1. Employer engagement within the institutional macro, meso and micro-
perspective training contexts of the UK’s Northwest Bio Region
FATIMA MALIK
Submitted in accordance with the requirements of the degree of PhD
The University of Leeds
Leeds University Business School
Work and Employment Relations Division
(Revised Work according to comments from second Viva)

2. ii
Publication Statement
I confirm that the work submitted is my own and that appropriate credit has been given
where reference has been made to the work of others.
This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that
no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.
© 2016, The University of Leeds, Fatima Malik

3. iii
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Professors Mark Stuart and
Christopher Forde from the Centre of Employment Relations, Innovation and Change at
Leeds University Business School for their invaluable guidance and critical feedback during
my work on this thesis. I am also extremely grateful for the University Scholarship that I
received from The University of Leeds supporting my PhD studies. I would also like to
thank the research participants for their time and interest in supporting my research and for
their resourcefulness in providing access. Finally, I thank my children (Haroon and Saffron)
for their patience and understanding during the course of my studies.

4. iv
Abstract
This study centrally utilises the micro-meso-macro-perspective architecture
suggested by Dopfer and colleagues to understand the under-researched nature of
employer engagement between stakeholders characterising the macro(national),
meso(industry) and micro(organisational)-perspective institutional training contexts of
high-skill industries. The study acknowledges arguments that raise issue with prominent
employer engagement drivers and barriers influencing the contested relationship
between UK employers, policy organizations and institutions. A single inductive
exploratory critical case study analysis, using three research questions is conducted using
twenty interviews with senior individuals with HR roles working across the UK North
West Bio region and its characteristic pharmaceutical, bioscience and biotechnology
sectors. Eighteen convergent interviews are further conducted with policy stakeholders
responsible in facilitating education and training in response to the needs of high-skill
employers. The first research question explores commonly acknowledged macro-
perspective institutional influences affecting engagement between UK policy stakeholders
and employers, extending these explorations by assessing the relevance of Brown’s (2001)
unexamined high-skill macro-perspective conditions. Policy stakeholders revealed a
circumscribed employer engagement approach, yet highlighted a renewed previously
unacknowledged emphasis in supporting a high-skill education and training agenda. As
expected, employer engagement with supply-side education and training initiatives
remained contested, although here Brown’s (2001) conditions (e.g. R&D capability;
cooperation – industry-wide coalitions) supported policy stakeholders to facilitate meso-
perspective employer engagement with high-skill training initiatives. The second research
question extends these insights to explore the contribution of the competitive meso-
perspective network condition characterising high-skill industries in fostering
engagement between high-skill employers and their macro-meso-micro perspective
institutional training environments. Here public sector resource efficiencies although
challenged policy stakeholders from meeting the needs of employers, industry-wide
operational efficiencies alternatively facilitated a newfound employer commitment in
raising high-skill R&D opportunities, using meso-perspective industry coalitions. Research
question three investigates the employer barriers in influencing macro, meso and micro-
perspective employer engagement. A new conceptual framework here reveals a raised
employer emphasis in industry benchmarking, involvement of the line-management
performance management role and employee voice in fostering engagement between
micro-perspective high-skill education and training needs and meso-perspective decision-
making and provision.

5. v
Contents
Acknowledgements (iii)
Abstract (iv)
Table of Contents (v)
Index (ix)
List of Tables (x)
List of Figures (x)
THESIS INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..1
CHAPTER ONE - CONCEPTUALISING EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT AROUND
THE SUPPLY & DEMAND FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING WITHIN THE UK
HIGH SKILL CONTEXT……………………………………………….……………..10
1.1 Towards an understanding of the UK’s macro perspective in engaging employers……....14
1.1.1 Supply-side institutions – macro and meso-perspective employer engagement……….....15
A. Historical Context…………………………………………………….……….…….15
B. UK supply-side institutions & employer engagement…………..…………………..18
C. Moving the employer engagement debate forwards………………………………...23
1.1.2 Macro perspective Government initiatives & meso/micro context unmet employer
demand…………………………………………………………………………………24
A. National Vocational Qualifications………………………………………………..26
B. Higher Education Reforms – The Stem Agenda, Graduate Apprenticeships,
internships and postgraduate training……………………………………………...28
C. Developing Workplace transferable skills…………………………………………29
1.1.3 Macro-perspective strategies in addressing the industry-wide demand for high skill
education & training……………………………………………………………………34
1.2. Meso-perspective employer engagement…………………..…........…………..………......41
1.3 The micro-perspective – employer challenges in realising the demand for education &
training opportunity…………………………………………………………………....….…….47
1.3.1 Micro-perspective factors supporting industry benchmarking & engagement…….....…..48
1.3.2 Understanding the mseo and micro perspective training & development role of the line..51
1.3.3 Divers and barriers characterising the performance role of the line ……………………..53
1.3.4 Employee Voice…………………………………………………………………………..57
1.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….…58
CHAPTER TWO – THE RESEARCH STRATEGY……………………………….....61
2.1 Research Methodology………………………………………………………….…………..61
2.1.1 Conceptual Framework & Methodology…………………………………….…….….…..61

6. vi
Contents Cont...
A. Research question one & exploratory themes………………………….…….……...61
B. Research question two & exploratory themes…………………………….…….…...63
C. Research question three & exploratory themes…………...…………………….…...64
D. Research ontology & Epistemology……………….………………………………...65
2.1.2 Single Case Study Approach & Units of Analysis…………………………….………….70
2.2 Research Methods…………………………………………………………………………..71
2.2.2 Data Collection – Convergent Interviews………………………………………………...71
2.2.3 Data Sampling – Snowball Sampling……………………………………………………..74
2.2.4 Data Analysis – Thematic Conceptual Matrix Analysis…….……………………………76
2.2.5 Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………………….78
CHAPTER THREE – CONTEXTUALISING THE UK NORTHWEST BIO
INDUSTRY…………………………………………………………………………….79
3.1 Defining The North West English Cluster……………………………………………….…79
3.2 The employer demand for training across the Northwest English Region & Cluster………81
3.3 Businesses involved in the research………………………………………………………...84
3.3.1 R&D Capability of a Large Pharmaceutical………………………………………………84
3.3.2 SMEs……………………..……………………………………………………………….85
3.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..86
CHAPTER FOUR – POLICY STAKEHOLDERS: EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT
ACROSS THE NORTHWEST BIO REGION……………...…………………………87
4.1 Policy organisations – an overview of employer engagement…………….…………….….87
4.2 Education & training initiatives supported by policy stakeholders………………………..95
4.2.1 Education & training initiatives supporting low and intermediate occupations………….98
4.2.2 Education & training initiatives supporting high skill occupations…...………………...102
4.2.3 Supporting generic and transferable skill shortages …………………………………….106
4.3 Understanding the imacro, meso and micro perspectives in influencing employer
engagement…………………...…………………………………………….………………110
4.3.1 Meso-perspective influence on employer engagement….................................................111
A. Meso-perspective employer engagement and network characteristics……………..111
B. Social and economic barriers and drivers influencing meso-perspective stakeholder
engagement...………………………………………………….……………………..118
4.3.2 Employer engagement strategies adopted by policy stakeholders...................................130
A. Policy stakeholders: barriers constraining micro-perspective
employer engagement………………….………………..………………..………140

7. vii
Contents Cont....
B. Micro-perspective employer barriers constraining engagement with policy
organizations……………………………………………………………………….143
4.3.3Macro-perspective employer engagement: the relevance of Brown’s (2001) high skill
framework..........................................................................................................................148
A. Consensus, coordination, competitive capacity and cooperation………………….149
B. Closure, Capability and circulation………………………………………………...155
4.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………159
CHAPTER FIVE - THE CASE OF A LARGE UK PHARMACEUTICAL: MACRO,
MESO & MICRO-PERSPECTIVE EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT IN INFLUENCING
THE UNMET DEMAND FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING……………..….….....166
5.1. Roles & Responsibilities of senior management…………………………….…………...168
5.2 Connecting with the meso-perspective……………………………………………...….173
5.3 The micro (organisational) perspective in influencing meso-industry engagement………182
5.3.1 Organisational-wide decision-making……...…..…………………………………….….185
A. Corporate decision-making……………………………………………………….187
B. Line-management involvement in decision-making (drivers & barrier)..………..189
C. Employee voice in decision-making………………………………..………….…198
5.3.2 Responsibilities supporting corporate decision-making and benchmarking……………202
A. Corporate Leadership - benchmarking…………………………………….…...….203
B. Line-management – monitoring responsibilities……………………….………….206
C. The contribution of Employee Voice in corporate decision-making……………....214
5.3.3 Concluding Remarks – a new conceptual framework……………………….……….….218
5.4 The relevance of Brown’s (2001) conditions in supporting macro, meso and micro-
perspective employer engagement …........................................................................................219
5.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………225
CHAPTER SIX - THE CASE OF HIGH SKILL SMEs……………………………..233
6.1 The roles & responsibilities of the research participants…………………...…………..…234
A. Large & Medium-sized SMEs………………………………………………….…..235
B. Micro-SMEs & small businesses………………………………..………………….237
6.2 Macro and meso-perspective SME employer engagement & the unmet demand for
education & training……………………………………………………………...………...….240
6.2.1 Large & medium-sized SMEs……………………………………………………….…..240
6.2.2 Small and Micro SME businesses……...………………………………………………..246

