From Yellow Pages to Digital ID: the Future of Screening

Why the ‘Nuclear Skills Gap’ Is the Wrong Conversation

The nuclear skills gap is usually described as a shortage: not enough engineers, too few graduates, and a limited pool of people ready to support the next phase of UK nuclear delivery. But the nuclear skills gap may be the wrong starting point. The sector does need people urgently, but the bigger challenge is how we recognise and develop talent and connect them to the right opportunities. In that sense, the problem is not only a supply issue. It is also a hiring problem, a communication problem, and a workforce planning problem. Across the energy and nuclear sectors, the contradiction is hard to ignore. Employers say they cannot find the people they need, while early-career professionals and career changers are struggling to access roles they are capable of growing into. Demand is rising as the UK pushes ahead with nuclear new build, works towards net zero and plans for long-term infrastructure delivery. Yet the conversation is still often framed as a UK skills shortage, as though the only answer is to create more people with the right labels on their CV. That misses a more useful question. What if the talent already exists, but the sector is not always looking for it in the right way? Jump to: The skills gap narrative is too simplistic Careers aren’t linear, but hiring in nuclear still is Transferable talent is more prevalent than ever Why the future of work is reshaping what “job-ready” means in nuclear University isn’t the default route into nuclear careers How to close the skills gap in nuclear Adapting your workforce planning The skills gap narrative is too simplistic The phrase “skills gap” is useful because it creates urgency. It gives employers, educators, and policymakers a shared problem to rally around. But it can also flatten a much more complicated issue. When hiring teams talk about an employee skills gap, they often mean something specific: candidates are not arriving with the exact sector background or technical exposure listed on the job specification. In nuclear that caution is understandable. Safety, regulation, site knowledge, and procedural confidence all matter. However, when every vacancy is designed around a perfect match, the pool narrows before potential is even considered. Job descriptions can become filters rather than gateways. They reward people who already know how to describe themselves in nuclear language and discourage those whose expertise has been built elsewhere. That creates a disconnect between candidates and hiring managers. One side sees a role they cannot quite match. The other sees a CV that does not immediately translate. Miguel Trenkel-Lopez captured this neatly in his Hot Off The Grid conversation. Through Megawatt, Miguel has spoken to young people who say they have applied for roles and have been rejected despite having relevant skills. He has also spoken to companies who say they are trying to hire but cannot find people. His conclusion was blunt: “It’s not a skill shortage. It’s a communications failure.” This perspective changes the response the sector needs. If the problem is only a shortage, the answer is to keep pushing more people into the pipeline. If it is also a communication and translation problem, the sector needs to think beyond the skills gap and look at how talent is identified and developed. Careers aren’t linear, but hiring in nuclear still is Career paths have changed. People no longer move through one neat route from education to entry-level role and then specialist career. They build experience across different sectors. They move sideways and retrain. Or they discover an industry through advocacy, outreach, a graduate scheme, or a chance conversation. Hiring in nuclear has not always adapted at the same pace. Many nuclear roles are still assessed against linear criteria: a particular degree, a recognisable employer background, or a set number of years in a similar regulated environment. Those things may be relevant, but they are not the whole picture. When hiring models focus too heavily on direct experience, they risk missing candidates whose careers have given them the judgement, curiosity, discipline, and adaptability the sector needs. Yasmin Ali’s career is a useful example. She began in fossil fuel generation, including a coal-fired power station, before moving through gas, district heating, government, and clean energy. When she wanted to shift direction, recruiters tended to frame her by the role she had most recently done rather than the broader expertise she had built. She used her network to make the move, but not every candidate has access to that kind of informal bridge. That is one of the hidden weaknesses in current hiring models. They depend too heavily on candidates knowing how to translate themselves. In a complex sector like nuclear, that cannot be left to chance. Transferable talent is more prevalent than ever Between entry-level candidates and perfect-match hires sits a large group of overlooked people: transferable and adjacent talent. They may not describe themselves as nuclear candidates, but they often hold experience that could be highly relevant with the right assessment and development. Construction Large-scale infrastructure Manufacturing Energy & Utilities Defence Transport Major project delivery Compliance Safety Operations Regulated environments The barrier is rarely a total lack of ability. More often, it is that their experience is framed differently. A hiring manager may be looking for direct sector experience, while a candidate reads the same role and assumes they do not belong. If the search then relies too heavily on familiar keywords, people can be excluded before their potential is properly explored. This is particularly important for nuclear recruitment because the sector needs more than one kind of specialist. It needs engineers, but it also needs project managers, technicians, planners, safety professionals, commercial teams, supply chain expertise, communicators, and people who understand how large infrastructure programmes actually get delivered. The nuclear career opportunities are vast. The workforce required to build, operate, and