What are the economic costs of a poor work environment?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

What are the economic costs of a poor work environment? / Rugulies, Reiner; Burdorf, Alex.

In: Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2024, p. 49-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Rugulies, R & Burdorf, A 2024, 'What are the economic costs of a poor work environment?', Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 49-52. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4143

APA

Rugulies, R., & Burdorf, A. (2024). What are the economic costs of a poor work environment? Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 50(2), 49-52. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4143

Vancouver

Rugulies R, Burdorf A. What are the economic costs of a poor work environment? Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 2024;50(2):49-52. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4143

Author

Rugulies, Reiner ; Burdorf, Alex. / What are the economic costs of a poor work environment?. In: Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 2024 ; Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 49-52.

Bibtex

@article{516878e0e6f144d38ff0fb5887e544cf,
title = "What are the economic costs of a poor work environment?",
abstract = "At the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, it is our fundamental conviction that workers{\textquoteright} health is a value in itself. To put it simply, work must not be health-hazardous, and work must not make the worker neither physically nor mentally sick. In our minds, there is no need for any further rationale for healthy and safe work.That said, it would be na{\"i}ve to think that, in a bottom-line world, the bottom-line would not count with regard to work and health. It does count at individual, company, and societal level. At individual level, a worker may worry about reduced payment during sickness absence. At company level, the phrase “is there a business case?” is often heard. At societal level, all economic consequences, rather than a partial interest, are considered. Therefore, there is a broad need to know the magnitude of the economic loss that comes with a health-hazardous work environment and, vice-versa, the magnitude of the economic benefit that comes with improving the work environment. For example, when the World Health Organization (WHO) published in 2022 its landmark guidelines on mental health at work using a societal perspective (1), a lot of attention was paid to the WHO`s estimation that the global economic costs of the most prevalent mental health conditions totalled USD1 trillion per year (2, 3).",
author = "Reiner Rugulies and Alex Burdorf",
year = "2024",
doi = "10.5271/sjweh.4143",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "49--52",
journal = "Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health",
issn = "0355-3140",
publisher = "Nordic Association of Occupational Safety and Health",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What are the economic costs of a poor work environment?

AU - Rugulies, Reiner

AU - Burdorf, Alex

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - At the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, it is our fundamental conviction that workers’ health is a value in itself. To put it simply, work must not be health-hazardous, and work must not make the worker neither physically nor mentally sick. In our minds, there is no need for any further rationale for healthy and safe work.That said, it would be naïve to think that, in a bottom-line world, the bottom-line would not count with regard to work and health. It does count at individual, company, and societal level. At individual level, a worker may worry about reduced payment during sickness absence. At company level, the phrase “is there a business case?” is often heard. At societal level, all economic consequences, rather than a partial interest, are considered. Therefore, there is a broad need to know the magnitude of the economic loss that comes with a health-hazardous work environment and, vice-versa, the magnitude of the economic benefit that comes with improving the work environment. For example, when the World Health Organization (WHO) published in 2022 its landmark guidelines on mental health at work using a societal perspective (1), a lot of attention was paid to the WHO`s estimation that the global economic costs of the most prevalent mental health conditions totalled USD1 trillion per year (2, 3).

AB - At the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, it is our fundamental conviction that workers’ health is a value in itself. To put it simply, work must not be health-hazardous, and work must not make the worker neither physically nor mentally sick. In our minds, there is no need for any further rationale for healthy and safe work.That said, it would be naïve to think that, in a bottom-line world, the bottom-line would not count with regard to work and health. It does count at individual, company, and societal level. At individual level, a worker may worry about reduced payment during sickness absence. At company level, the phrase “is there a business case?” is often heard. At societal level, all economic consequences, rather than a partial interest, are considered. Therefore, there is a broad need to know the magnitude of the economic loss that comes with a health-hazardous work environment and, vice-versa, the magnitude of the economic benefit that comes with improving the work environment. For example, when the World Health Organization (WHO) published in 2022 its landmark guidelines on mental health at work using a societal perspective (1), a lot of attention was paid to the WHO`s estimation that the global economic costs of the most prevalent mental health conditions totalled USD1 trillion per year (2, 3).

U2 - 10.5271/sjweh.4143

DO - 10.5271/sjweh.4143

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 38300137

VL - 50

SP - 49

EP - 52

JO - Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health

JF - Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health

SN - 0355-3140

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 382740888