Why Employers Invest in Health

Organisations do not invest in workforce wellbeing simply because healthier employees are desirable.

They invest because health influences organisational performance.

Every employer understands this intuitively.

When employees are healthy, engaged and able to perform at their best, organisations tend to function more effectively.

When health challenges become widespread, the consequences can be significant.

Reduced productivity.

Increased sickness absence.

Higher staff turnover.

Greater healthcare utilisation.

Increased management burden.

Reduced workforce resilience.

For many years, however, conversations about workplace wellbeing have focused primarily on health outcomes.

While these outcomes are important, organisational leaders are often interested in a broader question:

“What difference does workforce wellbeing actually make to organisational performance?”

This question has become increasingly important as employers, insurers and public-sector organisations seek evidence that wellbeing initiatives create measurable value.

The encouraging news is that a growing body of research has begun to explore exactly this relationship.

The findings do not suggest that wellbeing programmes are a magic solution.

Nor do they prove that any specific intervention will guarantee organisational outcomes.

What they do suggest is that workforce health and organisational performance are more closely connected than many organisations previously realised.

Understanding that connection has become an important part of the evidence base underpinning the Trigo approach.

Moving Beyond the Traditional Business Case

Historically, workplace health programmes were often justified using relatively narrow measures.

Reduced sickness absence.

Reduced healthcare costs.

Fewer workplace injuries.

These outcomes remain important.

However, modern workforce health research increasingly recognises that performance is influenced by far more than absence alone.

An employee does not need to be absent to experience reduced work capacity.

They may be present at work while:

  • Managing pain.
  • Experiencing fatigue.
  • Struggling with sleep.
  • Coping with stress.
  • Experiencing reduced physical function.

These challenges can affect performance even when attendance remains unchanged.

This is why researchers have increasingly begun examining concepts such as:

  • Work ability.
  • Presenteeism.
  • Workforce productivity.
  • Workforce resilience.

These measures provide a more complete picture of how health influences organisational performance.

They also help explain why wellbeing has become a strategic issue rather than simply an occupational health issue.

The Evidence on Sickness Absence

One of the most widely cited reviews in this area was conducted by Odeen and colleagues (2013).

Their systematic review examined workplace interventions designed to reduce sickness absence.

The review identified evidence suggesting that active workplace interventions can positively influence absence outcomes.

Importantly, the strongest interventions were rarely passive.

Successful approaches often included:

  • Physical activity.
  • Participation.
  • Behavioural support.
  • Active engagement.

This finding aligns closely with themes that have emerged throughout this article series.

The evidence repeatedly suggests that outcomes improve when people participate.

This observation is particularly relevant because sickness absence remains one of the most visible organisational consequences of poor workforce health.

For employers, absence represents:

  • Lost productivity.
  • Operational disruption.
  • Increased management demands.
  • Additional staffing costs.

Reducing absence is therefore a legitimate organisational objective.

However, the evidence suggests that organisations should think carefully about how that objective is achieved.

The strongest interventions appear to support participation rather than simply providing access.

Looking Beyond Absence

Although sickness absence remains important, it represents only part of the picture.

Tarro and colleagues (2020) examined workplace interventions from a broader perspective.

Their systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated outcomes relating to:

  • Absenteeism.
  • Productivity.
  • Work ability.

The findings are particularly interesting because they shift attention towards capacity rather than simply attendance.

An employee may attend work regularly while still experiencing reduced ability to perform effectively.

Work ability therefore becomes an important concept.

The review found evidence that workplace interventions can improve work ability and may contribute to improvements in productivity-related outcomes.

This is significant.

It suggests that wellbeing interventions may influence how effectively people work, not merely whether they attend.

For employers facing labour shortages, increasing workloads and growing workforce pressures, this distinction is becoming increasingly important.

Workforce health is no longer simply about attendance.

It is increasingly about sustainable performance.

Understanding Presenteeism

One of the most overlooked concepts in workplace health is presenteeism.

Presenteeism occurs when individuals attend work but perform below their normal capacity because of health-related challenges.

For many organisations, the cost of presenteeism may exceed the cost of sickness absence.

Employees remain present.

However, their effectiveness is reduced.

This can influence:

  • Productivity.
  • Quality.
  • Concentration.
  • Decision-making.
  • Collaboration.

Cancelliere and colleagues (2011) reviewed workplace health promotion programmes and their impact on presenteeism.

The review found evidence suggesting that workplace health initiatives can positively influence productivity and workplace performance.

Importantly, these findings reinforce a key message emerging throughout the literature.

Health and performance are interconnected.

Organisations often view wellbeing as separate from business performance.

The evidence increasingly suggests that this distinction may be artificial.

Workforce wellbeing and workforce performance are frequently linked.

Why Participation Keeps Appearing in the Evidence

A recurring theme throughout this article series has been participation.

Whether examining:

  • Engagement.
  • Supported self-care.
  • Telehealth.
  • Workplace wellbeing.

the same principle appears repeatedly.

Participation matters.

The organisational outcomes literature is no exception.

The reviews conducted by Odeen et al. (2013), Tarro et al. (2020) and Cancelliere et al. (2011) consistently point towards interventions that encourage active involvement.

This is an important observation.

Workforce health outcomes are rarely improved through information alone.

