Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work Directives 92/57/EEC (temporary and mobile sites) and 92/58/EEC (safety signs at work)
Date: 2008-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, humanisation of work, occupational safety, public health, public works, safety standard, traffic signs

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.11.2008 
COM(2008) 698 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work Directives 92/57/EEC 
(temporary and mobile sites) and 92/58/EEC (safety signs at work) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work Directives 92/57/EEC 
(temporary and mobile sites) and 92/58/EEC (safety signs at work) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This communication follows a Commission undertaking1 to assess the implementation of the 
regulatory framework with a view to improving it. 

It is based mainly on the national reports supplied by the Member States2 and an independent 
experts' report analysing implementation of the two Directives in all the private and/or public 
economic sectors concerned. It also draws on the results of European inspection campaigns on 
safety  in  the  construction  sector  carried  out  in  the  15  Member  States  in  2003  and  2004,  on 
recent European statistics on accidents at work, and on the lessons that the Commission has 
learned from monitoring the transposition and application of the Directives. 

The  assessment  covers  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  two  Directives:  Council 
Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health 
requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites3 and Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 
24 June 1992 on the minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at 
work4, in the EU-15 countries only. The Commission believes that this assessment will also 
be  a  source  of  much  useful  information  for  the  12  new  Member  States  in  applying  the  two 
Directives. 

2. 

LEGAL EFFECTS  

2.1. 

Directive 92/57/EEC 

The  national  reports  by  the  Member  States5  show  that  the  formal  impact  of  Directive 
92/57/EEC (simplification, streamlining, consolidation and codification) enabled the Member 
States to unify, consolidate and update existing national legislation. However, some Member 
States say the Directive has had no impact on legal/administrative principles. 

The  substantive  impact  on  national  legislation  has  been  considerable  in  all  Member  States. 
Even  those  Member  States  that  said  they  already  had  sophisticated  national  legislation 

1 

2 

3 
4 
5 

In the communication Improving quality and productivity at work: Community strategy 2007-2012 on 
health and safety at work, COM(2007) 62 final, 21.2.2007. 
Sent  to  the  Commission  under  Articles  14  and  11  of  the  two  Directives.  Those  Articles  were 
subsequently repealed by Directive 2007/30/EC. 
OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 6. 
OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 23. 
Two  Member  States,  which  were  keen  to  ensure  that  the  Directive  was  assessed  objectively,  used 
surveys/studies  carried  out  by  independent  external  consultants;  in  almost  all  the  Member  States  the 
social partners played a very important part in drafting the report. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
introduced  amendments  to  cover  the  Directive’s  basic  concepts.  The  Directive  led  to 
substantial  additions  to  all  national  occupational  health  and  safety  legislation,  in  particular 
regarding  design  and  site  coordination,  the  safety  and  health  plan  and  the  safety  and  health 
file. 

The new approach to prevention, in particular, defining the obligations and responsibilities of 
the various parties on a construction site, is seen as having had a major impact. 

Directive 92/58/EEC 

Most  Member  States  simply  repealed  earlier  provisions  on  safety  signs  transposing 
Directive  77/576/EEC  and  replaced  them  with  new  legislation  transposing  Directive 
92/58/EEC.  Some  say  the  new  provisions  supplemented,  broadened  or  updated  their  legal 
framework and also enabled national provisions to be consolidated. 

The  main  substantive  amendments  introduce  new  rules  on  signs,  including  verbal 
communication  and  hand  signals,  health  signs  not  covered  by  the  previous  Directive,  and 
new obligations on the employer to inform, train and consult workers; they also extend the 
scope of the Directive to all sectors of activity. 

3. 

AWARENESS-RAISING AND FLANKING MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVES 92/57/EEC AND 
92/58/EEC  

Once the two Directives had been adopted, the Commission and the Member States publicised 
them and provided advice on implementing them on construction sites and on signs at work. 
The European Year of Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work in 1992, the European 
Health  and  Safety  Weeks  and  national  awareness-raising  campaigns  were  particularly 
instrumental in disseminating information and making duty-holders aware of their obligations. 
The  European  Agency  for  Safety  and  Health  at  Work,  set  up  in  19946,  engaged  in  Europe-
wide information and awareness-raising and in turn set up the European Construction Safety 
Forum to promote the exchange of experience between players in the sector and, in particular, 
between  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs).  The  Senior  Labour  Inspectors 
Committee  (SLIC)7
  also  came  up  with  enforcement  and  awareness-raising  initiatives 
(European inspection campaigns). 

The  Member  States  introduced  extensive  plans  to  promote  active  prevention,  to  raise 
awareness  of  integrated  prevention,  and  to  draft  practical  guidelines  to  help  employers  and 
workers  comply  with  the  new  legislation.  In  some  Member  States  these  activities  were 
targeted  at  key  players  such  as  clients.  Professional  federations,  workers’  trade  unions  and 
associations  of  architects  and  engineers  also  informed  their  members  about  the  new 
legislation, through seminars, meetings, leaflets and other written media. Lastly, some large 
construction  companies  drafted  their  own  information  for  their  workers  and  their 
subcontractors. 

6 

7 

Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and 
Health  at Work  (OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1).  Last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC) No 1112/2005 (OJ  L 
184, 15.7.2005, p. 5). 
Commission  Decision  of  12  July  1995  setting  up  a  Senior  Labour  Inspectors  Committee  (OJ  L  188, 
9.8.1995, p. 11). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

TRANSPOSITION 

Despite  in-depth  prior  consultation  of  the  social  partners,  and  unanimous  adoption  by  the 
Council, the majority of the Member States failed to meet the transposition deadlines for the 
levels  of  practical 
two  Directives,  which  had  considerable  repercussions  on 
implementation at workplaces8. 

the 

Following  transposition,  the  Commission  monitored  conformity  and  began  discussions  with 
the  national  authorities  to  clarify  and  resolve  any  problems  and  to  make  the  necessary 
corrections.  Where  necessary,  it  began  infringement  procedures  under  Article  226  EC. 
Complaints  to  the  Commission  also  provided  valuable  information  enabling  it  to  identify 
weak points in national legislation. 

