<\/p>
By Fabio Medeiros<\/strong>, Attorney and Partner in the Labor and Employment Practice at Lobo de Rizzo Advogados*<\/strong><\/p> <\/p> The update to NR 1, effective as of May 26, 2026, formally incorporated work-related psychosocial risk factors into the Occupational Risk Management Program (PGR). This is a significant change because it goes beyond introducing a new corporate concern regarding mental health. It places the issue within the formal occupational health and safety framework, with implications for documentation, procedures, responsibilities, and future administrative, labor, social security, and reputational interpretations.<\/p> NR 1 functions as a kind of operating system for workplace health and safety within organizations. It establishes the general guidelines for occupational risk management and structures the PGR, the document responsible for identifying hazards, assessing risks, defining preventive measures, and monitoring action plans. Therefore, when psychosocial factors become part of this framework, the topic moves beyond the realm of wellness policies, organizational climate initiatives, or corporate mental health programs. It becomes directly connected to the core documentation of occupational risk prevention.<\/p> This does not mean, however, that every mental health issue automatically constitutes an occupational risk attributable to the employer. NR 1 itself refers to work-related psychosocial risk factors<\/strong>. This distinction is important. Mental health is influenced by multiple simultaneous factors, including family life, financial circumstances, social relationships, hyperconnectivity, economic uncertainty, commuting conditions, personal history, previous experiences, and profound changes in the way people live and work.<\/p> People do not divide themselves artificially between what happens inside and outside the workplace. Work can indeed cause, aggravate, or contribute to mental health challenges in certain situations, particularly where there is harassment, violence, chronic overload, abusive targets, destructive leadership, lack of support, or inadequate work organization. However, acknowledging this reality does not justify the opposite\u2014and equally simplistic\u2014conclusion that every emotional impact experienced by an employee originates from work or results from an employer\u2019s failure.<\/p> NR 17, which focuses on ergonomics, offers an important bridge for this discussion by addressing work organization and considering factors such as production standards, operating methods, time demands, work pace, task content, available tools, and cognitive aspects that may affect employee safety and health. Even so, this reference alone does not resolve the complexity now incorporated into the PGR. NR 17 helps demonstrate that work organization matters, but it does not provide a complete methodology for identifying, classifying, establishing causation, and documenting psychosocial factors with legal certainty.<\/p> The experience of other countries is valuable precisely because it confirms this complexity. In Canada, for example, where discussions regarding mental health and workplace safety have existed for much longer, the issue remains distributed across voluntary technical standards, federal legislation, provincial regulations, compensation systems for work-related psychological injuries, and specific rules addressing harassment and workplace violence. There is no single, uniform, and easily replicable solution.<\/p> This observation is particularly relevant when considering the Brazilian context. If, in a country with a longer history of addressing these issues, the subject still exists across multiple regulatory and administrative layers, caution is even more necessary in Brazil. Including psychosocial factors within the PGR does not eliminate the need for careful interpretation. On the contrary, it increases the importance of methodology, terminology, and consistency among the various areas involved, particularly regarding the legal implications of what is being documented.<\/p> At this point, one of the most sensitive risks for organizations emerges: involuntary self-incrimination. Motivated by good intentions, genuine concern for employee well-being, and pressure to comply quickly with the new requirements, many companies have begun implementing surveys, hiring consultants, revising risk inventories, and documenting perceptions regarding mental health in the workplace. The problem is not the intention. The problem lies in the approach.<\/p> When dealing with psychosocial issues, language and methodology can evolve into future narratives. A poorly designed question, an overly broad classification, a causal conclusion lacking sufficient evidence, or a commitment that exceeds operational reality may generate significant legal consequences. Occupational health and safety documents, once viewed primarily as operational records, now occupy a far more sensitive evidentiary role.<\/p> The challenge, therefore, is not choosing between human care and legal protection. Responsible organizations must address workplace mental health with the seriousness it deserves. At the same time, they must understand precisely what they are asking, recording, classifying, and committing to. In an area that remains only partially defined, good faith is essential\u2014but it is not enough.<\/p> The most mature corporate response will not be found in generic solutions, standardized questionnaires, or disconnected documentation efforts. It will require coordination among occupational health and safety teams, human resources, legal departments, compliance functions, ergonomics specialists, leadership, and governance structures. More than producing documents, organizations will need to build consistency.<\/p> The new NR 1 inaugurates an important agenda, but one that is still evolving. In this environment, employers do not need panic, nor should they remain paralyzed. They need methodology, prudence, and a critical understanding of the records they create. Before those records are interpreted by third parties\u2014including labor inspectors and the judiciary\u2014companies themselves must fully understand what those documents say, what they do not say, and the consequences they may ultimately generate.<\/p> *This text does not necessarily reflect the views of the CCBC and is the sole responsibility of the author who signed this content.<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Fabio Medeiros
\nAttorney and Partner in the Labor and Employment Practice at Lobo de Rizzo Advogados<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":79043,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"1080","footnotes":""},"categories":[118],"tags":[555,229,1965],"class_list":["post-79102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-artigos-ccbc-en","tag-brazil-canada","tag-ccbc-en","tag-ccbc-50-anos-en"],"cp_meta_data":{"_encloseme":["1"],"_wpml_word_count":["{\"total\":945,\"to_translate\":{\"fr\":945,\"pt-br\":945}}"],"_wp_old_date":["2025-04-26"],"_et_pb_use_builder":["off"],"_et_pb_old_content":[""],"_et_gb_content_width":["1080"],"footnotes":[""],"_et_monarch_override":[""],"sb_djhf_disable":["0"],"_et_post_bg_color":["#ffffff"],"_et_post_bg_layout":["light"],"_et_pb_show_title":["on"],"_et_pb_post_hide_nav":["default"],"_et_pb_page_layout":["et_no_sidebar"],"_et_pb_side_nav":["off"],"_wpml_media_duplicate":["1"],"_wpml_media_featured":["1"],"_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":["53"],"_yoast_wpseo_focuskw":["Reforma Tribut\u00e1ria"],"_yoast_wpseo_metadesc":["Evento do Chapter MG reuniu empresas de minera\u00e7\u00e3o e do agroneg\u00f3cio para avaliar impactos nos neg\u00f3cios com o novo sistema em discuss\u00e3o no Congresso"],"_yoast_wpseo_linkdex":["56"],"_yoast_wpseo_content_score":["30"],"_yoast_wpseo_estimated-reading-time-minutes":["5"],"_et_builder_dynamic_assets_loading_attr_threshold":["2"],"_wpml_location_migration_done":["1"],"_wpcp_page_specific_scripts":[""],"_thumbnail_id":["79043"],"_edit_lock":["1782419253:55"],"_edit_last":["55"]},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79102"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/55"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79102"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79103,"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79102\/revisions\/79103"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/79043"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ccbc.org.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}