Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Health and safety in the workplace - Application of Community measures and new risks'
Date: 1999-12-08
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU law - national law, dissemination of information, occupational health, occupational safety, public awareness campaign, social partners

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/33

failure to study and think out properly the basis for the Council
Decision of December 1998 — which does not as such justify
adoption of a new committee procedure. That would also set
a precedent in other spheres and further complication of the
committee procedures should be avoided. Future restrictions
on further transitional arrangements, especially where repeated
and relating to the accession of new member countries, is
another issue.

Brussels, 8 December 1999.

3. Special comments

3.1.
The title of Directive 64/432/EEC and its Danish
translation should be revised at an appropriate juncture and,
for instance, aligned with the English version, which refers to
animal health, as opposed to veterinary policy, problems.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Health and safety in the workplace —
Application of Community measures and new risks’

(2000/C 51/11)

On 29 April 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Health and safety in the workplace — Application of Community
measures and new risks’.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1999. The rapporteur was
Mr Beirnaert.

At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 8 December) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 118 votes to one, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

The important

issue of health and safety in the
1.1.
workplace has recently been the subject of a number of
European-level
initiatives, all of which provide food for
thought:

— the European Parliament debates on the report compiled
by the Advisory Committee for Health, Hygiene and Safety
at Work, and the Commission’s mid-term report on the
Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and
health at work (1996-2000). These were included in the
report submitted by Ms Ojala on 1 February 1999 (1);

— the recent study by the European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work, known as the Bilbao Agency, on the
Economic impact of occupational safety and health in the
Member States of the European Union;

— the conference organised by the Commission and the
Bilbao Agency on the Changing World of Work (19-21
October 1998) and the conference organised by the
Finnish presidency and the Agency on Safety, Health and
Employability (27-29 September 1999);

(1) EP 228.815/final.

— the conference on Occupational Health and Safety Manage-
ment Systems, held in Dortmund on 18-19 March 1999.

C 51/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

1.2.

Three key questions emerge from the above:

2. What is the role of the EU in the field of health and

safety?

— how can we make European health and safety legislation

more effective?

— how can we strengthen the link between employability

and health and safety?

— how can we deal with new health and safety risks?

1.3.
The Economic and Social Committee intends to con-
tribute to what it considers to be a particularly important
debate. The Committee has always given priority to health and
safety issues, and feels these should also be a major concern
for employers and workers.

The following are some of the Committee’s key opinions in
this area:

— Opinion of 22 November 1995 on the Commission
Communication on a Community programme concerning
safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000) (1);

— Opinion of 30 June 1993 on health/safety at the workplace

— training (2);

As

the Committee

2.1.
stressed in its opinion of
22 November 1995, the Commission must have a balanced
policy combining legislative and non-legislative measures, of a
binding and voluntary nature.

The legislative role is still

important, and can be
2.2.
justified on the grounds that it affords social protection for the
employee and economic protection for the employer against
unfair competitive practice.

There is a considerable body of legislation in the field of
occupational health and safety. As the Commission emphasises
in its mid-term report of 3 September 1998(5), there is a need
to assess ‘whether the legislation is really effective in creating
and maintaining the right health and safety conditions, or if it
needs improvement... The Commission will continue its policy
of reviewing the existing Directives with a view to ensuring
modernisation and rationalisation wherever required.’ (6) The
Committee endorses this approach as the Commission’s remit
includes the duty to assess and monitor the way legislation is
implemented and suggest improvements.

— Opinion of 3 July 1991 an Action Programme for the

European Year of Safety (3);

2.3.
The Committee believes that the EU’s non-legislative
role should be better promoted and highlighted, without
prejudice to its legislative role, as pointed out in 2.1 above.

— Opinion of 27 September 1984 on Occupational Medi-

cine (4).

1.4.
This opinion will address the key issues mentioned
above (c.f. point 1.2). However, before doing so, we must ask:
what is the EU’s role in the field of health and safety?

The chosen approach is decidedly forward-looking. The Com-
mittee has opted for a general policy approach, whilst stressing
that
it must be underpinned by scientific and technical
research. In this respect, the Committee would emphasise the
important contribution of bodies such as the Bilbao Agency.
The key role played by the Tripartite Advisory Committee on
Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work should also
be highlighted, for the excellent opportunity it affords for
discussion,
including with the social partners. In order to
exploit this potential to the full, the Advisory Committee
intends to improve its operational procedure. This also raises
the problem of funding.

