Key Insights
- Four of the most common psychosocial risk misconceptions, each debunked by one of Epigroup's organisational psychologists, grounded in the WHS Act and the Sex Discrimination Act's positive duty.
- "No reports = no problem" is the most expensive of these myths: barriers to reporting hide the real picture, and positive duty now requires proactive prevention regardless of report volume.
- A risk register is the start, not the finish. Psychosocial controls need ongoing review, consultation, and adjustment as the workplace changes, exactly like physical ones.
- Standardised risk-assessment tools (adapted thoughtfully) and the ISO 45003 standard give you a credible structure for psychosocial risk - and the legal focus is on managing the full spectrum of harm, not only fatality outcomes.
Psychosocial risk is still a relatively new concept for some businesses, and we sometimes find people are unsure of what they should be doing, how often, or whether they need to be doing anything at all.
Epigroup has a team of WHS experts who are also organisational psychologists. They specialise in psychosocial risk, and educate businesses every day on how to manage their psychosocial risks, and stay compliant under the WHS Act. Here, they each break down a common psychosocial myth, and what to do to avoid falling into the belief.
Psychosocial Myth 1: We Don’t Have a Problem with Bullying, Discrimination, or Sexual Harassment
Frequently asked questions
Because the absence of reports often reflects the presence of barriers, not the absence of harm. Workers may stay silent if they fear retaliation, if leadership has not earned their trust, if reporting channels feel public rather than confidential, or if past support was poor. A workplace with zero reports may simply have a workforce that no longer believes reporting will help. That is why positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 requires proactive prevention, not reactive response.
