Poor psychological health costs the global economy an estimated US$1 trillion each year in lost productivity1. A major driver of this loss lies in unmanaged psychosocial risks, which are now among the biggest challenges to employee wellbeing2.
As these risks move into the global spotlight, governments are introducing new psychosocial risk management laws, signalling that this is a core part of workplace safety. Despite this, how countries define, regulate, and enforce psychosocial risk management varies widely, and these differences shape how employers act3.
Based on a global mapping exercise by Affinity Health at Work, this article explores how psychosocial risk legislation compares across regions, and how wellbeing leads can translate global lessons into practical action.
What are psychosocial risks, and why do they matter?
Most of us have felt the strain of an unmanageable workload, unclear role expectations, or a tense team dynamic. These are examples of psychosocial risks: factors around how work is designed, organised, and managed, which can either support or undermine people’s physical and psychological health4.
Psychosocial risks are now among the leading causes of work-related ill health and absenteeism2. Yet, EU-OSHA’s survey5 shows little improvement in how workplaces manage psychosocial risks since 2019. National legislation can play a major role, as organisations in countries with explicit psychosocial risk laws are more likely to assess and manage these risks6. Often, even where regulation exists, implementation and enforcement often fall short, leaving a gap between policy and practice.
An overview of the global psychosocial risk landscape based on Affinity’s framework
Affinity’s global mapping exercise sought to understand psychosocial risk management regulations across 36 countries including the Americas, Europe, Asia, UAE, Africa, and Australia. From this, we developed a four-tier framework to categorise countries by the maturity and comprehensiveness of their psychosocial risk legislation:
Tier 1 – The most mature systems
Very few countries, notably Japan and the Netherlands, have comprehensive laws that require both assessment and periodic reporting of psychosocial risks to regulators. For instance, Japan’s Stress Check Programme mandates annual evaluation of job stress, work demands, and workplace support, while Dutch employers must conduct a risk inventory and evaluation covering work demands, job control, equity and justice, and support provision. These systems represent the highest level of psychosocial risk governance, ensuring accountability, transparency, and structured preventive action.
Tier 2 – Mandatory assessment but limited reporting
This tier includes most developed countries such as the UK, Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, and other EU nations, alongside some emerging economies like Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea. Here, employers are legally required to assess and manage psychosocial risks, but reporting to regulators is not mandatory. Enforcement of these laws is often reactive, triggered by incidents rather than proactive oversight. Australia is a special case: while it lacks mandatory national reporting, it does have strong risk-management obligations and guidance under its framework, and clear evidence of enforcement, positioning it ahead of many peers despite the reporting gap. Guidance frameworks (such as the UK’s HSE Stress Management Standards) also support organisations, though implementation varies by organisational culture and maturity.
Tier 3 – Policy intention stage
Countries including South Africa, the USA, Singapore, and the Czech Republic reference psychosocial or mental health factors in their Occupational health and safety legislation, but formal assessment is not mandated. Employers are encouraged, rather than required, to take preventative action. Research2 describes this as the policy intention stage, signalling awareness and recognition of psychosocial wellbeing without operational teeth to ensure compliance or consistent application.
Tier 4 – Focus on physical risks
Many developing countries such as India, China, and Indonesia, alongside some developed ones like the UAE, Poland, and Romania are at the lowest level of maturity. These countries primarily legislate for physical risks, with only generic references to mental health or wellbeing. The term ‘psychosocial hazards’ is rarely used.
What this means for employers and wellbeing leads
Our global mapping reveals that while awareness of psychosocial risk is growing worldwide, maturity and enforcement vary considerably. Legislation is most advanced in developed economies which generally integrate psychosocial hazards into occupational safety frameworks, while many developing countries rely on fragmented labour laws.
Evidence shows that embedding psychosocial risks in law makes organisations far more likely to assess and prevent them6. However, enforcement and reporting requirements remain inconsistent across most jurisdictions7, 8, limiting the translation of legal recognition into sustained organisational practice. Moreover, existing legislation tends to prioritise visible risks like bullying, harassment, discrimination, and workload, leaving less tangible but equally important factors such as organisational justice, leadership climate, and culture under-addressed.