The EU does indeed have a role to play in providing
information and awareness campaigns, reference material,
training and benchmarking.

2.3.1.
The Commission has taken a decisive step in this
direction with the establishment of the European Agency for
Health and Safety at Work, known as the Bilbao Agency,
and the proposal for a broad programme of non-legislative
measures to improve health and safety at work (SAFE).

The Committee fully endorses this line, but particularly regrets
the fact that this important programme has still not been
adopted. It is an appropriate instrument for promoting a
culture of health and safety as an important factor in good
management. The programme rightly focuses on SMEs and
micro-businesses.

(1) OJ C 39, 12.2.1996.
(2) OJ C 249, 13.9.1993.
(3) OJ C 268, 14.10.1991.
(4) OJ C 307, 19.11.1984.

(5) COM(1998) 511 final.
(6) COM(1998) 511 final, pp. 5-6.

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/35

information and
2.3.1.1.
The Committee believes that
awareness campaigns, reference material,
training, bench-
marking and, not least, research should be developed system-
atically, particularly as regards:

This is already the case with DG III initiatives on the placing
on the market of safe machinery, working equipment and
personal protective equipment. In order to achieve the declared
objective, mutually enhancing parallel
initiatives must be
implemented in unison.

— occupational health and safety training from primary
school level upwards; this particularly important point was
addressed in the Committee’s opinion of 30 June 1993 on
health/safety at the workplace — training (1);

— training for the teachers concerned (1);

— vocational and academic training for future employers and

employees;

— mobility, journeys between home and workplace;

The Commission’s mid-term report rightly stresses the fact
that other Community policies such as transport and the
environment also contribute to improved health and safety in
the workplace. The Committee fully endorses the Com-
mission’s declared intention to look into the impact these
policies have on health and safety.

— public health, and the use of toxic and cancerogenous

substances in particular;

3. How can legislation be made more effective?

— environmental measures, risk impact;

— specific features of SMEs and micro-businesses;

— the link between occupational health and safety and the

division of labour between men and women;

— specific aspects of temping, outsourcing, home-working

and tele-working;

— promoting quality employment, with due regard for health

and safety in the workplace;

— health and safety for the self-employed.

Without adopting an excessively regulatory approach to the
above issues,
the EU should look into the best way of
addressing these concerns and objectives. This will be dealt
with in points 4 and 5 below.

The Committee believes the Bilbao Agency will be a useful
instrument in this respect.

2.3.2.
For reasons of efficiency and cohesion, these actions
will require, from the very outset, as broad a framework as
possible. This means mainstreaming better health and safety
provision for workers into all aspects of European policies,
and into the initiatives of other competent Commission bodies.

(1) ESC opinion, 30.6.1993, OJ C 249, 13.9.1993.

3.1.
Legislation has a twofold objective: on the one hand, a
social one, in that the aim is to protect the health and safety of
workers in the workplace; and an economic one on the other,
as it ensures that the machines and products which circulate
freely within the EU comply with safety and hygiene regu-
lations.

Article 118a of the Single Act — which provides the legal
basis for most social directives in this area — aims to combine
harmonisation with progress. To this end, the directives lay
down ‘minimum requirements to be introduced gradually,
taking account of the specific situation and technical regu-
lations in each Member State’. The Committee believes that
agreed minimum safety levels should not be allowed to differ
between the Member States or according to the size of the
firm.

Harmonisation is not, however, necessarily best
3.1.1.
achieved through detailed,
legislation. The Com-
mission’s mid-term report emphasises the need to be able to
assess whether a specific piece of legislation does actually help
to create and maintain the right climate for health and safety.

formal

The effectiveness question raises the issue of enforcement. In
this respect, the Committee would refer to the opinion adopted
on 15 November 1998 by the Tripartite Advisory Committee
on the social and economic assessment of proposed legislation.
The opinion rightly emphasises the fact that socio-economic
analysis can play an important role in providing quality
legislation, by keeping politicians informed of the costs firms
the social advantages. The
usually have to bear, and of
Tripartite Advisory Committee believes that an analysis of this
kind should take place in two stages. The first stage should

C 51/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

involve examining the aims, expected health and safety gains,
investment and administrative costs for firms, and providing
information on the unintended impact on the risks involved.
The second analysis would be carried out if the first one
revealed that firms would have to bear considerable costs, or
that the benefits needed further research.

