Construction organisations are investing more time and resources into mental health and wellbeing. But how confident are they that the risks created by work itself are being properly managed?
The consequences of unmanaged psychosocial risk don’t always appear in a wellbeing report. They can show up through fatigue on site, mistakes, strained working relationships or experienced people leaving a project. By the time these problems become visible, the pressure may have been building for months.
Across construction, there has been welcome progress in mental health awareness. Employee assistance programmes, Mental Health First Aiders, wellbeing initiatives and workforce surveys are now familiar features of many organisations.
These all have a valuable role. But they don’t necessarily tell us how well an organisation is identifying and controlling the factors within work that can cause harm.
An unrealistic programme, repeated design changes, excessive working hours or poor communication can all contribute to psychosocial risk. Some of these adverse pressures originate long before work begins on site.
For organisations trying to improve their approach, there are five areas worth examining.
1. Responsibility is spread across different departments
Psychosocial risk rarely sits neatly within one department.
HR may manage employee wellbeing and support services. Health and Safety teams oversee risk assessments. Occupational Health provides specialist advice. Meanwhile, operational managers make daily decisions about workloads, resources and project delivery.
Each function has its responsibilities, but how effectively are they working together?
Consider a project where HR has identified increasing stress-related absence and the H&S team has completed a stress risk assessment. At the same time, the commercial team agrees to a compressed programme that will require extended working hours.
Unless that information is brought together, the organisation may be responding to the consequences of adverse pressure without recognising where it is being created.
A joined-up approach requires clear ownership and a way for information about workforce health to influence operational decisions.
It also means ensuring that senior leaders have visibility of the risks being identified and the action being taken.
2. Support is available, but the causes of harm remain
Mental health support has improved significantly across construction, and rightly so.
Access to professional advice, peer support and trained Mental Health First Aiders can help people experiencing difficulties. These arrangements are an important part of supporting the workforce.
However, an organisation can have excellent support services and still expose people to avoidable psychosocial risks.
Take a project team that routinely works long hours to recover delays. Staff have access to wellbeing resources and confidential support, but the programme continues to depend on overtime, weekend working and insufficient recovery time.
The support may help individuals cope, but the working arrangements still need attention.
This is central to the Construction Leadership Council’s Joint Code of Practice (JCOP) on preventing and managing psychosocial risk in construction.
The Code recognises that work-related mental health risks can originate in the way projects are commissioned, procured, planned and delivered.
Its emphasis is on prevention at source, including addressing unrealistic programmes and the conditions that create sustained pressure.
For construction leaders, this means looking at decisions made well before the first signs of stress or fatigue become apparent.
Read more about managing Work Design Risk.
3. Policies don’t always reflect what happens on site
Most established construction organisations have policies and management systems covering workplace health and safety.
The difficulty is knowing how consistently those arrangements work across different projects, teams and contractors.
A company may have a policy encouraging people to raise concerns about excessive workload. Yet on a live project, individuals might be reluctant to speak up because they fear being seen as unable to cope or worry about future work opportunities.
Working-hour limits might be documented, while informal expectations still encourage people to stay late or travel long distances after demanding shifts.
This is where workforce engagement becomes particularly valuable.
Surveys can identify trends, but conversations with people carrying out the work can reveal the circumstances behind those findings. It is important to include the experiences of subcontractors, agency workers and others whose working conditions may be influenced by decisions further up the supply chain.
The aim is to understand how work is actually experienced and where existing arrangements may need strengthening.
A management system needs to be tested against operational reality. Good documentation is useful, but leaders also need evidence that the arrangements are understood and working.
4. Risks are identified, but are they being controlled?
Construction organisations are familiar with the discipline of risk assessment. Hazards are identified, risks evaluated, controls introduced and their effectiveness reviewed.
The same principles apply to psychosocial risks.
An employee survey may highlight excessive workload. A project review might identify fatigue or poor communication. A manager may raise concerns about repeated changes to a programme.
These findings should inform a structured assessment and lead to proportionate action.
