A study published in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, by Centre for Business Innovations & Sustainable Solutions (CBISS) Director, Professor Sukanlaya Sawang and her colleagues at Queensland University of Technology, Australia (Dr Rebecca Langdon, Professor Lisa Bradley, Professor Cameron Newton),  explores the role of social capital and social support in the mental health of infrastructure workers. The research highlights a crucial opportunity for infrastructure organisations to play a more active role in supporting distressed workers. Infrastructure sectors such as construction, mining, and energy experience disproportionately high levels of psychological distress and suicide risk. The paper reports alarming figures: close to 30% of workers surveyed fell into the severe psychological distress category, and suicide rates in infrastructure remain significantly higher than national averages.

What the Research Found

The study’s key insight is both surprising and deeply concerning:

Distressed workers actually reported having more social connections than non-distressed workers – yet they were receiving less meaningful support when they needed it.

In other words, having lots of contacts (social capital) does not guarantee access to real support. Many workers with high distress are not leveraging their networks to get emotional, practical, or informational help.

One finding particularly relevant to employers is that some distressed workers were more likely to turn to work colleagues than to partners or family members for support, especially for emotional or companionship needs. This opens a significant window for organisational intervention.

Why This Matters

The research reinforces that traditional approaches focusing only on individual coping skills or resilience training are insufficient. Prior studies have already shown that isolated resilience programmes do little to shift mental health outcomes in construction workers.

Instead, the authors argue for a multi-level intervention strategy that includes:

• workplace-level environmental changes,

• individual-level support, and

• access to treatment pathways.

This paper contributes to the second layer—building support through peer relationships.

Reflection

This research challenges common assumptions that “people just need to reach out more” or “bigger networks equals better support.” The evidence suggests that many distressed workers feel unable—or unwilling—to draw support from those closest to them, possibly due to:

• fear of burdening family,

• lack of emotional communication skills,

• stigma around vulnerability,

• long working hours and time spent away from home.

Workplaces where workers spend most of their time may therefore be one of the most viable environments to intervene. The construction site, depot, workshop, or engineering office could become a protective space rather than a risk environment.

What Can Industry Do? Practical Recommendations

Based on the evidence presented, there are several actionable steps organisations can take:

1. Invest in peer-support capability

Training programmes such as mental health first aid, connector training, or peer-listener models can equip workers with skills in empathy, active listening, and identifying risk. This doesn’t replace therapists—it opens the door to them.

2. Build structured social connection opportunities

Simple practices such as planned team check-ins, buddy systems, and safe spaces for discussion can break down barriers that stigma reinforces.

3. Recognise the role of supervisors

Supervisors and managers should be supported to develop psychologically safe communication skills—not just technical leadership.

4. Consider flexible policies supporting work-life balance

Many workers struggle because they are physically and emotionally distant from family support networks. Adjusting rostering and remote work patterns where possible may improve coping capacity.

5. Monitor outcomes, not participation

Tick-box wellbeing initiatives without cultural change risk worsening stigma. Evidence-based evaluation is key.

Looking Ahead

Industrial environments pride themselves on safety. Yet mental health safety is often treated differently from physical safety. This research makes clear that if workplaces develop stronger support mechanisms through colleague relationships, they could significantly reduce distress and ultimately save lives.

At CBISS, we believe this work offers an opportunity to rethink how organisational cultures nurture belonging, connection, and humanity—particularly in high-risk sectors. Social capital already exists in abundance. Now we need to ensure it is activated and accessible.

A new law in Greece now allows private-sector employees to work up to 13 hours a day, promoted as a modern model of flexibility and economic growth. In a recent article, Dr Eleni Papagiannaki, our CBISS Theme Lead for Business Innovation and Future Workforce, discusses how this reform risks dismantling the long-established eight-hour working day and highlights the broader implications for labour rights and wellbeing across Europe.

Although presented as voluntary and fairly compensated, the change threatens to normalise extreme working conditions. Greece already records the highest working hours in Europe — around 1,900 hours per year, significantly more than in the UK or Germany — yet wages and productivity remain low. Instead of addressing stagnant pay and weak bargaining power, the policy effectively stretches time rather than income, placing additional pressure on workers.

