Research and analysis

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: qualitative research with employers - Wave 2

Published 17 July 2023

Prepared by Ipsos for HMRC

Polly Hollings, Claire Weil, Matthew Berkley (Ipsos)

Research report number: 712

July 2023

The views in this report are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of HM Revenue and Customs.

Glossary

Glossary

Term	Definition
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS)	The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) ran from April 2020 to September 2021. The scheme initially offered firms the opportunity to apply for a grant equivalent to up to 80% of employee wages for all employees who were placed on furlough as a result of COVID-19.
Employers	Throughout the report this is used to cover all the employer groups included in this research.
Easing of restrictions	This includes easing of lockdown, changes to bubble guidance, and rules around who you can meet, schools opening, non-essential stores opening, etc.
Flexible furlough	From July 2020 the CJRS introduced ‘flexible furlough’, with employers having the flexibility to bring employees who were on furlough back to work part-time. Employers had the flexibility to bring employees back to work for any amount of time and any shift pattern, while still being able to claim the CJRS grant for hours not worked.
Furlough	Furlough is a temporary leave of absence from work. Employers who put employees on furlough as a result of COVID-19 were entitled to claim for a proportion of their wages through the CJRS.
Long furlough	Staff on furlough for 12 months or more.
National Insurance contributions (NICs)	National Insurance contributions enable people to qualify for certain benefits and the State Pension.
Organisation	Organisations, as referred to in this report, are businesses, companies, as well as public sector organisations and entities that receive income through both private and public funding streams.
Pension contributions	Every employer in the UK must put certain staff into a workplace pension scheme and contribute towards it. The current statutory minimum requirement is 8% of earnings, of which employers must contribute 3%.
Rotating furlough	Employees in similar roles taking turns to go on furlough.
Size of employer	Micro employer: An organisation with 1 to 9 employees Small employer: An organisation with 10 to 49 employees Medium employer: An organisation with 50 to 249 employees Large employer: An organisation with 250 or more employees

Executive summary

Background

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) ran from April 2020 to September 2021. The CJRS aimed to support employers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic by offering firms the opportunity to apply for a grant equivalent of up to 80% of employee wages for all employees who were placed on furlough as a result of COVID-19. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) commissioned Ipsos to undertake a second wave of qualitative research with employers who used the CJRS to understand their use of the CJRS and its perceived impact on the organisation and employees’ jobs.

Ipsos conducted 40 in-depth interviews with employers who had used the CJRS between 1 August and 7 October 2022. These lasted up to 60 minutes and were carried out by telephone or video call. The sampling approach considered whether employers had employees on furlough throughout and or at the end of the CJRS, their reasons for using the CJRS, decision-making around redundancies, their use of flexible furlough, and employer characteristics such as organisation size, location, and sector.

Initial decisions to use the CJRS

The key reason for using the CJRS was to ensure organisation survival throughout the pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on organisations strongly influenced how crucial the CJRS was perceived to be by employers. Additionally, the CJRS was used to protect jobs and safeguard the interest of employees in a context of crisis. Typically, employers used the CJRS to avoid making large scale redundancies and to retain staff with essential skills and knowledge to run the business. Employers also mentioned using the CJRS was as a precautionary action to give themselves a time and resource buffer. Given the lack of certainty regarding what impact the pandemic would have on their organisation, this buffer enabled them to make better organisational decisions. Finally, employers felt a sense of obligation to support employees during the pandemic and the CJRS also enabled them to do so by providing job stability and income.

Initial decisions about which employees to place on furlough were based on both the organisation’s need for the employee role and employee health and wellbeing. Reduced business meant that there was often not enough work for staff in certain sectors or work types. Employers also prioritised furlough for staff members with health concerns or increased care duties.

Where affordable, topping up of wages was carried out for both fairness and strategic reasons to support employees and demonstrate their value to the organisation. The choice and possibility of topping-up depended on affordability and available resources. The key reason for topping up was a sense of responsibility to employees, including topping up to ensure staff did not see a drop in income. Reasons for not topping up included lack of affordability for the organisation and feeling that it was unfair for those still working and those furloughed to receive the same wage. Employers also used topping-up as a strategic investment to retain staff as they felt that it demonstrated to employees that they were valued.

Use of the CJRS over time

The use of the CJRS over time was influenced by several factors. This included business demand, introduction of flexible furlough, employee needs and wellbeing, and employer attitudes to claiming. Changes in employer contributions also formed part of the decision-making process for balancing the cost of furlough and the availability of work for employees. The use of the CJRS changed over time in line with changing restrictions and the severity of the pandemic.

Where used, the introduction of flexible furlough was considered a positive development as it allowed employers to tailor staff hours to the organisation’s needs and bring back staff where there was work to do. Where employee roles allowed, employers were able to rotate staff on and off furlough to fairly bring back all staff in some capacity. Furthermore, employers noted that flexible furlough had enabled them to bring back staff to support skeleton teams who had continued working during the pandemic. Flexible furlough was considered to help generate positive staff morale, providing staff with confidence about their continued role and supporting them in adjusting to a return to work. A mix of organisation and employee driven factors, such as need for employee role, health issues, and caring roles, influenced whether employees were placed on furlough for 12 months or more.

Impact of the end of the CJRS

The end of the CJRS led to two main changes. Firstly, employers continued preparations to return to work such as financial re-forecasting for staffing and operations, outreach to clients, and adjustments to business models. Secondly, employers made decisions around staff still on furlough.

Typically, dependent on their sector of operation, organisations were returning to some semblance of full capacity in spring of 2021 and therefore felt positive about the end of the CJRS. Whilst the end of the CJRS was not surprising, there was concern amongst those whose organisation had struggled to see a return in client demand. These included organisations in entertainment, hospitality, and tourism. At the end of the CJRS, outcomes for employees still on furlough depended on the organisation’s sector, health, business model changes, and client needs. Where employers could not return employees to normal work at pre-pandemic levels, they considered returning employees on furlough to work on reduced hours or in different or new roles. In other cases, employers made redundancies and sought volunteers for redundancies. More broadly, redundancies were also made at different stages of the pandemic. This included those that employers reflected were likely to have occurred anyway but were highlighted by the pandemic, and those that were directly prompted by the pandemic and reduced business demand.

Overall impact

Employers felt that the CJRS was an appropriate, proportional, and fair response to the COVID-19 crisis. Key strengths included its ability to play a crucial role in ensuring organisation survival, providing financial security, and securing cash flows, protecting jobs, setting up a strong safety net for employers, and supporting them in doing the right thing for employees.