For example, where excessive working hours are identified, the organisation might need to examine programme assumptions and resourcing rather than relying on reminders about taking breaks.
It can then review actual hours worked, recovery arrangements and workforce feedback to understand whether those changes have reduced the risk.
The Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards provide a recognised approach to work-related stress. They cover six areas: demands, control, support, relationships, role and change.
Employers already have a legal duty to assess and manage risks that might result in work-related stress. This is part of their existing health and safety responsibilities.
HSE’s guidance on work-related stress risk assessments explains the requirements and provides practical support.
ISO 45003 offers further guidance on managing psychosocial risk within an occupational health and safety management system.
The challenge is ensuring that risk management leads to changes in practice and that organisations can demonstrate whether those changes have been effective.
5. Leadership decisions can create risks that others are left to manage
Many of the factors influencing psychosocial risk sit outside the direct control of HR, wellbeing or H&S teams.
Project Directors influence delivery expectations. Commercial Teams negotiate contractual commitments and payment arrangements. Senior Leaders make decisions about resources and priorities.
The consequences of those decisions can be felt throughout the workforce and supply chain.
For example, a tender may be won against a programme that leaves little room for disruption. When delays occur, the adverse pressure to recover lost time can be passed down through contractors and subcontractors.
The resulting fatigue, uncertainty and workload may eventually appear as workforce health concerns, even though some of the contributing factors were established much earlier.
The Joint Code of Practice specifically recognises the influence of clients and contractors in creating working conditions that protect mental health.
Leadership involvement is therefore essential. Those responsible for planning and delivery need to understand how their decisions affect workforce health and how risks can be addressed before they become embedded.
Explore the commercial and operational implications of workforce health risk.
Five questions worth asking about your current approach
These gaps won’t appear in the same way in every organisation. Some businesses have well-established arrangements, while others are still developing their approach.
A useful starting point is to ask:
- Who has overall responsibility for psychosocial risk management, and how are different departments working together?
- Are we addressing the work-related causes of harm, as well as providing support to people who need it?
- How do we know that our policies reflect what people actually experience across our projects?
- Can we demonstrate that identified risks have been assessed, controlled and reviewed for effectiveness?
- Are the people making commercial and operational decisions actively involved in managing psychosocial risk?
These questions can help organisations identify where they have good arrangements in place and where further investigation may be useful.
Why this matters for construction organisations now
The publication of the JCOP has brought renewed attention to preventing work-related mental health harm across the industry.
The Code complements existing guidance and standards, including ISO 45001 and 45003, and 30480 of Suicide and the Workplace . It encourages early adoption, with full adoption recommended by June 2027.
Although the Code is not itself a legal requirement, employers already have duties to assess and manage work-related health and safety risks, including those associated with stress.
The opportunity for construction organisations is to examine how effectively those responsibilities are being met in practice.
There are commercial reasons to take this seriously, too. Fatigue, poor communication and sustained operational pressure can undermine decision-making and workforce capability. Where these risks are not properly understood, they can contribute to disruption and make delivery less reliable.
For organisations managing multiple projects and complex supply chains, a consistent approach to psychosocial risk management becomes particularly important.
Understanding where your organisation stands
At Construction Health & Wellbeing, we help organisations assess how effectively workforce health risks are being managed and identify practical opportunities for improvement.
Our ISO 45003 Gap Analysis provides a focused review of psychosocial risk management arrangements, examining leadership responsibilities, existing systems, data, employee voice and operational practice.
We look at the evidence behind current arrangements, how risks are being identified and controlled, and where greater consistency or assurance may be needed.
The outcome is an independent assessment of the organisation’s current position, highlighting areas that are working well alongside gaps and prioritised recommendations for improvement.
For organisations looking at workforce health more broadly, our Health Risk Gap Analysis also considers physical exposure and workforce support, together with organisational governance.
If you’re reviewing your approach to psychosocial risk management, or want greater confidence that your existing arrangements are working, we can help.
Explore CH&W’s ISO45003 Gap Analysis
Alternatively, start with a Prevention Conversation to discuss your current arrangements and where further attention might be useful.
