DISCUSSION

PAPER
HYBRID WORK: NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH

1. Introduction
Home-based remote work, also known as telework, surged during the COVID-19 health crisis and
involved up to 40% of European workers in April 2020 (Milasi et al., 2020; Eurofound, 2022b). This
collective experience has broken down the cultural and technological barriers that prevented
widespread regular telework in the past, triggering a structural shift towards its expansion, and has
given rise to the terminology of hybrid work to refer to this form of regular/partial telework (Eurofound,
2022b). While telework will not eliminate work requiring physical presence for many workers, hybrid
forms of work — in which part of the week is spent in the office and part at home — are likely to
become the norm for a substantial proportion of European workers in the coming years (Marcus,
2022; Eurofound, 2023b).
The contextual basis for this work is provided by EU-OSHA’s overview on digitalisation and OSH and
its Healthy Workplaces Campaign 2023-2025 focusing on ‘Safe and Healthy Work in the Digital Age’.
It will present — based on a literature review and experts’ interviews (see Appendix 1 for details) —
the cutting-edge scientific knowledge on the impacts of hybrid forms of work on: (i) working conditions
and management practices; and (ii) wellbeing, OSH outcomes, and health behaviours in comparison
with full-time telework or in-person office work.

2. Definitions of hybrid work

The terminology used to identify the different forms of telework has not yet been fully stabilised (ILO,
2020; EU-OSHA, 2022d). According to the 2002 autonomous European framework agreement on
telework, telework is ‘a form of organising and/or performing work, using information technology, in the
context of an employment contract/relationship, where work, which could be performed at the
employer’s premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis’ (European social
partners, 2002). The different forms of remote work partially overlap, and by convention, we will use the
following definitions (ILO, 2020; Sostero, 2020; EU-OSHA, 2022d):
▪ Remote work refers to any type of work arrangement where workers work remotely, away from
the employer’s premises (or a fixed location), using information and communications
technologies (ICT) (e.g. networks, laptops, mobile phones and the Internet).1
▪ Telework is a sub-category of remote work when remote work involving ICTs is performed from
home (or more rarely in out-of-the-home-based office spaces dedicated to teleworking). It
includes, by definition, only work that entails a formal relationship between an employer and an
employee.
▪ Hybrid work is a combination of telework and work at the employer’s premises. In this form of
work, an employee may work both from the office and from home (or from an out-of-the-home-
based office space dedicated to telework or another location such as a café, means of transport,
etc.) (Eurofound, 2022b). In practice, hybrid work is mainly performed both from home
(telework) and at the employer’s premises. The weekly distribution of the teleworking and on-
site work periods varies widely (e.g. one, two or more days of telework per week) (Eurofound,
2023b). As teleworkers, hybrid workers use digital technologies and an Internet connection for
work ‘always’ or ‘almost all of the time’, whichever the location of work.
The following terminology will be used, based on the classification of telework (full-time, hybrid and
occasional) of the European Working Conditions (Telephone) Survey (EWCTS) (Eurofound, 2023a):

1 Remote work will be not considered in this article when work does not involve ICT.

1
 ▪ ‘Telework’ will correspond to telework performed full-time or more than 90% of the working
time.
▪ ‘Work at the employers’ premises’ will correspond to full-time work on site that may involve
occasional telework (of a duration of less than 10% of the working time).
▪ ‘Hybrid work’ will be considered as a combination of telework and on-site office work at the
employer's premises, with teleworking periods performed between 10% to 90% of the
working time.

3. Key features of hybrid work

Hybrid forms of work meet two key characteristics: (i) an organisation of the activity coordinating
telework and work at the employer’s premises, and (ii) a schedule specifying the time, duration and
frequency of work in each location (Eurofound, 2023b). They involve various individual and collective
activities performed in person or remotely, depending on contextual factors (e.g. companies,
occupations, working activities and work situations).
Several forms of hybrid work can be distinguished (Eurofound, 2023b):
▪ Hybrid work alternating work at the employer’s premises and home-based telework, with the
employee teleworking at least one day per week exclusively at home. The hybrid work model
is ‘office-first’ where employees are expected to be on site most of the time and telework a few
days a week, and ‘remote-first’ where employees telework most of the time and occasionally
go to the employer’s premises for team building, collaboration and training.
▪ Hybrid work alternating work at the employer’s premises, with work in dedicated remote out-
of-the-home-based office spaces. These ‘third spaces’, such as telecentres, satellite offices
and coworking spaces, are dedicated to work located outside the company, and (in theory) near
the employee’s place of residence.
▪ Hybrid work alternating work at the employer’s premises with mobile work. These forms of
nomadic hybrid work involve frequent business travel with an employee combining different
work locations: home (sometimes) and especially means of transport, hotels, cafés, client’s
premises and so on.
The organisation of hybrid work can be more or less flexible — when employees choose their location
and hours based on their priorities for the day — or fixed, where the organisation sets the days and
times employees are allowed to telework or come to the office (Eurofound, 2023b).
Hybrid work combines several key elements related to the physical, temporal, technical (virtual/digital),
social, organisational, managerial, ergonomic and individual dimensions of the working activities
(Beckel and Fisher, 2022; Roquelaure et al., 2022; Eurofound, 2023b) (Table 1):
▪ The physical characteristics (location, workplace, and mobility between/during telework and
office work) are major determinants of the work situation ergonomics both at home and in
the office. They are related to the quality of the home office (e.g. availability of an isolated
room), ergonomically designed home workstation, ergonomics of equipment, lighting and
environmental conditions at home, without forgetting the ergonomic quality of the office in the
employer’s premises (e.g. desk for solo work, flex-office, room for collaborative work, room for
stand-up meetings).
▪ The temporal characteristics (duration, periodicity, time frequency of telework and work at
the employer’s premises) influence the physical and psychosocial exposure of hybrid
workers (e.g. sedentary postures, time pressure, commuting time, work–life balance, etc.).
▪ The technical (virtual/digital) characteristics refer to the various tools, software,
digital/virtual tools and procedures to produce products and services, to communicate and
collaborate synchronously and asynchronously with others when necessary, or to telework
alone. They determine the work and task characteristics, which in turn influence the
psychosocial factors at work (e.g. task complexity, psychological demand, cognitive overload,
technostress, autonomy, operational leeway, etc.).

2
 ▪ The organisational, social and managerial characteristics of the hybrid work situation have
cascading effects on the ‘work situation’ level, on the resulting physical, cognitive,
psychosocial and environmental exposure, as well as on the resources that can be mobilised,
individually or collectively, to meet the demands of the task, whether at home or in the office.
They are related to the following:
- The organisation of work, which determines the task characteristics (e.g. missions
and roles, procedures) and activities during the telework and on-site phases of work (e.g.
individual or (virtual) teamwork, work procedures during the telework and in office work
periods, flexibility, time distribution, temporal distribution of tasks, synchronous or
asynchronous and individual or collective hybrid work, complexity, autonomy, etc.).
- The social, managerial and human resources practices, which influence individual
(e.g. voluntariness for hybrid norms and values, remuneration policies, career
development) and teamwork (e.g. (virtual) cooperation, coordination, information sharing,
mutual learning) activities. They determine the quality of social support (e.g. supportive
leadership, help and advice from colleagues and supervisors, supervisory control relying
on objectives or workers’ surveillance and monitoring), social relationships and group
maintenance (e.g. development of the work collective to improve collective work, team
building for developing trust and cohesion), whether face-to-face, virtual or mixed. They
have a major influence on the functioning and vitality of the working team and
psychosocial exposure (social support, effort–reward balance, organisational justice,
emotional demand, etc.) in the case of hybrid work.
▪ The ergonomic resources provided by the organisation (e.g. ergonomic quality of the
workstation, digital equipment/interface), as well as the availability of technical support or
training (e.g. knowledge transfer, learning of new competences, etc.), moderate effects on
occupational exposure.
▪ The individual characteristics of the hybrid worker(s) can moderate or reinforce the effects
of occupational exposure on stress, wellbeing and health depending on the balance
between occupational exposure intensity and the workers’ resources. They are related to the
sociodemographic (e.g. age, gender, health status, family responsibilities, education),
psychological (e.g. personality, boundary preferences) and professional (professional
competencies, digital skills, individual motivation, etc.) characteristics of hybrid workers.

Table 1: Key elements of hybrid work, occupational exposure and OSH issues

Key element of hybrid work Occupational exposure OSH issues

Physical Physical work-related factors Physical health

▫ Workplaces (home space/office ▫ Sedentary/sitting postures ▫ Musculoskeletal
space): desk for solo work, flex- ▫ Spatial constraints disorders
office, room for collaborative work, (workstation) ▫ Digital eye strain
stand-up meetings, etc. ▫ Neck postures ▫ Falls, injury
▫ Workplace environment (room ▫ Back and lower limb ▫ Noise exposure
temperature, lighting, noise, postures
humidity, poor air circulation, etc.) ▫ Upper extremity postures Mental health
▫ Workstation ergonomics (home, and gestures ▫ Psychological well-
on-site office) ▫ Reduced commuting time being
▫ Locations: home, office at ▫ Reduced business travels ▫ Stress
employer’s premises, third places, ▫ Mental disorders
other workplaces (vehicles, cafés, Psychosocial and
etc.) organisational work-related Social and family
▫ Mobility between workplaces: factors ▫ Work-life boundaries
employer’s premise, home, nomads, ▫ Time pressure ▫ Interpersonal
etc. ▫ Task complexity relationships
▫ Visual demand
Temporal ▫ Psychological demand Work-related issues
▫ Duration of telework and work at the ▫ Cognitive workload ▫ Weakening of the work-
employer’s premise ▫ Technostress team

3
 Key element of hybrid work Occupational exposure OSH issues
▫ Periodicity: timing and scheduling of ▫ Schedule flexibility ▫ Job satisfaction
telework and work at the employer’s ▫ Ability to concentrate ▫ Perception on career
premise ▫ Autonomy and operational advancement
▫ Time frequency of telework and leeway ▫ Absenteeism
work at the employer’s premise ▫ Long working hours ▫ Virtual presenteeism
(boundary crossing) ▫ Job retention –
Technical (virtual/digital) employability of
▫ Job contents ▫ Management practices disabled workers
▫ Task characteristics ▫ Social support
▫ Digital tools and interfaces ▫ Organizational trust Health behaviours
▫ Offline asynchronous during ▫ Professional isolation ▫ Physical activity
telework and on-site work: e-mail, ▫ Social isolation ▫ Sedentary behaviour
cloud, calendar, shared documents, ▫ Vitality of the work-team ▫ Sleep
social media, etc. ▫ Employee-supervisor ▫ Nutrition
▫ Online synchronous during relationships ▫ Substance use
telework and on-site work: call, ▫ Employee-Co-workers
chatting, whiteboard, teleconference, relationships
collaboration platform, etc. ▫ Employee-customer
relationships (violence)
Social, managerial, and ▫ Emotional demand
organisational ▫ Effort-reward balance
▫ Voluntariness to hybrid work ▫ Organizational justice
▫ Communication: in-person, ▫ Digital incivility (customers,
mediated co-workers)
▫ Social relations: supportive ▫ Bullying, violence
leadership and human resources
practices, social support, help and ▫ Blurring work-life boundaries
advice from colleagues, supervisors, ▫ Work-life balance
customers
▫ Task oriented processes:
information sharing, mutual learning,
co-operation, co-ordination
▫ Teamwork and group
maintenance-related processes:
work-team, team building for
developing trust and cohesion
▫ Supervisory control: workers’
surveillance and monitoring,

