Category: Essential Economics for Business: Ch 06

Posted on

ISA Reform: Will it boost the London Stock Exchange (LSE)?

For a while now, debate has raged over how to revive the fortunes of the London Stock Exchange (LSE). Since the 2008 financial crisis, the market has suffered a lack of investment, poor liquidity and low performance. This has produced a moribund financial market which has become unattractive to both investors and companies. Returns from the UK market lag international competitors, particularly the USA (see the chart).


Investment in the S&P 500 Index over the period would have produced annualised rates of return of 14.35%, more than double that from the FTSE 100 Index. Part of this underperformance is due to the industrial mix of the listed companies: low-growth energy and mining compared to the high-growth technology sectors in the USA. This has led to the perception that London is not a place for firms to list, particularly those in high-growth sectors.

In 2024, 88 companies choose to delist or transfer their primary listing elsewhere. Only 18 took their place. Several big companies from a range of industries, including Ashtead, Flutter and CRH have transferred their primary listing to New York or have plans to do so.

The new Labour government views stimulating higher levels of investment though the London market as an important element in its drive to boost productivity and growth in the UK. Recently, it has been reported that investment institutions have been lobbying the UK government to reduce significantly the tax-free allowance for Cash Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) as a way to encourage more of UK households’ savings to be channelled through the UK stock market.

Currently, UK savers can save up to £20 000 annually into ISAs without paying tax on the interest earned. This can be held solely in Cash ISAs, or in a combination of Cash plus Stocks and Shares ISAs. The tax-free instruments which were introduced by a Labour government in 1999 to encourage higher savings have proved immensely popular. Data from Paragon Bank indicate that over £350 billion are held in these accounts. However, under the new proposals, the amount which would be allowed to be saved as cash has been rumoured to be cut to £4000 per year, with the hope that some of it will be invested in the UK stock market.

The proposals have proved controversial, with high-profile figures voicing opposition. In this blog, we’ll analyse the reasons behind the proposal and discuss whether it will have the desired effect of stimulating higher levels of investment. We’ll also discuss other proposed policies for making the LSE a more effective channel for investment flows to boost economic growth.

Stock markets and the saving and investment channel

The main reason for the proposed ISA change is to encourage more investment in the UK stock market. By reducing the amount which can be saved in Cash ISAs, the government hopes to encourage savers to invest in Stocks and Shares ISAs instead, particularly ones linked to the UK market. This would increase the amount of finance capital in the market, thereby boosting its liquidity. This would then make it an attractive place for young, vibrant UK and foreign companies to list.

An active, liquid secondary market in shares is important to attract firms to list on stock exchanges by issuing shares to outside investors. Traditionally, this channel has been important to the growth and development of firms.

Existing savings in Cash ISAs are deposited with financial institutions such as banks and building societies. Through the credit-creation process such funds can be used to finance productive investment. In countries like the UK, lending by financial institutions is an important way that investment is financed, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, scale limits, regulatory restrictions and the need to diversify lending properly means that there are limits to the financing available for company investment through these institutions.

Capital markets like the LSE are intended to meet these larger-scale requirements. Financial claims, such as debt and equity, are divided into atomised instruments and sold to outside investors to fund investment and business growth.

Further, the desire for a capital injection to finance growth is not the only reason that firms seek stock market listings. Founders of companies may have a lot of wealth invested in the equity of their firms. Selling some of their equity to outside investors through a stock market listing is a way of diversifying their wealth. However, if they are to maximise the potential sale price, there must be an active, liquid secondary market to encourage investors to buy shares in the primary market.

Proponents of reform want to encourage a greater appetite for risk among UK investors, which will produce more savings being channelled through the LSE.

One issue is whether savers will respond in the way anticipated and channel more funds through the UK stock market. Many savers like the security of Cash ISAs. Such vehicles offer a low-risk/low-return combination, which savers like because the tax benefits boost returns. A survey by the Nottingham Building Society found that a substantial number of Cash ISA savers are concerned that the proposed changes could affect their ability to save for important financial goals, such as buying a house or building an emergency fund. Higher-risk Stocks and Shares ISAs are not suitable for such savings because of the potential to lose the initial amount invested. Many may not be prepared to do so and one-third suggested they would save less overall.

