Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112

DOI 10.1007/s10672-015-9270-9

Employers’ Perspectives on the Canadian National

Standard for Psychological Health
and Safety in the Workplace

Laura Kalef 1 & Courtney Rubin 2 & Cindy Malachowski 3 &

Bonnie Kirsh 4

Published online: 23 November 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Mental illness is the leading cause of disability in Canada, with costs estimated at 51
billion dollars annually in addition to significant social costs. The Canadian National Standard
for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace (the Standard), recently released by the
Mental Health Commission of Canada, aims to promote psychological health and safety in
Canadian workplaces. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of Canadian
employers on the National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace.
Ten employers from large, medium, and small workplaces participated in qualitative semi-
structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was used to identify
themes. Employers are concerned with workplace mental health and see value in the Standard,
but are relatively uninformed about it. Employers identified leadership as a critical ingredient
for effective Standard implementation, and believed that benefits of the Standard can be far
reaching. Roger’s (2003) Diffusion of Innovations model is applied to conceptualize the
uptake of this important social change. Employers’ perspectives and foundational knowledge
about the Standard provides a starting point for collaborations between human resource
professionals, workplace consultants, and workplace leaders to move the implementation of
the Standard forward and create psychologically healthy work environments.

Laura Kalef and Courtney Rubin were MSc(OT) students in the Department of Occupational Science and
Occupational Therapy at the time of writing. Cindy Malachowski was a doctoral candidate in Rehabilitation
Sciences Institute, University of Toronto at time of writing.

* Laura Kalef
laura.kalef@mail.utoronto.ca

1
L&L Consulting, Toronto, ON, Canada
2
Montreal, QC, Canada
3
School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
4
Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 500
University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 1V7, Canada
102 Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112

Keywords Standard . Mental health . Workplace . Psychological health and safety

Introduction

The prevalence of mental illness in Canada is on the rise, with more than 6.7 million people living
with a mental health problem today (Mental Health Commission of Canada [MHCC] 2013a). In any
given year, approximately one in five Canadians will experience a mental health problem, irrespective
of age, culture, education and socioeconomic status (MHCC 2013a). The total cost of mental health
problems and mental illness to the Canadian economy is significant, with an estimated 51 billion
dollars per year in health care, social service and income support (Lim et al. 2008). Adults in the
prime of their careers are at a high risk of developing mental illness and are often the most affected.
Mental health problems in the workplace are a growing concern, from both and economic and
humanitarian perspectives. Currently 21.4 % of the working population in Canada experiences a
mental health problem (MHCC 2013a). The cost of mental illness to businesses is the result of lost
productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism and turnover (Lim et al. 2008). Mental illness can result in lost
income, delayed careers, personal and family distress, and stigma or social exclusion (MHCC 2013a).
Qualitative research studies have begun to demonstrate the impact of stigma on the experi-
ences of individuals with mental illness in the workplace (Krupa et al. 2009). According to the
Canadian Medical Association’s 2008 annual report card on health care, only 23 % of Canadians
reported they would feel comfortable talking to their employer about mental illness (Canadian
Medical Association 2008). This statistic suggests that the number of working people affected by
mental illness is higher than reported. There is clearly a good deal of silent suffering due to stigma.
In 2007, the federal government created the Mental Health Commission of Canada to provide an
ongoing national focus for mental health issues in Canada. In an effort to improve the Canadian
mental health system, the MHCC developed a national strategy focusing on promotion, prevention,
diversity, access and delivery of mental health services across Canada (MHCC 2012). The Mental
Health Strategy for Canada draws attention to the high prevalence of mental illness in the workplace,
and the need for change. It specifically targets areas such as support for individuals experiencing
mental health problems on the job, mental health promotion, illness prevention, anti-stigma initia-
tives, and development of mentally healthy workplaces (MHCC 2012). To address mental health at
work, the MHCC developed a Workforce Advisory Committee to create initiatives that would assist
employers in improving the mental health of their employees, and effectively prevent mental health
problems and illnesses (MHCC 2013a). One of these preventative measures was the development of
the voluntary National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace, released in
January 2013. The Standard provides a systematic approach to developing mentally healthy and safe
workplaces, and can serve as a resource for employers to improve the mental health of their
organizations, improve cost effectiveness, and increase recruitment and retention (MHCC 2013b).
To date, the Standard has been adopted by several organizations including the Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health in Toronto (Dobson 2013), and Bell Canada (Scott-Clark 2013).
There is good reason to implement measures that lead to psychologically healthier work-
places. Research shows that a healthy workplace can contribute to mental health and wellbeing
(MHCC 2013a). Healthy workplaces incorporate health promoting activities, employee assis-
tance programs, flexible benefits and working conditions, fair employee treatment, employee
development, health and safety, and prevent work stress (Kelloway and Day 2005). When
employee mental health is valued, workers may use work as a resource to buffer the effects of
non-work stressors, and develop self-efficacy, confidence and hope, which contribute to
mental health and wellbeing (Luthans 2002).
Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112 103

