How L&D Investment Varies by Industry in 2026
August 2, 2026 · Research · 6 min read
Learning and development investment does not look the same in every industry. A hospital, bank, logistics company and software firm face different regulatory obligations, operating risks, technologies and skill cycles. The useful question is therefore not which sector spends the most on training, but whether each organisation is investing in the capabilities that matter most to its strategy and workforce.
What current benchmarks show
ATD’s 2025 State of the Industry report, based on 2024 data from 539 organisations, found an average of 13.7 learning hours per employee. The differences by sector were substantial: trade, transportation and utilities reported about 16 hours per employee, while other service-providing industries including finance and insurance, professional and technical services, and accommodation and food service averaged around 7 hours.
Source: ATD 2025 State of the Industry.
Those differences do not prove that one sector values development more than another. They reflect different operating models, role mixes, delivery methods and compliance requirements.
Learning budgets also vary by organisation size
ATD reported average direct learning expenditure of $1,254 per employee in 2024. Small organisations in the sample spent considerably more per employee than large organisations, which illustrates why headline spend-per-person figures need context.
ATD’s newer 2026 State of the Industry summary reports another important shift: in 2025 the average amount of formal learning used rose to 16.7 hours per employee, while average direct learning expenditure fell to $846 per employee. The two measures moved in opposite directions.
Source: ATD 2026 State of the Industry highlights.
Why industry context matters
Healthcare and regulated services
Healthcare, financial services and other regulated sectors often need a larger share of mandatory, technical and compliance learning. The business case may be risk reduction, safer practice or regulatory readiness rather than direct revenue growth.
Technology
Technology organisations often face faster skill obsolescence. AI, cloud platforms, cybersecurity and changing development tools can make role-specific upskilling more important than a fixed annual curriculum.
Transport, logistics and utilities
Operational sectors frequently combine safety, compliance, equipment, process and supervisor development. ATD’s industry data showing relatively high learning hours in trade, transportation and utilities is consistent with that broader mix of role requirements.
Professional and service businesses
Professional services may rely more heavily on experience, coaching, client work and informal learning. Lower formal training hours should not automatically be interpreted as lower development activity.
Skills pressure is now a cross-industry issue
LinkedIn’s 2025 Workplace Learning Report found that 49% of L&D and talent professionals said executives were concerned employees did not have the skills needed to execute business strategy. The same report found that 91% of L&D professionals agreed continuous learning is more important than ever for career success.
Source: LinkedIn Workplace Learning Report 2025.
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 likewise places skills gaps among the leading barriers to business transformation and reports that employers are prioritising workforce upskilling.
Source: World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025.
Do not benchmark your L&D strategy on spend alone
Budget and training hours are useful operational measures, but they are weak measures of value on their own. A company can spend heavily on training that is poorly aligned with work, while another can spend less and achieve better transfer through coaching, practice and manager support.
Useful benchmarking questions include:
- Which capabilities are strategically important in our sector?
- Which roles face the greatest change or risk?
- Which gaps are genuine skill problems rather than process or management problems?
- How much of our learning is mandatory versus capability-building?
- Where does practice happen: courses, coaching, projects or on-the-job work?
- What evidence shows that learning is being applied?
Build a sector-specific learning portfolio
A practical L&D portfolio usually contains several different investment types:
- Mandatory capability: safety, compliance, policy and licence requirements.
- Role capability: technical and professional skills needed for current performance.
- Transformation capability: skills needed for new systems, technologies or operating models.
- Leadership capability: management, decision-making, communication and team leadership.
- Future capability: skills likely to become important as the organisation evolves.
Build your own L&D benchmark before comparing with the market
An external average becomes useful only after an organisation has defined its own denominator and learning mix. A practical internal benchmark can track:
| Measure | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Direct learning spend per employee | Shows resource intensity, but not value by itself |
| Formal learning hours per employee | Shows structured learning volume |
| Mandatory vs capability-building share | Separates compliance load from development investment |
| Priority-role coverage | Shows whether scarce resources reach roles with the biggest capability need |
| Transfer support | Shows whether managers, practice and follow-up exist after training |
| Application evidence | Shows whether employees are using the capability at work |
Use industry benchmarks as a question generator
If your sector reports more learning hours than your organisation, do not immediately increase hours. Ask what explains the difference. The benchmark may reflect licensing, safety, technical certification, workforce composition or the way formal learning is recorded.
Likewise, higher spend can reflect expensive specialist training or small-company fixed costs rather than superior development practice.
A practical annual investment review
- List the capabilities tied to strategy, risk and major role changes.
- Separate mandatory requirements from discretionary development.
- Identify where current performance evidence shows a genuine capability gap.
- Choose the learning method that fits the gap: course, coaching, project, practice, mentoring or another route.
- Set a measure for application before approving the investment.
- Review what was used, what transferred and what should stop next year.
For a wider benchmark view, see Learning and Development Statistics 2026. For the evaluation side, see Training Time vs Performance.
Compare capability risk before comparing spend
Sector benchmarks can be useful when they trigger better questions rather than being treated as spending targets. An organisation can spend below an industry average and still be investing appropriately if its critical roles are stable and capability is strong. Another can spend above the benchmark while leaving its most important skill risks untouched.
A practical review starts with capability exposure. Which roles are hardest to replace? Which mistakes create regulatory, safety or customer risk? Which capabilities are changing fastest? Which strategic priorities depend on skills the organisation does not yet have at scale? That risk map should shape the learning portfolio before a budget benchmark does.
Separate fixed learning obligations from discretionary investment
Mandatory learning, licences and regulatory refreshers create a baseline cost that may be difficult to compare across industries. Separate that baseline from investment in performance improvement, transformation and future capability. This makes it easier to see whether the organisation is merely meeting obligations or also building the capabilities required for strategy.
For each portfolio segment, define the intended result. Compliance learning may be judged through correct decisions and audit evidence. Technical learning may be judged through proficiency and work quality. Leadership development may rely on observed management behaviour and team outcomes. Transformation learning may need adoption and process-performance measures.
Use benchmark ranges as a challenge, not a target
If external data shows a large difference from peers, investigate the reason before increasing or cutting spend. Delivery mix, workforce composition, outsourcing, on-the-job learning and role complexity can all change the number. The useful management question is whether the current investment level is sufficient for the organisation’s capability risk and expected change.
Measure what the investment is meant to change
CIPD’s evidence-based guidance recommends linking learning evaluation to identified performance gaps and business objectives. That means a compliance programme, leadership programme and technical reskilling initiative should not all be judged by the same metric.
Source: CIPD, Learning evaluation, impact and transfer.
MATSH’s Measuring Training Impact and ROI Course helps L&D and HR teams connect learning activity to behaviour, operational outcomes and business value rather than relying only on attendance and satisfaction data.
Need In-House Training?
We run all our courses as private programmes for organisations across the GCC and Africa.
Request In-House →