Scientists at the University of Oregon have found a cleaner, electrochemical way to create pure iron metal using saltwater and iron oxide, potentially slashing the carbon footprint of one of the world’s dirtiest industries.

Why Ironmaking Needs a Rethink

Iron is the backbone of global infrastructure. From bridges to buildings and car bodies to cookware, it’s everywhere. Most of it is used in the form of steel, an alloy primarily made by extracting iron from ore, then refining it. However, one major challenge is that producing iron the traditional way is incredibly polluting.

The dominant method still involves blast furnaces, i.e. giant industrial reactors that reach 1,500°C and rely heavily on coal.

Huge Amounts of CO₂

According to the International Energy Agency, the iron and steel industry is responsible for roughly 7 per cent of global CO₂ emissions. In 2024 alone, nearly 2 billion metric tonnes of steel were produced worldwide. In short, in order to make a real impact on cutting carbon emissions, cleaning up steelmaking is essential.

Scientists Develop Electrochemical Route To Iron – No Blast Furnace Required

In answer to this environmental challenge, a team of chemists at the University of Oregon, led by Paul Kempler, have developed an electrochemical process that could reinvent how iron is produced without relying on coal or high-temperature blast furnaces.

Their method uses saltwater and iron oxide, passed through an electrically charged solution to extract pure iron metal. The technique takes place at around 80–90°C, which is far lower than the searing 1,500°C temperatures inside a conventional furnace, and it creates chlorine gas as a useful by-product.

This cleaner process avoids the need for fossil carbon, thereby offering a practical and potentially scalable route to iron production that aligns with global decarbonisation goals.

The Science Behind the Simplicity

The method hinges on passing an electric current through a sodium hydroxide solution containing suspended iron oxide particles. The electrical energy drives a reaction that reduces the iron oxide (Fe₂O₃) into elemental iron (Fe).

This might sound straightforward, but it seems that the real magic lies in the details—specifically, the shape and surface structure of the iron oxide particles.

Postdoctoral researcher Anastasiia Konovalova and graduate student Andrew Goldman discovered that porous, sponge-like particles with a high surface area delivered the best results. These particles dissolved more easily in the solution, speeding up the reaction and producing more iron per square centimetre of electrode.

“With the really porous particles, we can make iron really quickly on a small area,” Goldman said. “The dense particles just can’t achieve the same rate.”

This insight is critical because it addresses one of the biggest barriers to industrial adoption, i.e. cost. Large-scale electrochemical reactors require expensive materials, and their profitability depends on how much product they can generate per unit of electrode area.

The team’s results suggest that with the right materials and conditions, iron could be produced for under $600 per metric tonne, which is actually comparable to conventional blast furnace operations.

Challenges of Scaling Up

While the lab results appear promising, there’s still a long road ahead before electrochemical ironmaking can truly compete with traditional methods at an industrial scale.

For example, a key challenge lies in the raw materials. The researchers saw strong performance using carefully prepared iron oxide powders in controlled settings, but natural iron ores are a different matter. These real-world materials tend to be dense, irregular in shape, and filled with impurities, making them far less suited to the same electrochemical process.

To address this, Kempler’s team is now reported to be developing ways to process lower-grade ores into more porous, high-surface-area forms that mimic the lab-made powders shown to perform best. They’re also collaborating with civil engineers and electrode manufacturers to explore practical applications and tackle the technical challenges of scaling up the system.

The economics behind their so-called “chlor-iron” process are also being put to the test. As well as producing pure iron, the reaction produces chlorine and sodium hydroxide, two valuable industrial chemicals. If these co-products can be captured and used efficiently, it could significantly improve the commercial viability of the method.

Even so, the process still requires considerable upfront investment, and the performance of the electrochemical cells will need to remain consistently high for the financial model to work long term.

Cleaner Steel

If commercialised, the approach developed by Kempler’s team could significantly reduce the carbon intensity of iron and steel production. For countries like the UK, where the future of steelmaking is under scrutiny due to decarbonisation targets, developments like this are more than academic curiosity. For example, this new method could really help in terms of:

– Environmental impact. Electrochemical ironmaking could eliminate fossil fuel combustion, slashing CO₂, sulphur dioxide, and particulate emissions.

