Author Charles Dickens is often cited for his description of and opposition to the working conditions in his time – child labour, executive (im)morality, excessive workload, and poor working conditions. However, the image that has always stayed with me is the Circumlocution Office described in Little Dorrit.
Another major company, KPMG, has been caught out in unethical behaviour, lies and mismanagement, only a few years after PwC’s scandal and not long after the damning Banking and Finance Royal Commission. These are the very institutions we are told to treat as exemplars of leadership and governance. Their repeated failures should force employers to question the advice they receive from these firms, including on occupational health and safety (OHS), psychosocial risk and organisational culture.
If the first lesson from IAWBH2026 was that psychological risks must be treated as system hazards, the second is that most organisations remain structurally ill-equipped to manage them. Despite years of policy development and training initiatives, the evidence presented at the recent International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment conference in Canberra showed persistent gaps between intention and outcome.
The IAWBH2026 sessions offered a revealing snapshot of how international practitioners are grappling with bullying, harassment and gendered violence at work—and how closely these discussions align with Australia’s psychosocial‑hazard framework. Several presentations landed squarely within the Australian work health and safety (WHS) model, particularly those that treated these issues as structural hazards requiring organisational controls. Sapphire Parsons’ argument that gendered violence demands primary prevention, equitable decision‑making, and action on power imbalances mirrors the prevention‑first duties under Australian safety law.
However, there were also indications of how far the change has to go.
Continue reading “What was Missing from the Bullying and Harassment Conference?”The 2026 conference for the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) was held in Canberra in June 2026. I was always curious about how prominent the term “psychosocial hazards” would be at this conference. It seems that most of the world still talks about workplace bullying and harassment and sexual harassment separately from the psychosocial, but the occupational health and safety (OHS) approach seems to be in the ascendant.
Below is my take (part 1 of 2) on the conference sessions I attended and the issues raised. (I missed the half day of Day 3). I have tried to use a generic, informative tone for a broader readership.
Psychological health in the emergency services has come to the fore recently as governments pay more attention to using occupational health and safety (OHS) to push employers to prevent psychosocial hazards. In the emergency services, psychosocial hazards such as trauma cannot all be prevented; the best that can be achieved is lowering these risks as far as is practicable (ASFAIRP). But ASFAIRP is a movable feast, which was on display in two presentations at a recent conference.
I am not sure that the “Why” was discussed enough at this global conference. The discussions in the sessions I sat in were dominated by people trying to clarify what bullying and harassment are and what variations nor subcultures there are, or what sections of the community are most affected by workplace bullying and harassment. And I am not sure that all the presenters were targeting the workplace, even though the association and conference titles specify this.
