*** The escalating crisis of workplace mental health has placed corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks under intense scrutiny, raising questions about whether they represent genuine care or performative compliance. This article deconstructs the gap between corporate policy and practice through a detailed legal and ethical analysis of the 2024 UK Employment Tribunal judgment in Muir v. AstraZeneca. The case, which found the company liable for unfair dismissal and discrimination, serves as a powerful illustration of how a rigid, process-driven approach can fail to accommodate an employee’s disclosed mental health conditions, leading to significant legal and human costs. The analysis argues that without a supportive and empathetic culture, CSR initiatives risk becoming hollow gestures of “well-being washing.” By examining the distinction between the legal baseline of compliance and the ethical imperative for genuine care, the article concludes that meaningful change requires embedding mental health into core corporate strategy. It suggests that to ensure accountability and move beyond tokenism, the future of effective CSR in this domain may depend on developing more binding frameworks for corporate responsibility. ***
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly amplified mental health challenges on a global scale, making it urgent to strengthen the mental health systems around the globe. Beyond the immediate health crisis, the pandemic triggered widespread social isolation, financial insecurity, grief, and blurred boundaries between home and work life, all of which intensified stress and anxiety for many individuals. It not only introduced new psychological stressors but also disrupted access to support networks, severely worsening existing mental health conditions.[1] While there’s been a lot of discussion around how CSR influences organisational outcomes, its connection to employee mental health is still often brushed aside. In today’s fast-paced work environments, issues like stress, burnout, and anxiety are more relevant than ever, affecting employees across sectors and contributing to significant organisational costs.[2] A study commissioned by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, which surveyed over 27,000 employed workers, found that 44% reported an increase in work-related stress as a result of the pandemic.[3] Nearly 1 in 6 UK workers report severe burnout symptoms, and over 910,000 and 776,000 cases of work-related stress, depression, or anxiety were identified in 2022–23 and 2023–24, respectively.[4]
The case Zoe Kitching v University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (2025)[5] offers a granular view of how even the most well-intentioned written policies can fail, becoming performative gestures rather than tools for genuine support. While the final decision awarded nearly £50,000 to a cleaner who was dismissed after significant sickness absence, what is particularly interesting is the tribunal’s detailed judgment, which reveals a systemic and cultural failure to engage with employee mental health. At the heart of the case was a direct conflict between the Trust’s two competing policies: a standard “Attendance Management at Work Policy” and a progressive “Support and Retention of Disabled Colleagues” policy (the Retention Policy). The Retention Policy was exemplary on paper, stating that for disabled staff, the “management of sickness absence […] will focus on what further adjustments will support the individual” and that “it is reasonable to expect a higher level of absence.” It even mandated a “Health and Well-being Passport” to formally record agreed-upon adjustments. However, the tribunal found that this supportive policy was systematically ignored at every level, and in particular, it observed that:
- Despite Ms. Kitching informing her manager of a bipolar diagnosis in 2019 and multiple Occupational Health reports confirming she was disabled under the Equality Act 2010, the decision-makers at her dismissal and appeal, acting on HR advice, concluded she was not disabled. The tribunal found this decision “irrational and wrong,” noting they had seized on one “curious” OH report to the contrary while ignoring a “wealth of other information.”
- Ms. Kitching requested a reduction in her hours while remaining on her familiar ward, explaining that this would ease the anxiety that made attending work difficult. Her manager refused, citing logistical issues, but later admitted in evidence that she could have trialled the arrangement but simply did not do so.
- Instead of applying the Retention Policy’s principle of tolerating higher absence levels, Ms. Kitching’s manager did the “exact opposite”. She exercised her discretion to impose a target of “zero sickness for the next 3 months”—a standard far stricter than that applied to non-disabled colleagues under the standard policy.
The tribunal concluded that these failures had a profound human cost. It accepted Ms. Kitching’s evidence that the refusal to acknowledge her disability was “very damaging” and had “knocked the wind out of her,” making her feel unheard and ignored. The dismissal was deemed not only unfair and discriminatory but was a decision that “no reasonable employer” would have made, with the tribunal finding there was “no chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed” if the Trust had followed its own supportive policies.
It was calculated that, in the UK, stress, anxiety, and depression caused the loss of 17.1 million working days due to work-related stress, depression, or anxiety in 2022/23.[6] This prevalence raises a critical question: Are companies responding with sincerity, or are CSR strategies becoming instruments of reputational management rather than genuine care? Research shows that there is not much effort being put into addressing stress in workplaces and working environments. 9 out of 10 adults in the UK (91%) reported experiences of high and extreme levels of pressure and stress.[7] In the 2025 report, the results show that one in four people (25%) do not even think that their manager has the necessary skills to support their mental health at work.[8] This article will discuss a 2024 Employment Tribunal’s judgment – Dr James Muir v AstraZeneca UK Ltd, which illustrates that failing to integrate mental health into corporate policies can lead not only to human costs but also to legal liability.
Case Insight: Dr Muir’s Employment Tribunal[9]
Dr. James Muir had been a long-serving senior scientist at AstraZeneca since 1998. From June 2019, colleagues reported a few incidents which the company labelled as “bullying and harassment.” Dr. Muir, previously, had opened up to occupational health June about his long struggle with anxiety and depression, backed up by his GP’s records and medical notes. Late in 2020, AstraZeneca put its Employee Improvement Policy[10] into action without checking in on Dr Muir’s mental wellbeing.
This situation reflects a wider challenge many employers face, i.e., distinguishing genuine misconduct from behaviour influenced by mental health conditions. Under the Equality Act 2010, illnesses like anxiety and depression can be classed as disabilities, which means employers must consider reasonable adjustments before taking disciplinary action. Yet in practice, when signs like missed deadlines or blunt communication are viewed through a purely performance-based lens, there’s a risk that symptoms of mental distress are misread as deliberate or negligent conduct.
A similar issue arose in Dr Muir’s case when the disciplinary panel had summarily dismissed him for “gross misconduct,” focusing solely on missed deadlines and curt communications and completely overlooked the anxiety and depression he had openly shared.
Dr Muir challenged his dismissal before the Employment Tribunal, arguing that the company had failed to take his mental health into account at every stage of the disciplinary process. The Employment Tribunal made it clear that by ignoring his mental health at every step, AstraZeneca broke its duty to keep him safe at work and failed to make the simple adjustments for him resulting in the Company being charged for unfair dismissal and discrimination. It reframed the so-called “misconduct” as potential disability related conduct, requiring reasonable adjustments, not instant dismissal.
The Tribunal noted that AstraZeneca’s management twice failed to follow the ACAS Code[11] by not giving Dr Muir any warning or chance to improve, even after he’d raised his mental health concerns. Because this procedural lapse was both serious and repeated, the Tribunal decided it was fair to increase his compensation by 10% to reflect the added distress caused by those failures and also noted the broader importance of recognising mental health in workplace CSR practices.
The judgment reinforces that policies without enforcement and culture without empathy remain futile.
Culture, Stigma, and the Limits of Policy
In many organisations, mental health remains a private struggle rather than a shared concern, which leads employees to suffer in silence rather than seek help. There has always been a fear among employees that admitting to stress and mental health issues at work will label them as weak or unreliable, and those who did disclose such problems said they faced discrimination at work as a result, causing more people to hide their struggles at work.
A similar pattern emerged in the case Mr G Williams v British Telecommunications PLC.[12] In this instance, a disabled employee won claims for both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after his employer, BT, dismissed him over his attendance record while he was on sick leave for anxiety. The judgment reveals a multi-faceted failure that goes beyond a simple oversight, highlighting the critical flaws in relying on opaque internal policies while actively ignoring clear medical guidance. The tribunal found that BT’s management committed two significant errors. The first was that management requested and received an Occupational Health report that explicitly recommended a 4-6 week deferral of Mr. Williams’s return to work, followed by a phased return, to allow him to consolidate his recovery. However, the dismissing manager chose to “completely discount” this professional advice. The tribunal concluded that her “mind was closed to any adjustments that would have assisted the claimant” and that she had already formed the view he was “unreliable” before considering his disability. The second was related to the fact that the dismissal was found to be unfair because BT’s own attendance policy lacked transparency. Managers were unable to explain to the tribunal what triggered the formal procedure or how they calculated the financial cost of Mr. Williams’s absence. The tribunal found that the respondent could “trigger the attendance procedure without justification.” The dismissal was therefore unfair not just because it was discriminatory, but because the very policy used to justify it was opaque and inconsistently applied.
This pattern, evident in both the Muir and Williams cases, illustrates that these experiences are not isolated incidents. Rather, they expose a broader, systemic failure to embed genuine mental health awareness within corporate decision-making. The judgments highlight a critical disconnect where mental health problems are viewed purely through the lens of performance metrics, and expert medical advice is subordinated to rigid, and often flawed, internal procedures.
