The psychosocial risks in the workplace have come to play a more prominent role in people management, compliance, and sustainability. As of May 26, 2026, the new wording of Chapter 1.5 of NR-1 is in effect for organizations covered by the standard. The change mandates the explicit inclusion of these factors in Occupational Risk Management and, where applicable, in the PGR.
This issue also touches on the Social pillar of ESG, as it involves health, labor relations, rights, equity, and psychological safety. More than just a regulatory requirement, this change brings Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) management even closer to the ESG agenda.
Psychosocial risks now provide strategic insights for monitoring organizational health, supporting management decisions, and strengthening indicators under the Social Pillar.
In 2026, a comprehensive report on the psychosocial work environment It estimated that these factors are associated with more than 840,000 deaths annually. The combined economic impact was estimated at 1.37% of global GDP per year.
In Brazil, the Social Security Report for July 2025 There were 546,200 sick leave cases due to mental and behavioral disorders. This represented a 15.7% increase over 2024, and women accounted for 63.5% of the benefits granted.
These figures show why compliance cannot be limited to simply updating documents. The challenge is to create a verifiable process capable of identifying exposures, prioritizing controls, and tracking results.
Next, learn how to turn regulatory requirements into management insights for Social ESG.
NR-1 and Psychosocial Risks: What Has Changed in Chapter 1.5
Psychosocial risks are hazards arising from the design, organization, and management of work. They can affect the psychological, physical, and social health of those exposed to them.
Overwork, harassment, limited autonomy, conflicts, isolation, and lack of support are among the possible factors. The regulatory focus is on working conditions, not in individual clinical diagnoses.
The right question isn't just whether a person is experiencing anxiety, stress, or burnout. The company needs to investigate which aspects of the job might trigger or exacerbate these conditions.
MTE Ordinance No. 1,419, dated August 27, 2024, amended Chapter 1.5 of NR-1. The text now expressly mentions work-related psychosocial factors among ergonomic risks.
The GRO should cover physical, chemical, and biological risks, as well as accident risks and those related to ergonomic factors. This last group includes psychosocial risks linked to work activities, organization, or management.
NR-1 has also strengthened its integration with NR-17, which addresses ergonomic conditions in the workplace. This connection requires an analysis of work organization, job demands, autonomy, and workplace relationships.
The process must include hazard identification, assessment, classification, prevention, and monitoring of the controls implemented.
The new wording took effect on May 26, 2026. Since that date, organizations have been subject to the applicable requirements.
The official document on enforcement calls for two visits to ensure compliance with the new provisions. During the 90 days following the effective date, enforcement efforts will focus primarily on guidance, instruction, and notification.
Once this period has ended, noncompliance may result in notices of violation and other administrative measures. The guidance phase does not constitute an exemption from compliance or authorization to postpone the process.
The Regulatory Standards apply to organizations and public agencies with employees governed by the CLT. Different provisions apply to certain micro-enterprises and small businesses.
Even when exempt from the PGR, the organization may still be required to conduct a Preliminary Ergonomic Assessment. This assessment must take into account work-related psychosocial factors when they apply to the conditions being analyzed.
Psychosocial Risk Assessment Table: How to Identify Key Factors in Practice
One psychosocial risk table It organizes the initial analysis and facilitates linking to the PGR inventory. It should not serve as a generic checklist or exhaustive list.
Each organization needs to adapt these factors to its specific activities, departments, work schedules, leadership models, and affected groups. The survey should seek evidence regarding actual work conditions, including in-person, remote, and hybrid work situations.
The table below provides a practical framework to support this preparation.
