Evidence-informed perspectives on psychosocial risk governance, mental injury system impacts, and regulatory compliance. Insights may draw on aggregated, de-identified patterns where appropriate, with strict confidentiality protections and no absolute claims or legal advice.

Insights

Evidence-informed perspectives on psychosocial risk, governance, and mental injury — grounded in data, regulation, and real-world operating contexts.

Browse insights

Browse insights

Regulatory & Compliance

What are psychosocial hazards?

A definition for decision-makers: what the term actually means under Victorian regulations and why it matters for compliance.
Workplace Practice

Where does the psychosocial survey fit?

How psychosocial hazard surveys integrate with multi-source data to create defensible, standardised maturity measurement.
Research & Evidence

Mental injury system pressures

Examining claims patterns, regulatory scrutiny, and the shift from reactive to predictive approaches in managing psychosocial risk exposure.
Regulatory & Compliance

Board due diligence and psychosocial risk

What boards need to know about systematic risk identification, oversight structures, and evidence of proportionate response.
Research & Evidence

Why maturity measurement matters

Understanding the distinction between engagement, sentiment, and organisational capability to manage psychosocial safety systematically.
Regulatory & Compliance

Regulatory expectations and assurance

How psychosocial safety obligations are being interpreted and enforced across jurisdictions, with implications for board-level oversight.
Workplace Practice

Portfolio visibility and prioritisation

Managing psychosocial risk across diverse operating contexts, multi-entity structures, and complex organisational portfolios.
Workplace Practice

Common misconceptions about psychosocial safety

Addressing misunderstandings about surveys, wellbeing programs, engagement, and what regulators actually require for due diligence.
Research & Evidence

Australia's $1 Billion+ Reality Check Arrives Five Years Early

Mental injury claims crossed the $1 billion threshold five years ahead of projections. Analysis of Safe Work Australia's latest data reveals an accelerating crisis.
Workplace Practice

The Mental Injury Return to Work Crisis

Workers with mental injuries return at just 76.5% vs 90.2% for physical injuries. Why employers are struggling and what actually works.
Research & Evidence

Victorian Psychosocial Compliance: What 23 Organisations Told Us

76% of organisations are still 'developing' - the missing ingredient is executive ownership with decision-making authority.
Workplace Practice

Understanding the Difference Between Psychosocial Hazards and Risks

One is the workplace condition causing harm, the other is your assessment of that harm. Why the distinction actually matters.
Regulatory & Compliance

Managing Psychosocial Hazards Across State Lines

What national businesses need to know about Victorian regulations vs SafeWork codes, and how to build one unified compliance system.
Regulatory & Compliance

What Does Compliance Actually Look Like? 4 Real Examples

Real-world psychosocial compliance examples for accounting, construction, healthcare & education. See what Victorian OHS regulations require in practice.

Additional insights will be published over time.

Dr Angie Montgomery

Behind the insights

Dr Angie Montgomery

Managing Director & Co-founder, InCheq

Architecting the intersection of psychosocial risk managememt, OHS/WHS, big data linkage, systems and ROI. Health psychologist and data scientist with a passion for coding and statistics. Happy that it drives positive social impact. Available for keynotes, panels, and expert commentary.

What we focus on

  • Governance and compliance
  • Psychosocial risk maturity
  • Mental injury system impacts
  • Regulatory change and assurance
  • Portfolio-level visibility

Types of insights

  • Articles — In-depth governance examinations
  • Briefing notes — Executive-ready summaries
  • Research summaries — Evidence reviews
  • Regulatory updates — Non-legal commentary

Frequently asked questions

Are these insights opinion or evidence-informed research?

Insights are evidence-informed and grounded in data, regulatory frameworks, and real-world operating patterns. Where we draw on aggregated patterns from Safe Minds Index™ assessments or system observations, this is noted and de-identified appropriately. We distinguish clearly between established evidence, emerging patterns, and areas where evidence is limited or uncertain.

Do you publish client data?

No. We do not publish client-identifiable data or information that could compromise organisational confidentiality. Where insights reference patterns or observations, these are aggregated and de-identified. Any data presented is either publicly available, drawn from published research, or represents system-level aggregations that cannot be traced to individual organisations.

Can these insights be cited in governance reporting?

Insights may be referenced in governance materials where appropriate, subject to your organisation's internal approval processes. Content is provided for information and context, not as legal advice or compliance instruction. We recommend that organisations review any citations with their legal and compliance advisors to ensure appropriate use and attribution.

How does this relate to the Safe Minds Index™?

Many insights draw on themes, patterns, and governance considerations that inform the Safe Minds Index™ framework or emerge from its application. However, insights are designed to be accessible to all readers, including those not currently using the Index. The insights contribute to broader understanding of psychosocial risk governance while maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the assessment framework.

How do you handle data and evidence in these insights?

All insights draw from aggregated, de-identified data. We never disclose client-identifiable information. Our content is evidence-informed commentary, not legal advice, and we avoid absolute claims where evidence is evolving. These boundaries ensure insights remain credible, defensible, and respectful of organisational privacy.

Explore the Safe Minds framework

If you are assessing governance obligations or seeking a defensible approach to psychosocial risk visibility and maturity improvement, we welcome a conversation.

Request a briefing Explore the Safe Minds Index™