The CJRS was seen unanimously to have played a key role in keeping businesses afloat during the pandemic by increasing the resilience of organisations, giving employers time and resources to make better decisions around staffing. Furthermore, the CJRS indirectly supported the swift re-opening of organisations in autumn 2021. Participants reported that the labour market was difficult to navigate once business was slowly returning to pre-pandemic levels because of hiring challenges. The CJRS was seen to have helped employers retain skilled, experienced, and knowledgeable employees, which otherwise would have been lost.

Perceptions of the CJRS

Employers were overwhelmingly positive about the CJRS. They expressed gratitude for the speed of design, deployment, and implementation of the CJRS. It was seen to have accomplished what employers expected it to do as a government support. The most appreciated aspects of the CJRS included the introduction of flexible furlough, the generosity of government contributions, and the eligibility criteria to take part in the scheme.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In March 2020, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), a scheme designed to help employers whose operations were severely affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic to retain their employees and protect the UK economy.

The CJRS went live on 20 April 2020 and closed to new entrants on 30 June 2020. For the first 5 months, all eligible UK employers could apply for a grant to cover the wage costs and National Insurance contributions (NICs) for employees on furlough. The grant covered 80% of employees’ usual monthly wage costs, up to £2,500 a month, plus the associated employer NICs and pension contributions.

On 12 May 2020 the government announced that the CJRS would be extended until the end of October 2020. In addition, from 1 July 2020 there was to be no minimum furlough period (between March and June 2020, the minimum period for which an employee could be on furlough was three weeks). To enable this change, the CJRS closed to new entrants on 30 June 2020.

As a result, from 1 July employers could bring employees on furlough back to work for any amount of time and any shift pattern (flexible furlough) while still being able to claim the CJRS grant for the hours not worked. The government continued to pay up to 80% of the wages of employees on furlough for the hours they did not work, along with associated employer NICs and pension contributions.

From 1 August 2020, the government made changes to the level of the grant it paid under the scheme, introducing employer contributions for hours not worked. Employers paid NICs and pension contributions for hours not worked, and from 1 September employers were also asked to contribute 10% to wages for hours not worked, followed by 20% in October. Employees continued to receive 80% of wages up to a cap of £2,500 when they were placed on furlough.

On 31 October 2020, the scheme was extended further, government contributions increased, and employers were able to claim 80% of usual wages for hours not worked, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month. Further extensions to the scheme were announced in December 2020 and March 2021. Employers were asked to contribute 10% towards claims made in July 2021 and 20% for claims made in August and September 2021. The scheme closed on 30 September 2021, which was announced 6 months prior on 3 March 2021.

1.2 Research objectives

In addition to furthering the research conducted in Wave 1 of the study, this qualitative research aimed to understand:

• the role that employers felt the CJRS played in business viability and protecting employees’ jobs, as well as other steps taken by employers to mitigate against the impact of the pandemic

• employer decision-making as it related to their use of the CJRS

• what employers felt might have happened without the CJRS

• any unintended positive or negative consequences of using the CJRS

1.3 Methodology

Ipsos conducted 40 in-depth interviews with employers between 1 August and 7 October 2022. All interviews were carried out by telephone or video via Microsoft Teams and lasted up to 60 minutes each. All participants included were employers who used the CJRS, reflecting the research objectives for exploration.

The interviews with employers were characterised by whether organisations had employees on furlough during the end of the CJRS, made redundancies, rotated staff on furlough, and whether they offered training to staff on furlough. These characteristics were set to enable the research to explore a range of experiences of using the CJRS. Secondary quotas were set to ensure inclusion of organisations of different sizes, in different regions, and across different sectors.

Additional information can be found in the separate Technical Report, which details the research design including sampling approach, quotas, recruitment approach, interview topic guide, data management, and data analysis.

1.4 Structure of the report

The following report is divided into 5 sections. The first section focuses on decisions regarding initial use of the CJRS and topping up and the second discusses use of the CJRS over time. The third and fourth sections focus on the impact of the scheme (the overall impact of the CJRS and of its conclusion specifically), and the final section explores perceptions of the CJRS and feedback. The report includes section summaries and final conclusions.

1.5 Interpretation and representation of qualitative data

Qualitative approaches were used to explore the nuances and diversity of views, the factors which shape or underlie them, and the ideas and situations in which views or experiences can change.

This was a small-scale study when compared to quantitative survey designs. By its nature, qualitative research is not designed to be statistically representative. This report was intended to be illustrative of the range of views held by employers who used the CJRS, providing insight into their experiences and decision-making. The findings presented in this report reflect only the perspectives of those interviewed and cannot be generalised to a wider sample of employers. Please note that this study did not include the perspective of organisations that did not survive and had to close despite claiming the CJRS.

1.6 Terminology

Throughout this report, we refer to employers as those who made a claim for a proportion of their employees’ wages through the CJRS. These employees are referred to as ‘employees on furlough’ or ‘employees placed on furlough’. Employees who continued working when their colleagues were on furlough are referred to as ‘employees who continued working’. This is to accurately represent the reality of the scheme and differentiate between employees on furlough whose employers made a claim for a proportion of their wages through the CJRS and employees on furlough in another way, since the practice of furlough existed before the CJRS was introduced.

Any mention of ‘furlough’ in this report refers to the CJRS.

1.7 Use of verbatim quotes

Verbatim quotes have been included in this report to illustrate key points and common themes. Where verbatim quotes are used, they have been anonymised and attributed with details about organisation size and sector. Attributions are not unique identifiers for each interview. While some quotes may have identical attributions this does not necessarily mean that they were said by the same employer.

Verbatim quotes from participants in this report may include mention of ‘being furloughed’. Where this is the case, this also refers to being placed on furlough by employers who claimed a portion of their wages through the CJRS as this is a colloquial way of referring to this practice.

2. Initial decisions to use the CJRS

This section summarises the reasons organisations cited for using the CJRS. It also discusses how decisions regarding which employees to furlough were made based on organisation need.

2.1 Key findings

Key findings in this section are:

• organisation survival was the leading reason for using the CJRS, however, it was also used as a precautionary measure and to project jobs and the interests of employees

• employees placed on furlough were selected based on organisation need, followed by individual circumstances such as a requirement to shield and caring responsibilities

2.2 Initial decisions to use the CJRS

Four major factors influenced initial decisions to use the CJRS:

1. organisation survival

2. precautionary action

3. protecting jobs

4. sense of obligation to staff

Each of these factors is discussed below.

