Psychosocial Risks in the Changing World of Work: Moving from the Risk Assessment Culture to the Management of Opportunities

Main Article Content

Cristina Di Tecco
Benedetta Persechino
Sergio Iavicoli

Keywords

psychosocial impacts, risk management, hybrid work;, violence and harassment at work;, action plan

Abstract

Increased attention to psychosocial risks and their potential impacts on workers’ mental and physical health has flourished due to the changes taking place in the world of work. The changes in the world of work and the recent worldwide events have exacerbated the existing psychosocial risks and brought out new psychosocial risks to be considered for protecting workers’ health. This favors the opening up of national and international debate on prioritizing psychosocial risks at work at the policies, strategies, and actions level. This contribution highlights the critical issues to be addressed, the needs to be covered, and the opportunities for better and more effective OSH protection in the workplace. Starting from a definition of psychosocial risks and their potential impacts, we offer an overview of the most recent developments in policies and strategies and the contribution of research in this field over time. A critical reflection on emerging topics, main needs, and challenges for organizations and stakeholders is offered. This time of change poses great concerns but also offers a great opportunity of moving from a culture of assessment to a culture of psychosocial risk management for improving workers’ well-being, productivity, and health, where the risk assessment is an important step but not a point of arrival.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 530 | PDF Downloads 399

