81% want happiness over wealth, so why do Treasuries and CFOs still stall wellbeing programmes?
21 to 23 October 2025 · Third National Forum on Australia's Wellbeing · Ann Harding Conference Centre, University of Canberra · Approximately 12 minutes
At the Third National Forum on Australia’s Wellbeing, Coppin asks why wellbeing adoption stalls when most citizens say they want happiness prioritised over wealth. He names three barriers: programmes sound fluffy to CFOs and Treasuries, more than 234 validated measures create accountability paralysis, and much of the research literature still targets individuals rather than population-level fiscal proof ministers need. Lord Richard Layard’s email frames the enemy as multidimensional wellbeing dashboards without a single cost-benefit spine. Coppin borrows climate levers that worked at scale: pair fear with actionable tools, mobilise social norms, and lead with fiscal drivers. Case studies include unemployment services reframed for government ROI, Comprehensive Soldier Fitness training-cost savings, and a state education workcover programme lifting three-month return-to-work rates. Renaming “wellbeing” workshops “resilience” lifted attendance in his example. The close is momentum: push past a tipping point where wellbeing adoption becomes irresistible because the language finally matches Treasury spreadsheets.
Jump to the moment in the talk.
“81% of citizens say they want their leaders, corporate or government, to focus on increasing happiness over increasing wealth.”
Dr Darren Coppin · 1:00
“Psychologists need to understand that cost-benefit analysis is the way to get policymakers to take them seriously. The real enemy is the multi-dimensional wellbeing approach.”
Lord Richard Layard, email to Coppin
“We only have to push to a tipping point where the momentum is irresistible of wellbeing being adopted.”
Dr Darren Coppin · 11:00
Coppin argues decision-makers hear soft branding, face hundreds of competing validated measures, and see academic evidence centred on individuals. Without a crisp cost-benefit story at population scale, Treasuries and CFOs defer spend even when public opinion favours happiness over GDP growth alone.
He cites more than 234 validated measures in the literature, which sounds rich scientifically but paralyses programme owners who must defend one accountable metric to finance committees. Layard’s critique, echoed in the talk, is that multidimensional dashboards block adoption until economists see a single cost-benefit spine ministers can defend.
Climate campaigns combined alarming facts with practical tools, social norm pressure, and fiscal instruments such as carbon pricing. Coppin proposes the same pattern for wellbeing: awareness plus actionable programmes, peer and sector competition, and tax or funding levers tied to community outcomes.
Examples include roughly fourteen-fold government return on unemployment interventions once reframed fiscally, Comprehensive Soldier Fitness savings on basic training attrition, and a state education workcover programme improving three-month return-to-work from about 20% to 32%. Coppin uses these as templates for CFO-ready wellbeing business cases rather than academic effect sizes alone.
In Coppin’s unemployment workshops, switching branding from “wellbeing” to “resilience” raised attendance from about 50% to 75% among young men who rejected wellbeing language as weak. He treats wording as a behavioural barrier, not vanity, when scaling adoption with sceptical cohorts.
External references for statistics and claims cited in the talk.
Structured chapters cleaned from the YouTube recording for readability.
Coppin opened with a self-deprecating note about the conference's three concurrent sessions and his pleasure that the audience (and a dog named Rocky) had chosen his session. He framed the talk as a response to NSW Treasury's Xuan Deng, who had earlier in the programme identified a lack of evidence for wellbeing programmes as a barrier to government adoption.
Coppin opened with the core puzzle: 81% of citizens say they want their leaders, corporate or government, to focus on increasing happiness over increasing wealth. Why, then, is it still such a slog to get wellbeing programmes adopted, scaled, and funded?
A Google image search for "wellbeing" returns primary colours, flowers, and cupped hands. A search for "government policy" returns suited figures in serious meetings. The visual and linguistic worlds of wellbeing and policymaking diverge sharply, and the perception problem is worse with men.
Personal example: Coppin's first unemployment programme, named "wellbeing workshops" approximately ten years ago, attracted only 50% attendance among the first 100 enrollees. Renamed "resilience workshops", attendance rose to 75%. Same content, different framing.
Coppin engaged the audience playfully on the subjectivity of wellbeing (asking what foods made them happy, then noting his personal aversions to burgers, fairgrounds, and family gatherings). The substantive point: wellbeing is genuinely subjective, and the field's response (over 234 different validated measures) creates paralysis for programme designers needing to choose one to be held accountable to.
Coppin shared an email from Lord Richard Layard received a few weeks before the talk: "Psychologists need to understand that cost-benefit analysis is the way to get policymakers to take them seriously. The real enemy is the multi-dimensional wellbeing approach." Coppin acknowledged he had reluctantly adopted exactly this approach, using the dollar as his single measure ("I'm ashamed of it, I'm embarrassed, I feel dirty").
Citing research by Michael Steger, Coppin reported that 96% of the top 50 most-cited papers in the Journal of Positive Psychology focus only on individual-level outcomes. The lack of population-level, longitudinal, financial-impact evidence creates a fundamental gap between what the field produces and what Treasuries and CFOs need to approve programme-scale investment.
Coppin proposed that wellbeing should borrow from the most successful behavioural-change campaign of recent decades: climate action. Three levers drove its adoption.
Fear. The greatest driver of human action, but only when people feel they have tools to address what threatens them. Without tools, fear produces freeze responses rather than action.
Social norms. Particularly fear of missing out and the desire to be seen as competent and modern. Ministers ask: "What are other countries doing? Will I look good or be embarrassed by my position on this?"
Fiscal drivers. Dollar benefits, quick wins, measurable targets. Coppin acknowledged this is the lever that "makes me feel dirty" but is also the most effective.
Coppin recapped the unemployment programme: 100-person pilot rebranded from "wellbeing" to "resilience" workshops, then for the funding department called "behavioural science resilience activities". Reported back to the Department of Employment not in wellbeing terms but as a 48% higher return-to-work rate versus business-as-usual and a 14-fold ROI. Now scaled to over 250,000 people across six countries.
The US Army has invested approximately US$180 million annually for over a decade in Comprehensive Soldier Fitness, with 1.8 million soldiers trained. Despite mixed academic evidence on its effectiveness, the Department of Defense continues funding because the programme identifies recruits whose wellbeing and resilience are not initially strong enough for basic training, saving approximately US$570 million annually in basic training and replacement costs. The programme has been extended to soldiers' families and to the US Air Force.
A state Department of Education with 106,000 staff was facing a workcover crisis: almost as many staff were on injury or illness claims as actively teaching in classrooms. Coppin's team conducted 500 staff interviews on the eroders and builders of wellbeing, supplemented with full workforce data, identifying four key drivers of why staff stay at work and return quickly after injury. Stage-matched, individualised wellbeing interventions were applied to long-tail claimants. Three-month return-to-work rates lifted from 20% (control) to 32% (intervention), a 60% relative improvement, across tens of thousands of individuals.
Coppin acknowledged the discomfort of using fiscal language for wellbeing work but argued that "wellbeing washing" (corporate or governmental adoption motivated by fiscal or reputational reasons rather than by belief in wellbeing principles) is itself a step forward. The real strategic insight is that wellbeing advocates do not need to win every battle, only to push the movement past the tipping point where momentum becomes self-sustaining. He argued the field is closer to that tipping point than it feels.