Monthly Archives: December 2025

Back in July 2017, Matthew Taylor published an independent review of modern working practices. Called ‘Good Work’, its core ambition was simple: that all work should be fair, decent, and offer real chances for development and fulfilment. What does good work actually look like in rural England, why does it matter — and what’s been done to make it happen since 2017? Jessica Sellick investigates.  

……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 

Since the early 2000s, successive UK governments have taken steps to ensure that people, regardless of where they live or their background, can find work and earn a living to support themselves and their families. Yet persistent inequalities remain: some individuals are unable to engage with or benefit from the labour market, others are trapped in cycles of low-paid work, and some lack the skills needed to progress. Back in 2016, the Government commissioned the Taylor Review to examine the opportunities and challenges of modern working practices. The Review called for all work to be fair, decent, and offer realistic scope for development and fulfilment. What has happened since the Taylor Review to improve the quality of work, and what is this delivering for rural communities?   

What is ‘good work’? The concept can be traced back to economist and philosopher Ernst F. Schumacher, who in 1979 published ‘Good Work’, a book that challenged conventional views of work as an economic transaction or means of maximising productivity. He identified three essential purposes of human work: (1) to produce necessary and useful good and services; (2) to enable individuals to use and perfect their talents and skills; and (3) to serve and collaborate with others, helping to liberate ourselves from egocentricity. Schumacher rejected the notion that the goal of work is simply to earn money or minimise effort – describing that view as “cynical and degraded”. For Schumacher, good work was a pathway to personal development, community building, and spiritual growth. His vision centred on restoring purpose, creativity, and connection to the labour process — a perspective that continues to inform contemporary debates on job quality and economic inclusion.   

Building on this work, throughout the 2000s and 2010s, Andrew Sayer, an economist and social theorist, explored the moral and social dimensions of work, particularly through the lens of contributive justice. Like Schumacher, Sayer argued that work is not just a means to earn income, it profoundly shapes who we are and how we relate to others. He critiqued economic models that regarded work as a cost and offered a view instead that work should develop our capacities, foster recognition, and enhance our wellbeing. He identified three components of good work: (i) it demands skills and decision-making which enhance personal growth; (ii) it brings social recognition which contributes to self-esteem and dignity; and (iii) it is valued for its role in enabling people to contribute to society. Sayer also warned that these components are often concentrated in a narrow set of jobs, leaving many workers without the chance to flourish.  

The capabilities approach developed by Amartya Sen, and later expanded by Martha Nussbaum, offers another influential lens for understanding good work. This framework shifts the focus from economic outputs – such as income or productivity – to what individuals are able to be and do, and the freedoms they have to live lives they value. In this context, good work is that which expands human capabilities through education, fair labour practices, and inclusive policies.  

In the policy and practitioner space, The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has played a key role in shaping the UK’s understanding of good work. Its manifesto for good work, identifies three strategic priorities: (a) skilled work – ensuring the skills system meets the varied needs of employers; (b) healthy work – creating healthier workplaces; and (c) fair work – improving equality and access to progression. CIPD emphasises that good work is shaped not only by HR practices and leadership, but also by how workers experience their day-to-day roles. Their framework identifies seven dimensions of job quality: pay and benefits, employment contracts, work-life balance, job design and nature of work, relationships at work, employee voice, and health and wellbeing.  

The Resolution Foundation has similarly advanced the debate through its Low Pay Britain reports and Economy 2030 inquiry. It defines good work through four core attributes: (1) security – stable contracts and predictable hours; (2) autonomy – control over how work is carried out; (3) voice – the ability to influence decisions; and (4) progression – opportunities for development and advancement. The Resolution Foundation advocates for Good Work Agreements (GWA), sector-specific frameworks designed to improve standards in industries such as social care, warehousing and cleaning. It also calls for job quality to be considered alongside wage levels in labour market policy.    

Other terms used alongside good work and to describe job quality include ‘decent work’, ‘working conditions’, ‘fair employment’, and ‘meaningful work’. 

What are the policy responses to good work? On 1 October 2016, Theresa May, then Prime Minister, commissioned Matthew Taylor, then chief executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA), to lead a review into how employment law needed to adapt to keep pace with modern business practices.  

Data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicated that there had been a substantial rise in the number of people on zero-hours contracts, peaking at 905,000 in the period of October to December 2016. A 2016 report from the TUC suggested that there were as many as 3.2 million insecure workers who lacked access to basic rights and decent levels of pay.  

The Taylor Review was formally launched on 30 November 2016, shortly after a landmark ruling involving Uber, the ride-sharing company. An Employment Tribunal found that Uber drivers were not self-employed but were ‘workers’ entitled to basic workers’ rights, including the right to receive the National Minimum Wage and holiday pay.  

The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices was published in July 2017. In it, Taylor described how the work of the Review was based on a ‘single overriding ambition: ‘all work in the UK economy should be fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment’. The report set out the importance of quality work, described the characteristics and trends in the labour market affecting work, and identified a need to improve clarity and transparency in employment protections to tackle exploitative employment practices and help people enforce their rights. Underpinning this, Taylor emphasised the importance of good work in:  

• Ensuring those on the lower incomes have routes to progress in work, opportunities to boost their earning power, and are treated with dignity and respect at work.  

• Helping people to stay healthy and happy, something which benefits them and serves the wider public interest.  

• Getting the best out of people, making an important contribution to tackling the complex challenge of low productivity.  

• Matching the aspirations we have for modern citizenship, ensuring people feel they are respected, trusted, enabled and expected to take responsibility.  

• Being responsive to the modern economy, particularly technology, based on the enduring principles of fairness.  

