Introduction: smart working, work-related stress and internal communication
In recent years, smart working has shifted from an emergency solution to a stable way of organizing work. In many companies—especially in the service sector—a significant share of activities is carried out remotely, with distributed teams, online meetings and always-on digital tools.
From a workplace health and safety perspective, however, one fundamental principle does not change: the employer must assess all risks, including work-related stress, even when work is performed from home or in a hybrid mode. Within this framework, the tools made available by INAIL for the assessment and management of work-related stress risk are also useful; in recent years they have been updated to take into account remote working dynamics and technological innovation.
In theory, everything is clear. In practice, many critical issues do not stem from major traumatic events, but from something far more everyday: chaotic, fragmented internal communication with no clear rules, which ends up fueling stress instead of managing it.
If you need a deeper overview to better frame the topic, you can read the article: smart working: what it is and what changes.
Rather than discussing it in abstract terms, let’s look at a real-life case (appropriately anonymized) in which the management of internal communication in smart working shifted from a risk factor to a concrete lever for prevention and for improving organizational well-being.
Before the change: when internal communication makes smart working worse
The organization in this case is a mid-sized digital services company. The workforce is predominantly young, accustomed to cloud tools and online meetings, and largely able to work remotely.
From a formal standpoint, workplace health and safety is managed: the risk assessment document (DVR) is up to date, the work-related stress assessment was carried out two years earlier, basic training has been delivered, and the RSPP and Occupational Physician are appointed. In short, the regulatory framework exists (and for those who want a general overview, the article on workplace safety and the Consolidated Act may be helpful). In everyday operations, however, things are less orderly.
Internal communication is the real weak point. Information flows simultaneously via email, multiple chats, informal groups, and sometimes voice notes sent “on the fly.” Urgent requests often arrive in the evening or over the weekend, without a stable distinction between what is truly a priority and what could wait. Online meetings are scheduled on short notice and not infrequently overlap. Project goals also change frequently without a structured moment to redefine priorities and workloads.
Those working remotely feel they must always be “on,” with notifications arriving at any time and a constant fear of missing important information. Some begin to report difficulty concentrating, mental fatigue and irritability; others simply stop speaking up during meetings, become quieter and limit themselves to executing tasks.
Yet, on paper, the work-related stress item in the DVR is marked as assessed and no elements emerge that would require an immediate revision. The signals are there, but scattered: slightly higher absenteeism, small conflicts between teams, venting messages in chat. No one truly connects them to how the company communicates and organizes work in smart working.
The warning sign: a concrete case of work-related stress in smart working
Things change when an employee requests an extraordinary medical check-up with the Occupational Physician, explaining that they are experiencing significant stress linked to remote work. They report sleeping poorly, continuously checking chats for fear of missing information, struggling to switch off at the end of the day, and feeling a constant conflict between work requests and family life—especially when communications arrive at unpredictable hours.
During the interview, several elements emerge: emails and messages flagged as urgent sent late at night, an implicit expectation of very rapid responses, meetings scheduled without considering existing calendar commitments, and very tight deadlines set by one department and shared with others only “for information.” The employee is not complaining only about workload, but above all about the feeling of never being able to lower their guard.
The Occupational Physician, while protecting the person’s confidentiality, informs the employer and the RSPP that the picture is not limited to an individual case but reflects widespread organizational issues. In parallel, it is useful to remember that guidance on assessing work-related stress risk has also been clarified at an institutional level (for example, through the Italian Ministry of Labour’s circular letter of 18 November 2010), and that the assessment cannot remain a one-off “snapshot” if the organization of work changes.
At that point, management realizes that what is written in the DVR about work-related stress no longer represents the reality experienced by those working in smart working. It is time to stop, take a more accurate picture, and restart from a work-related stress assessment that is connected to concrete measures.
