Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Generational Workforce Needs: Tailoring Benefits for Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers

· 21 min

Executive Summary

The dominant narrative prescribing distinct employee benefits packages for Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z rests on weak empirical foundations and exposes organisations to legal risk under the Equality Act 2010. Meta-analyses consistently find no meaningful generational differences in workplace values, while the CIPD concludes that longitudinal evidence for generational personality differences is lacking. Life stage -- not birth cohort -- better explains differing benefits preferences. With 73% of senior leaders reporting multigenerational workforces yet only 18% including age in equality, diversity, and inclusion policies, a significant implementation gap exists. This article deploys academic evidence to challenge generational stereotyping, maps the Equality Act 2010 age discrimination provisions to benefits design, integrates the April 2027 pension death benefit inheritance tax changes, and provides a technology-enabled life-stage personalisation framework as the evidence-based alternative.

1. The Generational Benefits Myth: What the Evidence Actually Shows

The benefits industry has embraced generational segmentation with remarkable enthusiasm. Conference programmes, consulting frameworks, and trade publication features routinely prescribe distinct packages: wellness apps and student loan support for Gen Z, flexible working and career development for Millennials, financial planning and health insurance for Gen X, and phased retirement and pension maximisation for Boomers. The underlying assumption -- that birth cohort determines benefits preferences -- is treated as self-evident. The academic evidence suggests otherwise.

1.1 Meta-Analytic Evidence

Meta-analyses consistently show no meaningful generational differences in workplace values, including job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and career goals.1 The seminal review by Parry and Urwin (2011), published in the International Journal of Management Reviews, found insufficient evidence for generational work value differences after systematically examining the available longitudinal and cross-sectional research.2 The CIPD's own analysis concludes unequivocally: "currently, we just don't have the longitudinal evidence to back it up" regarding generational personality differences in the workplace.2

The methodological problem is fundamental. Cross-sectional survey data -- capturing attitudes at a single point in time -- gives evidence that age or life stage relates to workplace attitudes, but this is routinely misinterpreted as a generational difference.2 A 25-year-old surveyed in 2025 showing lower pension engagement than a 55-year-old is exhibiting hyperbolic discounting, a well-documented universal psychological bias in which individuals underweight distant future outcomes. This reflects life stage, not a generational value system unique to Gen Z or Millennials.2 Similarly, the Deloitte 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey -- encompassing 23,482 respondents across 44 countries -- found that only 6% of Gen Z and Millennials cite reaching a leadership position as a primary career goal, with work-life balance and learning and development ranked higher.3 These findings are frequently cited as evidence of generational distinctiveness, yet they mirror the priorities that mid-career professionals across all age groups have expressed for decades when freed from the pressure of early-career advancement.

1.2 Universal Workplace Priorities

Research identifies workplace desires that span all age groups: autonomy, trust, feeling valued, meaningful work, fair pay, and growth opportunities.1 These priorities are remarkably consistent across every cohort label. What varies is how those priorities manifest at different life stages -- a distinction with profound implications for benefits design. An employee approaching retirement values autonomy through phased working arrangements; an early-career employee values autonomy through project ownership and remote working options. The underlying priority is identical; the delivery mechanism differs based on circumstance, not generation.

1.3 Documented Organisational Harms

Generational labelling produces four specific organisational harms: hiring bias, development gaps, team friction, and stifled inclusion.1 When benefits strategists design packages around assumed generational attitudes, they risk importing these harms directly into the reward architecture. An organisation that provides enhanced mental health support only to younger cohorts, on the assumption that older workers do not prioritise wellbeing, simultaneously undermines inclusion objectives and misallocates benefits spend. The CIPD recommends organisations "stop talking about the attitudes of millennials entirely, or indeed any other personality-linked generational differences."2

The evidence points toward a single conclusion for benefits design: life-stage-informed personalisation, grounded in individual circumstance rather than birth year, delivers more accurate targeting and avoids the legal exposure that generational assumptions create.

