This is the Acas Executive response to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST) consultation on Make Work Pay: workplace monitoring technologies (WMT). It was submitted on 30 September 2026.
Principles for responsible use of WMT which support good industrial relations
Question 23. To what extent do you agree that adherence to these principles during the introduction of WMT would improve worker trust and buy-in?
Acas response: Agree
Question 25. To what extent do you agree that these principles accurately reflect good practice in the use of WMT?
Acas response: Agree
Question 27. What challenges, if any, do employers or workers face in applying these principles in practice? (Select all that apply)
- Lack of clarity around legal requirements
- Cost or resource pressures
- Difficulty applying principles consistently
- Rapid evolution of technology
- Lack of worker trust or confidence
- Limited worker or representative capacity
- Difficulties in smaller organisations
- Data protection or privacy concerns
- No significant challenges
- Other (please specify)
Acas response: All, except for 'No significant challenges'
Acas welcomes the opportunity to respond to this important consultation that we hope provides a basis for further policy development in this area. Our first recommendation is that the government gathers more data on the current situation and trends to inform future policymaking.
In our response, we have chosen to focus on questions that address our core areas of expertise – the value of good industrial relations, Codes of Practice and non-statutory guidance. This approach does not necessarily reflect a preference for any particular intervention method at this time.
We agree with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST) taking a principles-based approach to this complex and fast-developing policy area. Acas views WMT as an issue that could be prone to disputes without an effective industrial relations framework to support its implementation. The substantive principles outlined in this consultation document offer a good starting point to developing that framework.
- Reaping the benefits of WMT is more likely if enabled by good employment relations in its introduction and use. Whilst Acas acknowledges the potential benefits of WMT, we also believe that there are significant risks to the wider industrial relations landscape if it is introduced badly. Acas asks that BIST considers the following 2 recommendations when developing future policies and processes in this area to mitigate risks and ensure meaningful worker engagement:
- Conduct further primary research and an impact assessment that:
- assesses current and future workplace conflict over use of WMT
- analyses how this shows up in the dispute resolution system
- forecasts potential for conflict against different policy interventions
- identifies mitigations and routes to early resolution
- Review the safeguards on the introduction and use of WMT. For example: considering ways to ensure employee consultation and voice is put in place, and employers know how to do it well
- Conduct further primary research and an impact assessment that:
Risks and challenges facing the introduction of WMT
The issue of workers and employers being able to control the more negative and unknown elements of WMT is a key reason why we have identified all the above options as challenges for employers and workers in applying principles for the responsible use of WMT which supports good industrial relations. Though introducing WMT presents some specific technical challenges to employers and workers, we also firmly believe that the wider industrial relations challenges which Acas has consistently identified also affect this policy area.
Acas's research on collective workplace conflict in Britain concluded that a key challenge currently facing employers and workers in the industrial relations landscape is that the skills, knowledge and confidence that underpin effective industrial relations have diminished in recent years.
Acas has previously estimated that the overall total annual cost of conflict to employers (including management and resolution) is £28.5 billion. This represents an average of just over £1,000 for every employee in the UK each year, and just under £3,000 annually for each individual involved in conflict.
Acas notes exceptional demand for services – early conciliation notifications increased by 27% in 2025 to 2026 and we continue to see a growing proportion of cases involving discrimination-related matters and disputes arising from organisational change. This again highlights the risk of increased individual conflict as a result of badly introduced WMT.
Acas's 2020 paper My boss the algorithm concluded that one of the main risks associated with WMT was increased management control without sufficient worker consent, particularly with performance monitoring. It highlighted that the extent to which consent to workplace surveillance is free and informed is questionable as staff may feel pressured to consent by their employer or by virtue of workplace norms where other colleagues have consented.
Additionally, while not all WMT use algorithms, algorithms may be used to process a volume of data beyond the ability of a human manager. Consequently, it is also important to consider the risks associated with the use of algorithms, such as perpetuating and exaggerating bias and discrimination, reducing worker autonomy and job quality, increasing work intensification, and weakening worker-management relationships.
In addition to the challenge of greater industrial conflict due to WMT being introduced badly or without effective employee consultation, there is the risk of increased individual conflict, poor workplace morale and high employee turnover.
Acas also notes that there are significant issues with the wider industrial relations landscape that could prevent the appropriate and effective introduction of WMT. Employers may need support to develop existing arrangements into effective structures that make the most of the benefits of consultation. This is particularly the case for small employers who are less likely to have consultative arrangements in place.
For example, recent YouGov polling by Acas revealed that more than 1 in 4 workers feel their managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict. Additionally, the survey also found that nearly a third of workers do not have any employee representatives who could help prevent conflict.
- CIPD research on UK industrial relations suggests that 50% of employers already have staff representative arrangements for informing and consulting employees, suggesting that many employers have basic arrangements in place. This is especially so in larger organisations, which are also more likely to have trade union presence.