– Energy efficiency. Lower operating temperatures mean less energy is required, especially if the electricity comes from renewable sources.

– Industrial compatibility. The chlorine by-product could serve as a feedstock for other chemical industries, potentially creating circular economy benefits.

According to the UK Steel sector, the British steel industry emits around 12 million tonnes of CO₂ annually, which is around 2.7 per cent of the country’s total emissions. A greener iron production method could, therefore, play a key role in the nation’s Net Zero ambitions.

Rethinking Industrial Solutions

Kempler and his team appear to be cautiously optimistic about their discovery and although they acknowledge that there’s still work to be done, they see the breakthrough as part of a bigger move towards sustainability. As graduate researcher Andrew Goldman says: “We haven’t solved all the problems yet, of course,” adding “But I think it’s an example that serves as a starting point for reimagining what solutions can look like. We can still have industry, technology, and medicine—but we can do it in a way that’s clean. And that’s awesome.”

The underlying message here appears to be that innovation doesn’t have to mean compromise. Cleaner industrial systems are possible and they’re already starting to take shape.

Challenges

Critics, however, may point to the practical hurdles of overhauling a centuries-old industry. For example, transitioning to electrochemical systems will require new equipment, re-training, and significant investment, all while competing with cheaper, established blast furnace methods.

Key Questions Still to Be Answered

It seems, therefore, that the next few years will be crucial in determining whether this technology can live up to its potential. For example, some of the key unknowns include:

– Can porous iron oxide feedstocks be manufactured affordably at industrial volumes?

– Will the system perform consistently when using lower-grade ores?

– How will the chlorine by-product be managed safely and profitably?

– Can the process be integrated into existing steel supply chains without major disruption?

Despite the challenges, the University of Oregon’s findings at least appear to have opened the door to a future where steelmaking doesn’t have to come with a climate cost.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

The University of Oregon team’s breakthrough is still in its early stages, but it appears to add real momentum to the growing push for low-carbon iron and steel production. By moving away from blast furnaces and towards electrochemical methods, scientists may be laying the foundations for a cleaner, more circular form of industrial manufacturing, i.e. one that doesn’t rely on burning fossil fuels to function.

For the UK, which is already under pressure to modernise its steel industry and meet legally binding Net Zero targets, this kind of innovation could be important. While Britain’s domestic steel production has declined in recent decades, the sector still supports thousands of jobs and underpins key supply chains in construction, automotive manufacturing, and energy. If electrochemical ironmaking becomes viable at scale, it could offer UK steelmakers a route to both decarbonise and compete globally, especially if paired with renewable electricity and smart use of co-products like chlorine and sodium hydroxide.

There are wider implications too. For technology developers, chemical suppliers, infrastructure planners and even policymakers, this research opens up new territory. It challenges the assumption that heavy industry must always be dirty and carbon-intensive, and invites a broader rethink of what sustainable manufacturing could look like.

That said, none of this is guaranteed. Scaling from lab to factory floor is rarely straightforward. The process still faces major technical, economic and logistical hurdles, and it’s likely to take years, not months, to prove itself in real-world conditions. However, the concept appears to have passed a crucial test i.e., it works. That in itself is no small achievement in a sector that’s notoriously difficult to decarbonise.

What happens next will depend on how quickly researchers, funders, and industrial partners can build on this early promise. If the pace of progress continues, electrochemical ironmaking could become more than just a scientific milestone and could be a real turning point for one of the world’s most polluting industries.

CoPilot now makes it simple to automate tasks and gives you an entire project area dedicated to adding and editing tasks which you can setup and run to help you automate your business!

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

Looking for a Photoshop alternative that won’t cost a penny? GIMP 3.0 is free, open-source, has some powerful image editing tools, and now has a cleaner layout and non-destructive editing.

