MATURITY OF REWARD AND WELL- BEING POLICIES IN BELGIAN .../media/Corporate/Pdf-brochures/Research … · 4. General maturity level within Belgian organisations To estimate the general

MATURITY OF REWARD AND WELL-

BEING POLICIES IN BELGIAN

ORGANISATIONS

RESEARCH REPORT CREATED BY THE VLERICK CENTRE FOR

EXCELLENCE IN STRATEGIC TALENT MANAGEMENT

DR. EMMY DEFEVER

PROF. DR. KOEN DEWETTINCK

ABOUT ATTENTIA

Attentia is a Belgian HR services group that professionally supports companies, self-

employed workers and starters, in their development. Driven by our many years of

expertise, we offer a wide variety in HR products and services, focusing on Reward

(salary calculations to strategic reward programmes) and Care (from prevention &

protection to corporate vitality).

We are close to our customer and are more than a supplier of legally obligated

services. We listen intently to each customer’s specific needs and offer flexible

solutions. Customers appreciate our personal approach: in 2014 the general customer

satisfaction was at 90%.

Attentia has 40 offices and over 750 employees across the country. We are a

financially healthy company with an increasing turnover of €80 million a year. For our

strategic focus we received the prestigious HR Excellence Award in 2013 as well as in

2014.

ABOUT THE VLERICK CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN

STRATEGIC TALENT MANAGEMENT

Vlerick’s Centre for Excellence in Strategic Talent Management (STM) has built up

more than 20 years of expertise in the field of talent management and HRM at large.

The Centre’s mission is to put Strategic Talent Management on the map as a strategic

‘decision science’ in today’s organizations. In line with the idea expressed by Boudreau

and Ramstad, we believe that ‘Talent Management is to HR what finance is to

accounting and what marketing is to sales’.

The Centre focuses on managing employee performance and development in both the

short and long-term. It conducts business-relevant research and offers its member

organizations access to a unique knowledge platform. Specific attention is paid to

developing practical relevant insights and tools that support organizations in

enhancing their talent management practices and becoming high performance

organizations.

In sum, the Centre for Excellence in Strategic Talent Management creates an effective

breeding ground for individual and organizational learning and development by:

Exchanging visions and practices

Conducting rigorous research that is relevant to practice

Developing and testing new management concepts

Updating, improving and adapting existing tools to respond to changes in the

environment

Sharing and transferring knowledge among the Centre’s members (workshops,

HR day, residential seminar, round tables, …)

Networking amongst colleagues

More than 20 companies are part of this leading network in Strategic Talent

Management. Interested in joining as well? Feel free to contact us!

http://www.vlerick.com/en/research-and-faculty/research-for-business/human-resource-management/centre-for-excellence-in-strategic-talent-management

Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

2. Study sample ........................................................................................ 2

3. HR maturity scan ................................................................................... 3

4. General maturity level within Belgian organisations .................................... 4

4.1. General maturity of the reward approach .................................................. 4

4.2. General maturity of the well-being approach ............................................. 4

5. Reward maturity scan ............................................................................ 5

5.1. Axis 1: Legal compliance of the reward approach ....................................... 5

5.2. Axis 2: Optimization of the reward approach ............................................. 7

5.2.1. Internal and external benchmarking ................................................... 7

5.2.2. Automation and efficiency ................................................................. 8

5.2.3. Fiscal optimization ........................................................................... 9

5.2.4. Structural flexibility ........................................................................ 10

5.3. Axis 3: Strategic focus of the reward approach ........................................ 10

6. Well-being maturity scan ...................................................................... 13

6.1. Axis 1: Legal compliance of the well-being approach ................................. 13

6.2. Axis 2: Optimization of the well-being approach ....................................... 13

6.3. Axis 3: Strategic focus of the well-being approach .................................... 15

6.3.1. Systematic follow-up of well-being actions ......................................... 15

6.3.2. Measurement of ROI on well-being ................................................... 15

7. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 17

8. List of figures ...................................................................................... 18

1 Our solution to your specific needs

1. Introduction

This report summarizes the results of a study conducted by Attentia and Vlerick

Business School on the reward and well-being policies within 130 Belgian

organisations.

