Workforce Nutrition Programmes (WNPs) can improve the health of workers, but with mixed results for a business case—which is crucial to their sustainability. This paper thus explores impact pathways and metrics used to assess the business benefits of WNPs, as well as the factors that influence the business case, with the aim of informing future interventions and research. Business outcomes of WNPs include reduced sickness absence, reduced voluntary staff turnover, and reduced corporate health costs, which contribute to cost savings. Increased productivity and reduced presenteeism contribute to increased sales and revenues. Furthermore, improved employee job satisfaction can be considered as an intermediary business benefit, while WNPs also having the potential to increase company reputation. While most of the literature is based on high-income countries, to implement WNPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), contextual and enabling factors need to be understood and reflected in strong programme design, which results in more beneficial business outcomes. Business characteristics, such as labour intensity, salary costs, and mechanised work, are also relevant in determining whether better nutrition and health in the workplace could result in financial benefits for companies. For example, labourintensive, relatively low-technology industries (e.g., textiles, agribusiness) might have lower cost savings but higher productivity gains. In case of breastfeeding support initiatives, national regulations and company policy on maternity leave also matter. Overall, there is increasing evidence that ‘doing good’ for workforce health and nutrition could be good for business, or at least does not harm a business. However, better insights on how to measure and validate the business case for WNPs in LMICs are needed.