stages of a business. For example:

Clear vision and direction

Founders have the best understanding of the company’s vision and mission. In founder mode, they can ensure that every decision – from product development to marketing strategies – aligns with this vision and helps to maintain the brand’s authenticity and focus.

Quick decision making

Founder mode can lead to quick decisions without needing to go through layers of approval. This kind of agility allows them to respond to market changes faster than larger organisations where the decision-making process may be slower. Their direct control over decisions also means they can experiment and innovate in ways that bigger companies might avoid due to risk aversion.

Strong customer focus

Founders tend to have a close relationship with their customer base, understanding their pain points and preferences. This direct connection allows them to tailor products or services to meet customer needs effectively, leading to a good level of loyalty and satisfaction.

Stronger investor and stakeholder relationships

Investors and stakeholders often appreciate when founders are deeply involved, purely because it shows a founder is dedicated to the business. They tend to feel more confident that their investment is being managed carefully, especially when they see the founder driving progress.

What are the dangers of founder mode?

While adopting a founder mode approach can be effective, it doesn’t come without risks. These include:

Micromanagement

Most notably, many have argued that when founders become overly involved in everyday operations, it can lead to a toxic culture of micromanagement. Employees may start to feel like their expertise isn’t valued, while the constant oversight can hinder professional judgement, leading to too much dependency on the founder rather than initiative.

Lack of employee autonomy

Founder mode can lead to a top-down command structure where employees don’t have much room for input, leading to disengagement and a lack of ownership in their work. This can be particularly damaging to agile work environments that encourage teamwork and trust teams to make informed decisions. If a team isn’t able to adapt to new changes and collaborate effectively, this can lead to slower progress and less innovation.

Reckless risk taking

Innovating and experimentation are popular with startup companies, particularly in the tech industry. However, founder mode can lead to taking significant risks without considered thought, research and preparation. As the decision relies solely on the founder, decision-making becomes a gamble, leading to either substantial rewards or disastrous results.

Quick results over long term culture

This isn’t to say that short term successes shouldn’t be celebrated. However, too much focus on immediate results and “getting things done” over a sustainable company culture can lead to a negative work environment. Employees are more likely to get burned out, which can result in a lack of employee satisfaction, poor productivity and a poor company reputation.

Founder mode can be an effective way for business leaders to get more involved in a company’s operations – showing a good level of personal interactions and a commitment to the vision and mission. However, too much involvement can pose the risk of micromanagement and lack of autonomy, which can be detrimental to both business performance and employee morale.

Overall, the best approach is a bit of both. Founders can implement the hands-on approach to stay connected with the company and its operations, but should also know when to take a step back and trust teams to work efficiently. It’s not about choosing either approach but finding the right balance between the two during each stage of a company’s growth.

Could choosing hybrid working ruin your chances of getting a promotion?

As more companies call for employees to return to the office, research suggests that employees who choose to split their time between home and the workplace might face an uphill battle when it comes to promotions.

Hybrid working continues to be a preference

Flexible working is far from a new concept. The hybrid working trend first started to pick up in the early 2000s, when home internet connections were reliable enough for employees to work from home.

However, it quickly gained widespread adoption following the COVID-19 pandemic, where companies were forced to introduce remote working. This has led to a lasting change in how businesses operate, with many embracing a mix of in-office and remote work as a permanent fixture of their workplace policies.

Since then, hybrid policies have become a favourite, with 41% of UK employees embracing this model. Moreover, 36% claim they feel more productive while working from home.

Employers are basing promotions on physical presence

Whilst employees are happy with the change and have seen the benefits of hybrid working, some employers have been less receptive.

A study by Robert Half’s 2025 Salary Guide reported that more than two-thirds (68%) of UK-based employers believe that an employee’s physical presence in the office significantly impacts their chance of a promotion. Businesses based in other European countries, including Germany (69%), the Netherlands (68%) and France (62%) also follow the same sentiment.

However, the same research also revealed that 73% of employees feel they are more productive when working in a hybrid model. Business leaders have also indicated that they’re struggling to offer staff better work-life balance while improving employee productivity.