3.2.2.
In addition to the traditional directives which lay
down both the objectives and the protection arrangements
(some areas will in fact still require a more thorough approach),
the Committee calls for directives to set clear Europe-wide
objectives, but which leave the implementation arrangements
up to the Member States, subject to assessment and monitoring
guarantees.

Responsibility could be shared as follows:

3.1.2.
The effectiveness conundrum will be dealt with from
two standpoints. Firstly, how can Community and national
legislation best be dovetailed? This implies looking at the roles
of the European level and national level. Secondly, how can
legislation accommodate the needs of SMEs and micro-
businesses?

At European level:

— more focused objectives;

— definition of the arrangements for monitoring and

assessing the success of the objective;

How can we dovetail Community and national regu-

3.2.
lation in order to improve the effectiveness of legislation?

— establish — with the help of the relevant sectors —
what tools are available (research, practical solutions,
information campaigns);

— decide how to involve the social partners.

3.2.1.
es some major problems:

Dovetailing Community and national legislation pos-

At national level:

— while a legal assessment of the monitoring arrangements
for the transposition of a Community directive into
national law is, of course, necessary, it is not sufficient. An
assessment of how the directive is actually implemented
— particularly on a sectoral basis — is also required,
because if the disparities continue or even increase, as is
sometimes the case at the moment, then worker health
and safety becomes a factor in competitiveness. This will
be addressed in point 3.2.4.

— establish — with the help of the relevant sectors —
certain implementation arrangements, according to
certain target groups and activities;

— establish monitoring and inspection arrangements and

procedures;

— inform and educate employers and employees,

in

cooperation with the social partners.

— the world of work is facing new challenges which require
a different approach to the one usually adopted to deal
with traditional occupational health and safety risks such
as stress in the workplace, muscle and back complaints,
etc. New employment patterns are emerging, raising
specific questions which will be addressed in point 5.6.1.
These problems cannot be dealt with in the same way as
traditional occupational accidents and illnesses. Given that
the picture and perceptions of these issues differ across the
nations, sectors and regions of
the
Member States must be given greater leeway and responsi-
bility for drawing up the implementation arrangements.
There could be a case for a new type of directive setting
the objectives, and — annexed to this — a catalogue of
back-up measures to guide Member State action (c.f. 3.2.2
and 3.2.3). In this respect, the benefits of a prior selection
and dissemination of examples of best practice should be
stressed. Benchmarking is a non-legislative measure which
the Committee would recommend (c.f. 2.3).

the Community,

The Bilbao Agency must be able to assist the Commission and
the Member States, without taking over from them.

3.2.3.
Objective-setting directives should be backed up by
guidelines providing more detailed information than binding
legislation. This would be a handbook for firms rather than a
legislative text, i.e. its use would not be a pre-requisite for
certification. The handbook could be adapted to the relevant
sectors and businesses. The social partners would be involved
in the Advisory Committee’s tripartite consultation process.

3.2.4.
As emphasized above, it is not enough to carry out
legal checks on the transposition of a European Directive, i.e.
on whether the obligation has been incorporated into national
legislation. In addition to scrutinising the legal text, an audit of
its practical implementation at Member State level will also be

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/37

required, based on criteria such as: the number of firms
implementing the directive; implementation arrangements in
small and large enterprises; why they are/are not applying it;
results.

information and back-up measures for workers and firms will,
of course, differ according to the size of the firm.

— As the Commission pointed out

in its report of 3
September 1998, it must implement its plan to establish
Community indicators to assess national policy. The
indicators will draw on statistics for accidents in the
workplace and occupational illnesses. In this connection,
the Committee feels that, in order to monitor the effective-
ness of existing legislation, it would be worthwhile pushing
ahead with the efforts already undertaken by the Com-
mission to harmonise European statistics for accidents in
the workplace and occupational illnesses. The Committee
would also suggest establishing a Community Regulation
to facilitate data transfers from the Member States to
Community departments. Furthermore, the Committee
believes that the statistics should include a breakdown
according to gender;

— the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health
Protection at Work recently looked into the operation of
multidisciplinary prevention services and the implemen-
tation of health checks. This type of research must be
supported and developed further.
It must be used to
provide exchange of best practice, more thorough assess-
ment of the implementation and impact of current legis-
lation, and to propose amendments to promote improved
protection levels in the workplace;

3.3.2.
Some SMEs have expressed reservations about the
various legal provisions which cannot be realistically applied
by smaller firms. These are mostly administrative constraints
which make legislation more cumbersome and are generally
unfathomable for most firms.

