Arnold Fauquette (EDHEC International BBA 1997) is the founder and director of Vivat, a company offering home care services in northern France and employing some 200 carers. It places the well-being of its employees and its elderly patients on an equal footing. Living at home as one’s autonomy begins to wane is a reality for Arnold, as he tells us in this interview. He also proposes some solutions for future generations.

How do you perceive the loss of autonomy among elderly people?

Working with fragile elderly people, I quickly realised that paradoxically we tend to over protect and isolate them. During the COVID pandemic, some facilities were closed to outside visitors, and measures are still in place preventing some elderly people from receiving visitors. There are many offers on the market where residents have their cheese cut for them; they are being dispossessed of the things they can still do! All of us, whatever our age or situation, need to be accompanied in a way that allows us to control our destiny and professional choices as much as possible. I get the impression that that expectation has been reinforced by COVID: people have reflected on the meaning of work. And we mustn’t cut off from this approach that segment of the population that has less of a voice. Because they are elderly, we – wrongly – think we know what’s good for them. 

This focus on autonomy is used in the work environment at Vivat, particularly via the Montessori method used in your workshops, or the process of recruitment done by staff themselves …

We strive for a kind of enthusiasm. In the home care services sector, we deal with dependency, old age and in some cases challenging family situations. It’s a complicated profession that takes place in a sometimes oppressive private sphere and with workload volumes that can be difficult. The relationship between health and work is very apparent since an employee in good health, who is fulfilled, has a highly positive impact on the people they care for. That’s worth all the medication in the world. And so we try to create the best working conditions for our hundreds of carers: balancing work and private life, for example being able to arrange with colleagues so you can pick your kids up at 5 o’ clock.

Isn’t it also a way to align the company’s values with internal operations?

With regard to alignment, I would say that the first step is being a company that reflects the convictions of its owner. I’m the same person in my personal life and in my firm. I aim to be a figure of authenticity, making it clear there are things I can act on – the work environment, or giving professionals the desire to do this work – but I can’t guarantee that the private sphere will never take over and put staff in a difficult situation. It’s up to me to explain to clients that it’s not as easy to find a carer nowadays as it was 30 years ago. My mission is also to convey the message that in order for everyone to be able to stay at home as long as possible, there needs to be a kind of societal awakening, to say that together we will succeed.

Since you started out as an entrepreneur, have you seen a change in the notion of societal impact?

When I left EDHEC Business School, I wanted to do what I had learned: organise, go out and conquer new markets, develop, innovate and create. I’m quite attached to the notion of liberty, which is why I took the initiative to become an entrepreneur. When I started to bring people on board as part of a pyramid structure, I discovered that I was generating quite a bit of suffering. I had staff in difficulty, and I was unable to exceed a certain service quality with regard to the families involved. And so I asked myself if there were other ways of working or whether I simply wasn’t the right person for the job. And I realised that I had to work alongside others rather than above them, and on the front line. So I restructured the organization in 2015, moving towards the concept of the liberated company. To be happy and find their place professionally, staff need to feel confident and have a certain level of autonomy in the way they organise their work, their decision-making. They need to be able to explore subjects that interest them. Nowadays I’m quite far removed from the director I dreamt of being when I graduated. However, I think I’m a better reflection of the young man I was. Company directors at Mouvement Impact France aim to make the notion of impact more visible at a national level and take real steps towards this realisation.

On the issue of entrepreneurship, is ambition sufficient nowadays or do you need a certain notion of civic duty alongside it?

Like any “catch-all” word, you can see a fad effect and people using the word without embodying it. As Vice-President of Réseau Entreprendre Nord, I feel that the vast majority of micro-businesses and SMEs reflect on the impact of their organization. There is a consistent view that beyond serving the community, it is important to offer high-quality jobs. One can no longer settle for creating a company and only looking at the bottom line of the balance sheet. But although there is greater awareness among economic actors, attention isn’t always paid to the environment. There is also a problem of jargon, with tech on the one hand and CSR-focused associations on the other, and no-one understands each other. I think it is important in educational environments, including business schools, to open up the dream of entrepreneurship: it shouldn’t be boiled down to the creation of a start-up. There are many candidates but very few success stories, it’s a highly aggressive world. I really wish there was also the opportunity to project new models of entrepreneurship, perhaps more frugal and with a slightly higher level of awareness, but which I think could also be a source of happiness, pleasure and simplicity. We also need to increase the requirements in calls for tenders, because only 5% of businesses fall under the social & solidarity economy. Business owners are completely ready for this, they no longer want to just fight over prices, but also values, quality and the level of their services. All we need is for the political world to follow suit. 

Will all the people with reduced autonomy be able to be cared for by 2050, when the number of people aged over 75 will have doubled?

I’d like to say they’ll be cared for, but it’s only possible with solutions that don’t rely on the means used today. I struggle to imagine society adapting to the challenges of old age if the peripheral professions in contact with the vulnerable are not properly taken into consideration. It’s possible to live in an ordinary environment for a very long time with the development of mobile healthcare teams in small structures and with shared, inclusive housing projects. You don’t necessarily have to be put into a specialized facility, isolated from your family. The challenge will be to enable families with loved ones who are losing their independence to participate, in their local area and in cooperation with municipal and regulatory bodies, in the implementation of small support structures. My hunch is that the solutions will not just come from professionals, but from a more inclusive society. A shop owner should be able to spot when regular customers no longer show up, a neighbour should know when there’s a cause for concern. A neighbourhood community can be trained to recognise pathologies and know when residents may be affected, so they can take the burden off families living far away, if only by picking up some groceries. Digital innovations could facilitate such interconnections. What family carers want is not additional leave and allowances, but to be able to breathe, share their difficulties and be relieved of their burden. 

So what is the State’s role? 

We need a regulator. When you enter a retirement home, you’re often struck by the carers’ level of dedication. Where things get stuck is higher up, which is why we need smaller organizations. Carers and facility directors shouldn’t be bound by orders decided far away. In a respectful shared living space, carers have good working conditions, families receive adequate support, and the people being cared for have their say other than through a satisfaction survey with three stars to rate the reception staff. If we get rid of contradictory decisions, with profitability pitted against proper levels of care, this balance can be struck by the very people managing each structure on the ground, who know where savings can or can’t be made. I believe in a more organic model, rooted in the local area but also with greater civic involvement. On the EDHEC campus, for example, it would be possible to imagine civic participation schemes, where people could get involved and speak up for what matters at a local level. When you go and look for some common sense nearby, it works! 

Do you think the time of the retirement home is up?

I don’t think their time is completely up. We are reaching the end of a system with dehumanised organizations that no longer place dignity at the heart of their model. A retirement home is where you spend the final days of your life, so you should be allowed to have some fun there. People in retirement homes nowadays really didn’t expect to live so long. We’re talking about a generation that lived through the war and later saw phases of great progress, but lost their parents at a very young age. They worked incredibly hard and had very tough jobs. They didn’t see old age creeping up on them and have suffered somewhat, because they’re not familiar with the protests and calls for the right to autonomy. But it is not hard to imagine collective living spaces where dignity is really central to the support provided. Humans are supposed to live with their fellow beings in a nice environment, where care is taken to ensure quality leisure time and they’re well looked after. 

Beyond that link of proximity and the link between generations, what are the other challenges?

Humanising care in old age requires digital innovations to improve support for professionals. Carers could for example play a leading role in telehealth. There is also a technical dimension: fitting homes with sensors to allow people with declining autonomy to keep living at home, or developing exoskeleton technologies to facilitate movement for people in care. People need to feel safe at home, but without being surrounded by cameras! The social life, entertainment and travel of the future are further areas for reflection. The silver economy has a bright future, but it lacks a link between employers and the tech sector. There are other ways to collaborate with mobile phone operators than developing devices with large buttons. This will require quicker and more direct information exchanges.