Nodality – working with networks to drive change
Lever 7: Development of fair work education and training at multiple levels
Evidence
Accredited training refers to a type of education or skill development programme that has been officially recognised and approved by a relevant accrediting body or authority. Accreditation of training is typically carried out by independent organisations or government agencies. These accrediting bodies evaluate the curriculum, instructors' qualifications, learning resources and overall training effectiveness.
The purpose of accreditation is to ensure that the training meets specific quality standards, and that the knowledge and skills acquired by participants are valid and reliable. Such training might lead to a formal qualification at a range of levels, for example, as outlined in the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.
Much of the existing evidence on the impact of training focusses on the benefits to individuals of accredited training across varied occupational sectors. This includes evidence on improvement in knowledge, skills and abilities,[78] improved confidence, self-efficacy and resilience[79] and better continuous professional development.[80] Individual benefits of accredited training might also include a reduction in job precarity for recipients on the basis that they can evidence professional development.[81]
Despite strong evidence advocating the value of accredited training in general terms, there is variability relating to type and level of training available, and the perceptions of those receiving the training. Training and/or accreditation delivered with a competency approach[4] has been evidenced as a useful method of job and career development for those people participating and as providing a useful development framework for their employers.[82] Accredited training can also provide the opportunity to formalise on-the-job knowledge and share existing good practice – evidenced across training types and sites.[83] Research suggests that CPD activities such as undertaking accredited training can be highly valued by professions as indicators of professional commitment.[84] Moreover, knowledge acquired through accredited training can create normative effects that helps diffuse key practices.[85] Research[86] suggests that ‘formal training of the organization's employees or of its technical personnel and managers, can increase the likelihood that practices consistent with that training are adopted. Members of a profession or occupational community share a common understanding and knowledge base’ that in turn can diffuse good practice across organisations and the economy. However, there is notably little evidence regarding whether the availability of accredited training can function as a driver for organisational change.
Potential to improve fair work adoption and practice
Previous levers have identified the need for better understanding of what fair work is, how it might be delivered and what outcomes it might produce. However, the role of education and training in fair work is under-investigated and potentially under-realised. Developing and supporting education and training on the role of fair work in enhancing organisational performance and citizen wellbeing might leverage greater adoption of fair work practices.
The development of fair work accredited training could help to increase awareness and understanding of fair work across the economy. It could also develop internal organisational support for fair work approaches, which would subsequently support the generation of a critical mass of informed fair work learners. Engagement with accredited fair work training could also develop a sense of employer accountability for fair work practices as accredited learners deploy insights from training in their job and organisation. Accredited training might also have a wider labour market impact, allowing for recognition by other employers, and transferability to new organisations.
There is considerable public investment in training in Scotland, including in leadership and management, by public agencies such as Scottish Enterprise, SOSE and HIE. This provision might usefully infuse fair work into a broad suite of management training, creating the potential for evidence-based business training on the costs and consequences of fair work to drive both commitment to and wider adoption of fair work.
Ownership
Currently there is no bespoke fair work accredited training available in Scotland. To change this would require either developing accreditation standards/criteria by which to assess training designed and delivered internally by employers or developing a full training program delivered by a training or qualifications provider. Either option would require the input and engagement of an accrediting institution – for example, an institution of higher or further education, a public accrediting body such as the SQA, or a professional association such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) or the Chartered Management Institute (CMI). In the absence of independent action to develop and deliver training, some stimulus by the Scottish Government is likely to be required. This could take the form of instructions to SFC and/or the public agencies, or engagement with relevant professional bodies.
Dependencies and constraints
This lever is dependent on two factors: the willingness of an accrediting institution to design, develop and offer accredited fair work training, and the willingness of employers to undertake the development of training eligible for fair work accreditation, fund the training and/or make staff time available to access the training. There is no robust data available on the efficacy of similar accredited training schemes and it is difficult to gauge the opinions of, and likely uptake by, employers on fair work training.
