Search Results

There have been significant political and economic changes in the UK which provide the backdrop to employer expenditure on training: Brexit and a new immigration policy, the [Coronavirus Disease 2019] COVID-19 pandemic, and the cost-of-living crisis caused by the Russia-Ukraine war. Against this backdrop, the UK faces the long-term challenge of increasing productivity. Productivity can be raised through increasing investment in physical capital, human capital and new technology. Employer expenditure on training can be divided into two parts: expenditure on general training provision and expenditure on apprenticeships. This publication seeks to discuss a series of key issues regarding: employer spending on general training provision; employer spending on apprenticeships; employer engagement in publicly funded post-16 education; and employer involvement in work placements. It includes analysis and recommendations on how to boost the demand for skills and employer investment in training from 21 leading organisations and experts. It concludes with key messages and recommendations from Campaign for Learning. From a policy perspective, ideas to increase employer spending on training in general and post-16 education and skills in particular refer to England.

Edited excerpts from publication and publisher's website.

The contents are as follows: Introduction / Julia Wright and Mark Corney. Part one, 'Employer investment in context', contains the following papers: Investment in the round / Louise Murphy; UK enterprises and investment in capital and training / Vicki Belt; Employer investment in training in England / Becci Newton. Part two, 'Drivers of employer investment in training', contains: Derived demand, British management and employer investment in training / Neil Carberry; Strategies to drive-up employer investment in training / Ewart Keep; Transitioning to net zero, green skills and employer investment in training / Sam Alvis; Job quality, job design and driving-up employer investment in training / Dan Lucy; Local inward investment, business support and employer demand for training / Natasha Waller; Universities, R&D, business innovation and meeting employer skills needs / Jovan Luzajic; FE colleges, business innovation and meeting employer skills needs / David Hughes.

Part three, 'Increasing employer investment in training', contains: Why should employers invest in training in a flexible labour market? / Paul Bivand; Why should employers invest in training with large net worker migration into the UK? / Aidan Relf; Raising employer investment in training / Stephan Evans; Increasing employer investment in training / Robert West; Encouraging employer demand for training / Lizzie Crowley; Increasing employer demand for management training / Anthony Painter. Part four, 'Raising employer demand for publicly funded post-16 education and skills', contains: Increasing employer demand for post-16 apprenticeships in England / Jane Hickie; Increasing employer demand for level 4-5 technical education in England / Mandy Crawford; Increasing employer demand for higher technical education in England / Ian Pryce. Part five, 'Raising employer demand for work placements', contains: Increasing employer demand for work placements for level 3-5 vocational courses in England / John Widdowson; Increasing employer demand for undergraduate work placements in England / Stephen Isherwood. The Campaign for Learning concluding section contains: Key messages / Mark Corney; Recommendations / Mark Corney. Show less

Employer-sponsored training is a critical component of Canada's overall skills development landscape, which includes formal and informal education and skills training. It helps bridge gaps between formal education and the specific skills required in workplaces, including gaps that emerge from technological, regulatory, and other economic and social changes. Despite the importance of employer-sponsored training, little is currently known about how much Canadian employers invest in training, what kinds of training they offer, how it is delivered, what impacts it has, or how investment and opportunities differ across sectors, regions, and employee characteristics. Canadian data on the levels, kinds, trends, and impacts of employer-sponsored training are largely unreliable, out of date, and/or ill-suited for comparison across time and jurisdictions. Developing even a rough picture of the employer-sponsored training ecosystem in Canada is difficult.

This report draws on available literature and data to develop the best possible picture of employer-sponsored training levels and trends; types and modes of delivery; what motivates and hinders training investment; and how investment is distributed across sectors, types of firms, and learners. Examining the limited data suggests that employer-sponsored training in Canada is: (1) limited: Canadian firms invest modestly in training and lag behind their international peers in rates and hours of instruction; (2) concentrated: larger firms are more likely than smaller firms to provide training. Employers in utilities, finance and insurance, and other knowledge-based technology-rich industries train at above-average rates, while firms in retail, forestry, and oil and gas extraction provide below-average levels of training. Firms in Quebec and Ontario are more likely to provide training than firms in the Prairies or Atlantic provinces; and (3) ROI and workplace-focused: given their concern for return on investment (ROI), firms tend to invest in training for immediate needs, such as onboarding and orientation, technology adoption, addressing skills gaps, and implementing innovations, and favour on-the-job and at-workplace modes of delivery over classroom and other external options.

Edited excerpts from publisher's website. Show less

The political economy of skills formation represents a complex area of research since it explores the convergence between public policy ambitions and market economy. This particularly applies to apprenticeships policy, which sees private sector involvement in skills formation as fundamental. In England, technician-level skills shortages in advanced manufacturing are at a critical state and continue to worsen with the emergence of new technologies. This problem matters because technicians are important contributors to innovation, sectoral productivity, and the country’s economy. To address this, waves of structural and institutional reforms have been introduced by governments over the last three decades, shifting elements of skills planning between national, regional, and local institutions.