Conversely, studies suggest that unhealthy workplaces may lead to poor mental and/or
physical health (Kelloway and Day 2005). Research has highlighted several determinants of
psychological distress in the workplace including: high psychological demands in the face of
low control, job insecurity and lack of social support (Marchand and Blanc 2010). Furthermore,
research has also focused on the impact of common work stressors such as workload, roles,
career concerns, schedules, interpersonal relationships, job content and job control on mental
health (Kelloway and Day 2005; Sauter et al. 1990) and on business outcomes (Harter et al.
2002). Literature in this area has identified a need for improving workplace mental health not
only to improve the health of employees, but also to improve productivity and decrease
financial burden of managing absenteeism and other illness-related costs.
Interest in workplace mental health extends beyond Canada, and many other countries have
begun to implement workplace initiatives. For example, in the European Agency for Safety
and Health at Work, which provides information about occupational health and safety in the
European context, released a report titled “Mental health promotion in the workplace – a good
practice report”, as a priority of their Community Health and Safety at Work Strategy (EU-
OSHA 2011). This report highlights recommendations for the way forward with workplace
mental health promotion based on analysis of case studies and relevant research.
Recommendations include comprehensive, holistic intervention approaches targeting the
individual and organization level (Leka and Cox 2008), as well as integrating health promotion
and ill-health prevention into company policies and practices (EU-OSHA 2011).
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), is a crown public body in the
UK. ACAS provides information and advice for employers and employees to help prevent and
resolve workplace problems. In 2004, ACAS collaborated with Mindful Employer, a UK
mental health initiative, to develop an advisory booklet focusing on mental health promotion at
work. This booklet was created for employers and managers to raise awareness and under-
standing of mental health and the impact it has on their employees and organization. ACAS
also offers training services such as e-learning courses, tailored training workshops, and
courses on managing absence at work and a variety of other topics. These initiatives are
intended to support employers in better understanding mental health issues and how they can
be addressed. This comprehensive approach parallels some of the core aims of the Canadian
Standard, as the two guides serve as a tool to both normalize the conversation around
mental health, while taking a preventative approach.
Despite the lack of a national workplace mental health policy in Australia, there are a variety of
workplace initiatives currently underway. In 2009, a statutory agency called “Safe Work
Australia” was established, whose responsibility it is to support workplace compensation and
occupational health and safety, both physical and psychological. Safe Work Australia’s primary
responsibility is to lead the development of policy to improve work health and safety and
workers’ compensation (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). Additionally, in 2013, the
Australian Mental Health Commission established the Mentally Healthy Workplace Alliance
(the Alliance), which is a national approach to encourage Australian workplaces to become
mentally healthy. The Alliance is composed of members from the commission, Safe Work
Australia, the University of New South Wales, the Australian Psychological Society Ltd., and
other business, community and government partners. The Alliance rolled out a national campaign
called “Heads Up” which provides resources for businesses, managers, company leaders, and
employees. The resources provided by Heads Up are developed for large and small businesses,
across all sectors. The Heads Up website (http://www.headsup.org.au/) provides resources such
as information on mental illnesses, how to take care of your own mental health, rights and
104 Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112

responsibilities, and tips on how to build a mentally healthy workplace (The Mentally Healthy
Workplace Alliance 2015). Clearly, attempts at creating psychologically healthy workplaces have
increased in number and importance in many regions across the globe.
There has been much international interest in the Canadian Standard for Psychological
Health and Safety in the Workplace, but understanding of the impact of the Standard on
workplaces is currently limited. Therefore, this paper will begin to explore employers’
perspectives on the Standard. As employers are the key decision-makers within organizations,
their perspectives on the Standard will influence implementation and internal acceptance.
Employers’ perspectives can help to inform future mental health initiatives for the workplace,
provide insight into the challenges and barriers, and assist in the implementation of the
Standard in Canadian workplaces. This study aims to answer the research question: What
are the perspectives of Canadian employers on the Canadian National Standard for
Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace?

