The ESENER Survey And Psychosocial Risk Across Europe

Workplace health is increasingly shaped by pressures that are difficult to see on a safety dashboard. Excessive workloads, low job control, violence, harassment, insecure work, poor communication and blurred working hours can affect mental health, physical wellbeing, productivity and staff retention. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) uses the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, known as ESENER, to examine how organisations identify and manage these issues.

For Australian employers, the survey provides a useful comparison rather than a direct compliance guide. European workplaces operate under different legal systems and labour markets, yet their experience can help organisations in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and regional communities strengthen psychosocial risk management. The findings also sit alongside Australian duties under work health and safety legislation, guidance from Safe Work Australia and state or territory regulators.

What ESENER Measures

ESENER gathers information from people responsible for occupational safety and health in establishments across Europe. It examines how common different workplace risks are, how organisations assess them, who is involved in prevention, and which barriers make action difficult. Psychosocial hazards form an important part of the survey, alongside traditional physical and chemical risks.

The survey considers issues such as time pressure, long or irregular hours, difficult customers, poor cooperation, restructuring, job insecurity and workplace relationships. It also explores whether an organisation has procedures for dealing with bullying, harassment, violence, substance use and return-to-work needs. This broad approach recognises that mental health risks are usually produced by work design and management systems, rather than by individual resilience alone.

ESENER is establishment-based, so it describes workplace policies and managerial perceptions rather than providing a clinical measure of employee mental health. A business may report having a procedure without workers trusting it or using it. For this reason, the results are most valuable when read with worker consultation, incident data, absenteeism patterns, turnover information and direct feedback from staff.

The survey’s repeated waves also make it possible to track changing priorities. Digitalisation, platform work, automation, demographic change and new forms of remote work have altered how tasks are allocated and supervised. Comparing survey evidence with local workforce experience helps safety leaders distinguish a temporary concern from a structural occupational health trend.

What European Workplaces Reveal

ESENER has consistently shown that psychosocial risks are widespread across European workplaces. Work intensity and dealing with difficult people are frequently identified, while organisational change, job insecurity and weak communication can add to the strain. These hazards often interact: a shortage of staff can increase time pressure, which can reduce support and make conflict with customers more likely.

Many organisations recognise psychosocial risks but find them harder to manage than physical hazards. A machine guard can be inspected against a defined standard, whereas workload, autonomy and workplace culture vary between teams and may change rapidly. Managers may also feel uncertain about how to assess a risk that is influenced by leadership behaviour, employment arrangements and personal circumstances.

The survey points to the importance of management commitment and worker participation. Workplaces are more likely to have effective occupational safety and health arrangements when senior leaders treat prevention as a normal business responsibility, supervisors receive practical support and workers have meaningful channels to raise concerns. Consultation is especially important because senior staff may see flexibility while employees experience unpredictability or constant availability.

European data also highlights the role of workplace size and sector. Larger organisations often have dedicated safety specialists, formal procedures and access to occupational health services. Smaller businesses may have closer relationships with workers but fewer resources, less time and limited internal expertise. This distinction matters in Australia, where small enterprises, family businesses, contractors and geographically dispersed operations are significant parts of the economy.

Why Psychosocial Controls Stall

A common obstacle is the tendency to respond to psychosocial risk through individual programs alone. Mental health awareness sessions, employee assistance programs and resilience training can provide useful support, but they do not remove excessive workloads, unclear responsibilities or abusive customer behaviour. When these underlying conditions remain unchanged, the organisation may appear active while the risk continues.

Another barrier is fragmented responsibility. Human resources may handle bullying complaints, line managers may control rosters, safety teams may manage incident reporting, and senior executives may control staffing budgets. Without shared accountability, important information remains separated. A worker might report exhaustion to a supervisor, lodge a complaint through a people team and record an injury through a separate system, with no combined view of the hazard.