8. viii
Contents Cont...
6.2.3 Concluding Remarks………………………………………………………………….…248
6.3 The micro (organisational) perspective employer engagement with the unmet demand for
education & training…………………………………………………………………...…...….249
6.3.1 Benchmarking & monitoring the demand for education and training………..……….…250
6.3.2 Line-management responsibilities in generating information………………..………….255
6.3.3 Employee voice in influencing the unmet demand for education & training…...............263
6.4 Brown’s (2001) conditions in supporting macro, meso and micro-perspective employer
engagement in relation to the institutional training environments of SME…………………...266
6.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………271
CHAPTER SEVEN – CONCLUDING THE THESIS……………..………………...280
7.1 Macro-perspective employer engagement with the unmet employer demand for
education and training………………………………………………………………..……282
7.2 Influence of the macro and meso-level perspectives on employer engagement..……...….286
7.3 The influence of micro-organisational barriers on employer engagement……..…...…290
7.4 The relevance of Brown’s (2001) conditions……………………………………………...297
7.5 Closing Remarks…………………………………………..………………………………226
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Study conceptual framework…………………………………………………………………..324
Appendix II: A detailed overview of the “ORIGINALITY” of the study conceptual
framework………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...325
Appendix III: Conceptualising Employer Engagement with stakeholders characterising
macro, meso and micro perspective institutional training environments…...........................326
Appendix IV: Table 2 -Articulation of qualification and occupational standards…………….327
Appendix V: Data analysis (theme convergence, divergence and elimination)………….…..328
Appendix VI: Characteristics of High Skill Employing Organizations……………………….329
Appendix VII: Coding – Research Objectives & Exploratory Themes……………….………330
Appendix VIII: Policy Stakeholders – Individual roles & responsibilities……………………337
Appendix IX: Macro, meso and micro-perspective Education and training initiatives
fostered by policy stakeholders………………………………………………………………………………….339
Appendix X: Employer engagement in meso and micro-perspective decision-making -
benchmarking and monitoring the demand for education and training……………………….340
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………...…………..341

9. ix
Index
ABPI – Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries
BIS – Business Innovation and Skills
BL – Business Link
CoVE – Centres of Vocational Excellence
DfES - Department for Skills and Education
DIUS – Department of Innovation Universities and Skills
FE – Further Education
HE – Higher Education
IAG – Information, advice and guidance
ITB – Industrial Training Boards
LSE – Low Skill Equilibrium
LSC – Learning Skills Council
NSA – National Skills Academies
NSTO – Non statutory training Organisations
NVQ – National Vocational Qualifications
RDA – Regional Development Agency
NWRDA – North West Regional Development Agency
SSA – Sector Skills Agreements
SSC – Sector Skills Councils
SSDA – Sector Skills Development Agency
SHRM (D) – Strategic Human Resource Management (Development)
UKCES – UK Commission for Employment and Skills
ULR – Union Learning Representatives
VET – Vocational Education and Training

10. x
List of Tables
Table 1: Articulation of qualification and occupational standards……………………………327
Table 2: Characteristics of High Skill Employing Organizations………………………....……..….328
Table 3: Data Collation Phase One: External Policy Stakeholder Interviews…………….……75
Table 4: Data Collation Phase Two: Senior Management Interviews………………….………76
Table 5: Policy Stakeholder Perspectives: Employer Engagement……………………….…..131
List of Figures
Figure 1: Study conceptual frame characterising the literature review……………………...…324
Figure 2: A detailed overview of the “ORIGINALITY” of the study conceptual
framework………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..325
Figure 3 - Conceptualising Employer Engagement with stakeholders characterising macro,
meso and micro perspective institutional training environments……………………………….326
Figure 4: Employer engagement in meso and micro-perspective decision-making -
benchmarking and monitoring the demand for education and training………………………340
Figure 5: Occupational Structure, 2008 - % of workforce employed per UK region………..82

11. 1
Thesis Introduction
The UK’s skill landscape is broadly characterised by the weak and challenging
employer engagement with policy institutions and supply-side education and training
reforms (UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006). This point is consistently emphasised within
scholarly and policy arguments (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006:
Keep et al. 2006; Keep 1999; Finegold & Soskice, 1988). These arguments further indicate
the inabilities of employers in engaging with the UK’s characteristic macro (national),
meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspective institutional training contexts,
preventing their contribution in raising industry performance (Keep et al. 2006; Keep &
Mayhew, 1999). Commentators thus indicate that such acknowledgments have meant a
weak scholarly interest in conceptualising employer engagement while a common
understanding of employer engagement in explaining the relationship between the supply
of and demand for education and training within different institutional contexts “remains
elusive” (Payne, 2008b; Irwin, 2008:66). This thesis seeks to explore this latter dichotomy
from the perspectives of policy stakeholders and employers, but in utilising a single
critical case study of the under-researched high skill industry context and its characteristic
macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments (Lloyd, 2002;
Miller et al. 2002). The central aim of this thesis is thus to explore the extent and nature of
employer engagement within the macro (national), meso (industry) and micro
(organisational) institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries. This aim
is explored using the micro-meso-macro perspective architecture as an overarching study
frame articulated by Dopfer and colleagues (Dopfer et al. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes, 2004)
and its conceptualisation of engagement between stakeholders characterising the macro,
meso and micro-perspective institutional environments surrounding industries (cluster
industries). The justification behind explorations of the research aim is three-fold. The
study acknowledges the weak scholarly conceptualisation of employer engagement
(Payne, 2008b; Irwin, 2008:66) and the under-researched nature of the institutional
arrangements supporting the training needs of high skill industries (Lloyd, 2002) and
their industry cluster features (Finegold, 1999). The study aim further addresses the lack
of empirical evidence supporting an understanding of the nature of employer engagement
surrounding UK’s characteristic macro (national), meso (industry) and micro
(organisational) perspective institutional training contexts (Keep et al. 2006).
The research is set against the backdrop of scholarly arguments that bring to light
the reasons behind the UK’s low skill equilibrium (LSE) and the failure of the UK’s
institutional training context (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006: Keep
et al. 2006; Keep 1999; Finegold & Soskice, 1988). Here the analysis accounts for

12. 2
arguments presented from the perspectives of Government instated supply-side policy
stakeholders and institutions which to date have failed to engage employers. This weak
relationship is further underpinned by historical market failures and narrowly drawn and
ineffective supply-side provision leading to the unmet employer demand for education
and training, a problem all too familiar with the UK’s vocational education and training
system (Payne, 2008a,b; Ashton & Sung, 2006; Leitch, 2006; Keep et al. 2006; Lloyd &
Payne, 2003a,b; Crouch et al. 1999; Keep & Mayhew, 1999). Commentators thus recognise
the continuation of these historical failures within the UK’s neo-liberal and voluntary
employer training approach in tackling industry-wide skill shortages, further allocating
responsibility to employers in contributing to the UK’s LSE (Keep & Mayhew, 2010;
Ashton & Sung, 2006; Keep et al. 2006, Finegold & Soskice, 1988). Here commentators
raise issue with the weak employer engagement with labour institutions, voluntary
training investments and the lack of high value-added production compromising
investments in competitive high skill labour and development opportunities thus
constraining the “the productive use of skill” (Ashton & Sung, 2006:16; Green & Sakamoto,
2001:56-89; Crouch et al. 1999:227). Regardless, the ultimate central responsibility in
enhancing “the productive use of skill” at the workplace level is placed in the hands of
employers (Green & Sakamoto, 2001:56-89; PIU, 2001). Commentators thus recommend
that employers establish labour management strategies promoting workplace systems in
the form of industry benchmarking, line-management engagement and employee voice
better supporting employers in realising the need for competitive workforce training and
development opportunities (Gleeson & Keep, 2004). Employer engagement at institutional
level supporting work organisation and re-design strategies essential in raising the
productive use of skill (Keep, 2002; Green & Sakamoto, 2001:56-89) is also suggested,
although the likelihood of this, is a viewpoint which is met with scepticism (Keep &
Mayhew, 2010,a, b).
The study acknowledges the contradictory nature of these arguments in allocating
responsibility to either or both employers and the supply-side (policy stakeholders) in
failing industry performance to a level that is comparable to World Class achievement
(UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006). Moreover, most scholarly accounts, acknowledge the
problem of weak macro, meso and micro-perspective employer engagement as a critical
constraining factor, in contributing to the tensions surrounding the above mentioned
employer challenges (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; Keep et al. 2006). Such arguments
further specify the lack of an employer-led approach in establishing education and
training initiatives in response short, medium and long-term employer needs (Keep et al.
2006:552). A much-preferred demand-driven approach (Keep et al. 2006:553) is also
lacking, one that supports employers in addressing needs through engagement with