maintain nuclear projects is wider than the public perception of the industry often suggests.A project planner from rail may already understand programme controls, stakeholder management, and how to work within complex regulatory frameworks. A safety professional from defence may have experience operating in highly controlled environments where compliance and risk management are critical. The underlying capabilities are often transferable, even when the sector terminology is different. Jens Christiansen’s route into nuclear shows how much difference exposure and connection can make. In Denmark, where nuclear power has long faced political barriers, he built his pathway through advocacy, university choices, networking, and an internship in Sweden. His story is not a neat linear funnel. It shows how interest becomes a career when people have access to the right guidance and opportunities. The lesson is clear. Talent may not always come from the expected source. The task for employers is to recognise talent earlier and create clearer routes into the nuclear sector. Why the future of work is reshaping what “job-ready” means in nuclear The expectation that candidates should arrive fully job-ready is becoming increasingly unrealistic. That is not unique to nuclear, but it is especially visible in a sector where the demand for specialised capability is increasing and experienced workers are retiring. There is a difference between 'job-ready' and 'development-ready' talent. A job-ready candidate can step into a role with minimal support. A development-ready candidate may not know every process on day one, but they have the underlying capability and adjacent experience to grow into the role with structured training and on-the-job exposure. Nuclear has always depended on learning in context. Site knowledge, safety culture, regulatory confidence, and procedural understanding do not develop through a CV alone. They are built over time alongside experienced teams, through real work. That means skills gap solutions cannot focus only on immediate vacancy fulfilment. They need to include long-term development routes, including train-to-deploy models, early careers support, mentoring, and clearer progression pathways. The sector cannot wait for fully formed talent to appear. It has to build the conditions for capable people to become nuclear-ready. University isn’t the default route into nuclear careers The previous conversation around nuclear education still matters. Universities play an important role in creating strong technical foundations, particularly for engineering and science roles. But they cannot be treated as the only answer. Young people are entering a much tougher employment landscape. Recent figures from the House of Commons Library put youth unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds at 16.2%, at a time when infrastructure and energy employers are still talking about shortages. That should make the sector pause. If young people are struggling to access work while nuclear employers are struggling to hire, the issue is not only education. It is the bridge between education, awareness, and employment. Nuclear apprenticeships are part of that bridge. So are school outreach, early careers programmes, career-switcher pathways, and employer-led training. Daljeet’s story from the wider energy sector is a reminder that valuable careers do not always begin with university. She started as an apprentice, moved through customer operations and built a senior career in energy. As she put it, university is a good option for many people, but it is not the only option. That message matters for nuclear graduates too. The sector needs to make early career routes feel accessible and realistic. Not everyone will arrive already fluent in nuclear. The more important question is whether they have the potential to learn and contribute. How to close the skills gap in nuclear Closing the skills gap in nuclear starts with reframing the question. Instead of asking only, "Where are the people with this exact experience?" employers need to ask, "What expertise does this role truly require, and where else might that expertise exist?" That shift changes how roles are designed, how candidates are assessed, and how hiring teams think about risk. Job specifications need to focus more on outcomes than previous job titles. Transferable skills need to be mapped from adjacent sectors. Career pathways need to feel clearer for people who do not already know the industry. It also means treating nuclear workforce planning as a strategic activity and not a reactive response to vacancies. If employers know what expertise they will need in three, five or ten years, they can start building it now through apprenticeships, graduate programmes, train-to-deploy routes, redeployment, and cross-sector attraction. Adapting your workforce planning The nuclear workforce challenge is real, but it is not a simple absence of talent. It is a disconnect in how talent is defined and moved into opportunity. That is why the traditional model of matching people to jobs is increasingly misaligned with how nuclear careers actually develop. The industry needs a wider view of talent, one that recognises potential before it is packaged into familiar nuclear experience. For employers, the opportunity is significant. Better translation of skills means broader candidate pools, stronger retention and more resilient project delivery. For candidates, it means seeing a route into a sector they may previously have ruled out. The skills gap conversation is not wrong because skills do not matter. The skills gap is real. It becomes less useful when the conversation is limited to just the shortage. The better conversation starts with better routes into the sector. It also means recognising potential earlier and creating a workforce strategy that reflects how people are building their careers today. The UK’s and Europe’s nuclear ambitions will ultimately depend on people. And not just those already working in the sector. Those who could be, if given the right opportunity. To hear more conversations from across the nuclear and other critical infrastructure sectors, explore our Hot Off The Grid podcast series.

