Employees

A deluge of articles, reports and standards about stress: everyone's at it from IKEA to the EU. We are in the grip of a stress epidemic but the prescriptions for recovery seem pretty feeble. It's a bit like going to the doctor's with a broken leg and being offered an aspirin. What is missing is a proper debate about why the volume of stress in work and society has risen. Prescription must follow diagnosis.

Why was stress less of a problem 30 years ago? After all we had double-digit inflation, strikes and power cuts. Why a stress epidemic now rather than then? Three main changes stand out. First, though we are now better off, increased prosperity has been accompanied by increased job insecurity. Workforces have been restructured, long-standing industries vaporised and pension schemes wound up. Insecurity adds to stress.

Second, the workforce has been feminised, raising childcare pressures on both women and (at least in theory) men. Caring responsibilities add further stress.

Third, the e-revolution means things can be done instantaneously, considerably increasing the intensity of work. No escaping demands from head office now they can track you down at any time on your mobile or Blackberry. Add to these three a peculiarly Anglo-American factor: increased productivity has been achieved by working longer rather than working smarter.

So can anything really be done? Let's not kid ourselves: stress is structural and is here to stay. Meanwhile, CSR managers should be careful about trumpeting flexible working in their social reports as an indicator of equal opportunity and diversity. Yes, it can help some employees to achieve a better balance. But it cuts employers' costs and makes work more intrusive. If we want a real indicator, why not survey staff and publish their views on who gains from flexibility?