| Psychosocial risk factor | Evidence of exposure | Possible consequences | Management Responses |
| Excessive demands | Recurring overtime, conflicting deadlines, and a backlog of tasks | Burnout, Mental Health Disorders, and WMSDs | Resize teams, review goals, and balance priorities |
| Low demand or underload | Prolonged inactivity, repetitive tasks, and underutilization of skills | Lack of motivation, psychological distress, and a loss of meaning | Redesign roles and expand the range of activities |
| Low battery life | Excessively centralized decision-making and constant oversight | Stress, tension, and reduced ability to adapt | Establish decision-making margins and strengthen participation |
| Lack of clarity regarding roles | Conflicting responsibilities, conflicting orders, and a lack of criteria | Insecurity, conflicts, and rework | Update roles, workflows, and responsibilities |
| Lack of support | Unavailable leaders and a lack of support among teams | Isolation, stress, and the escalation of conflicts | Establish support routines and train managers |
| Low recognition | Effort with no return, unclear criteria, and unequal opportunities | Disengagement, frustration, and turnover | Make recognition, career advancement, and compensation more transparent |
| Low organizational justice | Inconsistent decisions, favoritism, and unequal application of rules | Distrust, Conflict, and Psychological Distress | Review decisions and establish verifiable criteria |
| Poor Change Management | Restructuring without communication, consultation, or preparation | Insecurity, Overload, and Resistance | Assess impacts and clarify responsibilities |
| Harassment or discrimination | Complaints, reports, retaliation, and unequal treatment | Mental health issues, fear, and absences | Strengthen prevention, investigation, and protection against retaliation |
| Violent or traumatic events | Assaults, threats, and frequent exposure to critical situations | Trauma, Stress, and Illness | Develop protocols, support, and security measures |
| Isolated remote work | Poor communication, hyperconnectivity, and a lack of integration | Fatigue, isolation, and loss of support | Setting boundaries, establishing communication routines, and the right to disconnect |
| Deteriorating work relationships | Recurring conflicts, hostility, and reduced cooperation | Stress, Decline in Performance, and Suffering | Mediating conflicts and correcting leadership practices |
The examples reflect factors found in the official materials, but they do not cover all possibilities. Inspectors will assess the consistency between the methodology, actual working conditions, identified hazards, and measures implemented.
An area with no formal complaints should not automatically be classified as safe. Fear, distrust of the reporting channel, or fear of retaliation can lead to organizational silence.
The analysis must combine documentary data, insights, observations, and information on the execution of activities. A comprehensive table also lists exposed areas, existing controls, responsible parties, and residual risk.
These fields turn the list into a tool for prioritization, not just a descriptive inventory.
How to Conduct a Psychosocial Risk Assessment Within the PGR
A psychosocial risk assessment It should follow the same approach applied to other occupational risks. The process begins with governance, scope, documented criteria, and the definition of responsibilities.
1. Define governance and responsibilities
Legal responsibility for the GRO and the PGR lies with the organization. NR-1 does not specify a single professional category to oversee the entire process.
The company should select individuals with technical expertise that is commensurate with the nature and complexity of its operations. Multidisciplinary teams may include specialists in occupational safety and health, ergonomics, human resources, legal affairs, compliance, and organizational behavior.
CIPA and worker representatives must participate in the applicable formats. This combination reduces fragmented interpretations and enhances the quality of decisions.
2. Gather information about the actual work
The diagnosis must take into account facilities, processes, workstations, work shifts, and activities performed. It must also consider age, gender, and other relevant characteristics of the exposed groups.
Records of absences, accidents, employee turnover, overtime, and complaints help identify areas of concern. Surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observation can supplement administrative data.
The assessment must cover all activities, even when implementation begins with a pilot area. Remote work, hybrid work, and telecommuting must also be taken into account.
In these models, isolation, surveillance, intensification, and difficulty in disengagement can alter exposure.
3. Conduct the AEP and go into more detail when necessary
The Preliminary Ergonomic Assessment serves as an initial approach to identifying hazards and assessing risks. The Ergonomic Work Analysis examines in greater depth situations that meet the conditions set forth in NR-17.
AEP cannot be replaced by a single mental health survey. Questionnaires can support the diagnosis, but their results must undergo technical analysis.
The findings must be incorporated into the AEP or the risk inventory. A form that lacks interpretation, contextualization, and an action plan does not demonstrate adequate management.
4. Rate probability and severity
The evaluation criteria must be formalized and available for review. The organization must explain how it defines probability, severity, risk levels, and control decisions.
For psychosocial factors, the probability takes into account the demands of the activity and the effectiveness of preventive measures. Severity may consider potential injuries, health complications, the duration of exposure, and the affected groups.
A generic matrix should be adjusted when it does not adequately represent the psychosocial risk being analyzed.
