Requirements for occupational exposure limits in psychosocial risk assessment: What we know, what we don’t know and what we can learn from other disciplines

Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health · Published 2025-09-04 · DOI 10.5271/sjweh.4247

Free full text

Authors being retrieved — see the publisher record. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4247

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This discussion paper aims to provide recommendations for the development of occupational exposure limits (OEL) for psychosocial hazards. By comparing the characteristics of non-psychosocial and psychosocial hazards at work as well as approaches to derive occupational limit values for both types of hazards, the paper summarizes conceptual requirements and methodological perspectives for OEL in psychosocial risk assessment. METHODS: An interdisciplinary working group comprised of academics, active practitioners in company occupational health management and members of national committees advising policymakers conducted regular face-to-face and online meetings between October 2022 and August 2024 to draft a narrative review and discussion of the current state of research on OEL for psychosocial hazards within the fields of psychology, sociology and medicine. RESULTS: The current field of research is in its early stages, indicated by individual efforts and a lack of joint decision-making. Existing approaches towards OEL focus on disease-level outcomes (eg, burnout, depression), which limits their effectiveness for primary prevention and identifying early warning signs of harm. CONCLUSION: Based on the limited existing literature, we recommend (i) the use of outcome variables that enable detection of early stages of adverse effects aligned with the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse effect level (LOAEL), (ii) standardization and harmonization of hitherto independent assessments of identical hazards, and (iii) policy-level actions to foster collaborative decision-making based on the full spectrum of scientific evidence.

Abstract from DOAJ. Public domain (CC0 1.0).

Read the article at the publisher →

Publication details

Year
2025

Related articles