Why it’s worth a look:

The recently updated GIMP has a new interface that’s is easier to navigate, and there’s non-destructive layer editing i.e., you can apply filters without losing the original. It also supports modern image formats like JPEG XL and QOI.

How to get started:

– Download GIMP for free at www.gimp.org. It works on Windows, macOS and Linux.
– On launch, you’ll be greeted with a new Welcome screen. From here you can start a new project or open an existing one.
– Use the ‘Create’ tab to begin editing right away.

What’s new and handy:

– The ‘Personalise’ tab lets you customise the colour scheme, font and icon size to suit your screen and workflow.
– Want to tweak a layer? You can now apply effects like blur or red-eye removal non-destructively, then turn them on/off with a tick box — no more irreversible changes.
– Hit the forward slash ( / ) key to bring up the new search tool. Type in the action you’re looking for (e.g., “sharpen” or “scale”) to see all matching results, where they’re found in the menus, and their keyboard shortcuts.
– For quick walkthroughs of features, click ‘Help > User Manual’ or try ‘Tip of the Day’ for quick walkthroughs of features.

Pro-Tip: GIMP’s filter library is massive — try combining blur effects with the high-pass filter to create sharp, dramatic edits without overdoing it.

Note: Other image editing software is available — both paid-for (such as Adobe Photoshop and others) and free. This tip simply highlights one of the free options you may find useful. We’re not affiliated with or endorsing GIMP — just sharing it as a potentially helpful tool.

UK parcel delivery firm, Evri, has teamed up with a US robotics company to test four-legged autonomous deliveries in real neighbourhoods, starting in Barnsley.

The Future at Your Front Door?

The initiative, launched in partnership with US robotics firm Boston Dynamics, is testing the use of autonomous robotic dogs to support last-mile delivery operations in real residential environments.

Spot

The robot (named “Spot”) is already well-known in the tech world for its advanced mobility and has previously been used in industries ranging from construction to defence. However, it’s been reconfigured in this case to tackle the ever-growing demands of urban parcel delivery. With this unusual trial, Evri has become the first UK parcel company to experiment with robotic dog deliveries, thereby showing how the “last mile” of logistics might look in years to come, and getting some positive headlines and visibility for Evri in the process.

Why Now and Why Barnsley?

The trial is one of the ways, among ongoing pressures in the delivery industry, to find more sustainable, efficient and scalable solutions, especially for the all-important last-mile stretch that gets parcels from a depot to a customer’s door. This final leg is often the most complex and costly part of the delivery chain, with challenges including traffic congestion, failed deliveries, limited parking, and high labour demands.

The trial also follows Evri’s 50th anniversary celebrations last year, which included a retrospective look at how delivery and consumer habits have changed over the past five decades. As part of the campaign, Evri surveyed the public on what they thought the future of delivery might look like. Interestingly, only 16 per cent of respondents believed robots would eventually be delivering their parcels, yet for some customers in Barnsley, that prediction is already becoming a reality.

According to Evri, the move is part of a broader strategy to future-proof its operations through smart, scalable automation. Speaking about the initiative, Marcus Hunter, Chief Technology Officer at Evri, said: “We’re constantly looking for ways to innovate, and the trial with Spot is one of several projects focused on testing new technologies that could support our couriers and enhance service levels. It’s about being ready for the future—not replacing people, but giving them new tools.”

Barnsley was selected for the pilot due to its mixed urban and residential layout, making it an ideal testing ground for the robot’s capabilities. It also aligns with Barnsley Council’s ambitions to position the town as a testbed for innovation and emerging tech.

Councillor Robin Franklin, Cabinet Spokesperson for Regeneration and Culture, said: “This trial puts Barnsley on the map when it comes to cutting-edge innovation. We’re proud to support projects that explore how technology can improve everyday life for our residents while supporting green and inclusive growth.”

What the Robot Dog Can Do

Spot is the brainchild of Boston Dynamics, the Massachusetts-based robotics company renowned for its eerily lifelike machines. Weighing just under 30kg and powered by AI and a host of onboard sensors, Spot can:

– Navigate streets and pavements autonomously.

– Climb stairs and kerbs.