References

1. Schulte PA, Delclos G, Felknor SA, Chosewood LC. Toward an expanded focus for Occupational Safety and Health: A Commentary. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16 (4946),1–17. Doi:10.3390/ijerph16244946.
2. Backhaus I, Hoven H, Di Tecco C, Iavicoli S, Conte A, et al. Economic change and population health: lessons learnt from an umbrella review on the Great Recession. BMJ Open 2022; 12: e060710. Doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060710.
3. Backhaus I, Hoven H, Bambra C, Oksanen T, Rigó M, Di Tecco C, Iavicoli S. Dragano, N. Changes in work-related stressors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: differences by gender and parental sta-tus. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022; 11, 1–11. Doi: 10.1007/s00420-022-01933-w.
4. Iavicoli S, Di Tecco C. The management of psychosocial risks at work: state of the art and future perspec-tives. Med Lav [Internet]. 2020; 111(5), 335-50. Doi:10.23749/mdl.v111i5.10679.
5. Iavicoli S, Leka S, Nielsen K. Promoting Occupational Health Psychology through professional bodies: The role of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Work & Stress. 2020; 34(3), 215-218. Doi: 10.1080/02678373.2020.1774939.
6. Leka S, Jain A, Iavicoli S, Di Tecco C. An Evaluation of the Policy Context on Psychosocial Risks and Mental Health in the Workplace in the European Union: Achievements, Challenges, and the Future. BioMed Re-search International. 2015; n. 21308. Doi:10.1155/2015/213089.
7. Eurofound. Living, working and COVID-19 (Update April 2021): Mental health and trust decline across EU as pandemic enters another year; Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022.
8. International Labour Organization. Managing work-related psychosocial risks during the COVID-19 pan-demic; ILO, Geneva, 2020.
9. Leka S. The future of working in a virtual environment and occupational safety and health; Discussion pa-per European Agency for Safety & Health at work, 2021. Available online: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/future-working-virtual-environment-and-occupational-safety-and-health (accessed on 24 January 2022).
10. Schulte PA, Streit JMK, Sheriff F, Delclos G, Felknor SA, et al. Potential scenarios and hazards in the work of the future: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literatures. Annals of Work Exposures and Health. 2020; pp. 1-31.
11. Eurocadres. EndStress.eu campaign reaches the European Parliament. 2022 Available at. https://www.eurocadres.eu/news/the-endstress-eu-campaign-reaches-the-europea n-parliament/.
12. Cox T, Griffiths, A. The nature and measurement of work-related stress: theory and practice. In: Evaluation of Human Work, 3rd Edition. Wilson JR, Corlett N. Eds; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 1995; pp. 553–72.
13. Leka S, Cox T. The Future of Psychosocial Risk Management and the Promotion of Well-Being at Work in the European Region: A PRIMA Time for Action. In: The European Framework for Psychosocial Risk Manage-ment, Leka S, Cox T Eds.; I-WHO: Nottingham, UK, 2008; pp. 174-184.
14. Maslach C. Burnout: the cost of caring; Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey, USA, 1982.
15. Maslach C, Leiter P. Burnout e organizzazione. Modificare I fattori strutturali della demotivazione al Lavo-ro; Feltrinelli: Milano, 2000.
16. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, van Rhenen W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2008; 57(2), 173–203. Doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x
17. Russo C, Aukhojee P, McQuerrey Tuttle B, Johnson O, et al. Compassion fatigue & burnout. In: Power, Pa-pazoglou K, Blumberg DM. Eds; Academic Press, 2020; pp. 97-115.
18. Werder P, Rothlin P. Boreout! Overcoming workplace demotivation. Published London: Kogan Page, 2008.
19. Dragano N, Lunau T. Technostress at work and mental health: concepts and research results. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020; 33(4), 407-413. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000613. PMID: 32324623.
20. Salanova M, Llorens S, Cifre E. The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. Int. J. Psychol. 2013; 48, 422–436. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.680460.
21. Stadin M, Nordin M, Broström A, Magnusson HLL, Westerlund H, et al. Information and communication technology demands at work: The association with job strain, effort-reward imbalance and self-rated health in different socio-economic strata. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2016; 89:1049–1058.
22. Di Tecco C, Ronchetti M, Russo S, Ghelli M, Rondinone BM, Persechino B, Iavicoli S. Implementing Smart Working in Public Administration: a follow up study. Med Lav [Internet]. 2021 Apr. 20 [cited 2023 Feb. 15];112(2):141-52.
23. European Agency for Safety & Health at Work. Drivers and barriers for psychosocial risk management: an analy-sis of the findings of the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012. Avail-able online at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/drivers-and-barriers-psychosocial-risk-management-analysis-findings-european-survey (accessed on 24 January 2022).
24. INAIL. Valutazione e gestione del rischio da stress lavoro-correlato. Manuale ad uso delle aziende in attua-zione del D.Lgs. 81/08 e s.m.i. Tipolitografia INAIL, Milano, Italia, 2010.
25. INAIL. La metodologia per la valutazione e gestione del rischio stress lavoro-correlato. Manuale ad uso del-le aziende in attuazione del d.lgs. 81/2008 e s.m.i. Tipolitografia INAIL, Milano, Italia, 2017.
26. INAIL. La metodologia per la valutazione e gestione del rischio stress lavoro-correlato. Modulo contestual-izzato al settore sanitario. Tipolitografia INAIL, Milano, Italia, 2022.
27. INAIL: Piano di monitoraggio e d’intervento per l’ottimizzazione della valutazione e gestione dello stress lavoro-correlato. In Uno Sguardo ai Principali Risultati; Tipografia INAIL: Milano, 2016. Available online at: https://www.inail.it/cs/internet/docs/all_opuscolo_ stress_lavoro_correlato.pdf
28. Di Tecco C, Jain A, Valenti A, et al: An evaluation of the impact of a policy-level intervention to address psy-chosocial risks on organisational action in Italy. Safety Science 2017; 100 (A): 103-109. doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.015
29. Ronchetti M, Di Tecco C, Russo S, Castaldi T, Vitali S, et al. An integrated approach to the assessment of work-related stress risk: Comparison of findings from two tools in an Italian methodology, Safety Science. 2015; 80, 310-316. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.08.005.
30. Di Tecco C, Nielsen K, Ghelli M, Ronchetti M, Marzocchi I, Persechino B, Iavicoli S. Improving Working Con-ditions and Job Satisfaction in Healthcare: A Study Concept Design on a Participatory Organizational Level Intervention in Psychosocial Risks Management. International Journal of Environmental Research and Pub-lic Health. 2020; 17(10), 3677. Doi:10.3390/ijerph17103677.
31. Nielsen K, Randall R., Holte, AL, González ER. Conducting organizational-level occupational health interven-tions: What works? Work & Stress. 2010, 24(3), 234–259. Doi: 10.1080/02678373.2010.515393.
32. Nielsen K and Christensen M. Positive Participatory Organizational Interventions: A Multilevel Approach for Creating Healthy Workplaces. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12:696245. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.696245
33. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):273-285. Doi:10.1037/ocp0000056