- Home
- EN
- Our impact
- ProspeKtive
- What if the problem wasn’t space?
What if the problem wasn’t space?
August 2026
Expert
Whenever the inclusion of people with autism in the workplace is discussed, the same recommendations crop up time and again: reducing noise, controlling lighting, creating quiet spaces, and limiting sensory stimuli. Is this really the crux of the issue? Is it enough simply to redesign the workplace?
Over the past decade or so, the scientific literature on these issues has expanded considerably, to the extent that it suggests a well-designed environment would almost be enough to make an organisation inclusive. Admittedly, this approach is useful, but it overlooks a key aspect. It focuses primarily on people who are able to express their needs, make use of these facilities and develop compensatory strategies. In other words, it describes spaces designed for neuroatypical workers who are, however, relatively independent.
What remains of these certainties when it comes to supporting people with severe autism – who may be non-verbal – combined with an intellectual disability? It is precisely this question that led me to study the work of the VETA association – Vivre et Travailler Autrement. [1] For over ten years, this organisation has been supporting adults considered to be furthest removed from mainstream employment in finding roles within conventional companies (production sites). Its aim is to ensure that these individuals find their place within society and in the world of work. I therefore expected to discover radically transformed workspaces, but this was not the case.
Adjustments have certainly been made, but they are neither extensive nor spectacular. In most cases, they are primarily aimed at making the working environment more straightforward and predictable, notably by minimising sources of distraction and the unexpected, and by ensuring consistent reference points. For example, the tools required to carry out tasks must be easily identifiable and kept in a fixed location. Similarly, clear signage making it easier to locate the various useful areas, as well as the provision of a self-regulation room (of whatever type) where the person can temporarily withdraw from stimuli, help to make the working environment safer for the person with autism. Thus, there should be no broken or newly erected partitions, no soundproofing work, and no colours to be avoided or favoured. However, other preparations are required, this time focusing on the person with autism learning the tasks, management, and the level of information colleagues have about autism. Indeed, even if they are not expected to play an active role in this inclusion, it is essential that they understand exactly what this disability entails and what their social role is when they agree to work alongside a colleague with autism who is considered to have a severe form of the condition.
A particularly interesting finding is that the inclusions achieved through VETA provide valuable insight into the spatial adaptation of these autistic individuals when they have been working in a company for several years. They show that, over time, many of them are able to comfortably navigate environments where noise, crowds and constraints are far from those of a sensorially protected setting (for example, staff canteens). These observations reinforce the idea that disability is situational and that, beyond social isolation, there is a path to dignified and empowering inclusion.
Thus, at VETA, space is never considered in isolation, but is seen as part of a much broader framework. Workstations are adapted where necessary, but this is done in tandem with managerial practices, learning methods, work routines and raising awareness amongst colleagues. Inclusion is not achieved through architecture alone, but through the organisation as a whole.
This is probably where VETA challenges existing research on workspaces. The physical environment matters, of course. But it does not act alone: what makes a space inclusive is not its geometry, acoustics or furniture; it is the organisational system that gives it meaning.
Much of the literature on inclusive spaces assumes that needs lie primarily within the individual and can be addressed through physical adaptations. VETA’s experience shifts this perspective: inclusion is not a property of spaces; it is a property of organisational systems, of which these spaces are merely one component.
[1] Home – Living and working differently
Release date: August 2026