The hidden cost of employee sickness reached a staggering £103 billion in 2023, an increase of £30 billion since 2018, according to the latest report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). This figure represents not just a significant financial burden on UK businesses but highlights a growing challenge that impacts productivity, workplace culture, and ultimately, your bottom line.
Recent research paints a concerning picture for employers across Britain. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and Simplyhealth’s joint research reveals that employees were absent for an average of 7.8 days over the past year, marking a substantial rise from the pre-pandemic rate of 5.8 days.
This trend doesn’t affect all organisations equally. The public sector reports significantly higher average absence levels at 10.6 days per employee compared to their private sector counterparts. Company size also plays a crucial role in absence patterns. Smaller organisations with 50 or fewer staff recorded lower sickness absence rates (5.0 days per employee) than larger ones with 5,000 or more employees (13.3 days per employee), says the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals.
What’s particularly troubling for employers is how these figures translate into tangible costs. Moorepay calculates that for small businesses with under 250 employees, absenteeism costs approximately £547 per employee annually. Companies with 250-999 employees lose about £429 per employee, while large businesses with over 1,000 employees face a substantial £702 per person per year.
Despite these concerning figures, many organisations remain unaware of the true financial impact. Over a third of businesses admit they have no idea how much absenteeism costs them, even though more than 70% acknowledge that absence directly affects their profitability.
When calculating the cost of employee absence, many organisations focus solely on direct costs such as sick pay. However, the financial impact extends far beyond these obvious expenses.
The most visible expense is the salary paid to absent employees. When staff members are unable to work due to illness yet receive sick pay, companies essentially pay for work that isn’t being completed. Moorepay’s basic calculation forms the foundation of absence cost analysis:
Average employee day rate (total salary ÷ total number of employees ÷ number of working days in a year) × total number of absence days.
For private sector employers, this direct cost averages £568 per employee annually.
These less obvious expenses can significantly increase the financial burden:
Research from the Institute for Employment Studies suggests that between 2% and 16% of an organisation’s annual salary bill may be spent on absence, with only about half of this amount attributed to direct costs.
Perhaps most concerning is the financial impact of “presenteeism”, when employees attend work while unwell. IPPR research shows that on average, employees lost the equivalent of 44 days of productivity due to working through sickness, up from 35 days in 2018. They also lost 6.7 days through taking sick leave, an increase from 3.7 days in 2018.
The research concluded that health and work are interacting in a “vicious circle” in Britain today, with UK employees more likely to work through sickness compared with their peers in other OECD and European countries.
This has a considerable impact on productivity. Of the £30 billion increase in costs since 2018, £25 billion was caused by lower productivity due to presenteeism, with only £5 billion attributed to increased numbers of sick days.
Presenteeism, working while unwell, has become a significant issue for UK employers. This phenomenon doesn’t just affect productivity; it can extend illness duration and lead to more serious health problems down the line.
Working through poor health is more common among certain groups:
According to the IPPR report , Black or Asian workers are twice as likely to work through sickness compared with those who are white British.
There are a number of factors at play, and some are societal and an outcome of infrastructure. People with lower qualifications tend to have a lower income and may not be in a longer-term employment contract and may feel the need to work – and earn – through a period of ill health. The Employment Rights Bill aims to address some of these inequalities, with more rights for sickeness absence payments from Day One. Not being able to earn for a day makes a real difference to someone who relies on every penny coming in. Addressing imbalances like this may help.
Several additional factors contribute to the presenteeism trend:
Company culture: Not taking time off can be seen as a badge of honour in some workplaces
Financial insecurity: Limited sick pay benefits may force employees to work while unwell
Job insecurity: Fear of negative perception or job loss
Excessive workloads: Backlog anxiety pushes employees to avoid taking time off
Persistent culture of long hours: Despite research showing longer hours don’t increase productivity
Company culture plays a significant role, and if the manager or CEO works through illness then there is an expectation that the staff must do so as well. However, productivity and long hours do not always equate; in fact, it is often the opposite.
Understanding what drives absenteeism is crucial for addressing it effectively. The CIPD research highlights several key factors:
Short-term absence drivers
Long-term absence drivers
Stress plays a significant role in both short- and long-term absences, with over 76% of survey respondents reporting stress-related absenteeism in the past year. The main causes were:
Financial stress is increasingly recognised as a driver of workplace absence. It’s estimated that absenteeism due to financial distress cost UK employers £3.7 billion in 2023 – up from £2.5 billion in 2021.
To understand the true financial impact of absence on your specific organisation, you need a systematic approach that captures both direct and indirect costs.
Basic calculation method for calculating absenteeism costs
Comprehensive calculation method for calculating absenteeism costs
For a more accurate assessment, include these additional elements:
Real-world example for calculating absenteeism costs
From Moorepay
Public vs private sector differences
The cost impact varies significantly between sectors. In the public sector, where absence rates are higher (10.6 days per employee), the financial burden is correspondingly greater than in the private sector.
Organisation size comparison
Based on case studies from retail environments:
This data suggests that while mid-sized organisations might manage absence most efficiently, both small and large businesses face proportionally higher costs.
Absenteeism affects more than just direct financial metrics. Its influence extends throughout your organisation in ways that might not be immediately obvious.
Productivity loss
Beyond the simple calculation of days lost, absence creates ripple effects:
Client and customer relationships
When key staff are absent:
Workplace culture impact
Persistent absence patterns can:
Building on the research findings, here are practical, evidence-based approaches to address the growing cost of workplace absence:
Address the root causes of stress
With stress being a primary driver of absence, target the main causes:
Mental health support
The CIPD research shows mental health is a leading cause of long-term absence:
Physical health initiatives
To address musculoskeletal and other physical health issues:
Financial wellbeing
With financial distress costing employers billions in absence:
Absence management processes
Effective systems can reduce both the frequency and duration of absences:
Addressing absenteeism isn’t just about reducing costs; it’s about creating value through a healthier, more engaged workforce. When compiling your business case, stress the following tangible and intangible aspects:
Return on investment
Research consistently shows that wellbeing interventions yield positive returns, with a £4.70 return on every pound spent on mental health interventions alone:
Competitive advantage
In today’s tight employment market:
Long-term business sustainability
Investment in employee health supports:
With 30 years of NHS experience, Verve Healthcare can help you address the challenge of workplace absence with practical, proven approaches:
Our approach is built on our core values of love, trust, accessibility, and patient-centric care, always delivered with a proactive mindset.
The financial impact of absenteeism on UK employers is substantial and growing. At £103 billion annually, the cost affects businesses of all sizes across all sectors. However, understanding the true causes and implementing evidence-based strategies means you can turn this challenge into an opportunity. The data is clear ; organisations that invest in employee health and wellbeing see returns not just in reduced absence costs but in enhanced productivity, improved retention, and stronger business performance overall.
A healthy, happy workforce isn’t just the right thing to aim for, it makes good business sense. Taking a proactive approach to absence management and employee wellbeing can reduce costs while creating a workplace where people thrive.
Want to learn how Verve Healthcare can help you create a healthier, more productive workforce? Get in touch today for a free consultation and discover how our 30 years of healthcare expertise can support your specific business needs.
Verve Health Assessments can keep your teams on track, improving their health and your bottom line
You need your unique invite code to be able to register and access our service. Please complete the form below and we will send you your code and instructions to register. One of our team will be in touch within the next business day.
First name*
Last name*
Email address*
Telephone*
Company*