Just two-fifths (40%) of employers offer staff support around their physical health to help them stay in or return to work, if they are injured or have a new illness or disability, according to research by industry body Group Risk Development (Grid).
Its survey of 500 HR decision-makers at UK organisations also found that just over one-third (38%) of respondents provide support for mental health, such as mental health first aiders, an employee assistance programme and counselling, with the same percentage offering support for social health, such as including employees in work events.
Almost two-fifths (36%) provide support for financial health, such as advice on budgeting, discount vouchers or pay advances.
Of those employers which provide support when staff are incapacitated, 33% said that they felt the support for physical health was the most helpful. This was followed by support for mental health (31%) and financial health (29%).
When a staff member has an injury, or new illness or disability, 41% of employers fund support on a case-by-case basis.
Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for Grid, said: “While it is good to see employers thinking broadly about their staff in these situations across the four main pillars of physical, mental, social and financial support, these figures are low. We would like to see more employers prepared to support their workforce through these difficult times. We would encourage more employers to investigate how group income protection has helped other companies and how it could support theirs. It does, of course, give financial assurance but also a great deal of preventative and rehabilitation support too.”
Paula Coffey, director of claims, rehabilitation and medical services at Unum UK, added: “Every business is unique, with its own mix of employees and potential risks from illness, injury and long-term sickness absence, so a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work for wellbeing, absence management and rehabilitation. Equally, funding support on a case-by-case basis is both time consuming and more costly and may still not result in the positive outcome both the employee and employer are seeking.”