2.1.1 Organisation survival

Participants who felt the pandemic posed an existential threat to their organisation used the CJRS to stay afloat. This was particularly noted by organisations with little to no cash reserves to draw on. This included those who, prior to the announcement of the CJRS, had been planning to make redundancies. For example, one employer whose staff were based in warehouses and, therefore, were unable to work, described how prior to the announcement of the CJRS, directors had met to discuss redundancy plans.

These participants also noted concerns regarding existing debt and how these payments and staffing costs would be met.

“At the start of COVID we always knew we were going to have to take drastic measures because we wouldn’t have been able to survive […] if it hadn’t been for the [CJRS], we just wouldn’t have been able to pay our debts and pay our people.” - Micro, Construction

These organisations felt the CJRS had been crucial to the preventing the closure of their organisation. Closure was linked with inability to offset staff costs and salaries, inability to carry out organisation activities, risk of increasing debt, decimated cash reserves and savings, large loss of staff, closing of organisation branches or sections, and drastic dip of business overall.

2.1.2 Precautionary action

Other organisations saw the CJRS as an important precautionary action. Lack of certainty around the trajectory of the pandemic and longer-term impacts were key considerations. These employers were keen to protect existing cash reserves. Use of the CJRS meant that there would be less financial strain on the organisation and, therefore, an ability to retain current staff.

2.1.3 Protecting jobs and preparing for re-opening

Employers used the CJRS to avoid making significant redundancies. Retaining staff through the CJRS was desirable for a number of reasons. Firstly, participants noted that the organisation had been keen to retain staff with particular skills or knowledge essential to the running of the business. Secondly, they noted that they had invested in training and development of staff.

“It was great to be able to keep staffing teams and put people’s minds at rest; it gave staff security and definitely prevented redundancies…We would have been in a dire situation trying to recruit staff to re-open services.” - Large, Human health and social work activities

2.1.4 Sense of obligation to staff

Employers viewed using the CJRS as ‘the right thing to do’ to support staff during a tumultuous time. They felt that ensuring staff members were still receiving income was an organisational responsibility.

Small and micro-organisations particularly noted this sense of obligation where staff were friends or family. This was also specifically felt towards long standing members of staff for organisations of different sizes. Overall, this sense of obligation was expressed regardless of contract type, including temporary and zero-hour staff members. Employers felt it was their duty and responsibility to support all those involved in the business.

2.3 Decisions regarding which employees to furlough and when

Decisions about who to furlough were influenced by sector and work type, as well as employee needs.

2.3.1 Need for employee role

Organisations whose primary activity was impacted by restrictions had more employees on furlough. There were cases where the organisation’s clients or customers worked within sectors impacted by restrictions, which resulted in reduced business. For example, one organisation had clients in the retail sector and saw all client work halt. They resultantly placed employees who managed those client accounts on furlough. In some instances, organisations saw just parts of the business impacted so employees in that branch of the organisation were placed on furlough. Some branches, parts, or sites of an organisation may have had greater demand than others. In these instances, participants noted that they would have evaluated the need to place employees on furlough on this basis.

2.3.2 Staff versatility

Staff versatility also factored in decisions. Where staff were versatile, they were deployed to work in different roles. Typically, a team of skeleton staff were not placed on furlough and continued to work as part of an essential team to ensure the continued operation of the organisation. These employees were often those who could cover a range of tasks. These staff were typically senior and or finance team members, sometimes employers themselves, taking on receptionist tasks and human resources activities, while also continuing their normal duties. Participants reported high workloads during this time, which was also echoed by other versatile staff they worked with.

2.3.3 Staff needs

Employers reported prioritising the furlough of staff members with health concerns or those who had increased childcare duties when school attendance was restricted. Employers also took into account whether an employee had volunteered to continue working.

“We asked for volunteers [for people to continue working], we got one. Then, we just had to decide who was coming back. Some refused for health issues, but, most people when we said you need to come back, were fine with it.” - Small, Accommodation and food service activities

2.4 Decision to top-up wages

Decisions to top-up wages were driven by affordability as well as both strategic and ethical considerations.

Employers who topped-up wages often did so out of a sense of responsibility to employees. They felt that this was a fair and appropriate response to the situation and considered topping up the ‘right thing to do’, even if it may not have been in the organisation’s best interest. An employer of a micro-organisation indicated that they had topped up the wages of an employee on minimum wage to avoid wages dropping below that.

However, some employers considered topping up to be a strategic investment in retaining staff. They felt that topping up demonstrated to staff that they were valued and anticipated that receiving a full wage would serve as a disincentive from seeking new work during furlough.

Employers that did not top up often could not afford to, particularly reflecting on the uncertainty that the pandemic presented to their organisations’ future revenue sources.

“We really didn’t know what the future was going to be like. We couldn’t afford to spend any more than we needed to just in case”. - Micro, Construction

Some employers thought that they would be able to top-up for a few months but feared the backlash from employees if top-ups ceased before the CJRS ended. This led them to decide not to top-up.

In some instances, employers noted that it did not feel fair to top up for employees on furlough so that they would receive the same wage as other employees still working. Over time, some difficulties in topping up were experienced. There were organisations that had topped up to begin with but found this challenging as employer contributions increased. This led them to reduce or stop topping up. Others noted that they felt that topping up ultimately disincentivised employees from returning to work.

“We wanted to support our employees. It wasn’t their choice to shut down facilities, why should they suffer…the thing is, 9 months of topping up wages, we didn’t expect that and, if we knew it would be that long, we may have made another decision.” - Medium, Arts, entertainment, and recreation

3. Using the CJRS over time

This section examines how employers changed their usage of the CJRS over time and how their decision-making process was affected by changes to the CJRS itself.

3.1 Key findings

Key findings in this section are:

• factors influencing the use of the CJRS over time included: increased business demand and relaxation of restrictions; the introduction of flexible furlough; employee needs and wellbeing; employer attitudes towards claiming; and balancing the increases to employer contributions with the availability of work for employees

• where employees were on furlough for 12 months or more, this was typically driven by either lack of business need for their role or individual employee needs e.g., health concerns

• where training was offered to employees on furlough, this often focused on changes to workplace health measures that emerged during the pandemic

3.2 Key factors influencing use of the CJRS over time

Different factors affected employers’ use of the CJRS throughout the pandemic.