The report set out 7 steps for fair and decent work:  

1. Our national strategy for work – the British way – should be explicitly directed toward the goal of good work for all, recognising that good work and plentiful work can and should go together.  

2. Platform based working offers welcome opportunities for genuine two way flexibility and can provide opportunities for those who may not be able to work in more conventional ways. These should be protected while ensuring fairness for those who work through these platforms and those who compete with them.  

3. The law and the way it is promulgated and enforced should help firms make the right choices and individuals to know and exercise their rights.  

4. The best way to achieve better work is not national regulation but responsible corporate governance, good management and strong employment relations within the organisation.  

5. It is vital that everyone feels they have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects and that they can, from the beginning to the end of their working life, record and enhance their capabilities through formal and informal learning.  

6. The shape and content of work and individual health and wellbeing are strongly related.  

7. The National Living Wage is a powerful tool to raise the financial baseline of low paid workers. It needs to be accompanied by sectoral strategies engaging employers, employees and stakeholders.  

In a speech at the launch of the report on 11 July 2017, the then Prime Minister Theresa May said:  

“With good work can come dignity and a sense of self-worth. It can promote good mental and physical health, and emotional well-being…As the world of work changes, our practices and laws must properly reflect and accommodate those changes. Because good work is in the interests of good business…If we are to deliver our vision for Britain as a high-wage, high-skill economy then we know that we have to invest in good work…As Matthew [Taylor] says, good work and plentiful work can and should go together. The quantity of jobs remains vital, but quality matters too”.   

The review itself received a mixed response from businesses and trade unions. While some stakeholders welcomed the review’s recognition that flexibility can be a strength in the labour market and the abolition of the Swedish Derogation, others suggested the reforms could damage job prospects and indeed were not bold enough.  

In February 2018, the Government published its response to the Taylor Review. This highlighted a number of issues being faced by the UK economy that needed to be addressed including productivity, wages, income security, regional imbalance, and wider disparities.  

“The Government made clear at the launch of The Review of Modern Working Practices that we accept the overarching ambition that all work in the UK economy should be fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment. The case that good work can lead to greater performance and therefore increased productivity is strong so we will take the necessary steps to achieve this” (page 13).  

In its response the Government accepted 51 of the Taylor Review’s 53 recommendations. The Government rejected the proposal to increase National Insurance contributions for the self-employed, and imposing mandatory reporting on companies to publish detailed indicators of job quality. Alongside its response, the Government also launched four consultations covering agency workers, employment status, enforcement of employment rights, and increasing transparency in the labour market.  

In December 2018, the Government published the Good Work Plan setting out how it intended to implement 51 recommendations contained in the Taylor Review. This contained a commitment to not only maintain workers’ rights as the UK left the EU, but to enhance them through the plan. To deliver on these commitments, the Good Work Plan contained a series of targeted reforms across three key areas:  

• Fair and decent work: a commitment to legislate to give all workers the right to request a more stable contract, extend the time required to break the period of continuous service to make it easier for employees to access their rights, reduce the thresholds of support for information and consultation rights, and ban employers from making deductions from staff tips.  

• Clarity for employers and workers: extend to workers an entitlement to a statement on their rights on appointment, and setting out specific information that agency workers must be given to help them make informed choices about the work they accept, aligning employment status frameworks for employment rights and tax purposes, and improving the clarity of employment status tests.  

• Fairer enforcement: extending state enforcement on behalf of vulnerable workers to underpayment of holiday pay, increasing state enforcement protections for agency workers where they have pay withheld or unclear deductions made by an umbrella company, legislate to increase the maximum level of penalty Employment Tribunals can impose in instances of aggravated breach, and the proposal of a new, single labour market enforcement agency.  

“Through taking forward virtually all of the recommendations made by Matthew Taylor, we will enhance the UK labour market and future-proof it to ensure further successes in a changing world. Integral to this approach is delivering on our commitment that fair and decent work should be available to all, including placing equal importance on quality work as well as quantity” (page 6).   

The Government also implemented pieces of secondary legislation including the agency workers (amendment) regulations 2019 to repeal the Swedish Derogation for workers who started a new contract after 6 April 2020 to have the right to a written statement of employment particulars. Between January and July 2019, the Government also held consultations on extending redundancy protection for women and new parents, employers misuse of flexible working arrangements, establishing a new single enforcement body for employment rights, and parental leave and pay.   

In his first speech as Prime Minister in July 2019, Boris Johnson spoke of the need to “level up across Britain with higher wages, and a higher living wage, and higher productivity”. In October 2019 in the Queen’s Speech, the Government committed to continuing the Good Work Plan and to introducing an Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill. Then, in December 2019, the Government pledged to introduce an Employment Bill. This was intended to raise workplace protections after Brexit while also acting to safeguard ‘gig economy’ workers from abusive employers and exploitative contracts. Yet in a subsequent Queen’s Speech in July 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson omitted reforms to zero hour contracts and the gig economy. However, the speech did contain a commitment to “level up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom, supporting jobs, businesses and economic growth and addressing the impact of the pandemic on public services”.  

In September 2021, the Labour Party published an Employment Rights Green Paper. This set out how Labour would use public procurement to support good work by favouring in-sourcing rather than out-sourcing public services:  

“There is a clear consensus between economists, business and trade unions, that fair and decent conditions of work improve productivity, economic opportunity, health and wellbeing. We need to change from the self-defeating nature of the low wage, low investment, and low productivity cycle that the country has been trapped in for the last decade….We know that more secure, flexible and better paid work means healthier people, more settled families, better communities and thriving businesses. Government working in partnership will create a prosperous economy that works for everyone. Labour’s New Deal for Working People will put us on a better course, with quality jobs and higher demand, higher investment, boosted productivity, and improved skills” (page 3).   