Ergonomic resources
▫ Digital tools/interfaces ergonomics
▫ Technical support
▫ Training, knowledge transfer,
learning of new competences

Individual characteristics
▫ Age, gender, family responsibilities
▫ Economic resources
▫ Education, professional
competences, digital skills
▫ Housing, location and physical
environment, commuting time,
individual room for teleworking
▫ Personality, health status
Source: Adapted from Beckel and Fisher (2022) and Eurofound (2023b)

4
4. Spread of hybrid work in the European workforce
Few EU employees regularly teleworked some days a week before the COVID-19 pandemic (6.2%
in 2010 and 9.0% in 2019) (Eurostat, 2022; Marcus, 2022), which involved mainly desk-based jobs and
highly qualified white-collar workers (e.g. managers, professionals, desk-based workers) in the
information and communication and education sectors. Most volunteered to do hybrid work and spent
— except for some occupations (e.g. translators, writers) — a limited amount of time away from the
employer’s premises (Sostero, 2020; Eurofound, 2023a).
The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted the spread of hybrid work in the EU. According to the
Eurofound’s repeated ‘Living, working and COVID-19’ (LWC-19) e-surveys (2020-2022), 34% of
workers performed full-time telework and 14% worked in hybrid mode in 2020. Since then, the
prevalence of full-time telework has decreased while that of hybrid work has increased, as almost one-
fifth performed hybrid work (19% of surveyed men and 18% of surveyed women) in spring 2022.
Hybrid work became the second most common work arrangement in the EU after full-time work
at the employer’s premises in 2022 (Eurofound, 2022a). The telework periods represented between
20% (men) and 25% (women) of the total hybrid working time (Eurofound, 2022a). According to EU-
OSHA’s European OSH Pulse survey conducted between April and May 2022,2 17% of the respondents
had worked mostly from home in the previous 12 months (EU-OSHA, 2022b).
Hybrid forms of work can potentially concern a substantial proportion (30-40%) of the European
workforce (Dingel and Neiman, 2020; McKinsey Global Institute, 2020; Sostero, 2020; Eurofound,
2022b; Marcus, 2022) (Figure 1). This corresponds to the preference of many employees since the
COVID-19 pandemic (Eurofound, 2022b; Kaiser et al., 2022). More than 60% (respondents of the LWC-
19 e-survey) wanted to telework at least several times a month (61% for men and 68% for women).
Among employees working full-time at the employer’s premises, half had chosen this work
arrangement, while 36% would have preferred hybrid work and 10% full-time telework (Eurofound,
2022a). Many jobs can be theoretically performed through telework as efficiently as at the office,
according to the McKinsey Global Institute: about 20% of the workforce (in the United States, United
Kingdom or France) could telework intensively (3-5 days a week), 20% partially (1-3 days a week), and
60% occasionally (a few hours a week) or not at all (McKinsey Global Institute, 2020). These estimates
are close to the number of teleworkers identified in real-time surveys in Europe since the COVID-19
pandemic (Eurofound, 2022a). In spring 2022, among workers whose jobs are fully teleworkable, 41%
teleworked, 33% adopted a hybrid mode and about a quarter (26%) worked exclusively at the
employer’s premises (source: LWC-19 e-survey) (Eurofound, 2022a).

Figure 1: Share of European employees in teleworkable employment by gender and country,

2020, EU-27 (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Men Women
Note: Includes dependent employment only.
Source: Author's elaboration based on Sostero et al. (2020) and EU-LFS data.

2 A representative sample of more than 27,000 employed workers were interviewed between April and May 2022 in all EU Member States,
plus Iceland and Norway.

5
Hybrid work is unequally distributed across industry sectors and occupations. It is more prevalent
in some service sectors (e.g. information and communication, education, financial intermediation, public
administration), while many agricultural, industrial and service jobs (e.g. healthcare) requiring a physical
presence cannot be teleworked (Sostero, 2020; Eurofound, 2022a). Hybrid work, as telework, is also
unevenly distributed across occupational groups, mainly involving professional, technical and
higher administrative professions characterised by high income, a permanent employment contract and
a high level of qualification (Dingel and Neiman, 2020; Sostero, 2020; EU-OSHA, 2022b; Eurofound,
2022a). In addition, hybrid work arrangements are applied differently in different organisations, with
practices depending on their size and sector of activity (Babule and Chappert, 2022).
Most hybrid workers are in ‘teleworkable office jobs’ suitable for white-collar workers, performing
skilled teleworkable tasks using ICT, such as administrative, commercial, technical, data recording and
processing, creative and design tasks, project participation, collaborative work and so on (Eurofound,
2022a, 2022b, 2023b; Kaiser et al., 2022). During the pandemic, the prevalence of telework differed
from sector to sector, with the greatest increases in the prevalence of working from home between 2019
and 2020 found in the service sectors (Eurofound, 2022b) (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Share of European employees working from home by sector, 2020 (%) and 2019-2020
(percentage point change), EU-27

The implementation of hybrid work may introduce or exacerbate — depending on organisational

arrangements and contextual factors — other inequalities between workers (e.g. having a good Internet
connection or adequate digital equipment, having one’s own room, living in crowded or uncrowded
accommodation, etc.) (Bérastégui, 2021; Eurofound, 2022b). As more than half of the European
workforce has little or no opportunity to work remotely, the spread of hybrid work is likely to
reinforce social inequalities at work (‘teleworkability divide’) (Bérastégui, 2021).

• Age disparities
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, across all age groups, employees aged 60 years and over were most
likely to work exclusively from home, while hybrid work was more prevalent among those aged 30-44.
Young and relatively uneducated workers at the lower end of the wage scale were more often employed
in ‘non-teleworkable jobs’ requiring a physical presence (Brussevich et al., 2020).

6
During the pandemic, younger workers (under 25) were less likely to work from home than the core-
aged (25-49) and older workers, with the greatest increase in the prevalence of telework (versus the
pre-pandemic period) among core-aged employees (Eurofound, 2022b). This uneven age distribution
is likely to continue as hybrid work becomes more widespread in the post-pandemic period.

• Gender disparities
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2015 EWCS shows that there was a higher share of men
performing telework/ICT-mobile work, which includes hybrid work (54% men vs 46% women)
(Eurofound and ILO, 2017). During the pandemic, a gender effect also occurred, with full-time telework
being more common among women than men, while the frequency of hybrid work was similar
(Eurofound, 2022b). Forty-six per cent of women employees in the EU were in teleworkable jobs in
2020, compared with 31% of men. In all countries, the gender gap in teleworkability is positive. The
largest gender gaps are observed in Latvia and Poland (Eurofound, 2022b) (Figure 1). Women with
children under 12 were more likely to work exclusively at home or in a hybrid setting, compared to those
with older children or no children in the household (Eurofound, 2022a, 2022b).

Commuting time savings from the telework days are differently reinvested according to gender (Schütz
and Noûs, 2021). When it is not reinvested in working time, women spend more time on domestic,
parental and household tasks. Men use it to spend more time with their children or for themselves
(sports, sleep, etc.). These results indicate a greater mental burden for women and a risk of women
being reassigned to the domestic sphere. This may explain the poorer work–life balance of women
compared to men indicated in some surveys on telework (Eurofound, 2022b; Erb et al., 2022; Antunes
et al., 2023). Hybrid work could therefore reinforce gender stereotypes and an unequal sharing
of household tasks and unpaid care (Babule and Chappert, 2022; ILO, 2023).

5. Implications of hybrid work on working conditions and

OSH
5.1. Methodological considerations
Literature on the specific OSH implications of widespread hybrid work as it is in the post-pandemic
era, that is with larger groups of workers working simultaneously on-site and at home, is still scarce.
Schematically, studies of telework conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic report greater positive
impact on working conditions (e.g. better work–life balance, reduced commuting time, etc.) and OSH
than post-pandemic studies (Tavares, 2017; Vayre, 2019; Marques de Macedo et al., 2020;
Athanasiadou and Theriou, 2021; Buomprisco et al., 2021; Furuya et al., 2022; Lunde et al., 2022; Shiri
et al., 2022; Wütschert et al., 2022), which may also highlight the risks stemming from hybrid and remote
work.
Most studies suffer from significant methodological biases (Oakman et al., 2020; Lunde et al.,
2022; Shiri et al., 2022). Selection bias may have occurred due to the often-voluntary choice of telework
before 2020. The sudden and unexpected advent of telework in 2020 hastily extended telework without
prior preparation, which may have exacerbated negative OSH effects (Oakman et al., 2020; Buomprisco
et al., 2021; Reznik et al., 2022). The spread of telework to broader occupational categories during the
COVID-19 crisis included less privileged office and administrative workers who are exposed to a less
favourable working environment at home (Sostero, 2020). Above all, it is impossible to disentangle the
respective effects of telework and those of the economic, social and health contexts related to the
COVID-19 crisis (e.g. anxiety generated by the risk of contamination by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, children
to be homeschooled and cared for 24 hours a day, etc.) (Chamoux, 2021).
Numerous studies do not take sufficient account of the complexity of hybrid work situations
and contextual factors. Indeed, hybrid work involves alternating work in two very different workplaces
in terms of work environment, management methods and work organisation that impact the worker’s
risk exposure: the worker’s home and the employer’s premises. Even during the work periods at the
employer’s premises, the working conditions (e.g. relationships and communication with peers
and managers) are different from those when the majority of workers work full-time on site, as
only part of one’s co-workers are in the employer’s premises and the other part teleworking. The
time/space distribution between home and office as well as the content of work in each setting have a
major influence on work exposure and therefore on OSH risks. Thus, office-first models of hybrid work

7
are likely to expose workers to risks in the same way as conventional full-time on-site office working,
while remote-first models are like full-time teleworking, and especially since there is little collective on-
site working time. Whether on-site work is carried out in isolation, with little face-to-face interaction and
much of the interaction with hybrid team members taking place virtually, or whether it is organised in a
way to promote team building, collaboration and training will have a major influence on work exposure
and OSH risks.
Taking into account these limitations, still, research on occasional/partial telework from before the
pandemic can provide useful information that can be extrapolated to hybrid work in the post-pandemic
period, considering the health criteria studied (wellbeing, musculoskeletal health (musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs)), mental health, etc.) and work-related (type of activity, work organisation and
management practices, etc.) and individual (e.g. age, gender, number of dependent children, etc.)
contextual factors.

5.2. Hybrid work and physical exposure, health behaviours and

physical health
• Physical activity – sedentary behaviour
Hybrid work limits physical activity by reducing active travel to and from work on certain days of the
week. Intensive use of digital technologies increases sedentary behaviours by promoting the
performance of predominantly cognitive and visual tasks performed in prolonged sitting posture without
breaks (Trott et al., 2022; Bloom et al., 2023). The telework periods of hybrid work are characterised by
longer computer time with more sedentary postures compared to on-site work. On-site work is all the
less sedentary when it favours face-to-face standing meetings or collaborative work rather than
computer work (Loef et al., 2022; McAllister et al., 2022). As the proportion of telework increases in
hybrid work, the risk of sedentary work will increase, with foreseeable potential health
consequences (e.g. overweight and obesity, sleep disorders, MSDs and cardiovascular diseases)
(Di Fusco et al., 2021; Restrepo, 2022).