The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility
Under UK law, employers have non-negotiable obligations to safeguard both physical and psychological health at work. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 requires organisations to take “all reasonably practicable” steps to protect employees’ welfare, including psychosocial risks such as stress and anxiety.[13] Meanwhile, the Equality Act 2010 recognises conditions like depression and anxiety as disabilities (ss 6 & 15) and mandates “reasonable adjustments” (s 20) when these impair work performance.[14] These statutes form the legal baseline enforceable in court.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) offers a broader canvas. Shaped by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights[15] and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,[16] CSR encourages companies to integrate social and environmental considerations into their core strategies. In the UK, the Companies Act 2006 (s 172) further nudges directors to consider employees’ interests when promoting long-term success.[17] Yet these CSR initiatives remain voluntary, sitting alongside, distinct from the firm legal duties described above.
Real CSR shines when it exceeds these legal minima. While the law demands reasonable adjustments, a robust CSR programme might train every manager in mental health literacy, create peer support networks, and offer confidential counselling to reduce absenteeism and boost engagement.[18] Companies like Deloitte report a £5 return for every £1 invested in such initiatives.[19]
Window Dressing or Meaningful Change?
A major criticism against corporate mental health initiatives is the tendency toward “well-being washing,” an attempt to brand CSR efforts as impactful while avoiding real change. Consider a firm that dutifully adjusts performance targets on paper for employees with diagnosed anxiety, yet never challenges a culture of mandatory overtime or the stigma that discourages people from taking sick leave or a firm offering yoga sessions or meditation apps, but ignore the abusive management practices or productivity pressures that contribute to mental illness in the first place. Here, compliance has become a shield rather than a springboard for positive change, turning CSR into a performative act that protects reputation more than people. Scholars like Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten argue that meaningful CSR requires ethical leadership, accountability, and mechanisms to monitor and measure impact.[20] Without these elements, CSR becomes an investment in perception rather than people.
The Way Forward: Rethinking CSR from the Inside Out
To move beyond performative compliance, corporations must integrate mental health into the core of their CSR frameworks. This includes: conducting independent audits of workplace mental health culture; establishing confidential grievance mechanisms for phycological harm; training leadership on mental health sensitivity and accountability; tracking progress through measurable indicators, not just employee feedback forms; investors and regulators should demand transparency in reporting mental health metrics as part of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosures. The question, “Do companies truly care?” cannot be answered in binaries. Whilst there are examples of genuine progress, much of the corporate world continues to approach mental health with tokenism. If CSR is to be taken seriously, it must begin from inside, with the well-being of those who serve the organisation. Yet as long as CSR remains a voluntary choice, many companies will treat robust mental health programmes as optional extras investments they can shelve when budgets tighten. For CSR to evolve from good intent into genuine impact, the future may lie in creating more binding frameworks. By combining voluntary leadership with clearer accountability mechanisms, businesses can ensure that care is not a checkbox but a core obligation.
[1] The impact of COVID-19 on mental health cannot be made light of, World Health Organization (WHO, 2022), available at https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-mental-health-cannot-be-made-light-of.
[2] Clive Cookson and Amy Borrett, ‘Global mental health crisis hits workplaces,’ Financial Times, 16 December 2024.
[3] Nico Dragano, Krisztina Gerö, and Morten Sten Wahrendorf, ‘Mental health at work after the COVID19 pandemic – What European figures reveal,’ European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, at 4, available at https://osha.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Mental%20health%20at%20work%20after%20the%20COVID%20pandemic_en_0.pdf
[4] Health and Safety Executive (HSE), ‘HSE publishes annual work‑related ill health and injury statistics for 2023/24’ (20 November 2024) , available at https://press.hse.gov.uk/2024/11/20/hse-publishes-annual-work-related-ill-health-and-injury-statistics-for-2023-24/.
[5] Ms Zoe Kitching v. University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Case no. 2408953/2023, available at https://perma.cc/2GX3-U342.
[6] ‘Work-Related Stress, Anxiety or Depression Statistics in Great Britain, 2023’, Health and Safety Executive, (HSE, 2024), at 4, available at https://www.littlegreenbutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Work-related-stress-depression-or-anxiety-statistics-in-Great-Britain-2023.pdf.
[7] The Burnout Report, Mental Health UK, 2025, at 8, available at https://mhukcdn.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/16142505/Mental-Health-UK_The-Burnout-Report-2025.pdf.
[8] Ibid, at 26.
[9] Mr J Muir v. Astra Zeneca UK Limited, Case no. 2405955/2021, available at https://perma.cc/TZ28-3H5E.
[10] An Employee Improvement Policy, often enacted through a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), is a structured process designed to help employees address consistent underperformance. The AstraZeneca Employee Improvement Policy & Procedure for the UK is available at https://perma.cc/J53T-QUHK.
[11] The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, is a comprehensive set of guidelines published by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), an independent public body in the UK. The Code sets out the minimum standards of fairness and reasonableness that employers are expected to follow when handling disciplinary issues. See ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, available at https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures/html.
[12] Mr G Williams v British Telecommunications PLC, Case no. 2400205/2019, available at https://perma.cc/DH55-Z4FB.
[13] Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, s 2(1).
[14] Equality Act 2010, ss 6, 15 & 20.
[15] UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) Principle 1.
[16] OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011) Chapter II.
[17] Companies Act 2006, s 172(1)(b).
[18] Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), Health and Well‑being at Work Report 2023 (CIPD, 2023), available at https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2023-pdfs/8436-health-and-wellbeing-report-2023.pdf.
[19] Deloitte, ‘Mental Health and Employers: The Case for Investment’ (2020), available at https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/consulting/analysis/mental-health-and-employers-the-case-for-investment.html.
[20] Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten, Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization (5th edition, Oxford University Press 2019).
References
- ACAS, ‘Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures’ https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures/html accessed 24 June 2025
- ‘AstraZeneca Employee Improvement Policy & Procedure for the UK’ https://perma.cc/J53T-QUHK accessed 24 June 2025
- Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Health and Well-being at Work Report 2023 (CIPD 2023) https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2023-pdfs/8436-health-and-wellbeing-report-2023.pdf accessed 24 June 2025
- Cookson C and Borrett A, ‘Global mental health crisis hits workplaces’ Financial Times (16 December 2024)
- Crane A and Matten D, Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2019)
- Deloitte, ‘Mental Health and Employers: The Case for Investment’ (2020) https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/consulting/analysis/mental-health-and-employers-the-case-for-investment.html accessed 24 June 2025
- Dragano N, Gerö K, and Wahrendorf MS, ‘Mental health at work after the COVID19 pandemic – What European figures reveal’ (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work) https://osha.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Mental%20health%20at%20work%20after%20the%20COVID%20pandemic_en_0.pdf accessed 24 June 2025
- Health and Safety Executive, ‘HSE publishes annual work-related ill health and injury statistics for 2023/24’ (20 November 2024) https://press.hse.gov.uk/2024/11/20/hse-publishes-annual-work-related-ill-health-and-injury-statistics-for-2023-24/ accessed 24 June 2025
- Health and Safety Executive, ‘Work-Related Stress, Anxiety or Depression Statistics in Great Britain, 2023’ (HSE 2024) https://www.littlegreenbutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Work-related-stress-depression-or-anxiety-statistics-in-Great-Britain-2023.pdf accessed 24 June 2025
- Kitching v University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Case no. 2408953/2023 https://perma.cc/2GX3-U342
- Mental Health UK, The Burnout Report 2025 (MHUK 2025) https://mhukcdn.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/16142505/Mental-Health-UK_The-Burnout-Report-2025.pdf accessed 24 June 2025
- Muir v Astra Zeneca UK Limited, Case no. 2405955/2021 https://perma.cc/TZ28-3H5E
- OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD 2011)
- UN OHCHR, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN 2011)
- Williams v British Telecommunications PLC, Case no. 2400205/2019 https://perma.cc/DH55-Z4FB
- World Health Organization, ‘The impact of COVID-19 on mental health cannot be made light of’ (WHO 2022) https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-mental-health-cannot-be-made-light-of accessed 24 June 2025
Disclaimer:
The views, opinions, and positions expressed within all posts are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics Blog or its editors. The blog makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, and validity of any statements made on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author(s) and any liability concerning the infringement of intellectual property rights remains with the author(s).
#AstraZeneca #Business #Burnout #CCO #CompanyCulture #Corporate #CorporateCrimeObservatory #CorporateSocialResponsibility #Corporation #CostantinoGrasso #CSR #CSRBlog #Discrimination #EmployeeWellbeing #Employment #Equality #ESG #Law #Leadership #MentalHealth #MentalHealthAwareness #OccupationalHealth #OrganisationalCulture #Rights #Stress #Wellbeing #WorkplaceWellbeing
