Six Key Learnings from SIC’s 2026 Literature Review
Part of our mission here at SIC is to help close the disability employment gap by supporting employers to build inclusive, accessible workplaces that benefit everyone. And making effective decisions to support disabled talent starts with being well informed. However, with so many disparate sources of advice, and a fast-moving regulatory and political landscape, keeping up with best practice is often easier said than done.
That’s where our SIC 2026 Literature Review comes in. We’ve done the hard work for you, bringing together the most relevant and up-to-date evidence on disability and employment in the UK.
The review draws together fragmented research to answer a central question: ‘Why do workplace barriers persist, and what actually helps to remove them?’ It explores how workplace structures, cultures and management practices shape employee experiences, and highlights the most important areas of focus for employers looking to build genuinely inclusive workplaces.
From legal requirements to best practice, below are six of our key learnings from the review.
A huge thank you to the four authors behind the review — Sarah Jassim, Morgan Roberts, Armin Grosche and Zara Umar, all from the University of Birmingham.
Key findings from the research
1. Disability is increasingly non-visible — and often misunderstood
One of the most striking findings relates to changes in the disabled population, particularly the growth of non-visible disabilities. While prevalence has increased significantly, non-visible conditions are more likely to be doubted, minimised or misinterpreted as performance issues. This creates additional barriers to disclosure and access to support.
Linked to this, the review highlights research on “camouflaging”, where individuals mask or suppress aspects of their disability in order to fit in at work. While this may offer short-term protection from bias, it often leads to long-term fatigue, poorer wellbeing and reduced access to reasonable adjustments. For employers, this reinforces a critical point: absence of disclosure does not mean absence of need.
2. Many employees don’t request reasonable adjustments, even when entitled
A second key takeaway concerns reasonable adjustments. The evidence shows that a substantial proportion of disabled employees do not request adjustments, even when they are entitled to them. Common reasons include:
Fear of stigma or negative judgement
Lack of awareness that adjustments are available
Doubt that requests will be accepted
Uncertainty about what adjustments would actually help
Even when employees recognise the importance of adjustments, they may struggle to articulate their needs or feel they must “prove” their worthiness. This places an unequal burden on disabled employees to navigate complex systems.
3. Reasonable adjustments work, when done well
The evidence is clear: when implemented effectively, reasonable adjustments improve wellbeing, productivity and job retention. Yet in practice, adjustments are often delayed, inconsistently applied, or treated as exceptional rather than routine.
Employment tribunal cases repeatedly show that failures usually stem not from cost, but from poor communication, lack of enquiry and inadequate follow-through. In many cases, tribunals noted that the cost of adjustments would have been minimal or nil.
4. Managers make the difference
Across the literature, line managers consistently emerge as key gatekeepers of inclusion. Their responses to disclosure, confidence in discussing adjustments, and ability to distinguish access barriers from performance concerns have a direct impact on employee outcomes.
At the same time, many managers report role conflict, insufficient training and uncertainty around legal responsibilities - particularly when supporting employees with non-visible or fluctuating conditions.
5. Education and employment do not eliminate inequality
Higher qualifications improve employment prospects for disabled people, but they do not remove structural disadvantage.
Disabled graduates continue to experience lower employment rates and fewer progression opportunities than their non-disabled peers. As a result, they are more likely to end up in lower-paid, part-time or insecure roles - all factors that underpin the persistent disability pay gap.
6. Policies alone aren’t enough
A final recurring theme is that compliance alone does not create inclusion. Tick-box policies and generic training often fail to address workplace culture, disclosure dynamics and power imbalances.
Meaningful inclusion is an ongoing process. It requires trust, flexibility and sustained engagement with disabled employees’ lived experience, rather than one-off initiatives.
What inclusion looks like in practice
Alongside the academic and policy evidence, the full literature review includes real-world case studies showing how different organisations have approached disability inclusion in practice. These include:
Public sector examples of staff networks and structural policy changes
Civil Service examples of collaborative adjustments and effective communication
Private sector approaches focused on learning programmes and accessible working frameworks
Together, these examples bring the evidence to life, showing what works, what doesn’t, and how organisations learn and adapt over time.
Download the full review
While this blog highlights just some of the key insights from the SIC 2026 Literature Review, the full report goes deeper into the evidence, providing detailed analysis, legal context and practical examples to support employers in turning intention into action.
To explore the findings in full, download the complete review here.
