Building Resilience Beyond Compliance: A Session on Psychosocial Risks with Vanessa Ezerzer, Noémie Leger, and Carole Da Silva 

While psychosocial risk management may be a legal obligation, forward-thinking organizations recognize it as far more than a compliance formality, but as a critical competitive advantage and the cornerstone of resilient, high-performing workplaces in today’s crisis-driven world.  

This was the message echoed throughout Day 2 of the Center for Organizational Effectiveness’ four-day virtual summit, Thriving in Uncertainty: Leadership and Wellbeing in Turbulent Times. During the session, “Building Resilient Systems: Policies and Practices to Mitigate Psychosocial Harm,” Christian Mainguy, Senior Global Consultant at WPO, was joined by Vanessa Ezerzer, Noémie Leger, and Carole Da Silva from WPO France Consulting to deliver a compelling examination of the complex landscape of psychosocial risks in today’s workplace.  

Together, they provided legal context, actionable strategies, and real-world examples from the region. Framing psychosocial risk not only as a regulatory concern but as a fundamental challenge to organizational health, the speakers emphasized the human and systemic costs of inaction—and the transformative potential of proactive prevention. 

From change management to legal obligations under French labor law, the session unpacked what it takes to proactively support employee wellbeing during times of disruption—and how companies can build systems that go beyond compliance to achieve true, lasting resilience.  

Read an excerpt from the session below:  

Christian: First question, what are the contexts or situations that lead companies to seek your support for change management? 

Vanessa: Our change management support, Christian, takes place in a wide variety of contexts, often related to transformation challenges—strategic, organizational, or even technological. 

In any case, we step in when companies are facing truly major changes with a potentially significant human and social impact. 

Over the past two years in France, there has been an intensification of restructuring projects, which means that we are now mostly involved in very complex, highly sensitive situations such as site closures or employment protection plans that will result in job cuts. 

But we also intervene in more traditional organizational and structural transformation contexts, such as internal reorganizations, service restructurings, or changes in job roles. 

We can also support companies that are undergoing major digital or technological transitions. This could involve the introduction of a new CRM, artificial intelligence, or a complete overhaul of the information system. 

In any case, these are projects that will have an impact on employees’ daily work lives. Regardless of the context in which we intervene, our support always aims to anticipate and properly manage the human and social impacts related to these projects. 

That means we try not only to understand and address resistance to change, we also work to prevent demotivation or the feeling of losing one’s bearings, because these are natural human reactions that arise throughout transformation projects and need to be addressed naturally. 

We also aim to prevent psychosocial risks and, of course, to support and guide all employees throughout the entire transformation project. 

Christian: Speaking of these transformations, and more specifically of reorganization projects, what legal frameworks apply? What can you tell us about that? 

Vanessa: In France, we have a very advanced legal framework when it comes to the prevention of psychosocial risks. France has been a pioneer in several areas, whether it’s the right to disconnect or the requirement to have a single document that lists both physical and psychosocial risks. 

Moreover, French law and case law are increasingly evolving towards strengthening the protection of employees’ health. French employers have a significant legal obligation to ensure the safety of all employees, which also specifically includes the prevention of psychosocial risks. This obligation is both regulated by the Labour Code and reinforced by case law that is constantly evolving. It’s the strength of case law.  

Regarding reorganization projects, there isn’t really a specific provision in the Labour Code, so by default, the general law on risk prevention will apply. That means that in any reorganization—such as a voluntary departure plan, a job protection plan, or a collective mutual termination agreement—must always be carried out within a protective framework for employees. More concretely, this means that the employer will be required to identify, assess, and prevent psychosocial risks for all employees, whether they are directly or even indirectly affected by the reorganization project. 

So, we can clearly see that in France, we have a strong culture of prevention. We also have the involvement of social partners who are true stakeholders in prevention and who help create an ideal framework for implementing our measures. This favorable context allows us not only to strengthen workplace safety, health, and wellbeing, but also—let’s not forget—to promote an organization that is calmer, more efficient, and importantly, sustainable. 

Because what we’re really trying to do is make this transformation project last over time so that it also becomes a driver of success. 

Christian: Thank you, Vanessa. Since you mentioned jurisprudence and case law, I’d like to turn to Noémie—what advice can we give companies facing reorganization? 

Noémie: Indeed, as Vanessa mentioned, when an employer implements a reorganization, they’re required to assess the risks that the measure may pose to the physical and mental health of employees.  

But ultimately, I would say that beyond this legal aspect, assessing the impact of an organizational change—and above all, safeguarding the workplace health of everyone involved in the transformation process—is also crucial to the project’s success. 

And as we can see, the most mature companies are those that systematically conduct a preliminary study of the human and social impacts before implementing their transformation project, in order to anticipate any harmful effects on employees’ physical and mental health and, above all, to put corrective actions in place. 