Does Your Early Careers Strategy Hold Up Under Pressure?

Most early careers programmes are built to run. Fewer are built to respond. For organisations in nuclear, energy, water, utilities and rail, that distinction matters. A strong early careers strategy is not simply about filling entry-level roles. It is about building the skills base future projects will depend on. Across these critical infrastructure sectors, hiring is rarely straightforward. Talent pipelines take time to build, and role requirements can shift while a campaign is already live. When an early careers programme cannot adapt mid-campaign, the impact is not limited to one delayed hire or one missed intake. It can create capability gaps that take years to close. That is why agility matters. Not agility as speed for its own sake. Agility as the ability to make informed decisions when conditions change. It means reading the pipeline early enough to spot where candidates are dropping out, then adjusting the campaign before momentum is lost. Jump to: Why critical infrastructure hiring puts early careers strategy under pressure Employer branding affects how quickly your campaign can respond What responsiveness looks like inside the early careers pipeline Fixed supplier models can slow the decisions that matter Shared ownership gives the programme room to move What to ask before your next early careers campaign Why critical infrastructure hiring puts early careers strategy under pressure Early careers hiring in critical infrastructure rarely happens in neat, predictable conditions. Campaigns often have to move before every role specification is fully confirmed. Application volumes can be difficult to forecast, and stakeholder requirements may continue to evolve once activity is already underway. That creates a very different environment from a standard graduate campaign. These organisations are hiring into sectors with long-term workforce needs and specialist technical roles that graduates may not immediately understand. The work is essential, but the career paths are not always obvious from the outside. A graduate may understand the appeal of joining a major technology brand or consultancy much faster than they understand the breadth of opportunity inside a water utility, nuclear operator or rail infrastructure organisation. The pressure is rarely spread evenly across the campaign either. Early talent attraction may appear steady before assessment centres, offer stages, and hiring manager reviews create sudden spikes in activity. A programme planned around a consistent level of resource can quickly become stretched at the moments where pace and judgement matter most. For example: In nuclear early careers, hiring may need input from safety teams or site-based technical stakeholders before candidates can progress. In water utilities, regional hiring needs can make attraction more uneven, with some locations generating strong interest while others need more targeted support. Across critical infrastructure, those kinds of variables make a fixed campaign model difficult to rely on. The added challenge of building an early careers programme from scratch For organisations developing an early careers programme for the first time, those pressures arrive without the benefit of an established model. There may be no reliable historical volume data, no proven channel mix, and no clear benchmark for how candidates will move through the process. “That makes agility important from the beginning, not something that we add once the programme matures. The strategy needs enough structure to give the campaign direction but enough flexibility to respond when conditions change.” - Dan Crerand, Director of Talent & Skills Employer branding affects how quickly your campaign can respond Employer brand is often treated as a pre-campaign activity. Build the message, launch the campaign, and review performance at the end. Graduate employer brand has a direct effect on how much pressure an early careers programme has to absorb during the campaign. Organisations with strong graduate brand recognition arrive with a level of built-in momentum. Candidates already know who they are and understand the offer before the campaign reaches them. That recognition may come from campus activity, peer networks, or previous graduate recruitment campaigns. Employer branding for critical infrastructure organisations Many organisations in nuclear, water utilities, rail, energy and renewables do not have that same advantage at the graduate level. That does not mean the roles are less compelling. Often, the opposite is true. These sectors can offer graduates meaningful work with technical depth and visible impact. The challenge is that the proposition often needs more explanation. In graduate rail recruitment programmes, the range of roles available is often wider than candidates expect. Behind day-to-day operations of the railway sits a business that spans commercial, digital, engineering, project management, and sustainability roles. Across the energy sector, the employer brand challenge may be different again. Organisations need to show how graduate roles connect to grid resilience, decarbonisation, infrastructure investment, or the practical delivery of the energy transition, rather than relying on broad sustainability messaging. If the pipeline is not building in the right disciplines, locations or candidate groups, the early careers strategy has to respond while the campaign is still live. Before applications close, the team may need to change the message and redirect activity or remove friction from the application