Next Article in Journal
Confronting Disability Pasts, Constructing Disability Futures: Recommendations for Growing Access, Equity, and Inclusion for Disabled Faculty in Higher Education
Previous Article in Journal
Fusions and Frictions in G20 Climate Policy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/socsci15020093
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

When in Rome, Work from Home? How Organizations Regulate Remote Work in Italy, France, Switzerland, and Quebec

by
Valentina Dolce
1,*,
Sandra Dubouloz
2,
Céline Desmarais
3,
Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay
4 and
Chiara Ghislieri
5
1
Research Group in Societal Psychology (GRePS), Institute of Psychology, University of Lyon 2, Lyon5 Avenue Mendès France, 69676 Bron cedex, France
2
Institute for Management and Economic Research (Laboratoire IREGE), University of Savoie-Mont-Blanc, 74940 Annecy, France
3
School of Engineering and Management Vaud (HEIG-VD), University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), 1400 Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
4
School of Administrative Sciences and Laboratoire ARUC-GATS, University of Téluq, Québec City, QC G1K 9H6, Canada
5
Department of Psychology, University of Turin, 10123 Turin, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(2), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020093
Submission received: 10 December 2025 / Revised: 20 January 2026 / Accepted: 26 January 2026 / Published: 4 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Work, Employment and the Labor Market)
Versions Notes

Abstract

The way in which remote working is interpreted by organizations (by top management, by human resources management), even in its being an element of possible sustainability, may vary in relation to national work cultures and laws, with differences between countries. This study, in particular, aims to trace the differences and similarities in terms of how organizations regulate and manage remote working by considering 294 organizations of four different countries: France (n = 92), Switzerland (n = 82), Italy (n = 60), and Quebec (n = 60). In each country, each response relates to an entire organization. The findings show that perceived pressure from the environment to implement remote working is higher in Quebec (Canada) than in Switzerland and Italy. In terms of regulations, 90% of Quebec organizations reported to have approved an internal regulation for remote working compared with European countries, ranging between 72% (for Italy) and 76% (for France). Finally, the findings confirm the role played by top-management positive beliefs for remote working and pressure from the environment for the implementation of different adaptations: All these findings show differences in particular between Quebec and European countries that are interesting to better understand and debate.

1. Introduction

Although remote working appears to have declined slightly compared to remote working rates during the pandemic and immediately afterwards, it is still higher than before the pandemic COVID-19 (e.g., Sostero et al. 2024). Today, compared to the pandemic phase, workers mostly alternate between remote work and in-office work in what is known as a hybrid mode. The hybrid work modalities vary greatly from one organization to another, both in terms of the number of days per week worked remotely, the choice of how many and which days, and the internal organization with regard to who works remotely and how (Caputo et al. 2024; Ekelman and Kantor 2023).
Working methods and demands change, and management methods are modified, as they must adapt to new ways of coordinating teams (Balthazard et al. 2009; Zimmermann et al. 2008). That is why, unlike many other studies conducted since 2020, this study does not involve employees but aims to identify the position of the organization’s top management (the employer and/or, if delegated, the HR department) on certain aspects of remote work, investigating what adjustments have been made with the considerable increase in remote working. This study carried out in four contexts—France, Italy, Switzerland, and Quebec—allows for some cross-cultural comparisons. In their systematic review of the literature on telework, Athanasiadou and Theriou (2021) show that despite the growing body of research on telework, studies are still scarce to date and have adopted a cross-country perspective. Yet, such an approach appears particularly valuable to highlight national and institutional specificities and differences.
Our contribution starts from a theoretical reflection on the subject of remote working, describing the different contexts involved in the study in terms of rates and policies on teleworking. Indeed, the way in which remote working is interpreted by organizations (by top management, by human resources management) may also vary in relation to national work cultures and laws. This is why it is important to provide some context. This study aims to analyze certain organizational aspects relating to the vision and management of teleworking. To achieve this goal, the same questionnaire was completed by top management and by human resources management of organizations in France, Switzerland, Italy, and Quebec.
Specifically, the questionnaire used in our study made it possible to collect data relative to the level of adaptation and organizational changes implemented for the management of remote working, the presence or not of specific internal agreements for its management, the organizations’ perceptions of the benefits of remote working, the perceived degree of pressure from the environment (e.g., staff and union request, demands from professional associations, behavior of peer organizations in the organizational field) to implement remote work, and the degree of top management’s positive beliefs on remote working. More specifically, in addition to analyzing differences between countries with regard to the variables in question, the relationship between degree of pressure from the environment and top management’s positive attitudes towards teleworking was analyzed by exploring its link with the changes implemented to manage it.

