Your regulator stopped asking whether you run a wellbeing programme. The question now is which hazards you have, in which teams, and what you did about them. This page is the case for being able to answer it.
Wherever your people work, someone will ask which hazards you have and what you did about them. In some countries that is a regulator. Everywhere else it is your board, your insurer, a union or a tender panel. We measure it the same way in every country and report it against the standard that applies where you are.
Every state and territory now requires businesses to manage psychosocial risks. NSW went first on 1 October 2022, and Victoria’s Psychological Health Regulations completed the picture on 1 December 2025.
A Category 1 offence under the model WHS Act can cost a company up to $12.3 million and an officer up to $2.46 million (Safe Work Australia, from 1 July 2026). Amounts differ by state.
The national standard for psychological health and safety is voluntary, and a second edition is on the way. Federally regulated employers must already assess psychological health and safety measures under the harassment and violence regulations (2021).
Quebec now requires employers to identify and control psychosocial risks. British Columbia has proposed rules for written psychosocial risk assessments.
There is no federal OSHA standard for psychosocial hazards. The Surgeon General’s 2022 Framework sets out five essentials for workplace mental health, starting with protection from harm.
States are moving on related risks. California has required workplace violence prevention plans since July 2024.
The international guidance on psychological health and safety at work. It sits beside ISO 45001 or stands on its own, and it reads the same in every country.
Multinationals use it to put one standard in front of every jurisdiction at once, whatever the local law says.
The direction is the same almost everywhere. The ILO made a safe and healthy working environment a fundamental right at work in 2022, and the WHO recommends acting on psychosocial risks at work. EU employers must already assess them under the Framework Directive, and the European Parliament’s employment committee has asked for a dedicated law. Japan has required stress checks in workplaces of 50 or more since 2015. New Zealand’s Health and Safety at Work Act counts mental health as health, and UK employers must assess work-related stress against the HSE Management Standards.
One evaluation, reported through whichever standard applies where your people work. Where no local rule exists, the International version gives you the same evidence, because it is worth measuring whether or not a law says so.
A hazard you have not measured still costs you. It shows up later, in places the finance team can see, long after the moment you could have acted on it.
People who carry a hazard for long enough often stop carrying it and go. Each departure costs you the hire, the handover and the knowledge that walks out.
Replacing a worker typically costs about a fifth of their annual salary (Center for American Progress, 2012). Gallup puts it at up to twice salary for some roles.
Sick leave and time off rise where demands, support or relationships at work have gone wrong. The cause rarely appears on the leave form.
A serious mental health claim typically means 35.7 weeks off work, almost five times the 7.4 weeks across all serious claims (Safe Work Australia, 2022–23).
A psychological injury claim tends to run longer and cost more than a physical one. It also asks what you knew, and when.
Mental health conditions are 12% of serious workers’ compensation claims. The median payout, $67,400, is more than four times the $16,300 across all serious claims (Safe Work Australia, Key WHS Statistics 2025).
An inspector, a union, a journalist or a tender panel can ask for your evidence. An empty file is hard to explain to any of them.
One cost is easy to miss. A hazard carried mostly by the people leading teams disappears in an organisation-wide average. You can look healthy on paper and still be losing your managers.
The wider return on wellbeing is set out in the wellbeing business case. It reports that workplaces that invest in wellbeing see, on average, 41% lower absenteeism and 24–59% lower turnover (The Wellbeing Lab, Australian Workplace Report).
A healthy score is nice to have. What protects you is a documented trail. This is what we found, and when. This is what we decided to do. This is the measurement afterwards. It runs in four steps, in order.
Which hazards are present, at what level, and in which parts of the organisation.
You should be able to show the hazards by team, and by the people leading teams.
Score them the same way every time, so this year can be compared with last year.
You should be able to show a consistent method, and that no small team can be picked out from a result.
Decide what you will do about each hazard, and write it down against the finding.
You should be able to show the decision, who made it and when, next to the hazard it answers.
Measure again and compare. Did the number move after you acted?
You should be able to show a before and an after from the same instrument.
The platform produces that trail as a by-product of running the programme. Nobody has to assemble it the week before an audit. It gives you evidence. What you do with the findings is still yours to decide.
The same responses reported through Australian WHS, ISO 45003, CSA-Z1003 and the Surgeon General's Framework. Nobody is evaluated twice.
Respondents answer the set that matches their responsibilities. Results are reported for both, so a hazard carried by leaders stays visible.
Scores are suppressed below a minimum number of responses, so a small team can never be identified from a hazard result. It is how the reporting works. Nobody has to remember to switch it on.
Directives raised while reviewing a report are recorded against it and travel with the export. The line from finding to action already exists.
Two-period comparison shows whether the number moved after you acted. Name a round or an event, such as a restructure, and compare it with the baseline.
The full evaluation report shows the method and response counts behind every number. A six-panel leadership briefing and infographics fit in a board pack.
A hazard found in the evaluation and the learning you assign in response sit in one place. Micro-Learn records completions and issues certificates.
The Coaching Foundry gives your people a booking page in your branding, with practitioners they can see and book.
Unanswered questions are never filled with a neutral value. Every figure comes from what people actually said, with a dash where they did not.
A national infrastructure services group assesses psychosocial hazards across its workforce on this platform. Its own risk-control library is mapped to the Psychosocial Hierarchy of Control (eliminate, substitute, re-design, administrate, encourage), so each hazard is answered in the order the standards set out.
Six questions to put to whoever owns psychosocial risk in your organisation. If the answer to any of them is "we'd have to find out", start there.
It depends where your people work. In Australia, yes: every state and territory requires it. In Canada, Quebec requires it, and federally regulated employers must assess psychological health and safety measures. EU employers must assess psychosocial risks under the Framework Directive, and Japan requires stress checks. Elsewhere, including most of the United States, it is voluntary, and the standards give you a recognised way to show you have done it.
No platform can make you compliant. Compliance depends on what you do about the hazards you find. Wellbeing Matters gives you the evidence: what you found, when, what you decided and what happened next.
No. Organisations see cohorts, and results are suppressed below a minimum number of responses, so a small team cannot be picked out. Where an organisation can reach an individual record at all, that is a separately enabled choice. You can read more in the Trust Centre.
Yes. People answer the set of questions that matches their responsibilities, and results are reported for team members and for leaders separately. A hazard carried mostly by leaders stays visible instead of averaging away.
Run the evaluation again and compare. Two-period comparison shows whether each result moved after you acted, and your recorded decisions sit beside the findings they answered.
No. One evaluation is reported through Australian WHS, CSA Z1003, the Surgeon General’s Framework and ISO 45003, the international version for every other country. Each jurisdiction gets its own evidence from the same source, and your board gets one conversation.
This page explains how our platform supports your obligations. It is general information, and it is not legal advice. Check your own obligations with your WHS adviser or regulator.
Sources: Safe Work Australia, Key WHS Statistics Australia 2025 · Safe Work Australia, maximum penalties under the WHS laws · SafeWork NSW · WorkSafe Victoria · Center for American Progress (2012) · Gallup (2019) · NZ Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, s 16 · HSE Management Standards · Mental Health Commission of Canada · Canada, Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations · Quebec OHS modernisation (Lavery) · OSHA · Cal/OSHA · ILO (2022) · WHO guidelines on mental health at work · EU-OSHA · European Parliament procedure 2026/2023(INL) · Japan MHLW.
Tell us which standards you are held to. We will show you the same evaluation through each of them, against your own data.