Mental Health Hub
Construction can expose people to a range of psychosocial hazards – including excessive workload, time pressure, unrealistic deadlines, poor planning, inadequate staffing, low control and financial pressure.
Recent industry research highlights the scale of the challenge. In CIOB's 2025 survey, 80% of respondents reported experiencing stress often or sometimes during the previous year. The research also identified too much work (71%), time pressure (70%), unrealistic deadlines (69%), poor communication (69%), poor planning (68%) and inadequate staffing (66%) as significant workplace stressors.
The wider picture is complex. HSE estimates that 15,000 construction workers were suffering from work-related stress, depression or anxiety, based on the 2022/23–2024/25 average. Across Great Britain, work-related stress, depression and anxiety accounted for 22.1 million working days lost in 2024/25.
These are not simply issues for individuals to manage. Like physical hazards, psychosocial hazards can be identified, assessed and controlled. ISO 45001 provides the framework for managing occupational health and safety risks, with ISO 45003 providing specific guidance on managing psychosocial risks. Alongside the HSE Management Standards and the Construction Leadership Council's Joint Code of Practice (JCOP), these support a prevention-led approach: identifying the conditions that can cause harm and managing the risks through how work is designed, organised and managed.
This Mental Health Hub brings together practical tools to help organisations of all sizes take that approach – from SMEs and specialist contractors through to Tier One contractors and clients.
RACE Strategy
Improving mental health in construction requires action at every level of the industry, with different people and organisations having different levels of responsibility and influence.
The HCLG RACE Strategy provides a practical framework for understanding where action can be taken – from clients and organisations designing and planning work, through to managers, supervisors and those carrying out the work.
The focus is not simply on supporting people when they are struggling. It is also about identifying psychosocial hazards, understanding who can influence them and taking action as early as possible to prevent or reduce the risk of harm.
Stress Risk Assessment
Work-related stress should be managed in the same systematic way as other occupational health and safety risks – by identifying what could cause harm, understanding who may be exposed and taking proportionate action to eliminate or reduce the risk.
A stress risk assessment looks at the psychosocial hazards that can arise from how work is designed, organised and managed. These can include workload, working hours and deadlines, as well as levels of control, support, working relationships, role clarity and how change is managed.
Information should come from a range of sources. This might include conversations with workers, surveys and focus groups, alongside existing organisational information such as absence, working hours, overtime, staff turnover, occupational health data, grievances, incidents and project performance.
The aim is not to assess an individual's mental health. It is to identify the psychosocial hazards within the work, understand where and how people may be exposed, and put appropriate controls in place.
The HSE Management Standards provide a practical framework for considering six key areas of work – Demands, Control, Support, Relationships, Role and Change. ISO 45001 and ISO 45003 provide the wider framework for integrating psychosocial risk into an organisation's occupational health and safety management system.
Stress risk assessment should be proactive. Organisations should not have to wait for someone to become unwell, go off sick or raise a concern before examining whether the way work is being managed could cause harm.
Once the risks have been identified and assessed, the next step is to consider how they can be controlled.
Hierarchy of Controls
The construction industry has long used the Hierarchy of Controls to manage physical health and safety hazards. The same principles can be applied to psychosocial hazards, with priority given to preventing or reducing the risk at source rather than relying primarily on measures that help individuals cope with the consequences.
The CLC JCOP reinforces this approach, encouraging organisations to consider how psychosocial hazards can be eliminated, reduced or controlled through the way work is designed, planned and managed.
The illustration below shows the relative effectiveness of different levels of control. The higher up the hierarchy, the greater the focus on addressing the source of the hazard. Measures lower down the hierarchy can still play an important role, particularly when used alongside more preventative controls. The illustration also gives an indication of the type of intervention classed as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
Worked Example of Steps to Take to Manage the Hazard of Fatigue
Understanding the Risk
Before deciding what controls are needed, we need to understand what may be causing or contributing to fatigue. The HSE Management Standards provide six areas of work to explore: Demands, Control, Support, Relationships, Role and Change. The example questions below can help identify where aspects of work may be increasing the risk of fatigue.
These are example questions rather than a complete stress risk assessment. The questions you ask should reflect the work, workforce and circumstances being assessed.
Demands
Are working hours, shift patterns or overtime allowing sufficient time for rest and recovery?
Are workload and programme pressures leading to people working longer hours or missing breaks?
Are travel, commuting or time away from home adding to fatigue?
Control
Do people have enough control over when and how they take breaks during demanding work?
Can work be adjusted when someone is experiencing fatigue, particularly during long or demanding shifts?
Do people have sufficient influence over their workload or work patterns to manage periods of high demand?
Support
Are managers recognising and responding when working hours, workload or travel are contributing to fatigue?
Are sufficient people and resources available to avoid routinely relying on long hours or overtime?
Can people raise concerns about fatigue without feeling pressured to carry on working?
Relationships
Is there a culture where working long hours or “pushing through” fatigue is seen as normal or expected?
Are pressures from clients, managers, colleagues or other contractors contributing to excessive working hours?
Do people feel comfortable telling colleagues or supervisors when fatigue may be affecting them?
Role
Are unclear or overlapping responsibilities creating unnecessary additional work or longer hours?
Are people taking on work outside their normal role because of resource shortages or unclear responsibilities?
Are competing responsibilities making it difficult for people to complete their work within reasonable working hours?
Change
Are changes to programmes, sequencing or deadlines resulting in longer hours or reduced recovery time?
Are changes to shifts, working patterns or locations being planned with fatigue in mind?
Are late changes, delays or unexpected additional work creating periods of excessive workload?
What Did You Find?
The answers should help identify the specific factors that may be contributing to fatigue.
For example, you might identify: Long working hours • excessive workload • insufficient recovery time • long-distance travel • poorly planned shift patterns • unrealistic deadlines • inadequate resources • repeated changes to the programme. These are the things you now need to control.
Choosing Controls
Once you understand what is contributing to fatigue, use the Hierarchy of Control to consider how those risks could be managed.
Start by considering whether the source of the risk can be removed or avoided. Where this isn't reasonably practicable, consider whether the work can be changed or redesigned to reduce exposure. Administrative measures and individual support can then form part of the overall controls where needed.
More than one control may be appropriate. The aim is to give priority to controls that address the source of the risk rather than relying primarily on people to manage or cope with it themselves.
Click on the Hierarchy of Control stage below for risk assessment prompts to think about and example controls
Managing the Risk Throughout the Project
Decisions made throughout a project can influence psychosocial risk. Considering these risks early, and revisiting them as the project develops, creates more opportunity to prevent or reduce harm.
Select each project stage below for things to consider and practical examples.
Our Thinking and Contributors
How This Guidance Was Developed
This guidance has been developed collaboratively by members of the HCLG Mental Health Working Group, bringing together knowledge, experience and perspectives from across the construction industry. The finished page is the result of a wider piece of work looking at how mental health and psychosocial risks can be better understood and managed in construction, with a particular focus on practical approaches that can be applied across the industry. Throughout the process, the group developed and contributed a number of working documents, spreadsheets and supporting resources. These are available below to show the thinking behind the finished guidance and provide further information for those who want to explore the work in more detail.
Supporting Documents and Resources
Click the buttons to download the documents that were developed or used to help inform the guidance presented on this page.
Many Thanks to All of Our Contributors
The Health in Construction Leadership Group for Mental Health is led by Dr. Claire Douglas and contributors include Robert Cheeseman, Victoria Church, Andrea Dolphin, Alan Dovey, Olly Frois, Melodie Gilbert, Joanna Kepinska, Martin Lockham, Stuart Mace, Stephanie Martin-Halls, Paul Mulligan, Deborah Murphy, Jodi Odgers, Mike Raven, Pav Singh and Barry Wilkes.
