Major UK companies fall short on workforce transparency, report finds

A new analysis reveals less than half of Britain’s largest firms provide adequate workforce data, raising concerns over transparency and accountability in people management and their impact on investor decision-making.

Less than half of Britain’s largest companies are adequately reporting workforce data, raising serious concerns about the transparency of people-related risks and opportunities, according to a recent analysis by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and pension investment firm Railpen. Their examination of FTSE 100 annual reports reveals that only 38 per cent of these major companies disclose staff turnover rates, a crucial indicator of workforce stability, while just a single company provided data on recruitment costs. Furthermore, less than one in five firms offered information on their contingent workforce, including contractors, freelancers, and temporary workers.

This lack of comprehensive reporting impairs investors’ ability to make informed decisions about the companies they support. Caroline Escott, head of investment stewardship and co-head of sustainable ownership at Railpen, highlighted that investors want to back companies that manage their people effectively, but inconsistent and incomplete data make this challenging. She urged improvements in workforce data reporting to better assess how companies handle their human capital.

CIPD chief executive Peter Cheese underscored the issue, stating that organisations are not giving stakeholders enough detailed information about their employees in annual reports, which hinders robust decision-making. He stressed the necessity for companies to prioritise workforce-related metrics alongside financial considerations, as people factors are integral to long-term business success.

The report also sheds light on the inadequate disclosure related to the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) at work. Despite AI’s growing influence, only 13 per cent of FTSE 100 firms mentioned AI skills training, and merely 14 per cent reported on having a governance strategy for AI. Training disclosures overall remain limited, with just 10 per cent revealing total training expenditure, 33 per cent providing apprenticeship data, and 41 per cent detailing average training hours per employee.

Mental health and diversity reporting have seen some improvement since 2022, yet progress in employee wellbeing disclosures stagnates, leaving significant gaps. For example, only 15 per cent of companies disclosed absence rates, and just 27 per cent reported on disciplinary, grievance, or whistleblowing cases—with fewer providing detail on the underlying reasons. This patchy reporting contrasts with the growing demand from investors and regulators for standardised metrics to demonstrate the value and impact of workforce investments.

The CIPD recommends that all listed firms introduce dedicated people sections in their annual reports to enhance transparency. Currently, only half of FTSE 100 companies have such workforce sections. They also advocate for establishing minimum reporting standards across key dimensions such as workforce composition, wellbeing, reward, employee voice, and skills. This approach aims to create a baseline enabling more meaningful and comparable disclosures.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which governs auditing standards, has been urged by the CIPD to explore ways to improve workforce reporting, potentially through enhanced guidance tailored for companies, investors, and stakeholders. Such regulatory engagement would address the ongoing problem of inconsistent disclosures that obscure important human capital risks.

The call for greater transparency reflects broader concerns in the corporate landscape. Earlier CIPD research found that while most FTSE 100 firms report on inclusion and diversity investments, fewer than a quarter disclose workforce ethnic breakdowns, and very few provide ethnicity pay gap data. This lack of meaningful diversity data undermines efforts to support responsible and sustainable business practices.

Additionally, historical trends suggest many companies have painted an overly positive picture of their workforce management. Past studies revealed declines in reporting on key human capital indicators like employee engagement and use of interns, signalling a reluctance to fully expose vulnerabilities or challenges.

Notably, the stark disparity between executive pay and average worker salaries remains a controversial issue. Industry data shows that top FTSE 100 bosses earned over £2 billion collectively in 2018, with median CEO pay reaching 117 times the average full-time worker’s median salary. This growing pay gap intensifies shareholder and public calls for boards to improve accountability and fairness on workforce matters.

In this context, the CIPD has also advocated for mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting to bolster workforce transparency and inclusivity. Only 13 FTSE 100 companies have revealed their ethnicity pay gaps so far, indicating a substantial need for regulatory and cultural shifts to achieve broader disclosure.

Overall, the current state of workforce data reporting among the UK’s largest companies is fragmented and incomplete. The CIPD and Railpen’s findings highlight an urgent need for standardised, transparent, and comprehensive disclosures that reflect the increasing importance of people management in corporate success and investor confidence.

📌 Reference Map:

• ^[1] (People Management) – Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
• ^[2] (People Management) – Paragraph 1, 2
• ^[3] (People Management) – Paragraph 10
• ^[4] (People Management) – Paragraph 11
• ^[5] (CIPD) – Paragraph 1, 10
• ^[6] (People Management) – Paragraph 12
• ^[7] (People Management) – Paragraph 13

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative appears to be original, with no evidence of prior publication. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 6 days ago. The report is based on a recent analysis by the CIPD and Railpen, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The article includes updated data but does not recycle older material.

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
The direct quotes from Caroline Escott and Peter Cheese are unique to this report, with no identical matches found in earlier material. This suggests potentially original or exclusive content.

Source reliability

Score:
9

Notes:
The narrative originates from People Management, a reputable UK-based publication focusing on HR and people management. The CIPD, a professional body for HR and people development, is also cited, further enhancing the reliability of the information.

Plausability check

Score:
8

Notes:
The claims regarding inadequate workforce data reporting by FTSE 100 firms are plausible and align with previous findings. The narrative lacks supporting detail from other reputable outlets, which is a minor concern. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic. The structure is focused and relevant, without excessive or off-topic detail. The tone is formal and appropriate for corporate reporting.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative is original, with no evidence of prior publication. The quotes are unique, and the sources are reputable. The claims are plausible and consistent with the region and topic. Minor concerns include a lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets and the absence of specific factual anchors.