3.2.1 Increased business demand and relaxation of restrictions

Participants noted that business demand had increased in line with the evolution of the pandemic and resultant relaxation of restrictions. A return to work and reduced use of the CJRS occurred when:

• clients were able to return to usual business activities driving business demand

• organisations themselves were able to return to physical spaces

Bringing employees back to work from furlough was carefully considered. Participants noted that they thought about how to balance whether there was enough business need to make bringing employees back to work financially viable.

“It was whether it was worth it to pay people to not do anything or whether we thought we may as well pay them and get some work out of them […] but really it was just based on: ‘do we have work to be done? Does the person still need to stay off on furlough?’ We took any support that we could to make the bottom-line balance.” - Medium, Administrative and support services

In some instances, organisations chose to initially bring back employees with particular skill sets or experience that would support running the business with an initially smaller team.

Use of the CJRS typically fluctuated over time in line with changing restrictions, particularly for organisations directly impacted by them. For example, one organisation was a hotel and described how staff worked when restrictions allowed but were placed on furlough at other times. Participants from small organisations in Northern Ireland, whilst very positive about the existence of the CJRS, noted that there had sometimes been lack of information about regional restrictions. This made it difficult to plan when they could bring staff back to the workplace, and therefore their use of the CJRS.

Business demand was also influenced by changes to business models made by organisations. For example, where organisations changed their model to reflect social distancing, such as moving from physical retail to online retail, they were able to bring back some staff.

3.2.2 The introduction of flexible furlough

Where used, the introduction of flexible furlough marked a significant change in the way organisations used the CJRS. Some participants described it as a “game changer”. Flexible furlough allowed organisations to tailor staff hours to the organisation’s need and bring back staff where there was work.

In some instances, organisations used flexible furlough to bring back specific staff such as those able to take on a range of roles, those with particular client relationships, or where the staff cost was lower. Others looked to bring back all staff in some way on reduced hours, for example, considering this to be a fair approach. This also included the rotation of employees on furlough.

Organisations rotated employees on furlough as a way to fairly bring back all staff in some capacity. This was specifically used where job roles were similar and could facilitate this. Rotation worked differently across different organisations. For example, some noted ‘month on, month off’ rotas and others described rotas on a weekly basis. They felt that rotating furlough was a fair approach, taking into account the impact on salary.

“[Flexible furlough] allowed us to rotate people that were on furlough so that the same people weren’t on furlough continuously. To be fairer, so the employees that had been on furlough for a long time didn’t suffer with their wages.” - Medium, Professional scientific and technical

3.2.3 Employee needs and wellbeing

Employee needs and wellbeing also played a role in determining how organisations used the CJRS, especially flexible furlough, over time.

The wellbeing of the small teams with versatile staff who had continued working during the pandemic to cover key duties was an important factor. These employees were carrying out tasks such as administering the CJRS, securing physical sites and forward planning for the organisation (see section 2.3.2 Staff versatility). The introduction of flexible furlough meant that other members of staff were able to return to work to relieve these employees.

“We [used flexible furlough] and brought staff back on a part time basis which was great because myself and my finance manager were just completely burnt out. We were doing everything from processing invoices to the payroll management account, and still had to re-budget on a very regular basis checking the cashflow, over and over again. It was just absolutely hectic and [flexible furlough] was a welcome break.” - Medium, Administrative and support services

When able to bring staff back, participants often noted that their organisation had used flexible furlough to give all employees some hours. Participants felt that this approach had provided a way to generate positive staff morale and provide staff with confidence about their continued role within the organisation. Organisations also reflected that this had supported staff in readjusting to a return to work.

Where employees were shielding, they continued to be on furlough. Participants also mentioned taking into account caring responsibilities when deciding who to bring back to work.

3.2.4 Employer attitudes towards claiming

Across the interviews a range of attitudes towards claiming emerged. For example, some employers were keen for staff to return to work as soon as possible. Another viewpoint was a preference to avoid reliance on the CJRS. For example, an organisation described how they changed their business model to support a return to work rather than keep claiming. Examples provided by participants included closing a branch of the business, shifting from in-store to online sales and marketing, providing the option for remote and hybrid work, modifying their products, and changing prices of their goods and services. Other employers noted that they had simply sought to use the CJRS for as many employees and for as long as possible. These employers felt that the CJRS had been a ‘lifeline’ and saw the CJRS as crucial to their organisation survival.

3.2.5 Increases to employer contributions

Increases to employer contributions were not reported as having a key role in determining use of the CJRS. However, it did emerge as part of the decision-making process for organisations when looking at balancing the increased cost of contributions and their ability to bring back staff to do some work. The role that increases to employer contributions played was often linked to the organisation’s financial health at the time. For example, one organisation reflected that business demand was building as government contributions decreased and employer contributions increased, which helped balance the organisation’s financial health. Another organisation had a large number of temporary staff and felt employer contributions for these staff were unaffordable. However, business demand increased at this time, meaning that they were able to bring these employees back to the workplace.

3.3 Long-term furlough

A mix of organisation and employee driven factors influenced whether employees were on furlough for 12 months or more. Participants reflected that it had been difficult to anticipate how long employees might be placed on furlough. Whilst some anticipated that their sector would be hard hit by the pandemic, such as those in the hospitality sector, others described uncertainty.

3.3.1 Organisation factors influencing long-term furlough

As described earlier in section 3.2.1, use of the CJRS was influenced by changing business demand and relaxation of restrictions. Participants noted that this had been a key reason in determining whether employees remained on furlough. For example, they described how they were waiting to see if clients would return (requiring work from these employees) or noted that sites, where these employees worked, had remained closed. In these instances, there had not been enough business demand for the employee role for them to return to work. This meant that some employees had stayed on furlough for a long period of time (for more than 12 months) or on flexible furlough until the end of the CJRS.

3.3.2 Employee factors influencing long-term furlough

Shielding and underlying health conditions were also a key factor in whether an employee remained on furlough. For these employees the risk of exposure to COVID-19 was a key concern throughout the pandemic. They remained on furlough as they were unable to be in the workspace with others.

3.4 Provision of training

Where training was offered by organisations this typically included training aimed at health measures that emerged during the pandemic. This was particularly noted by those in the hospitality industry or customer facing roles.

This reflects findings from the Ipsos CJRS employee qualitative research, which found that employer-led training tended to focus either on statutory requirements for training or COVID-19-related training, for example, around safety measures and processes.

