The Procurement Guide to MSP Cost Models

BLOGBy Rullion on 29 October 2025

Why your MSP cost model matters

A Managed Service Programme (MSP) can transform how you manage your contingent workforce, but only if you get the commercials right. An accurate MSP cost model is the foundation of any successful MSP procurement; it helps you compare bids on a like-for-like basis, build a credible business case for your executive board, and avoid unexpected costs once the contract begins. 

Yet, many procurement teams still find cost modelling a sticking point. Data gaps, inconsistent supplier quotes, and unclear pricing structures can quickly derail your evaluation process.

As a leading MSP solution provider for critical infrastructure businesses, we’ve supported procurement teams from leading nuclear organisations to nationwide utilities providers with their MSP pricing models. Our deep domain experience means we can balance regulatory compliance, operational resilience, and cost efficiency, helping you get work done without compromising.


We’ve created this guide to break down how to create a clear and commercially sound MSP cost model that enables effective comparisons of potential suppliers so you can make decisions with confidence and ensure contingent workforce cost savings.

 

Things to consider with MSP Cost Models

  1. How much does an MSP in recruitment typically cost?
  2. How much money can you save with a managed service programme?
  3. How to compare managed service provider cost models
  4. Final checklist for your procurement cost-saving strategies
  5. Book a cost-model review session

 

How much does an MSP in recruitment typically cost?

The MSP pricing models will vary depending on scope, workforce size, sector, and delivery model. MSP providers will usually charge through one of three pricing models:

  • Management fee: a percentage of total spend under management (often 1–3% of contingent workforce spend)
  • Supplier-funded model: the MSP is funded via a small margin agreed with the agency, meaning no direct fee for the client
  • Hybrid pricing models: a blend of client fees and supplier contributions, particularly where niche or high-demand skills are involved

 

What’s an MSP margin?

In recruitment, an MSP margin is the percentage added by a Managed Service Provider (MSP) on top of a contractor’s pay rate. It covers the MSP’s management costs and profit for overseeing the contingent workforce.

For example:

If a contractor earns £400 per day and the MSP charges a 15% margin, the client pays £460 per day. That £60 difference is the MSP’s margin.

 

MSP delivery model

Delivery models will also directly influence cost and supplier relationships:

  • Master Vendor: the MSP supplies most workers directly, reducing costs but limiting supplier variety
  • Neutral Vendor: the MSP manages a wide network of agencies, ensuring breadth of choice but often at higher supplier margins
  • Hybrid Delivery: a tailored mix of direct fulfilment and agency supply, balancing cost efficiency with niche expertise

For a deeper dive into these models and why they matter, check out our full breakdown of MSP delivery models.

 

How much money can you save with a managed service programme?

Depending on how mature their current model is, UK companies that use a recruitment MSP typically save 10–20% in the first year. Most of the time, these savings come from:

  • Lower agency margins through managing suppliers in one place
  • Clear reporting making it easier to see and control costs
  • Lower risk of compliance and IR35, which means no expensive fines
  • Better operations because of standardised processes and quicker hiring

 

How to compare managed service provider cost models

With these ten steps, you’ll be able to compare MSP costs and evaluate bids on a like-for-like basis, giving you full visibility of potential contingent workforce cost savings.

 

1. Start with accurate baseline data

Before you think about future savings, you need to know exactly what you’re spending today. Without a reliable starting point, you can’t measure savings, compare MSP suppliers fairly, or spot inflated costs.

Gather data on:

  • Your current contingent workforce headcount
  • Pay rates and charge rates by role
  • Agency fees and mark-ups
  • Statutory costs (holiday pay, NI, pension, apprenticeship levy)
  • Screening, testing, and compliance costs
  • Technology/VMS fees
  • Any other pass-through costs

In our experience, the most common reason an MSP cost model fails in procurement is missing or incomplete baseline data. We regularly work with clients to fill these gaps before they go to market.

