Technology is being used in diverse ways to measure, monitor and deliver interventions to protect, develop and support employee wellbeing. The CIPD’s factsheet on wellbeing outlines the key domains. The following are some examples of how technology is being used across these domains: 

Prevent - technology solutions that address problem at source through job redesign or change.

Examples: activity tracking, safety sensors, digital biomarker apps, digital speech and text analysis tools to track changes in behaviour and attitudes.

Develop - technology solutions to train and coach new skills to cope with demands or build psychological resilience and behaviour change.

Examples: wearables to promote healthy movement or habit formation, e-learning platforms, tele-coaching or automated AI-driven coaching to promote health and wellbeing or develop manager behaviours.

Support - technology solutions for rehabilitation, treatment and support, and midnfulness support

Examples: online counselling service, cognitive behavioural therapy chatbot, personalised physiotherapy exercises, online support platforms, gamified health-specific support exercises.

When used responsibly, technology:

1    Has the potential to improve the work environment, to deliver a direct impact on employee wellbeing. For example, it can:   

• enable effective flexible, remote and hybrid working, through access to video conferencing and collaboration tools, therefore increasing personal control over where work is done, and improving access to work for those with long-term health conditions for whom working on-site may be a barrier to work participation
• reduce administrative load and create opportunities for job enrichment by releasing some of the administrative burdens of work (eg using augmented-reality glasses can reduce the cognitive load for assembly workers; using online workflow and collaboration tools such as Asana or Trello to autogenerate co-ordinated team-work schedules, freeing up time for more fulfilling and meaningful work)
• reduce physical load and risk of injury by using adaptive ergonomic design and machines to complete tasks, reducing musculoskeletal or repetitive strain, as well as risk of injury from inherently dangerous tasks.

2    Identifies risks to physical and psychosocial health and safety by monitoring and identifying patterns in performance and attendance data. This in turn helps people professionals to:   

• identify hazards such as spillages, unmanned tools and other risks using smart cameras 
• analyse patterns of work-related stress, for example working hours, time spent on tasks, as well as mood, individual and social behaviour
• examine real-time data on emotional tone of workforce communications using tools such as sentiment analysis on email and employee surveys to determine if the emotional tone is positive, negative or neutral, identify where action needs to be taken and measure how initiatives are received. 

3    Delivers early and anonymous access to wellbeing resources, supporting people professionals to provide their employees with tools to:  

• educate and improve awareness, and improve health literacy through online education programmes, such as training on mental health, nutrition and menopause at work 
• access screening and diagnostic services through online consultations, specialist assessments such as glucose or blood pressure monitoring, and the use of predictive technologies, for example using retina scans to identify possible health risks 
• deliver care through a range of digital solutions, from remote healthcare services, apps to manage medication use, automated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and pain management interventions
• support behaviour change, for example by providing opportunities to track behaviour and prompt change. This could include using wearable technology to encourage being active through personalised recommendations, gamification or incentive programmes; or to predict health issues and suggest prevention programmes like stress management interventions.

When technology is not used responsibly, organisations and their people are exposed to risks. The most pervasive risks are: 

1    Over-reliance on technology has the potential to reduce the quality of the work environment, for example where a person-centred approach is not adopted (eg algorithms for shift scheduling and route planning can lead to increased efficiency gains, but research has shown that they can reduce worker autonomy, which can negatively impact wellbeing; or where having multiple communication channels leads to digital overload). 

2    Data security and privacy risks, which arise through the collection, storage and use of data, must be carefully considered in all instances. Health data has specific additional protections and an employer can only lawfully process health data if it can show such processing is necessary. Care must be taken to ensure that organisations are not using data for another purpose than originally intended. When using wearable technologies, additional risks from collecting private information - such as hours worked, breaks clocked, sleep hours, interests, habits, social circles and even health records - must be carefully considered, particularly as there is often little clarity on who owns the user data or how data will be used by service providers. For example, employers who capture biometric data of their employees, could find out an employee is pregnant or has heart disease before they do. 

3    Insufficient evidence on effectiveness is a significant concern as many new technologies lack a sufficient evidence base to prove their impact. The ‘innovator challenge’, where innovators often must decide between investing resources in improving the usability and function of the technology, or research to test and develop the evidence base, is well recognised. A review of publicly available wellness and stress management apps found that only 2.08% of the 1,009 mobile apps screened had peer review evidence examining ease of use or effectiveness (ie resulted in any change in outcome). Similarly, whilst wearable devices such as exoskeletons are argued to be effective in preventing muscular diseases by lowering the physical strain on the body, the safety standards for their usage in work environments has not yet been formalised. Orcha’s health app library provides reviews of available technologies, each of which are scrutinised using established regulatory frameworks. 

