Business

More than a third of UK employers are planning to scale back permanent hiring as a result of the government’s new workers’ rights reforms, according to a survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

The poll of 2,000 businesses found that 37 per cent intend to reduce recruitment of new permanent staff once the changes take effect, while more than half expect an increase in workplace conflict.

Employers warned that the new Employment Rights Act, which introduces expanded protections including day-one statutory sick pay, easier trade union recognition and a shorter qualification period for unfair dismissal claims, could act as a “further handbrake on job creation”.

Government estimates suggest the legislation will cost businesses around £1bn annually. However, the CIPD said the official analysis may underestimate the true impact, particularly the additional time and administrative burden placed on HR departments to implement the reforms.

Ben Willmott, head of public policy at the CIPD, said the changes risked compounding pressures already faced by employers following last year’s £24bn rise in employer national insurance contributions.

“There is a real risk that these measures will act as a further brake on recruitment,” he said, urging ministers to consult meaningfully with business and consider compromises where appropriate.

The survey found that 55 per cent of employers anticipate more disputes once the reforms are in place. Businesses cited concerns over the reduction in the unfair dismissal qualifying period, from two years to six months, alongside new rights for zero-hours workers and enhanced powers for trade unions.

Under the act, unions will gain improved access to workplaces for recruitment and organising activity, while employees will benefit from expanded “day one” rights.

James Cockett, senior labour market economist at the CIPD, said the findings diverged sharply from government expectations. Whitehall’s impact assessment predicted that greater union engagement could reduce conflict, yet only 4 per cent of employers surveyed believed disputes would decline.

The CIPD noted that most UK businesses, particularly the 1.4 million micro and small employers, do not formally recognise trade unions. In that context, it argued, it is unclear how expanded union rights would materially reduce workplace tensions.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has welcomed the reforms, describing them as the most significant upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation and arguing they will improve dignity and wellbeing at work.

Business groups, including the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the British Chambers of Commerce, have previously expressed reservations, particularly around guaranteed hours contracts, seasonal work and industrial action thresholds.

The CIPD warned that some elements of the legislation could have unintended consequences. Changes to unfair dismissal, statutory sick pay and zero-hours contracts may lead some employers to rely more heavily on temporary or contract labour rather than permanent hires, potentially increasing employment insecurity.

As businesses weigh the costs of compliance against economic uncertainty, the survey suggests the government faces a delicate balancing act between strengthening worker protections and sustaining job growth.

Read more:
Workers’ rights reforms prompt a third of employers to curb hiring

The evolution of betting is undeniable. Whether it’s sports or the most common casino games, it’s clear there has been a very big shift when it comes to how individuals enjoy betting.

Of course, this has had a huge impact on the British Economy, as the leisure economy is no longer defined by physical or digital spaces, rather the adaptation of both spaces into a combined and shared space.

The central shift has been the evolution of the betting infrastructure, which has had the most impact on the British leisure economy, transforming back-room transactions into high-speed and data-driven actions personalized to every user.

From the best horse racing sites in the UK to the most common betting shops throughout the country, how much of an impact has the modern betting infrastructure had on the British leisure economy? How will it continue to evolve?

Welcome to Technological Leisure

If there’s one thing that defines the modern betting infrastructure, it must be its adaptation to the digital world. Betting has become universal, from enclosed standalone shops to ecosystems found throughout the internet, its evolution has drastically changed user consumption.

In great part it’s all thanks to innovative wagering technologies. What once was a long and boring process has turned into an easy one-click procedure that anyone can enjoy, promoting competitive socializing where individuals can wager whilst also enjoying the fun of getting to know other individuals with the same passion.

The integration of such systems has helped increase life in various cities, making it easier for individuals to enjoy betting. But it wouldn’t be possible if it wasn’t for the strong back-end systems these sites use, integrating real-time data and analyzing user activity to adapt its servers to the demand, especially at events with big crowds.

The Digital Multiplier

The economic impact of this digital infrastructure goes way beyond the immediate revenue of the gambling industry; it serves as a great example of how similar technological models can be implemented in other areas of the UK economy to favor economic growth. In a world where everyone demands high-speed connection, low latency streaming and stable servers, the systems implemented in the betting industry save as the pillars for the evolution of the UK economy.

