Task Force 3: LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), Resilience, and Values for Well-Being

---

Abstract

Across the G20, countries, regions, and businesses continue to pursue sustainable and profitable growth while navigating geopolitical and economic uncertainty, cost constraints, labour shortages, and the need for progress on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing. These pressures heighten the need for investments in both, technology-enabled and human-led transformation programs for long-term business viability. These transformation programs, combined with the pressure of delivering on today’s business goals, are inadvertently increasing stress for an already exhausted and disengaged workforce. In many instances, compounded impacts are also felt across marginalised groups, culminating in a perpetuating cycle that puts sustainable growth at risk. In an effort to disrupt this vicious pattern, this Policy Brief highlights the linkages between economic growth and workforce well-being, and offers recommendations around how firms and policymakers can collectively invest in this goal for the sustainable benefits of the economy, businesses, and society.

The Challenge

As investments in technology drive the digitisation of industry value chains, there is need for policymakers, businesses, and institutions to leverage these opportunities to invest in people, drive positive change, and ensure that the negative impacts of disruptive change are managed effectively. There are various challenges to the quest to fuel sustainable economic growth through effective workforce well-being (which will be referred to henceforth simply as “well-being”). These include the multiple dimensions of well-being, absence of a consistent definition, the need to move beyond traditional measures of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the impacts of business transformation on well-being, and driving of accountabilities in improving well-being.

This brief aims to: 1) Draw linkages between business drivers, well-being, business outcomes, and sustainable economic growth; 2) illustrate how this applies to different workforce segments and industries across G20 countries; and 3) propose specific policy recommendations for the G20 to promote well-being.

While there has been an abundance of research on well-being across disciplines and utilising different perspectives (e.g., International Labour Organisation,

^[1] Gallup,^[2] Zheng et al^[3]), research around how well-being impacts business outcomes has been limited.^[4]  Without this, it becomes a challenge for cross-sector stakeholders to take consistent action towards preventing negative impacts and improving well-being in a sustainable manner, across G20 countries.

Amidst the many possible definitions, this brief will assert the following:

1. ‘Well-being’ includes the following interrelated dimensions (see Figure 1):
   1. Financial: The extent of financial security, where one is able to meet their financial needs and goals and has access to financial services. At the minimum, ability to cover basic living expenses, pay off debt, save, make informed financial decisions, have a sense of financial control and security (i.e., institutional and consumer protections).
   2. Physical: The extent of one’s physical health and wellness at work, including a safe physical and fair workplace (e.g., environment, equipment and protection, anti-bullying), access to basic nutrition, and encouraging education on lifestyle choices around nutrition and exercise to develop and maintain a healthy lifestyle and work-life balance.
   3. Psychological: The extent of one’s mental and emotional health, and positive supportive relationships. This includes motivation, resilience, a sense of fulfilment, psychological safety at work and a sense of belonging, and being able to effectively manage stress and anxiety.

In a rapidly transforming world, these three components will be most highly impacted as a result of increasing financial fragility, competitive pressures, resource constraints, and persistent cognitive overload. 

1. The authors are referring to well-being at the aggregate level, by impacted workforce segments, and measured at an individual level.
2. Lastly, the authors recognise that the cohorts “workers”, “employees”, and “workforce” could include varying populations (e.g., “worker” can be different from “employee” as not all are employed by organisations^[5]). Therefore, “workforce” will encompass those who:
3. 1. Are active in the workforce (e.g., employees, gig workers, and self-employed individuals)
   2. Will be part of the future workforce (e.g., active job seekers, students, and those who temporarily left the workforce but aim to return)

It does not include those who are not actively seeking a job, have left the workforce permanently, and are unable to work (e.g., under employment age, or have permanent disabilities).

To illustrate the implications of business drivers on workforce well-being (and its linkages with business outcomes), this Policy Brief will demonstrate them through personas from different workforce segments and industries across G20 countries.

