Absence at standing workstations, and what the floor has to do with it

The scale, from HSE rather than from us

In 2024/25 HSE report 511,000 workers suffering from work-related musculoskeletal disorders, new and long-standing, and 7.1 million working days lost to them. That was 27% of all work-related ill health cases and 20% of all working days lost to work-related ill health, at an average of 14 days lost per case.

The back accounts for 43% of cases, upper limbs or neck 41%, and lower limbs 15%. Skilled trades occupations and process, plant and machine operatives are both above the all-jobs average rate.

Those are population figures from the Labour Force Survey, and they tell you the size of the category. They are the right numbers to open a business case with.

What those figures do not say, and why you should say it first

They do not attribute any of that to hard floors. The main work factors HSE cite for work-related musculoskeletal disorders are manual handling, working in awkward or tiring positions, and keyboard or repetitive work. Standing on an unyielding surface is not one of the named factors in that dataset.

If you put the 7.1 million figure in a paper and imply that matting addresses it, the first person who checks will find that gap, and your whole case goes with it.

The stronger move is to state the limitation yourself. The HSE figures establish that musculoskeletal ill health is a large and expensive category. The mechanism argument for matting is separate and narrower, and it is about discomfort and fatigue during a shift rather than about reportable disorders.

The mechanism argument, at the strength it will bear

Prolonged static standing on an unyielding surface produces discomfort and fatigue in the lower limbs and lower back. A compliant surface introduces slight instability, which produces continuous small postural adjustments, which keeps the calf muscle pump working and spreads load over time.

That is supported and it is worth having. Discomfort during a shift affects concentration, quality and how long somebody stays in a job, all of which are legitimate things to spend money on.

What is not supported by anything you can cite is a percentage reduction in absence. Those figures circulate widely in this trade and they trace back to suppliers rather than to research. We do not use them and we would advise you not to put one in a paper you have to defend.

Where the legal duty actually sits

Nothing in UK law requires anti-fatigue matting. What is required is a suitable and sufficient risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and control of the risks it identifies so far as is reasonably practicable under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

HSE guidance on lower limb disorders names prolonged standing among the tasks that make those disorders more common, and gives anti-fatigue matting as an example of protective provision. That makes matting a recognised control rather than an invention, which is the useful part for a paper.

The gap an inspector is more likely to find is not the absence of matting. It is a risk assessment at a standing position that does not mention standing.

How to build the case so it survives

1. Show the hierarchy was worked through. Can it be seated or sit-stand? Can it be rotated? Is the working height right? Matting sits below all three and a paper that starts with matting looks like a purchase looking for a justification.
2. Use your own absence data if you have it, not the national figure. A recorded number from your own standing positions is worth more than 7.1 million days across Great Britain.
3. State the cost as a threshold, not a promise. Our cost calculator does this deliberately: it tells you how many days a year the matting would have to prevent to pay for itself, and leaves the judgement with you.
4. Include what it will not fix. A paper that claims matting solves musculoskeletal absence will be challenged. One that says it addresses discomfort and fatigue at unavoidable static standing positions, and names the things it does not address, will not be.

Specifying it so it does not create a finding

• Bevelled edges on every open edge. Regulation 12 of the Workplace Regulations is about things on the floor that cause slips and trips, and a mat edge across a working area is exactly that.
• Heavy enough not to move under traffic.
• Matched to the floor. A solid mat on a wet or oily floor raises the film rather than removing it, which is a fair criticism and one you should expect to be asked about.
• Sized with an overhang, so nobody stands half on and half off it for a shift.

Questions people ask

Is anti-fatigue matting a legal requirement in the UK?

No. No regulation requires it by name. The duties that apply are to assess risk and control it so far as is reasonably practicable, and where a job involves prolonged standing HSE name anti-fatigue matting as an example of a control. Matting can be the answer your own assessment reaches. It is not a requirement in itself.

What absence reduction can we expect?

We will not give you a number, because there is not an honest one available. What we will do is tell you how many days a year the spend would have to prevent to break even, and let you judge whether that is plausible at your site.

Do we need it at every position?

Probably not. The case is strongest where somebody stands largely static for most of a shift and the standing cannot be removed or rotated. Matting a position somebody uses for twenty minutes an hour is money spent for very little.

Will you supply documentation for a risk assessment?

We will supply the specification of what you are buying. We will not supply a certificate saying matting discharges a duty, because no such thing exists and a document like that would not help you when it was questioned.