Do remember the Watson Wyatt %s listed per item are mathematically derived allocations -- not actual studied differences. What the WW studies really say is that a variety of best HR and communication practices are reported as more present in firms with growing market value (MV).

Taking one, or a few items out of the whole set would not likely produce the desired "rise" in MV.

Effective employee communications that results in employee awareness of and alignment with business strategy and values, and that supports employee engagement is measurable and should be an expected outcome of communications. Sure we all woudl like to link every aspect of what we do to the bottom line -- but for many functions there are too many other factors and variables in between to "prove" the ROI.

In fact I think linking to ROI is sometimes a Red Herring. Better to spend time in gaining buyin to your model of communications value -- linkages to desirable outcomes and how you will measure the results. (A is linked to B, which is a driver of C, which contributes to D.) As long as your management support the assumptions and agrees on the metrics that indicate success -- you can show value without linking directly to ROI.

Except for the smoking ban outside of work (I wonder if that's legal), I don't understand the objections.

Perhaps, if you said that certain costs were refunded to employees who took care of themselves, instead of there being punitive costs for the rest, it wouldn't seem so bad.

How is that different than companies offering health club discounts, or rewards for smoking cessation or weight loss programs? It's a small step, at best.

The smoking ban seems a little heavy-handed. If they're intent on following that sort of logic, they might as well set a cutoff for an acceptable Body Mass Index for employees. A smoking cessation incentive program may have been a better call for Scotts, or at the very least, a cutoff date later than October 2006. Such a drastic measure in such a short period of time is quite likely to alienate a large portion of their employee base and jeopardize the acceptance of the entire health initiative.

Otherwise, this seems to be a well-structured plan. There are meaningful incentives for employees to participate in the health assessment and fitness program. Not only is this mutually beneficial in financial terms, but it also aligns the values of the organization with the values of its employees. And as Christopher mentioned, they're supporting these values with a significant commitment of resources. I think that this is what separates Scotts' program from health club discounts or weight loss programs. Opening the fitness and medical facility at its headquarters also serves a symbolic purpose, as it is a constant reminder that their company has made employee health a priority.

As far as the local newspaper poll - I'm assuming you're referring to one on the Columbus Dispatch website. The question ("Should your employer be able to dictate what you do or don’t do away from work?") doesn't seem entirely objective, and of course, the results aren't too surprising. I guess this (along with news headlines such as "Company to Workers: Light Up and You're Fired" or "Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job") demonstrates that an innovative health plan isn't going to be newsworthy unless some aspect of it is going to get some people up in arms.

I'm still on the fence on this one... part of me thinks it's great that a huge company like Scott's is taking intiative to improve the health of its workers, but part of me still gets the creepy feeling that "big brother" is watching every employees' moves. Especially when most likely the true motivation for the company is to reduce their health care costs to improve their bottom line. Call me a socialist, but I think we'll really only achieve a true balance on this issue with government-backed, accessible and affordable health care for the masses. Until then, I think companies should find ways and make a committment to provide affordable health care for their employees- not necessarily by making them change their lifestyles.

For those who think this is too big-brotherish, I am curious to know whether you feel that way about companies who have policies against using illegal drugs. I mean, imagine Scotts came over to do your lawn, and they killed it. And broke your irrigation system. And you found out that the guy they sent out to do your lawn was an acid-head who occasionally had flashbacks at work and botched the job. I assume you would hold the company responsible, and not just the employee?

CEOs and company lawyers (who from a personal standpoint really might not care what the employees do on their spare time) know that from a financial standpoint, they have to. They don't say they have a zero-tolerance policy for moral reasons, or because they are power mad. It's all about money.

If smokers did not cost companies money, they wouldn't care about you smoking in your own home, either.

I think all they have to do is refuse to pay or to pay less for someone who smokes or won't lose weight. As for what we choose or don't choose that would be our business exspeically at home. You can not say that would be discrimination because basically they are already doing it.To make someone lose their job after years of smoking and or not taking care of them selves they were good enough this long. Greed takes top proity as usual. Even though you gave everything you have to them they are never satisfied.Exspeically when it comes to the almighty dollar.I thought this was a free country we just let it get one step closer to communist.

I would like to know what ever happen to freedom of choice. It is my choice to smoke, workout or not. I do not think my employer should be able to make that decision for me. If he does not want me to smoke at work that is one thing, but he has no right to tell me I cannot smoke in my own home. This has all come down to money, the big shots are not getting a big enough raise because the company has to put more out for medical insurance. What is going to stop employers from telling you you have to lose weight because the health insurance is to high to cover you, or you eat to much sugar, or red meat or ????? What about the employess who do not have the companies medical insurance???