“Australia,” Wayne Swan said, introducing Australia’s Third Intergenerational Report, “has a lower rate of mature age [workforce] participation than other comparable countries – like the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand. There is considerable room for improvement in this area.”

An ageing workforce may present injury management challenges, especially in industries reliant on physical labour. (Read more about the challenges here.)

However, older workers are often valued by employers for their wealth of experience, extensive skill sets and safe working habits; keeping them healthy, productive and in the workforce makes good business sense.

And since it’s been estimated that, between 1998 and 2016, more than 80% of Australian workforce growth will come in the 45+ demographic, helping ageing workers reach their potential isn’t a luxury anymore; it’s a challenge that businesses will simply have to rise to.

Regular physical activity, a healthy body weight, and no smoking are the keys to ageing “young”.

Mr Swan’s suggestion? “Promoting healthy workplaces.”

Unfortunately, there has been no comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of investment in Australian workplace health and wellbeing. In this context, it is difficult for businesses to get a clear picture of how much they stand to gain both in human and economic terms by supporting their employees to live healthier lives.

The Australian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine is currently lobbying for a cost benefit analysis of employer investment in health and wellbeing, to assist Australian businesses in making informed decisions about the implementation of health and wellbeing programs.

In the absence of Australia-specific data, we’ve compiled some of the stats from “Building the Case for Wellness,” a PriceWaterHouseCoopers’ analysis, commissioned as part of Dame Carol Black’s report in the UK.

Workplace health is everyone’s business

The cost of ill health in the workplace is high. Worker illness or injury is a double-edged sword, with employers losing out through both increased absenteeism and lowered workplace efficiency (presenteeism).

Some of the UK stats indicate the scale of such financial loss:

• Musculoskeletal disorders resulted in 9.5 million working days lost in 2005/6;
• Work-related stress, anxiety and depression were responsible for 13.8 million lost working days in 2006/7;
• Stress costs the British economy £3.7 billion annually;
• Back pain costs £5 billion annually;
• Other accidents and injuries cost £512 million annually;
• 30 million working days are lost annually due to occupational illness and injury and this costs the British economy £30 billion (3 per cent of British GDP); and
• Sickness absence costs roughly £495 per employee per year.

These figures estimate the direct health costs of workplace illness or injury. The indirect costs, for example presenteeism, are even higher. (Presenteeism is the reduced performance and productivity in the workplace of a worker whose health is impaired.)

The cost of presenteeism is estimated by various studies as costing:

• Two to three times more than the direct costs of worker illness; and
• Two to seven times more than the costs of absenteeism.

What are the benefits of wellbeing programs?

The report points out that with an ageing population comes an increase in the prevalence of chronic diseases. This alone is enough to warrant a new approach to workplace wellness. The call is for this approach to change from a rehabilitative focus on injury and illness, to that of a proactive attitude towards maintaining worker health and wellbeing.

In the report, cost-benefit ratios were calculated so that employers could understand the very real benefits of investing in workplace health and wellness programs (presented as benefit: cost):

• Medical costs –2.3:1 on investment;
• Absenteeism – returns of 2.5:1, 4.9:1 and 10.1:1 for differing programs;
• Absenteeism and presenteeism (employees showing up sick to work and having a lower output) combined – 1.81: 1, 3.42:1 and 8.81:1; and
• Musculoskeletal injuries: 15.4:1, 24.6:1 and 84.9:1.

The quantifiable benefits of workplace wellbeing programmes don’t end there. Workplace wellness programs cut:

• Absenteeism by an average of 30-40%;
• Staff turnover by around 20-25%;
• Accidents and injuries by an average of 50%; and
• Reduction in time spent on managing sickness absence (i.e. employee discipline or injury investigation).

The report also provided data to support an increase in other factors that positively affect bottom-line:

• Employee satisfaction;
• Company profile;
• Output and productivity; and
• Health and welfare.

Australian businesses have just as much to gain from investments in workplace health and wellbeing as their UK counterparts. Let’s hope that work by AFOEM and others including the ACTU’s Decent Work Agenda will elicit action—not just talk—in all the right places. Wayne Swan, are you listening?