From New Zealand to Japan, global examples prove that regulating for well-being is both possible and essential for the future of work. Unsplash+
When the U.K. introduced the Factories Act in the 19th century, it was not because industrialists suddenly decided to value the health of their workers. It was because the economic and social cost of unsafe workplaces had become impossible to ignore. Regulation was the only way to ensure progress on safety in environments where profit pressures and short-term thinking might otherwise win out.
Two centuries later, the workplace has changed almost beyond recognition. Yet we are once again at an inflection point. The question today is not whether workers are physically safe, but whether they are mentally and emotionally well. And now the case for regulation is under debate.
Workplace well-being is not a “soft” issue. It is measurable, and the data is conclusive. Deloitte research estimates that poor mental health costs U.K. employers £56 billion per year, largely through absenteeism, presenteeism and staff turnover. In the U.S., Gallup calculates disengagement as costing the economy $8.8 trillion globally9 percent of global GDP.
Meanwhile, studies consistently show the productivity gains of better well-being. WorkL’s survey of over 400,000 employees globally indicates that organizations scoring highly on wellbeing markers enjoy between 20 and 30 percent lower attrition and significantly higher discretionary effort. Put simply, when employees feel well, they stay longer and perform better.
These numbers matter because they underscore a reality: employee well-being is not a perk or a cultural flourish; it is a driver of national competitiveness. If governments were presented with another business cost running to tens of billions annually, they would regulate without hesitation. The parallels with workplace safety regulation are striking. In the early industrial era, unsafe conditions were seen as the inevitable cost of progress. The introduction of laws on ventilation, machine guarding and working hours shifted that assumption and, far from destroying industry, it created a more sustainable, productive one.
Establishing a regulatory framework
Today, well-being is in the same space safety once occupied, widely discussed, occasionally championed by forward-thinking leaders, but inconsistently applied and subject to the whims of corporate culture. Left unregulated, well-being risks becoming the preserve of enlightened employers while vast segments of the workforce continue to suffer.
Just as we once accepted that a safe working environment was a universal right, we must now recognize that a mentally healthy one is equally fundamental.
The obvious objection is that well-being is harder to legislate than safety. A machine guard can be measured; “feeling valued” is harder to quantify. Yet governments already regulate areas involving subjective experience, consider equality law, anti-discrimination measures and working time directives.
A regulatory framework for well-being might include:
- Mandatory reporting of well-being metrics in annual reports, akin to gender pay gap reporting.
- Minimum standards for employee engagement practices, such as regular feedback sessions, or fair access to flexible working.
- Board-level responsibility for workforce well-being, in the same way that directors are accountable for health and safety.
- External auditing of well-being claims to prevent superficial “wellness washing.”
Such measures would not prescribe how a company must build well-being, but they would require transparency and accountability. That alone would change norms in HR and leadership, where well-being too often remains an afterthought.
Lessons from around the world
Some governments and companies are already experimenting with wellbeing regulation and reporting, offering early lessons. New Zealand has pioneered a “Wellbeing Budget” since 2019, requiring public spending to be assessed against measures of life satisfactionmental health and community cohesion, not just GDP. It’s an explicit recognition that well-being is a national economic priority. The E.U.’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), effective from 2024, expands ESG disclosures to include workforce well-beingrequiring large companies to publish data on mental health, training and employee turnover. Japan’s Stress Check Programme, introduced in 2015, obliges companies with more than 50 employees to conduct annual stress assessments and offer interventions. Compliance has become a key feature of corporate HR practice there.
These examples demonstrate two things: well-being can be measured, and regulation can accelerate its adoption without damaging competitiveness.
Regulation would challenge leaders to rethink long-held assumptions. HR would no longer be tasked simply with compliance. Boards would need to treat employee sentiment as material to risk management. Leaders could no longer fall back on rhetoric about “culture” without the data to back it up.
This shift would professionalize well-being in the same way safety was professionalized. Entire industries grew around occupational health and safety; well-being would follow the same path, creating new expertise, benchmarks and accountability frameworks.
The broader business implications
For companies, the implications of well-being regulation go far beyond compliance. In an era of tight labor markets, the competition for skilled workers is fierce. A regulated baseline would raise the floor, but companies that go further would differentiate themselves as employers of choice. ESG investing has already shown how regulation can accelerate capital flows. Just as investors now scrutinize carbon emissions, they will begin to demand reliable well-being data. Funds are already experimenting with “S” metrics, and regulation would bring consistency. Nations that move early on well-being regulation could gain a global edge. A healthier workforce is a more productive one; a reputation for progressive labor standards is a magnet for talent and investment.
Critics will argue that regulation risks bureaucracy and box-ticking. That danger is real, but it is not unique to wellbeing. The lesson is not to avoid regulation but to design it intelligently, with clear metrics and proportionate reporting.
Another common objection is that well-being should be left to individual choice or corporate culture. But we know from history that voluntary progress is patchy and uneven. Some employers will always lead; others will always lag. The role of regulation is not to stifle innovation but to ensure a minimum standard below which no one falls.
The workplace of the future will be shaped by demographic pressures, technological disruption and a new social contract between employers and employees. Against this backdrop, well-being is not a “nice to have,” it is a foundation for resilience.
The next great leap in workplace progress will not be about machines or markets, but about people. We owe it to them and to the future competitiveness of our economies to ensure that well-being is not left to chance, but safeguarded by the same regulatory will that once transformed safety from aspiration to obligation.
Lord Mark Price is former UK Trade Minister, founder of happiness at work platform WorkL and author of Work Happier: How to be Happy & Successful at Workpublished by Kogan Page on 30 September 2025.
