No C 120/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 91 
committee is to be responsible for several continuing 
training programmes. This would run counter to the aim of providing young people with adequate skills 
training. 
Done at Brussels, 20 March 1991. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Frangois STAEDELIN 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the implementation of the minimum 
safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile work sites (eighth individual Directive 
within the meaning of Article 16 of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2) 
(91/C 120/08) 
On 3 September 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 118A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 14 March 1991. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Etty. 
At its 285th plenary session (meeting of 20 March 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote with 10 abstentions. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Commission is proposing the adoption of 
an individual Directive under Article 16 of Directive 89/ 
391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in occupational safety and health (also 
known as the 'framework Directive'). 
1.2. That Article governs the introduction of special 
technical measures and a number of these have already 
been taken on the basis of individual Directives pro­
vided for in the framework Directive. The Committee 
delivered Opinions on these instruments. 
1.3. The first individual Directive concerned mini­
mum safety and health requirements at the workplace. 
In its Opinion of April 1988 on the draft, the Committee 
(!) OJ No C 213, 28. 8. 1990, p. 2. expressly requested the adoption of an individual Direc­
tive on temporary or mobile work sites, since these 
were not covered by the first individual Directive. 
1.4. The Committee endorses the aims and broad 
outlines of the draft Directive. At the same time, it 
thinks that parts of the text require clarification, 
improvement and greater emphasis. Proposals to this 
effect are set out in the following general and specific 
comments. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Commission quite rightly attaches particu­
lar importance to safety and health in the building 
sector, to which the phrase 'temporary or mobile work 
sites' refers. The high accident rate in the building 
industry is well known. Whilst approximately 10 % of 
the total Community workforce is employed in this 
sector, it accounts for 15 % of industrial accidents and 
6. 5. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 120/25 
30% of all fatal industrial accidents. Most of these 
accidents also occur in the first week of site operation. 
In the light of this the Committee feels that the Com­
mission should use the data which employers are 
required to compile under Article 9(1) of the framework 
Directive to build up a data bank documenting the 
health and safety of construction workers. 
2.2. It is extremely important that those responsible 
for the coordination of safety and health on building 
sites should be clearly identified. The Committee there­
fore deplores the fact that the Commission has done 
no more than attempt to solve this problem. 
The Commission proposal does not make it clear, or 
at least not sufficiently clear, who is responsible to 
the authorities under public law for appointing the 
coordinating body and ensuring that its job is done 
properly in accordance with Article 5 (project design 
stage) and Article 6 (project execution stage). Whilst it 
is true that the client is required to indicate in the prior 
notice referred to in Article 3 the name of the specified 
body responsible for coordination, this does not make 
it clear who is to liaise with the supervisory authorities 
(works inspectorate) and be responsible to them under 
public law with regard to the work of the coordinating 
body. The Committee feels that this responsibility 
should lie, at least in the project execution phase, with 
the main contractor, referred to in the Commission 
proposal, or so the Committee assumes, as the project 
supervisor. 
Secondly the Committee feels that the Directive should 
explicitly require employers and self-employed persons 
carrying out the construction work to cooperate, par­
ticularly with the coordinating body referred to in 
Article 6, with a view to ensuring that their respective 
obligations under Article 8 (employers) and Article 9 
(self-employed persons) are fulfilled as effectively as 
possible. 
2.3. The draft rightly stresses the importance of coor­
dinating measures to promote safety and health at 
work. This makes its failure to coordinate matters 
affecting employees all the more remarkable. The Com­
mittee therefore calls for the inclusion of provisions 
relating to workers' information, consultation and par­
ticipation. Ultimately the power to take decisions on 
measures relating to health and safety on the work sites 
in question lies with the respective employers, however. 
2.4. The Committee unreservedly welcomes the fact 
that the proposed Directive also covers the self-
employed. 2.5. The Committee would draw attention to the 
Convention on safety and health in construction which 
the International Labour Organization (ILO) confer­
ence adopted in 1988. The Committee considers it 
important for all Member States to ratify the Conven­
tion as soon as possible, bearing in mind that the aim 
of the draft Directive is the gradual improvement of 
safety and health on work sites. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 (Scope) 
The Committee notes that the Commission has in the 
meantime drawn up a proposal for an individual Direc­
tive laying down minimum requirements for improving 
the safety and health of workers in the extractive indus­
tries; these are not covered by the present proposal. 
3.2. Article 2 (Definitions) 
3.2.1. The definitions must take due account of those 
given in the abovementioned ILO Convention No 167. 
3.2.2. As regards the definition of 'temporary or 
mobile work sites' the Committee recommends certain 
additions to the 'non-exhaustive' list in Annex I. In this 
connection, reference should be made to the comments 
on Annex I below. 
