Brand to ban: What young people really think about energy drinks

Posted by Professor Amelia Lake, Fuse Deputy Director; Dr Helen Moore, Fuse Associate; and Grace Stewart - Teesside University. 

Walk into any corner shop, and you’ll see them lined up in the fridge: brightly coloured cans promising energy, improved focus and even hydration. They’re everywhere online too, all over social media feeds... What are we talking about? Energy drinks. They have become a familiar part of the landscape in the UK, but particularly for young people who are consuming them in ever increasing numbers; the question is, why are they so popular, and what is being done about it?

What are energy drinks?

High-caffeine energy drinks are soft drinks that contain at least 150 milligrams (mg) of caffeine per litre of drink, which is higher than other soft drinks. Back in 2018, Jamie Oliver led a campaign that resulted in many retailers voluntarily banning sales to under-16s. Fast forward to July 2024, and the new Labour Government announced in the King’s Speech that it would restrict the sale of energy drinks to under-18s. There is currently a live Government consultation around banning the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children which will close on 26 November 2025. If you want to contribute, please do so.

Our research

Our mixed-method qualitative study was published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics this week. The work was carried out in North-East England and sheds light on the reasons behind young people still consuming these drinks in large numbers, and what they, the consumers, really think could be done about it.

Our research involved:

• Focus groups with 50 students aged 9–14 years old
• A survey completed by 22 Year 9 students (aged 13–14 years old)

The aim was to understand how children and young people perceive energy drinks and hydration drinks, and to explore their consumption habits post the UK’s 2018 voluntary sales ban to under-16s. This follows on from our earlier work published in 2017.

What did we find?

• 81.8% of surveyed students (13-14 year olds) consume energy drinks, with boys drinking more frequently than girls.
• Most young people drink EDs 2-4 times a week, and many started before age 12 years.
• Taste, branding, and peer influence were major motivators.
• Corner/local shops were the most common purchase point, often with little enforcement of age restrictions.
• Hydration drinks (e.g. PRIME) are seen as healthier alternatives, though their actual health impact is still unclear.

So, why are energy drinks so popular?

Through the focus groups, we learned that young people are really clued-up about energy drinks. They talked about branding, marketing, taste, peer influence, cost, and just how easy it is to get hold of them. From YouTube ads to celebrity endorsements (think F1 and YouTubers like Logan Paul and KSI), marketing was seen as a powerful force driving consumption. One young person said:

“If I made the exact same drink, in a bottle, no one would buy it.”

Bright colours, cool designs, and slogans were all cited as reasons that young people are drawn to these products. Many of the young people taking part in the research knew that they were being targeted by the manufacturers, but they didn’t mind. In fact, some saw energy drinks as part of their identity, linked to gaming, sports, or just being “cool.”

Policy gaps and opportunities

Despite the 2018 voluntary ban mainly in supermarkets, energy drinks remain easily accessible. Many children believed there was a legal age restriction but said that they could still buy energy drinks from shops or online without ID checks. This links back to the importance of the current live consultation around Energy Drinks and sales restrictions.

This raises an important point for policymakers to consider: if energy drinks are still seen as aspirational, accessible, and part of youth culture, young people will find ways to get them, or switch to similar products that exist outside of the ban. There needs to be a wider strategy to tackle this, which means tighter regulation of marketing (anywhere that young people spend their time - including online spaces), effective, up-to-date, accurate education about the health impacts of energy drinks and the tactics used by manufacturers, and importantly including young people in this conversation.

Our research shows that young people are not passive consumers of energy drinks. They’re thoughtful, aware, and influenced by a range of social and cultural factors that need to be understood if we want to reduce energy drink consumption.

Our study had several possible interventions suggested by young people:

• Actual legislative enforcement of age restrictions.
• Changing product placement in stores (e.g., away from essentials and in areas similar to cigarettes and alcohol).
• Duller packaging and clearer health warnings.
• Wider awareness around health risks.

Why this matters

Energy drinks are linked to a range of health issues; from insomnia and anxiety to obesity and poor academic performance. Yet, their appeal among young people remains strong, driven by clever, pervasive, marketing in addition to peer influence.

Our paper highlights the urgent need for strong policy action, increased awareness, and further research in this space.

