Large-Scale Survey of Businesses Across the East and West Midlands of England, Plus Companion Surveys for Ireland and Sweden, 2022-2025

Roper, Stephen and Wishart, Maria (2026). Large-Scale Survey of Businesses Across the East and West Midlands of England, Plus Companion Surveys for Ireland and Sweden, 2022-2025. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-858256

The 'productivity gap' between the UK and its international competitors has been widely discussed. In 2019 UK productivity was 83 per cent of that in France and the US and 86 per cent that of Germany. In 2020, UK industry productivity growth rates were also negative, potentially exacerbating the pre-pandemic productivity gap. OECD evidence also suggests that mental health in the UK may have been particularly seriously impacted by the pandemic. Between 2019 and 2020 the proportion of people experiencing anxiety rose in a number of countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France and the UK) with the UK registering the highest level of anxiety of any country studied in 2020 - 33 per cent (OECD 2021, Figure 1.20, p. 179). This pattern is likely to have exacerbates the pre-pandemic, productivity costs of poor mental health and well-being in the UK, which were estimated at £42bn - £45bn.

Despite the scale of the impact of poor employee mental health and productivity we know little about the outcomes (causal effects) when employers implement mental health and well-being practices on employees' mental health and well-being and even less about the causal mechanisms through which poor MH&W influences firm-level productivity. The 2020 Australian Productivity Commission report on mental health concluded, for example, that 'there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions ... there has been difficulty in establishing the effectiveness of different programs and initiatives' (Productivity Commission, 2020, p. 342).

Our ambitious aim here is to address this gap in our understanding and to establish the causal mechanisms through which firms' adoption of mental health and well-being (MH&W) practices can benefit productivity and productivity improvement. Which MH&W practices have the greatest benefit for employee mental health? Which have the greatest benefit for employee well-being? And, how do these effects impact firm-level productivity? Understanding these linkages is critical both during the recovery from Covid-19 and its attendant mental health impacts and in building higher and sustainable productivity in future years.

Our study adopts an inter-disciplinary and mixed-methods approach integrating perspectives from management studies and economics relating to the productivity benefits of the adoption of management practices with insights from work and occupational psychology relating to the well-being benefits of employers' actions. Our methodological approach is longitudinal involving a mix of econometric, statistical and observational research methods. Capitalising on and developing existing data sources we will follow around 1500 firms across the East and West Midlands of England through the lifetime of the grant and examine the activities and well-being of work groups and individuals within these firms. Longitudinal analysis - both qualitative and quantitative - will allow causal relationships to be established, i.e. activities in period 1 leading to outcomes in subsequent periods.

This project will compliment another major project - the Mental Health and Productivity Pilot (MHPP) - to which the Nottingham and Warwick teams are also contributing (https://mhpp.me/) funded by the Midlands Engine. Study findings will contribute to the literatures on management practices, occupational health and firm level productivity improvement. Project outcomes will guide employers in supporting good employee mental health and well-being and so contribute to productivity improvement. Outcomes will also be relevant to support organisations working with businesses to develop healthy workplaces and productivity upgrading and the project is strongly supported by a range of public and private sector organisations (see letters of support).

Data description (abstract)

The 'productivity gap' between the UK and its international competitors has been widely discussed. In 2019, UK productivity was 83 per cent of that in France and the US and 86 per cent of that in Germany. In 2020, UK industrial productivity growth rates were also negative, potentially widening the pre-pandemic productivity gap. OECD evidence also suggests that mental health in the UK may have been particularly seriously affected by the pandemic. Between 2019 and 2020, the proportion of people experiencing anxiety increased in several countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France and the UK), with the UK recording the highest level of anxiety of any country studied in 2020 - 33 per cent (OECD 2021, Figure 1.20, p. 179). This trend is likely to have worsened the pre-pandemic costs of poor mental health and well-being in the UK, which were estimated at £42bn - £45bn.

Despite the scale of the impact of poor employee mental health and productivity, we know little about the outcomes (causal effects) when employers implement mental health and well-being practices on employees' mental health and wellbeing, and even less about the causal mechanisms through which poor MH&W influences firm-level productivity. The 2020 Australian Productivity Commission report on mental health concluded, for example, that 'there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions ... there has been difficulty in establishing the effectiveness of different programs and initiatives' (Productivity Commission, 2020, p. 342).

Our aim in this project was to address this gap in our understanding and to establish the causal mechanisms through which firms' adoption of mental health and well-being (MH&W) practices can benefit productivity and productivity improvement. Which MH&W practices have the greatest benefit for employee mental health? Which have the greatest benefit for employee well-being? And, how do these effects impact firm-level productivity? Understanding these linkages is critical to building higher and sustainable productivity in future years.
Central to this project has been a large-scale survey of businesses across the East and West Midlands of England, examining workplace wellbeing, wellbeing practices, and productivity. Four waves of this survey were funded through the ESRC grant (2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025). Additionally, companion surveys were conducted in Ireland (2023) and Sweden (2024). The deposited data relates to all six of these surveys. Survey data is accompanied by copies of the annual survey reports, reports on the Irish and Swedish surveys, as well as the project’s final report. Related documents can be found via the Enterprise Research Centre website: https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/themes/mental-health/.

