Psychosocial hazards – think risks, not lists

A new EY framework simplifies psychosocial hazard management, reducing unnecessary complexity and costs for organisations tackling PSR 

In brief:

• The current ‘more is better’ approach to psychosocial risk (PSR) has sent risk registers out of control, increasing the cost and burden of mitigation.
• A new EY framework cuts through complexity to sort psychosocial hazards into six categories, creating an accurate, measurable and manageable PSR profile.
• By focusing on the causal relationships between hazards and harm, organisations can implement effective, tailored controls to protect their workforce and meet their obligations.

Psychosocial risk management is now a core part of workplace safety – with high stakes for compliance, cost and workforce wellbeing. But current practice is failing to keep up.

Many organisations are taking a ‘more is better’ approach, compiling long lists of hazards that blur the line between risks and controls. This creates confusion, weakens oversight and undermines the purpose of PSR governance: to prevent harm.

A false sense of security from an overly complex approach

The unchecked expansion of psychosocial hazards on risk registers creates a false sense of thoroughness. In reality, it dilutes focus, increases administrative burden, and makes it harder to pinpoint and address real risks. Overlapping entries, vague terminology and mislabelled controls only serve to obscure what matters.

To manage psychosocial risk effectively, organisations must prioritise clarity, consistency and context – starting with a framework that defines hazards properly and keeps the risk register fit for purpose.