• Musculoskeletal disorders
Sedentary computer work — at home and in the office — is physiologically characterised by sustained
low-intensity activation of the postural muscles (neck, shoulder, upper and lower back) combined
with fine hand movements (Tavares, 2017; Roquelaure, 2018, 2021). These prolonged activities without
active breaks can lead to motor units dysfunction, activation of nociceptive pathways and centralisation
of pain, which in turn trigger non-specific localised or regional muscular pain syndromes in the neck,
shoulder girdle, or upper and lower back (Roquelaure, 2018; EU-OSHA, 2020c; Dzakpasu et al., 2021).
While the effects of telework on MSDs are not consistent in the literature (Marques de Macedo et al.,
2020; Oakman et al., 2020; Fadel et al., 2023), an increased risk of neck and low back pain (LBP)
in relation to organisational and ergonomic factors seems to emerge (Fadel et al., 2023). This can
probably be extrapolated to hybrid workers, as three studies — conducted during the COVID-19 health
crisis — indicated statistically significant relationships between the weekly frequency of telework and
LBP, shoulder stiffness and neck pain. Two studies of Japanese office workers suggest a threshold for
increased risk of MSDs of two days per week of telework3 (Tezuka et al., 2022; Matsugaki et al., 2023).
According to the French SAPRIS cohort study,4 the threshold of increased incident neck pain may be
beyond 50% of the working time (per week) spent in telework (Bodin et al., 2023).
The main work-related risk factors for MSDs reported in the literature on telework are related to the
work environment (e.g. housing lacking dedicated room to telework, lower comfort and poorer
ergonomics of the home-based office vs on-site office), physical factors (e.g. increased sedentary
behaviour, inappropriate postures), psychosocial factors (e.g. higher quantitative demands, lower job
control) and individual factors (e.g. increased physical load from household chores) (Oakman et al.,
2020).

3 Odds ratio (OR) for LBP = 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.76] for telework less than 1 day/week, OR = 1.58 [1.16–2.16] for
telework 2 to 3 days/week and OR = 1.82 [1.38–2.40] for telework 4 or more days/week.
4 The SAPRIS cohort survey [Santé, perception, pratiques, relations et inégalités sociales en population générale pendant la crise COVID-19

(Health, perception, practices, relationships and social inequalities in the general population during the COVID-19 crisis)] is a sub-cohort
nested in the Constances cohort, which is a population-based epidemiological cohort of 200,000 French adults aged between 18 and 69.
Available at: https://www.constances.fr/

8
• Ocular digital stress – eye dryness
Although computer work does not pose an immediate visual risk, it can lead to digital eye stress (DES)
whether in the office or at home (Kaur et al., 2022). DES is characterised by symptoms of visual
fatigue (e.g. blurred vision, difficulty focusing), eye irritation (e.g. itching, dry eye sensation) and
increased sensitivity to bright lights. DES is often associated with headaches or neck pain (Kaur
et al., 2022). Although there is a lack of studies regarding hybrid work, a high prevalence of DES can
be predicted, especially when work in the employer’s premises is also office work exclusively devoted
to computer work.
DES is favoured by a poor working environment whether at home or in the office (e.g. lack of
adequate ergonomic equipment, insufficient space at home, presence of reflections on the screen,
inappropriate lighting of the working area, poorly positioned screen, too-short eye–screen distance,
poor image quality, poor presentation of information, etc.) (Oakman et al., 2020; Wütschert et al., 2022).
Work organisation encouraging continuous and prolonged (> 4 hours) use of digital devices without
visual breaks (at home and/or in the office) is a major determinant of DES. Certain individual
characteristics (e.g. ageing, undetected or uncorrected visual defects such as presbyopia) and
corrective lenses not adapted to moderate visual distance during screen work are also sources of visual
fatigue (Larese Filon et al., 2019; McKee and Hedge, 2022; Wütschert et al., 2022).

• Sleeping disorders
Hybrid work, as telework, can lead to overwork late into the night, especially when the telework period
schedules are not well established with the manager or when the company works across time zones
(WHO and ILO, 2021). Sleeping disorders are more likely to be reported by regular home-based and
highly mobile TICTM workers (Eurofound, 2020). This intensive use of digital technologies at bedtime
is known to reduce sleep quality and increase daytime sleepiness (Eurofound 2017; AIShareef, 2022).

• Poor eating habits

Working from home several days a week can encourage nutritional errors by favouring snacking and
breaking the rhythm of hybrid workers’ meals, with negative impact on the nutritional balance, while
working on the employer’s premises often allows access to a canteen (Mekanna et al., 2023).

• Noise exposure
Exposure to ambient noise is evaluated positively or negatively depending on the telework situation.
Some teleworkers report an improvement of the noise environment when working from home, compared
with working on the employer's premises (flex-office), while others report a deterioration of the noise
environment, particularly when the home is noisy, or because of cohabitation with family or housemates
during the home-working phase (Natomi et al. 2022; Umishio et al. 2022). Ambient noise level and
sound level should be kept as low as possible (WHO and ILO, 2021). The use of safe listening devices
such as earphones and headphones can be helpful (WHO and ILO, 2021), while being cautious about
the auditory and extra-auditory (e.g. stress) impacts of loud sounds and acoustic pressure effects
transmitted in teleconferencing platforms when used for prolonged periods without pauses (Pawlaczyk-
Luszczynska et al. 2018). Indeed, the consequences of prolonged and regular use of these tools are
the subject of scientific studies investigating the impact of sound transmitted via teleconferencing
platforms on hearing and on health more generally5. This is particularly relevant as hybrid work
generally implies an increased amount of time spent in virtual meetings, webinars and the like, even
when being at the employer’s premises, and in particular in hotdesking/open space offices where
headphones are used to minimise disturbances for co-workers. New scientific research6 on the effects
on auditory systems of aggressively compressed sound highlights the connection between
substandard sound and negative impact on auditory health and well-being, as well as a correlation
between the number of hours worked remotely and the adverse impact on auditory health.

5
See International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), Resolution on Sound Quality, 2022. Available at :
https://aiic.org/document/10590/Resolution%20on%20Auditory%20Health%20and%20Sound%20Quality%20v2.pdf
6
Study by Professor Paul Avan, Université de Clermont-Auvergne, for INSERM, on the effects of dynamic range compression of audio signals
on the hearing of guinea pigs. Professor Avan’s 15- minute presentation at UNESCO’s Semaine du Son, January 19, 2022, available at:
https://youtu.be/LHbOzUaSeFI?t=2055

9
• Air quality

Poor ‘environmental’ quality of the home office (e.g. humidity, poor air circulation, too-high/low
temperature, inappropriate lighting) can lead to a ‘sick house syndrome’ resulting in symptoms of eye
and respiratory tract irritation, skin irritation, headaches, fatigue and poor sleep quality, as well as
decreased work performance (Ekpanyaskul et al., 2022).

• Physical and accidental risks

Hybrid work tends to reduce commuting accidents, although to a lesser extent than full-time telework.
Nevertheless, the home-based office often does not meet the OSH standards of the employer’s
premises (Reznik et al., 2022) and exposes hybrid workers to higher risks of accidental slips, falls, fire
and electric shocks (WHO and ILO, 2021).

5.3. Hybrid work and psychosocial, organisational factors at work

and mental health
5.3.1. Psychosocial and organisational factors at work
The spread of hybrid forms of work is associated with a set of technical, organisational and
managerial transformations (Aroles et al., 2021; Sonnenschein et al., 2022) that profoundly influence
work organisation and the way hybrid work is performed — individually and collectively — both at home
and on site.
In contrast to usual office work, a hybrid work organisation involves a spatiotemporal dispersion of
the work teams, with hybrid employees partly teleworking and partly at the premises — so it’s neither
like full-time teleworking (as was mostly the case during the pandemic) nor like having only a few
employees occasionally teleworking like before the pandemic. Several members can work
simultaneously at different locations (from home, coworking spaces and on site), some working only in
a virtual environment (at home and on site) and others alternating virtual and face-to-face work.
Depending on organisational modalities, some team members can work isolated from the rest of their
colleagues for most of the working time (i.e. not only during telework periods but also on site), while
others can benefit from periods of teamwork, with either virtual groups or face-to-face groups.
The increased flexibility of the workplace (office/home, or even office/home/coworking space),
combined with the reduction in the number of employees present on site at the same time, is
accelerating the architectural trend towards smaller, more shared and more flexible office spaces
(e.g. flex-office, ‘hot-desking’) at the employer’s premises. This reconfiguration no longer makes it
possible to physically identify the personal workspace (e.g. own desk for solo work) or the space usually
given over to a work team, or even to accommodate all members at the same time (Bloom et al., 2023).
These architectural and functional transformations can degrade hybrid working conditions on site,
prevent activities (individual or collective) from being carried out on site due to noise pollution (flex-
office) or lack of suitable spaces, or even impose ‘forced teleworking’ on certain members of the hybrid
team. This encourages feelings of isolation (not only at home but also on site), and reduces sense of
belonging and trust in the organisation, as well as the cohesion of hybrid teams.
The technical, organisational and managerial transformations required for hybrid work have
cascading effects on social relationships, relational dynamics within hybrid working teams and exposure
to psychosocial stressors, as well as on wellbeing and mental health. The recent systematic reviews —
which mainly concerned telework before and during the COVID-19 pandemic — report contrasting
effects on exposure to work-related psychosocial factors and stress levels (Oakman et al., 2020; Lunde
et al., 2022; Shiri et al., 2022; Antunes et al., 2023). We lack perspective on hybrid work in the post-
pandemic context. The resulting exposure to psychosocial and organisational factors will depend on
the hybrid work modalities, work organisation and management practices, as well as contextual factors.

• Hybrid work productivity

Hybrid employees often believe in being as effective when teleworking (two or more days per week) as
when they are on site (Hallépée and Mauroux, 2019; Bloom et al., 2023). Overall, surveys among
employees and employers in various EU Member States show that telework had a positive effect on
productivity and performance (Eurofound 2022b). Even though we lack the hindsight to evaluate it in

10
the long term, the impact of hybrid work organisation on productivity will depend on the activity
performed (routine, creative, etc.), working conditions, management practices, and the ratio of
time spent at home or at the employer’s premises. An increase in productivity can be expected in
some telework situations as a consequence of enhanced worker motivation, but also hidden overtime
work due to more blurred boundaries between private and professional life (OECD, 2021; Choudhury
et al., 2022).

• Hybrid workers’ autonomy

Not all employees want to telework, even if they could, and not all those who could telework are always
permitted to do so (Eurofound, 2023a). Hybrid work should therefore be an individual, voluntary
and reversible option, whatever the worker’s age, gender and qualifications. Extrapolating from the
knowledge on telework, it is likely that, among the characteristics of hybrid work organisation
(modalities, periodicity, intensity, characteristics of the tasks performed), the voluntary nature of the
individual choice plays a moderating role in its effects on psychosocial factors and mental health (Beckel
and Fisher, 2022).
Work in multiple workplaces with ever-changing hybrid work configurations and work teams combining
remote and on-site colleagues and managers requires greater autonomy, but also flexibility and
significant adaptability on the part of hybrid workers, as well as strong organisational and relational
skills (Aroles et al., 2021; Kaiser et al., 2022). Some studies point out greater autonomy, resulting in
increased job satisfaction (Niebuhr et al., 2022; Reznik et al., 2022; Sonnenschein et al., 2022; Antunes
et al., 2023; Bloom et al., 2023).
Managers should, as much as possible, tailor hybrid work arrangements to individual preferences as
some workers report that they rely on interactive communication and support from colleagues within
the corporate setting to alleviate work-related stress, while others report the benefits of being away from
a high-stress corporate setting (Reznik et al., 2022).