The time it takes to develop accreditation standards for employee training in Scotland will vary depending on several factors, including the complexity of the training program, level of study, any associated qualifications, the number of stakeholders involved, the level of detail required, the processes of the accrediting body and employer demand.[87]
Buy-in to accredited fair work training is likely to represent a challenge for this lever in particular industries – such as hospitality - where there are longstanding calls for the industry in general to develop a more robust approach to credentialing and training its workforce.[88] Wider evidence on training highlights that it is more likely to be undertaken in the public sector (particularly if fair work champions were encouraged by the Scottish Government) and in large organisations. For smaller employers, the relationship between fair work practice and wider perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities may mean that supporting accredited fair work training acts as a signal of care for their employees and/or their investment in staff[89] for the purposes of recruitment and retention. For all employers, and particularly those contracting with the public sector, engagement with fair work training could act as another signal of their commitment to fair work within tendering processes.
Locus and reach
Generic, high quality, fair work training would be relevant across Scotland’s economy, sectors and industries. There may also be potential to develop specific industry training. The reach of widely available, accredited fair work training is, therefore, potentially high. Dependent on the uptake of the training, it has potential to be drawn on by employers, policymakers, trade unions and workforces. Accrediting training through an existing professional body (for example, CIPD or CMI) would also expand the reach of such training to their members and professional communities.
Lever 7 Insight: The Scottish Government can engage key stakeholders (SQA, FWC, CIPD and CMI), public agencies and HE and FE institutions in the development of a suite of high quality accredited fair work training courses to support expertise in fair work across the Scottish economy. This could form part of the SQA’s accredited management and leadership training.
Lever 8: Voluntary charters
Evidence
Levers 8 and 9 comprise voluntary charters and formal accreditation processes. Accreditation and charters have both similar and distinguishing features. Their key similarity is that both involve firms or organisations voluntarily engaging with specific practices or behaviours. Where they differ is that formal accreditation processes generally demand more of organisations: accreditation occurs when organisations engage with accreditation processes and show evidence – often independently evaluated – that they meet the standards set out by the relevant external accrediting body. With charters, firms might commit or pledge to meeting a set of standards contained in a charter that may not be evaluated independently.
There is a plethora of accreditation and charters in operation across the UK and beyond. These focus on a wide range of topics, including but not limited to corporate social responsibility; business purpose; equality, diversity and inclusion; addressing modern slavery; and environmental sustainability. These aim to remove or to promote a practice or set of practices, but can vary widely in their substantive focus, for example on a single or multiple issues, on particular sectors, and on specific geographic locations including on specific countries, groups of countries or worldwide.
Somewhat confusingly, however, the term ‘charter’ is widely used to span formal accreditation processes as well as weaker voluntary commitments. Lever 8 focusses on charters that are not formal accreditation processes (Lever 9 focusses on formal accreditation). Charters can be developed and delivered by governments, by industry stakeholders or by civil society organisations – separately or in partnership.
There is a growing interest in, and understanding of, fair or good work charters as a lever for embedding fair work practice, as illustrated in the FWC’s 2022 Construction Inquiry Report. These are defined as “… examples of ‘soft regulation’, which seek to persuade and encourage employers to offer better jobs, as opposed to ‘hard’ regulation underpinned by legislation, such as the National Minimum Wage (NMW)”.[90]
A number of variously named ‘good work’ Charters have recently been adopted across some of England’s Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) to support good, fair or better work/employment. These Charters have drawn on a range of data, sources, experiences and practices, including from Scotland.[91] It has been suggested that these Charters might fill a ‘policy gap’ by encouraging voluntary commitments by employers to create better work, though the Charters are sometimes backed by procurement conditionality levers. While the MCA charters have a geographical focus, other charters have an industry focus – e.g. the Unite the Union’s Construction Charter.
