EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 10.1.2017 SWD(2017) 10 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of the European Union occupatinal safety and health Directives

(REFIT evaluation) Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Safer and Healthier Work for All - Modernisation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health Legislation and Policy {COM(2017) 12 final}

{SWD(2017) 9 final}



Commission Staff Working Document Ex-post evaluation of the EU occupational safety and health Directives (REFIT evaluation) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation 7 1.2. Scope of the evaluation 8 2. BACKGROUND TO EU OSH FRAMEWORK 8 2.1. Baseline 8 2.2. Key pillars of the EU OSH Framework 9 3. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS 11 4. METHOD 12 4.1. Methodology 12 4.2. Limitations – robustness of findings 13 5. TRANSPOSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 16 5.1. Transposition 16 5.2. Implementation 18 6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 27

6.1. Relevance 27 6.2 Effectiveness 32 6.3. Efficiency – Assessment of costs, benefits and broader effects 48 6.4 Coherence 60 6.5 EU added value 67 7. CONCLUSIONS AT EU AND NATIONAL LEVEL 69 Annex 1 - Procedural information 77 Annex 2 - Stakeholder consultation 80 Annex 3 - Methods and analytical models used in preparing the evaluation 89 Annex 4 - Analytical Annex (effectiveness and efficiency) 92 Annex 5 - List of EU OSH Directives under ex-post evaluation 100 Annex 6 - Relevant non-OSH EU legislation 103 Annex 7 - Coherence with EU non-OSH legislation 104 Annex 8 - OSH Glossary 106 Annex 9 - The EU Occupational Health and Safety Legislation intervention logic 110 Annex 10 - Summary of the findings based on the Country Summary Reports 111 Annex 11 – Summary of the findings of the evaluation for OSH Directives 195





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Occupational safety and health (OSH) forms an integral part of the European labour market. It is an important element of the European social protection structure. In the context of European integration and realisation of the internal market, a common framework was established through Directive 89/391/EEC (Framework Directive) aiming at securing a minimum level of protection from work-related health and safety risks for the workers of all Member States. This framework built on the existing systems at the time and laid down important common principles of prevention, risk assessment, information, training etc. It established minimum protection levels while allowing Member States to go further if so desired. Building on these common principles, 23 further Directives have been adopted dealing with specific risks and situations. Together this set of rules constitutes the OSH framework. The Commission is required to regularly evaluate the implementation of the OSH framework. This evaluation report draws from a number of elements, including an independent study, National Implementation Reports (NIRs) from all Member States and numerous consultation mechanisms involving independent experts, inspectors and representatives from industry, workers and Member States. The value of occupational safety and health interventions has to be considered in the light of which interventions at which level are most useful. This exercise also forms part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness (REFIT) Programme with a special focus on SMEs. The REFIT Programme focuses on efficiency, effectiveness and legislative simplification including avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden. In overall terms, the evaluation suggests that EU OSH legal framework remains relevant. Ideally, in order to evaluate the full impact of the framework, an assessment would have had to be made at the time of the changes in national law and practice required by the adoption of the directives along with EU-wide monitoring arrangements to check on progress, possibly with additional counter-factual analysis to ascertain what would have been the development across the Member States in its absence. This was not possible due to the lack of a robust 'comparison' group, the lack of prospective data design for the evaluation at the time of the adoption of the Directives as well as the difficulties in differentiating between the impact of the EU legislation and the national legislation as well as other factors (non-OSH legislation, technological progress, structural changes in the labour markets, socio-economic developments etc.). Looking at the specific directives, the current levels of exposure to the different hazardous agents and the continued existence of previously identified risks still justify their need overall. The EU OSH framework in the EU has been transposed and implemented. The compliance is better in large establishments compared to SMEs and micro-establishments, and varies depending on the type of requirement considered. On effectiveness, the statistical evidence shows that the incidence and the number of accidents at work have considerably decreased over the evaluation period . The decrease is likely to have been influenced by other external factors and the contribution of the OSH framework to this decrease could not be quantified. However, the different stakeholders consulted expressed their views that the OSH Directives are achieving their aims and do contribute to improving the health and safety of workers. Indeed, the external study found that a majority of stakeholders believe the Directives are effective and the analysis of NIRs also suggests this is the case. Despite the 9.8% reduction in the percentage of workers with (a) health problem(s) caused or made worse by work over the evaluation period, work-related ill-health in the EU still remains high, with almost 8% of workers suffering from work-related ill-health. In particular, and despite the EU OSH directive on carcinogens and mutagens, work-related cancer remains the first cause of work-related deaths. There were calls from a host of stakeholders, including workers, Member States and some employers for an update of protection in this area also citing the need to catch up with international developments. Assessment of efficiency is hampered by lack of systematic European monitoring data, and this data challenge needs to be taken into account in any future work and monitoring arrangements . As to the benefits of reduced levels of work related accidents and ill-health, literature studies suggest that there is indeed a business case for occupational health and safety interventions. Further data from the International Social Security Association assessed the return on prevention index for investments in occupational health and safety to be 2.2 . A study contracted by the Commission, assesses that the profitability index for OSH interventions was ranging between 1.29 and 2.89, with a benefit to costs ratio from 1.21 to 2.18 . However, the evaluation could not quantify the benefits generated by the EU OSH framework distinct from Member State legislation already in place or with more extensive coverage or providing a higher level of protection. As to the costs of the EU OSH framework, the evaluation confirmed that on the basis of the available information, administrative and substantive compliance costs vary considerably across Member States and are presumed to be higher per employee in SMEs. Fostering further use of support tools and developing better guidance to enterprises, especially SMEs (in particular as regards the obligation to document the risk assessment) were identified as a possible solution to make complying with the existing legislation simpler (and less costly) for enterprises. The evaluation also pointed to a number of issues related to the structure and scope of EU OSH framework. The Framework Directive covers all workplaces and all risks and as such remains relevant. However, it is not always clear what role some of the provisions of the Framework Directive play where no more specific implementing provisions have been developed, particularly in the context of constantly changing organisational setting, technological developments and scientific advances. Consequently, there is a need to consider how to ensure clear, better understood and more effective outcomes from the application of the Framework Directive. For example, there is a growing incidence of psychosocial risks and musculo-skeletal disorders (MSDs) in the workplace. While the scope of the EU framework covers these risks, the evaluation shows that considerable uncertainty remains over measures that may be appropriate to apply at the workplace or more broadly in society. It is also noted that MSDs and psychosocial risks are related to a complex interaction between occupational and non-occupational factors and therefore particularly challenging. Further analysis would be required to establish what type of action at what level, is needed and appropriate to improve the situation on the work floor. The overall approach and structure of the OSH acquis was considered by stakeholders to be relevant for OSH management. There are no major inconsistencies between legal provisions and stakeholders raised concerns that any changes to the overall legal structure might have unintended consequences and potentially lead to higher burden for business and lower protection of workers. At the same time, in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the acquis the co-existence and complementarity of the Framework Directive and the individual directives could be better explained and clarified. The six Common Processes and Mechanisms (CPMs) built into the OSH framework are central to its operation and designed to contribute to achieving overall health and safety objectives. The evaluation found that compliance with CPM's is reasonable but that the quality and the implementation of risk assessments and the management of risks should be further enhanced. Regarding the personal scope, the evaluation of the OSH acquis pointed out that for most of the OSH Directives, some Member States implement more detailed or stringent requirements, with the result that the level of protection differs for some categories of workers such as domestic servants, self-employed persons and certain categories of vulnerable workers. In terms of enforcement on the ground, the evaluation finds that there is a considerable degree of variation in the number and frequency of inspections across the Member States. Legal requirements combined with inspection are seen to be key determinants in explaining why establishments develop OSH policies and take OSH action, so there is a need to further examine the existing role and impact of Member State use of inspections and broader enforcement actions to target any appropriate future actions, either by the Member States or the EU, with respect to the role of inspection, competence building and guidance to inspectorates. Finally, it is clear that there is limited data at EU level to assessing the effects, costs and benefits of the EU OSH framework showing the need for a better monitoring framework with appropriate indicators to measure performance. At the same time there is a common understanding that further reporting requirements can cause administrative burden on companies and administrations. A number of new methodologies, studies and tools are being developed to address this by the Commission and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose of the evaluation In the area of occupational safety and health ('OSH'), the Commission is required, every five years, to produce a single report based on a comprehensive evaluation of the practical implementation of the OSH framework, comprising Directive 89/391/EEC hereafter "the Framework Directive", which is the main piece of legislation in this area, and of 23 related Directives. This comprehensive reporting obligation was introduced by an amendment in 2007 of the Framework Directive simplifying considerably the previous system of individual reports per Directive. The evaluation draws on national reports from Member States on the practical implementation of the framework and covers specific consultations of social partners (trade unions and employers' organisations), including organisations representing SMEs. The aim is to take stock of the various aspects of the practical implementation of the Directives and inform the other EU institutions and bodies of the results and any suggestions on how to improve the operation of the regulatory framework. The first report formally covers the period 2007 to 2012 but conclusions can in many cases be drawn to date. In 2012, the Commission launched the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme ('REFIT') which aims at the identification of burdens, inconsistencies, gaps and ineffective measures and the adoption of initiatives which result in significant regulatory cost reduction or simplification. This is in line with its "evaluate first" policy, whereby, in principle, the Commission will not examine proposals in areas of existing legislation until the regulatory mapping and appropriate subsequent evaluation work has been conducted. The Commission included the OSH ex-post evaluation in the REFIT Programme which focuses on efficiency, effectiveness and legislative simplification including avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden. However, due to its broader scope and specific regulatory regime under the Framework Directive, the OSH evaluation covers a broader range of issues and aims at a wider evaluation of the legislation, including on relevance, research and new scientific knowledge. It has a special focus on SMEs. 1.2. Scope of the evaluation