13. 3
stakeholders characterising the institutional macro (national), meso (regional, sub-
regional) or micro (organisational) perspective environments supporting the UK’s
national training context.
These diverse and opposing arguments form the backdrop of the study in
exploring the research aim, which acknowledges that high skill industries (industry
clusters - Lloyd, 2002; Finegold, 1999, 1991; Streeck, 1989), are supported by the very
macro, meso and micro-perspective competitive conditions, which are otherwise
understood as major factors contributing to the problems of weak employer engagement
within the UK (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a, b). The study therefore seeks to explore the nature
in which these high skill conditions and existing employer engagement challenges
presented by the UK’s supply-side and employers, influence employer engagement with
the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments surrounding
high skill industries and from the perspectives of employers and policy stakeholders. The
thesis thus centrally explores the phenomenon of employer engagement using the
following three research questions established within the literature review chapter.
1. What is the extent and nature of macro-perspective employer engagement
with supply-side policy stakeholders in response to the unmet employer
demand for education and training across high skill industries?
2. To what extent does the meso (industry)-perspective network form
facilitate employer engagement with stakeholders characterising the
macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training contexts of
high skill industries.
3. To what extent do micro (organisational) perspective characteristics
facilitate or challenge engagement between high skill employers and
stakeholders characterising the macro, meso and micro-perspective
institutional training contexts of high skill industries.
These three research questions are encapsulated within three distinctive sections
within chapter one of the literature review which utilises the analogy presented by Dopfer
and colleagues (Dopfer etal. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes, 2004) of the micro-meso-macro
perspective industry architecture to establish an overarching study frame (Appendix I &
II). As highlighted in Appendix I and II, this architecture supports an understanding of the
nature of engagement between supply-side (e.g. policy stakeholders) and demand-side
(e.g. employers) agents characterising the macro, meso and micro institutional training
perspectives of high skill industries (Appendix I & II). Section one presents research
question one which seeks to explore the extent and nature of macro-perspective

14. 4
engagement between policy stakeholders and high skill employers in addressing their
unmet education and training needs. The review begins by discussing the macro-
perspective approaches and strategies adopted within the UK in raising industry-wide
growth and performance. It is acknowledged that these approaches centrally encapsulate
the idea of raising industry-wide skill achievement via necessary employer engagement
with stakeholders representing industry, policy organizations and institutions. Here the
discussions acknowledge similarities between the employer engagement characteristics
supporting these macro-perspective strategies and Brown’s (2001) macro-perspective
high skill framework and seven conditions necessary in raising skill achievement across
high skill economies. Here the review indicates, that despite differences in the national
institutional training environments characterising the UK and high skill economies,
Brown’s (2001) macro-perspective framework features similar competitive conditions as
high skill industries in supporting the supply of trained high skill labour. The review here
thus acknowledges the use of Brown’s (2001) macro-perspective conditions in research
question one as a point of reference in exploring the extent to which the underlying high
skill employer engagement features of such conditions support or encourage engagement
between employers, policy stakeholders and institutions within the context of UK high
skill industries. Research question one further acknowledges scholarly arguments that
explain the historical institutional failures and drivers influencing supply-side policy
stakeholders and institutions in engaging employers within the UK’s wider institutional
training framework (Payne, 2008,a,b; Lloyd & Payne, 2003a,b).
Section two of the literature review acknowledges the limited exploration around the
contribution of the meso-perspective network, a competitive condition characterising
under-researched high skill industries (Finegold, 1999) in supporting employer
engagement with stakeholders responsible for education and training within macro, meso
and micro-perspective institutional perspectives surrounding high skill industries
(Finegold, 1991). Here discussions acknowledge the importance that Dopfer et al.’s
(2004) analogy allocates to agents representing the meso (industry) perspective in that
they are influenced by each of the macro and micro-perspectives as well as by the effects
of engagement between the higher order macro and micro-firm perspectives. The section
presents a critical analysis of existing theoretical arguments that explain the nature in
which organisational, industry, sector or supply chain networks conceptual engagement
between stakeholder networks. These ideas form the basis of research question two
which suggests explorations of the role and contribution of the meso perspective
competitive network condition supporting high skill industries in facilitating engagement
between employers, stakeholders characterising the macro, meso and micro perspective

15. 5
institutional training environments surrounding high skill industries and resulting
education and training initiatives.
Research question three is also supported by Dopfer et al.’s (2004) analogy in that
here it is acknowledged that agents supporting the micro organization perspective are not
independent but influenced by rule carrier societies. Rules are implemented at the micro-
organisational perspective using micro-organisational structures and systems, often
established in response to engagement initiated by agents characterising the micro
perspective with those supporting the meso and macro-perspectives (Appendix III).
Research question three addressed in section three of the literature review, is thus
established around central arguments which raise issue with the micro-perspective
employer barriers that ultimately constrain UK employers from establishing or realising
the unmet education and training opportunities. The literature review here alludes to
various micro-perspective employer engagement barriers including the lack of
organisational systems supporting industry benchmarking, and weak engagement of the
line and employee voice, in lending to a constrained employer engagement within the
macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training contexts (Keep & Mayhew, 2010;
Keep et al. 2006; Gleeson & Keep, 2004). Research question three thus acknowledges the
tensions facing UK employers surrounding training. It further seeks to explore the extent
to which such micro-perspective employer engagement barriers influence engagement
between high skill employers and stakeholders supporting the macro, meso and micro-
perspective institutional training contexts of high skill industries, (Figure 3. Appendix III).
Chapter two presents the research strategy, suggesting the use of an inductive
exploratory qualitative single case study methodology (Yin, 2009:47) underpinned by the
realism school of thought (Sobh & Perry, 2005). Here the realism stance supports the
researcher in uncovering a real, true but probable external reality with the purpose of
exploring interacting “structures and objects” (Sobh & Perry, 2005:1120). The research
participants, namely employers and supply-side policy stakeholders characterise the
“objects” of the study. The “structures” represent the employer engagement barriers and
drivers characterising each of macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training
environments of high skill industries. It is suggested that these interacting “structures and
objects” create the external reality, exist and are unobservable by the researcher. The
researcher subsequently only partially influences the research by establishing the
conceptual framework and research methodology and in this study uncovers the
unobservable reality elicited by the research participants using the convergent interview
approach (Dick, 1990), subscribing to an inductive exploratory research (Gbrich, 2013).
Snowball sampling (Bryman, 2008:185, 415) further supports eighteen convergent
interviews with policy stakeholders from supply-side public policy organisations. Twenty

16. 6
convergent interviews are conducted with senior management from across large, SME and
small high skill businesses form across pharmaceutical, bioscience and biotechnology
businesses located within the North West UK region. Chapter three provides context
around the businesses involved in the study and outlines characteristic skill shortages and
employment trends influencing the North West Bio region justifying the involvement of
businesses from the region as a point of reference in conducting a single critical case study
analysis (Yin, 2009:47). Chapter two presents the data analysis strategy, justifying the use
of thematic analysis and data coding (Saldana, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2012) in analysing
the empirical data, according to the three research questions and further informing the
presentation of new themes within the three empirical chapters.
Chapter four, the first of the empirical chapters addresses the research questions
from the perspectives of policy stakeholders. The chapter provides a much-required
comprehensive overview of the employer engagement challenges facing the various policy
stakeholders involved in supporting the training needs of high skill industries. The
analysis brings to light the drivers and rationale behind employer engagement further
outlining the newly realised high skill education and training opportunities adopted by
employers. The analysis reveals that the challenging macro-perspective environment
surrounding high skill industries resulted in the adoption of various employer
engagement systems and approaches (e.g. responsive; involvement; engagement).
Regardless, a circumscribed employer engagement approach is evidenced as policy
stakeholders utilise industry-wide business networks and business contacts from across
the supply chains supporting the high skill industries in question to gain access to
employers. The analysis here specifically points to an emphasis in meeting employer
needs surrounding high skill education and training initiatives of relevance to high skill
occupations, thus contradicting existing scholarly arguments that otherwise suggest a
greater emphasis on the part of policy stakeholders in supporting initiatives surrounding
low and intermediate skilled occupations. Section 4.3 addresses RQ2 and RQ3. Here sub-
section 4.3.1 provides new evidence surrounding the nature in which meso-industry
networks supporting high skill industries enabled policy stakeholders in engaging high
skill employers in their industry consultations. The evidence here points to social and
economic factors influencing the employer engagement efforts of diverse stakeholders
involved in industry-specific network consultations, further challenging the efforts of
policy stakeholders in driving forward newly identified and much in demand education
and training initiatives. Sub-section 4.3.2 addresses the micro (organisational)-
perspective approaches adopted by policy stakeholders in fostering meso (industry)
perspective employer engagement. New evidence here alludes to the inabilities of policy
stakeholders in facilitating employer engagement due to their awareness of challenging

