Remote and hybrid working: still a work in progress?
We investigated the effects of remote and hybrid working
In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic hit the UK, millions of people began working from their homes for the first time – transforming what was once a niche working practice into a mainstream one.
Although fully remote working then declined after the pandemic, hybrid working has grown in its place.
Today, working from home at least some of the time represents a “new normal” for many.
The latest data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that 13% of workers in Great Britain work from home all the time, and a further 26% work in a hybrid manner.
However, not everyone can work from home; many jobs still have to be done in person. Access to remote and hybrid working is also unequal, with levels higher among professionals, university graduates, and those living in London.
We set out to investigate the effects of these major changes in the UK’s working landscape.
Four key areas that need
to be addressed
1. Productivity and the wider economy
It is difficult to measure the impact of working from home on the productivity of workers and organisations.
Many of the jobs that can be done from home are knowledge-based, complex and intangible, making productivity difficult to track and measure objectively.
We heard that many workers think that they are more productive at home, whereas employer views are more mixed. But it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from evidence that amounts to self-reported productivity, rather than hard data.
Existing studies suggest that hybrid working has a limited impact either way on productivity, whereas the effects of fully remote working are more varied.
Overall, there is unlikely to be a “one size fits all” answer to the question of productivity.
“I do not think working from home has a net positive or negative effect on productivity overall; it is pretty marginal. The real big benefit is on … the number of people working.”
The impact of widespread home working on the UK’s national productivity is also hard to measure.
The UK’s productivity has been poor in recent years, but we did not find any solid evidence to link this to the increase in working from home, given that there are many other factors at play.
However, home working does have the potential to increase employment levels, including for disabled people. This could support the Government’s plans to get people back to work.
The Government should place particular priority on the investigation of the effect of remote and hybrid working on employment levels, given the highly significant potential implications this could have for one of its central policies.
2. Effects on individuals
We heard that remote and hybrid working can affect health, wellbeing, and work-life balance.
Individuals working at home often report positive outcomes due to greater flexibility, but some may experience increased stress or isolation.
Others may find that the boundaries between work and home become blurred, or that they need to make trade-offs between their personal and professional lives.
“On the one hand, homeworking increases contact with family members with positive effects on well-being, while, on the other hand, it makes detachment from work more difficult, with its detrimental effects on well-being”.
We were told that the effects may depend on individual circumstances, but that there is limited data available on this.
Existing evidence suggests that many disabled people, parents, and carers can benefit due to the greater ability to manage their conditions or fulfil caring responsibilities.
In some cases, there can be a better experience of work; in others, it could be the difference between working and not working.
However, young people or those with unsuitable home environments can be disadvantaged. Moreover, given that access to working from home is unequal across the population, there is a risk that existing inequalities may be exacerbated.
We found that the risks of remote working for individuals can be mitigated by hybrid working, but only if it is well managed.
“Home working can be done well or it can be done badly. When it is not done well, it exacerbates inequalities; when it is done well, it lessens them”.
The Government should allocate ministerial responsibility for the gathering of more detailed data on the practical effects of remote and hybrid working, for people with different characteristics and working and living circumstances.
3. Effects on employers
Remote and hybrid working arrangements are popular among many workers, which in turn helps employers to recruit and retain staff.
There are also downsides for employers. Collaboration and culture, in particular, can be harder to replicate remotely.
Hybrid work can combine the flexibility of remote work with the collaborative benefits of in-person work. We therefore heard that it has the potential to be "the best of both worlds", but only if it is coordinated and well managed.
For example, many employers have introduced “return-to-office” mandates on a hybrid basis, in order to encourage collaboration.
But hybrid work may not achieve these benefits unless it is co-ordinated – for example, by ensuring teams are in the office on the same days.
“There is nothing worse … [than saying] to people, 'Here is your Zoom licence and here is your hybrid work. You have to come in once a week or twice a week', without structure, and that individual comes in and nobody is there and they sit on Zoom calls all day. They will think at the end of the day, 'What was the point?'”
We heard that management is key to making a success of remote or hybrid working. However, we also heard that the UK workforce lacks the required management skills due to under-investment in management training.
While employers are ultimately responsible for investing in management training for their staff, the Government has a role to play in incentivising this investment. One such incentive is Level 7 apprenticeships, but the Government is cutting public funding for these.
The Government should reconsider its proposed cuts to Level 7 apprenticeships or, if not, consider alternative financial incentives for management training.
4. Government policy and legislation
Post-pandemic, working from home arrangements are largely a matter for employers and workers, rather than the Government.
Broadly speaking, we think it should remain that way; there is no need for major new laws or regulations.
However, there are some areas where targeted Government action could help. For example, it can support employers and employees through guidance.
The Government should also conduct further research to aid understanding of the topic. Responsibility for policies and data collection currently sits across multiple departments and public bodies, so Ministers should ensure this work is coordinated.
The Government also needs to ensure it implements proposed legislation effectively.
Under its Employment Rights Bill, employers will only be able to reject a flexible working request (including to work from home) where it is “reasonable” for them to do so under one of the grounds set out in existing legislation.
The Government hopes this change will ensure that more flexible working requests are agreed.
“What you and I think is reasonable may differ; if I am an employee and you are the employer who has turned me down, then it definitely differs … Much will depend on the definition of reasonableness”.
The Government intends to work with ACAS to produce statutory guidance to define what “reasonable” means in practice.
We found that without a clear and workable definition of “reasonable”, there is a risk of years of litigation, which could add further stresses to an employment tribunal system which is already under considerable pressure.
We welcome the Government's intention to work with ACAS on statutory guidance which will define the "reasonable" requirement in the Employment Rights Bill. As they prepare this guidance, the Government and ACAS must consider the implications of different approaches for the employment tribunal caseload.
What happens next?
We have made our recommendations to the Government and it now has two months to respond to our report.
Read the full report on our website.
Our committee is a special inquiry committee for 2025.
Find out more about our inquiry and our committee.
Follow us on Bluesky, LinkedIn, or X (formerly Twitter).
Cover image: IRStone - stock.adobe.com
Built with Shorthand