Culture+

Resource · Australia

Psychosocial risk assessment: how to actually do one.

A psychosocial risk assessment identifies the hazards in how work is designed and managed, assesses the risk of psychological harm they create, applies controls, and tests whether those controls work. Model WHS Regulation 55 requires Australian employers to eliminate psychosocial risk so far as is reasonably practicable and otherwise minimise it. This page sets out the four-step method, the hierarchy of controls applied to psychosocial hazards, the consultation duty, and the mistakes that make an assessment indefensible.

The four steps.

  1. Step 1

    Identify the hazards present in the work

    Identification must be evidence-based and consultative. Consultation with workers and health and safety representatives is a legal requirement under the WHS Act, not a methodology preference.

    • Consult workers, HSRs and supervisors — including shift, remote, frontline and labour-hire workers
    • Triangulate incident reports, hazard reports, grievances, EAP utilisation trends, absence, turnover and exit data
    • Review workload, rostering, change activity and customer-facing exposure
    • Use validated survey instruments where available, but never rely on a survey alone
  2. Step 2

    Assess the risk each hazard creates

    Assessment weighs how likely harm is and how serious it could be, taking account of how hazards combine. Hazards rarely act alone: high demands plus low control plus poor support is a materially different risk profile to any one of them.

    • Duration, frequency and severity of exposure
    • How hazards interact and compound across a role or team
    • Which cohorts carry higher exposure or lower recourse
    • Existing controls and whether workers say they actually work
  3. Step 3

    Control the risk

    Eliminate the risk so far as is reasonably practicable. Where elimination is not possible, minimise it by working down the hierarchy of controls — starting at work design, not individual resilience.

    • Eliminate or substitute: redesign the work, remove the exposure, resource the role properly
    • Engineering and isolation: physical safety measures, technology, rostered rotation out of traumatic content
    • Administrative: policy, escalation pathways, supervision protocols, leader capability development
    • Support: EAP and wellbeing services — a last line, never the primary control
  4. Step 4

    Review and maintain controls

    Controls must be reviewed and, if necessary, revised so they remain effective. Review is triggered by events, not only by the calendar.

    • After an incident, complaint, notifiable event or psychological injury claim
    • Before and after restructures, new systems, or changes to work
    • When a worker or HSR reports a control is not working
    • At a defined interval, with results reported to officers as due diligence evidence

Six mistakes that make an assessment indefensible.

Treating a survey as the risk assessment

An engagement or wellbeing survey measures perception, not hazard exposure. Regulators look for hazard identification, risk analysis and control decisions — not an eNPS score.

Skipping consultation

Consultation is a standalone legal duty. An assessment produced by HR or a consultant without worker involvement is procedurally defective regardless of how good the analysis is.

Jumping straight to training and EAP

These are administrative and support controls, low in the hierarchy. Relying on them without addressing work design will not show that risk was minimised so far as is reasonably practicable.

Assessing hazards one at a time

Psychological injury usually arises from the interaction of several hazards. Single-hazard assessment systematically understates the risk.

No documented control decisions

If it is not recorded — what was found, what was decided, what was rejected and why — it cannot be produced to a regulator or relied on by an officer.

No review trigger

An assessment that is never revisited after a restructure or an incident is a snapshot, not a risk management system.

What a regulator asks to see.

Following an incident or complaint, the request is rarely for a survey result. It is for the decision trail: which hazards were identified, on what evidence, who was consulted, what controls were chosen, what was rejected and why, who signed off, and when it was last reviewed. Officers rely on the same trail to discharge the personal due diligence duty under section 27 of the WHS Act.

Where identification depends on disclosure — bullying, harassment, conflict, or fear of reprisal — internal collection tends to under-report. Independent trauma-informed focus groups and workplace culture reviews produce evidence that survives scrutiny. Where the hazard is sexual harassment, identification also feeds the separate Positive Duty obligation. And because manager behaviour is itself both hazard and control, psychosocial safety training for leaders is usually the highest-leverage control an assessment produces.

Trusted partners

Risk assessment clients.

"
This morning we got sign-off from the Secretary to publish the report that we built out of your amazing focus group work. It's ended up as a really strong and impactful piece of work which I am immensely proud of, and will put us in a very strong position to drive change.
Manager, Equity & Inclusion
NSW Government · identity withheld
1 / 3

Psychosocial risk assessment: common questions.