Images:

1: Photo by (Joenomias) Menno de Jong from Pixabay

2: Photo by thom masat on Unsplash (with modifications)

This time the hare might win: dark kitchens and the regulatory race

Posted by Helen Moore, Associate Professor (Research) & Fuse Associate, Teesside University 

Do you remember the fable of the tortoise and the hare? The one where the overconfident hare sprints ahead, but takes a nap, and lets the slow but steady tortoise win the race? Well, in today’s digital economy, that story’s getting a reboot, but this time, the hare isn’t napping.

In the world of food delivery and online ordering, the hare (the digital entrepreneurs) is wide awake and developing food purchasing opportunities at an incredible speed. Online delivery outlets, often functioning as dark kitchens, are agile, tech-savvy, and unburdened by the red tape of traditional business models. They’re using popular, well-known apps to reach huge numbers of people, launching new brands overnight, flooding menus with similar, but subtly different options and delivering meals faster than regulators can say “planning permission.” Low overheads, high levels of flexibility and choice have meant that rates of online food ordering are increasing, with the covid-19 pandemic accelerating this phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the tortoise (well-meaning but less agile local and national government) is still trying to understand the race in which it has been entered. Regulators are struggling to keep pace with a food industry that’s evolving in real time while the professionals working in local authorities hit ‘speed bumps’ which include outdated planning laws and limited evidence. For example, there is no clear use classification for dark kitchens, and some councils treat them as “industrial”, others as “sui generis” (unique), and there is inconsistent enforcement between local authorities. While some local authorities have implemented restrictions on takeaways opening close to schools, online food ordering apps mean that food can be delivered from places outside of the restricted areas. In addition, due to limitations with the recording of food outlet data, policymakers also find it hard to track spread or assess impact of dark kitchens which contribute significantly to this industry.

While innovation races ahead, regulation is not keeping pace, raising questions about public health, urban planning, and fairness. This isn’t just a story of speed, it’s also a story of systems, and unless the tortoise finds ways to modernise the traditional policy cycles to become proactive rather than reactive, and to reduce potential loopholes, the hare might just win this one, particularly as consumers like convenience and variety, which online ordering offers in abundance.

So, what can be done?

National and local authorities need to rethink how they engage with fast-moving digital industries - not to stifle innovation, but to ensure it serves the public good. We need clear national guidance on planning classifications, and health-focused planning laws that include digital-only food outlets. It isn’t all bad news though, there are some signs of progress with local authorities beginning to enforce planning permission requirements and with funded research projects examining various aspects of dark kitchens.

Free online training

To support local authorities and communities in using the planning system to promote healthier diets and reduce obesity, we have launched a new, free e-learning course called Planning for a Healthier Food Environment. The course was developed through a collaborative effort between Fuse (the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), academic experts from Teesside University and Newcastle University, and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID).

This one-hour online Fuse Research Event, held on 23 September, introduced the wider policy and planning context for the course, provided insights into its cross-disciplinary development, and outlined how the resource can be applied in practice to support healthier, more equitable environments.

Photo by Roman on Unsplash

Not just what’s on the menu - the hidden forces behind food choice

Posted by Helen Moore, Associate Professor (Research) & Fuse Associate, Teesside University 

On Saturday, I had one of those incredibly energising moments that remind you why you do the work you do. I was invited to present at the Right To Food UK Conference at the University of Westminster. It was a powerful event led by Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby. The event represented a crucial moment for shaping policy and driving action to realise the right to food in the UK. The room was full of policymakers, researchers, and advocates, all engaged and working together talking about the issues.

So proud to open the UK’s first national Right To Food conference today. No one should be going hungry in the world’s 6th wealthiest nation - hunger is a political choice & it can be solved, so that’s what we want to do: End hunger. #RightToFood #HungerIsAPoliticalChoice pic.twitter.com/p7IdeoeyQT

— lan Byrne MP (@IanByrneMP) September 13, 2025

Fuse Associate Helen Moore pictured third from the left

The invitation to speak followed my attendance at the launch of the Hungry for Change report by the Child of the North All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) earlier in July. It’s been a privilege to be part of this journey, co-authoring the Environments chapter with Andrea Burrows, Amelia Lake and Claire O'Malley from Teesside University and Fuse (the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), and Mark Green and Emma Boyland from the University of Liverpool.

