Many organisations believe they are managing psychosocial risk effectively because they conduct engagement surveys, offer EAP services, or run wellbeing programs. While valuable, these activities do not satisfy regulatory obligations. This article addresses common misconceptions.
Misconception 1: Engagement surveys satisfy regulatory requirements
The belief: Running annual engagement surveys demonstrates we are managing psychosocial risks.
The reality: Engagement surveys measure employee sentiment, not organisational capability to manage psychosocial hazards. Regulators expect systematic hazard identification, risk assessment, and control implementation, not just measurement of how workers feel.
Engagement surveys can be useful inputs to risk identification, but they do not substitute for a structured approach to hazard assessment and control.
Misconception 2: EAP is sufficient
The belief: Our Employee Assistance Program addresses psychosocial risk.
The reality: EAP is a reactive, individual-level intervention. It helps workers who are already experiencing difficulties. Regulatory frameworks require elimination or control of hazards at source, which is a proactive, systemic approach.
EAP is an important support service, but it should be seen as a tertiary response, not a primary control measure.
Misconception 3: Wellbeing programs address regulatory obligations
The belief: Our investment in wellbeing programs demonstrates our commitment to psychosocial safety.
The reality: Wellbeing programs such as mindfulness training, fitness subsidies, and resilience workshops focus on individual coping capacity. They do not address workplace hazards and may even shift responsibility to workers.
Regulators expect organisations to identify and control hazards in the work environment, not to make workers more resilient to harmful conditions.
The hierarchy of controls
WHS frameworks require controls that address hazards at source: elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and administrative controls, before relying on individual-level measures.
Misconception 4: Low workers compensation claims mean low risk
The belief: We have few psychological injury claims, so our psychosocial risks must be low.
The reality: Claims data is a lagging indicator that reflects past harm. Low claim numbers may indicate barriers to reporting, workers leaving before claiming, or simply that harm has not yet occurred at scale.
Effective risk management uses leading indicators and proactive assessment, not just claims data.
Misconception 5: This is an HR responsibility
The belief: Psychosocial safety sits with HR and doesn't require board attention.
The reality: Psychosocial risk is a WHS matter with director and officer liability implications. It requires the same governance attention as other material safety risks. HR has a role, but accountability ultimately sits with the PCBU and officers.
What regulators actually require
Clear regulatory expectations exist for psychosocial risk management:
- Systematic hazard identification: Proactive processes to identify psychosocial hazards across all work
- Risk assessment: Documented assessment considering likelihood and consequence
- Control implementation: Appropriate controls following the hierarchy
- Consultation: Genuine engagement with workers about hazards and controls
- Review and improvement: Regular evaluation and continuous improvement
Conclusion
Understanding what regulators actually require is essential for effective psychosocial risk management. Organisations that move beyond common misconceptions to implement systematic, evidence-based approaches will be better positioned to meet their obligations and protect their workforce.