Studies & evidence
Workplace health management works — numerous scientific studies show it. Here are the key figures and the evidence for the effectiveness of workplace health promotion.
All figures and legal references on this page come from German sources and relate to German law.
Key figures & scientific evidence
Every number links straight to its original source.
Health management pays off
Structured workplace health management demonstrably reduces absence. The average ROI is 1:2.7 — every euro invested returns an average of €2.70 in benefit (IGA Report 40, meta-analysis of 140 studies with 500,000 participants). A US meta-analysis reports 1:5.56 and −25.1 % absence (Chapman 2012).
- iga.Report 40 — Wirksamkeit und Nutzen arbeitsweltbezogener Gesundheitsförderung ↗Average ROI: 1:2.7 (average of 47 ROI values, range −3.3 to +15.6). 85 % of studies show a positive ROI. EU median: 1.7. Basis: 140 studies, around 500,000 participants.
- Chapman (2012) — Meta-Evaluation of Worksite Health Promotion ↗−25.1 % sick days, ROI 1:5.56. 65 % of all studies show economic benefit. Comprehensive US programme. Chapman Institute, 2012 update.
What reasons are there not to start?
The body of research points in one direction — with an honest range:
ROI 1:2.7 (average)
according to the iga.Report, with structured implementation — 1:1.7 to 1:5.56 depending on the study
−20 % to −25.1 % absence
Roland Berger (company culture) and Chapman (US programmes) respectively
up to −40 % turnover
with effective health management, Roland Berger 2020
None of these numbers is a promise — they establish the category, not your result. Where you land in the range is something only your own measurement will show. The most common reason not to start has been the effort involved. That is exactly what we removed: getting started is a few clicks, not a project.
No pitch, no newsletter — we get in touch once, personally, about your situation and whether EasyWHP fits.
Sick leave & costs in 2024
Germany's sickness rate in 2024 was 5.23 % — that is 19.1 days of absence per working person (TK sick-leave report 2024). Three out of four organisations have no holistic health management. Incapacity for work costs the German economy roughly €207 billion in lost gross value added each year (BAuA).
- TK-Gesundheitsreport 2025 (AU-Bericht) ↗Sickness rate 2024: 5.23 % (−0.08 pp vs. 2023). 19.1 days of absence per person. Mental disorders: +159 % since 2006 (age-adjusted).
- #whatsnext 2025 — BGM-Studie · TK / IFBG / Personalmagazin ↗Only 25 % of organisations have holistic health management — no increase since 2022. 75 % without a complete programme.
- Roland Berger — Corporate Health Management 2020 ↗Employee-friendly culture: 20 % fewer days of absence. Effective health management: −40 % turnover, +11 % revenue per employee, +76 % share value. German market: €958 million.
- BAuA GD 60 — Präsentismus: Kosten und Folgen (Meta-Review) ↗Presenteeism costs exceed absenteeism costs across the economy. Meta-review of 285 studies.
- BAuA — Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten durch Arbeitsunfähigkeit 2022 ↗€207 billion in lost gross value added, €118 billion in lost production, 888.9 million days of incapacity for work.
- Personalwirtschaft — So teuer sind AU-Fehlzeiten für Unternehmen ↗Worked example: around €300 in staff costs per employee per day of absence.
Movement works
Regular everyday movement — brisk walking, cycling — demonstrably lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and certain cancers, helps with weight control and improves mental well-being.
- RKI — Körperliche Aktivität ↗Moderate activity lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes and improves mental well-being. Federal health reporting, Robert Koch Institute.
- WHO — Global recommendations on physical activity for health ↗World Health Organization: physical activity recommendations for health.
Germany moves too little
According to the WHO, 44 % of women and 40 % of men over 18 in Germany would need to be more active. Among adolescents it is even more pronounced: 88 % of girls and 80 % of boys move too little.
- WHO — Global status report on physical activity 2022 ↗Germany performs below average.
- BZfE — „Die Deutschen bewegen sich zu wenig“ (2022) ↗The German Federal Centre for Nutrition puts the WHO report in context.
- WHO — Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030 ↗Recommendation: 150 minutes of moderate activity per week. 31 % of the world's population fails to meet activity targets — inactivity is a global health risk.
- TK-Bewegungsstudie 2022 — „Beweg dich, Deutschland“ ↗Representative study by the health insurer Techniker Krankenkasse.
Economic cost & incapacity for work
Incapacity for work causes high economic costs every year — through lost production as well as lost value added.
AI adoption and psychological strain
Introducing AI changes the work — and with it the psychological demands. The evidence is remarkably consistent: work intensification, loss of autonomy and surveillance on one side; job insecurity and loneliness as the two paths through which AI use affects mental health. These sources underpin the GBPsych add-on module “AI at work”.
- ILO — AI-driven surveillance and loss of autonomy at work (2026) ↗The International Labour Organization warns of psychosocial risks from AI-based work management: surveillance, work intensification, loss of autonomy.
- EU-OSHA — Safer AI worker management through policy and prevention ↗The EU agency for occupational safety states that employers must assess the psychosocial risks of AI-based worker management and take preventive action — existing law, not a special regime.
- SJWEH — Algorithmic management and psychosocial risks at work ↗Occupational-health review of algorithmic management: as management intensity rises, psychosocial risks and health complaints increase measurably.
- Frontiers in Public Health (2026) — Generative AI use and employees' psychological distress ↗The link between AI use and psychological distress runs through two mediators: job insecurity and workplace loneliness.
- Frontiers in Public Health (2026) — AI and work digitalization: scoping review on mental health ↗Scoping review on AI and work digitalization: technostress, work intensification, reduced autonomy and job insecurity as recurring findings.
- Brougham & Haar (2018) — STARA: Employees' perceptions of our future workplace ↗The original work on technology-related job insecurity (STARA awareness) — the basis of most later measurement instruments.
Legal framework
In Germany, workplace health promotion is anchored in law (Section 20b SGB V). A statutory guideline per insured person applies to all prevention spending by the health insurers (Section 20(6) SGB V, 2025: €8.77).
- § 20 SGB V Abs. 6 — Präventionspauschale ↗Guide value and minimum amounts for prevention and health promotion (€8.77 per insured person, 2025).
- GKV-Spitzenverband — Präventionsbericht ↗Annual report on prevention and health-promotion services.
- GKV-Leitfaden Prävention ↗Action areas and criteria under § 20 SGB V.
Note: the savings potential EasyBGM shows are scenarios based on these study values — not promises. Actual effects depend on your industry, implementation and starting point.
Frequently asked questions
Does workplace health management really pay off?
Yes. Implemented in a structured way, health promotion returns an average of around €2.70 per euro invested according to the iga.Report — although in the end only your own measurement proves it. Individual US meta-studies (Chapman 2012) report higher figures.
How long does it take to see an effect?
First effects, for example on satisfaction, are often noticeable earlier than the impact on sick leave. One year is considered a sensible interval for a repeat measurement – measure with your own figures.
What does it cost us to do NOTHING?
With 180 employees, 15 sick days a year and around €300 per sick day, sickness costs come to roughly €810,000. On top of that come turnover costs and – if an order from the labour inspectorate is not implemented – a fine of up to €30,000 (Section 25 ArbSchG, German law).
What legal duties do we actually have?
Risk assessment including psychological strain (ArbSchG §5), return-to-work management after more than six weeks of incapacity to work within a year (SGB IX §167), a company doctor (ASiG §2) and a safety specialist (ASiG §5). Health promotion is voluntary but eligible for funding. These duties apply under German law.
Do health insurers contribute?
Often, yes. Statutory health insurers in Germany are obliged to support WHP (Section 20b SGB V) and fund projects, not headcounts – for example a measure or a health day. A company has no legal entitlement. The statutory guideline for all prevention spending by the insurers was €8.77 per insured person in 2025 (Section 20(6) SGB V).
Is EasyWHP suitable for small companies?
Yes. EasyWHP starts with a free entry plan; the plans scale with company size and scope – current prices are on the pricing page. Small companies in particular benefit from the self-service approach.
How do we measure success?
EasyWHP tracks automatically: sick leave, participation in measures, activity rate on the platform and employee satisfaction (via surveys).
What about data protection?
Hosted in Frankfurt (EU), data processing agreement under Art. 28 GDPR included. Results are anonymous: they only appear from five responses per group.
Convinced by the evidence?
Start your free compliance check now and get a personalised analysis for your company.
Go to the compliance check