The Building Good Employer Guide 2025: What does the data say?

Construction has long struggled with a reputation for tough working conditions and lack of diversity, but recent years have seen a lot of change for the sector. The covid-19 pandemic has fundamentally reshaped the world of work in ways that were once unimaginable, and nowhere more so than in the built environment.

As businesses navigated lockdowns, social distancing and shifting regulations, many were forced to rethink how they operated and communicated, as well as how they supported their employees. The construction and built environment sector in particular faced unique challenges, from disrupted project timelines to the need for remote collaboration in roles traditionally rooted on-site. Yet, within this upheaval, the pandemic also accelerated positive change, with flexibility, mental health and employee wellbeing taking centre stage.

The Building Good Employer Guide 2025 not only highlights the best-in-class initiatives that are reshaping workplaces but also explores how the sector is embracing new ways of working, post pandemic. It examines how forward-thinking companies are addressing the evolving needs of their workforce, helping to make construction a more attractive and sustainable industry for all. 

The 45 companies featured in this guide are all doing their bit to change the narrative about a construction industry which desperately needs to attract a new generation of talent. Through innovative policies and employee-focused practices, they are leading the charge in transforming construction into a more inclusive, supportive and rewarding industry.

The guide features a cross-section of the industry, from start-ups to established names, and from contractors and consultants to specialists and manufacturers. Of the 45 firms on the list, nine are architects, 28 consultants and six contractors. One construction product manufacturer, Siderise Insulation, made the list, while Mace is listed as both a contractor and a consultant. Turner & Townsend stands as the largest firm on the list, with 5,693 staff, while the smallest six firms – all consultants – are proving that even smaller players can make a significant impact, with Studio One Consulting leading the way at just eight employees.

The Building Good Employer Guide 2025 includes a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data on best practices, offering a roadmap for others in the sector to follow. It showcases the companies not only doing things differently, but doing them right – proving that construction can be a rewarding, inclusive and supportive industry for all.

Latest trends in hybrid working

One area where the pandemic’s impact is undeniable is in the rise of hybrid working practices. In an industry traditionally dominated by site work and face-to-face collaboration, few would have guessed a decade ago that flexible working would become mainstream. However, the pandemic forced many businesses to rethink how they operate, and hybrid working is now increasingly common. Of the 45 firms featured in the Building Good Employer Guide 2025, only two reported having no hybrid working policy at all. 

No single approach to hybrid working has yet become dominant, with firms adjusting their policies to fit their business-specific needs and the preferences of their staff. However, many businesses have coalesced around certain common strategies. More than 10 firms in the guide have adopted a 3:2 split between office and work-from-home days. Meanwhile, eight businesses have introduced core hours policies, where staff are expected to work some specific hours – typically from 10am to 4pm – while having the freedom to choose when to complete the remainder of their contracted hours. A few firms, including Gleeds, RLB, Potter Raper, Anderton Gables and Watts Group, have combined both approaches, offering a hybrid model with some flexibility around office attendance.

While the 3:2 split between office and home working is the most common, it is not the only way firms approached splitting up the week. Four businesses – ECD Architects, Keegans, Ingleton Wood and Martin Arnold – have flipped the formula around, with a 2:3 day split in favour of home working, while others avoid a day-based approach altogether. Magnitude QS, for example, allows employees a set number of work-from-home days each year, while RHP offers up to 40% of contracted working hours to be completed remotely. Some companies have taken a more structured approach to flexible working, using specific days or policies to promote work-life balance. Pozzoni Architecture, for instance, allows employees to work from home on Fridays, while Betteridge & Milsom allows staff to finish at 2pm on Fridays.

There is variety even among those firms that choose to split hybrid working by days. Some require staff to agree their home working days with their line manager, while others take a much more relaxed approach. Equals Consulting says it is “not hard line about the three-day requirement, recognising people have personal commitments” and “do not mandate which days they should be in, leaving it to personal choice”. 

Some companies have adopted even looser policies, offering their employees more freedom in how and where they work. CPC Project Services, for example, allows staff to work “in the place and time most appropriate for the task in hand”, although employees are required to confirm their working location with their line manager. Kori Construction also takes a trust-based approach, offering employees the flexibility to manage their diaries, balancing remote and office/site-based working as needed. Similarly, B&CO has an agile working policy that does not prescribe a specific number of days employees must be in the office. By contrast, a few firms told Building that they do offer flexibility, but on a much more discretionary basis. MG Scaffolding (Oxford) said that home working is “considered a benefit and not a requirement or automatic right”, with staff making their arrangements with their line manager.

