Mibo
Mibo: a technology platform for psychosocial hazard assessment and ongoing risk management
Mibo is an Australian technology platform purpose-built to help organisations identify, measure, and manage psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Founded by a psychologist and a physiotherapist whose clinical work exposed them to the upstream causes of work-related mental health deterioration, Mibo is structured around the premise that the work environment itself — not individual employee resilience — is the primary driver of psychological harm and, equally, psychological benefit.
It is less a survey tool and more a risk management system: one that takes organisations from initial quantitative assessment through to ongoing monitoring, control measure delivery, and governance documentation. Organisations whose primary need is individual clinical support, crisis response, or a lightweight compliance exercise will find it more than they require.
“Mibo is structured around the premise that the work environment itself — not individual employee resilience — is the primary driver of psychological harm and, equally, psychological benefit.”
Positioning in the market
Mibo sits in the technology-first segment of the psychosocial risk management market, distinct from consulting-led providers that deliver bespoke organisational engagements, and from employee wellbeing platforms focused on individual-level content such as mindfulness tools or EAP access. Where many platforms in this space offer hazard identification surveys as a standalone product, Mibo integrates assessment, risk quantification, dashboard analytics, a risk register, and digitally delivered control measures within a single platform. This end-to-end architecture is a meaningful differentiator for organisations seeking systematic compliance rather than point-in-time measurement. It is not designed for organisations looking for a consultant to lead transformation work, nor for those seeking a general employee engagement survey; both sit in different parts of the market. The platform operates a partner network of specialist HR and WHS consulting firms — including Sentis, Humanology Group, and Australian Psychological Services — for organisations that want advisory capacity alongside the technology.
Core capabilities and service model
Engagements typically begin with a Psychosocial Risk Management Assessment (PRMA), a validated survey instrument that takes approximately ten minutes per employee to complete. The PRMA combines hazard identification and risk assessment within a single process: employees are dynamically routed based on initial responses, with follow-up questions tailored to their specific hazard exposure. The assessment covers 24 work factors — including less commonly measured dimensions such as productivity hindrances and counterproductive workplace behaviour — alongside Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC) and Respect at Work indicators, both functioning as lead indicators of future health and productivity outcomes. The tool also calculates the financial costs attributable to job-related stress, capturing burnout, absenteeism, presenteeism, and turnover intent in a format designed to support leadership briefings and ROI conversations. The PRMA has been independently evaluated by the Griffith University RISE Research Centre and assessed as having strong validity and reliability.
Following assessment, results are presented through a dashboard that surfaces risk priorities across teams and business units. The platform includes a psychosocial risk register for documenting control measures, and a suite of digitally delivered Control Measure Modules — structured training resources for managers and employees covering work overload, fatigue management, respect at work, and psychological safety. These modules are data-led: the platform uses assessment results to indicate which control measures are most relevant to a given organisation’s risk profile. Higher-tier subscriptions include pulse check capability for ongoing monitoring, AI-assisted analysis, and the ability to incorporate internal data sources.
Methodology and intellectual foundation
The platform’s assessment methodology draws on occupational health psychology, with particular attention to the interaction between workplace stressors and protective factors. The most distinctive feature is the Harm-Benefit Indicator, which measures psychosocial work factors not only for their capacity to harm but also for their protective and beneficial effects on worker wellbeing. Conventional hazard-only approaches can produce inflated risk scores when protective factors are not accounted for — strong managerial support, for instance, may substantially buffer the psychological impact of high workload. Mibo’s approach captures this interaction, giving organisations a more calibrated basis for prioritisation. The founders’ backgrounds in high-performance sport have shaped an emphasis on performance enablement alongside risk reduction — a framing that can assist in gaining executive commitment where safety language alone generates limited traction.
“Conventional hazard-only approaches can produce inflated risk scores when protective factors are not accounted for — for example, strong managerial support may substantially buffer the psychological impact of high workload.”
Alignment with Australian regulation and frameworks
Psychosocial hazards are regulated under work health and safety legislation in all Australian jurisdictions, with duties on PCBUs to identify and manage these risks in line with Safe Work Australia’s model Code of Practice. Mibo’s workflow — assess, document control measures, monitor, review — maps directly to that risk management process. The risk register function is designed to support the documentation requirements that regulators and courts may examine following an incident. The platform holds ISO 27001 certification for information security, which is relevant for organisations managing sensitive employee data at scale.
Implementation and change requirements
Deploying a quantitative psychosocial risk assessment at scale is not a passive exercise. Survey response rates depend heavily on senior leadership visibly sponsoring the process and employees trusting that data will be acted on rather than filed. Organisations with low psychological safety or a history of survey fatigue may see reduced participation, which affects the reliability of team-level reporting. The platform is not well suited to organisations that are unwilling or unable to act on findings — the value is in the response, not the measurement alone.
“Survey response rates depend heavily on the degree to which senior leadership visibly sponsors the process and employees trust that data will be acted on rather than filed.”
The platform’s value compounds with consistent use. Some smaller organisations may find the full feature set more comprehensive than their current capacity to absorb and act on data; in those cases, the entry-level Assess tier is a more appropriate starting point than committing to the Monitor tier from the outset.
Use cases and organisational fit
Mibo is well-suited to medium and large organisations that need to manage psychosocial risk systematically across multiple teams or business units, particularly where regulatory pressure or a history of workplace mental health claims has elevated the priority. Sectors with complex working conditions — resources, energy, healthcare, financial services, logistics — are well represented in the client base, and the platform’s team-level data capability makes it useful in distributed or shift-based workforces where conditions vary substantially across groups. It is not a fit for organisations whose primary need is consulting-led cultural transformation, individual clinical care, or a general employee experience measurement programme — each of those requires a different type of provider.
Role in a broader ecosystem
Mibo sits upstream of both EAP and clinical intervention — its function is to identify and address hazards at the system level before they produce the individual harm that triggers reactive support. In practice it operates alongside, rather than in competition with, EAP providers, occupational health services, and training providers. Organisations using engagement survey platforms may find some diagnostic overlap, though Mibo’s risk-specific framing and regulatory alignment give it a materially different function to general employee experience measurement. Through its delivery partner network, it can be incorporated into a broader consulting engagement where organisations want professional support to act on assessment findings.
Strategic value
Mibo’s value is clearest for organisations that have moved past basic awareness of their WHS obligations and need a structured, repeatable mechanism to assess conditions, document actions, monitor change, and demonstrate due diligence over time. Its combination of validated measurement, financial-impact modelling, and integrated control-measure delivery makes it a credible infrastructure choice for organisations where psychosocial risk management is becoming a standing function rather than a periodic project.
“Organisations that treat it as a recurring management tool, rather than a one-time compliance exercise, are better positioned to demonstrate the kind of ongoing monitoring that regulators expect and that genuine risk reduction requires.”