The more detailed technical guidelines discussed in 3.2.3 above
could be extremely helpful both for SMEs and for assessing
implementation in smaller firms.

3.3.3.
from this approach if the documents:

SMEs and micro-businesses will only really benefit

— are simple and adaptable;

— offer practical solutions;

— are drafted in a spirit of cooperation,

involving SME

organisations in particular;

— are disseminated by the bodies normally consulted by

SMEs;

— are distributed according to activity: e.g. mechanics, car-

penters, restaurateurs, etc.

— the Dublin Foundation’s research into employment con-
ditions, different employment categories and different
types of work is intended to add to the analysis of the
effectiveness of European measures and the extent to
which the objectives have been fulfilled.

3.3.4.
Information and inspection procedures must be
backed up by specific aid programmes, pilot projects, and be
included in vocational training programmes (Leonardo).

3.3.
Application to SMEs and micro-businesses: this does
not mean advocating different standards according to the size
of the firm, but taking into account the specific nature of SMEs
and their greater information and training needs, and the
greater difficulty they have in coping with red-tape. It should
be remembered that Article 118a states that directives should
avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints
in a way which might hold back the creation and development
of small and medium-sized enterprises.

Declared objectives and health and safety levels
3.3.1.
must be the same for all workers. The arrangements for
implementation, inspection and especially dissemination of

4. The link between employability and health and safety:

economic cost?

4.1. While accidents in the workplace, occupational illness-
es and other health and safety risks are — first and foremost
— a serious human and social problem for the victim, they
also involve considerable economic costs for society and the
firm concerned.

The European Agency in Bilbao has studied the economic
impact of health and safety in the workplace in the EU Member
States. Some states put the cost of occupational illnesses at
between 2.6 % and 3.8 % of GNP. It should be stressed,
however, that the different calculation methods make compari-
son difficult. The Committee emphasises the need for reliable
comparable data, which would also make it possible to identify
the most efficient systems.

C 51/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

4.2.
An effective health and safety policy is warranted not
just for obvious human reasons and because of the economic
cost of accidents and illness, but also because it enhances
worker employability and productivity and boosts employ-
ment. The Committee therefore feels that occupational health
and safety issues should be included in future employment
guidelines. The guidelines should be backed up by examples of
best practice, along the lines of the benchmarking system
currently used to back up existing guidelines. The impact of
employment policies on occupational health and safety should
also be assessed. Turning to the question of employment
conditions for men and women, it should be remembered that
one of the main aims of the employment guidelines is to bring
more women into the labour market. This concern is also
highlighted in the ESC Opinion on the Proposal for guidelines
for Member States’ employment policies 2000. (1)

Initiatives must be developed for both employers and

4.3.
workers.

4.4.
Since the employer is responsible for the way his firm
is organised, he must also answer for the impact of his
decisions on the health and safety of his employees. This
responsibility is enshrined in the framework directive of
12 June 1989, which requires the employer to know the most
appropriate prevention measures for his company, and the
organisational arrangements which will enable him both to
provide health and safety protection for his employees,
whilst avoiding unsuitable regulations which might hamper
competitiveness.

— highlight the key role of the organisation of work in

promoting health and safety in the workplace;

— stress the proper importance of prevention and employee
health monitoring services; in this respect the Committee
would refer to the important contribution made by
occupational medicine to improving protection of health
and safety in the workplace (2). In the course of their duties,
the prevention and health monitoring services will need to
take account of the different information and training
requirements of the workforce.

To this end it is important to:

— collate and catalogue best practice in companies and
highlight state-of-the-art systems. Research has revealed
the following useful examples:

— systems for

regularly assessing safety conditions,
backed up by incentives to exploit the good scores
attained by company departments;

— health and safety management systems as part of a

global approach;

— adapting work stations to the needs of older people

and people with disabilities;

— establish and disseminate criteria for best practice, policy

assessment machinery and measures undertaken;

4.4.1.
Good employment conditions are essential to the
production of quality goods and services. Accidents in the
workplace and other health and safety risks are first and
foremost a human and social problem, but they also involve
economic costs for the firm in terms of absenteeism, social
insurance contributions, and losses in output, know-how, etc.

— give a higher profile to the benefits of good policy; a more
accurate cost/benefit assessment will provide decision-
makers with better guidance. Priority should be given
to continuing research and developing simple practical
instruments for objective cost/benefit analysis, in order to
provide for more judicious, informed decision-making.