The policies on reward and well-being are an important part of an organization’s

human resource strategy. Reward systems and processes are essential to ensuring

that an organisation’s investment in its employees is managed effectively1. When

properly designed and executed, a reward policy helps to attract, retain and motivate

employees to work towards achieving the organisation’s strategic objectives. Hence,

reward policies play an important role in creating competitive advantage2. However,

to achieve sustainable performance, organisations should also embed well-being in

their company culture and strategy. A general organisational concern for employee

well-being positively influences employee engagement, even more than a focus on

performance3. Employees are much more engaged when they feel their organisation

genuinely cares about their well-being.

It’s clear that both the reward and well-being policies are crucial for business success.

To gain insight in the current maturity of these policies within Belgian organisations,

Attentia and Vlerick Business School developed an HR maturity scan which examines

the maturity on both domains on three different axes, namely: 1) the compliance of

the reward and well-being policies with legal requirements, 2) the optimization of the

reward and well-being approach and 3) the strategic focus of the reward and well-

being approach.

This report provides an overview of the key findings of the study, based on a

quantitative analysis of the HR maturity. We hope it provides you with interesting and

useful insights!

1 Hsieh, Y. H., & Chen, H. M. (2011). Strategic fit among business competitive strategy, human resource

strategy, and reward system. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 9(2), 11–32. 2 Baeten, X. (2014). Shaping the future research agenda for compensation and benefits management: Some

thoughts based on a stakeholder inquiry. Human Resource Management Review, 24, 31-40. 3 Defever & Dewettinck (2014) Research report: creating employee engagement. Centre for excellence in People

Performance, Vlerick Business School.

2

Our solution to your specific needs

2. Study sample

The data of this study was collected from July to September 2015, through an online

survey among HR directors and managers. In total, HR professionals from 130

different companies participated in the study. All companies are located in Belgium

(Belgian subsidiaries of multinational organisations could also participate). As shown

in Table 1, the sample shows a balanced distribution of small, mid-sized and large

organisations. The majority of the respondents are employed in the private sector;

88% versus 12% in the public sector. A broad spectrum of industries is represented,

including industry and manufacturing, government and public sector, professional

services, retail, IT and telecommunication (see Figure 1 for a distribution across

industries).

Table 1. sample characteristics

Characteristics % of organisations

Legal status public 12,3

private 87,7

Company size 10 - 49 employees 12,3

50 - 99 employees 19,2

100 - 499 employees 40,8

500 - 999 employees 8,5

≥ 1000 employees 19,2

Multinational Part of a multinational 39,2

Not part of a multinational 60,8

Main activity

Services 73,1

Production 26,9

HR is part of executive

committee

Yes

No

73,1

26,9

Figure 1. Company Sector

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Other (utilities, media, education…)

Building & construction

Health sector

Transport & Distribution (Logistics)

Banking & Insurance

IT & Telecomcomunications

Retail

Professional services

Government & Pubic Sector

Industry & Manufacturing

5,4%

5,4%

5,4%

6,2%

6,9%

10,0%

10,0%

11,5%

12,3%

26,9%

3


3. HR maturity scan

The maturity of the reward and well-being policies within organisations was

investigated using the HR maturity scan developed by Attentia and Vlerick Business

School. This maturity scan assesses the maturity of the policies on three different axes.

The first axis addresses the compliance with legal requirements. The second axis

assesses whether organisations have an optimized approach and the third axis, finally,

looks at the strategic focus of the policies. Below, we outline the different aspects that

were taken into account within the reward and well-being scan:

RE

WA

RD

MA

TU

RITY

Axis 1:

Our policy complies with

legal requirements

Axis 2:

Our approach is optimized

Axis 3:

Our approach has a strategic focus

WE

LL-B

EIN

GM

ATU

RITY

Axis 1:

Our policy complies with

legal requirements

Axis 2:

Our approach is optimized

Axis 3:

Our approach has a strategic focus

• Complying with legal requirements

• Having the necessary social-legal knowledge

• Communicating about well-being policy

• Promoting physical wellbeing

• Promoting mental wellbeing

and emotional wellbeing

• Measuring impact of well-being actions on employee well-being

• Measuring the ROI of well-being actions

• HR is part of executive committee

• Tracking of KPIs (HR dashboard)

• Complying with legal requirements

• Having the necessary social-legal knowledge

• Internal benchmarking

• External benchmarking

• Automation and efficiency

• Use of fiscal optimization

• Offering structural flexibility

• Reward policy supports company strategy

• Having a written reward policy

• HR is part of executive committee

• Tracking of KPIs (HR dashboard)

4


4. General maturity level within Belgian organisations

To estimate the general maturity levels of the reward and well-being approach in

Belgian organisations, a weight was given to every item included in the HR maturity

scan. Below, we present the general maturity scores. In the following chapters, we’ll

zoom in on the detailed results on the 3 different axes.

4.1. General maturity of the reward approach

On average, organisations obtain a score of 53% on the reward maturity scan, which

points to a medium maturity. When we zoom in on the distribution of the organisations,

we observe that 26,2%, 35,4% and 38,5% of the organisations can be categorized as

having a low, medium or high maturity, respectively.

4.2. General maturity of the well-being approach

On average, organisations obtain a score of 50% on the well-being maturity scan,

which indicates that also for the well-being policies, the average maturity is medium.

When looking at the distribution, we observe that 28,5%, 33,3% 39,2% of the

organisations have a low, medium or high maturity, respectively.

Low maturity High maturity Average reward score = 53%

Average reward score = 50%

Low maturity High maturity

5


5. Reward maturity scan

5.1. Axis 1: Legal compliance of the reward approach

Looking at the compliance with legal requirements, a majority of companies is

convinced their reward policy adheres to the existing legislation. Though, about 1 in 6

companies doesn’t really know whether their reward policy is legally compliant (see

Figure 2).

Figure 2. Compliance with legal requirements

In order to comply with legal requirements, companies need the necessary social-legal

knowledge. As shown in Figure 3, less than 1 in 10 companies have very good social-

legal knowledge, meaning they are able to handle specific cases completely

autonomously. Almost three quarters of the organisations have good social-legal

knowledge, occasionally having questions about how to deal with specific cases.

Analyses revealed significant differences depending on the company size.

Organisations with more than 500 employees more often have very good social-legal

knowledge (42,2%) compared to smaller companies (16,2%).

Figure 3. Social-legal knowledge

0%

20%

40%

60%

Stronglyconvinced

Convinced Neutral Littleconvinced

Notconvinced

47,7%

36,2%

14,6%

1,5% 0,0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Very good

knowledge

(completely

autonomous)

Good

knowledge

(occassionaly

questions on

special cases)

Neutral Little

knowledge

No knowledge

9,2%

74,6%

11,5%4,6% 0,0%

6


Approximately 65% of the companies transfer one or more of their reward processes

to an external specialized service provider. Outsourcing happens less in companies

with more than 1000 employees compared to the smaller companies (see Figure 4).

The companies with more than 1000 employees are more often able to handle cases

completely autonomously. In addition, companies in the private sector (69%)

collaborate more often with a specialized partner than companies within the public

sector (38%). For the majority of companies who outsource, this seems to be limited

to maximum 25% of the total reward policy. Hence, most organizations co-manage

their reward processes with the specialized partner.

Figure 4. Number of companies who outsource

Figure 5. Extent of outsourcing (in % of reward approach)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10-49

employees

50-99

employees

100-499

employees

500-999

employees

> 1000

employees

68,8%80,0%

69,8% 72,7%

36,0%

31,3%20,0%

30,2% 27,3%

64,0%

Yes No

63,5

24,7

8,23,5

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76%-100%

7


5.2. Axis 2: Optimization of the reward approach

To examine whether organisations have an optimized reward approach, we asked the

HR professionals whether they a) benchmark the reward policy internally and

externally, b) have an automated and efficient reward policy, c) use fiscal optimization

and d) offer structural flexibility.

