Workplace mental health crisis costs 840,000 lives yearly; Peru must act on psychosocial risks

Over 840,000 people die annually from work-related psychosocial risks; in Peru, 1.7 million sought mental health treatment in 2025, predominantly for anxiety, depression, and stress-related disorders.
The problem is not that workers are fragile. The problem is the conditions.
The piece argues that workplace mental health crises stem from how work is organized, not from individual weakness.

Workplace psychosocial risks—long hours, job insecurity, harassment—cause 840K deaths yearly and cost 1.37% of global GDP through lost productivity and health impacts. Peru's informal labor market and fragmented protections leave workers vulnerable; 7 in 10 experience chronic stress, 1 in 6 faces burnout, driven by digital surveillance and blurred work-life boundaries.

  • 840,000 people die annually from workplace psychosocial risks
  • In Peru: 7 in 10 workers experience chronic stress; 1 in 6 faces burnout
  • 1.7 million Peruvians sought mental health treatment in 2025
  • Psychosocial risks cost 1.37% of global GDP annually
  • 23% of global workers have experienced harassment or violence at work

Over 840,000 annual deaths worldwide stem from workplace psychosocial risks. Peru faces acute challenges with 70% of workers experiencing chronic stress and 1.7M seeking mental health care in 2025.

When someone asks you how work is going, pause before you answer. Take a moment to think about what you're really saying. Because somewhere in the world right now, work is killing people—not in sudden, visible ways, but through the slow accumulation of long hours, job insecurity, harassment, and the grinding uncertainty of how you'll pay next month's rent. Every year, more than 840,000 people die from causes linked to psychosocial risks at work. They die from heart disease, from depression, from the body's rebellion against sustained stress. These are not workplace accidents. They are the price of how we have chosen to organize labor.

In Peru, this is not a distant problem. Seven out of every ten workers experience chronic stress. One in six faces burnout—that particular exhaustion where you have nothing left to give. Last year, the health ministry recorded 1.7 million people seeking mental health treatment, most of them struggling with anxiety, depression, or the aftermath of severe stress. What was once considered exceptional—a person breaking under work pressure—has become ordinary. It is the texture of working life for millions.

The problem is not new, but it is changing shape and scale in ways that demand attention. Digital tools now track not just what workers produce but how they produce it, creating a sense of constant surveillance. Remote and hybrid work have erased the boundary between office and home, so the job follows you into your kitchen, your bedroom, your evening. New forms of employment—gig work, contract positions, informal arrangements—have replaced the stability of traditional jobs with perpetual uncertainty about income and rights. Meanwhile, the broader world intrudes: political tensions, social instability, economic anxiety all seep into the workplace and settle there.

The risks have not disappeared; they have simply transformed. A worker might face relentless workload with little control over how to manage it. They might work in isolation or in an environment where violence and harassment are tolerated. Globally, nearly a quarter of all workers have experienced some form of harassment or violence in their working lives. More than a third work more than 48 hours a week. These conditions do more than damage individual health. They erode productivity, increase absenteeism, and ultimately undermine the organizations that tolerate them. The International Labour Organization calculates that psychosocial risks cost the world economy 1.37 percent of global GDP annually and rob humanity of nearly 45 million years of healthy life each year.

The solution, according to the ILO, is not to ask workers to manage stress better or to meditate their way through impossible conditions. It is to redesign how work itself is organized. This means examining three interconnected levels: the nature of the work itself—its demands, its purpose, whether it uses people's actual skills; the way it is managed—whether roles are clear, whether workers have any say in how they do their jobs, whether supervision builds trust or breeds fear; and the broader systems that govern it—employment contracts, working hours, how performance is evaluated, whether workers and employers actually talk to each other about problems.

In practical terms, this translates to concrete steps. Review workloads and work rhythms to prevent sustained overload. Define roles clearly so people know what is expected and can reasonably meet it. Build leadership that creates trust and support, not just task completion. Establish systems that prevent and address violence and harassment. Create genuine space for workers and employers to identify problems together and solve them. This is not abstract philosophy. It is a specific agenda for organizing work better.

The premise underlying this approach matters: the problem is not that workers are fragile or that they lack resilience. The problem is the conditions. Evidence shows that stress-management programs offered to individuals, without changing the work itself, fail. What works is changing how work is organized. Peru faces particular urgency here. The country's large informal economy, the patchwork of labor protections, the vast differences in working conditions across sectors—all of this means that a preventive, systemic approach is not optional. It is essential. Integrating psychosocial risks into occupational safety policy, building capacity in companies (especially small and medium enterprises), and fostering genuine dialogue between workers and employers are the necessary steps.

On April 28th each year, the world marks the Day for Safety and Health at Work. This year, the focus shifts to something less visible but increasingly decisive: the psychological and mental health dimensions of work. So when someone asks you how work is going, listen carefully to your own answer. In that response lives both the wellbeing of the person answering and the sustainability of the organization asking.

The risks have not disappeared; they have simply transformed into relentless workload with little control, isolation, and tolerated harassment.
— Analysis based on ILO data presented in the piece
What works is changing how work is organized, not just teaching workers to manage stress better.
— ILO position on psychosocial risk prevention
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Inventor

Why does the piece open with that question—"how is work?"—rather than jumping straight to the statistics?

Model

Because the statistics only matter if they connect to something real. Everyone has been asked that question. Everyone has given a half-honest answer. That's where the story lives—in the gap between what we say and what we actually experience.

Inventor

The piece mentions 840,000 deaths but also says these aren't "visible accidents." What's the distinction you're making?

Model

Visible accidents are sudden—a fall, a machinery failure. These deaths are the result of conditions that wear on you over years. A person works 60 hours a week for five years, their heart gives out. Is that an accident? Technically no. But the work created the condition. That's harder to see and harder to hold anyone accountable for.

Inventor

You write about how digital tools and remote work have "erased the boundary" between office and home. Is that inherently bad, or is it more complicated?

Model

It's not inherently bad. But it removes a natural break. In the old model, you left the office and you were done. Now the work is always there—an email at 9 p.m., a Slack message on Sunday. The boundary was a form of protection, even if people didn't think of it that way.

Inventor

The piece argues against individual stress-management programs. But don't those help some people?

Model

They help some people cope better with impossible conditions. But they don't change the conditions. It's like giving someone a better umbrella instead of fixing the roof. The ILO's point is that if you actually want to protect health and maintain productivity, you have to fix the roof.

Inventor

Why does Peru specifically matter in this conversation?

Model

Because Peru has a huge informal economy—people without contracts, without protections, without recourse. The problem is harder to see and easier to ignore. But it's also where the stakes are highest. If you're going to build a system that actually protects workers, you have to start with the people who have the least protection.

Inventor

The piece ends by asking readers to "listen carefully" to their own answer about work. What are you hoping that listening produces?

Model

Honesty, maybe. And the recognition that your answer matters—not just to you, but to the organization, to the economy, to the society. If millions of people are struggling at work, that's not a personal failing. That's a signal that something about how we've organized work needs to change.

Contact Us FAQ