Methodology

An interpretivist qualitative research design was used to explore perspectives of 10 employers

of varying workplace sizes regarding the Standard in Canadian workplaces. Recruitment
occurred by contacting individuals who had attended MHCC’s webinars on the Standard, as
well as through word of mouth to Canadian employers, company representatives, and human
resource representatives.
Ethics approval for the study was gained from the University of Toronto Research Ethics
Board. Data was collected through in-person and telephone, semi-structured interviews that
explored the experiences and perspectives of employers on the Standard. Interview topics were
specific to understanding: 1) employers’ current knowledge and interpretation of the Standard; 2)
the challenges and benefits of implementing the Standard in their workplace; 3) if the Standard
was helpful or burdensome to employers; and 4) the impact of the Standard on the workplace thus
far, if implemented. Written consent was provided by all participants prior to interview. Interviews
ranged from 20 min to one hour in length, and took place throughout February and March 2014.
Audio recordings from the interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researchers
and checked for accuracy by the interviewers. NVivo qualitative analysis software was
used to organize the data. Thematic analysis of the data involved coding the data,
grouping codes into categories and generating themes. Thematic analysis was used to
explore patterns amongst interviews to determine the general perceptions of the Standard. The
credibility of the analysis was enhanced through the use of an audit trail and researchers
discussed the data until consensus was reached. This method of thematic analysis has been
suggested by many qualitative researchers (for example, Boyatzis 1998; Braun and Clarke
2006; O’Donoghue 2006).

Sample

This study included 10 Toronto and Montreal area business employers with the inclusion
criteria of a) knowledge and/or interest on the Standard, b) met the definition of ‘employer’
used in this study, which is, he/she must be responsible for the hiring and/or supervision of
staff, and c) ability to communicate in English. Based on Canadian Industry Standards
Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112 105

classifications (Government of Canada 2011), six large businesses (i.e., more than 500
employees), two medium sized businesses (i.e., 100–499 employees, one small business
(i.e., 5–99 employees), and one micro sized business (i.e., 1–4 employees) were represented
by participants in the sample. The types of organizations included a variety of public, private
and not-for-profit organizations in the fields of arts, education, real estate, emerging technol-
ogy, fashion, corporate auditing/consulting, and the food and beverage industry. Participants’
roles in their organizations included human resource managers, directors, account executives,
and corporate executives.

Findings

Based on interviews with employers, six key themes emerged from the data which
illustrate how employers currently perceive the Standard: 1) limited awareness of the
Standard; 2) potential of the Standard for positive impact and far-reaching benefits in
the workplace; 3) the Standard as a toolkit to assess mental health and guide workplace
initiatives; 4) organizations have foundations to build on for implementation; 5) the
significance of leadership in Standard implementation; and 6) challenges and barriers
to implementation.

Employers Report Limited Awareness of the Standard

Out of the sample of 10 employers, three reported having limited information on the Standard
prior to the interview, and two reported having heard about it but were not well informed.
These employers reflected the view that the Standard had not been well communicated. One
employer stated: “I recall I think seeing it on the news maybe about a year ago when it was
first released; was there some television news about it?…so I have seen that and then really
have not thought or heard much about it since… it might be a timely thing to highlight”. Six
other employers inquired about the limited publicity of the Standard, and where they could go
for more information. One employer commented “it seems to me as though this is something
that should be given another round of publicity somehow and a boost”. Three employers
reported having read and/or discussed the Standard with colleagues in their workplace prior to
being contacted by researchers. Two employers reported having plans to further educate
leadership and discuss implementation strategies. These employers reported learning about
the Standard through human resources (HR) forums, from leaders in HR, media, word of
mouth, and at a seminar hosted by the Mental Health Commission of Canada. Despite limited
awareness, all employers expressed curiosity in learning more about the Standard, and interest
in how to apply it to their workplaces. One employer stated “I will definitely go back onto the
website and I was thinking I would even download it”.

