This article is the fifth in our Spotlight on: Talent in the life sciences sector series.
Following our article on Talent trends and solutions for the life sciences sector, published as part of our Biotech Review of the Year - Issue 12 publication earlier this year, we have produced a five part article series which explores the reasons for the continued shortage of talent within the life sciences sector and strategies for addressing this challenge.
By embracing creative solutions, upskilling, and focussing on inclusive hiring strategies, the industry can transform today’s talent crisis into a new opportunity.
Strategising solutions to the life science sector skills shortage is just one piece of the puzzle. This fifth and final article in our series considers a number of practical, legal and regulatory issues that may arise when ‘talent-sourcing’ initiatives are introduced by employers. Employment and global mobility specialists should be engaged early on in the process, to guide businesses through the implementation of their chosen actions and activities.
Working remotely
Managing employees who are working remotely and/or internationally presents several practical challenges. In the absence of face to face interaction, communication can become less effective. Misunderstandings may occur more frequently, subtleties of non-verbal communication can be lost and it is harder to generate those spontaneous ‘water-cooler’ moments. Working across various time-zones may also limit the number of collaborative working hours.
Not having eyes on employees can make it harder to track productivity and performance, for better or for worse. Traditional supervision models do not translate directly into the digital environment, making it more difficult for managers to recognise employees’ achievements or provide additional support when a team member might be struggling or underperforming. From a legal standpoint, employers may seek to combat this in part by monitoring their workforce. Such as by reviewing Teams or Slack chat activity, email data or dates and times of log ins on internal company applications or servers. However, without a robust data protection policy, privacy notice or employee monitoring policy in place, employers may find themselves facing reprimand for an invasion of privacy by data protection or employment law authorities. The ICO’s guidance on lawful monitoring in the workplace1 is a useful tool to aid employers in their compliance with data protection law. With researching showing that 70% of the public would find it intrusive to be monitored by their employer, companies need to tread carefully in this area and ensure that any monitoring is conducted lawfully, fairly and in a manner that maintains trust with their workforce.2
Remote working is heavily reliant on the effective use of technology. Ensuring that employees have access to the necessary equipment, such as a laptop or mobile device, is crucial. Employers may consider whether it is truly appropriate to expect employees to work off their personal devices, especially when material they are working on could be considered to be confidential or company owned intellectual property. Security concerns may pose a real risk to employers. Therefore companies should ensure they have robust secure remote access networks in place and provide mandatory security and compliance training to employees.
Employers also continue to be responsible for an employee’s heath and safety at work, even when they are working from home. Having remote working and lone working policies in place can help employees to understand their roles and responsibilities and where they can seek employer support. Offering home working desk assessments, ergonomic office chairs, additional screens or a remote working allowance to be spent on home working equipment can help to ensure employees work in a comfortable and safe environment.
Company culture can also take a hit as a result of remote working. A lack of physical presence in the office may lead to remote workers feeling isolated. Those attending an office or laboratory, or manufacturing site more regularly may also feel resentful of those whose roles grant them the flexibility to work from home. Employers also need to consider whether junior staff are being adequately supervised and granted sufficient opportunities to learn from senior colleagues, if those in leadership or management roles are able to work from home more freely. A clear remote working policy can demonstrate an employer’s commitment to company culture, whilst also acknowledge the value that flexible working can bring to employee’s quality of life and enjoyment of work. A policy can also place a minimum expectation on employees as to how often they should be attending the physical workplace. Many employers are implementing ‘anchor days’ to foster collaborative teamworking by encouraging teams or departments to prioritise their attendance at the workplace on particular set days of the week.
To ensure remote working is not open to abuse, employers would be wise to remind staff that any permanent change to their working location or normal working hours should be dealt with via a formal request made under a flexible working policy.
Finally, companies may need to decide whether remote working is best managed via non-contractual policies, which it is free to amend and up date from time to time. Or whether an employee’s contractual place of work will be their home address, or some other pre-agreed location. With data analysts likely free to log on from anywhere, sales representatives spending the majority of their working day in the car, at home or visiting GP surgeries and hospitals and lab technicians and manufacturing engineers primarily bound to being on-site, managing remote working opportunities across the business is far from a straightforward task.
Developing an overseas workforceThe global talent pool is a valuable and essential resource to tap into. However, it would be naïve to assume that embracing an international workforce comes easy. In addition to the remote working considerations already addressed, employers will have to turn their minds to other challenges. From practical matters, such as overcoming time differences, potential language barriers and inclusivity of different cultural and social norms, to legal issues such as employment status, tax implications and which jurisdiction’s laws should govern their contract. The first decision to make is whether overseas talent will be required to migrate to the UK or whether a remote or flexible working arrangement is appropriate for their role. If the former, employers will have to navigate the resultant immigration steps, both procedural and financial, that are required for the individual to obtain an appropriate visa and right to work in the UK. If the latter, companies will need to carefully decide upon the most suitable contractual arrangement, after a full consideration of both local and UK employment laws. Employing staff overseas can have expensive tax implications, particularly for start-ups or smaller business who may find it harder to absorb these additional costs. As such, companies may prefer to utilise a contractor arrangement with the skilled individual. However, if the contractor is not genuinely considered to be self-employed, by reference to the true day-to-day relationship between the parties, then employers risk facing reprimand and financial penalties from both the tax and employment authorities. On the subject of contracts, an employer would be recommended to seek employment law advice as to which countries’ laws should govern the working relationship. Employment laws are mandatory but can vary substantially across different jurisdictions. Getting it wrong can be an expensive mistake. Pharmaceutical companies will also want to ensure their valuable business and research interests are adequately protected through carefully drafted intellectual property, confidentiality and restrictive covenant provisions. Finally, within the realm of a highly regulated industry, employers will need to ensure that the individual’s international qualifications, experience or authorisations are recognised as adequate or comparable by the UK’s regulatory authorities. |
Flexible employment models
Creative and flexible employment arrangements are not only suitable for overseas workers. As mentioned in article 3 of this series, companies may wish to explore internships, apprenticeships, graduate schemes, part-time or job share arrangements or short-term project based contracts to secure fresh talent and plug missing skillsets. These alternative working relationship models require careful consideration to protect against any employment law risks.