• Hybrid work intensity and ‘technostress’

The gain in autonomy can be counterbalanced by an intensification of the work, especially when
the managerial culture of hybrid teams is dominated by competition, self-management or excessive
performance targets (Babule and Chappert, 2022; Eurofound, 2023a). This can lead to overwork, as
reported by the 2021 EWCTS, which indicated that nearly half of hybrid workers worked during free
time (Eurofound, 2022a, 2023a). High work intensity also plays a role in sleeping disorders among
teleworkers (Eurofound 2017, 2020).
The implementation of hybrid work organisations can intensify work activities through the intensive
use of digital technologies both at home and at the employer’s premises. Moreover, hybrid work can
also entail additional work/tasks, sometimes with physical implications, to switch from one work setting
to the other (e.g. preparing and carrying working documents to work from home). The dispersal of hybrid
teams performing multi-task activities increases work intensity through increased asynchronous
communications and information processing. The use of various simultaneous communication channels
leads to performing several tasks/assignments at the same time (emails, chats, video calls, etc.) —
whether at home or at the employer’s premises — and often excessive time pressure and overtime
work due to constant connection and multitasking under tight deadlines. Intensive virtual interactions
(e.g. videoconferencing with less face-to-face communications) contribute to cognitive overload, digital
fatigue (e.g. ‘zoom fatigue’), mental exhaustion and technostress (Camacho and Barrios, 2022). This
digital work ‘intensification’ occurs during all the working periods (at home and on site) and all the
more so if the on-site work does not support a diversity of tasks by promoting non-digital activities
(Tavares, 2017; Cetrulo et al., 2022; Niebuhr et al., 2022; Reznik et al., 2022; Sonnenschein et al.,
2022; Urzi Brancati et al., 2022; Antunes et al., 2023). Some authors also warn about a decrease in
creative idea generation and collective creativity capacity linked to a narrowing of the cognitive scope
in videoconferencing (Brucks and Levav, 2022). Hybrid workers may also be confronted with complex
digital technologies that they cannot always manage in the event of a technical problem. They should
receive adequate technical support and training to better cope with such situations.
By reintroducing periods of on-site face-to-face work, hybrid work can help moderate the technostress
observed in full-time teleworkers, as stress symptoms appear to be correlated with the weekly amount
of telework (Niebuhr et al., 2022). For example, higher work intensity and pressure was associated with
telework uniquely beyond three days per week during the first lockdown in France (Beatriz et al., 2021;
Erb et al., 2022). Appropriate management practices — at the individual level (e.g. providing ICT

11
training, technical support, etc.) and organisational level (providing sufficient autonomy, promoting an
innovation-oriented organisational culture or social support, etc.) — may contribute to limiting
technostress (Niebuhr et al., 2022; Reznik et al., 2022; Sonnenschein et al., 2022).

• Teamwork
The technical, social and organisational transformations induced by hybrid work profoundly influence
work relationships, as well as relational dynamics within hybrid work teams (Aroles et al., 2021; Kaiser
et al., 2022; Antunes et al., 2023).
In the context of hybrid work, telework phases are characterised — compared to on-site work — by
longer computer time and lack of in-person communication, with on-site work often being preferred for
organising meetings or collaborative work (Loef et al., 2022; McAllister et al., 2022). Hybrid work
increases messaging and video calls, even when all employees are in the office, reflecting a move
towards more electronic communication as the standard way of communicating in the organisation
(Bloom et al., 2023).
Despite the hyperconnectivity, hybrid work tends to reduce social interactions at work, especially
informal interactions, whether with colleagues or superiors (EU-OSHA, 2021c; Eurofound 2022b), even
at the employer’s premises because of the asynchronous presence of the hybrid workforce. This
contributes to reinforcing the feeling of isolation from the rest of the colleagues, whether working
from home or at the employer’s premises. According to a relatively old meta-analysis, the frequency of
telework is a key factor, with the negative effects on relations with colleagues appearing beyond 2.5
days of telework per week (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007). The more hybrid workers work remotely,
the more likely they are to be isolated. Hybrid work favours more formal and instrumental links with
work collectives, thus reducing the vitality of the work team (Taskin, 2021).
Teamwork is an important resource for achieving production objectives in terms of quantity and
quality, while preserving quality of life and health at work. Yet, hybrid work transforms teamwork of
hybrid employees — whether during telework or on site — compared to the teamwork performed by
full-time teleworkers or office workers working at the employer’s premises (Caroly and Barcellini, 2014).
General speaking, on-site office work offers more opportunities than telework for face-to-face
communication and preserves the physical contiguity that seems necessary for collaboration, creative
processes, knowledge sharing and innovation (Taskin and Bridoux, 2010; Cihuelo and Piotrowski,
2021; Taskin, 2022). This is confirmed by certain studies that indicate that knowledge sharing is lower
when the frequency of telework increases (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010).
However, the time spent working in teams is invested differently from the usual on-site work. In
the absence of sufficient face-to-face time, or even adequate shared workspaces (e.g. room for
collaborative work, stand-up meetings), teamwork is shortened and refocused on operational
aspects to the detriment of informal aspects. These informal moments of teamwork (e.g. collectively
discussing the criteria for a job well done) are important for group cohesion, the meaning of work and,
more generally, quality of life at work. The hybridisation of work tends to weaken the existence of
work communities within organisations and reduce teamwork, leading to a decline in vitality and
even dislocation of the ‘work team’. This fragmentation of face-to-face activities and reduced capacity
of teamwork can be detrimental in terms of organisational commitment and organisational trust between
colleagues and managers (Waizenegger et al., 2020). The work organisation needs to ensure that
hybrid workers have sufficient opportunities for face-to-face communication, collegial exchange and
social support to enhance work teams with efficient teamwork (Caroly and Barcellini, 2014; Carillo et al.,
2021).

• Human resources management practices

Hybrid work has a major impact on management practices, as managing activity and dispersed
teams from a distance is not self-evident (Babule and Chappert, 2022; Ipsen et al., 2022; Eurofound,
2023b). This requires more management time than a fully on-site or remote workforce (Bloom et al.,
2023).
However, the increase in flexible work arrangements and in dispersed workforce to manage has been
accompanied by a massive deployment of surveillance and monitoring as well as algorithmic worker
management and corresponding digital systems and tools. The amplified use of surveillance and the
feeling of being (constantly) monitored leads to increased OSH risks, in particular psychosocial risks
such as reduced work autonomy, work intensification, and increased level of stress and anxiety and
reciprocal mistrust between workers and management with serious consequences for the wellbeing of
workers (EU-OSHA, 2022a; EU-OSHA, ongoing).

12
Direct line managers play a key role and should be supported by senior management and internal
support services to help them implement hybrid work arrangements with management practices
adapted to hybrid work teams (Ipsen et al., 2022; Eurofound, 2023b). The multiplicity of hybrid work
arrangements, workplaces, work situations and contextual factors is renewing management practices
and transforming the activity of managers, especially direct line managers. The situation is even
more complex for managers because work teams (both remote and face-to-face) are constantly
reconfigured throughout the working day. Managers therefore need to rethink the work team in a more
dynamic way, taking into account its remote and face-to-face dimensions. To do this, they need to
consider the actual work activities of hybrid teams so they can adapt their management methods to
both remote and face-to-face work. In addition, they should ensure a fair distribution of teleworkable
and non-teleworkable tasks between employees to avoid effort/reward imbalance and organisational
injustice (Bérastégui, 2021), by giving them sufficient leeway in the choice of whether or not to work in
hybrid mode, their hybrid work schedule, and the methods, procedures and communication channels
to be used (Eurofound, 2023b).

• Digital incivilities and cyberbullying

Some customers, colleagues or supervisors tend to be ruder or less polite when communicating digitally
than when face-to-face. Like digital workers, hybrid workers may be exposed to digital incivilities
and even cyberbullying and harassment (Antunes et al., 2023). Digital incivilities refer to ‘repeated,
low-intensity behaviours of non-compliance with the rules of exchange in professional relations,
mediated by digital devices, the harmfulness of which can be assessed over the long term’ (Carayol
and Laborde, 2022). These negative behaviours are often linked to organisational factors, such as
excessive time constraints and lack of autonomy and control over work. They often reveal unfavourable
working conditions, management practices and ‘corporate culture’. Reminding or training in the rules of
individual and collective use of digital technologies contributes to the prevention of digital incivilities and
cyberbullying.

5.3.2. Wellbeing, mental health and work–life balance

The effects of hybrid work on job satisfaction, wellbeing and mental health at work, and work–life
balance are, as for telework, differentiated (both positive and negative) depending on the work
situation, contextual factors (e.g. gender, number of dependent children, age, type of activity, level
of digital literacy, etc.) and the health criteria considered (Furuya et al., 2022).

• Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction of teleworkers/hybrid workers is diversely assessed in the literature (Leddet and Castel,
2021). Some studies point to a high level of satisfaction due to greater autonomy and a better
work–life balance (Niebuhr et al., 2022; Reznik et al., 2022; Sonnenschein et al., 2022; Bloom et al.,
2023). Other studies nuance the positive effects on job satisfaction because of frequent overtime, lack
of interaction, and greater social and professional isolation during telework (Vayre and Pignault,
2014; Bentley et al., 2016). Job satisfaction is likely to vary non-linearly with the intensity of telework,
with higher job satisfaction with partial telework (2-3 days per week) and lower job satisfaction with
intense teleworking (most days per week) or occasional (one day per week or less) telework (Golden
et al., 2006; Virick et al., 2010). In addition, the voluntary nature of hybrid work and the predictability
of the hybrid work schedule positively influence job satisfaction. Clear spatial and temporal
organisation of hybrid work, organisational support, and opportunities for direct and non-digital
communication during telework and on-site periods can probably mitigate the negative effects of hybrid
work (e.g. social isolation in case of too-frequent/long telework period), decrease the psychological
pressure and promote job satisfaction of hybrid workers (Bentley et al., 2016; Ipsen et al., 2022).

• Work–life balance
Social and family issues such as work–life conflict and work–life balance are of particular
importance for hybrid workers. A multivariate combination of factors probably influences the work–
life balance of hybrid employees, which explains the heterogeneity of the literature (Camacho and
Barrios, 2022; Elbaz et al., 2022; Vitória et al., 2022; ILO, 2023).
According to some studies, hybrid work — with different telework arrangements (less than 1 day, 1-2
days, 3-4 days per week) — may have greater positive effects on work–life balance than full-time
telework (ILO, 2023). This may be explained by greater temporal flexibility and greater autonomy in
managing work–life balance (Juchnowicz and Kinowska, 2021; Elbaz et al., 2022).

13
However, hybrid work does not always make it possible to better articulate working times and
cope with family, social and professional demands (Elbaz et al., 2022). This is particularly true in
the case of over-investment and increased reporting of one’s activity to managers in order to combat
the invisibility of remote activity, particularly among women (Babule and Chappert, 2022). There is also
a clear gender divide (Eurofound, 2022b). Indeed, women report worse teleworking conditions and more
difficulties in balancing work and personal life than men, primarily due to additional workload as a result
of unpaid caring responsibilities (Eurofound, 2022b).
The causes of over-connection need to be investigated: work–life conflicts could be caused by a
schedule that is not set or decided in advance by the worker, or is decided by the employer but only
communicated to the worker at short notice; atypical schedules are common, such as meetings that
start earlier or later by videoconference than face-to-face; and the right to disconnect may not be
respected. Although it is important to leave some flexibility, setting up clear hybrid work schedules, so
that it is known in advance which days are devoted to telework, can reduce the difficulties of planning
domestic and family tasks (e.g. dropping the children off at school before going to the office) and
coordinating with the partner. Unpredictable working hours or short-term changes on the part of
the employer can disrupt personal organisation and lead to work–life conflicts. Organisational culture
plays a major role: a better work–life balance is observed when the work organisation clearly defines
the conditions for implementing telework periods, provides the necessary equipment, promotes
workers’ autonomy and encourages managers to support teleworkers (Elbaz et al., 2022).