– Avoid obstacles and safely interact with its environment.

– Carry up to 14kg of payload, including parcel lockers.

– Operate in all weathers and uneven terrain.

Parcels Secure

For the Evri trial, Spot has been fitted with a secure, camera-enabled delivery compartment. Once it reaches a property, the robot identifies the correct address, sends a delivery notification to the recipient, and waits while the customer unlocks the compartment via a mobile app or pin code.

A Hybrid Approach – A Robot Plus A Human Driver

Crucially, Spot can also “walk back” to its mobile hub, i.e. the parked delivery van or designated base station, before heading off to complete the next delivery. The hope is that this hybrid approach, combining autonomous robots with human drivers, could significantly cut the time and cost associated with short-distance drop-offs.

Why Robot Dogs?

It may sound gimmicky, but there are serious logistics challenges that robots like Spot aim to address. These include helping to address issues like:

– Labour shortages. The parcel sector has long struggled with staff shortages, especially in peak seasons. Robots could ease the pressure by handling short-range, repetitive tasks.

– Urban congestion. Smaller, legged robots can reach places that vans can’t, especially in pedestrian zones, gated communities or narrow terraced streets.

– Sustainability goals. Electric-powered robots generate no direct emissions and could help reduce reliance on diesel vans, particularly for “final 500-metre” delivery loops.

Emissions Cut

Also, according to Evri’s internal modelling, robotic solutions like Spot could cut last-mile emissions by up to 30 per cent if scaled properly. While that’s still speculative, it does show the potential for meaningful change, especially as local councils and clients demand greener operations.

How Does The Robot Delivery Actually Work?

During the pilot phase, Spot is operating alongside human drivers in Barnsley on select delivery rounds. The deliveries are carried out in the following way:

– The driver drops off Spot in a target area : A courier in a van arrives at a designated spot and releases Spot to begin deliveries within a defined radius.

– Autonomous navigation begins : Spot identifies its route using GPS and LIDAR systems, with backup human monitoring from a mobile control centre.

– The parcel drop-off : The robot approaches each address, sends a notification to the recipient, and waits until the parcel compartment is unlocked and retrieved.

– Returns and charges : Once all deliveries are complete, Spot returns to the van for charging and reloading.

All movements are monitored remotely in real-time, with fail-safes in place if something goes wrong. For now, the robots are accompanied by human operators during public testing, mainly to collect data and respond to any incidents.

Public Reaction

Predictably, the robot has certainly turned heads. Locals have been snapping photos and posting videos of Spot trotting down pavements with packages on board, drawing everything from excitement to scepticism. Some residents have reportedly praised the trial for its innovation and eco-potential.

Others, however, have expressed concern about safety, privacy and job security. Social media threads have raised questions about how the robot avoids pets, children, or even potential theft attempts. Evri has responded by highlighting Spot’s multiple sensors, 360-degree vision and secure delivery process. They’ve also reiterated that robots are intended to assist and not to replace human workers.

Reality Check

It seems that not everyone is on board with the robot revolution just yet. For example, industry analysts point to several limitations that could slow rollout of this kind of delivery service. For example:

– The high cost. Spot reportedly costs around £60,000 per unit, making widespread adoption a pricey prospect for now.

– Public infrastructure challenges. UK streets are not always robot-friendly, with uneven pavements, steep kerbs and cluttered environments.

– Accessibility. Older residents or those without smartphones may struggle with app-based delivery systems.

– The UK weather and vandalism. While Spot is designed to handle rain and stairs, freezing temperatures and tampering could pose risks.

There’s also a broader question about whether this technology is solving a real problem, or creating one? For example, some critics argue that delivery robots are a distraction from improving pay, training and conditions for human couriers, especially when the technology is still in its infancy.

