How to Measure the ROI of a Workplace Wellbeing Programme

Most HR and EHS teams don't struggle to get a wellbeing programme approved because the case is weak — they struggle because the case is vague. "It's good for morale" doesn't survive a budget review. A number does. Here's how to build one.

Why the global data matters before you build your own

Two figures set the context for any Irish or UK employer making this case in 2026.

Gallup's latest State of the Global Workplace report puts global employee engagement at just 20% for 2025 — its lowest level since 2020, down from a peak of 23% in 2022–2023. Gallup estimates that low engagement costs the world economy roughly $10 trillion a year in lost productivity, or about 9% of global GDP. Worth noting too: managers have seen the steepest engagement decline of any group, down to 22% globally — but inside organisations with strong wellbeing and management practices, manager engagement runs closer to 79%. That gap is where a programme earns its keep.

On the financial side, Deloitte UK's most recent research (2024) puts the annual cost of poor mental health to UK employers at £51 billion — down from £55 billion in 2021 but still well above the £45 billion recorded in 2019. Presenteeism (staff at work but underperforming due to poor mental health) accounts for the largest single slice of that, around £24 billion. Set against that cost, Deloitte found that employers investing in workplace mental health and wellbeing support see an average return of £4.70 for every £1 spent — and that early, preventative investment (culture, training, manager capability) consistently outperforms crisis-stage support brought in after people are already struggling.

Neither figure proves your specific programme works. What they do is establish that the category itself — money spent well on workplace wellbeing — reliably pays for itself. Your job is to show your organisation lands on the right side of that average.

A simple framework for your own number

You don't need a data science team. You need four inputs, tracked consistently before and after your programme runs:

Absenteeism. Sick days per employee per year, multiplied by average daily cost (salary plus overhead). A wellbeing programme that reduces absence by even a few days per head, across a few hundred staff, adds up fast.

Presenteeism. Harder to measure directly, but a short, anonymous quarterly pulse survey ("in the last month, how often did you work while unwell or below your best?") gives you a trackable proxy. This is the single largest cost category in Deloitte's data, so it's worth the effort to measure rather than ignore.

Turnover and recruitment cost. Cost per hire (recruitment, onboarding, lost productivity while a role sits vacant) multiplied by the change in voluntary turnover after the programme launches.

Healthcare and insurance claims. Where you have access to aggregated, anonymised claims data, track the trend in claim frequency and cost per head.

Add the year-on-year saving across those four, divide by what the programme actually cost you to run (facility, staffing, equipment, programming — not just the sticker price of a gym), and you have a real ROI figure specific to your organisation, not a borrowed statistic.

Getting a credible baseline

The most common mistake is measuring from the day the programme launches. Pull twelve months of absenteeism, turnover and (where available) claims data before you start, so the "before" side of the comparison is real. Re-measure at 6 and 12 months — most of the above metrics move slower than engagement scores, so resist reporting ROI too early and overselling a number that hasn't stabilised yet.

The business case, in one line

Global data says wellbeing investment pays for itself several times over on average. Your own before-and-after numbers say whether it's paying for itself at your organisation specifically — and that second number is the one that gets the next budget approved.