What you need to know before deciding.

This is the question every business owner has — and almost nobody says aloud. The answer is reassuring: no. A court-appointed expert interviewing your employees directly in a lawsuit will quickly uncover whatever psychosocial problems exist — whether you measured them or not. Risk does not come from measurement; it is already there. Which is why those who do not measure preventively are precisely the ones left without evidence: without a defence, because in court the burden falls on the company, and ignorance offers no protection — it may even aggravate matters, since it can be read as omission. Measuring does not create the risk. It creates the proof that you identified it and dealt with it — which is exactly what separates the diligent company from the negligent one in the eyes of the law.

That is the natural instinct — and the most dangerous one. Not measuring does not make the risk disappear; it merely guarantees that when it surfaces you will be caught unawares, with no control and no documentation. NR-1 has made assessment mandatory. Given that, not measuring stopped being "avoiding the problem" and became "breaching the standard" — which is an exposure in itself. Measuring is what taking control looks like; not measuring is what waiting to be caught looks like.

No. Identifying a risk is not an admission of guilt — it is the first step the law requires. The standard does not punish a company for having risk (every organisation does). It requires the company to identify, control and monitor. A company that detects a high risk and acts on it is doing exactly what is expected — and builds, cycle by cycle, the proof that it manages. Liability comes from omission, not from the diagnostic.

Quite the opposite. EHO exists to protect the company — showing what to correct before it becomes conflict, illness or litigation, and documenting that it acted. The results are confidential and serve management, not denunciation. The method points to routes for correction; it does not produce accusations. Whoever uses EHO is on the side of those who want to improve the environment — and safeguard themselves.

No — and EHO does not start from that expectation. Every organisation has tensions, pressures and things to improve; that is the nature of any human environment. What distinguishes a healthy company is not the absence of risk but the capacity to see it and correct it before it worsens. EHO is not looking for the perfect environment. It is looking for the environment that knows how to look after itself.

Since 26 May 2026, NR-1 requires psychosocial risk factors to be identified, assessed and controlled within Occupational Risk Management (GRO) and the Risk Management Programme (PGR). What used to be a management matter became a legal obligation, open to inspection.

In practice, the vast majority are. Every company required to maintain a PGR — which covers medium and large businesses and a good share of small ones — must now include psychosocial risks in that programme. Exemption reaches only a few specific cases (such as the MEI sole-trader regime, or micro-enterprises in risk grades 1 or 2 with no exposure to physical, chemical or biological agents). If you are unsure about your own case, an occupational health and safety professional can confirm where you fall.

The standard requires psychosocial risk factors to be identified, assessed and controlled, on a scientific basis and with consultation of workers. It does not require an "employee climate survey", it does not require individual psychological assessment of employees, and it does not oblige you to hire any particular consultancy. It requires a technical, defensible method — which is what EHO provides.

The company is exposed to citation and fines from labour inspection and, above all, left without a defence in any lawsuit alleging work-related illness. Beyond that, a weak or token document can attract an investigation by the Ministério Público do Trabalho (Brazil's labour prosecution service), which conducts inquiries of its own.

The organisation. This is the single most important distinction in the method. EHO does not measure individuals, feelings or emotional states — it measures the conditions of the working environment. The employee is not the object being assessed: they are the source reporting what they observe in the environment. The question is never "how do you feel?", but "how often does this happen here?".

No, and it does not intend to. Psychological diagnosis is the exclusive remit of psychology, and EHO does not perform it. The method works in another field — occupational risk management — assessing the environment, not the psyche. It complements the psychologist's work and never substitutes for it. Respecting that boundary is part of the method's rigour.

A climate survey measures satisfaction and opinion ("do you like it here?"). EHO measures the frequency of organisational facts ("does this happen?"). Climate captures subjective perception; EHO captures established fact — which is what makes it fit as a technical risk management instrument rather than merely a mood thermometer.

Whereas international instruments mostly measure individual perceptions of demand, control and support, EHO also reads the organisation of work — the patterns of management and culture that are the origin of the risk. And unlike instruments conceived abroad and then adapted, it was built from the ground up for NR-1 and the Brazilian reality.

No. The diagnostic is structurally anonymous: the system neither collects nor stores the identity of anyone who answers. Nobody — not the company, not EHO — can know who answered what.

Besides collecting no identification, the system consolidates groups of fewer than five people at the level above, so that no answer can be attributed to an individual by deduction. It is a guarantee of design, not merely a promise.

No. Results are always aggregated. The company sees patterns by area and by dimension — never individual answers. It is precisely that anonymity that secures honest answers and, with them, a reliable diagnostic.

Yes. The reports are structured to underpin the GRO and the PGR and to be presented in audits, with methodology, indices and evidence of compliance with NR-1 and NR-17.

EHO generates an Expert Evidence Pack — with aggregated results, methodological record, chain of custody and authentication code — suited to instructing claims and expert examinations. It is important to understand both its purpose and its limit: the report documents the conditions of the environment and the company's control measures, serving as a technical element of proof and defence. On its own it does not determine the outcome of a case — no document does — but it supplies robust, auditable evidence that supports the company's position. The strength of each case depends on the body of evidence as a whole; EHO contributes one solid technical piece of it.

Nothing to install — EHO runs over the internet, with secure access. The company builds the structure, launches the survey (employees answer in a few minutes, via link or QR code) and follows the results in real time on the dashboard. From launch to report, the process is quick and guided. To see the system from the inside, visit the SaaS page or request a demonstration.