COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Directives 89/391 (Framework), 89/654 (Workplaces), 89/655 (Work Equipment), 89/656 (Personal Protective Equipment), 90/269 (Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 (Display Screen Equipment)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary

1. Introduction

2. The legal impact in the Member States

3. Transposition Control

3.1. Timeliness of transposition

3.2. Conformity control

3.2.1. The framework directive

3.2.2. The individual directives

4. Action on the ground: the practical implementation

4.1. Publicising and flanking of the new legislation transposing the health and safety at work Directives

4.2. Awareness raising

4.3. Risk assessment, documentation and supervision

4.4. Protective and preventive services

4.5. Information, consultation, participation and training

4.6. Organisation and management of health and safety at work

4.7. Enforcement

4.8. Two specific cases

4.8.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)

4.8.2. The public sector

5. Assessment of effectiveness

5.1. Effects on accidents at work and occupational diseases

5.2. Costs and benefits in the enterprises

5.3. General economic effects

5.4 Effects on employment and competitiveness

6. Overall appreciation of implementation

6.1. Main positive effects of implementation reported by directive

6.2. Main difficulties of implementation reported by directive

6.3 Suggestions for improvement

7. Conclusions

ANNEX

Executive summary

Prevention is the guiding principle for occupational health and safety legislation in the European Union. In order to avoid accidents from happening and occupational diseases to occur, EU wide minimum requirements for health and safety protection at the workplace have been adopted.

This report examines how the Framework directive of 1989 and five of its individual directives have been transposed and are applied within the Member States. It also draws conclusions from the application - and in some domains rather the lack of proper application - for Europe's health and safety legislation and its impact on the economy and society.

The 1989 directive lays down the principles for the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers and provides a framework for specific workplace environments, developed in individual directives. The goal of instilling a culture of prevention rests on the double foundation that the minimum requirements provide a level playing field for businesses operating within the large European domestic market and provide a high degree of protection to workers, avoiding pain and suffering and minimising the income foregone for enterprises as a result of preventing occupational accidents and diseases.

The EU legislation reportedly has had a positive influence on the national standards for occupational health and safety. At the same time, the health and safety measures at the workplace are reported to have widely contributed towards improved working conditions, boosting productivity, competitiveness and employment.

The statistical evidence as well as the national reporting on achievements point to an important improvement in terms of health and safety protection. They show that the implementation and application of the EU legislation played a crucial role in bringing down the figures. The data are convincing: a real structural change has been fostered.

Preliminary estimations based on Eurostat data for 2000 highlight that the number of accidents per 100,000 workers, resulting in more than three days' absence from work, fell from 4,539 in 1994 to about 4,016 in 2000. The decline of this headline indicator clearly points to an improvement in bringing down accidents, even taking into account a shift in the economic structure and the typology of jobs as well as considering new risks.

However, in absolute numbers, every year nearly 5 200 workers lose their life as a result of a work related accident. In total, there are still about 4.8 million accidents per year. This means also that about two thirds of the accidents lead to an absence of more than 3 days at work. Almost 14% of workers suffered more than one accident in a year. Annually about 158 million days' work are lost.

The high risk areas largely coincide with the sectors and types of jobs on which the report underlines major shortfalls in proper application, showing the case of a consolidation of compliance with the health and safety acquis to further bring down the number of accidents.

Sticking out are Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. Also the public sector shows significant shortcomings. High-risk workers are also found amongst the young, the ones on temporary contracts and those with low qualifications. This evidence clearly underlines the scope and importance of the priority attached to quality in work as a policy vehicle for implementing the EU's social policy agenda.

The fact that about 7% of those who are involved in an accident cannot return to the same job and that about 4% must reduce their working hours or cannot work any longer, is a major setback for working towards the Lisbon full employment goal. It is also evidence for the fact that 'more and better' jobs are two sides of the same coin. Every year, nearly 300,000 workers will get various degrees of permanent disabilities, resulting from a workplace related accident or disease.

It is estimated that the total costs to the economy amounts to between 2.6% and 3.8% of GNP. All these data are testimony of the high economic costs of not having appropriate social policy in place. The still high levels of accidents and diseases, backed up by a wide range of gaps as documented in detail in this report, underline the need for reinforced attention to the sectors and workers concerned to bring about the necessary changes.

This is the more important as the EU enlargement will bring in countries in which the prevention culture still has to be rooted.

To clarify and solve misunderstandings and to correct any defective situation that may occur in the application of the legislation is an urgent task. Labour inspectorates have a crucial role to play here: using labour inspectors as agents of change to promote better compliance in SME's, first through education, persuasion and encouragement and through increase of enforcement, where necessary.

A high level of protection of the safety and health of workers which is the overriding objective of the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual directives, can only be achieved if all actors concerned, employers, workers, workers' representatives, national enforcement authorities, make the efforts necessary for an effective and correct application and engage in a co-operative interaction. The Communication from the Commission - Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006 [1] contains clear indications in this regard.

[1] COM(2002) 118

The reinforced commitment to address the miscellaneous flaws identified in this report will bring about the changes that will improve the implementation and application levels of the Health and Safety Directives and make the health and safety protection a tangible reality for all workers, contributing in this way to the improvement of productivity and quality of work.

This action will be at the heart of the top priority given to the consolidation of the acquis, as outlined in the Mid-term review of the social policy agenda [2] for the coming years.

[2] COM(2003) 312

1. Introduction

This report is the response by the Commission to the request laid down in the final provisions of Directives 89/391, 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 [3] that "the Commission shall submit periodically to the European Parliament (EP), the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the implementation of this Directive".

[3] Article 18 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work; article 10 of Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), Article 10 of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), Article 10 of Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace (third individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), Article 9 of Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and Article 11 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).

A major input to this Communication are the national reports [4] provided by the Member States in accordance with the directives which state that "Member States shall report to the Commission every five years (every four years for Directives 90/269 and 90/270) on the practical implementation of the provisions of this Directive, indicating the points of view of employers and workers". It also builds on an independent experts' report, analysing the implementation of the directives in all sectors, including the public sector. Finally, the report reflects the experiences gained by the Commission in its work of monitoring the transposition of the Directives into national laws and their application across the economy.

[4] The national reports were based on a commonly agreed outline. The level of participation of the social partners in the establishment of the reports varies considerably from one Member State to the other according to the national practices. All the Member States transmitted their reports concerning the Framework Directive 89/391. For the five first individual directives France and Ireland have not submitted all the reports. The national reports have been transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament.

The analysis concerns the transposition and application of the framework directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work as well as of the first five individual directives, addressing particular workplace environments or risks. The individual directives concern in particular:

* minimum requirements for the workplace (89/654)

* the use of work equipment ( 89/655)

* personal protective equipment (89/656)

* manual handling of loads (90/269)

* display screen equipment (90/270)

The report looks first at the scope of the legal impact of the framework directive and the individual directives in the Member States. Then it addresses the control executed on the transposition of the legislation, highlighting the delays caused at the moment of transposition and the impact of the conformity control on the quality of the national legislation.

A large section is devoted to the implementation across the economy. On an area by area basis, a detailed state of play will be given on the core characteristics of this legislation. Particular attention will be given to the situation in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises and in the public sector.

The next chapter sums up the main positive elements as well as the main difficulties the Member States report for the implementation.

The state of play and the evaluation thereof is then confronted with statistical data on the health and safety legislation in the European Union.

By way of conclusion, an overview is given of what the Member States suggested themselves in their national reports to improve the correct application. The report finally addresses next steps for facilitating full and correct application throughout an enlarged European Union.

2. The legal impact in the Member States

Prior to the adoption of the Framework Directive and its five first individual directives, the protection of the health and safety of workers at work within the areas covered varied widely across Member States. Directive 89/391 has changed the practical approach of the protection of the safety and health of workers in Member States as it laid down an integrated preventive approach to health and safety at work, requiring a continuous improvement of the health and safety conditions. The responsibility of the employer, the prevention principles established and the workers' information, training, consultation and balanced participation are the cornerstones on which the new approach to health and safety at work protection is based. The basic principles for occupational health and safety at the workplace established by the Framework Directive were subsequently defined and supplemented in the individual directives. As a result, minimum requirements should be guaranteed throughout Europe, while the Member States are allowed to maintain or establish higher levels of protection [5].

[5] See in this sense the decision of the Court of Justice of 12 November 1996, United Kingdom v. Council, case C-84/94, point 17 "In conferring on the Council power to lay down minimum requirements, Article 118a does not prejudge the extent of the action which that institution may consider necessary in order to carry out the task which the provision in question expressly assigns to it namely, to work in favour of improved conditions, as regards the health and safety of workers, while maintaining the improvements made. The significance of the expression "minimum requirements" in Article 118a is simply, as indeed Article 118a(3) confirms, that the provision authorises Member States to adopt more stringent measures than those which form the subject-matter of Community action (see, in particular, Opinion 2/91, paragraph 18)".

The levels of repercussion into the national legal systems of the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual directives fall into three categories.

* In certain countries [6] the Framework Directive had considerable legal consequences due to the fact that they had antiquated or inadequate legislation on the subject when the Directive was adopted.

[6] Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg

* In other Member States [7], the Directive served to complete or refine existing national legislation.

[7] Austria, France, Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium

Finally, in the opinion of a few Member States [8], transposition did not require major adjustments since they had already rules in place which were in line with the directives concerned. Member States which benefited most from the legislation to modernise their health and safety rules emphasise the following innovative aspects of the Framework directive: the large scope of application including the public sector, the principle of the objective responsibility of the employer, the requirement that a risk assessment shall be drawn up and documented, the obligation to establish a prevention plan based in the results of the risk assessment, the recourse to prevention and protective services and the workers' rights to information, consultation, participation and training.

[8] Denmark, Finland, Sweden

They furthermore report the following strengths resulting from the individual directives:

* Directive 89/654: the description of the term "workplace", which includes any modifications, extensions or conversions as well as the introduction of specific requirements for emergency doors, availability of sufficient area space, ambient conditions, rest areas and for the protection of pregnant workers.

* Directive 89/655: had a large unifying effect of the national legislation regarding work equipment. In general, it has not introduced large innovations, but it has contributed to a rationalisation and generalisation of the existing national regulations. The majority of the Member States indicated that the transposition of the minimum requirements regarding the work equipment enlarged the scope of application of the national legislation to all sectors of activity. This legal impact was greater in some countries, as for example in Greece where the new Directive meant a large positive step, while in other countries [9] the impact in their legislation was less pronounced.

[9] e.g., Denmark and The Netherlands.

* Directive 89/656: the incorporation of certain obligations upon the employer such as the assessment, selection, supply and maintenance of personal protective equipment for workers. The extension of the employer's responsibility regarding this point as well as his obligation to assess hazards when selecting personal protective equipment, are other important issues. In general, the transposition of the directive enlarged the scope of application of the existing national legislation [10].

[10] e.g., personal protective equipment in vessels in Denmark

* Directive 90/269: unified existing legislation by simplifying and completing existing regulations on injuries resulting from handling of loads. In the majority of Member States the scope was extended to all sectors of activity and the obligation to determine and assess the risks associated with manual handling of loads is recognised as being an innovation. Some countries underlined the importance of the principle of avoiding the manual handling of loads and the obligation of the employer to reduce the risks by the use of appropriate organisational or technical measures.

* Directive 90/270: the introduction of provisions dealing with work with display screens and the consideration of ergonomic aspects. Member States also indicate that breaks or changes in the activity of workers using display screens and the right to eyesight checks and, where necessary, the provision of correction devices, as major innovations introduced in national law by the directive. The requirements on emissions, equipment, the working environment and the man/computer interface also contributed to modernise national legislation.

It results from the national reports and the analysis performed by the Commission that Framework Directive 89/391 and Directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 have been the driving force for instilling a culture of prevention throughout the EU as well as for rationalising and simplifying the national legislative corpus on health and safety at work. Evidently, this impact has been greater in those Member States who had either less developed legislation in the field or legislation based on corrective principles rather that on a preventive approach to fight the occupational risks.

The shift of paradigm imposed by the EU health and safety legislation - which mean to move away from a technology-driven approach for accident prevention and towards a policy of occupational safety and health that would be much more focused on the persons behaviour and organisational structures - is recognised as having represented the major impact in the Member States national systems. In transposing it, Member States had to change from prescriptive detailed legislation to objective-driven law. This subsequently had repercussions in its interpretation by courts and in its enforcement.

3. Transposition Control

This chapter addresses the control of the transposition of the directives into national law. It looks in particular at the lengthy process which was needed to transpose the directives. It also details the effective commitments by the Member States, despite the deficiencies which occurred throughout the European Union as revealed in the conformity analysis.

3.1. Timeliness of transposition

The transposition of the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 into the national legislative framework of Member States was a lengthy process. The transposition delays have had a considerable impact on the levels of the practical implementation at workplace level.

Despite the fact that all the directives had been the object of prior in-depth consultations of social partners at the European and national level and the fact that they all have been adopted with unanimous agreement in the Council, the majority of Member States failed to meet the commitments taken as regards the delays for transposition. Finland, Austria and Sweden carried out the necessary changes partly in advance of membership and partly shortly after joining the European Union [11].

[11] See in Annex a list of the national provisions communicated by Member States concerning the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual Directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270.

As early as in 1993, infringement proceedings were launched by the Commission against those Members States that had not communicated in due time their national legislation transposing the directives. Due to the opening of these infringements proceedings, Member States accelerated their legislative efforts and adopted the necessary legislative measures to transpose the directives before reaching the final steps of the infringement proceedings. In one case - Spain - the infringement proceedings launched on the basis of the failure to communicate the national measures transposing directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 resulted in a ruling of the Court of Justice [12].

[12] Judgement of the Court of 26 September 1996, Commission v. Kingdom of Spain, case C-79/95.

3.2. Conformity control

Following transposition into national law, the Commission carried out a conformity control of the national legislation. Rather than launching immediately infringement proceedings, the Commission undertook discussions with national authorities to clarify and solve misunderstandings and to correct the defective situation. The individual complaints submitted to the Commission were of great value in detecting the weak spots.

3.2.1. The framework directive

Although the conformity analysis underlined effective commitment, it also revealed deficiencies in virtually all Member States with regards to the transposition of the Framework Directive 89/391 into national legislation.

The Commission opened infringement proceedings on non-conformity against all Member States as regards Framework Directive 89/391, with the exception of Greece (nevertheless an infringement proceeding has been open regarding the defective application and enforcement of the Greek legislation transposing Directive 89/391). After the sending of letters of formal notices and reasoned opinions, eleven Member States - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, The Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom - modified their legislation in order to remedy the identified deficiencies. However, as not all of the deficiencies pointed out by the Commission were recognised by the Member States, the Commission referred several cases to the Court of Justice [13].

[13] Commission v. Germany, case C-5/00; Commission v. Italy, case C-49/00; Commission v. Portugal, case C-425/01; Commission v. The Netherlands, case C-441/01; Commission v. Luxembourg, case C-335/02. It should be noted that there are still infringements proceedings running against certain Member States (Austria, France, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom).

The main problems of non-conformity detected in the transposition of the Framework Directive 89/391 were the following:

* The scope of application (article 2): this was limited by several Member States in the national legislation. It should be noted, in this regard, that by a judgement of 3 October 2000 in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, the Court of justice examined the scope of the Framework Directive 89/391 indicating that "...it is clear both from the object of the basic Directive, namely to encourage improvement in the safety and health of workers at work, and from the wording of Article 2(1) thereof, that it must necessarily be broad in scope"; and that "It follows that the exceptions to the scope of the basic Directive, including that provided for in Article 2(2), must be interpreted restrictively." [14].

[14] See in the same sense the opinion of the Advocate General of 6 May 2003 in joint cases C-397/01-C-403/01, Bernhard Pfeiffer e.a. v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Kreisverband Waldshut eV., point 22.

* The responsibility of the employer (article 5).

* The transposition of the general principles of prevention (article 6 (2)).

* The extent of the obligation to evaluate the risks to the safety and health of workers (article 6(3)a)): this raised a conformity problem in the Italian transposition (the Italian legislation only required employers to evaluate specific risks) clarified by the Court of justice in its judgement of 15 November 2001 [15]. In particular in point 12, the Court states that "It must be noted, at the outset, that it follows both from the purpose of the directive, which, according to the 15th recital, applies to all risks, and from the wording of Article 6(3)(a) thereof, that employers are obliged to evaluate all risks to the safety and health of workers." Point 13 of this judgement is of particular importance: "It should also be noted that the occupational risks which are to be evaluated by employers are not fixed once and for all, but are continually changing in relation, particularly, to the progressive development of working conditions and scientific research concerning such risks.".

[15] Case C-49/00, Commission v. Italy.

* Preventive and protective services (article 7): several issues stand out here:

- The priority to be given to the internal services had been disputed by several countries. Most Member States corrected their national provisions but in one case the Commission referred the matter to the Court of justice, which ruled on 22 May 2003 [16] that "(...) by not reflecting, in its national legislation the subsidiary nature of the enlistment by undertakings of external competent services to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational risks within those undertakings, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Council Directive 89/391"

[16] Case C-441/01, Commission v. The Netherlands.

- This article also raised serious problems of conformity as regards the French transposition and the fact that France pleaded that the "médecine du travail" would correctly transpose this provision. The Commission did not accept this point of view and, after the opening of an infringement proceeding, France adopted national legislation with a view to integrate a multidisciplinary approach in its transposition of Article 7 [17].

[17] See Loi de modernisation sociale of 17 January 2002.

- Another deficiency was linked to the employer's obligation to enlist competent external services or persons if the protective and preventive measures cannot be organised internally for lack of competent personnel in the undertaking and/or establishment (Article 7(3)). The Court declared in the above mentioned judgement of 15 November 2001 [18] that "It is particularly important, in order to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, that individuals should have the benefit of a clear and precise legal situation enabling them to ascertain the full extent of their rights and duties and, where appropriate, to rely on them before the national courts" (point 22) and "In that regard, it must be noted that Article 7(1) and (3) of the directive require employers to arrange a service of prevention and protection from occupational risks within the undertaking or, if its internal capabilities are insufficient, to enlist external help." (point 23).

[18] Case C-49/00.

- Finally, several Member States have deficiently transposed Article 7 paragraph 8 first subparagraph "Member States shall define the necessary capabilities and aptitudes referred to in paragraph 5" (capabilities and aptitudes of the workers designated and external services or persons in charge of the protective and preventive measures). The Court of justice held in its judgement of 15 November 2000 [19] that "In order to implement that obligation, Member States must adopt laws or regulations which comply with the requirements of the directive and which are brought to the attention of the undertakings concerned by appropriate means, so as to enable them to be aware of their obligations in the matter and the competent national authorities to check that those measures are complied with." (point 36). This provision of Directive 89/391 was still subject of a judgement of the Court of 22 May 2003 [20].

[19] Case C-49/00.

[20] Commission v. Luxembourg, Case C-335/02.

* The transposition of the first aid, fire-fighting and evacuation provisions (article 8): in some cases the difficulties were particularly due to the fact that the responsibility for their implementation was split between different ministries (Ireland, United Kingdom, Finland).

* The obligation to document the risk assessment in all types of undertakings (article 9): The Court of justice considered in its judgement of 7 February 2002 [21] that " At the outset, it should be observed that Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive imposes a duty on the employer to be in possession of documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, documents to which workers and/or their representatives with specific responsibility for the safety and health of workers must have access under Article 10(3)(a) of the Directive." (point 24) and that " In that respect, it should be noted that a provision which, for certain types of undertaking, having regard inter alia to the number of workers employed by them, grants the competent Federal minister the power to exempt occupational physicians and occupational safety specialists the obligation to draw up reports on the assessment of working conditions seems to be clearly contrary to Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of the Directive, inasmuch as undertakings employing 10 or fewer workers may thereby be absolved of the obligation to keep a risk assessment in documentary form."(point 35).

[21] Commission v. Germany, Case C-5/00.

* Workers' information (article 10): In some Member States the legislation limited originally this right to a certain threshold of workers or to a certain degree of information.

* Consultation, participation and training of workers (articles 11 and 12): In the majority of cases, Member States accepted the views of the Commission and corrected the deficiencies amending thus their legislation.

3.2.2. The individual directives

The situation for the conformity in the transposition of the five first individual Directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270, was from the early stage outspoken more positive in that Member States generally incorporated the minimum requirements ipsis verbis in their national legislation. In addition, most deficiencies detected in the transposition were solved without the need to launch infringement proceedings. However it is worth mentioning that in some cases the Commission had to seize the Court of justice [22].

[22] Commission v. Italy, Case 65/01, (transposition of directive 89/655), Commission v. Italy, case C-455/00 (directive 90/270);Commission v. Spain, case C-168/03 (directive C-89/655). It should be stated that there are still infringement proceedings running against certain Member States (Austria, Germany and Sweden).

The majority of the conformity deficiencies detected related to the workplaces directive 89/654, work equipment directive 89/655 and display screen equipment directive 90/270 and were related to the technical requirements of the annexes. As regards the display screen equipment directive 90/270, the provisions related to the interruption of the activity and to the health surveillance also raised difficulties in the transposition in some Member States.

4. Action on the ground: the practical implementation

The delays incurred in the transposition as well as the conformity problems, particularly for the Framework directive, have had a considerable impact on the levels of practical implementation as well as on the quality of implementation, since the supporting actions (information, training, technical assistance, etc.) necessary to create the required safety culture were delayed as well.

The analysis of the situation at the workplace level provides an ambiguous portrait with a strand where transposition and application of legislation is largely respected, yielding de facto benefits in terms of reducing health and safety risks and preventing accidents from happening and a strand where significant efforts are needed to meet the standards and to allow to reap in full the prevention benefits of the legislation.

This means that on the one hand, the main objectives of guaranteeing to the worker of the European Union minimum common standard levels of protection by harmonising the health and safety requirements and the reduction of the number of accidents at work and occupational diseases have been attained. On the other hand, the non uniform application of such standards in different sectors of activity and in different sizes of undertakings has precluded accidents and occupational diseases rates to decline further.

A conjunction of several factors has influenced the level of practical implementation at the workplace. Below the relevant characteristics will be documented, covering the following key elements: publicising and flanking of legislation; awareness raising; risk assessment, documentation and supervision; protective and preventive services; information, consultation, participation and training; organisation and management of health and safety at work; enforcement; SMEs; and the public sector.

4.1. Publicising and flanking of the new legislation transposing the health and safety at work Directives

As early as 1992, the Commission and Member States initiated a series of actions, notably the 1992 European Year on Health and Safety at Work and the subsequent European weeks on health and safety as well as campaigns at national level in view of the promotion and diffusion of the new health and safety legislation and providing advice for the implementation of the directives at workplace level. Since its creation in 1994 [23], the European Agency for Safety and Health and Work took over such information activities at the European level.

[23] Council Regulation EC 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, OJ L 216 of 20.8.1994, p. 1, as amended by Council Regulation EC 1643/95 of 29 June 1995, OJ L 156 of 7.7.1995, p. 1.

Since the adoption of the directives, Member States have undertaken extensive action plans intended to promote an active attitude towards prevention, to instil awareness of the concept of integrated prevention and develop practical guidelines to help employers and workers meet their obligations under the new legislation.

The Member States generally report that the measures adopted are sufficient and satisfactory, although several countries [24] stress the need for further information and advice activities in order to influence small businesses and the self-employed to embrace high standards of health and safety and to recognise their economic and social benefits.

[24] Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Ireland.

Although the efforts at national and EU level have significantly contributed to a better understanding of the new legislation and made employers and workers more aware of their rights and obligations, the impact of these measures differs across the economic spectrum. For instance, the success in larger enterprises co-exists with the situation in many SMEs across the EU in which a qualitative step forward still has to be made to trigger the development of the sense of safety, the will to control the risks and the necessary participation of those involved in controlling the risks at the workplace.

4.2. Awareness raising

Despite the big volume of information material available, the level of information of employers and workers, in particular in small- and medium-sized enterprises appears to be insufficient to reach all target groups. This can be illustrated by the following examples:

- Studies undertaken in the Netherlands indicate that the level of information of employers should be improved. Amongst the enterprises that had not fulfilled their obligation to carry out a risk assessment, 9 % said that they had not been familiar with this obligation and 8 % were not aware of an analysis of the working conditions and the evaluation of risks at the workplace. These enterprises are predominantly small- sized enterprises.

- The results of a survey carried out in Spain show that 68% of the enterprises report not to understand the obligations of the employers. 16% of the enterprises reported that the level of information on occupational safety and health was insufficient. 59% of the employers state not to be familiar with the obligation to develop and implement measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers. 18% of the employers claim only to have a very vague idea about such measures and 13% of the employers are informed about their obligation, but had not taken any action.

- In Sweden small-sized enterprises report difficulties in understanding the provisions. The information appears to reach out to health and safety specialists and associations instead of the main actors of prevention: employers and workers.

- In the United Kingdom an empirical investigation confirmed that employers of small-sized enterprises have difficulties in understanding the information material provided by the authorities responsible for the implementation of occupational safety and health.