Where training prior to the pandemic had been offered online (e.g., online training around food safety, fire training or safeguarding), this continued to be offered to employees. Training that had previously been scheduled to take place in person was either adapted to take place remotely or postponed.

In some instances, employers noted that training was a way to keep staff engaged with the business during furlough. For example, one micro employer noted how they had carried out online training and team-building sessions, which they felt had supported employee mental health and helped to keep people active. However, another organisation described how training during furlough had not always been possible due to employee engagement.

“There were bits and bobs of training that I tried to get – but no one [employees] really wanted to do it […] It was scrambled together. It wasn’t effective enough that I could insist everyone did it.” - Large, Administrative and support services

In addition to training during furlough, there were mentions of re-orientation training for staff as they were brought back to the workplace.

In some instances, participants spontaneously reflected on reasons for not offering training. This included not understanding whether they were allowed to ask employees on furlough to attend training even though they were not supposed to be working.

4. Impact of the end of the CJRS

This section summarises the impact of the CJRS coming to a close, including the announcement of the end of the CJRS and the decrease in government contributions.

4.1 Key findings

Key findings in this section are:

• announcements of the end of the CJRS prompted organisations to prepare for a return to normality, which included preparations for a return to work, re-organisation of resources, and adjusting the organisation to new realities

• employers had communicated regularly with employees and received consistent communication from HMRC, which made the end of the CJRS seem less abrupt and unexpected

• organisations, that had already seen client demand return to normal (around pre-pandemic levels), noted that the announcement of the end of the CJRS had limited impact

• organisations, whose business health and client demand were constrained, expressed concerns when the announcement of the end of the CJRS was made

• those that still had staff on furlough at the end of the CJRS reported a range of employee outcomes including returning to normal levels of work, returning to work on reduced hours, returning to work in different or new roles, volunteering for redundancy, or compulsory redundancy

• outcomes for staff on furlough at the end of the CJRS depended heavily on organisation sector, anticipated client demand and business outcomes, and financial re-forecasting or changes in business model

4.2 Overall feedback on the end of the CJRS

The end of the CJRS prompted organisations to consider two main elements:

1. continued preparations and steps to return to work such as financial re-forecasting for staffing and operations, outreach to clients, and adjustments of business models

2. decisions around staff still on furlough

These elements are discussed below.

4.3 Steps to return to work

4.3.1 Communication of the inevitable end of the CJRS

Government announcements, in general, had prompted businesses to prepare for a return to work. The announcement of the end of the CJRS was often recalled within this context with the gradual relaxing of restrictions. Organisations understood that there would be an inevitable end to the CJRS so it was seen as an expected development. This was not perceived negatively. Instead, organisations expressed eagerness to see businesses restart.

The common view was that the end of the CJRS arrived gradually, and employers reported to have had recurrent conversations with their employees about the state of the organisation and how to move forwards. Hence, participants did not feel that there had been an abrupt end.

“I don’t think it [the announcement of the end of the CJRS] had any impact whatsoever. […] At the end of the day, you’ve got half used to it. We all knew it was going to end eventually. As to when, no one was sure exactly but, at least, you knew what was happening on a regular basis.” - Small, Water supply and waste management

4.3.2 Preparations for a return to work

Employers felt that the end of the CJRS represented a signal of a return to some sense of normality. Organisations interpreted it as a prompt to shift from keeping the organisation afloat to getting the organisation restarted and returning staff back to regular levels of work when possible.

Organisations saw this time as an important moment to start conducting more rigorous and careful financial re-forecasting and adjust staffing and operational costs. This ultimately led organisations to make more concrete decisions around any staff remaining on furlough. It should be noted that organisations in the sample had a small number of staff remaining on furlough by the end of the CJRS.

”[The end of the CJRS] prompted us to again look at where we would be in 6 months’ time: What are the options for generating more income? Is there anything we could do differently? It just takes you into a brainstorming situation really, because you are looking at all the potential options that could happen.” - Micro, Services

4.3.3 Eagerness for a return to normality

Where organisations felt that they were returning to some semblance of full capacity by March 2021, there was positivity towards the end of the CJRS. These organisations noted that they were bringing staff back to pre-pandemic levels of work. They stated that the end of the CJRS did not affect them in any major way. There was a general keenness to see an end to the uncertainty of the pandemic, even if, for some, this meant new challenges. There were differing views on this based on the sector in which the organisation was operating (see section 4.3.4).

“We could see light at the end of the tunnel because we were starting to build back up […] the fact that [the CJRS] was winding down wasn’t too much of a concern because I think we felt quite hopeful.” - Micro, Construction

4.3.4 Concerns for those with more uncertainty

However, organisations in some sectors, that struggled to see client demand return to normal or were still subject to restrictions, faced concerns and worries during this time. These included organisations related to or dependent on the hospitality and accommodation, entertainment, tourism sectors, or related food services. Client-facing activities and client demand, more generally, had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. This left employers with limited options to bring staff back to their previous work. Employers managing organisations in sectors more hard-hit by the pandemic expressed apprehension and unease regarding the end of the CJRS. For example, one described concern about the end of the CJRS due to work reduction and decrease in client demand. This participant also expressed a desire to avoid depleting business cash reserves.

“We were watching the news very closely. We were nervous that we weren’t going to get through. […] Once we knew [the CJRS] was done, we got down to the bare minimum staff we could. We basically made everybody aware that they needed to be on their A game to work.” - Small, Accommodation and food services

Organisations in regions such as Northern Ireland and Wales also voiced worries. They felt that the end of the CJRS could have been better aligned with the timeframe of local restrictions.

“I was constantly looking at salaries and budgets and costing out the impact of the reduction in furlough and the end of furlough. […] A lot of planning was required once [the end of CJRS] was announced, but at least we had steps to work towards. [We wondered whether we were] going to be in a position [to survive as a business]. We really could have done with [CJRS] lasting longer.” - Medium, Admin and support services

4.4 Impact on staffing decisions and business model

Outcomes for employees who were on furlough at the end of the CJRS depended heavily on the organisation’s sector and health as well as client needs. Employers described different scenarios for staff still on furlough at the end of the CJRS. These scenarios were:

• return to pre-pandemic or regular levels of work

• return to work on reduced hours

• return to work in different or new roles while waiting to see if business would increase

• volunteer for redundancy when businesses could not bring them back

• redundancies when business branches were closed, roles were no longer needed, and there was no anticipated work to be offered

“Whenever we started discussing redundancies, everyone was aware that, at least for that time, people wouldn’t be able to come back to work on the amount of hours that they had been prior to the pandemic. That was something that let people decide if they wanted to put themselves forward for redundancy or not because their hours would be restricted, at least for the foreseeable future.” - Small, Accommodation and food services

Changes in staffing occurred where there were changes in business model and changes in client demand after the pandemic. Similarly to why employers used the CJRS in relation to organisation needs, changes to staffing and business model were also linked with sector and key factors mentioned in section 3.2. Despite challenging conversations and decisions, employers generally perceived these to be a natural and inevitable evolution of their business.