The latest reform of this sort was the localisation of the economic development policy, which encompassed skills formation. As such, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) were introduced in 2011 as local institutions of governance aimed at enabling 'a strong, more responsive skills system', using local knowledge and expertise. Nevertheless, in the context of national administration of apprenticeships, nationally defined targets, national funding and taxation system, the actual role of LEPs with regards to motivating employers to engage in apprenticeship investment in order to achieve local economic growth appears to be unclear and unexplored.

This research explored the extent to which the institution of the LEP engaged in solving the skills shortage problem of trained technicians required by the advanced manufacturing sector in England. The thesis starts with an analysis of the context in which LEPs operate and take strategic decisions, using the theory of polycentricity (Chapter 4). Furthermore, Chapter 5 uses the IAD Framework to help analyse the influence LEPs have on firms' training investment decision making. Chapter 6 continues this analysis by presenting firms' patterns of interaction in training investment, as well as the outcomes that resulted from these behaviours.

The findings suggest that LEPs have potential for generating local cooperation in training investment. This potential can be further developed if the institution of the LEP explores its local scale of governance beyond its superficial skills capital investor role and into the support of homogenous club-like employer networks, intrinsic to the polycentric order of governance in economic development. Despite its weakened polycentric attributes, which limit the impact of its skills capital allocations, the evidence presented in this thesis suggests that there is a link between LEPs' local scale of operation and firms' decision to invest in training that addresses the collective act ion problem of technician skills shortages: the support for club-like, homogenous, and small-sized local employer networks. Consequently, these findings provided the answer to the research question raised in this thesis: 'how (if at all) has the institution of the LEP facilitated local cooperation in training investment, to address the collective action problem of technician skills shortages in advanced manufacturing industry in England?'.

The methodology used was the exploratory case study methodology, which enabled an extensive depth description of the institution of the LEP and its role in the local skills formation in England. The researcher used a triangulation of methods for data collection, which included interviews with 55 study participants, submissions of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, and quantitative national datasets such as Burning Glass Technologies and the Employer Skills Surveys (ESS). Study participants included representatives of LEPs, local employer networks and firms, training providers, and national/sectoral organisations.

Author's abstract. Show less

This report supplements findings from the main evaluation of the Construction Skills Fund (CSF). The CSF supported the development of 23 onsite training hubs which were mobile training facilities situated on construction sites. They delivered training for in-demand entry level construction skills. By offering trainees the opportunity to learn and apply their knowledge in a real-world industry-led environment, the hubs intended to bridge the gap between training and working in the construction industry. This research fills a gap in the main evaluation by focusing on the medium-term learner perspectives and experiences of looking for work after completing the course and career and learning progression. A qualitative method was used to provide deep insight into whether and how participants were able to enter employment in the construction sector and any barriers they experienced. In total, 30 interviews were achieved with respondents between nine months and two years after they completed training. The sample included respondents in a range of situations and from a range of backgrounds.

While some respondents felt capable and understood how to access work, especially those with wider networks and contacts in the sector, other motivated respondents were not able to do so. While the [Coronavirus Disease 2019] COVID-19 pandemic undoubtably affected labour market experiences, participants experienced other barriers to entering and sustaining work in the sector. These barriers included: a lack of suitable local roles, a lack of support to enter work, and poor early experiences in the sector. The CSF programme successfully trained motivated participants to become employment and site ready. It could have placed greater emphasis on supporting trained participants to enter work more consistently. This would have been likely to have improved the ability of the programme to achieve the job entry target and enabled employers and participants to reap fuller benefits of the training investment.

Excerpts from publication. Show less

European firms have increasingly invested in training of employees but differences across countries and types of firms remain - and the [Coronavirus Disease 2019] COVID-19 shock may have exacerbated them. This report analyses European firms' investment in training over the last six years examining trends, factors supporting training investment as well as the impact of the COVID-19 shock. We base the empirical analysis on a unique dataset, the European Investment Bank's Investment Survey (EIBIS), which allows tracking corporate training investment on a yearly basis. To understand dynamics underpinning firms' decision to invest in their workforce, we examine transition patterns and employ dynamic panel data estimation. Finally, we analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on firms' investment in workforce training and transitions in and out of training.

We find that despite a slow upward trend in training investment observed in recent years, supported by labour market recovery, differences across firms and countries have persisted. The pandemic risks aggravating these, through its asymmetric impact on labour markets and differences in corporate innovation, firm structure and resilience. While firm training can be an important element for firms and their workforce to adjust to the post-pandemic environment, asymmetries in training investment could make it harder for those already lagging. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy implications.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

Increasingly, technology is automating tasks previously performed by people. Automation has changed some jobs and eliminated others entirely. Thus some workers have had to retrain to learn the skills needed to keep their jobs or obtain new ones. Workers with lower levels of education who perform more routine tasks have tended to experience the greatest disruptions from automation, putting at risk jobs such as cashiers or clerical workers. This report examines challenges and opportunities to provide training to workers at risk of losing their jobs to automation.

