Parliament Has Spoken: The Commission Must Now Regulate Psychosocial Risks

In a landmark vote, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have adopted a legislative-initiative report calling on the European Commission to propose EU rules on psychosocial risks, stress and mental health at work, including stronger obligations on employers to prevent and manage such risks and recognition that they can give rise to occupational diseases. The report passed by 413 votes to 210, with 29 abstentions. However, the final text adopted in plenary was more moderate than the committee version, calling for an impact assessment prior to any legislative proposal and no longer including a legal presumption that health impairments are work-related, a provision that had attracted particular criticism from employer organisations.

Parliament’s message is clear: the current EU occupational safety and health (OSH) framework, built around the 1989 Framework Directive, no longer offers the specificity or consistency needed to address contemporary psychosocial risks. Whether that recognition translates into new legislation now depends on the Commission’s response.

At a time when stress, burnout and anxiety rank among the most commonly reported work-related health problems in Europe, the implications of Parliament’s vote reach far beyond a technical debate on occupational safety and health. The vote is the culmination of more than a decade of accumulating scientific evidence and of growing recognition that the design and organisation of work can itself be a determinant of poor health, producing stress, burnout, harassment, violence, depression, cardiovascular disease and musculoskeletal disorders.

The timing matters too. The Commission has committed to proposing a Quality Jobs Act by the end of 2026, following a second-stage consultation of the social partners that ran from July to September and listed safety and health at work among its themes. Parliament’s request, made as the Quality Jobs Roadmap is being delivered, therefore arrives while the Commission is drafting the very instrument in which psychosocial risks could be addressed, or quietly left out.

This debate is not taking place in a vacuum. Recent research and policy analysis from the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) have significantly strengthened the evidence base for a dedicated legislative initiative on work-related psychosocial risks. Their findings point to persistent regulatory gaps, uneven levels of worker protection and growing challenges linked to digitalisation, work intensification and changing forms of work, reinforcing the case for a more coherent and harmonised European framework.

The evidence base will keep growing. On 13 October, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) launched its Healthy Workplaces Campaign 2026-2028, Together for Mental Health at Work, which is expected to generate further knowledge and good practice on effective interventions across sectors and Member States.

Employers’ Objections Deserve an Answer

Parliament’s vote does not end the debate. European employers have openly challenged the case for a dedicated directive. In a joint statement issued ahead of the parliamentary vote, employer organisations argued that psychosocial risks should continue to be addressed through the existing OSH framework, backed by implementation, enforcement, practical guidance and social dialogue, rather than through a new legislative instrument. They caution that highly prescriptive requirements, mandatory action plans, new reporting obligations and legal presumptions of causality could add to administrative burdens without sufficient evidence that they would improve workers’ mental health.

Their position and concerns on proportionality, implementation and regulatory effectiveness are not new but deserve a serious answer. Psychosocial risks are multifactorial, often shaped by factors both inside and outside the workplace, and proportionality and the realities of small firms matter. But the claim that the evidence is insufficient does not survive contact with what some Member States and trade unions have themselves reported to the Commission.

Two Commission peer reviews have examined precisely this question. The 2019 Peer Review on legislation and practical management of psychosocial risks at work concluded that psychosocial risks and work-related stress had become one of the most pressing OSH challenges in Europe, and it highlighted the need for stronger prevention, enforcement and exchange of good practice across Member States, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

At the follow-up 2024 Peer Review on legislative and enforcement approaches to address psychosocial risks at work, participating countries broadly recognised that general OSH duties alone may not suffice to address the complexity of work-related psychosocial risks, pointing to the need for clearer regulatory provisions, stronger enforcement mechanisms and more systematic prevention. The review stressed that legislation alone is not enough without enforcement, trained inspectors, guidance, support and awareness-raising.

Countries such as Belgium, Sweden and Finland have built dedicated legal frameworks for psychosocial risks, while other Member States have strengthened legislation, guidance, enforcement mechanisms and collective bargaining provisions to tackle work-related stress, harassment and bullying.

What the Commission Should Propose

Without reducing the debate to a binary choice for or against a dedicated EU directive on psychosocial risks, policymakers should give serious consideration to a broader package of measures.

Looking ahead. The post-2027 EU Strategic Framework on Safety and Health at Work should place far stronger emphasis on preventing and managing work-related psychosocial risks, recognising mental health, work-related stress, burnout and workplace harassment as central OSH challenges for the future of work.

Amending existing legislation where necessary. As a minimum, the Commission should use the ongoing review of EU OSH legislation, including the key Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, as an opportunity to recognise and define psychosocial risks explicitly, in line with the ILO’s description and ILO Convention No. 190. That would give their prevention and management greater legal clarity, consistency and visibility across the European Union.

Proposing a mandatory, explicit psychosocial risk assessment. This matters most. Yes, the Framework Directive already requires employers to assess and prevent all occupational risks, and psychosocial risks are generally understood to fall within that obligation. But employers need to be required to assess workload, working time, autonomy, role clarity and similar factors in earnest, with workers’ representatives involved.

Action plans linked to the assessment. An assessment without follow-up is mere paperwork. Employers should set out measures, responsibilities and review dates, prioritising collective changes to work organisation over individual resilience training.

Recognition as an occupational disease. Recognition matters for fairness and for data, but it lies largely with national social security systems. As scientific evidence continues to develop, consideration may be given to recognising psychosocial disorders and mental health conditions arising from work-related psychosocial risks in Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/2337 concerning the European schedule of occupational diseases.

Proportionality for SMEs, not exemption. Psychosocial risks do not shrink with company size, and workers in small firms are often the least protected. Any new rules should apply to all employers but allow simplified, nationally validated assessment tools for micro and small enterprises. The method developed by Spain’s National Institute for Safety and Health at Work (INSST) for firms of up to 25 workers and EU-OSHA’s OiRA tool are useful models. They should also permit lighter action-plan documentation, impose no new reporting obligations on micro-enterprises, provide free expert support through occupational health services, insurers and employer organisations, and set a phased timetable in which inspectorates advise before they sanction.

Under the legislative-initiative procedure, the Commission has three months to respond, either by setting out the measures it intends to take or by explaining why it will not act. With the Quality Jobs Act already in preparation, it has both the vehicle and the evidence. What remains is a political choice.