“[Psychosocial hazards] is not coming, it’s arrived, and prosecutions will happen unless [employers] take serious steps to address the issue.”
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Ian Neil SC on some occupational health and safety (OHS) matters related to psychosocial health.
Walk through any corporate sustainability report and you’ll find the same familiar choreography: a glossy declaration of “unwavering commitment to safety,” a handful of photos featuring smiling workers in immaculate PPE, and a CEO foreword that reads like it was written by a risk‑averse committee. What you won’t find is any serious engagement with the economic structures that produce harm in the first place.
For decades, scholars have been mapping the relationship between capitalism and workplace injury. They’ve shown, with depressing consistency, that harm is not an aberration but a predictable by‑product of systems designed to extract value from labour while externalising risk. Yet when these same scholars propose alternative models — models that would reduce harm by redistributing power, stabilising labour markets, or democratising decision‑making — executives respond with a familiar repertoire of excuses.
This article examines why. In a couple of real-world case studies, corporations were presented with opportunities to adopt safer, fairer, more accountable models — and chose not to.
Because the truth is simple: executives don’t reject these proposals because they’re unworkable. They reject them because they work exactly as intended.
The Australian Government is committed to increasing the manufacturing sector through its Future Made in Australia strategy and legislation. To participate in the program and receive funds or tax incentives, companies must meet the Community Benefit Principles, including providing safe and healthy workplaces.
In December 2025, New South Wales’ Resources Regulator issued a Safety Bulletin to the mining industry about the late reporting of psychosocial incidents. That Regulator has required notification of this type of incident since February 2025. The mystery remains, though, about why these notifications were delayed.
The President of the United States has always been recognised as a major leader. The morality they display spreads to global corporate leaders, especially those in the United States, and is promoted by these leaders, business institutions and management publications to business leaders and senior executives in Australia. That is why some of President Donald Trump‘s recent comments are so concerning.
You should have heard by now that Safe Work Australia (SWA) has come through with guidance on having work-related suicides included in each jurisdiction’s occupational health and safety (OHS) legislation as incidents that will require notification to the local OHS regulator. If you haven’t, get a new OHS or Human Resources (HR) adviser because the future will be a bumpy, uncomfortable and challenging ride.
Warning: this article discusses suicide.
In 2021, Safe Work Australia released a model Code of Practice (CoP) for Working in Extreme Heat. The latest iteration of that code was released by the Australian Capital Territory on November 7, 2025. It is greatly expanded and much clearer on the prevention and management of exposures. When companies are claiming “best practice” safety, this CoP is particularly interesting.