In January 2022, a Westminster Hall debate was held on implementing the Taylor Review. In bringing the debate, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi described how five years on since its publication: “just seven out of the 53 Taylor review recommendations have been legislated on, even though the Government accepted 51 of the 53. We also have as yet to see the promised but elusive Employment Bill…The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the brutal reality of insecure work in the UK and has exposed the systemic failures of the law around worker protections”. 

The debate covered a wide range of issues including flexible working, in-work poverty, sick pay, workers threatened with fire and rehire, carers, zero-hours contracts, age exploitation, insecure jobs, parental leave, holiday leave, workplace health and safety, employment rights, reform of employment law, enforcement of the law, real living wage, Universal Credit, and the furlough scheme. In response, Paul Scully the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy stated:  

“The results speak for themselves. We have seen high employment rates, reaching a record high of 76.6% in February 2020, and workers enjoying real pay increases month after month. We have seen a wealth of job opportunities, which is a testament to the excellence of UK businesses’ ability to grow, innovate and create jobs. We have also increased participation across groups who had typically been under-represented in the labour market, with women and workers from ethnic minority backgrounds now making up a larger proportion of the workforce than ever before. However, as I have said already, we need to take stock of how the pandemic has affected businesses and workers up and down the country before continuing to build on that record, because the past two years has seen a level of disruption to the economy that the Taylor Review just could not have predicted. However, we have acted decisively to provide an unprecedented package of support to protect people’s livelihoods”.  

In February 2022, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities presented the Levelling Up White Paper to parliament. This took a place-based focus to spreading opportunity equally across the country. It included commitments to boost productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards by growing the private sector, and set a target that by 2030, pay, employment and productivity will have risen in every area of the UK, with each containing a globally competitive city, and the gap between the top performing and other areas closing.  

In May 2022, the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, asked Matt Warman, then MP for Boston and Skegness, to lead a review into the future of work. This identified four areas for the Government to consider further:  

1. Artificial intelligence and automation: there are areas of the UK where larger proportions of a workforce will be at greater risk of being left behind due to rapid automation. The Government should map and support areas more susceptible to the pace of change.  

2. Skills: Regional Skills Boards, Town Boards and other endeavours show that Government has a unique opportunity to ensure colleges, skills providers, universities, workers representatives and others assess and rapidly deliver local skills needs.  

3. Place and flexibility: the Government should continue to consider the rights of those that wish to work flexibly and develop a better understanding of what ‘flexibility’ means for various groups that make up the workforce.  

4. Workers rights: precarious and unpredictable work, alongside increasing job intensification, means there is significant benefit to encouraging transparency on what firms now expect from their workers and when. The Government should continue to be a global leader in this space and work with organisations, such as ACAS, to establish best practice and set out clear expectations for the benefit of both workers and employers.  

“At this unique moment after Covid and outside of the EU, we can now look to develop the skills, the rights and the environment to level up, maximise productivity, work towards net zero and enhance the wellbeing of employers, employees and the self-employed”, Matt Warman MP.  

In May 2024, the Labour Party published a ‘plan to make work pay’. The plan highlighted a double challenge: too many people are unable to get jobs to raise a family on, and businesses are unable to retain the workers they need to grow leading to more people being drawn into insecure work and good employers being undercut in an uneven playing field. The party described the economy as marked by ‘dire productivity, insecurity, and low pay’. Under the strapline of a ‘New Deal for Working People’, the plan set out how a Labour Government would make work pay:  

“…we’ll boost wages, make work more secure and support working people to thrive – delivering a genuine living wage, banning exploitative zero hours contracts, and ending fire and rehire. Labour will back working people to take their voice back, improve their terms and conditions and ensure protections at work are fit for the world today…we’ll deliver the biggest upgrade to rights at work for a generation…We will consult fully with businesses, workers and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed…Our New Deal is core to our mission for growth, raising living standards in every part of the country. Because creating well-paid jobs across all parts of our country is what it takes to rebalance our country…Labour’s New Deal will ensure more people stay in work, make work more family-friendly and improve living standards, putting more money into working people’s pockets to spend, boosting economic growth, resilience and conditions for innovation” (page 4).   

Labour’s manifesto chapter to ‘breakdown barriers to opportunity’, described how “Good work will be the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty and inequality. We will create more good jobs, reform employment support, and make work pay so that many more people benefit from the dignity and purpose of work”.   

Following the election, in October 2024, the Labour Government published a policy paper setting out their plans to make work pay. This details the Government’s strategy to modernise the labour market and strengthen employment protections in response to rising insecurity and low pay. Central to the paper is the introduction of an Employment Rights Bill which aims to tackle exploitative practices, improve enforcement, and ensure that work genuinely supports living standards. The Bill was introduced to parliament on 10 October 2024, completed its Commons stages in March 2025, and was at the report stage in the House of Lords in July 2025. In July 2025, the Government published its roadmap for implementing the Bill. It is a phased plan from late 2025 through to 2027 to ‘make work pay’ and ‘reform workers rights’. It includes reforms such as protections against unfair dismissal, a ban on exploitative zero-hours contracts, and enhanced sick pay.  

