Applying the Hierarchy of Control to Psychosocial Hazards
8 min read
From October 2025, NSW businesses must legally manage psychosocial risks using the WHS hierarchy of control. This is no longer optional, it’s a statutory duty under section 26A of the WHS Act.
Under section 55C (Reg), a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) must eliminate psychosocial risks so far as reasonably practicable, or if that is not possible, minimise them by applying the hierarchy of control measures in section 36 (Reg).
From 13 October 2025, section 26A adds a statutory duty to either comply with the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice (2021) or prove that an equivalent or higher standard has been achieved.
This article explains how to apply the WHS hierarchy of control to psychosocial hazards in line with both section 26A and the 2025 Regulation, including practical examples and documentation expectations for NSW PCBUs.
Why the Hierarchy of Control now matters
The hierarchy of control is no longer guidance; it is the enforceable method for managing psychosocial risk.
Sections 36 and 55C require PCBUs to consider control measures in descending order of effectiveness
Elimination
Substitution
Isolation
Engineering controls
Administrative controls
Personal protective or individual support measures
Under section 26A, to avoid compliance risk, you need demonstrate that this hierarchy was applied and that the resulting controls meet or exceed the standard in the Code, or it may constitute a breach of statutory duty.
Step 1 Elimination – Remove the Hazard Entirely
Elimination remains the highest order and preferred control. It means removing the work condition or practice that creates psychosocial harm.
Examples
Cease unsafe work practices — e.g. removing customer facing debt recovery activities that regularly expose workers to abuse.
Remove unnecessary job demands — eliminate duplicated reporting, redundant approval steps, or unrealistic deadlines.
End harmful rostering — discontinue split or excessive shifts that can cause chronic fatigue.
Document and record why elimination was possible or impracticable, showing the “reasonably practicable” test under section 18 of the Act.
Step 2 - Substitution (Work Redesign)
If elimination isn’t reasonably practicable, redesign or replace the work process to reduce exposure.
Examples
Replace direct confrontation - with scheduled callbacks, virtual consultations, or moderated customer communication channels.
Redesign job roles - to balance cognitive and emotional load, for example, rotating high-demand tasks with routine ones.
Introduce job sharing - to reduce workload concentration.
Automate repetitive administrative tasks - that contribute to strain.
Under section 26A, demonstrating that such redesigns meet or exceed Code examples can establish equivalence to compliance.
Step 3 - Isolation Controls
Isolation controls involve separating workers from the source of psychosocial harm, either physically or temporally, to reduce the likelihood, frequency or intensity of exposure.
For psychosocial hazards, isolation controls are particularly relevant where risk arises from direct interaction, crowded environments, or repeated exposure to aggressive, emotionally demanding or high-pressure situations, consistent with the matters listed in section 55D (2) Reg.
Examples
Secure interview or meeting rooms - that physically separate workers from high-risk customers or clients, with controlled entry and exit points.
Back of house processing or triage functions - that isolate staff from direct public interaction during high-risk tasks.
Temporal isolation through rostering - such as staggering shifts to avoid peak aggression periods or limiting consecutive exposure to high-demand roles.
Gatekeeper or escalation roles - that shield frontline workers by filtering complaints or aggressive interactions before engagement.
Restricted access zones - using swipe-card or controlled entry systems to prevent unauthorised access to staff only areas
Step 4 - Engineering Controls
Engineering controls involve physical or technological changes to reduce risk at the source. For psychosocial hazards, these often address environmental and layout factors listed in section 55D(2)(e) Reg.
Examples
Design safe work environments — physical barriers between staff and high-risk customers.
Acoustic and lighting improvements - to minimise sensory stress in open plan offices.
Security technology - such as CCTV, duress alarms, or panic buttons.
Workspace zoning - to create quiet or decompression areas.
These controls demonstrate compliance with both the regulation and the intent of the code.
Step 5 - Administrative Controls
Administrative controls manage risk through policy, systems, and supervision when higher order controls (those previously) are not practicable. They remain essential but cannot stand alone under section 26A.
Examples
Fatigue management and rostering procedures.
Workload balancing systems - that monitor hours and task allocations.
Performance management frameworks - that ensure fairness and psychological safety.
Psychosocial hazard reporting and investigation processes
Clear escalation pathways - for aggression or bullying incidents.
Administrative measures must be reviewed periodically under sections 37–38 (Reg) to ensure effectiveness.
Step 6 - Personal Protective and Individual Support Measures
These controls focus on individual support rather than hazard removal. They sit at the bottom of the hierarchy and must complement, not replace, higher order controls.
Examples
Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) and confidential counselling.
Mental health literacy and resilience training.
Coaching for conflict resolution or stress management.
While valuable, reliance on these alone would not meet the requirements of section 26A (Act) or 55C (Reg).
Integrating the Hierarchy into your Documentation
A defensible psychosocial risk register must clearly demonstrate how the WHS hierarchy of control in section 36 (Reg) has been applied to each identified psychosocial hazard, with explicit consideration of the factors listed in section 55D (2) Reg.
This requires documenting which hierarchy levels were considered, the control options assessed, and the rationale for selecting or rejecting higher order controls.
At a minimum, the register should record the hierarchy level applied, the controls implemented, their implementation status, and the reason higher order controls were not reasonably practicable.
This approach provides clear evidence of compliance with sections 55C and 55D of the Regulation and supports the PCBU’s ability to demonstrate an equivalent or higher standard of safety under section 26A of the WHS Act.
Linking Controls to Section 26A (Code Compliance)
Because section 26A requires either compliance with the code or achievement of an equivalent or higher standard, each control measure should be mapped to
The relevant Code provision (e.g. consultation, work design, review).
The equivalent or higher measure implemented.
The evidence that demonstrates outcome improvement (data, survey results, incident reduction).
This mapping provides the documentation SafeWork NSW will expect during workplace visits or investigations.
Common Weaknesses in Applying the Hierarchy
Lane Safety Systems client experience across NSW have identified frequent issues that will now carry higher legal risk
Over reliance on training or awareness campaigns.
No documented reasoning through each hierarchy level.
Ignoring physical environment or technology-based controls.
Poor or absent worker consultation records.
Lack of periodic review or data to prove effectiveness.
Under section 26A, any of these gaps can indicate failure to meet Code level performance.
Case Example - Professional Services Office
Scenario High workload pressure and role ambiguity in a professional services company.
Applying the Hierarchy
Elimination - Remove redundant approval layers that cause bottlenecks.
Substitution - Automate time tracking and reporting.
Engineering - Introduce quiet zones for focused work.
Administrative - Implement weekly workload balancing meetings.
Support - Provide confidential coaching for managers.
Each decision and rationale is recorded in the psychosocial risk register with relevant references to Code.
Demonstrating Compliance
SafeWork NSW will likely assess psychosocial compliance by reviewing
A current psychosocial risk register referencing hierarchy decisions
Documentation mapping code compliance or equivalent standards (s 26A)
Consultation records showing worker participation
Evidence of review and continuous improvement (ss 37–38)
Quantitative indicators such as incident trends or survey results.
Failure to provide these records may be taken as evidence of noncompliance with both the Regulation and the Act.
Key Takeaway
Under the combined framework of section 26A of the WHS Act and sections 36 and 55C–55D of the WHS Regulation 2025, PCBUs must do more than acknowledge psychosocial hazards.
They must prove that each risk has been managed using the WHS hierarchy of control and that their system achieves outcomes equal to or better than the Code of Practice.
Hierarchy based design, transparent documentation, and measurable review are now the standard of compliance.
How Lane Safety Systems Can Help
Lane Safety Systems assists NSW organisations to
Audit psychosocial risk registers against section 26A and sections 55C–55D
Develop hierarchy of control frameworks and mapping matrices
Facilitate worker consultation and officer briefings
Provide evidence-based documentation templates for regulator assurance.
Contact us today to ensure your psychosocial controls meet or exceed the statutory benchmark effective after 13 October 2025.
Editor’s Note
The Industrial Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Workplace Protections) Bill 2025 introduces section 26A into the WHS Act (NSW), creating a duty for PCBUs to comply with approved Codes of Practice or achieve an equivalent or higher standard of safety from 13 October 2025.
The WHS Regulation 2025 (NSW) now refers to provisions as sections, not clauses; this article uses the updated terminology.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Organisations should seek their own professional or legal advice about their specific circumstances.