process. A campaign that only reviews employer branding strategy at the end will always be reacting too late. What responsiveness looks like inside the early careers pipeline Monitor the pipeline while there is still time to act A responsive early careers pipeline is monitored continuously. Not just at headline level, and not only at the point of attraction. The useful questions are more specific: Which disciplines are filling faster than expected? Which locations are under-supplied? Which candidate groups are entering the funnel but not progressing? Where is the process creating friction? Which stages are taking longer than planned? Where are hiring managers becoming a bottleneck? For early careers hiring in rail, energy, nuclear and water utilities, those questions need to be asked early enough to influence the outcome. Knowing there is a shortfall after the campaign closes may help the next intake. Knowing it mid-campaign can protect the current one. Track diversity through every stage Attraction data only tells part of the story; diversity needs the same level of attention. A diversity recruitment strategy has to track candidate movement through every stage of the funnel, from initial engagement through to final acceptance. If female candidates, for example, are entering the early careers pipeline but dropping before completion, that points to a specific issue in the process. It could be: Job description language Website content Assessment communications Confidence levels Perceived fit or the way the opportunity has been framed Dan shared insights from a recent nuclear early careers campaign: “A 13% drop-off among female candidates between initial engagement and completed application highlighted exactly this kind of issue. The value was not in the number alone. It was in seeing the pattern early enough to review what was happening and make a targeted adjustment.” Build in room to change the assessment process Assessment processes also need room to flex. AI-assisted applications are now creating new graduate recruitment challenges and pressures across these safety-critical sectors. Organisations across nuclear, rail, and energy are having to think carefully about how they verify candidate understanding without adding unnecessary friction or delay. This might mean: Introducing an additional screening stage Changing the weighting of an assessment Adapting interview guidance for hiring managers Whatever the response, the key issue is whether the early careers programme can absorb that change without derailing the timeline. A resilient early careers strategy does not assume the original process will remain perfect from launch to offer. It creates the conditions to adjust when the evidence says something needs to change. Fixed supplier models can slow the decisions that matter Where a programme partner is treated as a supplier delivering against a fixed brief, responsiveness becomes harder. A small adjustment can quickly become a request that rolls into the need for reviews and approvals. By the time action is agreed upon, the campaign may already have moved on.That creates decision latency at exactly the wrong moment. For critical infrastructure organisations, the timing matters because internal teams are already carrying significant pressure. Dan noted: “Early careers hiring often sits alongside workforce planning, operational demands, stakeholder management and longer-term skills priorities. If the working model adds handovers or pushes decisions through extra approval loops, the programme becomes slower at the exact moment it needs to respond.” Shared ownership gives the programme room to move A shared ownership model means that both the organisation and the programme partner are working from the same data. Funnel performance is visible, and diversity movement is reviewed at each stage. When risks appear, they are discussed while there is still time to act. Decisions are made jointly, with clear ownership of what happens next. It also means the partner absorbs operational complexity rather than passing it back to the internal team. When attraction needs to shift, the response can be shaped quickly: Assessment spikes can be resourced before they become a bottleneck. Candidate communications can be updated before an issue becomes embedded. Stakeholders receive recommendations based on live evidence rather than end-of-campaign analysis. This is particularly important for organisations investing in an early careers strategy for the first time or scaling an early careers programme across multiple business areas, regions, or technical disciplines. The working relationship has to support the speed of the campaign. Otherwise, even good insight becomes too slow to matter. What to ask before your next early careers campaign Before the next campaign launches, the most useful questions are not only about process, platforms or attraction channels. They are about how the programme will respond when conditions change. What happens if application volume is lower than expected? Who decides when the campaign needs to change? How quickly can messaging, targeting or assessment be adjusted? Where is diversity being tracked beyond attraction? What happens if candidate behaviour shifts mid-campaign? How much pressure can the internal team absorb before delivery starts to suffer? For organisations in nuclear, energy, water utilities, and rail, these questions matter because early careers hiring feeds directly into long-term workforce capability. The strategy needs to look strong before launch, but it also needs to hold up once the campaign is live.