From the problem to the plan: how internal communication becomes a prevention measure
The first decision shared by the employer, RSPP, HR and Occupational Physician is to listen before deciding on solutions. A short internal survey on work-related stress in smart working is therefore launched, with targeted questions about the clarity of objectives, workload management, work–life balance, the quality of internal communication, and perceived support from managers.
In parallel, two small-group discussions are organized: one with employees who carry out most of their work remotely, and the other with coordination roles. The goal is not to assign blame, but to understand how each person experiences daily communication and which behaviors generate the most strain.
From the analysis of the questionnaires and focus groups, some recurring patterns emerge: managers believe they offer great flexibility, while employees perceive continuous availability; important information is scattered across different tools; there are no shared criteria to distinguish urgencies from routine activities; and there are no dedicated spaces to discuss work organization and well-being, separate from operational meetings.
At this point, the company decides to treat internal communication as a real prevention measure within its safety strategy, not as an accessory topic. This step is also made “traceable” by updating the Risk Assessment Document (DVR) in a way that is consistent with what is truly changing within the organization.
Some very concrete choices are introduced:
• redefining the times when non-urgent communications can be sent, systematically avoiding late evenings and weekends, and clarifying that messages sent outside the agreed time window do not require an immediate response;
• clearly distinguishing between the channel used for team operational communications and the one reserved for genuine urgencies, with precise criteria to define what truly falls into that category;
• scheduling meetings with a minimum notice period, a concise shared agenda and a defined duration, limiting overlaps and setting specific moments for questions and clarifications;
• periodically introducing brief moments dedicated to workloads and the quality of collaboration in smart working, not only to project progress;
• updating the DVR so that the section on smart working explicitly connects the psychosocial risks that emerged to the new internal communication measures and to the management of connection/disconnection times.
These are simple but coherent organizational choices that make the link between workplace safety in smart working and the quality of communication tangible, moving from a purely document-based approach to effective prevention.
The results: what changed after a few months
After about six months, the company decides to verify the effects of the changes introduced, using both organizational indicators and employee feedback.
Managers observe a clear reduction in communications sent outside working hours and a decrease in requests labeled as urgent without a real reason. Many employees report feeling more in control of their time, thanks to clearer objectives and a more orderly flow of messages. During team meetings, organizational difficulties start to emerge earlier, and are addressed and redistributed instead of turning into silent discomfort.
Requests for extraordinary medical checks related to stress do not disappear, but they occur more often at an early stage, when it is still possible to intervene with adjustments to workloads and priority management. This allows the Occupational Physician and the company to address situations that are still manageable, rather than facing only cases that have already become chronic.
An interesting effect also concerns the perception of isolation: some typical remote-work dynamics (limited interaction, difficulty asking for support “in real time,” feeling left alone to manage problems and priorities) partly resemble the logic of assessing lone-working risk, even in a digital context. As a result, the company strengthens certain coordination and feedback routines precisely to reduce that “operational isolation” which, combined with implicit availability, was amplifying stress.
From a documentation standpoint, the DVR is updated once again, more precisely including references to agile working arrangements and the organizational measures adopted on communication. Actions related to managing information flows become an integral part of preventing work-related stress, rather than a marginal note.
Above all, the way the topic is discussed changes: talking about organizational well-being and workplace safety is no longer perceived as a task detached from daily operations, but as a normal part of managing work—even when working remotely.
Operational takeaways: what we can learn from this case
In organizations that widely adopt agile working, internal communication is a key factor in preventing work-related stress and protecting safety, with impacts also on efficiency and overall cost-effectiveness. Disordered information flows increase errors and costs, while clear and coherent communication management—integrated into the assessment of psychosocial risks—contributes to a more sustainable organization. Working on communication in smart working is therefore a prevention measure that strengthens the safety culture and supports the achievement of business goals without undermining people’s well-being.
Do you need to carry out the work-related stress risk assessment in your company or update it?
Safetyone Ingegneria Srl, thanks to its twenty years of experience in the sector, is able to provide you with a fast, cost-effective, and professional service. Contact us now to request our support