• Wellbeing and mental health

Hybrid work may have greater positive effects on wellbeing and quality of life than full-time
telework (Juchnowicz and Kinowska, 2021), although findings are inconsistent in the pre-pandemic
literature (Furuya et al., 2022). Subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis context probably
exacerbated the negative effects of telework on mental health due to increased levels of anxiety, stress,
depression, burnout, aggression and violence without it being possible to differentiate its effects from
the pandemic context (Chirico et al., 2021; Gualano et al., 2023).
Recent systematic reviews report contrasting effects on mental health during telework (Oakman
et al., 2020; Lunde et al., 2022; Shiri et al., 2022). Most of the studies carried out before the pandemic
involved full-time teleworkers. Few studies have specifically addressed medically characterised mental
health disorders, whether work-related or not, and the effects of telework on mental health seem to be
modest (Shiri et al., 2022). There is still a lack of hindsight to assess precisely the impact of hybrid
work on mental health, even if we can expect a lesser impact on technostress, social relationships
and organisational support than in the case of full-time telework (Vitória et al., 2022).

6. Implications in terms of risk assessment, surveillance,

preventive approaches and intervention
One of the key challenges of hybrid work will be to globally adapt the surveillance and prevention of
OSH risks not only during the telework periods but also during the on-site office work periods.

6.1. Risk assessment and surveillance

• Epidemiological surveillance
Epidemiological surveillance should be based on up-to-date data to monitor, in the medium and long
term, the spread of hybrid work and its impact on workers’ wellbeing and OSH, according to sectors,
occupations, occupational categories and groups at risk (e.g. older or disabled workers) (EU-OSHA,
2020a). Epidemiological surveillance should be adapted to the variety of risk factors in the more
diverse, dispersed and constantly changing workforce. Job exposure matrices specifically
developed for telework/hybrid work may be useful tools to complement questionnaire or interview
surveys (Vergara and Gibb, 2022).

14
• Risk assessment of hybrid work situations
Risk assessment is an employer obligation under the OSH Framework Directive.7 As a major step in
preventive intervention, it must be based on a participatory approach and check all the specific
risks linked to hybrid work situations both remotely and on site. Particular attention needs to be
paid to workers working in hybrid mode for the first time and to new recruits who are less supervised
by colleagues or managers because of the dispersion of teams or asynchronous working. Similarly, risk
assessment must also take into account non-teleworking workers, to whom the workload can be
transferred in the event of ‘degraded’ hybrid work situations.
Monitoring occupational exposures and assessing risks associated with hybrid work in the office and
at home (or in coworking spaces) are particularly difficult. The EU-OSHA checklist on telework (EU-
OSHA, 2022c) and the EU-OSHA Online interactive Risk Assessment (OiRA) tool developed in 2023
to assess the risks of telework8 can be used to assess the risks of hybrid work linked to the telework
periods.
There is for now little evidence of the usefulness of digital technologies (e.g. mobile applications,
wearable devices): (i) to monitor postures and movements, eye strain or stress levels remotely and/or
on site; (ii) to provide real-time biofeedback (e.g. via a mobile application); and (iii) to encourage hybrid
workers to adapt lighting conditions, take more regular breaks or engage in physical activity (EU-OSHA,
2022e). In addition, this type of digital monitoring and surveillance raises many ethical, data protection
and OSH issues (EU-OSHA, 2022a). It is imperative to ensure that overly strict and rigid monitoring
does not increase stress. Data collection must strictly comply with the specific regulation of the country
and with the best practices in terms of ethics, data protection, security, privacy and OSH (WHO and
ILO, 2021; EU-OSHA, 2022e).

6.2. Prevention and management of OSH risks

Employers have equivalent OSH responsibilities whether workers work at home or on their
premises (see EU-OSHA (2021b) for details). However, the opportunities and challenges of hybrid
work in terms of OSH prevention and management differ from those of full-time telework and full-time
on-site work. Indeed, it is necessary to consider the frequent changes in work environment (at home or
at the employer’s premises), the work organisation and management practices specific to hybrid work,
as well as contextual factors. Consequently, the OSH prevention and management strategies usually
recommended in the context of full-time on-site office work and those recently developed in the context
of full-time telework must be adapted to hybrid work, even if they remain valid in their broad outlines in
most OSH cases.

• Physical/temporal features
Workspaces should be adapted to hybrid work, both at home and on the employer’s premises. The
private nature of premises during part of the working week (home, coworking spaces) complicates
access and the deployment of prevention measures for legal and privacy reasons. The application of
OSH regulations is therefore more complicated in the case of hybrid work than for usual work at the
employer’s premises.
Employers should ensure that the ergonomic characteristics of private premises (furniture, noise,
lighting, etc.) are as close as possible to the generally higher ergonomic standards of on-site
workspaces. This can be done by drawing on the recommendations developed for full-time telework,
which remain largely applicable to hybrid work carried out at home (see EU-OSHA (2022c) and OiRA
for telework9).
Hybrid work reinforces the need for ergonomic offices adaptable to a wider variety of users (gender,
size, skills, work habits, etc.) and uses (office work, face-to-face/virtual meetings, stand-up meetings,
etc.) at the employer’s premises. For example, rooms suitable for face-to-face or hybrid meetings
are needed, as well as teamwork spaces because of the priority given to teamwork and team building
during periods of on-site work (Eurofound, 2023b). Some organisations are therefore encouraging
multifunctional offices to meet the specific needs of individuals and teams while making more efficient

7 Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of
workers at work. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A31989L0391
8 Available at: https://oiraproject.eu/en/oira-tools

9 Available at: https://oiraproject.eu/en/oira-tools

15
use of premises. However, it is necessary to ensure that these flexible spaces do not expose workers
to physical and psychosocial OSH risks (noise, lack of privacy, loss of professional identity, etc.).
Workspace design should be combined with organisational measures to encourage regular breaks,
physical activity and dynamic posture (e.g. sit-stand chair, height-adjustable desk) to avoid
prolonged sitting postures and sedentary behaviour both at home and at the employer’s premises in
order to prevent health disorders associated with increased sedentarism such as MSDs, cardiovascular
diseases and so on, as well as DES (Marques de Macedo et al., 2020; Robertson and Mosier, 2020;
Emerson et al., 2021; EU-OSHA, 2021b; Wütschert et al., 2022).

• Social, managerial and organisational features

Managing a hybrid work team requires renewed organisational and management practices (Xie
et al., 2019; Eurofound, 2023b; Grobelny, 2023). The main challenge for senior and line managers is
to adapt work organisation and management practices to the whole collective of dispersed hybrid
workers by approaching the situation of the hybrid team collectively, while being sensitive to weak
individual signals that might reflect difficult work and life situations for some members (Babule and
Chappert, 2022). Managers must therefore consider the various contextual factors of the work
situations in the home-based and on-site offices, as well as individual preferences, and adapt their
communication, management practices and strategies to each context.
Management practices must allow for development of sufficient operational leeway by ensuring the
regulation of activities as close as possible to hybrid teams and work situations that are constantly
reconfigured by the hybrid teams (e.g. throughout the working week or even day). Promoting
management with reasonable objectives and precise definitions of objectives with clear
assessment criteria can strengthen the autonomy and responsibility of hybrid workers without
encouraging overtime, unlike strict monitoring and control of performances during remote and/or on-
site work (Ipsen et al., 2022; Kaiser et al., 2022).
The adoption of supportive leadership and management practices will help to maintain hybrid team
cohesion through improving informal communications, help and advice from supervisors and/or
colleagues. This can help build trust within the organisation and reduce feelings of social isolation
(Bérastégui, 2021; EU-OSHA, 2021b; Kniffin et al., 2021; Antunes et al., 2023), while not multiplying
communication channels to avoid cognitive overload and technostress. Providing opportunities for
direct communication, collegial exchange and social support may help to maintain the quantity
and quality of social interactions (Carillo et al., 2021) and counterbalance the side effects of hybrid work
(social isolation, lack of communication, lack of support, etc.). It will be critical to assess the extent to
which working at the employer’s premises in the context of hybrid work with appropriate support (career
mentoring, coaching, collegial task support from supervisors and co-workers, organisation) can limit the
negative effects of telework on social relationships at work and occupational stress.
Managers, especially direct line managers, should be trained to acquire new managerial skills and
adapt their practices (Ipsen et al., 2022) to provide effective organisational support to hybrid workers.
Training strategies will require guidelines on topics such as communication, fairness and inclusion, as
well as recommendations on, for example, operational efficiency and promoting employee engagement
in hybrid environments (Eurofound, 2023b).

• Technical features/ergonomic resources

It is recommended to provide ergonomic equipment, digital tools and interfaces suitable to hybrid
work both at home and the office (EU-OSHA, 2021b). To prevent physical and psychosocial OSH
disorders, the organisation must disseminate — remotely and on site — ergonomic recommendations
for the workstation design and the use of digital tools (for example, through practical sessions to present
the recommendations via videoconference or on site). To improve appropriate usage of digital tools,
collaborative digital work and efficient work organisation, it is necessary to ensure the dissemination of
recommendations for office work, asynchronous offline communications (email, cloud, shared
documents, etc.) and synchronous online communications (call, chatting, teleconference, collaboration
platform).
The provision of specific managerial and technical support and assistance services (e.g. for
telephone, Internet and equipment) for home use and, if necessary, at the employer’s premises is
another key measure. In addition, training and knowledge transfer of hybrid employees can help
them — especially when implementing a hybrid work organisation — acquire new digital,
communication and organisational skills to improve individual and collective working strategies and

16
reduce psychosocial stress (WHO and ILO, 2021; EU-OSHA, 2022d; Vleeshouwers et al., 2022;
Eurofound, 2023b; Grobelny, 2023).
To this end, the existing recommendations applicable in the context of full-time telework can to a large
extent be applied to hybrid work (EU-OSHA, 2021b). In addition, the employer must establish hybrid
work policies and procedures that support hybrid workers (e.g. for the purchase of equipment,
technology, including software, furniture and office supplies).
The spread of hybrid work can reinforce or diminish gender equality depending on contextual
factors, work organisation and management practices. As shown during the COVID-19 pandemic,
hybrid work is not necessarily favourable for gender equality and women may be at a disadvantage
when working according to a hybrid mode. Raising awareness and training managers on gender
inequalities and providing support (e.g. adequate childcare facilities) will be important issues, as well
as ensuring equity in wellbeing (e.g. with adequate private/work–life boundary) and career progression
among women and men (Babule and Chappert, 2022; Eurofound, 2023b).
Clear guidelines must be issued by the employer to ensure that OSH measures are effective when
hybrid workers telework or work on site. Given the diversity of potential effects on OSH of hybrid
work (e.g. social isolation, difficulties in communication and team management, psychosocial risks,
sedentary lifestyle, etc.), preventive measures must be comprehensive, including organisation of
work and training and information for managers and employees, and must involve all stakeholders
(EU-OSHA, 2021a, 2021b; WHO and ILO, 2021).

