Wellbeing has been rated as the most important priority by the global energy and resources (E&R) industry in the latest Deloitte Human Capital Trends report.
The sixth report in the series from Deloitte found that 85 per cent of the energy and resources industry leaders surveyed regard wellbeing as important or very important to their organisation.
However, the survey also revealed that the industry is falling behind when it comes to redefining work to keep pace with the rapidly expanding foothold of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and automation in the workplace.
Just 31 per cent indicated a readiness to tackle these challenges, according to Deloitte, despite 76 per cent recognising it as a priority.
Deloitte Australia energy, resources and industrials human capital lead partner, Julie Harrison, highlighted that many in the energy and resources sector were dealing with fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) work arrangements, true globalisation and exploration, expansion taking place in developing countries, and diversity and inclusion issues.
Therefore, Harrison said it was perhaps no surprise employers in the industry were investing in wellbeing programs to support employees and also deliver a greater productivity dividend.
“The rapid expansion of these programs is reflective of wellbeing, as both a social responsibility and a talent strategy, becoming increasingly important,” Harrison said.
“Yet in many areas gaps remain between what employees value most and what energy and resources organisations are delivering through comprehensive wellbeing programs – only half say they are ready to deliver effectively in this space. Safety of course remains the core cultural and wellbeing construct across energy and resources.”
Harrison added: “Interestingly, we see AI, Robotics and automation still rated relatively low by the industry, despite robotics in particular taking a significant foothold in the industry over the past 12 to 18 months.
“However, whilst many across the industry might be automating today’s processes, they won’t necessarily reap the real rewards available from redefining how work could be delivered in a fundamentally different way to drive greater productivity.”