Proportion of respondents that measure the level of sickness absence in their organisation
They do 70%
They do not 30%
Sample: All respondents (93)
The number of days sickness absence employees in respondents’ organisations take on average per year
1-2 16%
3-5 41%
6-10 18%
11-15 2%
More than 15 3%
Do not know 21%
Sample: All those who measure sickness absence in their organisation (63)
The percentage of payroll absence costs respondents’ organisations per annum (including cost of temporary staff, loss of production time and so on)
Less than 1% 13%
1% 8%
2% 2%
3% 5%
4% 3%
5% 5%
6-10% 2%
More than 10% 2%
Do not know 37%
They do not record this cost 24%
Sample: All those who measure sickness absence in their organisation (62)
Text to go with above 3 graphs:
Just under three-quarters (70%) of respondents measure sickness absence levels in their organisation. This is broadly in line with the 68% that did so when we last carried out this research in 2013, although it represents a slight fall on the proportion that did so in 2012 and 2010 when this figure was nearer the 80% mark.
Overall, the average length of absence taken by respondents’ employees each year has remained relatively consistent over the past eight years. This year, 57% of respondents say staff take fewer than five days absence per year. This compares with 55% in 2013, 49% in 2012, 42% in 2010, and 47% in 2009.
The proportion of respondents’ employees that take six to 10 days off sick each year, meanwhile, has fallen to 18% this year. This is down from 29% in 2013 and 38% in 2012.
Despite sickness absence remaining a key issue for employers, a quarter (24%) of respondents still do not record the cost of absence. A further 37% say they do not know if their organisation does so. This leaves just 39% of respondents that know what sickness absence costs their organisation each year as a percentage of payroll.
Although not directly comparable, this is little different from the 31% that said they recorded the cost of absence back in 2001.
Where respondents do record the cost of absence to their organisation, this most commonly stands at less than 1% of payroll (cited by 13%). However, this can still represent significant sums.
The major causes of sickness absence in respondents’ organisations
Minor ailments/flu/colds/food poisoning 53%
Mental health issues such as depression or anxiety 39%
Musculoskeletal ailments 38%
Work-related stress 25%
Serious illness 16%
Work-life balance problems such as care for elderly or disabled adults or childcare 9%
Paid absence seen as entitlement 8%
Unauthorised holidays 5%
Lax controls 3%
Leisure accidents 3%
Work-related illness 2%
Quality of management 2%
Lack of motivation 2%
Drink or drugs 1%
Work accidents 1%
Bullying at work 1%
Do not know 13%
Other 2%
Sample: All respondents (92)
Text to go with above graph:
Minor ailments, flu, colds, and food poisoning are the most common causes of sickness absence in respondents’ organisations, cited by 53%. This has consistently been the case over the years that we have been conducting this research, despite fluctuations in the percentage of respondents reporting this.
This year, mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, are the second highest cause of absence, followed by musculoskeletal ailments and work-related stress.
These issues have all risen up employers’ agendas in recent years, with many organisations now offering both preventative and rehabilitative support for employees.
Proportion of respondents that have a strategy in place to reduce sickness absence
They do 42%
They do not but they are planning to introduce one 34%
They do not 24%
Sample: All respondents (92)
The format respondents’ sickness absence strategy takes
Early intervention by line managers 74%
Return-to-work interviews (formal or informal) 71%
Work-life balance or flexible-working policies 68%
Access to care (on site, through healthcare benefits, occupational health and so on) 61%
Health promotion or education 58%
Rehabilitation for long-term sick 42%
Making the workplace an attractive place to be 34%
Disciplinary procedures 29%
Limiting the number of sick days on full pay 26%
Provision of absence statistics to line managers 21%
Using an external absence monitoring service 8%
Waiting period before occupational sick pay is payable 5%
Attendance-related bonuses 5%
Other 3%
Sample: All respondents who have a strategy in place to reduce sickness absence (38)
Text to go with above two graphs:
Despite the cost of sickness absence to employers, less than half (42%) of respondents have a strategy in place to reduce absence in their organisation. However, a further third (34%) that do not currently have a strategy in place are planning to introduce one.
Early intervention by line managers when an employee is about to go, or has gone, off work sick and return-to-work interviews (either on a formal or informal basis) are the top two tactics used to tackle absence, employed by 74% and 71% of respondents, respectively.
Although the order in which these appear has varied, over the years these have consistently appeared as respondents’ top methods of tackling absence. In previous years, for example, return-to-work interviews were consistently used by over 80% of respondents, while early line manager intervention was used by 74% in 2013 and 78% in 2012.
Work-life balance or flexible-working policies remain the third key tool respondents employ to manage absence. This year, they are employed by 68% of respondents' organisations, in line with the 67% that did the same in 2013.
Recent years have seen a rise in the use of health promotion or education as a means of managing sickness absence. More than half (58%) of respondents employ this tactic in 2017, up from 46% in 2013. Providing information and guidance to employees on key health and wellbeing issues may enable them recognise that they have an issue and seek help at an earlier stage, as well as adopt healthier habits that may prevent some issues from occurring in the first place.
