HSE cracks down on mental health failures: policies without action are not enough

In summary

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has set its sights on tackling work-related ill health, with mental health and stress at the heart of its mission. Its 2025–2026 business plan makes stress reduction a top priority. HSE is now turning those words into action.

Its recent Notice of Contravention against the University of Birmingham sends a clear message: mental health is a regulatory priority. Although the University had a stress management policy and risk assessments in place, these were not effectively put into practice. We set out in more detail below HSE's approach and the implications. You can read the full Notification of Contravention, published by the University and College Union’s Birmingham branch, here.

This reflects a common challenge for large organisations where successful risk mitigation depends on execution, not just documentation. Many organisations boast detailed frameworks and guidance, but without consistent implementation and accountability, those measures remain ineffective.

Organisations must move beyond box-ticking and embed mental health risk management into their operational culture.

In detail

HSE investigation

The HSE carried out a thorough investigation which involved:

• Inspection Visits: The HSE carried out a series of inspection visits to the University of Birmingham, meeting with senior leaders including the Vice-Chancellor, Provost, and HR Director. These sessions were designed to understand the organisation’s approach to managing work-related stress and to assess compliance with health and safety regulations.
• Document Review: As part of the investigation, the HSE conducted a comprehensive review of key documentation. This included stress management policies, organisational and local risk assessments, and sickness absence data. The aim was to evaluate whether the University had effective systems in place to identify and control stress-related risks.
• Employee Engagement: To gain insight into how stress was being managed on the ground, the HSE engaged directly with staff through interviews and 24 focus groups. These discussions provided valuable evidence about the effectiveness of current arrangements and highlighted areas where employees felt unsupported or uninvolved in decision-making.

HSE's conclusion

Good health and safety management starts with a clear policy that sets out the organisation’s approach to managing risks. At its core lies a robust risk assessment process.

Risk assessment requires the identification of hazards and the implementation of effective control measures to manage those risks. This process should be carried out in consultation with employees, as those working on the front line often have the best understanding of the risks involved. In addition, good practice demands ongoing monitoring, reporting, and review of performance to ensure controls remain effective.

In this case, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified material breaches. While a policy was in place, it was not implemented effectively. Where risk assessments were carried out, they were inadequate in identifying risks and appropriate controls. Even where controls were identified, they were insufficient to manage the risks. There was no effective system for monitoring and review, and consultation with employees was lacking.

As a result, significant actions are now required. The organisation faces a long list of remedial tasks and a short timeframe to respond with a detailed action plan—compounded by the challenge of working through the Christmas period. The plan must also be shared with staff, as the HSE has already communicated directly with the union.

The financial impact under the Fee for Intervention (FFI) scheme is considerable. The investigation involved a Principal Inspector and colleagues over four days, including 24 focus groups. Added to this was a comprehensive review of stress policies, risk assessments, and sickness data - all charged at £183 per hour. The total cost is likely to be at least £25,000 and could approach £50,000, not including management time already spent and the additional time required for implementation. Failure to act effectively could result in further enforcement action.

What can you do to avoid enforcement action?

• Risk assessment: Ensure mental health is considered in risk assessments and any risks which are identified are addressed. Engage with employees (or their representatives) as part of this process. HSE have a set of management standards which assist in identifying the risk factors relevant to your organisation e.g. workload, support. 
• Mental health at work plan: Implement and communicate a mental health at work plan that promotes good mental health, outlines the support available and addresses any specific risks identified.
• Monitor and review: The action plan should be regularly monitored to ensure the agreed actions are being implemented and evaluated to ensure the solutions implemented are effective.
• Mental health awareness: Ensure information, tools and support are accessible.
• Management standards: HSE's management standards approach is one way of adopting an approach that is considered by HSE to be considered suitable and sufficient.

If you would like assistance with your approach to managing mental health risks in the workplace, please get in touch with Nathan Peacey or Tamzin Robson.