That said, Evri insists this is just a trial and not a full-scale rollout. As Marcus Hunter, Chief Technology Officer at Evri says: “We’re testing, learning and listening,” and that “Technology should be part of the solution, not the whole answer.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While robot dog deliveries may still sound futuristic (plus the robot may look a bit intimidating to some), Evri’s trial may actually mark a more serious exploration of how UK logistics could evolve in the years ahead. With growing demand for faster, greener deliveries and ongoing pressure on urban infrastructure, innovations like Spot may no longer be just eye-catching experiments, but part of a broader rethink of how goods reach our doorsteps.

Crucially, as Evri is keen to point out, this is not about replacing drivers but is a hybrid approach, i.e. the robot is intended to work alongside human couriers, acting as a high-tech extension of the delivery network rather than a standalone solution. By handling short-distance or hard-to-access drop-offs, tools like Spot could help relieve pressure on drivers while improving efficiency at the most complex stage of the journey – the last mile.

Although it may seem like a novelty, many UK businesses are likely to be watching the trial closely. For example, more responsive, low-emission delivery methods could offer a competitive edge for retailers, particularly as customer expectations rise and sustainability commitments tighten. However, being realistic, practical hurdles, from system costs to infrastructure limitations and consumer adoption, will need to be tackled before robots like this can become part of everyday delivery operations.

The trial also reflects a growing appetite among local authorities to embrace emerging technologies. Towns like Barnsley are positioning themselves as testbeds for innovation, hoping to attract investment and future-proof their local economies. For communities, this opens the door to a more direct role in how technology is introduced and regulated on their streets.

In the end, Evri’s robot dog pilot may not be simply about PR or novelty, but a live test of what the future of parcel delivery could look like. Whether it leads to full-scale adoption or simply provides insights to shape future automation strategies, it’s a clear indication that the UK delivery sector is preparing for a more adaptable, tech-enabled future.

New research has revealed a sharp link between using screens in bed and disrupted sleep, while a separate study suggests that switching off mobile internet on smartphones may significantly boost focus and mental health, delivering cognitive benefits equivalent to turning back the clock by a decade!

Bed, Phone, No Sleep Concludes Norwegian Study

Using your phone in bed might feel harmless, even relaxing, but according to a major Norwegian study, it may be stealing your sleep and leaving you more tired than you realise. Conducted by researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, the study analysed survey responses from over 45,000 university students aged 18 to 28 as part of the nationally representative SHOT2022 health and wellbeing survey.

The researchers set out to explore how different types of screen activity, e.g. scrolling social media, watching videos, or browsing online, affect sleep when used in bed after lights-out.

The Findings

The researchers found that each extra hour spent on screen-based activities in bed was associated with:

– A 59 per cent increase in the odds of reporting insomnia symptoms.

– A 24-minute reduction in total sleep time.

The study also concluded that those who avoided screens in bed altogether were 24 per cent less likely to report symptoms of insomnia.

Dr Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland, lead author of the study, noted: “We found no significant differences between social media and other screen activities, suggesting that screen use itself is the key factor in sleep disruption.”

New Insights

Interestingly, it wasn’t just the time spent, but also what people were doing with their devices that revealed new insights. For example, although the majority (69 per cent) used social media along with other screen activities, the subgroup who only used social media had the best sleep outcomes, reporting the least insomnia and the longest sleep duration of any group.

This finding appears to fly in the face of the idea that social media is uniquely disruptive. It seems, therefore, that it may instead reflect a social connection benefit, or simply the fact that those with existing sleep problems may avoid social media at bedtime and lean towards more passive activities like videos or music.

How Screens May Disrupt Sleep

The Norwegian researchers explored several possible explanations for the link between screen time and sleep loss, including:

– Displacement – screens push back bedtimes, stealing time directly from sleep.

– Light exposure – screen light may suppress melatonin, the hormone that regulates sleep.

– Cognitive arousal – engaging with interactive content keeps the brain alert.

– Notifications – late-night alerts can disrupt sleep continuity.

The results strongly pointed to displacement as the dominant factor. In other words, more screen time simply meant less time allocated to sleep, regardless of content. As the researchers explained: “If increased arousal was an important contributor, we would expect to see different effects based on activity type. We didn’t”.

