Jul 7, 2025
EECO2 Response
2wThis review raises some serious points, and we'd rather respond to them honestly than defensively.
We will note at the outset, though, that while this is posted as a current employee of five to seven years, the account bears little resemblance to the experience of anyone currently with the business. We mention that not to dismiss the review, but because readers are entitled to weigh it accordingly.
Some points we can address with evidence. Others — particularly those concerning how individuals are treated — matter too much to wave away, so our response is to be clear about how they can properly be looked into.
On discrimination, harassment and HR. This is the most serious part of the review and deserves a straight answer. Concerns of this kind — relating to gender, race or anything else — are ones we take extremely seriously, and we have formal procedures precisely so they can be documented, investigated and acted upon. What we honestly can't do is look into an anonymous, unspecified account with no individual or incident attached. If the writer, or anyone reading this, has experienced something of this nature, we'd sincerely ask them to raise it formally — with HR or a director. It will be taken seriously, and we'd far rather be told and act than see it left where no one can be helped.
On pay and bonuses. We're not aware of any late salary payment to employed staff, and none has been raised internally. Salaries are benchmarked annually against CIBSE and Hays and held at mid-market as a minimum. Contractors sit on separate terms with different payment cycles. Bonuses, where offered, are tied to clear criteria rather than guaranteed.
On the mention of company cars and houses. The structure and remuneration of the business are ordinary features of a company of our type. Linking them to staff pay makes for a pointed line, but the two simply aren't connected.
On workload and hours. This is among the less accurate parts of the review. Evening work is genuinely the exception rather than the rule. Where client deadlines press, our instinct is to protect our people rather than push them — in practice we are more likely to renegotiate timelines than to ask anyone to work late, which is the reverse of the pressure described here. The expectations around weekend work and travel are set out plainly at interview, factored into salary, and — unusually for our sector — accompanied by reimbursement for the time given up. We regard that as a deliberate point of difference, not a grievance.
On leadership and culture. We haven't got everything right, and where structures stopped working — including a project management function since reshaped — we changed them. The broader points on blame and favouritism are hard to engage with constructively without specifics.
On clients. Whatever the review suggests, the sustained trust of a portfolio of global blue chip clients, with their exacting due diligence, isn't the mark of a business in distress.
We can hear the frustration behind this, and we don't dismiss it. The most serious concerns, though, can only really be resolved through the proper channels — and that door remains open to current and former colleagues alike