Teasing out the business case from the warm and fuzzy factors
related to employee wellness was never more important.
For decades
organisations have associated productivity drivers primarily with plant
efficiency, inventory control and human resource management. This has meant
that considerations about the impact of workforce wellbeing on productivity
have been seen as the poor relation. There are a number of reasons why this has
occurred, and perhaps one of the principal reasons is that it has traditionally
been very difficult to measure the positive impact of a healthy workforce.
More recently,
factors such as increased social responsibility and an ageing workforce have influenced
organisations investment in employee health and wellbeing programs, but the challenge
of measuring ROI persists.
The area of
workforce health encompasses a number of complex and compounding factors, which
adds to the challenge of quantifying benefits and justifying related expenses.
Feel good factors don’t cut the mustard in tight economic times, and
organisations often see health and wellbeing programs as an area that can be
cut back when the bottom line is under pressure.
The ‘Working
toward Wellness’ report, published by the World Economic Forum in 2007, is one of
several recent publications that are starting to support the case for
investment in such programmes:
‘…..the benefits
from improving the general wellbeing of a workforce indicate a likely return of
three to one or more…’
Tracking the cost
and risk of employee ill health provides a baseline measure from which to assess
return on investment in wellness. Australian companies lose an estimated $17
billion per year in productivity to absenteeism (Price WaterHouse Coopers
report, Workplace Wellness in Australia, 2007), and in the US this figure rises
to a staggering $74 billion (The Hidden Cost of Absenteeism, C. Hall 2010),
suggesting perhaps that that investment in employee health and wellbeing is a
critical part of sound business strategy.
The reasons why
workforce wellness is essential are often unseen, intangible and therefore difficult
to quantify. Terms such as corporate image and job satisfaction are closely
linked to employee wellness, and have important relevance in attracting staff
in a competitive market. Recognising this, companies now frequently use
mechanisms such as employee surveys in an effort to quantify and track
satisfaction levels and progress towards the often identified aspiration of
being “an employer of choice”.
Absenteeism and
poor staff retention are both tangible measures related to lack of employee wellness,
however these factors can be “lost in translation” as they may, and quite often
do, have other root causes. These might include environmental factors, poor
work design, incompatible rosters and low morale, to name a few.
In addition to
the disruption and ensuing cost and difficulties of recruitment, the loss of
highly skilled, competent and experienced employees – often with a wealth of
institutional knowledge ‐ presents a substantial hidden cost to the employer.
According to a survey conducted by Mercer Human Resources Consulting in
Australia and New Zealand, about 25% of employees were planning on looking for
a new job within the next 12 months and the associated cost could be equated to
anything from 50% to 150% of an individual’s annual salary. What we also know
is that the workplace has a significant and often long lasting impact on people’s
health and wellbeing, and poor employee health management leads to work‐related
ill health, high levels of absenteeism, presenteeism and increased staff turnover.
This impacts on an organisation’s profitability and makes it harder to compete
with other similar organisations in a competitive marketplace.
From an
individual’s perspective, work forms a very important part of our whole being
and it is measurable not only in terms of physical and mental health, but in
our social integration and community participation. We have considered the
costs to companies of sickness and absenteeism. The social cost of complete
disengagement from the workforce is a seasoned topic of debate in the political
arena because of the financial and moral implications of unemployment.
In 2012,
organisations that link investment in health and wellbeing to improved
productivity and staff retention will most certainly be the ones to benefit
from greater bottom line performance.
For the
individual, it represents a point of difference in their job selection and who
they regard as an employer of choice. It sends a very clear message around core
values and culture ‐ that they will genuinely be better looked after and more
likely to be retained in the longer term. In the current economic climate this
is a key driver for choice of employer.
For the
organisation, there are meaningful and now quantifiable benefits to investing
in targeted health and wellbeing programmes. In addition to the benefits
already discussed, organisations that are better able to target and understand
the health profiles of their workforce, will in turn enjoy a measurable return
on investment and a far happier and healthier workforce.
If you would like
to find out more about how 2CRisk can help you tailor, manage and monitor your
Health and Wellbeing Programme you can contact them on +61 1300 736 361 or e‐mail
info@2crisk.com.au (services available
in countries across the globe – please ask for details).
Please
note that all information and content on UK Health Radio and our blog are
provided by the authors, producers and companies themselves and is only
intended as additional information to your general knowledge and does not
substitute professional medical advice or treatment. So please do not delay or
disregard any medical advice received due to information gathered on the UK Health
Radio.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.