LEGAL VIEW
6 JUNE 2022
THE OFFICE IS BEING
REPURPOSED ON A GLOBAL
SCALE FINDS ISS SURVEY
A new global survey by ISS has
found employee engagement is
now the top priority for global
businesses with nearly two-thirds
(62 per cent) of respondents saying
they are investing in their o ices.
The survey also found that the
majority of companies (69 per cent)
have no plans to reduce o ice space
while those which do plan to reduce
are at the same time investing
significantly in enabling better innovation and collaboration among their
employees. All in all, the o ice is being “repurposed on a global scale”.
The findings are taken from a new survey conducted by ISS, a leading
workplace and facility management company, of 100 of its global customers in a
range of professional, technology and industrial sectors, including some of the
world’s largest banks and professional services firms. The insights are estimated
to represent over a million o ice-based employees worldwide.
Workplace priorities have changed significantly for businesses over the past
two years. Pre-COVID, operational e iciency and cost savings were two of
companies’ most prioritised outcomes for o ice planning and decision making.
Today, however, employee engagement is at the top, while talent attraction has
also become a new priority in the top five.
To reach their people-focused goals, the majority of companies have chosen
to invest in their workplace o erings by upgrading their facilities, o ice
environment and employee experiences – primarily to enable better innovation
and collaboration by employees, to attract people to the o ice and to enhance
the sense of belonging.
The survey also shows that 69 per cent of the companies are either expanding
their o ice space, redesigning or keeping what they have or are undecided,
while 31 per cent have decided to reduce it. However, the latter group, is also the
one that will invest the most in upgrading the workplace.
REPUTATION IS KEY. HOW
ORGANISATIONS SHOULD
BE DEALING WITH
NEGATIVE SOCIAL MEDIA
Pauline Lépissier, Solicitor at
Devonshires law fi rm
A company’s reputation is one of its key assets. With many now
taking to the internet to voice their opinions on businesses, I
am seeing an increase in clients seeking my assistance with
protecting them against the potential damage of negative online
posts.
Sometimes it is a simple matter of customer service, if a
dissatisfi ed user raises a genuine issue. It is advisable to have
trained individuals to deal with these matters.
Other times however, an individual decides to publish
negative falsehoods about a company. The law can help in
these situations. As a simplistic summary, libel (which refers to
written statements, as opposed to verbal slander) involves the
publishing of a statement about your company which lowers it
in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally
and which is likely to cause serious fi nancial loss. Defences to
a claim include that the statement is substantially true, that it
constitutes honest opinion, or that the publication was a matter
of public interest.
As many who have been following the “Wagatha Christie” trial
have realised, while any litigation is risky, defamation cases can
be particularly so. Although a successful claim can fully vindicate
a defamed claimant and clear their name, there is also the risk
of doing more damage to your reputation by airing your dirty
laundry in a very public fashion. Of course, sometimes litigation
becomes the only option.
Equally, there are many things that can be done before you get
to this point. Setting out a prospective claim against the authors
of defamatory posts or reviews in a letter before action can allow
you to negotiate that they take it down, or some other remedy
such as a correction.
Liaising with the website operator or social media platform
can at times assist. Such operators generally have a defence
against claims in defamation if they are not the author, provided
they have not acted with malice. However, they are much
more receptive to complaints that a statement breaches their
guidelines, for example if it promotes hateful conduct.
You are also not powerless against anonymous online trolls. If
you do not have details for the author of a defamatory statement,
there is a process under applicable regulations that operators
can be convinced to follow if you can show that the statements
are defamatory and false. On receipt of a notice in a specifi ed
form, operators must within 48 hours either remove the post
if they do not have contact details for its author, or notify the
poster that it will be removed if they fail to provide their contact
details to the operator within fi ve days. Unfortunately, they do
not have to agree to their details being shared with you, but the
process itself may show those hiding behind anonymity that the
company is willing to take action. Operators who do not follow
this process can lose their defence to claims in defamation.
If that does not work, Court applications can assist, such as
those for a “Norwich Pharmacal Order” requiring the operator
to disclose documentation in their possession with identifying
information. This is a fairly quick process which operators often
do not contest so that the application can be dealt with without
a hearing.
In one case I dealt with, a disgruntled former employee had
set up an anonymous defamatory “hate group” on Facebook
against my client. We obtained a ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’
against Facebook, who provided us with documents identifying
the individual behind it, and told him that they had done so. The
individual took the group down once he was found out.
In the most extreme cases where correcting the record is more
important than receiving damages, claims can be issued against
“persons unknown”.
In short, there are ways to protect your business against
defamatory online posts. It is not always easy and very casespecifi
c, but it is always worth seeking advice to see if anything
can or should be done.
www.devonshires.com
BCO CALLS FOR THE URGENT
NEED TO INVEST IN DESIGN FOR
NEURODIVERSITY
The British Council for O ices (BCO) has launched a research report: ‘Designing
for Neurodiversity’ which examines how the neurodiverse community remains
underserved and o en unsupported in the current employment ecosystem and
as a result is hinder wellbeing.
A significant principle of neurodiversity is the belief that it is not the pathology of
the condition that causes barriers to societal inclusion or causes a disability; rather, it
is the socio-cultural architecture of a society that is only equipped to support a small
range of variability. Understanding the di erence can help create a new framework for
approaching design, and the ability to make society more just and inclusive.
The report (https://www.bco.org.uk/Research/Publications/Designing_for_
Neurodiversity.aspx) outlines the considerations that built environment practitioners
can take to make o ices enabling environments, and the crucial role of more inclusive
designs. It integrates the health aspects of an o ice environment with how these a ect
access to employment for those who identify as neurodiverse. Specifically, defining an
enabling work environment to be one that supports the mental, social, psychological,
and physical health of those inhabiting the space.
As well as considering the characteristics that make an enabling environment, BCO
says it is important to consider that like all communities, the neurodiverse community is
complex and contains a wide range of people with a wide range of needs. Therefore, each
o ice space is an opportunity to build a unique and nuanced relationship with people
who will inhabit that space. The report highlights that this starts with creating a set of
methods that will delineate how the design team, client and employees will engage in an
equitable collaboration with the purpose of creating an enabling environment.
NEWS & ANALYSIS FMJ.CO.UK
/www.devonshires.com
/Designing_for_Neurodiversity.aspx