Exhibit 1 – Pedro, 56, a mining heavy equipment operator in Pará, Brazil

Business Drivers(s)	Well-being Implications			Impact on Business Outcomes
A recent site audit went poorly, as a result, the mining dam where Pedro works may close due to unstable conditions.	Despite the safety risks, work orders continue. Pedro is the sole source of income for the family but he is increasingly anxious about safety conditions, and fears he’s too old to find another job.			The site has suffered high attrition, productivity losses, and increased workloads for those who remain. Due to high risks of injury and stressed workers, the business is experiencing financial loss, breach in trust & reputational risk.
	Financial	Physical	Psychological	Financial	Customer	Operational	Risk & Qual	People
	✘	✘	–	✘	–	✘	✘	✘

Source: Sethi et al.

Moving beyond GDP with a complementary measure of workforce well-being.

The inadequacy of GDP as a comprehensive measure of quality of life has long been acknowledged, as it fails to capture elements of quality of life, distribution of natural and social capital,^[6] and non-market services and activities.^[7] The compelling linkages between well-being and economic growth strengthen the case for a more holistic, complementary measure of development beyond GDP that will have as one of its pillars, workforce well-being (see Figure 2).

For instance, there is evidence to suggest that improved well-being leads to better business outcomes (see Appendix 1 for a definition), including higher productivity, creativity, and innovation. Productivity data across countries shows that working more hours does not guarantee increased productivity, and indeed the aggressive pursuit of productivity and profitability can be counterproductive.^[8] Prioritising well-being can also enhance cognitive resources and diversity of thought, strengthening one’s ability to draw connections and innovate,^[9] enabling longer-term business outcomes.

Conversely, diminished well-being has pervasive impacts, extending beyond business and individual outcomes (e.g., lower product or service quality, financial loss, reputational damage, impacts to dependents), into financial costs, and strain on public resources. Employee burnout, for instance, costs US$ 322 billion globally in turnover and lost productivity.3

Exhibit 2 – Lata, 30, IT professional in Bengaluru, India

Business Drivers(s)	Well-being Implications			Impact on Business Outcomes
Lata’s org just announced a series of transformation efforts, leading to extended hours across time zones.	Lata, a recently promoted manager, is burned out from conflicting stakeholder demands, exclusion from key decision-making, and resource constraints due to the temporary hiring freeze.			Lata’s supervisors have received escalations about lapses in quality, frequent delays and reduction in client satisfaction. This has led to increase in overtime from teammates resulting in higher costs and increased attrition issues.
	Financial	Physical	Psychological	Financial	Customer	Operational	Risk & Qual	People
	–	–	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘

Source: Sethi et al.

More needs to be done to mitigate well-being impacts from business transformation.

Well-being has become more critical in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet there is a gap in accountability and results. While 74 percent of companies globally, acknowledge the importance of employees’ well-being, nearly half of workers reached by Adecco in its “Disconnect to Reconnect” survey feel unsupported.^[10] Policymakers and businesses must be purposeful in mitigating the disproportionate impacts on marginalised communities. Demographic minorities are more likely to be victims of workplace injustice, leading to poorer psychological and physical health.^[11] The pandemic has also further exacerbated existing inequities based on gender,^[12] education and skills,^[13] immigration status,^[14] and physical disabilities. The intersectionality of these characteristics can further result in compounded effects (e.g., stigmatisation, discrimination)—all of which contribute to diminished well-being.^[15]

Impacts from Business Transformation

External pressures are driving constant transformational change in businesses, often at the expense of workforce well-being. PwC’s 26th Annual Global CEO survey published early this year found that 39 percent of business leaders believe their current business models will no longer be viable in the next decade,¹⁶ spurring transformation (e.g., diversifying products and services, cutting costs, workforce reduction) to stay competitive during uncertain times. Amidst economic volatility, geopolitical tensions, increasing polarisation, and rising interest rates, global CEOs are prioritising technology and reinvention-oriented investments to stay competitive.^[16] But what is the impact on the workforce?