Specifically, the research examined (1) what available data indicate about which workers are at risk of automation and the skills needed for in-demand jobs; and (2) what insights stakeholders offer for workforce programs to better serve displaced workers and those affected by automation. Although data doesn't explicitly identify workers at risk of losing their jobs, it offers insight into skills needed for jobs that are projected to be in-demand. Some workforce training programs focus on resume writing and interviewing skills and getting a job quickly, even if it pays little. But many stakeholders said the programs also need to focus on skills needed to do in-demand jobs, including critical thinking and 'soft skills' like social interaction. Some jobs that require such skills, e.g., nursing, may be less likely to be automated. Other recommendations from stakeholders included designing programs to maximize their accessibility, increasing investment in training, and collaborating with other workforce stakeholders to better serve workers displaced by automation.

Edited excerpts from publication and publisher's website. Show less

Employers are major investors in learning and skills - investment that will be crucial for economic recovery and future prosperity. This report identifies falling employer investment in skills, stark inequalities with some groups and sectors missing out, and government policy that, the authors argue, now too often follows or reinforces these inequalities rather than tackling them. Key findings include: (1) employer investment in skills was declining prior to the [Coronavirus Disease 2019] pandemic and wider trends raise questions over the quality and impact of some training; (2) access to training is highly unequal - between and within businesses - with low paid, low qualified workers less likely to have opportunities to develop their skills; (3) employer investment in training fell sharply during the pandemic - with low wage workers and young people likely to be particularly affected; and (4) government investment at times passively follows or even reinforces inequalities in training rather than redressing them.

Edited excerpts from publication. Show less

Various studies have shown that temporary workers participate less in training than those on permanent contracts. Human resources practices are considered to be an important explanation for this difference. We develop a theoretical framework for employers' provision of training that explicitly incorporates the costs and benefits associated with training investments in employees with different types of employment contracts. Our framework not only predicts employers to be less willing to invest in temporary workers due to the shorter time horizon associated with such an investment, but it also provides insights into how this willingness depends on characteristics of the training that are related to the expected costs and benefits of the training investment. A discrete choice experiment is used to empirically test the predictions from our theoretical framework.

In line with our theoretical framework, we find that employers are less likely to invest in the training of temporary workers. This particularly holds when temporary workers do not have the prospect of a permanent contract with their current employer. Furthermore, we show that employers' likelihood of investing in temporary workers indeed depends on aspects related to the costs and benefits of training, that is, a financial contribution to the training costs made by employees, a repayment agreement that applies when workers leave the organisation prematurely, and the transferability of the skills being trained. Our findings can be used to increase employers' willingness to invest in temporary workers. However, similar effects are observed when looking at employers' willingness to invest in permanent workers, suggesting that it will be difficult to decrease the gap in employers' willingness to invest between temporary and permanent workers.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

Australia's clinical research communities responded quickly to [Coronavirus Disease 2019] COVID-19. Similarly, research funding to address the pandemic was appropriately fast-tracked and knowledge promptly disseminated. This swift and purposeful research response is encouraging and reflects thorough and meticulous training of the academic workforce, in particular the clinician scientist. Clinician scientists have formal clinical and research qualifications (primarily PhD), and are at the forefront of translating knowledge into health care. Yet in reality, advances in medical research are not rapid. Scientific discovery results from the long-term accumulation of knowledge. The drivers of this knowledge are often PhD students who provide new lines of clinical inquiry coupled with the advanced training of early- and mid-career researchers who sustain discovery through a clinician scientist workforce. A crucial point during these COVID-19 times is that this initial investment in training must be nurtured and maintained. Without this investment, the loss of a future generation of potential discoveries and a vibrant scientific workforce to safeguard us from future global health threats is at risk. This risk includes the modest gains achieved by increasing female and minority representation in STEM and the clinician scientist workforce. COVID-19 has presented serious concerns to Australia's health and economy. This perspective is central to these concerns and urges investment in the continuity of training and maintaining a sustainable clinician scientist workforce sufficient to address current and future pandemics, alongside continuing discoveries to improve the health of Australians.

Published abstract. Show less

Using a representative sample of European firms, we study whether and to what extent financing constraints affect employers' decision to invest in employee training. We combine survey data on investment activities with administrative data on financial statements to develop an index of financing constraints. We estimate that a 10 per cent increase in this index reduces investment in training as a share of fixed assets by 2.9 to 4.5 per cent and investment in training per employee by 1.8 to 2.5 per cent. We document that lower investment in training reduces productivity, and show that firms facing tighter financing constraints cut back the investment in training and tangible assets less than the investment in R&D and software and data.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less