4.1. 

Directive 92/57/EEC 

Implementing  Directive  92/57/EEC  is  a  complex  technical  and  administrative  matter; 
Member  States  regularly  revise  and  update  their  legislation.  This  explains  why,  in  some 
Member States, the Directive has been transposed in a highly fragmented fashion in several 
pieces  of  legislation  (more  than  40  in  some  cases)  which  complicates  assessment.  The 
assessment revealed differences in national legislation stemming from the previous regulatory 
framework and from the fact that the Directive lays down minimum requirements and leaves 
the Member States free to maintain or establish higher levels of protection9. 

The main compliance problems identified related to the scope of the legislation, definitions, 
the designation of coordinators, project preparation and execution, and the responsibilities of 
clients, project supervisors, coordinators and employers. 

However,  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  the  legislation  went  further  than  the  minimum 
requirements  of  Directive  92/57/EEC,  clarified  certain  coordination  issues  and  set  out 
procedures for effective compliance. 

The compliance problems identified and the extremely high rate of accidents at work in 
the  construction  sector  suggest  that  there  are  difficulties  in  understanding  Directive 
92/57/EEC  which  are  exacerbated  by  the  complexity  of  the  national  implementing 
measures. 

Additional  non-binding  instruments  at  European  level  to  help  all  players  understand 
their  obligations  and  rights  better  might  be  a  useful  means  of  improving  national 
application  of  the  Directive.  The  Commission  has  therefore  started  work,  in  close 
cooperation with the Advisory Committee10 and the various professionals in the sector, 
on drafting a non-binding guide to applying the Directive. 

8 

9 

10 

In most of the Member States all representatives of the construction sector (social partners, architects, 
clients, project supervisors, etc.) were consulted beforehand and given the chance to participate in the 
transposition of the Directive. 
See paragraph 17 of the Court of Justice judgment in Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] 
ECR I-5755. 
Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ 
C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Directive 92/58/EEC 

By its very nature, this Directive has been transposed virtually to the letter in the vast majority 
of  the  Member  States.  The  very  few  cases  of  potentially  incompatible  transposition  were 
resolved  through  contacts  with  the  competent  authorities,  without  the  need  for  further  legal 
action. 

5. 

ACTION  IN  THE  FIELD:  THE  PRACTICAL  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  DIRECTIVE 
92/57/EEC 

An  assessment  of  the  situation  on  sites  yields  an  uneven  picture:  in  some  Member  States, 
implementation  of  the  Directive  has  indeed  helped  to  improve  health  and  safety  conditions 
and prevent accidents, while in others much still needs to be done to meet the requirements 
and to reap the full benefits of effective prevention. 

Despite all the efforts made, the occupational accident statistics are indisputable: construction 
is still a high-risk sector, with twice as many accidents as the average rate for all sectors of 
activity and 2.5 times as many fatal accidents11. 

The  Directive  gives  all  those  active  on  a  construction  site  key  roles  in  prevention.  Its 
implementation  was  therefore  assessed  in  terms  of  the  influence  that  each  group  has  on 
prevention of and protection from occupational risks. The main conclusions are as follows: 

Clients 

The  Directive  imposes  various  obligations  on  clients  to  implement  prevention  measures  for 
health and safety. These obligations cause them some unease. 

Clients fall into various categories, depending on: 

–  the sector concerned: public or private; 

–  the size of the site: large, medium or small; 

–  the  frequency  of  performance  of  construction  or  civil  engineering  works:  regular  or 

occasional; 

–  the  legal  entity:  individuals,  construction  companies  or  developers,  public  housing 

agencies. 

The effort that different categories of clients put into prevention varies considerably, because 
of  differences  in  their  knowledge  of  the  legislation,  in  their  allocation  of  resources  for 
prevention  and  in  their  motivation.  Individuals  acting  as  clients  on  occasional,  small  sites 
generally  do  not  know  about  their  prevention  obligations,  whereas  major  clients  working 
regularly  on  large  sites  normally  know  what  their  obligations  are  and  take  an  active  role  in 
preventing occupational risks. The latter clients are convinced that prevention is essential and 
will ultimately result in savings, even though they seek to reduce the cost as far as possible. 
The main problem these clients say they have is the rise in costs caused by the new legislation 

11 

Source: Eurostat ESAW 2005 data. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and, in particular, by coordination. In contrast, individuals carrying out occasional work are 
very  reluctant  to  engage  in  prevention,  which  they  see  as  a  financial  and  bureaucratic 
constraint,  and  believe  that  their  responsibility  ends  when  they  sign  a  construction  contract. 
This problem, however, does not stem directly from the Directive, which allows the Member 
States to assign responsibility for prevention according to the type and size of the construction 
project.  

Poor  planning  and  time  constraints  were  mentioned  several  times  as  factors  which  greatly 
undermine the prevention of accidents and ill-health. Clients who insist on excessively short 
execution deadlines were often cited as the cause of these problems. 

Although the Directive does not forbid a natural or legal person from taking on several tasks 
at  the  same  time,  combining  roles  such  as  those  of  client  and  coordinator  appears  to  create 
practical  problems.  A  client  is  often  not  in  a  position  to  perform  a  coordinator’s  role,  for 
example, because he or she does not have the relevant skills or knowledge. 

The  situation  in  some  Member  States  reveals  a  need  to  inform,  train  and  raise  awareness 
among  the  different  categories  of  clients  according  to  the  size  of  the  site  (small),  the  legal 
entity  (individuals),  and  the  nature  of  the  work  (occasional  or  regular).  National  authorities 
and professional associations need to take the lead in this area. 

