A growing body of both research and business case data (e.g. Deloitte, 2024) shows the most effective way to support workplace wellbeing is preventative – addressing the root causes of stress and mental ill health rather than treating the symptoms.
Why prevention matters
Yet practice lags behind evidence. Studies such as Fleming et al. (2023) demonstrate most organisational interventions focus on individual-level solutions, such as employee training or Employee Assistance Programmes, rather than tackling organisational drivers of stress.
The first step to a preventative strategy: Identifying causes of stress
Psychosocial hazards (factors in the design and management of work that can cause harm such as high workload, lack of autonomy and experiencing harmful behaviour) are increasingly recognised as a ‘key concern to working life’ worldwide (Schulte et al., 2020). Global legislation and standards such as ISO 45003 highlight the importance of a preventative approach. Australia is leading in this area, combining legislation with enforcement, with early evidence (Potter et al., 2025) demonstrating support in terms of both individual and organisational outcomes.
The UK has long-standing legislation on psychosocial risk (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999), yet implementation within organisations lags. A Personnel Today article (May, 2025) found that 41% of UK employers were unaware of their legal duty to conduct stress risk assessments; and 54% had either never conducted one or had not in the last three years.
Conducting a stress risk assessment has been demonstrated to enable organisations to:
- Deliver a proven ROI (Deloitte, 2024, estimates £6.30 for every £1 spent compared to £4.70 overall average for wellbeing interventions)
- Detect and address early signs of stress
- Reduce burnout, sickness absence and turnover
- Improve productivity, retention and morale
- Give employees a voice in shaping a healthier work environment
- Meet legal obligations
Five tips for a successful preventative wellbeing strategy
Prevention is not only more effective for employee wellbeing, it also makes strategic sense. Identifying and addressing organisational causes of stress delivers measurable financial, legal and cultural returns.
But not all preventative wellbeing strategies are created equal. Based on over 20 years experience and research, I recommend:
1. Diagnose before you invest in any wellbeing interventions
Too often, organisations overspend on reactive wellbeing initiatives while underinvesting in prevention. A thorough diagnosis before committing budget — starting with wide (not necessarily covering the whole organisation) consultation to understand employees’ stressors and needs is key. Validated tools such as the HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool or assessments such as those from Affinity Health at Work (aligned with national and international guidance and including hazards representative of new ways of working) can identify psychosocial hazards and will also support you through the process of organisational readiness and action planning.
With a proliferation of standards and frameworks in the market – each differing in evidence-base, scope, definitions of wellbeing and focus – a meta-framework such as the Affinity Health at Work Maturity Framework is a great holistic strategy for diagnosis. The assessment includes best practice and evidence from over 45 global frameworks, providing not just a stress risk assessment but key information on overall wellbeing maturity (including openness to mental health, the quantity and quality of interventions; how wellbeing data is collected and wellbeing governance). Nearly 50 organisations have found that using this framework can help clarify priorities and align efforts with both evidence and organisational strategy. (https://www.affinityhealthatwork.com/maturity-framework)
2. Mitigate risks—don’t just build resources
Research by Jain et al. (2022) shows that most action plans following psychosocial risk assessments focus on increasing resources (such as peer support or training) rather than reducing demands. This approach will not deliver a change in employee outcomes (e.g. stress or absenteeism) if the underlying stressors remain. If for an example the stressor is workload, an intervention to understand how to reduce job demands in context (for instance job crafting, reprioritising, addressing information flow). Relatedly, Affinity’s recent research on how organisations can address job demands (workload, work pace) provides practical insights for sustainable change. Read more in our next blog or the full research report: https://www.affinityhealthatwork.com/our-library/3655
3. Don’t focus on quick fixes
It is true that resources and interventions designed to support employees may feel easier to implement. It takes time to shift from individually-focused interventions to systemic change, and time to embed a process of regular assessment of risks, leadership accountability, and continuous improvement into the organisational fabric. But the results will be worth it. Organisations that get this right will see benefits that go far beyond reduced sickness absence.
4. Integrate wellbeing with broader organisational strategy and narrative
To ensure success, psychosocial risk management benefits from being treated as part of core business performance, rather than a stand-alone wellbeing initiative or compliance exercise. Think clear KPIs, embedding responsibilities into manager performance expectations, and cascading responsibility for mitigating risk throughout the organisation in policies and processes. The more your wellbeing strategy and interventions are aligned with organisational values, DEI goals, ESG reporting, and broader strategy, the more they will be sustained, respected, and funded. Wellbeing is often ‘held’ in various places in larger organisations (such as HR, Health and Safety and Occupational Health) but taking a multi-disciplinary approach will increase the chance of success and change. Finally, consider how the language used will land within your culture – most organisations avoid the term ‘psychosocial risks’ in wider communications, instead framing the work in ways that resonate with employees and stakeholders alike.
5. Monitor, review and adapt
Workplaces evolve as do external environments. Rather than seeing risk assessments and action plans as a one off initiative, put in place regular reviewing and monitoring. Collecting data on the actions and measures put in place enable the capture of data on effectiveness, ROI and impact. Finally, using a methodology or tool which enables the participation of harder-to-access voices and workers is key.
About the author:
Dr Rachel Lewis is a reader at Birkbeck, University of London and a managing partner at Affinity Health at Work, a consultancy and research organisation specialising in evidence-based wellbeing at work. Founded in 2006, Affinity’s mission is to improve the working lives of all.
Rachel is a multi-award winning occupational psychologist with over 20 years experience working and researching in wellbeing at work. Widely published in the field of health and wellbeing at work and having contributed to national guidance, and evidence-based tools and interventions, her particular passion is around wellbeing strategy development and risk management approaches.
References
Deloitte, (2024). Mental health and employers. Deloitte.com. https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/consulting/research/mental-health-and-employers-the-case-for-employers-to-invest-in-supporting-working-parents-and-a-mentally-health-workplace.html
Fleming, W. J. (2023). Employee well‐being outcomes from individual‐level mental health interventions: Cross‐sectional evidence from the United Kingdom. Industrial Relations Journal,1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12418
Jain, A., Torres, L., Teoh, K., & Leka, S. (2022). The impact of national legislation on psychosocial risks on organisational action plans, psychosocial working conditions, and employee work-related stress in Europe, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 302 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114987
Personnel Today (2025). Employers worrying ignorant about stress risk assessments. https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/employers-worryingly-ignorant-about-stress-risk-assessments/
Potter, R. E., Loh, M., Y., Dollard, M. F., Friebel, A., Neser, D., Afsharian, A., Parker, S. K., & Iles, R. (2025). Australia’s national laws for worker psychological health: a policy evaluation and psychosocial safety climate analysis. Safety Science, 191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106899
Schulte, P.A., Streit, J.M.K., Sheriff, F., Delclos, G., Felknor, S.A., Tamers, S.L., Fendinger, S., Grosch, J., & Sala, R. (2020). Potential scenarios and hazards in the work of the future: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literatures. Annals of Work Exposures and Health,64(8), 789-816. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaa051
You might also like:
