7CO01 Work and Working Lives in a Changing Business Environment
7CO01 Work and Working Lives in a Changing Business Environment looks closely at how wider shifts, economic, social, political, and of course technological, continue to reshape the way we work. It’s not just about trends; it’s about what those changes mean for people, for organisations, and for those of us in HR trying to make sense of it all. The module encourages critical thinking and a bit of honest reflection too. How do we plan for a future that keeps changing? How do we stay fair, or ethical, or even just human? It doesn’t offer simple answers, but it does offer perspective.
Assessment questions
Question 1 (AC 1.1): Assess the trend towards greater globalisation of international business activity and consider whether this has now peaked and there will be reduced globalisation in the future. Justify your answer.
There’s no doubt that globalisation has dramatically reshaped international business over the past few decades. We’ve seen multinational corporations expand aggressively, supply chains stretch across continents, and emerging markets open up in ways that, perhaps, would’ve been unthinkable just a generation ago. In many respects, globalisation brought undeniable benefits, access to broader markets, lower production costs, greater consumer choice. That said, the trend hasn’t been a smooth, upward curve without friction.
Over recent years, there’s been a noticeable shift. Some would even argue the pace of globalisation is slowing, or in some areas, reversing. It’s not entirely surprising. The pandemic exposed how fragile globally dispersed supply chains can be. Then there’s the rise in geopolitical tensions, US-China trade disputes, Brexit, the war in Ukraine, all adding layers of uncertainty that make cross-border operations feel riskier than before. So, is globalisation in retreat? Possibly. But perhaps not entirely.
It might be more accurate to say we’re entering a new phase. Some businesses are “re-shoring” or “near-shoring,” pulling production closer to home, not necessarily because they’re abandoning globalisation but because they’re recalibrating it. The old model, chasing the cheapest labour anywhere in the world, seems to be losing its appeal. What’s emerging instead is a more cautious, strategic approach to international growth.
Yet, even with these shifts, we can’t ignore that technology still connects markets faster than ever. Digital platforms, remote work, AI, these make international collaboration more seamless than at any point in history. A Kenyan software company can service a UK client just as easily as one in Manchester, depending on the field. So, while physical trade might contract slightly, digital globalisation could well be on the rise.
Of course, not every country or industry will feel this in the same way. And not all businesses will be eager to retreat from global strategies. Some will, and already are, doubling down—expanding into new regions with an eye on long-term gains, even if the road is bumpier.
In the end, globalisation likely hasn’t peaked in the sense of vanishing, it’s just… morphing. Slower, maybe. More complex, certainly. Less romantic than the boom years, but also, potentially, more grounded. So rather than saying it’s declining, we’d probably be better off admitting it’s evolving into something less predictable, and possibly more sustainable.
Question 2 (AC 1.2): Critically evaluate whether advancing technologies, and particularly artificial intelligence (AI), will soon destroy a good proportion of existing jobs, leaving many people either unemployed or under-employed. Justify your answer with reference to examples.
Whether advancing technologies, especially artificial intelligence, will destroy a significant portion of jobs is a question that triggers a fair bit of discomfort. Not necessarily because the answer is simple, but because it’s entangled with mixed predictions, personal anxieties, and, frankly, some hype. We’ve all heard the warnings: AI is coming for our jobs. But is that really what’s happening?
To be fair, there are sectors where job displacement is very real. Manufacturing was already heavily automated long before ChatGPT or self-driving cars entered public conversation. Even now, automated systems in warehouses, customer service, and basic data processing roles are quietly replacing tasks once done by people. In Kenya, for instance, we’ve seen small businesses begin using AI tools to handle bookkeeping and marketing, jobs that used to require full-time hires.
But that’s only part of the story.
While some roles vanish, others emerge. It’s not always a clean handover. A job disappears here, a new one appears there, but it’s rarely the same person who fills both. That’s the awkward bit. A warehouse picker doesn’t easily become a data labelling technician. And not everyone wants to. Or can. Which leads to a situation where some people are left behind, at least temporarily. That’s unsettling.
What often gets overlooked is the slow pace of adoption. Most businesses, especially in developing economies, don’t leap at new tech. Cost, infrastructure, and resistance to change tend to slow things down. Even in places with access to cutting-edge systems, AI still needs human guidance, correction, and input. Take radiology: AI can assist with image analysis, but doctors aren’t being replaced anytime soon. Instead, the tech is being used to reduce repetitive tasks and flag potential issues more efficiently.