7. Implications in terms of regulation and public policies

7.1. Regulation and public policies
Hybrid work, as telework, is not regulated at EU level through hard-law mechanisms but through the
EU Framework Agreement on Telework (2002), which is an autonomous agreement between the
European social partners. In June 2022, the European social partners agreed to revise the 2002
framework agreement on telework, which will help to better regulate hybrid work in several areas, such
as the right to disconnect, equipment costs, communication, energy costs, OSH, and equal treatment
of teleworkers and those working only at the employer’s premises (EU-OSHA, 2023; Eurofound, 2023b).
The EU social partner agreement resulting from the ongoing negotiations will have the force of a
directive.
Promoting the ‘right to disconnect’ would make it possible to counter the deleterious effects of digital
technologies (e.g. blurred work–life boundaries) and the organisational changes related to hybrid work.
At the national level, EU Member States regulate telework either through statutory legislation or by
social dialogue and collective bargaining (EU-OSHA, 2021b). The experience of extensive telework
during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has necessitated an adaptation of the regulations. This has been
done at national level for telework during the crisis in some countries (EU-OSHA, 2021b). A medium-
and long-term reassessment of their impact in the context of hybrid work will be necessary.
In terms of regulatory developments more specific to OSH, since the outbreak of the pandemic, only
a few Member States have developed new legislation on telework and OSH addressing issues such as
the workplace risk assessment and its enforcement, coverage of employees’ accident insurance, and/or
to the prevention of psychosocial risk and health problems such as eye strain (EU-OSHA, 2023). These
developments have followed different directions in different Member States: while in some countries
OSH enforcement has been strengthened by providing company’s OSH professionals with access to
teleworkers’ workplaces to inspect compliance with OSH obligations, in other countries employers have
been exempted from previous OSH obligations (EU-OSHA, 2023). In a larger number of Member States
regulatory provisions, including collective agreements, have been introduced and address teleworkers´
isolation, a major psychosocial risk related to telework, although the provisions are not always very
specific (EU-OSHA, 2023; Eurofound 2022c). Other Member States have specific provisions related to
the prevention of MSDs in telework. In general, in spite of these positive developments for OSH, the
regulatory provisions introduced provide only general recommendations.

The revision of OSH directives (e.g. minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace
(89/654/EEC), work with display screen equipment (90/270/EEC)) and the new EU Strategic
Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2021-2027 may open opportunities to expand the scope for

17
improving OSH protection and prevention to all workers using new digital devices (e.g. laptops,
smartphones, tablets, etc.) during hybrid work.

7.2. Compensation for occupational diseases

The lists of recognised occupational diseases are the responsibility of each Member State, with the
diseases and compensation criteria varying from one country to another.

• Musculoskeletal disorders
Data collected at national level indicate that MSDs are the most commonly recognised occupational
diseases in France, Italy and Spain. However, the lists of recognised diseases, recognition practices
and reporting systems vary considerably from one Member State to another (EU-OSHA, 2020b). The
current medical criteria of the tables or lists of occupational diseases only refer to specific disorders
(definable by objective diagnosis criteria), such as rotator cuff tendinopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome
(ILO, 2022). The circumstances of occupational exposure giving entitlement to compensation only take
into account biomechanical overloads (Eurogip, 2016).
However, the MSDs encountered in teleworkers/hybrid workers are mainly non-specific shoulder,
cervical or low back pain. These multifactorial disorders can be assessed by subjective methods
(questioning, functional scales, etc.), while neurophysiological or imaging examinations contribute little
or nothing to the diagnosis. The circumstances of exposure are multifactorial, characterised by
sedentary computer work, that do not correspond to the classic definition of biomechanical overload
(Eurogip, 2016). Therefore, the compensation system needs to be adapted to the spread of hybrid
work, with evolving criteria for compensation, as regards both the medical criteria and the risk exposure
criteria.

• Mental health disorders

In many countries, mental health disorders are rarely compensated as occupational disease. Some
disorders may be compensated in some countries when certain medical and exposure criteria are met
(e.g. post-traumatic stress disorders, depression). We lack hindsight on work situations in a hybrid work
context.
In the context of widespread hybrid work, it is necessary to pave the way for reflection on the revision
of compensation criteria in most Member States (EU-OSHA, 2021a). The same applies for other health
problems (e.g. DES) encountered in teleworkers, as they are not included in an occupational disease
table or list (ILO, 2022).

7.3. Hybrid work – return to work and prevention of job

disintegration after chronic disease
Hybrid work, as well as telework, can contribute to job retention after health difficulties that may
compromise functional capacities and work ability or lead to long absences from work due to sick leave
(Athanasiadou and Theriou, 2021). Hybrid work may be an option that promotes return to work
after/with various forms of chronic diseases, as observed in the context of the pandemic among
workers with high-risk conditions for severe forms of COVID-19 (Godeau et al., 2021). Beyond the
pandemic context, hybrid work may be an interesting way of encouraging workers with chronic diseases
or disabilities to stay at work as long as the worker can rely on a properly adapted home workstation
provided by the employer. It can help maintain or re-establish a connection with the work community,
and at the same time can contribute to avoiding fatigue or the difficulties associated with transport
between home and the workplace.
However, we still lack the hindsight to assess the impact of hybrid work in terms of job retention and
the advantages (reduced fatigue, possible autonomy in managing working time) and the potential
disadvantages (e.g. social isolation, lack of career development) for workers with chronic diseases or
disabilities. In addition, telework/hybrid work can lead to ‘virtual presenteeism’, with employees
continuing to work from home (at least part-time) while they are ill. This can affect their recovery and
compromise their long-term health (Eurofound, 2019). Several studies illustrate this phenomenon by
showing that teleworkers have fewer sick days than those who work in the office.

18
Hybrid work could also be used to support the end of careers as a process of early retirement by
helping the transition of active people at the end of their careers. However, this type of work organisation
has not yet been evaluated in this specific context (Fondation Jean Jaurès, 2022).

8. Conclusion
New forms of hybrid work create new challenges for OSH prevention and management, while at the
same time offering the opportunity to improve OSH if properly implemented, managed and regulated.
With well-designed hybrid work organisations, both at home and at the employer’s premises, hybrid
work is likely to retain many of the advantages of full-time telework (e.g. autonomy, work–life
balance) while reducing some of its disadvantages (e.g. technostress, social isolation, reduced work
team cohesion, etc.). This will vary according to the context of the work situations (e.g. voluntary nature
of the choice of hybrid work, participative and supportive management, workers’ autonomy, etc.).
However, information on the impact of hybrid work on working conditions and OSH is lagging behind
its spread in the post-pandemic EU. Above all, we still lack the hindsight to precisely assess the
medium- and long-term impacts of hybrid forms of work on working conditions, OSH, and related
gender and social inequalities in health.
Further research is needed to fill in the gaps on the OSH effects of hybrid work and the actions
required to properly implement it.
- Research is needed to quantify the evolution of hybrid work by industry and occupation,
company characteristics, employment status and gender. Future studies should focus on
longitudinal approaches and consider ergonomic and work organisation factors as well as workers’
socio-economic status.
- We need to fill the gap in knowledge on sound work organisation and management practices,
as well as sound OSH management, for the hybrid workforce. One of the main challenges will be
to look at hybrid work holistically from a dynamic perspective that considers individual and collective
activities both at home and at the employer’s premises. There is a need to broaden the
perspective of hybrid work — which is too often seen as an individual activity experienced as a
benefit (e.g. choice of hybrid work according to individual preferences) — and to adopt a
multidimensional and ergonomic perspective that includes the collective organisational and
social (team and work organisation) dimensions.
- Further multidisciplinary research (epidemiology, occupational health, ergonomics, work and
organisational psychology, management, etc.) is imperative to improve the detailed understanding
of hybrid work situations and to precisely assess their impact on business organisation, work
organisation and management practices, including OSH management practices. The impact
of hybrid work on the quality of teamwork (e.g. creativity) and the vitality of the work team (e.g.
cohesion of the hybrid work teams) must also be monitored and assessed in the medium and long
term.
- Research needs to be pursued to assess the medium and long-term impacts of hybrid forms
of work on individual and collective working activities and health outcomes (MSDs, mental
health, sleep disorders, sedentarism, etc.) in various hybrid contexts. In the current state of
knowledge, we lack studies of good methodological quality to determine the impact of the regularity
and predictability of the hybrid work schedule and precisely define favourable thresholds of
telework in hybrid mode (1, 2, 3 or more weekly days) in terms of health and wellbeing (Antunes
et al., 2023). It remains necessary to distinguish the effects of hybrid work itself from the effects of
the reorganisation of the employer’s premises for economic reasons (e.g. flex-office), which can
produce effects independently of hybrid work, as well as those linked to the new forms of
management (e.g. algorithmic management). The mechanisms involved in the effects of hybrid
work on workers’ physical and mental health need to be elucidated (Vleeshouwers et al., 2022).

19
9. References
Antunes ED, Bridi LRT, Santos M, Fischer FM. Part-time or full-time teleworking? A systematic review
of the psychosocial risk factors of telework from home. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1065593.
Aroles J, Vaujany FX de, Dale K, éditeurs. Experiencing the New World of Work [Internet].
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021 [cité 31 janv 2023]. Available at:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/experiencing-the-new-world-of-
work/DACE58B5B8A21C1A601FD4C883097AAB
Athanasiadou C, Theriou G. Telework: systematic literature review and future research agenda.
Heliyon. oct 2021;7(10):e08165.
Babule K, Chappert F. The new professional risks associated with teleworking (Les nouveaux risques
professionnels du télétravail). Disabil Gend Work. 2022;2(48):153‑6.
Beatriz M, Beque M, Coutrot T, Duval M, Erb L, Mauroux A, et al. Quelles conséquences de la crise
sanitaire sur les conditions de travail et les risques psycho-sociaux ? | Dares. Dares Analyses
[Internet]. 2021 [cité 29 avr 2022];(28). Available at: https://dares.travail-
emploi.gouv.fr/publication/quelles-consequences-de-la-crise-sanitaire-sur-les-conditions-de-
travail-et-les-risques
Beckel JLO, Fisher GG. Telework and Worker Health and Well-Being: A Review and
Recommendations for Research and Practice. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 24 mars
2022;19(7):3879.
Bentley TA, Teo STT, McLeod L, Tan F, Bosua R, Gloet M. The role of organisational support in
teleworker wellbeing: a socio-technical systems approach. Appl Ergon. janv 2016;52:207‑15.
Bérastégui P. Teleworking in the Aftermath of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Enabling Conditions for a
Successful Transition. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2021 [cité 4 avr 2022]; Available at:
https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/2021-
05/Teleworking%20in%20the%20aftermath%20of%20the%20Covid-
19%20pandemic.%20Enabling%20conditions%20for%20a%20successful%20transition.pdf
Bloom N, Han R, Liang J. How hybrid working from home works out [Internet]. National Bureau of
Economic Research; 2023. Report No.: Working Paper 30292. Available at:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w30292
Brucks MS, Levav J. Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Nature. mai
2022;605(7908):108‑12.
Brussevich M, Dabla-Norris E, Kladid S. Who will Bear the Brunt of Lockdown Policies? Evidence
from Tele-workability Measures Across Countries [Internet]. 2020 [cité 2 févr 2023]. Available
at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2020/06/12/Who-will-Bear-the-Brunt-of-
Lockdown-Policies-Evidence-from-Tele-workability-Measures-Across-49479
Buomprisco G, Ricci S, Perri R, Sio SD. Health and Telework: New Challenges after COVID-19
Pandemic. Eur J Environ Public Health. 13 févr 2021;5(2):em0073.
Camacho S, Barrios A. Teleworking and technostress: early consequences of a COVID-19 lockdown.
Cogn Technol Work Online. 22 janv 2022;1‑17.
Carayol V, Laborde A. Télétravail et incivilités numériques en période de pandémie. Enquête
qualitative et quantitative auprès de télétravailleurs [Internet]. 2022. p. 32 pages. Available at:
http://veille-travail.anact.fr/ark:/20179/KH9015207270127997805
Carillo K, Cachat-Rosset G, Marsan J, Saba T, Klarsfeld A. Adjusting to epidemic-induced telework:
empirical insights from teleworkers in France. Eur J Inf Syst. 2 janv 2021;30(1):69‑88.
Caroly S, Barcellini F. The development of collective activity. In Falzon P. Constructive ergonomics
[Internet]. 1st edition. CRC Press; 2014. Available at:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/b17456-7/development-collective-activity-
sandrine-caroly-flore-barcellini?context=ubx&refId=d63b2919-7679-4a0c-933d-c0b005cc1fce
Cetrulo A, Guarascio D, Virgillito ME. Working from home and the explosion of enduring divides:
income, employment and safety risks. Econ Polit Bologna Italy. 18 janv 2022;1‑58.

