What this is
What is a violence and aggression assessment?
What is a violence and aggression assessment?
A structured assessment of how far a specific role is exposed to aggression, what has actually happened to people in it, what controls exist, and what residual risk is left once those controls are counted. It is not an incident report: aggression is driven by role design, not location, and one role can sit at extreme residual risk while another on the same site sits at low.
What counts as aggression for this assessment?
Verbal abuse and physical contact from hauliers and drivers, members of the public, customers, colleagues, or anyone refused something. The form separates the source because the controls differ: a haulier dispute needs yard procedure, a colleague conflict needs a different route.
How is the residual band scored?
Frequency, isolation, out-of-hours exposure, money handling, rule enforcement and history each score toward a band from Low, 1 to 4, up to Extreme, 20 to 25, then the assessor sets Highest Control Level Applied and Risk Acceptable. A role can score badly on exposure and still land in an acceptable band if controls are genuinely engineered rather than administrative.
Scope
When is a violence and aggression assessment required?
This assessment is one step in a larger programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on.
Use this template when
- A role is newly exposed to the public, hauliers or colleagues in a way that could produce aggression, or an existing role's exposure has materially changed
- The yard, gate, goods-in, despatch, reception or any customer-facing or enforcement-type role is reviewed as part of the Lone Working and Security programme
- A verbal or physical incident, or a pattern the History section would call under-reporting, has raised doubt about whether current controls hold
- A role is being consulted with directly, because Workers Consulted is scored and an assessment written without the people doing the job scores worse for it
- A linked psychosocial or support referral record needs this assessment to exist as its basis
Do not use it for
- Security Risk Assessment, which assesses the site against theft, unauthorised access, sabotage and tampering, not aggression directed at a role.
- Lone Working Risk Assessment, which assesses tasks done alone, out of hours or out of sight and how a person raises an alarm, independent of aggression.
- Security Incident Investigation, which establishes what happened in one specific event, once this assessment's assumptions have been tested against reality.
- The wider psychosocial risk assessment, which covers workload, control, support and relationships as a set; aggression is one output of that mix.
- Anything outside KnowSafe, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2 requirements does this satisfy?
There is no dedicated violence-at-work regulation in most regimes; the duty sits inside hazard identification and psychosocial risk provisions, which is why treating aggression as a footnote in a generic assessment tends not to survive scrutiny.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification proactive and ongoing, covering work organisation, social factors and human factors, not only physical hazards | Exposure |
| ISO 45003 cl.6.1.2 | Identification of psychosocial hazards, including violence and harassment arising from work organisation and third-party interaction | Exposure |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of non-managerial workers in hazard identification and risk assessment | History |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination of hazards and reduction of risk following the hierarchy of controls, rather than defaulting to administrative measures | Controls |
| HSWA 1974 s.2(1) | General duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, employee health, safety and welfare, which HSE guidance extends to violence at work | Controls |
| OSHA 5(a)(1) | General Duty Clause obligation to address recognised hazards, including workplace violence the employer knew or should have known of | Outcome |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of controls | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Security Risk Assessment, which assesses the site against theft, unauthorised access, sabotage and product tampering rather than aggression toward a role.
- Lone Working Risk Assessment, which assesses tasks done alone, out of hours or out of sight, and how the person would raise an alarm.
- Security Incident Investigation, which establishes what happened in a specific event, once this assessment's frequency assumption has already been tested against reality.
- The wider psychosocial risk assessment, which addresses workload, control, support and relationships as a set; aggression is one symptom of that mix.
- Support referral records, which document what was offered to an individual after exposure, rather than the role-level control decision made here.
Global
Violence and Aggression Assessment requirements by country
No major regime has a violence-specific standard comparable to a machinery or noise regulation. The duty runs through general hazard identification and, increasingly, psychosocial risk provisions.
OSH Act General Duty Clause 5(a)(1); state-specific mandates such as California SB 553
No federal workplace violence standard. General Duty Clause enforcement applies where the employer knew or should have known; some states mandate a written prevention plan directly.
A site relying on the absence of a federal standard is exposed twice: to Duty Clause enforcement after an incident, and to a state mandate where one applies.
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s.2; Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 reg.3
HSE guidance treats violence at work as a hazard the general duty and risk assessment duty already cover, rather than a separate instrument.
There is no violence-specific enforcement route, so the defence has to be the ordinary risk assessment trail: exposure identified, controls in hierarchy order, workers consulted.
ISO 45003:2021, guidelines for managing psychosocial risk within an OH&S management system
Sits alongside ISO 45001 and names violence and harassment explicitly as psychosocial hazards to be identified and controlled.
Certification auditors working to 45001 increasingly expect psychosocial hazards in the register with the same rigour as physical ones.
How to complete it
How to complete a violence and aggression assessment, step by step
The form scores cleanly. What decides whether the record survives a claim or an audit is judgement the scoring alone does not capture.
Enforcing Rules Part Of The Role, Delivering Bad News Part Of The Role and Handling Money Or Valuables are structural questions, not opinions about how well the current job holder handles conflict. A role scored low-friction because the current person is good with people will read high-friction the moment that person leaves.
Verbal Abuse Reported and Physical Contact Reported can both read None while Under Reporting Suspected reads Yes, and that should score worse than reported incidents with no suspicion, not better. A clean history where nobody bothers reporting is the least reliable evidence the form can hold.
Design Controls In Place, Two Person Working Where Needed and Alarm Or Summon Help Available sit above Training Delivered in the hierarchy the Outcome section scores against. A Low or Medium band earned on training and an alarm alone, with design left untried, has scored the effort rather than the exposure.
Yes should correspond to a route the team could actually use on the day: who bans a haulier, who removes a customer. Informal, scored at 1 rather than 3, is the honest answer for most sites and should raise the same further-controls text as any partial control.
What auditors find
Most common violence and aggression assessment findings
These findings rarely turn on whether the form was completed. They turn on whether the score matches what History and Controls contain.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal Abuse Reported and Physical Contact Reported both score None while Under Reporting Suspected scores Yes, with no adjustment to the residual band. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Treat suspected under-reporting as a driver of the residual band, not a side note next to a clean history. |
| Assessment reaches Complete with Highest Control Level Applied set to Administrative or PPE, with no record of design or engineering options considered. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Record why screens, counter redesign or separation were rejected before an administrative control is accepted. |
| Working Alone When Exposed and Out Of Hours Exposure both score Usually or Routinely with no Two Person Working Where Needed or Alarm Or Summon Help Available. | ISO 45003 cl.6.1.2 | Pair isolated, out-of-hours exposure with a working-alone control before sign-off. |
| Workers Consulted scores Informed Only or No on a role the assessor has not otherwise interviewed. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Interview the people currently doing the role and score Workers Consulted against that, not a briefing after the fact. |
| Ban Or Escalation Process Exists scores Informal with no route named, on a role where History shows repeat exposure. | HSWA 1974 s.2(1) | Name who has authority to ban or escalate, and confirm the team knows the route, before treating it as controlled. |
| Residual Band and Risk Acceptable are marked without a Next Review Due date tied to a change trigger. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Set the review to fire on a defined trigger, staffing change or incident, not the calendar interval alone. |
Case in point
Case in point: the gate role assessed for the job it used to be
A goods-in gate role was assessed two years earlier: occasional haulier contact, no physical contact history, alarm available, training delivered, residual band Low. The assessment was never revisited. In the interim the site added a return-load rejection process, so gate staff now refused loads on the spot to drivers who had already waited hours to unload.
A driver whose load was rejected pushed a gate operative against the barrier. The investigation found Enforcing Rules Part Of The Role had never been rescored from No to Constantly when the process was added, because the change came from quality, not safety, and nothing linked it back to the assessment covering the role receiving it.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- SAF-143
- Archetype
- Assessment
- Record ID
- VAA-2026-000
- Scoring
- Residual band
- Direction
- Low is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2
- Links
- Links Psychosocial assessment, Support referral
- Tags
- Security, Psychosocial
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 49
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 3
Header
12 fieldsAssessment ID*
Auto sequence. Format VAA-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
It Is A Hazard Like Any Other
Aggression from hauliers, the public or colleagues produces real injury and real psychological harm. Assess it, control it at the source, and stop treating it as part of the job.
Role Or Task Assessed*
Workers Exposed*
Assessor*
Exposure
8 fieldsSource Of Aggression*
Delivery drivers, members of the public, customers, colleagues, or people being removed from site.
Frequency Of Exposure*
- Rare3 pts
- Occasional1 pt
- Frequent0 pts
Working Alone When Exposed*
- No3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- Usually0 pts
Out Of Hours Exposure*
- No3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- Routinely0 pts
Handling Money Or Valuables
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Enforcing Rules Part Of The Role*
Anybody who has to say no to somebody is exposed. Gate staff and quality inspectors more than most.
- No3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- Constantly0 pts
Delivering Bad News Part Of The Role*
- No3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- Constantly0 pts
Language Barriers Increase Friction
- No3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- Often0 pts
History
5 fieldsIncidents In Last 12 Months*
Verbal Abuse Reported*
- None3 pts
- Occasional1 pt
- Frequent0 pts
Physical Contact Reported*
- None3 pts
- Isolated1 pt
- More than once0 pts
Under Reporting Suspected*
Where people say it happens weekly but no reports exist, the reporting route is the first thing to fix.
- No3 pts
- Possibly1 pt
- Yes0 pts
Workers Consulted*
- Yes3 pts
- Informed only1 pt
- No0 pts
Controls
9 fieldsDesign Controls In Place*
Screens, counters, controlled queuing, escape routes and layout that avoids cornering.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- None0 pts
Waiting And Information Reduce Frustration*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Two Person Working Where Needed*
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
- No0 pts
Alarm Or Summon Help Available*
- Yes3 pts
- Phone only1 pt
- No0 pts
CCTV And Signage Present
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Training Delivered*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Support After An Incident Defined*
- Yes3 pts
- Informal1 pt
- None0 pts
Reporting Encouraged And Acted On*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Ban Or Escalation Process Exists*
- Yes3 pts
- Informal1 pt
- None0 pts
Outcome
15 fieldsHighest Control Level Applied*
- Eliminate4 pts
- Substitute4 pts
- Engineer3 pts
- Separate or isolate3 pts
- Administrative1 pt
- PPE0 pts
Residual Band*
- Low, 1 to 45 pts
- Medium, 5 to 94 pts
- High, 10 to 142 pts
- Very high, 15 to 191 pt
- Extreme, 20 to 250 pts
Risk Acceptable*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Further Controls Required
Risk Assessment
Risk ID
Format RSK-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-012 Risk ID
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Next Review Due*
Assessor*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
SAF-143 · record IDs look like VAA-2026-000 · Links Psychosocial assessment, Support referral
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The assessment is a snapshot of a role. What fails is the link between a change made elsewhere and the assessment that should have been reopened by it.
Holds the assessment against the role and site registers, flags scoring that looks stale against reported incidents, and routes the review to safety.
Connects Support After An Incident Defined to the actual referral pathway, so an incident produces a follow-up rather than a checked box.
Watches security incident and check-in records for events touching an assessed role, and raises the review before the calendar date.
This template lives in KnowSafe — safety and compliance. Incidents, hazards, permits, inspections and the critical controls behind them.
Meet KnowSafe→Glossary
Violence and Aggression Assessment definitions and key terms
- Psychosocial hazard
- A hazard arising from how work is organised or socially structured rather than from a physical agent; aggression from a third party is a psychosocial hazard with a physical outcome.
- Residual band
- The risk remaining once existing controls are counted, expressed as a band from Low to Extreme so the assessor's control judgement stays visible.
- Hierarchy of controls
- The ranked sequence eliminate, substitute, engineer, separate or isolate, administrative, then PPE; Highest Control Level Applied scores against where an assessment's controls sit in it.
- Two-person working
- Staffing a task with a second person present to reduce aggression risk or summon help, distinct from two-person working used for manual handling.
- Under-reporting
- A gap between what people say happens and what gets formally recorded, usually because the route is slow or seen as pointless; a clean history does not rule it out.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about violence and aggression assessment
Do we assess the role or the person doing it?+
The role. A person's temperament affects how an incident unfolds, not whether the job structurally exposes whoever holds it to aggression. Assessing the person produces a record that is wrong the day that person changes.
Our incident numbers are low. Why score the assessment as high risk?+
Under Reporting Suspected exists for this. A role with structural exposure, frequent contact, out-of-hours work and rule enforcement, plus a clean history, usually has a reporting problem, not a safety one, and the band should reflect the exposure, not the paperwork.
Is training an acceptable control on its own?+
No. Training scores at the bottom of Highest Control Level Applied alongside PPE: it changes how a person responds, not whether the role encounters it. An assessment that stops at training has documented a briefing, not a control decision.
How does this differ from the Lone Working Risk Assessment?+
Lone working assesses isolation and how a person raises an alarm, independent of aggression. This assessment starts from the aggression itself and treats isolation as one factor that makes the exposure worse, not the subject of the assessment.
What should trigger a review outside the stated interval?+
Any change touching enforcement, refusal or bad news, a shift pattern change adding out-of-hours exposure, or any incident regardless of severity. A procedural change from another function, like a rejection process added to a goods-in role, is the trigger most sites miss.
Can the template be changed?+
Yes. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it. Most teams install it as it is, run it for a cycle, then adjust the scoring to match what they see.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Lone Working and Security
Food Defense Plan
Assesses where product could be deliberately contaminated and sets out how that is prevented
Security Risk Assessment
Assesses the site against theft, unauthorised access, sabotage and product tampering
Lone Working Risk Assessment
Assesses tasks done alone, out of hours or out of sight, and how the person would raise an alarm
Lone Worker Check In Record
Records the agreed contact points during a period of lone working, and that each one happened
Security Incident Investigation
Records theft, break in, unauthorised access, tampering or threat
Access Control Review
Reviews who holds access to which areas and whether that is still justified
More in Security and Lone Working
Security Risk Assessment
Assesses the site against theft, unauthorised access, sabotage and product tampering
Lone Working Risk Assessment
Assesses tasks done alone, out of hours or out of sight, and how the person would raise an alarm
Lone Worker Check In Record
Records the agreed contact points during a period of lone working, and that each one happened
Security Incident Investigation
Records theft, break in, unauthorised access, tampering or threat
Access Control Review
Reviews who holds access to which areas and whether that is still justified
CCTV and Monitoring Review
Reviews camera coverage, recording retention, image quality and who can view footage
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 6.1.2, 8.1.2, 5.4 and 9.1.1
- ISO 45003:2021, guidelines for managing psychosocial risk
- Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, section 2 (GB), and HSE guidance on violence at work
- OSH Act Section 5(a)(1), General Duty Clause (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.