France: Government pressures companies to act on stress

Stress at work has been a prominent issue in France in 2010, with the Government placing pressure on companies to take action on the issue. We look at the Government's "name and shame" initiative on stress, a recent collective agreement at the Danone food group and an official report that recommends a new approach to psychological health at work.

On this page:
Emergency plan on stress
"Name and shame" controversy
Minister defends initiative
Agreement signed at Danone
Recommendations on wellbeing and efficiency at work
Reactions and next steps.

Emergency plan on stress

In October 2009, the Government launched an emergency plan on preventing "psychosocial risks" at work, in response to public concern over workplace stress, sparked by a wave of suicides by employees. The plan forms part of the Government's national health programme for 2010-20 14, which includes tackling workplace stress.

The plan included a request that all companies with more than 1,000 employees should open negotiations on stress with trade unions by 1 February 2010, with the aim of putting into effect a national cross-industry agreement on the subject, which was signed in July 2008 but had been implemented in only a few firms. In the absence of an agreement, the companies were asked to draw up an action plan on stress, in consultation with employee representatives.

"Name and shame" controversy

In early 2010, the Ministry of Labour surveyed all 1,500 companies in France with more than 1,000 employees to discover what action they had taken in response to its initiative. The Ministry then classified the firms as "green", "amber" or "red", depending on their response.

Around 900 firms responded, 33% of which reported that they had signed an agreement on stress or drawn up an action plan in consultation with employee representatives. The Ministry classified these companies in the green category. Another 55% of respondents said that they had opened negotiations over an agreement or held discussions with employee representatives over an action plan, but without yet having signed an accord or finalised a plan. These were classified as amber. The remaining 12% of respondents reported no relevant initiatives and were placed in the red category, as were the 600 companies that failed to respond.

On 18 February, the Ministry published the names of the companies in the three categories on its "working better" website (external website). A number of companies in the amber and red categories complained that they had been incorrectly classified and some threatened legal action. Further, some of the companies listed had fewer than 1,000 employees. The next day, the Ministry removed the names of the firms on the amber and red lists from the website.

Employers' organisations criticised the "name and shame" initiative as "inopportune". The influential Uimm metalworking employers' association described the Ministry's classification as an "excessive simplification of complex realities". It said that it was "unacceptable in a democratic society that the Government should present companies' names to the court of public opinion", a practice of "public stigmatisation" that could have worrying implications.

According to Uimm, assessing companies' actions on the basis of whether or not they have signed an agreement is a particularly inappropriate approach. This creates the belief that an agreement solves the problem of stress, and that a company without an agreement is doing nothing. Uimm claims that in many companies, the Government's initiative has led to the rapid conclusion of procedural agreements, with little substantive content, which provide largely for further talks.

Minister defends initiative

The Minister of Labour, Xavier Darcos, defended the approach taken by the Government. He said that it had "borne fruit", when compared with the lack of company-level action that had followed the signature of the national agreement on stress in 2008. Darcos noted that the Government could have introduced legislation, backed by fines, to oblige companies to take action, but had instead relied on employers' "social responsibility".

The minister argued that the Government had not been seeking to judge companies but to "advance matters in a pragmatic fashion". Classification of companies in the green category merely reflected factual information provided by them. As for the quality of the agreements or action plans, this was a matter for the companies and workers' representatives concerned. The Ministry will continue to monitor the situation and update the green list, with the aim of encouraging more firms to act on stress and helping them to learn from companies that have taken measures in this area. Although the "name and shame" approach is unfamiliar in France, it has had the effect of stimulating action.

There is evidence that the publication of the lists has indeed prompted further negotiations and consultations on stress. The Ministry reported on 10 March that a further 15 companies had joined the green list since 18 February. France Telecom, which was at the heart of the employee suicide controversy, has been holding wide-ranging negotiations with unions on stress-related issues. This has led to agreements on: the employment of older workers and the management of the latter part of employees' careers in November 2009; the forward-looking management of jobs and skills in March 2010; and on improved work-life balance in March 2010.