The broader fear that “AI will destroy all our jobs” seems, at the moment, more like a convenient headline than a practical reality. Yes, job markets will change. They always have. And yes, some roles are more at risk than others. But destruction? Total? That feels exaggerated.
Perhaps a more honest way to look at it is this: AI is reshaping work, not erasing it. That’s both exciting and uncomfortable. Not everyone will benefit equally. And some will lose out. But new kinds of work, work we don’t even recognise yet, will surface. We just need to be ready, whatever that means.
Question 3 (AC 1.3): What do you consider to be the most significant current demographic trend affecting your country? Justify your choice. Evaluate its significance for labour markets, employment and the world of work.
One of the most significant demographic trends currently shaping the UK is the ageing population. It’s not a new concern, but the pace and scale of change have become much harder to ignore. We’re seeing a clear shift, people are living longer, and the birth rate isn’t keeping pace. According to the Office for National Statistics, by the mid-2040s, it’s expected that one in four people in the UK will be over the age of 65. That’s a sizeable proportion. And although longer life expectancy is something to be proud of, it comes with some fairly complicated challenges.
For the labour market, this shift is already having a noticeable effect. On one hand, there’s pressure on industries to retain older workers for longer, often past what we used to think of as retirement age. Some of this is economic necessity, yes, but also, people are simply healthier and want to stay active. On the other hand, there’s concern about whether younger workers are coming through in sufficient numbers, especially in sectors that rely heavily on fresh talent or physically demanding roles.
There’s also a quiet tension around skills transfer. While older workers bring a wealth of experience, there can be gaps in digital fluency or adaptability, particularly in tech-heavy roles. Employers are being pushed to rethink training, upskilling, and flexible working, not just for younger recruits but for the older end of the workforce too. It’s not always smooth. Some companies are adapting well, others not so much.
From a wider employment perspective, the ageing trend touches healthcare, pensions, automation, and even workplace culture. We think of an “older workforce” and imagine experience and stability. But also, truthfully, it raises questions about productivity, sick leave, ageism, and how inclusive our workplaces truly are. It’s not a one-dimensional issue.
And maybe that’s the real weight of this trend. It doesn’t just affect numbers or planning strategies. It subtly shifts how we think about work itself, what it means to contribute, to retire, to re-train. Some argue it’s an opportunity to redesign work for all ages. Others worry it’s putting more strain on a system already stretched thin. Perhaps both are true. Either way, it’s a demographic reality that’s here to stay, and one that quietly shapes almost every corner of the labour market.
Question 4 (AC 1.4): What is the most important long-term economic trend currently affecting your country? Justify your answer. Appraise the significance of this trend for your industry now and in the future.
One of the most important long-term economic trends currently affecting the UK is the ongoing shift towards a services-led, digitally integrated economy, particularly the rise in automation and AI across sectors. It’s not a sudden change, of course. It’s been building quietly over the past decade or more. But recently, we’ve seen it speed up, and there’s every reason to believe it’ll keep doing so. Some people point to Brexit or inflation as the main issue, and those do matter, but this deeper shift in how value is generated, where people work, and what skills are needed seems more permanent. Perhaps not in every sector equally, but it’s becoming hard to ignore.
We’ve moved past just having more office jobs than manufacturing. It’s now about how even those office jobs are being reshaped by digital systems, cloud-based platforms, algorithmic tools, automation of admin tasks. In industries like finance, law, marketing, even healthcare to an extent, the way we operate is being quietly rewritten. And not just for efficiency, though that’s part of it. It’s also reshaping decision-making, communication styles, recruitment priorities. This affects how firms grow, or don’t.
In our own industry, let’s say professional services, this shift is quite significant. We’re already adapting workflows to match digital expectations. For example, clients expect real-time updates, automated billing, AI-assisted reports. It used to be acceptable to send updates once a month, maybe with a PDF. Now, people want dashboards, dynamic data, and 24/7 access. Some of us are keeping up. Some… aren’t.
Looking ahead, this trend means we can’t rely on traditional ways of working. The old model of ‘expert gives advice, client listens’ is softening. Clients come in already armed with Google results and AI summaries. They want context, even a little disagreement sometimes. And we have to offer that without sounding defensive. There’s no single ‘correct’ strategy anymore, just lots of moving parts, shifting targets, partial answers. That’s difficult, but also, maybe, exciting?
What’s uncertain, of course, is how far this digital trend will go. Not everything can, or should, be automated. But the pressure to adapt is constant. For businesses like ours, it’ll shape everything from recruitment to pricing. Maybe even the idea of a fixed office. We’re already thinking, albeit cautiously, about remote-first models and hybrid teams. It’s not all figured out. But we’re watching the trend closely, because ignoring it doesn’t feel like an option anymore.