The ex-post evaluation covers the implementation of the OSH framework in 27 Member States. The 24 Directives listed in Annex 5 are considered by this report while the following Directives are not included: The Sharp Injuries Directive 2010/32/EU is not covered by the evaluation as it does not contain the above-mentioned obligation to evaluate its implementation as laid down in the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC and related Directives; The Electromagnetic Fields Directive 2013/35/EU ('EMF'), which entered into force and repealed Directive 2004/40/EC from 29 June 2013. The latter Directive was part of the comprehensive OSH ex-post evaluation system, but the Commission, prior to the expiry of its (prolonged) transposition period, decided to thoroughly reconsider some of its provisions on the basis of new scientific information produced by internationally recognised experts. Subsequently, the new EMF Directive was adopted, after the period covered by the evaluation. 2. BACKGROUND TO EU OSH FRAMEWORK This section presents a description of the EU OSH framework, its objectives and the problems it was intended to solve. 2.1. Baseline Occupational safety and health is one of the EU’s longest standing priorities in the social field. Due to a lack of an explicit legislative competence in this area in the Treaty until the mid-1980s, occupational safety and health was seen as an accessory to market harmonisation and the economic policies of the European Economic Community (EEC). The first Directives were adopted on the basis of the general market harmonisation provisions of the EEC Treaty, such as Directive 77/576/ EEC on the harmonisation of national laws on safety signs in the workplace and Directive 78/610/ EEC on the harmonisation of occupational exposure limits to vinyl chloride monomers. As a result, the EU action in the field of health and safety at work was fragmentary and limited to accompanying the needs of market harmonisation. OSH instruments at international/global level The ILO adopts international labour standards in the form of conventions and recommendations, including in the field of OSH. A large part of the Framework Directive has to a considerable degree been influenced by prior work that took place within the ILO. This includes a wide range of issues such as risk assessment, control and supervision by the authorities (labour inspection), the obligation to prepare a list of occupational accidents, protective and preventive services, health surveillance, rules on specific risks including cancer, asbestos and chemicals, and on specific sectors, such as construction, mining and agriculture. The EU OSH legislation adopted in this area is more detailed and covers more aspects than the ILO Conventions; it applies throughout the EU, while ILO conventions can only be ratified by individual States and therefore the levels of ratification vary per convention. Some subject matters of the conventions fall under the exclusive competence of the EU and therefore Member States should be authorised – by Council decision - before ratifying such ILO rules, whether or not the exclusive competence of the EU covers the whole convention, or only elements of the convention. 2.2. Key pillars of the EU OSH Framework

Prevention is the guiding principle of the EU OSH Framework. On this basis, the Framework Directive aims at "introducing measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work" and contains general principles and common rules concerning the assessment and prevention of occupational risks, the protection of safety and health according to a hierarchy of prevention measures, the elimination of risk and accident factors, the principle of the responsibility of the employer, rights/duties of workers, including the informing, consultation, balanced participation and training of workers and their representatives, health surveillance as well as general guidelines for the implementation of the said principles. The Directive applies to both public and private sectors. It provides that "individual" Directives shall be adopted, inter alia in the areas listed in its Annex (e.g. work places, work equipment, personal protective equipment). Employer risk assessment is a key element in the prevention and protection system of the Framework Directive, since it obliges employers to effectively take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers, including risk prevention and the provision of information and training of workers. This goal-orientated approach means that instead of merely complying with prescriptions and limit values, employers have the responsibility to decide on improvement measures that best meet the identified risk profile of their company. The Framework Directive can thus be considered an important innovation at the time for workplace prevention measures and culture. Most of the individual Directives were adopted in the five years following the adoption of the Framework Directive. The legislation has thus been in place for a considerable amount of time. The individual OSH Directives develop the general principles and instruments/common rules of the Framework Directive with regards to specific hazards at work (e.g. exposure to dangerous substances, or physical agents), to specific activities (e.g. manual handling of loads, working with visual display units), to sectors with higher risks (e.g. construction sites, extractive industries, fishing vessels) and to vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers. The individual Directives define in more detail how risks are to be assessed, and the setting and measuring of limit values at the workplace. The general provisions of the Framework Directive apply in full to all the areas covered by each individual Directive, without prejudice to more stringent and/or specific provisions contained in the individual Directives (lex specialis). The provisions of the Framework Directive and its related Directives are to a large extent goal or process-oriented, combined with provisions of a more prescriptive nature. Goal or process-oriented regulations set the goals to be achieved, but leave it to the employers / workers involved to decide on the best way to achieve these results. An example is Article 6(1) of the Framework Directive which requires employers to take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers. Such provisions are generally more flexible and allow for different ways to achieve the results to best suit a particular situation. On the other hand, it may be less clear for employers how to comply, or for the workers in relation to Article 13 of the Framework Directive. Prescriptive provisions lay down in detail what is required to be achieved and the way to obtain the outcome. An example is Article 3(1) of the Noise Directive 2003/10/EC which lays down specific limit values and action values for the exposure to noise. Such provisions are easier to enforce, but they require more frequent updating / modification. 3. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS The ex-post evaluation has addressed the following five evaluation criteria. Relevance Relevance refers to the extent to which a particular intervention is consistent with the needs and problems experienced by the target groups. In the case of the OSH framework, the essential issue examined was therefore whether or not the framework addresses the current and emerging OSH risks prevalent within the Member States. Effectiveness Under the effectiveness, the ex-post evaluation assessed whether the EU OSH Directives have achieved their objectives in improving the health and safety of workers and how significant these achievements were. Under this criterion the contribution of various elements to these objectives has been assessed (e.g. common processes and mechanisms - CPMs, derogations and transitional periods). Unintended effects have also been analysed. The CPMs foreseen by the Directives comprise risk assessment processes, training, consultation, participation and information of workers, preventive and protective services and health surveillance. Efficiency Under efficiency, the ex-post evaluation has looked at the benefits (e.g. reduction in working days lost due to work-related accidents or health problems; reduction in the number or severity of work-related accidents or health problems); costs which arise for society and employers from fulfilling the requirements of the EU OSH framework's requirements (including administrative and compliance burden). The analysis placed particular emphasis on SMEs, including risk assessment. Coherence Under coherence the evaluation assessed whether there are any inconsistencies, overlaps and/or synergies across and between the Directives and whether the Directives interrelate with other measures and/or policies that also cover aspects related to health and safety at work.

EU added value EU-added value looks for changes which are reasonably assumed to be due to EU intervention rather than any other factors. 4. METHOD 4.1. Methodology Sources of findings The evaluation is based on three main building blocks: 1) a study by an external contractor ('the study') - commissioned mid-2013. The final report was delivered in December 2015 and covers a total of 24 OSH Directives and their implementation in all Member States (except Croatia), in the period 2007-2012. A validation seminar was held in Brussels on 9 December 2014 to consult stakeholders on preliminary findings, results and conclusions of the study. 2) national reports on the practical implementation of the Directives ('NIRs') established by the Member States (and including the views of social partners) in accordance with Article 17a of the Framework Directive. In the NIRs, Member States provided data following the structure and questionnaire of the report as defined by the Commission . 3) extensive data collection (including in particular the NIRs, official statistics at national and EU level, past practical implementation reports, Commission communications and other policy documents, other external studies), through mapping of OSH at Member State level, as well as interviews with stakeholders carried out at both EU and Member State level. Consultation In parallel the Commission services received input from other sources such as individual Member States, the Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work (ACSH), the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC) and the Sectorial Social Dialogue Committee. The ACSH and, in particular, its Working Party on Evaluation of OSH directives, have assisted the Commission services during the contractor's work. The draft opinion on the external study, put forward by the WP Evaluation, was approved on 24 September 2015 by the ACSH plenary and contained viewpoints agreed between the government, employers' and workers' representatives in the Committee. The SLIC also prepared a contribution to the ex-post evaluation. Steps in the evaluation methodology and intervention logic The figure below presents the key steps in the evaluation methodology. Figure 1: Steps in the evaluation methodology Those consisted in particular in:

- Identifying and understanding the hazards which the Directives are meant to prevent. - Identifying the important provisions of each Directive. The mapping of the provisions served as basis for developing the intervention logic of the EU OSH legislation. As an integral part of this step, a mapping exercise was undertaken in order to understand the way the main provisions of each Directive were transposed and implemented in each Member State. This step aimed also to gather the available data on the level of compliance with the legislation from the EU and national sources. - Identifying the workplace impacts. This part of the evaluation aimed at assessing to what extent legislation the accompanying tools have influenced the behaviour of establishments and in turn how this has influenced the final health and safety outcomes (accidents at work and different forms of work-related ill-health). This part of the evaluation aimed as well at assessing and better understanding the broader effects of the legislation and possible confounding factors to the outcomes achieved. - Finally, on this basis, the assessment of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value was undertaken. 4.2. Limitations – robustness of findings Data limitations in the area of occupational health and safety were already highlighted in the Commission Communication from 2004 on the implementation of Directive 89/391/EC. Since then, substantial efforts have been deployed at the EU level in order to improve the evidence base in this policy field. In December 2008, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation 1338/2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work . The implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2011 on statistics on accidents at work was consequently adopted in 2011. In 2007 and 2013 EU Labour Force Survey ('LFS') ad hoc modules were performed to provide complementary evidence on accidents at work and work related health problems. In parallel, data sources were developed by the EU-OSHA agency, including the ESENER and ESENER-2 surveys and by the Eurofound, which conducted its European Working Conditions Surveys (EWCS) in 2005, 2010 and 2015. Together, these sources provide valuable information on several themes pertinent to the policies in the field of health and safety at work. Nevertheless, the quantification of the impact of EU legislation is a challenging task, requiring very specific input data to be developed for this purpose over time. Several studies conducted at national level highlighted already the difficulties in quantifying the impact of regulatory activities on health and safety final outcomes. National econometric research feasibility studies performed so far in the EU Member States assessed most of the time that given the current evidence and data sources, it is not possible to demonstrate links between regulatory activities and changes in the health and safety outcomes. The following factors render such work challenging: the complexity of model specification, empirical and methodological problems and the available data sources not being fit for purpose. Those difficulties compound at the EU-level, where the national differences in the implementation of the legislation and collection of outcome indicators and the nature of the EU OSH acquis (mix of goal-oriented and prescriptive approach) are even a greater challenge when attempting to differentiate between the effects of the EU vs. (pre-existing) national legislation, other policy tools developed in the OSH policy field developed at national or EU level, as well as other confounding factors (technological progress, structural changes in the labour markets, socioeconomic developments etc.). For these reasons, as explained in Chapter 7.3, a fully-fledged cost–benefit analysis for the EU OSH Directives under evaluation could not be undertaken. To assess the effectiveness of the EU OSH legislation, the evaluation relied, however, to the extent possible on the data developed so far both at the EU and national level, complementing it with results of more targeted studies on specific topics. Though the exact impact of the EU legislation could not be assessed in detail due to methodological challenges mentioned above, the assessment tried to take to the extent possible the impact of other factors, such as cyclical variations on the presented indicators (in particular on the (standardised) accidents at work incidence rates). Whenever the relevant information was not available from the EU datasets the available national data sources were consulted. This was the case, in particular, as regards harmonised data on occupational diseases statistics, unavailable to date at the EU level. As regards the evaluation study, it faced challenges and limitations in relation to the collection of interview data. Additional difficulties encountered in the framework of the study related to finding an adequate interview coverage for certain sector-specific directives and for SMEs. In such cases mitigating actions were taken by the contractor. Those measures included e.g. additional literature review for those directives for which adequate interviews coverage was not reached. Furthermore, the assessment of compliance was marked by specific methodological challenges. In this regard, available data allowed for a mapping of the quantitative aspect of compliance (i.e. the extent to which establishments perform specific, measurable OSH-related actions, such as performing risk assessments or formulating an OSH management policy plan). However, the EU OSH framework contains requirements which are essentially quality and content oriented, rather than activity oriented and the mapping exercise revealed that this qualitative aspect of compliance could not be systematically assessed due to a lack of data. ESENER and ESENER-2 survey data were used to estimate compliance in the external study. In this document, findings from the ESENER surveys as regards certain aspects of compliance and OSH management measures represented, whenever relevant, together with information from other sources (EWCS, National surveys covering inter alia the thematic of compliance, reports from labour inspectorates etc.). The difficulty in triangulating findings from these different sources comes from the different target population and scope of the surveys and administrative data quoted.

5. TRANSPOSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY This section presents the overall findings concerning the state of transposition and implementation of the EU OSH acquis in the Member States with cross-Directive references. The assessment focusses on transposition and implementation of the CPMs and of other key requirements of the Directives. The section is structured in two sub-sections: 1) transposition, including use of derogations and transitional periods, and 2) implementation, with a focus on the assessment of compliance, on the accompanying actions at national and EU level, enforcement and implementation in SMEs and micro-enterprises.

5.1. Transposition



The architecture/structure of the national OSH framework With regard to the architecture/structure of the national OSH framework, most Member States (22) have transposed the Framework Directive by means of an OSH framework act (which was not necessarily newly adopted after the entry into force of the Framework Directive); often existing national OSH legislation has been brought together into one main OSH framework act or an existing OSH act has been amended to comply with the Framework Directive. The individual OSH Directives are, as a rule, transposed one-to-one through secondary legislation. Some exceptions have been identified which are, seemingly, depending on the Directive(s) involved. The three OSH Directives targeting vulnerable workers are often transposed through a specific act and secondary legislation or directly through the OSH framework act or the Labour Code. Member States also often transpose the two OSH Directives on mineral extracting industries through several pieces of secondary legislation or through e.g. the national Mining Act and secondary legislation. The transposition of the two OSH Directives on vessels follows the same trend, although to a lesser degree. 78 infringement proceedings for failure to transpose the Framework Directive correctly into national legislation have been opened. The transposition seems, in particular, to have caused difficulties in Spain being subject to 26 of the 78 infringement proceedings, although most of the cases have subsequently been closed. Germany has been subject to eight cases, Italy seven and Portugal six. Several other Member States had a limited number of cases. One of the typical non-conformities seems to be the failure to make the Framework Directive provisions applicable to the public sector or to the use of public installations – i.e. problems with the scope of application. Another typical non-conformity is imprecise implementation of Article 5.1 – i.e. of the employers' duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work. Figure 2. Observed discrepancies in national transposing legislation Observed discrepancies No observed discrepancies IE, IT, NL, EE, FI, PL, MT, CY, LV, HU, SI, DE, RO, BG, UK LT, AT, BE, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FR, LU, PT, SK Source: Country Summary Reports. With regard to the transposition into national legislation of the CPMs, 16 Member States have transposed one or more such requirements through distinct secondary legislation, principally in relation to preventive and protective services and health surveillance. Only four Member States adopted separate OSH legislation for the public and the private sector. Although a large number of infringement proceedings have been initiated regarding the national transposition of the Framework Directive and, to a lesser degree, of Directive 1999/92/EC (ATEX), Directive 2002/44/EC (vibration), Directive 2003/10/EC (noise), Directive 2006/25/EC (artificial optical radiation) and Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents), most of them regarded late transposition (non-communication of national measures) and were subsequently closed. Apart from these, few cases of incorrect transposition have been observed in the transposition of the OSH acquis. Furthermore, for most of the OSH Directives, Member States have implemented more detailed more stringent or more protective requirements. This is the case for example in several Member States for the Directive 92/57/EEC (temporary or mobile construction sites) in relation to the appointment of the health and safety coordinator. Ten Member States have established a broader personal scope of application of the legislation transposing the Framework Directive by including 'domestic servants' in the definition of ‘worker’. Similarly, in a large number of Member States the scope of the legislation transposing Directive 94/33/EC (young people) is broader, for example because it applies to trainees and young students studying in technological or vocational college, because it covers all work carried out for employers, principals, customers and those responsible for schools who let minors do work for them or study or because it covers self-employment of young people. Derogations and transitional periods About half of the Member States have applied transitional periods in the implementation of most of the Directives for which such possibility was provided. In the vast majority of cases, Member States who opted for the application of transitional periods have also respected them. The evaluation shows a mixed picture as to the use of derogations by Member States. The derogations most frequently used are those laid down in Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents) concerning the prohibition of the use of certain chemical agents and two of the derogations set out in Directive 94/33/EC (young people): the derogation from the prohibition of employment of young people in the case of adolescents where such derogations are indispensable for their vocational training and the derogation from the prohibition of night work for young people in the case of adolescents and in specific areas of activity. 5.2. Implementation

Compliance The ESENER-2 survey conducted by the Bilbao Agency (Figure 3) shows that complying with legal provisions acts as strong driver for action on OSH, being reported as a major reason by 85% of the surveyed establishments in the EU-28. It was not specified in the questionnaire whether these legal obligations were at the EU, national or even regional level as it was felt that not all respondents would be necessarily aware of the origin or level of the existing legal framework in the case of OSH. Meeting expectations from employees or their representatives was reported to be a major reason to manage OSH by almost four in five establishments (79%) and was closely followed by avoiding fines from the labour inspectorate (78%), which is clearly linked to the fulfilment of the legal obligations.

