Critical Appraisal: 'Keep Britain Working – Final Report (Autumn 2025)'

Written By Yuming Shen

1. Overview

The Keep Britain Working (KBW) review presents a comprehensive, data-driven response to the UK’s escalating economic inactivity crisis. It highlights how long-term illness, disability, and poor workplace health management have created a systemic drain on productivity — costing an estimated £212 billion annually (7% of GDP). The report’s structure and recommendations are pragmatic and evidence-informed, yet their success hinges on sustained cross-sector collaboration and board-level engagement that the report only implicitly acknowledges.

2. Strengths

1. Systemic Clarity and Empirical Weight

The review excels at articulating the scale of economic inactivity, presenting international comparisons with the Netherlands and Denmark. Its analysis connects individual, employer, and state-level consequences — offering a rare systems-level view of workforce ill-health as a national economic liability rather than a health policy issue.

2. Actionable Framework: The Healthy Working Lifecycle

The “Healthy Working Lifecycle” is a particularly strong conceptual tool. It aligns with occupational health principles of prevention, early intervention, and sustained rehabilitation. The phased “Vanguard” model (testing reforms with willing employers) demonstrates policy realism and mirrors quality-improvement cycles used in healthcare governance.

3. Evidence of ROI and Business Alignment

By quantifying financial benefits (£3–8 billion annual potential savings), the report provides a compelling investment rationale for employers. This aligns well with the economic logic in The Next Frontier of Corporate Governance, which links workforce health directly to productivity, investor confidence, and ESG performance.

3. Limitations

1. Over-Reliance on Future Data Infrastructure

The proposal for a Workplace Health Intelligence Unit (WHIU) is forward-thinking, but risks being another centralised data repository without cross-sector interoperability. The absence of concrete governance mechanisms for employer data sharing and confidentiality could limit adoption and trust.

2. Absence of Explicit Board-Level Accountability

While the report calls for “shared responsibility,” it largely situates leadership at departmental or ministerial level rather than within corporate boards. This misses an opportunity to embed health metrics into corporate governance frameworks — a gap addressed by advocating health-literate boards and CSRD-linked oversight.

3. Limited Discussion of Implementation Risks

Cultural inertia (“fear of disclosure”) and SME resource constraints are acknowledged but underexplored. International comparators (Netherlands, Denmark) operate within more collaborative labour models — conditions not easily replicated in the UK without policy and fiscal reinforcement.

4. Strategic Implications for Corporate Governance

Your article, The Next Frontier of Corporate Governance, effectively extends KBW’s recommendations into the boardroom, identifying the missing governance bridge between health policy and corporate accountability. The KBW report’s “shared responsibility” framework becomes actionable when reframed through your Predict–Prevent–Prosper governance model:

KBW Recommendation

  • Governance Parallel (Farrelly, 2025)

  • Strategic Outcome

Healthy Working Lifecycle

  • Predictive health intelligence dashboards

  • Early risk detection and financial forecasting

Workplace Health Provision (WHP)

  • Preventative investment in workforce wellbeing

  • Cost containment and resilience building

WHIU data integration

  • Board-level health reporting & CSRD disclosure

  • Regulatory readiness and investor confidence

Employer-led vanguards

  • Non-executive health advisors on boards

  • Cultural transformation and accountability

5. Recommendations

1. Embed Governance Oversight:

Government and industry bodies should codify workforce health metrics within annual board reporting (aligned with CSRD/ESRS S1). Health should sit alongside financial and environmental KPIs.

2. Integrate Predictive Analytics:

The WHIU could serve as the foundation for cross-sector benchmarking, but must evolve toward real-time, anonymised predictive modelling accessible to employers, insurers, and investors.

3. Develop Health-Literate Boards:

Non-executive directors should be trained in interpreting health intelligence and ESG-linked health disclosures — a competency gap highlighted in both KBW and The Next Frontier.

4. Align Fiscal Incentives with Governance Outcomes:

Tax relief or procurement preference could be tied to certified adherence to the Healthy Working Lifecycle, mirroring sustainable finance incentives under EU ESG taxonomy.

6. Conclusion

The Keep Britain Working report and The Next Frontier of Corporate Governance form two halves of a coherent reform agenda. KBW defines the national challenge — a workforce health crisis draining economic capacity. Your article defines the governance solution — a board-led, data-driven model that translates workforce health into measurable enterprise value. Together, they signal a new paradigm where boardrooms become the frontline of national health resilience. This convergence of population health, economics, and governance represents not just a social necessity, but the next competitive advantage for enlightened organisations.

Yuming Shen
Next

The Next Frontier of Corporate Governance: Integrating Health Intelligence into Board Risk and Strategy