More recently, in September 2025 the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP), HM Treasury and the Department for Education (DfE) published the Get Britain Working White Paper. This sets out a strategic vision for revitalising the UK labour market by tackling economic inactivity and promoting inclusive growth. Central to the White Paper is a commitment to reducing barriers to work – whether health-related, structural or regional. It reflects a shift towards a more person-centred, place-based model of employment support designed to build a future ready workforce. The White Paper recognises how ‘good work can significantly reduce the chances of people, including parents, falling into poverty’. It outlines ‘a revised focus on supporting progression and good work through aligning employment support and having it work better with skills and careers advice’: 

“Aligning employment support more effectively with skills and careers will help more people to get work and get on in work. In turn, this will open new opportunities for people in local labour markets to address local skills gaps and to realise their career goals. The new service will support people to have more rewarding working lives, where career development and acquiring new skills are the norm, and opens up their opportunities to progress into future roles. In England, bringing Jobcentre Plus together with the National Careers Service will create a greater awareness and focus on skills and careers, as well as genuine collaboration in the decision-making process for current and future skills and careers provision”.  

The White Paper also contained a commitment to ‘a strengthened employment rights framework that will ensure access to good work that improves living standards across the country’.  

At the Labour Party’s Annual Conference in October 2025, the chancellor articulated a vision for a society rooted in the principle of ‘contribution’ – defined as a society  “where we do our duty for each other, and where hard work is matched by fair reward”. A youth guarantee was also announced focused on “supporting ordinary kids to flourish, unhindered by their background…[we] don’t want to leave a generation of young people to languish without prospects”. The Youth Guarantee commits to providing every eligible young person who has been on Universal Credit for 18 months without earning or learning guaranteed paid work, helping them transition into regular employment.  

On 26 November 2025, Chancellor presented the Autumn Budget to Parliament, describing it as “a Budget for fair taxes, strong public services, and a stable economy.” The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) also published its forecast for the UK’s economic and fiscal outlook. 

Key measures announced in the Budget included: 

• Extending the freeze on personal tax thresholds (income tax and National Insurance contributions) for a further three years, from 2028 to 2031. 

• Introducing a cap, from April 2029, on pension contributions made through salary sacrifice schemes, with only the first £2,000 exempt from National Insurance contributions (currently uncapped). 

• A new High Value Council Tax Charge from April 2028: £2,500 annually for properties valued between £2 million and £2.5 million, rising to £7,500 for properties over £5 million. 

• Raising the National Living Wage by 4.1% to £12.71 an hour from April 2026. Minimum wages for younger workers will also rise: for 18–20 year olds by 8.5% to £10.85, and for 16–17 year olds and apprentices by 6% to £8.00. 

• Allocating £725 million to a new Growth and Skills Levy and £425 million to the Youth Guarantee programme, running until 2028/29. 

• Removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit from April 2026. 

The OBR’s forecast highlighted several challenges, including: 

How living standards are expected to rise only marginally, with real after-tax incomes projected to be less than 2% higher in 2031 than they were in 2019, reflecting weak wage growth and rising taxes from the extended threshold freeze. 

• Unemployment has been edging up due to “ongoing weakness in labour demand,” with the rate expected to remain at around 5% until 2027, before easing towards 4%. 

• Business investment growth is forecast to improve in 2025 but weaken in 2026 and 2027, constrained by subdued confidence, high interest rates, and lower returns on capital. 

• Departmental spending allocations remain largely unchanged until 2028/29, but public spending is projected to be £32 billion higher annually by 2029/30, driven mainly by increased welfare costs. 

 
The Budget provides clear gains for low-paid workers, particularly younger employees, through higher minimum wages and targeted investment in training and employment programmes. The removal of the two-child limit on Universal Credit also strengthens social safety nets, reducing in-work poverty and improving financial stability for families. However, for many workers, pay rises may feel less rewarding as fiscal drag and weak real income growth erode improvements in living standards. Employers, facing higher wage bills, may respond by limiting recruitment or reducing hours. Similarly, some employers may also scale back pension benefits. Overall, the recent Budget raises the floor of job quality—through fairer wages, stronger welfare, and skills investment—but the ceiling remains constrained by structural challenges around productivity, business investment, and living standards. 

How can we measure it? Over the last decade, a number of organisations in the UK and internationally, have developed frameworks, indicators and metrics to measure good work and job quality; each taking different methodological approaches.  

The 2017 Taylor Review marked a pivotal moment in the UK’s approach to measuring good work. The Review proposed six metrics:  

1. Wages – measured in relation to the national minimum wage and average wage relative to qualifications.  

2. Employment quality – including security, progression and predictability of working hours.  

3. Education and training – the availability, quality and transferability of learning.  

4. Working conditions – job variety, work intensity and social support.  

5. Work-life balance – work duration and flexibility.  

6. Participation and representation – involvement in organisational decisions and the presence of trade unions.  

Importantly, the Taylor Review recognised that workers may prioritise different aspects of job quality depending on their personal circumstances. This nuanced understanding laid the groundwork for other measurement frameworks.  

Following the publication of the Taylor Review, Matthew Taylor chaired a working group convened by the RSA and Carnegie UK. The working group sought to build on the Review’s findings by proposing a comprehensive measurement framework for job quality. The resultant model included 18 metrics, 6 of which were based on existing national data sources. The remaining 12 required the development of new measures within the Labour Force Survey (LFS).  

In December 2018, the Government published The Good Work Plan which tasked the Industrial Strategy Council with adopting and tracking a set of metrics to measure the quality of work in the UK labour market. The Council’s approach was grounded in five foundational principles of quality work: satisfaction, fair pay, participation and progression, wellbeing and security, and voice and autonomy. To operationalise these principles, the Council developed a set of Success Metrics that included productivity (e.g. GVA per hour worked, weekly earnings deflated by the Consumer Price Index), and a range of other ‘capitals’ including human capital (workers skills), physical capital (the transport network), and intangible capital (such as efficient management practices). The Council also considered the institutional environment within which all of the capitals interact including the quality of competition law. However, the Council acknowledged the complexity of linking policy actions directly to changes in these metrics, noting that it would take time and that causality would be difficult to establish.   

