Style police: employers tighten up on appearance

Employers are increasingly telling their staff what not to wear as the decline of the business suit leaves people unsure about standards of dress, according to research launched today by IRS Employment Review, published by LexisNexis Butterworths.

The survey of 66 UK companies and public sector bodies found that while standards of dress are becoming less formal, the policing of what is and is not acceptable clothing for the office is being tightened up.

More than two-thirds (67%) of dress code policies now have the force of the employment contract behind them. This is 15% up on the previous IRS survey (2003) with fewer employers are content to keep their guidelines informal.
Fewer than one-third (31%) of employers with formal dress code policies grant dispensations on religious grounds, despite legislation that may leave them open to claims of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.
The survey, conducted at the end of 2004, is in the new edition (816) of IRS Employment Review.

Other key points:

* Most employers (73%) said enhancing the external image of the company was the most common reason for having a dress code. Other reasons ranked as follows:

o to reinforce internal company culture ñ chosen by 64% of employers
o health and safety ñ just over half (51%)
o practicality ñ one third (33%)
o to distinguish/identify employees ñ one fifth (20%)
o hygiene ñ 15%

* Among those organisations that do not operate a dress code, the general belief is that it is unnecessary because employees can be trusted to wear appropriate clothing.
* Fewer than one in 10 employers involve their staff in devising the organisationís dress code.

* 64% of those employers operating a dress code policy do relax their dress codes rules at times, while just under a third (31%) do not.

* Dress-down days are most commonly cited as the reason for relaxing dress code policies.

* Two thirds of employers (67%) say that their staff adhere to their policy and little enforcement action is necessary.

* A significant minority of employers (27%) say that while their dress code policy is observed, it still has to be policed.

* 77% of the organisations reported that there no employees had been disciplined for non-compliance in the past 12 months. One fifth of employers reported at least one occurrence and just over one in 10 (13%) of organisations said that they had disciplined employees on two to five occasions.

* The main responsibility for policing dress codes usually lies with line managers, with HR playing an advisory or disciplinary role alongside.

Employees have to wear a uniform or overalls at fewer than half the organisations surveyed (46%). In all cases these are paid for and/or supplied by the organisation rather than the employee, and most employers choose to pay for or share the cost of cleaning and repairs.

IRS Employment Review managing editor, Mark Crail said:

ìOne strong message from our survey is that employers believe dress codes must be relevant to business needs, to individuals and to organisational culture. With increasing emphasis on corporate image, it is not surprising that many employers regard workplace attire as a serious business.
ìThe nature of a dress code varies according to the needs of the organisation. We still donít know how far legislation outlawing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and religion or belief will affect organisations with workplace dress policies. Some employers are already reviewing their dress codes to ensure that they do not inadvertently lead to direct or indirect discrimination on these grounds.î