Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020
What does the Roland Berger Corporate Health Study show — and what should BGM decision-makers take away from it?
Note: figures apply to German workplace health management (BGM). Roland Berger (2020): companies with a healthy culture have 20% fewer sick days and 11% higher revenue per employee. Germany's BGM market: €958M. Top barrier: 56% cite lack of internal resources.
Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020: Key Figures
| Finding | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Absence-day difference: culture-strong vs. average companies | 20% fewer sick days | Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020 |
| Revenue per employee with effective health measures | +11% revenue per employee | Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020 |
| Total German BGM market volume | €958M (companies €788M + statutory health insurers €170M) | Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020 |
| Most common barrier to BGM adoption | 56% cite lack of internal resources | Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020 |
| Second most common barrier | 44% cite lack of knowledge about employee needs | Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020 |
| Sick days in Germany (increase 2008–2018) | Economic damage rose significantly from €45.4B (2008) | Roland Berger Corporate Health 2020 (source: Federal Statistical Office) |
What Roland Berger's 2020 study examined
The study 'Corporate Health Management 2020' by Roland Berger examines the economic significance of workplace health management (BGM) in German companies. It analyzes the relationship between corporate culture, health investment, and measurable outcomes such as absenteeism, revenue, and employee retention. Note: the findings and figures on this page reflect the German market and German regulatory context (e.g., statutory health insurance funding under Section 20b of the German Social Code Book V).
Core thesis of the study: healthy employees are more motivated, more productive, and more loyal — and this relationship can be quantified. Companies that invest in a health-oriented culture see 20% fewer sick days and 11% higher revenue per employee compared to the control group.
On market structure: Germany's total BGM market volume at the time of the survey was €958 million. Of that, €788 million came from companies themselves and €170 million from Germany's statutory health insurers (GKV). These figures show that BGM is already a relevant market — but significantly underfunded relative to the potential economic damage it could offset.
Why 56% of companies don't implement BGM — and what helps
The biggest barrier according to Roland Berger isn't lack of money but lack of capacity: 56% of companies cite a lack of internal resources as the main barrier — no dedicated BGM specialist, no time, no process. 44% say they don't know what their employees need.
This is structurally explainable: in mid-sized companies (50–250 employees), HR typically juggles 5–10 areas of responsibility in parallel. BGM then isn't prioritized — not because nobody wants it, but because the entry point is unclear. Roland Berger explicitly recommends an external kickoff plus a structured process as a starting point, rather than waiting for internal BGM expertise to develop.
The study also shows: literature data put BGM ROI at a minimum of 2:1 to 3:1 — investment in employee health pays off economically. The IGA Report 40 refines this with a median ROI of 1:2.7 (based on 47 ROI figures from international studies).
BGM and corporate culture: the amplifier effect
Roland Berger shows that health measures alone aren't enough — they only work if corporate culture supports them. Companies with high employee orientation average 20% fewer sick days than the comparison group. This isn't a BGM-program effect alone, but a culture effect.
Practical consequence: individual measures (a fruit basket, a yoga class, a back-health seminar) show little effect without being embedded in the culture. What works: a structured BGM system in which leaders treat health as a leadership topic, employees have a say, and measures are planned based on actual needs rather than applied uniformly.
For the executive report: this study is an argument that BGM investment isn't a cost factor but a lever on revenue, absenteeism, and retention. Culture work takes time — but the 20% sick-day difference shows that it's measurable.
- 20% fewer sick days at culture-strong companies — not just among BGF program participants
- +11% revenue per employee: effect via productivity, not just reduced absenteeism
- Main barrier is solvable: lack of resources → a digital BGM tool as a resource substitute
- ROI at least 2:1–3:1 (literature data per Roland Berger); IGA Report 40 median: 1:2.7
- Germany's statutory health insurers invest €170M in BGM — combined with corporate budgets, this creates a €958M market
Related measures & topics
Key takeaways
- Note: figures apply to German workplace health management (BGM). 20% fewer sick days at culture-strong companies — a measurable culture effect, not just a program effect
- +11% revenue per employee from effective health measures (Roland Berger 2020)
- 56% of companies cite lack of resources as the BGM barrier — solvable with a digital BGM system
- BGF ROI at least 2:1–3:1 per literature data; IGA Report 40 median: 1:2.7
- Germany's BGM market volume: €958M — including €170M in statutory health insurer funding that companies can apply for
Frequently asked questions
Where does Roland Berger's 20% sick-day figure come from?+
The 20% fewer sick days figure comes from the Roland Berger study 'Corporate Health Management 2020,' which measures the difference between companies with a strongly employee-oriented culture and comparison companies. It's a culture effect, not the effect of a single BGM program.
Does the Roland Berger study also apply to small and mid-sized businesses (SMBs)?+
Yes — Roland Berger explicitly analyzes mid-sized companies as well. The barrier findings (lack of resources, lack of knowledge) affect SMBs even more than large companies. The economic effects (sick days, revenue) are more volatile in an SMB context, but the culture findings are transferable.
How do I combine Roland Berger data with IGA ROI for the executive report?+
Recommended combination: Roland Berger (culture effect: 20% fewer sick days, 11% revenue growth) + IGA Report 40 (measure ROI: median 1:2.7 from 47 studies) + internal metrics (your own sick-leave rate, absence costs). This produces a three-layer argument: the culture argument (Roland Berger), proof of effectiveness (IGA), and operational relevance (your own data).
What does the €958M BGM market volume mean for individual companies?+
Note: this applies specifically to Germany. The market volume indicates that BGM is already well established in Germany — statutory health insurers invest €170 million, which flows directly back to companies (subsidies under Section 20b of the German Social Code Book V). This means companies that don't apply for BGF subsidies are giving up their share of this funding. For 100 employees with the full Section 20b subsidy: up to €60,000/year.
BGM investment with measurable impact — like Roland Berger found
EasyBGM structures your BGM system, builds the cultural foundation for measurable results, and helps you fully capture statutory health insurer funding.
Sources
- Roland Berger GmbH: Corporate Health Management 2020 ↗
- IGA Report 40: Effectiveness and benefits of workplace health promotion ↗
- Section 20b SGB V — Workplace Health Promotion ↗
Last updated: 2026-06-27. Not legal or tax advice — have your specific case reviewed by a professional.