ENSURING THAT
PSYCHOSOCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT MEETS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Psychosocial hazards are fluid, cumulative and numerous, each carrying a varied level of risk that may change over time. It can often take years before the true impact of psychosocial and cultural risks becomes apparent, and simply undertaking risk assessments and surveys does not prevent harm — nor does it meet the legal requirements of psychosocial risk management. RANJEETA SINGH, founder of EnableOrg and a health and safety auditor, takes a look at how organisations can more effectively manage psychosocial risks in the workplace. 12 SAFETY SOLUTIONS - FEBRUARY 2024
T
he legal requirement to manage psychosocial hazards is not new — in fact, it has been present in health and safety legislation across countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand for decades. All countries draw their health and safety legislation and high-level requirements from the same source — the International Labour Organization, a part of the World Health Organization. These health and safety regulations have always incorporated both physical and mental health. However, mental health is arguably more difficult to manage and has often been ignored or overlooked as a consequence. This all changed when COVID struck, and the ailing mental health of many workers was brought to the forefront globally. Despite this, a great deal of misinformation still surrounds the concept of psychosocial risk management. Most workplaces genuinely want to get it right, but with many profes-
sionals being misinformed themselves, it can be difficult to achieve clarity and the successful implementation of robust risk management processes.
The importance of qualifications
In most countries, the requirements for managing psychological hazards are pretty similar. Any differences usually come down to technical things, such as the size of the personal and company fines or prison sentences employers in each country may face, or which hierarchy of control is preferred. Terms used in legislation, such as ‘competent’, ‘expertise’ and ‘qualified’ are the same across the board. However, the true test of the legal requirement to be competent/expert in the field is to be in possession of tertiary qualifications. A person cannot possibly judge ‘reasonably foreseeable’ and ‘reasonably practicable’ if they are not qualified to understand organi-
www.safetysolutions.net.au