Practice of Health Risk Management

In the context of this article it is important to note that our work is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of health—one that includes individual, social, cultural, and organizational dimensions—and treats well-being as a notion that applies both at the personal and collective level. In this sense, our understanding of health is closely linked to the idea of harm, as it includes awareness of the factors that can negatively affect well-being across different contexts.

In recent years—heavily influenced by the global COVID-19 crisis—we at GON have developed a deep interest in health-related topics. This is not surprising as during the pandemic, governments worldwide implemented strict mandatory health policies for businesses. What is surprising however is that such a transformative period didn’t translate into lasting initiatives on the general topic of how companies can and should promote the (general) well-being of their employees.

Simultaneously, COVID was highly disruptive to both organizational structures and social relationships—not only within companies but across society as a whole. In the post-COVID landscape, we see a general trend towards more distanced social interactions, less cohesion in company structures, and ongoing debates regarding the ideal balance between remote and in-office work. Additionally, the pandemic has contributed to a noticeable rise in public distrust towards governments, particularly among those who felt alienated by the top-down approaches taken during the crisis.

So it can be seen that we are living in a time where a thorough reassessment is needed—both in terms of values and the structures that shape how we organize work, relationships, and collective responsibility. Looking at the broader market we see that, while many companies have risk management departments and acknowledge—at least implicitly—the importance of employee and organizational well-being, few have a clear, integrated framework for embedding it into their culture, practices, and strategy.

Health Risk Management (HRM) was developed as a direct result of our own in-depth reassessment and to address this widespread gap. We see HRM as a realistically ambitious philosophy—a grounded yet forward-looking approach aimed at addressing these challenges in a sustainable, human-centered way. For clarity and completeness, we emphasize that HRM is a concept and framework we have pioneered—it did not exist in this form before. As such, many of the terms and ideas we use were created or specifically defined by us. While this article cannot introduce all of those concepts in detail, we will explore them more specifically in other articles.

Need for a HRM framework

Let’s start this section by asking the question whether a HRM framework was as needed a few decades ago? Our very simple answer would be no. So this then raises the question what has changed since then that makes HRM essential today? Here are a few key considerations:

• Persistent increase in health risks: Unlike a few decades ago, we now face significantly greater risks to human health—from processed foods and microplastics to pollution and climate change—and this trend is set to intensify. During the COVID crisis, there was a clear shift toward prioritizing health in organizational practices and work structures. However, in the post-COVID period, this focus has largely receded, with an approach that is largely indifferent to health considerations;

• Deterioration of economic conditions: The economic situation of the average person in many Western countries has either already peaked or is expected to peak during this decade, followed by a period of decline. Such an environment fosters widespread dissatisfaction and a hardening of attitudes, often at the expense of long-term values such as health;

• Deterioration of foundational principles: There is a clear shift away from often intrinsic transcendental values and principle-based approaches towards more individualistic and free-floating and preference-based methods. This is especially evident in modern management practices and business trainings—such as many MBA programs—which tend to prioritize artificial techniques and short-term objectives over foundational values;

• Social fraying: Human interactions and relationships have become more fragile and less profound, partly due to the increasingly central role of technology and digital tools in maintaining them;

• Job security and market challenges: Due to factors like globalization, business consolidation, and emerging technologies such as AI, individual employees are losing influence and have fewer options in the job market. Meanwhile, job security is becoming an increasingly urgent concern. Smaller companies also face growing difficulties competing with large corporations and are often drowned out;

• Consumerism: Compared to a few decades ago we live in a far more consumerist environment. Consumerism has such a strong impact on our lives it shapes how we perceive and behave across many areas in the Western world. It has the ramification that cost considerations become central which entails race-to-the-bottom dynamics. It therefore dictates many issues we have mentioned above;

• Post-COVID disorientation: As highlighted in the introduction, the post-COVID era—with its accumulated experiences and proven digital capabilities—has further demonstrated many of the phenomena mentioned above and calls for a thorough reassessment of how teams and organizations should operate in the future world of work, including its implications for leadership, management practices, and organizational culture.

• HRM in the Age of Automation: As AI is expected to increasingly automate routine tasks, organizations will free up time and resources previously tied to repetitive work. This shift presents both an opportunity and a necessity to invest in HRM. HRM offers one of the few clear solutions to a key challenge: deciding where human focus should lie in an automated workplace. By freeing resources, AI strengthens the case for HRM, with both factors mutually reinforcing each other.

Due to these factors, we observe an accumulation of severe and disruptive phenomena driven by forces such as consumerism, explicit and implicit assumptions, and the fading of collective practices like attachment to higher values. These processes are important to understand in their own right—we will explore concepts like commercialization and hypernormalisation—but ultimately, they widen the gap between human practices and human nature. This disconnect makes these practices feel artificial and contributes to crises in society, business environments, and human health.

This underscores the importance of HRM, which addresses these challenges organically by focusing on realism and human nature, while aligning corporate strategies accordingly. HRM effectively offers a modern social contract that harmonizes technology, company interests, and employee well-being.

