Psychosocial Risks, Mental Health and Work Organisation in the Latest ILO Report
The impact of psychosocial risks within organisations lies at the centre of the latest report released by the ILO: how can the nature of work affect workers’ mental health?On 28 April, in occasion of the. . .
The impact of psychosocial risks within organisations lies at the centre of the latest report released by the ILO: how can the nature of work affect workers’ mental health?On 28 April, in occasion of the World Day for Safety and Health at Work, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) launched the website for its new 2026–2028 campaign, ‘Together for Mental Health at Work’. The prevention and management of psychosocial risks, together with their impact on workers, will constitute the key themes of the campaign, which is scheduled to be officially launched in October 2026. Further confirming the growing international significance of this issue, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has recently published a new report entitledThe Psychosocial Working Environment. The report ambitiously seeks to analyse how the working environment is shaped by factors linked both to the nature of the activities performed and to the interactions that develop within it. In particular, it examines how tasks are designed and work is managed, as well as the broader policies, practices and procedures governing work. In other words, the analytical perspective adopted in the report does not focus primarily on the mental health of individual workers; rather, it explores organisational dynamics within workplaces in a broad sense, emphasising how workers’ well-being is, or indeed ought to be, closely connected to organisational structures. The study first proposes a categorisation of psychosocial risks through a three-level analytical framework: work itself; its organisation and management; and the policies, practices and procedures governing it. The first level concerns the intrinsic characteristics of work and the related tasks, including the degree of responsibility required, the organisation of tasks, and the resources and skills necessary to perform them. The second level seeks to identify the ways in which work is structured, coordinated and supervised in everyday working life, encompassing the definition of roles and expectations, the allocation of tasks and workloads, the degree of autonomy granted to workers, the availability of supervision, feedback and social support, as well as the quality of the interactions underpinning these processes. Finally, the organisational policies and practices considered at the third level define the broader framework within which work is regulated, including terms of employment, working-time arrangements, performance and remuneration processes, and the procedures established to prevent and address harmful behaviour in the workplace. In the second chapter, the report highlights the impact of psychosocial risks in terms of both public health and economic consequences, presenting new estimates and original global projections. Among the most significant findings are the following:psychosocial risk factors are associated with approximately 840,000 deaths worldwide each year;the estimated loss of global GDP related to mental health issues amounts to 1. 37%, with regional variations ranging from 1. 12% in the Americas to 1. 72% in Africa. From a public health perspective, the report illustrates how psychosocial risks, when not adequately anticipated and mitigated, may produce a wide range of adverse effects. The mental health consequences most thoroughly documented include depression, anxiety, burnout (formally recognised by the WHO in theInternational Classification of Diseases, ICD-11, code QD85), sleep disorders, cognitive decline and suicidal behaviour. As regards physical health, the report highlights impacts on cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, digestive and immune functioning, certain forms of cancer, musculoskeletal disorders, reproductive and perinatal outcomes, as well as an increased incidence of accidents in high-risk sectors. Particular attention is devoted to analysing the substantial rise in the costs generated by psychosocial factors for businesses. Within the European Union alone, the annual cost of work-related depression is estimated to exceed €100 billion, more than 80% of which is borne by businesses. Exposure to violence and harassment — both of which may have severe implications for mental health — is estimated to generate global productivity losses of approximately US$1. 7 trillion annually. Among the most tangible organisational impacts identified by the report are absenteeism, presenteeism — defined as attending work despite illness, albeit with reduced performance — and so-called ‘leaveism’, namely the use of leave or rest periods either to continue working or to recover energy following periods of excessive workload. The study further reveals that 35% of workers globally work more than 48 hours per week and that, according to the2022 ILO–Lloyd’s Register Foundation survey, more than one in five workers has experienced at least one form of violence or harassment during their working life, with psychological violence being the most prevalent. Finally, the report highlights the growing spread of algorithmic management practices and automated work-monitoring tools, both identified as significant psychosocial risk factors. The report subsequently devotes an entire chapter to policy frameworks addressing psychosocial risks, structuring the analysis across international, regional and national levels. At the international level, the fundamental ILO Conventions on Occupational Safety and Health (Convention No. 155 of 1981 and