As France debates the “end of the golden age of remote work”, both workers andemployers face growing confusion: are today’s working from home practices really compatible with emerging work habits in in the public and private employment sectors — and more importantly, with the law? New research suggests that legal uncertainty does not empower HR managers to innovate. Instead, it pushes them to take on extra responsibilities that weren’t in their job description.Could unclear regulations be the “silent killer” of innovation in remote-work strategies? Recent research carried out in Kazakhstan’s technical-gas industry during the healthcare crisis offers an unexpected insight from Central Asia that might shed light on the situation in France. Although far removed from the French context, the case study offers some universal common ground: when regulations lag behind reality, remote-work policies become fragile, inconsistent, and difficult to innovate. A climate of doubt – on both sides of the employment relationshipRecent articles in The Conversation highlighted the questions that have dominated public debate since early 2024, when several major tech firms in the US publicly rolled back their remote work policies. In Europe, Danish firm [Novo Nordisk] ended remote jobs after massive layoffs, while in France, workers went on strike to protest over reduced remote work]. The result: a widespread sense of uncertainty. Employers wonder whether remote work truly maintains productivity, and whether offering it to some workers (for example, administrative staff) but not others (such as plant workers) creates new inequalities.In the meantime, employees are unsure about how they are monitored, how much data is collected, and whether remote work places them at greater risk of job loss.France, grappling with these tensions, can learn from countries where legal uncertainty has long shaped HR decisions. During the Covid-19 crisis, Kazakhstan faced a similar fog surrounding unclear rules and shifting expectations around remote work — and the lessons are telling.Improvised solutions and the limits of ‘empowerment’In this climate of uncertainty, companies often resort to improvised and sometimes intrusive practices. Some managers judge employee performance through teams’ connection status. Others rely on constant connectivity, webcam checks, or software tracking mouse or keyboard movements. And many fall back on “management by objectives,” asking employees to retroactively justify their work.Training exists to help managers navigate these new modes of work but it is often described as superficial, sometimes delivered by people who do not remote work themselves.In these moments of ambiguity, a familiar concept resurfaces: empowerment. The assumption is that frontline workers “know best”, and should therefore make autonomous decisions. While autonomy can indeed boost productivity and satisfaction, it also brings risks: blurred work–life boundaries, difficulty disconnecting, and increased stress. More importantly, the rhetoric of empowerment may hide a deeper issue: it shifts responsibility downward, asking employees and HR teams to fill the gaps left by insufficient or outdated regulations.When unclear laws block innovationThis is where the Kazakhstan study I conducted with my fellow researcher Meruyert Ibraimova offers crucial takeaways. Our research shows that when labour law is vague or overly rigid, as may currently be the case in France, companies struggle to modernise their HR practices, especially during crises.Unclear employment regulation has several consequences:1) It slows innovation, precisely when organisations need agility.2) It pushes HR teams into defensive decision-making, focused on avoidinglegal mistakes rather than rethinking work.3) It can even force professionals to take legal risks, stretching or bypassing norms simply to keep operations running.For example, our research demonstrates how during Kazakhstan’s healthcare crisis, the absence of clear rules on employee presence forced HR managers to improvise.With no legal guidance on who could work remotely and who had to remain on-site, some plant workers were required to ensure the production of oxygen and other gases, while blue-collar employees stayed at home. These decisions disrupted principles of workplace equity and put the organisation at risk legally but were made to enable employees to maintain life-saving activities. Similarly, the managers had to make executive decisions on whether oxygen would be exported to long-term strategic clients, or local hospitals. Instead of empowering HR managers, these examples show how they are obliged to take on responsibilities and absorb the burden of inadequate laws, thus bearing risks that should be shared or eliminated through clearer regulation. France at a crossroadsWhile today’s debates often lament the “lack of innovation” in remote-work practices, the obstacle may not lie in managerial creativity or employee willingness. The real bottleneck may be legal uncertainty itself.If France wants to move past improvised monitoring systems, inconsistent rules, and growing mistrust, it must address the underlying issue: its remote work regulation is out of sync with the realities of digital working practices. Despite that, examples of innovative remote-friendly working approaches exist. WeProov, one of Europe’s leading app-based providers of digital vehicle inspection solutions, attracts unique talent by enabling employees to work from anywhere in the world ,and invests in trimestrial team-building sessions to support group cohesion.In Japan, Microsoft’s Work Life Choice Challenge rethought how work was organised and measured, from 4-day working weeks without decreasing the pay to data-driven measurement of productivity rather than presence in the workplace.Without a clearer framework, companies will continue to experiment in isolation, workers will remain unsure of their rights, and HR teams will bear disproportionate responsibility. As a result, “innovation,” the kind that makes remote work sustainable, equitable, and productive, will remain dangerously out of reach. A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!Kseniya Navazhylava ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.