Credible risk management policies

Policies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic were risky, experimental and depending on the company very costly. In specific, for companies that were not accustomed to remote-working, very sudden changes and investments needed to be made in the short-term. However these policies were enforced top-down and were not dictated by company culture. Today, the situation is different—many of these policies are no longer mandatory, and companies have to take initiative themselves. On the flip side, adopting such policies now signals credibility and sincerity. Let’s give two very clear examples.

Tea and coffee are often considered basic office staples, yet the quality of these products is entirely up to the company. Surprisingly—and somewhat shockingly—many workplaces opt for low-quality options that raise health concerns. For example, supermarket tea bags can contain plastics, and highly processed teas pose health risks. While the coffee corner may appear welcoming, employees are often unknowingly exposed to these risks without access to healthier, organic alternatives. Tackling this properly calls for thoughtful leadership and intention.

Another overlooked area is health-related awareness and training. While many companies routinely train employees on topics like cybersecurity and compliance, subjects directly tied to health—such as nutrition, the effects of prolonged sitting, or exposure to microplastics—are rarely addressed. Additionally, offices often provide unhealthy snacks or plastic-wrapped foods, yet these choices are not viewed as company concerns. In reality, these issues have growing relevance and far-reaching implications for both employee well-being and long-term organizational health.

Entropy of inquiry and simplicity collapse

We want to briefly explore why companies struggle to genuinely treat well-being and sustainability—at the individual, team, and organizational levels—as credible and strategic priorities. To understand this, we must first recognize that the corporate setting is, to a significant extent, shaped by broader systemic forces such as consumerism and (hyper)normalisation.

For decades, business practices have favoured choices that proved highly lucrative, reinforcing—and eventually normalizing—consumerist values. Consumerism prioritizes producing the cheapest viable products and leveraging brand power, often resulting in race-to-the-bottom dynamics and a product-centered mindset. These tendencies routinely overlook value-based considerations and, over time, have led to troubling consequences. Even if not yet fully acknowledged, the negative effects are becoming increasingly evident—from rising health issues to the growing unaffordability of basic needs like housing.

The adoption of consumerist assumptions gives rise to what we call a simplicity paradigm. Rather than acting independently or critically, companies often adopt prevailing market practices, relying on a consumerist system that, ironically, promotes the very unsustainable and unhealthy behaviours they claim to counter. Thinking beyond this paradigm is often seen as uncomfortable and costly—it demands imagination, commitment, and structural change. In this sense, companies often behave conservatively; however, this is not rational in the long term, nor is it sustainable or stable.

The moment one becomes sincerely concerned and interested in HRM in an organizational context is however also the moment that the assumed simplicity collapses and complexity unravels—this principle is also denoted as entropy of inquiry or simply as simplicity collapse. It resembles the opening of Pandora’s box as once opened, there is no way back. Regardless of the terminology, this collapse of simplicity can be confronting, and it takes time to fully realize that health in a general sense has far-reaching implications for organizations—not only in terms of performance, but also in shaping organizational culture, morale, and structural dynamics. These issues must therefore be addressed comprehensively and with an understanding of their wide-ranging consequences.

HRM as a basis for organization and management

HRM represents a far more complex and encompassing framework than its surface perception suggests. This complexity stems from its foundation in systems theory – conceptualizing health as an interdependent phenomenon across organizational levels. While some may view HRM as primarily focused on individual employee health, it actually serves as a unifying framework that aligns interests throughout the organizational system: individual, team, and enterprise-wide.

To fully understand this, we must view organizations as complex systems—best interpreted through models and systems thinking. Elements such as work structures, culture, and power dynamics shape which behaviours and outcomes are plausible and likely. For instance, systems that neglect health tend to accumulate risk, while weak feedback cultures inherently suppress innovation. This creates a feedback loop between employee well-being and organizational performance—an interdependent relationship in which neither aspect can be effectively addressed in isolation.

This systems perspective reveals a key insight: long-term individual well-being is both an ethical responsibility and a strategic priority. As a result, HRM aims to cultivate a values-based organizational structure that creates positive, system-wide outcomes.

A principle-based organization is grounded in shared values and guiding principles established by the organization itself. When implemented effectively, this approach is superior to a loosely structured model shaped by individual preferences. One clear advantage is its inherently democratic nature—it treats the organization as a collective concern, encouraging broader engagement. It also promotes fairness, as decisions are guided by clearly defined and consistently applied principles. Additionally, it fosters a more standardized and predictable management style, reducing the variability that often comes with individual managerial preferences—and bringing with it the many benefits of consistency.

 

Sincerity above Friendliness

The key question, then, is what values or principles should guide a principle-based organization? Within our HRM framework, we advocate for health and sincerity as core values. These are not only essential on their own—they are interdependent. Genuine concern for well-being signals sincerity, and sincerity, in turn, creates the trust necessary to support health.

To reflect this, we have developed an organizational model called “Sincerity above Friendliness.” This concept underscores how the prioritization of certain values over others can profoundly shape a company’s direction and performance. By placing sincerity before surface-level harmony, organizations cultivate deeper trust, more meaningful engagement, and a more resilient culture.