Our chapter of the report looks at how the places and systems around us shape what we eat, often without us even realising it. We looked at everything from fast food outlets to social supermarkets, to advertising, to digital delivery platforms and planning policy. The big takeaway message? Food environments matter. And crucially they’re not the same for everyone.

So, what’s a food environment?

It’s not just about what’s in your fridge. It’s about what’s available in your local shop, what’s advertised to you on billboards and on your phone or computer screen, what your school or work canteen serves, how far you live from a supermarket, and even what your friends and family eat. It’s shaped by everything from planning and transport networks to cultural norms, pricing strategies, and national policies. Have you ever wondered why your local shops have two pizza places but no greengrocer? That’s a food environment in action. It is shaped by planning decisions, business models, and economic pressures, not just personal choice.

And here’s the kicker: these environments aren’t the same for everyone... If you live in a more deprived area, you’re more likely to be surrounded by cheap, high-calorie options, adverts for these types of foods and are less likely to have access to fresh, affordable food. That’s not a personal failing; it’s structural inequality.

What did our chapter of the report say?

Advertising
We explored how advertising aimed at children overwhelmingly promotes unhealthy foods. Even short exposure to adverts for fast food or sugary drinks can increase kids’ energy intake and influence their choices. And children in more deprived households tend to watch more commercial screen media, making them more vulnerable to this kind of marketing.

Community Food Organisations
We also discussed community food organisations, which are an innovative and alternative food relief model to food banks. They exist to try and tackle both food insecurity and food waste simultaneously. They utilise surplus from mainstream food retailers and sell via the usual supermarket format (adding items to a basket and paying at a checkout) but at greatly reduced prices. With lower costs than a traditional supermarket, and less stigmatising than using free emergency food aid, this model shows promise. Some of these organisations operate beyond a supermarket model, and offer additional social support, such as employment training, guidance with benefit claims, or community-building activities, but this differs across organisations. While these differences demonstrate the adaptability of the model, it also makes it difficult to establish a universal definition of community food organisations.

Fast food, screens, and the rise of dark kitchens
One of the most striking findings of our chapter was the increase in fast food outlet accessibility in the North, with an 84% rise in people living within 1km of a fast-food outlet between 2016 and 2025. However, we now must consider that access to food, including fast food, has moved to the digital space. We’re seeing a shift from people going to their local fast-food outlet to order, to using technology on a variety of screens to order food. In a recent piece of work, we found that one business (a delivery only kitchen, also known as a dark kitchen) could appear as eight different restaurant options on a food delivery app. What looks like more options for consumers, means more visibility for businesses, but all the food will be coming from the same place. It’s clever marketing, but it also widens the gap between consumers and the food they’re eating.

So, is this a problem?

I think it is something that needs looking at, particularly as another aspect of this is that planning regulations as they currently stand, (like preventing takeaways from opening near schools) don’t really apply to these virtual kitchens. They can deliver further, run more cheaply, and bypass traditional oversight. It’s a whole new frontier (this digital food environment), and one we urgently need to understand better.

Why does this matter?

At the conference on Saturday, I had the chance to present some of our report findings and speak directly with people who were interested in making changes in this area and improving food access for all. Seeing their genuine interest, being able to answer questions and provide context, was incredibly rewarding. These are the moments that remind me why this work matters, not just in theory, but in practice.

We need to stop thinking of food environments as neutral. They’re shaped by policy, economics, advertising, culture, marketing and technology. Food environments have been shaped and moulded to encourage us to eat less healthy food. The good news is that they can be reshaped. That means investing in healthier options, regulating advertising and marketing, supporting community food initiatives, and making sure digital platforms don’t become the new food deserts and swamps.

Food is more than just fuel. It’s about dignity, culture, and care. And we all deserve a food environment that supports our health and potential no matter where we’re born. To borrow a line from the report’s foreword: “Food insecurity is not about poor choices – it is about a lack of choices.”

Everyone deserves access to good food. Whether you're a policymaker, a researcher, or someone who just wants better options in your community, there’s a role for you in reshaping the food environment.


🔗 Read the full report here - Hungry for Change: Tackling Obesity and Food Insecurity in the North of England

This isn’t just about food. It’s about fairness, dignity, and giving communities the tools they need to support themselves

Why Community Food Organisations deserve a place in the Child of the North APPG report

Posted by Andrea Burrows, Dr Claire O’Malley, Dr Helen Moore and Professor Amelia Lake, Fuse researchers from Teesside University

Andrea Burrows, Helen Moore with other contributors at the launch of the report in parliament

Across the North of England, families are facing a dual crisis: rising food insecurity and growing food waste. In response, Community Food Organisations (CFOs) - like social supermarkets and pantries - are stepping up in powerful, community led ways. These aren’t just places to get food. They’re places of dignity, connection, and hope.

But despite their growing role, CFOs are still flying under the radar. They’re under-researched, inconsistently defined, and often left out of the bigger policy picture. That’s why they were included in the Child of the North APPG report.

What is the Child of the North APPG?

The Child of the North All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) is a cross-party group of MPs, peers, researchers, and practitioners working together to tackle the deep-rooted inequalities affecting children in the North of England. From poverty and poor health to educational disadvantage, the APPG is committed to finding evidence-based solutions that give every child a fair start in life.

Backed by research from the Northern Health Science Alliance (NHSA), Health Equity North and the N8 Research Partnership, the APPG has already produced influential reports on the cost of living, education, and health. Now, it’s time to shine a light on food, and the role CFOs can play in transforming communities and the lives of children.

A different kind of food support

Unlike traditional food banks, CFOs operate more like supermarkets, offering surplus food at low prices. Often delivered in a familiar, retail-style setting, this model not only reduces food waste but also gives people choice and dignity in how they access food. It’s a far cry from the stigma that can come with emergency food aid.

Research shows that this approach better meets the needs of people experiencing food insecurity. It empowers them, rather than making them feel like recipients of charity.

One model, many faces

CFOs are incredibly diverse. Some are membership-based and serve specific groups; others are open to all. Some offer wraparound support like job training or help with household income; others focus purely on food. This flexibility is a strength, it not only allows CFOs to adapt to local needs, but it also makes it hard to evaluate their impact or share what works best.

"Community Food Organisations... aren’t just places to get food. They're places of dignity, connection, and hope."

A recent review led by by colleague Claire O'Malley (currently under review) found that there’s no single definition of a social supermarket. And many operate informally, relying on local relationships and community goodwill to source food. This makes them agile, but also vulnerable.

Why now?

Since the pandemic, food insecurity has increased, especially in the North. But so too has the rise of CFOs. In the North East and North Cumbria, there are now 67 social supermarkets. In the North East town of Middlesbrough alone, the number of Eco Shops, the dominant social supermarket model, has jumped from nine in 2021 to 28 in 2025.

This growth shows just how much communities value these spaces. But it also raises urgent questions:

• How can we make these models sustainable?
• What support do they need to thrive?
• How do they fit into the bigger picture of public health and food policy?

Why the Child of the North report matters

Including CFOs in the report will:

• Raise national awareness of their role and potential.
• Create shared definitions and standards to help evaluate impact.
• Highlight best practices and support scaling of successful models.
• Ensure CFOs are recognised as part of the wider food and health system - not just a stopgap.

This isn’t just about food. It’s about fairness, dignity, and giving communities the tools they need to support themselves. CFOs are already making a difference. With the right recognition and support, they could transform community support with accessible, socially accessible methods of community aid.

About the authors:

Andrea Burrows is a Research Associate at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Dr Claire O'Malley is a Research Associate at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Helen Moore is an Associate Professor at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Amelia Lake is Professor of Public Health Nutrition at Teesside University, Deputy Director of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a dietitian and public health nutritionist.

How can Local Authorities help shape healthier food environments?

Posted by Amelia Lake, Claire O'Malley and Helen Moore, Fuse researchers from Teesside University

This week I joined other health professionals across the country in signing an open letter from the Obesity Health Alliance (OHA) to the Prime Minister, giving our support for new policy reforms, allowing the planning system to better support the creation of healthy, active local communities and reduce health inequalities. The letter was issued alongside the OHA's Local Government Position Statement: “Empowering Communities to Create Healthier Local Food Environments”, which contains a list of recommendations and a supporting package of evidence.

In support of the OHA statement paper and on the back of the news that the government plans to ban junk food TV adverts before 9pm next year, here we highlight the need to make it easier for local authorities to control their local food environments.

