Recently, the Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo and co-plaintiff labor unions obtained a preliminary injunction ordering the Ministry of Labor to refrain from imposing requirements and sanctions based on noncompliance with the provisions of Regulatory Standard No. 1 related to psychosocial risks.
The measure benefits the companies represented by the organizations that filed the lawsuit and reignites an important debate: how can companies comply with legal obligations when there are still uncertainties regarding the criteria that will be used to monitor compliance?
The legal dispute does not diminish the importance of the issue. Work-related psychosocial risks are among the leading causes of social security-related leave and directly impact indicators such as absenteeism, presenteeism, productivity, talent retention, and organizational climate.
It is worth noting that concerns about mental health in the workplace did not arise with the recent update to Regulatory Standard No. 1. Issues related to work organization and its impact on workers’ health were already addressed in Regulatory Standard No. 17 and other occupational health and safety standards.
The main point of debate is not the existence of the problem, but the lack of clarity regarding the parameters required of companies. The absence of objective criteria can create legal uncertainty and lead organizations to adopt measures that are inappropriate, overly intrusive, or ineffective, simply in an attempt to demonstrate compliance with the standard.
On the other hand, the existence of legal challenges should not be interpreted as a reason for inaction. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, it is increasingly important for companies to identify their risk factors, establish channels for listening to employees, train leaders, and document the measures adopted to prevent and manage psychosocial risks.
The preliminary injunction sparks an important debate on legal certainty and the limits of regulatory enforcement. However, it does not alter an already established reality: workers’ mental health is no longer merely a matter of well-being but has become an integral part of companies’ strategic agendas, with direct implications for business performance, productivity, and sustainability.
At the same time, the decision may set an important precedent for future discussions involving fines that fail to take into account the measures actually adopted by companies to prevent and mitigate psychosocial risks, especially given the lack of objective and uniform criteria for assessing compliance with regulatory requirements.