According to the survey, only 38% of Cash ISA holders said they would consider investing in Stocks and Shares ISAs if the Cash ISA allowance were reduced. It may be difficult to alter such risk-averse preferences given the average amount saved through ISAs and demographics. In 2022/23, the average amount subscribed to ISAs was £5000. This does not suggest that average households have a significant surplus of cash that they may want to investment at a high risk through the stock market. Indeed, many may want to have access to the cash at short notice and so are not prepared to forgo liquidity for the time needed to accrue the benefits of compounding which stock market investing produces.

Demographics may also play a role in this. Many of those who save more are now retired, or near retirement. They are less likely to see the appeal of compounding returns over long periods through investment in shares. Instead, with shorter investment horizons, they may only see the potential for losses associated with Stocks and Shares ISAs. Indeed, they will be starting to liquidate their long-term positions to draw income in retirement. Therefore, they may save less.

For others, who may be prepared to accept the additional risk, with the prospect of higher returns in the way that advocates of the reform hope for, the reduction in the Cash ISA allowance does not necessarily mean that they will invest in Stocks and Shares ISAs linked to the UK market. Since returns from the UK market have lagged international competitors, it may be that savers will channel their savings to those international markets, particularly in the USA, where the risk–return relationship has been more rewarding. Doing so has been made much easier and cheaper through a combination of economic forces including technological advances, regulatory changes and increased competition. This makes it much easier for UK savers to channel investment funds to wherever potential return is highest. At the moment, this is unlikely to be the UK, meaning that the anticipated boost to investment funds may not be as much as anticipated.

Critics of the proposal also question the motives of investment fund managers who have been lobbying government. They argue that the reforms will mean that many people who do now choose to save in Stocks and Shares ISAs will buy funds managed by fund managers who will receive fees for doing so. Critics argue that it is the prospect of higher fees which is the real motive behind the lobbying, not any desire to boost investment and growth.

What alternatives are available to boost the London Stock Exchange

The low valuations of LSE-listed companies compared to their international counterparts, particularly those in the USA, has discouraged growing firms from listing in London. To address this, there have been calls to enhance corporate governance standards and reduce regulatory burdens for listed companies.

This has already been recognised by the authorities. In 2024, UK regulators approved the biggest overhaul of rules regulating London-listed companies. The new listing rules will hand more power to company bosses to make decisions without shareholder votes. They will give companies more flexibility to adopt dual-class share structures used by founders and venture capital firms to give themselves stronger voting rights than other investors. This is particularly popular for founders who want to diversify their wealth without sacrificing control and is used frequently by tech companies and venture capitalists when listing in the USA. Such reforms may attract more companies in high-growth sectors to list in London.

Tax policies which provide the right incentives to buy and sell shares could also encourage more investment in the LSE. For instance, the repeal in the mid-1990s of the preferential tax treatment of dividend income for UK pension funds and insurance companies is seen as a major factor in discouraging those institutions from investing more funds in the London market. Since tax on capital gains is only liable when they are realised, this reduces their present value versus the equivalent amount on dividends.

As the following table illustrates, given the significantly higher percentage of total returns derived from dividends in the LSE compared to other exchanges, the equal tax treatment of dividend and capital gains provides an incentive to seek jurisdictions where capital gains predominate. This is what UK pension funds have done. Data from the Office of National Statistics show that in 2024, 77% of UK occupational pensions equity investments were overseas.

Reinstating this tax benefit could stimulate greater demand for UK equity from this significant sector, boosting liquidity in the London market. Allied to this are proposals from the UK government to consolidate the fragmented UK pension industry to achieve greater scale economies in that channel for investment. This can reduce financing costs, boosting the marginal return from UK investments for these funds, encouraging greater investment in the UK market (ceteris paribus).

Further, the 2.5% stamp duty on share purchases has been viewed as another disincentive for both retail and institutional investors to engage in security trading on the London Stock Exchange. The duty, which is much higher than in peer economies, effectively raises the expected rate of return on UK equites which depresses perceptions of their values and prices. Its removal may raise trading volumes, improving the liquidity of the market and be offset by increased tax revenues in the future. However, the Treasury suggests that the removal of stamp duty is doubtful, since it would create a significant hole in the UK government’s budget.