17. 7
internalised cultures within high skill organizations, further constraining the employer
adoption of education and training initiatives supported by policy stakeholders. The
empirical analysis from sub-sections 4.1 to 4.3 is further utilised in section 4.4. This
section assesses the nature in which Brown’s (2001) conditions underpinned the
employer engagement efforts of policy stakeholders and the resulting drivers and barriers
influencing such engagement. Here the analysis reveals that commonly acknowledged
employer engagement barriers characterising the UK’s institutional training context
challenged policy stakeholders from fully acknowledging Brown’s (2001) conditions in
their employer engagement efforts across the region. However, competitive conditions
characterising high skill industries (e.g. high skill R&D capabilities; social capital potential
of industry-wide networks) enhanced the abilities of policy stakeholders in engaging
employers according to Brown’s (2001) conditions. This led to the recognition amongst
policy stakeholders for the need for specifically a regional high skill agenda surrounding
their employer engagement efforts. The chapter concludes by discussing the relevance of
the empirical findings in relation to Dopfer et al.’s (2004) framework. Here the analysis
reveals that the challenging macro-perspective environment surrounding high skill
industries supported employer engagement within meso (industry) perspectives to
address the unmet employer demand for education and training needs surrounding
largely high skill labour.
The analysis in chapter 5 addresses the research questions within the context of a
large multi-national pharmaceutical and from the perspectives of senior management with
responsibilities in coordinating the organisational-wide adoption of HR training strategies
and initiatives. Section 5.1 presents the case of the large pharmaceutical by explaining the
new stakeholder engagement structures adopted across its R&D capability in line with a
new training strategy and philosophy. Later sections further analyse and draw out the
potential challenges of these stakeholder engagement structures according to the study’s
research questions. The evidence in sub-section 5.1.1 is new in that it contradicts the
notion that employers are devoid of the need for new training and development initiatives
and opportunities at the organisation and industry-level. The analysis instead reveals a
newly established skill strategy and impetus fostering engagement between stakeholders
with responsibilities in supporting the micro and meso perspective institutional training
environments surrounding high skill industries. Sub-section 5.1.2 suggests that this
change in strategy involved: a new leadership commitment in driving forth new education
and training opportunity, industry-benchmarking and organisational-wide decision-
making structures. These structures crucially facilitated engagement between
stakeholders with responsibilities in supporting the micro and meso-perspective
institutional training environments of high skill industries within the UK and from across

18. 8
international R&D collaborations and partners. Sub-section 5.2 addresses RQ2, focuses in
uncovering the nature of engagement initiated by high skill employers with stakeholders
supporting the training needs of high skill industries using their meso industry network
connections. Specifically, the analysis reveals new insights regarding the establishment of
loose coalitions forged by senior individuals with R&D collaborations, partnering
employers, policy stakeholders and international institutions. The analysis here addresses
underlying advantages of these coalitions and the reasons provided by senior
management behind the consistent weak engagement with UK policy stakeholders. In sub-
section 5.3 the analysis discusses the nature in which newly established organisational
structures, coalitions and initiatives supported senior management in forging coalitions
with meso industry networks. This sub-section extends ideas introduced earlier within
sub-section 5.1. It details newly established corporate decision-making consultations, line
management involvement and employee voice mechanisms in facilitating previously
unrealised (a.) organisational-wide decision-making structures and (b.) benchmarking
approaches which acknowledged the central agency performance management role of the
line and its development. The analysis results in a new conceptual framework (Appendix
X) which explains the complex nature working relationships forged by senior individuals
with key stakeholders responsible for the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional
training contexts surrounding high skill industries. Sub-section 5.4 using Brown’s (2001)
framework and the analysis within previous sections to assess the nature in which the
new training philosophy was underpinned by Brown’s (2001) necessary seven conditions
in raising high skill achievement. The analysis specifically questions the nature in which
such conditions facilitated engagement between employers, policy stakeholders and
stakeholder communities with responsibilities in dealing with education and training
surrounding the high skill organisations in question. New insights are presented
suggesting that Brown’s (2001) competitive capability, consensus and coordination were
key in the establishment of meso-industry training coalitions forged by senior individuals.
These involved stakeholders from R&D collaborations and partnering employers, policy
stakeholder organisations and international institutions and supported senior
management in addressing the unmet education and training needs across the R&D
capability. In summarising the chapter, the conclusion further reflects on the relevance of
the empirical findings in relation to Dopfer et al.’s (2004) framework. Senior individuals
rarely engaged with macro-perspective initiatives supported by UK policy stakeholders,
although meant their adoption of various education and training initiatives. This contrasts
with the employer engagement approach forged by policy stakeholders, where changes in
the macro-environment meant that policy stakeholders engaged employers on an ad hoc

19. 9
and responsive basis using their industry and business networks instead of establishing
targeted employer engagement approaches and strategies.
Chapter 6 addresses the research questions from the perspectives of senior
individuals from SMEs, and reveals subtle differences in relation to the three research
objectives based on SME size and production strategy. Here senior individuals confirmed
that policy stakeholders initiated engagement with their SME businesses, on an infrequent
ad hoc basis and largely supported education and training associated with low and
intermediate occupations. However the intentions of SMEs in seeking engagement with
policy stakeholders extended only so far as in facilitating solutions in relation to
sustaining training regulation and establishing newly realised high skill competencies
surrounding R&D job roles in line with developments across international markets. The
chapter here further explores the implications of these priorities on existing internal
micro-organisational management decision-making structures surrounding training
regulation, which were supported by the line in understanding the wider skills shortages
and development needs of staff.
Chapter seven, the conclusion, discusses the contribution of the research and
reflects on the originality of the study’s conceptual framework and the empirical findings.
Discussions here emphasise the unique nature in which micro organisational decision-
making structures supported high skill employers in addressing new and priority high
skill education and training needs, in line with newly realised competencies surrounding
R&D job roles. This is achieved using multi-level management structures that supported
engagement with and between stakeholders supporting micro (organisational) and meso
(industry) perspective institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries.
The analysis here points to the establishment of a new conceptual framework derived
from the empirical evidence that incorporates Dopfer et al.’s (2004) micro-meso-macro
perspective architecture. This conceptual framework explains the decision-making
arrangements and stakeholder engagement strategies adopted by high skill organizations
in addressing high skill education and training needs. Comparisons are drawn between
these empirical contributions and those in chapter 4 which reflect on the circumscribed
employer engagement approach adopted by policy stakeholders. It is suggested that the
findings in chapter 4 broadly confirm the employer engagement challenges reflected
within existing scholarly arguments. The analysis however provides a much-required
detailed snapshot of the nature of engagement initiated by various policy stakeholders
within the context of under-researched high skill industries. Specifically, new findings
suggests that policy stakeholders enhanced their reach in engaging high skill employers
using existing industry networks, recognising the need for a regional high sill agenda. The
thesis conclusion also presents implications for future research.