The insufficient level of understanding is explained by the nature of the provisions - establishing an objective - without providing at national level the appropriate information to help employers establish the adequate prevention plans addressing the risks detected in the risk assessment. In particular employers of small-sized enterprises report that the development of such prevention plans is a very demanding task.

On the motivation of the employers, the only available empirical study as regards health and safety at work was carried out in the United Kingdom. It leads to the conclusion that complying with the legal regulations is the most important reason for the employer to take new measures (80% of the employers). However, the study allows to distinguish three basic patterns of behaviour:

1. A widely spread attitude amongst employers consists of complying with the legal requirements and to ensure that they pass inspections, but without hardly considering the benefits to be gained of improving occupational safety and health. The so called 'legalistic behaviour' is thus aimed at containing the implementation costs as low as possible to meet the legal requirements.

2. A second category of employers is genuinely interested in the costs and benefits of occupational safety and health and considers them together with optimising production processes and integrated management systems and introduce them on the basis of what can be called 'intrinsic motivation'. However, this group is rather small. As a consequence, programmes based on "best practice examples" have only very limited reach.

3. A third group consists of enterprises that are dealing with occupational safety and health because it is connected to the requirements expressed by important customers, public tender conditions, and sanctions imposed by enforcement authorities, etc. In other words, there is an additional so called 'external impetus' to commit to occupational health and safety standards.

4.3. Risk assessment, documentation and supervision

One of the most important new developments of the European Union health and safety legislation was the introduction of risk assessment and the documentation of the results as a foundation for the establishment of a prevention programme of technical and/or organisational measures to combat the risks. These tasks also include the regular supervision of the efficiency of the measures taken and the continuous improvement of the situation according to the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391. The exercise must be dynamic with the prevention programmes continuously updated as long as the risk situations persist.

It is reported that the tasks of risk assessment, documentation and supervision is not universally spread, including in Member States with a tradition based on prevention. Below are some empirical results:

- In Denmark, a study from 1998 showed that almost half of the enterprises had not carried out any risk assessment. Among the enterprises with 5 to 19 workers, only 27% had conducted a study on the evaluation of risks. Among the enterprises with 20 to 49 workers the percentage was already 61% and in enterprises with 50 to 199 workers 67%. Among the large-sized enterprises with 200 and more workers, 95% had conducted studies on the conditions at the workplace.

- Studies in Germany indicate that between a quarter and a third of the enterprises has carried out systematic and comprehensive risk assessments. Given the size of these companies, this nevertheless covers 75% of all workplaces.

- In the Netherlands, 58% of the enterprises fulfil the newly introduced obligation to analyse the risks present at the workplace. In enterprises with more than 20 workers this figure amounts to more than 80% and in enterprises with more than 100 workers to 96%. The percentage for small-sized enterprises is lower. Amongst the smallest enterprises with 2 to 9 workers only 52% have fulfilled their obligations. The reasons for refusing to carry out risk assessments are as follows: 30% of the employers are of the opinion that this is not necessary, 21% so far have not yet found the time, 9% did not know about their obligation, 8% had never ever heard about this before and 7% expressed the view that it was too time-consuming and too expensive. For the Netherlands, data concerning the measures set in place on the basis of the risk assessment was also submitted. According to this information, approximately two thirds of the enterprises that had carried out risk assessments have started to work out the appropriate measures and also two thirds of the enterprises have already set in place concrete measures for occupational safety and health.

- In the United Kingdom, 30% of the enterprises that were familiar with the new provisions had analysed the conditions at the workplace even before the European provisions were implemented. Approximately half of the enterprises have conducted risk assessments for the first time after the implementation of the European Directives. In total, more than 80% of all the enterprises have carried out risk assessments. 22% of the enterprises do not have any documentation on the most important findings of these assessments. Amongst them, there are many of the smallest enterprises with less than 5 workers which were discharged from the documentation obligation. But also 3% of the large-sized enterprises and 24% of the enterprises with less than 50 workers do not fulfil their documentation obligation.

In relation to the quality of the risk assessments, the evaluations of the conditions at the workplace and its documentation as well as the supervision of the efficiency of measures taken are clearly geared to meeting the legal obligations.

The supervision within the enterprises of the efficiency of the measures taken shows a rather ambiguous situation. For instance, the results for Germany show that 84% of the enterprises with more than 250 workers supervise the effects of the measures taken for occupational safety and health. However, this is true for less than 30% of the enterprises with under 10 workers.

In short, the points to be improved concerning the practical implementation of the provisions related to the risk assessment are the following:

- In the course of superficial, schematic procedures the focus is being put on obvious risks. Long-term effects (e.g. mental factors) as well as risks that are not easily observed, are being neglected, as for example the ones caused by chemical substances.

- There is hardly any consideration of psychosocial risk factors and work organisational factors.

- Risks are not being analysed and evaluated globally. As a consequence, separate measures are being set in place, but there is no integrative approach for the analysis of the conditions at the workplace.

- Risk assessment is often being considered to be a one-time obligation and lacks continuity.

- The efficiency of the measures is not sufficiently supervised by employers.

4.4. Protective and preventive services

Framework Directive 89/391 foresees that each employer shall designate one or more workers to carry out activities related to the protection and prevention of occupational risks for the undertaking and/or establishment and that, if such protective and preventive measures cannot be organised for lack of competent personnel, the employer shall enlist competent external services or persons. In other words, either workers of the undertaking with the necessary aptitudes make the risk assessments and establish the preventive measures or external services are to be used.

The intention of the legislator, in establishing the rule of the priority of the use of an internal preventive service over the use of an external preventive service [25], was to ensure that enterprises already having internal protective and preventive services keep them while giving the possibility to those that do not have such services to have access to protective and preventive services of quality.

[25] see, in this sense, the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-441/01, Commission v. the Netherlands.

The degree of the provision of protective and preventive services constitutes an important indicator for the evaluation of the practical implementation. This refers to the scope, the reach and the quality of the preventive services.

The Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work adopted an opinion on multidisciplinary protective and preventive services and health surveillance at work on 15 May 2001 [26] stating that Member States must ensure quality control, while employers, who are responsible for implementing the safety measures, must have the capacity to involve workers and enlist qualified competent assistance to perform these tasks.

[26] COM(2003) 346 final du 12.06.2003

Although there are still significant deficits in ensuring a broad coverage of the protective and preventive services (safety engineering, health aspects at the workplace, psychological aspects at work) considerable improvements have been made in setting-up external preventive services.

The following information provides a picture of the situation in some Member States:

- Belgium: about 91% of the enterprises has signed contracts with external preventive service providers. In principle, all enterprises, including SMEs, have to sign contracts with external services (there are 27 SEPR - External Protective and Preventive Service). Large-sized enterprises in general organise these services internally.

- Denmark: The Danish Occupational Health Service has conducted an evaluation that reveals that only 12% of companies with less than 10 workers used an occupational Health Service in 1994 (Danish Working Environment Service, 1995). In a study carried-out in 1999, 38% of small-sized enterprises did not make use of preventive services at all and another 21% used these services less than once a year. [27]

[27] Tyberg, A. et al: Evaluation of experiences with the current Occupational Health Service-system, Tastrup 2000.

- Germany: In approximately half of the German SMEs with less than 20 workers there is no safety engineer and/or occupational health expert. These SMEs account for 90% of all German enterprises. Roughly 20% to 25% of the workers in the private sector work in these enterprises.

- For Greece, experts indicate that the prevention services to enterprises with more than 150 workers are considered satisfactory. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (with up to 150 workers) have no access to preventive services.

- Finland: The overwhelming majority of workers are covered by preventive services. Only 8 % of the workers are not provided with any medical care at the workplace. There are considerable deficits in particular amongst enterprises with less than 10 workers where no services are provided in roughly 44% of them.

- Until recently France claimed that the existing occupational medicine which was created in 1946, fulfilled the requirements of Article 7 of the Framework Directive. Therefore only occupational health services for workers have been considered here, which is formally guaranteed for approximately 85% of the workforce.

- In Luxembourg almost all the large-sized enterprises provide protective and preventive services to their workers. On the other hand, experts estimate that approximately half of the enterprises with 50 to less than 250 workers and the majority of the small-sized enterprises with less than 50 workers do not make use of preventive services to the extent stipulated by law. As a consequence of this, approximately 100,000 out of the total of 190,000 workers are reported not to be sufficiently covered with protective and preventive services.