The Benefits of the Standard are Far Reaching

Although the employers interviewed had yet to implement the Standard, they were able to
appreciate its value, and highlighted that the benefits could be “very far reaching”. Many
employers felt that implementing the Standard could lead to increased work productivity,
reduced stress, reduce employee turnover, and decrease prevalence of mental illness in the
workplace. One employer reported:
106 Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112

It provides a lot of information about how companies can protect their employees and
create workplace environments that are able to prevent mental health issues from- I
don’t know how to put it- mushrooming out of control in the work environment.

Employers felt that implementing the Standard would allow employees to feel safe and
happy in the workplace, thus improving workplace productivity and creating an overall more
positive work environment. This was articulated by an employer who stated “it’s really simple,
if your employees are happy and engaged it’s going to equal higher business performance and
revenue”. Within a broader context, employers felt that taking a preventative approach is
critical to reducing the occurrence of mental health problems in the workplace and promoting a
healthy workplace culture. One employer stated, “prevention of problems would be a won-
derful way to proceed for everybody… and then I think promoting the existing well-being is
really important”. Employers stated they could appreciate the potential long-term effects of the
Standard, both at an individual and an organizational level. One employer stated: “when we
look at the Standard in general it’s a gold star Standard in our mind; it’s very detailed and it’s
something that I think a lot of firms and our firm as well can look to aspire to”.

The Standard as a Toolkit

Employers shared the view that employers need assistance in understanding and dealing with
mental health problems in the workplace, and that the Standard may provide a guiding
framework for greater awareness and understanding. One employer highlighted this issue by
stating:
I think there is a pretty critical need for some kind of framework. There are an awful lot
of employees who come to work every day with symptoms and conditions and needs that
unless there is recognition and understanding of what it means to have these symptoms
and needs, an employer may mistreat or make a situation worse.

When discussing the benefits of the Standard, many employers shared that it can help
improve psychological health and safety in the workplace through its holistic view of the
workplace. One employer commented: “it’s a very comprehensive Standard and it’s very
detailed it’s really articulating how an organization can be fully integrated”. Employers with
knowledge of the Standard spoke positively about the resources and tools that it provides: “the
fact that some resources were provided or some links to resources were provided was helpful”.
Further, employers felt the Standard can serve as a guide as to how to approach mental illness
in the workplace, and to clarify employer responsibilities. This was articulated by one
employer who stated “I am sure one of the things in the Standard is to help with the definition
of what is the employer’s responsibility”.
One employer emphasized how the Standard can provide employers with the necessary
tools to intervene appropriately: “The Standard points you to those resources because you do
not know what you do not know and no one is a psychology expert”. Employers stated the
Standard can be used as a resource or “toolkit” when mental health issues or concerns arise in
the workplace. One employer commented:
It is there if we need it like a first aid kit…the first thing you do when you start a new
project is go over all the safety things of course and there is no reason why that should
not be on that list.
Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112 107

Employers Have Foundations to Build On

Several employers identified a variety of wellness programs within their organization to

support health and wellbeing. One employer reported “I think we are doing a good job at
providing support to people”. Many employers reported having Employee Assistance
Programs (EAP), health benefits, educational seminars, exercise groups and wellness pro-
grams. One employer described:
we have an onsite wellness consultant that comes in once a week and runs
monthly programs for us … tai chi classes, educational forums on nutrition, motiva-
tional types of competition that support and enhance physical activities for those who
want to partake… the whole program started by a survey and then customizing the
program based on our employee demographics and factors that the survey focused on…
we try to hit as many different demographic groups as possible because it is not a one
size fits all.
Employers expressed that their current initiatives are generally targeted towards physical
health; however, they see a need to address mental health as well. An employer reported: “the
numbers are telling us especially around mental health that we have to do something here”.
Some employers are beginning to recognize how physical health initiatives can also address
mental health. One employer shared:
one of the initiatives that the department took last summer is more on the physical side
but also things that benefit mental health… getting teams to do some physical activity…
not only was it a physical thing but the main point was that it was going to help enjoying
more your work day and getting work done better and not only working.
When discussing different types of initiatives to address mental health, many employers
described EAPs and spoke highly of their programs. One employer stated, “it is very
comprehensive it’s a fantastic program from one of the leading programs from EAP in the
country”. Overall employers identified current wellness initiatives in their workplace that can
be seen as a foundation to build on when implementing the Standard.

