Solidarity at work: a massive expectation, initially focused on the individual and mutual aid at work
Long considered an implicit part of working life, solidarity now appears as an explicit expectation and a widely shared normative benchmark. Employees associate it first and foremost with a close-knit collective: “mutual aid and team spirit” clearly dominate (84% of mentions), and “help between colleagues” alone is the most cited item (60%), far ahead of “teamwork / cooperation” (19%) and “moral support / benevolence” (13%). References to broader human and relational values (empathy, listening, inclusion, respect for differences) remain secondary, accounting for only around 7% of evocations, before a series of more minority items. Organized solidarity” and “collective commitment and trade unionism” garner only 4% and 2% of spontaneous quotations respectively, indicating a trend towards collective commitment within the company taking a back seat to individual well-being in the workplace.
When we switch from an open to a closed question approach, this hierarchy is confirmed: day-to-day mutual aid comes out on top by a wide margin (82% of quotations, with 65% in first place), followed by “a good working climate and respect” (53% overall, 14% in first place), far ahead of “helping employees in difficulty” (29%) and “integrating vulnerable people” (18%).
… but of limited intensity in employees’ experience
Against this backdrop, a tension emerges between expectations and practices: 60% of employees say they need “more solidarity” in their daily work lives. While 69% feel that solidarity between colleagues exists in their company, only 16% consider it to be “very present”, reflecting a lack of intensity rather than an absence of mutual aid. The perception varies with age: “very present” solidarity is more frequently cited by 15-29 year-olds (23%) than by 50-59 year-olds (9%)
The same discrepancy is found on the question of support in difficult situations: 71% of employees say they feel supported by their colleagues, but only 16% say they are “completely” supported. Here again, the intensity of declared support decreases with age (19% “completely” in the 15-29 age group, compared with 9-10% in the 50+ age group). In other words, solidarity is indeed recognized as existing, but only very rarely does it reach a level of robustness deemed sufficient to cope with the most serious difficulties.
The concrete acts of solidarity declared confirm this pattern: the most frequent behaviors concern operational mutual aid and little helps: 60% of employees have already worked overtime to replace a colleague in difficulty, 46% have already offered lunch to a colleague and 45% have already taken part in a collection to help someone. Next come more material gestures (32% have already brought clothes or objects for a colleague in need, 25% have already lent money). On the other hand, gestures involving a high personal cost are still in the minority: only 14% say they have ever given temporary shelter to a colleague. The under-40s are slightly more inclined to make certain gestures (51% vs. 41% for help with lunch; 16% vs. 12% for lodging), which suggests different thresholds of commitment for different ages. These results describe a solidarity that is largely consensual in principle, often practiced in its most accessible and least engaging forms, but more rarely converted into lasting collective responses when the difficulty goes beyond one-off mutual aid.
The social commitment of companies is perceived rather favorably, but the measures put in place are not very engaging
The overall view of the company as a social player is positive, though not overwhelmingly enthusiastic: 59% of employees feel that their company is socially committed, but only 10% consider it “very committed”. Younger employees (aged 15-29) are more likely to consider their company “very committed” (14%) than older employees (3% among those aged 60 and over). In reality, less than one company in two is perceived as implementing solidarity initiatives (47%). There is a clear difference according to size: 54% of employees in organizations with 500 or more employees declare the existence of initiatives, compared with 41% in structures with fewer than 500 employees. In addition, there is a socio-professional gradient: 59% of managers and upper-intermediary professions mention actions set up by their company, compared with 41% to 44% of white-collar and blue-collar workers. This uneven spread suggests that social commitment, where it exists, is more visible and/or institutionalized in larger structures and for those categories most connected to in-house schemes (executives)
When actions do exist, they are concentrated on formats that are relatively simple to deploy: regular collections (42%), financial or material donations to associations (38%), environmental solidarity actions (35%). More time- and organization-intensive formats are less widespread: dedicated solidarity days (25%) and skills sponsorship (19%). Among employees, 38% say they have already taken part in a solidarity action in a professional context. Involvement is more frequent among managers (47%) and younger employees (44% in the 15-29 age bracket versus 21% in the 60+ age bracket), which may reflect better access to information, more opportunities and different generational attitudes to commitment.
