The article focuses on how the actors of industrial relations acted at firmlevel in multi-national company, Danone, in two different institutional contexts (Italy and France), in order to set rules and procedures aimed to mitigate the negative psycho-social consequences of remote working adopted during Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, it examines what was the role of firm-level industrial relations in setting specific oriented actions and what were the relations between these, global policies of the company and national level policies about health and safety and in general the institutional context. It emerges the importance of informality of relations between actors in helping to face an emergency together with the role of global policies of the company that seems to overcomes the different national institutional contexts.
BarestaguiP (2021) Exposure to psychosocial risk factors in the gig economy. A Systematic Review. ETUI.
2.
BéthouxÉMiasABlacheG, et al. (2015) Dialoguer plus mais sur quoi? Les régulations d’entreprise en matière d’emploi, de formation et de conditions de travail en temps de crise. La Revue De L’ires84: 91–123.
3.
BéthouxÉMiasA (2021) How does State-led decentralization affect workplace employment relations? The French case from a comparative perspective. European Journal of Industrial Relations27(1): 5–21.
4.
BorisE (2022) From sexual harassment to gender violence at work: the ILO's road to convention #190. Labor19(1): 109–131.
5.
BrayMBuddJWMacneilJ (2020) The many meanings of Co-Operation in the employment relationship and their implications. British Journal of Industrial Relations58(1): 114–141.
6.
BuompriscoGRicciSPerriR, et al. (2021) Health and telework: new challenges after COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Environment and Public Health5(2): em0073.
7.
CalafàL (2012) Il diritto del lavoro e il rischio psico-sociale (e organizzativo) in Italia. Lavoro e diritto2: 287–290.
8.
CottonJLVollrathDAFroggattKL, et al. (1988) Employee participation: diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Journal13(1): 8–22.
9.
CoxTGriffithsAJ (1995) The assessment of psychosocial hazards at work. In: WinnubstMJSchabracMJCooperC (eds) Handbook of Work and Health Psychology. Chilster: Wileye Sons.
10.
DagninoE (2017) Il diritto alla disconnessione nella legge n. 81/2017 e nell’esperienza comparata. Diritto Delle Relazioni Industriali3: 234–254.
11.
DeoleSSumitSDeterM, et al. (2021) Home Sweet Home: Working from Home and Employee Performance during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK. Global Labor Organization.
12.
ElrazH (2018) Identity, mental health, and work: how employees with mental health conditions recount stigma and the pejorative discourse of mental illness. Human Relations71(5): 722–741.
13.
ErwandiDLestariFDjunaidiZ, et al. (2021) Review of psychosocial risk approach, model, and theory. Literature review. European Journal of Molecular & Clinic Medicine8(3): 195–214.
14.
Eurofound (2020) Living, Working, and COVID-19. Dublin, Ireland: Eurofound Publications.
15.
FanaMTolanSTorrejónS, et al. (2020) The COVID Confinement Measures and EU Labour Markets. European Commission.
16.
FellsR (2003) Human resource management and the collective employment relationship. In: WiesnerRMilletB (eds), Human Resource Management: Challenges and Future Directions. Milton, QLD: Wiley.
17.
FelsteadAHensekeG (2017) Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being, and work-life balance. New Technology Work and Employment32(3): 195–212.
18.
FoxA (1974) Beyond Contract: Work, Power, and Trust Relations. London, UK: Faber and Faber.
19.
García CalaviaMÁRigbyM (2020) The extension of collective agreements in France, Portugal, and Spain. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research26(4): 399–414.
20.
Gumbrell–McCormickRHymanR (2013) Trade Unions in Western Europe. Hard Times, Hard Choices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
HallPSoskiceD (eds) (2012) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
HammerN (2011) International framework agreements: global industrial relations between rights and bargaining. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research11(4): 511–530.
23.
HoutmanIvan ZwietenMLekaS, et al. (2020) Social dialogue and psychosocial risk management: added value of manager and employee representative agreement in risk perception and awareness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(10): 3672–3689.
24.
LerougeL (2022) La ratification de la convention OIT n 190 sur la violence et le harcèlement au travail. Droit Social1: 54–60.
25.
MeardiG (2004) Modelli o stili di sindacalismo in Europa?Stato e Mercato4: 207–236.
26.
PopmaJ (2017) The Janus Face of the 'New Ways of Work': Rise, Risks, and Regulation of Nomadic Work. Etui. Working paper 2013.07.
27.
ScarponiS (2021) La convenzione OIL n. 190/2019 su violenza e molestie nel lavoro e i riflessi sul diritto interno. Rivista giuridica del lavoro1: 23–39.
28.
SchneiderMRPaunescuM (2012) Changing varieties of capitalism and revealed comparative advantages from 1990 to 2005: a test of the hall and soskice claims. Socio-Economic Review10(4): 731–753.
29.
SongYGaoJ (2020) Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. Journal of Happiness Studies21(1): 2649–2668.
30.
StraussG (1998) An Overview. In: HellerFPusicEStraussG, et al. (eds)Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality. New York, NY: Oxford, 8–39.
31.
SydowJFichterMHelfenM, et al. (2014) Implementation of global framework agreements: towards a multi-organizational practice perspective. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research20(4): 489–503.
32.
TelljohannVda CostaIMüllerT, et al. (2009) European and international framework agreements: new tools of transnational industrial relations. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research15(3–4): 505–525.
33.
TownsendKWilkinsonABurgessJ (2013) Filling the gaps: patterns of formal and informal participation. Economic and Industrial Democracy34(2): 337–354.
34.
TresierraCEVLeyva PozoAC (2020) La fatiga y la carga mental en los teletrabajadores: a propósito del distanciamiento social. Revista Espanola de Salud Publica94(9): 1–17.
35.
WaltersDFrickK (2000) Worker participation and the management of occupational health and safety: reinforcing or conflicting strategies? In: FrickKJensenPLQuinlanM, et al. (eds) Systematic occupational health and safety management. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, 43–66.
36.
WaltersDNicholsT (2007) Worker Representation and Workplace Health and Safety. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
WaltersD (2011) Worker representation and psycho-social risks: a problematic relationship?Safety Science49(4): 599–606.
38.
WangHISigersonLChengC (2019) Digital nativity, and information technology addiction: age cohort versus individual difference approaches. Computers in Human Behavior90: 1–9.
39.
WeilMMRosenLD (1997) Technostress: Coping with Technology. Work, Home, Play. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
40.
WittMAde CastroLRKAmaeshiK, et al. (2018) Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: a taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research. Socio-Economic Review16(1): 5–38.