Ask your current MSP, Preferred Supplier List (PSL), or ad-hoc supply chain to provide this in writing. If you’re met with resistance, that’s already a red flag for your procurement cost-saving strategy.

 

2. Understand your contingent workforce profile

Your worker population profile affects almost every pricing variable in an MSP bid.

Key metrics to capture:

  • Size of contingent workforce and active assignments
  • Assignment duration and start dates
  • Direct fulfilment % vs. 2nd tier suppliers (The percentage of workers hired directly by the MSP versus through other agencies).
  • Worker source breakdown (MSP-sourced vs client-sourced/payrolled)
  • Location and line manager
  • Pay and statutory costs per role

This detail allows you to evaluate pricing models accurately. For example, if most of your workers are payrolled rather than sourced, an MSP supplier with a lower payroll rate may be more cost-effective than one with a slightly lower sourcing rate.

 

3. Build the business case

Once you have baseline data and workforce insights, you can start building your business case.

Your MSP cost model should:

  • Be simple enough to present to your executive board
  • Clearly show total projected savings for each bid
  • Allow scenario modelling, e.g., impact of different direct fulfilment rates, tenure discounts, or tech costs

Example:
Supplier A charges a lower direct fulfilment rate but commits to only 70% direct hires. Supplier B charges slightly more but commits to 90%. Over time, Supplier B could be more cost-effective due to reduced reliance on 2nd-tier suppliers with higher mark-ups, resulting in procurement cost savings.

See this in action within our E.ON MSP partnership and explore how a direct fulfilment model can reduce reliance on second-tier suppliers, improve accountability, and deliver faster, higher-quality hiring.

 

4. Keep the pricing spreadsheet simple

Complex spreadsheets lead to inconsistent evaluations. Procurement teams benefit most from a pricing model that captures the essentials without over-engineering.

Recommended inclusions:

  • Direct fulfilment mark-up
  • Payroll mark-up (for client-sourced workers)
  • Tenure-based discounts
  • 2nd tier supplier mark-up
  • Tech/Vendor Management System (VMS) costs (priced separately)

Separating VMS costs lets you compare technology spend accurately and assess the true value of different bids. It also keeps the option open to own your own platform, giving you more flexibility and making it easier to switch MSPs in the future.

 

5. Clarify Mark-Up vs Margin

It’s surprising how often terminology causes confusion in MSP tenders. A 7% mark-up is not the same as a 7% margin. Why? Margins cost you more. 

  • Mark-up: % added to the worker’s pay rate + statutory costs
  • Margin: % of the total charge rate

In simple terms, margins are calculated as a percentage of the total amount you pay (including fees and statutory costs) so you end up paying more than you would with the same percentage mark-up. Agree upfront on which you’re using and define exactly how it will be applied to avoid confusion and unexpected costs.

 

6. Common pitfalls in MSP cost modelling

Even the most experienced procurement teams can run into challenges when comparing MSP bids. A few small oversights at this stage can lead to big discrepancies later, either during supplier evaluation or once delivery begins. 

Here are the most common pitfalls to avoid:

  • Unclear or inconsistent pay rate assumptions
  • Hidden tech or implementation fees
  • Overstated migration savings
  • Delivery model impact overlooked
  • Overcomplicated pricing templates

 

7. Factor in contractual terms and migration costs

Migrating workers between MSP providers can appear to deliver big upfront savings but only if your contractual terms allow it.

These are important to check:

  • Worker transfer clauses and associated fees
  • Restrictions in existing worker contracts
  • Realistic migration percentages

Treat migration savings as a one-off line item in your MSP cost model rather than building them into your ongoing projections. This avoids creating an inflated view of savings that won’t recur year after year. Always run a separate “business as usual” cost comparison without migration savings so you can see the true long-term cost picture and make more informed procurement decisions.