The role and value of worker engagement
Question 29: What do you believe meaningful worker engagement looks like in practice?
- Acas recommends that BIST works with social partners to consider how to support employers, workers and trade unions to embed a culture of ongoing employee voice arrangements when developing future policies and processes in this area.
- For engagement and consultation to be effective, Acas suggests the following good practice:
- it should ideally be used whenever significant organisational issues or changes take place and not just when the law requires it
- it should take place well in advance of any proposed changes
- it should be a genuinely two-sided process – employees should be able to raise thoughts, concerns and issues, and employers should have the power and intent to address them
- it should have the aim of employers and employees working together to reach an agreement on a change or find a solution to an issue
it should be systematic and structured, with effective voice mechanisms built into organisational design
- This is because:
- CIPD research into UK industrial relations and trade unions shows that 86% of employers with employee representative arrangements report a range of organisational benefits, including:
- an independent voice to raise concerns
- keeping the workforce well informed
- earlier identification of workplace issues
There is growing evidence of a correlation between employee engagement and increased productivity and business performance. For example, Gallup's 2024 Employee Engagement Survey found that businesses with the highest levels of employee engagement outperformed those with the lowest by 14% in productivity and by 23% in profitability.
- CIPD research into UK industrial relations and trade unions shows that 86% of employers with employee representative arrangements report a range of organisational benefits, including:
One of the key factors in making worker engagement meaningful is that the level of worker engagement and voice needs to reflect the scale of the challenge of introducing WMT. Acas believes that the introduction of WMT needs to be treated as a core workplace issue on the basis that forms of WMT pose legal, safety and employment relations risks.
Realising the benefits of introducing WMT also requires recognising the costs of getting it wrong. Good consultation can prevent this, similar to consultation over health and safety or other sensitive issues.
Research by Resolution Foundation into employee voice in low-paid and precarious sectors revealed that there is a direct link between workers having low voice over core employment issues like pay and working hours, and disengagement. On the other hand, CIPD research into collective employee voice notes that a workforce that is informed and empowered to use its voice over core employment issues is more likely to engage in two-way dialogue and work collaboratively with management.
- Acas already recommends meaningful worker engagement and consultation as good employment practice when a workplace change or issue is identified, even when it is not a legal requirement (read Acas's advice on what to consult on). We also recognise that there are benefits to the methods used to consult workers being flexible, providing that they are genuinely consultative and provide an effective avenue for worker voice.
Options for intervention (Option A – Statutory Code)
Question 31. Based on the description above, would a statutory WMT Code of Practice better support the responsible adoption and use of WMT and increased worker voice?
Acas response: Don't know
The options for intervention outlined by BIST cut to a central concern for Acas around implementing WMT – pre-empting and limiting a potential disputes hotspot.
Changes in working practices represented 15.3% (80 cases) of collective disputes received by Acas for conciliation in 2024 to 2025, the fourth-largest dispute cause – not far behind trade union recognition with 20.9% (109 cases) (read Acas's annual report 2024 to 2025). Importantly, the number of dispute cases due to changes in working practices increased by over 66% from the previous year. While we do not know whether these cases were linked to the introduction of WMT, the fact that changes to working practices is a significant driver of disputes suggests they could increase in line with WMT take-up.
Acas strongly recommends that BIST conducts further research on the nature, extent and consequences of WMT, and how this is differentiated across groups and sectors. We also recommend an impact assessment for the introduction of WMT to estimate the impact on workplace disputes, and consequent impact on the dispute resolution system. This includes employment tribunals, but also Acas early conciliation.
Through developing our own Codes of Practice and those of government departments, we understand the value of Codes in setting minimum standards, behavioural expectations, and clarifying the law.
We recommend that Codes of Practice are clearly linked to legislation. This brings clarity to users about when and how to apply the Code. This is particularly important as Codes are taken into account by tribunals. Users need to know when their conduct might be covered by a Code. This is more effectively delivered where a Code exists to explain a particular aspect of the law. Acas believes that all existing employment Codes are closely tied to a specific statute.
We note that current legal requirements around WMT do not directly address the issue of meaningful consultation. A WMT Code without a clear statutory basis would bring WMT issues into an undefined number of other claims where an employer's duties on WMT are not clearly set out. In this scenario, a Code of Practice that is not backed by an effective dispute resolution mechanism could become a cause of disputes, rather than a route to overcoming them.
A further condition of success for a Code is that users know that their conduct could be judged against it in a relevant legal proceeding. Codes do not themselves create legal obligations. Without a clear enforcement mechanism, there is a risk that users have different views over when and how the Code applies. Good Codes of Practice can help users navigate complex issues and processes more accessibly than legislation alone. At the heart of that dynamic, however, is the point that good practice can be enforced in some way. Without this link, we are concerned that the process would lack enforceability, structure and, crucially, an effective dispute resolution mechanism.
