11/06/2025, GROK
Historically, the approaches to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Australia have been siloed, with Human Resources (HR) focusing on employee wellbeing, engagement, and organisational culture, and Work Health and Safety (WHS) emphasising regulatory compliance and risk management. However, recent developments—driven by regulatory changes, growing recognition of the impact of mental health, and shared economic incentives—indicate that these disciplines are converging. As of 2025, there is increasing cooperation between HR and WHS, though differences in their aims and operational focus persist, creating both opportunities and challenges for integration. Below is an analysis of the convergence, cooperation, and remaining differences between HR and WHS approaches to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Australia.
1. Historical Siloing of HR and WHS
HR’s Focus: Traditionally, HR has addressed psychological safety through initiatives like employee engagement programs, leadership development, diversity and inclusion, and wellness activities (e.g., Employee Assistance Programs, EAPs). HR’s lens emphasises organisational culture, talent retention, and productivity, often viewing mental health as a strategic asset rather than a compliance issue. For example, HR might implement training to foster inclusive workplaces or redesign performance management to reduce stress, aligning with broader business goals.
WHS’s Focus: WHS has historically prioritised physical safety and, more recently, psychosocial hazards under regulatory frameworks like the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Code of Practice – Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work. WHS approaches are compliance-driven, focusing on identifying, assessing, and controlling risks such as bullying, high job demands, or poor job control. Tools like the People at Work survey and regulatory enforcement (e.g., WorkSafe Victoria prosecutions) underscore WHS’s risk management orientation.
Siloed Operations: The siloing stemmed from differing priorities—HR’s proactive, people-centric focus versus WHS’s reactive, compliance-oriented approach. HR initiatives often lacked the structured risk assessment mandated by WHS, while WHS efforts sometimes overlooked cultural or engagement factors central to HR. This led to fragmented strategies, with limited collaboration on shared goals like reducing mental health-related absenteeism or claims.
2. Evidence of Convergence and Cooperation
Recent trends show HR and WHS approaches converging, driven by regulatory, economic, and cultural shifts. Cooperation is increasing as both disciplines recognise their complementary roles in addressing psychosocial hazards and psychological safety.
Regulatory Drivers:
WHS Regulations (2022–2025): The Work Health and Safety Amendment Regulation 2022, adopted by jurisdictions like New South Wales, Queensland, and the Commonwealth, explicitly mandates managing psychosocial risks. Victoria’s proposed regulations (effective December 2025) further emphasise proactive risk management and reporting. These regulations require systematic risk assessments, which WHS traditionally oversees, but also necessitate cultural and leadership changes, areas where HR excels. For example, addressing hazards like poor organisational justice or bullying requires HR’s expertise in policy development and training alongside WHS’s risk control measures.
Codes of Practice: The Code of Practice – Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work (e.g., SafeWork NSW, Commonwealth’s 2024 Code) emphasises worker consultation, leadership commitment, and systemic controls, aligning with HR’s focus on engagement and culture. This shared language encourages collaboration, as HR and WHS teams work together to implement compliant yet culturally effective solutions.
ISO 45003 Alignment: The ISO 45003:2021 standard, which provides guidelines for managing psychosocial risks, bridges HR and WHS by integrating psychological health into organisational systems. Its emphasis on leadership, worker participation, and cultural change resonates with HR, while its risk management framework aligns with WHS. Organisations adopting ISO 45003 (e.g., public sector, large corporations) often form cross-functional HR-WHS teams to implement its principles.
Shared Tools and Frameworks:
People at Work Survey: This evidence-based tool, supported by Safe Work Australia, measures 17 psychosocial hazards and is used by both HR and WHS. WHS teams leverage its risk assessment capabilities to comply with regulations, while HR uses its insights to inform cultural initiatives or leadership training. The tool’s digital platform and automated reports facilitate collaboration by providing a common data source.
Mental Health Movement and Comcare: Providers like Mental Health Movement offer training and assessments that integrate HR and WHS perspectives, combining compliance (WHS) with cultural transformation (HR). For instance, their programs address bullying through WHS-compliant risk controls and HR-led policy enforcement, fostering cooperation.
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC): The APSC’s 2023 psychosocial safety guidance encourages public sector agencies to integrate HR and WHS efforts. HR teams develop policies to promote psychological safety, while WHS teams ensure compliance with psychosocial regulations, creating a unified approach.
Economic and Cultural Incentives:
Economic Impact: The $6–39 billion annual cost of poor mental health (Productivity Commission, 2020) and a $4 productivity gain per $1 invested in mental health initiatives incentivise both HR and WHS to collaborate. HR aims to reduce turnover and boost engagement, while WHS seeks to lower compensation claims (e.g., mental health claims rose 36.9% from 2017–18 to 2020–21). Shared goals drive joint initiatives, such as redesigning workloads to reduce stress (HR) while mitigating risks (WHS).
Post-Pandemic Awareness: The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) amplified mental health challenges, particularly in high-risk sectors like healthcare. This prompted HR to expand wellness programs and WHS to strengthen psychosocial risk assessments, creating overlap. For example, hybrid work policies involve HR’s input on flexibility and WHS’s focus on remote work risks, fostering collaboration.
Societal Expectations: Growing societal awareness of mental health, reflected in advocacy and X posts (e.g., praising regulatory changes), pushes organisations to integrate HR’s cultural focus with WHS’s compliance efforts to meet stakeholder expectations.