4    Becoming a barrier to equality, diversity and inclusion, which can both prevent the benefits of technology being realised and, in some instances, compromise an organisation’s ability to meet their legal obligations and responsibilities. Discrimination can arise because: 

• access to technology can be a barrier to completing digital wellbeing assessments or accessing wellbeing apps, disadvantaging   those who do not have access to technology during their working day
• confidence with technology varies and may disadvantage some potential employees who do not engage with the sometimes complicated, newly introduced wellbeing technology as part of any onboarding process or wellbeing offer, due to poor technology literacy or digital mindset, despite technology use being a core job requirement
• unrepresentative sampling and incomplete or redacted information from health datasets can make AI models less reliable for minority groups, or where individuals have co-existing health conditions.

5    Lack of scrutiny or understanding of design features and limitations can mean that people and organisations are sometimes unaware of how technology is manipulating data and driving insights. Technology is only as good as its programming and the data fed into it. This is a specific challenge for inclusion when it comes to AI-powered technologies where products have fast become so embedded in wellbeing apps that people do not question what data is being used or how it is being used. This can be problematic when AI is drawing from restricted data pools (eg narrow samples) or where tools draw on techniques such as sentiment analysis to predict patterns of wellbeing. Retaining a human element for analysis is sometimes needed to help understand context. 

Insufficient consultation or consideration during procurement or the implementation of technology can be detrimental to organisations and people. Problems arise when organisations do not invest time and resources to make considered decisions about the use of technology and its impact on people, or when adequate plans for implementation and monitoring have not been made. The CIPD’s framework for investing in and implementing technology provides clear stages for people professionals to improve outcomes.

With so many products to choose from, decision making can be challenging. These specific issues warrant consideration: 

• There may be compatibility issues among the available workplace technologies. Certain wearable devices may only be compatible with selected operating systems, and different providers may terminate or relinquish support for existing wearables, apps and services in this rapidly evolving and competitive marketplace. Such changes have a potentially large impact on cost and efficiency.
• Off-the-shelf solutions may not be a good fit if they are not configured to the specific context or users, as interventions tailored to user needs and organisational context have been found to be more effective.

6    Device fatigue and addiction can be problematic. Research has found that extensive use of workplace technologies may lead to over-dependency and helplessness in the event of technology outages. Cognitive load is likely to increase, as potential channels where information can be shared and frequency of exchanges increases.

There is a growing body of research that helps us understand how technology can be used responsibly and the possible negative outcomes when certain things are not considered. This research, and a series of stakeholder roundtables, have informed these guiding principles. 

Knowing why you want to use technology to support employee wellbeing can help define the scope of the development, procurement and implementation plan and how the technology and its impact should be monitored. 

Consider where technology could deliver gains and ensure the appropriate technology is chosen, and that it is set up and used correctly, to mitigate unintended impacts. There may be existing technologies that can be leveraged for these uses without acquiring something new. For example, Yammer has been encouraged by some organisations for its capability for sharing and creating community, but it is not always used in a way that supports employees’ wellbeing. Some users report Yammer adds to workload and stress as the notifications come through as emails and add another stream of communication to monitor, but this could be remedied by turning notifications off. Individuals also need to be mindful of how they communicate, considering the length and frequency of their communications as well as the words used and through which channels. When assessing the technology, it is important to separate the technology (eg is it the right technology for the right purpose) and the implementation (eg is it set up in the right way, and are people using it the right way). 

The CIPD guide on responsible investment in technology provides examples when professionals and leaders have invested in technology in ways that have benefitted people and the organisation.

Involving a broad range of stakeholders in discussions about what technology to use, how it is introduced and how it will be used can improve the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes. For example, when sourcing digital health apps, consult with diverse employee groups to identify needs and barriers specific to each group. 

The introduction of any technology that monitors health may lead some to feel anxious about the identification of undisclosed disabilities or health conditions, or cause concerns that their ability to work may be scrutinised (see Equalities Act, 2010). People professional involvement early in decision-making can allow the organisation to plan accordingly and manage risks to job insecurity, anxiety around change, learning needs, and making sure an organisation complies with its legal responsibility not to discriminate. 

CIPD research suggests that technology is most effective when there is a clear plan for ‘people impact’ and when the approach adopted is the least intrusive and least resource-intensive.

People professionals have a role in ensuring that any technology implementation supports and enhances productivity and employee job quality. Key considerations for people professionals include: 

• enabling employees to retain autonomy as this is an important health-protecting element. It has implications for how technology is implemented (eg when working remotely, blocking out time in diaries and automating email replies outside of normal hours can be beneficial for some, but a stressor for others). For some employees, wearables to improve movement may be seen as a welcome benefit, while others may feel it encroaches on personal choice and privacy.
• barriers to and facilitators of implementation, as these will have an impact on how well an intervention delivers on intended outcomes. Some widely recognised barriers to success include the lack of support from managers and the ability of workers to complete the relevant activities within work time. Where wellbeing tools are available on personal devices, this risk is increased. Providing employees with time to engage in interventions in working hours, and identifying protected space to engage with activities, will increase the likelihood of uptake and engagement, and, consequently, its impact. 

