The questions we get most
Honest answers to the objections from HR, works councils, planners, occupational physicians and leadership.
Aren't we already compliant with our labour agreement?
That's exactly the baseline. But a collective labour agreement defines what's allowed, not what's optimal for recovery. Almost every shift-work organisation in the Netherlands is compliant and still sees structural absence, fatigue and dropout. We don't replace the agreement; we help organisations make better choices within its limits.
We already have a vitality programme.
We believe that. The only question is: do you know which teams are building the most risk right now? Most programmes offer interventions. We help decide where those interventions have the most effect.
Our planners already know this.
That's exactly why we want to support planners, not replace them. A planner sees a lot. But no one can oversee months of sleep, recovery, night shifts and roster load for hundreds of employees at once.
What's the financial return?
Preventing a single long-term absence often already recovers the investment. Consider: in 2023 employers paid €20 billion in wage continuation for absence, €4.9 billion of it driven by psychosocial workload, and psychological absence lasts 63 working days on average (TNO Arbobalans 2024). The business case isn't in the software; it's in the costs you avoid.
Why don't SAP, AFAS or Workday just build this themselves?
Those systems record what has happened. We focus on predicting recovery and fatigue risk before dropout occurs.
Free impact report
Curious what absence is costing you?
Calculate your own numbers in 2 minutes. No wearables, no medical data.