The legal dimension of generational benefits design is consistently absent from existing industry coverage. Benefits strategists designing age-differentiated packages operate within a statutory framework that treats age as a protected characteristic with specific discrimination provisions.

2.1 Core Statutory Provisions

Age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 ss 4-5.4 The Act prohibits both direct age discrimination under s 13 -- treating someone less favourably because of age -- and indirect age discrimination under s 19, where provisions, criteria, or practices apply to everyone but disproportionately disadvantage a particular age group.5 Critically, employment protection covers all aspects of the employment relationship including recruitment, contract terms, promotion, benefits, training, and dismissal.4

2.2 Objective Justification: The Unique Age Exception

Age discrimination is unique among the protected characteristics in that both direct and indirect discrimination may be lawfully justified. The employer must demonstrate "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" -- a two-part test requiring (1) a legitimate aim that is not itself discriminatory, and (2) means that are proportionate, appropriate, and necessary.5 Financial reasons alone are unlikely to justify discrimination, and tribunals scrutinise whether age-based measures genuinely address stated aims and whether non-age-based alternatives existed.5

This framework creates a specific problem for generational benefits design. An employer offering enhanced gym membership to employees under 35, on the basis that "Millennials value wellness," would need to demonstrate that this age differentiation serves a legitimate aim proportionately. Generational stereotyping cannot constitute the evidence base for objective justification -- the very academic research the CIPD endorses demonstrates that such stereotypes lack empirical foundation.2 A non-age-based alternative (offering gym membership as a flexible benefit available to all) would likely defeat the justification argument entirely.

2.3 Indirect Discrimination in Benefits Design

Indirect discrimination presents the more nuanced risk. A benefits package that appears age-neutral may disproportionately disadvantage certain age groups. Enhanced childcare support without equivalent eldercare provision could disadvantage older workers with caring responsibilities for ageing parents. A digital-only benefits enrolment platform without alternative access channels could disproportionately affect older employees less confident with digital interfaces.5 Benefits strategists should review current provision for potential disparate impact and document the business justification for any differential access patterns.

The Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9, Part 2, Paragraph 10 provides a specific exception for service-related benefits.6 Employers may differentiate benefits based on length of service without an age discrimination finding: for service periods up to five years, the exception applies automatically; for service exceeding five years, the employer must reasonably believe the differentiation fulfils a business need such as encouraging loyalty or rewarding experience.6 Service calculation incorporates the Employment Rights Act 1996 s 218 continuity provisions. This exception -- distinct from generational segmentation -- provides a lawful basis for progressive benefits design that correlates with tenure rather than birth cohort.

2.5 Pension Scheme Age Exceptions

The Equality Act (Age Exceptions for Pension Schemes) Order 2010 permits certain age-based pension rules, including the auto-enrolment age thresholds of 22 to state pension age.7 These represent a legislatively sanctioned use of age criteria in a defined context, not a general licence for age-based benefits differentiation.

2.6 Practical Compliance Checklist

Benefits strategists conducting an Equality Act compliance review of existing provision should consider the following: identifying any benefits with explicit age criteria or generational targeting; assessing whether ostensibly neutral policies produce disparate impact by age group; documenting the legitimate aim and proportionality analysis for any age-correlated differentiation; verifying that service-related benefits above five years are supported by a business need rationale; and confirming that alternative, non-age-based mechanisms were considered and, if rejected, that the reasons are recorded. This audit framework does not constitute legal advice, and benefits design with age discrimination implications should be reviewed by employment counsel.

3. UK Workforce Demographics: The Age Diversity Imperative

The practical context for benefits design is a workforce of unprecedented age diversity. Five age groups are now simultaneously present in UK workplaces -- a first in modern history.8 With many workplaces now spanning up to five generations, Millennials represent the largest single cohort in UK employment, and workforce composition is shifting as Baby Boomers retire.9 Simultaneously, employment among 50-64 year olds in England increased by 40% over the past 20 years, nearly three times faster than overall employment growth of 14%.10

3.1 Current Labour Market Data

The UK employment rate for ages 16-64 stood at 75.0% as of October-December 2025, with 34.24 million employed.11 The employment rate for ages 50-64 was 71.6% in 2025, recovered from the pandemic low of 70.4% in 2022, with 8.1 million payrolled employees in this age band.12 However, approximately 992,000 additional older workers remain in economic inactivity compared to pre-pandemic levels.13 The employment rate for ages 55-64 at 65% sits significantly below comparator nations: the Netherlands at 75%, Switzerland at 75%, and Iceland at 81%.13

3.2 The Age-EDI Gap

The Work Foundation and Lancaster University research quantifies the disconnect between recognition and action: 73% of senior business leaders report having multiple generations in their workplace, but only 18% include age in equality, diversity, and inclusion policies.814 This "say-do gap" exposes organisations to both legal and engagement risk. Where an employer acknowledges age diversity as a workforce characteristic but fails to address it in benefits design, the absence of systematic consideration could weaken an objective justification defence should an age discrimination claim arise.

3.3 State Pension Age Transition

The state pension age is increasing from 66 to 67 between 6 May 2026 and 6 April 2028 under the Pensions Act 2014, with a further increase to 68 legislated for 2044-2046.15 A third state pension age review was launched in July 2025.15 For benefits design, this creates practical implications for phased retirement provision: employees approaching the current state pension age may need to extend working lives, requiring benefits packages that support continued engagement including reduced hours arrangements, health screening, and pension bridging options.

People aged 50 and over account for 49% of UK self-employed workers -- 2 million of 4.3 million -- further complicating workforce planning for organisations with mixed employment models.13 Just 47% of over-55s feel their current role offers good skills development opportunities compared to 73% of 18-24 year olds, suggesting training and development should be recognised as a benefits priority for older workers rather than assumed to be a concern only for younger cohorts.10

4. Pension Death Benefits from April 2027: The Benefits Communication Challenge

The pension death benefit inheritance tax changes from April 2027 illustrate precisely why benefits communication must transcend generational assumptions. The changes affect employees across all life stages and require benefits strategists to develop communication strategies that address individual circumstances rather than assumed cohort priorities.

4.1 Core Regulatory Change

From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and pension death benefits will be brought within estate value for inheritance tax purposes, with personal representatives liable for reporting and paying IHT on pension assets.16 The estimated impact is substantial: 10,500 estates will become newly liable, with 38,500 estates paying increased IHT at an average increase of approximately GBP 34,000 per affected estate. The Exchequer impact rises from GBP 710 million in 2027-28 to GBP 1,665 million by 2030-31.16

4.2 The Death-in-Service Exclusion

For benefits strategists, the critical detail is the exclusion. Death-in-service benefits payable from registered pension schemes are excluded from IHT.16 Dependant's scheme pensions from defined benefit or collective money purchase arrangements are also excluded.16 Excepted group life policy schemes that are not registered pension schemes remain outside the IHT scope.17 Existing IHT exemptions are preserved for benefits passing to a surviving spouse, civil partner, or charity.16

This distinction between registered death-in-service-only schemes and pension fund death benefits is critical for employee communications.17 Employer-provided group life assurance through registered schemes -- typically providing a lump sum of three to four times salary on death in service -- gains relative value as personal pension death benefits lose their IHT efficiency. Benefits strategists who do not communicate this distinction clearly risk employees making uninformed decisions about pension nomination strategies.

4.3 Cross-Life-Stage Communication Requirements

The communication requirement spans all life stages rather than following generational assumptions. Younger employees building pension wealth need awareness for lifetime planning and nomination form completion. Mid-career employees with dependants need clarity on how the changes interact with their existing death-in-service provision. Pre-retirement employees face the greatest immediate planning impact, potentially requiring adjustments to pension drawdown strategies -- though individual pension advice falls outside the scope of employer communications and within the Financial Conduct Authority perimeter. A generational approach -- assuming only older workers need pension communications -- would leave younger employees uninformed about changes affecting their long-term financial planning.

4.4 Auto-Enrolment Context

The current auto-enrolment framework enrols employees aged 22 to state pension age with earnings above GBP 10,000 per annum, with minimum contributions of 8% of qualifying earnings (3% employer, 5% employee).18 The qualifying earnings band of GBP 6,240 to GBP 50,270 is maintained for 2026-27.19 The Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 grants powers to lower the age from 22 to 18 and remove the lower earnings limit, potentially bringing 900,000 additional people into pension saving and adding an estimated GBP 2.6 billion per annum to pension savings, although no implementation date has been confirmed.20 These thresholds and potential changes affect benefits economics across the entire workforce, reinforcing the case for communication strategies that address individual circumstances rather than assumed generational engagement levels.

5. From Generational Segmentation to Life-Stage Personalisation

If generational labels are an unreliable basis for benefits design, the practical question becomes: what replaces them? The evidence points toward a life-stage personalisation framework in which employees self-select benefits based on current circumstances rather than being assigned preferences based on birth year.

5.1 Life-Stage Categories

The framework replaces generational labels (Boomer, Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z) with fluid life-stage categories that individuals move through at different ages:

Early career -- Priorities include student loan support, financial education, skills development, and pension awareness. The critical distinction from generational framing is that a 35-year-old career changer entering a new profession has identical early-career benefits needs to a 22-year-old graduate, despite belonging to a different generational cohort.

Mid-career and family formation -- Childcare support, flexible hours, enhanced parental leave, and salary sacrifice for tax efficiency characterise this stage. With 78% of Millennials and 74% of Gen Xers classified as caregivers, the caregiving dimension crosses generational boundaries entirely.21

Sandwich caring -- Eldercare support, flexible working, Employee Assistance Programmes, and carers' leave serve employees managing simultaneous responsibilities for children and ageing parents. This stage increasingly affects employees in their 40s and 50s regardless of generational label.

Pre-retirement -- Pension planning, phased retirement options, health screening, and financial guidance address the transition toward leaving full-time employment. The state pension age increase from 66 to 67 extends this stage for many employees.15

Phased retirement -- Flexible hours, knowledge transfer roles, and reduced hours with maintained benefits support employees transitioning gradually rather than stopping work abruptly.

This framework respects individual autonomy: employees self-select based on circumstances, not an imposed category. A 28-year-old with caring responsibilities for an elderly parent accesses sandwich caring benefits; a 55-year-old starting a second career accesses early career development support. The life-stage approach also aligns with the Equality Act framework: because categories are defined by circumstance rather than age, the risk of direct or indirect age discrimination is substantially reduced.

5.2 Employment Rights Act 2025: Flexible Working as Enabler

The Employment Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, reinforces the life-stage approach.22 Flexible working has been a day one right since 1 April 2024, with employees entitled to make two requests per 12-month period.22 Expected from 2027, subject to commencement orders yet to be made, the enhanced provisions will require employers to demonstrate that any refusal is reasonable, with written explanations of specific grounds.22 Eight statutory grounds for refusal remain, but the threshold for employer justification is raised.

For benefits design, this legislative shift means flexible working arrangements become a structural component of the benefits offer across all life stages: location flexibility for early-career employees, hours flexibility for mid-career employees with caring responsibilities, and phased retirement arrangements for pre-retirement employees. The Aon UK Benefits and Trends Survey 2025 confirms the cross-generational relevance: 95% of employers allow hybrid working arrangements and 90% cite work-life balance as employees' top priority.23

6. The Flexible Benefits Platform as Equaliser

Technology-enabled personalisation removes the need for age-based assumptions by enabling individual benefit selection at scale. The infrastructure exists, but adoption remains incomplete.

6.1 Platform Adoption and the Personalisation Gap

Currently 50% of UK employers use an online benefits platform, with a further 21% planning implementation within three years.24 Digital tools are cited as critical for benefits management by 81% of employers.24 However, a significant personalisation gap persists: research indicates substantial employee appetite for benefits personalisation, with Mercer finding that 52% of employees want to personalise their benefits to individual needs, yet current provision does not match this demand.21

6.2 Practical Architecture

The recommended architecture comprises core benefits (pension, life assurance, income protection) available to all employees, supplemented by a flexible allowance enabling individual selection from a benefits menu. This structure eliminates the need for generational segmentation: the platform presents all available benefits, and employees choose based on personal circumstances.

Salary sacrifice arrangements remain tax-efficient for pensions, cycle-to-work, childcare, and ultra-low emission vehicles, though sacrifice must not reduce earnings below the National Minimum Wage.25 From April 2029, the employer National Insurance Contributions advantage for pension salary sacrifice will be capped at GBP 2,000 per annum, with excess amounts incurring NIC for both employer and employee.26 This change affects benefits economics across all age groups and reinforces the importance of modelling tools within benefits platforms that enable employees to assess individual salary sacrifice implications.

Wellbeing-specific allowances -- offered by 54% of employers with a further 34% planning implementation -- represent the most direct form of employee-directed benefits spending, enabling individuals to allocate wellbeing budgets according to personal priorities without reference to generational assumptions.24

6.3 Data Replacing Assumptions

Platform analytics provide the evidence base that generational stereotyping cannot. Benefits selection data, utilisation patterns, and engagement metrics reveal actual employee preferences segmented by any variable -- age, tenure, role, location -- without imposing cohort-based assumptions. This data-driven approach aligns with the 2022 CIPD Reward Management Survey finding that 60% of employers consider their benefits package good, while only 40% of employees agree.27 The 20-point perception gap may itself reflect benefits designed around employer assumptions rather than employee evidence.

6.4 Communication Strategy

Benefits communication should follow the same evidence-based principles as benefits design. Rather than assuming generational communication preferences -- the common assertion that younger employees prefer app notifications while older employees prefer printed materials -- platform data should inform channel strategy. A multi-channel approach (digital platform, face-to-face line manager conversations, and written summaries) serves accessibility requirements and avoids imposing communication assumptions that may themselves constitute indirect age discrimination. The April 2027 pension death benefit changes, in particular, require communication capable of reaching employees at every life stage with individually relevant information.

7. Wellbeing, Inclusion, and the Business Case

7.1 Wellbeing as Universal Priority

The CIPD Health and Wellbeing at Work Survey 2025 reports average absence of 9.4 days per employee per year -- the highest level reported in over a decade -- with mental ill health the leading cause of long-term absence and the second most common cause of short-term absence.28 With 23% of employees reporting exhaustion and 21% reporting excessive pressure, wellbeing benefits serve all life stages but manifest differently: mental health support across all ages, musculoskeletal support for older workers, burnout prevention for mid-career employees managing competing demands.28

Wellbeing strategy adoption is increasing -- 57% of employers now have a stand-alone wellbeing strategy, up 13 percentage points since 2020 -- but critical gaps remain.28 Only 29% of employers train line managers in mental health, creating a delivery gap between strategic intent and operational reality.28 The Deloitte 2025 survey finding that 59% of Gen Zs and 62% of Millennials believe generative artificial intelligence skills are required for career advancement illustrates how rapidly evolving workplace concerns -- digital skills anxiety, AI displacement fears -- affect multiple age groups rather than a single generational cohort.3

7.2 The ROI Framework and Inclusive Benefits Design

The business case for life-stage benefits design rests on measurable outcomes: reduced absence costs against the 9.4-day average, improved retention across age groups, and enhanced talent attraction. The Aon survey finding that 71% of employers expect to change benefits for future generations reinforces that change is anticipated -- the question is whether that change is driven by evidence or by generational stereotyping.23 Benefits strategists planning increases -- 38% intend to raise benefits budgets in the coming year -- should ensure investment is directed by platform data and life-stage analysis rather than assumed generational preferences.27

Inclusive benefits design connects directly to the broader EDI framework. Where age represents the protected characteristic most commonly absent from EDI policy -- the 18% inclusion rate identified by the Work Foundation research -- benefits strategy presents a concrete mechanism for addressing the gap.814 A life-stage personalisation approach inherently addresses age inclusion by designing for circumstance rather than cohort, aligning benefits practice with the Equality Act duties that organisations already accept for other protected characteristics.