All of the firms in the guide clearly see value in retaining in-person working, but some firms place more stress on its importance

All of the firms included in this year’s guide clearly see value in retaining in-person working, but some firms place more stress on its importance. Howard Bros Joinery said that while some of its office employees work from home three days a week, its management is “trying to encourage employees to return to the office as production and communication has deteriorated, affecting the quality of the product and having a direct detrimental affect on those in the workshop”. Turner & Townsend, meanwhile, said its teams are “stronger together in an office environment”. It said that while it “understands the need for flexibility”, it has a formal programme encouraging staff to come into the office for “the majority” of the working week.

While it’s still too soon to tell whether any of these emerging trends will become the default hybrid working policy across the industry, they offer valuable insights into how businesses are adjusting to the post-pandemic world of work. Rapleys’ experience shows that the process of fine-tuning hybrid policies can result in shifts in both directions. While the firm has strikingly removed core hours from staff contracts entirely, it has tightened up its work-from-home policy. The business initially implemented a fully hybrid working policy, but after feedback from staff who preferred spending time in the office with their colleagues, it adapted its approach. Its new policy requires a maximum of two days working from home per week, striking a balance between flexibility and the benefits of in-office collaboration.

A focus on wellbeing

Companies in the sector have taken varied approaches to supporting the overall wellbeing of their employees, with many offering a range of resources to promote both mental and physical health. Private healthcare policies are a very common approach, with 29 firms offering this to all staff. A further 11 offer private healthcare only to some staff, while four said they do not offer it at all. Mental health is also a key focus, with four firms mentioning the implementation of mental health first aid training to equip staff with the skills to support colleagues in need.

Some firms provide financial wellbeing support, such as sessions with financial advisers and webinars on pension tips

Additionally, several companies offer a range of wellness activities, such as monthly meditation sessions, gym memberships, and access to motivational speakers to boost morale and reduce stress. Some firms provide financial wellbeing support, such as sessions with financial advisers and webinars on pension tips, helping staff to manage their personal finances more effectively. 

Areas covered by wellbeing strategies	% of firms using these methods
Psychological – resilience programmes, mental health resources, flexible working policies	84
Social – team days out, charity days, diversity and inclusion policies	84
Physical – fitness classes, health measurement tools, health and nutrition advice.	69

Pick Everard stood out with a comprehensive wellbeing programme that includes nutrition workshops, walking groups, and chair yoga, ensuring that employees have access to both physical and mental health support. The firm also regularly releases self-help toolkits covering topics such as mental health, parenting and grief, offering valuable resources for personal development and coping strategies. Many firms also prioritise open communication with staff, with one-to-one meetings held regularly, often on a monthly basis, to gather feedback and ensure employees’ needs are being met. A few organisations have also invested in external benchmarking for workplace wellbeing, ensuring that their initiatives are aligned with best practices and are continuously evolving to meet the needs of their workforce.

Five firms said they do have a wellbeing strategy but did not submit detailed responses about it.

Methods for measuring staff wellbeing	% of firms using this method
Exit interviews	89
Staff surveys and focus groups	87
HR data such as staff absences/sickness and staff turnover	87
Health and safety stats	51
Employee assistance programme stats	49
Feedback from health champions	44
Stress audit	20
Aggregated health data	18

Sabbatical policies vary widely across the firms listed in The Building Good Employer Guide 2025, with some offering the benefit to all employees, others on a more selective basis, and some not offering sabbaticals at all. Eleven firms do not offer sabbaticals, while 20 provide them to all staff. The remaining 14 offer sabbaticals to some employees, typically based on tenure or individual circumstances.

Many firms do not have a well-established sabbatical policy, explaining that they are open to it depending on the reason and the company’s needs at a particular time. Many said sabbaticals would be “considered if requested” or that requests are considered on a “case by case basis”. Thomas Sinden, a construction services provider based in London and the South-east, for instance, did not set out a specific policy but stressed that “to date we have never declined a sabbatical request”. It gave the examples of a construction director who was given leave to take a three-month career break and an apprentice who was given two months’ paid leave to care for a close relative.

A significant number of companies have more clearly defined policies, however. Those that specificy a minimum period of service typically require employees to work somewhere between two and five years before they can have a sabbatical request considered.

Five businesses (HLM Architects, Stantec, Bailey Partnership, Watts Group and Whittam Cox Architects) require at least two years, and another five (Pick Everard, Troup Bywaters + Anders, Equals Consulting, Mesh Construction Consultancy, Barker Associates) require five years of service. CPC requires at least three years’ experience, with leave varying from six weeks to six months based on length of service. R H Partnership Architects (RHP) has the lengthiest minimum service requirement, offering three months sabbatical to staff who have worked for a decade at the firm. 