 

8. Consider temp-to-perm and permanent hire pricing

Even if your MSP engagement focuses on contingent workers, include:

  • Temp-to-perm fees (broken down by tenure, e.g., 0–13 weeks, 13–26 weeks, 26+ weeks)
  • Ad-hoc permanent hire fees

These can become decision-making tiebreakers if two bids are otherwise close in contingent workforce cost savings.

 

9. Balance MSP pricing with capability

Price matters, but it should never be the only deciding factor. An MSP provider that charges slightly more but delivers consistently high service quality, exceptional compliance standards, and faster time-to-hire will almost always outperform a cheaper alternative in real commercial terms.

We typically see procurement teams achieve better long-term value when their procurement cost-saving strategy prioritises capability and reliability over the lowest upfront cost. A cheaper MSP who can’t deliver on speed, compliance, or quality will cost more in the long run through overtime, missed deadlines, and project delays.

To ensure you’re balancing both cost savings and ability, include a technical capability evaluation alongside your cost model to ensure the supplier has the following:

  • Talent pool depth and relevance
  • Implementation timelines
  • Technology fit and scalability
  • Compliance records

Our service quality consistently ranks among the best in the industry, supported by some of the highest Net Promoter Scores in the MSP market. This means our clients not only get an MSP supplier who can deliver on paper; they work with a consultative partner who will protect their brand and maintain the standards your business depends on.

Check out a case study where we partnered with Northumbrian Water Group (NWG) to deliver a compliant, high-performing managed service programme with 100% fulfilment and real-time cost visibility, all while meeting strict regulatory deadlines. 

 

10. Present your MSP cost model for decision-makers

Your output should be:

  • A clear side-by-side supplier cost comparison
  • Highlighting contractual commitments (direct fulfilment %, tech costs, temp-to-perm fees).
  • Linked to business case outcomes and not just line-by-line cost.

Many leadership boards respond best to visual data. Converting cost models into simple charts can make savings and differences between MSP suppliers instantly clear.

 

Final checklist for your procurement cost-saving strategies

Before you finalise and sign off your MSP cost model, take a step back and make sure you have addressed every key element. This is your last opportunity to confirm that your assumptions are sound and your comparisons are fair, so your board will have all the information they need to make a confident decision. 

  • Baseline data complete and verified
  • Workforce profile documented
  • Mark-up vs margin clarified
  • Tech costs separated
  • Migration savings separated from BAU costs
  • Temp-to-perm and permanent hire pricing included
  • Technical evaluation criteria set

A well-built MSP cost model isn’t just a procurement exercise, it’ll safeguard value over the life of your MSP contract. By combining accurate data, clear pricing comparisons, and a balanced view of capability alongside cost, you’ll be able to make confident, evidence-based decisions. Your organisation can secure an MSP partnership that delivers both contingent workforce cost savings and long-term quality.

 

Book a cost-model review session


Get a personalised review of your MSP cost model and benchmark it against industry best practice to uncover hidden savings and unlock your full potential. 

 

Read other MSP insights

Explore our full library of MSP resources for procurement teams navigating MSP tenders.

Share
Interested in how an MSP can improve your contingent workforce management?

Visit our MSP solution page or book a discovery call to see how we can build a programme that supports your organisation's needs.

More like this

How the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s World Energy Employment Report Highlights a Decade of Opportunity for the UK

How the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s World Energy Employment Report Highlights a Decade of Opportunity for the UK