5.2.1. Internal and external benchmarking

Reward fairness is essential to successfully attract, retain and engage employees.

About three quarters of the HR professionals say that they reward functions in a fair

manner. To ensure reward fairness, 63% of the organisations benchmark functions

internally or use a function classification system. About 59% of the organisations carry

out external benchmarking through market surveys or salary studies.

With respect to internal benchmarking, we observe that

companies with more than 1000 employees use a function

classification system more often than smaller companies (see

Figure 6). Moreover, all public sector organisations use a

function classification system compared to 68% of the

private sector organisations.

Considering the external benchmarking, differences were found between companies

depending on whether they are part of a multinational: 76,5% of the multinationals

use external benchmarking compared to 48,1% of non-multinationals.

Figure 6. Use of a function classification system

Reward communications are also very important for creating perceptions of reward

fairness and equity. A lack of communication undermines employees' perception that

reward differences are the result of legitimate factors and has a negative impact on

76%

of the respondents

believe that their

reward policy is fair.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10-49

employees

50-99

employees

100-499

employees

500-999

employees

> 1000

employees

38,5%

68,2% 77,1%

44,4%

95,5%

61,5%

31,8% 22,9%

55,6%

4,5%

Yes No

8 Our solution to your specific needs

employee beliefs about the quality of reward systems4. Specific reasons to

communicate about the reward policy include: 1) increasing employee insight into the

business in general; 2) making reward structures more effective by clarifying which

factors play a role in increasing rewards; and 3) aligning HR processes.4,5 As shown in

Figure 7, a majority of companies uses a transparent payslip to communicate about

their reward policy. Less than half of the companies provide more elaborate

information via a separate reward conversation and only 1 in 5 use a total benefit

statement.

Figure 7. Reward communication

5.2.2. Automation and efficiency

With respect to the automation and efficiency of the reward policy, differences were

found according to company size. As depicted in Figure 8, companies with more than

1000 employees more often have processes that are entirely automated and efficient

(44%) than smaller companies (less than 27%). In addition, twice as much public

sector companies have fully automated and efficient processes (38%) than the private

sector companies (15%), and almost half of the private sector companies manage

their reward processes manually compared to 19% in the public sector companies.

4 Baeten, X. (2014). Shaping the future research agenda for compensation and benefits

management: some thoughts based on a stakeholder inquiry. Human Resource Management Review, 24 (1), 31-40. 5 Day, N. E. (2007). An investigation into pay communication: Is ignorance bliss? Personnel Review,

36(5), 739–762.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't know

Other (intake, intranet, …)

No communication

Total benefit statement

Reward conversation

Transparant payslip

0,80%

9,20%

12,30%

21,50%

45,40%

73,10%

Number of organisations

9


Figure 8. Automation and efficiency of the reward approach

5.2.3. Fiscal optimization

Figure 9 shows to what extent the organisations make use of fiscal optimization. Fiscal

optimisation refers to finding the most tax-efficient way possible to reward employees

whilst respecting legal requirements. Only 1 in 5 of organizations have an elaborated

fiscal optimization plan. Approximately 31% of the small companies to 48% of the

large companies are making no or little use of fiscal optimization. Clearly, even in large

organisations there are quite some opportunities for fiscal optimization.

Figure 9. Fiscal optimization

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10-49

employees

50-99

employees

100-499

employees

500-999

employees

> 1000

employees

20,0%7,5%

27,3%44,0%43,8%

20,0% 47,2%27,3%

44,0%31,3%

48,0%

41,5% 36,4%

8,0%25,0%

12,0%3,8%

9,1%4,0%

Automated and efficient Automated but not entirely efficient

Partly manual Completely manual (paper)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10-49 50-99 100-499 500-999 > 1000

6,3% 12,0%26,4%

18,2% 24,0%

62,5% 52,0%37,7%

36,4% 28,0%

25,0% 32,0% 30,2%36,4%

32,0%

6,3% 4,0% 5,7% 9,1% 16,0%

Elabore optimization plan most common optimizations

Little optimization No optimization

10


5.2.4. Structural flexibility

Respondents were asked to what extent they provide flexibility within the reward

package by means of flexible reward plans, also referred to as cafeteria plans. By

implementing flexibility in rewards, organisations may offer their employees the

possibility to shape a reward package that suits their individual needs. It supports the

employer branding, is a strong tool in the employee retention strategy and increases

employee engagement6. The findings show, however, that only 15% of organisations

provide flexible reward plans.

