The need to focus on health is still recognised and significant, but the method of achieving healthier employees needs to change. Several research studies demonstrate this, including studies from Stanford and Oxford University.
The conclusion is clear: there is little to no effect from the many corporate investments in health initiatives. This applies regardless of whether the initiatives address mental health, stress, insomnia, or smoking cessation. While the need to improve health in these areas is acknowledged, the most recent research shows no progress, or decline even, when the initiatives are company driven.
Health requires structural change
This is demonstrated, for example, in Oxford’s 2024 study ´Employee Well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions´. It examined the effects of health initiatives such as stress-management programs, mindfulness courses, and well-being apps, and found that they had little or no impact on employees’ well-being or job satisfaction. In fact, initiatives like resilience and mindfulness training showed a negative effect on employees’ mental health.
This finding is supported by U.S. research. A large 2019 randomized Harvard study ´Effect of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health and Economic Outcomes´ found little evidence that conventional workplace wellness programmes improved employee health or reduced costs.
In related work, Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer has shown that work-related stress contributes to an estimated 120,000 deaths annually in the U.S. and argues that improving employee well-being requires structural changes - such as better pay, job security, flexible working hours, and opportunities for training and mentoring - rather than more corporate wellness initiatives.
Well-being without company-manufactured one-size-fits-all schemes
Danish studies on what employees actually want also show a simultaneous decline in interest in corporate health schemes. Ballisager’s Candidate Analysis illustrates this shift. In 2021, health topped the list of what employees valued most, with “stress prevention” and “shared responsibility for employees’ physical health” ranking as the most important factors. By 2025, however, the top three had been replaced by employee priorities of good pay, good colleagues, and flexible working hours.
This aligns with Professor Pfeffer’s conclusion that the path to improved employee health does not lie in company-driven health initiatives, but rather in better pay, job security, flexibility and autonomy over working time, and opportunities for growth and mentoring.
Professor André Spicer from the University of London, who compares these studies with a wide range of other research on health initiatives in his book Business Bullshit, further concludes that employee health requires removing sources of stress - such as unnecessarily complicated systems, poorly trained managers, and, in some cases, ineffective health and well-being initiatives. According to him, health comes from granting employees freedom and room to strengthen their well-being within a trust-based, flexible work-life design - not through company-manufactured one-size-fits-all schemes.
Hybrid work strengthens employee health
A 2024 survey by the International Workplace Group (IWG) concluded that the possibility of hybrid work improved overall health and sleep for 68% of employees, while more than half increased their physical activity and improved their eating habits. General well-being and stress levels were also far better among the more than 1,000 employees surveyed under hybrid arrangements than among employees under traditional arrangements. The study further showed that eight out
of ten employees felt less exhausted, stressed, and worried when they could work partly from home, while 86% reported better work-life balance that helped them cope more effectively with ongoing daily challenges.
Remote work benefits health but is in retreat
Internationally, however, there is a growing trend towards limiting trust, flexibility, and autonomy by rolling back remote work opportunities. Tech giants, once pioneers of flexible work, are now leading the way in retracting them, and as usual, companies across industries and borders are following suit. Ballisager’s 2024 Candidate Analysis also showed that Danish companies are now less inclined to offer remote work, despite it remaining a clear employee preference.
Additionally, a 2024 ´Future of Work´ survey by the business and employers' organisation Danish Industry among its Danish member companies revealed that one in ten companies had reduced the number of days employees could work from home, while one in five only offered remote work under special circumstances and with managerial approval. Novo Nordisk, the Danish pharmaceutical giant, responded to weeks of stock-market instability by introducing new leadership, announcing mass layoffs, and rolling back remote-work opportunities. The company justified the move as a way to “strengthen relations, further cooperation, and accelerate decision-making processes.”
While some experts have suggested that curbing remote work might temporarily strengthen social cohesion during a period of uncertainty and cutbacks, most have criticized Novo Nordisk for reverting to old control-driven management practices - a rollback that, rather than improving a culture in crisis, risks undermining trust, resilience, and employee health.
Out of the 88% of the companies from the Future of Work-survey that do offer remote work, 65% have invested in making it more attractive for employees to come into the office instead.
Measures include stricter requirements for physical presence and onboarding, as well as improvements to office design, workplace conditions, and social activities. At the same time, the survey showed that employee well-being associated with remote-work opportunities increased from 32% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, while productivity either improved or remained unchanged. This supports international research findings that health as a corporate initiative thrives with trust, not control.