Decline in economic growth heightens uncertainty and economic insecurity, exacerbating negative consequences on well-being. For example, life satisfaction can also be up to eight times more sensitive during periods of economic downturn compared to periods of growth,^[17] and impacts of organisational change have been linked to higher job-related anxiety and lower job satisfaction.^[18] Furthermore, while technology can streamline and accelerate the pace of work, it can be a double-edged sword, resulting in negative well-being outcomes (e.g., increased stress, burnout, overload, exhaustion). Perception of technology advancements threatening job security can also diminish career satisfaction and increase cynicism and depression.^[19] This impact on the multigenerational workforce varies, with younger workers more concerned about their role being replaced by technology and insufficient digital upskilling from employers.^[20]

Disruption, geopolitical tensions and pressures to contain costs could also impact work design, leading to lower discretion and decision-making, insufficient opportunity for training and development, and leveraging relevant skills resulting in adverse psychological well-being outcomes.14 These negative outcomes are also more pronounced for women due to more intense feelings of loneliness, being subject to both questions about their professional abilities, and social norms that expect them to devote greater amounts of time to unpaid domestic work. Gig-based employment is rapidly gaining ground, but low-skilled workers in such sectors face unique challenges to their well-being, such as the short-lived and uncertain nature of work, insufficient access to training, and the lack of supervisory support and social connections at work.^[21]

Impacts from Competitive Pressures

Lastly, accelerating business competition can lead to higher job demands (e.g., conflict between roles, emotional demands, decreased job resources). A study in Malaysia on well-being impacts from global trade competition found that 54 percent of the respondents felt they had to work harder, 25 percent experienced job insecurity, and 24 percent felt the loss of power and control over their job.22 These impacts are not unique to developed countries; reimagining job design by altering demands and resources will be important for all, regardless of economic profile.^[22] As Sethi, et al. suggest in a 2020 policy brief, continued and intentional focus is required for the creation of “good jobs” in the post-pandemic world.^[23]

Exhibit 3 – Jackie, 25, intensive care nurse in Chicago, Illinois, United States of America

Business Drivers(s)		Wellbeing Implications			Impact on Business Outcomes
The global pandemic has pushed healthcare professionals to the brink of collapse, including Jackie.		Jackie is attempting to start a family, however she’s taking more shifts from personnel shortages, meaning extended work hours with decreased resources. She wants to quit but fears starting over.			The entire hospital staff has seen increased levels of posttraumatic stress and irritability. As a result, this has worsened the patient experience and increased patient time in beds, and costs.
		Financial	Physical	Psychological	Financial	Customer	Operational	Risk & Qual	People
		–	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	–	✘

Source: Sethi et al.

G20’s Role

In the quest for sustainable economic growth and prosperity with the aid of workforce well-being, G20 countries are in a unique position on the global stage to shed light on the criticality of this agenda and accelerate its pursuit.

G20 policymakers can drive standardisation in not only defining and operationalising workers’ well-being, but also promoting accountability for improving well-being. The G20 serves as an assembly for collaborative and collective action, particularly with the opportunity to share knowledge in areas where an individual country may lack, and to provide support and resources to countries outside of the G20.

Recommendations to the G20

This Policy Brief proposes five interconnected policy actions to drive awareness and alignment amongst businesses, policymakers, public institutions, and civil society to promote workforce well-being:

1. Set up a G20 multi-stakeholder task force to establish a common framework and define metrics of well-being tied to sustainable economic outcomes.
2. Promote the practice of disclosing data on well-being among businesses. Data should include initiatives, business impacts, and lessons learned.
3. Establish a working group that includes all members of society to support networking, knowledge-sharing, and lessons learned across and within G20 states, to enable the G20 task force with forward-looking recommendations.
4. Educate civil society and nurture stronger multi-stakeholder collaboration to drive a coordinated response between businesses and governments at city, state, region, and country levels.
5. Incentivise businesses to become “first-adopters” through recognition, financial incentives, and partnerships.