The global labour market is expanding rapidly. Employment in energy reached seventy six million people last year, growing at more than twice the rate of the wider economy. Clean technologies are now responsible for the majority of new jobs created. Solar, nuclear, grids, and storage are expanding employment at an unprecedented scale. The IEA captures this shift clearly, noting that “the electricity sector has become the world’s largest energy employer, driven by spectacular growth in clean energy investment.” Where many see constraint, the report points instead to a remarkable alignment of forces. Countries with the confidence to build training capacity, open new pathways and support people transitioning from adjacent industries are poised to capture long term economic, industrial and social value. For the United Kingdom in particular, this is not a story about scarcity. It is a story about potential. The UK has one of the most diverse industrial labour markets in the world, a deep engineering heritage, an increasingly ambitious clean energy programme and a workforce that is more mobile than ever before. With the right focus on development and reskilling, the UK can build the teams required for nuclear new build, offshore wind expansion, grid modernisation and clean transport at the pace needed. Rullion sees this opportunity clearly. Every day across nuclear, renewables, utilities and critical infrastructure, we see talented people ready to move, ready to train and ready to grow. The question is not whether the UK has the talent. It is how quickly we can build the pathways that unlock it. The Age of Electricity and the Rise of a New Workforce The headline figures of the report paint a picture of remarkable transformation. Global energy employment reached seventy six million people in 2024 and grew at more than twice the rate of the wider economy. The electricity sector has overtaken fuel supply as the largest energy employer for the first time in history. The IEA captures this shift clearly, stating that “the electricity sector has become the world’s largest energy employer, led by rapid growth in solar, grids and storage.” Solar power alone now employs five million people worldwide, while low emissions power has driven the vast majority of new roles created in the past year. The IEA calls this era the Age of Electricity. It reflects a structural shift that will define global energy systems for the next half century. As grids expand, renewables scale, and electrification replaces combustion in transport, heating and industry, human capability becomes the central currency of the transition. The technologies exist. The investments exist. The constraint is people. Yet the report also makes clear that this expansion is unevenly distributed. China dominates the manufacturing base for solar, batteries, heat pumps and other clean technologies. Emerging economies such as India and Indonesia are generating jobs at four to six percent annually. Advanced economies, including the UK, lag significantly behind. With older populations, more rigid labour markets and limited vocational throughput, they have seen energy employment grow at less than one percent. The IEA warns that “advanced economies face the slowest energy workforce growth and the most acute demographic pressures.” This imbalance exposes a strategic vulnerability. A nation that cannot produce the talent required to build and operate its own energy infrastructure becomes reliant on external supply chains and volatile global markets. It also becomes slower, more expensive and less competitive. The UK’s ambitions in nuclear new build, offshore wind, heat pumps, green transport and grid reinforcement depend on a workforce that does not yet exist at the necessary scale. A Workforce Expanding, Yet Straining at the Edges Nowhere are the tensions clearer than in the skilled trades. Electricians, welders, pipefitters, mechanical fitters and commissioning technicians represent the backbone of the energy system. These roles form more than half of the global energy workforce and are also where shortages are most acute. The report notes that “more than six in ten energy firms report persistent hiring difficulties, with applied technical roles the hardest to fill.” The construction boom across solar, wind, nuclear, grids and storage has created competition so intense that wages have risen sharply in many regions. Grid roles are especially constrained. Transmission and distribution now employ more than eight million people, yet growth is far below what electrification requires. The retirement profile is deeply concerning. The report emphasises that “between today and 2035, two out of every three new power sector hires will be needed just to replace retiring workers.” In advanced economies, the demographic imbalance is even more severe. These pressures manifest throughout the energy ecosystem. Manufacturing suffers from shortages in transformer specialists, switchgear technicians and high voltage cable jointers. Nuclear projects compete for the same welders and electricians required for offshore wind and defence. EV rollouts hinge on both digital skills and traditional trades. Even heat pumps, often discussed as a simple household retrofit technology, depend on retraining thousands of heating and HVAC engineers. When labour markets are this tight, delays become systemic. Project timelines lengthen. Costs rise. Productivity suffers. And the credibility of national energy strategies is placed at risk. Nuclear: A Sector Defined by Expertise and Threatened by Succession Among all energy subsectors, nuclear is the most exposed to demographic decline. Globally, the nuclear workforce is expanding, yet it remains one of the oldest and most specialised segments of the energy labour market. The report highlights the scale of the challenge, noting that “nuclear has the most severe ageing imbalance, with 1.7 workers nearing retirement for every young entrant.” For the UK, where nuclear new build is both a national priority and a cornerstone of future energy security, the implications are serious. Hinkley Point C has already demonstrated the scale of the workforce required for a gigawatt scale plant. Sizewell C will demand a similar or larger effort. Small modular reactors will require engineers with advanced competencies across digital control systems, materials science, reactor physics and high integrity construction. Defence nuclear and the emerging fusion sector compete for many of the same people, creating a labour congestion risk