Certification and practices of psychosocial risks prevention: from institutional experts to political experts

Abstract

This article seeks to analyze a certification method for psychosocial risks (PRS) prevention consultants and to compare it to the actual practices of these new expert figures. Both a complex and strategic field of knowledge, PSR are vague in terms of conceptual scope and terminology: on the one hand, they may be seen through a restrictive approach which individualizes risk, limiting the employer’s responsibility thereof and thus focusing on treating the employee; and on the other, through a wider approach encompassing the organizational dimension of the risk, extending the employer’s responsibility and thus focusing on treating the work and its organization. This double understanding, combined with the power plays and struggles between employers and staff representatives as well as with the hyper mediatization of these new professional risks (musculoskeletal disorders, burnout, harassment, etc.) has progressively given external consultants a central place, with the gradual creation of a market for advice and expertise in PSR prevention. Our exploratory study carried out within the consultants’ network i3r PACA with a tri-institutional coordination (DIRECCTE, CARSAT, ARACT), has first enabled us to study a certification method for consultants: the “i3r PACA” certification, giving birth to the institutional expert in PSR. Secondly, we interviewed 31 consultants from this network (out of 33) about their co-constructive, adaptative and/or militant prevention practices, which put the emphasis on the figure of the political expert. Our discussion will focus on questioning the new and hybrid forms between institutional expert and political expert, in particular with regard to the commodification of PSR guidance and expertise.