The CIPD's Labour Market Outlook for Winter 2025/26 lands on most HR directors' desks as bad news with very tidy framing. Three-quarters of UK employers expect the Employment Rights Act 2025 to push their costs up. Employer confidence is at a record low outside the pandemic. Hiring intentions, in the public sector in particular, have slipped into net-negative territory. Day-one parental leave and the removal of the lower earnings limit for Statutory Sick Pay both came into effect on 6 April 2026. The bill has been working its way through Parliament for almost two years. It is now here.
The internal conversation in most finance functions follows a predictable shape. Recruitment freezes. Backfill scrutiny tightens. The L&D budget, the most discretionary line on the people-costs page, gets a second look. None of this addresses the actual problem on the CFO's desk, which is that the productivity of every existing employee now needs to be measurably higher than it was last year. The cost base went up. The headcount lever is gone. The only lever left is behaviour.
Why The L&D Budget Survives This Cycle
The instinct to cut L&D in a cost squeeze is old, and in this cycle it is wrong, for a specific reason. The CIPD's separate Learning at Work figures put average UK L&D spend at £1,068 per employee per year (CIPD, 2024). For an organisation of 500 people, that is £534,000. Cutting it in half releases £267,000. The same organisation's total payroll, after the ERA changes, will have moved by considerably more than that, in the wrong direction.
The question is not whether to spend the £1,068. It is whether the £1,068 actually changes behaviour, and therefore productivity, or whether it is being spent on activity that feels like development without producing it. Most L&D evaluation stops at Kirkpatrick Level 1, did people enjoy the session, and never reaches Level 3, are they doing anything differently 90 days later (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The 5% margin you need is hiding in the gap between those two levels.
What The Behaviour Evidence Says
Three findings, all with primary sources, should shape the spend.
First, retention. Roediger and Karpicke (2006), in Psychological Science, showed that active retrieval increases long-term retention by around 50% compared with re-reading. Most workplace learning is the second kind, watch a video, listen to a presentation, complete a module. The half-life of that content is measured in days. The half-life of practised, retrieved behaviour is measured in months.
Second, modality. In Sidestream's own academic behaviour-change work, building on research from UCL, Cambridge and Bocconi, participants who learned a communication skill through immersive role-play with professional actors scored roughly 20% higher on observed behaviour than those who learned the same content through video or slide-show training. Self-rated confidence did not predict actual performance, which is exactly the Dunning-Kruger pattern any finance function should care about: people thought they had the skill, they did not, and a self-report survey would have missed it.
Third, the cost of conflict. ACAS's 2024 estimate places the annual cost of UK workplace conflict at £28.5 billion, with 44% of working-age adults having experienced it in the past year (ACAS, 2024). That number is not a wellbeing concern. It is a P&L item. Even a single percentage point reduction in conflict-related lost time, in a 500-person organisation, dwarfs the L&D budget the CFO was considering cutting.
What A Defendable L&D Pound Looks Like
The test is not how busy the L&D calendar looks. The test is whether each pound spent satisfies three conditions:
- Defined target behaviour. Not "build resilience" or "improve communication". A named behaviour that an observer could tick yes or no on, in a real meeting, in 90 days.
- Practice with feedback. The behaviour was rehearsed in conditions close enough to the real workplace that the muscle memory transfers. Watching a video is not practice.
- Observed measurement. Someone, not the participant themselves, has looked at the behaviour 90 days later and recorded whether it happened. Self-report does not count.
This is the version of L&D that holds up in front of a CFO. It is also the version that actually produces the 5% productivity lift the maths now requires.
What We Do About It
Sidestream's programmes are designed around exactly these three conditions. We define the target behaviour with the sponsor before we design the workshop. We rehearse it with professional actors in scenarios drawn from the real organisation. And we build in a 90-day behavioural measurement, observed, not self-reported, so the impact is defensible at finance-committee level. Read more about how to measure the ROI of behaviour change training, or book a call to look at what a defendable L&D pound would look like in your context.
Book a free 30-minute diagnostic call → or read about our research-backed approach.