Data creators:

Creator Name	Affiliation	ORCID (as URL)
Roper Stephen
Wishart Maria

Contributors:

Name	Affiliation	ORCID (as URL)
Hassard Juliet
Blake Holly
Leka Stavroula
Bourke Jane
Thomson Louise

Sponsors:

SPF

Grant reference:

ES/W010216/1

Topic classification:

Health
Labour and employment

Keywords:

MENTAL HEALTH, WELL-BEING (HEALTH), LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY, WORKPLACE

Project title:

Mental health and well-being practices, outcomes and productivity: A causal analysis

Grant holders:

Stephen Roper, Maria Wishart, Stavroula Leka, Jane Bourke, Holly Blake, Juliet Hassard, Louise Thomson

Project dates:

From	To
31 March 2022	29 September 2025

Date published:

26 Feb 2026 13:10

Last modified:

26 Feb 2026 13:10

Coverage and Methodology

Collection period:

Date from:	Date to:
31 March 2022	29 September 2025

Geographical area:

East and West Midlands, Ireland and Sweden

Country:

United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden

Data collection method:

Each of the surveys conducted for this project were done using CATI and undertaken by a commercial survey company. This required surveys to be anonymised according to the Market Research Society rules. Note that for the UK surveys respondents in each year were also approached in subsequent years so some common reference numbers can be identified (OMBREFs).

Data for the six surveys is provided as a single STATA data file with a related codebook. Survey questionnaires are also available. Surveys were largely common from year to year (and between countries) although some variables were added in later years. Each survey is described in more detail below.

2.1 UK Survey 2022
The survey was conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Within each organisation, the most senior person with responsibility for the health and well-being of workers was sought to be interviewed. The survey was conducted between 27th January 2022 and 20th May 2022. In total, 1,904 CATI interviews were completed. The mean interview length on completion of fieldwork was 25 minutes. Details on the number of survey responses and survey weighting are described in Appendix 1 of the 2022 Survey report.

2.2 UK Survey 2023
The 2023 survey was conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Within each organisation, the most senior person with responsibility for the health and well-being of workers was sought to be interviewed. The survey was conducted between 16th January 2023 and 5th May 2023. In total, 1,902 CATI interviews were completed, 906 in the East Midlands and 996 in the West Midlands. Details on the number of survey responses and survey weighting are described in Appendix 1 of the 2023 Survey report.

2.3 UK Survey 2024
The 2024 survey was, like all previous waves of research, conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Within each organisation, the most senior person with responsibility for the health and well-being of workers was sought to be interviewed. The survey was conducted between 8th January 2024 and 23rd April 2024. In total, 1,901 CATI interviews were completed, 858 in the East Midlands and 1043 in the West Midlands.

A structured approach was adopted to the survey to ensure adequate cell sizes among larger firms. This, and differential response between sectors and size bands, necessitates weighting survey responses to provide regionally representative results for the East and West Midlands. We weight survey responses to the relevant business population by broad sector and firm size band. Details on the number of survey responses and survey weighting are described in Appendix 1 of the 2024 Survey report.

2.4 UK Survey 2025
A structured approach was adopted for the 2025 UK Workplace Mental Health, Wellbeing and Productivity survey to ensure adequate cell sizes among larger firms. This, along with differential responses between sectors and size bands, necessitates weighting survey responses to provide regionally representative results for the East and West Midlands. We weight survey responses according to the relevant business population by broad sector and firm size band.
The survey targeted firms with over 10 employees. Business population data for 2024 (Table 14 and 15 - Number of businesses within the private sector by Standard Industrial Classification) is aggregated to present the business population (Table 1). Survey responses are summarised in Table 2. Sampling weights are derived as the ratio of the business population to survey responses. Note we aggregate the 50-249 and 249+ size bands to avoid extreme weights.

2.5 Irish Survey 2023
The 2023 Irish survey was the first large-scale evidence of health and well-being promotion in Irish workplaces. 1,501 Irish employers took part in the Workplace Mental Health & Well-being in Ireland survey between September and December 2022. Telephone interviews were conducted with private sector employers with 10 or more employees, across all sectors and regions in Ireland. A structured approach was adopted to Workplace Mental Health & Well-being in Ireland survey to ensure adequate cell sizes among larger firms. This, and differential response between sectors and sizebands, necessitates weighting survey responses to provide nationally representative results. Details of the weighting adopted are provided in the Annex to the 2023 Irish Survey Report.

2.6 Swedish Survey 2024
Businesses with 10 or more employees were in scope for the survey. This definition of employee numbers excluded owners and partners, agency staff and contractors but included other directors and temporary and casual staff. Organisations were additionally screened to ensure: (a) they were not a local or central government financed body; (b) they had been trading for 3 or more years. Fieldwork took place between September and December 2023 in Sweden. Section 2 of the Swedish Survey Report provides an overview of respondents.

To allow representative results to be generated from the Swedish survey data we require sampling weights to correct for oversampling among larger firms and for sectoral variations in response rates. We adopt a broad sector x sizeband weighting structure for the survey with employment sizebands defined of 10-19, 20-49 and 50+ employees. Population data is available for the business population from Statistics Sweden for 2023 in the table entitled ‘Enterprises (FDB) by industrial classification NACE Rev. 2, year and size class’ (https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__NV__NV0101/FDBR07N/table/tableViewLayout1/). This provides detailed data by 4-digit NACE categories which we amalgamate into six broad sectors similar to those used in the UK and Irish surveys. The same data is also amalgamated into the three employment sizebands described above. Population data is included in Table 3, part A below. Survey data is classified by sector using a similar composition of NACE codes.

Observation unit:

Organization

Kind of data:

Numeric, Text

Type of data:

Qualitative and mixed methods data

Resource language:

English

Access and Administration