The team also acknowledged the limits of the study. For example, the data was self-reported, meaning it may carry subjective biases, and the study was cross-sectional, so causality can’t be firmly established. As Dr Hjetland said: “This study cannot determine causality — for example, whether screen use causes insomnia or if students with insomnia use screens more.”

Switching Off to Switch Back On – The Internet Block Study

While the Norwegian study focused on what happens when people use their phones at night, another recent experiment investigated what happens when mobile internet access is taken away altogether.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia ran a month-long randomised controlled trial involving 467 adults across Canada and the US. The study involved installing the Freedom app on participants’ smartphones to block all mobile internet for two weeks—while still allowing calls and texts. Desktop internet access remained unaffected.

The Freedom app is a digital wellbeing tool that lets users block access to distracting websites, apps, or the entire internet across their devices. In this study, it was used to completely block mobile internet on smartphones for two weeks, while still allowing calls and texts, helping participants disconnect from constant online access without cutting them off from essential communication. The results were surprisingly powerful. For example, participants who blocked mobile internet for two weeks saw significant improvements in:

– Sustained attention – a measurable improvement equivalent to reversing 10 years of cognitive decline!

– Mental health – reductions in symptoms of depression and anxiety, outperforming the average effects of antidepressants.

– Subjective well-being – increased life satisfaction and mood.

Key Findings

Two key findings of the research were that 91 per cent of participants improved on at least one of the psychological measures, and nearly three-quarters improved in overall well-being or mental health. As the researchers concluded: “Despite the many benefits mobile internet offers, reducing the constant connection to the digital world can have large positive effects”.

The Benefits of Disconnection

The study essentially dug into possible explanations and found that people who lost mobile internet:

– Spent significantly more time socialising in person, exercising, or spending time outdoors.

– Slept slightly more each night.

– Felt more in control of their attention and behaviour.

These lifestyle shifts helped explain the benefits to mood and focus. Notably, screen time almost halved during the intervention, from over five hours a day to just over two in the most successful group. “Our results suggest that constant connection to the online world comes at a cost, since psychological functioning improves when this connection is reduced,” said the study team.

What It All Means – And Why It Matters Now

Together, these two studies appear to tell a compelling story about how our devices may shape daily life, and nightly rest. While it’s long been suspected that smartphones disrupt attention and sleep, these findings go further by highlighting not just correlations, but in the case of the second study, causal evidence of real cognitive and emotional improvements when mobile internet is switched off.

The implications are wide-ranging. For example:

– For individuals, simple changes, such as avoiding screens in bed or trialling internet blockers, could deliver big mental health and sleep benefits.

– For parents, the results support efforts like the “Smartphone-Free Childhood” movement, which urges families to delay phone access for children until age 14.

– For employers, it seems that encouraging healthy boundaries around screen time could improve employee focus and reduce digital burnout.

– For app and tech developers, the research may make a case for designing “focus modes” that do more than dim the screen, thereby offering real disconnection.

These results also dovetail with previous research. A growing body of studies has linked excessive smartphone use to poorer sleep, anxiety, attention lapses, and reduced productivity. What’s new here is the scale of the benefit from even temporary restrictions.

A Word of Caution

However, it’s worth noting the limitations. For example, both studies relied on participants motivated to reduce phone use or who were already concerned about their sleep. The Canadian study also struggled with compliance where only about a quarter of participants fully followed the internet block, although benefits were still seen across the board.

The Norwegian survey’s self-reported data also can’t definitively prove that screen time causes insomnia, and other variables, like personality, stress levels, or pre-existing health conditions, may well play a role.

However, with thousands of participants and consistent patterns across both studies, the message is becoming harder to ignore i.e., how we use our phones, especially before bed, could be shaping not just how we sleep, but how we think, feel and focus during the day.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Taken together, these studies may make a strong case for reassessing how people use smartphones, especially in the hours before bed. While neither piece of research is without its limitations, the evidence appears to point to a growing truth that’s hard to ignore, i.e. that constant digital connectivity may be undermining both our rest and our resilience. For individuals, the takeaway is relatively straightforward. Steering clear of screens in bed, experimenting with internet blockers like Freedom, or simply becoming more mindful of screen habits could offer measurable improvements in sleep quality, attention span, and overall mental health. These aren’t vague lifestyle tweaks but are evidence-based strategies that can deliver real, tangible benefits.

