Answer 6 questions about your headcount, your activity, whether you already have an assessment and whether there are warning signs, and the tool tells you the recommended method, when a review is due and what penalties the law provides for. The important nuance: risk assessment is already mandatory today for your company, whatever its size; what varies is the psychosocial scope, the method and the format of the document.
In one sentence: risk assessment — psychosocial risks included — is mandatory for any company from its first employee, under Act 31/1995 (LPRL, arts. 14.2, 15.1.b and 16.2.a) and RD 39/1997. There is no headcount threshold that exempts you from it. What does change with your size and activity is whether you may use a single simplified document (RD 39/1997, art. 2.4), which technical method suits you and when a review is due.
This tool is indicative and does not constitute professional advice. Check your specific situation with Summum Calidad, with your prevention service or with an accredited specialist before making a final decision. We have already published a full analysis on the blog: Psychosocial risks: mandatory assessment and how to carry it out.
The LPRL (arts. 14.2, 15.1.b and 16.2.a) requires risks — psychosocial ones included — to be assessed without setting any minimum number of employees. The tool always marks the assessment as mandatory; what it works out from your answers is the format, the method and how urgent a review is.
Art. 2.4 of RD 39/1997 allows companies with up to 50 employees that carry out no Annex I activity to bring the prevention plan, the risk assessment and the preventive planning together into a single short document. If you exceed 50 employees or your activity is in Annex I, it does not apply: you need the full documentation separately.
If an assessment already exists and there is harm to health linked to psychosocial factors, art. 6.1 of RD 39/1997 requires it to be reviewed without waiting for the usual cycle. Art. 3.2 of the same regulation also requires the assessment method to be discussed with the employee representatives (or with the employees themselves where there is no representation), pursuant to art. 33 of the LPRL — this is always mandatory, whether or not there are warning signs.
Failing to assess or to update the assessment is a serious infringement (art. 12.1.b LISOS), fined €2,451 to €49,180 (art. 40.2.b). If the breach creates a serious and imminent risk that goes uncorrected, it may escalate to a very serious infringement (art. 13.10 LISOS), fined €49,181 to €983,736 (art. 40.2.c). The tool always shows both bands, but it does not decide which one applies to a case with confirmed harm: that is a judgement for the Labour Inspectorate, not something that can be automated.
A case this tool does not cover and does not invent: the law sets no period in years for repeating the assessment (art. 6.2 of RD 39/1997 refers to whatever the company and the employee representatives agree); and where harm to health has already been confirmed, whether the infringement is serious or very serious is a classification the Labour Inspectorate makes case by case (art. 39.2 LISOS), not something that can be automated. In both cases the tool says so explicitly in the result, instead of offering you an invented figure or classification.
This tool does not contradict the analysis already published on the blog: Psychosocial risks: mandatory assessment and how to carry it out, which goes deeper into the phases of the assessment, the recognised methodologies and the most common mistakes.
Yes. Act 31/1995 (LPRL, arts. 14.2, 15.1.b and 16.2.a) sets no headcount threshold: risk assessment — psychosocial risks included — is mandatory from the very first employee. What changes with size is not the obligation, but the format of the documentation.
If your company has up to 50 employees and carries out none of the hazardous activities in Annex I of RD 39/1997 (ionising radiation, group 3-4 biological agents, explosives, mining, construction with a risk of falling or burial, among others), article 2.4 of the same regulation lets you bring the prevention plan, the risk assessment and the preventive planning together into a single simplified document. It is not a different or lighter assessment in substance: it is a simpler documentary format.
Article 6.1 of RD 39/1997 requires the assessment to be reviewed when harm to employees' health is detected. If your medical service links those sick leaves to psychosocial factors of the job, the review is neither optional nor can it wait for the usual cycle. Depending on the specific case, it may also bring you close to a very serious infringement (art. 13.10 LISOS) and trigger the benefits surcharge in art. 164 of the General Social Security Act: that requires individual analysis with your prevention service, and the tool does not determine it automatically.
There is no fixed legal period in years. Article 6 of RD 39/1997 requires a review whenever working conditions change or harm to health is detected, and requires the ordinary frequency to be agreed between the company and the employee representatives (or the employees themselves where there is no representation). Any "every X years" figure you see elsewhere is common practice, not a requirement of the rule: this is a case the tool does not settle for you.
Failing to carry out risk assessments, or failing to update or review them, is a serious infringement (art. 12.1.b LISOS), punishable by a fine of €2,451 to €49,180 under art. 40.2.b) of the consolidated text of the Act on Infringements and Penalties in the Social Order (RDL 5/2000). If the breach also creates a serious and imminent risk that the company does not correct, it may reach the very serious band (art. 13.10 LISOS), with a fine of €49,181 to €983,736 (art. 40.2.c). The exact classification in each case is determined by the Labour Inspectorate, not by this tool.
The rules do not impose a specific method. The INSST distributes FPSICO 4.1 free of charge, the reference technical tool in Spain, with no company-size restrictions. It is the one this tool recommends by default; other recognised methodologies (COPSOQ III/ISTAS21, INSL of Navarre) are equally valid if they are reliable and the employee representatives take part in choosing them, as art. 3.2 of RD 39/1997 requires.