Agreement signed at Danone

The Danone food and drink group, which has around 9,000 employees in France, signed a framework agreement on stress and psychosocial risks with five trade unions (CFDT, CFTC, CFE-CGC, FO and CGT) on 11 March 2010. The accord will be implemented by further negotiations in all Danone's French companies over the next six months.

The agreement aims to provide management and employee representatives with a general framework that allows them to prevent, detect, avoid and treat cases of workplace stress. It seeks to raise awareness and increase understanding of the issue, highlighting the signals that indicate the existence of stress problems, and promoting a way of working that values individuals and reduces the factors that generate psychosocial risks. The accord emphasises that "the aim is not to blame individuals with regard to stress".

The text provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that can generate stress. These include: a lack of clarity in the division of roles; work organisation and methods that reduce employees' autonomy; workload; constant reorganisations; inadequate line management; a lack of recognition; uncertainty about employees' future; an absence of perspectives for future development; a lack of meaning in work; physically demanding work; and a lack of respect for fairness.

Where a workplace stress problem is identified, action must be taken to eliminate it or, where this is not possible, to reduce it. The responsibility for determining these actions, which may be individual or collective, lies with management and employee representative bodies. Actions may take the form of specific measures aimed at the stress factors identified, or as part of an integrated policy of preventive and corrective actions. Measures taken will be regularly examined to assess their effectiveness, and adapted where necessary. Where the expertise necessary to deal with a problem is not present within Danone, external assistance will be called in.

Key points in the agreement include the following:

• A "stress observatory" or similar body will be set up at each Danone site. The observatories will draw up an annual report on stress, which will be provided to employee representatives and feed into the group's stress policy. Further, relevant indicators - such as levels of absence from work, accidents and staff turnover - will be gathered on a quarterly basis, while the company medical service will also report on the issue.
• In order to take into account the balance between work and family/personal life, the agreement stresses the need to respect working and rest times and to plan work over as long a timescale as possible. Employees should not be encouraged to work beyond their contractual hours.
   

   

  All significant change within Danone will be preceded by a 'human impact assessment'.

   
• All significant change within Danone will be preceded by a "human impact assessment". This will involve an analysis of the effects in areas such as psychosocial risks, workload, ergonomics and skills needs. The company medical service and employee representatives will be involved in the assessment, along with external consultants where necessary.
• Danone will conduct a study, involving employee representatives and the company medical service, to examine how management methods and work organisation can be adapted to "promote employees' know-how and autonomy". The company will also identify aspects of the management and organisation of work which could be a source of stress, and take action to improve working processes, conditions and environments.
• In order to bring management closer to employees, the company will examine issues such as creating "human-scale" work teams and encouraging internal promotion within teams.
• With the aim of giving meaning to work, employees will be involved in setting their objectives, and efforts will be made to link their individual aims with those of the company.
• Managers will be trained in preventing stress at work, as well as in areas such as managing change and conducting individual assessment interviews.
• Awareness and understanding of stress, its causes and its prevention will be increased by training for all managers and employee representatives. Rather than creating a specific contact point or hotline for reporting stress, the agreement promotes an approach of "collective vigilance". Responsibility for providing support and identifying problems is allocated to employee representatives (especially health and safety committees), managers, the HR department and the company medical service.

Recommendations on wellbeing and efficiency at work

As part of its stress plan, as well as promoting company-level action, the Government commissioned a group of leading practitioners to draw up recommendations on "improving psychological health conditions at work". The members of the group were Muriel Pénicaud, HR director at Danone, Henri Lachmann, the president of the supervisory board of the Schneider Electric engineering group, and Christian Larose (of the CGT union confederation), the chair of the labour section of the consultative Economic, Social and Environmental Council (Conseil économique, social et environnemental). They delivered their report, entitled "Wellbeing and efficiency at work" to the Prime Minister, François Fillon, on 17 February 2010.