People must engage.

They must participate.

They must become involved in their own health.

This does not mean responsibility rests solely with the individual.

Organisations also have a role to play.

Creating environments that support participation becomes an important component of workforce wellbeing strategy.

Why Employers Are Reframing Wellbeing

Historically, wellbeing was often viewed as a benefit.

Something organisations offered because it was the right thing to do.

Many organisations still view wellbeing in these terms.

Increasingly, however, employers are beginning to recognise that wellbeing may also represent an operational capability.

A healthy workforce is often:

  • More resilient.
  • More productive.
  • More adaptable.
  • Better able to manage change.

This perspective does not diminish the human importance of wellbeing.

Rather, it acknowledges that employee wellbeing and organisational success are frequently aligned.

The evidence reviewed in this article supports that broader view.

Workforce wellbeing should not be viewed solely as a health initiative.

It may also be viewed as an investment in organisational capability.

What This Means for Workforce Health Strategy

One of the most important lessons emerging from the evidence is that organisations should avoid viewing wellbeing as a collection of isolated initiatives.

The strongest interventions are often integrated interventions.

This observation mirrors findings from:

  • Howarth et al. (2018).
  • Sevic et al. (2023).
  • Shiri et al. (2023).

reviewed in the previous article.

Successful workforce wellbeing strategies often combine:

  • Education.
  • Communication.
  • Behavioural support.
  • Physical activity.
  • Professional guidance.
  • Participation mechanisms.

This integrated approach appears repeatedly throughout the literature.

It also reflects a broader shift towards prevention and digital wellbeing.

The objective is no longer simply to respond when problems emerge.

Increasingly, the objective is to support healthier behaviours before significant problems develop.

How This Influenced Trigo

The organisational outcomes evidence has had a significant influence on how we think about workforce wellbeing.

Research by Odeen et al. (2013), Tarro et al. (2020) and Cancelliere et al. (2011) demonstrates that health interventions can influence outcomes that matter to organisations.

However, the research also highlights an important limitation.

No study proves that a particular platform automatically improves productivity or reduces absence.

Making such claims would be inappropriate.

Instead, the evidence supports a series of principles.

Participation matters.

Activity matters.

Engagement matters.

Work ability matters.

These principles have influenced the design of the Trigo platform.

Our objective is not simply to provide access to services.

It is to support participation in health.

To encourage healthier behaviours.

To improve access to support.

To help individuals remain engaged over time.

These are the mechanisms that the evidence repeatedly identifies as important.

Completing the Evidence Chain

Throughout this article series, we have explored a sequence of connected ideas.

ART-EV-001 examined the emergence of digital wellbeing.

ART-EV-002 explored engagement and behaviour change.

ART-EV-003 examined supported self-care.

ART-EV-004 considered telehealth and digital clinical delivery.

ART-EV-005 focused on workforce wellbeing implementation.

This article completes the chain.

It demonstrates why these earlier concepts matter to organisations.

Digital wellbeing matters because participation matters.

Participation matters because behaviour change matters.

Behaviour change matters because health outcomes matter.

Health outcomes matter because workforce performance matters.

Each layer builds upon the previous one.

Together they create a coherent evidence-informed framework.

Looking Forward

Organisations face increasing pressure to support workforce health while maintaining performance and resilience.

The evidence reviewed by Odeen et al. (2013), Tarro et al. (2020) and Cancelliere et al. (2011) provides encouraging insights.

Well-designed interventions may positively influence:

  • Work ability.
  • Productivity.
  • Presenteeism.
  • Sickness absence.

However, the evidence also reinforces an important message.

Outcomes rarely emerge from isolated interventions.

They emerge from participation.

From engagement.

From sustained involvement over time.

At Trigo, these findings have helped shape the way we think about workforce wellbeing.

Not as a standalone programme.

Not as a collection of benefits.

But as a system that helps people participate more actively in their own health.

Because ultimately, organisational performance begins with people.

And people perform at their best when they are supported to remain healthy, capable and engaged.

References

  1. Odeen, M., Magnussen, L. H., Maeland, S., Larun, L., Eriksen, H. R., & Tveito, T. H. (2013). Systematic Review of Active Workplace Interventions to Reduce Sickness Absence. Occupational Medicine.
  2. Tarro, L., Llauradó, E., Ulldemolins, G., Hermoso, P., Solà, R., & Moriña, D. (2020). Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions for Improving Absenteeism, Productivity and Work Ability of Employees: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1901.
  3. Cancelliere, C., Cassidy, J. D., Ammendolia, C., & Côté, P. (2011). Are Workplace Health Promotion Programs Effective at Improving Presenteeism in Workers? A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of the Literature. BMC Public Health.
  4. Howarth, A., Quesada, J., Silva, J., Judycki, S., Mills, P. R., & Schiavo, J. H. (2018). The Impact of Digital Health Interventions on Health-Related Outcomes in the Workplace: A Systematic Review. Digital Health, 4.
  5. Sevic, S., Müssig, M., Bredemeier, J., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions Targeting Employee Health Behaviors: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25:e38307.
  6. Shiri, R., Turunen, J., Kausto, J., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions to Improve Health and Well-Being of Health and Social Service Workers: A Narrative Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Occupational Health.