Potential to improve fair work adoption and practice
A review of the MCA Charters[92] on good work suggests that their development was driven by Mayoral backing and was characterised by extensive local consultation, strong co-design with relevant workplace and labour market stakeholders and considerable seeking out and sharing of information. Strong local partnerships are seen as crucial to the development of the Charters and also to buy in from employers. All draw heavily on the Taylor Report[93] on good work practices. Due to their recent origin, however, these charters have not yet been robustly evaluated.
The research base on the operation of different types of charters suggests that these can help increase awareness of the substantive issue (here, fair work), can support the development of objectives to address the substantive issue, can outline implementation approaches, and can provide support and evaluation for any relevant changes to be made. Some evidence on environmental charters or codes suggests that these have spurred participating firms to introduce new practices, including the institution of environmental management systems, public environmental reporting, and community advisory panels.[94]
The suggested mechanism of change at work in charters and codes is through increasing consciousness and acceptance of the need for practices to change; establishing new norms that guide actions, for example, in the priority attached to and senior management responsibility for the issue; allocating organisational assets (people, time, money) to address the issue; and developing observable implementation resources, practices and tools.[95]
On the existing evidence, fair or good work charters could act as a form of soft regulation that engages employers in fair work by providing examples of the types of workplace practices expected, supporting a commitment to engage in specific practices, offer a way of publicly endorsing these practices and, over time, offering ascending levels of engagement with the charter.
Ownership
Charters or pledges might be developed and delivered by a range of different stakeholders. For example, the Scottish Business Pledge is ‘owned’ by the Scottish Government, while the MCA Charters are ‘owned’ by the MCAs themselves, having been designed in co-operation with a range of relevant stakeholders.
Business or industry charters have two important characteristics: they are voluntary – i.e. businesses self-select into charter support or membership – and they are designed by businesses themselves, though sometimes in co-operation with other stakeholders. Private sector leadership of charters is widely believed to ensure that business voices and concerns are embedded in the charter, though much will hinge on the composition of the businesses engaged in the charter design process. Across a range of existing charters there are concerns about the ability to engage smaller businesses.
Industry charters require a vehicle at industry level to bring together business interests. Industry Leadership Groups in Scotland provide a potential vehicle to engage specific industry sectors in dialogue with the Scottish Government around actions to enhance sectors and their contribution to the Scottish economy.
Dependencies and constraints
Charters have varying degrees of enforcement attached to them.[96] Some are purely ‘voluntary’ insofar as businesses or governments opt to sign up to them but with minimal additional requirements on them to act. Others require external verification of some form. Purely voluntary charters are, other things being equal, more at risk of producing less impact in the absence of enforcement.
There is, however, a wider debate regarding the effectiveness of voluntary or self-regulation relative to more enforceable regulation. In the field of job quality improvements, many commentators support more robust hard regulation – for example, national minimum wage legislation - to ensure compliance across businesses. Leaving aside the important point that UK employment law powers are reserved to Westminster, there is a vigorous debate about the different potential of hard versus soft regulation. Regulation/legislation is likely to be effective in establishing minimum standards of practice in workplaces. However, in research[97] on environmental charters, hard regulation was considered static and difficult to change as circumstances change; and while it can effectively set minimum standards, it offers no incentive or guidance for firms wanting to go beyond minimum standards. Voluntary forms of regulation may engage more businesses to move beyond minimum standards in work and employment. Much depends, however, on any consequences arising from non-adherence to charter commitments.
If ILGs present perhaps the most appropriate mechanism for fair work charters at industry level in Scotland, the efficacy of such chargers will depend heavily on the understanding and endorsement of fair work within ILGs. Additionally, the composition of ILGs – in terms of larger and smaller businesses – will be a key dependency, given the challenges in creating charters that can engage small businesses. Crucially, ILGs require effective worker voice to be able to design and embed effective fair work charters in Scotland. Notwithstanding the importance of industry ownership of any such charter, other stakeholders such as the Scottish Government and the Fair Work Convention might play an important role in supporting ILGs to develop, design and deliver fair work charters for their industry.