Recognising the absence of a consistent, large-scale dataset tracking UK workers’ experiences across sectors, in 2017 The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) commissioned the Institute for Employment Research (IER) at the University of Warwick to produce a thematic literature review on job quality. The review concluded that ‘job quality’ is inherently a multi-dimensional concept and that no single dataset could capture its full scope. They identified the European Working Conditions Survey as the most reliable source of information at the time. In response, CIPD launched the Good Work Index in 2018. Published annually, the Index is based on surveys of 5,000 workers across various industries, and provides a comprehensive overview of how employees perceive aspects of their work and what factors most influence whether their experience is positive or negative. The Index applies metrics to seven indicators: (i) pay and benefits, (ii) contracts, (iii) work-life balance, (iv) job design and the nature of work, (v) relationships at work, (vi) employee voice, and (vii) health and wellbeing.  

Findings from the Index have revealed some consistent trends. Demand for flexible working arrangements has increased, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. A consistent proportion of workers report that work negatively affects their mental and physical health. While satisfaction with pay has remained steady, financial wellbeing – the ability to keep up with bills – has fluctuated, especially during economic downturns and rising living costs. Public and voluntary sector workers consistently report lower job satisfaction and higher stress compared to their private sector counterparts. The 2025 Good Work Index report found 54% of workers felt able to keep up with their bills, up from 50% in 2024. However, financial insecurity remains disproportionately high among lower-skilled workers, women, and people with disabilities. Formal Flexible Working Arrangements (FWAs), such as the 4 day working week and compressed hours, are in high demand but remain limited in their availability. Notably, the perception that work is “just about the money” has grown since the pandemic. Additionally, 16% of workers said they had tasks that had been automated by AI, particularly in technology and professional sectors. 

In January 2021, the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW) launched the Good Work Monitor, the first attempt to build a detailed sub-regional map of access to good work across the country. The Monitor links labour market conditions to local population health and broader economic and social conditions that pertain to work. The Monitor comprises two composite indexes. The first, the Good Work Monitor, measures labour market access (via unemployment rates and labour force participation); work status and autonomy (based on the percentage of people in routine work and in professional/managerial occupations); and pay and conditions (using median pay indexed to regional price levels and the percentage of the population with ‘satisfactory hours’). The second, the Conditions of Good Work Monitor, includes five indicator groups: economic outcomes (e.g. productivity by GVA/job), labour demand (e.g. business start-ups and job density), education (e.g. training providers per 100K, GCSE attainment), inequality and deprivation (e.g. 80/20 earnings inequality), and health indicators (e.g. Healthy Life Expectancy). Despite its breadth, the Monitor does not capture all the dimensions of job quality set out in IFOW’s Good Work Charter, particularly in areas such as safety, voice and representation due to limitations in available data. Since 2022, IFOW has updated the Monitor annually using new data from the ONS, creating a Good Work Time Series. The 2025 edition spans data from 2009 to 2024 and sits alongside a Disruption Index that tracks technological transformation on the world of work and people’s wellbeing. The 2025 edition has also been expanded to cover Scotland and Wales.  

The 2025 Good Work Monitor and Disruption Index highlight widening regional inequalities and increasing divergence between top and bottom performing areas. Productivity has stagnated for nearly a decade, with the exception of areas surrounding London. Pay levels across England, Scotland and Wales have remained relatively low when adjusted for inflation and housing costs, with only London, the South and parts of Scotland showing consistently higher wages. The data reveals that good work is unevenly distributed, with higher quality jobs concentrated around London and poorer quality jobs prevalent in Northern England, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire. While overall access to good work has improved, regional inequalities have deepened. The IFOW has called on the Government to place better measurement of good work, productivity and technological transformation at the heart of its Industrial Strategy.  

In 2022, the ONS published a report aimed at expanding its work quality indicators. These focused on hours worked, earnings, and contract types, and included breakdowns by employee characteristics. Since 2019, ONS has been adding new job quality indicators to its analysis, including satisfactory hours, overtime, desired contract, zero hour contracts, low pay, career progression, employee involvement, union representation, and workplace injury and illness.  

Also in 2022, the Work Foundation at Lancaster University launched the UK Insecure Work Index, with an updated Index published in 2024.The Index defines severely insecure work as ‘involuntary part-time and involuntary temporary forms of work, or a combination of two or more heavily weighted forms of insecurity’. The 2024 report found that 6.8 million people (21.4% of the workforce) were in severely insecure work in 2023, an increase of 600,000 since 2022. The Index highlights that women, ethnic minority groups, young people and disabled people are disproportionately affected by insecure work. Sectors most at risk include hospitality, services, and agriculture, where one in three workers face severe insecurity, compared to one in five nationally.    

In June 2024, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) published a report assessing the Government’s progress against the 12 missions set out in its Levelling Up White Paper. The report drew on 26 datasets, including key indicators for pay, employment and productivity. The report describes how:  

“Overall, progress towards levelling up has been glacial – and, on many metrics, the UK as a whole has gone into reverse. The share of pupils in England meeting the expected standards at the end of primary school has fallen from 65% in 2018/19 to 60% in June 2023. The total number of further education and skills courses completed fell by 14%, driven by a more than 20% fall in the lowest-skilled areas. Outside of the pandemic years, average life satisfaction is the lowest it has been since 2012. There is a 21-percentage-point gap in the average employment rate between the best- and worst-performing tenth of local authorities – the widest it has been since at least 2005…There are a small number of bright spots. Digital connectivity has increased quickly: between April 2023 and January 2024, the share of premises outside London covered by 5G rose from 67% to 78%. Pride in one’s local area increased between 2019 and 2021, including a 4-percentage-point rise in the North West (where pride in place was lowest)” (pages 2-3).   