Policy Action 1: Set up a G20 “Sustainable Economic Growth through Workforce Well-being” Task Force (from herein out, referred to as “the task force”), composed of policymakers across the G20, representatives from B20, L20, and appointed by member countries: economists, thought leaders, public sector representatives (educational and healthcare institutions), trade associations, and labour unions. This task force should be considered in the context of other G20 India well-being task force recommendations, with attention given to the following elements:

• Efficiencies / Integration opportunities – This may be better positioned as a sub-committee of an existing task force if there are overlapping charters and membership.
• Longer-term effectiveness and sustainability – The governance of this task force should be positioned to ensure this coalition is maintained and is effective across a multi-year timeline.

The charter of the task force should mandate it to:

1. Present a consistent framework of measurable indicators of workforce well-being (see Figure 3). Differing maturity levels and capacity of countries, including emerging economies, should be considered when gathering individual and disaggregated data.
   
2. Define guiding principles to drive actionable steps towards measurement. This brief proposes a few key tenets:

1. Comprehensiveness: Use multiple levers in measurement—both leading and lagging indicators of well-being. While lagging indicators reflect well-being outcomes from changes and initiatives, leading indicators are proactive and predictive in tracking the progress of measurable variables.
2. Customisation: Well-being drivers can vary across groups (e.g, majority vs. underrepresented groups), and therefore the indicators selected need to be fit-for-purpose, and customised in measuring relative impact and progress of well-being actions for different workforce segments. For example, structural stigma faced by minority populations increases risks to well-being (specifically mental health). Neurodivergent individuals also have higher risks of anxiety and depression.^[24] Social relationships are an important driver of well-being in developing countries as they are seen to compensate for the absence of strong state capacities in providing welfare services.^[25]
3. Consolidation and triangulation across methods: Consolidation of insights from multiple sources is important to unveil new possibilities. Balancing self-reporting with analytics, technology (e.g., use of AI / ML), and outcomes of implemented actions, will expand resources for predictive and preventive measures to drive workforce well-being. 

Policy Action 2: Promote public disclosures of workforce well-being indicators.

Recognising that policymakers cannot require such action, those who choose to do so will demonstrate to local communities that they prioritise well-being and demonstrate accountability to build trust. In enacting a push for public disclosures, this will encourage more intentional evaluation of well-being-related risks, and more informed capital allocation of investments to maximise returns.^[26]

It is also recommended that the task force identify opportunities to incorporate well-being measures into existing public disclosure efforts. For example, ESG reporting, alongside Regulation S-K amendment in the United States that require disclosure of human capital resources,^[27] or in relation to Sustainable Development Goals driven from the United Nations.^[28]

Lastly, the task force should develop a handbook to promote disclosures with additional guidance around:

1. Indicator and variable measurement options for respective well-being components (see Appendix 2) to achieve some consensus around what companies can choose to disclose.
2. Practicality and minimum reporting requirements to avoid undue administrative burden and discrepancies in resource availability for data gathering/reporting between large and small/medium businesses, and developed vs. developing countries.
3. Prioritisation of indicators most tied to financial performance, including consideration of temporal impacts.
4. Frequency of disclosure (e.g., every two years to allow sufficient time for data collection and observation of longer-term impacts).
5. Description of well-being initiatives planned or rolled out, including intended and actual impacts, progress against success metrics, lessons learned, and enhancement opportunities.

Exhibit 4 – Cameron, 23, equities trader in London, United Kingdom.

Business Drivers(s)	Well-being Implications			Impact on Business Outcomes
A competitive financial trading work environment is leading to Cameron’s diminished wellbeing.	ONA (Org. network analysis) through meeting invitations and communications has identified using AI that Cameron is at high risk of burnout and increased stress due to collaboration overload.			The risk combined with red flags identified through NLP (natural language processing), have provided his HR manager with insights to give Cameron a brief vacation and establish a new work cadence to support the team’s productivity and reduce attrition.
	Financial	Physical	Psychological	Financial	Customer	Operational	Risk & Qual	People
	–	–	✘	–	–	✘	✘	✘

Source: Sethi et al.

