Work-Related Stress – A Policy and an EAP Won’t Make You Compliant with the Law

This blog has been written by Peter Haynes, one of our experienced Health & Safety Business Partners and IOSH trainers.

Drawing on decades of practical, hands-on experience across high-risk industries, Peter brings a real-world perspective to the legal and operational challenges of managing work-related stress, helping employers understand not just what the law requires, but what effective management looks like in practice.

May was Mental Health Awareness Month – a timely prompt for UK employers to spotlight wellbeing, reduce stigma, and build healthier workplace cultures. However, good intentions and awareness alone are not enough. UK health and safety law requires employers to assess all reasonably foreseeable risks to their employees and to reduce those risks ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ (SFRP).

Work-related stress is undoubtedly a reasonably foreseeable risk. Directors and senior managers therefore need to assure themselves that it is being effectively managed. Otherwise, they may find themselves subject to unwelcome attention from regulators, whether the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or Local Authorities (LA).

Society’s expectations regarding stress at work have changed significantly over the past 25 years. In 1999, I was a newly appointed Offshore Installation Manager on a large oil and gas production platform. A supervisor had just returned to work after an extended absence for what was then referred to as a ‘nervous breakdown’, reportedly caused by stressors in his role. It was immediately clear that he was agitated and exhibiting early signs of renewed stress.

When I sought advice from the company doctor, I was told that work-related stress was not an illness and that the individual likely needed more training in coping mechanisms. This reflected the prevailing attitude at the time – a reluctance to acknowledge that prevention is better than cure. In terms of the hierarchy of control, it was akin to relying solely on personal protective equipment (PPE) to manage a hazard.

I attempted to adjust his role and provide support. However, it became evident that the job could not be sufficiently modified to safeguard his wellbeing. Notably, other supervisors in the same role were not similarly affected. Ultimately, we redeployed him into a different functional position where he could use his skills effectively while being shielded from the day-to-day stressors of line management.

What is particularly striking is that, four years earlier, the landmark case of Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995) had already established that employers owe a duty of care to protect employees from psychiatric injury caused by work. A key element of the ruling was the reasonable foreseeability of harm. In that case, the claimant suffered a second nervous breakdown due to work-related stress and was subsequently dismissed.

Fast forward 25 years, and the profile of work-related stress has increased dramatically. In the 12 months ending 31 March 2025, nearly one million people reported a new or ongoing mental health problem caused or exacerbated by work, resulting in over 22 million working days lost. Work-related mental health issues now account for over half of all occupational ill health cases.

Neither the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 nor the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 explicitly reference mental health or psychosocial risks. However, one of the strengths of the UK’s goal-setting, risk-based framework is its flexibility. It allows for interpretation as new hazards emerge and societal expectations evolve.

For 2025/2026, one of the HSE’s five strategic objectives is to reduce work-related ill health, with a specific focus on mental health and stress. Their approach combines awareness campaigns, such as Working Minds, with proactive inspection and enforcement where necessary.

The HSE defines stress as “the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them at work.” Its effects can include emotional, behavioural, and physical changes, as well as reduced work performance. Individuals experience stress differently, depending on their skills, experience, personality, and any existing conditions.

Short-term stress can be a natural and manageable response to challenge. However, chronic stress – whether work-related or influenced by external factors – can lead to serious conditions such as anxiety and depression, or worsen existing mental health issues.

Employers have a statutory duty to protect workers from stress. This includes conducting stress risk assessments and implementing appropriate control and monitoring measures to reduce risks SFRP. The HSE provides guidance through its Stress Risk Assessment tools and Management Standards, which focus on six key areas of work design:

• Demands – workload, work patterns, and the work environment
• Control – how much influence a worker has over their work
• Support – the level of support from managers and colleagues
• Relationships – promoting positive working relationships
• Role – clarity around job roles and responsibilities
• Change – how organisational change is managed and communicated

Managing stress effectively involves four key steps:

1. Carrying out a risk assessment
2. Implementing practical measures to reduce stress SFRP
3. Promoting open conversations, for example through HSE Stress Talking Toolkits
4. Monitoring and reviewing arrangements to ensure they remain effective

In addition to health and safety legislation, employers must consider obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 2025. The Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments where a mental health condition meets the legal definition of a disability. While the Employment Rights Act 2025 does not explicitly reference stress, it addresses related issues such as sick pay, flexible working, and protection from workplace harassment.

A recent case highlights the importance of going beyond policy alone. In April 2024, the HSE received a complaint regarding the management of work-related stress among staff at the University of Birmingham. The University had policies, risk assessments, and control measures in place. However, following an inspection, the HSE identified material breaches of Regulations 3, 4, and 5 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

In December 2025, the HSE wrote to the Vice-Chancellor requiring a time-bound SMART action plan by 31 January 2026, with full implementation by 30 September 2026. The message was clear: having systems on paper is not enough. They must be effective in practice. Failure to improve could result in further enforcement action, including prosecution.

In conclusion, work-related stress is a manageable risk. However, like any other workplace hazard, it must be actively managed using a structured approach. The Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, as outlined in HSG65 Managing for Health and Safety, provides a practical framework for doing so. A policy and an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) may be useful tools, but they are not, in themselves, sufficient to ensure legal compliance.