A growth strategy for a recruitment agency is a three-year plan outlining where the business is going and why, broken down into a 12-month execution plan and a set of 90-day sprints. Most owners have a to-do list instead. The difference between the two is the difference between growing on purpose and growing by luck

Definitions Widen The scope of Right to Work (RTW) obligations is expanding significantly. Under the new framework, organisations will be required to consider not only employees, but also subcontractors and other workers engaged within their supply chain. This broadens the responsibility for verifying legal working status and increases the number of individuals who will require RTW checks. Liability Permeates Through the Supply Chain Reflecting the direction taken by the April 2026 Joint Liability provisions, liability for illegal working will no longer sit solely with the direct employer or labour provider. Responsibility can now extend up the labour supply chain, meaning organisations may face enforcement action where illegal working occurs within their workforce ecosystem, even where they are not the direct engager. How Will RTW Changes Affect Contractors? Historically, it was not uncommon for self-employed workers to provide documentation at a later stage, as many engagements sat outside the traditional RTW framework. This approach is unlikely to remain viable under the new regime. Workers should now expect to undergo full RTW verification before commencing work. In many cases, checks may be carried out by multiple parties, including labour providers, umbrella companies, agencies and end clients seeking to protect their own statutory position. As a result, duplicate checks are likely to become commonplace across the supply chain. The changes will also require greater operational discipline. Informal processes, where workers begin work before compliance checks are completed, will present a significant risk. Organisations will need robust onboarding procedures to ensure all workers are fully verified, recorded and authorised before accessing site or commencing work. Under the previous framework, where an umbrella company supplied a worker to a client, liability for an illegal worker would generally rest with the umbrella company. Under the proposed changes, liability may extend beyond the direct engager. While the umbrella company remains responsible for conducting compliant RTW checks, organisations further up the supply chain may also face exposure where due diligence has not been exercised. For example, where a contractor engages a limited company and an individual working under that arrangement is subsequently found not to have the right to work, both the limited company and potentially the contractor may come under scrutiny. Similarly, where a worker provides a substitute and that individual has not undergone appropriate RTW verification, liability may extend through the engagement chain if adequate controls have not been implemented. It is important to note that workers employed directly by one organisation and deployed to a client's site are generally outside the scope of Extended Liability. In such circumstances, the client would not typically inherit liability for RTW failures of the direct employer. A further consideration is the concept of statutory excuse. If an umbrella company has conducted a compliant RTW check, but the receiving organisation has not undertaken its own verification, the umbrella company may have a statutory excuse against penalty while the client may not. This creates a scenario where different parties in the same supply chain face materially different compliance outcomes. Can the Client or Agency Rely on the Umbrella Company's Right to Work Check? No. RTW checks are not transferable and do not provide a statutory excuse to another organisation. Each party seeking protection under the legislation must undertake and retain evidence of its own compliant check. Organisations should therefore review existing processes and ensure they are not relying on checks completed by suppliers, agencies or umbrella companies. What About Impersonation? Impersonation remains a significant compliance risk. It is anticipated that organisations will be expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual presenting for work is the same individual whose RTW status has been verified. Where a different person is found to be working in place of the verified individual, organisations that failed to identify or prevent the substitution may face liability. Digital identity verification, biometric validation and technology-enabled site access controls are expected to play an increasingly important role in mitigating this risk. What Can We Expect to See Going Forward? The introduction of Extended Liability is likely to drive substantially higher levels of due diligence across labour supply chains. Clients, Managed Service Providers (MSPs), agencies and contractors are expected to take a far more active role in verifying RTW compliance, rather than assuming responsibility sits elsewhere in the supply chain. The use of digital identity verification and workforce management technology is also expected to increase as organisations seek to create auditable compliance frameworks and reduce the administrative burden associated with manual checking processes. Greater collaboration between clients and suppliers is also likely as organisations work together to maintain compliance and demonstrate robust governance. How Should You Prepare for Upcoming Changes? Organisations should consider taking the following steps: Map all workforce engagement models to understand where workers are employed, self-employed, supplied via umbrella companies or engaged through limited companies. Identify who within the organisation is responsible for conducting RTW checks and establish a consistent, auditable process. Review existing worker populations and address any gaps where RTW checks may not previously have been required. Undertake supply chain due diligence and review contractual arrangements with labour providers and subcontractors. Implement substitution controls to ensure replacement workers cannot commence work without appropriate verification. Assess the viability of digital identity verification, facial recognition or access-control technology where appropriate. Establish a secure process for retaining RTW records and evidence for audit and enforcement purposes. Provide training to operational and site-based teams to ensure compliance obligations are understood and consistently applied. In summary, the objective of the changes is to ensure all parties within a labour supply chain take reasonable and proactive steps to prevent illegal working, rather than relying on another organisation to manage the risk. How Does This Affect Bishopsgate Operations? Bishopsgate already conducts comprehensive RTW checks on selfemployed workers and is therefore well positioned for the proposed changes. Online identity verification services may provide additional compliance assurance, subject to client requirements and cost considerations. Bishopsgate provides client education and training sessions to support customers in updating their own compliance processes. Enhanced monitoring of workers with time-limited permissions should be implemented, with regular updates shared with clients where appropriate. Whilst Bishopsgate cannot assume responsibility for a client's RTW obligations, it can support compliance efforts through collaboration and information sharing, such as notifying clients when related compliance checks have been completed.