“We were getting as much work out of [the employees] as we could, but there just still wasn’t the work in our industry. […] We haven’t made any permanent decisions around the change in business model. There’s just more flexibility. I think that’s a good thing.” - Medium, Administrative and support services

For those who were on long furlough for shielding or health purposes, some were brought back. Others chose not to return, due to risk of exposure to COVID-19, so volunteered for redundancies or resigned.

5. Overall impact of the CJRS

This section outlines the overall perceived impact of the CJRS on employers who used the scheme. This includes what these employers thought would have happened without the CJRS.

5.1 Key findings

Key findings in this section are:

• the CJRS was unanimously perceived to have played an important positive role in reducing the risk of organisation closure and boosting the capacity of employers to ensure the organisation’s survival

• the CJRS also had a vital role in protecting jobs and reducing the potential number of redundancies and lay-offs

• a key function of the CJRS was its ability to provide buffer time and resources for organisations to make more sound decisions, contributing to organisation resilience

• additionally, the CJRS was seen to have contributed to easing the re-opening of organisations at the end of the pandemic when labour market challenges were prominent

• without the CJRS, organisations felt they would potentially not have survived the pandemic crisis, lost numerous valuable staff, and struggled to re-open

5.2 Self-reported impact of the CJRS

The main impacts attributed to the CJRS by employers were:

• reducing the risk of organisation closure

• protecting jobs

• easing organisation re-opening at the end of the pandemic

These impacts are discussed below in more detail.

5.3 Reducing risk of organisation closure

The CJRS was unanimously perceived to have played a key role in keeping businesses afloat during the pandemic by increasing the resilience of organisations. Participants noted that it prevented their organisation from being overwhelmed by challenging staffing costs. These costs were linked with risks of mounting debt and decimation of cash reserves or savings, which could have undermined the organisation’s ability to function, particularly in the short term. Employers considered that it had also importantly freed up time and resources to make more careful decisions. These decisions included delaying redundancies, closing sites, and scaling back their business.

Organisations typically described how the COVID-19 pandemic compromised revenue-generating activities, stunted organisation growth, and jeopardised the role of various employees. Faced with such a crisis, organisations expressed the need for support to help them cope with challenges. This support was needed to help them protect cash reserves, secure employee jobs, and help cover organisation running costs. The CJRS alleviated the financial burden linked with staffing costs and allowed employers to shift their focus and resources to other operational priorities.

“We would have gone [under] completely. First of all, we'd have had to make all the drivers redundant and because they'd been here a long time the payments would have been high, which was more than the business could afford.” - Medium, Transportation

Employers, who used the CJRS as a precautionary measure, felt in retrospect that perhaps their organisation would have survived in the short-term but could not say with certainty that this would have been the case in the longer term.

“The business would have survived because history has told us that we got busier, but when it first hit, nobody knew what was around the corner […] [we were] concerned it would affect the business long term.” - Large, Administrative and support services

Overall, organisation resilience and capacity to face adversity affected the severity of the risk of closure, and ultimately, the need for the CJRS. Several factors influenced resilience, and these are discussed below.

5.3.1 Size and complexity

The size of an organisation and the complexity of its structure had repercussions on an organisation’s running costs, including staff costs. The number of employees, the diversity of employee roles, and variety of contract type determined the complexity of parameters an employer had to consider with limited revenue and resources during the pandemic. The more ramifications there were in terms of size and complexity of employee structure, the more an employer had to carefully calculate how limited income could offset staff salaries.

5.3.2 Diversification of funding and income sources

The diversification of an organisation’s funding and income sources also played a role in the impact of the CJRS on organisation closure. For example, businesses solely dependent on the demand from clients to generate revenue were at higher risk of closure than others that had varied sources of funding. For example, this included government income within the education sector.

5.3.3 Business health including cash reserves

Another essential factor influencing the impact of the CJRS on organisation survival was the organisation’s health including debt, assets, and collateral.

Risk of closure was in part determined by whether organisations had what they needed to keep functioning and cover ongoing or running costs. This included their ability to cover their loan repayments. For example, one medium sized organisation described how they purchased a large piece of equipment before the pandemic when they were financially stable and growing. However, with the pandemic, they were suddenly faced with loans that they could not repay and diminished cash reserves.

The CJRS played a role in alleviating the financial burden of running costs that were partly comprised of staffing costs. Organisations explained that they would have had to use their savings and reserves to pay for wages. One organisation felt that they would have incurred debt by spending on staff support rather than paying back debt.

Even organisations that reported they had cash reserves explained that they were not sure if they could have paid for all redundancy pay-outs while trying to keep their business operating. How large a role the CJRS played in organisation survival was inherently linked with the organisation’s capacity to face adversity.

Overall, a heightened risk of closure was mitigated, to some extent, by the CJRS for all organisations, from those in dire need of help to those that used the CJRS as a precautionary measure. Organisations felt that the financial gap, resulting from the sudden drop-off in revenue in tandem with continuous organisation staffing and running costs, was reduced by the support of the CJRS to cover staffing costs or delay cuts to staff.

5.4 Protecting jobs

Redundancies were made at different stages of the pandemic. However, participants reported that the CJRS helped prevent redundancies at a larger scale and allowed employers to make better decisions for better employee and organisation outcomes. Organisations reflected that these included those that may have happened regardless of the pandemic, and those prompted specifically by the pandemic.

5.4.1 Redundancies likely to have happened regardless of the pandemic

Employers noted that there were some redundancies made during the pandemic that they felt would have perhaps happened anyway.

“They [employees] were completely office-based and, to be honest, I think it was possible that even without COVID, they would have been made redundant at some point because their roles were not needed.” - Micro, Construction

Participants reflected that the pandemic may have highlighted or reinforced why a particular role was no longer required. For example, one organisation restructured during the pandemic, meaning that several sites were no longer needed. They observed that this restructure was likely to have happened in absence of the pandemic but reflected that the pandemic had hastened this decision. Other organisations noted how they had been overstaffed in some areas prior to the pandemic leading to redundancies.