The length of leave offered by firms also varies widely – anything from six weeks to a full year. Most establish the length of sabbatical leave on a case-by-case basis, although some companies have a scaling entitlement based on length of service. At Pick Everard, staff can take sabbaticals of up to three or six months, depending on how long they have served (with a minimum of five years’ service). Ryder Architecture said it offers a sabbatical of “20 consecutive days’ paid additional leave following every five years’ service at senior rank and above”. Some stressed the wellbeing aspect of their sabbaticals policy. Gleeds said it helps staff with career breaks during periods of mental health.

Time and budget spent on training

Firms	Average training hours
Ridge and Partners	150
Betteridge & Milsom	96
MG Scaffolding (Oxford)	80
Ryder Architecture	80
Pick Everard	70

Many firms in the guide have not given a precise figure for hours of training provision, explaining that training entitlements and requirements vary from position to position. Formation Architects, for instance, does not “have a set amount of training per staff member per year”, allocating it “as and when required or requested”, and is “very flexible with requests for training when needed”. Similarly, fit-out contractor BW Workplace Experts said training is “determined on a case-by-case basis” with “no barriers for development”. Architect RHP lets its staff have “as many [hours] as they want” for training, and tries to provide “personalised training to reflect the organisation’s and individual’s development requirements”. Across the firms listed in the guide able to give a specific number of training hours provided annually, the average is 44 hours.

Predictably, the larger firms have the most staff on entry-level training schemes. Turner & Townsend, Stantec and Mace take the top three positions on this statistic. These large firms also have the highest number of apprentices, with Mace employing the most (208). However, when looked at as a percentage, other firms come to the fore. Studio One has by far the highest proportion of staff on entry-level training schemes, with half its staff in such positions. With only eight staff overall, however, it may be an outlier. After that comes Watts Group (28%), Gleeds (21%) and Troup Bywaters + Anders (19%). The average percentage of staff on entry-level training schemes was 13.2% (and 11.9% if Studio One is set aside). By this measurement, two of the top three by raw numbers were below average, with Turner & Townsend having 11.2% of staff on entry-level schemes and Mace having 10%.

Improving diversity and inclusion in construction

Perhaps unsurprisingly, architects are leading the way in female representation within the sector. Seven of the top 10 companies in this category are architectural firms, with the remaining firms made up of consultants. ECD Architects tops the list and is the only company in the guide to have a majority female workforce, with 51% female employees. Rapleys, the best-performing consultant, ranks fifth with 40% female representation, while Mace is the most evenly balanced contractor, with 33% female representation, although its consulting staff are included in this data. The highest-ranked pure contractor is BW Workplace Experts, ranked 28th, with 29% female representation. The average level of female representation across the firms listed is 30%.

In terms of family leave benefits, 32 firms offer enhanced maternity leave to all staff, and four extend this to only some staff. Similarly, 31 firms provide enhanced paternity benefits to all staff, with another four offering it to some staff. However, nine firms do not offer any enhanced maternity leave, and these generally overlap with the 10 firms that do not offer enhanced paternity benefits. 

In terms of ethnic diversity, five firms – all of them consultants – have non-white representation higher than 30%. Studio One Consulting has the highest proportion of non-white employees at 38%, although it has just eight staff in total. RLB ranks second with 34% non-white representation, based on a much larger workforce of 1,200 staff. At the other end of the spectrum, 12 firms reported non-white representation rates of less than 10%. The overall average non-white representation across the firms in the guide is 14.78%. This highlights both the progress some firms are making in improving ethnic diversity and the ongoing work needed to increase inclusion across the sector. 

The data collected in the guide offers a fascinating glimpse into the evolving landscape of employment practices in the construction industry. Impressive strides have been made in the sector to create more inclusive, innovative and supportive work environments. While there is still much work to be done to attract and retain diverse talent, the examples of best practices shared here provide a solid foundation for change. By embracing these forward-thinking approaches, the industry is well-positioned to build a more dynamic and inclusive workforce in the years to come.

 

Methodology

Firms were invited through a call for entries to fill in an online survey to take part in the Building Good Employer Guide 2025.  

All entrants were asked to provide the following information:

• Number of UK staff
• Maximum/minimum number of paid days holiday given to full time staff per year
• Hybrid working arrangements
• Any independent verification of working practices or of social impact (such as B Corp or ISO)
• Number of female staff
• Percentage of staff from a non-white ethnic background
• Average number of training hours per employee, per year
• Are staff offered the chance to work abroad?
• Are sabbaticals/career breaks offered?
• What paid maternity/paternity leave is offered?
• Private healthcare provision
• Wellbeing strategy
• Existence of an entry-level recruitment programme (eg apprenticeships, graduate intake)