that the country cannot afford to ignore. The IEA points to France as an example of what can happen when maintenance capability and specialist expertise diminish, observing that “skill shortages have contributed to increased outages and reduced output in several advanced nuclear fleets.” This is a warning that the UK should take note of. Nuclear is a sector built on experience, precision and long cycles of talent development. Once expertise erodes, it cannot be regenerated quickly. If the UK is to deliver its nuclear ambitions, it must prioritise workforce planning with the same seriousness it applies to finance, regulation and site readiness. Electrification and the Emergence of New Talent Pathways Despite the severity of the challenges, the report contains a reason for optimism. Electrification does not only consume labour. It also generates new mobility across the wider economy. Manufacturing offers one of the clearest examples. Almost seventeen and a half million people in global vehicle manufacturing now work on electric vehicle technology. That shift has opened opportunities for workers with expertise in precision assembly, power electronics, automation and quality assurance. These skills transfer naturally into battery lines, grid equipment, robotics and advanced nuclear manufacturing. Heating engineers are moving into heat pump installation at growing rates. Aerospace and defence engineers are entering grid digitalisation, energy storage and fusion. Technicians and fitters from oil and gas are retraining into offshore wind, subsea cabling, hydrogen and large scale electrical integration. The IEA captures this shift succinctly, observing that “reskilling and cross sector mobility are now essential features of the energy labour market, driving new supply where traditional pipelines cannot keep pace.” This is one of the most encouraging findings of the report, because it demonstrates that the UK does not have a shortage of underlying talent. Instead, it has a shortage of structured, supported and scalable pathways that help people transition into energy roles. Pathways, not people, are the true constraint. The UK’s Workforce Challenge and Opportunity While the report groups the UK within the broader advanced economies category, its situation is distinctive. It is a mature energy system undergoing significant transformation. Nuclear new build, offshore wind expansion, grid modernisation, electric transport, solar growth and home retrofit programmes all overlap. They draw from overlapping labour pools, yet operate to different timetables and across different suppliers, contractors and regions. The UK’s workforce demographics compound the problem. The report notes that in advanced economies, “the number of workers approaching retirement is more than double the number of workers under 25.” That ratio is reflected across much of the British energy system. Vocational education output remains too low. And the occupations most vital to national delivery are the very ones most undersupplied: electricians, welders, commissioning engineers, cable jointers, plant operators and advanced technicians. Yet the UK also possesses one of the most diverse industrial bases of any advanced economy. Defence, aerospace, rail, automotive, manufacturing, construction and telecoms all hold talent that can transition into energy with the right support. These sectors form an untapped reservoir of capability, waiting to be unlocked. Building the Pathways: A Call to Action The IEA report offers a quantitative foundation for what UK employers already know. Labour is becoming the defining constraint of the energy transition. But this constraint is not inevitable. A nation can invest in vocational capacity, or it can accept undersupply. It can create mechanisms that promote reskilling, or it can allow other sectors to outcompete energy for talent. It can coordinate workforce planning across nuclear, renewables, utilities and transport, or it can allow programmes to clash and cannibalise one another. These choices will shape the next decade of UK industrial competitiveness. For employers, the conversation must shift from talent scarcity to talent creation. Experience and competence can be developed, but only when companies invest in structured training, early careers, cross sector transition and a change in hiring habits. For policymakers, investment in colleges, apprenticeships and regional clusters is no longer optional. For the UK, the costs of inaction will be measured not only in megawatts delayed or cost overruns absorbed, but also in lost strategic advantage. Rullion’s Perspective: Talent Is Not the Problem. Pathways Are. At Rullion, we see the reality of this challenge every day. Across energy and critical infrastructure, employers consistently report difficulty finding people. Yet when we look at the broader labour market, the potential talent is everywhere. It sits in sectors with transferable skills, in early careers populations who have never been exposed to energy as an option, in mid career workers seeking change and in communities eager for long term, well paid employment. This belief guides our models such as Train to Deploy. Instead of competing endlessly for the same small pool of candidates, we create the capability required for the sector, equipping people with the technical and practical skills needed to enter high demand roles. Our Early Careers teams bring young people into industries they might never have considered. Our cross sector programmes help workers transition from oil and gas, defence, aerospace, automotive and manufacturing into clean energy. We call this approach the Abundance Mindset. It is the belief that talent is plentiful when organisations are prepared to develop it, support it and welcome it. The IEA report reinforces this philosophy. The world is not short of electricians, fitters, technicians or engineers. It is short of ways to turn people into those professions. The Decade Ahead The World Energy Employment Report makes one conclusion unmistakable. The race for clean energy is rapidly becoming a race for talent. Capital will not be the limiting factor. Technology will not be the limiting factor. Workforce will be. For the UK, this is both a challenge and a remarkable opportunity. If we can change how we hire into roles, reform vocational education, scale reskilling, coordinate workforce planning and create genuine industrial clusters, it can not only deliver its energy transition but lead it. And if it builds the pathways, the people will come.