- In the Netherlands 97% of the enterprises have signed the prescribed contract for the provision of services with a certified external company providing occupational safety and health care.

- Austria: 70% of all workers have access to preventive services, this coverage being rather superficial in small enterprises.

- Portugal: only a minority of enterprises is being provided with preventive expertise.

- Sweden reported that 72 % of the enterprises and public institutions are being provided with preventive services. Amongst the small-sized enterprises with less than 10 workers a respectable number of 45 % are taken care of. This figure amounts to 88 % for enterprises with more than 50 workers.

- In Spain, the national Labour Survey of working conditions (1999) reported that 24% of firms had no organised prevention activity [28].

[28] Report: resultados Estadisticos del Plan de Visitas a Empresas (statistical results from enterprise inspections)

- In the United Kingdom 85 % of the enterprises are covered by a specialist for occupational safety and health working at the enterprise or based on a contract with a provider of these services.

As preliminary conclusions it shall be noted that not all enterprises implement this provision either by designating a worker to carry out the activities dealing with the prevention of occupational risks or, in the case of lack of competent personnel, by making appeal to an external protective and preventive service. There are problems in particular with small- and medium-sized enterprises in all the European countries.

One of the problems concerning the organisation of protective and preventive services is the lack of appropriately qualified personnel. This holds especially true for services organised externally as well as for the health aspects at the workplace. The Framework Directive does not define the aptitudes and competencies of preventive services leaving it up to the Member States. However, it follows logically from the provisions of the Framework Directive that the preventive services have to be of a multidisciplinary nature.

Member States have defined these aptitudes and capabilities differently, which is reflected on the quality of the services provided in the different Member States.

The quantitative coverage of the enterprises, public institutions and the workers is not sufficient in itself to evaluate the provision of protective and preventive services. Qualitative aspects (training schemes for the workers, the intensity of services provided, successful improvements) should be included as well. In this context, there are significant deficits, inter alia a one-sided focus on technical aspects, medical surveillance being too much focused on the provision of preventive care only and the tendency on the part of the employers to reduce the level of the services to a minimum.

It is very difficult to evaluate the quality of the preventive services provided. There is no generally accepted standard for the evaluation of quality. In this context, the question could be put as to whether the minimum periods, which were determined in the individual Member States, will actually suffice for an effective provision of services. One should take into account that the employers almost exclusively consider the minimum periods for the provision of services to workers as a general rule and are hardly willing to organise the provision of any additional services.

The certification of providers of preventive services constitutes one possibility to ensure a high level of quality. In some of the Member States all the providers of external services have to have a certification in order to be able to provide these services, as for example in Belgium (since 2002), Greece, Portugal and the Netherlands. Other countries do without any kind of certification and simply ask for evidence of good qualifications in the form of for instance references and diplomas. Voluntary certification constitutes a kind of compromise, which was recently introduced in Germany.

The discussion about the certification as a tool to guarantee a high level of quality has not yet come to an end. It should be taken into consideration that certificates only help to analyse the structures but do not serve as a basis to evaluate the quality of processes and results.

In any case, it should be noted that the certification of protective and preventive services could also contribute to guarantee the free movement of persons and services in this regard.

To sum up:

- There is not yet a systematic access of all enterprises to protective and preventive services in Europe at the moment. The problems are especially significant in relation to small- and medium-sized enterprises throughout the whole of Europe. In addition to that, especially in the countries of Southern Europe and in Ireland, a large number of enterprises are working without any preventive services being provided to them.

- There are significant difficulties due to the fact that the number of preventive service providers is far too limited to meet the demand in some countries such as Greece and Portugal, namely in terms of occupational medicine.

- Practically all Member States have problems with the quality of external services. One of the most important reasons for this is the tendency on the part of the enterprises to try to purchase these services as cheaply as possible. They do not value the quality of these services.

- It appears that the existing protective and preventive services have a reduced capacity to deal in a holistic approach with the occupational risks (multidisciplinary services).

- It seems to be necessary to strengthen the measures to ensure the quality of external preventive service providers: the labour inspectorate could have an important role to play here.

4.5. Information, consultation, participation and training

The information, consultation, participation and training of workers represents one of the cornerstones of the prevention policy established by the EU Health and Safety legislation. Detailed rules on information, consultation and training are laid down in the directives concerned. In this respect, the important role that education at all levels should play in view of giving to every human being knowledge on occupational health and safety should be highlighted.

In the field of information very little data has been collected so far. However, two examples can be described:

- In Finland, workers associations and the enforcement authorities mention that there are significant differences between the enterprises and complain of problems relating to the information of workers. There are also deficits regarding workplaces with workers from different enterprises. The views on the quality of the instruction and training of the workers are very diverging. Whereas the employers and political administrations are of the opinion that the level reached is acceptable, the trade unions and the enforcement authorities think that it is not.

- Three quarters of the enterprises in the United Kingdom stated that, after the implementation of the new provisions, they provided much more information to the workers, and half of the enterprises carry out further-training schemes. Concerning the five first individual Directives, the demand for information was the highest for the provisions on the use of personal protective equipment and the manual handling of loads. The number of enterprises having reported problems with information and qualification amounts to less than 20%. These are first and foremost problems in relation to the time-schedule for the compilation of material and the organisational structures for giving instructions.

- Italy and Portugal reported that there are considerable deficits in connection with the information and instruction of the workers, including a lack of sufficient fulfilment of basic requirements.

Whereas it is difficult to collect data on the part of the employers or the persons responsible for the implementation of occupational safety and health regulations that allow to draw conclusions about the level of information, this is even more true for collecting data from workers. Only a few Member States have relevant data on this subject, which can be summarised as follows:

- In North Rhine Westphalia (Germany) only one third of the workers were able to give a positive answer when being asked whether a risk assessment had been conducted at their workplace. Approximately one third gave a negative answer and almost one third was not able to answer this question at all. It can be assumed that this last group has no knowledge about its rights and obligations in relation to occupational safety and health provisions. One fourth of the German occupational doctors were not able to provide any information in this context.

- In Spain, 90% of the employers have stated during interviews carried out in 1999 that they had not informed their workers. A Spanish survey from 1999 confirmed that only 11% of the employers have informed or instructed their workers.

- The information and qualification of workers was also seen as a problem in enterprise case studies that have been carried out. Finnish enterprise case studies show that the workers have shown very little interest in being informed and instructed since they did not perceive obvious incentives or benefits.

The obligations to inform workers also refer to the workers from other enterprises working on the same premises. The practical implementation of this provision is lagging far behind the average of the other categories of employers' obligations. This problem occurs in practically all the industrial sectors, in all Member States and in all the different enterprises of diverging sizes and is of particular importance in the case of temporary workers.

In the majority of cases temporary workers are being used for less qualified jobs with heavy physical burdens. Since these temporary workers, frequently switch jobs changing from one enterprise to another, they do not know about the potential risks and operational processes.

Many employers do not think it is necessary or they simply forget to inform and train temporary workers. The fact that these workers work for the enterprise only for a short period of time, the effort that has to be made to inform and instruct these workers or simply the fact that "everything has worked out well so far" are only some of the reasons that can explain the reluctance of many employers to take the necessary measures in this field.

As far as the participation of workers is concerned, their general participation in the enterprises has still not been organised in a satisfactory manner.

Greater opportunities for the participation of the workers were opened up by the Framework Directive, which makes the worker an equal actor in the prevention strategy and imposes on him the obligation of co-operation with the employer in the continuous improvement of the health and safety conditions. Thus the possibilities of the institutions representing the interests of the workers to participate have been significantly increased in many Member States. This is also true for countries in which the participation of workers has traditionally been given a high priority, as in Germany and the Netherlands.

As to works councils, empirical studies and interviews also indicate that they only seize these new opportunities with a certain reluctance.

The reasons for the deficit of the participation of the workers are very diverging and can be summarised as follows:

- There is a general lack of knowledge about the new rights of participation.

- The concentration on practical solutions and day-to-day business: the persons responsible for the representation of workers' interests in the enterprises are very pragmatic, and fail to develop an holistic approach concentrating instead only on obvious problems.

- Additional efforts are being seen as too time-consuming and there is the fear that there will be more administrative charges.

- The delegation of responsibility to workers' representatives and/or health and safety committees. This reduces the willingness on the part of individual workers to show an interest in occupational safety and health and to take on responsibility themselves.

- Imbalances between expertise and general knowledge: members of the works councils normally have to make a considerable effort to acquire the necessary expertise and knowledge to catch up with their employers or the specialist for occupational safety and health working for the enterprise. In general, workers or their occupational health and safety representatives are not prepared to discuss the subject with the employer.