“Employers are clearly placing growing value on staff being physically present in the office and our data suggests that career progression could be hindered for those who wish to continue with hybrid setups,” Chris Lawson, Vice President of Permanent Places UK & Ireland at Robert Half commented.

“If workers are made to feel that they are unable to progress because they aren’t in the office every day, they will simply move on. And more often than not, it will be the best performers or most in-demand professionals who will jump ship first – something that employers today simply can’t afford.”

Lawson added that companies should make meaningful working arrangements to help build a good company culture, manage a diverse workforce and attract the best talent.

The bottom line, according to Lawson, is that “If people are more productive at home, they shouldn’t have limited career progression opportunities, inadvertently or not.”

RTO mandates can negatively impact productivity, research finds

Research by Skillshub revealed that RTO mandates have negatively impacted certain employees, most notably women. Around 12.5% of female staff surveyed reported that office environments had decreased their productivity levels, while 13.5% of men reported the opposite effect. 

Further research also reported that hybrid workers are sceptical about RTO mandates, with just 44% agreeing that it makes them more productive. On the other hand, 87% of workers believed “unofficial” and more flexible RTO policies – where they aren’t expected in the office for a full week or even a full work day – significantly improve morale. Even with an official RTO mandate, 70% of managers have allowed staff to work from home.

Frank Weishaupt, CEO of Owl Labs, said: “At face value, it may seem contradictory for managers to push for RTO mandates while also allowing employees to work remotely when it suits them.

“However, it shows that despite managers valuing face-to-face interactions with their employees, they don’t want to dictate their work schedule. Managers need to trust their team so that employees can work where they do best.

“It’s clear that RTO mandates only bolster productivity and morale when employees are given the flexibility to be in the office when it makes sense for them. They should not be used to simply track individual work habits.”

While hybrid working remains a popular choice for employees, it could come at the cost of career advancement. With businesses beginning to prioritise physical presence in the office when considering promotions, a disconnect between employee preferences and employer expectations is emerging.

As organisations try to walk the tightrope of productivity and employee wellbeing, rigid RTO mandates are likely to undermine both morale and long term retention.

UK companies are demanding staff come back to the office, and the pushback has been equally tense. Workers hit with return to office (RTO) mandates are secretly carrying on with home working, suing, and even going on strike.

Thought losing your pre-work lie-in was bad? The worst is yet to come. Amid concern that remote working may jeopardise teamworking, experts are now advising that organisations adopt a hybrid working rota, where team members are told which days to travel into work.

There is logic to this thinking. But if requiring a set number of days on-site lowers employee engagement, then specifying the days that a person must come in brings its own challenges.

Right or rotten? We explore the implications of a rota system on hybrid offices.

How does a hybrid working rota work?

On first hearing, the idea sounds similar to RTO policies. But, this evolution isn’t about telling staff how often they need to visit the workplace all year-round. Instead, office rotas are controlled by managers, who decide which members of their team should come in on specific days.

For example, the marketing department might be told to come into the office on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, while accountants might be expected to work Mondays and Thursdays.

The reasoning is obvious. Data from Savils shows that office usage has become bunched as employees favour working from home on certain days of the week. Usage has predictably stayed low on Mondays, while Thursdays now have the highest occupancy rates.

With many organisations having downsized their offices to cut rent fees, it has become harder to find desk space or meeting rooms on busy days. This results in schedules being changed, or staff resorting to a headphones-in and hunched-over Zoom meeting.

On quiet days, staff also commonly come into work to find that a key colleague isn’t there, which can cause frustration and a feeling they “needn’t have bothered” with the commute.

Career experts are recommending rota systems as the solution. Some even see it as an attractive employee perk. Companies like Everfair Tax and the Durham Wildlife Trust now advertise their rotas to job seekers as a key component of their company culture.

Flexible working, without the flexibility

Unfortunately, the idea that a rota will automatically solve the issues of hybrid working is most likely wishful thinking. Limiting the days staff attend the office means certain workers will rarely cross paths, causing siloes and impacting productivity.