From a methodological standpoint, our goal is to get the most accurate possible understanding of the impacts, whether in terms of risks or opportunities for improvement. Because a change can bring positive elements in terms of improvement, but it can also have negative impacts on working conditions. In fact, we aim to compare the operational consequences of the change with the real-life practices of employees in their work activities. 

To do this, we use a simple analysis framework that we rely on, which examines four dimensions when we conduct a human and social impact study. These four dimensions include: the work activity itself, the organization of that activity, work relationships and how professional interactions take place, and the material conditions and the physical work environment. 

By investigating these four dimensions, we determine the level of impact on employees’ working conditions, and we assess the significance of this impact—either as an opportunity or as a risk. This provides a prioritization framework that the company can then use to implement corrective actions. 

I would add that in addition to this human and social impact assessment, as Vanessa also mentioned, we have in France the Occupational Health Law of August 2, 2021, which strengthens the obligation for companies to record and update the single occupational risk assessment document, also known as the DUERP. This becomes especially important whenever any workplace modifications are made that affect employees’ working conditions—as is often the case when a reorganization is implemented. 

Ultimately, beyond the mandatory regulatory aspect, one piece of advice we give to companies is to see this update as an opportunity—to treat the document as a dynamic working tool, and above all, as a tool to help prioritize and make decisions about which actions to implement first.  

In any case, we view this somewhat regulatory requirement as an opportunity for the company to engage in a collaborative approach with other stakeholders in prevention. In particular, I’m thinking of line managers, employee representatives, and the occupational health service—all of whom have a role to play in creating dialogue around these issues of occupational health. 

Christian: Thanks for clarifying and outlining this precise methodology. So, to follow up, what are the most important keys to success for effectively supporting these changes? 

Noémie: Great question. We’ve started to talk about it, but even a small-scale reorganization can have a significant impact on employees’ working conditions. 

I’d like to mention a study conducted in 2022, which highlights a rather high percentage—83% of employees who responded said they are in a “wait-and-see” position regarding the transformations they have experienced or expect to experience in their company. They are expecting more communication and transparency. 

And I mention this today because in our own work, we observe much the same thing: giving meaning to organizational change, anticipating the psychosocial risks brought about by the project, involving prevention stakeholders as early as possible, supporting managers, ensuring ongoing support, and above all, communicating clearly and regularly—ultimately, these are all essential levers to ensure the success of a transformation project. 

We believe that companies that put people at the heart of their strategy are the ones with the best chances of success. They also build organizations that are more resilient, more agile, and above all, more forward-looking. 

So, taking the human factor into account is extremely important in any context of organizational change. That’s why we offer dedicated support to identify what can be proposed to better assist the various people involved in a transformation project. 

As I mentioned, before implementing reorganization, we help companies conduct human and social impact studies. Beyond that, from the announcement through the entire transformation, we provide ongoing support to strengthen employee accompaniment.  

We can offer on-site drop-in sessions or workshops led by occupational psychologists who specialize specifically in this type of support, in order to provide all stakeholders—whether employees, managers, HR management, or even staff representatives—with a confidential space to be heard, to analyze their experiences, their concerns, and even their daily work practices. This is done in a longitudinal manner, so we can be present throughout the transition phase, right up until the new organization is implemented. 

And I would say that one crucial element for this support to be effective and engaging is communication. It is truly an important factor to take into account. 

We are especially careful to always ensure there is a moment dedicated to communication—presenting the objectives of these drop-in sessions and the support overall—so that the messages are clearly heard and understood by everyone, and people can engage with the support. Generally, we set up a presentation session before the first drop-in, where we introduce the objectives as well as the facilitator who will be leading the sessions. 

There is one more point I would particularly like to emphasize: when we support employees, we do not focus solely on those who are directly affected by a reorganization. We broaden the scope to include all those who may be more indirectly affected by the reorganization but who may also find this kind of situation difficult. 

I’ll give an example from redundancy plans: of course, we support employees who are going to lose their jobs, but we also support those who will see their colleagues leave—those who will remain in a new organization and who may also find this difficult. 

There is a significant challenge for the organization in extending the support to these individuals. It’s necessary to maintain motivation among those who stay—and above all,  this support helps anticipate any potential negative effects on operational continuity. That’s why it’s important to broaden the scope of support—not just to those directly affected by the change, but to a much wider group. 

Christian: Thank you, Noémie. Carole, turning to you—given your hands-on experience in the field, where sector-specific challenges meet unique company cultures—how do you tailor your approach to navigate these complexities? 

Ready to discover how leading organizations in your industry are turning psychosocial risk management into a powerful lever for long-term resilience and wellbeing? 

Click here to view the full library of session recordings from #2025COEWeek and watch the full session now.