Exhibit 5 – Anji, 42, seamstress in Di Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Business Drivers(s)	Well-being Implications			Impact on Business Outcomes
There have been inconsistent supply chain needs across the apparel industry & manufacturing centers, where Anji works.	As a result, Anji, a member of the informal sector, fears for her health, and losing the consistent source of income for basic needs so has picked up several other clients in off-hours to “moonlight”.			Given the informal nature of her income and her fear of missing work if sick or injured, her main client provided her guaranteed contracts to encourage consistent inputs towards their supply while reducing production delays.
	Financial	Physical	Psychological	Financial	Customer	Operational	Risk & Qual	People
	✘	✘	–	–	–	✘	✘	✘

Source: Sethi et al.

Policy Action 3: Create a working group to support the G20 Task Force with networking, knowledge-sharing of leading practices, and lessons learned, across and within G20 countries.

This working group will encourage a consultative process for submissions of practices from multi-stakeholder groups including the Business20 (B20), Civil20 (C20), Labour20 (L20), Think20 (T20), Women20 (W20), Youth20 (Y20), academia, think tanks, and students. A framework for sharing of predictive, preventive and curative / rehabilitative actions will also drive consistency and comprehensiveness (see Appendix 3 for details). Emerging well-being issues / linkages to businesses and economic growth should also be periodically identified to spur engaging discussion and ideas.

Policy Action 4: Educate civil society and promote stronger multi-stakeholder collaboration on workforce well-being actions.

While governments are already embedding well-being considerations in initiatives for greater civil society engagement, engaging multiple stakeholder groups will ensure that varied needs are heard, while driving co-creation and coordinated response.  This will also increase accountability for interdepartmental coordination within the government and holistic focus on well-being across a range of policy areas including health, education, employment, and social justice.

The G20, with the Civil20 and Labour20, can play a role in creating resources and forums to interconnect domains of health inclusion, financial inclusion, social inclusion, and skills inclusion from civil society groups, academia, students, think tanks—this, in turn, will heighten accountability towards holistic well-being. Specifically, the G20 could focus on capacity-building and engagement of civil society with policymakers to overcome barriers by creating a membership-driven collaborative online platform for:

• The exchange of resources to build awareness, knowledge and encourage communication to enhance healthcare access.
• Creating a safe virtual community for marginalised or underrepresented segments of society for advice and support, while minimising the fear of consequences (e.g., ILO’s platform for cooperation to provide support for undocumented migrants).
• Hosting of open-house sessions to shore up public engagement and consultation at the grassroots level.
• Registration-based upskilling to enhance response-readiness to well-being challenges locally, in partnership with community organisations or educational institutions.
• Data collection efforts

Policy Action 5: Outline options for G20 policymakers to accelerate and incentivise businesses across industries to become “first-adopters” and encourage partnerships to drive effective wellbeing, such as:

1. Public Recognition: Highlight organisations that take innovative approaches towards promoting well-being and initiating partnerships across sectors. This can be in the form of media recognition and public awards.
2. Financial Incentives: Create funding programs (e.g., tax credits / incentives, grants) for public institutions that partner with businesses (or vice versa) to improve well-being through development, pilots, and implementation of well-being initiatives. For example, financial incentives for business and universities / research institutions to conduct market research around well-being or roll out initiatives. G20 countries, or the task force should formulate guidelines around eligibility, the application process, acceptance requirements, evaluation criteria, and reporting requirements (e.g., public disclosures) as part of this effort.
3. Partnerships: G20 countries, or the task force, could facilitate different types of partnerships to enhance well-being:
   1. Public-Private partnerships – For example, private organisations partnering with public health institutions to offer workers access to and education around health and wellness services, embedded in existing strategies. Or with education institutions to drive community understanding of well-being from an early age, including education around the importance of nutrition and mental health to nurture and equip a sustainable future workforce.
   2. Sectoral partnerships – Encourage collaborative efforts between businesses, government agencies, trade associations, labour associations to address specific drivers of well-being impacts within a sector or industry (e.g., influencing regulatory bodies to promote safer physical working conditions in mining, push to adopt international standards). G20 policymakers can consider pushing these efforts at the national level to boost economic growth and competitiveness through healthier / better productivity and the creation of new and good jobs. At the sub-national level, these partnerships can focus on regional challenges or promote economic growth in specific geographies.
   3. Community partnerships – To tackle more complex or specific well-being impacts locally and promote community development with community organisations, local businesses, and government agencies.

