The ROI of financial wellbeing programs: real numbers for Australian businesses

Every HR leader knows that financial wellbeing programs are "the right thing to do." But in boardroom conversations, doing the right thing needs a business case. This article provides the framework and data you need to calculate the return on investment from a financial wellbeing program, using Australian benchmarks and real cost scenarios.

The short version: for most employers, the ROI from a Financial EAP exceeds 300% within the first year, driven primarily by reduced turnover and improved productivity. Here is how to calculate it for your organisation.

The ROI framework: four return categories

Returns from a financial wellbeing program come through four primary channels. Each can be estimated using your existing HR data combined with industry benchmarks.

1. Reduced turnover

This is typically the largest single source of ROI. Financially stressed employees are significantly more likely to resign, particularly for marginal pay increases that would not motivate them otherwise.

How to calculate:

• Determine your annual turnover rate (Australian average is approximately 15% for professional roles)
• Estimate the proportion of departures where financial stress was a contributing factor (research suggests 25% to 40%)
• Calculate the average cost of replacing one employee (typically 50% to 150% of annual salary)
• Apply a conservative reduction rate from the program (15% to 25% reduction in stress related departures)

Example for a 150 person organisation:

• Annual turnover: 23 departures (15% rate)
• Financially motivated departures: 8 (35% of total)
• Average replacement cost: $65,000
• Departures prevented by Financial EAP: 2 (25% reduction)
• Annual saving: $130,000

Preventing just two resignations that would have cost $65,000 each to replace delivers $130,000 in savings. For most employers, this single category more than covers the cost of the entire program.

2. Reduced absenteeism

Financially stressed employees take an average of 2.4 additional sick days per year compared to colleagues who feel in control of their finances. A financial wellbeing program that reduces stress levels can recover a meaningful portion of this lost time.

How to calculate:

• Estimate employees experiencing financial stress (35% to 50% of your workforce)
• Apply the 2.4 additional days per stressed employee
• Calculate daily cost per employee (salary plus on costs divided by 230 working days)
• Apply a conservative reduction (20% to 30% of excess days recovered)

Example for a 150 person organisation:

• Stressed employees: 60 (40% of workforce)
• Excess sick days: 144 (60 x 2.4 days)
• Average daily cost: $480
• Days recovered (25% reduction): 36
• Annual saving: $17,280

3. Improved productivity (reduced presenteeism)

Presenteeism is the largest cost category overall, but the hardest to measure precisely. Conservative estimates suggest financially stressed employees operate at 80% to 85% capacity during working hours, representing a 15% to 20% productivity reduction.

How to calculate:

• Identify the number of stressed employees and their average salary
• Apply a conservative productivity loss estimate (10% to 15% of salary value)
• Estimate the proportion recoverable through a financial wellbeing program (20% to 30%)

Example for a 150 person organisation:

• Stressed employees: 60
• Average salary: $85,000
• Productivity loss per person (12%): $10,200
• Total productivity loss: $612,000
• Recovery through program (20%): $122,400

This figure is intentionally conservative. The true productivity recovery is likely higher, but using cautious estimates strengthens the business case by ensuring the ROI holds even under scrutiny.

4. Reduced workers' compensation exposure

With psychosocial hazard regulations now in force, financial stress contributes to the risk of psychological injury claims. While this category is harder to quantify in advance, each successful claim can cost $50,000 to $200,000 in direct costs plus significant indirect costs in time, legal fees, and premium increases.

A Financial EAP provides documented evidence that the organisation is proactively managing psychosocial hazards related to financial stress, which strengthens the employer's position in any claim or regulatory investigation.

Putting it together: the total ROI

Using our conservative example for a 150 person organisation:

• Turnover reduction: $130,000
• Absenteeism reduction: $17,280
• Productivity improvement: $122,400
• Workers' comp risk reduction: not quantified (treat as upside)
• Total annual benefit: $269,680

If the Financial EAP costs $5 to $10 per employee per month, the annual program cost for 150 employees is $9,000 to $18,000.

ROI: 1,398% to 2,896% (annual benefit divided by program cost).

Even if you halve the estimated benefits to account for uncertainty, the ROI remains above 700%. This is not a marginal business case. It is overwhelmingly positive.

Benchmark data from the Australian market

The calculations above use conservative assumptions drawn from Australian research. Here are the key benchmarks:

• $31 billion: Total annual cost of financial stress to Australian employers (AMP/PwC)
• $3,400: Average cost per employee per year from financial stress related productivity loss
• 2.4 days: Additional sick days per year for financially stressed employees versus non stressed peers
• 35% to 50%: Proportion of Australian employees reporting financial stress
• 84%: HR professionals who acknowledge the link between financial stress and mental health outcomes
• 6%: HR professionals planning to implement a financial wellbeing program (representing a massive opportunity gap)

How moneymood pricing compares to savings

moneymood is priced as a per employee, per month benefit that scales with your team size. Every plan includes the full platform: AI coaching, Open Banking tools, spending analysis, debt strategy, and connected savings partnerships. There are no feature tiers or hidden costs.

For a typical employer:

• Annual cost of moneymood: A fraction of the cost of one prevented resignation
• Break even point: Preventing a single departure or recovering a handful of sick days covers the entire annual investment
• Ongoing value: Unlike one off wellness events or training, the platform delivers compounding value as employees build better financial habits over time

The ROI improves each year as cumulative behaviour change reduces stress related costs further. Year two and beyond typically show even stronger returns as engagement deepens and word of mouth drives higher utilisation.

Making the business case internally

When presenting the ROI to leadership, consider these framing tips:

Lead with turnover costs. Every executive understands the cost of losing good people. Frame the investment as "turnover insurance" that costs less per year than replacing one mid level employee.

Use your own numbers. Plug in your actual turnover rate, average salary, and team size. Generic industry data is less compelling than "here is what this costs us specifically."

Position as risk management. With psychosocial hazard regulations in force, the question is not "should we invest?" but "can we afford not to?" Frame it alongside your existing WHS investments.

Compare to existing spend. If you already pay $40,000 per year for a traditional EAP that 7% of staff use, a Financial EAP at a similar price point with significantly higher utilisation represents better value per dollar of support delivered.

Explore the full employer case for moneymood.

← Back to Resources