Why we need to act now

It’s essential to create healthier environments that make it easier for people to access nutritious food and engage in physical activity. With the cost of living rising, more people are facing food insecurity, and obesity remains a major health issue. Local authorities have a crucial role in shaping healthier communities, but they face challenges due to funding cuts. Despite these difficulties, professionals across the country are working hard, but they need clearer national policies to support their efforts.

The role of National Planning Guidance

Planning guidance should clearly prioritise public health. While policies often focus on individual responsibility, local governments can work with their communities to promote healthier lifestyles. Our research has shown how local authorities can shape healthier environments by collaborating with various stakeholders, from community members to policy makers.

Everyone’s responsibility

Creating healthy food environments requires collaboration among many professionals within local governments. When it comes to handling appeals for fast-food outlets, our research found that good communication between teams is key to defending decisions. It’s also important to understand how fast-food outlets affect communities and health over the long term. To improve the process, professionals should be trained in accessing relevant data and records.

Using regulations to improve the food landscape

Local authorities can use planning regulations to limit the number of fast-food outlets and promote healthier options. For example, in North East town Gateshead, limiting new fast-food outlets near schools, in areas with too many, or in places with high childhood obesity rates has reduced fast-food outlet numbers by 17.5% in just four years. This shows how strategic planning can make a real difference in promoting healthier food choices.

Working with the planning inspectorate

The National Planning Policy Framework supports the idea of “healthy communities,” and local governments can reject fast-food applications if they threaten local health goals. However, these decisions are often appealed, and the Planning Inspectorate makes the final decision. Our Fuse research shows that having a Local Plan in place helps local authorities reject such applications, but even with additional planning documents, success isn’t guaranteed. It's important for new planning guidelines to support public health and ensure that the Planning Inspectorate works with local authorities to meet health priorities.

Regulating outdoor food advertising

We support extending regulations on unhealthy food and drink ads beyond TV and online to outdoor spaces like bus stops. After London banned junk food ads on public transport, local governments began reviewing their advertising policies with the help of Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming. Our research in the North East found that almost half of bus shelter ads were for food, and 35% of those were for unhealthy options. Many of these ads appeal to children, which is concerning. Although local governments face challenges due to complex contracts with advertisers - and research has explored the advertising of unhealthy commodities (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, less healthy foods and gambling) - more work is needed to reduce the impact of unhealthy advertising.

The changing food landscape

A recent study in North East England showed that after a new fast-food outlet opened, visits by 11- to 16-year-olds increased significantly within the first nine months. The young people said they were attracted by the taste, low prices, socialising and free Wi-Fi. While this isn’t covered by current fast-food restrictions, it shows the need to look at the entire food system and where outlets are located. Policies that prevent students from leaving school during lunch could also help reduce fast-food consumption.

Another growing trend is "dark kitchens," which only prepare food for delivery services like Deliveroo and Uber Eats. While these kitchens bring economic benefits, they raise public health concerns, especially in low-income areas. Local authorities need to stay informed about this trend and address the challenges it presents, such as the increase in unhealthy food options. Some professionals worry that current regulations for fast-food outlets don’t work well for dark kitchens, so there’s a need to adapt the system to ensure public health is protected.

Monitoring and evaluation

It's important for local authorities to regularly review the food environment and assess how well their policies are working. By collecting and analysing data, they can identify areas for improvement and make sure their strategies are effective and responsive to community needs.

Focusing on these areas will help local governments create environments that support healthy choices and improve the overall wellbeing of their communities. With thoughtful planning and strong community involvement, they can significantly impact public health. To do this effectively, local authorities need clear understanding of planning policies, support from senior management, adequate staff, and the right resources to handle cases efficiently.

Amelia Lake is Professor of Public Health Nutrition at Teesside University, Associate Director of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a dietitian and public health nutritionist.

Dr Claire O'Malley is a Research Associate at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Helen Moore is an Associate Professor at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Adapted with thanks to the Obesity Health Alliance

Photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash

Part-time work can be a game changer for families and a smart strategy for organisations

Posted by Belinda Morgan, flexible work expert & author; Amelia Lake and Helen Moore, researchers from Fuse at Teesside University

Part-time work has the potential to change lives. Done well, it can drive hugely positive outcomes for individuals, families and society. But its potential isn’t widely understood, so part-time work still sits largely on the sidelines of organisational strategy – under-rated and under-utilised.