Fear of stigma can also suppress reliable reporting. Employees may worry that disclosing stress will affect promotion, job security or professional reputation. In sectors with labour shortages, casual employment or subcontracting, workers may be particularly reluctant to challenge unreasonable demands. Confidential reporting, fair investigation processes and visible action on recurring problems help build trust.

The most effective controls tend to focus on work organisation. They include realistic staffing, predictable scheduling, clear role boundaries, respectful supervision, effective change consultation, adequate breaks and procedures for violence or aggression. Individual support remains relevant, especially after a traumatic event, but it works best as part of a hierarchy of controls that begins with preventing harmful exposure.

What Australian Employers Can Take From It

Australia has its own legal and institutional setting. The model Work Health and Safety laws place a primary duty on persons conducting a business or undertaking to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers. This includes psychological health. States and territories implement their own laws, so an employer operating in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland or Western Australia must check the requirements that apply in each jurisdiction.

Psychosocial hazard regulations and codes of practice have made the issue more explicit. New South Wales, for example, introduced specific psychosocial risk provisions in its WHS Regulation in 2022, while other jurisdictions have issued their own regulations, compliance codes or regulator guidance. Safe Work Australia provides national model guidance, but the responsible state or territory regulator remains the source for local duties and enforcement expectations.

Local working conditions also shape risk. A hospitality worker in Melbourne’s late-night economy may face aggression and unpredictable hours, while a fly-in fly-out worker in Western Australia may experience isolation, extended rosters and separation from family. A delivery driver moving through Sydney traffic can face time pressure and customer conflict, and a regional health worker may have limited access to relief staff or specialist support. These examples call for controls designed around the actual job rather than generic wellbeing campaigns.

Everyday Australian habits and market conditions matter as well. Hybrid work has become established in many professional roles, yet it can extend the working day through messages and meetings outside normal hours. Small retailers, construction firms, farms and trades businesses may rely on informal conversations instead of formal surveys. At the same time, labour shortages in health care, aged care, logistics and hospitality can make workload and fatigue difficult to address without changing rosters, recruitment or service expectations.

Turning Survey Evidence Into Action

ESENER is most useful when treated as a prompt for better questions and stronger systems. An Australian organisation can compare its own approach with the survey themes, then test whether workers experience the controls described in policies. The goal is not to copy a European procedure, but to identify gaps between written arrangements, management assumptions and day-to-day work.

A practical review should combine several sources of evidence. Worker interviews, anonymous pulse surveys, consultation meetings, exit interviews, sick leave trends, overtime records, complaints, injury notifications and customer aggression reports can reveal patterns. Data should be examined by team, location, shift, employment type and task where lawful and appropriate. A high-level average can hide serious exposure in a night shift, remote site or particular occupation.

The following actions provide a structured starting point for organisations of different sizes:

Practical Priorities For Psychosocial Risk Management

Digital tools can support this process. EU-OSHA’s OSHwiki offers background information on occupational safety and health topics, while the OiRA platform provides risk-assessment tools designed for practical workplace use, particularly in smaller enterprises and selected sectors. The ESENER dashboard allows users to explore survey findings, and the OSH Barometer brings together indicators about occupational safety and health across Europe.

Australian employers should use these resources alongside local guidance, not as a substitute for it. The correct regulator, relevant WHS or occupational health and safety legislation, industrial obligations, privacy rules and consultation duties must all be considered. A business in Queensland may need a different compliance pathway from one in South Australia, even when the psychosocial hazard looks similar.

The strongest approach is continuous and proportionate. Start with the highest exposure, involve the people doing the work, apply organisational controls, record decisions and review outcomes. When survey evidence is connected to practical observations, it becomes easier to move from general concern about mental health to specific improvements in work design, leadership and prevention.

Use ESENER’s findings to benchmark your organisation, explore EU-OSHA’s practical resources and check the requirements of your Australian jurisdiction. Then turn the evidence into a documented psychosocial risk assessment, worker consultation process and action plan that managers can apply in everyday operations.