“One” refers to the need to integrate life and work, since perhaps as early as the Neolithic Era, the concept ‘division of labor’ became ingrained in our mindset as the driving force towards survival of the horde and, by extension, of the community; and all hopes were pinned thereon.

This distribution of work into centralised production systems, known as “Taylorism”, was a key element of the Industrial Revolution, and would ultimately become the catalyst of modern-day prosperity.

At the same time, this restrictive “otium-negotium” model was instrumental in the development of knowledge in the arts and sciences, by allowing a reduced group of people to set objectives and eliminate time-consuming unrelated tasks.

On the flip side however, it created, for most of humanity, a deep chasm between life and work, and consequently, this has given rise to a plethora of psychosocial problems. Perhaps the time has come to take an in-depth look at these issues and to adapt the new technical-operational reality to a social perspective more in tune with the responsibilities and schedules of the people/workers.

This challenge may be twofold; to ensure that production and services are compatible with technical-scientific advances, and to explore the prospects for attaining a harmonious work-life balance.

At the OSH we undoubtedly have a privileged vantage point from which to contemplate and contribute our grains of wisdom to the wealth of data and theories on this subject. The advantage comes, among other factors, from our extensive data-base storage of: working conditions, psychosocial evaluations, health surveillance follow-up, transportation plans, equality programs, environmental impact analysis, job training, incident and accident indicators…

In compliance with legal obligations and regulations, using this huge amount of data, new data management technology and the powerful tool of AI, we can get some insight into the future of work:  What are the expectations of workers and companies in their relationships with each other? How can social and labor needs be met in order to attain a harmonious work-life balance? This would reduce, to unprecedented limits, the conceptual work-life barrier which historically has led to endemic problems between the workforce and companies.

The OSH aims to be an integral and integrating experience for the worker with his company and the surrounding macro system. In this way we hope to move towards contributing to the common good which gives full meaning to the company, and in turn to the Work,  the Person and the Planet . Thus, the title “at work: one life, one planet”.

This is neither an easy task nor one to be taken lightly by the OHS. On the contrary, it will require breaking down deeply-rooted conceptual barriers – some of which, may, at first glance, insult our intelligence and question even the most puristic notion of “what work is”.

Nevertheless, we believe that this is the direction to move towards this utopian stage of work-life harmony. Otherwise, a series of complex paradoxes and a perpetual source of conflict will ensue. For example, can a psychosocial risk assessment be made without taking into account the worker’s habitat? And if we consider this personal ecosystem, where should the psychosocial assessment end? with his family? his peer group? his neighbourhood? his country?…

This “one” vision of unity has its risks, obviously, and brings with it an aspect of conceptual fragility, given that it extends over the planet and involves people. Hence, we must analyse working conditions in a much broader sense, including the non-work and extra-professional environments, because these variables will impact on the company as well as on the work itself. As aforementioned, we should somehow address global risk assessments that reach beyond the confines of the organisation and consider the individual as a social animal in continuous interaction with his or her habitat. As it stands today, this type of evaluation appears to be both highly complex and exceedingly difficult to quantify.

All the same, societal pressure for a new paradigm is forcing us to take a global view of human life on earth. These assessments, conducted without interruptions in school, work, leisure, or social life reveal the unique and inseparable bond between man  and the environment, where the planet is merely an extension of our skin so any scratch it bears will affect the very core of our DNA. To this end, the demands on organisations to care for individuals is nothing more than the first tier of respect for the planet.

Broadening these ” restrictive evaluations” of occupational risks and including parameters that up to now belonged to the world of  “private enterprise” is a complex task. Paradoxically, by addressing these extreme factors, we run the risk of falling into overzealousness and crashing head-on into “the paradox of the individual’s privacy”.

We are convinced that there is an irreversible evolution of the concept of work organisation. For example, the empowerment of many workers, due to the use and mastery of technology, which has seamlessly yet abruptly taken place over the last few years, has led to new working styles, or, if you prefer, organisation of work. Personnel play a much greater role in productive decision-making, and this will likely generate new company models with more fluid frameworks.

This evolution, or perhaps better said, this revolution from the Scientific Work Management template where a minority group of professionals design the productive processes, to an approach in which collectively the workers conceptualise a Participative Work Management style, could be the engine for a new company that will directly impact production models. Take for example, some of the organisational structures of the current NGOs. In terms of nominal GDP, if we take into account several NGOs and their collective actions, they would comprise what could be considered the fifth largest country in the world.

What is not clear at this point is what the model will look like in mid-range time. Which aspects of work organisation will be profoundly affected, and which will simply undergo the changes inherent to embracing and mastering new technologies by the community, and their impact on the creation of more flexible models of organisation. We use the term community because this is a two-way street where customers and users of our work bilaterally contribute to and demand a grand part of the changes expected from the company in general, as well as from our specific activities therein.

The 23rd International ORP Congress to be held in Bilbao, is without a doubt a superb venue to share ideas about OSH, Healthy Companies, work organization, the demands and constraints of labor requisites and business culture. It is also an opportunity to work together to: Find ways to improve working conditions; Reflect on the transition between virtual and physical reality; Discuss gender inequalities; Examine the limits of privacy in the workplace;   and Apply the latest scientific advancements to the OSH … which equally important includes supporting evidence-based scientific research that has not yet been put into practice.

Pedro R. Mondelo

Director ORP