Those directly affected by the technology and employees whose roles include wellbeing assessments will have valuable insights into design requirements and the potential risks of an automated solution. For example, wellbeing officers understand the indicators of poor employee wellbeing so real-time data provided to managers can lead to timely action, as opposed to waiting for an annual survey. 

However, discussions about the introduction of new technology can present a risk of people not engaging openly and honestly if consultations are not managed carefully. For example, employees may be concerned that sensitive and private information may be gathered, shared or used against them.

CIPD research shows that employees are more positive about technological changes when they are consulted about the process, with 70% reporting they felt positive about the likely impact on their job quality, compared with 20% who had not been consulted. 

Our guide on employee consultation provides tips and strategies to help make sure consultation is done effectively.

Promoting and delivering EDI is an essential part of people management. While technology offers a route to monitor progress and control for human bias in decision-making, there are several hidden barriers to EDI and digital health. To counter some of the issues raised with the potential bias, organisations can:

• use inclusive datasets for programming, as biased data will train AI to be biased (or to use the old maxim, ‘garbage in, garbage out’); using appropriate datasets can enable inclusive practices and fair decision-making
• create diverse teams to consult and review the use of technological solutions, ensuring that employees involved in the design and monitoring of tech are diverse; this will help to identify and rectify issues of bias, including unconscious bias
• actively monitor data to ensure that there aren’t any unintended impacts of technology use, such as attempting to remove one bias leading to a different bias
• report on EDI metrics (such as usage and wellbeing statistics for minority groups) and include relevant algorithms and how they are programmed to minimise biases; this transparency and critical review should minimise bias through open scrutiny
• consider evidence critically to ensure that qualitative and quantitative data is fully interrogated (eg look beyond mean scores to examine the spread of data points or means for different groups and use external benchmarking data).

The variety of technological solutions available on the market to support employee wellbeing at work can feel overwhelming. Ensuring that providers demonstrate a commitment to the responsible use of technology in their design, implementation support and ongoing management process can help you in your efforts. This could include:

• examining the evidence-based principles used to inform design: for example, when selecting a tool to support wellbeing, ask yourself the same questions about the tool that you would ask if you were buying in-person services: would it be acceptable, would it be effective, for whom?
• checking for inclusivity at all stages of design and implementation: carefully consider and question vendors about accessibility of technologies and data capture to avoid any discriminatory practices. Questions could include:
  • To what extent does the system use diverse datasets and how is this monitored?
  • To what extent has the technology been user-tested by diverse groups of people, including different demographic groups, disabled and neurodivergent groups?
  • How will your organisation be assured that diversity metrics are monitored on an ongoing basis and what action will be taken to address any bias identified?
• starting small and adopting an agile approach: allowing for testing, learning and refinement in the early stages of procurement can build confidence in the approach and ensure organisational and people needs are met. For example, piloting a personalised healthy mindset app with a team or division to examine whether the tool is acceptable, whether personalisation achieves the desired impact and to identify any unforeseen issues.

Our guide on responsible investment in technology has been designed to help people professionals and leaders invest in technology in ways that benefit people and the organisation.

Technology can be used to help organisations stay up to date and comply with employment law. It is important that organisations:

• Only collect necessary data and get consent where needed – an employer can only lawfully process health data if they can show such processing is necessary, typically in the context of preventative and occupational health. While there are variations in local laws, for example in the UK, Europe and United States, there is broad agreement that health data is sensitive data and, as such, requires careful consideration of what data you need, and what you will do with it. It is essential to develop clear boundaries –take the organisation type into account when considering how much health data could and should be collected, and how it should be used. There is an important relationship between health and work, but some industries have strict guidelines (eg, train drivers must have minimum sleep requirements) for safeguarding purposes)
• Follow relevant data security legislation – understanding local laws on privacy and consent is key. Data storage and usage must be examined. If wearable device providers (including employers and insurers) have access to the data it raises ethical questions about whether that information might influence hiring, firing or accepting employees. It is therefore important to fully consider the use of such data in your policies
• Protect health data collected in the context of occupational health so that only occupational health professionals have access, with no direct access for employers
• Use expertise to inform your practice – include experienced professionals to ensure their knowledge and expertise of the wellbeing interventions or assessments being created, automated or augmented are used to shape the technology being developed and ensure compliance with your organisation’s practices. Consider getting an external consultant if you don’t have internal expertise.    