Ultimately, many of these reforms may have limited impact on investment. Efforts to boost confidence in the stock market will depend on improving the overall economic environment in the UK. Therefore, it will be the wider policies promoting growth in general which will increase the rates of return offered by London-listed firms and be more significant to attracting capital to London.

However, many of these are controversial themselves, such as relaxing laws around planning permissions and addressing business uncertainties around post-Brexit trading arrangements with the European Union. These broader economic measures could help make the UK generally, and the LSE specifically, more appealing to both domestic and international investors.

Conclusion

The UK government’s proposal to reduce the Cash ISA allowance is part of a broader strategy to boost investment in the stock market and stimulate economic growth. While this change could lead to more capital being directed towards productive investments, it also poses challenges for savers who like the security and simplicity of Cash ISAs.

The ultimate impact will depend on how savers respond to these changes. The potential reduction in overall savings rates could counteract some of the intended benefits. Further, the extent to which they are prepared to channel their savings into UK-listed companies will be important. If many seek higher returns elsewhere, the impact on the UK stock market may be limited. In any case, policies to address the problems of the UK stock market will only work if the wider issues associated with UK productivity and growth are addressed.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Explain how banks use cash ISAs to finance investment through credit creation.
  2. What do stock markets offer which may boost investment and economic growth?
  3. What are the issues with the London Stock Exchange which is making it unattractive for raising finance?
  4. How is the rumoured ISA reform intended to help address these issues?
  5. Analyse the extent to which it will do so.
  6. How might some of the broader reforms proposed by the UK government influence rate of return on UK equities and attract capital?
Posted on

Investment set to fall as business is baffled by Trump

Economic growth is closely linked to investment. In the short term, there is a demand-side effect: higher investment, by increasing aggregate demand, creates a multiplier effect. GDP rises and unemployment falls. Over the longer term, higher net investment causes a supply-side effect: industrial capacity and potential output rise. This will be from both the greater quantity of capital and, if new investment incorporates superior technology, from a greater productivity of capital.

One of the biggest determinants of investment is certainty about the future: certainty allows businesses to plan investment. Uncertainty, by contrast, is likely to dampen investment. Investment is for future output and if the future is unknown, why undertake costly investment? After all, the cost of investment is generally recouped over several months or year, not immediately. Uncertainty thus increases the risks of investment.

There is currently great uncertainty in the USA and its trading partners. The frequent changes in policy by President Trump are causing a fall in confidence and consequently a fall in investment. The past few weeks have seen large cuts in US government expenditure as his administration seeks to dismantle the current structure of government. The businesses supplying federal agencies thus face great uncertainty about future contracts. Laid-off workers will be forced to cut their spending, which will have knock-on effect on business, who will cut employment and investment as the multiplier and accelerator work through.

There are also worries that the economic chaos caused by President Trump’s frequent policy changes will cause inflation to rise. Higher inflation will prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. This, in turn, will increase the cost of borrowing for investment.

Tariff uncertainty

Perhaps the biggest uncertainty for business concerns the imposition of tariffs. Many US businesses rely on imports of raw materials, components, equipment, etc. Imposing tariffs on imports raises business costs. But this will vary from firm to firm, depending on the proportion of their inputs that are imported. And even when the inputs are from other US companies, those companies may rely on imports and thus be forced to raise prices to their customers. And if, in retaliation, other countries impose tariffs on US goods, this will affect US exporters and discourage them from investing.

For many multinational companies, whether based in the USA or elsewhere, supply chains involve many countries. New tariffs will force them to rethink which suppliers to use and where to locate production. The resulting uncertainty can cause them to delay or cancel investments.

Uncertainty has also been caused by the frequent changes in the planned level of tariffs. With the Trump administration using tariffs as a threat to get trading partners to change policy, the threatened tariff rates have varied depending on how trading partners have responded. There has also been uncertainty on just how the tariff policy will be implemented, making it more difficult for businesses to estimate the effect on them.

Then there are serious issues for the longer term. Other countries will be less willing to sign trade deals with the USA if they will not be honoured. Countries may increasingly look to diverting trade from the USA to other countries.