Importantly, rotas are also disliked by employees. Data from Gallup finds that set office days are much less popular compared to policies where staff have full control over their schedule.

The clue is in the name. Flexible working is enticing to staff because it ensures they can fit their working location around their own personal commitments. If a worker needs to be home for personal reasons on their allotted office day, their manager can either force them to come in, or let them work from home (and research suggests they’re more likely to do the latter).

Gifting specific days to certain teams could also brew resentment. Why should one department get to have a lie-in on Monday morning, while others face the Sunday Scaries?

If your people aren’t on board, the policy is a no-go. Morrisons found this out when it adopted a four-day week. The supermarket chain implemented a rota to ensure that all employees could access the improved work-life balance that the policy offered.

Unfortunately, Morrisons’ maths was off. Its staff were expected to work 13 Saturdays a year to make its schedule work. After backlash, the retailer was forced to scrap the policy.

What’s the alternative?

Bosses who don’t want to force rotas onto staff, but are concerned about losing face-to-face interaction at work, must find a healthy middle ground. One option is anchor days.

Rather than a weekly schedule, anchor days require remote staff to come together at the office for key occasions. These can be organised per month or even per quarter.

Why should one department get to have a lie-in on Monday morning, while others face the Sunday Scaries?

Anchor days work because employees understand why they need to attend the office on a certain day. If managers feel that a problem must be hashed out that requires heads in the room, this is more defensible than ordering teams in on a Tuesday purely for visibility.

ASOS introduced a similar policy as part of its RTO mandate. In June, the fashion retailer told staff they must attend the office for important project discussions and presentations, arguing that virtual attendance from some invitees was creating “strain”.

Another option is to adopt a laissez-faire leadership style, and trust your team leaders to decide what approach to take. Managers are best placed to ask their reports which days they would like to work at the desk, and give notice if in-person meetings are necessary.

It all comes down to communication. Asking staff for their views on RTO mandates (and genuinely listening to the feedback) is the most effective way for bosses to address the teething issues of hybrid working, and prevent disgruntled employees from biting back.

It’s been a wet year for the UK, with some areas experiencing record-breaking rainfall.

But, despite the passing footfall with their abundance of soaked umbrellas, soggy Primark bags and rain-filled welly boots, the UK’s high street has felt the pinch from the seasonal bleakness so far this year.

Now, as autumn rolls around, what will the weather look like? And will we see the same grim effects of the last rainy seasons?

Weather woes have dampened high street sales

Rainfall was 27% more than average in March 2024, and buyers’ spending habits started to dull.

Cathy Parker, Professor in Retail at Manchester Metropolitan University, draws close associations between the decline in footfall and the simple fact that people “don’t like to get wet”.

“Even the time of year affects how much wet weather impacts footfall,” she added. “For example, at Easter, bad weather can reduce footfall by around 5%.”

According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the number of items bought across the UK fell by 2.3% in April 2024. This followed a month of storms and heavy rainfall, with several flood warnings issued across the country. Clothing, sports equipment and toy stores were particularly hit hard, with a decline of 4.1%.

“April’s retail sales were more disappointing than expected, once again being dampened by wet weather, deterring shoppers from the high street and impacting the sale of seasonal items,” Oliver Vernon-Harcourt, Head of Retail at Deloitte commented. 

“Though consumer confidence continues to rise, many remain apprehensive and are not yet loosening their purse strings, especially on non-essential items and goods such as clothing and footwear.

Away from the high street, there’s better news for ecommerce. The ONS reported that it saw a 2.1% increase within the same period in the amount of customers spending online because of the bad weather.

What’s the forecast for autumn?

The bleak weather at the beginning of the year was less than favourable for high street retailers, but will there be more to come?

Right now, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. According to a report by Netweather, temperatures in October may be above average, but there might also be spells of wet weather at times. On the whole, rainfall is expected to be below average for the whole month.

