Should skills analysis be mandatory before redundancies? The case for a duty to consider
When a UK employer proposes redundancies, the law requires a fair process: proper consultation, objective selection, and consideration of suitable alternative employment. What it does not require is any structured assessment of whether the skills being made redundant are skills the organisation — or the wider economy — is about to spend heavily to acquire. That gap has a cost, and it is worth asking whether policy should close it.
This piece sets out the argument for a "duty to consider" — a requirement that employers of a certain size run and document a skills analysis before confirming redundancies — alongside the objections and what a workable version might look like. It is offered as the case that supporters of such a policy would make, not as a settled position.
The argument for a duty to consider
The core case is that redundancy decisions are frequently made without the information needed to know whether they are the right decisions. An employer working from an org chart and a cost target can rationally conclude that a set of roles should go. The same employer, working from a skills map, might see that a third of those people hold capabilities the business will be recruiting for within the year. The decision changes because the evidence changes.
A duty to consider would not prevent redundancies or dictate outcomes. It would require that, before notice is issued, the employer has assessed the skills held by the affected population against current and near-future need, considered redeployment and retraining, and documented the result. The decision would remain the employer's. What would change is that it could no longer be made blind.
Three strands support the argument.
The economic strand is that the UK cannot afford to destroy scarce skills in one firm while the state subsidises their creation in another. With acute shortages across engineering, digital, construction and analytical roles, redundancy programmes that discard transferable skills work directly against national skills policy. A duty to consider aligns the private decision with the public interest.
The fairness strand is that employees have a reasonable expectation that their skills will be assessed before their jobs are removed. "Suitable alternative employment" is already part of the law's intent; a skills analysis simply makes that consideration systematic rather than incidental.
The precedent strand is that comparable economies already do this. France's obligations around social plans, and structured transition requirements in Germany and Denmark, require employers to demonstrate reskilling and redeployment planning before large-scale redundancies proceed. The UK would not be inventing a novel burden so much as adopting a European norm.
The objections, taken seriously
A fair assessment has to engage the counter-arguments, several of which are substantial.
The most immediate is cost and burden, particularly for smaller employers. A mandated analysis adds process to an already difficult and time-pressured exercise. If the requirement were heavy or ambiguous, it could slow necessary restructuring and deter hiring. Any workable duty would need a size threshold and a proportionate, low-friction method — which is more achievable now that skills analysis can be substantially automated than it would have been a decade ago.
The second is flexibility. Some argue that businesses must be able to restructure quickly to survive, and that additional pre-conditions on redundancy reduce the agility that ultimately protects the remaining jobs. Supporters would respond that a duty to consider does not block action; it requires evidence, which a well-run business should want in any case.
The third is enforcement and gaming. A requirement to "consider" can become a box-ticking exercise that produces a document without changing behaviour. This is a real risk, and it points to design: the duty would need to require genuine analysis and a recorded rationale, not merely a signed declaration.
None of these objections is trivial. But each speaks to how such a policy should be designed rather than whether the underlying problem — decisions made without the relevant evidence — is worth addressing.
What a workable policy might look like
A proportionate version would likely share several features. It would apply above a size threshold, so the smallest employers are not burdened. It would attach to collective redundancy situations rather than individual exits. It would require a documented skills analysis of the affected population, a recorded consideration of redeployment and retraining options, and a rationale where transition out is chosen. And it would lean on the funding that already exists — the apprenticeship levy and its successor — to make retraining a realistic alternative rather than an unfunded aspiration.
Crucially, it would set a standard of process, not outcome. The employer would still decide. The requirement would be that the decision rests on evidence and that the evidence is retained.
Why employers should not wait for the law
Whatever policymakers decide, the underlying logic already holds for employers today. Analysing skills before restructuring reveals cheaper options, protects scarce capability, and produces exactly the documentation that fair process and stakeholder confidence require. Organisations that adopt the practice now capture those benefits immediately — and, if a duty does arrive, they meet it as a matter of routine rather than scramble.
This is the practice Cadra is built to make routine. Cadra Workforce runs the capability analysis, models redeployment against redundancy, and generates a Transition Certificate documenting the surveys completed, roles assessed, redeployment paths identified and funding applied. Whether or not skills analysis becomes a legal requirement, that record is what evidences a considered, defensible decision. The analysis informs; the leadership decides.
A note on balance
Reasonable people disagree here. Opponents of a statutory duty argue that markets and existing employment law already push employers toward efficient decisions, that additional mandates raise the cost of hiring and firing in ways that can suppress employment overall, and that international comparisons import rigidities the UK has historically chosen to avoid. Those are serious positions. The case above is the one supporters would advance; readers weighing it should test both against the evidence and their own view of where the balance between flexibility and protection should sit.
Frequently asked questions
Which countries require transition planning before redundancies?
France, Germany and Denmark are commonly cited examples where employers must demonstrate structured reskilling or transition planning before large-scale redundancies are permitted, though the specific mechanisms differ by country.
What would a "duty to consider" mean for employers?
It would require employers above a size threshold to run and document a skills analysis, consider redeployment and retraining, and record their rationale before confirming redundancies. The decision would remain the employer's; only the evidence base would be required.
Would mandatory skills analysis stop redundancies?
No. A duty to consider sets a standard of process, not outcome. Employers could still make redundancies, but would need to show they had assessed alternatives on the basis of a genuine skills analysis.
Should employers act before any law changes?
The benefits — revealing cheaper redeployment options, protecting scarce skills, and producing defensible documentation — apply now, regardless of policy. Adopting the practice early captures the value immediately and prepares for any future requirement.