Question 5 (AC 2.1): Evaluate how technological developments are currently affecting the practice of recruitment and selection in organisations. Drawing on examples from your own experience and reading, explain why these developments are occurring and what benefits flow from them for employers. Justify your answer.
Technology has been changing almost every aspect of work life, and recruitment and selection haven’t been spared. We’ve seen a notable shift in how organisations approach hiring, and while not every change is straightforward or universally adopted, the general direction is clear: more automation, more data, and faster processes. But whether it always leads to better hiring outcomes… that’s a bit harder to pin down.
Take online application systems, for instance. They’ve replaced the older, slower methods of email applications or even, yes, hand-delivered CVs. It’s more efficient now. Candidates upload their details once, and employers can filter applicants in minutes using keywords or skill criteria. But sometimes, we wonder if this efficiency causes unintended problems. A perfectly capable candidate might be screened out because their phrasing didn’t match a system’s filters. We’ve probably all seen a great CV get missed this way. Still, organisations keep adopting these tools, partly because they handle volume better. Especially in large firms, say, banks or retail chains, manual filtering just isn’t practical anymore.
There’s also the rise of AI in candidate matching. We’ve seen platforms that score applicants automatically or even suggest ideal candidates before jobs are posted. While some of it seems promising, we’re a little cautious. AI only works as well as the data it’s trained on, and bias can creep in. Yet employers continue to invest in these systems. Why? Probably because they reduce human workload, speed up shortlisting, and, in some cases, help spot hidden talent. There’s always a trade-off, though. Rely too much on algorithms and you risk losing the human element.
On a more positive note, technology has improved the candidate experience. Automated interview scheduling, chatbots for FAQs, and video interviews have made the process more accessible and flexible. From the employer’s side, this reduces delays and helps keep candidates engaged, which is important, especially in competitive sectors. But not everyone enjoys speaking to a screen. Some applicants still prefer the old face-to-face dynamic.
So, why is all this happening now? In part, it’s because of global competition. Companies can’t afford slow hiring. There’s pressure to move quickly, especially when skilled talent is scarce. And with remote work expanding, tech-enabled hiring isn’t just convenient, it’s often necessary.
In summary, technological developments bring clear benefits to employers: speed, reach, cost-efficiency. But the human side of recruitment, judgement, instinct, culture fit, still matters. Maybe the challenge now is finding a balance. Or at least trying to.
Question 6 (AC 2.2): Assess any one contemporary public policy development in your country in terms of its likely or potential future impact on work and employment. Justify your answer with reference to examples, statistics or published research.
One recent public policy development in the UK that continues to stir debate, and quite a bit of uncertainty, is the ongoing rollout and expansion of the “Flexible Working Bill,” which received Royal Assent in 2023. On the surface, it seems fairly straightforward: employees now have the right to request flexible working from day one of their employment, rather than having to wait the traditional 26 weeks. But its longer-term impact on work and employment? Well, that’s where things get a bit more layered.
In theory, this move should promote better work–life balance, especially for parents, carers, or those managing health conditions. Some would argue it could help close the gender employment gap, too, particularly for women disproportionately affected by rigid work patterns. A 2021 CIPD survey found that nearly 46% of employees not currently working flexibly said they would like to. So demand is certainly there.
But implementation is another matter. While the legislation gives employees the right to request, it doesn’t oblige employers to approve. That creates a bit of a grey area. We’ve spoken to small business owners who admit they’re unsure how to handle such requests without undermining team cohesion or productivity. Larger companies may be better equipped, but even they’re experimenting. Some are enthusiastic, rolling out hybrid models and compressed hours, while others quietly resist, preferring the old structure, perhaps for reasons they’re reluctant to say out loud.
One consequence we may see, and already have in isolated cases, is a shift in recruitment strategies. Employers offering remote or flexible roles tend to attract more applicants, and often higher-calibre ones. But that may leave traditional, office-bound employers struggling to compete unless they adapt. And then there’s the potential impact on workplace culture. Will flexible arrangements dilute the sense of shared purpose? Or will they encourage more focused, motivated teams? There’s evidence pointing in both directions.
What’s becoming clear, or at least suggested, is that this policy may widen the divide between sectors. Tech, finance, and creative industries have embraced change. Retail, hospitality, and manufacturing, not so much. Understandably so. You can’t work a shop floor or assemble a product from your kitchen table.