But worse is potentially to come. November is predicted to have more unsettled weather, with potential Atlantic storms across the country. Outside of these events, general rainfall is expected to be average. In all, there might not be the same amount of rainy days as we had during the springtime, which could be a boost for retailers in the run up to Christmas.

Wet September bucks the trend

It’s not all doom and gloom when the rain clouds come out. Despite another wet month in September – with some areas experiencing three or four times the average rainfall – the number of total retail sales increased by 2.0% year-on-year (YoY). This put it above the 12-month average growth of 1.1%. 

Meanwhile, non-food transactions declined 0.3%, but the British Retail Consortium (BRC) reassured that this figure wasn’t as bad as expected.

BRC chief executive Helen Dickinson said: “As autumn rolled out across the UK, shoppers sought to update their wardrobes with coats, boots and knitwear. The start of the month [September] also saw a last-minute rush for computers and clothing for the new academic year.”

We can’t truly predict what the weather will look like for the rest of autumn. However, given the successful rates of sales during the back to school rush in September and the upcoming shopping season, the high street could yet weather this storm.

Sir Keir Starmer will be breathing a sigh of relief today. The Prime Minister has hit its target of unveiling “landmark reforms” under the Employment Rights Bill in his first 100 days.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the new legislation will “give the world of work a much needed upgrade, boosting pay and productivity,” adding “the best employers know that employees are more productive when they are happy at work.”

Protections for those on maternity leave and earning Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) have been announced as expected. But some areas remain unaddressed, dampening celebrations.

Labour made many pledges as part of its “new deal for working people”. Of these, 30 have now been pushed down the line into a Next Steps document. Below, we explain what the biggest gaps are, as well as when (or even if) the shelved promises will see the light of day.

1. Wrong to Switch Off

What they had said: One of the biggest shocks from the Bill has been the absence of rules on the right to disconnect from work. Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay stated that “we will bring in the right to switch off, so working from home does not become homes turning into 24/7 offices.”

Specifically, the right to switch off would grant employees powers to ignore work calls, texts, or emails (within reason) if they are sent outside of their contracted work hours. We’ve some catching up to do – countries such as Australia, France, Portugal, and Italy have introduced similar laws in recent years.

What’s actually happening: Concerns over the business implications of such guidance mean the government appears to have lost its nerve. The right to switch off will now be subject to a consultation, which means it could be a while before workers can switch off their phones at the hotel bar.

2. Pay discrimination delay

What they had said: Back in June, the Labour Party vowed to make Ethnicity Pay Gap reporting mandatory for all large businesses when it came to power. The mean UK Ethnicity Pay Gap stood at 19.04% in March 2024. Firms would also need to report on their Disability Pay Gap.

What’s actually happening: These changes are set to be introduced in a separate draft Equality (Race and Disparity) Bill. By being left out of the Employment Rights Bill, though, the measures will be subject to separate scrutiny. It could be as late as 2026 that the rules are applied to workplaces.

3. Plans paused for single worker status

What they had said: ‘Worker’ has a broad definition in the UK. It can refer to those on casual or zero-hour contracts, agency staff, and the self-employed. Labour planned to introduce one, single worker status, meaning someone can either be an employee or self-employed. This would give workers a clearer picture of where they sit and what protections they have. As the UK shifts towards a gig economy, there is an urgent need for clarification.

What’s actually happening: Despite the urgency, this issue has been omitted from the Employment Rights Bill. In August 2024, approximately 1.03 million people were on zero hours contracts in the UK. Perhaps wary of the impact that a two-tier employment framework could have on workers, Labour sources have reportedly said this needs a longer consultation period to get right.

4. Keeping mum on parental reform

What they had said: UK parental leave is a mess. Other countries leap ahead with pay and leave allowance, yet we consistently rank among the worst performers for parental benefits. Back in June, Labour pledged to “review the parental leave system so that it best supports working families.”

What’s actually happening: New mums will now be able to access Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) from day one as a result of the Bill. On top of this, paternity leave will also be a day one right for fathers. According to analysts, this change will enable an extra 30,000 new dads or partners to qualify for time off work to care for their child.

