NR-1 and Psychosocial Risks: What the Ministry of Labour’s New Guidance Means in Practice for Your Business

A few days ago, Brazil’s Ministry of Labour and Employment (MTE) published a document that HR, Occupational Health and Safety (OHS), and Legal teams should be paying close attention to.

Amid ongoing discussions regarding the enforcement of penalties related to NR-1, the MTE has taken a step that signals the direction of future inspections: the publication of the document “Questions and Answers on Chapter 1.5 of NR-1”, which addresses 22 questions on how Occupational Risk Management (GRO) should operate, with a particular focus on psychosocial risks.

What does the guidance mean in practice?

1. No company is exempt from the requirements

Companies are required to identify and assess psychosocial risks as part of the Preliminary Ergonomic Assessment (AEP), provided for under NR-17 and integrated into the Occupational Risk Management framework established by NR-1. Company size or industry sector, in and of themselves, do not constitute grounds for exclusion.

2. There is no “mandatory” professional, but there is technical responsibility

The legislation does not require a specific professional category to carry out the assessment. However, it does require that the person responsible possess technical knowledge compatible with the complexity of the activities being evaluated. In other words, assigning this responsibility without proper criteria may create significant legal exposure.

3. A questionnaire alone is not a process

The isolated use of questionnaires is insufficient. The results must be technically assessed and translated into concrete actions.

For microenterprises and small businesses that are exempt from preparing a Risk Management Program (PGR), the AEP becomes even more important as supporting documentation and must reflect a consistent assessment of the company’s actual circumstances.

4. Remote and hybrid work arrangements are within scope

The identification of psychosocial risks applies to all forms of work organization, including on-site, remote, hybrid, and teleworking arrangements. Companies that have adopted flexible work models without reviewing their risk management processes may have important gaps that need to be addressed.

5. The focus is on the work environment, not the employee

The purpose of the assessment is not to diagnose employees, but rather to evaluate working conditions and organizational factors that may create risks. This distinction is critical and helps avoid confusion between psychosocial risk management and periodic medical examinations.

6. Inspections go beyond documentation

Labour inspectors are not expected to require any specific assessment tool. However, they may evaluate the technical consistency of the process, its alignment with the company’s actual circumstances, and the effectiveness of the preventive measures implemented. Employee participation must also be demonstrable.

In practice, this means that inspections may take into account not only formal documentation, but also interviews, evidence of employee involvement, and observations of the actual work environment.

What does this mean for your business?

The key question from regulators is no longer simply, “Does the company have a PGR?” It is now: “Does this process actually work in practice?”

This represents an important turning point. Having a document on file is no longer enough—and, in reality, it never should have been. What is now required is a process that is operationally effective, technically robust, and legally defensible.

The issue also no longer allows for a fragmented approach. HR, OHS, and Legal teams must work in alignment under a unified management framework, as inspections are increasingly likely to assess these elements in an integrated manner.

How BVA Can Support Companies on This Matter

The Labour & Employment team at BVA – Barreto Veiga Advogados has been actively assisting companies throughout this transition, helping them implement effective psychosocial risk management processes supported by appropriate methodologies, employee participation, action traceability, and sound legal and technical foundations.

If your company is still at the stage of saying, “We have a PGR,” now is the time to review the consistency and effectiveness of that process. Proper structuring should take place before an inspection raises questions that documentation alone may not be able to answer.

Contact us to learn how we can support your company throughout this process.