In fact, some of these systems, first introduced in the betting industry, are being implemented in other areas of the economy that don’t involve activities like playing or gambling, with entertainment systems and streaming platforms exporting these systems and transforming them to their needs.

Whilst other sectors continue to evolve, the betting industry continues to implement new measures. In an era of financial responsibility where user protection is fundamental, the betting industry continues to create newer systems promoting user protection and security of payments, setting the first bricks for the future of data protection.

The Workforce Transformation

One of the biggest changes when it comes to physical betting shops must be the transformation of the role employees have. Traditionally, employees had to fulfill very simple tasks: if the employee was the bartender, he/she only had to serve drinks and the bookmaker was responsible for placing the bet.

But now, everything has changed, as these roles have mostly disappeared. Nowadays, employees are expected to serve as “tech-enabled hosts”. Every task they do must be fulfilled with a technological interaction in the process. A bartender has to pour out a pint whilst they trouble shoot a digital terminal whilst a bookmaker must have the required knowledge to navigate an integrated app and place the wager or the odds for a specific bet as fast as possible.

Now, employees are expected to be technological natives. They must be able to control and fix any technological problems that arise with ease, adapting to any role possible with the sole focus of providing the best service possible.

An Entertaining Future

As the betting industry continues to evolve, so does the British leisure economy. The fine line between “betting” and “gaming” will continue to blur whilst new measures first introduced on betting sites and games will be adapted and implemented on various areas of the British day-to-day life.

With new systems and innovations, the betting industry will continue to provide the whole UK economy with new ways to evolve, embracing faster and better entertainment focused on social responsibility and data protection.

Read more:
What Modern Betting Infrastructure Means for the Future of the UK Leisure Economy

BrewDog has been put up for sale after the Scottish craft beer group appointed restructuring specialists to explore fresh investment and strategic options.

The Aberdeenshire-founded brewer has hired AlixPartners to oversee a structured process that could result in new investors coming on board or parts of the business being sold off.

Founded in 2007 by James Watt and Martin Dickie, BrewDog grew from a small Ellon-based brewery into an international brand with operations in the US, Australia and Germany, alongside around 60 bars across the UK. It currently employs approximately 1,400 people.

In a statement, the company said the decision followed “a year of decisive action” in 2025, including cost-cutting and efficiency measures, as it sought to strengthen its long-term sustainability in what it described as a challenging economic environment.

A BrewDog spokesperson said the appointment of AlixPartners was a “deliberate and disciplined step” aimed at evaluating the next phase of investment. The company added that it expected to attract substantial interest and that its bars and breweries would continue to operate as normal.

An internal email to staff said no decisions had yet been made and stressed that day-to-day operations would be unaffected while advisers reviewed strategic options.

The move comes after a turbulent period for the brewer. BrewDog reported a £37m loss last year and announced job cuts in October. Earlier this year it confirmed the closure of 10 UK bars, including its flagship Aberdeen venue.

Last month, the group halted production of its gin and vodka brands at its Ellon distillery as part of efforts to “sharpen” its focus on core beer operations.

In recent years BrewDog has frequently attracted headlines, both for bold marketing campaigns and for controversies over workplace culture. In 2024 it faced criticism after announcing it would no longer hire new staff on the real living wage, opting instead to pay the statutory minimum. Co-founder James Watt subsequently stepped down as chief executive, taking on a new role as “captain and co-founder”, while Martin Dickie exited the business last year for personal reasons.

AlixPartners declined to comment on the sales process.

The potential sale marks a significant turning point for one of Britain’s most recognisable craft beer brands, which once positioned itself as a disruptor to global brewing giants and attracted thousands of small-scale investors through its “Equity for Punks” fundraising scheme.

Read more:
BrewDog put up for sale as advisers explore break-up options

Former business secretary Sir Vince Cable has called for a police and government investigation into the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor during his tenure as the UK’s trade envoy, following the release of US justice department files that appear to show he shared official and commercial information with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The newly released documents suggest that Andrew, who served as Britain’s special representative for international trade and investment from 2001 to 2011, forwarded UK government documents and commercially sensitive material to Epstein.

