Support practical action on psychosocial risks.

 

The psychosocial working environment encompasses the elements of work and interactions at work related to how jobs are designed, how work is organized and managed, and the broader policies, practices and procedures that govern work, as well as the ways in which these elements interrelate, all of which can influence workers’ health and well-being as well as organizational performance. When this environment is well structured, supportive and inclusive, it can promote motivation, engagement, productivity, job satisfaction, and overall well-being. When it is poorly designed, organized or managed, psychosocial hazards may emerge and give rise to psychosocial risks. If these risks are not effectively managed, they can have serious consequences for workers’ physical and mental health and well-being, as well as for organizational outcomes, including increased absenteeism, reduced performance and higher turnover. Work-related psychosocial factors, hereafter referred to as psychosocial factors, are aspects of the psychosocial working environment that primarily relate to how work is designed, organized and managed, and to the interactions between the work environment, job content and organizational conditions that shape how work is carried out. This includes, for example, the design and content of tasks (such as their variety, meaning, scope and repetitiveness), workload and work pace, working time arrangements, role clarity, autonomy, supervision and management practices, and organizational culture.

In themselves, these factors are not intrinsically positive or negative; their effects depend on how they combine and are managed within specific work settings. Although their effects are experienced through the interaction between the working environment and individual characteristics — including workers’ abilities, needs and perceptions — the organization and management of work play a central role in shaping their nature and impact. For this reason, this report places particular emphasis on identifiable work-related psychosocial factors that fall within the control, responsibility and/or influence of employers. For the purpose of this report, work-related psychosocial hazards, hereafter referred to as psychosocial hazards, are understood as harmful aspects of work that arise from elements in the design, organization and management of work, as well as the wider organizational context, and that have the potential to harm workers’ safety and health. Such hazards may be present across all sectors and forms of work and can arise from job tasks, work organization, management practices and employment arrangements. Furthermore, these hazards often occur together and interact with one another. Exposure to psychosocial hazards may lead to psychosocial risks, which refer to the combination of the likelihood of exposure and the severity of potential injury or ill-health. Assessing these risks requires consideration of the severity, duration, and frequency of exposure, as harm may arise not only from acute events but also gradually through repeated or prolonged exposure. Over the past decades, several theoretical models have been developed to explain how the psychosocial working environment influences workers’ safety and health, as well as organizational outcomes. These models reflect an evolution in thinking, from early approaches focusing on the fit of the individual to the working environment to later perspectives that emphasize work design, job demands and resources, fairness, and organizational context. Many of these models have originate from efforts to understand work-related stress and its precursors. Work-related stress is often understood as an intermediate response to psychosocial hazards and an important pathway through which these hazards affect workers’ safety and health outcomes. It arises when perceived demands exceed an individual’s capacity to cope. While not a disorder, prolonged or intense stress may hinder recovery and contribute to longerterm physiological, psychological, and behavioural consequences.

Evolution of key theoretical models of the psychosocial work environment 

Theoretical models offer complementary perspectives on how characteristics of work function as demands, resources or stressors, and how the interaction of these characteristics shapes both individual and organizational outcomes. 

Early approaches emphasize the fit between the individual and the work environment: The person-environment fit theory proposes that stress arises when there is a mismatch between workers’ abilities and job demands, or when personal needs are not met by the work environment. Similarly, Warr’s Vitamin Model suggests that some features of work are beneficial up to a point, whilst others can be harmful when they are either lacking or excessive.

 Subsequent models increasingly focus on the structural characteristics of work: The job demand-control model, and its expanded version that incorporates social support, propose that job strain (an outcome of exposure to a combination of high demands and low control at work) is highest when psychological demands are high and workers’ control over their work is low, while social support can act as a buffer. The more recent job demands-resources model groups work characteristics into job demands, which require sustained effort and carry psychological or physiological costs, and job resources, which help workers achieve their goals, support learning and development, and reduce the impact of demands. It explains how excessive demands can lead to burnout through a health impairment process, while the availability of resources promotes work engagement through a motivational process. 

Other models emphasize that not all demands operate in the same way: The challenge-hindrance stressor framework differentiates demands experienced as opportunities for learning and achievement (challenges), which can stimulate effort and motivation, versus demands experienced as unnecessary obstacles (hindrances), which are associated with withdrawal and reduced engagement. In parallel, job design perspectives, including the job characteristics model, highlight how features such as skill variety, task identity and significance, autonomy and feedback shape workers’ psychological states and motivation. 

Other perspectives take a more sociological view, emphasizing reciprocity, fairness and power relations: The effort-reward imbalance model conceptualizes stress as arising from a poor exchange between the efforts workers invest and the rewards they receive, such as pay, esteem, job security and career prospects. Organizational justice approaches similarly underline that workers’ well-being and behaviour depend on perceived fairness in resource distribution, decision-making and interpersonal treatment. These perspectives also draw attention to power asymmetries in the organization of work, as employers’ authority shapes job demands, autonomy, access to resources and social support. 

More recently, attention has increasingly turned to organizational-level determinants of psychosocial risks:  Psychosocial safety climate theory focuses on organizational values, policies, practices and priorities for protecting workers’ psychological health, including management commitment, communication and participation, and the balance between productivity and psychological health concerns.

Understanding how these models conceptualize the psychosocial working environment helps clarify what healthy workplaces look like. A positive psychosocial working environment combines manageable demands with sufficient autonomy, support and resources, while providing opportunities to learn and use skills that promote workers’ safety, health and performance. By contrast, a poorly designed working environment – for example, one characterized by excessive demands and limited control or resources – increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes for both workers and organisations . These theoretical models have been operationalized through assessment instruments that support systematic psychosocial risk management. Several frameworks have sought to harmonize key elements for prevention and intervention. Although psychosocial hazards can be conceptualized in different ways depending on purpose and policy context, the taxonomy developed by Cox, later refined to include macro-level factor, remains one of the most widely applied.