5.4.2 Redundancies prompted by the pandemic

In some instances, redundancies were made prior to the announcement of the CJRS where organisations had already identified that it would not be possible to keep all employees. This was due to factors such as an anticipated sudden drop in revenue and client demand. One organisation noted that they had made redundancies early during the pandemic as some employees were new to the business and, therefore, were not eligible for the scheme at that stage.

Others reported redundancies at various points during the pandemic based on demand for the role and financial health of the organisation. For example, one organisation reported that they made redundancies when they closed a site.

“We just weren’t seeing any footfall coming back to the city. We just didn’t think we could retain a lot of the staff.” - Medium, Administrative and support services

Another participant noted that they were prompted to make redundancies as it became clear that there were employees who were not essential to the running of the organisation and when employer contributions were increasing.

5.4.3 Other factors influencing staffing levels

More broadly, organisations mentioned other factors that influenced their employee numbers. This included resignations and some voluntary redundancies, for which employers were often grateful. One organisation employing students noted how students moving back home reduced the number of staff available given that they left. Instances of changing staffing levels were also mentioned by participants who reported that employees were made redundant but then brought back and placed on furlough in line with changes to the CJRS.

5.4.4 Protective role against redundancies

Participants were clear that the CJRS contributed to protecting jobs. They described preventing COVID-19 related redundancies and lay-offs in their organisations.

“We would have had to lay-off all the staff because we couldn’t afford to have had any of those wage costs. It’s ok to get help with your rent and rates but there were still extra costs there. [The CJRS] helped keep us running. And with the [CJRS], it just really helped protect everybody’s jobs.” - Large, Wholesale and retail services

With limited resources due to decreases in client demand, organisations had to compromise on the following staffing points:

• payment of organisation running costs versus staff costs

• redundancy or lay-offs of essential as well as non-essential staff

• protection of the organisation versus their staff

• use of organisation savings and reserves

Participants considered that the CJRS had eased the weight of these decisions for employers. In some instances, the CJRS had delayed the need to make these decisions and, in others, erased the need to make the decisions.

Solidarity towards organisations and employees was seen as an important, necessary, and humane response to the crisis. The CJRS allowed employers to feel like they were making the right decisions, not only for their organisations, but also for their employees. In absence of the CJRS, employers felt in no doubt there would have been more redundancies and lay-offs because they could not afford to keep everyone.

Employers indicated that the CJRS played a role in protecting all jobs. There was no particular difference in terms of which jobs seemed to benefit more from the implementation of the scheme.

5.5 Supporting re-opening

5.5.1 Labour market challenges

Participants had not anticipated the labour market challenges that surfaced as organisations began to re-open. An impact of the CJRS, unforeseen by participants, was the role of protecting jobs and, therefore, supporting swift re-opening. Without the CJRS, organisations typically felt that they would have lost essential staff at the beginning of the pandemic who would have needed to be brought back or replaced once the organisation re-opened.

“Having staff on furlough meant that when we opened back up, we could hit the ground running, whereas if they hadn’t been on [the CJRS], they might have looked around for other jobs. It meant we kept going, then as soon as it was announced that we could open up again it was: ‘right, let’s go’.” - Small, Real estate

Employers felt that the labour market was extremely difficult to navigate in 2021, once businesses, work, and society were slowly returning to pre-pandemic levels. This seemed to be particularly difficult for sectors or organisations heavily reliant on labour intensive and non-technical roles. For example, employers hypothesized that if they had laid off staff at the beginning or during the pandemic, they would have struggled to recruit in summer and autumn 2021. This was voiced more strongly in some sectors such as the food and service industry. In some instances, participants indicated that their organisation would have had to remain closed for longer if they had made staff redundant and then been unable to recruit or train new staff.

Participants reflected that the CJRS had enabled them to retain skilled, experienced staff that had perhaps undergone training and held significant amounts of organisational knowledge. This included employees whom employers had heavily invested in. With the CJRS, they brought back their staff easily, the transition was smooth, and they did not need to allocate time and money on getting new employees up to speed.

“This has affected us in terms of catering, being able to bring some of those staff back quickly to full capacity almost overnight has been a real challenge in the job market. Salaries in other employers have gone up and we can’t afford to pay more.” - Large, Education

5.5.2 Topping-up and staff retention

There were mixed views on the role that topping-up played in staff retention. One viewpoint described by participants was that topping up helped prevent staff loss. These participants felt that topping-up was interpreted by employees as implicitly showing employer commitment to protecting staff. Employers felt it made employees feel valued. Ipsos employee qualitative research, which explored employee perspectives of the CJRS, found that this sentiment was recognised by particular groups of employees. These employees saw this as a sign of employer willingness to contribute to easing financial pressure on staff. Organisations felt that topping up had helped play a role in staff retention, ultimately meaning they did not need to re-recruit and train new staff, giving them a competitive edge over others.

Another viewpoint on topping up described by participants was that it risked disincentivising some to return to work and that resultantly, some employees may have ended up taking work for granted.

“[When there were extra shifts to be picked up], we had the potential that some people would say: ‘Well, why would I want to work if I’m getting a 100% of my pay while sitting at home?’ We had to consider that and motivate people.” - Large, Human health and social work activities

6. Perceptions of the CJRS

This section summarises employers’ views on the CJRS overall and any areas of improvement.

6.1 Key Findings

Key findings in this section are:

• employers were highly positive about all aspects of the CJRS, expressed gratitude towards it and felt that it had achieved what it had set out to do

• the CJRS was felt to be an appropriate, proportional, and fair response to the crisis

• the most appreciated aspects of the scheme were flexible furlough, the generosity of government contributions, and eligibility and coverage of the CJRS

• minor suggestions for improvements focused on length and the coverage of the scheme

6.2 Overall perception

Employers were overwhelmingly positive about the CJRS. They expressed gratitude for the speed of its design, deployment and implementation. It was seen to have achieved and accomplished its purpose with key impacts focusing on job protection and organisation survival. The main strengths of the CJRS as reported by participants were:

• ensuring organisation survival

• providing financial security

• protecting employee jobs

• acting as a security net

• allowing employers to do the right thing

The CJRS was seen to provide a frontline of defence to prevent organisation closure for all organisations, even those that felt they could have survived without it. It liberated time, space, and resources to ease crisis management. Furthermore, it helped stabilise organisation finances, contributing to organisational resilience, which consequently supported timely recovery and re-opening. Participants reported that the CJRS prevented early redundancies, and mass lay-offs, protecting jobs at the start and throughout the pandemic. It helped retain valuable staff, readying organisations for re-opening. It also created buffer time and resources for staff, including employers themselves, to manage their personal lives. The CJRS was also noted as giving employers confidence that they would have a minimum level of financial support to manage their organisations through a crisis. It also allowed employers to maintain relationships with clients and employees throughout the pandemic.

