The Gendered Impact of Remote Working Policies

What might Lloyds, Citi Bank & Goldman Sachs have in common, outside of their reputation as some of the world’s most notorious financial institutions? Since the summer, these banks have all made headlines [1] for encouraging a return to the office in a bid to boost productivity and collaboration.

For some, the flexibility of remote work brings obvious advantages. However, Dr. Claudia Goldin’s recent appointment as the recipient of this year’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences invites a fresh look at the gendered impact of remote working policies.

Goldin’s contribution to understanding the challenges faced by women in the labour market should encourage us to be critical in our approach to remote working patterns. In light of this, this article hopes to open a conversation around the insidious consequences of remote working, and the limitations of employer policies in their ability to protect working women – in particular those with caregiving responsibilities.  

What does the law say?

With regard to employment law, UK employers are given significant flexibility. By nature, employment contracts are a private matter between employer and employee. Government legislation [2] sets a framework upon which employers can construct their own terms of employment, and there is no legal requirement for a written contract of employment, rather employers are under a duty to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment within two months of starting employment [3]. Consequently, remote working policies can be implemented at the whim of the employer, who tends to enjoy higher bargaining power.

This flexibility leaves a remote working ‘policy vacuum’ as each firm has sufficient autonomy to shape its own internal policies. A comparison of Lloyds’ incentive to return to the office with Natwest’s continued commitment to flexibility shows just how different remote working policies may be, even within comparable industries. Just like the way an employer implements remote working policies can feel like a matter of chance.

Photo credit: ONS, accessed on: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06838/

Why is remote working necessarily a gendered issue?  

This ‘policy vacuum’ has led to disparity in the way we work. Many firms, from global financial institutions to independent start-ups, have implemented their own policies concerning remote/in-person work. While these policies are ostensibly more flexible than in the pre-pandemic world, allowing more leeway for school pick-ups or medical appointments during the day, they often fail to address the implicit impact they have on their female labour force.

While women in the UK may have the same right to employment as their male counterparts, women’s childbearing and care-giving realities mean that a fair analysis of any employer policy need be looked at through the lens of gender.

The implications are significant. With over 70% women in the UK participating in the paid workforce [4], a lack of critical engagement with the issues specific to many working women runs the risk of overlooking a large proportion of our labour force.

One obvious advantage to working from home is that it can help to ease women back into work after taking maternity leave. For instance, the Financial Times [5] interviewed women at senior level from Deloitte, Aviva and Linklaters who all credit remote work with facilitating the move back into work after recovering from child birth, and the mental and physical strain of having a newborn. 

However, looking beyond this transitional period, the flexibility enjoyed by many office-going women can become a double-edged sword, under the wrong conditions.

How can remote working exacerbate existing inequalities?

To answer this question, it is useful for us to turn our attention from law and policy makers to sociologists.

Christine Delphy, co-founder of the French women's liberation movement in 1970, is a useful starting point. Her provocative work speaks of the exploitation of women through ‘free labour’ – or unpaid domestic work within a heteronormative marital context. This labour can be childcare, housework or looking after elderly relatives.

This notion of free labour makes its way into conversations around the impossible expectation of emancipated, educated women to ‘do it all’. This was coined 'the second shift’ by sociologist Dr Arlie Hochschild [6]. The Berkley professor reveals that in dual-career, dual-income households, the woman routinely picks up a ‘second shift’, before or after work, which involves domestic work and childcare.

It is no wonder, then, that the flexibility afforded by remote work is popular among women. Time spent commuting to and from the office, taking a lunch break, or networking at informal events could otherwise be spent meeting the needs of their household and performing motherly duties. This is supported by a post-pandemic study by Mckinsey, which shows that the top priority for working women ‘is balancing work and private life. For remote-working men, that need doesn’t even rank in the top ten [7].