Practical Examples of Cooperation:
Cross-Functional Teams: Larger organisations, particularly in healthcare and public sectors, form HR-WHS working groups to address psychosocial hazards. For instance, hospitals use HR to train leaders on psychological safety and WHS to implement fatigue management systems, aligning with ISO 45003 and regulatory requirements.
Policy Integration: Organisations increasingly develop unified policies addressing psychosocial hazards, combining HR’s anti-bullying frameworks with WHS’s risk controls. Victoria’s 2025 reporting requirements for complaints (e.g., bullying, harassment) encourage collaboration between HR and WHS to track and resolve issues.
Training Programs: Joint HR-WHS training on topics like psychological safety, conflict resolution, and leadership is becoming common, supported by providers like Comcare. These programs blend HR’s focus on culture with WHS’s emphasis on compliance, creating shared expertise.
3. Remaining Differences in Aims and Challenges
Despite convergence, HR and WHS retain distinct aims and operational focuses, which can hinder full integration. These differences stem from their core mandates and create ongoing challenges for cooperation.
Differing Aims:
HR’s Strategic Focus: HR prioritises employee engagement, retention, and organisational performance, viewing psychological safety as a driver of productivity and culture. HR initiatives (e.g., wellness programs, leadership coaching) are often proactive and long-term, aiming to enhance employee experience beyond compliance. However, HR may lack the risk management rigour required by WHS, leading to interventions that address symptoms (e.g., stress) rather than root causes (e.g., workload).
WHS’s Compliance Focus: WHS is primarily reactive, driven by legal obligations to prevent harm and ensure compliance with regulations. Its focus on psychosocial hazards emphasises structured risk assessments, control measures, and enforcement (e.g., WorkSafe prosecutions since 2023). WHS may overlook cultural or engagement factors, resulting in solutions that meet legal standards but fail to foster psychological safety holistically.
Tension in Priorities: HR’s voluntary, culture-driven approach can conflict with WHS’s mandatory, risk-based framework. For example, HR might prioritise a wellness campaign to boost morale, while WHS insists on workload audits to comply with regulations, creating resource allocation disputes.
Operational Challenges:
Siloed Expertise: HR and WHS teams often have distinct skill sets—HR in people management, WHS in risk assessment—which can limit mutual understanding. For instance, HR may struggle to implement WHS’s hierarchy of controls, while WHS may undervalue HR’s cultural interventions.
Resource Constraints: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which dominate Australia’s economy, lack the capacity for integrated HR-WHS strategies. They may rely on free tools like People at Work but struggle to coordinate efforts due to limited staff or budgets.
Cultural Resistance: In workplaces with mental health stigma or productivity-driven cultures, HR’s and WHS’s differing approaches can lead to misalignment. For example, HR’s push for open mental health discussions may clash with WHS’s focus on formal risk reporting, which some employees perceive as punitive.
Measurement Gaps: HR measures success through engagement surveys or turnover rates, while WHS tracks compliance and incident rates. These differing metrics complicate joint evaluation of psychosocial initiatives, hindering collaboration.
4. Trends and Future Outlook
As of 2025, the trend is toward greater convergence and cooperation between HR and WHS, with several factors likely to strengthen integration:
Regulatory Evolution: Victoria’s 2025 regulations and ongoing enforcement (e.g., WorkSafe prosecutions) will push HR and WHS to align more closely, as compliance requires both risk controls (WHS) and cultural change (HR). Reporting requirements for psychosocial complaints will necessitate joint data management, fostering collaboration.
Shared Frameworks: Tools like People at Work and standards like ISO 45003 provide common ground, encouraging HR and WHS to use shared methodologies. ISO 45003’s integration of cultural and risk management elements is particularly bridging the gap, especially in larger organisations.
Cross-Functional Roles: The emergence of roles like “Workplace Wellbeing Managers” or “Psychosocial Safety Officers” reflects a blending of HR and WHS expertise, particularly in public sector and corporate settings. These roles facilitate integrated strategies.
Training and Awareness: Joint training programs and advocacy from providers like Mental Health Movement are building shared understanding, equipping HR and WHS teams to collaborate on psychosocial hazards.
Data Integration: Advances in data collection (e.g., Victoria’s reporting system, People at Work analytics) enable HR and WHS to align metrics, such as linking engagement scores (HR) with hazard reduction (WHS), supporting unified goals.
Future Challenges: Full integration may be slowed by resource disparities (SMEs vs. large organisations), jurisdictional variations (e.g., Victoria’s delayed regulations), and cultural resistance in some industries. Balancing HR’s proactive vision with WHS’s compliance mandate will remain a tension point.
Conclusion
The approaches of HR and WHS to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Australia are getting closer, with increasing cooperation driven by regulatory changes (e.g., 2022–2025 psychosocial regulations), shared tools (People at Work, ISO 45003), and economic incentives ($6–39 billion mental health cost). Cross-functional teams, joint training, and policy integration demonstrate growing collaboration, particularly in high-risk sectors and larger organisations. However, differences in aims—HR’s strategic, culture-focused approach versus WHS’s compliance-driven, risk-based focus—persist, creating challenges like siloed expertise and resource constraints. While convergence is evident, full integration is not yet universal, particularly among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); however, the trajectory suggests stronger alignment as regulations, tools, and awareness continue to evolve.