For UK businesses, the implications are also increasingly difficult to sideline. With workplace wellbeing now firmly on the agenda, there’s a compelling argument for employers to support staff in setting digital boundaries, particularly in remote or hybrid working environments. Offering advice, policies or even tech tools that encourage disconnection out of hours could help reduce burnout and improve focus, thereby boosting productivity without adding to the always-on culture. There’s also a growing market opportunity for app developers and digital service providers to create smarter, more adaptive tools that genuinely support wellbeing rather than distract from it.

At the broader societal level, the findings lend weight to calls for a more cautious approach to digital technology, especially where children and young people are concerned. Campaigns like Smartphone-Free Childhood are gaining traction for a reason. The data now suggests that limiting online access, at least some of the time, could have far-reaching psychological and developmental benefits.

These studies reinforce what many of us already know i.e., our devices are powerful, but so is the choice to step away. As more evidence emerges, the challenge for individuals, businesses and policymakers alike will be how to strike the right balance, harnessing the benefits of digital life without letting it quietly erode our most fundamental human needs.

Nearly half of UK professionals would rather leave their jobs than return to the office five days a week, according to new research from recruitment giant Hays.

Disconnect

The findings of the Hays survey appear to highlight a growing disconnect between employee preferences and employer policies on post-pandemic working models and, it seems, the potential consequences could be severe. With hybrid working now the norm for most office-based staff, businesses pushing for a full return risk not just resistance, but an outright exodus of talent.

Hybrid Working Still Dominates

Since the pandemic reshaped traditional work models almost overnight, hybrid working has emerged as the clear favourite for many professionals. Hays’ Spring 2025 Employment Trends survey, which canvassed over 8,000 workers and employers across the UK, found that a massive 77 per cent of professionals are now working in some form of hybrid setup. The most common arrangement, three days in the office and two days remote, is the one adopted by a quarter of all companies surveyed.

Although the survey highlights how one in five employers now allows staff to choose their own working pattern, this figure has dropped slightly from 26 per cent in the previous survey, suggesting a slight shift towards more structured expectations.

Very Few Companies Plan To Increase Office Attendance

The overall preference, however, is clear, and not just among employees. While a minority of companies are increasing office attendance, only 8 per cent of employers said they plan to enforce a full-time return within the next six months. Meanwhile, 66 per cent admitted they were concerned about potential backlash if they did.

Why Don’t Workers Want To Return To The Office?

According to the Hays survey, the key factor that’s fuelling this resistance to returning full-time is cost. Hays found that 73 per cent of professionals cited commuting expenses as a major factor in their reluctance to come back to the office more often. A full return would lead to higher costs for 88 per cent of workers, and the financial strain is particularly pronounced among women.

For example, 59 per cent of women surveyed said commuting would significantly impact their finances, compared with 41 per cent of men. This gender gap also plays out in the headline figure, i.e. while 48 per cent of all respondents said they would consider quitting over a full-time RTO mandate, that figure rose to 58 per cent for women, and fell to 42 per cent for men.

Pam Lindsay-Dunn, COO of Hays UK and Ireland, has warned that businesses could be on the brink of a talent crisis if they push too hard, saying, “Employers need to realise they are at serious risk of losing top talent if they make a full-time return-to-office compulsory,” and that, “Our research clearly shows how highly professionals still value the option to work from home.”

Other Factors

Although cost was cited as the main reason to resist returning full-time to the office in the Hays survey, other factors known to make a hybrid work model preferable include:

– Work-life balance. Many workers now organise their lives around flexible routines, from school pickups to avoiding rush-hour stress.

– Employee wellbeing. Studies have repeatedly linked flexible working to lower stress levels and improved mental health.

– Productivity. As highlighted by the Hays survey, a majority of employers (52 per cent) said there was no difference in productivity between home and office workers. Another 19 per cent said remote workers performed better, while only 13 per cent believed office-based staff were more productive.