To conclude, G20 policymakers and the task force should ensure that progress, outcomes, and appropriate success measures are being tracked. From there, the G20 could continue to be of diverse representation where perspectives evolve in a flexible manner amidst the changing external environment.

Appendices

Appendix 1- Business Outcome Definitions

Business Outcome	Definition
Financial	Measurable results that reflects a business’s financial performance and success in meeting its financial goals, expressed in financial metrics such as sales/production volumes, revenue, profit, gross margin, EBITDA, cash flow, cost savings, return on investment, or identified KPIs
Customer	Measurable results that reflects the success of a business’s products and services for its customers, expressed in customer metrics such as customer satisfaction, engagement, retention, brand loyalty, net promoter score
Operational	Measurable results that reflects how effectively a business manages its operations and processes, expressed in operational metrics such as productivity, efficiency, operating margins
Risk and Quality	Measurable result that reflects how effectively a business manages risk and quality, expressed in product and service risk and quality metrics such as risk appetite, risk reduction, regulatory compliance, customer complaints, defect rates, product safety and quality
People	Measurable result that reflects how effectively a business manages its people and talent, expressed in people metrics such as employee engagement, talent retention, diversity, job satisfaction, employee net promoter score

 

Appendix 2 – Illustrative Indicators and Measures of Workforce Well-being

Wellbeing Component	Illustrative Indicators	Variable(s) of Measurement for Consideration	Method of Measurement	Objective / Subjective	Altitude	Leading / Lagging	Corresponding Definition of Wellbeing Component
Financial[29]	Subjective Financial Wellness[30]	Perception of financial condition	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Leading	Financial security
	Company- sponsored Financial Investment and Insurance Resources	Perception of effectiveness of financial investment and insurance resources	Questionnaire	Subjective		Lagging	Access to financial services
		Quality of financial investment and insurance resources (i.e., fit for purpose)	Questionnaire	Subjective		Lagging
		Access to (or lack thereof) of financial investment and insurance resources	Statistical Analysis	Objective		Leading
	Company- sponsored Financial Education / Counseling Services	Perception of effectiveness of financial education / counselling services	Questionnaire	Subjective		Lagging	Access to financial services to make informed financial decisions
		Quality of financial education / counselling services (i.e., fit for purpose)	Questionnaire	Subjective		Lagging
		Access to (or lack thereof) financial education / counselling services	Statistical Analysis	Objective		Leading
	Company- sponsored Financial Assistance Programs	Perception of effectiveness of financial assistance programs	Questionnaire	Subjective		Lagging	Access to financial services
		Quality of financial assistance programs (i.e., fit for purpose)	Questionnaire	Subjective		Lagging
		Access to (or lack thereof) financial assistance programs	Statistical Analysis	Objective		Leading
Physical[31]	Healthcare Utilisation	Access to (or lack thereof) company-sponsored healthcare programs	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Individual	Lagging	Healthy lifestyle
		Quality of company-sponsored healthcare programs
	Employee Complaints	Changes in number of employee complaints	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Aggregate	Lagging	Safe physical and fair workplace, healthy lifestyle, work-life balance
	Workplace Injuries[32]	Changes in number of work-related injuries and health disorders	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Aggregate	Lagging
	Working Environment	Safety of working conditions, environment, machinery / tools	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Aggregate	Leading	Safe physical workplace
	Workplace Wellness Programs (physical and mental health)	Effectiveness of workforce wellness incentives or programs[33]	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Lagging	Education on lifestyle choices, healthy lifestyle, work-life balance
		Accommodations for different abilities[34] (e.g., accommodating work designs for those with reduced work capacity)	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Individual	Leading
Psychological	Stress and Anxiety[35]	Perception of stress and anxiety levels from work	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Leading	Mental and emotional health
	Working Relationships	Perception of the quality of supportive working relationships with supervisors and colleagues	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Leading	Supportive relationships (or absence of), motivation, fulfilment
		Change in the quality of community relationships due to workplace impacts	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Leading
		Quality of employee resource groups (fit for purpose) and effectiveness	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Lagging
		Membership in employee resource groups	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Aggregate	Lagging
	Workload	Changes in hours worked (overtime, shifts, work hours)	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Individual	Lagging	Mental and emotional health
		Frequency and duration of breaks / rest periods during the work day
		Perception of and accurate reporting of hours worked and availability / frequency of breaks / rest periods	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Leading
	Psychological Safety	Perception of psychological safety to raise issues and concerns, escalate, contributing ideas, feel listened to, respected and recognized, giving and receiving feedback	Questionnaire	Subjective	Individual	Leading	Sense of psychological safety, Supportive relationships (or absence of)
		Perception of respect, tolerance, equity, and anti-discrimination
		Effectiveness of Anti-retaliation policies	Statistical Analysis	Objective	Aggregate	Leading
	Fulfilling / Meaningful Work[36]	Employee sentiment about the impact and significance of their work to society	Questionnaire	Subjective	Aggregate	Leading	Motivation, fulfilment, sense of belonging

Appendix 3 – Examples of Actions to Drive Well-being

Type of Actions to drive Wellbeing	Examples
Predictive	●     Proactive use of data and technology (e.g., wearable tech) to track health and wellbeing indicators to provide personalised inputs ●     Analysing collaboration and information sharing patterns through organisational network analysis (ONA) to understand risks of burnout
Preventive	●     Individually: Awareness tools and resources, work design changes ●     Organisationally: Progressive policies, processes and physical environment (e.g., enhance financial wellness through debt reduction programmes, changes to flexible working guidelines, comprehensive insurance policies)
Curative / rehabilitative	●     Response readiness through resource groups ●     Access to medical and mental health practitioners

 

 

---

Endnote

^[1] Andrew Sharpe, et al., “The current state of research on the two-way linkages between productivity and well-being,” ILO, Working Paper 56 (2022).

^[2] “The World Happiness Report,” Gallup World Poll, accessed March 5,2023.

^[3] Xiaoming Zheng, et al., “Employee wellbeing in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 36, no. 5 (January 2015): 621-644.

^[4] Indy Wijngaards, et al., “Worker Wellbeing: What it Is, and how it Should Be Measured,” Applied Research in Quality of Life 17 (April 2022): 795-832.

^[5] Zakaria Zoundi, et al., “Moving Beyond GDP: A Stock-Flow Approach to Measuring Wellbeing for The G20,” T20 Indonesia Policy Brief, (2022).

^[6] OECD, “The Wellbeing of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital,” The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 11 (2001).

^[7] Bhushan Sethi, et al., “TF7 – The Future of Work and Education for the Digital Age: Delivering Workforce Productivity Growth,” T20 Japan Policy Brief, (2019).

^[8] Christian Krekel, et al., “Employee Well-being, Productivity, and Firm Performance: Evidence and Case Studies,” Saïd Business School WP 2019-04 (March 2019).

^[9] “Employee Wellbeing Is Key for Workplace Productivity”, Gallup, accessed March 5, 2023.

^[10] “Workers say they want even more wellbeing support now than during the pandemic. This is why,” WEF, accessed March 4, 2023.

^[11] Cassandra Okechukwu, et al. “Discrimination, harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 57, no. 5 (2013): 573-86.

^[12] “International Women’s Day 2023,” PwC, accessed March 25, 2023.

^[13] “PwC’s Upskilling Hopes and Fears 2021 Survey,” PwC, accessed March 4, 2023.

^[14] “The AXA Study of Mind Health and Wellbeing in 2023,” AXA, accessed March 4, 2023.

^[15] Marc Cubrich, et al., “Pandemics and Precarious Work: Translating Research to Practice for Marginalized Workers,” Translational Issues in Psychological Science 8, no. 3 (2022): 416–430.

^[16] “PwC’s 26th Annual Global CEO Survey,” PwC, accessed March 12, 2023.

^[17] “Jan-Emmanual De Neve, et al., “The Asymmetric Experience of Positive and Negative Economic Growth: Global Evidence Using Subjective Wellbeing Data,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 100, no.2 (2018): 362–375.

^[18] Alex Bryson, et al., “The Effects of Organizational Change on Worker Wellbeing and the Moderating Role of Trade Unions.” ILR Review 66, no. 4 (July 2013):  989–1011.

^[19] David Brougham, et al., “Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace,” Journal of Management & Organization 24, no. 2 (2018): 239–257.

^[20] “Hopes and Fears Survey 2022,” PwC, accessed March 12, 2023.

^[21] Emsie Arnoldi et al., “Mapping themes for the well-being of low-skilled gig workers: Implications for digital platform design,” Journal of Transient Migration, (2021), DOI:10.1386/tjtm_00031_1.

^[22] Mohd Awang Idris, et al., “The Effect of Globalization on Employee Psychological Health and Job Satisfaction in Malaysian Workplaces,” Journal of Occupational Health 53, no. 6 (2011): 447–454.

^[23] Bhushan Sethi, et al., “Policy Brief Delivering Economic Value and Societal Cohesion Through ‘Good Jobs’,” T20 Group Saudi Arabia, (2020).

^[24] Kelly McCain, “Explainer: What is neurodivergence? Here’s what you need to know,” WEF, accessed March 4, 2023.

^[25] Nicola Pontarollo, et al., “The Determinants of Subjective Well-Being in a Developing Country: The Ecuadorian Case,” Journal of Happiness Studies 21, (2020): 3007–3035.

^[26] “Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures,” accessed March, 24, 2023.

^[27] Riccardo Boffo, et al., “ESG Investing: Practices, Progress and Challenges,” OECD Paris, (2020).

^[28] Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development, “Sustainable Development Goals,” United Nations, accessed March 23, 2023.

^[29] Angela Sorgente, et al., “The Multidimensional Subjective Financial Wellbeing Scale for Emerging Adults, Development and Validation Studies,” International Journal of Behavioral Development 43, no. 5 (2019): 466-478.

^[30] Ambika Prasad Nanda, et al., “Consumer’s subjective financial well-being: A systematic review and research agenda,” International Journal of Consumer Studies 45, no. 4 (2021): 750-776.

^[31] Joel Goh, et al., “Workplace stressors & health outcomes: Health policy for the workplace,” Behavioral Science and Policy Association 1, no. 1 (2015): 43–52, doi:10.1353/bsp.2015.0001.

^[32] “Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders & Ergonomics,” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed March 21, 2023.

^[33] Brooke R Envick, “Investing in a Healthy Workforce: The impact of physical wellness on psychological well-being and the critical implications for worker performance,” Academy of Health Care Management Journal 8, no. 1/2 (2012): 21-32.

^[34] Lilah Rinsky-Halivni, et al., “Aging workforce with reduced work capacity: From organizational challenges to successful accommodations sustaining productivity and well-being,” Social Science & Medicine 312, (2022): 115369.

^[35] Kimberly Williams, et al., “Evaluation of a Wellness-Based Mindfulness Stress Reduction Intervention: A Controlled Trial,” American Journal of Health Promotion 15, no. 6 (2001): 422-32.

^[36] KW Nilsson, et al., “Sense of coherence and psychological well-being: improvement with age,” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, Centre for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Central Hospital 64, no. 4 (2010): 347-352.