Safe Work Australia states that :
“A psychosocial hazard is anything that could cause psychological harm (e.g. harm someone’s mental health).”
Preventing these hazards is most effective and sustainable through redesigning work, but this approach should not deny that personal decisions can also be hazardous. In the broader social and occupational contexts, it is worth considering workism as a psychosocial hazard.
Until recently, Donna McGeorge‘s book “Red Brick Thinking” passed me by, but her perspective aligns closely with the occupational health and safety (OHS) concepts of “safety clutter” and the Swiss cheese model.
An open letter about workplace suicides was published to support World Mental Health Day in 2024. The research work of some of the signatories has continued and appeared in a 2026 editorial in Volume 46 of “Crisis – The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention“, calling for action.
[This article, unavoidably, discusses suicide]
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.
One of the most interesting discussions about morality I have had was with Professor Sidney Dekker in 2017. Following my article on the morality of US President Donald Trump, below is a summary of Dekker’s thoughts on occupational health and safety and morality.
Last month, the Sunday Times published an article with a concerning headline: “Resilience training for Gen Z is booming — and that’s no bad thing” (paywalled). Resilience training for psychological safety at work has not been discredited, but there is plenty of evidence showing it is insufficient and inappropriate as a primary strategy for preventing psychological harm. This evidence is being reflected in Australia’s Codes and guidance for managing psychological safety.