20. 10
Chapter One
Conceptualising employer engagement around the supply &
demand for education and training within the UK High Skill
context
The UK’s skill landscape is broadly characterised by the weak and challenging
employer engagement with policy institutions and supply-side education and training
reforms (UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006). This point is consistently emphasised within
scholarly and policy arguments (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006:
Keep et al. 2006; Keep 1999; Finegold & Soskice, 1988). These arguments further indicate
the inabilities of employers in engaging with the UK’s characteristic macro (national),
meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspective institutional training contexts,
preventing their contribution in raising industry performance (Keep et al. 2006; Keep &
Mayhew, 1999). Commentators thus indicate that such acknowledgments have meant a
weak scholarly interest in conceptualising employer engagement while a common
understanding of employer engagement in explaining the relationship between the supply
of and demand for education and training within different institutional contexts “remains
elusive” (Payne, 2008b; Irwin, 2008:66). Irwin (2008) thus specifically suggests the
examination of the concept of employer engagement as a “sub-set of the broad range of
collaborations between education providers, private and public organizations”, within the
relationship of “the demands of employment” and “the supply of education and training”
in meeting these demands (cited in Irwin, 2008:66). The central role of employer
engagement within such relationships is however known to vary depending on differences
in national institutional training frameworks supporting economies, mainly due to
differences in the “broader relationship between labour, capital and the state” (Rainbird et
al. 2004:23). These differences characterise variations in “national production, labour
market and industrial relation systems” (Bosch & Charest, 2008:428) resulting in
distinctive employer engagement frameworks (Raddon & Sung, 2008). The UK here is
noted to characterize a demand-driven perspective in which employers are expected to
“either spell out the skills they require or indirectly articulate this demand through
employer associations, representative bodies” or policy organizations (Raddon & Sung,
2006:4). However a key problem surrounding the UK’s employer engagement approach
that also applies to New Zealand, Canada and Australia is that of “voluntary employer
engagement” (Raddon & Sung, 2006:4). Here the expected voluntary employer
representation and membership on the boards of policy agencies facilitates involvement
in establishing industry-wide strategies. Such involvement supports employer
engagement in reducing labour market skill shortages, in fostering equal opportunity
initiatives surrounding the training and development of staff or in raising staff

21. 11
performance via the establishment of education and training (e.g. HE and national
occupational standards). Other employer engagement frameworks however allocate
greater responsibility to employers in shaping institutional training frameworks such the
“statutory employer involvement” model in France. Here an employer training levy system
and statutory framework is coordinated using an institutional network of Sector
Education and Training authorities, (SETAs). These SETAs support employer
collaborations in embedding workplace-learning cultures using planned investments
surrounding national skill priorities built around the principles of social cohesion and
employment for all. Other employer engagement frameworks include: the “employer-
driven” and “employer-owned” approaches. The employer-driven approach characterises
the employer-led VET system of the Netherlands, where employees have access to a
contractual work-based pathways that incorporates substantial on-the-job training. A
similar approach is evidenced in the US where the US Department of Labour supports
employer partnerships in addressing skill shortages across internal labour markets,
further ensuring the standardisation of industry-specific job competencies. This approach,
according to Raddon & Sung, (2006), further supports a steady supply of skilled labour
and conformance to the principles of social inclusion. The “employer owned” approach,
alternatively allocates employer ownership in coordinating the provision of the industry-
specific demand for education and training initiatives, alongside industrial training bodies.
As discussed later (sub-section 1.1.2), this approach very much resembles the challenged
employer-led efforts adopted within the UK between the 1960’s and 1990’s, which
required the support of Industrial Training Bodies (1960s), the Industrial Training Boards
(1980’s) and the National Training Sector Organizations (1990’s). The employer-owned
model centrally places employers in facilitating the coordination of training programmes,
occupational competency frameworks and industry-wide training levy systems alongside
employer associations and Industry training Associations (e.g. Hong Kong). The
“employer modelled” approach alternatively characterises high skill economies (e.g.
Singapore) and is Government-led, where the state is integral in the integration of
structured and coordinated on-the-job certified industry Blueprints in alignment with
strategic industry-specific business levers. Employers thus adopt strategic responsibilities
in line with such business levers, a commitment supported by industry-wide training levy
system.
These employer engagement models provide clarity and explain the variations in
the nature of relationships between employers, the state and policy institutions,
organizations, agencies and bodies in tackling industry-wide training needs (Raddon &
Sung, 2006:4). Specifically Raddon & Sung’s, (2006) models suggests that studies
examining the supply of and employer demand for education and training account for the

22. 12
perspectives of such stakeholders, particularly as Government instated policy institutions
are integral and strategic in supporting national institutional training frameworks,
fulfilling advisory or fiscal roles or in leading and shaping the provision and/or supply of
education and training initiatives often alongside, in partnership or in collaboration with
employers. This thesis acknowledges these conceptualisations alongside Lloyd’s (2002)
observation that clarity is required around the extent and nature of engagement between
under-researched high skill employers, their self-sustaining institutional training
frameworks and policy stakeholders in addressing the unmet demand for education and
training. To what extent is this likely within macro (national), meso (industry) and micr
(organisational) perspectives (Keep et al. 2006)?
The literature review here is established around Dopfer et al.’s (2004) analogy of
the macro-meso-micro-level architecture that is used as an overarching conceptual
framework to support explorations of the nature of macro, meso and micro perspective
engagement between high skill employers and policy organisations. This conceptual
framework is based on the understanding that interest in industry clusters and their
underlying macro, meso and micro-perspective features is growing (Steinle & Schiele,
2002, p. 850; AIM, 2005a, b). Despite underlying competitive conditions supporting high
skill industries (e.g. self-sustaining training institutions), detailed studies exploring the
institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries and are limited to
explorations of the micro (organisational) training perspective (Lloyd, 2002; Miller et al.
2002 – pharma; aerospace). In effect, high skill industries feature competitive conditions
(Finegold, 1999; Streeck, 1989), such as their high value added production systems
generating a demand for high skill labour. Their institutional networks further foster
engagement between public and private institutions supporting self-sustaining skill
formation systems. These characteristics are lacking within the UK’s wider institutional
training framework (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b), yet commentators recognise the
contribution of such characteristics in overcoming the otherwise constrained engagement
between employers and policy stakeholders, further challenging UK employers from
realising new staff training and development opportunities in line with global competition
(Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; Gleeson & Keep, 2004). Yet detailed explorations around the
underlying reasons around whether (if at all) such competitive high skill conditions
contribute in fostering macro, meso and micro-perspective employer engagement with
policy institutions is somewhat spurious (Finegold, 1991).
Regardless, scholarly arguments do however point to the necessary engagement
between multiple stakeholders including employers and policy institutions in addressing
the industry-wide demand for skilled labour and education and training within macro
(national), meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspectives (Keep et al. 2006;

23. 13
Finegold, 1991). However, these insights do not detail the nature of responsibilities
necessary in fostering engagement between stakeholders representing the institutional
supply and unmet employer demand for education and training within the macro, meso
and micro-perspective institutional training environment surrounding high skill
industries (Finegold, 1991). Here the macro-meso-micro architecture proposed by Dopfer
and colleagues is useful (Dopfer et al. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes, 2004), in that it supports an
understanding of the nature of engagement between stakeholders or agents characterising
each of such micro, meso and macro-perspective institutional training contexts
surrounding high skill industries. Like high skill industries, Dopfer et al.’s (2004)
architecture also applies to cluster industries and exists within an “overarching economy
consisting of complex systems of interconnected rules” and an “evolutionary realism
ontology” (Dopfer, et al. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes, 2004). The macro (national) perspective
characterises macro economic conditions and is influenced by the meso (industry)
perspective. Changes in the composition of rules and rule carrier agents within the macro
perspective contribute in the establishment of macro-perspective policies that ultimately
also influence agents responsible for the meso (industry) perspective. The meso-
perspective is thus influenced by engagement between agents characterising the macro
higher order and micro firm perspectives, namely employers (Dopfer et al, 2004, p267).
This analytical framework is useful in supporting explorations of the nature of employer
engagement with agents characterising and responsible for education and training within
each of the macro, meso and micro-perspectives institutional training contexts
surrounding high skill industries (Appendix I & II).
The study aim is underpinned by three research questions. These research questions
are further set against the backdrop of scholarly discussions that point to the employer
engagement challenges and drivers characterising the UK’s wider institutional training
framework (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; Keep et al. 2006). Section one presents research
question one which seeks to explore the extent and nature of macro-perspective
engagement between policy stakeholders and high skill employers in addressing the
unmet employer demand for education and training. The review begins by discussing the
macro-perspective approaches and strategies adopted within the UK in raising industry-
wide growth and performance. It is acknowledged that these approaches centrally
encapsulate the idea of raising industry-wide skill achievement via necessary employer
engagement with stakeholders representing industry, policy organizations and
institutions. Here the discussions acknowledge similarities between the employer
engagement characteristics supporting these macro-perspective strategies and Brown’s
(2001) macro-perspective high skill framework and seven conditions necessary in raising
skill achievement across high skill economies. Here the review indicates, that despite

