In 2026, mental health in the workplace is no longer a marginal issue: it has become the discreet barometer of an organization's stability. In the corridors, something can be sensed even before it is expressed: a team running out of steam, a manager hiding their fatigue, meetings where unspoken words carry more weight than decisions.
Companies no longer explode suddenly: they slowly crack. The pace quickens, roles shift, and mental stress becomes a constant background noise. We talk about "intense periods" and "slumps" until a departure, an unexpected shutdown, or a discreet confession reveals what has been brewing.
These vulnerabilities are no longer anomalies. They show that it is possible to perform well on indicators while allowing the psychological health of teams to deteriorate, almost without realizing it. In this context, the issue is no longer just about preventing psychosocial risks, but about detecting them in time. Because even robust prevention measures are not always enough: subtle signs can slip through the cracks.
Early detection then becomes the key to taking action before the balance is lost.
Summary of points covered:
1. How to set up an RPS detection system in a company?
A good system is based on four elements: clear reporting channels for employees, multidisciplinary analysis (HR, managers, psychologists, social workers), a decision-making chain structured according to the severity of the signals, and regular monitoring of situations. The goal is to identify issues early, deal with them quickly, and prevent them from escalating.
2. What are the key indicators for identifying weak psychosocial risk signals?
The most reliable signals in 2026 include: micro-absenteeism, unusual irritability, diffuse overload, recurring tensions, unusual errors, decreased cooperation, early turnover, and increased hotline calls. These are small but persistent variations that indicate an imbalance.
3. What tools will be used to detect psychosocial risks in 2026?
Companies combine: detection training and observation grids for managers, psychological and social hotlines, short surveys (3 to 4 times a year), HR data analysis (turnover, absenteeism, perceived workload), and digital correlation tools. No single tool is sufficient on its own: it is the convergence of data that creates a reliable overview.
4. Who should handle psychosocial risk alerts within the organization?
The manager identifies issues, HR centralizes and coordinates, the psychologist and social worker contribute their clinical and social expertise, and the executive committee arbitrates critical situations. This division of roles avoids confusion and ensures consistent care.
5. How can RPS detection be integrated into the DUERP in 2026?
Each weak signal must be linked to an identified business risk (overwork, unclear role, conflict, emotional strain, etc.). The 2026 version of the DUERP requires annual updates and precise traceability of psychosocial risks. Detection then becomes a management tool, not just a compliance tool.
6. What is the difference between psychosocial risk prevention and psychosocial risk detection?
Prevention acts before problems arise (work organization, workload, training). Detection occurs as soon as a signal appears, to avoid a crisis. In 2026, the two are inseparable: prevention structures, detection adjusts and protects.
7. How can you tell if your RPS detection system is reliable?
Four criteria: known feedback channels, structured analysis, documented decision-making process, and regular follow-ups. If one of these is missing, the system relies more on intuition than on a solid strategy.
Why implement a reliable psychosocial risk detection system in your company?
Detection and prevention: What are the differences and how can they be coordinated?
Prevention, as we know, often comes across as a wonderful promise: training, raising awareness, adjusting workloads, reorganizing priorities. But it cannot claim to be all-knowing. Professional life, like personal life, remains unpredictable. It brings with it storms, moments of exhaustion, and latent tensions. And this is precisely where the need for active detection comes in.
Detection is not the opposite of prevention, but rather an essential ally. It picks up on things that escape strategic planning, slip between the lines of dashboards, pulse through impromptu conversations, silences in meetings, or even morning fatigue. It gives HR the ability to make continuous adjustments that prevention, which is too structured, does not always have.
Traditional methods of detecting RPS: their limitations and why they will not be sufficient in 2026
Traditional mechanisms remain useful, but they are now showing their limitations. Annual barometers arrive too late and reflect past attitudes rather than current dynamics. Annual reviews are too formal to capture raw emotions or ambiguous situations. CSE reports, meanwhile, only come into play once the situation has already escalated.
One thing is clear: companies do not lack signals, they lack a system to understand, connect, and process them before they become crises.
What are the weak RPS signals to watch out for in 2026?