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2) (2014); Base: Establishments employing 5 employees and more, EU-28. On the basis of the data collected in the framework of the evaluation study it was found that overall compliance with the EU OSH acquis across the EU and across establishment sizes is good even if it varies across establishment size. The findings on quantitative compliance with individual provisions common to EU OSH Directives (CPMs) across Member States and establishment sizes are summarized in the table below: Table 1: Conclusion of quantitative compliance with CPMs Conclusion by CPM Interpretation Risk assessments Moderate to good quantitative compliance Preventive and protective services Good quantitative compliance Information for workers Good quantitative compliance Training of workers Moderate quantitative compliance Health surveillance Moderate quantitative compliance Consultation of workers Poor to moderate/good quantitative compliance Source: COWI evaluation team Regarding the obligation to perform an occupational health and safety risk assessment, which is the cornerstone of the EU OSH legislative framework, ESENER-2 indicates that 76% of establishments in the EU-28 carry out a risk assessment and the majority of them (92%) report having it in a documented form. Compliance varies to a great extent depending on the establishment size (ranging from 69% among microenterprises employing five to nine workers up to 96% among those employing more than 250 people). Substantial differences were also found from Member State to Member State, with highest values in Italy and Slovenia, to the lowest in Luxembourg. Figure 4: Risk assessments conducted regularly (% of establishments, EU-28) Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014). A document explaining responsibilities and procedures on health and safety is available to workers in 90% of all establishments in the EU-28, with a higher prevalence noted in larger establishments. While having such a document is not a legal obligation, it is indicative of adoption by the employer of the systematic approach to health and safety management set out in the directives. When focusing on those establishments that have other types of workers beyond directly employed people -such as temporary agency workers, subcontractors and self-employed, among others-, 62% of those establishments in the EU-28 that carry out risk assessments report covering these other types of workers in their risk assessments Looking at those establishments that do not carry out regular risk assessments (Figure 5), the main reasons given for not doing so are that the risks and hazards are already known (83 % of establishments) and that there are no major problems (80 %). It is however not certain to what extent this result reflects the fact that on average the smallest establishments are exposed to fewer risks (or their risk profile is more stable) or if they are simply less aware of the workplace risks. Interestingly, enterprises in the smallest size classes report less frequently than their larger counterparts that the procedure is too burdensome: 22 % among those employing five to nine people as opposed to 31 % among those employing more than 250 people (Figure 5). Figure 5. Reasons why workplace risk assessments are not carried out regularly, by establishment size (% establishments, EU-28). Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014).. Base: establishments in the EU-28 that do not carry out risk assessments regularly. The ESENER-2 survey also reflects important differences in the access to OSH training depending on the establishment size. Among all respondents of the survey (person who knows most about OSH in the establishment), 68% declared having received training on how to manage health and safety, whereas among those in microenterprises, this figure was only 62 % and in large companies (with more than 250 employees) as high as 93%. Important differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of training provided to employees (emergency procedures – 81%, lifting people and heavy loads – 79%, use of dangerous substances – 84%, proper use and adjustment of work equipment furniture – 67%, prevention of psychosocial risks – 37%). Looking at available data from surveys where respondents are workers, the first findings of the Sixth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) show that 9 out of 10 workers report being either well informed or very well informed about health and safety risks related to the performance of their jobs. Again differences were noted depending on the establishment size. In line with the findings of the Flash Eurobarometer on working conditions, more than three quarters (77%) of current workers say health and safety information and/or training is available in their workplace.

As regards health surveillance, ESENER-2 shows that 65% of establishments arrange regular medical examinations to monitor the health of employees. Again, important differences in this respect can be noted depending on the company size (58% for micro and 89% for large enterprises). The most frequently used health and safety services (being internal or external) are those of occupational health doctors (68%), generalists on health and safety (63%) and experts in health prevention (52%), with again important differences depending on the establishment size (See Figure 6 below). Figure 6: Use of health and safety services, by establishment size (% establishments in the EU-28). Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014),. Important differences in this respect exist between the different Member States, which partially can be explained by the different ways of transposing Articles 7 and 14 of Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers. As regards the consultation and participation of workers, ESENER-2 shows that 81% of all establishments in the EU-28 report involving employees in the design of measures following a risk assessment. The same survey reveals that health and safety issues are discussed 'regularly' between employee representatives and the management in 56% of establishments in the EU-28 that have some form of employee representation. Focusing on specific OSH representation, ESENER-2 asked about the presence of a health and safety representative and of a health and safety committee (Figure 7). The share of establishments that reported the existence of either one of these two forms was considerably higher than for general employee representation: 61% vs. 30%. This higher incidence is driven by the broad presence of health and safety representatives, which are found in 58% of establishments in the EU-28. Meanwhile, a health and safety committee was reported by 21% of establishments surveyed in ESENER-2. In general health and safety committees tend to be present in those establishments where there is already a health and safety representative and they are more likely to coexist in middle-sized and large establishments. Figure 7. Establishments with a specific OSH representation in place, by size (% establishments, EU-28). Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014),. Concerning differences between Directives, for instance, while the results of the evaluation indicate that Directive 92/91/EEC (extractive industries - drilling) is complied with to a large extent, in contrast, Directive 2006/25/EC (artificial optical radiation) is characterised by a moderate level of compliance, as the issue of artificial optical radiation is regarded as complex. In particular, employers within this field find the technicalities and acquired competency to measure, monitor and assess difficult to understand and/or attain. Furthermore, both EU and national stakeholders assessed compliance with EU OSH Directives requirements to be higher in large establishments compared to SMEs and micro-establishments. This is supported by quoted above ESENER-2 data, EWCS, the Flash Eurobarometer on Working Conditions, by the NIRs and corroborated during the directive-specific evaluations. Compliance and specific measures targeting SMESs and micro-enterprises The most reported challenge for compliance for SMEs, in the NIRs produced by Member States, are the lack of financial, technical and human resources. Other identified challenges include the lack of established OSH traditions, of managerial experience, of information, knowledge and training, of equipment, of financial resources, of ensuring availability and quality of external expert services and of time. The evaluation study found that the most reported reasons by national stakeholders during interviews are that the large enterprises more often have dedicated OSH experts and/or departments that enable them to comply with legislation and international OSH standards; large establishments often have well-established safety and health cultures, partly developed through the accessibility of internal programmes and procedures, which are often a result of investing more financial resources than is available in smaller companies; large enterprises are often particularly concerned about company image and about negative safety and health stories in the media. The complexity of legal obligations was also identified as one of the main barriers for OSH management for SMEs according to the findings of the ESENER-2 survey. 25 Member States have established (a combination of) specific measures to support SMEs and micro-enterprises in the implementation of their legislation transposing the Framework Directive. These specific measures include exemptions, lighter regimes and/or financial incentives. Only a few of the individual Directives have been transposed using additional incentives for SMEs to comply with their requirements. However, many Member States have developed numerous accompanying actions targeted at SMEs, which are typically of a more general nature, not linked to a specific individual Directive.

As regards for example the obligation to conduct and to document risk assessment, the evaluation shows that Member States tend to favour lighter regimes and financial incentives to support SMEs and micro-enterprises; almost half of the Member States make use of financial incentives for SMEs and micro-enterprises to comply with the Framework Directive. Most of the Member States have guidelines on completing a risk assessment. A number of Member States provide specific guidance for particular sectors . An important number of Member States provide guidance specifically addressed to SMEs . Many Member States provide online guidelines and tools on how to conduct a risk assessment and document it, free of charge. Several Member States are involved in using the Online Interactive Risk Assessment web application (OiRA) to develop risk assessment tools. OiRA is developed by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work . The quality of guidance and support tools is crucial, as is ensuring that it actually reaches the target audience. Thus, simply looking at the number of guidance documents does not in itself provide evidence of adequate guidance for SMEs. It has not been possible to assess the quality of the extensive body of guidance listed and described in the study. Nevertheless, despite the quantity of material available there still appear to be a need for more and better guidance to support implementation in SMEs as well as for effective ways of delivering it to the intended user. Accompanying actions The number of accompanying actions varies greatly from Directive to Directive, both at the Member State and at the EU level. In addition, EU-level guidance serves mainly as a basis for national-level guidance and rarely reaches individual workers. At the Member State level, there are some Directives for which the number of accompanying actions is limited and there is a general demand for more targeted actions, especially those directed to SMEs. Practical tools, forms and check-lists that enable employers to comply with OSH obligations are considered by stakeholders as the most useful accompanying actions. Sectoral templates for risk assessment (e.g. OIRA) are welcomed by all stakeholders that recognise the potential for simplification and gain of time when using such tools. According to the study, there appear to have been very few formal evaluations of the utilisation or impact of any such material although some isolated studies of individual measures have been reported . Enforcement The evaluation identified general enforcement authorities responsible for occupational safety and health matters, although other authorities may be involved and/or fully responsible for areas covered by certain individual directives, in particular Directive 92/104/EEC (extractive industries - mines and quarries) and Directive 92/91/ (extractive industries - drilling); Directive 92/57/EEC (mobile construction sites); Directive 92/29/EEC (medical treatment on vessels) and Directive 93/103/EC (fishing vessels); and Directives targeting vulnerable workers (Directive 91/383/EEC (temporary workers), Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers) and Directive 94/33/EC (young people). While the actual number of inspectors in the EU has remained almost constant in the evaluation period (2007-2012), substantial differences in the evolution of the number of inspectors could be observed between Member States. While in the majority of Member States the number of inspectors has decreased (16), it remained stable or increased in the remaining 11 Member States. Many stakeholders emphasised that there is room for improving enforcement in general, such as the use of more risk-based inspections, as already done in several Member States. Thus focussing inspections on where the main risks are expected to be encountered is thought to be a more efficient use of dwindling resources than a truly random selection would be. All Member States have criminal and/or administrative sanctions in place, providing not only for imprisonment and/or fines but also for other types of sanctions such as various emergency measures to stop non-compliance, which can also prove very efficient. The strategic priorities for inspection are generally set per sectors or sub-sectors, groups of workers, type of risks or the company size. Initiatives targeting potentially vulnerable workers Initiatives targeting potentially vulnerable workers principally address their specific requirements through various forms of guidance, tools and initiatives at a number of levels (government, industry or other stakeholders), rather than through legislation which typically does not go beyond the EU requirements as far as vulnerable workers are concerned. As a consequence, women, pregnant and breastfeeding workers, young people, temporary workers and disabled workers are the most frequently covered groups as they are regulated under EU OSH legislation. Other groups also covered include, in particular, older workers, migrants, part-time workers, and parents. The evaluation found that approaches within establishments with regard to potentially vulnerable groups of workers are often not documented.



6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS This section contains the answer to the evaluation questions across the EU OSH framework. 6.1. Relevance Since the entry into force of the 24 occupational health and safety Directives, important changes in the labour markets and working methods took place, with a potential impact on the relevance of the OSH legislative framework.

The continued shift towards third sector jobs accompanied with the shrinking of certain industries, the changes in the global supply chains, the technological progress and changes in the working methods are only a few factors which have influenced the profile, the level and the nature of the hazards to which the European workers are subject. The increasing share of women in total employment and the ageing of the EU workforce are other factors shaping the relevance of certain directives for the future. Finally, the evaluation period (2007-2012) was marked by the financial crisis and the subsequent economic crisis with a major impact on the labour markets. While economic output and employment have both started to recover in recent quarters, the employment and social impacts of the crisis will take years to redress . The ongoing structural changes linked to technological advance and innovation (including the development of robotics), globalisation, demographic change and the greening of the economy offer opportunities for the creation of high quality jobs and shifts in work organisation, but also pose new challenges for occupational health and safety management with the emergence of new risks. Certain forms of employment (for ex. remote work, teleworking), mobile workplaces, or specific employment relationships (dependent self-employment, self-employed working de facto as employees) pose new challenges to OSH management. Last but not least, new scientific evidence available since the entry into force of the 24 occupational health and safety EU Directives have played a crucial role in the understanding of certain occupational hazards, allowing potentially for better prevention. In this context, the evaluation aimed at assessing, based on the available data sources the current and future relevance of the EU occupational health and safety framework and the factors which could improve the acquis for the future. The criteria used for this purpose were: the labour market coverage of the Directives, the existence of occupational hazards that the Directives were meant to prevent, the latest scientific information as regards these hazards, the labour market developments and changes in working practices which might have impacted some of the provisions of the OSH Directives. At a general level, statistical data shows that despite progress achieved in some areas over the last years , a need for policy intervention exists in order to safeguard the health and safety of workers at work in the EU. In 2012 3,918 fatal accidents were recorded in the EU-28 . The 2013 EU LFS ad hoc module data shows that the percentage of the population suffering from one or more work-related health problems caused or made worse by work, in that year in the EU-27 was on average 7.9% . The assessment of relevance in relation to labour market coverage showed that almost all of the 24 OSH Directives are relevant in all 27 Member States covered by the evaluation as all Member States have workers employed in relevant industrial sectors who are consequently exposed to relevant risks or who are members of vulnerable groups that are the subject of specific rules. The main exceptions to this are the two Directives relating to maritime sectors (Directive 93/103/EC (fishing vessels) and Directive 92/29/EEC (medical treatment on board vessels), as a minority of Member States do not have any workers employed within one or both of the maritime and fishing sectors (or at least those parts of these sectors addressed by the two Directives). In such cases, some Member States appear to have taken the administrative action to transpose the provisions whilst others have not done so. A further exception relates to Directive 92/91/EEC (extractive industries – drilling) where, although the provisions of this Directive have been transposed into national legislation in all Member States, approximately 20% of Member States apparently have no drilling industry at present. Across the EU, the proportion of workers potentially covered by each of the Directives varies. For some Directives, including the Framework Directive and Directive 2009/104/EC (use of work equipment), almost all workers are affected. By contrast, a number of Directives, including the two Directives in the maritime sector, the two Directives in the mineral extractive industries (Directive 92/104/EEC (extractive industries - mines and quarries) and Directive 92/91/ (extractive industries - drilling) and Directive 94/33/EC (young people) are of relevance to less than 1% of the EU workforce. As regards the assessment of relevance in view of existing work-related hazards, the evaluation found, based on available data, that the provisions for most of the EU OSH Directives remain relevant. The main possible areas for improvement identified during the evaluation, in relation to the relevance criterion were the following: - In terms of relevance in scope, the exclusion of domestic servants from the Framework Directive might need to be reconsidered. - In the changing labour market with the emergence of new forms of work and increasing uncertainty over the status of workers and self-employed, the question of application of health and safety rules to all becomes even more important to prevent accidents and occupational diseases. Considering the recommendations from the NIRs, the conclusions of the external evaluation study, the development of the case-law of the ECJ on the definition of worker in EU law and the treatment of self-employed under construction site and fishing vessel directives, promoting inclusion of self-employed and in particular those self-employed working alongside workers might be considered as a possible action in the context of future-proofing of the OSH Framework. Any future action in that area should take into account the Opinion on that matter issued by the ACSH in 2014, which found that a single EU-wide approach in this area could not conceivably address all the very different national systems fairly and coherently. - In the Directive 89/654/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace, the changes in the nature of some modern workplaces call for a reflection on a potential need to redefine the notion of 'workplace' as defined in this Directive. Suggestions from the NIRs as regards the Annexes to the Directive should be given further consideration. - As regards Directive 2000/54/EC (biological agents) the classified list of biological agents is out of date and should be updated to improve the relevance of the Directive. As regards Annex V of the Directive, adopting a more flexible approach scoping the measures in accordance with the results of the risk assessments should be considered. - In relation to Directive 2009/104/EC on the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work, the recommendations from the NIRs to adopt a clearer definition of the notion of 'specific risk' - in order to reduce the inconsistencies in the interpretation of this term in different Member States – should be given further attention. - In the Directive 89/656/EEC (use of personal protective equipment/PPE) the exclusion from the definition of PPE of equipment used by emergency and rescue services might need to be reconsidered. - As regards Directive 92/57/EEC on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites, give consideration to the recommendation given in several national implementation reports, to clarify the status of the coordinator and reinforce his function, namely to clarify the services expected to be provided by coordinators, especially with regard to project design, and to set out the qualifications coordinators should have. - As regards the Directives 92/29/EEC the review of the compulsory list of medical supplies should be given consideration. - In terms of relevance related to the state of technological and workplace developments, in the Directive 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment/DSE) the minimum requirements which all DSE workstations must meet (Articles 4 and 5), are widely recognised to be outdated and to not adequately reflect modern computing technologies or ways of working. - In terms of relevance related to the state of scientific knowledge, the DSE Directive includes provisions aimed at the “Protection of workers’ eyes and eyesight” (Art. 9) even though there is scientific evidence that work with computers does not cause any damage to the eyes or eyesight. The Directive also includes reference to “problems of mental stress” (Art. 3). Up to date epidemiological surveys suggest that the prevalence of such problems amongst DSE users is no different from that amongst the general population. - Other Directives affected by scientific development are Directives 98/24/EC (chemical agents), 2004/37/EC (carcinogens and mutagens) and 2009/148/EC (asbestos). In particular, contributions received from different stakeholders point to a need for the adoption of further occupational exposure limit values (OELVs) and/or the revision of existing ones. Following concerns reflected in the NIRs, there seems also to be a need to consider the most appropriate approach to managing risks that may arise from exposure to reprotoxic substances. It should also be clarified that risks related to exposure to nano sized particles (nanomaterials) are already covered under the existing Directives.

The individual directives are complementary to the Framework Directive which already covers all risks. Adapting OSH acquis to new risks may in many cases be done more effectively and efficiently through providing interpretative guidance to employers, workers and enforcers on how to apply existing provisions in the new context. In accordance with the better regulation principles legislative action should only be considered in case where the added value can be clearly established. In view of avoiding unnecessary burden on businesses, the exact scope of any modifications of existing legislation and the related costs and benefits should be subject to further discussions with stakeholders in the ACSH and a thorough impact assessment and related SME test. The analysis of relevance also suggests that improved data is necessary in this area so as to support future policy development. Indeed, for many Directives, data about the actual number of workers exposed to different hazardous agents and about the levels of exposure in the populations at risk was not gathered so far at the EU level and information available at national level is scarce. Also as another example, there have been efforts to set up statistical systems to an EU data collection on occupational diseases (e.g. the European Occupational Diseases Statistics). However, this is associated with considerable challenges due to the large variation in Member States' recognition of occupation diseases. The evaluation found that although some changes in the relative importance of different work sectors (or activities) can be anticipated, the current levels of exposure to the different hazardous agents and the continued existence of previously identified risks justify the need for the action to address those risks. The evaluation also confirmed the high prevalence of exposure to both risks leading to MSDs and psychosocial risks (Figure 8). Figure 8: Risk factors reported in the establishments (% of all establishments, EU-28) Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014),. However, there are and will be new or emerging risks which may not yet be fully addressed in the workplace and it may require some clarification how the existing provisions of the framework directive apply to them. These risks could be related to the demographic changes as well as to the changing world of work (e.g. new technologies and innovations in work organisation and the new products and processes to which they lead, possibly increasing sedentary work and reducing physical activity, changes in work organisation brought about by information technology developments, as well as the increasing workforce diversity, as reflected in new atypical contractual arrangements and work patterns, and a higher job turnover associated with shorter job assignments, especially for younger workers). 6.2 Effectiveness This section presents the findings on the assessment of the extent to which the OSH framework achieved its aims and what factors have particularly contributed to the achievement of the objectives. The general aims of the OSH framework are to improve the health and safety situation for workers across the EU. However, the more specific intended impacts, such as – for example – the kinds of occupational diseases to be prevented or reduced are often not identified. This means that, for many Directives, there are no clear parameters against which to measure the progress towards achievement of objectives. This also reflects the complex interrelations between exposures to various risks at the workplace and specific health and safety impacts – and between different OSH measures targeting various groups of workers, types of risk or sectors and their effects on levels of exposure. In addition, the existing mixture of Directives representing a goal and process-oriented approach and Directives representing a prescriptive approach results in different ways of evaluating effectiveness. In general, those with specific actions prescribed are more open to confirming compliance, while those Directives which are more goal-setting need suitable outcome measures to confirm that their goal has been achieved. Four specific evaluation questions were set: - To what extent have the Directives influenced workers' safety and health, the activities of workers' representatives, and the behaviour of establishments? - What are the effects on the protection of workers' safety and health of the various derogations and transitional periods foreseen in several of the Directives concerned? - How and to what extent do the different Common Processes and Mechanisms contribute to the effectiveness of the Directives? - To what extent do sanctions and other related enforcement activities contribute to the effectiveness of the Directives?

Impact on workers' safety and health, the activities of workers' representatives, and the behaviour of establishments Accidents at work Over the evaluation period, a declining trend for accidents at work could be observed in the EU-27. According to data collected in the framework of the Eurostat data collection European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) for all economic activity sectors, both the number and the incidence rate of serious accidents at work in the EU-27 declined between 2008 and 2012 by 18.1% and 19.6% respectively (Figure 9) Figure 9: Non-fatal accidents at work, resulting in an absence from work of more than 3 days, number and incidence rate per 100 000 persons employed, EU27, 2008-2012. Source: Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_01). During the same period, the number of fatal work accidents fell by 18.4% while the incidence rate for this category of accidents declined by 19.9% , in the 27 Member States concerned (Figure 10). Figure 10: Fatal accidents at work, number and incidence rate per 100 000 persons employed, EU27, 2008-2012. Source: Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_02). Over this period, the financial and economic crisis which has followed had without any doubt an important impact on the evolution of this indicator. A recent UK HSE study modeled the relationship between injury rates and GDP for Great Britain and estimated that for the last recession; approximately 10% of the fall in injury rates between 2007/08 and 2009/10 is likely to have been due to economic cycle variations. Most data prior to 2008, collected at EU level according to the ESAW methodology, is available only for a limited number of economic sectors and for a limited number of Member States (EU-15). Looking at those data sets, the standardised incidence rate over the evaluation period fell substantially from 2,736 accidents per 100,000 employed persons in 2007 to 2,073.5 in 2012 for non-fatal accidents at work and from 2.9 accidents per 100,000 employed persons in 2007 to 2.3 in 2012 for fatal accidents at work . The declining trend is confirmed by national statistics in the NIRs and the Scoreboard exercise for the evaluation of the EU Strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work . An analysis of longer time series based again on the ESAW records, and starting in years just after the adoption of the health and safety Directives, confirms the declining trend over a longer period. The standardised incidence rate of non-fatal accidents at work fell from 1994 to 2012 by 54.3%, while that of fatal accidents declined in the same period by 61.8% in the EU15. More detailed data on the evolution of accidents at work from 1994 until 2012 is available in Annex 4 Figures 1 and 2. Over the period 2008-2012 a decline in the incidence rate of both fatal and non-fatal accidents leading to an absence of more than three days could be observed in almost all NACE sectors . As regards the share of different sectors in the overall number of accidents, manufacturing accounted for the highest proportion of all accidents (21.2% in 2012) followed by construction (13.3% of all accidents) and the sector of wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (13.2%). In order to analyse the situation by Member State, the dataset for fatal accidents at work, for the subset of accidents excluding road traffic accidents on board of any mean of transport in the course of work was analysed, providing for most comparable data by Member State. In most Member States both the number and the rate for this subset of fatal accidents at work decreased from 2008 to 2012. At the end of the evaluation period (2012) the incidence rate for this type of fatal accidents ranged from 0.58 in the United Kingdom to 4.7 in Latvia (See Figure 11 below). Figure 11 Fatal accidents at work, excluding road traffic accidents on board of any mean of transport in the course of work, EU-27, standardised incidence rate (accidents per 100 000 persons employed), NACE Rev.2. sections A_C-N. Source: Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_mi03)