- Workers lack of interest in matters concerning their own safety.

Special reference should be made here of the institutions specifically responsible for occupational health and safety. These can be committees in which in addition to the workers, the employers or the persons responsible for occupational health and safety are also represented or institutions in which only the workers are represented. Very little is known about the activities of these organisations in relation to all countries of the EU. French experts estimate that only one fifth of the existing Health, Safety and Working Conditions Committees make effective preventive efforts.

In Member States with a clearly defined culture in co-management, a negative trend has been observed concerning the institutionalised representation of interests. The more clearly defined employment relationships and the higher the number of institutions and committees dealing with occupational safety and health, the less likely workers themselves actively participate in the definition of the prevention policy in the enterprise.

As regards training, the levels of education and training in large companies are considered adequate. However, there is a general lack of education and training of workers, safety representatives and employers on health and safety risk management in small and medium-sized companies. This situation impairs an effective application of the health and safety legislation.

4.6. Organisation and management of health and safety at work

Occupational health and safety protection is an ongoing and complex obligation, which requires a transparent and systematic approach.

Increasingly complex work processes and changes in working conditions, together with the resulting new or changing types of risks, necessitate a new and comprehensive approach to health and safety at work. Intelligent and methodical solutions are needed, which allow the employer to take account of occupational health and safety principles at all operational levels and for all activities and to convert them into appropriate measures. Such measures must play an increasingly important role in shaping working conditions, optimising processes and procedures and influencing attitudes, so as to prevent work-related health hazards and further develop health promotion in organisations.

The management of occupational health and safety has to form an integral part of the overall management of the enterprise.

Very often enterprises excuse the absence of health and safety management because of implementation costs. However, the legislator did not call for sophisticated management systems, but simply encouraged applying basic management principles also in the field of occupational health and safety.

In Germany, for instance a campaign was started in the textile industry to help enterprises to integrate occupational health and safety into the overall management of the companies. At the end of the campaign, four fifths of the enterprises had integrated occupational safety and health completely into their operational management processes. This is on average only the case with approximately one third of the enterprises.

With the exception of large companies, there is a lack of proper organisation and management of occupational health and safety considering it as an integrated feature throughout the organisation. This constitutes an important obstacle for an adequate implementation of the health and safety legislation.

4.7. Enforcement

According to Article 4 of the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Member States should take the necessary steps to ensure that employers, workers and workers' representatives are subject to the legal provisions necessary for the implementation of the Directive and, in particular shall ensure adequate controls and supervision. Therefore, the effective equivalent enforcement in all Member States is essential not only to fulfil the obligations imposed by Article 4 of the Framework Directive but also to ensure that the provisions of the Directives are uniformly applied guaranteeing the same level of protection for workers throughout the European Union. It is therefore important to analyse the enforcement efforts devoted by Member States and the impact of the new EU legislation on the Labour Inspectorates and the efficiency of the enforcement action.

Labour Inspectorates constitute the major body for enforcement of health and safety. In addition, there are other specialised inspection bodies which have responsibilities in particular sectors of activity or whose action also impacts on the health and safety implementation (mines inspectorates, nuclear inspectorates, maritime inspectorates, work equipment market surveillance, etc.).

Generally used indicators to measure the enforcement effort are the number of labour inspectors in each Member State and the number of inspections performed per year. In the European Union, approximately 12 000 inspectors perform each year 1 400 000 inspections. The available data on the inspection effort and on the coverage of the working population (inspectors/working population) varies markedly from country to country depending on the socio-economic structure and the different nature of enforcement systems in place. In effect, the relative importance of particular sectors of economic activity and the specificity of risks in those sectors has originated in most countries the creation of specialised inspection bodies (nuclear, mines, maritime, etc, inspections) which enforce different aspects of the EU health and safety legislation.

On the other hand, generalist inspections enforce not only health and safety legislation but also other aspects of labour and social security laws. Oftenly, several inspection bodies are responsible for the enforcement of the different provisions of the same national piece of legislation. Therefore it is particularly difficult to differenciate the effective inspection effort devoted to health and safety matters in the different Member States.

The entry into force of the new EU health and safety legislation did not seem to represent an increase in the inspection effort devoted by the different Member States. Consequently, the national reports indicate a chronic lack of resources of Labour Inspectorates to cover all aspects of the new legislation, with particular attention to SMEs.

To respond in a constructive way to the insufficient resources, Labour Inspectorates have adopted innovative approaches of inspection, including by planning the inspections according to the level of risk and by considering the willingness and the aptitude of the companies to implement the regulations. In some cases, a strict separation has been introduced between inspections and provision of information and consultation, for which separate institutions have been created and held responsible.

Member States report about the investment in the training of inspectors to cope with the multidisciplinary approach of prevention required by the EU health and safety legislation and needed to control risks due to new technology or new forms of work organisation.

In this sense, it is important to note the evolution observed on the two traditional forms of Labour Inspectorates: generalists dealing with all aspects of Labour Law and specialists enforcing exclusively health and safety at work.

The need to control the implementation of prevention plans based on risk assessments, which include not only technological risks (like those due to work equipment), but also others which are due to work relations or work organisation, have caused that specialist inspections started to care more about control of risks of work organisation whereas the generalistic inspections have intensified their surveillance on the technological risks. This in turn, has created the need for an increase of the inspectors' competencies and impacted on the recruitment, education levels and training of inspectors.

It is difficult to determine mathematically the efficiency of the Inspectorates action in terms of contribution to the reduction of occupational accidents and diseases. Only the effect of concrete actions like inspection campaigns or specific programmes provide some indication of the efficiency, although even in those cases it is difficult to differentiate the effects due to awareness-raising from those produced by the improvement notices issued or sanctions applied.

It seems therefore essential that an appropriate methodology together with criteria and indicators for the measuring of the efficiency of the inspection are established at the European level. This would also provide an indication of the most effective ways and means to be applied as well as an appropriate justification for the need of additional inspection resources. The results of the work initiated in this area by the Senior Labour Inspectorates Committee (SLIC) are of particular importance.

The efficiency of the Labour Inspectorates needs to be measured not only by the quantity and quality of inspections but also by its impact in the increasing of knowledge of actors and the changes brought about in attitudes and organisation of companies for the improvement in the working environment. In particular, it is essential that the workers' and/or their representatives' right of appeal to the enforcement authority and the opportunity for the workers' representatives to submit their observations during inspections, are fully implemented.

The analysis performed shows that the action of the EU Labour Inspectorates actively contributes to the reduction of absenteeism due to occupational accidents and diseases but also to the behavioural changes of the actors of prevention at workplace level.

Some complaints received by the Commission provide some indication that improvements are still needed to improve inspection action as regards SMEs and high risk sectors of activity as well as to increase the dissuasive power of the improvement notices and sanctions. In this sense, it would be advisable that the analysis between the proportion of sanctions proposed, imposed and confirmed is performed and the reasons leading to high disproportionality investigated.

A closer co-operation between the Labour Inspectorates and the Judicial authorities would contribute to lower the proportion of unsuccessful proceedings or facilitate the application of sanctions in transnational situations.

The co-ordination between the different authorities in charge of the different inspections at national level and the Member States Labour Inspectorates need to be strengthened in order to ensure minimum standards of inspection across the EU. The Common Principles for Inspection of Health and Safety at the workplace established by SLIC should be the foundation for reaching effective and uniform enforcement of the EU Health and Safety legislation and avoiding competitive advantages for some companies.

4.8. Two specific cases

The practical implementation of the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 in the small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and in the public sector deserve particular attention.

EU health and safety directives apply to SMEs and their specific needs were taken into consideration in order to facilitate the application and to avoid administrative burdens.

Also the public sector was explicitly brought into the scope of the directives concerned. This was an innovation with far reaching effects for the workers concerned as well as for the national administrations.

4.8.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)

Over the last decade the average size of enterprises in the EU has been getting smaller with 90% of them employing less than 20 workers. Not only is the number of SMEs growing but there is also a huge turnover in these companies and what can be qualified as an associated instability in labour conditions.

Most of these small firms also have an informal organisational structure. Often, the owner/manager of the firm manages all aspects of the business and has to deal with sales, marketing, finance, production, people, stock control and much besides - as well as being responsible for health and safety. Health and safety may often be seen as a costly extra rather than an integral part of managing a good business properly.

A key to reducing the level of accidents in these small firms must therefore be to successfully communicate all necessary information to those who run small businesses and persuade them that managing health and safety is an integral part of managing their business.