3.2.3. In some language versions, it should be made 
clear that the term 'self-employed persons' is not con­
fined to members of the professions, but that it also 
covers tradesmen and craftsmen. 
3.3. Article 3 (Prior notice) 
3.3.1. To ensure precise identification of those 
responsible for coordinating the safety and health of 
workers, the Directive must provide that only one speci­
fied body may be designated. 
3.3.2. The Committee thinks that paragraph2 should 
make prior notice obligatory if the planned duration of 
a project (regardless of the number of sub-contractors 
and the division of activities) is more than 20 working 
days or 30 calendar days. Prior notice should be 
optional for projects of shorter duration. 
3.3.3. By way of exception, the Directive should 
provide for notice to be given in the five days following 
the start of operations where there is an urgent, unfore­
seeable need for action to make a work site safe. 
No C 120/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 91 
3.4. Article 4 (General safety and health principes to 
be taken into account at the project design stage) 
3.4.1. The Committee considers it extremely import­
ant that the Commission proposal deals so emphatically 
with the inclusion of health and safety considerations in 
the design, study and execution phases of construction 
projects. 
3.4.2. The Committee also feels that this Article 
follows the text of the framework Directive too closely. 
If does not take sufficient account of special problems 
in the building sector (which are partly due to the large 
number of participations in a building project). The 
Committee therefore thinks that it should provide for 
the preparation of a general safety and health plan. 
This practice, which is already established in a number 
of Member States, has been shown to produce tangible 
results. In accordance with the underlying philosophy 
of the draft Directive, account must also be taken of 
such a general safety plan at the project design stage. 
The Committee also feels that the text should provide 
for the maximum possible involvement of employees 
and their representatives in this plan. The latter must 
communicate the relevant rules drawn up during the 
preparatory phases, to workers beginning work on the 
site. 
3.4.3. The wording of this Article is insufficiently 
clear with regard to the coordinator's responsibilities 
and the way in which possible disputes are to be 
resolved. 
3.5. Article 5 (idem) 
3.5.1. In accordance with the comments on Article 
3, this Article should also state that the responsibility 
in question lies with one specified body. The latter must 
notify all the parties concerned of the safety and health 
rules applicable to the work site for which he is respon­
sible. 
3.5.2. The Committee thinks that the drafting of 
an additional safety and health plan should be made 
obligatory in Article 5(b) to cover particularly danger­
ous activities of the type listed in Annex III. This plan 
must also be taken into account at the project design 
stage when employees and their representatives should 
again be involved, if possible. 
3.5.3. The Committee thinks that the Commission 
should draw up a model to assist the preparation of 
both the general and additional safety and health plans. This could make it easier for employers—especially 
small and medium-sized enterprises—to comply with 
the obligations called for by the Committee. 
3.6. Article 6 (General safety and health principles to 
be taken into account at the project execution 
stage) 
3.6.1. As in the case of Articles 3 and 5, this Article 
must make clear that the responsibility in question lies 
with one specified body. 
3.6.2. The Committee thinks that, in applying the 
principles referred to in Article 7, the safety and health 
coordinator should take account of the general safety 
and health plan recommended in the comments on 
Article 4 and, where appropriate, of the additional 
safety and health plan referred to in the comments on 
Article 5. 
3.6.3. The phrase 'whenever necessary' should be 
deleted from Article 6(1)(c) ('shall organize ... into this 
process whenever necessary'). 
3.6.4. The Committee thinks that employees and 
their representatives should also be involved as closely 
as possible in the preparation of a safety and health 
plan or plans at the project execution stage. 
3.6.5. Articles 6 and 7 do not clearly indicate the 
precise moment at which prior notice must be given 
and the safety and health plan or plans must be com­
pleted. The Committee feels that a deadline should be 
fixed for this purpose—for example, at least one week 
before the start of operations. 
3.7. Article 9 (Obligations of self-employed persons) 
This Article should include a reference to Article 13 of 
the framework Directive and Article 7 of the present 
proposal. 
3.8. Article 10 (Information) 
3.8.1. The phrase 'where necessary' should be 
deleted. 
3.8.2. The wording of this Article must be adjusted 
in line with the amendments proposed in the comments 
on Articles 4, 5 and 6 (general and additional safety 
and health plans). 
3.8.3. In the light of Article 10(2) of the framework 
Directive, it would seem advisable to include in this 
Article a special requirement concerning the provision 
6. 5. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 120/27 
of information to employees in their own language 
when they come from a region where the language is 
different to that of the region where the work is being 
carried out. Construction workers frequently work 
beyond national frontiers. 
3.9. Article 11 (Consultation and participation) 
3.9.1. The Committee would refer to its earlier com­
ments on Articles 5 and 6 concerning the desirability 
of involving employees and their representatives in the 
preparation of the general and additional safety and 
health plans. 