And even organisations who are leading the way with the accessibility and implementation of part-time work, are rarely doing it well at all levels. It’s still very uncommon to see senior leaders working part-time.

Amelia Lake, Fuse Associate Director, and Helen Moore, Fuse Associate, at Teesside University are bucking this trend. Both work in senior level roles in public health research, leading teams and both work part-time.

Amelia and Helen were two of the senior leaders I interviewed when writing my book Solving the Part-Time Puzzle: How to decrease your hours, increase your impact, and thrive in your part-time role. They shared their stories about how they make their part-time arrangements work, and the benefits they experience from working in this way.

Helen Moore (left) and Amelia Lake (right) both work part-time in public health research

Amelia said, “When I first started working at Teesside University, I would frequently get asked what was my ‘side hustle’ when I wasn’t at work and people were surprised to hear that I was doing family activities with my (then) young children. While I appreciate working part-time is a privilege, it allows me a better work-life balance and time with my children.

“During the pandemic, and post-pandemic, childcare has been difficult to access, and being part-time means some days of the week can be less stressful in terms of childcare. Working part-time means I work even more collaboratively with colleagues as their support when I am not at work is important. It can be hard to switch off emails and alerts on non-working days, and I don’t always do it, but I know it is important.”

Helen said, “It was, and is, important for me, as the primary carer of young children (I have two sets of twins) with a husband who works away in the Merchant Navy, to be able to have some flexibility around when and how I work. This supports me in being able to take them to, and pick them up from, school several days of the week, and to not have to rely all of the time on either family help (which can feel like an imposition) or paid childcare (which is both expensive and difficult to find when you have four children).”

So why is it so rare to see senior leaders working part-time? Largely because there’s an embedded belief that senior leadership roles are the most challenging to do part-time. Many people will tell you it’s impossible – and that it’s not even worth attempting.

Stories of leaders like Amelia and Helen are hugely important, because we badly need more senior leaders leading the way and working part-time. When senior leaders do so it demonstrates to others that part-time work is acceptable and encouraged, and that it’s possible to keep growing a career while working part-time.

The individual and family wellbeing benefits are quite clear, and should be reason enough for organisations to start creating more part-time work opportunities. But the reality is that more encouragement may be required.

The good news is that there are some other big reasons for organisations to get on board with this.

A clear and highly relevant advantage for employers is talent attraction and retention. In the context of the ‘great resignation’ of 2022 this is a critical consideration for organisations looking to find creative ways to solve the talent shortage.

Firstly, it allows employers to retain their talented people who reach a point where they want or need to work part-time.

In Amelia’s words, “We need to see more people in leadership roles working part-time. I was promoted to Professor in my part-time working pattern which illustrates that it is possible to do high quality impactful work building capacity and also doing research, while working part-time. Teesside University has both promoted me and supported me in my part-time role.”

It also enables employers to tap into a hidden talent pool of highly qualified people who either can’t or choose not to work full-time. They include people with caring responsibilities, people with health issues, and people at retirement age who would stay in the workforce longer if given the opportunity to work part-time.

Helen said, “I strongly believe that working part-time doesn’t equate to a reduction in performance, and that it is demonstrated by my promotion to Associate Professor and being one of two Teesside University Star Award Research Excellence finalists in 2021.

“Being supported by Teesside University to work part-time in a senior role enables me to both lead the work of the University’s successful Evaluation and Impact Team, and to be able to be present and care for my four children.

“Having managers who were willing to try something new, even take a risk, and recruit a person to work part-time hours to establish and lead a new team has paid off and worked well – it has enabled me to grow significantly as both a researcher and a research leader.

“Roles similar to mine which I have previously considered, have been strictly full-time hours only, and did not feel open to someone with other commitments like me. There are a lot of talented people who for various reasons would like to work less than full-time hours, and I’m hopeful that my experience shows it is possible.”

This is also, of course, about inclusion. The consulting firm Timewise warns that if a company’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes aren’t underpinned by a commitment to flexible working that includes part-time, they will struggle to be fully inclusive. 'This will not only have a negative impact on their gender pay gap, but is also likely to impact their employer brand'

As well as the talent related benefits, there are also productivity benefits to be reaped by organisations who are willing to introduce more part-time roles. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data confirms that productivity (defined as output per working hour) improves with shorter hours. Across the world’s richest countries, higher productivity correlates with lower working hours.