Locus and reach
ILGs cover volume employing sectors which, taken together, capture a significant proportion of the labour force in Scotland. This existing network of industry leaders – and one which engages closely with policymakers – has considerable potential to drive and embed fair work at sector level.
Agreeing a fair work charter at ILG level is, however, only a starting point, and engaging a wider group of businesses is crucial to any such charter delivering impact. Lever 4 focusses on giving particular responsibility for fair work on ILGs to a fair work champion on each, and this role could be important in driving wider engagement. In addition, monitoring and evaluation of the impact of charters is crucial – notwithstanding their fundamentally voluntary nature, charters can only have impact if stakeholders act in accordance with charter commitments.
Lever 8 Insight: There is potential value in the Scottish Government engaging with ILGs and other partners to explore the value of a single or series of fair work charters, to pilot their development and, crucially, to evaluate their impact.
Lever 9: Support for formal fair work accreditation
Evidence
Accreditation of firms and organisations occurs when they voluntarily engage with accreditation processes which set out a standard of practice and/or behaviour that firms or organisations must show evidence of meeting to become accredited. Businesses and organisations in Scotland engage in a range of formal accreditation processes, including those relating to business purpose (such as BCorp), quality standards (such as ISO 9000), and people management (such as Investors in People).
Governments can play a significant role in the development and adoption of accreditation processes. For example, governments often promote accreditation processes and standards in sectors where the state is a significant customer, as illustrated by the support of the US and EU governments for the ISO 9000 quality standard[5].[98]
Beyond government support for accreditation, processes of professionalisation and the operation of networks can influence the dissemination of accreditation. Using ISO 9000 again as an example, its adoption was supported by key professions/occupations developing a shared understanding and knowledge base that encouraged the adoption of similar practices across different organisations. The behaviour of other firms puts pressure on non-adopters that drives more widespread adoption.[99]
Professionalisation, networks and government support have played a role in the best-known people management standard in the UK, Investors in People (IiP). Operating for more than 30 years, the IiP people management standard aims to improve organisational performance through the management and development of people and formal accreditation of businesses and organisations by IiP.[100] While the Standard has changed over that time, it continues to be a normative framework for people management practices underpinned by a codified body of knowledge and accompanied by a programmed approach to organisational implementation and change.[101] The Standard currently covers 1.1m people or 1 in 20 workers in the UK and a similar proportion in Scotland (circa 114000 people).[102]
There has been extensive research on IiP attempting to answer key questions, including (1) why organisations engage with IiP; (2) which organisations engage; (3) what is the impact of accreditation; (4) what is the mechanism of impact; and (5) what are the challenges in engaging employers in accreditation processes like IiP? A crucial overarching question is whether accreditation engages firms who would otherwise not adopt the approach and practices contained in the accreditation standard.
