Introduction
The management committee meets. Economic indicators are positive. Revenue is growing, projects are progressing, and financial dashboards remain reassuring. Everything seems to be under control.
However, something has changed. Managers report more widespread tensions. Short breaks are becoming more frequent. Discussions are becoming more cautious, sometimes more tense. Nothing spectacular, nothing confrontational, but a form of wear and tear is setting in. This often occurs in a context of rapid change, increased budgetary constraints, and sometimes contradictory demands between performance and prevention.
The HR department then asks a simple but crucial question: are we dealing with isolated individual weaknesses or a deeper organizational risk?
This issue now goes beyond individual cases. Nearly 45% of European workers report being exposed to at least one psychosocial risk factor affecting their mental health (EU-OSHA, 2024). In France, data from Dares confirms the persistence of significant stress at work (Dares, 2020-2023). Psychosocial risks are no longer a peripheral issue: they are at the heart of social governance, social dialogue, and employer responsibility.
Summary:
What is the difference between RPS and QVCT?
Psychosocial risks are among the most common occupational health problems in Europe (EU-OSHA, 2024). QWL takes a broader view of working conditions, with psychosocial risks being one of its key pillars.
In France, QVCT cannot be separated from a rigorous analysis of psychosocial risks. This analysis is integrated into the DUERP (single document on occupational risks) and is part of the social dialogue with the CSE (social and economic committee). In other words, QVCT is not limited to improving the working environment: it requires a precise understanding of the factors that can undermine collective balance.
Do psychosocial risks only affect large companies?
In France, the assessment requirement applies regardless of the size of the organization. The absence of identification does not mean the absence of risk. It may reflect a lack of analysis or difficulty in objectively assessing certain tensions. The issue is not the size of the company, but its ability to lucidly examine its organizational determinants.
Can psychosocial risks be measured objectively?
Indicators do exist: absenteeism, turnover, internal alerts, social climate. However, absenteeism remains an indirect indicator, never proof in itself. It only makes sense when placed in a broader analysis, combining quantitative data, managerial observations, and exchanges within the framework of social dialogue.
How long does it take to structure an RPS approach?
Structuring an approach is rarely a one-off action. It requires gradual, long-term work that is aligned with the organization's strategic priorities.
Understanding psychosocial risks from an organizational (rather than individual) perspective
Operational definition of psychosocial risks for an HR department
Psychosocial risks include work situations that can affect the mental and physical health of employees. 21% of European establishments consider psychosocial risks to be more difficult to manage than other occupational risks (EU-OSHA, ESENER 2024).
In France, this recognition is part of a specific legal framework: general safety obligations, risk assessment, and registration with the DUERP(single document on occupational risks). For HR departments, the issue therefore goes beyond individual health. It touches on governance, work organization, and collective regulation.
Difference between individual suffering and organizational risk
When tension becomes widespread and repeated, in contexts of successive reorganizations, reinforced objectives, or reduced room for maneuver, it often refers to collective determinants. What distinguishes a mature organization is not the absence of tension, but its ability to analyze its structural causes.
Treating only individual suffering without questioning these determinants amounts to shifting the problem rather than addressing its cause.
Why a purely psychological interpretation is insufficient in business
Psychosocial risks result in a certain number of lost working days in Europe. A strictly psychological approach tends to focus on individual vulnerabilities, whereas analysis of the signs often reveals organizational determinants.
The accumulation of signals (recurring tensions, short breaks, gradual disengagement, etc.) constitutes an organizational indicator in its own right. The challenge is not to identify individual weaknesses, but to understand how the organization of work can amplify or, conversely, contain them.
Mapping psychosocial risk factors in an organization
43% of European establishments report time pressure as a psychosocial risk factor, and 56% mention contact with difficult customers or users (EU-OSHA, ESENER 2024).
The major categories of organizational factors
High time pressure and excessive workload are among the factors cited by employees.
In France, these factors translate into daily trade-offs: high targets, frequent reorganizations, intensification of work, staff reductions, and demands for responsiveness. Mapping these risks does not mean drawing up an abstract list, but analyzing how these dimensions interact and reinforce each other in a given context.
Visible factors versus silent systemic factors
According to William Cockburn, Executive Director of EU-OSHA, 25% of organizations do not recognize the existence of psychosocial risks.
This discrepancy reveals a common difficulty: certain tensions end up being normalized and integrated as a normal way of operating. At this stage, the question is no longer simply whether a factor exists, but whether the organization is willing to recognize and name it. Primary prevention begins precisely with this work of clarification.
Interaction between work organization and individual vulnerabilities
Depression and anxiety result in the loss of 12 billion workdays worldwide each year (WHO, 2019).
When organizational factors (overwork, lack of autonomy, or conflicting values) coincide with individual vulnerabilities, the risk increases. Primary prevention, focused on work organization, clarity of roles, and room for maneuver, is therefore a key lever.
Detect weak signals before visible deterioration
In 2023, the absenteeism rate in France reached 5.17% of theoretical hours worked, with 27.46% of employees having taken at least one day off.
Underestimated HR indicators
Absences of less than three days account for 17.14% of all absences.
Taken in isolation, these data do not establish a direct link with psychosocial risks. However, they do serve as a warning sign when accompanied by other factors, such as recurring conflicts, managerial difficulties, or gradual disengagement. What distinguishes a mature organization is not simply the presence of absences, but its ability to analyze their dynamics and context.
What social barometers do not always capture
59% of European establishments mention the difficulty of talking openly about psychosocial risks (EU-OSHA, 2024).
In France, the role of the CSE and social dialogue is central to removing these obstacles. Social dialogue is not just a formal framework: it is a key lever for primary prevention and a factor in the legitimacy of the actions taken.
Cross-referencing quantitative data and field observations
64% of establishments report having sufficient information to integrate psychosocial risks (EU-OSHA, 2024).
However, this data must be combined with feedback from managers, discussions with employee representatives, and analysis of the social climate. The challenge lies not in accumulating information, but in transforming it into coherent and informed decisions.
Assessing your organization's RPS maturity level
47% of French establishments report having stepped up their efforts to prevent psychosocial risks (Dares). This figure reflects a real shift, but it also reveals that the process is still incomplete. Not all organizations are at the same level of structuring.
Reactive, preventive, or integrated organization?
74% of establishments take action on physical risks, compared with 47% for psychosocial risks (Dares). The gap is significant. It highlights a continuing uneven maturity and serves as a reminder that psychosocial prevention remains less systematic than the prevention of physical risks in many organizations.
An integrated organization is not defined by the proliferation of systems. It is distinguished by the consistency of its approach: the alignment of strategy, work organization, and management. In other words, it is not about doing more, but about acting in a more structured way.
Governance, roles, and responsibilities
The integration of psychosocial risks requires clarification of roles: senior management, managers, HR, the Social and Economic Committee (CSE), and even occupational health services. Each party is involved at a specific level, but responsibilities must still be explicitly defined.
64% of European establishments report that they are informed about how to integrate psychosocial risks into their assessments (EU-OSHA, 2024). The issue is therefore no longer purely technical. It has become organizational: how can responsibilities be clearly allocated? How can priorities be decided when resources are limited? Maturity is demonstrated by this ability to move from information to decision-making.
Existing mechanisms: consistency or accumulation?
Adding more and more measures without an overall vision can lead to a stacking effect. A hotline, a barometer, a listening unit, or an isolated action plan are not enough to constitute a strategy.
The real challenge is not to add another tool, but to ensure consistency between work organization, management, and social dialogue. Maturity lies in this ability to connect systems rather than juxtapose them.
Structure a credible psychosocial risk prevention approach
47% of French establishments report taking specific measures to prevent psychosocial risks (Dares). A credible approach is based not on intention, but on structure.
Initial diagnosis: internal, external, or mixed?
64% of establishments have sufficient information to include psychosocial risks in their assessments (EU-OSHA, 2024). The data exists. The challenge lies not so much in collecting it as in ensuring its consistency.
Therefore, the choice between an internal, external, or mixed diagnosis depends less on the existence of data than on the organization's ability to analyze it objectively. An internal diagnosis may suffice when the indicators are structured and usable. Conversely, an external perspective becomes relevant when the data is fragmented, sensitive, or subject to interpretation.
At this stage, the issue is no longer simply identifying a risk, but prioritizing. A relevant diagnosis does not seek to address everything simultaneously: it allows for the definition of an order of action compatible with the organization's actual capabilities.
Prioritization of actions according to severity and business impact
The WHO estimates that depression and anxiety cause $1 trillion in lost productivity each year (WHO, 2019). This figure serves as a reminder that psychosocial risks are not only a health issue, but also an economic one.
Integrating this dimension makes it possible to objectify trade-offs, particularly when resources are limited. Primary prevention focused on work organization, workload, and autonomy remains the key lever. Secondary or tertiary actions make sense when they fit into this broader framework.
Integrating psychosocial risks into the QVCT strategy and sustainable performance
Psychosocial risks are among the most common work-related health problems in Europe (EU-OSHA, 2024). In France, they are included in QVCT negotiations and in the context of social dialogue.
The challenge is not to pit performance against prevention, nor to juxtapose them. It is to consider them together. A mature QWL strategy does not treat psychosocial risks as a secondary issue. It integrates them as an essential component of sustainable performance.
Legal obligations and employer responsibility regarding psychosocial risks
The employer must subscribe to an occupational health and safety service or organize a compliant internal service (Ministry of Labor, 2025). This obligation structures the framework for action.
Current regulatory framework
The Labor Inspectorate is stepping up its checks on the inclusion of psychosocial risks in the DUERP (DUERP-France, 2024). The issue is no longer marginal. It is now the subject of increased attention from the authorities.
Single document and risk assessment
Psychosocial risks must be included in the DUERP (single document on occupational risks) in the same way as other risks. What distinguishes a mature organization is its ability to make the DUERP a living tool that is regularly updated and linked to social dialogue.
A formal document is not enough. It must become a tool for management and exchange.
Legal risks of inaction
More than 10,000 mental health conditions have led to claims for recognition as occupational diseases (EUROGIP, 2023). This figure clearly demonstrates the exposure that employers may face.
In this context, the question is no longer whether the risk is theoretical. It concerns the organization's ability to demonstrate that it has identified psychosocial risk factors, assessed their impact, and taken appropriate preventive action. Failure to do so may result in the organization being held liable under its safety obligation.
Managing psychosocial risks over time: indicators and trade-offs
The average cost of absenteeism at work per employee per year is €4,000 (Malakoff Humanis).
These data remind us that psychosocial risks are also part of a concrete economic reality.
Which KPIs should you actually track?
In 2024, 42% of employees were prescribed at least one sick leave period during the year (Malakoff Humanis).
These indicators must be analyzed with caution and contextualized. Absenteeism is a signal, not proof. What matters is the evolution of trends, their distribution, and how they relate to other indicators: turnover, conflicts, or even internal alerts.
The challenge is not to accumulate figures, but to identify the underlying dynamics.
Arbitrate between primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention
When not prevented or addressed, psychosocial risks can lead to serious health problems, including death. This reminder highlights the potential seriousness of such situations.
Primary prevention, focused on work organization, remains the key driver. Secondary and tertiary measures are most effective when they are part of this overall approach.
How to present an RPS plan to the COMEX?
21% of establishments find psychosocial risks difficult to manage, while 64% have sufficient information to integrate them (EU-OSHA, 2024).
In other words, the problem is not the lack of data, but the ability to structure it into strategic decisions. This is precisely what is at stake during a presentation to the executive committee.
Strategic maturity consists of transforming this information into clear, prioritized trade-offs. Presenting an RPS plan to the executive committee is not about presenting a list of actions. It is about demonstrating an ability to analyze, prioritize, and project into the future.
When should you seek external support?
59% of establishments mention the difficulty of talking openly about psychosocial risks (EU-OSHA, 2024). This reluctance can hinder analysis and decision-making.
Signs that the organization can no longer handle things on its own
More than 10,000 work-related mental health disorders are the subject of claims for recognition (EUROGIP, 2023).
When tensions become legal issues or internal mechanisms reach their limits, the question of external support may arise. The challenge is not to delegate responsibility, but to strengthen structuring and prevention capabilities within a secure and consistent framework.