Psychosocial risks have changed in nature. Diffuse mental overload, fueled by constant hyperconnectivity, has crept into professions that were once immune. Micro-conflicts become sources of tension as soon as resources dwindle. Emotional strain is skyrocketing in exposed professions. Understaffed teams learn to "hold on" until the day when the balance is suddenly broken and crisis strikes.
Recent HR trends confirm this evolution. The digitization of detection is advancing rapidly: quarterly mini-questionnaires, HR AI that cross-references turnover data, micro-absenteeism, and subtle variations in productivity. Pioneering companies, particularly in the energy, banking, and healthcare sectors, are now merging QVCT, mental health, and organizational risks to create unified systems. Paradoxically, the more technology is used in detection, the more valuable feedback from the field becomes: 68% of HR professionals believe that it remains more reliable than digital barometers (Cegos QVCT 2025 study). And, tellingly, demand for in-house psychologists has increased by 35% in one year (France Travail data, service sector).
In this changing environment, HR departments need to equip themselves with radar: a device capable of detecting tremors before an earthquake strikes.
How to build a reliable RPS detection system: The 4 essential pillars
Pillar 1: Which channels should be used to report weak PSI signals?
The first pillar, which seems the most obvious, is often the one that is lacking. Employees will only speak up if they know where to go. Channels must be explicit, accessible, well-known, and above all, consistent with each other. Managers, HR, internal advisors, employee representative committees, psychological hotlines... eachcan become a gateway. But what matters is not the diversity of gateways, but their convergence towards a single location: the HR centralization, a unique space where information is exchanged, verified, and organized.
Without this centralization, the signals scatter like fragments of conversation. With it, they form a continuous story.
Pillar 2: How to analyze weak psychosocial risk signals: method and criteria 2026
Recognizing a signal requires a nuanced perspective, one that accepts human complexity. An irritable employee is not necessarily experiencing a personal problem. They may be suffering from a dysfunctional process, silent overload, or even a discreet conflict. That is why the analysis must combine three dimensions: psychological, social, and organizational.
Psychologists identify signs of emotional fatigue or cognitive overload. Social workers detect personal vulnerabilities that affect work. And HR analyzes role dynamics, workload, and fairness.
This triangulation helps to avoid hasty diagnoses and to understand what lies behind a behavior.
Pillar 3: How to handle a psychosocial risk alert: decision chain and severity levels
What is the point of detecting an alert if no one knows what to do about it? The decision-making chain must be clear, fluid, and documented. When an alert is raised, three questions must be answered immediately: How serious is it? Who will respond? How quickly?
The best-structured companies operate on three levels:
- Minor signals, managed locally.
- Moderate signals, where HR coordinates with psychologists and social workers.
- And critical signals, which mobilize a real crisis unit.
The data shows how effective this is: organizations that have formalized this chain have seen a 27% drop in late reports in one year (European Observatory for Occupational Health, 2025).
The decision chain is therefore not a bureaucratic protocol. It is a safety net.
Pillar 4: How to monitor changes in psychosocial risk situations: indicators and frequency
Detection only makes sense if it is done over time. Situations must be monitored, not only in the heat of the moment, but also with hindsight. HR departments monitor developments, observe recurrences, and document trends. Companies that have adopted monthly monitoring report an 18-point increase in employee confidence (AEFA-Ipsos QWL barometer, 2025), a sign that transparency and regularity are more reassuring than grand statements.
The indicators themselves are changing. Micro-absenteeism is becoming a sign of widespread fatigue. Unwanted turnover, especially before eighteen months of service, highlights the fragility of career paths. The volume of calls to the psychological hotline tells the story of the company's emotional ups and downs better than any questionnaire.
Added to this are qualitative indicators, such as weak signals identified by managers (balance and autonomy) or anonymous feedback from social barometers that survey workload, stress, relationships, support, and even the meaning of work. Together, these indicators paint a picture of the climate. A climate that, if not monitored, will inevitably become stagnant.
What tools should be used to detect psychosocial risks in 2026?
RPS tracking grid: how to use a weak signal observation grid?
The assessment grid is not intended to be a complex document. It exists to help managers answer a simple but crucial question: "Should I report what I observe?" A good grid does not reduce people to boxes. It sheds light on what sometimes escapes immediate judgment: the duration of the phenomenon, its intensity, and its impact on the team.