Initiatives and tools must therefore be developed to:

4.4.2. Workers and/or
involved in this approach:

their

representatives must be

— convince employers that good health and safety conditions
enhance competitiveness and the image of the firm, and
that a good health and safety policy is a sign of good
economic performance;

— by including them in the preparation, implementation,
assessment and re-alignment of Community policy, via
existing consultation committees, particularly the Advisory
Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at
Work;

— raise employers’ awareness of the fact that safety policy is

one of the main planks of a global policy;

— using the information, consultation and participation
procedures provided for in the framework directive of 12
June 1989 and other specific directives;

(1) OJ C 368, 20.12.1999.

(2) OJ C 307, 19.11.1984.

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/39

In this respect,

— by including safety issues in education,

teaching and
training.
the Committee endorses the
opinion (070/2/97) of the Advisory Committee on Safety,
Hygiene and Health Protection at Work. The Committee
would also refer to its own opinion of 30 June 1993 on
health/safety at the workplace — training, also in relation
to the following:

— the future citizen (school-age)

— the future worker

— the worker on entering the firm

— management structure

— workers’ representatives with a specific role in the
protection of health and safety in the workplace.

4.4.3.
The Bilbao Agency can lay the foundations for the
European Commission’s important duty — in addition to
continuing to compare best practice — to provide analysis,
information and consciousness-raising by carrying out pre-
paratory work on the exploration, collation and dissemination
of best practice,
training programmes, etc. The Member
States are individually responsible for dissemination via the
appropriate channels.

5. How should the new risks be addressed?

5.1.
The world of work has undergone a number of
changes. Work is now organised in various ways, and different
conditions of employment and different working hours can be
found in one and the same firm. Computer technology has
changed what we do and how we do it. Employment
conditions have also been diversified: part-time, temporary
and casual work are on the increase, as are teleworking and
‘work on-call’. The make-up of the workforce has also changed:
there are far more women in employment; the workforce is
ageing; the tertiary sector’s employment share continues to
grow as a result of the boom in services; many firms are
concentrating on their core business and sub-contracting some
of their work out, particularly to SMEs, which account for an
ever-increasing percentage of businesses; and firms have
introduced less centralised management procedures. All this
has impacted on employment patterns and consequently on
safety and hygiene conditions in the workplace.

5.1.1.
In some countries there has been a worrying increase
in undeclared work in defiance of occupational health and

safety requirements. This regrettable trend was addressed in
the Commission Communication on undeclared work. The
communication calls for a strategy to counter the phenom-
enon, and it was ringingly endorsed by the Committee in its
opinion of 27 January 1999 (1).

5.2.
It would be simplistic to consider the changes referred
to in point 5.1 in terms of risk only. Economic conditions
oblige firms to constantly modernise and adapt the way they
manage and organise work. In this respect,
investment in
new technology often goes hand-in-hand with improved
employment conditions. As for new employment patterns,
these can suit the flexibility requirements of both employers
and workers.

there is no doubt

5.3. While it would be wrong to consider these changes in
terms of risk alone,
they have
produced new occupational risks which differ from traditional
occupational accidents and illnesses: psychosocial complaints
are more common; stress is on the increase — including at
managerial and executive level; workers are burnt out and can
no longer cope with challenge.

that

5.3.1.
Compared to other workers, young people, disabled
people, (2) migrant and unskilled workers are more likely to be
vulnerable. They are sometimes known as labour market ‘risk
groups’.

Traditional methods are less effective when applied to
5.4.
the new situations and employment patterns. The challenge
lies in managing to protect workers properly while finding
practical solutions for achieving the objective by:

— collating data, objectivising the problem, comparing indi-

cators;

— devising appropriate tools to suit the target group, work-

type and employment patterns.

5.5.
The general legislative framework and its objectives
have been fixed at European level. However, the method of
achieving the objectives should be constantly monitored and
reviewed to take account of new employment patterns, the
changing population and new risks.

(1) OJ C 101, 12.4.1999.
(2) In this connection, see the compendium of good practice on
employment for disabled people, published by the European
social partners, UNICE, the ETUC and the CEEP. Supported by the
European Commission. The compendium also contains practical
suggestions for getting people back to work.

C 51/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

First and foremost, the technical aspects of current legislation
must be continuously monitored and adapted in the light of:

Know-how resulting from current practice, experience and
research in the different Member States must be shared so that
a more effective approach can be designed.

— new products and procedures;

— new findings on the impact of existing products and
procedures (e.g. OPS (organic psychosyndrome) and min-
eral fibres);

— new findings on certain ailments such as muscular and

bone pain

— so that the declared objectives are in step with scientific
and technological progress, particularly as far as thresholds
are concerned.

5.6. Moreover, it is important to ascertain whether there
are any practical problems in applying the framework legis-
lation to new employment patterns, and to find suitable
arrangements and solutions. Relevant areas include:

— health controls;

— worker information and training;

— follow-up of any health risks from new products or

procedures.

5.6.1.
In this respect special attention should be paid to
temping, short-term contract work and outsourcing. These
particular types of work make it more difficult for the worker
to fit in because:

— several employers share responsibility for monitoring

employment conditions;

— workers change their place of employment more often,
and have to adapt quickly to a new environment each
time.

In order to provide adequate protection levels, suitable practi-
cal measures will be needed for:

— exchanges of

information on work-related risks and
requirements between the various employers and the
worker;

— clear, specific instructions whenever someone is recruited;

— continuous training;

— employer responsibility for medical observation and fol-
low-up in case of exposure to hazardous agents or
products, and

— for epidemiological research.

5.7.
High employee-turnover rates and frequent absentee-
ism are often a sign of poor employment conditions, but,
generally speaking,
the only problem.
the latter are not
However, psycho-social complaints, stress and exhaustion can
be linked to employment conditions.
‘Good management’
includes ways of addressing these problems, but the role and
responsibility of the firm in dealing with these risks does not
seem so clear-cut as with traditional occupational hazards.
Personal life (the family, division of family responsibilities),
basic training, and training and recruitment opportunities can
all play their part. Without a global approach backed up by
measures in other areas, calls for firms and employers to act
will be in vain.

These measures are needed in the workplace, the home, at
school, etc. Consequently, the Commission will have to adopt
a global approach (cf. 2.3.2). One-off measures are less
effective.

The various Member States have launched initiatives to
in an

5.8.
address the new risks and employment patterns,
approach which involves the social partners.

The following examples show how the social partners can be
involved (1):

— in the Netherlands, Agenda 2002 — in which the social
partners have established the priorities for negotiation over
the coming years — calls on the social partners to give
priority to stress and improved employment conditions.
Several sectoral collective agreements have latched on to
this concern. It should also be noted that some sectors
have concluded agreements committing the authorities,
employers and workers to combating specific risks;

— in Belgium, the social partners have signed a multi-sector
collective agreement (30 March 1999) on occupational
stress prevention policy, under which employers must
submit their policy programme to the Health and Safety
Committee. In addition, the social partners in the temping
sector have set up ‘Prévention et Intérim’ to raise firms’
awareness of prevention issues and offer appropriate
advice;

(1) See also the examples of best practice contained in the website of
the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Bilbao
Agency, http://www.eu-osha.es)

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/41

— in Denmark, a national agreement to reduce monotonous
and repetitive work has been signed by the trade unions
and employers’ organisations;

is to make all interested parties — whether at Community,
national, sectoral, regional or local level — aware of their
responsibilities;

— in Sweden, the social partners have signed an agreement

on the appointment of local prevention officers.

One of the most interesting Member State initiatives is the
Portuguese government’s programme to improve occupational
health and safety by providing incentives for employers whose
progress in this field can be used as best practice.

5.9.
By collating these actions, best practice and successful
initiatives, the Commission can carry out an assessment in
conjunction with the social partners, and — if necessary —
amend legislation, design and publicise additional instruments
and include them in new and existing support programmes.

6. Conclusions

— Promotion of health and safety in the workplace must be
a priority concern for the authorities, the social partners,
employers and workers. The fact that the world of work is
undergoing radical changes makes their support all the
more necessary. The best way to achieve this key objective

— Without prejudice to the legislative role, which is still
important and warranted for social and economic reasons,
the EU’s non-legislative role should be better promoted
and highlighted via information and awareness campaigns,
and training and benchmarking initiatives;

— Legislation will be more effective if it aims for a better
demarcation of European and national responsibilities,
fixing clear objectives at Community level, and leaving
implementation — subject to control guarantees — to the
national authorities;

— In order to boost the link between employability and
occupational safety and hygiene, awareness-raising and
training activities must be provided for both employers
and workers;

— The effectiveness of legislation in dealing with the new
risks must be constantly assessed, and any amendments
should draw on an analysis of best practice in the Member
States. Benchmarking should be used to highlight the most
useful examples, particularly as regards social partner
practice.

Brussels, 8 December 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI