Major New Survey: An apple a day
11/05/05
A survey by Human Resources in association with vielife and Business in the Community
reveals that employers focus on the impact of ill-health rather than its causes. Time to think
again, says Trevor Clawson. Clink on the link to find out more or on the "HR Resources"
button to download a pdf.
When it comes to health, the workplace is a paradoxical place. As individuals, we are more
health-conscious than ever before, but in the parallel world of the workplace stress is on the
rise, with all its consequences for staff health. The paradox is causing real problems for
Britain's employers. Illness costs money - lots of it. According to data provided by SwissRe
for the Government's White Paper, Choosing Health, companies are spending £11 billion a
year to cover staff sickness - that represents 16% of total salary costs.
So what are organisations doing about it? To find out, we commissioned two parallel
surveys, under the title Health at Work, in association with Business in the Community and
health and wellbeing consultancy vielife. One survey was directed at HR professionals and
the second at board-level executives, such as CEOs and FDs.
The main differences between the two surveys are shown in the box overleaf, with the
survey of HR professionals in particular providing a snapshot of a growing awareness of
health and wellbeing issues. Even so, much of the focus remains on dealing with the impact
of illness, rather than taking proactive measures to tackle the cause.
It's not just absence from work that's a problem. As Clive Pinder, managing director of vielife,
points out, a member of staff can be present while not being totally there: 'Research shows
that people in poor health are 20% less productive,' he says. 'About 30% of the population
could be described as being in poor health.' He is not just talking about sickness in the
conventional sense. Stress, lack of sleep, low fitness levels and a bad diet all contribute to
lower productivity.
It therefore makes sense that organisations should take a proactive interest in their
employees' health and well-being. There are good commercial reasons, says Catherine
Sermon, develop- ment manager for business action on health, Business in the
Community.'It's of mutual benefit to the organisation and the worker. There's a business
case.'
So how much effort are HR departments and boards putting into health and wellbeing
issues? The survey contains some good news in terms of priorities. For instance, when
HRDs were asked about the weight given to the health and wellbeing of staff, almost half
said it was either a top priority or a priority. The CEO/FD survey produced a similar result.
The bad news is that by far the biggest single group of HRDs who answered this question
(42%) declared that health was an issue rather than a priority.
When it comes to priorities for action, organisations tend to focus on immediate matters.
Compliance with health and safety laws and accident prevention come top; measures to
speed the return of staff from sick leave and initiatives to cut absence are third and fourth;
with the promotion of healthier lifestyles bringing up the rear. And when it comes to allocating
resources to the health and safety budget, more than twice as many companies admit they
devote more to the latter element than the former. Sermon is realistic. 'Spending on safety is
really where industry is now,' she says. 'We are trying to get companies to take the next step
to invest actively in health.'
Is 'safety first' a pragmatic response to the realities of running an organisation? Perhaps, but
Pinder believes it could be short-sighted. Attitudes to 'human capital' differ sharply from
approaches to the maintenance of office or factory equipment. 'If you have a machine, you
wouldn't wait until it breaks down before you spend money,' he says.
Research suggesting that productivity is a critical determinant in the debate is confirmed by
the survey. While both cited reducing work absence as a key factor in increasing staff output,
a significant percentage also thought that measures to improve the energy and alertness of
staff would make almost as much difference. Pinder says the emphasis on absence is
understandable. But if the response is simply to put in place better absence management
policies, there is a danger that underlying problems will remain. 'That's the sticking-plaster
approach - it doesn't address the root cause,' agrees Nick Isles, associate director of The
Work Foundation.
The logic is of course that in tackling the underlying issues, levels of absence fall and
productivity rises. But there is a problem here. Many of the health problems that have an
impact on effectiveness - obesity, lack of sleep and over- dependence on alcohol - are to do
with lifestyle. So what can - and should - organisations do to improve matters that have
traditionally been outside their control? Some believe individuals should take responsibility
for their own health.
According to Choosing Health, 55% of companies do not monitor the cost of sickness and
49% set no targets for improvement. Our results aren't quite so bleak. Over three-quarters
say they measure it throughout the organisation. Over half of these then report their findings
to the board, while over a third use them to measure individual performance.
With some organisations saying workplace absence is costing them more than £40 million a
year, there must be scope to reduce the costs. This brings us to the thorny subject of return
on investment. Implementing health initiatives clearly involves an outlay. 'The starting point is
a wellbeing audit,' says Isles, 'particularly where there is a high incidence of sickness
absence. 'You need data,' agrees Joanne Hindle, corporate services director,
UnumProvident, a disability insurer and sponsor of Business in the Community's Healthy
Workplaces Excellence Award. 'Then you can identify the issues. Once it gets measured, it
gets done.'
Health is certainly high on the agenda, but there are gaps in the ability of companies to take
the kind of action that may improve productivity, aid staff retention - and make a difference to
profitability.
HOW DOES YOUR ORGANISATION SEE THE FOLLOWING HEALTH AND SAFETY
ISSUES IN
TERMS OF PRIORITY? (1= ignored, through to 5 = top priority)
RESPONSE AVERAGE
Safety - keeping within the law 3.93
Safety - prevention of accidents 3.73
Health - getting sick colleagues back to work faster 3.50
Health - promotion of healthier workplace initiatives
to prevent absence 3.13
Health - promotion of healthier workplace initiatives
to optimise performance 3.09
HOW ARE RESOURCES SPLIT BETWEEN HEALTH ISSUES AND SAFETY ISSUES?
%
More on health than safety 16.1
Roughly the same on each 29.8
More on safety than health 36.3
Don't know 17.7
WHICH IS YOUR ORGANISATION'S LEVEL OF CONCERN FOR HEALTH AND
WELLBEING
OF EMPLOYEES - AND WHAT SHOULD IT BE?
CURRENTLY % SHOULD BE %
A top priority 16.8 37.1
A priority 32.8 51.6
An issue, but not a priority 41.6 9.7
Overlooked, Ignored/not our concern 8.8 1.6
WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES FOR THOSE STAFF WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR HEALTH
AND WELLBEING OF EMPLOYEES? (1 = least important through to 4 = most
important)
RESPONSE AVERAGE
Reducing absence 3.02
Increasing productivity 2.89
Improving employee satisfaction 2.87
Improving retention levels 2.70
WHICH WOULD HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY IN YOUR
ORGANISATION? (1 = lowest priority through to 4 = highest priority)
More performance-related pay 2.77
Reducing work absence 2.76
Improving employee energy/alertness 2.68
More flexible working 2.68
WHY DOES YOUR ORGANISATION TOLERATE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
WORKPLACE
ILL-HEALTH?
RESPONSE %
Not significant enough 21.8
Can't reduce them 8.2
Want to reduce them but don't know how 15.5
Working to reduce them (within past 12 months) 26.4
Working to reduce them (for more than a year) 28.2
WHO TAKES ON MOST RESPONSIBILITY FOR HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF
EMPLOYEES AND WHO SHOULD? (1 = lowest priority through to 4 = highest priority)
RESPONSE %: CURRENTLY SHOULD BE
Individuals 3.44 3.48
Employers 2.70 3.07
Government 2.16 2.59
Private medical insurers 1.93 1.83
WHAT COULD THE GOVERNMENT DO TO HELP PUT A MORE EFFECTIVE HEALTH
AND
WELLBEING POLICY INTO YOUR WORKPLACE? (more than one answer possible)
RESPONSE %
Make private health insurance tax-deductible 62.5
Provide tax breaks to organisations that pursue preventive
ill-health measures 63.3
Offer grants to help organisations introduce health &
wellbeing initiatives 67.5
Encourage individuals to take more responsibility for their
own health 53.3
Integrate health criteria into the Investors in People
standard 49.2
Other 5.8
DO YOU MEASURE SICKNESS ABSENCE IN THE WORKPLACE?
RESPONSE %
No, we don't 10.9
Yes, in parts of the organisation 13.4
Yes, throughout the organisation 75.6
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT?
RESPONSE %
Measure individual performance 34.2
Report it to the board 51.4
Not a lot/other 14.4
WOULD YOUR ORGANISATION BENEFIT FROM A STANDARDISED 'HEALTH AND
WELLBEING' BENCHMARK OR METRIC?
RESPONSE %
Yes 70.9
No 29.1
THE PERSPECTIVE FROM HR - AND OUTSIDE
WHY DO YOU TOLERATE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WORKPLACE ILL-HEALTH?
RESPONSE %: HR GENERAL
Not significant enough 21.8 24.6
Can't reduce them responsibly 8.2 8.0
Want to reduce them, but don't know how 15.5 22.1
Working to reduce them 54.6 45.2
WHO TAKES ON MOST RESPONSIBILITY FOR HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF
EMPLOYEES?
(1 = lowest priority through to 4 = highest priority)
RESPONSE %: HR GENERAL
Individuals 3.44 3.3
Employers 2.7 2.94
Government 2.16 2.04
Private medical insurers 1.93 1.82
Our survey consisted of two parallel polls. One was directed at human resources
professionals and the other at board-level executives, such as CEOs and FDs. For the most
part, the views of both sets of respondents suggested a similar perspective on the health and
wellbeing agenda, but there were one or two areas where the differences told their own
story.
One major difference focused on how much work is currently being done to reduce the costs
associated with ill-health in the workplace. More HR professionals than general executives
believed that they were already working hard to reduce such costs. Given that the former are
more likely to be aware of the measures in place, it suggests either that some HR
departments are working on this problem in isolation without board support or that HR is
doing a poor job in communicating its achievements to date in this area. Or both.
There was another major divergence in the views of the two groups when asked who takes
on most responsibility for the health and wellbeing of their employees. Both sets of
respondents believed that individuals take the lion's share of responsibility for their own
health, but HR professionals seemed to believe that more is done by the Government,
something greeted with markedly more scepticism by our more general management poll.
This suggests that for it to win the consent of the board, a health and wellbeing policy should
be shaped in terms of helping individuals to help