It should be noted that the intensity of the feeling of support varies greatly according to the company’s image of social commitment: the proportion of employees saying they are “completely supported” reaches 49% in companies judged to be “very committed”, compared with just 6% in those considered to be non-committed. This association suggests that social commitment policies can reinforce a protective relational climate and a feeling of internal cohesion within the company.
Employees’ expectations in terms of solidarity actions are mainly turned towards themselves
The hierarchy of expressed expectations sheds light on how employees redefine the company’s desirable social commitment. Priority is given to internalized solidarity, focused on protecting and supporting employees themselves, rather than externally-oriented actions. The two most frequently cited expectations are for greater psychological and social support (46% overall; 28% first) and the creation of an internal solidarity fund (36%). Next come concrete environmental actions (34%), welcoming and integrating people who are far from employment (22%), then forms of commitment during working hours (21% for volunteer days). Women more often cite psychological support first (34% vs. 22% for men), as do employees in the public sector (40% vs. 24% in the private sector), reflecting a strong expectation for reassurance and support in often constrained professional contexts. In short, the company is expected not only to “do good” externally, but above all to act as a safety net for its own teams.
Employees’ view ofprecariousnessandhomelessness is imbued with a sense of injustice, but is also marked by certain prejudices
The relationship with job insecurity is a mixture of strong moral indignation and ambivalent representations. Employees overwhelmingly find situations of job insecurity unacceptable: 88% condemn a permanent employee sleeping in his car for lack of affordable accommodation, 86% empty company premises, heated and lit at night while people sleep outside, and 83% a temporary worker without paid leave or health cover. Even “grey” cases are problematized: 79% find the closure of a loss-making site unacceptable, putting families at risk, and 70% find it unacceptable when a mother refuses a promotion because she has to look after her children
When it comes to homeless people, an indignant vision coupled with certain prejudices emerges: 84% recognize that a brutal event can lead to the street, 43% that many of these people have a job, but 33% still think that “they could get by if they really wanted to”, 31% see them as a security risk, 25% attribute their homeless situation to “bad choices” and 19% find that they benefit from an “excess of solidarity”. Men are more likely to support the idea of “if they really wanted it” (39% vs. 28% for women), with sectoral differences (up to 44% in the service-commerce sector)
The idea of opening company premises at night to accommodate a homeless person is strongly supported, despite a low level of awareness (30% are aware of such schemes, 42% among participants in solidarity actions, 46% among “very committed” companies). 78% are in favor of setting up this scheme in their company (25% “completely”, 53% “rather”), especially among 15-29 year-olds and those aged 65 and over (32% “completely”) and those who perceive a strong commitment from their company (41% “completely” vs. 23% in “not committed” companies). Among the most frequently cited motivations, 90% consider it to be a concrete and useful action, 83% believe it enhances the company’s image, and 62% see it as having the potential to create cohesion among employees. On the reservations expressed: 76% think that it is primarily the role of the State, and 72% that it entails security risks. The main obstacles perceived at company level are mostly pragmatic: safety (41% overall, 25% first), unsuitable premises (27%), hygiene concerns (23%) and damage (21%).
Finally, 70% of employees surveyed see a role for companies in the creation of social value, and 48% even think they have a role to play in housing people in precarious situations, a sign that employees have clear expectations of their company in the fight against precariousness.
Solidarity at work emerges as a strong normative expectation, centered on daily interpersonal mutual aid, but remains limited in its intensity. More than half of all employees perceive their companies as socially committed, although their actions are fragmented and their participation is strong but still in the minority. In the face of precariousness, indignation dominates, and openness to innovations such as night-time accommodation for the homeless achieves a large majority of support, held back by practical issues in perceptions. Overall, employees expect more solidarity in their work, a sign of a redefinition of the company as a protective net, where occasional mutual aid and structured commitment must converge to respond to the vulnerabilities of society as a whole.