24. 14
differences in the national institutional training environments characterising the UK and
high skill economies, Brown’s (2001) macro-perspective framework features similar
competitive conditions as high skill industries in supporting the supply of trained high
skill labour. The review here thus acknowledges the use of Brown’s (2001) macro-
perspective conditions in research question one as a point of reference in exploring the
extent to which the underlying high skill employer engagement features of such conditions
support or encourage engagement between employers, policy stakeholders and
institutions within the context of UK high skill industries. Research question one is further
acknowledges scholarly arguments that explain the historical institutional failures and
drivers influencing supply-side policy stakeholders and institutions in engaging employers
within the UK’s wider institutional training framework (Payne, 2008,a,b; Lloyd & Payne,
2003a,b).
Section two discusses the establishment of research question two which seeks to
explore the nature of the contribution of the high skill meso (industry) network form in
fostering employer engagement with stakeholders characterising the institutional macro,
meso and micro-perspective training environments of high skill industries. The section
refers to various theoretical conceptualisations of the network form suggesting their
consideration in exploring research question two. Section three informs the
establishment of research question three. Research question three explores the extent and
nature in which commonly acknowledged micro-perspective organisational challenges
(Keep et al. 2006; Gleeson & Keep, 2004) responsible in constraining UK employers from
realising and engaging with their unmet education and training needs, also influence the
wider macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments
surrounding high skill industries. The final section presents the research questions
drawing out the central conclusions of the review and suggesting their explorations from
the perspectives of institutional supply-side policy stakeholders and high skill employers.
1.1 Towards an understanding of the UK’s “macro-perspective” in
engaging employers
Despite the commonly acknowledged voluntary employer engagement (Raddon &
Sung, 2008) characterising the UK’s wider institutional training context, commentators
consistently call for employer engagement in fostering national education and training
initiatives in response to labour market skill shortages across low, intermediate and high
skill occupations. (UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006). The discussions next outline the employer
engagement challenges (and drivers) influencing the UK’s largely Government-led
approach in addressing the unmet employer demand for education and training. Where
relevant, this section reflects on the challenges constraining employer engagement with

25. 15
Government-instated policy organizations and their supporting initiatives. Sub-section
1.1.2 discusses the employer engagement challenges surrounding macro-perspective
education and training policies and initiatives questioning their relevance within the
context of UK’s high skill industries. Sub-section 1.1.3 further questions the need for the
central agency employer engagement role in meeting the demand for education and
training context surrounding the high skill industry context and policy stakeholders
responsible for supporting their self-sustaining training systems.
1.1.1 Supply-side policy institutions & macro and meso-
perspective employer engagement
The UK’s institutional training context has long-since been subject to the problems
of ineffective engagement between supply-side policy institutions and employers (UKCES,
2010; Leitch, 2006). The historical nature of these employer engagement challenges (A)
also characterise the experiences of present day policy organisations and sector specific
agencies (B) which have been subject to re-structuring and/or closure (BIS, 2012c; Baker,
2010). The discussions next reflect the scholarly arguments that highlight the challenges
and drivers influencing engagement between employers and such organizations, agencies
and bodies. Much of the empirical work to date refers broadly to the employer
engagement experiences of policy organisations, bodies and agencies in relation to various
UK’s sectors, whilst paying little attention in detailing their industry-specific employer
engagement experiences. Research question one thus questions the nature of engagement
between employers and policy organizations in relation to unmet education and training
needs surrounding high skill industries. The discussions next firstly provide an overview
of the historical context (A) surrounding the UK Government’s employer engagement
approach. This is followed by an overview of the contemporary yet continuing employer
engagement challenges facing UK policy organizations (B).
(A.) The UK’s historical context & employer engagement
The history behind Government’s employer engagement efforts within the UK in
raising industry-wide skills across the occupations is one of frequent change, reversal and
revision. A common starting point for this analysis is the Labour Government’s Industrial
Training Act in 1964 and inception of Industrial Training Boards (ITBs). ITBs
characterised a reformation of the UK’s voluntary training approach, supporting the
organisation of social partnerships between employers and trade unions via the tripartite
body, the Central Training Council (CTCs) in regulating industrial training (Senkel, 1992;
Woodhall, 1974; Payne, 2007a,c). Thirty sector-level training boards administered an

26. 16
innovative employer training grant levy system to address the industry-wide problems of
the unmet employer demand for training and to diminish industry cultures that fostered
the labour poaching and training underinvestment by employers. However the
consultancy service approach adopted by CTC’s meant their weak power and resulting
piecemeal voluntary approach in establishing training initiatives around critical industry-
wide skills gaps and shortages. Regardless, ITB’s supported the employer access of
information, advice and guidance around financial investments supporting the training
demands of employers via the administration of an employertraining levy. ITBs were
however dismantled in the early 1980’s due to their inabilities in further connecting with
and delivering on training solutions in response to industry-specific needs, particularly of
relevance to the SME sectors (King 1993:219). Their bureaucratic, albeit ineffective efforts
in facilitating financial support around a narrow range of training initiatives aimed at low
and intermediate skilled occupations (Woodhall 1974:77) for which local provision was
in short supply, further did not sit well with employers. The training levy system
supported by ITBs was eventually replaced by a levy exemption system in 1973 with the
establishment of the Manpower Services Commission (MSC). The MSC oversaw the
effective coordination of Government training schemes supporting the skilled occupations
and in alignment with the long-term strategic employer and industry-wide training
demands. Although the exemption levy system was instated to alleviate consistent
problems facing Government-led training initiatives in connecting with the industry-wide
demand for training, the institutionally engrained problems of poor employer engagement
facing ITBs continued to also influence the MSC. The MSC seemed to lack the resources
essential in coordinating much in demand industry-wide training initiatives surrounding
occupational-specific skill shortages and in providing targeted training support aimed at
the SME and small business sectors. Specific problems included their inabilities in
effectively promoting existing cost-effective and much in demand training for low and
intermediate-levels occupations, and inabilities in connecting with the unmet employer
demand for education and training supporting high-skill occupations. Despite their demise
across the wider UK sectors, ITBs are still in operation today supporting regulated training
across the UK engineering and construction sectors (Payne, 2008b:7; Keep, 2006:59).
Regardless, the MSC characterised a national impetus around training provision
fostering collective “corporate tri-partite membership” between employers, Government
education and training initiatives, trade unions and training and employment service
agencies. This unique arrangement of equal membership between these stakeholders
exerted an enhanced influence in the coordination of sector-wide and specific training not
addressed by ITBs, and further involving key stakeholders such as academics, local
authorities and government appointed individuals on the national executive of the MSC

27. 17
(King, 1993). The MSC’s influence in weakening the training grant levy system generated a
new impetus around vocational training programmes with the establishment of the high
profile youth training scheme, the Job Creation programme in 1975 and vocational
education initiatives (Work Experience Programme, 1976) addressing youth and adult
unemployment (Finn, 1984). 1981 saw the termination of remaining ITBs and an
expansion in the roles of the MSC, although weakening trade unions and collectivism at the
time challenged the powers of the MSC in representing the interests of labour (King,
1993). This gradual shift in power towards central Government in influencing the
activities of the MSC, meant alignment with the Government’s national agenda in
addressing high youth unemployment for example or in supporting back to work training
surrounding low skill attainment within the UK. The consequences of this shift however
detracted efforts in addressing the specific training demands of employers. MSCs thus
developed reputations in facilitating “training of little consequence” whilst new
Government efforts characterised the much preferred employer-led responsibilities and
agendas in connecting with the employer demand for education and training (Keep,
2006b:51; King 1993:225). This move towards a de-regulated employer-led ideology
surfaced in the establishment of Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs, 1989-1990s) and
Non Statutory Training Organizations (NSTOs) in operation between 1987 and 1991
(Keep, 2006b:51; Greenlagh, 1999).
TECs supported employer-led ideologies and were devolved responsibilities, in
mediating engagement between industry, training providers and services, supporting
access to targeted training initiatives surrounding specific occupational groups and
according to regional demand (Greenlagh, 1999). However, as with their predecessors,
the ITBs, TECs also faced resource limitations (e.g. finance; skilled staff) in coordinating
industry-specific training, with employers often unwilling to subsidise training. NTSOs
also experienced their fair share of problems in engaging employers. Ninety NTSOs were
established controversially encouraging voluntary trade union involvement in supporting
industry-wide training and opposing the training grant levy system. However, their
effectiveness in delivering on the targeted industry-specific training demand (Varlaam,
1987:87-88 cited in Payne, 2008b:7) stemmed again from poor resources (e.g. financial;
staff), but importantly from the weak employer interest in adopting training initaitves.
Employers were poorly informed of the strategic roles of NTSOs (e.g. providing employers
with information in accessing sector-level and industry-specific VET; encouraging
employer investments surrounding training initiatives). The popularity of NTSOs rose
between the late 1980s and early 1990s with numbers rising to 123 when they were re-
introduced as Industrial Training organizations (ITOs) (Payne 2008b). Additional roles
now included: the employer-led development and industry-wide adoption of new