Sir Vince, who was secretary of state for business and trade during part of Andrew’s tenure, described the alleged behaviour as “totally unacceptable” and said the matter should be scrutinised by law enforcement authorities.

“We need a police or DPP check on whether criminal corruption took place and a government investigation into how this was allowed to happen,” he said.

Andrew has consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

According to the documents, in 2010 Andrew forwarded an email exchange concerning Royal Bank of Scotland and Aston Martin to a contact, David Stern, who subsequently passed it to Epstein. The correspondence reportedly included details about RBS restructuring plans and comments regarding its then chief executive, Stephen Hester, as well as references to internal tensions at Aston Martin.

It remains unclear whether the information originated directly from Andrew’s official role. At the time, RBS was majority-owned by the taxpayer following its financial crisis bailout. Andrew was also a customer of the bank and may have had separate dealings with management.

Further emails cited in the US files indicate that Andrew may have shared government visit reports relating to Vietnam, Singapore and China with Epstein. Separate correspondence suggests information about Iceland was passed from Treasury sources to banker Jonathan Rowland.

Under official guidance, trade envoys are bound by confidentiality obligations covering sensitive commercial and political information obtained during official visits.

Thames Valley Police confirmed it had consulted specialists at the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the allegations.

Labour MP Sarah Owens, chair of the women and equalities committee, said Andrew must answer questions from police and Parliament. Fellow Labour MP Rachael Maskell called for greater transparency and accountability, arguing that Andrew should be stripped of his remaining constitutional roles.

King Charles has previously expressed “profound concern” over allegations surrounding his brother. Buckingham Palace has said it stands “ready to support” police if requested.

The latest disclosures add to longstanding scrutiny of Andrew’s association with Epstein. Additional images released in the US document tranche have further intensified calls for him to testify in the United States.

The former duke recently relocated from his Windsor residence to the Sandringham estate in Norfolk as pressure surrounding the case continues to mount.

Read more:
Andrew’s time as trade envoy should be investigated, says Vince Cable

The UK’s gender pay gap will not close for another three decades if progress continues at its current rate, according to the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

Analysis of official earnings data by the union body shows that the average disparity between men’s and women’s pay stands at 12.8%, equivalent to £2,548 a year. At that pace of improvement, the gap would not be eliminated until 2056, the TUC said.

The gap varies sharply by sector. In finance and insurance it is widest at 27.2%, while in leisure services it is just 1.5%. Even in female-dominated sectors such as education and health and social care, the pay gap remains significant at 17% and 12.8% respectively.

The gender pay gap reflects the difference in average earnings between men and women across organisations and industries. Companies with more than 250 UK employees are legally required to publish gender pay data.

The TUC said the disparity means the average woman “effectively works for 47 days of the year for free” compared with male colleagues.

“Women have effectively been working for free for the first month and a half of the year compared to men,” said TUC general secretary Paul Nowak. “With the cost of living still biting hard, women simply can’t afford to keep losing out.”

The pay gap is largest among workers aged 50 to 59, a trend the TUC attributes partly to the long-term impact of women pausing or scaling back careers to take on caring responsibilities.

The union federation is calling for improved access to flexible working, expanded childcare provision and stronger parental leave policies to help narrow the gap. Nowak described the government’s recent Employment Rights Act as “an important step forward”, but argued further action was needed so parents could better share caring duties.

Business groups have previously warned that additional employment rights and benefits could increase costs for employers. Matthew Percival, director of the future of work and skills at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), said firms were already facing significant pressures.

“The cost of doing business is leading to job cuts,” he said. “With major changes to employment laws coming, the government must take care not to add further strain.”

Under new rules, employers will be required to publish action plans setting out how they intend to reduce their gender pay gap.

A government spokesperson said ministers were “tackling the root causes of the gender pay gap” through measures including expanded childcare entitlements, strengthened protections for new mothers and changes to flexible working rights.

Despite incremental progress in recent years, the latest figures suggest that without faster reform and structural change, pay parity remains a distant prospect.

Read more:
Gender pay gap won’t close until 2056 at current pace, warns TUC

Sir Gerald Ronson’s forecourt empire has delivered a record profit, with the property tycoon’s service station business now valued at more than £1.5bn.

GMR Capital, the parent of petrol forecourt operator Rontec, reported pre-tax profits of £98.4m for the 12 months to the end of September, up 6 per cent on the previous year and surpassing its earlier peak of £95.7m in 2022.

The record came despite revenues slipping 7.7 per cent to £1.56bn, reflecting what the company described as a “challenging economic environment” and cautious consumer spending.

Rontec, which operates 267 service stations across the UK, said rising costs, higher employer national insurance contributions and living wage obligations had squeezed margins. However, lower interest repayments, as borrowing costs eased over the year, helped boost profitability.

The group described the period as “another successful year”, extending a long track record of resilience. GMR has recorded losses only three times in the past three decades, with its most recent annual loss dating back to 2009.

In 2025, property agent Colliers revalued Rontec’s real estate estate at £1.51bn, an increase of £318m. The uplift was attributed partly to investment in site improvements and partly to broader commercial property gains as interest rates fell.

Rontec has been investing heavily in modernising its estate. The company is midway through refurbishing its Shop’N Drive convenience stores and has upgraded its Subway franchises. Its food-to-go offer continues to expand, including 43 franchised outlets of Greggs.

The group has also earmarked tens of millions of pounds for ultra-fast electric vehicle charging hubs. Six forecourts currently host the chargers, with another six planned, although rollout has been slowed by delays in securing high-capacity grid connections and uncertainty in the EV market.

Ronson, 86, who introduced self-service petrol stations to the UK in the 1960s, has previously described Rontec as his “f*** you” business because of its ability to generate cash through economic cycles.

Better known publicly for landmark developments such as the 46-storey Heron Tower in the City of London, Ronson also served six months in prison in the 1990s for his role in the Guinness share-trading scandal.

He remains chairman of GMR, with his wife Gail and daughters Nicole and Lisa also serving on the board.

Company accounts show Ronson spent £164,000 chartering the company jet during the year, along with £82,000 on use of a company-owned yacht. The yacht was subsequently sold for £2m to a company owned by his wife.

Despite headwinds in consumer spending and higher operating costs, Ronson’s forecourt empire has once again demonstrated its ability to generate record returns — reinforcing its reputation as one of Britain’s most resilient private business empires.

Read more:
Record profit for Sir Gerald Ronson’s forecourt empire

Let’s get something straight right at the outset: The idea of banning working from home is not merely daft, not a bit ill-advised, but a spectacular, full-on intellectual car crash wearing a stupid hat.

And the fact that this notion is being flirted with seriously in political circles tells you everything you need to know about how out of touch this country’s Westminster bubble has become.

If you’ve been reading my scribblings on this subject for the last decade, such as Why forcing a return to the office is a step backwards for business and Bodies, bums, cost money, can you go virtual, then you’ll know I’ve not exactly been shy about waving the flag for flexibility. I’ve argued that work isn’t a location; it’s a thing you do. Deadlines don’t care about Tube strikes. Creativity doesn’t flourish because you’ve got a corner desk with a view of Canary Wharf. Pencils don’t write better in the City.

And yet here we are, in 2026, watching the same fossils who championed touchdown desks as if they were a breakthrough in human civilisation roll out the same old chestnuts about presenteeism, ‘office culture’, and “We have to see people at their desks!” — as if productivity is directly proportional to proximity to a swivel chair.

What makes this iteration of absurdity particularly galling is the political context. The current political mood music suggests that Nigel Farage could well be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Now, I am not here to start a partisan fracas, but I am here to call out nonsense wherever it crops up, regardless of which side of the aisle it’s draped in. And when someone positioned to lead the country describes working from home as something to ban, you have to wonder whether they’ve ever, you know, worked.

If your understanding of remote working is limited to the fleeting glimpse you get when the BBC cuts to a home office with a bobble-head on a shelf, then yes, you might think working from home is an indulgence. A luxury. A mild form of leisure. But as anyone who has actually managed teams through screens, as I wrote in Managing your team through a small screen, will tell you, there’s nothing remotely relaxed about aligning global calendars, coaching through glitches, wiring up video calls while your dog thinks he’s invited, and delivering outcomes that matter.

One of the clearest articulations I’ve read on this came from Mark Dixon, founder of Regus, yes, the flexible workspace titan with a vested interest in desks existing everywhere, and yet unambiguously clear that banning remote working is idiotic. His comments, in an interview with The Times, pierced the usual fog of clichés: flexibility is not the enemy of collaboration; it is its enabler. People don’t want to be forced back into a dungeon of desks five days a week; they want meaningful connection on their terms. If that means meeting in person for ideation and spending the rest of the week where they can function best, then great. If it means satellite offices closer to where people live, brilliant. But banning WFH altogether? Only someone with a pathological affection for sepia-tinted office fantasies could back that.

Let’s unpack why this matters beyond the tedium of managerial turf wars, and to put my bona fides out there on this topic Capital Business Media – owners of Business Matters – has doubled turnover  in three years with not a single staff member being in the same ‘office’ as their colleagues.

First: productivity. The best evidence we have, from countless businesses large and small, is that output does not collapse when people work from home. The idea that remote work is synonymous with loafing is a myth lazy commentators cling to because it’s a convenient continuation of their own nostalgia for commutes on Tube trains smelling faintly of regret.

Second: talent. The modern workforce is not static; it does not orbit offices like electrons around a corporate nucleus. People prioritise flexibility, and talent migrates to where they find it. Companies that cling to “You must be here 9–5, no exceptions” do not become magnets for the best people; they become boarding houses for the most compliant. If banning WFH becomes legislation, businesses will reward political interference with a choice: move work abroad, automate it, or collapse under its own inertia.

Third: the economy. There’s a pernicious assumption among some policymakers that an office full of bodies equals economic vitality. But let’s be honest, the office economy is a facade propped up by overpriced coffee, sandwich chains with dubious pension plans, and pastry carts wheeled out of a desire to feel busier than we are. Real economic value is created by effective, sustainable work, whether it’s done in a studio in Sussex, a flat in Glasgow, or an airport lounge in Zurich during a layover.

Far from being a quaint perk, remote working is an economic force multiplier. It reduces carbon emissions from commuting, diminishes pressure on housing markets in overheated urban centres, and spreads spending power geographically. It’s not a threat to society; it’s an evolution of it.

So let’s be clear: banning WFH isn’t just about where people sit. It’s about control. It’s about a cultural insistence on seeing busyness as virtue rather than effectiveness. It’s about politicians pining for a world they half-remember through the filmy lens of “office culture” brochures from the early 2000s.

My suggestion? If anyone seriously proposes a ban on working from home, we should ask them this: “Have you ever delivered an entire quarterly business review over Zoom? Have you ever coordinated a multinational project without once stepping foot in an office? Have you ever actually assessed work by outcomes rather than appearances?”

Until they can answer yes, I’d be wary of taking their advice on the future of work seriously.

Because whatever happens next in Westminster, let’s not consign the world of work to a bunker called an office. That’s not progress. That’s nostalgia dressed up as policy. And in an era when adaptability is a competitive advantage, banning working from home isn’t just backward-looking, it’s lunacy.

Read more:
Banning WFH is lunacy, and the politicians out of touch enough to mandate it are too

Alphabet has unveiled plans to spend between $175bn and $185bn this year, sharply exceeding Wall Street expectations as it intensifies its push in the global artificial intelligence race.

The capital expenditure target is well above analysts’ average forecast of about $115bn, according to LSEG data, and marks another escalation in spending among the world’s technology hyperscalers.

The announcement came alongside strong fourth-quarter results. Revenue rose 18 per cent year-on-year to $113.8bn, narrowly ahead of forecasts of $111.3bn. Net income climbed 30 per cent to $34.5bn, comfortably beating expectations of $31.9bn.

Despite the earnings beat, Alphabet shares slipped 1.4 per cent in after-hours trading, reflecting investor unease over the scale of spending commitments.

Under chief executive Sundar Pichai, Alphabet has repositioned itself as a leading force in AI after earlier concerns that start-ups such as OpenAI might disrupt its core search business.

Google’s Gemini model has become a central pillar of its strategy, with the Gemini AI assistant app exceeding 650 million monthly users in November. Its AI Overviews feature within search has reached more than 2 billion monthly users.

The company is also investing heavily in custom AI chips and data centre infrastructure, which investors hope will drive future growth.

Last month, Google secured a high-profile partnership with Apple to power an upgraded version of Siri with Gemini models, opening access to Apple’s installed base of more than 2.5 billion devices.

Nikhil Lai, principal analyst at Forrester, said the results demonstrated resilience in Alphabet’s core advertising business. “Record ad revenue signals sustained momentum in search and solid performance from YouTube,” he said, noting that YouTube’s scale now exceeds that of Netflix.

Alphabet’s shares have surged over the past year, rising more than 64 per cent and pushing its market capitalisation above $4tn — second only to Nvidia, valued at around $4.3tn.

However, wider market sentiment towards AI stocks has turned more cautious. Last week, Microsoft reported slower cloud growth, prompting a sell-off amid concerns about the sustainability of heavy AI investment. While Meta reassured investors with upbeat revenue guidance, other names struggled.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both declined as investors reassessed lofty valuations. Shares in Advanced Micro Devices fell sharply after a weak revenue outlook, while Palantir also dropped on AI spending concerns.

Jed Ellerbroek, portfolio manager at Argent Capital, said the scale of AI infrastructure build-out was unprecedented. “The market is having a hard time knowing where to price these stocks and what the future looks like,” he said. “There’s growing scepticism about whether the rally has peaked.”

For Alphabet, the strategy is clear: double down on infrastructure to secure long-term AI leadership. Whether investors remain willing to fund that ambition at such scale will depend on how quickly those vast capital commitments translate into durable returns.

Read more:
Alphabet ramps up AI spending with up to $185bn capital plan

Greene King is weighing up a fresh round of job cuts as Britain’s second-largest pub chain grapples with rising taxes, higher operating costs and mounting pressure on consumer spending.

The 227-year-old company, which operates around 2,600 pubs across the UK, is understood to be reviewing its head office and central functions, with up to 100 roles potentially affected. No final decision has been taken.

The move would mark the second major restructuring in under two years. In 2023, Greene King cut significant numbers of head office and field-based staff, saying the overhaul was necessary to help the business “thrive in challenging times”.

Founded in 1799 by Benjamin Greene in Bury St Edmunds, the company is one of Britain’s oldest brewing and pub groups, known for brands including Greene King IPA, Old Speckled Hen and Abbot Ale. It operates a mix of managed pubs, which it runs directly, alongside leased and tenanted sites.

Like much of the hospitality sector, Greene King has faced a sharp escalation in costs. Energy bills, food and drink ingredients and wages have all risen significantly in recent years.

Industry leaders have been particularly vocal about changes to employer national insurance contributions (NICs), including the lowering of the threshold at which they are paid, a move that disproportionately affects sectors reliant on part-time and lower-paid staff.

Many pubs are also bracing for higher business rates from April. While the government has introduced a support package, campaigners argue it may not be sufficient to offset the burden.

At the same time, alcohol consumption in Britain has softened as households face tighter budgets and shifting health trends.

In December, Greene King’s chief executive Nick Mackenzie warned of a “constant layering of costs” and urged ministers to provide further support for the sector.

Despite a 3.2 per cent increase in sales to £2.45bn in 2024, Greene King reported a pre-tax loss of £147.1m in its latest accounts. Adjusted operating profits stood at £198m. The company employed around 1,000 head office staff during the year.

Greene King was taken private in 2019 in a £2.7bn deal by Hong Kong-based CK Asset Holdings, owned by billionaire Li Ka-shing.