Leadership Involvement

Leadership involvement was identified as a significant theme when discussing Standard

implementation with employers. Employers expressed that for successful Standard implemen-
tation, buy-in from leadership is essential. One employer explained:
it does have to start at the top for us in terms of leadership support and walking the walk
and all that sort of thing and you know we are at early stages of [implementation] and
obviously our CEO is on board or else we wouldn’t have a chief diversity officer [who is
responsible for overseeing Standard implementation].
When asked about implementation of the Standard, one employer reported: “I do
see them implementing it and taking it on I do feel like it is hard to get people to buy
in higher up”. Employers questioned whether leadership would see value in the
Standard and invest their time and resources into implementation. One employer
shared: “that’s my question - whether organizations are going to buy in [and say] yes
this is how we want to invest our resources”.
108 Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112

Employers Identified Possible Barriers and Challenges to Implementation

Many employers shared insights regarding the perceived barriers to implementing the
Standard. Firstly, employers voiced concerns about implementing the Standard in atypical
work environments. Referring to organizations that hire staff on short-term contracts, one
employer commented: “I could be wrong but my impression is that it wasn’t set up to deal with
that type of organization”. When considering potential for implementation, employers
felt that company size was a determinant: “I do think it’s a challenge when you work
for a small company”.
Secondly, employers discussed the challenge of implementing the Standard in the face of
competing workplace priorities. Employers expressed having to balance several priorities and
responsibilities. One employer stated: “time and resources are focused elsewhere and it’s that
pressure to focus elsewhere that actually pipes against what the Standard is trying to achieve”.
Another employer reported difficulty keeping up with many workplace Standards,
commenting:
it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up. You’ve got standards around workplace
violence and harassment, you’ve got standards around people with disabilities, you’ve
got standards around oh god you’ve got human rights codes and other things and none
of them are wrong, none of them are bad it’s just almost like piling on. You know, how
does an employer ever educate and follow and have everybody up to speed on a million
and one things coming at them from all these bodies.
Thirdly, many employers believed that for effective implementation to occur, employers
must be committed as the implementation of the Standard is a lengthy process that requires an
organizational culture shift. Employers noted: “it’s something people need to be really
committed to…that’s where this may become a bit problematic… to really do it well it is such
a big project and requires a significant amount of time and resources”; and “it’s not only about
putting this in place but it’s about changing the culture and mindset and raising awareness for
people as well to make it successful”.
Lastly, employers stated that they believe implementing the Standard may lead to em-
ployees taking advantage of the system: “I think things can definitely get political and it can
get very challenging; I mean employees can take advantage of it and try to benefit from it on
like a really unfair level”. Another employer noted: “I think people have the assumption that it
will give people another excuse to say that they want to be away from work”.

Discussion

The six themes discussed above begin to highlight employers’ perspectives on the Canadian
National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace. These early findings
draw attention to some of the potential benefits of and barriers to implementation of the
Standard in the workplace.
Findings from this study show that although several employers had limited aware-
ness of the Standard, they are interested and eager to learn more. This interest
suggests promise for the Standard’s implementation in various types of organizations.
The finding that there was much interest, but little implementation to date, is not
surprising when considered in light of Rogers’ (2003) concept of Diffusion of
Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112 109