The power and potential of part-time work really is huge. It can be a game changer for families and a smart people strategy for organisations.

Belinda Morgan is a flexible work expert and author of the new book Solving the Part-Time Puzzle: How to decrease your hours, increase your impact, and thrive in your part-time role

Going hybrid: The best of both worlds?

Posted by Helen Moore, Associate Professor (Research), Teesside University

Since 2012 my ability to attend in-person and participate in seminars, conferences and workshops has been significantly reduced. This was partially due to a change in my mobility while I was pregnant with twins twice (!) (2012, 2015), and then after my pregnancies, due to the challenges of arranging childcare for four small children. It has become easier as they have got older, but after my second maternity leave, I returned to work but remained the primary carer for four children under the age of four as their father (my husband), was (and still is) a Merchant Navy captain, which involves working away for half of every year.

Make an enquiry about getting professional technical help as soon as you conceive the idea
 – don’t assume it will be prohibitively expensive

During this time, I had always felt very grateful to any event organiser who took the time to release the slides after their events or, as time progressed and technology moved on, to run an additional online version as this enabled me to participate, albeit in a less than perfect fashion, but I viewed it as certainly being better than nothing. I hadn’t really appreciated how many other people were also often unable to attend events in-person, due to other factors in their lives, but this was brought into sharper focus for me with the Covid-19 pandemic when I started reading, and joining in with, conversations on social media around event accessibility that had never been on my radar.

I’m sure everyone remembers that when lockdowns were imposed, initially events were completely cancelled but as time progressed and it became clear this was not going to be a ‘flash in the pan’, the planning stages of events began to include considerations of how best to run them entirely online, with many people having to rapidly learn and develop skills around using technology to engage with the maximum number of participants possible.

Between January-April 2021, I was part of a team that worked on a project commissioned by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) which looked at the impact of Covid-19 on the hot food takeaway planning regulatory environment in North East England. As the project drew to a close the team thought that this, alongside other work we had been involved in, or were aware of, would make an excellent Fuse Research Event, and my colleague Professor Amelia Lake and I decided we would work together to make it happen.

I was keen to explore the possibilities of having a, in my view, truly hybrid event, where participants could choose to attend in person or via a real time remote video stream, and where presenters could choose to be in the room or present via a MS Teams link. I had previously worked with the team from Teesside University’s Aurora House on other projects, and Amelia had worked with them to create the live stream of her inaugural professorial lecture, so we were confident that they possessed the skills, the technology and the will to ensure this could happen.

It took a lot of organisation to get this to work, and having organised many events pre-Covid, it was definitely more work than if we had decided to run a traditional event with in-person attendance only. I spent significant amounts of time thinking about how we could include the remote audience and presenters in the discussion in the most effective way. The entire event was live streamed on the Fuse YouTube channel, with a technician ensuring that the virtual audience saw a mix of angles and information during the session. We used sli.do to allow the remote audience to submit questions during each presentation, and then one of the organising team asked the questions using the same microphone that was used for questions from the room so everyone could hear.

 

We only had one minor hiccup, in that we used my personal Teams account to allow the external speakers to present, and I forgot to decline meetings that were scheduled to run at the same time – and, of course, the other meeting used the chat function, which meant everyone could read their messages! We managed to get a message to the other meeting and they quickly stopped using the chat function!

As usual, we asked for feedback on the event, and the comments were extremely positive, including the fact it was hybrid, with “Ability to attend online”, mentioned in more than one response.

I would absolutely encourage people to think about making the effort to run hybrid events. it widens your audience and opens up different avenues for discussion – posing a question via an online function is, for most people, less scary than standing up and speaking into a microphone! 

My top tips for running a hybrid event

While I was writing this blog, I thought about what my top five tips would be for anyone considering running a hybrid event in the future:

1. Make an enquiry about getting professional technical help as soon as you conceive the idea – don’t assume it will be prohibitively expensive;
2. Ensure you communicate with the presenters and attendees, before and during the event, about how they can interact and engage during the event;
3. Use interactive apps such as sli.do.
4. Avoid using personal accounts for external events, such as Teams or Zoom (or make sure to decline any other meetings scheduled at the same time!)
5. Always ask for feedback to improve future events.