For employers and wellbeing leads, key priorities include:
- Know your local obligations: Map regulatory requirements across regions where you operate. Even within the EU or Australia, obligations differ.
- Train and empower managers: Equip managers to identify risks early, promote open dialogue on workload, fairness, and support, and integrate these discussions into daily work design.
- Use international standards as a baseline: Frameworks such as ISO 45003 and WHO/ILO guidance offer a consistent approach that can be adapted to local contexts, particularly useful for multinational organisations.
- Adopt a proactive prevention-first approach: Don’t wait for regulation to drive change. Even in less regulated environments, proactive management of psychosocial risks can enhance retention, productivity, and organisational reputation.
- Build a standard global approach: Developing a unified yet adaptable psychosocial risk management strategy is achievable. At Affinity, we’ve helped global organisations establish consistent frameworks that respect local requirements while driving meaningful improvements in wellbeing and performance.
Conclusion
Psychosocial risk management is not just about identifying risk, it’s about using that information to control and eliminate risks, improving the working lives of all; something we strive to do at Affinity. As awareness grows globally, the opportunity is clear: Moving beyond compliance to a prevention-first risk management approach helps reduce stress and burnout, boost engagement, and strengthen overall wellbeing, making employee wellbeing both a strategic priority and a marker of sustainable success.
References:
- World Health Organisation. WHO guidelines on mental health at work. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/6152a556-6893-4c4e-9ed8-094478bb25eb/content. World Health Organisation; 2022.
- Schulte PA, Sauter SL, Pandalai SP, Tiesman HM, Chosewood LC, Cunningham TR, et al. An urgent call to address work‐related psychosocial hazards and improve worker well‐being. American journal of industrial medicine. 2024 Apr 10;67(6).
- Dollard MF, Potter R. Managing Psychosocial Risks at Work Through National Policy and Regulation. Occupational Health Science. 2025 Aug 26.
- Di Tecco C, Persechino B, Iavicoli S. Psychosocial Risks in the Changing World of Work: Moving from the Risk Assessment Culture to the Management of Opportunities. La Medicina del Lavoro [Internet]. 2023;114(2):e2023013. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10133769/
- Howard A, Antczak R, Albertsen K. Third European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER 2019) [Internet]. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; 2019. Available from: https://osha.europa.eu/sites/default/files/esener-2019-overview-report.pdf
- Jain A, Torres LD, Teoh K, Leka S. 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. 2022 Jun;302:114987.
- Potter RE. Australian Work Health and Safety Policy for Psychosocial Hazards and Risks: Evaluation of the Context, Content, and Implementation [Internet]. [University of South Australia]; 2019. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachael-Potter/publication/332669251_Australian_Work_Health_and_Safety_Policy_for_Psychosocial_Hazards_and_Risks_Evaluation_of_the_Context_Content_and_Implementation/links/5cc26cff299bf120977f8bc9/Australian-Work-Health-and-Safety-Policy-for-Psychosocial-Hazards-and-Risks-Evaluation-of-the-Context-Content-and-Implementation.pdf
- Steel E, Malinen SK, Näswall K. Improving work-related psychosocial risk management: A mixed methods evaluation of the factors influencing inspectors’ practice. Safety Science. 2025 Jan;181:106659.
About the authors
Dr Rachel Lewis is a registered Occupational Psychologist, and reader at Birkbeck, University of London. As Managing Partner of Affinity Health at Work, she bridges research and practice to improve wellbeing.
Affinity Health at Work is a multi-award-winning consultancy dedicated to evidence-based workplace wellbeing. Its practitioners combine cutting-edge academic research with practical strategies to support organisational health and build healthier, inclusive, and sustainable working cultures.
Divija Bansal is a Research Consultant at Affinity with a background in Occupational Psychology. Her work focuses on understanding how people experience work, from wellbeing and engagement to organisational culture, and translating those insights into practical solutions. Drawing on her experience across the NHS, academia, and consulting, she’s passionate about creating workplaces where people can genuinely thrive.
You might also like:
