The topic of psychosocial risks has gained relevance with the publication of the new wording of the Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1), which will enter into force on the 26th. However, leaves of absence due to mental health issues and discussions regarding the classification of benefits provided by the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) as either work-related or common benefits are not new.
The new rule establishes the mandatory inclusion of psychosocial risk factors in the Risk Management Program (PGR), through the identification of hazards, risk assessment, and definition of preventive measures applicable to each homogeneous exposure group (people exposed to the same risk factors). This is not about checking individual symptoms or validating well-being policies but identifying whether — and how — the work environment may cause mental health issues for workers.
Although the regulatory concept is relatively clear, its practical implementation still raises numerous questions. In practice, there remains uncertainty as to the best way to comply with this obligation.
Our experience indicates that proper implementation requires, as a starting point, a prior ergonomic analysis of the work environment. This analysis makes it possible to understand, in a structured manner, the activities performed, the organization of work, and the dynamics of interactions among workers — elements that are essential for the correct identification of psychosocial risk factors and their respective exposure levels.
In this context, the adoption of standardized solutions — such as diagnoses based exclusively on questionnaires — tends to produce results disconnected from organizational reality. This may lead to both an overestimation and an underestimation of actual risks, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the PGR. Poorly conducted assessments have the potential to harm the organization, with the most recurrent consequence being the presumption that any absence due to mental health issues result from the work environment and justify the granting of work-related benefits, whose labor and social security impacts are significant for the company.
In this regard, it is worth highlighting that:
- There is no single or mandatory methodology/tool for risk assessment, as stated by the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MTE) itself, in the Manual for the Interpretation and Application of Chapter 1.5 of NR-1, published in March of this year.
- The adoption of different methodologies for mapping psychosocial risks is legitimate, such as: (i) direct observation of patterns of interaction among workers; (ii) history of litigation and leaves of absence; (iii) absenteeism and turnover rates; (iv) records of complaints and grievances (whistleblowing channels); and (v) information shared by the Internal Commission for Accident and Harassment Prevention (CIPA).
Reinforcing this understanding, the MTE released, on May 6th, a document with questions and answers to guide companies on the changes to NR-1. In the material, the MTE reiterated that there is no mandatory methodology for assessing psychosocial risks and that standardized questionnaires, when used, will not be considered sufficient to demonstrate the management of these risks (access the material here).
Another aspect that deserves attention concerns governance of the topic. Centralizing this agenda within a single department tends to result in incomplete or inconsistent approaches. Effective management of psychosocial risks requires an interdisciplinary approach, involving human resources, occupational health, legal departments, and operational leadership.
The educational nature attributed to the first year of effectiveness of the new wording of NR-1 should not be interpreted as room for improvisation. On the contrary, it represents an opportunity for companies to structure initiatives in a consistent manner and aligned with their specific reality. Each organization has its own culture, structure, and challenges—and it is precisely these particularities that should guide how psychosocial risks are identified, assessed, and managed.