Figure 10. Use of flexible reward plans

5.3. Axis 3: Strategic focus of the reward approach

To gain insight in the strategic focus of the reward policies,

respondents were asked whether a) they have a written

reward policy, b) their reward policy supports their company

strategy and c) KPIs are tracked via a structured approach.

About 65% of organisations have a written reward policy.

Figure 11 illustrates to what extent companies believe their

reward policy helps in realising the organisation’s strategic

objectives. In a slight majority of organisations (57%), the

reward policy supports the company strategy; in 43% of the organisations the reward

policy supports the company strategy in a limited way or not at all.

6 Baeten, X. (2012). Flexible Rewards From a Strategic Reward Perspective. Compensation & Benefits Review, 44(1), 40-49.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10-49

employees

50-99

employees

100-499

employees

500-999

employees

> 1000

employees

18,8%4,0%

15,1% 18,2% 24,0%

62,5% 96,0%84,9% 72,2%

72,0%

Yes No Don't know

57%

of reward policies

help to realise the

organisation’s

strategic objectives.

11


Figure 11. Alignment of policies with company strategy

When asked whether they link variable rewards to the achievement of organisational

goals, 63% respond positively. The number of organisations having such a link differed

between multinationals (88%) and non-multinationals (47%), as well as between

public (31%) and private sector (68%) companies.

When it comes to the tracking of KPIs, less than half of the companies track KPIs via

an HR dashboard to achieve strategic objectives. As shown in Figure 12, differences

can be observed according to the company size. Companies with more than 100

employees more often track KPIs.

Figure 12. Tracking of KPIs via an HR dashboard

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10-49

employees

50-99

employees

100-499

employees

500-999

employees

> 1000

employees

18,8%28,0%

49,1%

72,7%

52,0%

56,3%

68,0%47,2%

27,3%

36,0%

Yes No Don't know

0%

20%

40%

60%

It completely

supports the

company

strategy

It largely

supports our

company

strategy

it supports the

company

strategy in a

limited way

It doesn't

support the

company

strategy

6,2%

50,8%

35,4%

7,7%

12


FlexibilityVery few organisations use the possibility to individualize total rewarding and use it for employer branding, to cope with multiple generations, …

Optimization wage costOpportunities to lower the wage cost are often not taken advantage of

StrategicallyFew written policies that support the company strategy and are tracked by KPI’s

Reward policies within Belgian organisations: key conclusions

13


6. Well-being maturity scan

6.1. Axis 1: Legal compliance of the well-being approach

Since the passing of the law with regard to the well-being of employees in 1996, there

has been a raising of awareness in Belgium of psychosocial risks to workers (e.g.,

stress, burn-out, etc.). Such risks are increasingly being seen as an inherent part of

the general notion of well-being at work together with occupational safety,

occupational hygiene and ergonomics. In September 2014, a new legislation came in

to force which requires employers to pay considerably more attention to psychosocial

risks.

Although a majority of organisations believes their policy on well-being complies with

legal requirements, about 1 in 5 isn’t convinced that this is the case (see Figure 13).

Differences were found according to company size and sector. Companies with more

than 1000 employees (56%) are more often strongly convinced they are legally

compliant than smaller companies (less than 18%). This is also the case for public

sector (69%) companies compared to private sector (20%) companies.

Figure 13. Compliance with legal requirements

6.2. Axis 2: Optimization of the well-being approach

Considering the optimization of the well-being approach, the following aspects were

taken into account; a) the extent to which employee well-being is an important and

shared concern within the organisation b) the extent to which organisations

communicate about their well-being policy, and c) the extent to which well-being is

promoted (see Figure 14).