Ultimately, across employer feedback, themes of solidarity, resilience, and compassion were frequent and apparent. They reflected that the CJRS showed the government’s emphasis on supporting, not just businesses and organisations, but also individuals and households.

6.3 Aspects of the scheme met by mixed feedback

Employers expressed mixed feedback on the length of the CJRS and worries around how employers and organisations were being held accountable.

While some felt the length of the CJRS was appropriate, some said that it went on for too long or for not long enough. A less common view among employers who brought back all their staff starting in the spring was that it went on for too long and perhaps would be very costly to pay back for future generations. Other employers felt the CJRS did not go on for long enough. This view was most likely to be voiced by those who, at the end of 2021, still did not see their client demand and revenue go back to normal. There was also feedback in some regions that the timings of the CJRS support were misaligned with varying restrictions in the UK nations.

“The scheme could have been better targeted so that the places that were absolutely hit with restrictions could have got longer help. […] I don’t believe all businesses needed the furlough scheme. […] Staying in line with local or regional restrictions would have helped greatly.” - Small, Accommodation and food service activities

Employers also expressed concerns around accountability and risks of employers or employees abusing the system. Responses pointed to confusion around whether employees on furlough were allowed to take on a second job. There was an undercurrent of concerns around how irregularities would be checked for by HMRC and the government, and whether there was misuse of taxpayer money. One organisation was very aware of the risk of misinterpreting the rules and made sure that emails and hardware could not be accessed by employees on furlough to actively prevent them from working. Employers felt there could have been more consistent and clear guidelines on how the CJRS would be checked for. The main concern seemed to be around accountability, given how generous the CJRS was.

“I could have put anything [into the CJRS] and no-one would have challenged it. That is quite frustrating as a tax-payer.” - Large, Entertainment and recreation

6.4 Highlights and most appreciated aspects

Whilst overall the CJRS received positive feedback in general, some aspects were highlighted as particularly appreciated. This included the introduction of flexible furlough, the generosity of government contributions, and the eligibility criteria to take part in the scheme.

The introduction of flexible furlough provided employers with valued flexibility in terms of rearranging their staff to better suit business needs. A common view was that flexible furlough should have been introduced at the very beginning given how helpful it was to organisations.

Words used to describe the CJRS included “generous,” “fair,” “unbelievable,” “brilliant,” and “extremely appropriate.” Employers felt that the contribution levels were very satisfactory and suitable for the situation. Even when government contributions decreased, employers understood why it was happening and felt that it was a reasonable development.

Furthermore, the wide and broad coverage of those eligible to claim the CJRS was seen in a positive light. Employers noted that perhaps more could have been done to support organisations in certain sectors hard-hit by the pandemic and its effect but, overall, employers felt that the coverage was appropriate.

7. Conclusion

The pandemic adversely affected employers and created an extremely challenging and hostile business environment for them to operate in. Throughout the pandemic, organisations used the CJRS to reduce the risk of organisation closure, protect employee jobs, and adopt the necessary precautions to increase their organisation’s resilience.

Use of the CJRS was driven mainly by business need and changes in the economic landscape, reflecting the evolution of the pandemic. These included changes in business demand and restrictions, the introduction of flexible furlough, employee needs, employer attitudes to claiming, and increases to employer contributions. Decisions around furlough were based on organisational need and the need for an employee role. It is also clear that employers prioritised furlough for employees with health concerns or caring duties. These factors continued to play a role in determining how long employees were placed on furlough.

Topping up of wages was not always possible for organisations given their financial health and uncertainty regarding the trajectory of the pandemic. The decision to top-up wages was driven by different considerations including affordability, business strategy, and a sense of fairness. Employers topped up wages out of a sense of responsibility to employees but also as a strategic investment to retain valuable staff.

While employees were placed on furlough, training offered by employers typically pertained to workplace health measures or skills upkeeping.

The introduction of flexible furlough emerged as a major component that changed employers’ usage of the CJRS. Flexible furlough allowed organisations to tailor staff hours to the organisation’s need and bring back staff where there was work. This was felt to contribute to more fairness and provided relief for employees who continued to work. Employers felt that, with flexible furlough, they could better adjust and adapt staffing to changes in their business.

There was a general view that the CJRS was a major contributor to reducing the need for redundancies during the pandemic. Where redundancies were made, this included those that employers felt were likely to have occurred anyway (but were highlighted by the pandemic) and those that were specifically prompted by a change to the organisation needs as a result of the pandemic.

Announcements of the end of the CJRS prompted organisations to continue preparations for a return to normality. Employers regularly received and communicated information around the use of the CJRS from the government, which made its end seem less abrupt and unexpected.

The end of the CJRS prompted organisations to prepare for a return to work, re-forecast organisation finances and staffing needs, and adjust the organisation to new realities. The impact of the end of the CJRS on organisations was widely seen as an inevitable development. Those that had seen their client demand and revenue-generating activities increase or return to normal experienced the end of the CJRS positively. However, others that did not see client demand return to pre-pandemic levels, or sufficiently comfortable levels of operation, expressed concern. Employers adapted to the end of the CJRS by returning employees to previous levels of work, reducing work hours, or returning employees to work in different or new roles. For employees whose jobs were more precarious, employers discussed with employees the possibility of volunteering for redundancy or compulsory redundancy.

Employers were overwhelmingly positive about the CJRS. The CJRS was perceived to have played a unique positive role in reducing the risk of organisation closure and boosting the capacity of employers to ensure organisation survival. It contributed to protecting jobs and reducing the potential number of redundancies and lay-offs throughout the pandemic. The CJRS contributed to creating time and resources for organisations to make more sound decisions, as well as contributing to organisation resilience throughout the pandemic and when organisations started re-opening.

8. Ipsos’ standards and accreditations

Ipsos’ standards and accreditations provide our clients with the peace of mind that they can always depend on us to deliver reliable, sustainable findings. Our focus on quality and continuous improvement means we have embedded a “right first time” approach throughout our organisation.