But, expectant parents hoping for revolutionary changes will need to wait, as the longer promised review into parental leave is expected to be carried out next year.

When will the new changes come into effect?

We’ve highlighted gaps in the Employment Rights Bill, but there is still plenty for HR leaders to sink their teeth into, including sick pay reform and protections from unfair dismissal.

Delays to much-needed reforms, such as a single worker status, will frustrate employers, but it’s important to remember these are big changes. The promised consultation should ensure there is no ill impact on businesses, which will ultimately protect workers in the long-term.

Moreover, much of the Bill will take more than two years to consult on, which means it could be a while before workers see the benefits. Employers unprepared for the changes have been warned not to be caught napping, however.

“The key is not to wait”, says Stephen Simpson, Content Manager for Employment Law and Compliance at Brightmine. “Employers must act now before the legislation comes into force.

“Our advice is to conduct an audit of your current policies and processes and ensure that all managers are trained in how to effectively manage the performance of employees. This will ensure that when the law changes, the organisation is best placed to avoid any challenges.“

It reads like something out of Brass Eye. In July, period tracking app Flo Health became the first women’s health app to achieve unicorn status. The news was a major milestone for the growing ‘femtech’ industry — and another day at the office for male-owned startups.

“Reaching unicorn status is a significant milestone for Flo and the entire femtech industry,” said co-founder Dmitry Gurski, who launched the app with his brother, Yuri Gurski in 2016.

The irony that the first femtech unicorn has been, as one female entrepreneur wrote, “founded by men, led by men and funded by men” was not lost on LinkedIn members. Many took to the site to lament the lack of funding for women founders; a trend that has persisted for decades.

Since then, the social media debate has blossomed into a larger online movement, as women question why men are leading female product innovation. Here’s how the health industry’s “next big phenomenon” has become its biggest controversy today.

What is femtech?

The term femtech was first coined in 2016 by Danish entrepreneur, Ida Tin. It commonly refers to software that services women’s health issues such as menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

However, Tin, who is the CEO of period tracking app Clue, has since said that the term should cover “all things where women are impacted very differently from men or non-proportionally are affected, like brain health or bone health”.

As it’s a relatively new area, many burgeoning startups are still operating in stealth mode or in pre-seed. But big femtech names are on the cusp of becoming mainstream. Companies like Daye, which has developed a diagnostic tampon, or Jude, a bladder health startup.

Due largely to the tireless work of these women founders, healthcare experts have begun to take notice of what has been a previously ignored space.

Targeting an audience of 49.72% of the population, there is certainly a market opportunity. Experts forecast that femtech could be worth $50bn by 2030. But, while a woman might have christened the femtech sector, investors are positioning male founders to lead it.

Taking the ‘fem’ out of femtech

Perhaps one reason why Flo Health’s $200m Series C funding round sparked notice was due to it being an unusually high fundraise for the industry. In July, UK Tech News reported there were only 15 venture capital-backed femtech startups.

Alongside Flo, some of the best known are Elvie, which develops women’s health products, and Thyia, an at-home cervical screening company. Can you guess the link? Like Flo Health, both of these startups have a male founder on the board.

Investors, it seems, are increasingly turning to male-led businesses for female-focused solutions. And the problem has been brewing for some time.

Sifted data shows that in 2023, 57 femtech companies with all-male founding teams raised $731m, while 105 with all female founding teams shared just $408m.

Having a woman founder can actually be detrimental to raising money, as research shows that a femtech is less likely to get funding if it has a woman in its leadership team.

The findings mirror the huge venture capital deficit that women entrepreneurs experience more broadly across business. Just 2% of all VC funding goes to all-female startups and 26% to mixed-gender startups, leaving the remaining 72% to all-male startup teams.

Even women-focused grants are underdelivering. In September, Innovate UK was forced to apologise after it awarded just half of the 50 promised Women in Innovation awards, each worth £75,000 to female founders, in what it dismissed as a budgeting mistake.

