“[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.
Over coffee with colleagues yesterday, I spoke a lot about the sociological context of work and occupational health and safety. I realised I was echoing many of the points I made in an article from February 2024, so I revisited that article on Limitarianism and produced this short 5-minute summary of the issue.
A recent radio/podcast discussion about burnout was instructional and frustrating. The November 7, 2025, episode of This Working Life was based on interviews with organisational psychologist Ben Searle and clinical psychologist Luke Martin about workplace burnout.
Australia has held an annual “Go Home on Time Day” for many years, but the amount of unpaid work workers give to their employers and the time their families miss out on remains high. Looking at new data in light of the legislative need for Australian employers to identify and assess psychosocial hazards, there are noticeable changes that employers need to make to comply with their occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations.
Just over a week ago, RMIT University’s research funding program, SHINe, conducted its inaugural symposium. This symposium was both new and fascinating. It was overbooked with a considerable weight list, I think, because of the international safety research guests, but the fact that an event in Safe Work Month was free might have helped. The research by the Construction Safety Research Alliance (CSRA) for the United States was a highlight.
Mental health in the construction industry is a perennial occupational health and safety (OHS) concern – high levels of suicide, suicide ideation, depression, anxiety, etc, – the usual suspects. Research into this has been robust in Australia, with the work of Professor Helen Lingard and the Construction Industry Culture Taskforce, among others. Recently, I heard about the Wellness in Infrastructure organisation for the first time.