Unlike larger firms, many of the small firms have less history behind them and will not have experienced accidents. However, when accidents happen in very small firms, they often involve a worker who is a friend or relative and given the size of the company a key member of staff. Accidents may have severe consequences to the firm - possibly even putting it out of business.

A sector by sector comparison of small companies with larger companies in the same sector showed that risk levels were similar. The analysis performed showed that the risks were more dependent on the type of activity than on the size of the company. In other words, the size of a company is irrelevant for the intrinsic risk hazard.

Evidence shows that there are major shortcomings in complying with essential elements of EU Health and Safety legislation in SMEs, in particular as regards risk assessment, workers' participation and training, and in the traditionally high risk sectors of agriculture and construction.

The main reasons for these low levels of compliance observed are ascribed to:

- lack of specific and comprehensible information and guidance

- poor ability and skills to manage health and safety

- lack of resources to ensure adequate basic training of staff and managers

- difficult access to specific and specialised competent technical assistance.

When consulted on these issues, SMEs indicated that they can subscribe to these views. They also added the following comments:

- current legislation in health and safety assumed all companies had a management structure similar to large companies

- health and safety should cover all workplaces and all those who work (i.e. there should be no derogation based on small size)

- management skills (of which health and safety is seen to be a part) needed development

- all training must be at local level

- training and advice should be given by people who know the business and not by experts in "Ivory Towers"

- intermediaries, for example trade organisations, banks, insurance companies, etc. should play a major role in providing information and assistance

- there is no shortage of information available. What is needed is easily accessible, sector specific, targeted and jargon free information.

The level of information and knowledge on the part of the employers is of extreme significance for the implementation of the new national regulations transposing the EU Directives. Empirical studies as well as case studies have shown that the level of application is extremely low amongst SMEs. In most of the Member States there is no problem with the availability of information, but with the ability on the part of employers to understand the information provided. Often information material specifically intended for SMEs suffers from a high level of abstraction. It is claimed that it can therefore not be understood by the employers of SMEs.

Nevertheless, according to the national reports elaborated by the Member States, one of the most widespread actions of Member States with regard to SMEs has been to issue more specific and comprehensible information, in order to ease the implementation of regulations. Some Member States [29] have additionally eliminated certain administrative formalities or reduced certain obligations where companies with very few workers are involved, without adversely affecting worker protection.

[29] United Kingdom, Austria, Greece, Portugal

At the same time, several national reports stressed the economic difficulties encountered by SMEs for adapting existing work equipment to the requirements of Directive 89/655 or to replace it to meet the essential safety requirements of the internal market directive (old Directive 89/392 now Directive 98/37).

For this reason some Member States have taken specific measures in order to mitigate or reduce the economic cost of the implementation of these directives. Germany has developed programmes for overhauling old machinery and France and Belgium are proposing investment plans as well as granting loans for the acquisition of new machinery. Some Member States also report difficulties posed by the craft sector, both from the information as well as the financial points of view, for which there is an initiative [30] to create joint plans by the industrial sector.

[30] France.

The Commission Communication on a new strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006 [31], already recommended a combination of instruments to help to ensure high levels of compliance of SMEs with the Health and Safety legislation:

[31] COM(2002) 118

- spreading of good practices at local level

- training of managers and workers

- development of simple tools to facilitate risk assessment

- the provision of information and guidance easy to follow, easy to get hold of and in plain language

- better publicity and access to sources of advice

- ensuring access to external protective and preventive services of quality and at affordable costs

- using Labour inspectors as agents of change to promote better compliance in SMEs, first through education, persuasion and encouragement and through increase of enforcement, where necessary.

4.8.2. The public sector

The inclusion of the public sector in the scope of the Health and Safety Legislation constitutes a novelty in the majority of Member States.

Despite some problems in certain Member States (in particular with the military sector) [32], that are still being dealt with by the Commission, the transposition of the EU health and safety legislation to the public sector can be generally considered correct. However, problems arise with the level of application of such rules, which turn out to be often defective.

[32] e.g. Spain.

In effect, the generalised belief in the public administration that the risk levels are insignificant in comparison to the same levels in industry coupled with a very hierarchical work organisation where the principle of the responsibility of the employer is diluted, leads to the paradoxical situation where Member States do not apply to their administrations the rules agreed by them and adopted for the well-being of the workers at work. This also holds true for the European Institutions and their services.

Nevertheless, the risks addressed by the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual Directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 are present in the public sector at the same levels as in the private sector. It cannot be disputed that the risks linked to ergonomic aspects, workplace conditions, the handling of loads, the use of display screen equipment or the organisational aspects including the psychosocial risks, are widely present in the public sector. The complaints received by the Commission from workers from the public sector confirm the poor working conditions related to these risks and the poor level of implementation.

In the majority of Member States there is a lack of safety culture, awareness and motivation of workers and their hierarchy for the improvement of the health and safety conditions in the public sector. In addition, the availability of adequate resources for the implementation of the provisions of the health and safety legislation is often impaired by the limitations imposed in the national budgets.

It is rare to find national administrations performing risk assessments, possessing preventive services or implementing systematic training, information and workers' participation mechanisms as regards health and safety at work.

The enforcement of the health and safety legislation in the public sector represents an additional problem as regards the assurance of the respect of this legislation. In the majority of Member States, the Labour Inspectorate is either not competent to enforce health and safety legislation in the public administration, this function being performed by an internal service lacking the necessary hierarchical independence, or its enforcement powers are diminished by the difficulties to make the improvement notices or sanctions imposed applicable and effective.

The proportion of workers in the civil service, the fact that traditionally civil servants will pass their entire career working for the public sector and will thus be exposed to the same risks, the impact of their working conditions and workplaces (schools, hospitals, public services) to the health and safety of others and the moral obligation of the public sector to set the example, deserve that increased efforts are deployed by Member States to improve the level of compliance with the health and safety standards.

5. Assessment of effectiveness

It results from the national reports that the majority of Member States [33] consider that the necessary amount of time has not elapsed to make a proper and full assessment of effectiveness. Although nearly all Member States believe there has been a positive impact [34], they do not have the data or statistical results available yet to demonstrate the practical impact of the Directive in a direct way. However, the evaluation that the legislation has contributed to making the workplace safer is supported by general statistical data on occupational health and safety.

[33] Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Ireland, etc.

[34] Special repercussions in Greece

5.1. Effects on accidents at work and occupational diseases

The most recent figures [35] on accidents at work that are available are for the year 2000 [36]. According to that information the number of accidents per 100,000 workers (incident rate) in comparison with 1994 has declined from 4,539 to about 4,016. [37]

[35] It should be noted that the information is not entirely comparable due to the fact that the criteria for the collection of data are not completely compatible and the fact that in voluntary systems for the registration of accidents at work the actual scope of the problem remains underestimated.

[36] ESAW-European statistics on accidents at work.. For occupational diseases, Eurostat developed the European occupational disease statistics (EODS).

[37] Personal computations based on the (preliminary) data from the Eurostat data base NewCronos.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

As far as the incident rates of fatal accidents at work are concerned there is a clear improvement during the period 1994-2000 at European level: the incident rate of the fatal accidents have been constantly reduced since 1994 to attain a reduction of 25%. The absolute figures were also reduced in the same period from 6.423 to 5.237.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

By contrast, activities employing a large proportion of women saw an increase, albeit small, of accidents. This is the case for textiles and clothing industry, commerce and repairs, hotels and restaurants and financial and businesses activities.

Another source of information, this time providing subjective data (perception of workers and employers) on the developments in the field of labour conditions, are the 1999 Labour Force Survey and the surveys carried out by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Contrary to the statistical data that show a continuous decrease in the number and severity of accidents at work, the feeling of the working population is that working conditions in general have not improved. The most important results from the surveys are the following:

More and more workers declare to suffer from back pain, even when Directive 90/269 on the manual handling of loads and Directive 90/270 on work with display screen equipment should have had a preventive impact. It is also reported that the number of workers having to manually deal with heavy loads has increased. This appears to be in contradiction with en effective application of directive 90/269 that would imply a decrease in the number of workers concerned. In any case, Member States still consider the manual handling of loads as a problem of great concern. [38]

[38] Europäische Agentur für Sicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz am Arbeitsplatz (European Agency for occupational health and safety at the workplace): Der Stand von Sicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz bei der Arbeit in der Europäischen Union - Pilotstudie (The state of occupational health and safety at the workplace in the European Union), Luxembourg 2000, summary report p. 29.

