On 8 July 2026, the government published a consultation on the use of workplace monitoring technologies (WMT), which it defines as digital tools used by employers to collect, track, analyse or make decisions based on information about workers and their activities. The consultation seeks information on how WMT is currently used by employers, how its use is communicated to employees, and the perceived benefits and harms of such use. It then sets out and seeks views on three possible policy approaches to the future regulation of WMT.
Consultation in context
The government has published the consultation as part of its broad Make Work Pay agenda. It recognises that WMT can help to improve efficiency and organisational security, as well as supporting innovation, training, and regulatory compliance. However, it flags that there may be risks where monitoring is poorly designed, poorly explained or poorly governed. These include privacy concerns, loss of autonomy, biased or unfair outcomes, and difficulties for workers in understanding or challenging decisions made about them.
The consultation highlights the government's intention to encourage the adoption of technologies that can improve productivity, efficiency and decision-making, while ensuring that they are used in a way that workers can understand and trust.
Information gathering
The consultation notes that estimates of WMT prevalence vary widely, and the government is therefore seeking information to establish how WMT is used in practice. The consultation asks about the types of WMT that are used, e.g. location tracking, biometric access, digital activity monitoring, automated performance evaluation, etc. and the reasons for that use.
Transparency is a central theme, with the consultation asking what information workers receive before WMT is introduced, including whether they are told about the nature, extent and reasons for monitoring, whether a Data Protection Impact Assessment is carried out, the purpose and lawful basis for data processing, whether solely automated decision-making is used, and whether there has been employer-worker engagement.
The consultation does not assume that all WMT use is necessarily problematic. It asks respondents to identify the most relevant benefits (e.g. enhanced productivity, efficiency, security, etc.), but also asks about possible harms (such as reduced service quality, privacy infringement, loss of autonomy, discrimination, and lack of opportunity to challenge decisions or errors).
Current legal requirements and best practices
The consultation summarises existing data protection law requirements for WMT, and associated personal data processing, to be lawful, fair and proportionate, with clear purposes, a lawful basis, with provisions to ensure accuracy and security, and limitations on retention. It also notes the additional requirements that apply in respect of special category data, the obligation for employers to conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments where monitoring is intrusive or high risk, and the particular safeguards that apply to solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects.
The government is concerned that these existing legal requirements may not always be clearly understood or consistently applied. It says this creates uncertainty for employers that want to adopt WMT responsibly, while also creating risks for workers around transparency, fairness and trust. The consultation therefore asks whether further intervention is needed to improve transparency, worker engagement and accountability, and whether any intervention should be regulatory.
The consultation sets out eight proposed principles for the responsible use of WMT:
- Purpose and rationale - requiring employers to be clear about why WMT is being used
- Transparency and understanding - giving workers clear, accessible and timely information about the use of WMT
- Worker engagement and voice - engaging meaningfully with workers, trade unions or elected representatives when WMT is introduced or relied upon in significant decisions
- Fairness and equality - ensuring fair use of WMT and avoiding discriminatory or disproportionate outcomes
- Necessity, proportionality and privacy - considering whether less intrusive measures could achieve the same outcome, and only sharing personal data with those who really need access to it
- Human oversight and accountability - ensuring decision-makers understand the WMT systems they oversee and giving workers the ability to question and challenge decisions
- Dignity and wellbeing - considering the potential impact of WMT use on workers' mental health and wellbeing and taking steps to mitigate risks
- Accuracy, reliability and review - regularly assessing whether monitoring remains necessary and whether it is sufficiently accurate to achieve its purpose
The consultation asks whether these principles are already applied in practice when using WMT, which of the principles are most important and whether anything is missing. It also asks what challenges employers or workers may face in applying the principles, citing examples such as lack of clarity around legal requirements, cost and resource pressures, rapid technological change, and difficulties for smaller organisations.
Worker engagement is another core issue. The consultation notes that the impact of a particular technology will depend on the specific workplace context, and that workers and representatives may be able to identify risks that are not obvious at the design or procurement stage, such as impacts on workload, privacy, and autonomy. The consultation therefore asks what meaningful worker engagement on WMT should look like in practice.
Policy options
The consultation sets out and seeks views on three potential policy options:
- Statutory code of practice, supported by non-statutory guidance
This would take the form of a code issued under section 203(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which would set practical standards for employers, workers and representatives. The code could be taken into account by employment tribunals where relevant. The government could provide that an unreasonable failure to follow the code would lead to a compensation adjustment of up to 25% in relevant tribunal claims (as is currently the case, for example, in relation to the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures).
The code would be supported by non-statutory guidance which would provide more detailed practical support, including case studies and worked examples. Being non-statutory, the guidance would be flexible and could be readily updated as technologies evolve.
- Legislative duty to consult and negotiate with trade unions or elected representatives before WMT is introduced or significantly changed
This would involve the introduction of a new legal requirement for employers to consult and negotiate with recognised trade unions, or elected employee representatives about their plans to adopt WMT. The duty to consult could be enforced through the employment tribunals, with remedies focused on procedural compliance rather than preventing the adoption of WMT.
The consultation notes that the duty could be light-touch, merely requiring employers to provide information and allow workers the opportunity to comment before reaching a decision. Alternatively, it could be a stronger duty, requiring a fuller consultation and negotiation process over a specified minimum time period with a view to reaching agreement.
Non-statutory guidance could be used to provide practical support for employers on the introduction and use of WMT, including case studies, worked examples and toolkits. This would be the most flexible option, and could be updated as technologies and workplace practices evolve. It would create no new legal obligations and there would be no specific remedy for workers where employers failed to follow it.
The government has not expressed a settled preference between the three options. It says the purpose of the consultation is to gather evidence on whether intervention is needed and, if so, what form it should take. It also expressly states that if the evidence does not show a clear problem in relation to WMT, it may decide to take no action.
What does this mean for employers?
The consultation is open until 30 September 2026. The government will then consider the feedback received to develop substantive policy proposals. (In terms of geographical scope, any such proposals would apply in England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland, where employment law is a transferred matter.) The government has not specified a timeframe for the implementation of any changes. However, this is likely to depend on which approach it adopts, as statutory or non-statutory guidance could be implemented faster than a new legal duty to consult which would require primary legislation.
Employers who use WMT are encouraged to contribute to the consultation to express their views and identify any practical concerns. That might include, for example, the difficulty of defining WMT, the fast evolving nature of such technologies, and the potential additional burden on employers (particularly if a new duty to consult were to be introduced).
Make Work Pay: Workplace monitoring technologies consultation
