Why good employers hesitate to take on apprentices — and what that tells us about retrofit systems

This National Apprenticeship Week (9-15 February), Anna Scothern at the NHIC argues that the industry’s only going to be able to deliver on retrofit skills requirements if we reform existing frameworks.

At a national level, the message on skills is clear: we need more people, trained faster, to deliver home improvement, repair, maintenance and retrofit at scale.

Apprenticeships are often positioned as the obvious solution. Funding exists. Frameworks exist. Targets exist.

And yet, across the repair, maintenance, improvement and retrofit (RMI) sector, many of the best employers — those with strong standards, good customer outcomes and a track record of quality — still hesitate to take on apprentices.

This is not a contradiction. It is a signal.

RMI is not a simplified version of construction

Much of the skills system is still designed around assumptions that suit large, project-based construction models: stable sites, predictable supervision structures, and clear separations between training, assessment and delivery.

RMI and retrofit operate very differently

Work is fragmented across thousands of occupied homes. Installers are required to combine technical competence with diagnosis, customer communication, safeguarding, compliance and real-time problem-solving. Risk sits with the individual business, often a micro-SME, not a principal contractor.

For employers operating in this environment, taking on an apprentice is not simply a workforce decision — it is a delivery risk.

Competence, not qualification, is the pinch point

One of the most consistent concerns raised by good employers is not whether apprenticeships exist, but whether they reliably produce people who are competent to work safely and effectively in real homes.

There is a growing tension between qualification-led systems and competence-led delivery.

From a system perspective, a completed apprenticeship looks like success. From an employer’s perspective, the question is more practical:

• Can this person work independently in a customer’s home?
• Can they diagnose faults rather than follow scripts?
• Can they recognise when something is outside their competence?
• Can they balance technical tasks with consumer trust and safety?

Where employers are unsure that the system supports this progression properly, hesitation is a rational response — not resistance to skills investment.

Retrofit raises the stakes further

Retrofit ambitions intensify these concerns.

Whole-house approaches, fabric-first measures, low-carbon technologies and increased regulatory scrutiny all raise the consequences of poor installation. In this context, employers are acutely aware that bringing someone into the business before they are ready has implications not just for productivity, but for building performance, consumer protection and long-term trust in retrofit programmes.

Good employers know that confidence precedes capacity. Without confidence in the skills pipeline, scaling delivery becomes risky.

Micro-SMEs carry disproportionate exposure

The majority of RMI and retrofit work is delivered by businesses employing fewer than five people.

In these firms:

• Supervision is direct and constant
• Time spent mentoring is time not spent earning
• One mistake can undo years of reputation-building.

Apprenticeships designed around larger employers often underestimate this exposure. Support is frequently front-loaded into recruitment and enrolment, then tapers off precisely when real-world challenges emerge.

From a policy perspective, this looks like under-utilisation of funding. From a business perspective, it looks like unmanaged risk.

Flexibility is not a ‘nice to have’

Many employers do not want to opt out of apprenticeships altogether. What they want is flexibility that reflects how RMI actually works.

This includes:

• Staged entry routes before full employment commitment
• Shared or rotational models across trusted employers
• Training aligned to live workstreams, not abstract sequencing
• Clear pause and exit points without penalty.

Without this, employers are asked to commit upfront to a rigid pathway that assumes stability where none exists.

System designers often view flexibility as complexity. Employers experience it as necessary realism.

Confidence to employ is system-generated

It is tempting to frame low apprenticeship uptake as a mindset problem — employers need to be encouraged, persuaded or incentivised.

In reality, confidence to employ is generated by systems that:

• Reflect delivery reality
• Provide support when things go wrong, not just when they go right
• Align assessment with genuine competence
• Recognise that quality takes time.

Where these conditions exist, employers step forward willingly. Where they do not, hesitation is often the most responsible choice available.

What this means for skills reform

If retrofit and RMI delivery are to scale credibly, skills pathways must be treated as delivery infrastructure, not just education policy.

That means shifting the focus from:

• Starts → outcomes
• Volume → fit
• Qualification → competence
• Participation → confidence.

Good employers hesitating is not a failure of ambition. It is feedback from the frontline about where systems are misaligned with reality.

National Apprenticeship Week offers an opportunity to listen to that feedback — and to redesign pathways that genuinely support those expected to deliver. Because without employer confidence, skills policy remains theoretical. And without competent, confident employers, retrofit ambition will not translate into safe, high-quality outcomes at scale.