top of page
Search

Remote work and work nomadism: new HSE risks, new employer responsibilities


The rise of remote work and more nomadic forms of work has profoundly transformed how many companies are organized—well beyond the health-crisis period alone. What was once a marginal practice, reserved for certain managers or specific roles, has become widespread, structured, and sometimes formalized in agreements. At the same time, business travel remains frequent in some sectors: client visits, on-site interventions, assignments in other countries. These developments raise new questions in terms of occupational health and safety and employer liability.


From a legal standpoint, the principle remains clear: the employer is still responsible for employees’ health and safety, whether they work on-site, at home, in a coworking space, or while traveling. Remote work—whether regular or occasional—does not constitute a “blind spot” that escapes prevention obligations. Likewise, an employee on an external assignment—traveling by car or train, visiting a client—remains under the employer’s responsibility. For executives, HR, and managers, this means integrating these situations into risk assessments and prevention plans.


The risks associated with remote work are first and foremost ergonomic and organizational. Many employees have found themselves working—sometimes long term—at a kitchen table, in a corner of the living room, on an unsuitable chair, with a laptop screen set at the wrong height. Musculoskeletal disorders, back pain, neck tension, and eye strain can be aggravated as a result. The employer obviously cannot redesign everyone’s home, but can play a role in informing and raising awareness and, in some cases, providing equipment (monitor, chair, keyboard, headset).


Beyond ergonomics, remote work profoundly changes rhythms and the boundaries between professional and personal life. The absence of the commute can be experienced as a time gain, but also as the loss of a transition period. Some employees tend to extend their days without noticing, stack remote meetings without breaks, and respond to requests outside normal hours. The risk of over-connection, mental fatigue, and even burnout is real. Policies on the right to disconnect, when they exist, must therefore be clearly explained, regularly reiterated, and embodied by managers.



Remote work can also generate specific psychosocial risks: isolation, a feeling of losing connection with the team, coordination difficulties, misunderstandings amplified by the absence of non-verbal cues, and confusion between home and office. Some employees may suffer more than others depending on their personal situation, housing conditions, or temperament. Managers must learn to detect these signals remotely, maintain regular contact, encourage informal exchanges in addition to strictly operational meetings, and organize regular returns on-site or collective moments whenever possible.


Professional nomadism—whether frequent travel or periods of working in different locations—also involves specific risks. Road travel is a major source of serious or fatal accidents. Travel time management, deadline pressure, fatigue, phone use while driving, poorly maintained vehicles—the risk factors are numerous. Here too, the employer has an important role: a clear policy on phone use while driving, rules on travel duration and meeting schedules, maintenance of company vehicles, awareness-raising on road risks, and organizing overnight stays rather than long late returns.


Extended stays away from home, in France or abroad, also raise health and safety issues: accommodation conditions, safety of local travel, food quality, access to care if needed, and exposure to specific risks (climatic, sanitary, political). Depending on destinations, prior risk assessment and employee information are essential. HR, in coordination with HSE teams and sometimes specialized providers, can develop guides, procedures, and instructions adapted to countries or mission types.


In response to these developments, risk assessment must be explicitly updated. The single risk assessment document (DUERP) should mention risks related to remote work and travel, along with associated prevention measures. These measures may include: providing ergonomic recommendations and sometimes home equipment; clarifying availability and disconnection rules; training managers in remote management; setting reasonable limits on travel time; and organizing regular check-ins with nomadic employees to review their working conditions.



Managers play a key role in implementing these measures. They organize calendars, decide whether physical presence is necessary, arbitrate between a remote meeting and a trip, plan site visits, and set meeting times while taking time zones into account. They can also—consciously or not—send the message that responses are expected at all hours, or that permanent availability is valued. Their role-modeling is decisive: a manager who personally respects disconnection rules and avoids contacting teams late at night or on weekends makes those rules credible.


For HR, the challenge is to integrate these dimensions into remote-work agreements, mobility charters, travel policies, and employee support: awareness-raising, psychological resources in case of difficulties, and the possibility to adjust or revert an organization that no longer suits someone. Occupational health services can also contribute expertise by offering targeted prevention actions, individual advice, and monitoring the medium-term effects of these new practices.


Ultimately, remote work and nomadism are neither inherently good nor bad for workers’ health and safety. They open new possibilities in terms of work–life balance, flexibility, and reduced commuting. But they also create specific risks that must not be ignored on the grounds that they are more diffuse or less visible than an accident on a worksite. Companies that address them in a structured way—bringing together executives, HR, managers, HSE, and employees—will turn these new ways of working into an asset rather than a source of imbalance.

 
 
 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page