1.1. Evolution in Teleworking Practices Before, During, and After the Pandemic in Quebec, France, Switzerland, and Italy

In general, statistical data retrieved from databases from the main national statistics Institute (e.g., Statistics Canada, Statistical Institute of Quebec, The French Directorate for Research, Studies and Statistics, Federal Statistical Office, Italian Statistical Institute) of the countries involved in the study highlight an increase in the use of teleworking during the pandemic compared to the previous period, but they also reveal a slight decline in the medium to long term. These data also show how some sectors are more involved than others in the use of teleworking, such as in the information–communications and financial services sectors. Although it is not easy to compare statistics, as in some cases, the data refer only to private organizations, while in others, all the data are mixed up, and in some cases, remote working is counted even if it is really rare (once a month), it is nevertheless interesting to see below some more specific information about each country involved in the study.
Specifically, however, remote working rates vary, being generally already higher in the pre-pandemic phase in Canada in comparison with other countries, especially Southern Europe. In Canada, the percentage of employees who usually scheduled hours from home remained virtually unchanged from 2000 to 2018: it ranged from 10% to 11% from 2000 to 2008 (Turcotte 2010) and stood at around 13% in 2018 (Statistics Canada 2018; Deng et al. 2020). In European Union countries, teleworking rates prior to the pandemic were lower than in Canada, although they increased between 2009 and 2019, rising from 6 per cent to 9 per cent (Eurostat 2020). However, it should be noted that there are significant differences between European Union countries, with Finland and Netherlands leading the way, where in 2019, working from home stood at 14.1%, compared to Bulgaria (0.5%) and Romania (0.8%), between 3 and 3.5 per cent in Italy, and 7% in France (Eurostat 2020). Then, in all these countries, there was growth with the COVID-19 pandemic.
With regard to the pandemic and post-pandemic period, in Canada, as in the other countries involved in the study, there has been a decrease in the number of people teleworking compared to the peak recorded during the pandemic. According to Canadian Statistics (2024), the percentages vary according to sector and professional category, but after rising to around 40% in April 2020, the percentage of Canadians working primarily from home in a given week fell to around 20% in November 2023. The data indicate that workers want to continue teleworking for this reason, and some unions also request that remote work remain part of working conditions (Tremblay 2020, 2022). Specifically in Quebec, in 2022, 35% of those in the labor force teleworked: approximately 21% of the workforce reported working in hybrid mode, and approximately 14% reported working exclusively from home (Institut de la Statistique du Quebec 2024). The finance, insurance, real estate, and rental industries, as well as professional, scientific, and technical services, had telework rates of around 75% in 2022, also, in public administration, there is a high rate of teleworking, around 65% (Cloutier-Villeneuve 2024).
In France, according to the Directorate for Research, Studies and Statistics (DARES), by the end of March 2020, about a quarter of the population worked remotely (DARES 2019, 2020), recording a considerable increase in the number of people compared to pre-pandemic rates. Since the beginning of 2022, the proportion of remote workers among employees has been stable, while the number of days teleworked per week followed a slight downward trend until 2023 (Askenazy et al. 2025). A total 22% of workers in the private sector telework at least once a month. The organization of work is essentially hybrid, with a combination of physical presence at 55% telework 2 days per week (Askenazy et al. 2025). In the private sector, since 2022, the frequency of remote working increased with the size of the company. In fact, in multinationals, more than 30% of employees telework, which is in contrast to small companies, where 18% of employees telework (Askenazy et al. 2025). Remote working is a widespread practice among professional and managerial staff, with almost two-thirds of them teleworking (Askenazy et al. 2025).
According to the recent DARES survey (Askenazy et al. 2025), the proportion of remote workers is high in the information–communications and financial services sectors, at 75% and 60% respectively. What is more, in information–communications, people who telework do so on average 2.3 days a week compared with 1.8 days a week in the other sectors.
In Switzerland, according to the Federal Statistical Office (2025b), the percentage of employees benefiting from remote work (regularly, occasionally, or rarely) increased from 24.6% in 2019 (before the pandemic) to 39.6% in 2021 (during the pandemic) and then slightly declined after the pandemic (37% in 2022, 36.9% in 2023). As in France, there are two sectors in which teleworking seems to be most widespread, which are in the information–communications and financial services sectors, where the rates are 81.6 and 72.7 percent respectively (Federal Statistical Office 2025a).
According to the Italian Statistical Institute (ISTAT), in Italy between 2022 and 2023, the percentage of people who worked at least occasionally from home was around 12% (ISTAT 2023a). These rates are slightly lower than those immediately after the pandemic but also lower than the 2021 (which peaked at a teleworking rate of 19%). The percentage of people who telework varies greatly depending on their professional profile and, above all, their sector. As in other countries, the sectors with the highest rates of teleworking are Information and Communication (60.9%) and Financial and Insurance Activities (42.8%) (ISTAT 2022, 2023b).

1.2. Regulatory Framework Regarding Remote Working

In general, in each of the countries involved in the study, remote working is at least partially regulated by labor codes and laws that also extend to remote working situations. To get a clearer picture of the situation, a brief description will be provided for each country.
In Quebec, the government indicated that teleworkers were covered in the Occupational Health and Safety Act: the provisions of this Act continue to apply to workers who telework and to their employers. In effect, workers’ health and safety must also be guaranteed at home. However, to date, there is still no specific general law on teleworking in Quebec. Teleworking is generally regulated by individual or collective agreements and by the general provisions of labor law. In 2022, the Government of Quebec provided a Framework Policy on Telework for public administration (Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor 2021), providing some guidelines such as insisting on the voluntary nature of remote working, regulating the duration to no more than 3 days per week (with some possible exceptions), and emphasizing the employer responsibility in determining the terms and conditions (for example teleworking days) of remote working. This charter defines certain responsibilities of the employer. For example, they must ensure that employees working remotely do so in appropriate conditions that do not pose a risk to their health; provide the teleworker with the equipment and access to the technological infrastructure they need; ensure that employees are aware of health and safety and ergonomics standards; and ensure that tasks performed remotely do not compromise the security and confidentiality of information. The Framework Policy on Telework for public administration defines certain responsibilities for employees as well, such as the following: comply with working conditions, laws, and ethical rules; maintain collaboration with colleagues in order to achieve the results; take the necessary measures to ensure a safe teleworking environment in order to protect their physical and psychological health and safety; comply, at all times and in all respects, with the rules governing information security, confidentiality and the protection of personal information, etc.
Private forms tend to follow the norms adopted for public administration employees, although some private firms permit less telework and are quicker to ask their employees to return to the office (Alla et al. 2024).
In France, from an institutional perspective, Article L1222-9 of the French Labour Code governs the implementation of telework and provides a legal framework, emphasizing mutual agreement, equal rights, and clear communication between employers and employees. More precisely, it establishes that remote work must be based on mutual agreement between the employer and the employee, and it should be formalized through a collective agreement or, in the absence of such an agreement, through a company-specific charter. This framework outlines the conditions under which telework can be introduced, including the process for transitioning to and from telework arrangements. The article also specifies that employees working remotely have the same rights as those working on-site. Employers are required to provide the necessary tools and equipment for telework and to ensure that remote workers have access to the same professional development opportunities as their on-site counterparts. Additionally, teleworkers are entitled to the same health and safety protections, and any work-related accidents occurring at the telework location are presumed to be work-related accidents under Article L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code. Therefore, while the French legal system provides mechanisms to protect employees’ rights concerning remote working, it also offers flexibility in how remote working arrangements are established at the individual level, potentially without the need for formal amendments to employment contracts. At the organizational level, agreements or company charters provide the formal framework for remote working. Once such an agreement or charter is adopted, it becomes binding for all employees covered. Consequently, any changes to the remote working conditions specified in these documents generally require a renegotiation of the agreement or charter. Recent DARES data (2025) indicate that 2080 telework agreements were signed in 2023, reflecting the institutionalization of telework in French companies.
In Switzerland, telework is regulated by the Labour Act, with no specific legal framework dedicated to remote work. Standard rules on working hours, rest, and night work also apply. The large number of cross-border workers (8% of the workforce), especially in tertiary sectors near border areas, makes it significant that a tax agreement allows up to 40% telework without losing cross-border status or changing tax regimes.
Italy’s legislation on these issues is not entirely up to date. Teleworking is regulated by Law 191/1998 and the related Presidential Decree 70/1999: this type of work is defined with very specific elements that require the choice of a specific alternative workplace to the office (the home) where a workstation is set up by the employer, who is fully responsible for the safety of the worker. In 2017, the law on agile working (Law No. 81 of 22 May 2017) introduced a more flexible form of remote working, but it was infrequently used in the following years until 2020 when “agile working” became the norm during the lockdowns; that law emphasized the importance of guaranteeing the right to disconnect. After the pandemic period, the legislation was not updated, and, to date, the definition of policies is delegated to organizations that negotiate them in consultation with trade unions.
In light of these differences in both pre-pandemic teleworking rates, which varied between countries (particularly when comparing rates in European Union countries with those in Canada), and the different laws that regulate remote working in a more or less structured way, the following study aims to explore the presence of differences in the assessment of the benefits of teleworking for the organization, any internal regulations that may be in place, as well as the adjustments made to manage remote working.

