Respect is a system, not a sentiment.

One prevention system, six moving parts.

The model deliberately combines “respect at work” and DEI, because prevention systems and inclusion systems share the same mechanisms. Leadership sets expectations and resources controls; culture determines whether people speak up. Risk management identifies where harm is likely — roles, locations, customers, events, power imbalance, remote work — and puts controls in place. Reporting and response builds trust through timely triage, interim controls, procedural fairness and consistent consequences. Support reduces harm and lifts participation in reporting, with anti-retaliation guardrails keeping people safe after they report. Monitoring and transparency close the loop: indicators reveal hotspots and recurrence, and keep leaders accountable.

Why it works: prevention succeeds when it is risk-based — find where and how harm occurs, then redesign work and environments. Trust drives reporting; consistency improves fairness and defensibility; and system levers change inclusion outcomes where campaigns alone never do. Intersectional risk matters here: different cohorts face different exposure and different barriers to reporting.

Seven standards, four levels of maturity.

Rate your organisation across the seven standards that typically determine whether prevention and response work in practice. Rating guide: 1 = ad hoc, 2 = defined, 3 = managed, 4 = optimised. Score each dimension, then pick the two lowest as your uplift priorities for the next 90 days.

Positive duty and WHS psychosocial risk — run one programme, not two.

Unlawful sex-based conduct and harassment is both a discrimination/positive-duty prevention issue and a WHS psychosocial risk requiring controls. A single integrated programme avoids duplication and produces stronger evidence. On the positive-duty side: frame prevention measures as “reasonable and proportionate” to your risk profile and resources, operationalise the seven standards, and maintain an evidence pack of measures taken, outcomes and continuous improvement. On the WHS side: treat sexual and gender-based harassment, bullying and aggression as psychosocial hazards managed through the WHS risk cycle, prefer higher-order controls (work design, environment, supervision, staffing) before training-only controls, and consult workers along the way.

Who owns prevention, who runs the case system.

Clarity of roles is half the system. The executive sponsor sets tone, resources the programme and reviews dashboards. The HR/ER lead owns the policy suite, triage governance, investigation quality and manager enablement. The WHS lead owns psychosocial risk registers, controls, consultation and assurance — partnering on case learnings. People leaders execute leader routines, implement interim controls and prevent retaliation. Independent investigators provide evidence-based findings; a separate decision-maker determines outcomes.

The case workflow runs: intake → triage (risk, safety, urgency, retaliation risk) → interim controls → pathway decision (informal resolution / management action / formal investigation / immediate WHS intervention) → findings → decision → controls to prevent recurrence → follow-up monitoring.

Dashboards that show trust, not just activity.

Measure prevention effectiveness, trust, and whether recurrence is falling — always at trend level, never individual case disclosures. Prevention and trust: training completion plus scenario-based competence checks, speak-up channel utilisation trends, time to interim controls, anti-retaliation monitoring, and hotspot indicators (complaints, absence, turnover, psychosocial risk signals). Case system health: time to triage, to interim controls, to closure; file quality audits; outcome distribution and recurrence; repeat offenders and repeat locations; third-party incidents and control effectiveness. Inclusion and progression (where lawful and appropriate): representation and progression by cohort, pay equity indicators and remediation, flexible work uptake, and sentiment on inclusion and safety in pulse data.

A 30-day read on any organisation’s real maturity.

Whether you’re stepping into a new remit or auditing your own, the sequence is the same. Days 1–5: request the policy suite, speak-up channels, triage framework, investigation toolkit; trend-level case dashboards; psychosocial risk register entries and controls; training matrices; and any positive-duty programme documentation. Days 6–15: triangulate — the WHS lead on psychosocial maturity, legal/IR on dispute patterns and where process quality fails, two operational leaders on third-party risks and hotspots, employee representatives or HSRs on reporting confidence and retaliation concerns, and the EAP provider for a trend view of themes.