Innovations (DOI), a framework that explains how new ‘innovations’ or processes

spread throughout social systems such as the workplace.
According to DOI theory, there are five characteristics of an innovation that can impact its
adoption: 1) relative advantage: whether the innovation is perceived as better than the idea or
ideas it supersedes; 2) compatibility: the degree to which the innovation is perceived as
consistent with values and needs of potential adopters; 3) observability: how visible the
outcomes of the innovation are to others; 4) trialability: the degree to which the innovation
may be experimented with on a limited basis; and 5) complexity: if the innovation is perceived
as more or less difficult to understand and use (Rogers 2003; Kohles et al. 2013). These five
characteristics can be used to understand the uptake of the Standard within Canadian
workplaces.
With regard to the first characteristic, participants underscored the relative advantage of the
Standard, reflecting that it can have a profound impact on improving psychological health and
in the workplace. Specifically, employers felt the Standard has the potential to help reduce
stress, decrease employee turnover, increase workplace productivity, and encourage prevention
and promotion of mental health in the workplace. The second characteristic, compatibility, was
also perceived to apply to the Standard. Employers in our study suggested that, like other
workplace mental health initiatives, the Standard might help normalize the conversation
around mental health. Employers felt the Standard could provide tools and resources that are
compatible with other interventions to help them better understand mental health in the
workplace. They identified many positive and compatible health initiatives in their workplaces
that are consistent with documented practices for creating healthy workplaces, such as health
promotion, EAPs, flexible benefits and working conditions, health and safety support, and
prevention of work stress (Kelloway & Day, 2005). However, these other initiatives may also
impact the third characteristic, visibility to others. As they too contribute to improving
workplace mental health, they may make any changes introduced by the Standard less visible
to others. It may be difficult to ascertain whether changes in workplace mental health are
achieved through the implementation of the Standard, or through other health-promoting
initiatives. The result may be a more limited uptake of this innovation.
The fourth characteristic, trialability, appears to have been perceived as being
problematic in terms of the Standard. Although employers value the benefits that
the Standard can provide, they recognized several potential barriers to implementation,
and may be unsure of how and where to start the process of experimentation with its
implementation. A lack of understanding may prevent employers from trialing the
Standard even on a limited basis. Finally, employers anticipated that implementation
would be a lengthy process, requiring leadership buy-in and an organizational culture
shift. These aspects speak to the fifth characteristic, the complexity of integrating the
Standard into workplaces. Integrating the Standard to promote social change requires
workplaces to create an open, supportive work environment where employees and
employers feel comfortable and safe to discuss mental health (Kelloway & Day 2005).
Implementation of the Standard, which - based on the findings of this study, has been
limited to date – may be helped along by the new implementation guide handbook, released by
the MHCC and the CSA group (2014). This handbook is intended to help companies
understand where to start with the Standard, and how to move through the stages of
implementation to develop psychological healthy and safe workplaces. The guide focuses on
four key components: 1) Building the foundation; 2) Opportunities 3) Objectives; and 4)
Implementation plan and provides tools, techniques, definitions, checklists, tips, references
110 Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112

and frequently asked questions to support users with the Standard (CSA Group and MHCC
2014).
The participants in our study recognized the need for a culture shift within their organiza-
tions for effective implementation of the Standard to occur. Research has highlighted the
importance of key ingredients in creating safety cultures within workplaces, and many of these
are consistent with our findings. Gillen et al. (2014) conducted a study amongst construction
contractors, exploring their perspectives on the importance of a culture of safety in the
workplace. Participants identified several key characteristics that promote a safe work climate,
including leadership, empowerment, training and communication. It was also emphasized that
intervention should be specific to individual workplaces and worksite conditions (Gillen et al.
2014). Similarly, our participants placed emphasis on effective leadership and tailoring the
Standard to their unique organizational needs as determinants of further steps towards
implementing the Standard and creating a psychologically safe culture.
The Canadian National Standard is unique, and is paving the way for significant change in
the way that psychological health and safety is conceptualized and addressed in workplaces.
By understanding employers’ perspectives and foundational knowledge, collaboration can
begin in an informed way between employers, human resource professionals, workplace
consultants and workplace leaders to move the implementation of the Standard forward to
create psychologically healthy work environments. Many countries are looking to Canada for
results from early research on the Standard, to learn and develop policies and
standards of their own. The Standard has potential for global impact, providing a framework
for policy that enables the psychological health and safety of employees.

Limitations & Future Directions

A few limitations of this study must be noted. Firstly, the study had a small sample size in
accordance with project resources and timelines. Secondly, participants were recruited from a
small geographical location and employer needs and issues may vary across regions. Lastly,
although the researchers initially aimed to include employers with extensive knowledge on the
Standard, some interviewees had limited knowledge.
Suggestions for future research include recruiting a larger, more diverse sample of Canadian
employers to gain a broader and deeper knowledge of employer perspectives on the Standard.
Future studies could survey Canadian employers and use a quantitative approach to under-
standing their level of knowledge and awareness of the Standard, as well as factors influencing
its implementation. Additionally, future studies should explore employee perspectives on the
Standard at various time points after implementation within their workplace, to gain a sense of
how attitudes change over time and how the uptake of the Standard unfolds.