5. Update the risk inventory
The inventory must list processes, activities, hazards, exposed groups, and possible consequences. It must also document existing controls, classification, criteria used, and necessary measures.
The absence of a particular factor may be technically justifiable. The company must demonstrate that it investigated the risk using a method that was sufficiently thorough and realistic.
6. Outline the action plan
The plan should translate findings into deliverables with assigned responsibilities, priorities, and deadlines. The first course of action should aim to eliminate or reduce the hazard at its source. Training sessions alone cannot correct unrealistic goals, understaffed teams, or abusive leadership practices.
Organizational measures may include reviewing workloads, changing workflows, and establishing clearer decision-making criteria. Secure reporting channels, investigation protocols, and protection against retaliation are also part of prevention efforts.
7. Monitor effectiveness and review the process
The company must monitor implementation, results, and residual risks. A comprehensive review is conducted at least every two years or in the situations specified in the standard.
Organizational changes, accidents, inadequacies, or a loss of effectiveness may prompt this review. Monitoring should verify whether the control measure has improved actual working conditions.
Meeting the deadline for a lawsuit does not mean that the risk has been reduced.
Psychosocial risks as an indicator of the Social pillar of ESG
The information generated during the management of psychosocial risks is not only used to comply with NR-1. It also provides evidence of how the company protects its human capital, manages social impacts, and strengthens its governance, making it a key component of the ESG Social Pillar strategy.
Therefore, psychosocial risks should not be treated as isolated issues in occupational safety and health (OSH) reports. They help explain variations in absenteeism, turnover, productivity, complaints, and the sense of belonging.
A company may have a low number of absences while still maintaining a high-stress work environment. This scenario arises when people work while sick, sweep conflicts under the rug, or avoid seeking support.
Quantitative indicators must be combined with qualitative information and organizational context. Analysis by area, leadership, work schedule, and social group reveals inequalities hidden by the averages.
One Diversity Census This interpretation can be supported when it includes a sense of belonging, security, and perceived barriers. The assessment must respect anonymity, purpose, transparency, and the protection of personal data.
Intersectional perspectives make the assessment more accurate. Black women, LGBTQIAPN+ individuals, people with disabilities, and other groups may face distinct exposures.
The article on Black women in the labor market It shows how overall averages can mask social inequalities. Social ESG gains credibility when a company tracks risks, causes, controls, and progress.
Reports no longer focus solely on actions taken; instead, they now demonstrate measurable effects. A useful framework can connect four levels:
- Exhibition: What factors are involved, and which groups are most at risk?.
- Answer: what controls, policies, and resources have been implemented.
- Result: which indicators improved following the interventions.
- Governance: those who monitor, make decisions, review, and are accountable.
This approach makes it possible to compare time periods, units, and areas without reducing people to statistics taken out of context. It also provides evidence for boards, audits, sustainability reports, and investment decisions.
August Lilac: Violence Against Women in the Workplace as a Direct Psychosocial Factor
"Lilac August" was established nationwide as a month dedicated to protection and raising awareness to end violence against women. The campaign is linked to the Maria da Penha Law, which was enacted on August 7, 2006.
In the workplace, violence and harassment can constitute psychosocial factors directly related to work. Sexual harassment, humiliation, intimidation, threats, and retaliation alter the conditions under which work is performed.
Gender discrimination can also manifest in promotions, compensation, task assignment, and opportunities. These practices lead to insecurity, fear, isolation, and a loss of trust in internal mechanisms.
The company needs to monitor both explicit behaviors and less visible patterns. A concentration of complaints, high turnover among female employees, and differences in a sense of belonging may indicate areas of greater vulnerability.
Violence can also take on intersectional dimensions. Black women, lesbians, bisexual women, transgender women, women with disabilities, and migrant women may face overlapping vulnerabilities.
Management needs to address the risks that have already been analyzed on the agenda of LGBTphobia in the Workplace. The law establishes specific measures for companies with a CIPA.
These include internal policies, reporting procedures, investigations, and annual training sessions. The content must address violence, harassment, equality, and diversity at all levels of the organization.