So yes, the Flexible Working Bill marks a significant policy shift. But how it reshapes UK employment will depend less on the letter of the law and more on how businesses choose to read between the lines.
Question 7 (AC 2.3): Analyse a major legal development or likely future development in your country and justify a proposal for a change in your country’s current employment law based on this. Explain what your proposed change would involve, what it would look to achieve and in what ways it might be contested either by some employers, employees or their representatives.
One of the more noticeable legal developments in UK employment law over the past few years has been the rise of litigation around worker status, especially in the gig economy. High-profile cases involving companies like Uber, Deliveroo, and Pimlico Plumbers have made it difficult to ignore how our current legal framework hasn’t quite kept up with changing work patterns. On the one hand, courts have offered some clarity, but on the other, there’s still a lot of grey space, and that’s where problems tend to grow.
So here’s the thought: perhaps it’s time to introduce a formal, statutory definition of “gig worker” or “platform worker.” Not a reinvention of the wheel, but a clearer, middle ground. Something between “employee” and “independent contractor” that reflects how many people actually work now, flexibly, often on demand, but with some level of dependency on platforms that set the terms. The current binary model feels, at best, stretched; at worst, outdated.
What would this change look like? In practical terms, we imagine a new category, let’s call it “dependent contractor” for now, that comes with limited but meaningful protections; guaranteed minimum wage, holiday pay, some basic sick leave provisions. Not full employment rights, no, but not complete exposure either. It would still allow companies to offer flexible engagements, while placing a duty on them to contribute to the basic well-being of the people they rely on.
That said, this wouldn’t land smoothly. Some employers would argue, probably loudly, that it undermines the very flexibility gig work is supposed to offer. They might say it opens the door to more red tape, or that it introduces uncertainty in an already legally complex space. And some workers, oddly enough, might resist too. For those who genuinely value autonomy above all, any increased regulation might feel like interference. Plus, unions could push back, claiming it waters down the fight for full employment rights.
Still, the current situation isn’t exactly clear or fair. Many people are stuck in limbo, neither fully independent nor properly protected. We think it’s worth acknowledging that complexity rather than forcing everyone into categories that don’t quite fit. It’s not a perfect solution, maybe not even a neat one, but then again, real life isn’t all that neat either.
Question 8 (AC 2.4): Critically discuss the current state of the major labour markets in which your organisation competes for staff in terms of both demand for and supply of skills. Explain whether these labour markets are loosening, tightening or stable. How do you anticipate that this situation may change over the next ten years? Justify your key points with reference to statistics and examples.
The labour markets we operate in, primarily healthcare and allied sectors, have experienced significant strain in recent years. It’s not entirely unexpected. With demographic shifts, increasing demand for healthcare services, and the lasting effects of the pandemic, workforce pressures have only deepened. We’ve seen a tightening across most roles, particularly those requiring clinical or technical expertise. Registered nurses, laboratory technicians, and care assistants are increasingly hard to source. We’re not alone in this; across the UK and much of Europe, these skill shortages are now widely reported.
Part of the problem lies in supply. There simply aren’t enough newly qualified professionals entering the workforce to replace those retiring or moving on. UCAS data from 2023 showed a notable decline in nursing applications, down by around 16% compared to the previous year. That’s not just a statistic; it means more vacancies stay open longer. We’ve felt this. Job adverts that once pulled a decent shortlist now sometimes receive just a handful of underqualified applicants.
At the same time, demand for these skills keeps rising. An ageing population, stretched public health systems, and increased focus on preventative care have all contributed to this. The labour market, in short, is not just tight, it’s tense. And though there are efforts to upskill existing staff or attract talent from overseas, the effect isn’t immediate. There are barriers, regulatory, cultural, even financial.
It’s not all bleak. Some areas have seen stabilisation. Digital health, for instance, has drawn fresh graduates interested in tech-health crossovers. We’ve had slightly better luck filling roles like digital records officers or patient pathway analysts. But even that, we think, could shift. Tech moves fast, and competition from private sectors may pull those candidates elsewhere.
Looking ahead ten years, we expect things to stay tight, perhaps tighten further, unless training pipelines expand significantly. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan projects a need to double medical school places by 2031. That’s ambitious, and we support it. But it also assumes funding, coordination, and time, three things not always in ready supply.
So where does that leave us? Somewhere between concern and cautious optimism. It’s a dynamic picture. Shifts in immigration policy, education reform, or economic shocks could all disrupt the forecast. We’re planning with flexibility in mind, but we also know that workforce planning is rarely precise. We can prepare, but we can’t predict everything.