In response to a marked increase in economic inactivity – particularly driven by long-term health conditions – the Government published the Get Britain Working White Paper in November 2024. This strategic document outlines a £240 million programme aimed at reducing economic inactivity by reforming employment support, improving health outcomes, and boosting skills and opportunities. The plan places particular emphasis on supporting young people and individuals with long-term health conditions, recognising their disproportionate representation among those not currently participating in the labour market. In April 2025, the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) issued guidance for developing local Get Britain Working plans. All areas of England are covered and these plans are geographically based around strategic authorities or Connect to Work delivery areas. The overarching ambition set out in both the White Paper and the guidance is to raise the national employment rate to 80%.   

To monitor progress, the Government has established a set of outcome metrics that local areas are expected to monitor closely. There are two key outcome metrics: the employment rate, and real earnings amongst non-retired households (all ages). In addition, six intermediate outcome metrics have been introduced to capture more granular dimensions of labour market performance: (i) local variation in employment rates, (ii) health related economic inactivity rate, (iii) disability employment rate gap, (iv) proportion of 18-24 year olds not in education, employment and training supported by an increase in the proportion of 16-21 year olds in education or a job with training, (v) employment rate among parents 18-66 years, and (vi) female employment rate. Together, these metrics provide a means for assessing national and local progress in reducing economic inactivity and improving labour market inclusion.  

Beyond the UK, international organisations have also developed metrics to assess job quality and promote good work. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, has established a job quality framework that comprises three key elements: earnings quality, labour market security, and working environment. Within this framework, the OECD identifies 6 dimensions and 17 job characteristics. According to the OECD’s comparative analysis, countries such as Denmark, Finland, and Germany rank highest in job quality, while Estonia, Greece, Hungary, and Poland perform less well. Similarly, the European Trade Union Institute (etui) uses the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) and the EU labour force survey to conduct country comparisons on job quality. The analysis reveals significant variation in job quality across EU Member States, with Nordic countries including Sweden and Denmark, as well as the Netherlands, scoring highly; and Bulgaria, Romania and Greece performing less well.  

What are the rural dimensions of good work? Firstly, what does official data tells us about working in rural England? The Rural Urban Classification is an official statistic for England and Wales, used to distinguish between rural and urban areas. Urban areas are defined as settlements with populations of 10,000 or more, based on Census data, with rural areas determined to be smaller or larger based on dwelling densities and by whether they are nearer to or further from a major town or city. The latest Rural Urban Classification (2021) includes an indicator of ‘relative access’ which acts as a proxy for potential access to services and employment, and reflects a growing understanding of how connectivity shapes experiences of rural life. Rural areas are also classified by their proximity to major towns and cities based on the estimated travel time by road – with those nearer to an urban settlement with a population of 75,000+ within 30 minutes by car and those further from a major urban centre not being able to reach it within 30 minutes by road. The Rural Urban Classification is used by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to produce the Statistical Digest of Rural England. This comprises 8 thematic reports, including the Rural Economic Bulletin which contains the following rural employment, earnings, productivity and business analysis:  

• Employment rates are higher and unemployment rates lower in rural areas than in urban areas, a consistent picture since 2019. However, the rate of economic inactivity for all those aged over 16 years is higher in rural areas – again consistently since 2019 – and is attributed to proportionately more retirees.  

• People do not necessarily work in the same area as they live. Median earnings for workers living in majority rural authorities are higher than for those who work in these areas. In 2024, for example, the median workplace-based earnings of workers in majority rural authorities was £34,600, less than the median earnings of £36,200 in urban authorities. Those living nearer to a major town or city earn £3,100 more than those who live further away. While residence based earnings exceed workplace-based earning, with a median of £36,900 which is due to several factors including remote workers choosing to live in rural areas while working for non-local employers, or because residents commute to higher paying jobs in suburban or urban areas because local employment opportunities are limited.  

• In 2023, rural areas contributed £259 billion to England’s Gross Value Added (GVA), representing 12.2% of the total GVA for England. GVA per workforce job has declined in rural areas between 2001 and 2023: for those residing further from a major town or city, productivity in 2023 was 82% of the average for England excluding London (down from 92% in 2001), and for those residing nearer a major town or city productivity in 2023 was 97%, down from 99% in 2001.  

• In 2022/23, there were 590 businesses per 10,000 population in rural areas, compared with 420 per 10,000 population in urban areas. 72% of rural businesses have between 1 and 9 employees, and the greatest proportion of employment occurs in businesses with between 10 and 49 employees (30%). The average turnover per person was lower in rural areas compared to urban areas – £147,000 compared to £218,000.  

• In 2022/23, agriculture, forestry and fishing had the largest proportion of business numbers in rural areas (14% of all businesses), but they only accounted for 7% of all employment. Education, health and social work had the largest proportion of employment (16%).  

• Business survival rates are higher in rural areas, but they have a lower rate of high-growth enterprises. Similarly, capital investment per employee is generally lower in rural areas than urban areas.    

This data presents a complex rural economic landscape, one marked by high employment and business density, yet lower productivity and earnings compared to urban areas. While many residents benefit from higher incomes due to commuting or remote work, local job opportunities tend to be lower paid. Despite strong business survival rates, rural areas face structural challenges in attracting investment and fostering high-growth enterprises, which constrains long-term economic competitiveness. 