Conclusion: Building the Evidence-Based Benefits Strategy

The evidence is clear: generational labels are an unreliable foundation for benefits design, carrying both empirical weakness and legal risk. Benefits strategists should consider a five-step implementation framework.

First, audit current benefits for age-discriminatory assumptions. Review the existing package against Equality Act 2010 provisions, identifying any age-differentiated elements that rely on generational stereotypes rather than objective justification. Document the business case for any age-correlated differentiation, noting that the service-related exception under Schedule 9 provides a lawful mechanism distinct from generational segmentation.6

Second, replace generational segmentation with life-stage categories. Implement the fluid framework of early career, mid-career and family formation, sandwich caring, pre-retirement, and phased retirement, enabling employees to self-select based on circumstances. This approach serves the same personalisation objective as generational segmentation without the discriminatory risk.

Third, deploy a flexible benefits platform for individual personalisation. The technology infrastructure exists and adoption is accelerating. Platform-based personalisation eliminates the need for age-based assumptions by enabling direct employee choice.

Fourth, integrate the April 2027 pension death benefit communication. The death-in-service exclusion from IHT requires clear, cross-life-stage communication ensuring all employees -- not only those approaching retirement -- understand the implications for pension nomination strategies and the relative value of employer-provided death-in-service benefits.16

Fifth, establish a data feedback loop from platform analytics. Replace generational assumptions with empirical evidence drawn from benefits selection, utilisation, and engagement data. This continuous feedback mechanism enables benefits strategies to evolve based on demonstrated employee behaviour rather than assumed cohort characteristics.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 enhanced flexible working provisions, expected from 2027 pending commencement regulations, reinforce life-stage benefits design by embedding flexible arrangements as structural entitlements rather than generational concessions.22 Benefits strategists who adopt an evidence-based approach position themselves as compliance-aware, data-driven practitioners -- a professional development trajectory that serves both organisational outcomes and individual career progression.

Benefits design should be reviewed by employment lawyers for Equality Act compliance and pension communications should be developed with qualified advisers. The regulatory landscape continues to evolve: HMRC operational guidance on pension death benefits before April 2027, ERA 2025 commencement orders (including the indicative 2027 date for enhanced flexible working, which remains subject to statutory instrument confirmation), and the auto-enrolment extension timeline all warrant monitoring.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Employee Benefits Strategy, Equality and Diversity, Pension Regulation, Workforce Planning

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Evaluate the evidence base for generational workplace differences and assess the implications for benefits design decisions
  2. Apply the Equality Act 2010 objective justification framework to age-differentiated benefits policies, distinguishing between direct and indirect discrimination risks
  3. Analyse the impact of the April 2027 pension death benefit inheritance tax changes on employer benefits communication strategy across all life stages
  4. Design a life-stage-informed personalisation framework as an evidence-based alternative to generational benefits segmentation

CIPD Competency Mapping

  • Core Knowledge: Employee Benefits (reward and benefits strategy aligned with organisational objectives)
  • Core Behaviour: Evidence-Based Practice (applying research evidence to challenge assumptions in benefits design)
  • Specialist Knowledge: Diversity and Inclusion (integrating age as a protected characteristic into benefits strategy)

Reflective Questions

  1. How would an audit of current benefits provision against Equality Act 2010 age discrimination provisions affect the organisation's benefits design approach?
  2. What data sources within the organisation could replace generational assumptions as the basis for benefits personalisation decisions?
  3. How should the April 2027 pension death benefit changes be integrated into employee benefits communication for different life stages?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 25 February 2026. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. People Management: Are generational divides in the workplace real or just a myth? https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1921049/generational-divides-workplace-real-just-myth ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. CIPD: Should we stop talking about generational differences? https://www.cipd.org/uk/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/the-world-of-work/generational-differences/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. Deloitte: 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/issues/work/genz-millennial-survey.html ↩ ↩2

  4. Equality Act 2010, ss 4-5. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents ↩ ↩2

  5. EHRC: Age discrimination guidance. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/age-discrimination ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 2, Paragraph 10. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Equality Act (Age Exceptions for Pension Schemes) Order 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2133/made ↩

  8. Work Foundation / Lancaster University: Working Together -- Maximising the opportunities of a multigenerational workforce (August 2024). https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/work-foundation/publications/working-together ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. People Management: Recruiting and building a strong multigenerational workforce. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1934408/recruiting-building-strong-multigenerational-workforce ↩

  10. CIPD: New reskilling era needed to boost lifelong learning for older workers. https://www.cipd.org/en/about/press-releases/new-reskilling-era-needed-to-boost-lifelong-learning-older-workers-says-cipd/ ↩ ↩2

  11. ONS: Labour market overview, UK: December 2025. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/december2025 ↩

  12. DWP: Economic labour market status of individuals aged 50 and over, trends over time: September 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025 ↩

  13. Centre for Ageing Better: The State of Ageing 2025 -- Work. https://ageing-better.org.uk/work-state-ageing-2025 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. People Management: Three quarters of firms have multigenerational workforces, but managers are unsure how to support them, study finds. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1885752/three-quarters-firms-multigenerational-workforces-managers-unsure-support-them-study-finds ↩ ↩2

  15. GOV.UK: Check your State Pension age. https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-age ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. GOV.UK: Inheritance Tax -- unused pension funds and death benefits. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  17. KPMG: Inheritance Tax changes -- is your employee group life plan affected? https://kpmg.com/uk/en/insights/tax/tmd-inheritance-tax-changes-is-your-employee-group-life-plan-affected.html ↩ ↩2

  18. GOV.UK: Review of the Automatic Enrolment Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band for 2026/27. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-automatic-enrolment-earnings-trigger-and-qualifying-earnings-band-for-202627/review-of-the-automatic-enrolment-earnings-trigger-and-qualifying-earnings-band-for-202627 ↩

  19. The Pensions Regulator: Earnings thresholds. https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/employers/new-employers/im-an-employer-who-has-to-provide-a-pension/declare-your-compliance/ongoing-duties-for-employers/earnings-thresholds ↩

  20. House of Commons Library: Pensions -- Automatic enrolment -- current issues. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06417/ ↩

  21. Mercer: Smart personalisation -- Providing employee benefits for every generation. https://www.mercer.com/en-gb/insights/total-rewards/employee-wellbeing/smart-personalization-providing-employee-benefits-for-every-generation/ ↩ ↩2

  22. Acas: Employment Rights Act 2025. https://www.acas.org.uk/employment-rights-act-2025; see also Employment Rights Act 2025. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/36/contents ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  23. Aon: UK Benefits and Trends Survey 2025. https://www.aon.com/en-gb/capabilities/health-and-benefits/uk-benefits-and-trends-survey ↩ ↩2

  24. REBA: Benefits Trends for 2025. https://reba.global/resource/benefits-trends-for-2025-briefing-pdf.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. GOV.UK: Salary sacrifice for employers. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/salary-sacrifice-and-the-effects-on-paye ↩

  26. GOV.UK: Changes to salary sacrifice for pensions from April 2029. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-salary-sacrifice-for-pensions-from-april-2029/changes-to-salary-sacrifice-for-pensions-from-april-2029 ↩

  27. CIPD: Reward management survey (April 2022). https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/reports/reward-surveys/ ↩ ↩2

  28. CIPD: Health and wellbeing at work 2025. https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/reports/health-well-being-work/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

Preview Free