“Everything that’s wrong with the ecosystem”

Flo Health’s founders agree there is an issue. In response to the comments, a spokesperson for Flo Health said: “We firmly believe that women’s health has been critically overlooked, undervalued, and underfunded for far too long.

“Our sincere hope is that Flo’s most recent funding will inspire more investors to recognise the immense potential in this space”.

Such well-meaning comments will do little to placate women entrepreneurs, however. It was hoped — perhaps expected — that the femtech space would provide a level playing field for women entrepreneurs. For some, Flo’s funding has dashed those hopes.

Sharing the news on LinkedIn, Anna-Sophie Hartvigsen, co-founder of Female Invest, wrote: “If this doesn’t show you everything that’s wrong with the ecosystem, I don’t know what will.”

Pinky promise?

The upset stems not just from gender funding inequalities, but also concern about the direction of movement that the femtech sector is going in.

One LinkedIn user expressed doubts that “a women’s health app founded and primarily led by men” can be “in sync with the interests, preferences and rights of those who menstruate”.

Flo Health previously faced criticism for its messaging when it rolled out a new product for male users, called Flo for Partners. ‘What if he knew when your period was due?’ read the caption, which the same LinkedIn commenter described as “sickening”.

Knowing your audience is key to starting a business. Just look at Pinky Gloves. The German startup made single-use pink plastic gloves for women to dispose of period products.

Perhaps no women were nearby to tell the founders how zero in demand their product was. Still, Pinky Gloves managed to raise €30,000 on Shark Tank, the German version of Dragon’s Den, from the (predictably) male investor, Ralf Dümmel.

So long as VCs continue to rain cash on male founders, there is a danger that female founders who are addressing important health issues will be overlooked in favour of the next Pinky Gloves.

Labour’s new Employment Rights Bill will be rolled out tomorrow, promising extensive reforms to current employment laws. 

However, experts have warned that these new measures may make businesses reluctant to take on more staff, in spite of still struggling with the skills gap.

How will the Employment Rights Bill protect employees?

Labour’s latest bill is designed to improve employees’ rights and protections in the UK. Key proposals of this bill include:

• New rights for trade unions: Granting trade unions regulated access to workplaces to recruit and organise, while employers will be required to inform workers of their right to join a trade union regularly.
• Protection from unfair dismissal: Employees will be protected from unfair dismissal from day one, as opposed to the current two-year requirement, though it is unclear how this will apply during probation periods.
• Restrictions on “fire/rehire” policies: Curbing the practice of “fire and rehire”, where an employer dismisses an employee and re-hires them under new (often worse) terms and conditions – only being permitted as a last resort to keep a business working successfully.
• Scrapping “exploitative” zero-hour contracts: It isn’t yet known what will be defined as “exploitative”, but the bill plans to introduce a right to an average-hours contract based on a 12-week reference period.
• Improved parental leave: Employees who are parents will have the right to unpaid time off work from day one, scrapping the original one-year requirement. However, this is yet to be confirmed.
• Statutory sick pay (SSP) for all workers: All workers will be entitled to SSP from the first day of their illness, rather than the fourth. However, the rate of sick pay for employees who earn below the threshold is likely to be lower than the standard rate (£116.75 weekly).
• Better maternity leave rights: New mothers, including those adopting, will have the right to give notice for maternity leave from day one without the risk of dismissal.
• Six-month probation cap: Probation periods exceeding six months are expected to become illegal. Employers will also be required to arrange a formal meeting to end an employee’s probation, rather than dismissing them without valid reason.

Will the Employment Rights Bill halt hiring?

While the new bill has obvious benefits for employees, experts have warned that it could hinder businesses from taking on new staff. Concerns surrounding a possible increase in employment tribunals have also been raised.

Nicholas Le Riche, Partner in the Employment Law team at BDB Pitmans, commented: “The potential impact of this change has meant that we’ve seen more organisations reviewing their workforces now before the rules are in force, and several organisations we work with have told us they’re more reluctant to hire staff as a result.

