From Perks to Prevention: What IOSH’s 2026 White Paper Signals About the Maturity of Workplace Wellbeing

The publication of IOSH’s February 2026 white paper, From Perks to Prevention: Redefining Health and Wellbeing for Today’s Workforce, marks an important inflection point in the evolution of workplace wellbeing.

Drawing on global research across 22 countries and more than 1,000 senior decision-makers, the report presents a stark finding:

67% of organisational leaders report an increase in health, safety and wellbeing issues in the past year.

55% identify mental health challenges, including stress, anxiety and depression, as the most common issue affecting their workforce.

At first glance, this appears paradoxical. Over the past decade, investment in wellbeing initiatives has increased significantly. Strategies have been written. Programmes launched. Budgets allocated.

Yet outcomes continue to deteriorate.

This is not an investment gap.

It is a systems gap.

The Illusion of Activity

One of the most compelling aspects of the white paper is its exposure of what might be described as “wellbeing theatre” — visible activity that signals care, but does not alter underlying risk.

Lifestyle perks, wellness add-ons, and reactive support mechanisms remain dominant. These interventions are not inherently problematic. However, they are frequently deployed without addressing the structural determinants of harm:

• Job design

• Excessive or poorly distributed workload

• Long or unpredictable working hours

• Inadequate autonomy

• Dysfunctional leadership behaviours

• Psychosocial hazards embedded within organisational culture

When these upstream factors remain unaddressed, downstream support becomes a form of containment rather than prevention.

From a risk management perspective, this represents a misalignment of control measures. We would not manage physical hazards through optional aftercare alone. Yet this is precisely what has occurred in many wellbeing strategies.

A Shift Towards Root-Cause Prevention

The white paper’s central thesis — that prevention must replace perks — is not a rhetorical device. It is a structural reframing.

Prevention-first approaches require:

• Explicit integration of psychosocial risk into health and safety management systems

• Formal identification and assessment of psychosocial hazards

• Leadership accountability and visible commitment

• Worker involvement in shaping safe systems of work

• Measurable performance indicators beyond engagement scores

This reflects alignment with established risk management principles and international standards such as ISO 45003, where psychosocial risk is treated with the same systematic rigour as physical risk.

The report’s call to governments to embed psychosocial risk management explicitly within regulation further signals that this is no longer a discretionary agenda. It is moving into the domain of compliance, governance and fiduciary responsibility.

The Leadership Imperative

Perhaps most significantly, the white paper positions leadership not as sponsors of wellbeing initiatives, but as architects of healthy work.

Prevention is inherently behavioural and systemic. It requires leaders to examine:

• The way performance pressure is applied

• The clarity of role expectations

• Decision-making transparency

• The psychological safety climate

• The signals sent through reward and recognition structures

Psychological safety cannot coexist with punitive workload cultures. Resilience cannot compensate for chronic overload. Engagement cannot mask sustained organisational strain.

If 67% of leaders are observing rising harm, the implication is clear: surface-level interventions are failing to address structural stressors.

Implications for Health and Safety Professionals

IOSH rightly positions health and safety professionals as pivotal actors in this transition.

Embedding psychosocial risk into formal risk registers, reporting frameworks and audit cycles moves wellbeing from aspiration to operational discipline.

This is the professionalisation of workplace mental health.

From awareness campaigns to integrated management systems.

From reactive response to anticipatory design.

For many organisations, this will require capability development. Risk assessment methodologies must evolve. Data collection must mature. Reporting must incorporate wellbeing metrics alongside traditional incident indicators.

This is not additional work. It is corrective alignment.

The Maturation of the Field

The broader significance of this white paper lies in what it signals about the maturity of workplace wellbeing as a discipline.

We are witnessing a shift:

From individual coping → to organisational accountability

From engagement initiatives → to systems design

From discretionary benefits → to risk governance

From symbolism → to measurable action

Wellbeing is no longer positioned as a cultural enhancement. It is being reframed as a determinant of organisational resilience, performance and sustainability.

This is not softer leadership.

It is more sophisticated leadership.

The organisations that interpret this moment correctly will move beyond firefighting and into prevention architecture. Those that continue to rely on reactive perks may find themselves investing more while achieving less.

The data IOSH presents is uncomfortable, but necessary.

If health and wellbeing issues are rising despite increased investment, the conclusion is unavoidable:

The solution does not lie in doing more of the same.

 It lies in redesigning the system.

And that is a far more ambitious — and ultimately more impactful — undertaking.