Research suggests that organisations seek IiP accreditation to improve organisational performance, but there are also political motivations, as a means, for example, of career development by personnel managers.[103] Research by UKCES highlights examples of proactive commitment to IiP accreditation and also reactive responses by firms to an external trigger (e.g., contact with government or IiP). In all cases, the ultimate objective of accreditation was to support business goals through improving people management processes; training and developing managers; the impact of accreditation on securing publicly procured contracts; and gaining external recognition. Bottom line impact was, however, a higher priority in smaller employers with fewer than 25 staff, who sought accreditation to drive competitive advantage, attract new clients and, for small private sector firms, to increase turnover and profit.[104]
While IiP accreditation is sought by businesses across most sizes, sectors and industries, small businesses have particularly low rates of engagement with the Standard. This is ascribed to the Standard being seen as overly bureaucratic;[105] to training in smaller businesses being more ad hoc than formal[106] and due to cost and time required to implement.[107]
There are good examples of research that establishes a link between IiP Accreditation and business performance measures and a positive impact of the standard on innovation and on effective communication.[108] The Standard and the process of adoption has been found to improve managers’ knowledge, experience and skills; increase managerial performance and support the development of an organisational learning culture. [109] However, some research has also highlighted that employees’ expectation that they might receive more investment in their training and development with IiP accreditation was not always met in practice.[110]
Across the evidence base, while there are many perceived benefits of IiP accreditation, many organisations are unable to measure these benefits robustly.[111] Organisations were able to provide indicators of behavioural and cultural change – improvement in management capability, greater understanding of the business, clearer job roles and additional training generated through IiP – rather than hard measures of organisational performance.[112]
The findings above point to the mechanism of change from adopting organisational practices consistent with the IiP Standard and improved business performance. As has been argued for some time, investing in people is a commitment-based HR policy, and there is strong evidence that commitment-based policies and investment deliver an organisational climate supportive of employee performance, collaboration and flexibility – that in turn impacts positively on business performance.[113]
A crucial consideration in evaluating IiP accreditation – which has wider resonance for any fair work accreditation - is whether it improves people practice across the business base. Put simply, does it drive organisations to do new things, or does it ratify people management practices already in place? There is some evidence that that the latter is more common, with organisations requiring the least practice change to achieve the Standard – and hence with the least to gain – being most likely to seek it.[114] An evaluation of IiP for UKCES confirmed that most accredited employers needed to make relatively minimal changes to business and HR policies and practice to achieve IiP accreditation but noted that accreditation both gave a structure and framework for further improvement and increased the pace of change due to external assistance from IiP Centres and specialists.
What then might encourage organisations with poorer people management practices to seek IiP accreditation? Accreditation comes at a cost. According to the UKCES evaluation, 11% of newly accredited organisations rated IiP poor value for money; rising to 15 per cent among small firms below 25 staff, with such assessments more negative in their second year following recognition.
Cost is not the only obstacle. For some organisations, the IiP Standard would be difficult to meet and there is some evidence that organisations would be more attracted to IiP if it was easier to attain accreditation (Down and Smith 1997). But if the Standard is available to all who seek it, the process cannot discern substantive differences between employers[115] and this may deter employers with better people practices.
For some commentators, additional incentives are required for those organisations unlikely to adopt the standard[116] - whether for cost or other reasons. Addressing the more difficult cases and cost issues identified above has in the past been through the provision of significant UK government financial support. This ended in 2007. IiP’s continued operation depends on engaging employers to seek the core IiP standard and its emerging suite of specialist packages (on issues such as EDI, ESG, leadership and wellbeing).
In relation to IiP and other forms of accreditation, there is a significant evidence base on their aims, components and requirements; their mechanisms of operation and compliance; and their levels of adoption. There are, however, fewer robust evaluations of their impact on practice. Those examples of evaluating accreditation impact that exist (e.g. evaluation of the Athena Swan Charter on gender equality in UK Higher Education[117]) highlight that rigorous evaluation is both costly and time-consuming for those institutions accredited and for those delivering the accreditation process.
Potential to improve fair work adoption and practice
Research evidence suggests that formal accreditation can help embed specific organisational practices where accreditation is valued and can drive positive business outcomes. Given this, formal accreditation could provide a clear fair work standard or standards (at multiple levels) for employers to adhere to. A robust accreditation process can underpin consistent fair work practice, promote confidence in the robustness and rigour of the Standard and promote the reputation of accredited organisations, with potential benefits in recruitment, retention, and business performance.
Ownership
Designing and delivering fair work accreditation would require a reputable and willing accrediting organisation. While a fair work standard within IiP might be a promising option, this might also risk IiP cannibalising its existing Standard. Finding or developing a new accreditation body is a long-term project, and one that would depend on significant investment to stimulate both the development of a standard and employer engagement with a new standard. This is a significant task, and likely to be a costly one.