The EU statistics on the rate of fatal accidents at work, broken down by establishment size enabling to follow the situation in microenterprises and SMEs as compared with large enterprises, available for 2007, show the differences in the standardised incidence rate depending on the size of the enterprise: 3.6 for establishments from 1 to 9 employees; 3.3 for establishments from 10 to 49 employees; 2.7 for establishments from 50 to 249 employees and 1.8 for establishments of 250 employees and more. According to the same source, the standardised incidence rate is higher for SMEs as compared with enterprises with over 250 persons employed also for non-fatal accidents at work. An exception to this trend is the situation in establishments from 1 to 9 employees, featuring a standardised incidence rate for non-fatal accidents of 2,184 against 3,216 for entities with 250 employees or more . At the same time, it should further be studied to what extent under-reporting affects these results. Data from the EU LFS ad hoc modules on 'accidents at work and other work-related health problems' (reference years 1999, 2007 and 2013) shows a slightly decreasing trend in accidents from 1999 to 2007 . At EU27 level (all Member States except the Netherlands), there is no trend visible between 2007 and 2013: in both years the percentage of the workers having had one or more accidents is 3.0%, which corresponds to an incidence rate of 3,000 workers having had an accident per 100,000 workers employed . However, when looking at data by country, 18 Member States showed a negative trend, only 7 a positive trend and 2 no change between the two years. The LFS figure should be interpreted with caution as the EU-27 aggregate does not take into account the Netherlands and several Member States used survey questions which differed to the EU model questionnaire at least for one of the years. In conclusion, the available EU data collections on accidents at work, as well as information gathered in the NIRs and the Scoreboard exercise of the EU Strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work give a strong indication that both the incidence and the number of accidents at work have considerably decreased since the implementation of the EU framework and in particular over the evaluation period. The evaluation found that other factors, independently of the EU Directives might have also influenced this trend, in particular the more detailed national legislation (of which the effect cannot be easily dissociated from that of the Directives which they have transposed), other policies, structural changes in the labour markets, working methods and global supply chains. Due to the complexity of interaction between the different factors influencing the evolution of accidents at work, no exact estimate for the fraction of avoided accidents attributable to the entry into force of the Directives exclusively can possibly be established in a sound scientific way in the framework of this evaluation. However, even though it is qualitative evidence, it is worth emphasizing that the majority of stakeholders interviewed during the evaluation stated that the Directives, by establishing minimum common requirements for occupational health and safety management at work, were successful in achieving their intended aims and benefitted considerably the health and safety of workers, including the reduction in accidents at work. Work-related ill health The EU OSH framework aims at achieving a reduction not only in the incidence and number of accidents at work but also work-related ill-health. There are significant methodological issues that complicate the evaluation in this respect. Firstly, the individual Directives often cover more than one disease, especially those directives that are of general nature or target specific types of workers (and all diseases are in principle covered by the Framework Directive) or the risks of a disease are covered by more than one Directive. Secondly, as regards occupational diseases , comparable and harmonised data is not available to date at EU level. This is mainly due to the major differences in the recording and recognition practices within the different social security systems across the Member States. The evaluation relied thus mainly in this respect on available national occupational diseases statistics. Thirdly, while the evaluation period encompasses the time horizon 2007-2012, in the particular case of many forms of work-related ill-health, this time frame is not appropriate to judge the effectiveness of the policy intervention. Each occupational disease has a different minimum duration of exposure, maximum latent and minimum induction period. The decline or fall in the incidence of recognised occupational diseases in a given Member State during the evaluation period cannot only be attributed to the policy intervention, but also to the differences in the national recognition and recording systems as well as the weight which each disease with its specific exposure, latency and induction period has in the overall aggregate. Different trends concerning the numbers of recognised occupational disease cases were noted across EU-27. In some Member States, such as France, Italy, Denmark or Germany there was an increase, while in other Member States, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden or Spain a decrease was recorded . In most Member States, which recognise MSDs as occupational diseases, those forms of work-related ill-health constituted a high proportion of recognised cases, showing often increasing trends. Other impact indicators contributing to the analysis of the effectiveness of Directives derive from the existing population surveys covering the thematic of work-related problems . The 2013 EU LFS ad hoc module data shows that the percentage of the population suffering from one or more work-related health problems caused or made worse by work, in that year in the EU-27 was on average 7.9%. Overall, the percentage of workers aged 15 to 64 that reported a work-related health problem in 2013 decreased by 9.8%, as compared with 2007 for the EU-26 (without France and the Netherlands),. Again, this assessment must be considered with caution, as the EU-26 aggregate does not take into account two countries and several Member States used survey questions which differed to the EU model questionnaire at least for one of the years. Another possible measure to be considered is the workers' overall satisfaction of the health and safety conditions which they find at the workplace. In this respect, in a Flash Eurobarometer commissioned in 2014, 85% of respondents expressed satisfaction with the health and safety arrangements at their workplace . At the same time, the EWCS indicates a declining trend with regard to the percentage of workers who consider their health and safety to be at risk because of their work: 23% of workers in 2015 in the EU, compared to 31% in 2000. Finally, the 500 key stakeholders at EU and Member State level, interviewed in the course of the evaluation, provide further support for the view that the Directives appear collectively to have been reasonably successful in achieving their intended aims and benefitting the health and safety of workers as a result. The justification for this opinion was primarily linked to the role the Directives have played in establishing common, minimum health and safety at work requirements across the EU. Differences could be observed among the different national stakeholders' groups when assessing if the transposed legislation has fulfilled its objectives. The competent national authorities were more positive in their assessment as compared with other stakeholders' groups. Among EU stakeholders, the employers were the most positive when assessing the effects of the EU OSH Directives on the safety and health of workers, while the workers were the least positive. When replying to the question to what extent the national legislation transposing the Directives affected establishments' behaviour for the securing of OSH, the assessment of all stakeholders groups differed according to enterprise size. The aggregated scores of the national stakeholders for the Directives' impact on the behaviour of SMEs was somewhat lower than for larger establishments. Both employer and worker organisations, on average, agreed that the nationally transposed OSH legislation has had a medium impact on SMEs, while national authorities were more optimistic in their assessment. These findings provided by national stakeholders were confirmed during interviews with EU stakeholders. There are specific challenges related to some particular types of ill-health related to work. Several studies based on the attributable fraction method underline the burden of occupational cancer in the overall weight of work-related ill-health. According to estimates for 2012 for the EU and other industrialised countries, occupational cancer had a 57% share in all work-related deaths. Other major work-related death causes are circulatory diseases (23%) and respiratory diseases (6%) . A study made in UK in 2010 estimated that 5.3% (8023) cancer deaths were attributable to occupation in 2005 (men: 8.2% (6366); women 2.3% (1657). Attributable estimates for total cancer registrations were 13694 (4.0%); and for men: 10074 (5.7%) and women 3620 (2.1%) . According to a study published in November 2013 , around 8,000-8,500 deaths/year from occupational cancer are estimated to occur in Italy. The hazards leading to cancer are primarily covered in Directive 2004/37/EC (Carcinogens or Mutagens at Work Directive) and Directive 2009/148/EC (Asbestos Directive). Due to the long latent period for this type of diseases, it must be underlined that today's mortality and morbidity cases relate to past exposures, occurring often before the entry into force of the Directives meant to prevent these forms of work-related ill-health. The evaluation found a decrease in exposure to a number of chemical agents. This does however not seem to be the case for all substances or mixtures classified as carcinogens 1A/1B or mutagens 1A/1B under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. In addition, in the majority of the EU Member States, national limit values for highest concern substances and mixtures belonging to the aforementioned IARC groups exist. However, the values often differ by orders of magnitude and therefore lead to different levels of health and safety protection of workers across the EU as well as complex considerations for companies with production across the EU.

In addition, the lack of common definitions for certain process-generated substances or mixtures known as occupational carcinogens and mutagens across Member States contribute to different levels of protection across the EU. This can further contribute to maintain the burden of occupational cancer high in the future, in particular with the ageing of the EU workforce.

There is no indication of an appreciable reduction in MSDs which remain a major type of work-related ill-health. According to the findings of the EU LFS ad hoc module 2013, musculoskeletal disorders were the most prevalent type of work-related health problem. Among respondents in the EU who declared having a work-related health problem, 60.1% pointed to musculoskeletal disorders as to their most serious issue. According to the findings of the EWCS, though the reported exposure to posture-related risks declined over the last years, it still remains at a very high level (43%). Exposure to repetitive movements, tiring and painful positions as well as carrying or moving heavy loads still rank among the most prevalent physical occupational risk factors in the EU. The hazards associated with MSDs are covered by the Framework Directive and by several specific Directives, most importantly the Manual Handling, the Display Screen and the Vibration Directives. The Work Equipment Directive also includes references to poor working postures from inadequate attention to ergonomics principles which could give rise to posture-related MSDs. The Directives do not relate specifically to all risks leading to MSDs (repetitive movements, tiring of painful positions) nor do they deal with the issue of combined exposure. Considering psychosocial health problems, different data sources confirmed an increase in the forms of work-related ill-health related to the exposure to psychosocial risks. Indeed, according to the findings of the EU LFS ad hoc module 2013, stress, depression and anxiety were the second largest type of work-related ill-health identified by the respondents. Indeed, 15.9% of respondents of this survey declaring being affected by a work-related health problem over the last 12 months declared that those types of problems were the main type of work-related problems that they have had. The psychosocial risks need to be seen in a wider context. The WHO suggest that nearly one in two people will suffer from mental illness at some point in their lifetime, while it is estimated that almost 10% of the population suffer from depression in any year while a further 2.6% suffer from a psychotic disorder. Anxiety is also a major issue. Many of the risks to mental health have their source in the professional context (job content, workload and work pace, control, environment and equipment, organisational culture and function, interpersonal relationships at work, role in the organisation, career development, violence and bullying). Different data sources show that the extent of exposure to those types of risks and the related costs to society remain very high. In Europe 25% of workers say they experience work-related stress for all or most of their working time, and a similar proportion reports that work affects their health negatively. Psychosocial risks contribute to these adverse effects of work. The incidence of some psychosocial risk factors has fallen since 2005. Fewer people report working long hours and a lack of social support. However, job insecurity has grown, and one-fifth of workers still work long hours or have irregular schedules. Recently, increases in work pressure and violence and harassment have been reported in some countries; this is associated with workplace changes brought on by the economic crisis. Psychosocial risks are of concern to a majority of companies: nearly 80% of managers express a concern about work-related stress, and nearly one in five considers violence and harassment to be of major concern. The costs of mental ill health have a major impact on workplaces. As part of the work on the European Mental Health Pact, it has been estimated that the total productivity costs of absenteeism due to mental illness was €136 billion in 2007. Mental ill health has a disproportionate influence on absence from work, disability and early retirement. When people develop a mental health problem, they are likely to be out of work for longer, they are more likely to become disabled and they are more likely to retire early. Moreover, data from a number of countries indicate that mental ill health accounts for an increasing proportion of absenteeism, disability and early retirement as time passes. For example, in Germany early retirements due to mental ill health have risen from just over 20% to almost 40% of all retirements due to ill health between 1989 and 2010. The proportion of such mental health related early retirements has continued to rise. Moreover, mental ill health as a cause of absence from work in Germany has also increased – between 1989 and 2012 it has risen 2.5 times while absence due to other health causes has remained substantially the same. These trends in Germany are reflected in data from many other countries across the EU. Data from the UK suggests that not only is there an increase in stress or mental health related disorders as a cause of absence, but that the absences due to these conditions are longer than those for physical health causes. While there is no EU OSH Directive which lays down detailed provisions on psychosocial risks, the Framework Directive covers this risk and there is a reference to mental stress in the DSE Directive. The analysis of compliance shows some difficulties that establishments face in including these types of risks in the risk assessments. Further evaluation regarding the situation at national level and the costs and benefits of national and social partner/enterprise initiatives to tackle these challenges would seem warranted. Impact of derogations and transitional periods As described in the section 5.1., derogations and transitional periods are not considered to have had a major impact on the implementation and effectiveness of the Directives. Impact of the different CPMs The six Common Processes and Mechanisms (CPMs) built into the OSH framework are central to its operation and contribute to achieving overall health and safety objectives. Two factors have been identified which may influence the impact of CPMs. Firstly, the co-existence of the two levels of EU legislation, having its impact on the national legislations: the overarching framework directive and individual directives with provisions specific to some sectors, risks or groups of workers and the fact that obligations described on those two levels are complementary might not always be well understood, particularly amongst SMEs. Furthermore, scientific literature as well as analysis of compliance levels across sectors indicate that not being aware that one is not complying, particularly in SMEs, undermines the effectiveness of the CPMs. This is supported by ESENER data that shows that many, especially small, establishments perceive that no major problems exist at the workplace. Such recognition may primarily be achieved by means of external intervention from inspectors and consequential iterative dialogue (see below). Turning to the specific CPMs, the relatively good levels of compliance (compliance being a first condition for legislation being potentially effective) with the requirement to perform risk assessments (cf. section 5) above, imply that the CPM may potentially have been effective at ensuring OSH at workplaces. The OSH management infrastructure set up in the establishments in relation to the risk assessments contributes to this goal. This interpretation received support during national and EU stakeholder interviews. Risk assessments are viewed as the foundation for forming and applying a risk prevention strategy rather than as a reactive approach to occupational safety and health. ESENER-2 survey results support this, as 90% of surveyed establishments in the EU-28 that carry out regular risk assessments regard them as a useful way of managing health and safety. This was a consistent finding across activity sectors and establishment sizes. The 2014 ESENER-2 survey results also show that fewer establishments than in 2009 refrain from conducting risk assessments because the procedure is regarded as too burdensome or because they lack the necessary expertise. But the same survey also reflects the difficulties in taking certain types of risks into account in the risk assessment (only 56% of respondents of the survey declared having sufficient information on how to include psychosocial risks in the risk assessment). While preventive measures are taken in establishments where a given risk was identified as being relevant, their nature and uptake differs between Member States and establishments of different sizes. This links to the difficulties for SMEs in complying with the legislation identified in the previous chapters (lack of sufficient information and training, complexity of legal obligation, lack of resources).

Also the stakeholder interviews conducted in the framework of the evaluation indicate that the provision on risk assessment would benefit from being more closely linked to risk management and the proactive prevention of identified risks on the part of employers, as stakeholders point to a tendency that risk assessment performance occasionally diverts attention away from managing identified risks, particularly in SMEs. This highlights the impact of non-recognition as SMEs tend to believe that, having followed legislative requirements and conducted a risk assessment, they are in compliance. Contrarily, risk assessments in SMEs are often of insufficient quality to ensure adequate risk management as they sometimes lack the resources (human and financial) to identify and manage hazards adequately. One finding of the evaluation is that while risk assessments performed by external service providers reduce the need to maintain in-house expertise, they often result in a lack of subsequent 'anchoring' in the establishment and consequent risk reduction in comparison to risk assessments performed by internal staff. This is particularly the case when the available external services are of poor quality. As SMEs are more inclined to use external service providers, risk assessments in SMEs may not have the same quality as in larger establishments, nor to the same extent result in an OSH management approach that is integral to the particular business and priorities of the SME. Development of digital risk assessment tools such as EU-OSHA’s OiRA could provide efficiency gains and cost reductions in this respect. ESENER-2 findings confirm that the existence of a formal OSH employee representation does play a role in OSH risks management. According to this survey, lower proportions of workplace risk assessments are reported among those establishments without a health and safety representative than those with a health and safety representative: 62% versus 87%, respectively. The gap widens with the decrease of the establishment size. Establishments with a formal OSH representation score also better as regards the existence of a document explaining OSH procedures and responsibilities in the establishment, training, support for return to work after long-term absence or routine analysis of sickness absences (See Figure 12 below). Figure 12: OSH management measures by existence of formal employee representation (% establishments, EU-28) Source: EU–OSHA (2016) , Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2), Overview Report: Managing Safety and Health at Work, European Risk Observatory, p. 75. Finally, evidence suggests that training and information is a pivotal element in the process of improving the safety and health of workers. However, a clear indication of a potential need for improvement of the effectiveness of the training of workers is that training on prevention and measures related to psychosocial risks and risks associated with exposure to chemical and biological agents, non-ionising radiation or dust hazards has been provided to less than half of the surveyed worker representatives. Of these, a total of 57 % report that they have received a sufficient amount of training. Important differences were also noted as regards the thematic coverage of training to employees. There is in other words a continued need for training on these matters, and on emerging risks in particular. As these proportions refer to the training of safety and health representatives, it is reasonable to assume that the training of workers is more limited. Interestingly, evidence suggests that worker representatives in SMEs tend to be more satisfied with the training they receive, than those working in larger establishments. Impact of sanctions and labour inspections The main responsibility for enforcing EU OSH law lies with national authorities. Article 4 of the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC on safety and health of workers at work requires Member States to ensure adequate controls and supervision, leaving Member States free to organise their enforcement authorities according to their national law and traditions. The body competent for OSH inspections varies from one Member State to another depending on the institutional setting of the country. The Commission supports the efforts of the Member States in this regard through various measures, where appropriate, in particular to ensure that effective and efficient enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are put in place. National labour inspectorates cooperate closely at EU level on effective and equivalent enforcement of the EU health and safety at work legislation in the context of the Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors (SLIC). Several activities are being carried-out by SLIC to facilitate cooperation and coordination between inspectorates such as the development of an electronic handbook comprising all OSH enforcement authorities' competences and contact points facilitating mutual assistance among labour inspectorates or the European inspection campaigns. As regards the effectiveness of enforcement in the area of health and safety, a relatively recent literature review concludes that: Enforcement is an effective means of securing compliance, creating an incentive for self-compliance and a fear of adverse business impacts such as reputation damage in all sectors and sizes of organisations, including major hazard sectors. Fear of enforcement is a significant motivator for organisations, there may be value in exploring new types of penalties, charging regimes and enforcement strategies so as to maximise the deterrent effect of enforcement, such as court ordered publicity. There is evidence that enforcement is an important element in prompting major hazard firms to manage health and safety, including major accident prevention.

Enforcement supported by advice and guidance is considered to be of equal benefit to health hazards as it is to safety risks. The evaluation confirmed fear of enforcement is a key driver to comply with OSH legislation, as companies rated legal requirements and enforcement as major reasons for developing OSH policies and take OSH action. The EU-OSHA ESENER-2 survey results show that fulfilling legal obligations and avoiding fines from the labour inspectorate is among three main reasons for establishments to address health and safety issues . Although at macroeconomic level, no strong correlation could be identified between fatal accidents incidence rates in the different Member States and the level of enforcement, evidence based on studies at micro-economic level, including longitudinal data, points to the fact that enforcement, and particularly the combined role of inspectors enforcing legislation and providing guidance on implementation, contributes to the compliance with the OSH acquis. This is particularly true in SMEs and micro-enterprises, where non-compliance is more important than in large companies. Two major concerns have been identified in this regard in the framework of the EU OSH Directives evaluation: Firstly, it is the level of enforcement across Member States varies significantly. Secondly, while a strong link between the number of workers per inspector and data on work-related accidents rates could not be established, also given other confounding factors in play, the number of inspections carried out per 100,000 workers appears insufficient and there is a large spread between Member States ranging from 4,000 to 22,000 workers per inspector. The challenge to enforcement is further compounded by falling resources allocated to labour inspectorates in many Member States. Some Member States have experienced a considerable decrease in the number of inspections per 100,000 workers, while, in other Member States, the situation i