Some Member States have already taken steps to ensure that good standards of occupational 
safety and health feature appropriately in public procurement contracts. This practice should 
be followed by other Member States. 

Clients — as those with the economic and financial resources to carry out the works — were 
intended to have the leading role in the prevention system under the Directive. However, they 
often  lack  the  requisite  knowledge  and  skills,  so  the  Directive  provides  for  them  to  involve 
other players, without evading their responsibility. 

Project supervisors 

Very  often  the  client  also  takes  on  the  role  of  project  supervisor.  To  improve  prevention 
management where several enterprises work on a site as subcontractors, the main contractor 
responsible  for  the  work  may  act  as  project  supervisor  within  the  meaning  of  Directive 
92/57/EEC. 

As a rule, project supervisors are familiar with coordinating safety and health matters during 
project execution but regret that safety is not taken sufficiently into account in the design and 
preparation, and feel that the responsibilities of the supervisor and the client ought to be more 
clearly  defined.  Some  enterprises  appreciate  the  value  of  coordination  but  not  the 
administrative formalities it entails, and point to confusion between the tasks of coordinators 
and those of prevention services. 

The large enterprises that were visited know the requirements well. They often use prevention 
services, and their professional associations provide them with regular information. Small and 
micro-enterprises  tend  not  to  know  the  regulations  so  well,  and  even  those  who  do  are  still 
reluctant to undertake prevention in general and coordination in particular. SMEs that are not 
members  of  professional  associations  lack  information,  which  restricts  their  knowledge  of 
occupational safety and health. Moreover, the longer the subcontracting chain, the greater the 
information  shortfall.  In  the  eyes  of  clients  and  project  supervisors,  long  subcontracting 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
chains dilute responsibility. Only the small enterprises at the start of the subcontracting chain 
can benefit from the main contractor’s experience and good practice. 

Prevention  is  often  highly  developed  in  subcontracting  companies  which  specialise  in 
particular tasks (e.g. gas installation or lift maintenance). 

Strong  collaboration  throughout  the  supply  chain  reflects  the  fact  that  effectively 
planned, managed and coordinated construction projects are more likely to be healthy 
and safe. They are also more likely to reap commercial benefits in terms of less time 
lost through days off work, less waste and less chance of failing to come in on budget. 
Everyone in the supply chain — clients and contractors alike — should remember this 
and act accordingly.  

Given the difficulties in reaching enterprises that are furthest along the chain from the 
main  contractor,  subcontracting  remains  an  issue  to  be  dealt  with  in  depth.  It  also 
affects  the  enforcement  of  health  and  safety  provisions.  As  part  of  the  Community 
strategy for 2007-12 the Commission has to consider this problem. 

Architects, engineers and consultancy firms 

While the Directive does not refer explicitly to architects, engineers or consultancy firms, this 
group  was  evaluated  because  the  designer  plays  a  key  role  in  the  project  preparation  stage, 
and is so important in preventing occupational risks on construction sites. 

The  architects  and  engineers  who  design  projects  have  made  it  clear  that  they  know  the 
requirements but do not totally agree with the new measures imposed. Some are not in favour 
of the client appointing a coordinator for the design stage as, in their view, this hampers their 
creative freedom. 

In  some  Member  States,  however,  architects  and  engineers  often  act  as  coordinators  at  the 
design  stage.  This  has  greatly  improved  on-site  working  conditions,  by  providing  for 
collective  protection  and  signs.  The  majority  of  project  designers  accept  the  philosophy 
behind  coordination  but  are  reluctant  to  assume  additional  responsibilities.  Some  report 
problems  in  convincing  clients  and  project  supervisors  to  take  the  necessary  preventive 
measures. Architects also criticise the formalism of certain national rules on small sites and 
the different interpretations to which these are liable to give rise. 

Preventative health and safety is often not integrated into the project at the design stage 
because  safety  conditions  during  execution  and  subsequent  use  and  maintenance  are 
not a major factor in design/architectural choices. 

There  is  a  long  way  to  go  in  all  the  Member  States  before  the  culture  of  prevention 
effectively takes root at the design stage. 

To achieve this, the competent national authorities must make an effort to train project 
designers at vocational schools and at university, making prevention a key part of the 
curriculum.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Coordinators 

The role of the coordinator under Directive 92/57/EEC is to coordinate the implementation of 
various  health  and  safety  provisions  by  those  involved  in  project  preparation  and  project 
execution stages. 

The Directive does not define the competencies required to act as coordinator during project 
preparation  and  execution  stages.  There  are  big  differences  from  one  Member  State  to 
another.  Some  have  defined  the  competences  and/or  skills  of  coordinators  in  great  detail, 
sometimes  even  requiring  that  they  have  specific  training  or  a  combination  of  training  and 
experience. Others simply require that there be coordinators, without formally requiring any 
specific level of competence.  

The competencies required of coordinators by the Member States to fulfil their duties 
differ  greatly,  and  so  the  standard  of  coordination  varies  from  one  Member  State  to 
another. 

The assessment carried out in the field suggests that implementation would benefit if 
the  Member  States  introduced  some  minimum  criteria  for  competence  depending  on 
the  size  and/or  type/nature  of  the  risks  at  the  site.  Core  criteria  for  assessing  and 
demonstrating  coordinator  competence  are  essential.  The  Commission  will,  in 
cooperation with the Member States, encourage the development of such criteria. 

All the players in the construction sector indicate that the coordinator is appointed at too late a 
stage in the proceedings. Workers’ representatives pointed to a real lack of coordination at the 
design  stage.  The  assessment  also  shows  that  in  the  project  preparation  phase  there  is  a 
widespread lack of coordination (and control); coordination is only effective at the execution 
stage. 

Because project preparation does not take prevention of occupational risks into account before 
the design is finalised, the lack of planning for prevention has to be remedied at the execution 
stage. This may be one of the reasons for the extremely high accident rates in this sector by 
comparison  with  others.  This  situation  also  hampers  the  prevention  of  occupational  risks 
throughout  the  life  of  a  site,  particularly  with regard to operation,  upkeep,  maintenance  and 
even demolition. 

If  national  legislation  made  it  a  requirement  for  prevention  measures  linked  to  the  subject-
matter  of  the  contract  to  be  systematically  incorporated  into  the  technical  specifications  for 
invitations to tender and in the contract performance clauses and quality contract management 
by the contracting authorities, this could help to change attitudes in this area. 

At the project execution stage there are several scenarios. Some Member States stipulate that 
the  coordinator  must  be  the  architect  or  engineer  who  designed  the  building  or  the  main 
contractor  on  the  site  (project  supervisor).  In  other  Member  States,  coordinators  may  be 
independent natural or legal persons or may belong to clients’ organisations or companies. 

Even when there is coordination on site, very often it is still minimal. A lack of coordination 
in design affects the quality of the coordinator’s work at the execution stage. Designated on-
site  coordinators  often  encounter  health  and  safety  problems  which  are  difficult  to  resolve 
because  they  have  not  been  taken  into  account  during  project  preparation.  This  is 
compounded by problems of authority: sometimes other players do not understand what the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
coordinator’s job is, and self-employed workers and subcontractors on the site are even less 
inclined to acknowledge the coordinator’s authority.  

By  contrast,  relations  between  the  coordinator  and  workers  are  very  good  when  the 
coordinator is independent (i.e. is linked neither to the project supervisor nor to the architect 
or engineers, etc.), which makes it easier for workers to tell him or her about any prevention 
problems  which  they  might  be  disinclined  to  report  to  the  person  in  charge  of  the  site.  It  is 
easier to build up this trust if the coordinator visits the site regularly. 

On  large  sites  the  situation  as  a  whole  is  acceptable,  and  there  is  effective  and  efficient 
coordination. However, on small or medium-sized sites the situation is very different, and the 
Directive  is  seldom  implemented.  On  small  private  sites,  coordination  is  almost  invariably 
ignored  and  is  restricted  to  ‘administrative  compliance’;  the  coordinator  is  often  designated 
late and small enterprises generally regard coordination as ‘optional’. 

The  difficulties  of  effective  coordination  on  small  sites  should  be  dealt  with  when 
developing non-binding instruments, so that the essential prevention tasks are carried 
out in a simple and proportionate manner in keeping with the site’s size and risks. 

Workers 

In many Member States, workers in the construction sector are of various nationalities, which 
gives  rise  to  communication  and  comprehension  problems.  Language  barriers  make  it  more 
difficult  for  workers  to  follow  safety  and  health  instructions  for  the  use  of  machinery  and 
chemical substances. Migrant workers appear to be less well trained and informed than others 
regarding  the  prevention  of  occupational  risks.  Often  the  lack  of  a  prevention  culture  and  a 
different  perception  of  fundamental  values  may  lead  to  workers  taking  unacceptable  risks. 
Training  and  education  on  health  and  safety  prevention  are  fundamental  to  improving  this 
situation. 

Construction workers’ representatives are key to day-to-day compliance with good prevention 
practices,  particularly  on  small  sites  where  the  project  supervisor  and  coordinator  are  not 
always  present.  Workers’  representatives  are  seeing  genuine  progress  on  hygiene  measures 
(changing rooms, canteens, sanitary facilities) and access to sites, thanks to the Directive. 

Workers  report  they  do  not  understand  the  coordinator’s  role  or  obligations  at  the  design 
stage, but they are more familiar with the coordinator’s job at the execution stage. 

Clients say workers do not adopt a proactive attitude to prevention, but are content to carry 
out their duties without worrying about the effects on their health and safety. 

The on-site assessment shows that, in addition to a general lack of training, there are 
major  communication  and  comprehension  problems,  which  are  exacerbated  when 
migrant  workers  work  on  the  site.  Training  programmes  of  the  ‘Safe  Pass’12  type 
might be an example to follow. 

12 

The  Safe  Pass  Health  and  Safety  Awareness  Training  Programme  is  a  one-day  programme  run  by 
Ireland’s training and employment authority. Safe Pass aims to ensure that all construction workers in 
Ireland  have  a  basic  knowledge  of  health  and  safety,  so  they  can  work  on  construction  sites  without 
being a risk to themselves or others who might be affected by their actions. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Having workers’ representatives on the site could improve working conditions. 

Workers  often  see  the  coordinators’  duties  as  including  on-site  inspections,  in 
particular with regard to the use of personal protective equipment. 

Self-employed workers 

The number of self-employed workers on sites is steadily increasing in all the Member States 
as a result of a growing trend towards subcontracting. This situation is addressed in Article 10 
of  Directive  92/57/EEC,  which  requires  self-employed  workers  on  sites  to  meet  certain 
obligations and to follow the instructions of coordinators. 

Self-employed  persons  engaged  in  renovation  for  private  clients  pose  a  major  problem 
because  they  are  service  providers,  not  subcontractors;  they  usually  work  without  any 
technical supervision and often are not even familiar with the legislation. 

The  competent  authorities  should  conduct  specific  awareness-raising  campaigns 
targeting  self-employed  workers.  Clients  or  companies  that  hire  self-employed 
workers must assume responsibility for their health and safety and for the impact of 
their actions on other workers.  

Prevention services 

In  general,  the  new  legislation  has  encouraged  an  increase  in  the  number  of  consultants  in 
occupational  safety  and  health,  but  they  are  involved  only  in  the  execution  phase  of  the 
project, not in the design and preparation phases. 

In some Member States, prevention services have been very active in providing training and 
information, in particular for coordinators and clients. However, they claim that they lack the 
necessary resources to intervene at the design stage. 

Prevention services should be given a more active role in on-site training and information for 
workers. 

5.1. 

Documents required: real prevention or just red tape? 

One  of  the  major  criticisms  levelled  at  Directive  92/57/EEC  is  the  increase  in  the 
administrative  burden  and  disproportionate  costs  that  it  entails  for  enterprises,  in  particular 
SMEs. 

The Directive provides for three types of document designed to take full account of health and 
safety  matters  in  all  phases  of  construction:  from  design  to  execution,  during  use  and 
maintenance, during renovation and fitting-out and, where appropriate, through to demolition. 

Prior notice 

Under  Article  3  of  Directive  92/57/EEC,  in  certain  cases  prior  notice  giving  administrative 
information on the site must be drafted by the client or project supervisor and displayed on the 
site. In the vast majority of cases, this prior notice has to be given to the competent authorities 
within  time  limits  laid  down  by  national  legislation. It is often the coordinator, who is only 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
appointed  when  the  project  has  reached  an  advanced  stage,  who  urges  the  client  to  comply 
with this requirement. 

The way in which prior notice is drafted and sent to the competent authorities differs from one 
Member State to another. Often, the coordinator does this job although the Directive stipulates 
that it is the task of the client or the project supervisor. 

Under the Directive, prior notice is intended to provide basic information identifying the site 
and  key  players,  and  the  number  of  workers,  enterprises  and  self-employed  workers  on  the 
site, but it is needed only for certain categories of site. From a prevention point of view, this 
document  alerts  the  client  and/or  project  supervisor  to  their  obligations  and  enables  the 
competent authorities to ensure that these obligations are met from the design stage onwards, 
before work is started. 

The majority of the Member States systematically require prior notice, although under 
the Directive it is required only for certain sites. 

To  reduce  red  tape,  the  Member  States  could  consider  combining  prior  notice  with 
other administrative procedures, such as granting a construction permit. 

Safety and health plan 

Article 3(2) of Directive 92/57/EEC provides for the client or the project supervisor to ensure 
that a safety and health plan is drawn up before a construction site is set up. The coordinator 
drafts the plan, specifying the rules applicable at the site. 

The assessment shows that plans vary in quality from excellent to barely acceptable. In some 
cases, the coordinator at the preparation stage brings in the coordinator for the execution stage 
to help define the safety measures to be applied. The safety and health plan should cover safe 
working  methods  to  be  used  on  the  site  and  must  be  updated  if  necessary.  It  is  especially 
important if a large amount of work is being subcontracted. 

The  plan  is  often  based  on  standard  documents,  particularly  in  the  case  of  small  sites  and 
small enterprises, and so becomes an administrative formality rather than reflecting specific 
measures needed for a particular site. In other cases, it is no more than a list of good general 
prevention practice, regardless of the site. 

The  enterprises  adopting  this  attitude  argue  that  a  construction  site  constantly  changes  and 
does not justify very detailed planning which could very rapidly become obsolete.  

However,  a  large  number  of  accidents  in  the  sector  are  due  to  poor  planning  and  lack  of 
foresight. This proves that the safety and health plan is not just a bureaucratic requirement but 
is crucial to improving working conditions, where the plan evolves in line with changes in the 
site situation. 

Moreover,  in  practice,  Member  States  have  rarely  used  the  possibility  afforded  by  the 
Directive for exempting enterprises from drafting a safety and health plan, although this is an 
option in all cases except those specified in the Directive (work involving particular risks and 
work  for  which  prior  notice  is  required).  This  is  all  the  more  striking  because  there  is  no 
knowledge of or reference to this possibility when the administrative burdens of the Directive 
are discussed. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
To  facilitate  the  tasks  of  clients  and  project  supervisors,  a  non-binding  guide  will 
cover the various aspects of the safety and health plan and the possibilities afforded 
by  the  Directive  for  exempting  enterprises  from  the  obligation  to  draw  up  certain 
documents in cases where the risks do not justify it. 

Safety and health file 

Under  Article  5  of  the  Directive,  the  project  coordinator  prepares  a  file  containing  relevant 
safety  and  health  information  to  be  taken  into  account  during  any  subsequent  works  on  the 
project. This is seldom produced at the end of the design phase. Often it is the coordinator for 
the  execution  stage  who  draws  it  up  and  gives  it  to  the  client  when  the  work  has  been 
completed.  

This file is very often confused with the safety and health plan, and tends to be drafted as a 
routine operation. In the case of small sites, however, the safety and health file should suit the 
type  of  project,  be  kept  simple  and  contain  only  the  relevant  safety  and  health  information 
needed  for  subsequent  use.  The  Directive  explicitly  allows  the  contents  of  the  file  to  be 
adjusted to suit the project.  

Some  players  regard  the  safety  and  health  plan  and  the  safety  and  health  file  as 
administrative formalities that add no value to health and safety on the site. 

It is clear that the purpose and importance of the safety and health file in preventing 
occupational risks during subsequent work is not yet properly understood. 

For small sites, the documents are often copies of standard models that do not reflect 
the  actual  conditions  on  site  and  add  no  value  in  terms  of  improving  working 
conditions. 

A  non-binding  guide  will  address  this  problem  with  a  view  to  easing  the 
administrative  burden  on  enterprises  without  reducing  protection,  and  to  improving 
commitment to and ownership of the health and safety documents. 

5.2. 

The responsibility of the various players on the site 

Article 7 of Directive 92/57/EEC lays down the responsibilities of clients, project supervisors 
and employers. 

In some cases, national laws transposing the Directive do not clearly describe the duties and 
responsibilities of clients, project supervisors and employers. In practice, this means that each 
player  interprets  his  or  her  responsibilities  subjectively,  and  tasks  and  responsibilities  may 
therefore  be  delegated  by  one  player  to  another:  designers  pass  on  their  responsibilities  to 
enterprises, who then pass them on to subcontractors; the coordinator in the preparation phase 
withdraws as soon as the plans and specifications have been completed, even if the detailed 
design has not yet been prepared. 

On-site  assessment  shows  that  clients  often  think  they  can  delegate  responsibility  for 
occupational safety and health to the architect or the project supervisor. This is not allowed in 
Member States where the transposing legislation stipulates that the client and not the project 
supervisor is responsible for prevention. Clients still believe that only the project supervisors 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
are responsible for health and safety on the site. This phenomenon is particularly widespread 
on small private sites. 

5.3. 

Enforcement 

Enforcement  of  national  legislation  transposing  Directive  92/57/EEC  is  in  general  the 
responsibility of the labour inspectorates in the Member States.  

In  2001,  the  Senior  Labour  Inspectors  Committee  (SLIC)  decided  to  conduct  an  EU-wide 
enforcement  campaign  in  the  construction  sector.  The first campaign took  place  in  2003  in  the 
then 15 Member States. It was an inspection and information campaign on the implementation of 
Directive  92/57/EEC,  with  particular  emphasis  on  preventing  falls  from  heights.  The  2003 
inspection  campaign  was  repeated  in  2004  and  widened  to  include  transport  at  the  workplace, 
falling objects and lifting. 

The results of the 2003 campaign indicated that, in relation to coordination, the safety and health 
plan, prior notice and the project file, there is a positive correlation between the size of the site and 
the degree of compliance with the Directive, with large sites (over 50 workers) obtaining far better 
scores than small ones. Although large sites are safer than small ones in practice, the degree of 
compliance is still unsatisfactory (20-30% of large sites are not in compliance, as against 40-50% 
of small sites). 

The  results  of  the  2004  campaign  were  no  better.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  evidence  that  the 
situation on small sites may even have worsened slightly, confirming the 2003 conclusion that it is 
imperative  for  the  construction  sector  to  pay  greater  attention  to  safety  and  health  matters  and 
improve working conditions. 

6. 

ACTION IN THE FIELD: PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 92/58/EEC  

In the majority of the Member States, the players are familiar with safety and health signs, as 
these were already being used before the adoption of Directive 92/58/EEC. There were very 
few changes in the form, logos, colours, etc., of previous signs, the only exception being those 
indicating the location of emergency exits in the event of a fire. 

In  most  Member  States,  employers  ask  for  advice  before  purchasing  certain  types  of  signs. 
Generally, they ask about the type of signs to be used and the best place to put them. 

While  enterprises  in  most  Member  States  were  well  aware  of  the  legislation,  they  did  not 
always comply with it because of a widespread assumption that the legislation was marginal 
and supplementary.  

As a rule, enterprises were more familiar with fire and evacuation signs, as these are 
the  risks  most  often  highlighted  by  the  competent  authorities  and  by  insurance 
companies. 

While most enterprises knew they must signpost hazards, small enterprises were less 
well  informed  than  large  ones,  and  in  some  sectors  (e.g.  agricultural  holdings, 
restaurants and hotels, construction sites), compliance was less widespread. 

Risks directly linked with the enterprise’s main activity (for example, chemical risks 
in  chemical  companies)  are  signposted  more  than  other  risks  (such  as  those  of  road 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
traffic or transporting heavy loads). 

The legislation is applied more consistently in new enterprises than in older ones. However, 
even in cases where the new signposting legislation is obeyed, many shortcomings are noted 
in practice. Often signs are not renewed. 

The consequences of non-compliance may be very serious. A lack of signs indicating 
vehicles at the place of work, suspended loads, open drains, electrical risks, etc. can 
often be the cause of serious accidents. 

Specific training on the meaning of signs and other visual information for workers appears not 
to  be  widely  available  in  the  majority  of  the  Member  States.  In  most  cases  workers  receive 
general training and information on safety and health matters, with only a small component 
devoted  to  signs.  The  specific  case  of  migrant  workers  deserves  to  be  studied,  in  order  to 
establish the extent to which they understand signs. 

Certain  problems  also  emerge  with  regard  to  interpreting  ‘Emergency  exit’  and  ‘Telephone 
for rescue and first aid’ signs, as opposed to ‘Fire equipment’ and ‘Fire telephone’ signs. The 
only difference between these two groups of signs is the colour of the background. 

7. 

GENERAL ASSESSMENT  

7.1. 

The main positive effects of the two Directives 

Directive 92/57/EEC 

In their national reports the Member States indicate that implementing Directive 92/57/EEC 
raised awareness of safety and health matters on a large scale and prompted them to update 
national  legislation.  The  Member  States  regard  the  adoption  of  this  new  legislation  as 
indispensable, a positive development, useful, relevant, justified and satisfactory.  

Directive 92/57/EEC has been highly beneficial in terms of improving working conditions on 
construction sites. In particular, it has boosted the culture of prevention in this sector, which is 
a ‘black spot’ for accidents at work and occupational diseases. Many Member States say the 
quality of on-site facilities has improved considerably (hygiene, training premises, canteens, 
sanitary  facilities  and  offices)  and  that  the  Directive  has  improved  dialogue  and 
communication between the various players on-site at different stages. 

The  Directive’s  major  innovation, which  all  sides  see  as  a  step  forward,  is  that  it  makes  all 
players,  and  mainly  the  client,  responsible.  Introducing  coordination  at  the  preparation  and 
execution stages is also seen as highly beneficial, as is the obligation to draw up a safety and 
health plan and a safety and health file. 

According to some Member States, enterprises are increasingly acknowledging the relevance 
of safety and health protection at work. Safety and health measures are no longer considered 
solely  as  costs,  but  also  as  economic  benefits,  because  they  may  reduce  absenteeism  and 
ultimately increase productivity.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Directive 92/58/EEC 

The new legislation defined signs in practical and exhaustive terms, enabling the signs used at 
workplaces  to  be  harmonised  across  all  the  Member  States.  The  fact  that  the  Directive  has 
included and regulated signs other than visual ones — such as luminous, acoustic, and verbal 
signs and hand signals — has also met with approval. 

The  national  reports  show  that  the  Directive  provided  an  opportunity  to  renew  and  add  to 
existing national legislation. It helped to make national legislation consistent and to introduce 
a coherent set of EU safety and health provisions. 

7.2.  Main problems of implementation 

Directive 92/57/EEC 

The main problems reported by the Member States stem from the requirement to draft a safety 
and health plan and to designate coordinators as early as the project preparation stage.  

In  most  national  legislation,  the  client  is  responsible  for  prevention  policy.  Clients  face 
difficulties in discharging their increased responsibilities. Designation of coordinators is still 
unsatisfactorily or is delayed at the preparation stage, as this too is seen as an administrative 
burden. 

If the safety and health plan has not been drawn up or the coordinator has not been designated 
before  the  project  execution  stage,  the  obligation  to  incorporate  prevention  principles  in 
project preparation has not been met. Moreover, the various national provisions on the safety 
and  health  plan  are  too  vague  and  general  to  enable  those  responsible  to  know  what  they 
should  include  in  the  plan.  Labour  inspectorates  detected  another  serious  problem,  namely 
that some enterprises rely on standard safety plan models which do not allow inspection of the 
specific  working  conditions  of  a  specific  site.  Member  States  report  that  enterprises  fail  to 
grasp the role that the safety and health file plays in the prevention system. 

Another  problem  mentioned  is  the  low  rate  of  participation  by  construction  workers  in  the 
prevention of occupational risks through their representatives. 

A  shortfall  in  training  for  workers,  subcontractors,  self-employed  workers  and  SMEs  was 
found. Moreover, SMEs suffer from an excess of red tape and a lack of flexibility in national 
legislation. 

Lastly,  in  many  Member  States  the  coordinator’s  competencies  are  not  defined  by  the 
legislation. This creates situations where coordination cannot be effective because those who 
take on the role do not possess the necessary knowledge. 

Directive 92/58/EEC 

The  Member  States’  reports  and  the  experts’  evaluation  indicate  that  the  main  problem  is  a 
lack of training for workers. In most cases, workers receive general health and safety training, 
with only a small section devoted to signs. In more general terms, the lack of interest shown 
by enterprises and managers in implementing the Directive was also identified as a problem.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
8. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

Directive 92/57/EEC 

Some Member States say it is difficult to apply the Directive because its terms are too general. 
Some  have  asked  the  Commission  to  prepare  non-binding  information  addressing  possible 
questions and doubts, to help with implementation. 

In general, the national reports show that the Member States’ chief concern is shortcomings in 
developing  safety  coordination  at  the  preparation  stage.  Some  would  therefore  like  the 
Commission to cover coordination at the preparation stage in non-binding instruments. 

Others  would  like  their  national  legislation  to  clarify  the  interaction  between  the  project 
coordinator,  the  designers  and  the  client,  and  between  the  project  coordinator,  the  project 
supervisors, self-employed workers and the client. 

Directive 92/58/EEC 

A number of suggestions were made to improve either the legislation or the way it is applied. 

One of the suggestions to improve the legislation was to include compulsory basic training for 
workers on safety signs, although the training provided would need to be proportionate to the 
risks involved. Another was to review the rules on hand signals, to improve implementation. 
Efforts should be made to harmonise the Directive with international standards. 

9. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEGISLATION 

Directive 92/57/EEC 

It  is  very  difficult  to  demonstrate  objectively  the  link  between  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive  and  the  improvement  of  the  situation  in  terms  of  reducing  accidents  at  work  and 
occupational diseases in the construction sector.  

The growth in the construction sector since the Directive’s entry into force; the introduction 
of  new  technologies;  the  complexity  of  introducing  a  prevention  system  on-site  and  the 
multiplicity  of  players;  seasonal  variations;  and  the  way  the  Directive  contains  some  new 
provisions  and  others  that  are  grafted  onto  existing  national  regulations  all  complicate  an 
assessment of its effectiveness. 

The construction sector continues to hold the poorest record for accidents at work compared 
with  other  sectors  of  economic  activity.  While  implementing  the  Directive  has  produced  a 
steady fall in the incidence rates of accidents in construction over the years, the reduction is 
still not as big as expected. 

(a) 

Effects on accidents at work and occupational diseases 

The  most  recent  available  European  statistics  on  accidents  at  work  on  EU-15  construction 
sites  are  for  the  year  2005.  Since  1996,  a  gradual  improvement  in  the  incidence  rate13  has 

13 

The  incidence  rate  defined  by  ESAW  methodology  is  the  number  of  accidents  at  work  per  100  000 
workers in employment. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
been  observed  in  the  case  of  both  fatal  accidents  (1996:  13.3;  2005:  8.8)  and  accidents 
involving more than three days’ absence from work (1996: 8 023; 2005: 6 069). However, it 
should be noted that the rate of fatal accidents in construction is almost 2.5 times the average 
rate for all activities, including construction, and the rate of accidents involving an absence of 
more than three days from work is twice as high. 

(b) 

Impact on productivity, employment and competitiveness 

Most Member States do not provide any information on the impact that the new legislation is 
having  on  productivity,  employment  and  competitiveness.  As  a  rule,  the  new  measures  are 
seen  as  beneficial  in  some  Member  States  in  terms  of  productivity  and  competitiveness, 
particularly in the long term. According to these Member States, implementing the Directive 
encourages modernisation and streamlining of  production processes, which logically lead to 
improved productivity by ensuring that work organisation is planned and reviewed. 

Directive 92/58/EEC 

(a) 

Effects on accidents at work and occupational diseases 

No specific data are available on this subject, as the statistics generally do not take account of 
accidents due to signs. The absence of signs, in particular, is not generally considered to be a 
material factor in an accident. Consequently, the absence of signs is not included on the list of 
material agents linked with accident statistics. It is for this reason that the lack or absence of 
safety  and  health  signs  does  not  feature  in  studies  carried  out  to  pinpoint  the  causes  of 
accidents at work. 

(b) 

Impact on productivity, employment and competitiveness 

The  Member  States  have  found  it  difficult  to  measure  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on 
productivity,  employment  and  competitiveness.  One  Member  State  said  that,  as  a 
management  instrument,  the  Directive  contributed  to  productivity;  another  Member  State 
stated that it had beneficial effects on the number of absences from work due to illness and on 
working conditions in general. 

10. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Directive 92/57/EEC 

While  the  incidence  rate  and  the  number  of  accidents  at  work  were  down  both  for  fatal 
accidents and for accidents involving an absence of more than three days from work (which in 
itself testifies to the positive impact of the Directive in terms of safety and health of workers 
in the EU), the numbers are still unacceptable: construction is still the sector where workers 
are exposed to the greatest risks. 

The assessment appears to show clearly, as do the above figures, that an improvement in the 
health  and  safety  of  workers  on  construction  sites  can  only  be  achieved  if  Directive 
92/57/EEC is implemented more effectively in practice. Now does not appear to be the right 
time to embark on a process of amending the Directive without first taking alternative action 
at  national  and/or  European  level  to  enable  the  Directive  to  take  full  effect,  and  to  ensure 
compliance  with  it.  In  developing  national  health  and  safety  strategies,  the  Member  States 
could take action to apply Directive 92/57/EEC more effectively, mainly by streamlining and 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
simplifying  existing  national  legal  frameworks  while abiding by the  principles  of consistent 
and  effective  legislation.  The  exercise  to  reduce  administrative  burdens  in  the  European 
Union14, in which the Commission is currently engaged, is crucial in this respect. It includes 
an  assessment  of  Directive  92/57/EEC  and  will  enable  unnecessary  administrative  burdens 
caused by both national and EU legislation to be identified. 

The  Member  States  all  agree,  and  assessment  in  the  field  confirms  this,  that  non-binding 
instruments are needed at European and/or national level to make it easier to apply Directive 
92/57/EEC in practice. Specifically, the majority of the Member States highlight problems in 
understanding  and  drawing  up  the  health  and  safety  plan  and  in  identifying  the  persons 
responsible for doing so. The role of the safety and health file also needs to be explained. 

In  general,  the  Member  States  report  problems  stemming  from  the  absence  of  clear 
information  on  the  definition,  the  role,  the  tasks  and  the  qualifications  of  coordinators 
according to the type of project.  

Increased efforts must be made, through training and information, to raise clients’ awareness 
of their responsibilities and to convince them that coordination is not an additional cost but an 
effective  means  of  reducing  costs  throughout  the  project.  The  architects  and  engineers 
involved in design must also be given training on prevention of occupational risks, preferably 
as  part  of  their  university  studies.  Basic  training  requirements  for  coordinators  should  be 
developed.  Lastly,  small  enterprises  and  workers,  especially  migrant  and  self-employed 
workers, need to be informed and properly trained in the legislation and their responsibilities. 

A  crucial  aspect  is  enforcement  of  the  Directive  in  an  equivalent  manner  across  the  EU.  In 
addition  to  focusing  on  the  execution  phase  of  construction,  enforcement  must  pay  more 
attention  to  ensuring  that  clients  and  designers  comply  with  their  obligations  at  the  design 
stage. Sites should be inspected more frequently, and safety and health plans and the safety 
and health file should also be checked for both form and substance. Effective, proportionate 
and dissuasive penalties must be imposed on both clients and project supervisors where they 
fail  to  meet  their  obligations.  In  this  context,  SLIC  plays  a  fundamental  role  and  should 
address the particular situation in the construction sector as a priority in its future work. 

To sum up, the following action needs to be developed either at national or at EU level: 

–  draft non-binding instruments (guidelines); 

–  integrate  specific  safety  and  health  issues  into  vocational  school  and  tertiary  education 
programmes at national level for professionals playing a key role in the implementation of 
the directive; 

–  introduce national competence requirements for coordinators; 

–  systematic incorporation of prevention measures linked to the subject matter of the contract 
in  the  technical  specifications  for  invitations  to  tender  and  in  the  contract  performance 
clauses and quality contract management by the contracting authorities; 

14 

COM(2007)  23  of  24.1.2007,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European 
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Action 
programme to reduce administrative burdens in the European Union (SEC(2007) 84) (SEC(2007) 85). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  improve education and training for workers and communicate with them through training 

programmes (such as ‘Safe Pass’); 

–  hold specific national awareness-raising campaigns targeting self-employed workers; 

–  combine preparation the prior notice with other relevant national administrative procedures 

(such as applying for the construction permit); 

–  inspect sites more frequently; 

–  introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. 

Construction  remains  a  particularly  dangerous  sector  requiring  extra  effort  by  all  players  if 
implementation  of  Directive  92/57/EEC  is  to  improve  significantly.  The  Commission  will 
contribute  to  this  aim,  inter  alia  by  drawing  up  a  practical,  non-binding  guide  to  clarify 
certain key concepts and to help all players to meet their obligations. 

Directive 92/58/EEC 

All  the  Member  States  believe  that  Directive  92/58/EEC  has  had  a  very  positive  impact  in 
terms of protecting the safety and health of workers and of third parties. It has enabled risk 
situations to be clearly identified, independently of language knowledge, and has contributed 
decisively  to  implementing  a  major  principle  of  Community  law:  the  free  movement  of 
workers. 

The  Directive  will  be  affected  by  the  introduction  of  the  Globally  Harmonised  System  of 
Classification  and  Labelling  of  Chemicals  (GHS)  —  which  amends  the  criteria,  pictograms 
and symbols for toxicity, flammability and other chemical risks — and will therefore have to 
be updated. 

EN 

19 

   EN