‘Look At The Bigger Picture,’ Hays Urges Employers

Despite the push from some corporate giants to increase in-office time, the data suggests this approach is increasingly out of step with employee sentiment. Recent moves from companies like Amazon, PwC and Santander to tighten RTO rules have already triggered staff unrest, and Hays’ findings suggest the UK workforce may not respond kindly to similar measures elsewhere.

Hays’ Lindsay-Dunn has advised employers to weigh their options carefully, saying: “Before making any significant changes to their current working model, employers must look at the bigger picture,” and “That means factoring in commuting costs, wellbeing, productivity and the benefits that hybrid working brings to both the individual and the business.”

Indeed, previous research by the University of Pittsburgh warns that companies pushing full-time office returns risk triggering a “brain drain”, with high performers, particularly women, more likely to leave in favour of flexible employers.

Retention Risks and Recruitment Challenges

For UK businesses already grappling with talent shortages and recruitment pressures, the findings from the Hays Spring 2025 Employment Trends survey raise red flags. If nearly half the professional workforce is willing to walk over RTO demands, the potential for disruption is hard to ignore. Employers may, for example, face:

– Higher recruitment costs. Replacing experienced staff is expensive and time-consuming.

– Loss of institutional knowledge. Departing staff can take critical skills and insights with them.

– Brand damage. Perceptions of inflexibility may deter top candidates from applying.

At a time when retaining skilled staff is already a challenge, a misstep on working policy could prove costly.

For example, while many companies have increased expectations around office time, in reality, actual enforcement remains rare. This may reflect a broader recognition that rigid models could backfire, particularly when productivity data doesn’t strongly favour office-based work.

Not Everyone’s A Fan of Hybrid Working

While hybrid working is widely embraced, it’s not without its critics. For example, some business leaders argue that in-person collaboration fosters creativity, innovation, and company culture, particularly for newer staff or junior employees. Others raise concerns around remote management, communication gaps, and the long-term impact on team cohesion.

However, it should be noted here that evidence on these points is mixed. For example, research from the University of Melbourne found that companies with flexible working policies performed better on the stock market over the long term. This could mean that while some managers may feel more in control with staff on-site, this doesn’t always translate to better outcomes.

Also, full flexibility may not suit every worker. For example, some employees, especially those in shared accommodation or with limited space, may prefer office environments where they can focus. That’s why some employers still offer office-first policies with optional home working, depending on role, seniority or team dynamics.

That said, Hays’ latest findings suggest that forcing a full return across the board could do more harm than good.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this research makes clear is that the conversation around work patterns is far from over. While some employers are moving to reassert control over when and where work happens, many employees remain firmly committed to the flexibility they’ve grown used to since the pandemic. Hybrid working has shifted from being a stopgap solution to a preferred way of life for a large part of the UK workforce, and attempts to reverse that may meet more resistance than some leaders expect.

For UK businesses, the Hays survey figures appear to indicate that poorly handled return-to-office policy may not just lead to internal dissatisfaction, but it could lead to the loss of valued staff, weakened morale, and a dent in employer reputation. In a competitive labour market, especially in knowledge-based sectors, retaining skilled professionals means understanding what motivates them, and right now, for many, that includes the autonomy and balance hybrid work affords.

However, it’s not only employers who have decisions to make. Employees, too, are weighing their priorities, e.g. cost of living pressures, childcare responsibilities, commuting time and mental wellbeing are all influencing what the “ideal” work setup looks like. While not every role or sector can offer the same level of flexibility, the evidence suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach won’t cut it.

The implications may also apply to other stakeholders as well, e.g. from HR teams and line managers tasked with navigating new expectations, to policymakers and transport planners grappling with changes in commuting patterns. Even commercial landlords and local high streets could feel the knock-on effects of long-term shifts in where and how people work.

Overall, the Hays findings could be seen as serving as a timely reminder that workplace culture is evolving, and any business that wants to keep its best people may need to evolve with it.