The debate
High pressure, trauma exposed roles such as content moderation, crisis response, cybersecurity, and emergency services carry significant and well documented mental health risks. These jobs often involve constant exposure to distressing material, unpredictable workloads, and high accountability.
Many organizations now provide wellbeing programs to reduce these risks, but one question remains: should participation be mandatory?
Advocates argue that making wellbeing activities compulsory helps normalize mental health, improves engagement, and protects the organization’s duty of care. Critics warn that it may infringe on autonomy, privacy, and even reduce trust between employees and leadership.
This article explores both perspectives, drawing on industry research, case studies, and insights from Zevo’s SAFER™ framework, a systemic model designed to support performance and protect psychological health in high pressure environments.
Potential benefits of mandatory participation
Reducing stigma and setting clear expectations
Requiring all employees to attend mental health or resilience training can normalize discussions about wellbeing and reduce stigma.
A Step By Step Training guide highlights that making sessions compulsory “puts the topic firmly on the agenda” and encourages open communication. Similarly, a Gateley Legal report notes that many UK employers are introducing mandatory mental health training as a way to break silence and promote understanding.
For first responders, After Action Care found that stigma is often the primary barrier to help seeking. Normalizing conversations through required training can create an environment where mental health is openly discussed and supported.
Mandatory, organization-wide initiatives can signal leadership’s commitment to wellbeing and demonstrate that caring for mental health is part of the company’s operational culture, not an optional extra.
Higher participation and engagement
Voluntary wellbeing programs tend to attract employees who already value mental health, while those most in need often opt out due to time pressure or stigma.
A Paradiso Solutions review found that mandatory mental health awareness training led to greater engagement and better emotional resilience across teams.
For high risk roles such as content moderation or customer escalation teams, mandatory sessions ensure all employees learn coping techniques and are exposed to resources. This approach guarantees equitable access, especially for people who feel they cannot take time away from work to seek support.
Performance and Return on Investment
Wellbeing initiatives can also make financial sense. A Deloitte analysis across multiple companies found a median return of CA$1.62 for every dollar invested in mental health programs, increasing to CA$2.18 for long-term initiatives.
Zevo’s own results show similar benefits. A six month intervention with a global BPO organization saw sharper focus, improved decision making under pressure, and lower turnover in emotionally demanding roles.
These findings indicate that when wellbeing reaches the entire workforce rather than a self selected few, both people and the organization benefit.
Consistent standards and compliance
Mandatory wellbeing training ensures every employee learns the same coping strategies and understands company policies related to psychological safety.
This consistency strengthens an organization’s duty of care and demonstrates proactive compliance with safety and health regulations.
Step By Step Training also notes that standardized participation “ensures fully compliant workplace practices.” In industries facing regulatory scrutiny, formal programs can help show that employers have taken steps to manage psychosocial risks and protect their teams.
Concerns and drawbacks of mandatory programs
Autonomy and trust
Compulsory participation in wellbeing programs can be perceived as intrusive. The Sustainability Directory’s ethics review warns that when wellness activities become requirements, they introduce “a complex set of ethical challenges” and risk turning supportive acts into coercive ones.
When employees feel forced to share personal experiences or complete self assessments, trust may erode. Zevo’s own clinical experts caution that in performance driven cultures, employees may already feel unsafe to raise mental health concerns and a mandatory model could amplify this if not implemented sensitively.
Backlash and resistance
If employees feel they are being compelled to attend, engagement may drop. Mantra Care points out that mandatory participation can actually increase stress and create a culture of comparison.
Even well intentioned efforts can backfire if staff view wellbeing as a performance metric. For instance, Business Insider reported that some content moderators were asked to sign PTSD acknowledgements as part of employment, leading to mistrust and morale issues.
Privacy and confidentiality
Confidentiality concerns remain one of the biggest barriers to wellbeing program participation. A RAND study of first responders found that employees often avoid programs because they worry data might be shared with management or insurers.
In the United States, wellness programs fall under privacy regulations such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the EEOC’s voluntary participation rules. Programs that appear coercive or request sensitive health data may violate employee rights and expose companies to legal risk.