All these indications may indicate that Directive 90/269 as well as Directive 90/270 are not being fully implemented. However, there is no definitive evidence to quantify as to what extent the increase in back pain reporting is due to improper implementation of the legislation or is due to non occupational activities or to risks not addressed by these directives. In any case, the complaint of workers deserves further investigation in order to identify the real causes.

Another still very severe problem consists of repetitive movements, which is also confirmed by Member States and the European Agency [39]. The number of illnesses caused by these types of movements has risen, although improved planning and organisation could very often help to avoid these disorders.

[39] Ibid, p. 30.

The organisation of operational processes is apparently not in line with the requirements to reduce significantly the number of workers suffering from unfavourable working conditions. In connection with special types of strain, such as painful or tiring physical positions, now more workers seem to be affected than was the case five or ten years ago. Especially workers in atypical or delicate employment situations suffer from these strains.

Additionally, in their national reports the Member States have indicated that in relation to Directive 90/270 proper implementation of the regulations should lead to an improvement in the ergonomic suitability of these workstations. The subject of disorders caused by working with display screen is controversial. Some Member States [40] consider that the risks of work which includes display screens are of a secondary nature. They are of the opinion that certain eyesight problems are unfairly ascribed to screen work and that the disorders peculiar to this work (eye fatigue and postural pains) are easily reversible by breaks in screen work or making adjustments to the working environment. Other Member States acknowledge certain symptoms such as stress, headaches, eye irritation and general tiredness, as well as other more serious problems of electromagnetic radiation, lasers and magnetic fields relating to terminals [41].

[40] France and the United Kingdom

[41] Finland and the Netherlands

In conclusion, the feeling of the working population indicates that much still needs to be done as regards work control and work organisation preventing high cadences and repetitive work and also psychosocial risks. This suggests an insufficient application of some of the general principles of prevention foreseen in the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual Directives.

5.2. Costs and benefits in the enterprises

Enterprises know that accidents cost money. When people are injured, plant and machinery damaged or product wasted, organisations lose money. Good occupational health and safety is economically beneficial. Models have been developed to help in quantifying the precise costs and benefits for enterprises. However, these models turn out to be highly complex and do not allow for immediate practical application. As a result, only in a limited number of cases the enterprises were able to carry out an economic analysis on occupational safety and health.

Member States have indicated in their national reports that due to the lack of indicators they consider that it is not possible to make a full assessment, although a reduction in accidents at work and worker absenteeism brings about a clear reduction in business costs, which should be accompanied by an increase in productivity.

Empirical studies have shown that economic indicators still need to be developed to give more in depth evidence for the efficiency of occupational safety and health to the enterprises. It has also become clear that the benefits are to be found in the so called "soft" factors:

- In Germany the employers were asked about their requirements for a modern system of occupational health and safety: 26% expected a reduction of the costs for workers on sick leave and an equally high number was hoping for a guarantee for the smooth-running of the operational processes without any interference, 25% expected an increase of the motivation on the part of the workers and 13% expected an improvement of the production processes and the services provided in the enterprises. The remaining 10% had several other expectations.

- A survey conducted in the Netherlands in the year 1996 leads to the conclusion that 36% of the enterprises interviewed are of the opinion that investments for the improvement of the working conditions have lead to a (significant) increase of the productivity. In certain industrial sectors, such as the food industry or the processing industry, this figure amounts to even more than 40%. At the same time, 32% of the interviewees stated that the improvement of the working conditions of their workers have (considerably) contributed to a boost of revenue.

- The United Kingdom reported that only 15% of the employers said that the legal provisions have had an impact on the cost / benefit indicators. Most of the employers stated that there have been positive repercussions especially concerning the motivation of the workers. The subjective assessment of the employers leads to the conclusion that the benefits are higher than the costs in relation to the provisions of Directive 90/269 on the manual handling of loads, Directive 90/270 on work with display screen equipment, Directive 89/655 on the use of work equipment and Directive 89/656 on the use of personal protective equipment. Concerning the provisions of the workplaces Directive 89/654 and the organisational provisions contained in the Framework Directive 89/391, the costs and benefits are considered to be almost equally high.

Large scale losses such as those arising from major fires or explosions, or involving loss of life, are very visible and some have been costed on an individual basis. Less well understood, however, is the nature and extent of loss from accidents of a more routine nature: those accidents which injure but do not kill people, which damage plant and interrupt processes. The cost of these sorts of accident can often be hidden in sick pay, increased insurance premiums or maintenance budgets. Few enterprises have the mechanisms to identify them separately and fewer still actually identify and examine the costs of accidents systematically.

Case studies undertaken in the United Kingdom show that the ratio between insurance costs and hidden costs is in the order of 1 to 11(iceberg effect).

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Accident iceberg the hidden cost of accidents

Many employers mistakenly believe that they are covered by insurance for most of the costs arising from accidents: in practice, uninsured costs far exceed insured costs.

Additionally, there are also intangible costs due for example to loss of business image, customer satisfaction, employee morale, or goodwill. These intangibles are hard, if not impossible, to be quantified in financial terms.

For these reasons, it remains often too difficult for the employers to properly assess the benefits of accident reduction when comparing apparent accident costs with prevention costs.

5.3. General economic effects

The findings presented so far by scientists and researchers are too limited to make it possible to analyse in a comprehensive way the direct effects of regulations on occupational safety and health. However, the costs which can be influenced by changes in occupational safety and health can be analysed. This refers to the costs incurred on the part of the workers, the employers or the general public, irrespective of whether they are financed with tax revenues or contributions.

In the European Union the costs for accidents at work and work-related illnesses are estimated between 2.6 and 3.8% of the gross national product (GNP).

- In Germany the workers absent from work owing to sickness account for a macroeconomic loss of production of 64 billion Euro (1999). The number of work-related illnesses, occupational diseases and accidents at work amounts to approximately one third of that, namely a figure of close to 22 billion Euro.

- In Portugal in the year 1994 the direct costs for accidents at work amounted to approximately 274 million Euro and an additional 30 million Euro were spent on occupational diseases. This does not include the costs of materials, losses of production or other costs. Moreover, these figures only refer to the registered accidents at work.

- In the United Kingdom the costs for the workers in 1995/96 amounted to 5.6 billion pounds per year, representing approximately 1,2-1,4% of the UK GNP. Taking into consideration costs to be incurred in the future, this figure amounted to approximately 7 billion pounds. The costs for the employers were estimated to add up to respectively 3.5 billion and 7.3 billion pounds. The macroeconomic expenditure (taking into consideration future expenses) amounted to between 2.1 % and 2.6 % of GNP.

- The macroeconomic costs for accidents at work, occupational diseases and work-related illnesses are a very important topic on the political agenda in the Netherlands. It represents approximately 2.6% of the Dutch GNP per year. This amounts to 1,250 Euro per capita of the population in gainful employment.

- In Spain the number of days workers were absent from work owing to accidents at work increased by 4.7% every year between 1997 and 1999. Approximately 20 million working days were lost due to accidents at work. The costs for these accidents at work and work-related diseases amounted to 2,051 million Euro.

In the European Union, in the year 2000, a total of 158 million days' work were lost, corresponding to an average of 20 days per accident. Around 350.000 workers were obliged to change their job as a consequence of an accident. Nearly 300.000 workers have various degrees of permanent disabilities and 15.000 are entirely excluded from the labour market [42].

[42] Source: Eurostat.

On the other hand, it has been estimated that the overall reduction of occupational accidents since the entry into force of the EU legislation has produced savings in the order of 25 million working days, showing the economic benefits deriving from the, albeit not fully satisfactory, implementation.

5.4 Effects on employment and competitiveness

The implementation of the minimum requirements contained in the EU Directives across the European Union establish a level playing field and prevent competition on low standards of working conditions. There are significant differences between the Member States concerning the adjustments and investments that were needed for occupational safety and health due to very diverging national levels of occupational safety and health before the implementation of the Directives.

The positive effects of investments into occupational safety and health tend to become tangible after a certain period, which calls for a cost-benefit analysis taking into account the short and long term dimensions. Therefore it is very difficult at the present moment to make any conclusive statements about the influence of the concerned occupational safety and health legislation on the competitiveness of the enterprises. For instance, in the Scandinavian countries, the effects on the enterprises were very limited, given the prior standards already in place. In contrast, many enterprises in the Southern Europe, especially SMEs, needed to make more investments. As measures for the improvement of occupational safety and health in the beginning create more costs than bene