Survey findings show overwhelming resistance: 94% of workers support shorter working hours without pay cuts, and 60% oppose the 13-hour day outright, with many pointing out that “voluntary” becomes meaningless under economic hardship.

This trend extends beyond Greece. Rising unpaid overtime in healthcare, intense logistics and warehouse schedules, and calls from parts of the tech sector for 60-hour workweeks reflect a wider shift: the slow and quiet normalisation of overwork in the name of flexibility and productivity.

The key question becomes:
What kind of future of work do we want to build?
A future built on exhaustion — or a future rooted in dignity, wellbeing and meaningful time?

CBISS: Building a Different Vision of Work

At the Centre for Business Innovation & Sustainable Solutions (CBISS) at Edinburgh Napier University, research focuses on shaping fair, ethical and sustainable work futures. CBISS works with partners across sectors to:

• rethink work and productivity beyond long-hours models

• explore responsible innovation and AI-enabled workforce transformation

• strengthen fair work, equity and wellbeing across communities

• turn evidence into practical frameworks and policies

The Greek case is a timely reminder of why these conversations matter — and why research, dialogue and public engagement are essential.

For readers interested in the full analysis of the legal, social and economic implications, the complete article can be read here.

At CBISS, we are proud to celebrate the recent contributions of our member and them lead Eleni Papagiannaki to the Good Work Monitor Time Series – an ambitious and impactful project led by the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW). This work sits at the intersection of policy, data, and human-centred innovation, offering vital insights into how good work—and access to it—shapes social and economic resilience across the UK.

Why Good Work Matters More Than Ever

Access to good work is not just about employment. It’s about dignity, fair pay, supportive conditions, personal autonomy, and opportunities for growth. As Eleni and the IFOW team highlight, good work offers a vital buffer against social, health, and economic shocks—and equips communities to adapt to disruptive forces like AI and automation.

While UK employment levels remain relatively steady according to the latest ONS data, the quality of work varies significantly across the country. Through longitudinal analysis from 2009 to 2024, the Good Work Monitor paints a clear picture: geographic inequalities are widening, and the polarising effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and technological change risk becoming entrenched.

Key Insights from the Monitor

Eleni’s work on this project has helped bring attention to some crucial findings:

• Regional Disparities Persist: Areas like London continue to show high professional job concentration and median pay—but also signs of work intensification and poor work-life balance. In contrast, Scotland appears to offer a more balanced picture, with weaker links between pay and unsatisfactory hours.

• Technology’s Uneven Impact: Rather than bridging gaps, accelerated tech adoption may have worsened regional inequalities, benefiting already high-performing areas and leaving others behind. This raises questions about how AI and automation can be harnessed to create—not destroy—equitable opportunities.

• Pay and Productivity Challenges: Real wages remain low across many regions when adjusted for cost of living. At the same time, productivity growth is highly concentrated in the South East, raising concerns about unequal innovation spillovers from the so-called “golden triangle”.

From Data to Action: Policy Recommendations

What sets this work apart is not just the diagnosis of the problem, but the practical pathways it suggests:

• Better Metrics for Better Policy: The Good Work Monitor and the Disruption Index should form the foundation of a more consistent, evidence-based approach to good work, productivity, and technological change—across all UK nations and regions.

• Place-Based Investment Strategies: Funding for skills and jobs must be targeted where they are most needed, and local authorities should be empowered with better data to design tailored responses.

• Recentring Growth on Human Capabilities: Rather than focusing solely on technological capability, the Industrial Strategy should place greater emphasis on human values, agency, and job quality—ensuring that innovation and inclusivity go hand-in-hand.

• Learning from Scotland and Beyond: The strong performance of Scotland in the Monitor offers lessons for how joined-up policy approaches can create more resilient regional economies. In contrast, policy in England and Wales should work towards more coherent skills and capabilities frameworks that prioritise long-term access to good work.

CBISS and the Future of Work

At CBISS, we believe in research that informs real-world change. Eleni’s work exemplifies our mission—connecting data, policy, and innovation to address urgent societal challenges. Her contribution to the Good Work Monitor supports a broader vision: one where future work is shaped by fairness, sustainability, and the active inclusion of all communities in technological progress.

We look forward to continuing this conversation—and to working with researchers, policymakers, and communities to shape a future of work that leaves no one behind.

Explore the Interactive Good Work Monitor: access here