Be transparent with employees about how technology is used. Implementing a wellbeing platform or other forms of technology should follow a ‘glassbox’ (as opposed to a ‘blackbox’) approach. This means people professionals should:

• Make employees aware of privacy policies and provide informed data consent. It is good practice to provide support systems for employees who have questions about how their data is used
• Create the appropriate infrastructure to support the technology. Technology should not be used in isolation. Take a holistic approach to health and wellbeing that incorporates the technology use. For example, before promoting wellbeing apps that suggest taking 10 minutes for a walk and fresh air, or to practise mindfulness meditation, ensure that the work environment allows employees to build this into their working days
• Communicate good practices, for example where evidence-based guidelines relating to technology use can benefit wellbeing. An example of this is the Acas guidelines for effectively managing email at work. These guidelines recommend that:
  • individuals: clear inboxes frequently to avoid feeling overloaded, switch off alerts but check inboxes regularly and review their personal email use strategy
  • organisations: develop ‘email etiquette’ which will foster a culture of trust, remove response deadlines and apportion more time to employees with higher email volume.

Managers contribute to an organisation’s responsible use of technology, and can act as ambassadors, driving the successful implementation of wellbeing interventions. When managers manage well and build trust-based relationships with their team, they help to create an environment that is open and respectful, in which people feel ‘psychologically safe’. This means individuals feel able to speak up about concerns regarding the use of technology in the knowledge they will be listened to as well as receive support and understanding. This can help to identify hidden issues not otherwise identified by technological solutions.

Find out more about how line managers can support the people profession in delivering impact for the organisation and its people.

The rapid socialisation and advancement of AI has the potential to influence all aspects of supporting employee health and wellbeing at work. For example, AI tools can be used to predict absence patterns and provide recommendations to organisations to take preventative action. Yet the speed at which the technology has developed has meant that research, practices and policy are lagging. There is still much we need to learn about the impact of AI in wellbeing, with concerns for large-scale misinformation, discrimination and unintended consequences dominating recent discussions. Regardless of advancing AI technnology, a combination of digital and in-person support will be required in any successful health and wellbeing strategy. Organisational policies regarding acceptable and ethical use of AI are not well developed yet, with clear guidelines for good practice also still in their infancy. 
 
Applying an evidence-based practice approach to decision-making will help people professionals draw on the best available evidence and consider new knowledge. Specifically, it is important for people professionals to remain alert to:

• new evidence as it develops
• emerging AI regulations and guidelines to ensure compliance and ethical decision-making
• ongoing discussions regarding acceptable and ethical use of AI
• the changing needs and concerns of the diverse stakeholders impacted by decisions to employ AI tools.

Staying up to date with new developments will allow people processionals to embrace the opportunities and address the challenges presented by AI.

Responsible use of technology

CIPD Guide: Responsible investment in technology 

For further information on research and thought leadership on technology, the workplace and people management, the CIPD’s research series explores technology use and its impact on people practice in the physical and digital workplace. 

For more detail on the case for adopting technology responsibly, and its impact on good work, see the Institute for the Future of Work’s (IFOW) Case for importance: Understanding the impacts of technology adoption on good work. 

Acas. (2020) My boss the algorithm: an ethical look at algorithms in the workplace. London: Acas.

Acas. (2020) New technology and the world of work: the winners and the losers. London: Acas.

Atici-Ulusu, H., Ikiz, Y. D., Taskapilioglu, O. and Gunduz, T. (2021) Effects of augmented reality glasses on the cognitive load of assembly operators in the automotive industry. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Vol 34, No 5, pp487–499.

Austermuehle, E. (2018) Monitoring employees through GPS technology: What is legal and what are best practices? Employee Relations Law Journal. Vol 44, No 1, pp10–14. 

Bales, R.A. and Stone, K.V. (2020) The invisible web at work: Artificial intelligence and electronic surveillance in the workplace. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law. Vol 41, No 1.  

Brassart Olsen, C. (2020) To track or not to track? Employees’ data privacy in the age of corporate wellness, mobile health, and GDPR. International Data Privacy Law. Vol 10, No 3, pp236–252. 

CIPD. (2020) Workplace technology: the employee experience. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

CIPD. (2021) Mental wellbeing and digital work: An evidence review. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 

Deloitte. (2020) Integrating tech and wellbeing: The vital role of technology executives. United States: Deloitte. 

Khakurel, J., Melkas, H. and Porras, J. (2018) Tapping into the wearable device revolution in the work environment: a systematic review. Information Technology and People. Vol 3, No 3, pp791–818.

Patel, V., Chesmore, A., Legner, C. M. and Pandey, S. (2022) Trends in workplace wearable technologies and connected‐worker solutions for next‐generation occupational safety, health, and productivity. Advanced Intelligent Systems. Vol 4, No 1, p2100099.

Smith, E.N., Santoro, E., Moraveji, N., Susi, M. and Crum, A.J. (2020) Integrating wearables in stress management interventions: Promising evidence from a randomized trial. International Journal of Stress Management. Vol 27, No 2, pp172–182.