By John Shepherd on 12 December 2025

Managing Nuclear Waste and Rethinking Disposal with Rod Baltzer

Managing Nuclear Waste and Rethinking Disposal with Rod Baltzer

An unintended journey into nuclear waste Rod Baltzer didn’t plan a career in nuclear. His professional journey began in accountancy, far from reactors and nuclear energy waste repositories. “I’m actually a CPA, an accountant… and the company I joined owned a radioactive waste business. I got involved through finance and have been fascinated with the industry for the last 25 years.” As Rod became more involved in the waste side of the business, he found himself increasingly drawn to the technical and regulatory complexities of the nuclear sector. It was an industry unlike any other he had encountered. Over time, that “accidental” entry point evolved into deep expertise. Before joining Deep Isolation, Rod served as President and CEO of Waste Control Specialists (WCS), where he oversaw operations, regulatory engagement, and the NRC licence application for the consolidated interim storage of used nuclear fuel. This experience has since positioned him as one of the industry’s leading voices on nuclear waste management and a strong advocate for innovation at the back end of the fuel cycle. His story is a powerful reminder that the future of nuclear isn’t shaped only by those who start there, but by those curious enough to step into it.The biggest misconceptions about nuclear waste When people hear “nuclear waste”, their minds often go to green goo, danger, or sci-fi-style mutations. In reality, it’s something far more controlled and far more common than most realise. “You think of The Simpsons and the green goo, but it’s just not that way… Most people don’t realise they probably live within about 50 miles of nuclear waste... There is so much misperception about safety, but we have such a long track record of doing things safely.” What many don’t realise is how limited the truly high-level waste stream is in the UK. In the UK, less than 10% of radioactive waste by volume is planned for deep geological disposal. The vast majority is low-level waste that can be safely managed through existing, tightly regulated facilities. The Office for Nuclear Regulation and Environment Agency reported future disposal sites for higher activity waste will be governed by “rigorous safety, security, safeguards and environmental standards throughout all phases”. This gap between perception and reality is one of the biggest barriers facing the future of nuclear, and it directly impacts policy, funding, community acceptance, and talent attraction. Rethinking nuclear waste storage For decades, the accepted solution for storing spent nuclear fuel has been a deep, mined repository. Massive 18-foot-wide mine repository tunnels with complex ventilation systems and huge infrastructure costs. But Rod and the team at Deep Isolation have taken a radically different approach to managing nuclear waste, borrowing proven technology from the oil and gas sector. Instead of enormous underground chambers, Deep Isolation uses slim boreholes just 21 inches wide, drilled deeper and laterally, significantly reducing cost and surface disruption (2-3% of the traditional site). This approach could result in faster deployment timelines using drilling rigs rather than multi-year tunnelling projects. “Without all the engineered barriers and ventilation systems, we’re at less than half the cost of a mined repository.” The power of transferable talent Over the last few years, the nuclear industry has been actively recruiting from beyond its traditional pipeline. In the UK, the civil nuclear workforce grew by 35% between 2021 and 2024, reaching approximately 87,000 workers. For many roles, the key isn’t a nuclear-specific degree but rather experience in heavy industry, drilling, robotics or remote operations. All