Almost a third of employers are not measuring the effect of sickness absence on their business, raising concerns that many are overlooking a key driver of productivity and wellbeing.
Research from GRiD, the industry body for the group risk sector, found that 32 percent of organisations currently do not monitor the impact of absence, compared with 27 percent in 2024. The latest figures mark a reversal of last year’s progress, when nearly seven in ten employers reported keeping track — the highest rate in six years.
GRiD, which represents providers of employer-sponsored life assurance, income protection and critical illness cover, said that without accurate data, many organisations risk losing sight of how much absence affects operations, morale and cost.
Fewer Employers Tracking Absence Year on Year
The proportion of employers measuring sickness absence has fluctuated in recent years. In 2025, 61 percent said they recorded its impact, down from 69 percent in 2024. Rates were lower still in 2023 at 59 percent, rising to 63 percent in both 2022 and 2021, and 65 percent in 2020.
Observers warn that the recent decline comes at a time when health-related absence remains high across the UK workforce. Government data shows that in 2024, sickness absence reached its highest level in over a decade, with an estimated 2.8 million workers off sick at any one time. The Office for National Statistics reported that the number of people out of work due to long-term sickness has risen by nearly half a million since before the pandemic.
Katharine Moxham, a spokesperson for GRiD, said the figures highlight the importance of systematic monitoring. “It’s vital that employers record absence and have a good understanding of the impact to their business. Those that do are in a much better position to know what support to put in place, and can then measure the return on investment of mitigating absence and expediting returns to work.”
Understanding the Cost of Lost Time
Among employers that do measure the impact of absence, the most common approach is to calculate the cost of lost time — the hours or days lost to sickness — cited by 48 percent of respondents.
Forty-five percent measure the loss of productivity, while 40 percent account for sick pay and salary costs. Thirty-nine percent include indirect costs, such as the time colleagues spend covering absent workers or the management effort needed to maintain workflow. A third measure direct costs such as temporary staff and agency fees.
Experts say these figures point to an inconsistent picture across organisations, with some treating absence as a financial matter while others view it as a wellbeing issue. In practice, both perspectives are needed to understand how absence affects performance and how early support can prevent long-term problems.
The Importance of Early Intervention
Employee benefits such as group income protection and employer-funded life and critical illness cover can play an important role in managing sickness absence. These schemes often include rehabilitation services, mental health support and access to occupational health professionals, helping employees recover more quickly and sustain their return to work.
It is widely recognised that the longer an employee remains off work, the harder it becomes for them to return. Research from the Health and Safety Executive shows that returning within the first few weeks of absence improves long-term outcomes, while long-term sickness can increase the risk of permanent worklessness.
GRiD says early intervention and proactive support are therefore vital for both employee wellbeing and business resilience. Providing tailored assistance — whether through counselling, physiotherapy or workplace adjustments — can help reduce the length of absence and strengthen engagement when employees return.
A Wider Productivity Challenge
The findings come amid wider debate about the UK’s productivity gap and the role of health in workforce participation. Economists and wellbeing specialists increasingly agree that absence and presenteeism — where employees work while unwell — both contribute to reduced performance.
According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, presenteeism remains at record levels, with more than 80 percent of organisations observing it among their staff. The combined cost of absence and presenteeism is estimated to exceed £90 billion a year in lost productivity and staff turnover.
Many experts argue that wellbeing and productivity should be treated as linked priorities rather than separate business objectives. Employers who understand the scale of absence in their organisation are better placed to invest in measures that prevent it, from health screening and workload management to flexible working policies that support recovery.
Investing in Prevention Pays Off
The group risk sector has long promoted the value of prevention and rehabilitation in reducing the cost of absence. GRiD advises employers to audit existing benefits, review sickness policies and communicate support options clearly so that employees know where to turn before small issues escalate.
Moxham said that organisations must treat absence as an ongoing management issue rather than a reactive one. “Absence and its impact inevitably affects every organisation. Unplanned employee absences can disrupt workflow, reduce team efficiency, and increase operational strain.
“To mitigate these challenges, employers must provide proactive support that helps employees remain in work wherever possible and facilitates a smooth, timely return when absences do occur.”
The Way Forward for Employers
Analysts say the latest decline in absence tracking should serve as a warning for business leaders. Without reliable data, companies cannot see the full picture of how health, workload and culture affect performance.
Experts recommend that HR teams integrate absence monitoring into wider wellbeing and performance reporting, using data to shape policies and evaluate outcomes. Organisations that view employee health as part of their business strategy, rather than a standalone responsibility, are more likely to build sustainable productivity.
As the UK continues to grapple with high levels of economic inactivity and long-term illness, GRiD’s findings underline a simple truth: employers cannot manage what they do not measure.