1.3. Different Forms of Adaptations to Remote Working

The adoption of teleworking and the related adaptations to current changes do not depend exclusively on the legislative framework.
Indeed, the adaptations to which we refer, following the work of Ansari et al. (2010), are related to technical, political, strategic, and cultural issues.
Specifically, in this context, technical adaptations are related to the degree of technical or technological requirements of hybrid work. Employees working from home need, for example, a good internet connection, a device on which to work remotely, and to be able to rely on the use of secure platforms and archives, software, etc. (Al-Habaibeh et al. 2021).
Beyond the technical side, there is also the managerial adaptation side (Peters et al. 2016). As demonstrated by several empirical studies (e.g., Balthazard et al. 2009; Zimmermann et al. 2008) and summarized by Caputo et al. (2024) and (Bravo-Duarte et al. 2025) systematic review, managing hybrid teams requires new strategies and coordination methods, as well as new competencies. As highlighted in the literature (e.g., Caputo et al. 2024), there are many challenges. For example, informal and spontaneous communication is more difficult, and there are fewer social connections (Joshi et al. 2009; Braun et al. 2019). An increase in virtual communication channels (chat, email, videoconferencing) leads to greater uncertainty and dispersion of information, increases cognitive load and ambiguity, and reduces the sense of social presence and participation in conversation, as well as opportunities to gather personal information and cues (Balthazard et al. 2009; Purvanova and Bono 2009; Serban et al. 2015; Zimmermann et al. 2008). Strategic and managerial adjustments are therefore necessary. For example, managers should provide regular and frequent interactions and ‘spontaneous’ communication (Gajendran and Joshi 2012; Kelley and Kelloway 2012; Zimmermann et al. 2008). The written communication has to be rich in ideas, clear, grammatically and semantically correct, and task oriented (Balthazard et al. 2009; Zimmermann et al. 2008).
Certain cultural aspects should also be taken into consideration. Indeed, the more frequent use of remote working could imply a transformation of cultural assumptions which imply leadership capable of accompanying change. In fact, taking up what was theorized by Edgar Schein, who suggests that only when leadership is able to support and manage cultural change can an organization mature and grow, then conversely, if leadership fails to manage change, the organization is more likely to fail (Schein and Schein 2017). With regard to the organizational perspective, prior research emphasizes the importance of achieving an “internal fit” between telework practices and organizations’ culture, particularly with regard to the values of control and autonomy (Illegems and Verbeke 2004; Illegems et al. 2001; Peters and Batenburg 2015). Achieving this “fit” is not always easy. For example, control-based leadership styles, which are rooted in hierarchical, formalized, rigid and structured cultures (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983), are likely to rely on technology to govern and control the work of employees. Tools or applications enable them to send an excessive number of notifications, increasing the risk of “technological stress“(Molino et al. 2020), addiction to technology and the Internet, and work–life conflict (Vayre and Vonthron 2019). We observe exactly the same phenomena in organizations characterized by market cultures (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983), whose leaders can be extremely demanding of their own teams, as in always-on cultures (Derks et al. 2015; Molino et al. 2020), increasing risk for well-being.
On the contrary, leadership with positive beliefs about remote working, not anchored to cultures of physical presence at work (Ruhle et al. 2020) or a rigid idea of controlling work activity, which recognizes the attractive value of remote working, will probably find it easier to guide the organization towards certain changes and adaptations.
Considering how much the beliefs and values of leadership could affect or not changes at organizational levels (Schein and Schein 2017), we hypothesize that
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Top-management positive beliefs on remote working are positively related to adaptations at different levels.

1.4. Pressure from Environment

The adoption of remote working is linked to the level of pressure received from the environment, which affects managers’ attitudes, as suggested by Peters and Heusinkveld’s (2010) empirical study.
When we refer to pressure received from the environment, we consider three different forms of pressure: normative, coercive and mimetic (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Normative pressures can come from professional associations, partners, and staff. Coercive pressure is more closely linked to a strong request coming from competitors, trade unions, and staff, and mimetic pressure arises from is linked to the importance attached to delivering better performance and status quo in the eyes of partners (Gopalakrishna-Remani et al. 2016; Peters and Heusinkveld 2010).
The literature and international and national surveys confirm employees’ desire for hybrid work (e.g., Hopkins and Bardoel 2023; Gallup 2023). French trade unions report no widespread decline in telework, which is increasingly institutionalized and considered a social entitlement. Research highlights its appeal (Diard et al. 2023; Ilyana 2021), particularly among young graduates and managers under 35, who exert significant pressure on organizations. Consequently, company leaders are reluctant to reduce telework and increasingly leverage it as a key element of employer branding, actively promoting it to attract and retain talent (Diard et al. 2023; Ilyana 2021).
Based on the theoretical framework, according to which it is possible to hypothesize that environmental pressures can influence the implementation of changes at an organizational level, it is hypothesized that
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Perceived pressures from the environment (mimetic, normative and coercive) are positively related to adaptations at different levels.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedure

Data were collected through an online survey in France, Switzerland, Italy, and Quebec between February 2023 and February 2025. It was disseminated through various professional associations (employers’ federations, chambers of commerce and industry, etc.) that relayed it to their members. Despite the support of these associations and follow-up reminders, we faced the major difficulty highlighted in the literature on upper-management levels, namely, a low response rate (Neely et al. 2020).
Participation was voluntary and anonymous, with informed consent obtained from each participant. The research did not involve any procedures that could pose psychological or social risks and adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association 2013). Specifically, participants were informed about the purpose of the study, which was to obtain data on perceptions of remote working, its evolution following the health crisis, and its effects on organizations in different countries. Participants were informed that the data would be treated confidentially. Acceptance of the conditions implied acceptance of the use of the information for research purposes. Respondents were under no pressure to respond and only did so if they deemed it relevant, given the lack of hierarchical ties between the organizations that shared the link. In addition, a contact email address was provided to participants so that they could receive an aggregate summary of the results if they wished.
In Canada, the research project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Téluc (n°2023-15) before the data collecting could start in the fall of 2023.

2.2. Sample

A total of 294 organizations of four different countries, France (n = 92), Switzerland (n = 82), Italy (n = 60) and Quebec (n = 60), were involved in this study.
The samples from different countries are homogeneous with respect to certain variables such as sector and size of organization.
Table 1 shows the relative frequency for small (Fewer than 10 employees), small–medium (11 to 49 employees), medium–large (50 to 249 employees), large (250 to 5000 employees) and very large organizations (More than 5000 employees) by country.
Table 2 shows the frequency of organizations in the public, private and non-profit sector by country.

2.3. Data Analysis

The IBM SPSS software (version 26) was employed to perform analysis. First, some psychometric properties of the measurement variables were checked. Specifically, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on multidimensional scales.
After conducting tests to verify homogeneity using Levene’s test, following recommendations by (Delacre et al. 2017), Welch’s F-test was used to examine potential differences between the means of the variables for each country (France, Switzerland, Quebec and Italy) (Leys 2019). For pairwise comparisons procedure, Games–Howell post hoc test was used, following Sauder and DeMars (2019) recommendations.
To test the relationships between perceived pressure from the environment, the actual percentage of staff work remotely and management positive beliefs on adaptations, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed. In the first step of the analysis, the top-management positive beliefs and the perceived pressure from the environment were introduced. In the second step, the actual percentage of staff teleworking was introduced. In the third step, we introduced two control variables linked to company size (more than 5000 employees) and the private sector.

2.4. Measures

The questionnaire was constructed using multi-item scales, most of which were drawn from and adapted from existing literature. Multi-item scales increase the reliability of measurements and capture the complexity construct more comprehensively compared to individual items.
Remote work adaptations were assessed through 6 items. Items are the results of the theoretical considerations by Ansari et al. (2010) and by Peters et al. (2016). Items measured different “adaptations” at different levels: strategic, technological, cultural, managerial, structural and organizational. An example of remote work adaptations item was “Substantial technical adjustments: provision of new ICT technologies”. The items were measured with a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.85.
Perceptions on the advantages of telework were measured by adapting the 7 items of the scale according to Peters and Heusinkveld’s (2010) study. Unlike the original scale, all items were transformed into positive ones (where they were negative). Consistent with literature, EFA analysis confirmed the two-factor structure of the scale. The first component consists of 3 items and refers to the perceptions of improved work outcomes. An example of an item for this component was “teleworking increases productivity”. The second component consists of 4 items and refers to the social benefits of teleworking. An example of an item for this component was “Teleworking increases mutual learning among employees”. The items were measured with a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Cronbach’s α results in this study for the dimension of “improved work outcomes” and the dimension of social benefits of teleworking were 0.83 and 0.92 respectively.
Perceived pressure from the environment was measured through 5 adapted items from Srinivasan et al.’s (2002) scale and Gopalakrishna-Remani et al. (2016). The results of EFA did not allow us to distinguish between the three dimensions of “coercive”, “normative” and “mimetic” pressure, so we drew the five items on a single factor. An example of an item was “staff and unions are demanding that our organization offer remote working”. The items were measured with a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.80.
Top-management positive beliefs on remote working were measured through 2 adapted items from Liang et al.’s (2007) scale and Gopalakrishna-Remani et al.’s (2016) scale. An example of an item was “Overall, the management of our organization believes that remote working has the potential to bring significant benefits to our organization”. The items were measured with a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.86.

3. Results

3.1. Contingency Table

Descriptive analyses conducted using the chi-square test indicated significant differences in the rate of internal agreements regulating remote work. In particular, the data show that in Quebec, 90% of the organizations surveyed have a document regulating remote work (compared to percentages ranging from 69% to 76% in other European countries).
Furthermore, as shown in Table 3, there are higher rates of remote working in Quebec and Italian organizations than in French and Swiss organizations.

3.2. Welch’s F-Test

As shown by Table 4 and Table 5, Welch’s F-test combined with post hoc analysis with the Games–Howell test showed that perceived pressures from the environment to implement remote working (e.g., competitive conditions, adoption of remote working by partners, promotion of remote working by professional associations and governments) are higher in Quebec than in Switzerland (p < 0.001) and Italy (p < 0.001) W(3) = 10.688 p < 0.01). In addition, French organizations reported a higher level of perceived pressure for remote working than Swiss organizations (p < 0.05).
Regarding the perception of improved work outcomes in terms of motivation, concentration, and performance, no significant difference was found between countries.
Regarding the perception of the social benefits of remote working, the post hoc analysis only showed a significant difference between Quebec and Switzerland (p < 0.05): for Quebec organizations, the social benefits of remote working (in terms of cohesion, learning and cooperation, and belonging sentiment) appear to be greater than for Swiss organizations.
Finally, regarding top-management beliefs, the results show a difference between organizations in Quebec and organizations in Italy, with a higher score in Quebec than in Italy (p < 0.001).

