What if one of the most pressing public health issues isn't where we might expect to find it?
When we think about public health, we tend to picture the familiar pillars: stopping smoking, vaccination uptake, obesity, clean air. But what if an overlooked challenge to population wellbeing is happening inside our workplaces, quietly, routinely and often without anyone recognising the harm being caused?
What if disciplinary investigations, when poorly designed and applied, are causing harm on a scale that makes this not just an organisational problem, but a public health and economic concern?
This is the question at the heart of our new discussion paper, ‘Reducing harm from the poor application of disciplinary processes: a public health issue'. And it is a question we can no longer afford to ignore.
Why disciplinary investigations matter for public health
Workforce wellbeing is increasingly recognised as a cornerstone of public health. The UK's working population spends much of its life in the workplace. The conditions created there shape health outcomes just as powerfully as environment, income or access to services.
Disciplinary investigations are intended to ensure accountability and uphold standards. But when they are mishandled, overly formal or applied without regard for their impact on people, they can cause significant harm. Not only to the person under investigation, but also to those conducting the process, the wider team, and the communities who rely on essential services.
This is not a marginal issue. Acas estimates that UK organisations initiate 1.7 million disciplinary cases every year, with workplace conflict costing employers £28.5 billion annually. Nearly 80% of that cost is linked to dismissals and resignations arising from formal procedures.
A systemic issue, not a sector‑specific one
The healthcare sector first introduced the concept of avoidable employee harm, highlighting how disciplinary processes can unintentionally affect people's wellbeing and prompting a deeper examination of their wider impact. Through this early work, organisations began to recognise how formal processes, when applied without proportionality or compassion, can erode wellbeing and organisational culture.
It is now clear that this challenge extends across the UK workforce, including local government. Conversations with employers, professional bodies and staff representatives point to similar patterns of harm emerging in a range of settings, indicating that the way disciplinary processes are designed and delivered is a system‑wide issue rather than one confined to a single sector.
At the heart of the problem is the way people experience these processes. When investigations become overly formal and lengthy they can leave individuals feeling isolated, fearful or unsupported. These human impacts, the stress, the uncertainty, the loss of trust, are what make this a public health concern.
What the evidence tells us
Our new discussion paper identifies three areas where the impact is most visible:
- Population‑level harm: Poorly conducted investigations drive avoidable sickness absence, erode trust and reduce service capacity.
- Workforce sustainability: At a time of staff shortages, disciplinary processes can weaken resilience, damage morale and accelerate attrition.
- Cross‑sector relevance: The issue resonates across public, private and voluntary sectors.
These harms are predictable, preventable and avoidable. They arise not from the existence of disciplinary processes, but from how those processes are designed and delivered.
A moment for leadership
If we accept that disciplinary practice can influence population health and carry economic consequences, then we must also accept that reform requires leadership beyond HR departments. It requires system‑level attention.
That means:
- Policymakers and regulators recognising disciplinary practice as a determinant of workforce wellbeing and embedding safeguards into regulation.
- Employers investing in compassionate, proportionate approaches and prioritising early, fair resolution.
- HR professionals shifting from compliance‑driven processes to human‑centred practice rooted in learning rather than blame.
- Public health professionals helping to frame this as a population‑level issue and advocating for change.
This is not about removing accountability. It is about ensuring that accountability mechanisms do not themselves become sources of harm.
Where next?
At the Faculty of Public Health, we are looking to work with members, government, employers, professional bodies and trade unions to convene a national conversation.
Because protecting the public's health means protecting the people who serve the public. And if disciplinary investigations are causing predictable, preventable harm across the UK workforce, then this is, unequivocally, a public health issue.
Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz is president, Faculty of Public Health
Further details and access to the discussion paper can be found on the Faculty of Public Health website.