Conclusion

In light of several international efforts to address mental health issues in the workplace, this
study aimed to explore employers’ perspectives on the Canadian National Standard for
Psychological Health and Safety in the workplace. Researchers interviewed 10 Canadian
employers to understand their beliefs and experiences with the Standard thus far. Results
indicate that employers are concerned with workplace mental health, and see value in the
Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112 111

Standard; however, these employers have not committed to adopting the voluntary Standard at
this time due to limited awareness and perceived challenges.
Still, there is reason to be hopeful, in light of what is known about how ideas are taken up
and diffused. Rogers (2003) DOI framework helps explain how the Standard is being taken up
across organizations. Employers clearly perceive the Standard as advantageous for both
employees and organizations, as well as compatible with existing initiatives to promote
workplace mental health. However, the limited trialability of the Standard, the complex nature
of its introduction in the workplace, and a lack of clarity regarding how visible the outcomes of
adopting the Standard will be may impact the speed at which the Standard is being taken up
within organizations. Employers recognized that an organizational culture that values safety -
and psychological health and safety in particular - would enable progress. They identified
leadership as a critical ingredient for effective implementation and believed that if implement-
ed, the Standard can have far reaching benefits. An understanding of employers’ perspectives
and foundational knowledge enables collaborations between employers and relevant
stakeholders in order to begin to develop psychologically healthy workplaces.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank all our interviewees for their participation and the rich information
they provided.

References

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Canadian Medical Association (2008). 8th annual national report card on health care. Ipsos Reid Public Affairs.
Commonwealth of Australia (2014). Safe Work Australia. http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/
pages/about.
CSA Group & Mental Health Commission of Canada (2014). Assembling the pieces: an implementation guide to
the national standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace. Retrieved from: http://www.
csagroup.org/documents/codes-and-standards/publications/SPE-Z1003-Guidebook.pdf.
Dobson, S. (2013). National psychological Standard ‘evolution’ of health and safety. Canadian HR Reporter,
26(3), 19. http://www.hrreporterdigital.com/hrreporter /20130211?pg=22#pg22.
EU-OSHA – European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2011). Mental health promotion in the workplace
– a good practice report. Retrieved from: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/mental-health-
promotion-workplace_TEWE11004ENN.
Gillen, M., Goldenhar, L.M., Hecker, S., Schneider, S. (2014). Safety culture and climate in construction:
bridging the gap between research and practice. Report of the workshop, June 11–12, 2013, sponsored by
NIOSH and CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training. Washington, D.C.
Government of Canada (2011). Canadian Industry Statistics. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cis-sic.nsf/eng/h_00005.
html.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 268. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268.
Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. (2005). Building healthy workplaces: what we know so far. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 37(4), 223. doi:10.1037/
h0087259.
Kohles, J. C., Bligh, M. C., & Carsten, M. K. (2013). The vision integration process: applying Rogers’ diffusion
of innovations theory to leader-follower communications. Leadership, 9(4), 446–485.
Krupa, T., Kirsh, B., Cockburn, L., & Gewurtz, R. (2009). Understanding the stigma of mental illness in
employment. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 33(4), 413–425. doi:10.3233/
WOR-2009-0890.
112 Employ Respons Rights J (2016) 28:101–112

Leka, S., & Cox, T. (2008). The European framework for psychosocial risk management: PRIMA-EF.
Nottingham: IWHO Publications.
Lim, K. L., Jacobs, P., Ohinmaa, A., Schopflocher, D., & Dewa, C. S. (2008). A new population-based measure
of the economic burden of mental illness in Canada. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 28(3), 92–98. http://www.
phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcbc/28-3/pdf/cdic28-3-2eng.pdf.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(6), 695–706. doi:10.1002/job.165.
Marchand, A., & Blanc, M. E. (2010). The contribution of work and non-work factors to the onset of
psychological distress: an eight-year study of a representative sample of employees in Canada. Journal of
Occupational Health, 52, 176–185.
Mental Health Commission of Canada (2012). Changing directions changing lives: The mental health strategy
for Canada. (No. 978-0-9813795-2-4). Calgary: Mental Health Commission of Canada.
Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2013a). Making the case for investing in mental health in Canada.
Mental Health Commission of Canada.
Mental Health Commission of Canada (2013b). Psychological health and safety in the workplace – prevention,
promotion and guidance to staged implementation. Quebec: BNQ and CSA Group.
O’donoghue, T. (2006). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist research in
education. New York: Routledge.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-5823-4.
Sauter, S. L., Murphy, L. R., & Hurrell, J. J. (1990). Prevention of work-related psychological disorders: a
national strategy proposed by the national institute for occupational safety and health (NIOSH). American
Psychologist, 45(10), 1146. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.10.1146.
Scott-Clark, A. (2013). Mental health standard gets strong employer support. Benefits Canada.
The Mentally Healthy Workplace Alliance. (2015). Heads up. http://www.headsup.org.au/home.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.