20
Chamoux A. Pandemic forced telework, a new psychosocial risk. Reflections on the health issues and
the necessary support. Bull Acad Natl Med. oct 2021;205(8):985‑92.
Chirico F, Zaffina S, Di Prinzio RR, Giorgi G, Ferrari I, CAPITANELLI I, et al. Working from home in
the context of COVID-19: A systematic review of physical and mental health effects on
teleworkers. J Healh Soc Sci. 2021;319‑32.
Choudhury P, Khanna T, Makridis C, Schirmann K. “Is hybrid work the best of both worlds? Evidence
from a field experiment” [Internet]. Harvard Business School; 2022. Report No.: Working Paper
22-063. Available at: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/22-063_639195cc-e7b5-
47d3-9281-62d192c5b916.pdf
Cihuelo J, Piotrowski A. De la réappropriation à distance des espaces d’échanges informels.
L’expérience du télétravail en situation de confinement. Sociol Prat. 2021;43(2):51‑61.
Di Fusco SA, Spinelli A, Castello L, Mocini E, Gulizia MM, Oliva F, et al. Impact of Working from
Home on Cardiovascular Health: An Emerging Issue with the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 12 nov 2021;18(22):11882.
Dingel JI, Neiman B. How many jobs can be done at home? J Public Econ. 1 sept 2020;189:104235.
Dzakpasu FQS, Carver A, Brakenridge CJ, Cicuttini F, Urquhart DM, Owen N, et al. Musculoskeletal
pain and sedentary behaviour in occupational and non-occupational settings: a systematic
review with meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 13 déc 2021;18(1):159.
Ekpanyaskul C, Padungtod C, Kleebbua C. Home as a new physical workplace: a causal model for
understanding the inextricable link between home environment, work productivity, and well-
being. Ind Health. 5 sept 2022;
Elbaz S, Blaise Richards J, Provost Savard Y. Teleworking and Work-Life Balance During the COVID-
19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review. Can Psychol-Psychol Can [Internet]. 2022 [cité 16 janv
2023]; Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2022-64857-001.html
Emerson S, Emerson K, Fedorczyk J. Computer workstation ergonomics: Current evidence for
evaluation, corrections, and recommendations for remote evaluation. J Hand Ther Off J Am
Soc Hand Ther. juin 2021;34(2):166‑78.
Erb L, Inan C, Beatriz M, Bèque M, Coutrot T, Do TPT, et al. Télétravail durant la crise sanitaire.
Quelles pratiques en janvier 2021 ? Quels impacts sur le travail et la santé ? DARES Anal.
2022;8.
EU-OSHA. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Facts and Figures — Synthesis report of 10 EU
Member states reports [Internet]. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA);
2020a. Available at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/work-related-musculoskeletal-
disorders-facts-and-figures-synthesis-report-10-eu-member/view
EU-OSHA. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: prevalence, costs and demographics in the EU |
Safety and health at work EU-OSHA [Internet]. 2020b. Available at:
https://osha.europa.eu/fr/publications/msds-facts-and-figures-overview-prevalence-costs-and-
demographics-msds-europe
EU-OSHA. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: why are they still so prevalent? Evidence from a
literature review [Internet]. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA); 2020c.
Available at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/work-related-musculoskeletal-disorders-
why-are-they-still-so-prevalent-evidence/view
EU-OSHA. OSH WIKI: Practical tips to make home-based telework as healthy, safe and effective as
possible [Internet]. 2021. Available at: https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Practical_tips_to_make_home-
based_telework_as_healthy,_safe_and_effective_as_possible
EU-OSHA. Artificial intelligence for worker management: risks and opportunities. Policy Brief
[Internet]. 2022a. Available at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/artificial-intelligence-
worker-management-risks-and-opportunities
EU-OSHA. OSH Pulse - Occupational safety and health in post-pandemic workplaces Flash
Eurobarometer Report [Internet]. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA);
2022b. Available at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/osh-pulse-occupational-safety-and-
health-post-pandemic-workplaces

21
EU-OSHA. OSH WIKI - Risk assessment and telework - checklist [Internet]. 2022c. Available at:
https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Risk_assessment_and_telework_-_checklist
EU-OSHA. Remote work, remote workplaces and implications for OSH - OSHWIKI [Internet]. 2022d.
Available at: https://oshwiki.osha.europa.eu/en/themes/remote-work-remote-workplaces-and-
implications-osh
EU-OSHA. Smart digital monitoring systems for occupational safety and health: uses and challenges.
EU-OHA; 2022e p. 26. https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/smart-digital-monitoring-systems-
occupational-safety-and-health-uses-and-challenges
EU-OSHA – European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Regulating telework in a post-COVID-
19 Europe: recent developments, 2023. Available at:
https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/regulating-telework-post-covid-19-europe-recent-
developments
Eurofound and the International Labour Office, Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world
of work, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and the International Labour
Office, Geneva; 2017. Available at: http://eurofound.link/ef1658
Eurofound. ICT-enabled flexible working – All plain sailing? [Internet]. Eurofound. 2019 [cité 7 févr
2023]. Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/blog/ict-enabled-flexible-
working-all-plain-sailing
Eurofound, Telework and ICT-based mobile work: Flexible working in the digital age, New forms of
employment series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2020. Available
at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/telework-and-ict-based-mobile-
work-flexible-working-in-the-digital-age
Eurofound. Fifth round of the Living, working and COVID-19 e-survey: Living in a new era of
uncertainty [Internet]. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions; 2022a. Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/fr/publications/2022/fifth-
round-of-covid-19-e-survey-living-in-the-new-era-of-uncertainty
Eurofound. The rise in telework: Impact on working conditions and regulations [Internet]. Publication
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2022b. Available at:
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2022/the-rise-in-telework-impact-on-
working-conditions-and-regulations
Eurofound. Living and working in Europe 2022 [Internet]. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg; 2023a. Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/annual-
report/2023/living-and-working-in-europe-2022#msdynttrid=uEAGPqCQnlCvvJjUi6EfbnVVMn-
Yl6hq0fjU70IOQZ8
Eurofound. The future of telework and hybrid work [Internet]. Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg; 2023b. Available at:
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2023/the-future-of-telework-and-hybrid-
work
Eurogip. Musculoskeletal disorders: What recognition as occupational diseases? A study on 10
European countries Paris: EUROGIP - Ref. Eurogip-120/E - 2016 - 21 x 29,7 cm - 70 pages -
979-10-91290-79-1 [Internet]. 2016. Available at:
https://www.eurogip.fr/images/pdf/Eurogip120E_ReportMSDs.pdf
European social partners. 2002 Framework agreement on telework [Internet]. 2002. Available at:
https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/framework-agreement-telework-16072002
EuroStat. Statistics | Eurostat [Internet]. 2022 [cité 27 avr 2022]. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsa_ehomp/default/table?lang=en
Fadel M, Bodin J, Cros F, Descatha A, Roquelaure Y. Teleworking and Musculoskeletal Disorders: A
Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. janv 2023;20(6):4973.
Fondation Jean Jaurès. Pratiques et représentations associées au télétravail en Europe. Fondation
Jean-Jaurès; 2022.
Furuya Y, Nakazawa S, Fukai K, Tatemichi M. Health impacts with telework on workers: A scoping
review before the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Public Health. 31 oct 2022;10:981270.

22
Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-
analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J Appl Psychol. nov
2007;92(6):1524‑41.
Godeau D, Petit A, Richard I, Roquelaure Y, Descatha A. Return-to-work, disabilities and
occupational health in the age of COVID-19. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1 juill
2021;47(5):408‑9.
Golden TD, Veiga JF, Simsek Z. Telecommuting’s differential impact on work-family conflict: is there
no place like home? J Appl Psychol. nov 2006;91(6):1340‑50.
Grobelny J. Factors Driving the Workplace Well-Being of Individuals from Co-Located, Hybrid, and
Virtual Teams: The Role of Team Type as an Environmental Factor in the Job Demand-
Resources Model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 19 févr 2023;20(4):3685.
Gualano MR, Santoro PE, Borrelli I, Rossi MF, Amantea C, Daniele A, et al. TElewoRk-RelAted
Stress (TERRA), Psychological and Physical Strain of Working From Home During the COVID-
19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Workplace Health Saf. 2023;71(2):58‑67.
Hallépée S, Mauroux A. Le télétravail permet‑il d’améliorer les conditions de travail des cadres ?
Insee Références. 2019;43‑54.
ILO. COVID-19: guidance for labour statistics data collection. Defining and measuring remote work,
telework, work at home and home-based work [Internet]. Geneva: International Labour
Organization; 2020. Available at: https://ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---
stat/documents/publication/wcms_747075.pdf
ILO. Diagnostic and exposure criteria for occupational diseases – Guidance notes for diagnosis and
prevention of the diseases in the ILO List of Occupational Diseases (revised 2010) [Internet].
2022. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/resources-
library/publications/WCMS_836362
ILO. Working Time and Work-Life Balance Around the World [Internet]. Geneva: International Labour
Organization; 2023 p. 171. Available at:
https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_864222/lang--en/index.htm
Ipsen C, Kirchner K, Andersone N, Karanika-Murray M. Becoming a Distance Manager: Managerial
Experiences, Perceived Organizational Support, and Job Satisfaction During the COVID-19
Pandemic. Front Psychol. 2022;13:916234.
Juchnowicz M, Kinowska H. Employee Well-Being and Digital Work during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Information. 23 juill 2021;12(8):293.
Kaiser S, Suess S, Cohen R, Mikkelsen EN, Pedersen AR. Working from home: Findings and
prospects for further research. Ger J Hum Resour Manag-Z Pers. août 2022;36(3):205‑12.
Kaur K, Gurnani B, Nayak S, Deori N, Kaur S, Jethani J, et al. Digital Eye Strain- A Comprehensive
Review. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(5):1655‑80.
Kniffin KM, Narayanan J, Anseel F, Antonakis J, Ashford SP, Bakker AB, et al. COVID-19 and the
workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. Am Psychol. janv
2021;76(1):63‑77.
Larese Filon F, Drusian A, Ronchese F, Negro C. Video Display Operator Complaints: A 10-Year
Follow-Up of Visual Fatigue and Refractive Disorders. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 13 juill
2019;16(14):E2501.
Leddet C, Castel D. L’impact du télétravail sur la satisfaction et l’implication organisationnelle : une
enquête réalisée durant la crise sanitaire - Archive ouverte HAL. In: Les incidences
psychosociales et socio-organisationnelles de la crise sanitaire COVID sur le travail et la santé
des salariés [Internet]. 2021 [cité 31 janv 2023]. Available at: https://hal.science/hal-03606126/
Loef B, van Oostrom SH, Bosma E, Lifelines Corona Research Initiative, Proper KI. The mediating
role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the association between working from home
and musculoskeletal pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Public Health.
2022;10:1072030.