Data from the education, qualifications and training section in The Statistical Digest of Rural England shows that:  

•  Between 2012 and 2021, a higher percentage of people working in urban areas received on-the-job training than people working in rural areas (13.9% in rural compared to 14.9% in urban).  

• In 2021, the proportion of the working age population with at least Level 2 qualifications working in rural areas was 80.6%, lower than in urban areas at 82.5%. The proportion of the population with at least Leve 4 to Level 6 qualifications was 42.4% in rural areas and 52.9% in urban areas. While the proportion of the working age population with higher level qualifications increased over a 10-year period, this increase was faster for people working in urban areas.  

This data reveals how rural areas lag behind their urban counterparts in both access to on-the-job training and attainment of higher-level qualifications. Although qualification levels have improved over time, the pace of progress has been slower in rural areas compared to urban areas.  

These findings are also borne out of job quality analysis by the Rural Services Network (RSN) which used earnings data from the Annual Population Survey published by ONS to offer a rural analysis of the 2018 and 2021 data. This reveals that:   

• The percentage of rural residents employed with satisfactory hours increased from 78.55% in 2018 to 81.83% in 2021, still slightly below the England average of 82.03% in 2021.  

• The percentage of rural residents employed in low pay increased, from 9.23% in 2018 to 11.51% in 2021.  

• Opportunities for career progression and no opportunities for career progression were also ranked lower by rural residents in 2021:  with 50.37% of rural employees reporting career progression opportunities in 2021 (compared to 55% for England), and 46.88% reporting no career progression options (compared to 42.72% for England).  

• Good employee involvement in the workplace was also lower in rural areas in 2021: with 53.9% of rural employees reporting good involvement compared to 54.9% for England.  

• Rural areas also had a higher proportion of zero-hour contracts: 3.32% for rural employees compared to 2.93% for England.  

These findings reveal that amid rising levels of low pay, limited career progression, and lower employee involvement, rural employees face persistent structural disadvantages in the labour market. The higher prevalence of zero-hour contracts further reflects the insecurity and precarity of many rural roles. 

Alongside this, and until very recently, the relatively high levels of deprivation in some rural areas tended not to be captured by standard deprivation measures. This changed on 30 October 2025 when the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) published The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD25). For the first time, the statistical release included focused analysis and interpretation of deprivation in rural areas. This used the Rural Urban Classification to identify 5,554 rural Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs), equating to 16.5% of all LSOAs in England. The rural analysis shows:  

• 71 of these 5,554 LSOAs are ranked in the 10% most deprived nationally, equating to 1.3% of all rural LSOAs. In contrast, 11.7% of urban LSOAs are ranked within the most deprived 10% of all LSOAs nationally.  

• 2.5% of rural LSOAs are ranked in the most deprived 10-20% of LSOAs, and 5.2% within the most deprived 20-30%. 500 rural LSOAs are ranked among the most deprived 30% of LSOAs in England, reflecting 9% of all rural LSOAs compared to 34.1% of urban LSOAs.  

• The top 10 most deprived rural LSOAs on the IMD 2025 are: Easington & Hawthorn (County Durham), Spennymoor East & Ferryhill West (County Durham), Blackhall (County Durham), Kinsley & Fitzwilliam (Wakefield), Shildon (County Durham), Coudon North (County Durham), Coudon North (County Durham), Wainfleet All Saints (East Lindsey), Ingoldmells & Chapel St Leonards (East Lindsey), and Coudon North (County Durham). 14 of the 20 most deprived rural LSOAs are located in former mining areas or ports. 

• Although a relatively small proportion of rural areas are identified as highly deprived, a considerable number of rural people are recognised as deprived. For example, more than 1,336,000 rural residents are identified as income deprived, equating to 10.1% of the total number of income deprived people across the country. Similarly, 511,100 rural dwellers are experiencing employment deprivation, 363,600 rural children are experiencing income deprivation, and 320,100 older people experiencing income deprivation. This demonstrates how many deprived people are living in less deprived areas, therefore focusing only on the most deprived deciles of LSOA distribution risks overlooking a notable number of people experiencing deprivation.       

Although rural areas are less likely than urban areas to be classified among the most deprived, deprivation is still widespread across the countryside. A significant number of rural residents face income and employment challenges, despite living in areas not ranked as highly deprived, suggesting the need to address the dispersed nature of rural hardship. 

Secondly, outside of these official datasets, more informal labour market mechanisms operate in rural areas, yet informal work is often overlooked in discussions and analysis of ‘good work’. The World Economic Forum (WEF), for example, estimates that over half the global workforce is engaged in unregulated, often invisible forms of work, and that this applies to 11% of the UK workforce. Informal work can be hidden within rural industries, but it can also be a self-provisioning tactic to maximise income when people find it difficult to find enough work in the formal economy to survive. This is not illegal work but often job-juggling.  

Similarly, there are people out of work trying to get by without accessing support from, or on the radar of, Jobcentre Plus and DWP. The State of Rural Services 2025 report by Rural England CIC examined the location of Jobcentre Plus locations, finding only 13 of the 490 centres operating in July 2023 were located in areas classified as rural – and running in a small number of regions, namely Cornwall, North Norfolk, North Shropshire, and North East England. While all these centres were permanent not temporary, they were predominantly located in town and fringe locations, implying that people living in less densely populated rural areas would have to travel to access support. Further, the report highlights a number of academic studies which have found benefit take-up is lower in rural compared to urban areas, linked to their unsuitability for people with a seasonality component to their employment, lack of peer support, and physical distance from benefit support and access points.  