3.3. Multiple Regression Analysis (Stepwise)

Regression analysis (Table 6) showed that the actual percentage of staff remote working, perceived pressure from the environment, and top-management positive beliefs on teleworking would increase the levels of adaptation put in place by organizations to telework. The company size (more than 5000 employees) and the private sector, introduced as control variables, were not significantly related to the dependent variable.

4. Discussion

The results of this study highlight some interesting differences between countries and confirmed the two hypotheses.
Specifically, as regards the first hypothesis, top-management positive beliefs on remote working are positively related to adaptations at different levels. This finding seems theoretically consistent with Edgar Schein’s reflection (Schein and Schein 2017), which assumes that organizational change and its (cultural) adaptations are difficult but possible where there is leadership ready to accompany them. It is therefore possible that a positive view of teleworking, which is usually accompanied by an awareness of its attractiveness, is based on the conviction that it is possible to work well without the idea that the worker must necessarily work in person. The results tell us one more thing: despite the fact that average levels of positive beliefs about teleworking are quite high, there are significant differences between Italy (with the lowest average) and Quebec (with the highest average). Further studies could seek to better explain this difference, investigating any resistance in these two different contexts (specifically) in Italy. Resistance could be based on certain beliefs and assumptions, specifically a lack of trust in employees or a perceived decrease in control by management, that can translate into skepticism on the part of managers, for example, regarding the use of remote working time (Ceci et al. 2025).
As regards the second hypothesis, the results confirmed it, suggesting how pressure from the environment (trade unions, staff, professional associations, competitors) also seems to play a role. All these perceived pressures are linked to an increase in adjustments to remote working.
The results also indicate that the pressure perceived by organizations from the environment is not at the same level everywhere. Specifically, the results show that pressures are higher in Quebec than in Italy and Switzerland. Furthermore, France, which has the second highest average compared to the other countries, also reports a significantly higher level than Switzerland.
These results are interesting in light of the adjustments to teleworking: some technical adjustments (e.g., made available by new ICT technologies), as well as changes in team management and work culture—moving away from the belief that workers only work when they are physically present—appear to be positive for supporting employee well-being and performance (Peters et al. 2016; Balthazard et al. 2009; Zimmermann et al. 2008).
As regards adaptations, the results also show differences primarily in terms of the implementation of remote working regulations by organizations that have them in place. In fact, in Quebec, only 10 percent of the organizations in the sample stated that they did not have internal regulations compared to between 25 and 30 per cent of the other contexts involved in the study.
Although there are laws and labor codes that regulate teleworking to some extent at national levels, internal regulations for remote working could be useful (e.g., Kossek et al. 2006, 2025). As suggested by Beckel and Fisher (2022), although a certain degree of flexibility in managing teleworking ensures positive flexibility and autonomy, formal organizational policies on remote working help to better monitor the appropriate conditions for remote working.
Beyond internal regulations, it is also important to note that adjustments in work management should be reported. Indeed, it is widely recognized that remote working breaks the classical “three unities” rule traditionally applied to organizational work (Taskin 2006). These three units refer to: time, which assumes that work occurs within a fixed schedule; place, which implies that work is performed in a specific, centralized location such as company premises; and action, which presumes that work follows a structured sequence of tasks defined by the organization. Remote working disrupts all three: it allows work to take place at different locations (company offices, home, or third places), enables a more flexible and less structured allocation of work and personal time, and shifts the focus from mere presence to achieving results. The recognition of these disruptions should go hand in hand with an acknowledgment of the need for organizational, managerial, and cultural adaptations (Peters et al. 2016).
With regard to the benefits associated with teleworking, there are no differences between countries, except between Switzerland and Quebec, in terms of social aspects.
In general, the averages reported indicate that organizations recognize the benefits associated with work outcomes but fewer benefits in social terms. These results are fairly consistent with evidence in the literature showing that, under certain conditions, teleworking can be associated with satisfaction and performance (e.g., Athanasiadou and Theriou 2021), but there are also some challenges, including limited informal communication and social ties in virtual environments (Caputo et al. 2024; Toscano and Zappalà 2020).

Limitations

This study has some limitations. The first is the low response rate, which is unfortunately quite common in surveys carried out with organizations (human resources department and managers), as well as the convenience sampling technique used, which, although this is a cross-country study, does not allow generalization. The study is cross-sectional, which does not allow any causal conclusions to be drawn (Taris et al. 2021). Longitudinal studies could help to understand how these adaptations or the presence of internal regulations may also impact other variables of interest (not included in the current study) such as work–life balance, employee well-being, performance and satisfaction. The third limitation concerns the nature of the questionnaire; indeed, to compensate for the length of the questionnaire, management beliefs regarding the benefits of teleworking were measured using only two items. Fourthly, the data are self-reported (Razavi 2001), and it would be useful to cross-reference other data using other methods for a more accurate analysis. The fourth limitation is related to Quebec’s greater representation of companies with more than 5000 employees. The fifth limitation relates to the number of countries involved. It would have been useful to include other countries from different continents in order to provide an even more comprehensive picture of the different practices relating to teleworking. Future studies could carry out similar research in other contexts.