Video

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Find out what tariffs have been proposed, imposed and changed since Donald Trump came to office on 20 January 2025.
  2. In what scenario might US investment be stimulated by Donald Trump’s policies?
  3. What countries’ economies have gained or are set to gain from Donald Trump’s policies?
  4. What is the USMCA agreement? Do Donald Trump’s policies break this agreement?
  5. Find out and explain what has happened to the US stock market since January 2025. How do share prices affect business investment?
  6. Which sector’s shares have risen and which have fallen?
  7. Using the Data link above, find out what has been happening to the US Policy Uncertainty Index since Donald Trump was elected and explain particular spikes in the index. Is this mirrored in the global Policy Uncertainty Index?
  8. Are changes in the Policy Uncertainty Index mirrored in the World Uncertainty Index (WUI) and the CBOE Volatility Index: VIX?
Posted on

Why are Tesla sales plummeting?

Tesla sales have fallen dramatically recently. In Europe they were down 47.7% in January 2025 compared with January 2024. In Spain the figure was 75.4%, in France 63.4%, in Germany 59.5%, in Sweden 44.3%, in Norway 37.9%, in the UK 18.2% and in Italy 13.4%. And it was not just Europe. In Australia the figure was 33.2%, in China 15.5% and in California 11.6%. Meanwhile, Tesla’s share price has fallen from a peak of $480 on 17 December 2024 to $338 on 21 February 2025, although that compares with $192 in February 2024.

So why have Tesla sales fallen? It’s not because of a rise in price (a movement up the demand curve); indeed, Tesla cut its prices in 2024. Part of the reason is on the supply side. In several countries, stocks of Teslas are low. Some consumers who would have bought have had to wait. However, the main reason is that the demand curve has shifted to the left. So why has this happened?

A reaction to Elon Musk?

One explanation is a growing unpopularity of Elon Musk among many potential purchasers of electric vehicles (EVs). People are more likely to buy an EV if they are environmentally concerned and thus more likely to be Green voters or on the political left and centre. Elon Musk, by supporting Donald Trump and now a major player in the Trump administration, is seen as having a very different perspective. Trump’s mantra of ‘drill, baby drill’ and his announced withdrawal from the Paris agreement and the interventions of Trump, Vance and Musk in European politics have alienated many potential purchasers of new Teslas. Elon Musk has been a vocal supporter of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, describing the party as the ‘last spark of hope for this country’ (see BBC article linked below).

There has been outspoken criticism of Musk in the media and the Financial Times reports existing owners of Teslas, who are keen to distance themselves from Musk, ordering stickers for their cars which read ‘I bought this before Elon went crazy’. In a survey by Electrifying.com, 59% of UK potential EV buyers stated that Musk’s reputation put them off buying a Tesla.

Other reasons for a leftward shift in the demand for Teslas

But is it just the ‘Musk factor’ that has caused a fall in demand? It is useful to look at the general determinants of demand and see how each might have affected the demand for Teslas.

The price, number, quality and availability of substitutes  Tesla faces competition, not only from long-established car companies, such as Ford, VW, Volvo/Polestar, Seat/Cupra and Toyota, moving into the EV market, but also from Chinese companies, such as BYD and NIO. These are competing in all segments of the EV market and competition is constantly increasing. Some of these companies are competing strongly with Tesla in terms of price; others in terms of quality, style and imaginative features. The sheer number of competitor models has grown rapidly. For some consumers, Teslas now seem dated compared with competitors.

The price and availability of complements.  The most relevant complement here is electrical charging points. As Teslas can be charged using both Tesla and non-Tesla charging points, there is no problem of compatibility. The main issue is the general one for all EVs and that is how to achieve range conveniently. The fewer the charging points and more widely disbursed they are, the more people will be put off buying an EV, especially if they are not able to have a charging point at home. Clearly, the greater the range of a model (i.e. the distance that can be travelled on a full battery), the less the problem. Teslas have a relatively high range compared with most (but not all) other makes and so this is unlikely to account for the recent fall in demand, especially relative to other makes.

Expectations.  The current best-selling Tesla EV is the Model Y. This model is being relaunched in a very different version, as are other Tesla models. Consumers may prefer to wait until the new models become available. In the meantime, demand would be expected to fall.

Conclusions

As we have seen, there have been a number of factors adversely affecting Tesla sales. Growing competition is a major factor. Nevertheless, the increasing gap politically between Elon Musk and many EV consumers is a major factor – a factor that is likely to grow in significance if Musk’s role in the Trump administration continues to be one of hostility towards the liberal establishment and in favour of the hard right.

Articles

Questions

  1. Why have BYD EV sales risen so rapidly?
  2. If people feel strongly about a product on political or ethical grounds, how is that likely to affect their price elasticity of demand for the product?
  3. Find out how Tesla shareholders are reacting to Elon Musk’s behaviour.
  4. Find out how Tesla sales have changed among (a) Democratic voters and (b) Republican voters in the USA. How would you explain these trends?
  5. Identify some products that you would or would not buy on ethical grounds. How carefully have you researched these products?
Posted on

A four-day week – a solution to sluggish productivity growth? (Updated)

In a blog from March 2023 (reproduced below), we saw how there has been growing pressure around the world for employers to move to a four-day week. Increasing numbers of companies have adopted the model of 80% of the hours for 100% of the pay.

As we see below, the model adopted has varied across companies, depending on what was seen as most suitable for them. Some give everyone Friday off; others let staff choose which day to have off; others let staff work 80% of the hours on a flexible basis. Firms adopting the model have generally found that productivity and revenue have increased, as has employee well-being. To date, over 200 employers in the UK, employing more than 5000 people, have adopted a permanent four-day week.

This concept of 100-80-100, namely 100% of pay for 80% of hours, but 100% of output, has been trialled in several countries. In Germany, after trials over 2024, 73% of the companies involved plan to continue with the new model, with the remaining 27% either making minor tweaks or yet to decide. Generally hourly productivity rose, and in many cases total output also rose. As the fourth article below states:

The primary causal factor for this intriguing revelation was simple – efficiency became the priority. Reports from the trial showed that the frequency and duration of meetings was reduced by 60%, which makes sense to anyone who works in an office – many meetings could have been a simple email. 25% of companies tested introduced new digitised ways of managing their workflow to optimise efficiency.

Original post

In two previous posts, one at the end of 2019 and one in July 2021, we looked at moves around the world to introduce a four-day working week, with no increase in hours on the days worked and no reduction in weekly pay. Firms would gain if increased worker energy and motivation resulted in a gain in output. They would also gain if fewer hours resulted in lower costs.

Workers would be likely to gain from less stress and burnout and a better work–life balance. What is more, firms’ and workers’ carbon footprint could be reduced as less time was spent at work and in commuting.

If the same output could be produced with fewer hours worked, this would represent an increase in labour productivity measured in output per hour.

The UK’s poor productivity record since 2008

Since the financial crisis of 2007–8, the growth in UK productivity has been sluggish. This is illustrated in the chart, which looks at the production industries: i.e. it excludes services, where average productivity growth tends to be slower. The chart has been updated to 2024 Q2 – the latest data available. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

Prior to the crisis, from 1998 to 2006, UK productivity in the production industries grew at an annual rate of 6.9%. From 2007 to the start of the pandemic in 2020, the average annual productivity growth rate in these industries was a mere 0.2%.

It grew rapidly for a short time at the start of the pandemic, but this was because many businesses temporarily shut down or went to part-time working, and many of these temporary job cuts were low-wage/low productivity jobs. If you take services, the effect was even stronger as sectors such as hospitality, leisure and retail were particularly affected and labour productivity in these sectors tends to be low. As industries opened up and took on more workers, so average productivity rapidly fell back. Since then productivity has flatlined.

If you project the average productivity growth rate from 1998 to 2007 of 6.9% forwards (see grey dashed line), then by 2024 Q3, output per hour in the production industries would have been 3.26 times higher than it actually was: a gap of 226%. This is a huge productivity gap.

Productivity in the UK is lower than in many other competitor countries. According to the ONS, output per hour in the UK in 2021 was $59.14 in the UK. This compares with an average of $64.93 for the G7 countries, $66.75 in France, £68.30 in Germany, $74.84 in the USA, $84.46 in Norway and $128.21 in Ireland. It is lower, however, in Italy ($54.59), Canada ($53.97) and Japan ($47.28).

As we saw in the blog, The UK’s poor productivity record, low UK productivity is caused by a number of factors, not least the lack of investment in physical capital, both by private companies and in public infrastructure, and the lack of investment in training. Other factors include short-termist attitudes of both politicians and management and generally poor management practices. But one cause is the poor motivation of many workers and the feeling of being overworked. One solution to this is the four-day week.

Latest evidence on the four-day week

Results have just been released of a pilot programme involving 61 companies and non-profit organisations in the UK and nearly 3000 workers. They took part in a six-month trial of a four-day week, with no increase in hours on the days worked and no loss in pay for employees – in other words, 100% of the pay for 80% of the time. The trial was a success, with 91% of organisations planning to continue with the four-day week and a further 4% leaning towards doing so.

The model adopted varied across companies, depending on what was seen as most suitable for them. Some gave everyone Friday off; others let staff choose which day to have off; others let staff work 80% of the hours on a flexible basis.

There was little difference in outcomes across different types of businesses. Compared with the same period last year, revenues rose by an average of 35%; sick days fell by two-thirds and 57% fewer staff left the firms. There were significant increases in well-being, with 39% saying they were less stressed, 40% that they were sleeping better; 75% that they had reduced levels of burnout and 54% that it was easier to achieve a good work–life balance. There were also positive environmental outcomes, with average commuting time falling by half an hour per week.

There is growing pressure around the world for employers to move to a four-day week and this pilot provides evidence that it significantly increases productivity and well-being.

Additional articles

Original set of articles

Questions

  1. What are the possible advantages of moving to a four-day week?
  2. What are the possible disadvantages of moving to a four-day week?
  3. What types of companies or organisations are (a) most likely, (b) least likely to gain from a four-day week?
  4. Why has the UK’s productivity growth been lower than that of many of its major competitors?
  5. Why, if you use a log scale on the vertical axis, is a constant rate of growth shown as a straight line? What would a constant rate of growth line look like if you used a normal arithmetical scale for the vertical axis?
  6. Find out what is meant by the ‘fourth industrial revolution’. Does this hold out the hope of significant productivity improvements in the near future? (See, for example, last link above.)
Posted on

Hybrid working: too much homework or the ‘new normal’?

During the pandemic, most people who were not furloughed were forced to work from home. After lockdown restrictions were lifted, many employers decided to continue with people working remotely, at least for some of the time.

Today, this hybrid model, whereby workers work partly from home or local workspaces and partly in the office/factory/warehouse etc., has become the ‘new normal’ for around 26% of the working population in Great Britain – up from around 10% at the end of the national lockdowns in the Spring of 2021.

Increasingly, however, employers who had introduced hybrid working are requiring their employees to return to the office, arguing that productivity and hence profits will rise as a result. Amazon is an example. Other employers, such as Asda, are increasing the time required in the office for hybrid workers.

Hybrid working had peaked at around 31% in November 2923 as the chart shows (click here for a PowerPoint). The chart is based on the December 20 database, Public opinions and social trends, Great Britain: working arrangements from the Office for National Statistics (see link under Data, below).

But why are some employers deciding that hybrid working is less profitable than working full time in the office. And does it apply to all employers and all employees or only certain types of firm and certain types of job?

The first thing to note is that hybrid work is more common among certain groups. These include older workers, parents, graduates and those with greater flexibility in scheduling their work, especially those in managerial or professional roles with greater flexibility. Certain types of work on the other hand do not lend themselves to hybrid work (or working completely from home, for that matter). Shop workers and those providing a direct service to customers, such as those working in the hospitality sector, cannot work remotely.

Benefits of hybrid working

For some employees and employers, hybrid working has brought significant benefits.

For employees, less time and money is spent on commuting, which accounts for nearly an hour’s worth of the average worker’s daily time. According to the ONS survey, respondents spent an additional 24 minutes per day on sleep and rest and 15 minutes on exercise, sports and other activities that improved well-being compared to those who worked on-site. Working at home can make juggling work and home life easier, especially when workers can work flexible hours during the day, allowing them to fit work around family commitments.

Employers benefit from a healthier and more motivated staff who are more productive and less likely to quit. Hybrid work, being attractive to many workers, could allow employers to attract and retain talented workers. Also, employees may work longer hours if they are keen to complete a task and are not ‘clocking off’ at a particular time. Working from home allows workers to concentrate (unless distracted by other family members!).