skills that transfer from sectors such as oil & gas, mining and construction. One of the most compelling parts of Rod’s story is the new talent pipelines Deep Isolation unlocks. Oil and gas professionals, drillers, geologists, robotics engineers and remote-ops operators are now nuclear-eligible talent. “We feel like we could repurpose oil and gas drilling rigs… instead of extracting valuable resources, we’re putting spent fuel underground.” Rod explains that the same drilling rigs and competencies used in oil and gas can be repurposed for nuclear waste disposal, shifting their purpose from extraction to containment. This opens the door for people with transferable skills from other sectors, giving them a pathway to retrain into the nuclear industry. How can we attract the next generation of nuclear talent? At a time when the nuclear industry is facing a global ‘skills gap’, Rod believes one of the biggest missed opportunities is simply access. Many students study nuclear engineering, physics, or related disciplines without ever seeing what those careers actually look like in practice. One of the most hopeful moments in the conversation comes when Rod describes welcoming students to Deep Isolation’s demo centre. For many of them, it was their first real exposure to the physical infrastructure and technology behind nuclear power waste management. “They got to see an oil and gas rig and our canisters… and they came away very excited. They said, ‘We’d never really seen this before. It kind of opened us up to this new field.’” In an industry projected to require tens of thousands of new skilled workers over the next two decades, Rod believes this kind of early, hands-on exposure must move from “nice to have” to a strategic priority. Because you can’t build the future of nuclear if the next generation never gets to see it. A career path people don’t realise exists There are thousands of roles within the nuclear ecosystem that people simply don’t realise are open to them. Perhaps the most encouraging part of Rod’s story is just how many different routes there are into the nuclear sector, including for those who never expected to end up there. He didn’t begin as a nuclear engineer or geologist; he began as an accountant. Over time, curiosity and exposure drew him deeper into the complexities of nuclear waste, regulation, and long-term environmental responsibility, fundamentally reshaping the direction of his career. His journey shows that nuclear is not a closed ecosystem reserved for a select few. It is supported by an entire network of disciplines, including finance, project management, drilling, geotechnical engineering, data analysis, operations, and risk modelling. In many cases, it is the combination of these perspectives that drives the most meaningful innovation. The future of nuclear waste The future of nuclear isn’t just about new reactors or flashy technology. It’s about legacy and intelligent design. Rod’s vision is a shift from reactive to proactive thinking: Integrating waste planning into early reactor design Reducing misperceptions through transparency Opening pathways for cross-sector talent Making nuclear simpler, not scarier In many ways, how the industry goes about managing nuclear waste will define how the world chooses to trust nuclear at scale. Because building trust in nuclear means investing just as much in safe, transparent waste solutions as we do in the next generation of people who will deliver them. Watch the full interview. If you’d like to explore more perspectives from Deep Isolation’s leadership, you can also revisit our earlier conversation with cofounder Liz Muller, whose vision helped lay the foundations for the borehole disposal approach. Read and watch the full interview: “Rethinking Nuclear Waste: Liz Muller’s Mission to Revolutionise the Industry.”

By Rullion on 11 December 2025