The grid is not a decision-making tool, but a tool for discernment. It frees managers from the fear of doing too much or too little. This grid can be developed with an occupational psychologist during training on the prevention of psychosocial risks, aimed at managers.
Hotlines and confidential reporting systems: how to encourage the reporting of subtle signs of psychosocial risks?
The psychological and social hotline plays a decisive role in modern detection. Where internal systems can sometimes be intimidating, the hotline provides a neutral, confidential, and safe space. Employees use it to express things they would not say anywhere else. This tool enables the company to pick up on signals that would otherwise remain invisible: increased personal stress, interpersonal tensions, difficulty balancing work and private life.
Here again, the data confirms its usefulness. Organizations that regularly use these tools have earlier and more reliable indicators, which transforms prevention into dynamic management.
Which social indicators should be monitored to detect psychosocial risks?
Barometers have never been so short and regular. Three to four times a year, they survey employees on a few key areas: workload, tensions, relationships, sense of support, perceived meaning in their work. These micro-surveys, combined with monitoring indicators and qualitative data, provide a valuable watchdog function.
They do not replace direct communication. They complement it, like a weather report that confirms what you already feel when you join a team.
How can RPS detection be integrated into the DUERP in 2026?
How can weak signals be linked to business risks in the DUERP?
Following the 2025 reform, the DUERP (single document on occupational risks) has become a demanding traceability tool. Actions related to psychosocial risks must be updated annually and documented. Labor inspectors, for their part, are now expanding their checks to include mechanisms for identifying weak signals.
To be compliant and consistent, the company must link each signal to an identified business risk: overload, role conflict, psychosocial insecurity, or excessive emotional strain. This connection brings the DUERP to life, transforming it from a ritual into a living document.
What role does the CSE play in detecting psychosocial risks?
The relationship with the Works Council is a delicate dance. The committee is a valuable partner when it comes to understanding collective dynamics, but it should not become a mandatory step for every minor issue. Detection must remain an operational, fluid process and not become bogged down in formal discussions.
The CSE clarifies, contextualizes, and contributes, without absorbing.
Role of the Executive Committee in psychosocial risk detection: validation, arbitration, and governance
The executive committee, meanwhile, must provide the framework. It validates the alert chain, processing times, confidentiality policy, and available resources. Without this commitment, the detection system relies on fragile goodwill. With it, it becomes a corporate strategy.
Model 2026: a concrete example of a system for detecting psychosocial risks in the workplace
Who does what in RPS detection? (Managers, HR, psychologists, AS, CSE, CODIR)
The division of roles must be crystal clear. The manager identifies and communicates. HR centralizes, analyzes, and steers. The psychologist contributes their clinical understanding. The social worker sheds light on personal vulnerabilities. The works council observes group dynamics. Finally, the executive committee ensures arbitration.
Distributed in this way, responsibilities create a space where everyone acts in their own role, without encroaching or shirking their duties.
How does information flow in an RPS detection process?
Information must follow a simple and reassuring path. The signal is relayed up the chain, regardless of the channel. HR receives it, assesses it, consults a psychologist or social worker if necessary, then organizes the appropriate actions. The situation is monitored until it is resolved, then incorporated into collective learning.
You don't let a signal wander around the organization. You give it a trajectory.
How does the RPS escalation procedure work according to the level of severity?
The severity determines the response. A minor situation can be dealt with on a day-to-day basis by readjusting practices or relationships. A moderate situation calls for more in-depth analysis, support, or temporary adaptation. A critical situation triggers an emergency protocol, sometimes involving a crisis unit.
This principle of escalation prevents both excesses and negligence. It provides security for both employees and employers.
Checklist 2026: How to assess the reliability of your RPS detection system?
A reliable system is not one that reassures, but one that sees clearly. If you lack clarity of channels, structured analysis, stable monitoring, or support from senior management, then your system relies on luck rather than strategy. Companies that navigate crises with agility are those that know how to listen before acting, audit before correcting, and connect before concluding.
Tell us about your needs, and an expert will respond within 24 hours.