The group has continued to invest in its estate, including plans to relocate its historic Bury St Edmunds brewery to a new £40m site by 2027, where it will produce both traditional cask ales and newer beer ranges.

Greene King is not alone in cutting costs. Rival Stonegate Group, Britain’s largest pub operator and owner of the Slug & Lettuce chain, has also appointed advisers to restructure its operations. It has already cut 95 roles, with further reductions under review.

Stonegate, owned by private equity firm TDR Capital, is reportedly considering selling a package of up to 1,000 pubs to reduce debt and has been linked to a potential £1bn valuation.

For Greene King and its peers, the challenge is clear: balancing investment in heritage brands and estate upgrades with the harsh reality of rising costs and fragile consumer demand in Britain’s pubs.

Read more:
Greene King considers job cuts as soaring costs squeeze pub sector

Mark Dixon, the billionaire founder of IWG and architect of the Regus empire, has dismissed calls to ban working from home as “idiotic”, arguing that the future of productivity lies in better management, not compulsory office attendance.

Speaking to The Times, Dixon responded to remarks by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who recently declared that people are not more productive at home and pledged to scrap the practice if his party ever came to power. For Dixon, such thinking belongs to another era. “The idea that the only place you can work is in an office is idiotic,” he said. Advocates of five days a week in the office, he added, are “naive” and “Luddites”.

As chief executive and largest shareholder of IWG, the £2.2bn group behind the Regus and Spaces brands, Dixon is hardly neutral. The company promotes hybrid working as a core proposition and operates more than 4,400 locations across 122 countries. Yet his view is informed by scale and data as much as ideology. “Work can be done absolutely anywhere today,” he said. “The whole notion of offices has completely changed.”

The interview took place at Spaces Liverpool Street in the City, a recently refurbished location where corporate suits and start-up hoodies share communal tables. Dixon, 66, is softly spoken rather than bombastic, but unequivocal in his beliefs. “The key problem with work and productivity is how you manage people,” he said. “It’s not whether they’re at home or in an office.”

His approach is to manage outputs rather than presence. For his roughly 1,000 head-office staff, part of a global workforce of around 9,000, the emphasis is on delivery rather than surveillance. As for the oft-cited “water cooler moments” supposedly lost in remote working, Dixon believes they must be deliberately curated rather than left to chance. “You’ve got to schedule creative periods,” he said. “You can’t just rely on random encounters.”

Dixon’s own career has been anything but conventional. Born in Essex to a car mechanic, he began his entrepreneurial life selling topsoil to neighbours at the age of 12. After leaving school at 16 and travelling the world, he launched a sandwich delivery business in the 1980s before selling his bakery venture for £800,000. That capital financed his move to Brussels in 1989, where he spotted businesspeople conducting meetings in cafés, and identified a market for flexible office space. The first Regus centre opened later that year.

Expansion followed rapidly through Latin America, China and the United States. Regus listed in London in 2000 but narrowly avoided collapse during the dotcom crash. More recently, IWG has outlasted high-profile rival WeWork, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2023 after a spectacular fall from a $47bn valuation.

Despite persistent speculation about shifting its listing to the US, Dixon said such a move is not imminent. While about half of IWG’s business is American, he cautioned that scale is essential before any transatlantic switch. “It’s important to be big there; you don’t want to be a minnow,” he said, suggesting annual earnings would need to exceed £1bn before the company could justify the effort.

On UK politics, Dixon was less restrained. He questioned whether successive governments have truly prioritised business competitiveness, arguing that long-term economic success depends on fostering strong companies and industries.

Now based in Monaco, Dixon retains a 27 per cent stake in IWG. Asked about succession, he acknowledged the inevitability of change. “The challenge for any chief executive-founder is succession,” he said. “This is a young man’s business.” He insisted he has no ego-driven attachment to the role, only to the company’s success.

For the time being, however, he remains focused on growth, and on demonstrating that hybrid working can deliver results. The day before our conversation, he had taken his team to a nearby pub after a long meeting. “We got quite a lot done in two pints,” he said with a smile. “It was very productive.”

Read more:
Mark Dixon: ‘Banning working from home is idiotic’