28. 18
competence-based National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) in collaboration with Lead
Bodies and the Occupational Standards Council. Resource limitations contributed to the
reputations of ITOs in facilitating short-term training initiatives of little significance to
employers who otherwise sought cost-effective long-term training measures (Jones, 1999,
p78 cited in Payne 2008b). The inception of New Labour finally saw the transformation of
ITOs into 76 National Training Organizations (NTOs) in 1998. NTOs however presented
additional challenges in engaging employers (Payne, 2008b), in connecting with trade
unions and the SME sectors. This contributed to their ineffectiveness in connecting with
industry-specific demand for training and education a problem that resurfaced in the UK
Government’s later efforts in addressing industry-specific skill shortages, discussed next.
(B) UK Supply-side skill institutions & employer engagement
Recent Government efforts in addressing industry-wide skills shortages mirror the
post-war voluntarism era of the 1960’s, when the UK lagged its competitors in terms of
economic performance further reflected in the state’s ineffectiveness in influencing policy.
This ineffectiveness is reflected in Government efforts in the introduction of a new raft of
institutional skill agencies and quangos directed at supporting employer engagement
within national (macro), regional (meso) and organisational (micro) level contexts,
although it is acknowledged that these reforms emulate past mistakes. These new
initiatives, some of which no longer exist, include: UK Regional Development Agencies
(RDAs), Sector Skill Agencies (SSCs), National Skill Academies (NSAs) and Business Link
(BL). However, all have faced restructuring and downsizing since inception. The now
defunct RDAs for example promoted regional competitiveness across cluster industries
using partnerships forged between the public and private sectors (Peck & McGuiness,
2003). Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) (SSDA, 2008) alternatively centrally facilitate
employer engagement, addressing the targeted sector-specific demand for training. The
intermediary agency roles of NSAs (NSAs, 2009) and Business Link (BL) (BIS, 2010,
2009c) further stimulate employer engagement, providing support services and access to
intermediary training providers and grass root interventions. The experiences of these
individual policy organisations in connecting with the wider industry demand for
education and training is addressed by scholarly arguments and reports (Sung et al. 2009;
Keep et al, 2006; Peck & McGuiness, 2003; Payne, 2008b; NSA, 2009; BIS, 2011b).
However, these insights neglect detail around the nature of employer engagement
facilitated between these policy organizations and specific high skill industries with
existing discussions lacking detail around the types of initiatives addressed by such policy
organizations specific to the high skill context. Nevertheless, the overarching evidence
suggests, that despite yet another wave of supply-side institutions, the recurring nature of

29. 19
unmet employer demand and poor employer engagement within the UK’s training context
persists due to challenges presented by both the macro perspective supply-side and
employers.
A key criticism of RDAs for example, since their inception in 1999 and demise in
2012, was their ineffectiveness in raising targeted sector-level competitiveness due to the
broad emphasis of their macro Regional Economic Growth Strategies and cluster policies.
RDAs were responsible for the promotion of regional policies encouraging engagement
between employers, industry and HE institutions in establishing long-term strategies in
raising skills levels across local and regional talent pools. This included the establishment
of strategic Centres of Excellence and funded national partnerships between small
business sectors, HEFCE and stakeholders including the then Department of Trade
Industry and the now defunct Learning and Skills Councils. These were deliverable
expectations supported by network collaborations at local and regional levels, driving
business-led improvements in turn raising skill levels and generating employment,
entrepreneurial and business growth opportunities across industry clusters. Although
RDAs were a central driver of the Government’s nation-wide macro-perspective approach
in generating regional growth (HM Government 2010 a, b), commentators (Keep et al,
2006; Keep, 2002; Peck & McGuiness, 2003) nevertheless point to clear problems in their
abilities in fostering collaborations between key stakeholders with responsibilities in
influencing policy within national (macro), regional (meso) and sector-specific
perspectives. Despite these broadly based observations, empirical evidence supporting
such observations is lacking, as is a detailed analysis of targeted education and training
coordinated by RDAs in response to industry demand. Peck & McGuiness (2003:55) do
however criticise the commonly adopted approach of RDAs in “utilising and modifying
existing stakeholder networks to meet their cluster policy agendas” instead of a preferred
stakeholder-led approach. Alliances forged with and encouraged between sub-regional
network partners and employers here are presumed in supporting clearer assessments of
industry-wide demand. Such arrangements ensure the fair, sector and industry-specific
allocation of financial investments in addressing industry-wide education and training
needs. Commentators do however shed some light on the employer engagement
challenges noted in the lack of consensus and cooperation on the part of employers in
connecting with the policies and associated financial investments supported by RDAs,
(Keep et al. 2006; Keep, 2002). However, clarity on the types of policies that this relates to
is lacking Regardless these arguments are clear in specifying that the problems of
employer confidence stem from the low discretionary power of RDAs in driving a regional
agenda in benefiting employers and obligations to support central Government policies.
The ultimate consequences of this are their poor decision-making in addressing regional

30. 20
issues critical for business growth and regional employment including the creation of new
job opportunities and industry-wide skill improvement strategies (Keep et al, 2006).
However clarity around the types of industry-wide skills strategies or training and
education initiatives that this involves or the nature of employer engagement that this
demands is lacking.
Scholarly arguments surrounding Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), another nation-wide
macro perspective Government initiative, are somewhat clearer in emphasising the
challenges and nature of employer engagement, although here studies adopt a UK wide
perspective (Payne, 2008 a, b; Payne, 2007). ). SSCs characterise employer voice, in
collectively raising skill attainment alongside employers and stakeholders (e.g. RDAs)
using licensed Sector Skill Agreements (SSDA, 2008). These skills agencies have
overarching responsibilities in raising industry-wide skill attainment across the industry-
specific occupations using licensed Sector Skill Agreements (SSDA, 2008) established
collectively with employers, policy stakeholders (e.g. RDAs) and industry regulators.
Scholarly arguments further point to the constant restructuring of SSCs alongside the
scepticism on the part of employers in relation to the capabilities of SSCs in delivering
solutions according to the demand for sector-specific education and training initiatives
(Sung et al. 2009; Payne, 2008b). SSCs, it seems face similar challenges (e.g. weak financial
& staff resources), in engaging employers as previous Government initiatives but are also
criticised for their narrow approach in fostering solutions in response to wider industry-
wide and specific demands for education and training initiatives. SSCs here are criticised
in addressing largely labour market skills gaps influencing low and intermediate
occupations further diminishing employer trust and confidence, particularly across the
SME sectors. Here commentators capture the wider more generic weak employer
engagement experiences of SSCs (Luddy, 2008; Payne, 2008b – unfair and weak allocation
of investment opportunities across industries). Employers too face difficulties in
connecting the services of SSCs, due to a general weak interest, inabilities in realising or
stimulating the demand for initiatives supported by SSCs (Gleeson & Keep, 2004). A
employer low confidence in the services and initiatives supported by SSCs is evidenced,
although here very little detail exists around the types this of education and training
initiatives these observations refer to (Lloyd & Keep, 2002). Lloyd’s (2007) single case
study of the leisure industry, is the only industry-specific study, which provides such
evidence, a study which allocates responsibilities in engaging with supply-side reforms are
to line-managers. Nevertheless, explanation of the nature of employer engagement
facilitated by SSCs is but limited to a few studies (Luddy, 2008; Payne, 2008b).
According to Luddy (2008), SSCs adopt data collection roles engaging employers in
conducting primary research and in informing labour market intelligence on industry or