About 83% of the HR professionals indicate that well-being is an important and shared

concern within their organisations. Though, less than half of the respondents

communicate (regularly) about their well-being policy. A majority communicates to a

limited extent or doesn’t communicate at all about their well-being practices. The

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Strongly

convinced

Partially

convinced

Neutral Little

convinced

Not

convinced at

all

26,2%

51,5%

16,2%5,4% 0,8%

Num

ber

of

org

anis

ations

14


means that are used to communicate about the well-being approach are shown in

Figure 14.

Figure 14. Communication about well-being policies

When it comes to the active promotion of well-being by means of specific activities

and campaigns, we notice this is limited to a minority of companies (see Figure 15).

Some differences, however, are found according to the type of well-being: physical,

emotional or mental well-being. Physical wellbeing refers to the most fundamental

source of energy. It depends on many aspects like our eating and sleep pattern, overall

fitness, etc. Emotional wellbeing is the ability to decisively deal with emotions to

create positive energy and full engagement. The most important competencies that

feed positive emotions are self-confidence, self-control (self-regulation), social skills

(interpersonal effectiveness) and empathy. Positive emotions not only have an impact

on individual performance, but also on the organization as a whole. Finally mental

wellbeing is what we use to organize our lives and focus our attention, it ensures

focus and realistic optimism. As shown in Figure 15, physical well-being is promoted

more actively (in 48% of the companies) than mental well-being (in 39% of the

companies) and emotional well-being (30% of the companies). Surprisingly, more than

half of the companies promote the physical, emotional and mental well-being of

employees to a limited extent or not at all.

Figure 15. Promotion of well-being

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Visibility via posters, TVs, …

formal structures (OR, CPBW)

evaluation meeting

team meeting

Intranet

E-mail

Via supervisor

4,6%

11,5%

26,9%

46,9%

48,5%

56,2%

60,0%

47,7%

38,5%

30,0%

31,5%

38,5%

50,0%

20,8%

23,1%

20,0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Physical Well-being

Mental Well-being

Emotional Well-being

(Actively) Promoted Little promoted Not promoted at all

15


6.3. Axis 3: Strategic focus of the well-being approach

To assess whether the well-being policies show a strategic focus, respondents were

asked whether they a) have a systematic follow-up of their well-being actions and b)

measure the return on investment (ROI) of their well-being actions on company

results.

6.3.1. Systematic follow-up of well-being actions

In order to gain insight in the effectiveness of the well-being policy, it’s important to

systematically follow up whether the actions set out in the policy have an impact on

the well-being of employees. More than half of the organisations (strongly) follow up

whether their actions influence the well-being of employees. As shown in Figure 16,

some differences can be observed with regard to the follow-up according to company

size. Large companies with more than 1000 employees more often have a strong

follow-up than smaller companies.

Figure 16. Follow-up of well-being actions

6.3.2. Measurement of ROI on well-being

With regard to the ROI, 70% of companies do not measure whether the costs and

investments in well-being have a positive ROI on company results. Interestingly,

however, of the companies who do measure the ROI, 67% observe a positive ROI.

This confirms the importance of establishing a well-being culture within organisations.

Figure 17. Measurement of ROI

3,8%28,0%31,3%

60,0% 49,1% 54,5%

56,0%50,0%

32,0% 37,7% 27,3%

16,0%18,8%8,0% 9,4% 18,2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 499 500 - 999 > 1000

Company size (number of employees)

Strong follow-up Moderate follow-up Little follow-up No follow-up

1,5%

18,5%

10,0%

70,0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

we have measured a very positive ROI

we have measured a positive ROI

The ROI was nor positive nor negative

We don't know

Number of organisations

16


Respondents were also asked how much of their HR budget is spent on well-being,

including the time investment by HR. More than half of companies spend less than 3%

of their HR budget on well-being (see Figure 18). However, analyses show significant

differences according to the company size. Organisations with more than 1000

employees more often spend more than 3% of their HR budget on well-being (64%)

compared to companies with 10-499 employees (39%), and companies with 500-999

employees (55%).