23
Lunde LK, Fløvik L, Christensen JO, Johannessen HA, Finne LB, Jørgensen IL, et al. The relationship
between telework from home and employee health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 7
janv 2022;22(1):47.
Marcus S. COVID-19 and the shift to remote work [Internet]. Policy Contribution 09/2022, Bruegel;
2022. Available at: https://www.bruegel.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/PC-09-2022.pdf
Marques de Macedo TA, dos Santos Cabral EL, Silva Castro WR, de Souza Junior CC, da Costa
Junior JF, Pedrosa FM, et al. Ergonomics and telework: A systematic review. Work- J Prev
Assess Rehabil. 2020;66(4):777‑88.
Matsugaki R, Ishimaru T, Hino A, Muramatsu K, Nagata T, Ikegami K, et al. Low back pain and
telecommuting in Japan: Influence of work environment quality. J Occup Health.
2023;64(1):e12329.
McAllister MJ, Costigan PA, Davies JP, Diesbourg TL. The effect of training and workstation
adjustability on teleworker discomfort during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Ergon. 22 mars
2022;102:103749.
McKee C, Hedge A. Ergonomic lighting considerations for the home office workplace. Work Read
Mass. 2022;71(2):335‑43.
McKinsey Global Institute. What’s next for remote work: An analysis of 2,000 tasks, 800 jobs, and
nine countries [Internet]. 2020. Available at: http://thebusinessleadership.academy/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/MGI-Whats-next-for-remote-work-v3.pdf
Mekanna AN, Panchal SK, Li L. Beyond lockdowns: a systematic review of the impacts of COVID-19
lockdowns on dietary pattern, physical activity, body weight, and food security. Nutr Rev. 9 juin
2023;81(7):790‑803.
Milasi et al. Telework in the EU before and after the COVID-19: where we were, where we head to.
JRC Sci Policy Brief [Internet]. 2020; Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc120945_policy_brief_-_covid_and_telework_final.pdf
Natomi K, Kato H, Matsushita D. Work-Related Stress of Work from Home with Housemates Based
on Residential Types. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 5 mars 2022;19(5):3060.
Niebuhr F, Borle P, Börner-Zobel F, Voelter-Mahlknecht S. Healthy and Happy Working from Home?
Effects of Working from Home on Employee Health and Job Satisfaction. Int J Environ Res
Public Health. 20 janv 2022;19(3):1122.
Oakman J, Kinsman N, Stuckey R, Graham M, Weale V. A rapid review of mental and physical health
effects of working at home: how do we optimise health? Bmc Public Health. 30 nov
2020;20(1):1825.
OECD. Le télétravail pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 : tendances et perspectives [Internet]. Paris:
OECD; 2021 sept. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/le-
teletravail-pendant-la-pandemie-de-covid-19-tendances-et-perspectives_e76db9dd-fr
Othman N, Yusof S, Osman WRS. A Conflict between Professional vs. Domestic Life? Understanding
the Use of ICT in Teleworking for Balance in Work and Family Units. Comput Inf Sci. 20 avr
2009;2(2):p3.
Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska M, Dudarewicz A, Zamojska-Daniszewska M, Zaborowski K, Rutkowska-
Kaczmarek P. Noise exposure and hearing status among call center operators. Noise Health.
2018;20(96):178‑89.
Restrepo BJ. Obesity Prevalence Among U.S. Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am J Prev
Med. juill 2022;63(1):102‑6.
Reznik J, Hungerford C, Kornhaber R, Cleary M. Home-Based Work and Ergonomics: Physical and
Psychosocial Considerations. Issues Ment Health Nurs. oct 2022;43(10):975‑9.
Robertson MM, Mosier K. Work from home: Human factors/ergonomics considerations for teleworking
[Internet]. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2020. Available at:
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---
safework/documents/publication/wcms_742061.pdf

24
Roquelaure Y. Musculoskeletal disorders and psychosocial factors at work / Reports / [Internet].
European Trade Union Institute (ETUI). 2018 [cité 6 févr 2019]. Available at:
https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Reports/Musculoskeletal-disorders-and-psychosocial-
factors-at-work
Roquelaure Y. New forms of work in the digital era: implications for psychosocial risks and
musculoskeletal disorders- Discussion paper [Internet]. EU-OSHA; 2021. Available at
https://osha.europa.eu/fr/publications/digitalisation-work-psychosocial-risk-factors-and-work-
related-musculoskeletal-disorders/view
Roquelaure Y, Luce D, Descatha A, Bonvallot N, Porro B, Coutarel F. [Occupational exposome: An
organisational model]. Med Sci MS. mars 2022;38(3):288‑93.
Schütz G, Noûs C. Pour une sociologie du télétravail ancrée dans les organisations. Sociol Prat.
2021;43(2):1‑12.
Shiri R, Turunen J, Kausto J, Leino-Arjas P, Varje P, Väänänen A, et al. The Effect of Employee-
Oriented Flexible Work on Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Healthc Basel Switz. 10 mai
2022;10(5):883.
Sonnenschein K, Hagen Ø, Rostad IS, Wiik R. « Make it possible for more people to work at home! »
representations of employee motivation and job satisfaction in Danish and Norwegian
newspapers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol. 2022;13:972562.
Sostero M. Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital divide? [Internet]. Seville: European
Commission: European Commission; 2020. Report No.: JRC121193. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc121193.pdf
Taskin L. Esprit d’équipe, es-tu là ? Sciences Humaines. 2022;347(5):40‑1.
Taskin L, Bridoux F. Telework: a challenge to knowledge transfer in organizations. Int J Hum Resour
Manag. 1 oct 2010;21(13):2503‑20.
Tavares AI. Telework and health effects review. Int J Healthc. 11 juill 2017;3(2):30.
Tezuka M, Nagata T, Saeki K, Tsuboi Y, Fukutani N. Association Between Abrupt Change to
Teleworking and Physical Symptoms During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Emergency Declaration in Japan. J Occup Environ Med. janv 2022;64(1):1‑5.
Trott M, Driscoll R, Irlado E, Pardhan S. Changes and correlates of screen time in adults and children
during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine.
juin 2022;48:101452.
Umishio W, Kagi N, Asaoka R, Hayashi M, Sawachi T, Ueno T. Work productivity in the office and at
home during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional analysis of office workers in Japan.
Indoor Air. janv 2022;32(1):e12913.
Urzi Brancati M, Curtarelli M, Riso S, Baiocco S. How digital technology is reshaping the art of
management [Internet]. Seville: European Commission; 2022. Report No.: JRC130808.
Available at: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-
11/JRC130808_How%20digital%20technology%20is%20reshaping%20the%20art%20of%20m
anagement_LET%20WP%2005-22_0.pdf
Vayre E. Les incidences du télétravail dans les domaines professionnel, familial et social. Trav Hum.
2019;82(1):1‑39.
Vayre E, Pignault A. A systemic approach to interpersonal relationships and activities among French
teleworkers. New Technol Work Employ. 2014;29(2):177‑92.
Vergara XP, Gibb K. Close physical proximity on the job-An exposure matrix. Am J Ind Med. juill
2022;65(7):537‑47.
Virick M, DaSilva N, Arrington K. Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of
telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance outcome orientation and
worker type. Hum Relat. 1 janv 2010;63(1):137‑54.
Vitória B de A, Ribeiro MT, Carvalho VS. The work-family interface and the COVID-19 pandemic: A
systematic review. Front Psychol. 2022;13:914474.

25
Vleeshouwers J, Fløvik L, Christensen JO, Johannessen HA, Bakke Finne L, Mohr B, et al. The
relationship between telework from home and the psychosocial work environment: a systematic
review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022;95(10):2025‑51.
Waizenegger L, McKenna B, Cai W, Bendz T. An affordance perspective of team collaboration and
enforced working from home during COVID-19. Eur J Inf Syst. 3 juill 2020;29(4):429‑42.
WHO, ILO. Healthy and safe telework: technical brief [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization
and International Labour Organization; 2021. Available at:
https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_836250/lang--en/index.htm
Wütschert MS, Romano-Pereira D, Suter L, Schulze H, Elfering A. A systematic review of working
conditions and occupational health in home office. Work Read Mass. 2022;72(3):839‑52.
Xie JL, Elangovan AR, Hu J, Hrabluik C. Charting New Terrain in Work Design: A Study of Hybrid
Work Characteristics. Appl Psychol- Int Rev-Psychol Appl-Rev Int. juill 2019;68(3):479‑512.

26
Appendix 1. Methodology
A two-step interdisciplinary methodological approach was used to synthesise knowledge on hybrid
forms of work and their impact (i) on working conditions and management practices and (ii) on wellbeing
and OSH in the scientific literature from different disciplines (epidemiology, psychology, neurobiology,
biomechanics, ergonomics, sociology, technology, law studies and management).
• Literature review: Due to the relatively small number of available studies, a narrative review was
conducted using the following scientific databases in February 2023:
(i) the effects of hybrid work on working conditions and management practices:
PsycArticles, Sage Journals, Cairn, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar; and
(ii) the effects of hybrid work on wellbeing, OSH and health behaviours (wellbeing,
occupational health, sedentary lifestyle, musculoskeletal disorders, eye disorders, sleep
disorders, addictions and eating disorders, mental health disorders, accidents and physical
risks): PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cairn, EBSCO and Google Scholar.
In addition, the review took into account reports from international agencies on OSH (EU-OSHA, HSE,
IRSST, INRS, NIOSH, etc.), public statistics, economics, law and labour (OECD, ILO, Eurofound,
European Commission, European Trade Union Institute, Eurostat), universities (MIT, Harvard), and
publications from major consulting companies (McKinsey, etc.).
• Interviews with experts and stakeholders: The results of the literature review were discussed and
supplemented with several hybrid/telework experts from different disciplines:

Name Expertise Institution

Agnès AUBLET-CUVELIER Occupational French National Research and Safety
health, ergonomics Institute (INRS), France
Karine BABULE Human resources, French National Agency for the
ergonomics Improvement of Working Conditions
(Anact), France
Pierre BÉRASTÉGUI Ergonomics, work European Trade Union Institute (ETUI),
psychology Belgium
Sandrine CAROLY Ergonomics Grenoble-Alpes University, France
Thomas COUTROT Economics, Institute of Economic and Social Research
statistics (Ires), France (associated researcher)
Florence CROS Work psychology Lyon 2 University, France
Marc MALENFER OSH foresight French National Research and Safety
Institute (INRS), France
Sophie PRUNIER-POULMAIRE Ergonomics University Paris Nanterre, France

Author: Prof. Dr Yves Roquelaure, Director of the Epidemiology in Occupational Health and
Ergonomics Team, Research Institute for Environmental and Occupational Health (Irset – Inserm);
Director of the Department of Occupational Diseases and Medicine, University Hospital of Angers
(France)
Project Management: Emmanuelle Brun and Maurizio Curtarelli (EU-OSHA)
This discussion paper was commissioned by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
(EU-OSHA). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the
authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of EU-OSHA.
© European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2023.

27