The report argues that the French system of occupational risk prevention should be amended to take account of changes in these risks, in the context of rising levels of work-related stress. While workplace stress is not a new problem, it is now being manifested "more acutely and more visibly" than before, for a range of economic, technological and social reasons. This situation requires a rethink of management methods, work organisation and working life, in order to create a new balance. The authors make 10 basic proposals to achieve this aim, as follows:

• The engagement of senior management and company boards is indispensable. One method suggested to make senior managers take greater responsibility for "human" aspects of the company is to include employee health among the criteria for assessing their performance. This might include basing part of managers' remuneration on "social" as well as financial performance, for example using indicators relating to health, safety and working conditions.
   

   

  The report argues that the French system of occupational risk prevention should be amended to take account of changes in these risks, in the context of rising levels of work-related stress.

   
• Employees' health is in the first instance an issue for their managers. Line managers are the "primary actors" in this field and the vital link between the company and the employee. Line managers should be easy to identify (especially in complex "matrix" organisational structures) and should have the freedom to take decisions to improve their teams' efficiency and cohesion.
• Employees should be given the means to achieve "self-realisation" at work. They should have the opportunity to discuss work issues with their colleagues and be given a degree of autonomy in organising their work.
• The social partners should be involved in establishing the framework for health at work, through social dialogue within and outside the company. For example, industry-level organisations could sign collective agreements on tackling sector-specific risks to employees' psychological health and provide support to very small companies. Company health and safety committees should be given a clearer and greater role in psychological health issues.
• Measuring health in the workplace is a necessary condition for changing behaviour and developing wellbeing. Companies should draw up an objective diagnosis of the current situation with regard to psychological health, adapted to their specific situation and involving all relevant parties, as the basis for an action plan, followed by regular monitoring of developments.
• Managers should be properly prepared and trained for their role. Academic and in-house courses for managers should include training in managing teams and people, and newly appointed managers should receive special training in their "social and human responsibilities".
• The "work collective" should not be reduced to a "collection of individuals". To combat physical and psychological isolation, companies should allow more room for collective decision-making on work issues and reward collective performance to make work organisation more motivating and efficient.
• The human impact of change should be anticipated and taken into account. All reorganisation and restructuring plans should be preceded by a "human impact assessment" (similar to an environmental impact assessment) analysing the effects in areas such as psychosocial risks and skills needs, and involving employee representatives and line managers. Health issues should also be included in consultations of employee representatives over restructuring.
• Health at work is not an issue restricted to a single company. Firms have a "human impact" on their environment and especially on suppliers, and should take this into account in implementing their decisions. They could also require that their suppliers meet certain health and safety standards.
• Employees should not be left alone to deal with their problems, and should receive assistance if they are experiencing difficulties. The detection of situations of stress, and effective help to tackle them, are vital. Everyone working in companies should be alert to the signs of stress, company medical services should seek to detect problems in advance (for example, through the use of a stress questionnaire in medical check-ups) and there should be more opportunities at work for the discussion and sharing of problems.

Reactions and next steps

In response to the report, Prime Minister Fillon said that the prevention of occupational risks is a priority for the Government and that he hoped that the report would provide the basis for a "profound overhaul of the way in which companies take account of psychosocial risks in their prevention policy". The managing bodies of companies should be more engaged in "the company's social dimension in general and in workplace health policy in particular", as it is the "fundamental responsibility of senior managers to integrate the human factor into all their decisions".

National cross-industry trade union and employers' organisations are currently engaged in talks, at the request of the Government, on the "sharing of added value and profits" between companies and employees, through employee financial participation and savings schemes and other forms of variable pay. The Government has now asked them to include in these negotiations the report's idea of linking elements of management remuneration to social indicators, such as employee health. The social partners are also discussing the issue of employee representative bodies, and the Government has requested that these talks should incorporate the report's recommendations on enhancing the role of employee representatives in stress and other health matters.

This article is based on material provided by Christophe Boulay, correspondent for France.

European employment policy, practice and law, April 2010