Dependencies and constraints
Voluntary accreditation processes can involve significant investment of both time and money by organisations. Taking the example of ISO 9000 quality certification, the process can take between 9 months and 2 years and may cost hundreds to thousands of pounds. Further, the more stretching and formalised the accreditation, the greater the investment required over the short to medium term to achieve accreditation, while returns to accreditation are likely to be in the longer term. Additionally, the more stretching the accreditation targets and processes, the more likely that organisations already delivering fair work to a significant extent can engage, while others – and small firms in particular – are far less likely. Given an existing people management standard (IiP), there are risks inherent in developing an additional (and potentially competing) accreditation standard. UK governments have invested millions of pounds in supporting IiP accreditation. Such investment in fair work accreditation is likely to be prohibitive in the current Scottish fiscal context.
Locus and reach
Formal fair work accreditation would operate at a national economy level, and as such would have considerable potential reach across the Scottish economy to a range of employing organisations across sectors and industries, and to workers across the range of occupations.
Lever 9 Insight: While there is evidence that a well-designed, rigorous system of formal accreditation can support better organisational practice, such a system is costly to develop and maintain. The alternative, to develop a cheaper and less robust option, is likely to reduce the attractiveness of the standard to larger and higher value organisations. Formal accreditation with external monitoring is – other things being equal – more likely to ensure fair work standards than voluntary commitments by employers (for example, through signing up to fair work charters – Lever 8) – but only for those employers who engage with formal accreditation processes. What formal accreditation may offer in terms of depth of engagement with fair work, more context-specific mechanisms such as industry charters may eclipse in reach to a broader range of employing organisations.
Lever 10: Supporting the development of communities of practice
Evidence
Communities of Practice (CoP) are networks bound by shared interests. The purpose of the network is to develop members’ capabilities and build and exchange knowledge to learn and to solve problems brought to the community by members. While knowledge sharing can, in context, improve organisational performance (e.g., producing more efficient problem-solving, creation of knowledge banks, stimulation of innovation), the success of CoP is measured by the volume of ideas and practices shared rather than other outcome measures such as performance improvement.[118] [119]
CoP can exist within any type of organisation in which boundary spanning enables individuals to share their expertise and problems.[120] These are intra-organisation CoP. Alternatively, CoP can operate across organisations[121] (inter-organisation CoP) where formal partnerships or external communities collaborate around a shared interest.[122] [123] [124]
Research has identified 10 factors that lead to the successful development and sharing of practice within intra-organisation CoP.[125] Many of these factors are similar to those that drive successful change management (e.g., identify strategic intent; categorise issues; create governance; and publicise outputs). The difference with CoPs is that the input of formal authority is indirect as the community set their own objectives within the parameters of the organisation’s overall strategy and in return are granted the risk-free space to develop (Wenger and Synder, ibid). These CoPs are therefore self-directing in a risk-constrained environment. While CoP are often self-selecting and self-organising, this does not preclude prompts to organise from prospective network members or other relevant stakeholders.
While there are fewer studies on inter-organisation CoP, there are some examples across industries and sectors. For example, there is evidence of apparent success in the use of inter-organisation CoP across private, public and third sectors in the development of global Solutions for Youth Employment.
CoP across organisations share some of the success factors outlined above for CoP within organisations. An additional important feature is the presence of a social glue to bind the group.[126] This social glue is important in circumstances of competitive collaboration between firms[127] because it can stimulate trust in the group and better sharing of practice and ideas.[128]
The example outlined previously (at Lever 5) of Nantes Metropol illustrates not just the potential of funding conditionality but also the potential benefits of a network – in this example, to promote Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and job quality.[129] The CSR network is facilitated by the local Chambers of Commerce and comprises a community of businesses, employer networks, trade unions and third sector organisations. Nantes Metropole use the network to inform its members of the value of CSR, in particular inclusivity and good quality jobs, and collaborate around interventions. The Metropole shares knowledge around the relationships between CSR and productivity to engage the network, and the technical support team provides support to local employers and is considered to be the trainer and facilitator for all businesses in the region.
