Newsroom

When organizations consider investing in employee health, workplace vaccination campaigns often seem like a clear win. They promise healthier employees, reduced sick days, and greater productivity — all at a relatively low cost. But do those benefits actually materialize in practice?

A new study published in Management Science by Manuel Hoffmann, Roberto Mosquera, and Adrian Chadi takes a closer look at that question. Their research, “Vaccines at Work: Experimental Evidence from a Firm Campaign,” uses a large-scale field experiment inside a bank in Ecuador to test whether encouraging employees to get flu shots at work leads to meaningful improvements in attendance and well-being.

Testing Assumptions in the Real World

The researchers partnered with the firm to design a randomized campaign that encouraged employees to get vaccinated during flu season. Some employees received targeted nudges, while others were given additional incentives to lower the barriers to participation. By combining administrative records on absences with detailed employee surveys, the study captured both organizational and personal outcomes.

The expectation was straightforward: higher vaccination rates should reduce sickness absences and boost productivity. But the data told a more nuanced story.

Surprising Results

The campaign successfully raised vaccination uptake — showing that convenience and peer influence matter. However, the anticipated benefits in reduced sick leave did not appear. Across the sample, there were no clear reductions in absenteeism, nor strong evidence of health spillovers to unvaccinated colleagues.

One possibility, the authors note, is that employees may have overestimated their level of protection after being vaccinated and compensated by being less cautious in other behaviors, such as handwashing. This “risk compensation” effect may have muted the campaign’s intended benefits. Another possible explanation is the relatively large number of respiratory illnesses that occur among employees during the flu season and are not related to the flu, so that vaccination cannot help.

Rethinking Workplace Health Investments

For managers, the findings are a cautionary reminder: not all health and wellness initiatives automatically pay off in improved performance. The success of such programs depends heavily on context — the nature and severity of the employees’ health problems and the way they respond to the intervention.

“Firms should not assume that higher uptake of workplace vaccinations will directly translate into economic gains,” the authors conclude. “While promoting employee health remains vital, the link between individual choices and firm-level outcomes is complex.”

Implications for Business Leaders

This study underscores the value of rigorous, real-world experiments in evaluating workplace policies. For firms weighing the costs and benefits of employee health campaigns, the key takeaway is to measure impact carefully and consider complementary approaches — such as pairing encouragement of certain protective behaviors with communications that reinforce other protective behaviors.

For policymakers, the research also highlights that voluntary, firm-based campaigns may need added safeguards to achieve their full potential.

Looking Ahead

As organizations continue to search for ways to protect employees and maintain resilience, studies like this challenge assumptions and open new questions: Which employees benefit most from workplace health programs? How can firms design campaigns that avoid unintended consequences? And what combination of incentives and messaging ensures that good intentions translate into real-world impact?

By probing these questions, Hoffmann, Mosquera, and Chadi’s work reflects the Merage School’s mission: to generate research that doesn’t just sit on the page but directly informs how organizations operate in practice.