Is it time to hold businesses accountable for Return-to-Office mandates?
Are businesses aware that RTO mandates disproportionately harm underrepresented groups?
In April 2025, WPP, one of the largest advertising conglomerates in the world, will require its 100,000 employees to return to the office at least four days a week. CEO Mark Read justified this move by highlighting the value of “human connection, creativity, and relationships” in fostering success.
While this rationale might resonate with some, it raises deeper, more troubling questions about corporate responsibility, employee well-being, and the future of work.
I can’t help but ask: Is it time for governments to step in and penalise companies that prioritise outdated notions of productivity over human dignity?
Saying sorry and moving on is no longer enough.
The Return-to-Office push: A regressive power play?
WPP is not alone in this shift. Corporate giants like Amazon, Dell, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Meta have all rolled back flexible work policies in favour of traditional, office-centric models.
This growing trend signals a dangerous shift in corporate thinking: a preference for control over innovation, compliance over creativity.
But let’s get one thing straight. This is not about collaboration. It is about power.
Mandating office attendance under the guise of “culture” and “collaboration” ignores the fundamental lessons of the pandemic.
For two years, employees proved they could deliver results without being physically tethered to a desk. Productivity surged, innovation didn’t stall, and many employees reported better work-life balance. So why the sudden U-turn?
The answer lies in control. When leadership can’t measure success through output, they default to visibility.
But here’s the problem: presenteeism doesn’t equal productivity. In fact, studies suggest it often leads to burnout, disengagement, and higher turnover.
A hard look at the data
Let’s examine the numbers:
• A 2022 study by Owl Labs found that 77% of employees reported being more productive when working remotely.
• Microsoft’s Work Trend Index revealed that 87% of employees felt they were productive at work, while only 12% of managers believed the same. This disconnect suggests a crisis in trust, not in performance.
• McKinsey & Company’s 2023 report highlighted that companies with flexible work models saw a 20% increase in employee satisfaction and a 17% boost in productivity.
So, if the data favours flexibility, why are leaders clinging to rigid office mandates?
Because relinquishing control is uncomfortable. But leadership is about adaptation, not comfort.
Who gets hurt by rigid RTO policies?
Let’s be clear: RTO mandates disproportionately harm underrepresented groups.
Women and caregivers: Women, particularly working mothers, have historically shouldered the bulk of caregiving responsibilities. The pandemic illuminated this imbalance but also offered solutions through flexible work. Stripping that away pushes many women back into impossible choices between career and family.
Disabled employees: Remote work opened doors for people with disabilities who faced physical and systemic barriers in traditional office spaces. Forcing them back into environments that lack proper accommodations is not just insensitive—it’s discriminatory.
Marginalised communities: LGBTQIA+ employees and people of colour often face microaggressions and discrimination in corporate spaces. Remote work provided a buffer against toxic work environments. Removing that buffer is a regression in corporate inclusivity.
Neurodivergent employees: Open-plan offices and overstimulating environments can hinder the productivity of neurodivergent employees. Flexible work allowed them to thrive. Why take that away?
If WPP and other corporations truly cared about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), they would recognise that rigid office mandates undermine these commitments.
The illusion of apology culture
Corporate apologies have become a routine PR exercise. Companies issue statements, promise to “do better”, and continue operating without consequence.
But as we’ve seen time and again, apologies without accountability are meaningless.
Take the history of blackface in advertising. Brands like Prada, Gucci, and H&M have faced backlash for racially insensitive products and campaigns. They apologised, rebranded, and moved on.
But has anything fundamentally changed? Or is it simply a cycle of outrage and amnesia?
Similarly, WPP’s RTO mandate is a slap in the face to employees who built its success during a global crisis. An apology won’t cut it. There must be consequences.
Should governments step in?
The free market has failed to protect workers. It’s time for regulatory intervention.
Tax incentives tied to flexibility: Governments could offer tax breaks to companies that implement and maintain flexible work policies, incentivising a shift toward more inclusive practices.
Penalties for harmful policies: Organisations that roll back DEI initiatives or enforce rigid policies detrimental to employee well-being could face fines or lose access to government contracts.
Labour protections for remote work: Legislation should be introduced to protect flexible work arrangements, making it harder for companies to unilaterally revoke them without just cause. The pandemic proved that work can be done anywhere. Failing to legislate this is a failure to protect progress.
What leaders need to do now
To the CEOs, founders, and managing directors reading this: It’s time to rethink leadership. The future of work is about value, not about visibility. Here’s how to lead differently:
1. Rebuild trust
If managers doubt employee productivity, it’s a failure of leadership, not workers. Implement systems that measure outcomes, not attendance.
2. Embed DEI in work models
Flexible work is a DEI issue. Make remote and hybrid options permanent to support diverse talent.
3. Prioritise well-being over optics
Leaders must stop confusing “busy” with “effective.” Create policies that prioritize mental health and work-life integration.
4. Lead with transparency
If an RTO mandate is necessary, explain why with data and empathy. Engage employees in decision-making.
The bottom line
WPP’s decision is a symptom of a larger disease in corporate thinking: the refusal to adapt.
Leaders can’t afford to lead with nostalgia for how things used to be. The future demands flexibility, empathy, and innovation.
If companies won’t evolve willingly, perhaps it’s time for governments to make them.