“We’re also certainly going to see an increase in Employment Tribunal claims following the introduction of the bill since it will provide a much greater number of employees with protection from unfair dismissal.”

He added: “The Government is clear in its determination to employees’ rights but without a corresponding extension of funding for the Tribunal system, the ability for both employees and businesses to manage these changes effectively could be undermined.”

Skill gaps are persisting in UK businesses

Although experts have raised concerns about the potential impact of the new bill on hiring practices, UK skills gap statistics suggest that businesses may still carry out recruitment efforts to address these shortages.

According to the government’s website, around 44% of businesses have skill gaps in basic technical areas. Approximately 390,000 organisations (27%) are reported to have gaps in advanced skills, such as penetration testing for cyber security roles. Incident management skill gaps have also increased from 27% in 2020 to 48% in 2024.

In terms of region, the Midlands was reported to have the highest levels of skills shortages at 68%. This is followed by the North and South of England (65%), Scotland (56%), Wales (47%) and Northern Ireland 44%).

According to Manpower’s 2024 report, the UK has reached an 18-year high of cross-sector shortfalls, with 80% of employers struggling to find candidates with the right skills for available roles. A report by recruitment company PeoplePlus also revealed that despite the public sector facing high staff cuts, many employers have reported “hard to fill” vacancies, with 41% struggling to recruit – suggesting that the need for highly qualified candidates remains critical.

While Labour’s new bill promises significant reforms to protect employees, concerns remain about its potential impact on hiring due to increased legal obligations and employment tribunal claims. However, how businesses balance these risks against the persistent technical skill gaps remains to be seen.

Tomorrow, the Labour government will unveil its much discussed Employment Rights Bill. New laws will give more rights and protections to employees, including a day one right to maternity leave and pay for expectant mothers.

But it takes two to Tango. Reforming maternity leave, and ignoring paternity risks sending the message that women are primarily responsible for childcare.

Both parents should have the opportunity to bond with their child and be involved in their care. Currently, UK dads get just ten days of paid Statutory Paternity Leave (SPL) to look after their newborn (although they can extend this using shared parental leave).

Jane van Zyl, CEO at Working Families, criticised the Bill earlier this year for displaying “no commitment to extending paternity leave to a level that makes leave affordable for all.”

Think low paternity leave is just a fact of life? Think again. Below are eight countries with bold SPL policies. We’ll explore each one in detail, to provide a convincing case for how the government might extend the upcoming Bill to improve paternity leave for UK dads.

1. Sweden: 55 weeks

Sweden has taken the bold step to combine its paternity and maternity packages into Parental Benefit. From this pool of leave, all parents in Sweden are legally entitled to a total of 480 paid days off work for the child’s first four years of life.

Each parent is entitled to an equal share of 240 days. They can trade up to 150 days of this leave between them, but each caregiver must take at least 90 days off. Both parents can also take up to 30 days of their leave allowance at the same time (also called ‘double days’).

For the first 390 days, most parents can claim benefits equivalent to 80% of their salaries, up to a monthly salary cap of around £3,590, making Sweden one of the best countries for state-funded parental policies globally. Plus, it has great meatballs.

2. Norway: 45 weeks

Under Norway’s ‘Parental Benefit’ laws, new dads can take up to 12 months of leave. This leave period can be taken flexibly and shared with the mother, giving households more control over who takes care of the baby, and who goes back to work.

Each parent must take up to 15 weeks of paid parental benefit, meaning Norwegian dads could realistically use a maximum of 37 weeks of paid parental benefit in total. They can also get eight weeks of separate paid paternity leave on top of this amount, and up to a year of leave once the initial 12 months has been exhausted (although this is unpaid).

Norway is also one of the best countries for maternity leave allowance, and its approach to paternity leave has had a big impact on parental duties. 90% of fathers now take at least 12 weeks’ paternity leave, compared to only 3% before the law was passed in 1993.

3. Finland: 33 weeks

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin announced major reforms for the country’s paternity leave allowance in 2020, after remarking that too few fathers were spending time with their children when they were young.

