Corporate wellness: what, why not and whither?
| Published date | 03 June 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2018-0151 |
| Pages | 638-648 |
| Date | 03 June 2019 |
| Author | Geraint Harvey |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour |
Corporate wellness: what, why
not and whither?
Geraint Harvey
Department of Business, School of Management,
Swansea University, Swansea, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present corporate wellness (CW) as an approach to worker
well-being and as distinct from workplace health promotion (WHP). Theoretical explanations of the
contribution of CW and WHP to the economic and social legitimacy objectives of human resource
management (HRM) serve to elucidate this distinction and also to highlight the problematic nature of CW.
An alternative approach to worker well-being, firm performance and social legitimacy of the firm is discussed.
Design/methodology/approach –This is a review paper that analyses research into CW as a discrete
approach to the management of people and compares this body of knowledge with ancillary studies of the
impact of policies more commonly aligned with HRM in order to achieve the purpose of the paper.
Findings –The review is critical of CW as a means of achieving competitive advantage through people due
to the probability of dysfunctional outcomes, namely exacerbating the health and well-being of the workforce,
especially the mental health of workers.
Practical implications –Due to the sizeable investment in CW programmes, the paper advocates a focus
on equity in pay, employment security and employee voice as an alterative means of enhancing the health of
the workforce and the performance of the organisation.
Originality/value –This paper elaborates on recent critiques of worker well-being programmes (see e.g.
Guest, 2017), offering a comprehensive and robust theoretical framework. The paper cites extensive evidence
that improved pay, employment security and an effective voice in the workplace are more effective means of
meeting the needs of the firm and improving worker well-being.
Keywords Human resource management, Worker well-being
Paper type General review
Introduction
Whereas much of the mainstream human resource management (HRM) literature has focused on
the contribution of HRM to the economic performance of the firm, HRM also has a role to play in
the social legitimacy of the firm (see Boxall and Purcell, 2016, Chapter 1). The twin purpose of
HRM (economic performance and social legitimacy) serves to distinguish between two
approaches to worker well-being that feature in this paper: workplace health promotion (WHP)
and corporate wellness (CW). As is discussed in greater detail below, WHP is more closely
aligned with the social legitimacy objective of HRM, whereas CW represents the economic
performance objective. Interest in the economic benefits of workforce wellness is high with
important contributions to this journal (see e.g. Moore and Piwek, 2017; Zheng et al., 2015) –and
with studies linking worker well-being with financial performance (see e.g. Grossmeier et al.,
2016), improved health among sick employees and increased productivity (see Gubler et al., 2018).
Despite conflicting evidence of the economic benefits of worker well-being (see e.g.
Fenton et al., 2014; Hull and Pasquale, 2018), CW has become a boom industry estimated to
be worth around $43bn globally (Dodd, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to provide a
robust interrogation of CW. The paper begins with a definition that distinguishes CW from
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 41 No. 4, 2019
pp. 638-648
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-06-2018-0151
Received 1 June 2018
Revised 19 September 2018
7 December 2018
Accepted 10 December 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The author is grateful for the pastoral guidance of the editor and review team at Employee Relations.
The author would also like to thank Paul Edwards, colleagues at Work Inclusivity Research Centre at
the University of Birmingham and delegates of the Work, Employment and Society Conference (2018)
who attended the stream in which the author presented this paper, all of whom have contributed
to its development.
638
ER
41,4
To continue reading
Request your trial