Thirdly, rural communities face hidden exploitation. The Global Slavery Index estimated that 122,000 people were working in conditions of slavery in the UK in 2021, in farming, hospitality, beauty, construction, manufacturing, car washes, domestic service and other service industries. Many of these industries rely heavily on migrant workers. Evidence also shows exploitation of migrant workers within the government’s seasonal worker visa scheme, which has rapidly expanded from 2,500 visas issued in its 2019 pilot, to 47,000 in 2023. For instance, in 2022, investigations revealed cases involving the exploitation of Nepali and Indonesian migrant workers, who were made to pay extortionate fees to agents working for UK licenced recruitment companies to secure jobs on fruit farms under the scheme. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) concluded a subsequent investigation in 2023 resulting in a Nepali agency losing its licence and a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order handed to the two company directors. The Clewer Initiative highlights the distinctive rural features of modern slavery. In addition to sectors with seasonal peaks in demand and smaller business, they describe how reputable rural businesses can be infiltrated by modern slavery without their knowledge or consent. They have also developed two apps so people can report suspicions and ask for help: Farm Work Welfare App, for fresh produce supply chain sectors, and The Safe Car Wash App to be used by someone going to get their car washed.  

Against this backdrop, the question arises: how can we do deliver quality jobs in rural areas? Two complementary strategies standout: ‘growing local’ and ‘growing remote’.  

Growing local talent is central to building sustainable rural economies. Initiatives such as Community Catalysts have demonstrated how micro-enterprise development can diversify the care marketplace. By identifying local people interested in delivering care differently, Community Catalysts supports rural residents to establish and run small businesses through its Community Micro-enterprise Development Programme; while its Shared Learning Network helps public sector organisations make the cultural and systemic changes needed to sustain this creative approach. Similarly, the NHS Lincolnshire Talent Academy, established in 2015, brings together health and care organisations across the county to “grow our own” workforce, focusing on recruitment and retention of health professionals. Other examples include Community Action Northumberland (CAN), which operates six rural employment hubs offering tailored, drop-in support to unemployed residents, and the RCC (Leicestershire & Rutland), which delivers the Helping Improve Rural Employability (HIRE) programme to support long-term unemployed residents through one-to-one mentoring and personalised guidance. 

Supporting rural employers is equally important. Researchers from the Universities of Derby and Newcastle produced a toolkit to help employers in the Derbyshire Peak District address recruitment and retention challenges. The toolkit advocates for a place-based approach, encouraging employers to highlight the wellbeing, attachment, and work-life balance benefits of the rural landscape—for example, by embedding these advantages into job advertisements. Successful rural enterprises such as Wensleydale Creamery and Gloucester Services further illustrate how businesses rooted in local identity can thrive while contributing to community development. 

Remote and platform-based work models also offer new opportunities for those wishing to remain or relocate to rural areas. In Ireland, Grow Remote, a social enterprise founded in 2018, helps rural residents access remote work by providing training and certification, supporting local leaders to establish chapters, fostering networks of remote workers, and assisting employers to transition to remote models. To date, it has engaged over 130 communities and established 54 chapters. Participants have described the transformative impact of remote work, from shifting into more suitable roles such as data research to relocating from Dublin to smaller towns, gaining more time for family, hobbies, and community involvement. Elsewhere, in Madeira, the Regional Government, through Startup Madeira, launched the Digital Nomads Madeira Islands pilot in 2021, creating the first Digital Nomad Village in Ponta do Sol. The initiative has since expanded to six locations, welcoming over 12,700 digital nomads. 

While remote work brings significant benefits, it also raises challenges. Commentators have noted that remote workers can inadvertently create siloed economies. In the case of Maderia,  perceptions have emerged that the local Portuguese workforce is treated as a lower-cost alternative. These concerns highlight the importance of ensuring that remote work models are integrated inclusively, balancing the opportunities they create with the need to sustain equitable rural economies. 

Where next? On 20 November, Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds delivered a keynote address at the 2025 CLA Rural Business Conference, emphasising that the government views the rural economy as fundamental to its growth mission. She stated that “when rural communities succeed, the whole country succeeds”, outlining a vision of a countryside with thriving businesses, good jobs, and flourishing communities. Reynolds highlighted the role of the Rural Taskforce in ensuring that rural voices are heard across government, noting that the taskforce has already identified specific barriers holding rural communities back. The results of this work, including more than 50 proposed interventions, are expected to be published early next year. Defra’s policy paper, ‘The Government’s Approach to Rural Proofing, 2025’, reinforces this commitment by asserting that those living in rural areas should expect the same standards of living as those in towns and cities. This includes access to high-quality public services, reliable connectivity, good local schools and healthcare, safe communities, and quality employment opportunities.  

All of this work  raises critical questions about the types of jobs needed in rural areas and how to ensure they are fair, decent, and provide scope for fulfilment and career development. It also challenges policymakers, employers and communities to consider how such jobs can be delivered in ways that are practical and sustainable for both employees and businesses. The central issue, therefore, is not only how to create jobs in rural areas, but how to ensure that these jobs meet the standards of fairness, security, and opportunity that underpin a resilient economy. The question remains: what additional measures are needed to ensure that rural employment is both highquality and futurefocused, and will the forthcoming interventions from the Rural Taskforce mark the beginning of a policy change required to achieve this? 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently collating initiatives and plans to tackle economic inactivity; developing a community masterplan; and evaluating a heritage skills programme. Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting rural communities across Cambridgeshire and is a member of her local Patient Participation Group.  

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk  

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/  

LinkedIn: 🌈Jessica Sellick