Initially, we developed ‘Sincerity above Friendliness’ as a way to assess whether sincerity or procedural friendliness dominates workplace dynamics. This distinction is crucial for sustaining healthy work environments, yet it is often overlooked. To clarify, this doesn’t mean friendliness should be disregarded—it remains important. However, the key idea is that sincerity should take precedence as a core value.

A working environment in which sincere feedback is the norm might feel more direct/hard, but sets right expectations, encourages direct communication and innovation and tends to be much more efficient. The reason is that very often in a procedurally friendly working environment any disruption or criticism can be seen as non-friendly in some way, which creates more pressures in favour of compliance and at the expense of actual progress. It doesn’t mean however such a working environment is fully safe as difficult decisions affecting employees still need to be made and can even be more confronting.

In specific, credible actions directed at the well-being of one’s people signals sincerity and forms a basis for a working environment and culture that embraces this principle.

Why is HRM important for employers

HRM is both important for employers and employees, but partially for different reasons. People are the most important assets of companies and companies therefore should be highly concerned by their well-being. Adopting HRM policies shows that:

• Well-being is a key and strategic concern, HRM provides a structured framework that effectively, and so not only symbolically, aligns individual and collective interests;

• The company demonstrates a genuine commitment to employee well-being by investing in it meaningfully—signalling credible dedication to well-being, increasing employee satisfaction and trust, and enhancing its attractiveness in the marketplace;

• In the absence of principle-based approaches there will often be an imbalance in the power structure between management and employees. This kind of environment makes it easier for management to make demands—and to do so more frequently. Whether an employee can handle this largely depends on their personal resilience or ability to push back. HRM, by contrast, sets clear, organization-wide expectations, which takes the pressure off employees to constantly navigate these situations on their own;

• It raises employee awareness of their own health and encourages healthier habits and self-discipline—factors that also contribute significantly to strategic goals such as business efficiency and innovation;

• An investment in HRM is a financially sound one, as it reduces health related issues and associated costs;

• It fosters a sincere and supportive working environment;

• At a higher level, HRM can be implemented to achieve a variety of strategic outcomes. For instance, a smaller company that offers lower compensation than larger competitors can still attract talent by prioritizing well-being through thoughtful HRM policies. Another organization, by contrast, might leverage HRM to optimize internal dynamics—fostering greater engagement, motivation, and innovation;

• It also has a strong ethical dimension. As employees spend a considerable portion of their week at the office or working, the employer bears a responsibility. From a cost perspective, companies are better equipped to take on this responsibility as well. For example, companies can organize collective events and invite experts, making their expertise and message accessible to a wider audience. For most employees, consulting health experts directly may be financially out of reach. Additionally, it should be noted that companies have fiscal advantages that employees do not, which makes the ethical consideration even clearer and more relevant.

In specific we also recommend to include HRM concerns in the core company values to further enhance the interaction between these values and work place practices.

From the point of view of employees

The benefits we have listed in the section above of course also apply to employees as one’s well-being is a primary concern. But we want to point out that the credibility aspect is even more important for employees as there is an information asymmetry between employees and employers. Employees generally don’t have full visibility into the company’s long-term strategy, underlying drivers, or values. This is where the principle of ‘Sincerity above Friendliness’ comes into play. If a company isn’t genuinely interested in the well-being of its employees, why would it be concerned with other employee concerns?

This consideration is far-reaching in the context of topics like job security. Largely driven by developments in AI but also de-globalization pressures and economic implications, job security is becoming a leading concern for many people. Recent reports indicate that a large number of employees are afraid that they might lose their job in the near future. A company that is highly cost-driven gives a signal of low job-security, while a company that invests into HRM gives a strong signal of concerns for the general well-being of its people. Furthermore, an inability to openly discuss policies focused on employee well-being signals a significant power imbalance.

For employees, it’s important to recognize that they often do not own the work or achievements they produce—these typically belong to the employer. However, they do own their well-being. This makes it essential to maintain a realistic perspective, recognize this distinction early on, and prioritize accordingly.

Implementation and conclusion

In this article we have explained that, building on our risk management background, we have developed an interest in the concept of HRM and why companies should adopt it and what it benefits are. Health risks of employees should be viewed as a key company risk and general well-being as a primary ethical and strategic concern and value for companies.

On the other hand, a company’s commitment to such a framework and practices demonstrates sincerity and, by extension, genuine concern for the well-being of its people. In turn, it’s important that employees—and the market more broadly—recognize and value companies that adopt these frameworks, as doing so reflects a competitive advantage and increases the appeal of making this commitment. This positive feedback loop reinforces itself over time, further demonstrating the necessity and benefits of such a framework for companies.

While we haven’t explored the specifics of implementation in depth, it’s a comprehensive topic in its own right—covering areas such as the type of nutrition offered at the office, employee training on health-related topics, addressing mental health concerns within the company, and how to monitor the effectiveness of the framework. The implementation includes both universal components and company-specific elements that must align with the company’s goals and values. While the extent of implementation is a company-specific decision, establishing a core implementation should be seen as a baseline requirement.