One size does not fit all
Mental health needs vary widely. A single standardized session may feel irrelevant or even alienating for some employees. The ACLU notes that mandatory or incentivized programs often disadvantage those with chronic conditions, inadvertently penalizing employees who cannot meet generic wellness targets.
Effective support should allow flexibility, offering multiple pathways such as optional counseling, peer groups, or role specific interventions rather than a single, blanket requirement.
Questionable effectiveness
Research shows that not all mandatory programs achieve measurable results. Even within law enforcement and emergency services, RAND’s 2025 report found that outcomes varied significantly depending on leadership engagement and follow up.
Zevo’s own research also highlights that resilience training alone cannot fix deeper organizational issues like poor job design, excessive workload, or lack of leadership empathy. Without addressing systemic factors, mandatory training risks becoming a box ticking exercise.
Sector examples and lessons learned
Content moderation and BPOs
Wellbeing neglect in moderation teams has led to legal and reputational consequences. Several lawsuits have claimed psychological injury or PTSD from exposure to distressing material. As noted in Zevo’s blog on legal and reputational risk, organizations that embedded regular counseling and psychological support saw lower attrition and improved resilience.
First responders and law enforcement
Programs such as the Officer Resilience Training Program provide validated coping strategies for police and emergency personnel. However, even here, the EEOC has ruled that participation must remain voluntary and non punitive.
Aviation and military
The FAA and the Australian Defence Force both use mandatory wellbeing briefings, coupled with strict confidentiality protections. These systems demonstrate that duty of care and respect for autonomy can coexist if programs are implemented with transparency.
Crisis lines and NGOs
According to RAND’s review, emergency call centers and crisis lines report that mandatory post incident debriefs can reduce acute distress, but timing and sensitivity are key. Poorly timed interventions can worsen rumination rather than promote recovery.
Ethical and legal considerations
Balancing autonomy and duty of care
Employers have a responsibility to protect psychological health, but this should never override personal agency. Ethicists cited in the Sustainability Directory emphasize that true wellness support preserves choice and offers flexibility. Employees should have the right to refuse or request alternative support without penalty.
Discrimination and inclusion
Mandatory health programs risk disadvantaging employees with disabilities or chronic conditions. Programs that require exercise, diet tracking, or health metrics can inadvertently create a discriminatory environment. Ethical practice demands accommodations and opt outs to ensure fairness and compliance with disability and human rights laws.
Psychological safety
Whether participation is required or encouraged, success depends on a culture of safety. As Zevo’s psychological safety blog explains, leadership behavior and cultural tone determine whether people feel safe to seek help. Imposing sessions in a punitive environment can undo progress and discourage openness.
Zevo’s SAFER™ perspective
Zevo’s SAFER™ framework was designed to support people in high pressure environments where traditional wellness programs fail to address operational realities.
Generic wellbeing models are often external to workflows, one size fits all, and reactive rather than preventative. SAFER™ takes a systemic approach, embedding proactive and reactive support within daily operations.
Key elements include:
-
Clinically led leadership training
-
Embedded one to one “reset” coaching
-
Group sessions and crisis protocols
-
Performance analytics and wellbeing audits
Results across Zevo’s global client base demonstrate measurable impact, including improved focus, reduced attrition, and higher engagement under pressure.
However, Zevo emphasizes that effectiveness relies on culture and leadership. As noted by Zevo’s clinical specialist Pamela Lennon, “Resilience training alone cannot address deeper psychosocial issues such as poor job design or unsupportive leadership.”
The SAFER™ philosophy therefore supports proactive, embedded wellbeing that is universal for high pressure roles but always implemented within a culture of choice, safety, and trust.
Conclusion
Mandatory wellbeing programs can drive positive change when designed and delivered ethically. They can normalize mental health, increase participation, and help organizations meet legal and moral obligations to protect staff.
However, they also pose significant risks if implemented without sensitivity to autonomy, privacy, and trust. The most effective solutions are systemic, embedded, and co designed with employees, ensuring wellbeing becomes part of everyday work rather than a compliance exercise.
As Zevo’s SAFER™ approach demonstrates, success depends less on whether wellbeing is required and more on whether it is trusted, supported, and sustained.