A positive relationship was found between the size of the HR budget spent on well-

being and the ROI. Specifically, companies spending more than 3% of their HR budget

on well-being actions measure a positive ROI more often than companies spending

less than 3%. This suggests that a strong investment in wellbeing pays off.

Figure 18. HR budget spent on well-being

54,6%

30,0%

15,4%

< 3% of the budget

3% - 5% of the budget

> 5% of the budget

Well-being is crucialconsidered to be important and a common concern

Return on investment

is not often measured but if so, proven to have positive impact

Self management

is not promoted and communication about well-being is poor

Well-being policies within Belgian organisations: key conclusions

17


7. Conclusion

The aim of this study was to shed light on how Belgian organisations are shaping their

rewarding and well-being policies. We assessed the maturity of these policies on three

different axes. The first axis addresses the compliance with legal requirements. The

second axis assesses whether organisations have an optimized approach, reflecting

efforts to make these policies more efficient or effective. The third axis, finally, looks

at the strategic focus of these policies.

Our findings show that there are still quite some opportunities for organisations to

leverage their rewarding and well-being approach. For rewarding, meeting the legal

requirements doesn’t seem to be a big issue, but very few organisations use the

possibility to individualize total rewarding. The reason for this is not that companies

don’t see the value of it, but practical issues seem to hinder further development in

this field. Gaining efficiency in the reward processes and further automation show to

be important challenges, even for bigger companies. These issues probably need to be

dealt with first, before next, and more advanced steps in rewarding can be taken.

Another surprising finding is that fiscal optimization is not used very extensively,

especially in a country like Belgium where labour costs are high. This shows to be an

opportunity which is often not taken advantage of, although having a direct positive

impact on the company’s profitability.

For well-being, our findings indicate that a big majority of Belgian companies are

concerned about employee well-being. Nonetheless, in about half of the cases,

companies are not sure whether they are complying with legal requirements. When it

comes to actively promoting well-being, companies are focussing most on physical

well-being while mental and emotional well-being lag a little bit behind. The overall

concern for well-being is however not reflected in the amount of internal

communication around the topic, nor in the systematic follow-up of the impact of

actions to improve well-being. Seventy percent of companies are not measuring the

ROI of well-being initiatives. For those that do measure ROI, about two thirds observe

a positive return. This shows that investments in well-being pay off.

We hope that our study findings will help you in benchmarking your own reward and

well-being practices and in identifying further opportunities to make the rewarding and

well-being policy in your organisation even stronger. We are convinced that optimizing

your policies and aligning them with the strategic focus will boost the engagement

levels of the people within your organisation, and thus, future overall success and

performance!

18


8. List of figures

Figure 1. Company Sector ............................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Compliance with legal requirements..................................................... 5

Figure 3. Social-legal knowledge ...................................................................... 5

Figure 4. Number of companies who outsource ................................................... 6

Figure 5. Extent of outsourcing (in % of reward approach) ................................... 6

Figure 6. Use of a function classification system ................................................. 7

Figure 7. Reward communication ...................................................................... 8

Figure 8. Automation and efficiency of the reward approach ................................. 9

Figure 9. Fiscal optimization ............................................................................ 9

Figure 10. Use of flexible reward plans ............................................................ 10

Figure 11. Alignment of policies with company strategy ..................................... 11

Figure 12. Tracking of KPIs via an HR dashboard .............................................. 11

Figure 13. Compliance with legal requirements ................................................. 13

Figure 14. Communication about well-being policies .......................................... 14

Figure 15. Promotion of well-being ................................................................. 14

Figure 16. Follow-up of well-being actions ....................................................... 15

Figure 17. Measurement of ROI ...................................................................... 15

Figure 18. HR budget spent on well-being ........................................................ 16

19


Documents

MATURITY OF REWARD AND WELL- BEING POLICIES IN BELGIAN .../media/Corporate/Pdf-brochures/Research … · 4. General maturity level within Belgian organisations To estimate the general