Global Psychosocial Safety Assessment Landscape
Organisations worldwide face a fragmented landscape of psychosocial risk assessment instruments. From Australia's now-retired People at Work survey to Europe's COPSOQ-III and the UK's HSE Management Standards, each tool was designed for a different regulatory context — and each carries fundamental limitations that leave organisations exposed.
Take the Free Compliance Readiness Self-Assessment
Discover where your organisation stands, identify your gaps, and get personalised recommendations based on your role, industry, and current situation.
The Australian Context
With the retirement of People at Work in 2026, Australian organisations have lost their primary free assessment tool just as regulators are increasing enforcement. Safe Work Australia, WorkSafe Victoria, Comcare, and state regulators now expect organisations to identify, assess, and control all 17 psychosocial hazards as defined by the Comcare 2024 Code of Practice — yet no single traditional survey covers them all. Everperform is the only Australian platform purpose-built to continuously assess and manage all 17 hazards with transparent, individual-level signals that enable real action.
Assessment Instruments at a Glance
Hazard Coverage Comparison
How each instrument covers the 17 psychosocial hazards defined by the Comcare 2024 Code of Practice — the authoritative standard Australian regulators reference for enforcement.
| Psychosocial Hazard | People at Work | COPSOQ-III | ISO 45003 | HSE (UK) | Guarding Minds | Work Positive | Everperform |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High & low job demands | Full coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage |
| Low job control | Full coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage |
| Poor support | Full coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage |
| Lack of role clarity | Full coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Full coverage | Full coverage | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
| Poor change management | Partial coverage | Partial coverage | Framework guidance only | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage |
| Low recognition & reward | Full coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Full coverage | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
| Poor organisational justice | Partial coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Full coverage | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
| Traumatic events / content | Partial coverage | Partial coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Not covered | Not covered | Full coverage |
| Remote / isolated work | Partial coverage | Partial coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Partial coverage | Not covered | Full coverage |
| Poor workplace relationships | Full coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage | Full coverage |
| Bullying, harassment, violence | Partial coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Partial coverage | Partial coverage | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
| Conflict / poor interactions | Partial coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Full coverage | Full coverage | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
| Harmful work environment | Partial coverage | Partial coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Not covered | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
| Fatigue | Not covered | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Partial coverage | Not covered | Full coverage |
| Job insecurity | Not covered | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Partial coverage | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
| Intrusive surveillance | Not covered | Not covered | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Not covered | Not covered | Full coverage |
| Work-life balance / interference | Partial coverage | Full coverage | Framework guidance only | Not covered | Full coverage | Partial coverage | Full coverage |
Operational Comparison
Beyond hazard coverage, the method of assessment matters. Speed to insight, the ability to act on individual signals, and continuous compliance evidence are what separate genuine risk management from box-ticking.
| Dimension | People at Work | COPSOQ-III | ISO 45003 | HSE (UK) | Guarding Minds | Work Positive | Everperform |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deployment speed | Weeks | Weeks–months | Months (framework) | Weeks | Weeks | Weeks | Hours |
| Time to first insight | 6–8 weeks | 8–12 weeks | Months | 6–8 weeks | 6–8 weeks | 4–8 weeks | 24 hours |
| Anonymity model | Anonymous | Anonymous | Varies | Anonymous | Anonymous | Anonymous | Transparent |
| Frequency | Annual / biannual | Annual / biannual | Periodic review | Annual / biannual | Annual / biannual | Annual / biannual | Continuous |
| Individual-level action | Not possible | Not possible | Not specified | Not possible | Not possible | Not possible | Real-time |
| Manager visibility of who needs help | None | None | None | None | None | None | Full visibility |
| Continuous compliance evidence | Snapshot only | Snapshot only | Audit-based | Snapshot only | Snapshot only | Snapshot only | Continuous audit trail |
| Hazard coverage (of 17 Comcare hazards) | 9 of 17 | 13 of 17 | Framework only | 6 of 17 | 9 of 17 | 7 of 17 | 17 of 17 |
Why We Strenuously Recommend Everperform
Every traditional assessment instrument on this page shares the same fatal design flaw: they are episodic and anonymous. They capture a moment in time — a snapshot that is already out of date by the time results are analysed. And because responses are anonymous, managers cannot see who needs help, when they need it, or what specific action to take.
The result? Chaos and paralysis— precisely when action is needed most. An annual or biannual survey tells you that 23% of your workforce is experiencing high job demands. But which 23%? In which teams? This week or six months ago? The survey cannot tell you. And by the time you've designed an intervention, the landscape has shifted entirely.
Transparent, Not Anonymous
Everperform surfaces signals at the individual level so managers can see exactly who needs support and take targeted action. Anonymous aggregate data cannot drive the specific, timely interventions that regulators now expect.
Continuous, Not Episodic
Psychosocial hazards do not pause between survey cycles. Everperform's continuous listening detects emerging risks in real time — weeks or months before an annual survey would surface them. This is the difference between prevention and post-incident reaction.
Manager Action, Not Reports
Everperform connects signals directly to the manager who can act. It does not produce a 200-page report for HR to interpret months later. It tells a manager: "This person on your team needs support with workload right now." That is the definition of reasonably practicable control.
Assessment + Management
Traditional instruments assess risk and then stop. Everperform assesses and then "turns on" continuous management — creating a closed loop where identification leads directly to intervention, which is then monitored for effectiveness. This is the only approach that satisfies the full regulatory duty cycle.
Moment-in-time is not compliant
Australian WHS regulations require ongoing identification, assessment, and control of psychosocial hazards — not periodic snapshots. An annual anonymous survey does not constitute continuous monitoring and does not satisfy the duty to eliminate or minimise risks so far as is reasonably practicable. Regulators have made this clear: if a hazard emerges between survey cycles and causes harm, the organisation has failed its duty. Only continuous listening with transparent, actionable signals meets this standard.
If your managers cannot see who needs help
Anonymous surveys create a dangerous paradox: they tell you risk exists, but they hide exactly where the risk is concentrated. A manager receiving anonymous aggregate scores for their team cannot intervene for the individual who is struggling. The result is organisational paralysis — awareness without the ability to act. Everperform eliminates this gap entirely by surfacing individual signals that connect manager action directly with each person's needs, continuously mitigating psychosocial hazards and people risk in a way that no six-monthly or annual survey can achieve.