We recommend further consideration of intervention options that can embed ongoing employee voice arrangements effectively. This is most likely to require both formal and informal channels that contribute to developing a culture of consultation in workplaces, emphasising that consultation contributes to the effective and safe use of these technologies.
Achieving the policy aim of responsible adoption and use of WMT and increased worker voice will require well-informed and meaningful consultation. A token process will still create administrative work but be far less likely to generate the benefits of good consultation. The greatest burdens arise from poorly managed processes, where trust is low, decision-making suffers, and there is a lasting impact on workplace relations.
It should also be noted that Acas does not believe that employers, workers and trade unions bear sole responsibility for appropriate use of WMT. The suppliers of WMT do not operate in a silo and should also be subject to relevant duties and responsibilities, like other stakeholders, when intervention options are considered.
- To meet the policy objectives for this area, the government should consider the responsibilities of suppliers of WMT. For example, to design systems that are conducive to employers meeting legal duties to act fairly, consult, and follow equality legislation, as well as data protection legislation. The design of tools should support good workplace relations, not threaten them. Many workplaces that use these tools will be non-experts, and so a form of assurance that the tool has appropriate safeguards will help increase confidence and appropriate procurement.
Question 39. Should the Code be supplemented with guidance to provide more detailed practical support for employers, workers and representatives?
Acas response: Yes
Options for intervention (Option C – Non-statutory guidance)
Question 57. Based on the description above, would non-statutory guidance by itself support the responsible adoption and use of WMT and increased worker voice?
Acas response: No
Question 58. Please explain your answer
Acas supports the production of non-statutory guidance for this policy area. However, we do not feel that this form of guidance alone would be an effective means of meeting the policy objectives outlined by the government. The primary reason for taking this position is that there would be no meaningful compulsion for parties to put the policy aims into practice.
As an organisation that regularly produces non-statutory guidance on good employment relations, Acas is very aware of the benefits it can bring. These include:
- adding more granular detail to complex processes that would not be appropriate for legislation or a Code of Practice
- giving step-by-step guidance for employers and employees to overcome issues or meet legal requirements
- offering resources such as best practice model documents, letters and agreements
- reducing risk by helping organisations design internal policies that go above minimum legal thresholds, lowering the likelihood of costly tribunal claims
- offering practical interpretations where the wording of the law or statutory codes remains broad or ambiguous
- promoting informal discussions, mediation, and flexible problem-solving before conflicts escalate to formal procedures
There is no foreseeable reason why these benefits would not apply to supporting the responsible adoption and use of WMT and increased worker voice. Regardless of these benefits, however, Acas is not confident that the proposed intervention is strong enough to meet the challenges of implementing WMT and increasing worker voice at scale, as outlined in our response to question 27.
In particular, we feel that the task of embedding consultative measures around WMT in workplace culture needs to be prioritised. CIPD research on UK industrial relations suggests that only 10% of employers have well-developed consultative committees.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research 2023 survey of nearly 2,500 employers found that such committees existed in 12% of workplaces (up from 8% in 2011) (read Findings from the Management and Wellbeing Practices (MWP) survey). This research also revealed that there have only been modest increases among large (12% to 18%) and small (3% to 8%) employers since 2011 despite this low starting point. There has been no change among medium-sized organisations (14%) during this time.
These statistics reflect the scale of the challenge to increase consultation forums in British workplaces. While non-statutory guidance can help encourage consultative mechanisms, we believe it needs to be part of a wider set of measures that include a stronger compulsion on parties to support the responsible adoption and use of WMT and increased worker voice.
As a case in point, we recommend that BIST considers the relative fortunes of 2 areas of legislation relating to the consultation of employees: first, the collective redundancy consultation duties, which require an employer to consult employee representatives when proposing 20 or more redundancies and second, the Information and Consultation of Employees (ICE) Regulations, which allow employees to request an arrangement for sharing information.
The collective redundancy legislation has provided an effective mechanism for consulting employees, because it requires consultation to take place. On the other hand, the information and consultation regulations, which give an optional and less well-defined consultation framework, are little-used. Only 35 ICE requests have been made to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) by employees since the Regulations came into force in 2004 (read the Central Arbitration Committee annual report 2025 to 2026).
We believe that the relative successes of both pieces of legislation demonstrates that guidance alone is unlikely to be sufficient to increase good-quality consultation arrangements.
In addition to concerns over whether the government's policy aims would be met by this method of intervention, we believe that the cost of getting this area of industrial relations wrong is too high to rely on a measure that does not come with enough teeth to limit disputes and resolve them effectively.
Acas believes that there are deeper underlying problems driving disputes than non-statutory guidance is likely to be able to solve, particularly in a policy area that is evolving at the speed of WMT. Acas is concerned that the changes that could and will stem from evolution of WMT to employment relations would be too fundamental for a 'light touch' approach, which could compound and exacerbate existing industrial relations issues.
- Taken together, we again strongly recommend that BIST conducts further research and an impact assessment on the intervention options under consideration to better inform policy development in this crucial area of industrial relations.