Convention No. 187 of 2006), although not explicitly referring to psychosocial risks, contain provisions considered sufficiently broad to encompass them. Among the more recent instruments,Convention No. 190 of 2019 on violence and harassment— ratified by Italy in 2021 — stands out as the first ILO instrument to make explicit reference to psychosocial risks, complemented by Recommendation No. 206, adopted in the same year. Reference should also be made to ILO Recommendation No. 194 of 2002, whose 2010 revision extended the list of occupational diseases to include mental and behavioural disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). With regard to regional regulatory frameworks, the European Union presents a particularly complex structure. This ranges from Articles 3 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — which enshrine, respectively, the right to physical and mental integrity and the right of every worker to healthy, safe and dignified working conditions — to Article 5 of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, which imposes a general obligation upon employers to ensure workers’ safety and health ‘in all aspects related to work’. More recently, Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on platform work and Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on artificial intelligence have introduced explicit references to psychological harm. These measures are complemented by the framework agreements concluded betweenthe European social partners on work-related stress (2004)and onharassment and violence at work (2007), as well as by the European Parliament’s call, inResolution 2022/C 347/10, for a specific directive addressing psychosocial risks and well-being at work. Beyond Europe, occupational safety and health (OSH) frameworks in Latin America (Mercosur, the Andean Community and the Pacific Alliance), the Asia-Pacific region (APEC and ASEAN), and Africa (African Union) have also progressively incorporated references to psychosocial risks, albeit with differing degrees of intensity and at different stages of development. At national level, the regulatory landscape remains highly heterogeneous. According to the ILO, the Nordic countries were the first to integrate the psychosocial dimension into OSH legislation within the framework of the general duty of prevention. Belgium, for instance, adopted a comprehensive framework through the 1996 Law on Well-being at Work, later consolidated in 2014. In several other European countries, the prevailing approach has been to incorporate psychosocial risks into general risk-assessment obligations, as exemplified by Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and, in the Italian context, Legislative Decree No. 81/2008. In Latin America, notable examples include Mexico’s NOM-035 (2018), Colombia’sResolución2646 (2008), and Brazil’s NR-1. In the Asia-Pacific region, particular prominence is given to Japan’s system of mandatory stress checks and to the explicit recognition of psychosocial hazards in certain Australian jurisdictions. In the implementation of policies and regulations concerning psychosocial risks, the role of social dialogue and collective bargaining is recognised as being of central importance. The evidence cited in the report demonstrates that OSH policies and regulations tend to be more effective when employers’ organisations and trade unions are actively involved in their drafting, monitoring and implementation. Such participation strengthens the legitimacy of interventions, promotes compliance and facilitates adaptation to sector-specific and organisational contexts. Nevertheless, at the international level, the involvement of the social partners in this field remains relatively limited. An analysis of the ILO Cross-Border Social Dialogue database shows that only 18% of the 338 transnational initiatives recorded between 2000 and 2025 explicitly addressed mental health or psychosocial factors within OSH provisions. In Europe, however, the aforementioned 2004 framework agreement on work-related stress provided a decisive impetus for action at both national and sectoral levels, influencing legislative developments in numerous countries — including Belgium, Italy[1], Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary — and fostering structured forms of bipartite and tripartite dialogue. The report concludes with a series of recommendations concerning risk assessment within occupational safety and health management systems. In the specific context of psychosocial risks, such assessment requires careful analysis of the organisational conditions under which work is planned, organised and managed. To this end, the report provides a number of practical examples relating to situations that may arise across different workplaces and the corresponding preventive measures that may be implemented. This emphasis on the everyday reality of workplaces constitutes the central theme of the ILO’s latest study: addressing workers’ mental health today requires an analytical framework capable of linking individual vulnerability to the collective organisational conditions that characterise the contemporary labour market and its increasingly complex working environments. Silvia CanevePhD Candidate – ADAPT, Università di SienaX@CaneveSilviaIlaria FioreADAPT Research FellowX@ilariafiore_[1]For further information on Italy’s implementation of the framework for the prevention of psychosocial risks, please refer to the national report of theIncrementalproject (Increasing Metalworkers’ representatives’ Awareness and Skills on Mental Health Protection & Promotion in the Workplace) – co-funded by the European Commission, coordinated by FIM-CISL with the participation of ADAPT, 2025, availablehere.