3.9.2. This Article should also provide for the cre­
ation of an employees' safety and health committee 
on sites where workers are answerable to different 
employers. This form of employee coordination has 
already been introduced in some Member States with 
a view to reducing on-site accidents. These committees 
are involved in all decisions concerning the planning 
or modification of safety and health measures during 
construction work. 
The ESC thinks that such committees should be respon­
sible for implementing safety and health policy at work 
sites in conjunction with the body designated by the 
employer to coordinate that policy. Employers will, 
however, retain the ultimate right of decision (and 
responsibility) in this areas. 
3.10. Aditional Article (Interruption of work) 
3.10.1. The Committee recommends the inclusion of 
an Article concerning the right of workers to interrupt 
their work and leave the site, if, taking into account 
their function, training, skills and experience, they have 
good reason to believe that there is an immediate threat 
to their health and safety or that of others. The Article 
should also require workers to inform their employer 
immediately in such events. 
3.10.2. Such an Article should precede the existing 
Article 12 (amendments to the Annexes). 
3.11. Annex 1 
This 'non-exhaustive list of the building and civil engin­
eering work referred to in the definition of temporary or mobile work sites in Article 2 (first indent)' should 
be extended to cover: 
— environmental measures preceding construction 
work, 
— maintenance activities (including painting and cle­
aning), and 
— the assembly and dismantling of buildings and pre­
fabricated elements and manufacture of the latter 
at the work site. 
(The two last-mentioned cases concern the extension 
of activities already provided for in the draft.) 
3.12. Annex 11 
In line with the comments on Article 3, this Annex 
should refer only to a 'coordinator' and not to 'coordi­
nators'. In the case of point 12 (estimated value of the 
works), all that is needed is an indication of the scale 
of the project, the workforce required and the resources 
earmarked for safety and health facilities on the site. 
3.13. Annex III 
The Committee recommends the addition of the follow­
ing phrase to point 1: 'such as underground work, 
roofing, installation and removal of prefabricated 
elements and demolition work'. 
3.14. Annex IV 
3.14.1. The preliminary remark should be deleted. 
3.14.2. The Committee thinks that, although this 
Annex lists a large number of minimum safety and 
health requirements for work sites, these are of a very 
general nature. They do not differ markedly from the 
provisions of Annex I to the first individual Directive 
on minimum safety and health requirements at the 
workplace, from which temporary or mobile work sites 
are expressly excluded. In view of the particular prob­
lems affecting the construction industry, the Com­
mission was apparently concerned to propose measures 
specially tailored to that sector. The Committee 
endorses this approach. It therefore calls on the Com­
mission to declare Annex I to the first individual Direc­
tive immediately applicable and thereafter to adopt a 
number of additional minimum requirements relating 
specifically to the building sector. The abovementioned 
No C 120/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 91 
ILO Convention and the code of practice on safety and 
health in construction which that organization is now finalizing contain many valuable, relevant provisions 
which one should expect to find in this Annex. 
Done at Brussels, 20 March 1991. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
Opinion on the commission Green Paper on the development of European standardization: 
action for faster technological integration in Europe 
(91/C 120/09) 
On 8 November 1990, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Commit­
tee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
commission Green Paper on the development of European standardization: action for faster 
technological integration in Europe. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8 March 1991. The Rapporteur 
was Mr De Knegt. 
At its 285th plenary session (meeting of 20 March 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority. There were seven votes against and 
12 abstentions. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Standardization is of great improtance for realiz­
ing the single Market through the abolition of technical 
barriers to trade and makes possible higher pro­
ductivity, a more competitive economy and a wider 
choice for the consumer. Related to this are also 
improvements in product safety and workers' health 
protection. 
1.2. Standardization offers economic advantages 
through the avoidance of costs involved in having to 
produce differing series of products for different mar­
kets. These costs were too opaque to be assessed in the 
Cecchini report, but they are undoubtedly high. 
1.3. The EEC Treaty establishes the legal authority 
of the Council and the Commission to regulate, inter 
alia, the free movement of goods in the Internal Market. 1.4. The so-called 'old approach' to the removal of 
technical barriers to trade contained detailed specifi­
cations to harmonize the provisions of Member States. 
This concentration on detail was dropped with the 
'new approach'^), which lays down only 'essential 
requirements'. These are incorporated into the laws of 
the Member States via Community Directives. 
Standards, whether national or 'harmonized', 
n^iy ensure that products respect those essential 
requirements: reference to a 'harmonized' standard pro­
vides presumption of conformity with the essential 
requirements. 1.4.1. 
help ensure 
1.4.2. Standards which are shown not to conform 
with the essential requirements need to be withdrawn 
and replaced. 
(!) OJ No C 136, 4. 6. 1985.