5. Conclusions

Our study makes a twofold contribution to the literature on telework. First, in response to the calls by Athanasiadou and Theriou (2021) and Martínez-Sánchez et al. (2007), we adopt a cross-country perspective, addressing the scarcity of research, which compares various contexts. By examining organizations in France, Switzerland, Italy, and Quebec, we provide insights into how national and institutional contexts could shape remote working practices, helping to explain some of the ambiguities and inconsistencies reported in previous studies.
Second, from an organizational perspective, our research responds to the need highlighted by Peters et al. (2016) to empirically investigate the actual level of formal telework practices while considering both macro-level factors (such as national cultural values) and meso-level factors (such as organizational culture). By analyzing the interplay between formal organizational adaptation policies and institutional contexts, our study can also lead to reflection on the challenges to be overcome in order to achieve internal fit between remote working practices and organizational mechanisms in different countries. The results suggest that several sources (trade unions, staff, professional associations, competitors) may play an effective role to encouraging change and adaptation for remote working.
Thirdly, the contribution highlights the role that managerial culture can play in change. Training focused on leadership that is more objective and less concerned with control can also be useful in accompanying change and overcoming resistance.
Despite the contributions of this study, future research could better investigate certain aspects. Firstly, this study does not investigate how these adaptations relate to outcomes such as satisfaction, permanence, worker well-being, and work–life balance. Future studies could investigate the impact of these adaptations. We can hypothesize that some are indeed important (e.g., provide appropriate technologies, modify control-based management systems), while others, such as the flex-office practices that are beginning to be discussed, may not always have positive implications (Haapakangas et al. 2019; Wohlers and Hertel 2016; Candido et al. 2019; Sirola et al. 2022).
Furthermore, qualitative studies (organizational ethnography) could add information on the subject of organizational changes, their consequences, and the conditions necessary for their implementation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.D., S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G.; methodology, V.D., S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.D.; formal analysis, V.D.; investigation, V.D., S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G.; resources, S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G.; data curation, V.D., S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G.; writing—original draft preparation, V.D., S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G.; writing—review and editing, V.D., S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G.; supervision, S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G.; project administration, S.D., C.D., D.-G.T. and C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by USMB Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and in Canada, the research project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Téluc (n°2023-15) before the data collecting could start in the fall of 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Anonymous data available on request.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Italian Association for Personnel Management (AIDP) for their help in distributing the questionnaire in Italy, thanks to Savoie Mont Blanc University Foundation and French Genevois HR Club, and thanks to Research Chair on the Socio-Organisational Challenges of the Knowledge Society (Téluq University).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Al-Habaibeh, Amin, Matthew Watkins, Kafel Waried, and Maryam Bathaei Javareshk. 2021. Challenges and opportunities of remotely working from home during Covid-19 pandemic. Global Transitions 3: 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Alla, Tawfik, Stéphane Roume, and Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay. 2024. Les transformations de l’espace et du modèle hybride du travail par les aires ouvertes: Les effets du télétravail sur la conciliation entre vies personnelle et professionnelle. Ad Machina 8: 2–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ansari, Shahzad M., Peer C. Fiss, and Edward J. Zajac. 2010. Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review 35: 67–92. [Google Scholar]
  4. Askenazy, Philippe, Ugo di Nallo, Ismaël Ramajo, and Conrad Thiounn. 2025. Available online: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/8379375#onglet-1 (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  5. Athanasiadou, Chrisalena, and Georgios Theriou. 2021. Telework: Systematic literature review and future research agenda. Heliyon 7: e08165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Balthazard, Pierre A., David A. Waldman, and John E. Warren. 2009. Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 651–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Beckel, Julia L. O., and Gwenith G. Fisher. 2022. Telework and worker health and well-being: A review and recommendations for research and practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 3879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Braun, Stephan, Alina Hernandez Bark, Alexander Kirchner, Sebastian Stegmann, and Rolf Van Dick. 2019. Emails from the boss—Curse or blessing? Relations between communication channels, leader evaluation, and employees’ attitudes. International Journal of Business Communication 56: 50–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bravo-Duarte, Felipe, Núria Tordera, and Isabel Rodríguez. 2025. Overcoming Virtual Distance: A Systematic Review of Leadership Competencies for Managing Performance in Telework. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology 12: 1499248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Canadian Statistics. 2024. Working from Home. Available online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/240118/dq240118c-eng.pdf?st=AOPtgYBD (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  11. Candido, Christhina, Leena Thomas, Shamila Haddad, Fan Zhan, Martin Mackey, and Wei Ye. 2019. Designing activity-based workspaces: Satisfaction, productivity and physical activity. Building Research & Information 47: 275–89. [Google Scholar]
  12. Caputo, Andrea, Ferdinando Toscano, Valentina Dolce, and Marco De Angelis. 2024. Leadership in face-to-face and virtual teams: A systematic literature review on hybrid teams management. Informing Science 27: 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ceci, Giuseppe, Vincenzo Costa, and Michela Iannotta. 2025. Resistance to change: Implementing smart working in Italian public administrations. International Public Management Review 25: 30–54. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cloutier-Villeneuve, Luc. 2024. Marché du Travail et Rémunération. La Qualité de l’emploi Analysée sous l’angle des Horaires de Travail au Québec: Quelques Résultats Selon le Sexe. Number 37. Québec City: Institut de la Statistique du Québec. [Google Scholar]
  15. DARES—Direction de l’Animation de la Recherche, des Études et des Statistiques. 2019. Quels sont les salariés concernés par le télétravail? (DARES Analyses n°051); Paris: Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi, de la Formation Professionnelle et du Dialogue Social. Available online: https://dares.travail-emploi.gouv.fr/publications/quels-sont-les-salaries-concernes-par-le-teletravail (accessed on 1 September 2025).
  16. DARES—Direction de l’Animation de la Recherche, des Études et des Statistiques. 2020. Activité et Conditions D’emploi de la Main d’œuvre Pendant la Crise Sanitaire COVID-19: Enquête Flash. Available online: https://dares.travail-emploi.gouv.fr/dares-etudes-et-statistiques/enquetes/article/activite-et-conditions-d-emploi-de-la-main-d-oeuvre-pendant-la-crise-sanitaire (accessed on 1 September 2025).