For example, paid interns may be considered to be workers or employees if they are contributing to work output within the organisation and not simply shadowing and observing for the primary purpose of learning. Companies may require assistance in calculating holiday entitlement for job-sharers and part-time workers. Any consultancy arrangements should also be subject to legal advice, to confirm that the skilled individuals are genuinely self-employed after conducting a detailed analysis of the nature of the working relationship between the parties. When determining employment status, there is no statutory test and a number of relevant factors would be considered by an Employment Tribunal. No one factor is more determinative than another, as the true nature of the relationship will be considered holistically. An individual’s employment status is important as it can entitle them to certain statutory rights, if they are found to be either an employee or a worker. Keeping the relationship under regular review is recommended as a change in employment status will have tax implications, such as paying the individual through PAYE, and will engage statutory employment law protections, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed, the right to receive statutory sick pay and redundancy pay and the right to receive family related pay and leave.
Self-employed independent contractors may also provide their services via an intermediary, known as a personal services company or PSC. It will be important to assess in each instance whether the UK’s “Off Payroll Working Rules” (often referred to as the IR35 regime) applies. Specific tax advice should be obtained in relation to these obligations, as may be necessary.
Embracing technologyEmployers are increasingly receptive to, and reliant upon, the use of new technologies including artificial intelligence tools. This article series has noted how AI can be utilised by employers for recruitment and hiring through to performance management and the provision of training. According to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, by January 2022 across UK businesses 68% of large companies, 34% of medium sized companies and 15% of small companies had adopted at least one AI technology.3 The figures are likely to be higher now. Although platforms such a ChatGPT and Copilot have become household names, the regulatory and legal landscape around the use of AI is lagging behind. As a result, employers should be alive to the potential legal issues that may arise, and be informed as to how they can manage the risks. Relying too heavily on AI tools for recruitment and application screening may put an employer at risk of discrimination claims. AI software is trained on data sets with inherent prejudices and biases hidden within them. Ill-thought-out predetermined criteria may also exclude a greater number of individuals with a particular protected characteristic. A tool may discount an individual due to gaps in their employment history, without intelligent consideration that such absences may be due to them being a primary parent or having a disability. Employers can protect against discrimination risk by ensuring that a human reviewer is involved at all stages of the recruitment process, with screening software used only as an aid to flag or categorise applications. Inappropriate dependence on AI tools for disciplinary investigations and procedures or dismissal may give rise to an unfair or constructive dismissal claim. Without human input, algorithms can make irrational or unfair decisions. Further, relying on monitoring data obtained from an employee’s IT equipment or applications without an adequate monitoring at work policy, legitimate basis and employee knowledge during a performance review procedure is likely to render the process unfair, be an unreasonable invasion of privacy, cause a breakdown in the implied duty of trust and confidence between the parties and potentially breach data protection laws. Employers can manage these risks by ensuring they are transparent about the use of AI technology. Risk assessments should be conducted to identify and mitigate potential areas of concern and full information should be provided to candidates and employees in relation to any profiling, automated processing or decision making or monitoring practices. Data protection impact assessments should be used to assess the necessity and proportionality of any data processing and all employees working on or with AI or algorithmic tools should receive comprehensive training. |
Final reflections
As the UK life sciences sector continues to grow, innovate and evolve, addressing the deep-rooted talent challenges will require more than quick fixes. It demands a long-term, cross-functional approach. By embracing creative solutions, upskilling, and focussing on inclusive hiring strategies, the industry can transform today’s talent crisis into a new opportunity.
Thank you for following along with this series. For more information on how we can support you to support your employees, please contact Manon Rattle or another member of the Employment Team.
| Other articles in the series |
| 1. Introduction to the hiring dilemma |
| 2. The talent tug-of-war - Why life sciences faces a skills shortage |
| 3. Unlocking talent - Employment strategies for hiring |
| 4. Talent without borders - Immigration solutions to close the talent gap |
| 5. The science of hiring - Practical and legal considerations for employers |
References
1 Information Commissioner’s Office, Guidance, Employment practices and data protection: monitoring workers, published 3 October 2023, accessed 29 July 2025
2 Information Commissioner’s Office, ICO publishes guidance to ensure lawful monitoring in the workplace, published 3 October 2023, accessed 29 July 2025
3 UK Government, Research and Analysis, AI activity in UK businesses, published January 2022, accessed 29 July 2025
/Passle/5f3d6e345354880e28b1fb63/MediaLibrary/Images/2025-10-07-15-32-11-946-68e5327b760e4a63435ae616.png)