Potential to improve fair work adoption and practice
Developing CoPs – within and across organisations - provides a potentially effective way to advance fair work in Scotland and could be a useful policy lever. Such a CoP might be focused on all elements of the change model outlined previously: raising awareness, understanding and endorsement of fair work; helping to guide employer actions; learning how best to monitor and evaluate the impact of fair work practices and improving dissemination and learning about fair work, its outcomes and impact.
Multiple stakeholders in fair work might establish CoP. An employers’ fair work CoP might help develop and build member/staff competences to find solutions in their own business/ organisation in light of their specific competitive challenges and context. A trade union CoP might build awareness of fair work among union representatives within and across workplaces and help develop and support strategies to further embed fair work. Any type of CoP focused on overcoming obstacles to fair work would benefit from sharing practice across occupations, industries and sectors; generating data and insights; understanding and measuring the impact of fair work; disseminating learning and, crucially, might help alleviate concerns any perceived costs of or obstacles to fair work.
Shared challenges and problems serve as the bases for communities of practice, but CoPs are also dynamic groups in which core and peripheral members can co-exist. CoPs support observe and develop capacity in the particular area of interest. Additionally, core members may shift to the periphery and new members on the periphery may drift toward the centre as topics and knowledge evolve.[130] In the context of fair work in Scotland, this would allow for ongoing activity for employers, unions, professions and regulators in the fair work space.
Ownership
CoP can establish themselves in their own specific context. However, the Scottish Government might both instigate fair work CoP within and across distinct workplace stakeholders and, crucially, ensure the legitimacy of these networks through ongoing engagement with policymakers. Crucially, however, CoP have to be owned by their members, leaving policymakers with only a facilitating role. There may be opportunity for alignment with existing work around the Scottish Business Pledge Review and the implementation of the Business Purpose Report,[131] although clarity around the purpose of a dedicated fair work CoP is important.
At the current stage of the fair work trajectory in Scotland, there is significant scope for the development of CoP. Beyond employers and unions, networks of relevant public sector suppliers might also be harnessed to fair work delivery. Possible existing networks that might be linked to greater fair work engagement and activity might include suppliers connected through Public Contracts Scotland; CIPD Scotland host an Independent Consultant Network that might be encouraged to engage with fair work; and universities, colleges and professional bodies might also host such networks in light of the recommendation of the SCDI Business Purpose report[132] that fair work should be a mandatory learning outcome in business education and training. Indeed, there is also potential for a fair work CoP within the Scottish Government that might better connect fair work policy with other policy domains such as the Wellbeing Economy, tackling Child Poverty, Just Transition, Business Purpose, wider NSET and sector level strategies, and the pending refresh of the National Performance Framework.
Dependencies and constraints
Employer, union and other fair work CoP may require upfront encouragement, facilitation and knowledge and organisational support from policymakers and other relevant stakeholders such as the Fair Work Convention. The key dependency is the degree of interest among workplace stakeholders in engaging in a CoP, and there is an important role for the policy community in stimulating their engagement.
While capturing the effectiveness of CoP can be challenging[133], there is research insight on the reasons why CoP fail, such as lack of identification with the community, lack of a core group, rigidity of competences, low levels of one to one interaction between members and practice intangibility. [134]
Locus and reach
CoP are, by their nature, context-specific and arise as a mechanism to address shared problems and challenges. They also operate at a variety of levels. There may be merit in considering how CoP for higher level workplace stakeholders – employers and unions – might be developed in the first instance to inform the work of policymakers and the FWC. Similarly, there may be merit in developing a public agency fair work CoP. More widely, there may also be merit in developing materials to support the development of other fair work CoP, which will be picked up at Levers 11 and 12.
Lever 10 Insight: There is potential value in the Scottish Government and partners taking forward work to facilitate and support fair work Communities of Practice, across distinct workplace stakeholder groups and at sectoral, cross-sectoral and/or regional level as appropriate.