These obligations are consistent with NR-1, but they are not identical. The anti-harassment policy does not replace the identification and assessment of risks in the GRO.
The reporting channel also does not replace an analysis of working conditions and work organization. Domestic violence requires a separate classification. It is not automatically included in the GRO when it is unrelated to professional activities.
The company can also provide shelter, protection, and accommodations for female employees who are victims of violence. The law provides for support for female employees and encourages shelter and protection programs.
The company’s response must protect the woman’s confidentiality, autonomy, and safety. Managers should not investigate domestic situations without proper training or consent. Their role is to activate protocols, provide resources, and prevent further exposure in the workplace.
What Your Company Needs to Monitor and Report Going Forward
Monitoring does not mean publishing individual data or medical information. The goal is to track exposures, controls, and results using aggregated and protected data.
A management dashboard can include the following metrics:
| Dimension | Suggested indicators | Management Question |
| Load and trip | Overtime, workload, and breaks | Does capacity meet the demands? |
| Occupational Health | Suspensions, Restrictions, and Recurrences | Are there any groupings by area or activity? |
| Labor Relations | Complaints, Conflicts, and Retaliation | Are the internal mechanisms reliable? |
| Psychological security | Fear of Speaking, Confidence, and Support | Can people report problems? |
| Autonomy | Participation and control over tasks | Is there sufficient decision-making authority for the position? |
| Organizational justice | Promotions, Compensation, and Recognition | Do the criteria result in unequal treatment? |
| Leadership | Risks by Area and Team | Are there any patterns associated with managers? |
| Prevention | Completed and Overdue Tasks | Is the plan being implemented? |
| Effectiveness | Initial and residual risk | Did the measures reduce exposure? |
| Governance | Reviews and recorded decisions | Does management monitor the results? |
The internal report should highlight trends, priorities, and deviations. Boards and committees need to understand which risks could affect people, operations, and reputation.
Simply reporting the number of training sessions conducted provides little evidence of effectiveness. It is more useful to demonstrate a reduction in exposure, an increase in confidence, and the correction of organizational causes.
The plan should also establish access restrictions. Sensitive data must remain anonymized and restricted to authorized teams. Small groups require greater caution, as cross-referencing may allow for indirect identification.
The company must document its methodology, employee participation, and analysis criteria. During an inspection, the inventory, AEP, action plan, and review records may be reviewed.
Interviews, environmental observations, and evidence of implementation may also be part of the verification process. What is in the document must correspond to the work actually performed.
Well-written policies are no substitute for missing controls or known issues that go unaddressed.
How Structured Management Reduces Legal Exposure and Strengthens ESG Metrics
Compliance begins before an audit. It is reflected in the ability to explain how each risk was identified, classified, and addressed. Consistent documentation reduces vulnerabilities, but it is not enough on its own.
The company must demonstrate its involvement in, implementation of, monitoring of, and correction of ineffective measures. Failure to do so may result in notifications, compliance demands, and notices of violation.
Other labor-related implications may arise depending on the specific circumstances of each situation. Structured management also bridges the gap between occupational safety and health (OSH), human resources (HR), compliance, and sustainability.
Each area now operates according to common criteria, defined responsibilities, and comparable data. This integration strengthens the Social ESG indicators.
Risks are no longer identified only after suspensions, complaints, or legal disputes. They are now monitored before they lead to more serious consequences.
The company also improves its ability to prioritize investments. Areas with greater exposure receive proportionate measures, shorter deadlines, and close monitoring.
Reports become more traceable, as each indicator can be linked to a risk and its corresponding control. This consistency reduces generic statements about care, well-being, and culture.
When Compliance Becomes Intelligence for Social ESG
NR-1 has created an opportunity to review how work is designed, monitored, and managed. Compliance with the standard requires a systematic approach, participation, documentation, and decisions capable of addressing the root causes of exposure.
One data-driven management It helps gather the insights, social indicators, and evidence needed for monitoring.
This support does not replace the PGR, the AEP, or the organization’s technical responsibilities. It enhances the ability to identify patterns, prioritize risks, and monitor cultural changes.
Organizations that deal with psychosocial risks in the workplace These methods strengthen compliance and produce more reliable indicators for the Social pillar of ESG.