If an employer fails to ensure a workplace or work practices are physically safe, they can be prosecuted on a wide range of legislation, from minor infringements to corporate manslaughter. It may be that an employee contributes to an accident by, for example, not wearing safety clothing, but even then, the employer carries a responsibility for monitoring whether the rules are followed.
When an employee suffers burnout or other stress-related disorders (or worse, commits suicide), it’s a different picture. Yet the only significant difference in context is that it is more difficult to separate out individual and corporate responsibility. Acute stress may be the result of factors both within work and outside, for example. So employers are able to avoid responsibility, even though there is evidence of contributing factors, such as excessive workload or a fear culture. Moreover, proving the latter and its influence on the employee’s mental well-being is difficult and complex. Nor do we have clear definitions of what constitutes a toxic working culture.
I suspect that this complex area will be one of the near-future fierce battlegrounds in the relationship between employer and employees. Before this happens, HR has a choice. It can bury its head in the sand and hope for the best. Or it can work with employees to create systems that bring the issues into the open and permit the creation of policies and practices that identify and head off toxic working environments. If it does so, it will protect employees, corporate reputation and the reputation of HR.
This is one of a number of issues I and my co-editor Riddhika Khoosal are exploring for our new study of systemic talent management. We’d love to hear what other HR professionals think!
©️David Clutterbuck, 2026