By scrapping maternity and paternity leave, and replacing it with ‘parental leave’, Finland increased the number of days off work permitted per parent to 6.6 months (164 days). Parents can swap 69 days of their quota, meaning dads could take a maximum of 33 weeks.

Pay is less generous than its Nordic neighbours such as Sweden, but Finland still pays 90% of income costs for annual earnings up to £56,390 for the first 16 days after a child’s birth (falling to 70% of income costs for the remaining time off).

4. Iceland: 26 weeks

Each new parent on the Nordic island has the right to six months of leave from work, with up to six weeks transferable between mum and dad. That means dads could take 26 weeks of leave when their sprog arrives, and the entire leave period is funded by the state.

Currently, the Icelandic government pledges to pay 80% of people’s average salaries, capped at 600 000 ISK (around £3,300) per month. Naturally, this has had a positive effect on participation rates among dads.

In both Sweden and Iceland, 90% of men take leave. Meanwhile, research by Pregnant then Screwed has found that just 63.7% of UK dads use any of their paternity leave allowance.

5. Spain: 16 weeks

Spanish papás enjoy some of the most generous paternity leave allowances in the world. Since 2021, statutory leave for new dads in Spain has been set at 16 weeks; equalling what mothers currently receive for maternity leave.

Fathers can also choose when they want to take the majority of the time off. They must take six weeks of that leave immediately after delivery, but the remaining 10 weeks can be taken at any point in the baby’s first year.

Spain is also (t)winning when it comes to multiple births. Paternity leave can be extended by two weeks if triplets or twins are born; an extra perk that is not available in the UK.

6. Netherlands: 6 weeks

Dutch dads are only entitled to one week of paternity leave within the first four weeks after their child has been born. But after this period is ended, they can also take up to five weeks of additional paternity leave within the first six months after birth.

This ‘add-on’ policy might seem less flexible than the parental benefits offered by Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. But it is designed to help working mothers return to work quicker, by allowing dads to sub in and take care of the care duties when mum feels ready.

Pay is also far more generous than in the SPL offered in the UK. The Netherlands government pledges it will cover 100% of your wages during the first week of leave, and 70% of their average weekly earnings for the remaining weeks off.

7. South Korea: 20 days

Most of these policies are now decades old, but it doesn’t mean that the UK government can’t act swiftly to change its paternity allowance. Earlier this year, South Korea doubled its paternity leave allowance to 20 days, trouncing the UK allowance of 10.

In addition, South Korea increased the maximum allowance for parents taking child care leave to £1,412 per month, or roughly £353 per week. That’s compared to Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP), which is currently a maximum of £184.03 per week.

It’s not all a goodwill gesture. The South Korean government announced these measures in part to engineer a higher birth rate. South Korea’s total fertility rate is currently the world’s lowest, standing at 0.72 in 2023.

8. Japan: 20 days

Japan’s paternity leave is also known as Childcare Leave at Birth. It’s another relatively new law, and was only recognised in an update to the Childcare Leave and Family Care Leave Act in 2022. But the allowance has already surpassed the UK’s allotted time off for dads.

Fathers are able to take up to 20 days of Childcare Leave at Birth in the first eight weeks of their child’s birth. They can also take this time off in two, two-week instalments, which is much more flexible than in the UK.

UK dads can take between one and two weeks of leave under current laws, but this time must be taken in one block. If they choose to only use one week, the additional week is lost.

Baby steps to reform

The upcoming changes to maternity leave, due to be announced in this week’s Employment Rights Bill, are certainly to be celebrated. As a result of the changes, all women employees will be able to give notice for maternity leave on the first day of the job.

But even if mums and dads do take time off from work, they won’t be able to do so for long (and only some will be able to afford it). The UK is still miles behind other countries when it comes to paternity and maternity leave, as this article shows.

Leaders like Sweden and Iceland have scrapped paternity leave entirely, while countries such as Spain have brought the policy in-line with maternity laws. Until the UK is bold enough to do the same, it stands little chance of addressing the motherhood penalty.