Assoc. Prof. Nainaben Dhana DCRT (London), HDRT( South Africa) Grad Cert EBP ( Monash) , ACA registered Counsellor

RT Education and Quality Lead, Adjunct Industry Associate Professor of RMIT, AUSCEP participant (2025-26) &

Dr Alwin Tan, MBBS, FRACS, EMBA (Melbourne Business School)

Senior Surgeon | Governance Leader | HealthTech Co-founder
Harvard Medical School — AI in Healthcare
Australian Institute of Company Directors — GAICD candidate
University of Oxford — Sustainable Enterprise

Institute for Systems Integrity (ISI)

Executive Summary (Board & Executive Lens)

Carewashing emerges when organisations signal care for employee wellbeing while the structural conditions shaping daily work remain materially unchanged.

This misalignment is rarely intentional.

Yet its consequences are significant.

Harvard Business Review describes carewashing as the gap between organisational expressions of care and employees' lived experience — a divergence that can alienate employees rather than reassure them.

Gallup’s 2024 data underscore the credibility challenge: only 21% of employees strongly agreed their organisation cares about their overall wellbeing.

At the same time, psychosocial hazard research consistently identifies dominant risks arising from:

• job demands
• organisational change practices
• perceptions of organisational justice

Meanwhile, Employee Assistance Program (EAP) outcome studies demonstrate measurable improvements in individual vocational well-being.

ISI interpretation:
Carewashing risk intensifies when organisations mitigate human distress while leaving hazard exposures insufficiently controlled.

 Reframing the Issue

Most organisations genuinely intend to support employees.

However, carewashing often arises when leaders prioritise visible wellbeing initiatives over system redesign.

The organisation communicates:

“People first.”

 “Wellbeing matters.”

 “We care.”

Yet employees experience:

 chronic overload

 capacity mismatches

 poorly managed change

 inconsistent decision processes

 strained workplace relationships

Employees evaluate care through operational reality, not organisational messaging.

When rhetoric and lived experience diverge, credibility deteriorates.

 Definitions That Matter

Carewashing
When organisational expressions of care outpace the lived experience of work.

Wellbeing-washing
Superficial or illusory commitments to wellbeing are lacking in alignment with systemic drivers.

ISI Framing — Risk Displacement
Carewashing functions as a form of risk displacement, shifting responsibility for managing psychosocial strain from:

➡ organisational design and controls
to
➡ individual resilience and coping

This substitution represents the core integrity failure.

 The Carewashing Mechanism

Carewashing frequently follows a predictable systems pattern:

Step A — Stress Accumulates

Demand rises.
Capacity lags.
Complexity increases.

Step B — Signals Are Managed

Wellbeing campaigns launched.
Resilience initiatives introduced.
Care messaging amplified.

Step C — Narrative Stabilises

The organisation appears responsive.
Leadership intent becomes visible.

Step D — Humans Absorb Strain

Hazards persist.
Overload normalised.
Endurance rewarded.

Outcome:
Care becomes performative rather than structural.

 Psychosocial Hazards Are System Properties

Psychosocial hazards are increasingly recognised within WHS and ISO frameworks.

Validated hazard assessments identify recurring systemic exposures:

• excessive job demands
• low job control
• poorly managed organisational change
• role ambiguity
• inadequate support
• bullying, conflict, aggression

These are properties of:

➡ work design
➡ governance systems
➡ organisational processes

·       change management 

·       Organisational justice 

Not deficits of employee resilience.

 The Support Paradox

EAP outcome studies demonstrate:

 reductions in distress

 improvements in coping

 enhanced vocational wellbeing

Support mechanisms are therefore:

 valuable

 necessary

But they primarily function as:

➡ impact mitigation controls

They do not inherently eliminate:

➡ hazard exposures

When organisations rely disproportionately on support without redesign and data-driven insight :

Symptoms reduce
while
Drivers persist

 Governance & Risk Implications

Carewashing generates systemic exposure

 Credibility Risk

Trust deteriorates when claims diverge from experience.

 Hazard Persistence

Wellbeing narratives may obscure unresolved structural risks.

 Control Substitution

Support initiatives risk replacing hazard controls.

 Assurance Distortion

Boards receive well-being activity metrics rather than risk reduction indicators.

Participation ≠ Protection
Programs ≠ Controls

 Australia: From Care Narrative to Risk Management

Within Australia’s WHS framework, psychosocial hazards are managed through a risk management approach.

Safe Work Australia’s Model Code of Practice provides structured guidance for:

 hazard identification

 risk assessment

 control implementation

 review and assurance

This reframes wellbeing from cultural aspiration to governance accountability.

Care is defined by:

➡ hazard reduction
➡ exposure control
➡ system redesign

 What Real Organisational Care Looks Like

ISO 45003 positions psychological health within psychosocial risk management.

Care becomes credible when embedded in:

 workload boundaries

 capacity governance

 change management integrity

 organisational justice consistency

 manager capability

 escalation safety

 hazard reduction controls

 reality-based metrics

 independent assurance

 The Care Credibility Test (For Boards)

 Which psychosocial hazards sit within enterprise risk oversight?

 Where is resilience substituting for redesign?

 What changed following employee well-being concerns?

 Are managers equipped to reduce psychosocial risk?

 Do well-being claims align with operational indicators?

Closing Position (ISI)

Carewashing is rarely deceptive by intent.

It is misalignment by design.

Visible care signals
paired with
persistent hazard exposures

Governance maturity requires shifting from:

“We care about people”

to

“We design work that protects people.”

Reflection: There are measurable benefits of well-implemented EAP interventions. However, awareness needs to be raised about these programs for increased utilisation. Importance of organisations integrating their EAP utilisation and effectiveness data to improve the well-being of their staff.  

References (Harvard Style)

Croft, J, Parks, A., & Whillans, A 2024,
‘Why workplace well-being programs don’t achieve better outcomes’,
Harvard Business Review, 18 October.

Gube, M, Mathieu, C & Hennelly, DS 2024,
‘How “Carewashing” Alienates Employees’,
Harvard Business Review, 10 June.

Gallup 2024,
‘Despite Employer Prioritisation, Employee Wellbeing Falters’,
Gallup Workplace, 4 November.

International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 2021,
ISO 45003:2021 Psychological Health and Safety at Work — Guidelines for Managing Psychosocial Risks,
ISO, Geneva.

Safe Work Australia 2022,
Model Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work,
Safe Work Australia, Canberra.

Webb, B 2024,
Psychosocial Hazards Unveiled: Insights and Solutions for Modern Workplaces,
Converge White Paper, Converge International, Australia.

Webb, B 2024,
The Silent Workplace Crisis: Can EAP Help Solve Psychosocial Risk?,
[ND1] Converge White Paper, Converge International, Australia. - Page, C 2024,

An Analysis of the effectiveness of EAP interventions to Reduce Psychosocial Risk in Employees accessing EAP counselling support, Converge International, Australia.