31. 21
sector-specific employment and education and training needs. Employers are further
involved alongside SMEs in promoting new career structures, employer ambassador
programmes and in conducting sector-specific training case evaluations. Luddy (2008)
further highlights the ineffectiveness of UK SSCs in engaging employers surrounding the
development or promotion of industry-wide equal opportunity programmes or in advising
on employer HR training practice. Alternatively Payne (2008a) specifically explores the
effectiveness of various employer engagement strategies adopted by UK-wide SSCs.
Employer engagement here is examined according to their involvement in the
identification, design, development and adoption of sector-specific skill strategies and
training initiatives. Payne (2008a) further examines employer engagement in relation to
the primary data collection activities and communication strategies adopted by SSCs.
These insights however do not explain the employer engagement experiences of SSCs with
respect to high-skill employers. Specifically, they do not detail the nature in which UK
SSCs connect with education and training demands of such industries or whether national
macro-perspective education and training initiatives supported by SSCs are adopted by
high-skill employers. The acknowledgement of the employer engagement roles of
international SSCs in alleviating problems surrounding employment, inequality and the
labour market polarisation of skill here are perhaps useful here (Payne, 2007; 2008b).
Australian SSCs have been known to coordinate the industry-wide adoption of
Industrial Vocational Educational Policy using industry collaborations between key
stakeholders (e.g. trade unions, organisational management, industry representatives).
SSCs here experienced difficulties in involving employers in monitoring the industry-wide
uptake and effectiveness of VET after inception. Similar problems are evidenced in
instances where SSCs have supported large-scale projects in raising industry-wide skill
attainment levels such The Finnish Workplace Development Programme (Payne, 2008a;
Keep & Payne, 2003). This national initiative sought to raise employer awareness of the
benefits of HR initiatives surrounding new work design, organization and skill use
opportunities. Although the programme was largely successful, instances of poor
employer engagement and policy adoption were attributed to weak employer
representation at sector-level networks and poor line-management confidence and
support in the adoption of initiatives within micro (organisational) perspectives.
National Skills Academies (NSAs) are another national UK initiative, established to
foster the employer-led adoption of training investments and Government education and
training initiatives within sector and sub-sector perspectives. Nineteen UK NSAs are in
various stages of operation, supporting specialist consultancy and intermediary roles in
connecting employers with specialist training providers. NSAs previously operated in
collaboration with Learning and Skill Councils (LSCs) until their closure fostering match-

32. 22
funded investment, in the delivery and adoption of sector-wide training alongside learning
providers and consultancy support (Coffield, 2007). Empirical evidence assessing the
employer engagement activities of NSAs is plentiful (UKCES, 2010; NSA, 2009), although
information highlighting the nature of engagement requires clarity as do details of their
contribution in supporting high skill education and training initiatives. UK-wide
evaluations present observations of various types of employer engagement facilitated by
NSAs and the underlying challenges (UKCES, 2012:64; NSA, 2009; BIS, 2011). Here NSAs
experience difficulties in engaging with the SME sectors, whilst employer engagement is
not necessarily facilitated by NSAs to benefit employers (BIS, 2011:26) but rather to
enhance the access and representation of NSA officials on national and regional industry
boards. NSAs further benefit, from the paid employer membership and in-kind (financial)
contributions, industry-wide financial investments in their initiatives and strategic
employer involvement in designing educational curriculum or training initiatives.
Employers benefit from the adoption of training initiatives endorsed by NSAs, utilise their
services and further have access to the wider industry networks of NSAs. The problem of
weak employer confidence in the education and training initiatives supported by NSAs is
consistent with the poor reputations of NSAs amongst employers in committing to
decisions at national, regional, sectoral or sub-sectoral boards at which employer
representation is often not supported by training providers and institutions. Much of the
evaluation surrounding NSAs thus calls for a shift from an employer-led to an industry-led
partnership approach in supporting education and training (BIS, 2011:27). NSAs have
thus also been linked to education and training collaborations initiated by SSCs and the
phased out Regional Business Link consultancy and advisory services commonly
acknowledged in supporting the business needs of UK SME sectors (NSA, 2009).
The closure of Regional Business Link in 2011 is now replaced with new on-line
measures reconfiguring access to information, advice and guidance supporting the SME
sectors and start-up businesses (BIS, 2011). These new measures support employers by
providing practical guidance on financial matters, labour management and HR advice
regarding Government regulation and industry-wide training. This new role encourages
established businesses from across industry supply-chains, in providing tailored industry-
wide mentoring support and advice on training and development issues (BIS, 2011).
These insights indicate recurring problems of unmet employer demand and poor
employer engagement facing UK supply-side institutions, although exploration of the
extent of engagement between policy stakeholders and high skill employers is spurious. It
is clear however, that constrained employer engagement is a central contention affecting
UK supply-side policy stakeholders in connecting with the employer needs for education
and training.

33. 23
C. Moving the employer engagement debate forwards
In the main commentators are somewhat sceptical of the role of UK supply-side
policy institutions in driving the national skills agenda and in effectively meeting the
unmet education and training needs of employers (Sung, 2010; Payne, 2008; SSDA, 2007).
Regardless case examples highlighting successful employer engagement in the adoption of
education and training initiatives are useful in moving the debate forwards (Sung, 2010;
Laczick & White (2009), particularly as commentators further stress the need for
employer-led and demand-driven employer engagement approaches within the UK (Keep
et al. 2006). Here an employer-led macro-perspective approach requires employer
involvement in influencing the patterns of education and training provision in meeting
short, medium and long-term employer needs” (Keep et al.2006:552), while a “demand-
driven” system is one in which the supply of education and training matches the projected
demand of employers” (Keep et al. 2006:553). Existing case examples although are
conducted within various international contexts, nevertheless criticise the UK’s supply-led
approach and further suggest that the relationship between the macro-perspective supply
of education and training and employer demand is perhaps sustainable based some
guiding principles. Laczick & White (2009) for example explore the nature of employer
engagement fostered by UK policy stakeholders (i.e. SSCs) in establishing education
diplomas aimed at 14-19 year old. Laczick & White (2009) corroborate Payne (2008a) and
suggest that policy stakeholders facilitate training partnerships gaining access to
employers using employer networks, perhaps a useful strategy in facilitating the
engagement of high skill industries in light of their competitive network features
(Finegold, 1999). The authors further acknowledge the problems of voluntary employer
engagement in policy development and adoption within the UK and suggest that
employers be allocated centre-stage responsibilities using employer incentives (e.g.
financial; reputation/kudos/ownership) securing their involvement. This idea of placing
the employer centre-stage in policy decision-making concerning national macro-
perspective education and training initiatives is also reverberated by other commentators.
The Sector Skills Development Agency in 2007 (SSDA, 2007) and later Payne, (2008b)
suggest the adoption of five types of employer engagement activities (see page 18). Sung
(2010) refers to the Dutch VET system, but advocates the underlying features of an
employer-led social partnership approach. Here employers are expected to adopt a centre-
stage leadership role in the macro-perspective policy process involving key stakeholders
(e.g. knowledge centres, regional training colleges) and social partners (workers,
employers and skill agencies). Sung (2010) further emphasises that the successful
implementation of macro-perspective education and training initiatives across sectors
adopting supply-led systems such as the UK, further require funding, and the

34. 24
establishment of systems supporting collective stakeholders involvement but which again
allocate central leadership to employers.
Despite these insights, scholarly arguments however generally “underplay the
roles of employers” and their engagement with the supply of macro-perspective education
and training initiatives (Raddon & Sung 2006:4). Regardless, Raddon & Sung’s, (2006)
employer engagement models and frameworks provide clarity around the nature of
engagement between employers, skill institutions and policy organisations suggesting that
studies examining institutional training frameworks acknowledge the perspectives of
employers and policy stakeholders as centre-stage in these explorations. Although these
models reveal variations in the extent of employer engagement, policy organizations are
nevertheless strategic in fulfilling the range of advisory, leaderships or fiscal roles within
varying capacities, contexts and degrees in supporting employer engagement. These
insights thus contextualise research question one. Research question one thus explores
the extent and nature of engagement between supply-side policy stakeholders,
organizations and institutions and the training needs of high skill employers. Specifically,
research question one queries the basis of this engagement within the macro, meso and
micro-perspective institutional training environments of high skill industries as existing
evidence relates to only the micro-perspective organisational context (Lloyd, 2002).
Lloyd’s (2002) study here points to challenging engagement between UK high skill
employers and the UK’s wider institutional training environment yet does not account for
the employer engagement considerations highlighted within the above discussions. Which
sorts of employer engagement arrangements do high skill industries therefore support the
unmet demand for education and training across high skills industries, particularly in light
of their competitive conditions (e.g. R&D collaborations, network arrangements) and a
dependency on the range of labour working across low intermediate and high skill
occupations and supporting (Finegold, 1999; Galbraith, 1989).
1.1.2 Macro-perspective Government initiatives & unmet employer
demand
Beyond the relatively few studies exploring the training issues facing high skill
employers (Lloyd, 2002; Miller et al. 2002), comprehensive explorations of the nature of
engagement between the unmet training needs or demands of employers and the macro,
meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments of high skill industries is
lacking. Regional information (Roberts et al. 2010; Wilton, 2008; Purcell & Wilton, 2004)
provides some commentary around national education and training initiatives supporting
high skill occupations and supports comparisons of “academic and vocational
qualifications attainment at Level 4 and above, including professional and non-accredited