Rather than allowing (heterosexual) women in dual-career relationships, in which both partners work, the time to balance work and home life, flexible working patterns can work to exacerbate the uneven distribution of domestic labour. For working mothers in particular, spending less time commuting or attending professional events in person means more time spent on household chores and caregiving. Those with young children are often expected to remain at home should their children fall ill, balancing caring for a sick child while they continue to attend virtual meetings. 

The impact of this phenomenon has been proven to be detrimental, with remote-working mothers reporting the lowest rates of engagement, effectiveness and well-being at work in comparison to their colleagues – including remote-working fathers [8].

(Photo credit: McKinsey & Company, accessed on www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/covid-19-and-the-employee-experience-how-leaders-can-seize-the-moment> accessed 22 October 2023)

How might better employer policies seek to prevent the exacerbation of inequalities?  

As we have seen, remote/in-person working policies can impact men and women differently. Effective employer policy responses should look to address this inequality in order to mitigate the impact on the female labour force.

Returning to McKinsey, their June 2022 publication aimed at business leaders identifies that combining publicly available data with segmented employee feedback is the best way for employers to address the implicit impact of remote work on certain demographics [9].

Their report concludes that employees’ home lives and personal characteristics, among other factors, are instrumental in creating effective, fair employer policies which ultimately maximise well-being and productivity [10]. So, blanket working policies may be done away with, replaced by more personalised response to employee’s out-of-work needs and responsibilities.

Limitations of Employer Policy Making & Final Thoughts

Looking to the future of working patterns, it is important not to recognise the duplexity of remote work. For many working parents, and others with additional responsibilities, disabilities or priorities, it has transformed the working day. Remote work as also welcomed the possibility of exercising during the working week, regular out-of-country work and access to remote roles which, prior to the pandemic, would have been inconceivable.

As global firms pave the way for a partial return to the office in a post-pandemic world, their ability to implement nuanced employer policies which consider the impact of the ‘second shift’ will likely be the measure of success for the female labour force.

While much can be done with to improve working policies to account for both the benefits and burdens of remote work on women, there are limitations to how much employers can achieve through better policy implementation.

To combat the burden of the ‘second shift’ falling disproportionately on women in ‘traditional’ heteronormative relationships, a cultural transformation is necessary. In dual-career households, this burden is only lifted when household responsibilities are shared.

[1] Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan, ‘UK banks tighten up on work from home’ (Financial Times, 4 September 2023) <https://www.ft.com/content/5ca5f64d-afce-4ac6-bb40-d16746f4e116> accessed 22 October 2023

[2] Employment Rights Act 1996, s 1.

[3] ‘Contracts of employment – should they be written or verbal?’ (Lindays, 3 November 2017) <https://www.lindsays.co.uk/news-and-insights/insights/contracts-of-employment-should-they-be-written-or-verbal> accessed 27 October 2023

[4] Commons Library Research Briefing, Women and the UK economy <https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf> accessed 22 October 2023

[5] Emma Jacobs, ‘Why hybrid working is a ‘game changer’ after maternity leave’ (Financial Times, 17 October 2023) <https://www.ft.com/content/1ab341fe-5f2a-4d21-ab64-71d114a68a9b> accessed 22 October 2023

[6] Arlie Hochschild, Anne Machung The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home, (Viking Penguin, 1989)

[7] Jonathan Emmett, Gunnar Schrah, Matt Schrimper, and Alexandra Wood, ‘COVID-19 and the employee experience: How leaders can seize the moment’ (McKinsey & Company, 29 June 2020) <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/covid-19-and-the-employee-experience-how-leaders-can-seize-the-moment> accessed 22 October 2023

[8] Rani Molla, ‘For women, remote work is a blessing and a curse’ (Vox, 13 July 2021) <https://www.vox.com/recode/22568635/women-remote-work-home> accessed 22 October 2023

[9] Emmett, Schrah, Schrimper, Wood (n 7).

[10] Pilita Clark, ‘Working from home is full of surprises’ (Financial Times, 30 July 2023) <https://www.ft.com/content/fe33dcac-8771-4d11-bad2-6938a38f515b> accessed 22 October 2023