Why It Is Needed

Mental Health Within Workplace Safety

Workplace hazards are not limited to physical injuries. Working conditions can also contribute to psychological harm. Examples include:

• Excessive workloads.
• Unreasonable time pressures.
• Lack of control over work.
• Bullying or harassment.
• Workplace violence or threats.
• Exposure to traumatic incidents.
• Job insecurity.
• Inadequate organisational support.
• Prolonged or unpredictable working hours.
• Poorly managed organisational change.

These risks are commonly described as psychosocial hazards. The International Labour Organization identifies psychosocial risk assessment as part of workplace risk management. The World Health Organization similarly recommends organisational measures to prevent work-related mental-health risks and support people experiencing mental-health conditions.

Work can provide stability, income, purpose and social connection. However, inappropriate working conditions can also contribute to poor mental health. Protecting psychological health therefore requires attention to both the working environment and the support available when difficulties arise.

The Scale of the Problem

Workplace mental health has substantial human and economic consequences. The World Health Organization estimates the annual global impact of depression and anxiety on work:¹

• 12 billionworking days lost worldwide each year to depression and anxiety
• US$1 trillionestimated annual cost in lost productivity

These figures concern the wider effects of depression and anxiety on working populations. They should not be interpreted as losses caused exclusively by workplace conditions. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the scale of the challenge.

For individuals, psychological difficulties may affect:

• Concentration.
• Decision-making.
• Confidence.
• Relationships.
• Ability to work.
• Attendance.
• Recovery following illness or injury.
• Participation in ordinary activities.

For organisations, consequences may include:

• Increased absence.
• Reduced productivity.
• Staff turnover.
• Workplace conflict.
• Difficulties retaining employees.
• Increased demand for occupational support.
• Longer or more complicated returns to work.

The human consequences extend beyond economic measurements. Someone experiencing acute emotional distress may need assistance immediately, regardless of whether the episode ultimately results in absence or a formal diagnosis.

The Limitations of Existing Assessments

Existing occupational-health frameworks already address mental health and psychosocial hazards. For example, the UK Health and Safety Executive provides risk-assessment guidance for work-related stress, while ISO 45003 establishes guidance for managing psychosocial risks within occupational health and safety systems.

These approaches are important. However, an assessment primarily concerned with identifying the causes of occupational stress may not examine every circumstance in which an individual requires immediate assistance.

Similarly, an organisation may evaluate its mental-health provision by listing the services it offers. These might include:

• Employee Assistance Programmes.
• Occupational-health services.
• Mental Health First Aiders.
• Counselling.
• Crisis helplines.
• Employee wellbeing programmes.
• Manager training.

The existence of these resources does not automatically establish that they are accessible in every relevant situation.

Consider a worker experiencing a panic attack. The organisation may provide professional counselling, but that service may require an appointment or telephone call. The worker may need immediate support where the episode occurs.

Alternatively, a worker may be experiencing significant distress but be unwilling or unable to explain their circumstances to another person. Support dependent on asking for help may not be accessed.

WMHSA addresses these practical distinctions by assessing foreseeable situations individually. The objective is not to duplicate existing psychosocial hazard assessments. It is to ensure that the support and response arrangements are also examined.

The Unidentified Support Gaps

The published WMHSA Support & Response assessment identifies ten situations requiring consideration. Three are particularly important because conventional arrangements may not adequately address them.

1. 1Unwilling or Unable to Ask for Help

   A person may need support but be unwilling or unable to contact another individual. Reasons may include embarrassment, fear of judgement, concerns about confidentiality, difficulty communicating or the effects of acute distress.

   This finding concerns the general adult population and is not a direct measurement of the proportion of workers experiencing mental-health crises. It nevertheless illustrates why organisations should not assume that everyone needing assistance will actively request it.

   41% of surveyed US adults said they were often uncomfortable asking others for help²

   Private, self-use support can provide an additional route that does not depend on disclosure. Assessment item 4

2. 2Immediate Distress Where It Occurs

   Acute emotional distress may require assistance at the location and moment it occurs. A person experiencing panic may be unable to wait for a scheduled appointment or locate an available responder.

   This is a population estimate, not a workplace-specific incidence rate.

   11.2% 12-month panic-attack prevalence in a US population study³

   The relevant assessment question is whether immediate support is accessible when needed. Assessment item 5

3. 3Waiting for Professional Assistance

   Even when someone is willing to seek professional help, assistance may not be immediately available. Appointments, travel, staffing arrangements and referral processes can introduce delays.

   During this period, a person may benefit from appropriate interim support. Assessment item 8

These three situations correspond to items 4, 5 and 8 of the WMHSA Support & Response assessment. The practical controls available for each are set out in Gaps & Controls.

The Consequences of Inadequate Controls

When a foreseeable support need is not adequately controlled, several outcomes are possible:

• A worker may not know where to find assistance.
• A person who fears disclosure may receive no support.
• Someone experiencing acute distress may be unable to access timely stabilisation.
• A worker facing an urgent crisis may encounter delays reaching appropriate professional or emergency services.
• Following a traumatic incident, inadequate arrangements may leave affected employees without suitable follow-up.
• After mental-health-related absence, the lack of a structured return-to-work process may create additional difficulties.

Not every episode of distress will escalate or result in lasting harm. However, appropriate risk management considers what could happen when foreseeable situations arise and whether reasonable measures are available to reduce the risk.

Support should therefore be evaluated according to its actual availability, accessibility and suitability.

Making Mental Health & Safety Measurable

Organisations often report their mental-health provision through the existence of policies, programmes or services. For example:

• An EAP is available.
• Managers have received training.
• Mental Health First Aiders have been appointed.
• Employees have access to a wellbeing portal.

These statements describe provision. They do not necessarily demonstrate that the relevant situations are adequately controlled.

WMHSA introduces a more specific assessment question. For each foreseeable situation, the assessor considers:

1. What support need may arise?

2. What could happen if the need is not addressed?

3. Which controls are directly relevant?

4. Can the person actually access the control?

5. Is the situation adequately controlled?

The resulting classification identifies whether arrangements are adequate, partial or uncontrolled. This allows an organisation to move from a list of services to an assessment of actual coverage.