Has anyone ever asked you to prove that breathing contributes to the bottom line? Or small talk or smiling or thinking - or countless other things we all do each day just by virtue of being alive? I don’t expect so.

Then why, I wonder, are we so often asked to make the business case for learning? To prove beyond reasonable doubt that work-based learning has a beneficial impact on the financial performance of a business? Why do I feel mildly exasperated whenever the “bottom-line question” is asked?

First, people who ask for evidence that learning contributes to the bottom line are usually muddling up training and learning. Bundling the two together and assuming they are one and the same clouds the issue. I have no problem accepting the need to find ways to quantify the return on investment of training interventions - I know evaluating training isn’t necessarily easy, and I accept that often it isn’t practical, but it is clearly a sensible thing to attempt. Learning, however, is a different matter. Training is an “event” with a beginning, middle and end, whereas learning is a continuous process - both conscious and unconscious. Events are easier (I didn’t say easy!) to measure than ongoing processes.

Second, I feel affronted that something as self-evidently laudable as learning should be subjected to a bottom-line challenge at all. For me, the business case is so obvious that it is a no-brainer. You only need to imagine an organisation where learning is banned to demonstrate its pivotal role. Recruits would be forbidden to learn how to do the job: they would have to be completely competent from the word go. If there were changes to, say, technology, no one could be shown how to use it. Experienced people would not be allowed to coach the less experienced. Conversations between people over coffee or lunch would have to steer well clear of anything that might be construed as knowledge-sharing. In fact, breaks would probably have to be taken in complete silence for fear of stumbling onto something that might actually be useful.

It is clear that all organisations, whether they recognise it or not, invest in learning on the assumption that it makes a vital contribution. Not to do so is so patently absurd that it renders further proof superfluous.

Third, I feel irritated by the double standards present. There are so many things that happen in every organisation that are never subjected to bottom-line scrutiny - management meetings, for example. In fact, activities with measured benefits are few and far between. All activities cost money and most are acts of faith.

So why dare to question the value of dear old work-based learning? I’d far rather accept that learning contributes directly to the bottom line than, say, a change of company logo. Not only is it more effective, it’s cheaper too.