By contrast, office working can be very inefficient, especially in open offices, where chatty colleagues can be distracting and it is difficult to concentrate. What is more, employees who are slightly unwell may continue working at home but may feel unable to commute to the office. If they did, they could spread their illness to other colleagues. Not allowing people to work from home can create a problem of ‘presenteeism’, where people feeling under the weather turn up to work but are unproductive.

One of the biggest benefits to employers of hybrid work is that costs can be saved by having smaller offices and by spending less on heating, lighting and facilities.

With hybrid working, time spent on site can be devoted to collaborative tasks, such as meetings with colleagues and customers/suppliers and joint projects where face-to-face discussion is required, or at least desirable. Tasks can also be completed that required specialist equipment or software not available at home.

Problems of hybrid working

So, if hybrid working has benefits for both employers and employees, why are some employers moving back to a system where employees work entirely on site?

Some employers have found it hard to monitor and engage employees working from home. Workers may be easily distracted at home by other family members, especially if they don’t have a separate study/home office. People may feel detached from their co-workers on days they work from home. After a time, productivity may wane as workers find ways of minimising the amount of time actually working during declared work times.

Far from improving work-life balance, for some workers the boundaries between work and personal life can become blurred, which can erode the value of personal and family time. This can create a feeling of never escaping from work and be demotivating and reduce productivity. Employees may stay logged on longer and work evenings and weekends in order to complete tasks.

Unless carefully planned, on days when people do go into the office they might not work effectively. They may be less likely to have profitable ad hoc conversations with co-workers, and meetings may be harder to arrange. Misunderstandings and miscommunication can occur when some employees are in the office but others are at home.

Some employers have found that the problems of hybrid working in their organisations have outweighed the benefits and that productivity has fallen. In justifying its ending of hybrid working from 1 January 2025, Amazon CEO, Andy Jessy, wrote in a memo to staff in September 2024:

To address the … issue of being better set up to invent, collaborate, and be connected enough to each other and our culture to deliver the absolute best for customers and the business, we’ve decided that we’re going to return to being in the office the way we were before the onset of COVID. When we look back over the last five years, we continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant.1

But is the solution to do as Amazon is doing and to abandon hybrid working and have a mass ‘return to the office’?

Improving hybrid working

There are ways of making hybrid working more effective so that the benefits can be maximised and the costs minimised.

Given that there are specific benefits from home working and other specific benefits from working on-site, it would be efficient to allocate time between home and office to maximise these benefits. The optimum balance is likely to vary from employer to employer, job to job and individual to individual.

Where work needs to be done in teams and where team meetings are an important element of that work, it would generally make sense for such meetings to be held in person, especially when there needs to be a lot of discussion. If the team requires a brief catch up, however, this may be more efficiently done online via Teams or Zoom.

Individual tasks, on the other hand, which don’t require consultation with colleagues or the use of specific workplace facilities, are often carried out more efficiently when there is minimum chance of interruption. For many workers, this would be at home rather than in an office – especially an open-plan office. For others without a protected work space at home or nearby, it might be better to come into the office.

The conclusion is that managers need to think carefully about the optimum distribution between home and office working and accept that a one-size-fits-all model may not be optimum for all types of job and all workers. Recognising the relative benefits and costs of working in different venues and over different hours may help to achieve the best balance, both for employers and for workers. A crucial element here is the appropriate use of incentives. Workers need to be motivated. Sometimes this may require careful monitoring, but often a more hands-off approach by management, with the focus more on output and listening to the concerns of workers, rather than on time spent, may result in greater productivity.

1Message from CEO Andy Jassy: Strengthening our culture and teams, Amazon News (16/9/24)

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Why may hybrid working be better for (a) employees and (b) employers than purely home working or purely working in the office?
  2. Why are many firms deciding that workers who were formerly employed on a hybrid basis should now work entirely from the office?
  3. What types of job are better performed on site, or with only a small amount of time working from home?
  4. What types of job are better performed by working at home with just occasional days in the office?
  5. Does the profile of workers (by age, qualifications, seniority, experience, family commitments, etc) affect the likelihood that they will work from home at least some of the time?
  6. How would you set about measuring the marginal productivity of a worker working from home? Is it harder than measuring the marginal productivity of the same worker doing the same job but working in the office?
  7. How may working in the office increase network effects?
  8. How may behavioural economics help managers to understand the optimum balance of home and on-site working?