  17. Delacre, Marie, Daniel Lakens, and Christophe Leys. 2017. Why Psychologists Should by Default Use Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology 30: 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Deng, Zechuan, René Morissette, and Derek Messacar. 2020. Running the Economy Remotely: Potential for Working from Home During and After COVID-19. May 28. Available online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00026-eng.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2025).
  19. Derks, Daantje, Desiree Van Duin, Maria Tims, and Arnold Bakker. 2015. Smartphone use and work–home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 88: 155–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Diard, Caroline, Sana Henda, and Axel Brouillat. 2023. Le télétravail: Un élément fort de la marque employeur? Question(s) de Management 43: 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ekelman, Felice, and Julie Kantor. 2023. Thrive with a Hybrid Workplace: Step-by-Step Guidance from the Experts. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. [Google Scholar]
  23. Eurostat. 2020. How Usual Is It to Work from Home? Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200424-1 (accessed on 5 November 2025).
  24. Federal Statistical Office. 2025a. Share of Employees Working from Home, by Frequency and Economic Activities. Available online: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/en/36199578.html (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  25. Federal Statistical Office. 2025b. Télétravail à Domicile. Available online: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases.assetdetail.34948922.html (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  26. Gajendran, Ravi S., and Aparna Joshi. 2012. Innovation in globally distributed teams: The role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gallup. 2023. Hybrid Work. Available online: https://www.gallup.com/401384/indicator-hybrid-work.aspx (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  28. Gopalakrishna-Remani, Venugopal, Robert Paul Jones, and Barbara Ross Wooldridge. 2016. Influence of institutional forces on managerial beliefs and healthcare analytics adoption. Journal of Managerial Issues 28: 191–209. [Google Scholar]
  29. Haapakangas, Annu, David M. Hallmann, Svend Erik Mathaissen, and Helena Jahnke. 2019. The effects of moving into an activity-based office on communication, social relations and work demands—A controlled intervention with repeated follow-up. Journal of Environmental Psychology 66: 101341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hopkins, John, and Anne Bardoel. 2023. The future is hybrid: How organisations are designing and supporting sustainable hybrid work models in post-pandemic Australia. Sustainability 15: 3086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Illegems, Viviane, Alain Verbeke, and Rosette S’Jegers. 2001. The organizational context of teleworking implementation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 68: 275–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Illegems, Viviane, and Alain Verbeke. 2004. Telework: What does it mean for management? Long Range Planning 37: 319–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ilyana, N. 2021. Valorisation de la Marque Employeur à Travers le Télétravail chez Thales au sein de la Direction de l’Audit, des Risques et du Contrôle Interne (DARCI). Publications Études & Analyses. [Google Scholar]
  34. Institut de la Statistique du Quebec. 2024. Teleworking in Québec: More Than a Third of Employed People Telework, But This Proportion Varies by Region. Available online: https://statistique.quebec.ca/en/communique/portrait-teletravail-quebec (accessed on 16 January 2025).
  35. ISTAT. 2022. BES 2021 Equitable and Sustainable Well-Being in Italy. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files//2023/03/BES-2021-Report.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  36. ISTAT. 2023a. Il Benessere equo e Sostenibile in Italia. Available online: https://www.istat.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Bes-2022.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2025).
  37. ISTAT. 2023b. 2022 SDGS Report. Statistical Information for 2030 Agenda in Italy. Available online: https://www.istat.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2022-SDGS-Report_Inglese.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  38. Joshi, Aparna, Mila B. Lazarova, and Hui Liao. 2009. Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science 20: 240–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kelley, Elizabeth, and E. Kevin Kelloway. 2012. Context matters: Testing a model of remote leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19: 437–49. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kossek, Ellen Ernst, Brenda A. Lautsch, and Matthew B. Perrigino. 2025. Conceptualisations of work–life flexibility policies, boundaries and job control moving to a new era. In A Research Agenda for Flexible Working Arrangements. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kossek, Ellen Ernst, Brenda A. Lautsch, and Susan C. Eaton. 2006. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68: 347–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leys, Christophe. 2019. Taking parametric assumptions seriously: Arguments for the use of Welch’s F-test instead of the classical F-test in one-way ANOVA. International Review of Social Psychology 32: 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liang, Huigang, Nilesh Saraf, Qing Hu, and Yajiong Xue. 2007. Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly 31: 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martínez-Sánchez, Angel, Manuela Pérez-Pérez, Pilar De-Luis-Carnicer, and María José Vela-Jiménez. 2007. Telework, human resource flexibility and firm performance. New Technology, Work and Employment 22: 208–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Molino, Monica, Emanuela Ingusci, Fulvio Signore, Amelia Manuti, Maria Luisa Giancaspro, Vincenzo Russo, Margherita Zito, and Claudio Giovanni Cortese. 2020. Wellbeing costs of technology use during Covid-19 remote working: An investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators scale. Sustainability 12: 5911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Neely, Brett H., Jr., Jeffrey B. Lovelace, Amanda P. Cowen, and Nathan J. Hiller. 2020. Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: Verdicts and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management 46: 1029–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Peters, Pascale, and Ronald Batenburg. 2015. Telework adoption and formalisation in organisations from a knowlegde transfer perspective. International Journal of Work Innovation 1: 251–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Peters, Pascale, and Stefan Heusinkveld. 2010. Institutional explanations for managers’ attitudes towards telehomeworking. Human Relations 63: 107135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Peters, Pascale, Paul E. M. Ligthart, Anne Bardoel, and Erik Poutsma. 2016. ‘Fit’ for telework’? Cross-cultural variance and task-control explanations in organizations’ formal telework practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management 27: 2582–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Purvanova, Radostina K., and Joyce E. Bono. 2009. Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 343–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Quinn, Robert E., and John Rohrbaugh. 1983. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science 29: 363–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Razavi, Tiffani. 2001. Self-Report Measures: An Overview of Concerns and Limitations of Questionnaire Use in Occupational Stress Research. Discussion Papers in Accounting and Management Science 01-175. Southampton: University of Southampton. 23p. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruhle, Sascha A., Heiko Breitsohl, Emmanuel Aboagye, Vishwanath Baba, Caroline Biron, Catarina Correia Leal, Caroline Dietz, Aristides I. Ferreira, Joachim Gerich, Gary Johns, and et al. 2020. To work, or not to work, that is the question—Recent trends and avenues for research on presenteeism. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 29: 344–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sauder, Derek C., and Christine E. DeMars. 2019. An updated recommendation for multiple comparisons. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2: 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schein, Edgar H., and Peter A. Schein. 2017. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 5th ed. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  56. Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor. 2021. Politique-Cadre en Matière de Télétravail Pour le Personnel de la Fonction Publique. Available online: https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/adm/min/secretariat-du-conseil-du-tresor/publications-adm/politique-cadre/Politique_cadre_teletravail.pdf?1658411746 (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  57. Serban, Andra, Francis J. Yammarino, Shelley D. Dionne, Surinder S. Kahai, Chanyu Hao, Kristie A. McHugh, Kristin Lee Sotak, Alexander B. R. Mushore, Tamara L. Friedrich, and David R. Peterson. 2015. Leadership emergence in face-to-face and virtual teams: A multi-level model with agent-based simulations, quasi-experimental and experimental tests. The Leadership Quarterly 26: 402–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sirola, Pia, Annu Haapakangas, and Virpi Ruohomäki. 2022. Perception of work environment and well-being in activity-based office–three-wave longitudinal study. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 13: 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sostero, Matteo, Martina Bisello, and Enrique Fernández-Macías. 2024. Telework by Region and the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic: An Occupational Analysis. No. 2024/02. JRC Working Papers Series on Labour/Education and Technology. Brussels: JRC. [Google Scholar]
  60. Srinivasan, Raji, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. 2002. Market Orientation and Firm Performance: The Role of Competitive Intensity and Environmental Turbulence. In AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings. Edited by William J. Kehoe and Linda K. Whitten. Chicago: American Marketing Association, vol. 13, pp. 59–70. [Google Scholar]
  61. Statistics Canada. 2018. General Social Survey, 2016. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. [Google Scholar]
  62. Taris, Toon W., Stacey R. Kessler, and E. Kevin Kelloway. 2021. Strategies addressing the limitations of cross-sectional designs in occupational health psychology: What they are good for (and what not). Work & Stress 35: 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Taskin, Laurent. 2006. Télétravail: Les enjeux de la déspatialisation pour le Management Humain. Revue Interventions Économiques/Papers in Political Economy 34. [Google Scholar]
  64. Toscano, Ferdinando, and Salvatore Zappalà. 2020. Social isolation and stress as predictors of productivity perception and remote work satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of concern about the virus in a moderated double mediation. Sustainability 12: 9804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle. 2020. Le télétravail et le coworking: Enjeux socio-territoriaux dans la foulée du Covid 19. Organisation et Territoire 29: 159–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle. 2022. Les enjeux et risques du télétravail pour les femmes au Canada et au Québec. Travail, Genre et Sociétés 48: 157–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Turcotte, Martin. 2010. Working at home: An update. Canadian Social Trends 91: 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  68. Vayre, Emilie, and Anne-Marie Vonthron. 2019. Identifying work-related internet’s uses—At work and outside usual workplaces and hours—And their relationships with work–home interface, work engagement, and problematic internet behavior. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wohlers, Christina, and Guido Hertel. 2016. Longitudinal effects of activity-based flexible office design on teamwork. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. World Medical Association. 2013. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310: 2191–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zimmermann, Peter, Arjaan Wit, and Roger Gill. 2008. The relative importance of leadership behaviours in virtual and face-to-face communication settings. Leadership 4: 321–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Valid frequency.
Table 1. Valid frequency.
Fewer than 10 Employees
(%/Counts)		11 to 49
Employees		50 to 249 Employees250 to 5000 EmployeesMore than 5000 Employees
%n%n%n%n%n
France10%912%1134%3137%348%7
Switzerland11%917%1430%2532%2610%8
Italy5%310%630%1847%288%5
Quebec0%018%1122%1332%1928%17
Table 2. Valid frequency.
Table 2. Valid frequency.
SectorPublicPrivateNon-Profit
%n%n%n
France27%2465%588%7
Switzerland23%1670%497%5
Italy12%781%477%4
Quebec16%978%436%3
Table 3. Valid frequency.
Table 3. Valid frequency.
Approval of a Regulation on Remote WorkingPercentage Actually Carries Out Some or All of Its Remote Work Activity
%n%n
France76%6846%21
Switzerland69%5247%23
Italy72%4264%16
Quebec90%5374%6
Table 4. Welch’s F-test.
Table 4. Welch’s F-test.
Perceptions of Improved Work OUTCOMESSocial Benefits of Remote WorkingTop-Management BeliefsPerceived Pressure from Environment
MSDMSDMSDMSD
France3.771.002.670.983.541.113.610.96
Switzerland3.660.992.621.053.371.273.210.93
Italy3.500.802.940.943.201.183.390.74
Quebec3.850.783.091.033.820.833.900.64
Welch’s F-TestW(3) = 2.188
p = 0.92		W(3) = 3.343
p < 0.05		W(3) = 4.362
p < 0.01		W(3) = 10.688
p < 0.01
Table 5. Post hoc analysis with Games–Howell test; statically significant pairwise comparisons.
Table 5. Post hoc analysis with Games–Howell test; statically significant pairwise comparisons.
Diff MeaningSign
Social benefitsSwitzerland–Quebec−0.469060.045
Top-management beliefsItaly–Quebec−0.616670.007
Perceived Pressure from environmentFrance–Switzerland0.408500.026
Quebec–Switzerland0.69299<0.001
Quebec–Italy0.51000<0.001
Table 6. Stepwise regression.
Table 6. Stepwise regression.
βtpR2 – ΔR2
Step1(Constant) 3.669<0.001R2 = 0.23
Pressure0.355.460.001
Top-management beliefs0.182.87<0.01
Step 2(Constant) <0.001R2 = 0.24; ΔR2 = 0.02; p < 0.05
Pressure0.325.061<0.001
Top-management beliefs0.152.311<0.05
Staff teleworking0.142.320<0.05
Step 3(Constant) <0.001R2 = 0.25; ΔR2 = 0.005; p = 0.169
Pressure0.314.644<0.001
Top-management beliefs0.152.319<0.05
Staff teleworking0.142.217<0.05
More than 5000 employees0.081.4260.155
Private sector−0.08−1.4770.141
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dolce, V.; Dubouloz, S.; Desmarais, C.; Tremblay, D.-G.; Ghislieri, C. When in Rome, Work from Home? How Organizations Regulate Remote Work in Italy, France, Switzerland, and Quebec. Soc. Sci. 2026, 15, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020093

AMA Style

Dolce V, Dubouloz S, Desmarais C, Tremblay D-G, Ghislieri C. When in Rome, Work from Home? How Organizations Regulate Remote Work in Italy, France, Switzerland, and Quebec. Social Sciences. 2026; 15(2):93. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dolce, Valentina, Sandra Dubouloz, Céline Desmarais, Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay, and Chiara Ghislieri. 2026. "When in Rome, Work from Home? How Organizations Regulate Remote Work in Italy, France, Switzerland, and Quebec" Social Sciences 15, no. 2: 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020093

APA Style

Dolce, V., Dubouloz, S., Desmarais, C., Tremblay, D.-G., & Ghislieri, C. (2026). When in Rome, Work from Home? How Organizations Regulate Remote Work in Italy, France, Switzerland, and Quebec. Social Sciences, 15(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020093

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop