OSH in figures : stress at work : facts and figures.
Date: 2009-07-23
Institutions: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
Subjects: environmental risk prevention, mental stress, occupational health, occupational safety, research project, working conditions

to 

the  working 
improve 
In  order 
environment, as regards the protection 
of  the  safety  and  health  of  workers 
as  provided  for 
in  the  Treaty  and 
successive  Community  strategies  and 
action  programmes  concerning  health 
and  safety  at  the  workplace,  the  aim 
of  the  Agency  shall  be  to  provide  the 
Community bodies, the Member States, 
the  social  partners  and  those  involved 
in the field with the technical, scientific 
and economic information of use in the 
field of safety and health at work.

u

e

.

a

p

o

r

u

e

.

a

h

s

o

/

/

:

p

t

t

h

Gran Vía 33, E-48009 Bilbao
Tel.: +34 944794360
Fax: + 34 944794383
E-mail: information@osha.europa.eu
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 15

k

r

o

W

t

a

h

t

l

a

e

H

d

n

a

y

t

e

f

a

S

r

o

f

y

c

n

e

g

A

n

a

e

p

o

r

u

E

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

en 9

ISSN 1830-5946

OSH in figures:
stress at work — facts and figures

9
en

T
E
-
8
1
-
0
8
-
4
7
8
-
E
N

-
C

O
S
H

i

n
fi
g
u
r
e
s
:

s
t
r
e
s
s
a
t

w
o
r
k

—

f
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
fi
g
u
r
e
s

E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
R
I
S
K
O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
O
R
Y
R
E
P
O
R
T

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

•	

•	

•	

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;

by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact details on 
the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Free publications:

•	

•	

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their 
contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax  
to +352 2929-42758.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2009 — 132 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9191-224-7

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 15

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

OSH in figures:
stress at work — facts and figures

Authors:
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work:
Malgorzata Milczarek, Elke Schneider, Eusebio Rial González

Topic Centre Risk Observatory:
CIOP-PIB, Poland: Maria Widerszal-Bazyl, Anna Łuczak, Anna Kazenas, Magdalena Warszewska-Makuch, Dorota 
Żołnierczyk-Zreda, Andrzej Najmiec

National Data provided by:
Austria: Angelika Hauke, Eva Flaspöler, Stefan Gabriel, DGUV, Germany
Belgium: Marthe Verjans, Lieven Eeckelaert, Veronique De Broeck, Prevent
Cyprus: Marios Charalambous, Labour Inspectorate
Czech Republic: Vladimir Janousek – VUBP-OPPZH
Finland: Simo Virtanen, Krista Pahkin – FIOH
France: Laurence Poly, Claire Tissot – INRS 
Germany: Rosemarie Baumann, Frank Brenscheidt, Meike Bödefeld, Ellen Zwink – BAuA
Greece: Antonis Targoutzidis – ELINYAE
Hungary: Katalin Balogh – Public Foundation for Research on Occupational Safety
Ireland: Nadia Clarkin – Work Research Centre 
Latvia: Maiija Eglite –Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health, Riga Stradins University, Dace Avena, 
State Labour Inspectorate
Malta: Romina Rieck Zahra, Occupational Health and Safety Authority,
The Netherlands: Karin Jettinghoff, Irene Houtman – TNO Arbeid, 
Portugal: Sergio Miguel – SPOSHO, Universidade do Minho
Slovenia: Saša Žebovec – Institute of Occupational Safety 
Spain: Mercedes Tejedor, Olga Fernández – INSHT
United Kingdom: Geoffrey David – Robens Centre for Health Ergonomics, University of Surrey

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*)  Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers, or these calls may 

be billed.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009

ISBN 978-92-9191-224-7

© European Communities, 2009
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer

 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

S

T
N
E

T
N
O
C

F
O

E

L
B
A
T

Abbreviations  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  5

Country codes  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  5

Executive summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  9

1 . 

Introduction    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   13

2 .  Prevalence of stress at work  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   19
2.1.  Stress at work — general prevalence and time trends   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20
Information from the Member States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   29
2.2. 
Belgium  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   29
Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   29
Finland  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   29
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   30
Ireland   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   32
Latvia  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   32
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   34
The Netherlands  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   36
United Kingdom  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   38

3 .  Stress by age   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   41
3.1.  Relationship with age — general prevalence and time trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   42
Information from the Member States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   45
3.2. 
Belgium  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   45
Finland  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   45
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   46
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   47 
The Netherlands  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   48
United Kingdom  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   48

4 .  Stress by gender   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   51
4.1.  Relationship with gender — general prevalence and trends  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   52
Information from the Member States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   55
4.2. 
Belgium  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   55
Finland  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   56
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   56
Ireland   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   57
Poland   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   58
Slovenia  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   58
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   58
The Netherlands  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   59
United Kingdom  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   60

5 .  Stress by sector and occupation   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   63
5.1.  Relationship with sector and occupation — general prevalence and trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   64
Information from the Member States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   75
5.2. 
Belgium  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   75
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   76
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   78
Greece   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   80
Hungary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   80
Ireland   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   81

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Latvia  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   81
Poland   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   82
Portugal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   83
Slovenia  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   83
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   83
The Netherlands  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   84
United Kingdom  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   87

6 . 

 Stress by employment status    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   91
6.1.  Relationship with employment status — general prevalence and trends   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   92
Information from the Member States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   94
6.2. 
Belgium  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   94
Finland  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   95
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   96
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   97

7 .  Emerging psychosocial risks — Experts’ surveys   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   101
7.1. 
Expert forecast on emerging psychosocial risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   102
7.2.  Combined exposure to psychosocial and physical risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   108

8 .  Costs of stress-related health problems   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   111

9 .  Legislation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   115

10 .  Conclusions    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   119

11 .   More information  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   121

12 .   Data collection methodology  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   123

References    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .   127

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

a b b r E v i at i o n S

  EWCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .European Working Conditions Survey
  ISCO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Standard Classifications of Occupations
  LFS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Labour Force Survey
  EU15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Member States of the EU before the accession in May 2004
  CC12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Candidate Countries which (10 of them) joined the EU in May 2004
  EU10, NMS10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 countries which joined the EU in May 2004
  AC 2. . . . . . .Acceding Countries (Romania and Bulgaria) which joined the EU in January 2007
  EU25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Member States of the EU until January 2007
  EU27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Member States of the EU after the accession in January 2007

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

c o u n t r y  c o d E S

  AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Austria
  BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belgium
  BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulgaria
  CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cyprus
  CZ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Czech Republic
  DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Germany 
  DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denmark
  EE   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estonia
  EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece
  ES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Spain
  FI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finland 
  FR   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .France 
  HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hungary
  IE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ireland
  IT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Italy
  LV   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Latvia
  LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lithuania
  LU  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luxembourg
  MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malta
  NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Netherlands
  PL   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poland
  PT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Portugal
  RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romania
  SE   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sweden
  SI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slovenia
  SK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slovakia 
  UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United Kingdom

5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
f o r E W o r d

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Work-related stress is one of the biggest health and safety challenges that we face in 
Europe. Stress is the second most frequently reported work-related health problem, 
affecting 22% of workers from the EU 27 (in 2005), and the number of people suffering 
from stress-related conditions caused or made worse by work is likely to increase. 

The changing world of work is making increased demands on workers; downsizing 
and outsourcing, the greater need for flexibility in terms of both function and skills, 
increasing use of temporary contracts, increased job insecurity, higher workloads and 
more pressure, and poor work-life balance are all factors which contribute to work-
related stress. Studies suggest that stress is a factor in between 50% and 60% of all 
lost working days. This represents a huge cost in terms of both human distress and 
impaired economic performance.

This report discusses the prevalence of stress and the trends in work-related stress in 
the Member States of the European Union (based on international and national data),  
identifying  those  groups  particularly  exposed  to  stress  in  their  working  lives, 
subdivided  by  age,  gender,  sector,  occupation,  and  employment  status.  Areas  for 
future research and action are also indicated.  

The Agency would like to thank the members of the Topic Centre for their contributions 
to the information used in this report. It would also like to thank its Focal Points, Expert 
Group and Advisory Group for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Jukka Takala

Director

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

February 2009

7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E x E c u t i v E   S u m m a r y

Stress at work is common throughout Europe. In surveys carried out every five years by 
the  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions, 
respondents  name  it  as  the  second  most  common  threat  posed  by  the  working 
environment.  Only  musculoskeletal  problems  are  seen  as  more  likely  to  damage 
workers’  health.  According  to  the  fourth  European  Survey  of  Working  Conditions, 
carried out in 2005 in all Member States, stress was experienced by an average 22% of 
working Europeans. In 2002, the annual economic cost of work-related stress in the 
EU15 was estimated at EUR 20,000 million.

In 2005 stress was 
experienced by 22% of 
EU workers

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

P r e v a l e n c e   o f   s t r e s s   i n   t h e   E U   M e m b e r   S t a t e s

In 2005, the level of reported stress was lower in EU15 (20%) than in EU10 (30%) or in two 
Acceding Countries (Bulgaria and Romania; 31%). However, significant differences were 
also observed among the countries within these groups. The highest levels of stress 
were reported in Greece (55%), and in Slovenia (38%), Sweden (38%), and Latvia (37%), 
and the lowest levels noted in the United Kingdom (12%), Germany, Ireland, and the 
Netherlands (16%) as well as in the Czech Republic (17%), France and Bulgaria (18%). 

Stress  prevalence  in  EU15  in  2000  (28%)  did  not  differ  significantly  from  the  levels 
reported in the previous survey carried out five years earlier. In 2000-2005 however, 
stress  prevalence  in  the  EU15  diminished.  Overall  fatigue,  headaches  and  irritability 
indices  also  dropped  during  this  time  period,  with  sleeping  problems  and  anxiety 
remaining  at  the  same  level.  The  opposite  trend  was  identified  in  the  12  candidate 
countries, 10 of which became Member States before the end of this period on 1 May 
2004. Stress prevalence grew slightly in those countries in 2001–2005 (from 28% to 30%). 
Some stress-related outcomes also increased. 

Quantitative work demands, which are considered to be an important source of stress, 
are concurrently affected by two reverse trends: a positive one, shorter working hours, 
which would be likely to reduce stress prevalence (in EU15); and a negative one, greater 
work intensity, which generates higher stress levels. 

In the EU25 countries, in 2005, fewer people (on average 14%) were forced to work long 
hours (a working week of 48 hours or more) than in previous years. At the same time 
workers were being asked to work faster and to tighter deadlines. Although generally 
the required speed of work is increasing, there is substantial variation between various 
Member Countries. In 2005, Sweden, Finland and Denmark had the highest percentage 
of  workers  who  reported  high-speed  working  “around  half  of  the  time  or  more”  
(85%, 77% and 76% respectively), whereas Ireland, Poland and Latvia had the lowest 
percentages (42%, 40% and 40% respectively). 

Low job control is recognised as another important source of stress. In 1990-1995 in the 
EU15  an  increase  in  control  was  observed  and  a  smaller  percentage  of  employees 
reported no control over work method and speed. Figures in the 2000 survey were 
similar, although levels of job control among the new EU countries were lower than 
among the EU15. 

Another source of work-related stress is harassment. In 2005 about 5% of all workers 
from the EU25 and AC2 countries said they were subject to some form of violence or 
harassment (bullying), and about 2% reported experiencing unwanted sexual attention. 

Although on average 
working hours in EU are 
decreasing, work 
intensity is growing 

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

The highest stress level is 
observed among middle 
aged workers

The prevalence of stress 
among men and women 
is similar

Stress is especially 
prevalent in education 
and health,  agriculture, 
hunting, forestry & fishing 
sectors

10

In  the  EU15,  the  level  of  reported  violence  increased  slightly  during  the  1995-2005 
period. There are significant differences in the prevalence of violence and, particularly, 
harassment  in  different  European  countries.  The  highest  level  of  harassment  was 
reported  in  Finland  (17%),  followed  by  the  Netherlands  (12%),  and  Lithuania  (10%);  
the lowest levels were reported in Italy and Bulgaria (2%).

S t r e s s   b y   a g e

According to the EWCS (1995-2005) respondents from all age categories report that work 
affects their health. However, this opinion is most common in the 45-54 age group, and 
in most of the Member States there is a statistical peak in middle age in the relationship 
between  age  and  stress.  The  highest  stress  levels  are  observed  among  middle  aged 
workers, and the lowest among older and younger workers. It is also true, however, that 
physical  violence  is  most  often  reported  by  workers  from  the  25-39  age  group,  and 
harassment and unwanted sexual attention by the youngest group (“24 or less”). 

It is also worth mentioning that between 2000 and 2005, stress prevalence in the 40-54 age 
group decreased by 9 percentage points, from 32% in 2000 to 23% in 2005 (EU15). However, 
anxiety and irritability indices remained almost at the same level for this age group. Sleeping 
problems, anxiety, and irritability increased slightly in the 25-39 and +55 age groups. The 
overall fatigue indicator has dropped in all age categories.

S t r e s s   b y   g e n d e r

The  figures  from  the  EWCS  carried  out  in  1995,  2000/2001  and  2005  show  small 
differences between men and women’s work-related stress and also in stress indicators. 
However, the latest survey (2005) did show that stress is a little more prevalent among 
men (23%) compared to women (20%). Stress indicators, with the exception of anxiety, 
were slightly more prevalent among men. Women are more at risk of harassment than 
men, but the prevalence of physical violence is similar for both genders.  

S t r e s s   b y   s e c t o r   a n d   o c c u p a t i o n 

In 2005 stress was most common in the education and health sectors, and in agriculture, 
hunting, forestry & fishing (28.5%). The largest group of employees who suffered from 
anxiety at work were those employed in education and health, public administration 
and defence and in agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing. Irritability was most prevalent 
in  education  and  health,  transport  and  communication,  hotels  and  restaurants,  and 
public administration and defence.  

The threat of physical violence was mostly reported by workers employed in education 
and  health  (14.6%)  and  public  administration  and  defence  (11.6%),  transport  and 
communication  (9.8%),  hotels  and  restaurants  (9.3%),  and  service,  shop  and  market 
sales  (9.2%).  Actual  physical  violence  -  from  people  outside  the  workplace  -  was 
experienced by 8.8% of workers in public administration and defence and by 8.4% of 
workers in education and health. Harassment was more often reported in sectors such 
as hotels and restaurants (8.6% of workers) and education and health (7.8%). Unwanted 
sexual attention was reported by 3.9% of employees from hotels and restaurants, 2.7% 
in education and health, and 2.5% of those in service, shop and market sales. 

From  1995  to  2000,  the  percentage  of  employees  reporting  stress  at  work  in  most 
economic  sectors  dropped  or  remained  relatively  unchanged.  The  most  significant 
drop was in the agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing sectors. The following five years 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

The well-being scores for 
self-employed workers 
are lower than for 
employed workers

revealed an even stronger falling trend in the percentage of employees under stress at 
work. This trend is strong in transport and communication, in financial intermediation 
and in real estate activity. The only sectors where stress was rising was in agriculture, 
hunting,  and  forestry  &  fishing.  However,  in  some  Member  States  the  number  of 
workers reporting stress in sectors where its level has decreased in previous years, such 
as transport and communication,  was significantly high (above 40%). 

S t r e s s   b y   e m p l o y m e n t   s t a t u s

The ‘well-being’ scores for self-employed workers are lower than for employed workers: 
41% of those who are self-employed consider that work has an adverse impact on their 
health, and 25% suffer from stress while doing their jobs. The corresponding figures for 
employed workers are 33% and 21% respectively (2005). The figures for specific well-
being indices, such as irritability, overall fatigue, sleeping problems and anxiety were 
also worse for the self-employed. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the results of the 
survey from 2001 suggested that stress more often affected the self-employed who 
are themselves employers (40%), than it did the employed (29%) or those self-employed 
people who worked alone (24%). 

Among employed workers, the type of employment contract they have affects stress 
levels and detailed stress-related indices. Among the four contract types - permanent 
contract, fixed term contract, temporary contract and apprenticeship - workers with 
permanent contracts displayed the highest stress levels both in 1995 and 2000. Some 
detailed well-being indices, such as irritability and sleeping problems, were also less 
favourable for this group. 

National data present a deeper picture of the problem related to work-related stress in 
some of the Member States. 

11

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

1.

INTRODUCTION

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

1. 

Work-related stress is 
experienced when the 
demands of the work 
environment exceed the 
workers’ ability to cope 
with them

Stress response operates 
at physiological, 
psychological, and 
behavioural level 

14

i n t r o d u c t i o n

The concept of stress was introduced to physiology in the 1930s by Hans Selye, who 
defined it as a non-specific response of the organism to any pressure or demand [1]. The 
concept was then embraced by psychology and other social sciences, as well as by social 
policy-makers,  and  ultimately  made  its  way  to  everyday  vocabulary.  The  universal 
embracing of this concept to this day goes to prove that it refers not only to an important 
theoretical problem, but also touches on a real and critical aspect of our lives. 

Abundant literature on stress reflects different understandings of the concept. For some, 
the  term  “stress”  referred  to  an  individual’s  response  to  the  adverse  impact  of  their 
environment, while others related it to stimuli (also referred to as stressors) that trigger off 
adaptive responses of the organism. There are also experts who use the term “stress” to 
describe the relationship between an entity and its environment. An eminent representative 
of the latter approach was Richard Lazarus, who defined stress as “a particular relationship 
between  a  person  and  the  environment  that  is  appraised  by  the  person  as  taxing  or 
exceeding his or her resource and endangering his or her well-being” [2]. 

By applying this notion to a working situation, the European Agency for Safety and 
Health  at  Work  has  adopted  this  definition:  “work-related  stress  is  experienced 
when  the  demands  of  the  work  environment  exceed  the  workers’  ability  to 
cope with (or control) them” [3].

The risk of work-related stress is generated by such job characteristics as, among others, 
excessive quantitative demands, low control, low social support, role ambiguity and role 
conflict, low development possibilities, job insecurity, and the presence of psychological 
harassment (also sometimes know as bullying or mobbing) and violence in the workplace. 

When demands exceed an individual’s ability to cope with them, a stress response is 
triggered off at the following levels: 

n   Physiological  -  including  a  stimulation  of  the  autonomic  nervous  system  and 
hormonal system, and the consequential changes in the cardiovascular system (e.g. 
accelerated heart beat), the respiratory system (e.g. accelerated breathing rate), the 
musculoskeletal  system  (hypertonia), 
the immunological system and others.

n   Psychological - the most characteristic 
property  is  the  emergence  of  strong 
negative  emotions,  such  as  anger, 
anxiety, irritation, depression. These are 
accompanied by changes in cognition 
including,  among  others,  decreased 
self-esteem  and  perception  of  the 
social world as hostile.

n   Behavioural - for example declining 
production or ability to perform tasks, 
alcohol  and  cigarette  dependency, 
proneness to mistakes, accidents, and 
absences.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Stress increases 
absenteeism, 
presenteeism and staff 
turnover, and decreases 
productivity

If the stress response continues over a longer period, or if it is particularly intense, this 
may have pathological ramifications. 

Research has proven that stress at work is associated with cardiovascular diseases [4, 5], 
musculoskeletal  diseases  [6],  immunological  problems  [7],  and  problems  with  mental 
health (anxiety and depression disorders). 

There  is  also  research  that  shows  work-related  stress  can  cause  acute  myocardial 
infarction,  and  be  significantly  related  to  the  development  of  hypertension, 
atherosclerosis,  angina  pectoris,  coronary  heart  disease,  stroke,  and  also  diabetes 
mellitus  [8].  According  to  the  results  of  studies  presented  in  the  report  “Hearts  and 
minds at work in Europe; a European work-related public health report on cardiovascular 
diseases  and  mental  ill  health”,  working  very  long  hours  is  linked  to  diabetes, 
hypertension  and  cardiovascular  diseases.  Shift  and  night  work  increase  the  risk  of 
cardiovascular diseases by at least 40% compared to day-work, high job demands are 
associated  with  high  blood  pressure  and  high  cholesterol  levels  in  men  and  with 
hypertension in women. The risk of cardiovascular diseases is also significantly higher 
among workers experiencing bullying or organisational downsizing [8]. 

The declining physical and mental health of workers invariably leads to deterioration in the 
performance  of  the  entire  organisation.  This  is  reflected  by  such  indicators  as  increased 
absenteeism, increased staff turnover and decreased productivity. There is also the problem of 
presenteeism, defined as the loss in productivity that occurs when employees come to work 
but function at less than full capacity because of ill health. Presenteeism seems to be especially 
prevalent when workers face problems with stress and mental health, and it may be the result 
of a high level of job insecurity or fear of being labelled as “mentally ill” and stigmatised [10]. 

A  number  of  models  have  been  created  to  show  the  links  between  stress  at  work  and 
health. One is presented below as Figure 1. In addition to the factor groups mentioned 
earlier, this model also takes into account the characteristics of an individual which determine 
the way their working environment and what is expected of them is perceived; what kind 
of stress responses will be triggered and how powerful those responses might be; and what 
the long term consequences of such stress reactions are for the physical and mental health 
of the worker and, as a result, for the performance of the entire organisation.

15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Figure 1.  Model of causes and consequences of work-related stress 

(adapted by Houtman, 2005 from Kompier and Marcelissen, 1990, [11]).

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

This report presents the prevalence of stress and of stress-related symptoms such as 
overall  fatigue,  headaches,  muscular  pain,  irritability,  sleeping  problems,  anxiety, 
depression, and heart diseases. Burnout (1) and level of job satisfaction and work-life 
balance were also taken into consideration. 

Additionally, the following job characteristics and phenomena contributing to work-
related stress have been highlighted:

n   Time constraints – long working hours and work intensification

There is a distinct correlation between long working hours and employees reporting 
numerous types of work-related health problems, including headache, muscular pain, 
fatigue, anxiety and insomnia. Employees working both long hours and irregular hours 
report that their health is particularly at risk. Additionally, high levels of pressure

1   Burnout can be defined as “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion and cynicism that occurs frequently 
among  individuals  who  do  ‘people-work’  of  some  kind”.  Research  showed  that  burnout  may  lead  to 
physical exhaustion, insomnia, alcohol and drug abuse, marital and family problems. At an organisational 
level, this phenomenon is related to high turnover, absenteeism, and low morale [9]. 

16

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

stemming  from  high-speed  tasks  and  strict  deadlines  also  significantly  increase  the 
level of stress experienced by workers. Health and safety outcomes related to irregular 
working hours, high work pressure and high demands are presented in the Agency 
report  Expert forecast on emerging psychosocial risks related to occupational safety and 
health [12]. 

n   Job control 

Job control describes the influence workers have on the way in which they perform 
the tasks required of them at work, including what choice they have about the methods 
they  use  and  how  they  organise  their  tasks.  Lack  of  job  control  may  significantly 
increase the level of work-related stress.  According to Karasek’s job demands-control 
model [13], when control is low and demands are high, a job can be characterised as 
high-straining  or  high-stressing,  increasing  the  risk  of  work-related  illness  or  injury. 
Moreover,  research  shows  that  the  risk  for  a  range  of  mental  and  physical  health 
problems  increases  when  high  job-strain  is  combined  with  low  workplace  social 
support.

n   Job insecurity 

Job insecurity is defined as a continual concern about whether the job will exist in the 
future and also as any perceived threat to various aspects of a job, such as position 
within  an  organisation  or  career  development  opportunities.  This  phenomenon  is 
particularly  seen  when  organisational  change  happens,  including  reorganisation, 
outsourcing, mergers and acquisitions, and redundancies. Management may perceive 
these events as a way of increasing overall competitiveness, but research shows that an 
individual’s  perception  that  their  job  is  not  secure  increases  work-related  stress  and 
leads to poorer mental and physical health [12]. 

n   Violence and harassment 

Workplace violence may be third party violence, which refers to physical violence, verbal 
aggression, or the threat of physical violence from an aggressor who is not a colleague 
- the customer, client or patient receiving goods or services. Harassment (also described 
as  bullying,  mobbing,  or  psychological  violence)  refers  to  repeated,  unreasonable 
behaviour directed towards an employee or group of employees designed to victimise, 
humiliate, undermine or threaten them.  It may also take the form of sexual harassment 
(unwanted sexual attention). Research shows that for the victims as well as for witnesses, 
both third party violence and harassment lead to stress and may seriously affect both 
mental  and  physical  health;  depression,  reduced  self-esteem,  phobias,  sleep 
disturbances,  digestive  and  musculoskeletal  problems,  and  post  traumatic  stress 
disorder are all possible outcomes [12]. 

This report:

—  Presents the prevalence of stress and trends in work-related stress in the Member 

States of the European Union based on international and national data.

—  Identifies those groups particularly exposed to stress at work, subdivided by age, 

gender, sector and occupation, and employment status.

The  figures  are  illustrated  by  examples  of  studies  and  initiatives  dealing  with  work-
related stress. The possible cost related to problems with stress at work is also presented. 
Additionally,  the  report  shows  the  main  results  of  the  expert  forecast  on  emerging 
psychosocial  risks  which  uses  the  framework  established  by  the  European  Risk 
Observatory.  The  final  sections  present  the  main  legislative  documents  related  to 
workplace  stress,  areas  for  future  research  in  this  field,  and  sources  of  additional 
information on the subject.

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Time constraints, lack of 
job control, job insecurity, 
violence and harassment 
contribute to  
work-related stress 

17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

New research has produced strong evidence of how work stress is linked 
to the biological mechanisms involved in the onset of heart disease.

The  study  published  in  the  European  Heart  Journal  in  January  2008  is  the  first 
United Kingdom large-scale study to look at the cardiovascular mechanisms of 
work stress in the population and provides the strongest evidence yet of the way 
it can lead to coronary heart disease (CHD). 

The study found that stress can lead to CHD either directly, by activating stress 
pathways  controlled  by  the  interaction  between  the  nervous  system,  the 
endocrine glands and their hormones (neuroendocrine mechanisms), or indirectly 
via its association with unhealthy lifestyles. The researchers collected evidence on 
the incidence of CHD, deaths from CHD, non-fatal myocardial infarctions, angina, 
heart rate variability, morning rises in the levels of the ‘stress hormone’ cortisol, 
the  metabolic  syndrome  and  behavioural  risk  factors  such  as  diet,  exercise, 
smoking and drinking. 

It  was  found  that  that  chronic  work  stress  was  associated  with  CHD  and  this 
association was stronger among both men and women aged under 50 – their risk 
of CHD was an average of 68 per cent more than for people who reported no 
stress at work. Among people of retirement age (and therefore less likely to be 
exposed to work stress), the effect on CHD was less strong.

The  research  is  part  of  the  long-running  Whitehall  II  study,  which  has  been 
following  10,308  London-based  civil  servants  since  1985,  and  which  is  led  by 
Professor Sir Michael Marmot, UCL Epidemiology & Public Health.

Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0801/08012301 

Other links: European Society of Cardiology (http://www.escardio.org),  
UCL Epidemiology & Public Health (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/epidemiology/

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

18

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

2.

PREVALENCE OF  
STRESS AT WORK

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

2.1. S trESS at Work — g EnEral prEvalEncE and timE trEndS

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Stress prevalence in the 
new EU member States is 
markedly higher than in 
the old member States

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

According  to  the  Fourth  European  Working  Conditions  Survey  in  2005  stress  was 
experienced on average by 22% of workers from 25 Member States and 2 Acceding 
Countries of the European Union (EU 27 from January 2007) [14]. 

Stress prevalence in the new Member States (EU10) is markedly higher than in the old 
Member States (EU15). Work-related stress was reported by 20% of workers from EU15, 
30% of workers from EU10, and 31% of workers from acceding countries (AC 2). However, 
significant  differences  were  also  observed  among  the  countries  within  these  three 
groups (see Figure 2). The highest level of stress was reported in Greece (55%), and 
then in Slovenia, Sweden (38%), and Latvia (37%). Lowest stress levels were noted in the 
United  Kingdom  (12%),  Germany,  Ireland,  and  the  Netherlands  (16%),  in  the  Czech 
Republic (17%), and in France and Bulgaria (18%). 

Figure 2. Work-related stress by countries (2005) [14]

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

55

32

27

21

17

16

21

10

16

37

33

31

27

27

26

28

35

28

21

38

38

35

31

25

22

18

16

12

BE CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE

IT CY LV LT

LU HU MT AT PL PT SI SK FI

SV UK BG RO NL EU27

Other stress-related outcomes (except for anxiety) are also at higher levels in the new 
EU countries (see Table 1) (2). In 2005, overall fatigue was reported by 18% of workers 
from  EU15,  41%  from  EU10,  and  44%  from  AC2;  headaches,  13%,  24%,  and  28% 
respectively; backache 21%, and 39% in both EU10 and AC2; sleeping problems by 8%, 
12%, and 16% of workers respectively. Substantial differences were also noted in heart 
disease figures. This problem was reported by 1.4% of workers from EU15, 5.6% from 
EU10, and as many as 8.1% from AC2. The level of irritability, and anxiety was similar in 
all groups of countries - 10-12% reporting irritability and 7-9% reporting anxiety. 

2  The statistical analysis of the results of the 3rd EWCS carried out by Daniels [18], indicated that items such as 
“anxiety”, “irritability”, “sleeping problems”, “stomach ache”, “headaches”, and “overall fatigue” are closely related 
to the item “stress”. All of these items formed a coherent scale with the level of reliability (alpha) = 0.73.

20

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 1. Stress and stress-related outcomes - prevalence and time trends (% yes) [13, 15, 16, 17]

Question

EU15

CC12

NMS10

AC2

1995

2000

2005

2001

2005

2005

57

28

20

13

30

11

7

7

1

60

28

23

15

33

11

8

7

1

31

20

18

13

21

10

8

8

69

28

41

15

34

11

8

7

56

30

41

24

39

12

12

7

1.4

4.8

5.6

53

31

44

28

39

11

16

9

8.1

Does your work affect your health

Stress

Overall fatigue

Headaches

Backache

Irritability

Sleeping problems

Anxiety

Heart disease

Time trends

According  to  the  European  Working  Conditions  Survey  (EWCS)  carried  out  in  2000, 
28% of workers in the EU15 suffered from stress at work [15]. The survey carried out a 
year  later  in  candidate  countries  revealed  similar  trends:  28%  of  workers  from  the  
12 candidate countries suffered from stress [16]. 

Some  other  stress-related  conditions  were  less  common.  In  terms  of  figures,  23%  of 
workers from the EU15 reported that work affects overall fatigue, 15% reported that work 
causes headaches, 11% that work causes irritability, 8% reported sleeping problems, and 
7% anxiety. In the 2001 survey carried out in the candidate countries, the figures follow 
the  same  trends  (see  Table  1),  except  for  overall  fatigue  which  was  nearly  two  times 
higher in the candidate countries than in the EU 15 (41% and 23% respectively).

Stress prevalence in 2000 did not differ significantly from the levels reported by the 
EWCS  carried  out  in  1995  [17].  In  2000-2005  however,  stress  prevalence  in  the  EU15 
diminished. Overall fatigue, headaches and irritability indices also dropped between 
surveys, with sleeping problems at the same level and a slightly higher level of anxiety. 
A reverse trend was seen in the 12 candidate countries, 10 of which became Member 
States before the end of this period on 1 May 2004. Stress figures increased slightly in 
those  countries  between  2001  and  2005,  from  28%  to  30%  in  the  10  new  Member 
States (NMS), and to 31% in the two Acceding Countries. Some stress-related outcomes 
also  increased,  such  as  sleeping  problems  which  rose  from  8%  to  12%  in  the  new 
Member States and to 16% in the ACs, and headaches which rose from 15% to 24% in 
the new Member States and 28% in the ACs. As a result of these reverse trends, the 
difference in stress prevalence between the old and new Member States in 2005 also 
grew compared to the figures from 2000/2001 (see Table 1). 

However, it has to be noted that the trends mentioned above were not observed in 
every  country  from  the  EU15  or  from  the  new  Member  States.  Among  the  EU15 
countries (see Figure 3), a drop in stress levels between 2000 and 2005 was observed 
in  countries  such  as  France  (14%  lower),  Luxembourg  and  United  Kingdom  (11%), 
Finland  (10%),  Belgium,  Germany,  and  Netherlands  (9%),  Spain  (8%),  and  Italy  (6%). 
Higher levels of stress were recorded in Portugal (10% higher), Ireland (4%), Austria (3%), 
and Greece (2%). In Denmark and Sweden the reported level of stress was almost the 
same in both the 2000 and 2005 surveys.

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

During recent years stress 
prevalence in the EU 15 
diminished, and in the 
new member States 
increased

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Figure 3. Work-related stress, EU15 [14, 15, 17]

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
l
e
B

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

y
l
a
t
I

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

n
i
a
p
S

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

n
e
d
e
w
S

K
U

5
1
U
E

1995

2000

2005

Among  the  EU10  countries  (see  Figure  4),  higher  levels  of  stress  were  reported  in 
Slovenia (13% higher), Malta (12%), Poland (8%), Lithuania (7%), Estonia and Latvia (6%), 
Bulgaria (3%), and Slovakia (2%). Lower levels of stress were observed in Czech Republic 
(7% drop), Cyprus (6%), Hungary (1.5%), and Romania (1%). 

Figure 4. Work-related stress, New Member States [14, 16]

%

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

s
u
r
p
y
C

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

2001

2005

Working hours

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
l
o
P

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

2
1
C
C

0
1
U
E

2
C
A

Figures indicate that weekly working hours are falling in the EU countries (see Figure 5). 
The European Working Condition Surveys carried out in 1991, 1995 and 2000 showed 
a  gradual  drop  in  the  EU15  countries  in  the  percentage  of  individuals  who  worked 
more than 41 hours a week, while the percentage of those who worked fewer than  
34 hours a week grew. This trend decelerated after 2005 when the 10 new countries, 

22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette

(la couleur du fond est la première 

de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 

tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt

les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

where  working  hours  are  longer,  joined  the  European  Union.  Nevertheless,  even  in 
2005 fewer people (14% on average) were forced to work long hours in the whole of 
the EU than in previous years (according to the criteria used for the fourth EWCS, ‘long 
working hours’ means a working week of 48 or more hours). 

The tendency towards shorter working hours in the EU is matched by an increasing 
prevalence of part time work. This kind of work is especially popular in the Netherlands 
(34%) and United Kingdom (29%), but rare in the Czech Republic (6%) [14].

Figure 5. Evolution of weekly working hours [18]

2005 EU25

10.9

10.5

21.3

2000 EU15

11.5

11.5

20.1

32.5

32.8

11

13.8

9.5

14.6

1995 EU15

8.7

10.4

19.9

32.2

12.4

16.5

1990 EU12

8.5

8.7

16

35.5

12.9

18.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

less than 20h

21-34h

35-38h

39-41h

42-48h

More than 48h

Work intensity

Shorter working hours are however accompanied by a growth in work intensity. The European 
Working Conditions Surveys from 1991-2005 show that there is a continuous growth in the 
number of respondents who report that they work at least around ¾ of the time at very high 
speed [19]. In 2005, this answer was selected by 46% of respondents from EU25. 

Shorter working hours 
are accompanied by a 
growth in work intensity

Although  generally  the  speed  of  work  is  increasing,  there  are  significant  differences 
between  individual  countries  (see  Figure  6).  In  2005  Sweden,  Finland,  Denmark,  and 
Slovenia had the highest percentage of workers who reported working at very high speed 
(85%, 77%, 76%, and 75% respectively). Poland, Ireland, Latvia, and especially Bulgaria had 
the lowest percentage (43%, 42%, 40%, and 27% respectively). On average, more EU15 
workers reported working at very high speed (61%) than in EU10 (52%) or in AC2 (57%). 

Figure 6. Working at very high speed in EU countries (% of workers) (2005) [14]

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

85

police : 

11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 

tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt

les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

77 76 75 73 73 72 72

67 67

64

61 60 60 60

57 57 57

61

60

57

52

51 50 49 47

43 42 40

27

I

V F
S

I

K S
D

L
E

Y
C

T
A

E
D

T
I

O
R

U
H

L
N

S
E

Z
C

T
M

U
L

E
E

K
S

T
P

R
F

T
L

K
U

L
P

E
I

V
L

G
B

2
C
A

7
2
U
E

5
1
U
E

0
1
-
S
M
N

23

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

There is also a rise in the number of workers who report working to tight deadlines 
around ¾ of the time or more. However, the differences between EU countries are not 
so marked in this area. In 2005, 62% of EU15 workers, 59% from EU10, and 60% from AC2 
reported working to tight deadlines.

According to the Working Life Barometer in the Baltic Countries 2002, 43% of workers 
in  Latvia,  33%  in  Estonia,  and  43%  in  Lithuania  assessed  work  intensity  as  too 
high. Around 45% of the workers from Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Finland said 
that  the  tempo  of  work  had  considerably  or  somewhat  increased  during  last  
12  months  (see  Table  2).  Mental  stress  at  work  had  considerably  or  somewhat 
increased during last 12 months according to 40% of the workers in Latvia, 38% in 
Estonia, 48% in Lithuania and 39% in Finland.

Table 2. Change in tempo of work during last 12 months (2002) [20]

Tempo at one’s workplace has:

Finland  %

Lithuania %

Latvia %

Estonia %

considerably increased

somewhat increased

remained the same

somewhat decreased

considerably decreased

do not know

18

30

48

3

0

1

11

34

43

8

1

3

13

31

47

6

1

2

11

31

48

5

1

4

Number of respondents

N=1,297

N=909

N=904

N=900

Job control 

Job control, which is the power to affect both tasks performed at work and working 
conditions, is a stress-reducing factor. In 2005, lack of job control was reported by 28%-
57% of workers. Control of task order and working methods among the workers of the 
new EU countries was lower than for those of the EU15.  The figures for control over 
speed of working and the ability to take a break when desired were similar in both 
groups (see Table 3). 

In 2000, between 29% and 55% of workers reported having no job control over various 
aspects of their work (see Table 3). This came close to the 1995 figure. In 1990-1995, 
however, a rise in some aspects of control was reported: a smaller percentage reported 
no control over work methods (down from 38% to 28%), and speed (down from 35% 
to 28%) [14, 15, 16, 17]. 

Table 3. Lack of job control (% of workers) [14, 15, 16, 17].

Question

EU15

CC12

NMS10

AC2

1995

2000

2005

2001

2005

2005

No control over task order

No control over work method

No control over speed

No break when desired/wished

35

28

28

37

35

29

30

39

36

32

31

55

40

38

28

41

39

37

30

57

40

41

28

53

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

In 2000, no job control 
was reported by between 
29% and 55% of workers

24

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Job insecurity

The results of the survey carried out in 2005 showed that the feeling of job insecurity 
is significantly more prevalent in the New Member States compared to the EU15. The 
percentage of workers who agreed with the statement I might lose my job in the next 6 
months was 11% in EU15, 25% in EU10, and 20% in AC2. The figures were highest in 
Czech  Republic  (32%),  Slovenia  and  Poland  (27%),  and  lowest  in  Denmark,  United 
Kingdom (7%), and Luxembourg (5%) (see Figure 7).

Job insecurity is 
significantly more 
prevalent in the New 
member States compared 
to the EU15

Figure 7. Job insecurity in EU countries (2005, [13]). 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

%

40

32.2

27.326.6

23.3

30

20

10

0

22.9

22.1

20.4

20.9

19.5

19.3

19 18.5

17.8

15.215.115 14.2

13.3

12.7

25

20

9.5

8.9

9 8.9

11.3

7.7 7.2 6.8

5.5

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

Z
C

I
S

L
P

T
L

G
B

U
H

L
E

V
S

E
E

T
P

V
L

O
R

L
N

T
M

K
S

S
E

Y
C

I
F

E
D

E
I

E
B

T
I

T
A

R
F

K
D

K
U

U
L

5
1
U
E

0
1
U
E

2
C
A

Job satisfaction

Workers from EU15 are also more satisfied with their salaries; 47% of them declared that 
they had been well paid for the work they had done, whereas in EU10 there were 29% 
and 25% of workers in AC2 who agreed with this statement. Similarly, more workers 
from EU15 believed that their job offers good prospects for career advancement (33%, 23% 
and 20% respectively) [14]. 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Work-life balance

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

Satisfaction  with  work-life  balance  was  expressed  by  81%  of  employees  from  EU15, 
73% from EU10 and 74% from AC2, saying they were happy with the way in which their 
working hours fitted with family or social commitments (in 2005) [14].

Violence and harassment 

Around 5% of all workers from the EU27 declared being subjected to some form of 
violence or harassment. In particular, around 6% of workers from EU15, 5% from EU10 
and 4% from AC2 experienced threats of physical violence (see Table 4). 5% of workers 
from EU15, 4% from EU10 and 5% from AC2 countries report being victims of harassment. 
A similar percentage of workers from all EU27 (around 2%) experienced unwanted 
sexual attention [14]. 

Around 5% of all EU 
workers declared being 
subjected to some form 
of violence or harassment

25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Table 4.  Percentage of workers reporting violence, bullying/harassment and unwanted sexual attention  

(% yes) [14, 15, 16]

Question

EU15

CC12

NMS10

AC2

2000

2005

2001

2005

2005

Threat of physical violence

Physical violence from colleagues

Physical violence from other people

Intimidation (2000-2001)

Bullying/harassment (2005)

Unwanted sexual attention

-

1.5

4.1

8.5

2

6.3

2.1

4.6

5.4

1.7

-

0.8

3.1

6.9

1.9

5.2

0.8

3.5

3.8

2.2

3.7

1.2

3.1

4

1.4

The figures from the European Survey indicate that violence at work is reported more 
often in Northern European countries, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom where 
between 10% and 12% of workers were threatened with physical violence. Similarly, 
incidents of harassment were reported more often in Finland (17%) or the Netherlands 
(12%) as well as in Lithuania (10%), Ireland (9%) and Malta (8%), compared with Italy or 
Bulgaria (2%) (see Figure 8).  

The third EWCS (2000) revealed that, generally - in EU15 - reported rates of physical 
violence and harassment have increased in the past few years. However, it is difficult to 
assess the actual cause for this increase because it is also true that general awareness 
of  these  issues  has  also  increased.    Similarly,  it  is  important  to  note  that  figures  on 
violence and harassment have to be interpreted with caution, because the perception 
of  these  problems  may  be  strongly  influenced  by  the  level  of  awareness  and  the 
cultural norms within particular organisations or countries. 

Figure 8. Bullying/harassment in EU Member States (2005, [13]).

%

20

17.2

12

10

0

11.3

10.1

9.2 9 8.5 8 7.77.4 7.3

6.5

5.4 5 4.7 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 3 2.9 2.8 2.3 1.8

I
F

L
N

U
L

T
L

L
E

E
I

E
B

T
M

I

R S
F

K
D

E
E

K
U

T
A

O
R

V
L

E
D

T
P

K
S

V
S

L
P

Y
C

U
H

Z
C

S
E

T
I

G
B

5.1

7
2
U
E

The Working Life Barometer carried out in the Baltic Countries in 2002 revealed that 
around  20%  of  workers  in  Latvia  and  Lithuania  had  experienced  conflicts  with 
managers, strong competition between colleagues, conflict with clients and between 
colleagues during the last 12 months. Reports of conflict at work were lower in Estonia. 
Between 3% and 7% of workers from these countries reported being threatened with 
physical or psychological violence (see Figure 9) [20]. 

26

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Conflicts within a workplace (2002) [20]

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

%

27

22

18

29

25

13

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

19

15

10

20

16

11

10

11

6

7

6

3

Rivalry, internal
competition

With clients

Between 
employees

Between groups
of employees

Threat of
physical or
mental violence

Between
superiors and
employees

Latvia

Estonia

Lithuania

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Teachers  ‘victims  of  sexist  bullies  in  class’  –  a  survey  by  the  National 
Union of Teachers, United Kingdom

A survey conducted by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) indicates that young, 
especially  female,  teachers  are  frequently  confronted  with  sexist  language  and 
bullying in school. One in 20 of the 190 teachers in England and Wales who replied 
to the survey said the abuse happened at least once a week. It has been stated 
that  ‘younger  male  and  female  teachers,  in  particular,  seem  to  be  seen  as  “fair 
game”  to  some  pupils  to  touch,  in  some  cases,  and  to  make  sexual  innuendo 
towards.’ 

Details of the survey were included in a submission to an inquiry into bullying in 
schools being conducted by the Commons education and skills committee in the 
United Kingdom. The union highlighted that, in contrast to racist and homophobic 
bullying, sexist bullying is frequently ignored and minimised, even though women 
make up more than two-thirds of the teaching workforce in state schools. NUT 
warned that sexist language and bullying at schools cannot be ignored, and they 
are often the foundation for violence against women. Nevertheless, nearly half of 
respondents said they felt very safe with almost a quarter feeling safe or fairly safe 
in their schools.

Source: http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12714-f0.cfm#tuc-12714-3

27

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

28

Psychosocial Risk Management – European Framework (PRIMA-EF)

PRIMA-EF  is  the  collaborative  project  funded  by  the  EC  6th  Framework 
Programme,  focusing  on  the  development  of  a  European  framework  for 
psychosocial risk management with a special focus on work-related stress and 
workplace violence (including harassment, bullying and mobbing). The 24-month 
initiative  was  launched  in  at  the  beginning  of  2007.  The  consortium  is  led  by 
Institute of Work, Health and Organisations (I-WHO), University of Nottingham, 
United Kingdom and is constituted by several European and international (WHO, 
ILO) organisations which deal with occupational health and safety. 

The Project aims to:

n   develop existing knowledge in reviewing available methodologies to evaluate 
the  prevalence  and  impact  of  psychosocial  risks  at  work  and  work-related 
stress

n   identify  appropriate  means  of  collecting  sensitive  data  in  relation  to  these 

issues

n   develop international standards and indicators on stress and violence at work 
in order to promote harmonisation in the area of psychosocial risk management 
and enhance best business practice

n   develop  detailed  recommendations  and  evidence-based  best-practice 
guidance on the management of these issues at the workplace to promote 
clarity and a unified European approach that will enable stakeholders to put 
the guidance in practice to improve the quality of working life

n   disseminate  the  results  of  the  project  to  stakeholders  and  social  partners 
including  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  in  order  to  raise 
awareness  and  promote  understanding,  engagement  and  best  practice  in 
relation to the issues of concern

The  consortium  will  work  in  synergy  with  partners  in  candidate  and  third 
countries and national regulatory bodies to ensure a wide impact of the project 
outcomes and the initiation of the development of an international network of 
centres of excellence in psychosocial risk management.

Source and more information: http://prima-ef.org/default.aspx

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

i n f o r m at i o n   f r o m   t H E m E m b E r  Stat E S  

B e l g i u m

According to the 4th EWCS, 21% of Belgian workers believed that their health was at risk 
because of work-related stress. The results of the Flemish Workability Monitor (2004 
[21]) showed that more - 28.9% of employees - have to contend with stress at work. Of 
these, 10% have to deal with acute work stress complaints. It has been demonstrated 
that  employees  with  acute  work  stress  are  significantly  more  at  risk  from  health 
problems than employees without work stress. They are:

n   7.3 times more at risk of serious sleeping problems

n   8.2 times more at risk of emotional problems (anxiety and depression)

n   4.6 times more at risk of heart complaints

Moreover, absenteeism of workers who suffer from acute work-related stress is higher 
than those who do not report such problems. Long term absence among these two 
groups is 14.8% and 7.2% respectively.

C y p r u s

A study “Assessment of the situation regarding physical and mental diseases of the working 
population” [22] carried out in 2006 covered 1,200 households, and there were 2,257 interviews 
with people who currently work or have worked in the past (aged 18-63). The results indicated 
that 37% of respondents believed that their safety and health was at risk because of their job 
(34% according to 4th EWCS), and 19% said that they faced health problems caused or 
aggravated by the profession they have now or had in the past. The most prevalent were 
musculoskeletal problems - 71% of those who reported health problems and 13% of the total 
sample. Next came general fatigue - 32% of those reporting health problems and 6% of the 
total sample, and finally stress - 23% and 4% respectively. A significant number of respondents 
also reported heart disease or other circulatory system problems - 9% of those who reported 
health problems and 1.6% of the total sample. In the case of the teaching profession, the 
most prevalent health problem was associated with stress. 

F i n l a n d

The results of the Finnish “Work and health” surveys (1997-2006) [23] indicate that the 
proportion of workers reporting “rather or very much” stress has decreased during the 
past few years (see Table 5). However, these surveys do not make a distinction between 
work-related  stress  and  stress  from  other  sources  (3).  In  2006  experiencing  stress  to 
some extent was reported by 28% of workers, and rather or very much by 10%. According 
to the 4th EWCS (2005) work-related stress is a problem for 25% of workers. 

There is also data (from 2000) suggesting that 2.5% of Finnish workers aged 30-64 years 
suffered from severe work-related ‘burnout’, and another 25% from mild burnout [23]. 

3   The respondents were asked to answer the following question: “Stress refers to a situation in which a 
person feels tense, restless, nervous, or anxious, or is unable to sleep at night because the mind is troubled 
all the time. Do you feel that kind of stress these days?”

2.2.

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

29

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 5. Prevalence of stress (%), Finland [23]

Not at all

Only a little

To some extent

Rather or very much

1997

2000

2003

2006

24.1

27.5

32.1

16.3

29.1

23.4

34.1

13.4

25.4

30.0

32.0

12.6

32.9

29.7

27.7

9.7

Number of respondents

2,136

2,029

2,322

2,226

F r a n c e

The 4th EWCS indicated that in 2005 the level of stress among French workers was lower 
than average for the whole EU at 18%. Additionally, national data obtained in 2003 
showed that French employees were working shorter hours compared to previous years. 
In 2003, 20% of employees stated that they had worked more than 40 hours in the 
previous week compared with 29% of workers in 1994. Saturday working was also slightly 
less frequent in 2002 (43%) than it had been in 1994 (46%). This trend was observed in 
every occupational category [24]. 

However, figures obtained in the surveys on working conditions showed an increase in 
the pace of work in French companies. Compared to the 1980s, more workers believed a 
decade  later  that  their  working  pace  was  “set  by  production  rate  constraints”,  “set  by 
standards or deadlines of less than an hour”, and “set by a request or requirement that has 
to be met immediately” (see Table 6). A similar tendency was observed in following years 
(see Table 7). Nevertheless, workers have also reported more flexibility in their work. In 
2003, 41% of employees stated that they were able to adjust deadlines they were set, and 
57% stated that they were allowed to manage unexpected incidents on their own [25]. 

Table 6. Pace of work perceived by French workers [25]

Percentage of workers saying that:

1984

1991

1998

their working pace is set by production rate constraints

their working pace is set by standards or deadlines of less 
than an hour 

their working pace is set by a request or requirement that has 
to be met immediately

5

7

28

8

16

46

10

23

54

Table 7. Pace of work perceived by French workers [25]

Percentage of workers saying that:

Total of employees

Have to frequently stop working on one job to do another,  
non-scheduled one

1994

2003 (constant field values)*

2003 (total field values)** 

46.2

58.4

58.1

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

30

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

(continued)   Percentage of workers saying that:

Total of employees

They work to a pace imposed by a request or requirement  
from outside that demands an immediate response

1994

2003 (constant field values)

2003 (total field values)

They work to a pace set by an immediate dependency  
on colleagues 

1994

2003 (constant field values)

2003 (total field values)

49.8

55.4

55.2

26.3

28

29.7

* 
**  

constant field values: the same sample of workplaces as in 1994. 
 total field values: the more extended sample than in 1994 (workers of electricity and gas, public hospitals, post, and train companies, as well 
as Air France are also included).

Although  in  France  occupational  diseases  caused  by  psychosocial  factors  are  not 
officially recognised, it is possible to apply for recognition of the occupational nature 
of a disease that can be directly attributed to a victim’s usual work activity and has 
led to their death or to at least 25% permanent disability. Any report submitted to 
the Regional committee for the recognition of occupational diseases (CRRMP) must 
make it possible to assess whether there is a direct and essential link between the 
victim’s  usual  work  activity  and  the  disease.  The  CRRMP  received  5  requests  for 
recognition of psychosocial diseases in 2000, 13 in 2001 and 15 in 2002 (see Table 8). 
Those  that  were  granted  recognition  were  all  severe  anxiety  and  depression 
syndromes. Of the 14 cases recognised between 2000 and 2002, two were executives, 
two shop and market sales workers, three were managers, three were paramedics 
and the remaining four came from a variety of professional occupations [26].  

Table 8. Prevalence of reported and recognised psychosocial pathologies in France [26]

Reported pathologies

Recognised pathologies

2000

2001

2002

5

2

13

6

15

6

A study carried out in 2003 aimed to identify occupational stress factors and explore 
the link between stress and sick leave. 20 occupational practitioners working in 14 
different districts in France carried out 839 observations and survey studies among 
workers. The results confirmed that the most powerful factors which contribute to 
stress  were  not  those  related  to  personality  characteristics,  but  were  factors 
associated with occupational environment such as work overload or intensity, social 
support in the workplace and role ambiguity or, more generally, work organisation 
and  structure.  These  factors  also  explained  the  association  between  stress  and 
sickness absence [27].

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

31

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

I r e l a n d

In the 4th EWCS, 16% of Irish workers reported experiencing work-related stress (one of 
the lowest levels anywhere in Europe). Nevertheless, according to the Irish “Summary 
of injury, illness and fatality statistics” [28], in 2004 and 2005 “stress, depression, anxiety” 
had the second highest rate in the illness category (6.5 illness cases per 1,000 workers 
in 2005, and 6.0 in 2004) (see Table 9). Data from the Occupational Injury Benefit (OIB) 
show that 1.7% of all claims in 2006 were related to occupational stress. 

Table 9. Summary of injury, illness and fatality statistics: illness category, Ireland [28]

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Illness

Bone, joint or muscle

Breathing, lungs

Skin

Hearing problem

Stress, depression, anxiety

Headache, eyestrain

Heart

Infectious disease

L a t v i a

Number

Rate 
2005

Rate 
2004

34,600

17.3

16.0

3,400

1,400

2,100

13,000

2,000

1,600

2,300

1.7

0.7

1.1

6.5

1.0

0.8

1.2

1.0

0.0

0.0

6.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

Work-related stress was reported by 37% of Latvian workers participating in the 4th EWCS.  
In the national study carried out few years earlier (1999) 25% of workers said that their 
work-related mental stress was too high, 14% said that work intensity was too high, 9% 
were  troubled  by  competition  between  workers,  and  24%  were  burdened  with  too 
much responsibility. 67% of workers said their salaries were too low (see Table 10) [29]. 

Table 10. Psychosocial work conditions according to workers aged 18 and more in Latvia (1999) [29]

Risk factor

Too high %

Acceptable %

Too low % Not important %

Mental stress

Work intensity

Competition between 
workers

Responsibility

Salary

24.8

13.9

9.1

23.9

0.2

65

78.6

59.1

72.1

29.6

2.6

3.6

1.9

0.8

67.4

7.5

3.9

29.9

3.2

2.8

A report “Working conditions and risks in Latvia. 2005-2007” based on the information 
received  from  workers,  employees  and  OSH  specialists  suggested  that  the  most 
common  risks  in  workplaces  were  psychosocial  (shortage  of  time,  overtime,  long 
working  hours)  and  related  to  poor  ergonomics  (working  with  computers,  manual 
handling,  work  in  awkward  postures,  repetitive  movements).  According  to  32%  of 
employers,  their  employees  are  short  of  time.  Among  the  workers  themselves,  51% 
reported this problem. 

32

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

An Annual Report of the State Labour Inspectorate (SLI) from 2005 showed that 3.1% of 
all accidents at work in Latvia were caused by violence. During the previous four years 
25 Latvian workers had died because of violence-related accidents in the workplace 
(see Table 11) [29]. 

Table 11. Accidents at work in Latvia caused by violence [29] 

Year

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Number of accidents  
caused by violence 

Number of fatal accidents  
caused by violence

63

49

40

39

59

7

4

4

2

4

Work-related  mental  disorders  are  officially  recognised  in  Latvia,  and  in  the  period 
1993-2005  there  were  61  cases  of  such  diseases.  The  most  common  work-related 
mental disorders were somatoform autonomic dysfunction (4) (22 cases), neurasthenia 
(13 cases), and dysthymia (12 cases). All recognised disorders and number of cases are 
shown in Table 12 [30]. 

Table 12. Total number of work-related mental and behavioural disorders in Latvia, 1993–2005 [30]

Diagnosis

Number  
of cases

Unspecified organic personality and behavioural disorder due to brain disease, 
damage and dysfunction (F07.9)

Dysthymia (F34.1)

Other reaction to severe stress (F43.8)

Somatisation disorder (F45.0)

Somatoform autonomic dysfunction (F45.3)

Other neurotic disorders (F48)

Neurasthenia (F48.0)

Neurotic disorders, unspecified (48.9)

Total

1

12

1

1

22

5

13

6

61

4   Somatoform disorders are a group of psychological disorders in which a patient experiences physical 
symptoms despite the absence of an underlying medical condition that can fully explain their presence 
[http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic3015.htm]

33

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

S p a i n

According to the 4th EWCS (2005), 21% of Spanish workers reported work-related stress 
[14]. The National Survey of working conditions (V ENCT, 2003 [31]) asked two questions 
related to work-related stress. The first was how many times a worker went to a doctor 
in 2003 and why they had sought medical advice. This question had several possible 
answers, and one of them was stress. The second question was designed to gather a 
collection of symptoms that might be related to stress: difficulty in getting to sleep or 
sleeping  badly,  headaches,  dizziness,  and  so  forth.  When  three  or  more  symptoms 
related to stress were selected by an individual this was identified as a probable case of 
stress. 

In  2003,  59%  of  workers  took  medical  advice  one  or  more  times.  15.7%  of  them 
consulted a doctor about a health issue in relation to their job (in 1999, this percentage 
was  lower:  13%)  Stress  was  the  fourth  most  frequent  reason  given  for  consulting  a 
doctor (14.7% of the cases), after backache (47%), neck ache (29.3%), and pain in  an 
upper limb - shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm (16.4%). In addition, 6% of workers showed 
three or more symptoms related to stress. 

According to the VI Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo (VI ENCT, 2007 [32]) 
14.5% of workers were worried that they might lose their job during the next 6 months. 
The perception of job insecurity was related to age: this perception was reported by 
25.8% of workers aged 16-24, and 7.2% of the group aged 55-64. It was also apparent 
that  workers  who  agreed  that  they  could  lose  their  job  within  the  next  six  months 
more often reported problems such as difficulty in falling asleep or sleeping badly. 16% 
of  workers  who  reported  job  insecurity  reported  these  particular  two  problems, 
compared with 11.8% of workers who did not report them. The same pattern was seen 
in the reporting of other symptoms; among the workers who feared losing their jobs, 
18.6%  reported  feelings  of  constant  tiredness  compared  with  11.6%  who  did  not; 
likewise  with  headaches  -  16.8%  and  9.7%  respectively;  sickness  -  13%  and  8.3% 
respectively; difficulties in concentrating and maintaining attention - 11.9% and 6.3%: 
and difficulties in remembering or forgetting things easily - 7.6% and 3.7% respectively 
(see Figure 10). 

Figure 10.  Health problems reported by workers-perceiving job insecurity, Spain (2007) [32]

%

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

34

16

11.8

18.6

11.6

16.8

9.7

13

8.3

11.9

6.3

Diﬃculties in 
falling asleep
or sleeping 
badly

Feeling of
constant
triedness

I may lose job during 6 m - agree

I may lose job during 6 m - disagree

Headaches

Sickness

Diﬃculties in 
concentrating 
and 
maintaining
attention

7.6

3.7

Diﬃculties in 
remembering,
and forgetting
things easily

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Where personal relationships at work were concerned, 75.8% of workers regarded these 
as  positive  and  6.6%  negative.  Those  employees  who  were  not  happy  with  personal 
relationships in the workplace were more likely to report symptoms such as difficulties in 
falling asleep or sleeping badly - 17.5% compared to 11.6% of workers who were happy 
with  their  relationships  with  their  colleagues;  feelings  of  constant  tiredness  -  19,8% 
compared to 11.6%;  headaches - 12.9% compared to 10.4%; sickness - 5.5% compared to 
2.2%; difficulties in concentrating and maintaining attention - 7.1% compared to 2.7%; 
difficulties in remembering, forgetting things easily - 7.2% compared to 3.9%; tension, 
irritability - 16.3% compared to 8%; feeling emotionally exhausted, lack of energy  - 10.9% 
compared  to  6.8%;  not  being  able  to  forget  about  problems  related  to  work  -  9.5% 
compared to 5,3%; changing of appetite or digestive processes - 3.5% compared to 1.5%; 
and downturn in mood - 9.5% compared to 3.5%. 

According to the VI ENCT [32], 3.8% of workers had been threatened with physical violence, 
while 3.8% of workers had experienced actual physical violence from people outside the 
workplace and 0.8% from colleagues. Workers reported being the subject of psychological 
harassment, depending on the criteria employed, every day or at least once a week – 1.4% 
-  or every day, at least once a week or several times per month – 2.9%.

Data presented in Table 13 indicate that workers who reported experiencing problems 
with psychological harassment also reported health problems significantly more often. 
The  most  common  symptoms  were  feeling  emotionally  exhausted,  lack  of  energy 
(reported  by  41.6%  of  victims),  difficulties  in  falling  asleep  or  sleeping  badly  (41%), 
tension, irritability (39.7%), and feelings of constant tiredness (39.1%). 

Table 13.  Health symptoms experienced by workers who reported or did not report being the subject 

of psychological harassment, Spain (2007) [32]

Symptoms

Psychological harassment – 
NO %

Psychological harassment 
– YES %

difficulties in falling asleep or 
sleeping badly

feeling of constant tiredness

headaches

sickness

difficulties in concentrating and 
maintaining attention

difficulties in remembering, 
forgetting things easily

tension, irritability

feeling emotionally exhausted, 
lack of energy

not being able to forget about 
problems related to work

changing of appetite or digestive 
processes

problems with eyes 

downturn in mood

no symptoms

11.6

11.9

10.1

2.2

2.8

3.8

8.2

6.6

5.4

1.5

3.2

3.9

64.9

41.0

39.1

28.8

18.6

24.3

22.4

39.7

41.6

25.6

9.0

12.8

28.2

21.1

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

35

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

T h e   N e t h e r l a n d s

The level of stress reported by Dutch workers (16%) in the 4th EWCS was lower than the EU 
average. Results of the national Permanent Quality of Life Survey [33], based on a representative 
sample  of  the  Dutch  workforce,  suggested  that  in  2004  11%  of  workers  experienced 
burnout (5). The figures on burnout have been quite stable since 1997 (from 8-10%) (see 
Table 14). Malaise complaints (sleep disorders often accompanied by overstrain) (6) were 
reported by 12% of Dutch workers in 2000 (see Table 14). Between 1997 and 2000 there 
also seems to have been a slight increase in malaise complaints reported by Dutch workers. 
Since 2001 data on malaise complaints has not been available. 

Table 14. Percentage of Dutch workers with burnout and malaise complaints [33]

Burnout complaints

Malaise complaints

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

10

8

9

8

10

9

10

11

10

10

11

12

-

-

-

-

Burnout was also strongly correlated with the ‘need to recover’ scale (see Table 15). Need 
to recover seems to show a slight increase between 2003 and 2005 from 0.30 to 0.32 [34].

Table 15. Score of Dutch employees on the scale need to recover [34]

[% yes]

2003

2005

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

I find it hard to relax at the end of the workday 

At the end of the day I am really worn out 

My job causes me to feel rather exhausted at the end of a work day 

After dinner I usually feel rather fresh 

I usually don't relax until my second day off 

I have trouble concentrating in my free hours after work 

I find it hard to show an interest in other people when I get home 

21

34.4

37.1

56.3

27.9

17.1

25.9

24.1

38.7

39.1

53.3

31.1

19.4

26.3

5  Burnout was measured by 5 items regarding emotional exhaustion, empty feeling, feeling tired in the 
morning, exhausted by work and worn out. These questions have 6 answer categories from 0 (never) to 6 
(every day). For each worker the scores on these 5 items are added up and divided by 5. Workers with an 
average score of 2.21 or higher are considered to have burnout (emotional exhaustion).

6  Malaise  complaints  were  measured  by  four  questions  regarding  insomnia,  fatigue,  listlessness, 
susceptibility to tiredness, and with the answer categories yes and no. Workers who answered 3 of the 4 
questions with yes were considered as workers with malaise complaints.

36

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

(continued)                                                                                                 [% yes]

2003

2005

8. 

Overall it takes me more than an hour to recover completely 
after work 

9.

When I come home, they have to leave me alone for a while 

10. 

It often happens that after a workday I do not get round to 
other activities because of fatigue 

36.4 

37.9 

37.4

34.3 

39.4

36.6 

11.  At the end of the workday I am  not able to do my work that 

17.6 

17.8 

well anymore because of fatigue 

Need to recover (alpha=0.87)*

0.30

0.32

* The scores on the 11 questions are added up and divided by 11, resulting in an average score with a 
range between 0 (no need to recover) and 1 (maximum need to recover).

When asked about the reason for their most recent absence from work, 4.5% of workers 
mentioned psychological/mental complaints, overstrain, burnout and 1.9% reported 
fatigue or concentration problem. As the principal reason for their most recent work-
related  absence,  34.6%  of  employees  mentioned  high  workload  and  work-related 
stress (the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey, based on a representative sample 
of workers, 2005) [34].  

Analysis of the diagnosis of employees who become work-disabled showed that the 
most common cause was psychological or mental disorders (the Netherlands Center 
for Occupational Diseases). In 2004 about 30% of newly disabled workers were workers 
with psychological/mental disorders (see Figure 11). Between 1993 and 1997 this 
percentage decreased from almost 30% to 25%, and between 1997 and 2002 increased 
to more than 35%. In 2004 this percentage decreased again to about 30%. However, it 
should be noted that between 1996 and 1998 a new classification system for disorders 
was introduced which has made it somewhat difficult to interpret figures for this period. 
Nevertheless, psychological disorders remain the main reason behind work disability.

Figure 11. Work disablement by diagnosis, the Netherlands 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

*
1993

*
1994

psychological disorders

musculoskeletal disorders

*

Injuries

Coronary Vascular disorders

Disorder, not clearly speciﬁed

Other disorders

Unknown

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

37

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

U n i t e d   K i n g d o m

The 4th EWCS indicates that the United Kingdom is the country with the lowest level of 
stress reported by workers (12%), and that there has been a significant drop in this since 
1995 (in 1995 stress was reported by 27% of workers, in 2000 by 23%) [14].

The survey of self-reported work-related illness (SWI04/05) [35] shows that in 2004/05 an 
estimated 509,000 people in Great Britain had suffered from a stress-related condition 
which, in their opinion, was caused or made worse by their current job or work they’d 
done in the past (see Table 16). This equates to a rate of 1.2 per 100 people who have ever 
done paid work in Great Britain. However, the actual figure may be greater than this since 
evidence suggests that most of those reporting work-related heart disease ascribed its 
cause to work stress. As a result, most of the additional estimated 56,000 sufferers may 
also indirectly report work stress, and this suggests that well over half a million people 
were reporting work-related stress at a level that was making them ill. 

In each of the six surveys of self-reported work-related illness commissioned for the years 
1990, 1995, 1998/9, 2001/2, 2003/4 and 2004/5, stress and conditions closely related to it 
were the second most commonly reported type of work-related ill-health.

Table 16. Estimated rate of self-reported stress, depression or anxiety for people ever employed, UK [35]

Year

Type of complaint

Sample 
cases

Estimated prevalence  
(thousands) 95% C.I.

central

lower

upper

2004/05

2003/04

2001/02

Stress, depression or anxiety 

981

All complaints

3,963

Stress, depression or anxiety 

1,098

All complaints

Stress, depression or anxiety

All complaints

4,531

1,183

5,008

509

2,006

557

2,233

548

2,276

477

1,942

523

2,167

516

2,211

542

2,070

590

2,300

580

2,340

The SWI04/05 data also indicate that an estimated 12.8 million working days were lost 
due  to  work-related  stress  conditions  in  Great  Britain.  This  represents  an  estimated 
average  of  30.9  working  days  lost  per  year  per  affected  case  and  makes  stress, 
depression or anxiety one of the largest contributors to the overall estimated annual 
days lost from work-related ill-health.  Similar levels of working days lost were found for 
the two previous surveys. Days-lost estimates are available from the surveys for 1995, 
2001/02,  2003/04  and  2004/05.  Comparisons  suggest  that  the  number  of  days  lost 
which were attributed to stress and related conditions rose between 1995 and 2001/02, 
due in part to an increase in the average days lost per case. However, there was no 
significant change in total days lost or in days lost per case attributed to work-related 
stress, depression or anxiety between 2001/02, 2003/04 and 2004/05. 

The authors of the SWI series of surveys point out that the results are not always directly 
comparable, but the best available comparable estimates across these studies suggest 
that the prevalence of self-reported work-related stress and related conditions more or 
less doubled between the 1990 and 1998/99 surveys, but remained at a fairly constant 
level in the surveys for 2001/02, 2003/04 and 2004/05. However, any comparisons still 
have limited value in assessing trends because of differences in survey designs and 
reliance on the simple self-reporting of stress. Self-reporting of stress may be affected 
by many factors – for instance, awareness of the concept and its symptoms and value 
judgements about stress – and these may vary markedly with time.

38

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Another source of information, the Workplace Health and Safety Survey (WHASS) [36], 
carried out in 2005, reveals stress as the most widespread hazard among British workers.  
22% of the working population (estimated number) (7) reported that they were quite or 
very concerned that stress might cause them harm. An estimated 39% of workers 
also believed that the risk of harm caused by stress could be realistically “reduced” 
or “reduced further”. There was a remarkable difference between stress and 
other hazards mentioned in this survey. The second most widespread hazard 
which, according to workers, might cause them harm, lifting/carrying heavy 
loads by hand on own, was reported by 9.4% of workers. 

Workers  were  also  asked  to  assess  whether  they  thought  that  specific 
occupational hazards had increased, reduced or stayed at the same level 
during the past 12 months. In the case of stress, 14% of workers considered 
the risk to be higher, compared to the 9.6% who reported a reduction in 
their  perceived  levels  of  the  likelihood  of  stress.  Stress  was  the  only  hazard 
which showed such a remarkable increase. The level of other hazards, such as 
for  example  work at height  or  chemicals that could cause skin problems  was 
seen as having been reduced by the majority of workers. 

Surveys  have  also  been  carried  out  in  the  United  Kingdom  specifically  on 
psychosocial  working  conditions  since  2004  [37].  These  surveys  aim  to  monitor 
changes in British workplaces in response to the Management Standards on stress 
which  were  launched  by  the  Health  and  Safety  Executive  in  2004.  The  surveys 
cover  specific  aspects  of  the  working  environment  such  as  demand,  control, 
managerial support, colleagues’ support, role, and relationships at work. Although 
the  survey  carried  out  in  2007  revealed  no  significant  changes  in  working  conditions 
between 2004 and 2007, the results suggest that the process of improvement has begun. 

In  2006  there  was  a  significant  fall  in  the  number  of  workers  who  found  their  job 
extremely stressful in comparison with 2004. However, this number again (insignificantly) 
increased during the next 12 months. In 2007 13.6% of respondents reported that they 
found their jobs either very or extremely stressful (on a 5-point balanced Likert scale 
from not at all stressful to extremely stressful). In 2004 high job-stress was reported by 
15.8% of respondents, in 2005 by 14.3%, and in 2006 by 12%. 

Generally, the changes between 2004 and 2007 on the other scales were positive, but 
not significant, except for ‘role’ which was reported to be significantly better in 2007 
than in 2006.  However, the authors of the study predict that the continuing promotion 
of  the  Management  Standards  should  result  in  significantly  improved  psychosocial 
working conditions over the next few years.

The  statistics  of  the  British  Occupational  Health  Research  Foundation  (BOHRF)  [38] 
indicate that:

n   In the United Kingdom diagnoses of anxiety and depression were found in 10.2% of 
the  full  time  workforce  and  estimates  suggest  that  between  15%  and  20%  of 
employees  will  experience  some  form  of  mental  health  difficulty  during  their 
working lives.

n   The rise in the numbers of those who drop out of the United Kingdom labour market citing 
mental health problems is obvious, although the causes of these problems are unclear.

n   The proportion of Incapacity Benefit recipients whose primary diagnosis is mental or 

behavioural disorder continues to rise, and had reached 44% in 2003.

7  The results achieved from the sample of more than 10,000 participants have been extrapolated to the 
whole working population.

39

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

The Good Practice Model in Stress Prevention  

In  the  United  Kingdom,  both  employer  and  employee  organisations  as  well  as  the 
Government recognise that tackling work-related stress is a key challenge. The Health 
and  Safety  Executive,  in  consultation  with  key  stakeholders,  has  taken  a  partnership 
approach to tackling work-related stress. This has involved the development of tools and 
guidance aimed at helping organisations to prevent and manage work-related stress. 

To support this approach, HSE has developed Management Standards which have 
the status of guidance and support the existing legislative framework. They place a 
strong  emphasis  on  employers,  employees  and  their  representatives  working  in 
partnership to develop effective and practicable solutions relevant to their particular 
organisation. They also encourage organisations to pursue continuous improvement, 
recognising  the  business  and  health  benefits  of  preventing  stress  effectively.  The 
Management  standards  for  work-related  stress  include  six  key  areas  of  work  that,  if 
properly managed, can help to reduce work-related stress: demands, control, support, 
relationships, role, and organisational change. 

The Good Practice Model in stress prevention requires:

n   Senior  Management  Commitment  (implementation  of  organisational 
procedures to include preventive management in the day-to-day running of 
the company). 

n   A  Participative  Approach  (involving  middle  managers,  employees  and 
employee representatives in the decision-making process; providing support 
and ensuring effective communication).

n   A comprehensive Stress Prevention Programme (continually analysing 
and  evaluating  future  and  existing  stress  prevention  and  management 
requirements,  placing  particular  emphasis  on  developing  and  improving 
effective communication channels).

n   Stress Prevention Strategy  (establishing  an  action  plan  addressing  aims, 

responsibilities and resources).

n   Risk Assessment (With an appraisal of work activities to assess risk to health 
and  safety,  and  an  understanding  of  starting  position  in  order  to  gauge 
achieved benefits).

n   Interventions Concentrating on Individuals, Teams and Organisations 
(combining  prevention  and  management  programmes  aimed  at  the  work 
environment and the individual worker).

Carrying out a risk assessment for work-related stress:
Step 1 - Identify the stress risk factors (understand the Management Standards)
Step 2 - Decide who might be harmed and how (gather data)
Step 3 - Evaluate the risk and take action (explore problems and develop solutions)
Step 4 - Record your findings (develop and implement action plan/s)
Step 5 -  Monitor and review (monitor and review action plan/s and assess 

effectiveness)

Source  and  more  information:  Health  and  Safety  Executives.  Management 
standards for work-related stress. http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/

40

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

STRESS BY AGE3.

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

3.1.

Stress is most often 
reported by workers  
from the 40-54 and 
25-39 age groups

 r E l at i o n S H i p  W i t H  a g E —   
g E n E r a l  p r E va l E n c E  a n d  t i m E  t r E n d S

According to data from 2005 (see Figure 12), stress was most often reported by workers 
in  the  40-54  age  group  (24%),  followed  by  the  25-39  age  group  (23%).  A  lower 
percentage of workers older than 55 (18%) or younger than 24 (13%) believed that their 
health was at risk because of work-related stress. Similar trends were observed for other 
stress-related  symptoms  such  as  overall  fatigue,  sleeping  problems,  anxiety  and 
irritability [14]. 

Figure 12.  Workers (%) reporting stress, overall fatigue, sleeping problems, anxiety, and irritability by 

age (2005) [14]

%

30

20

10

0

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

24.3

23.2

17.9

23.4

22

19.1

13.1

14.3

9.9

8.2

7.7

9.4

7.9

7.1

3.5

3

12.1

11

8.5

5.5

stress

overall fatigue

sleeping problems

anxiety

irritability

-24

25-39

40-54

55+

The  results  from  the  previous  European  Working  Condition  Surveys  showed  similar 
tendencies  (see  Table  17).  The  relationship  between  age  and  stress  peaks  in  mid-
working life: stress is lowest in the youngest group, then its level increases, and in the 
oldest  group  (+55)  it  decreases  again.    The  relationship  between  age  and  anxiety, 
sleeping problems and irritability is similar. This means that these symptoms are highest 
in the 45-54 group (and high in the 35-44 group), and lower among the youngest and 
oldest workers. But for overall fatigue the pattern is linear: the higher the age, the more 
common feelings of fatigue [15, 17]. 

42

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 17.  Workers (%) reporting health problems, stress, anxiety, irritability, overall fatigue, and 

sleeping problems by age, EU15 [15, 17].

year

age

Work affects
my health

Stress

Anxiety

Irritability

Overall
fatigue

Sleeping
Problems

1995

2000

1995

2000

1995

2000

1995

2000

1995

2000

15-24

-25

25-34

25-39

35-44

-

45-54

40-54

+55

+55

51

55

56

60

58

-

59

64

56

55

20

18

28

29

30

-

30

32

25

20

5

3

7

7

8

-

9

9

8

6

7

7

11

11

12

-

13

12

10

7

17

18

19

24

20

-

21

24

24

24

4

4

6

7

8

-

8

10

9

7

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

V i o l e n c e   a n d   h a r a s s m e n t

Results of the EWCS show that physical violence is most often reported by workers in 
the 25-39 age group. The difference is more significant in reports of “threat of physical 
violence”. In 2005 (see Figure 13) this was reported by 5.5% of workers younger than 
24 years, 7.3% of workers from the 25-39 age group, 5.8% from 40-54, and 4.4% from the 
group “55 or more”. Around 2% of workers aged 25-39 reported actual physical violence 
from colleagues while between 1 and 2% of workers from other groups reported this 
problem, and around 5% of workers aged 25-39 experienced violence from other people, 
against 3 to 4% from other groups.

Harassment  and  unwanted  sexual  attention  are  most  common  among  the  youngest 
workers. In the case of harassment the difference is smaller; 5.8% in the 24-and-under age 
group, 5.2% in those aged 25-39, and 40-54, and 4.4% in the group aged 55 or older. The 
difference is more significant in the case of unwanted sexual attention; 3.5% in the youngest 
group, and, respectively, 2.2%, 1.2% and 0.7% in the other groups (see Figure 13). 

43

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

Figure 13.  Percentage of workers from different age groups reporting violence, bullying/harassment 

and unwanted sexual attention (2005) [14]

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

d
n
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

7.3

5.5

5.8

4.4

%

40

30

20

10

0

5.8

5.2 5.2

4.4

4.9

4.4

4.5

3.3

3.5

2.2

1.2

0.7

2

2.2

1.8

1.1

Threat of physical
violence

Physical violence
from colleagues

Physical violence
from other 
people

Bullying/
harassement

Unwanted sexual
attention

-24

25-39

40-54

55+

Harassment and 
unwanted sexual 
attention are most 
prevalent among the 
youngest workers  

Adolescents at work: gender issues and sexual harassment

An  American  study  describes  adolescents’  experiences  of  sexual  harassment 
while  working  part-time  and  attending  high  school.  In  a  sample  of  712  high 
school  students,  35%  of  the  332  students  who  worked  part-time  reported 
experiencing sexual harassment (63% girls, 37% boys). Results revealed that there 
are  differences  in  the  experience  of  sexual  harassment  by  gender,  work 
relationship,  and  emotional  reaction.  Students  experienced  harassment  from 
supervisors (19%), co-workers (61%), and unidentified others at work (18%). Girls 
reported being significantly more upset and threatened by the sexual harassment 
they experienced than boys.

Source: Fineran, S. Adolescents at work: gender issues and sexual harassment. 
Violence Against Women, Vol. 8, No 8, 2002, pp. 953–967.

Perceived work demands, perceived stress, and musculoskeletal neck/
shoulder  symptoms  among  older  female  computer  users.  The  NEW 
study.

This study is a part of the NEW (Neuromuscular assessment in the Elderly Worker) 
study, and was based on a questionnaire survey among Danish, Dutch, Swedish 
and Swiss female computer users aged 45 or older (n =148). The aim was to test 
a structural model of the relationship between the perceived quantitative (time 
pressure and unevenly distributed workload) and emotional work demands and 
self-reported  musculoskeletal  symptoms  from  the  neck  and  shoulder  region 
with perceived stress (feeling rested, relaxed, calm, tense, stressed, or pressured 
at the end of a normal workday) as a mediating variable. 

44

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

The  hypothesised  structural  model  was  tested  using  structural  equation 
modelling. The results indicate that perceived work demands influence 
neck/shoulder  musculoskeletal  symptoms  through  their  effect  on 
perceived  stress.  The  results  further  indicate  complete  mediation,  which 
means that all of the effect of the perceived work demands on symptoms could 
be attributed to the stress mechanism. 36% of the variation in perceived stress 
was explained by the perceived work demands, and about 20% of the variation 
in musculoskeletal neck/shoulder symptoms was explained by the combination 
of the perceived work demands and the perceived stress.

Source: European journal of applied physiology, 2006 Jan;96(2):127-35. Epub 2004 
Dec  18.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed
&list_uids=15609027&dopt=Abstract

i n f o r m at i o n   f r o m   t H E m E m b E r  Stat E S  

B e l g i u m

According to the stress survey carried out in 2004 [21], there are small but significant 
differences between age groups in terms of stress (see Table 18). Most problems are 
reported  in  the  50-54  age  group.  In  the  under  30  age  group,  26.4%  belong  to  the 
problematic (‘work stress’) category, and 8.7% to the ‘acute problematic’ category. The 
share  of  the  two  categories  increases  gradually  with  age  up  to  33.1%  and  12.7% 
respectively in the 50-54 age group. In the 55+ age group, fewer problems are reported: 
26.8% belong to the ‘problematic’ and 10.2% to the ‘acute problematic’ category. 

Table 18. Workers (%) reporting work stress by age, Belgium (2004) [21]

Non-problematic

Problematic

Acutely 
problematic*

-30

30-39

40-49

50-54

+55

73.6

71.6

70.3

66.9

73.2

26.4

28.4

29.7

33.1

26.8

8.7

9.3

11.5

12.7

10.2

Work stress

* Acutely problematic is a subgroup within the category of problematic, but is shown as a percentage of 
the total survey population.

F i n l a n d

According to the Finnish study “Work and health” [39], the number of workers reporting 
high levels of stress had decreased in all age groups. It should be noted, however, that 
workers were not asked whether their stress was work-related. The youngest age group 
(25-39  years)  reported  the  smallest  amount  of  high-level  stress  (9.4%  in  2006).  The 
prevalence rate of stress in the 40-54 age group was 9.6% and in the 55-64 age group 
10.2%  (see  Table  19).  There  were,  however,  data  that  suggested  more  workers  were 
experiencing work-related burnout.

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

3.2.

45

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 19. Prevalence of stress by age, Finland [39]

Number of 
resp.

Age/Year

25-39 years

Not at all

Only a little

To some extent

Rather
or very much

1997

2000

2003

2006

40-54 years

1997

2000

2003

2006

55-64 years

1997

2000

2003

2006

816

741

830

722

1,080

1,069

1,181

1,081

240

219

308

423

22.8

29.8

26.4

30.8

24.9

28.1

24.1

33.8

25.0

32.0

27.6

34.5

28.3

24.8

32.2

30.9

26.6

22.0

29.0

28.6

28.8

25.6

27.6

30.5

33.5

34.8

31.4

29.0

32.5

34.3

32.4

28.0

25.8

30.6

32.1

24.8

* The respondents were not asked whether their stress was work-related.

15.4

10.5

10.0

9.4

16.0

15.6

14.4

9.6

20.4

11.9

12.7

10.2

G e r m a n y

The results of the BIBB/IAB [40] survey show that in all age groups there was a significant 
number  of  workers  who  reported  that  the  level  of  stress  and  work  pressure  had 
increased, particularly older workers in the 45+ age group. 47.9% of those in this group 
reported  higher  levels  of  stress  and  work  pressure.  The  average  for  all  workers  was 
45.8% (see Table 20). 

46

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Table 20. Stress and work pressure by age, Germany (1998) [40]

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Stress and work pressure

increased

constant

decreased

under 30 years

30 - under  
45 years

45 years and 
older

Not specified

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

2,660

38.7%

7,045

47.2%

5,972

47.9%

31

43.1%

15,708

45.8%

3,595

52.3%

6,867

46.0%

5,666

45.5%

34

47.2%

16,162

47.1%

353

5.1%

607

4.1%

469

3.8%

2

2.8%

1,431

4.2%

Age

S p a i n

The Spanish data (2003) showed that the majority of those workers who had consulted a 
doctor because of stress belonged to the 35-44 age group (40.8%). The next-highest 
percentage of those seeking medical advice for stress-related problems was in the 25-34 
age group (33.5%). The youngest workers, aged between 18 and 24, hardly ever consulted 
their doctor about this kind of problem (1.8%) (see Figure 14). Workers aged between 35 
and 54 showed the majority of symptoms related to stress (see Table 21) [31].

Figure 14. Percentage of workers who consult a doctor because of stress at work by age, Spain (2003) [31] 

%

45.00

40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

≥ 65

47

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 21. Workers with symptoms of stress by age, Spain (2003) [31]

Possible case of stress

Age

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

≥65

Total

N

7

97

107

66

18

0

295

%

2.17

5.74

6.01

6.28

4.76

0.00

5.64

Total N

323

1,691

1,781

1,051

378

11

5,235

T h e   N e t h e r l a n d s

The Netherlands Working Conditions Survey [34] shows that the lowest age group (15-24) 
less frequently reported high workloads and work-related stress (17.9%) compared to 
the age groups 25-54 (36.6%) and 54-64 (35.1%). When asked about the reason for their 
most  recent  absence  from  work,  fewer  workers  in  the  lowest  age  category  (15-24) 
reported  psychological/mental  complaints,  overstrain,  burnout  (2.2%)  compared  to 
those aged 25 to 54 and 54 to 64 (4.9% and 4.6% respectively). However, the employees 
in the youngest age group reported fatigue or concentration problems most often as 
the type of complaint that had caused their most recent absence (2.4%), followed by 
those in the middle age groups (25-54 years) with 1.9% and those in the oldest groups 
(54-64 years) with 1.6%.

According to Dutch statistics [41], there are no striking differences between workers in 
the different age groups reporting burnout and malaise complaints. Within each age 
group the percentages fluctuate somewhat without showing clear trends. 

U n i t e d   K i n g d o m

The age distribution for self-reported work-related stress, depression or anxiety data 
drawn from the British SWI surveys in 2004/05, 2003/04 and 2001/02 [35] show that  the 
estimated prevalence rates of self-reported work-related stress are highest in the age 
groups 45-54 and 35-44, and lowest in the 55+ group (see Table 22). 

Table 22.  Estimated prevalence rate of self-reported stress, depression or anxiety caused or made worse 

by work, by age, UK [35]

Year

Age

Estimated incidence rate (%) for people ever employed  95% CI

sample

central 

lower 

upper

2004/05

16-34

35-44

45-54

224

270

287

1.1

1.6

2.0

0.93

1.40

1.70

1.2

1.8

2.2

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

48

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

(continued)

Year

2003/04

2001/02

Age

55+

Total

16-34

35-44

45-54

55+

Total

16-34

35-44

45-54

55+

Total

Estimated incidence rate (%) for people ever employed  95% CI

sample

central 

lower 

200

981

253

297

333

215

1,098

299

343

326

215

1,183

0.7

1.2

1.2

1.7

2.2

0.7

1.3

1.2

1.8

2.0

0.7

1.3

0.56

1.10

1.00

1.50

2.00

0.59

1.20

1.10

1.60

1.80

0.58

1.20

upper

0.74

1.3

1.3

1.9

2.5

0.78

1.4

1.4

2

2.2

0.77

1.4

Belstress  project:  a  link  between  job  stress,  heart  disease  and 
absence. 

The Belstress project examined whether there was a link between job stress and 
heart disease among working middle-aged men, and a link between absence 
and job stress among male and female employees between the ages of 35 and 
59 years. A standard questionnaire to measure psychological workload, freedom 
of decision at work, and social support was used to measure job stress. 

In order to measure the relationship between job stress and heart disease, 14,859 
men from 18 companies in Flanders and Wallonia were monitored. The results 
show that heart disease is twice as prevalent among employees who have little 
social support compared to those who have a lot of support from colleagues 
and  superiors  at  work.  A  combination  of  high  workload  with  low  freedom  of 
decision was linked to a moderate risk increase. 

The link between job stress and absenteeism was investigated in 16,000 men 
and 5,000 women from 25 companies. The researchers came to the conclusion 
that a high psychological workload, combined with little freedom of decision 
and a lack of social support increased the risk of absence due to illness by 22% 
among men and 35% among women. 

In the public sector, for example, a white-collar employee is absent for 3.97 days 
per  year  due  to  stress  at  work.  For  a  white-collar  employee  from  the  tertiary 
sector, this is 1.4 days per year. Extended to 3.466 million employees from the 
private and public sector, this means 5 million days of absence per year due to 
job stress.

Source: De Backer, G. University of Ghent, Department of Pubic Health. Kornitzer, 
M. Free University of Brussels, Laboratory of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, 
2003, http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/morbidat/nl/styl/taba26.htm

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

49

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

STRESS BY GENDER4.

4.1.

 rElationSHip WitH gEndEr – gEnEral prEvalEncE and timE 
trEndS

The  findings  of  the  4th  EWCS  (2005)  revealed  that  37%  of  men  and  31%  of  women 
believed  that  work  affects  their  health.  Men  reported  work-related  stress  more 
frequently  than  women,  although  this  difference  was  not  a  big  one  (23  and  20% 
respectively). Mental stress symptoms, such as overall fatigue and irritability, were also 
slightly  more  frequently  reported  by  men.  Sleeping  problems  and  anxiety  were 
reported by similar numbers of workers of both genders (see Figure 15) [14].

37% of men and 31% of 
women believe that work 
affects their health

Figure 15.  Workers (%) reporting stress, overall fatigue, sleeping problems, anxiety, and irritability by 

gender (2005) [14] 

22.9

20.3

23

19.1

%

30

20

10

0

8.5

8

7.7

7.9

11.2

9.6

stress

overall fatigue

sleeping problems

anxiety

irritability

men

women

In the EWCS carried out in 2000, a slightly higher number 
of men (61%) than women (59%) believed that their work 
affected their health. A similar gap in the figures for men 
and  women  was  seen  in  the  previous  (1995)  survey, 
although in that survey the belief that work affects health 
was higher within both genders. Both in 1995 and 2000, 
differences  between  genders  in  terms  of  stress  were 
marginal: in 1995 28% of men and 27% of women suffered 
from work-related stress; in 2000, the figures were 27% and 
29%  respectively.  A  survey  carried  out  in  2001  in  the 
candidate countries showed that stress affected men and 
women  equally  –  figures  for  both  genders  were  28%. 
Similarly, small differences between women and men can 
be  seen  in  the  data  for  detailed  stress  indicators.  EWCS 
1995 and 2000 show that men report sleeping problems 
slightly  more  often  while  a  slightly  higher  number  of 
women tend to report anxiety (see Table 23) [15, 17].

 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 23. Workers (%) reporting stress, irritability, anxiety and sleeping problems by gender, EU 15 [15, 17] 

Stress

Irritability

Anxiety

Sleeping problems

year

1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005

Men

28.0

27.5

21.5

10.9

10.3

11.3

Women 27.5

28.6

18.6

8.2

10.7

9

6.7

8.2

7.0

7.7

8

7.7

7.4

6.3

8.4

7.3

7.9

7.3

Clearer differences between genders in terms of work-related well-being appeared in the 
Eurostat data (1999) covering 9 EU Member States: 20% of women compared to 16% of 
men reported stress, depression and anxiety. There was, however, no distinction made 
between these symptoms. The indicators were highest for the United Kingdom (36.5% for 
men and 30.5% for women) and lowest for Spain (8.7% and 7.3% respectively). The largest 
discrepancies between genders were found in Portugal (for men, 34.3% and for women, 
15.2%), and differed least in Finland (11.5% and 11.2% respectively) (see Table 24) [42].

Table 24. Stress, depression and anxiety by gender, EU 9 (1999) [42]

Stress, depression and anxiety (%)

EU9

16.5

20.2

DK

8.4

9.3

EL

10.7

-

ES

7.3

8.7

IT

12.6

17.0

LU

7.3

13.7

PT

15.2

34.3

FI

11.2

11.5

SE

14.2

20.6

UK

30.5

36.5

Men

Women

The Working Life Barometer in the Baltic Countries 2002 indicated that more women than 
men in Latvia (42% vs. 36%), Estonia (42% vs. 34%), Lithuania (52% vs. 44%) and Finland 
(43% vs. 34%) reported an increase of mental stress at work (see Figure 16) [20].

Figure 16. Increase of mental stress at work (considerable or somewhat) (2002) [20]

Finland

Lithuania

Estonia

Latvia

%

34

34

36

43

44

42

42

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

men

women

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

53

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Women, especially young 
women, are more at risk 
of harassment than men 

V i o l e n c e   a n d   h a r a s s m e n t

The results of surveys by the Dublin Foundation show that while the prevalence of 
reported  physical  violence  is  similar  among  women  and  men,  women,  especially 
young women, are more at risk of harassment than men. 

In 2005, 6,3% of women and 6% of men reported being subjected to physical violence. 
2.1% of women and 1.7% of men reported actual physical violence from colleagues, 
and 4.1% of women and 4.7% of men from non-colleagues. 6.2% of women and 4.3% 
of men reported being victims of harassment. Unwanted sexual attention was reported 
by 3% of women and 0.8% of men (see Figure 17) [14].

Figure 17. Physical violence, bullying/harassment and unwanted sexual attention by gender (2005) [14]

%

6.3

6

8

6

4

2

0

6.2

4.7

4.1

4.3

2.1

1.7

3

0.8

Threat of physical 
violence

Physical violence 
from colleagues

Physical violence 
from other people

Bullying/
harassment

Unwanted 
sexual attention

men

women

Gender issues in safety and health at work 

A study carried out in Italy (Salerno et al., 2002) reviewed the literature on stress 
and  women  at  work  in  order  to  establish  priorities  for  preventative  policies. 
Italian women are most likely to find employment within the following sectors: 
textile,  clothing  and  footwear,  food,  pharmaceutical,  education  and  health 
service, and services such as hairdressing or cleaning. The study revealed that 
many  of  those  professions  are  marked  by  monotony  and  repetitiveness  of 
actions. They are simple but require attentiveness and fast work pace, which is 
coupled with a low control level. This would explain why Italian women report 
mental fatigue, no satisfaction from work and psychological violence inflicted 
on them at work more often than men.

According to the Swedish Social Insurance Institution, young, educated and well 
salaried  women  rank  highest  in  Swedish  statistics  on  burnout  and  sick  leave. 

54

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Paid sick leave among women below 35 years of age grew more than twofold in 
1997-2001, the primary reasons for absenteeism being psychological. Sjögren i 
Rappe (2002) indicate the following reasons: temporary and fixed-term contracts, 
inequality at work and poor management quality. In addition, women may be 
susceptible to additional pressure related to their need to prove that they can 
handle the job and work longer, more diligently and in accordance with their 
own, very strict standards.

Source: “Gender issues in safety and health at work”, European Agency for 
Safety and Health at Work, 2003,  
http://osha.europa.eu/publications/reports/209/index.htm?language=en

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

i n f o r m at i o n   f r o m   t H E m E m b E r  Stat E S  

B e l g i u m

Based on the stress survey carried out in 2004 [21], it can be argued that women have 
problems  with  stress  at  work  (30.2%)  slightly  more  often  than  men  (26.7%).  The 
percentages of men and women for whom stress at work is an acute problem do not 
differ significantly (10% and 10.6% respectively) (see Figure 18).

Figure 18. Workers reporting work stress by gender, Belgium (2004) [21]

4.2.

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

72.4

69.8

26.7

Men

10

Non-problematic

Problematic

Acutely problematic

30.2

Women

10.6

A  study  on  stress  in  the  Wallonian  agricultural  sector  [43]  showed  no  significant 
differences between men and women in the levels of stress they reported. Although 
some variables such as educational level, type of activities or the economic aspects of 
a business do have a differing impact on stress and burnout levels among men and 
women, this difference appears to be more closely related to the distribution of roles, 
tasks and responsibilities within the business. 

55

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

The intensity with which men and women feel certain stressful situations differs according 
to  gender.  Men  identified  their  most  stressful  situations  as  having  a  bank  loan,  poor 
relations with colleagues and income fluctuation. Women also reported feeling stress 
when  income  fluctuated,  but  also  identified  administrative  workload  and  increasing 
prices as stressful. Men perceived financial factors as stressful in relation to their impact 
on  the  profitability  of  a  business,  whereas  women  saw  them  more  in  terms  of  their 
impact on the family budget.

F i n l a n d

According to the Finnish study “Work and health”, women tended to report a higher 
level of stress than men. However, work-related stress dropped in the period 1997-2006 
for both genders. In 1997, 15% of men and 18% of women suffered from acute stress.  
In 2006, the figures were 9% for men and 11% for women (see Table 25) [39].

Table 25. Prevalence of stress by gender, Finland [39]

Year

Number of 
respondents

Not at all

Only a little

To some extent

Rather
or very much

Men

Women

27.6

23.2

31.6

29.6

27.4

23.6

28.5

29.8

24.6

31.8

28.6

35.4

23.6

26.2

22.4

30.4

33.2

32.7

28.8

26.1

31.1

35.7

35.1

29.4

14.6

12.3

11.1

8.9

17.9

14.5

14.0

10.5

1997

2000

2003

2006

1997

2000

2003

2006

1,023

1,056

1,137

1,127

1,113

973

1,185

1,099

G e r m a n y

The BIBB/IAB survey (1998) showed that 49.2% of men and 40.8% of women felt their 
work-related  stress  had  increased  (see  Table  26).  Men  reported  sleeping  problems 
more often than women (9% and 7% respectively) (see Table 27). No gender-based 
differences  were  found  for  overall  fatigue  (18.9%  for  both  groups)  or  for  irritability/
nervousness during/after work (11.9% for both groups) [40].

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

56

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 26.  Stress and work pressure by gender, Germany (1998) [40]

gender

men

women

Stress

increased

constant

decreased

n

%

n

%

9,947

49.2%

5,761

40.8%

9,049

44.8%

7,113

50.4%

790

3.9%

642

4.5%

Table 27. Sleeping disorders reported by workers, Germany (1998) [40]

Sleeping problems

gender

men

women

n

%

n

%

I r e l a n d

No

18,389

91.0%

13,135

93.0%

Yes

1,819

9.0%

992

7.0%

Irish statistics indicate that in 2005 slightly more women (7.3%) suffered from “stress, 
depression, anxiety” than men (5.8%) (see Table 28) [28]. 

Table 28. Summary of injury, illness and fatality statistics: illness category by gender, Ireland (2005) [28]

Men

Women

Illness

N

Bone, joint or muscle

23,300

Breathing, lungs

Skin

Hearing problem

Stress, depression, anxiety

Headache, eyestrain

Heart

Infectious disease

2,700

1,000

1,800

6,700

1,000

1,400

900

Rate

20.3

2.3

0.9

1.6

5.8

0.9

1.2

0.8

N

11,300

700

400

300

6,200

1,000

200

1,300

Rate

13.3

0.8

0.5

0.4

7.3

1.2

0.2

1.5

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

57

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

P o l a n d

The PENTOR study [44] on stress among women revealed that more than 80% of Polish 
women suffered from stress, and more than half of the surveyed women suffered from 
stress once a week or more frequently. For more than half of this group the stress they 
suffered from was more serious than it had been 2-3 years ago. One in five women 
declared that her work was the main source of stress. It was stated that:

n   work-related stress was more frequently (87%) found in female university graduates 
with higher job grades than among female non-graduates with lower job grades 
(13%);

n   the  biggest  source  of  job-related  stress  for  the  surveyed  women  was  their  salary 

(55%);

n   the  second-highest  source  of  job  stress  was  work  itself  (44%);  one-third  of  the 
women in this sample were distressed by their supervisor, and 17% by co-workers;

n   8% of women were worried about job insecurity.

S l o v e n i a

A survey aimed at identifying reasons for health-related absences among Slovenian 
employees considered, among others, mental problems and disorders. It was found 
that mental health-related absence at work afflicts women twice as frequently as men 
[45]. 

S p a i n

The  Spanish  survey  on  working  conditions  (2003),  showed  no  significant  differences 
between female and male workers in terms of perceived stress. However, in the same 
year, stress was the fourth most common reason for seeking medical advice for women 
and the sixth most common reason for men. Stress was a reason for consulting a doctor 
for  18%  of  women  and  13%  of  men.  Additionally,  17%  of  women  and  11%  of  men 
consulted a doctor because of headache, 9% of women and 5% of men because of 
depression. Similar numbers of women and men consulted a doctor because of sleeping 
problems (8%), and chronic fatigue (4%). “Possible cases of stress” (see section 2.2), were 
more prevalent among women (7.38%) than men (4.62%) (see Table 29) [31].

Table 29. Workers with symptoms of stress by gender, Spain (2003) [31]

Possible case of stress

Gender

Men

Women

n

153

142

%

4.62

7.38

58

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

T h e   N e t h e r l a n d s

Dutch women and men reported similar emotional burnout levels, and indices for this 
variable  remained  more  or  less  stable  between  1997  and  2004.  However,  women 
reported malaise complaints more often (16% in 2000) than men (10%). Among male 
employees, the malaise index rose from 7% in 1997 to 10% in 2000, whereas the same 
index for women remained relatively unchanged (see Table 30). Women more often 
reported a “need for recovery” (see section 2.2) [41].

Table 30. Burnout (emotional exhaustion) and malaise complaints among Dutch workers (%) [41]

Burnout complaints

Malaise complaints

Men

10

8

9

8

9

10

10

10

Women

Men

Women

10

8

10

8

10

9

10

11

7

7

8

10

.

.

.

.

15

15

14

16

.

.

.

.

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Asked about the problems that led to their most recent absence from work before the 
survey, women reported mental health-related problems more often, such as fatigue, 
burnout  (5%)  or  concentration  problems  (2.5%),  while  the  corresponding  figures  for 
men were 4% and 1.5%. Women also reported work overload and work-related stress 
more often (36.4%) as the primary reason for their last absence from work (the figure 
for men was 33.5%). 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

59

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

U n i t e d   K i n g d o m

The  British  SWI  survey  of  2001/02  [35]  indicated  that  230,000  men  in  Great  Britain 
suffered from work-related stress, depression or anxiety. This means that out of every 
100  men  who  have  ever  worked  in  Great  Britain,  1.3%  had  been  affected  by  these 
problems. During the same period the figure for women was also 1.3% in every 100 
(270,000  women  declared  work-related  stress,  depression  or  anxiety).  In  2004/2005 
however, the figure dropped for men (down to 1.1%), while it remained at the same 
level for women (1.3%) (see Table 31).

Table 31. Estimated rate of self-reported stress, anxiety or depression made worse by work, by gender, UK [35]

Year

Gender

Men

2004/05

Women

Total

Men

2003/4

Women

Total

Men

2001/02

Women

Total

Estimated prevalence rate (%) for people ever employed  
95% CI

sample

central

lower

upper

432

549

981

516

582

1,098

551

632

1,183

1.1

1.3

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.0

1.2

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

60

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

How work conditions affect depression

Canadian  researchers  surveyed  218  female  workers  at  health-care  centres  in 
three cities in the province of Ontario using several standard study questionnaires. 
The women who volunteered to participate in the study were asked about work 
conditions such as time pressure, level of responsibility, physical demands and 
level of support. They were also asked about spillover of work life to family life, 
and vice versa. Finally, the women were surveyed for symptoms of depression.

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

More  than  30%  of  the  women  reported  enough  symptoms  of  depression  to 
suggest the presence of clinical depression. The researchers found that symptoms 
of depression were directly related to factors such as: 

n   high worker effort and low reward from the job 

n   a high level of negative spillover from work to family 

n   a low level of positive spillover from family to work 

n   a low education level 

n   having children under the age of 18 at home 

The  results  suggest  that  there  are  several  workplace  factors  connected  with 
depression that could be targeted for change through workplace policies. One 
such factor is improving the balance between worker effort and rewards from 
the job. Another is having policies that promote work-family balance for workers 
with young children. 

Source: Franche RL, Williams A, Ibrahim S, Grace SL, Mustard C, Minore B, Stewart 
DE.  Path  analysis  of  work  conditions  and  work-family  spillover  as  modifiable 
workplace factors associated with depressive symptomatology. Stress and Health. 
2006 May; volume 22: pages 91-103.

61

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

STRESS BY SECTOR AND OCCUPATION5.

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

5.1.

 rElationSHip WitH SEctor and occupation –  
gEnEral prEvalEncE and trEndS

The available data indicate some stable trends (for example, high prevalence of stress 
in certain sectors such as education and health, or public administration and defence), 
but a complex picture emerges in other sectors, where it is more difficult to pinpoint 
overall trends (in agriculture, for example). 

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Data from 2005 (see Figure 19) indicate that stress was most prevalent in the education 
and  health  sectors,  as  well  as  in  agriculture,  hunting,  forestry  &  fishing  (28.5%).  The 
largest group of employees who suffered from anxiety at work were those employed 
in education and health (12.7%), public administration and defence (11.1%) and those in 
agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing (9.4%). Irritability was most common in education 
and health  (15.5%), transport and communication (13.6%), and hotels and restaurants 
and public administration and defence (12.6%) [14]. 

64

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 19. Prevalence of stress, anxiety and irritability by sectors (2005) [14]

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Education and health

Public administration and defence

Real estate

Financial intermediation

Transport and communication

Hotels and restaurants

Wholesale and retail trade

Construction

Electricity, gas and water supply

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

Manufacture and mining

Agriculture

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Stress

Anxiety
Irritability

Figures from the surveys carried out in 1995 and 2000 [15, 17] show that the percentage 
of  employees  reporting  stress  at  work  in  the  majority  of  economic  sectors  under 
observation  dropped  or  remained  relatively  unchanged.  The  most  significant  drop 
was in agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing sectors (from 27.2% in 1995 to 18.9% in 
2000).  The  steepest  growth  in  the  number  of  employees  under  acute  work-related 
stress was recorded in transport and communication (from 27.2% to 36.9%). In 2000, 
this  sector  saw  the  largest  percentage  of  employees  suffering  from  stress  at  work, 
followed by education and health (33.5%) and real estate and business activity (31.7%). 

The data from 2005 reveal an even stronger falling trend, particularly in transport and 
communication (a drop of 12.7%), the sector that in the previous period had seen the 
most significant increase in the number of employees suffering from stress. In financial 
intermediation reported stress dropped by 14.5% and in real estate and business activity 
it dropped by 13.3%. The only instance of a rising percentage of employees under stress 
at work (a 9.6% increase) was in the agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing sector which, 
in the previous five-year period, had seen the largest drop in work-related stress. 

Workers in education and 
health report high levels 
of stress, anxiety, and 
irritability

65

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

The percentage of employees in 2000 who suffered from anxiety was highest in education 
and health (9.4%), electricity, gas and water (9.4%) and financial intermediation (9.3%). In 
the two latter sectors, a significant rise in the level of anxiety at work was recorded, from 
5.7% in 1995 to 9.4% in 2000, and from 5.1% to 9.3% respectively. In 1995–2000, a marked 
growth in the percentage of employees who suffered from anxiety was recorded in the 
hotels and restaurants sector (a rise of 3.0%) and in transport and communication (a rise 
of 3.4%). The real estate sector saw the most significant drop in the number of employees 
suffering from work-related anxiety (from 15.2% in 1995 to 8.4% in 2000). In 2005, a growth 
in the number of workers who suffered from anxiety was noted compared to the previous 
five-year period in public administration and defence (a rise of 2.2%) as well as in agriculture, 
hunting, forestry & fishing (a rise of  9.4%).

In 2000, 10.5% of the surveyed population in the EU15 reported irritability. The largest 
percentage of employees reporting irritability worked in transport and communication 
(14.4%), followed by education and health (12.5%), public administration and defence 
(12.3%). The transport and communication sector showed the largest growth in the 
number of employees who suffered from irritability (up from 10.4% to 14.4%), while the 
most  significant  drops  were  recorded  in  the  agriculture,  hunting,  forestry  &  fishing 
sector  (down  from  9.9%  to  6.1%)  and  in  the  real  estate  sector  (down  from  13.8%  to 
10.9%). In 2005, the share of employees suffering from irritability at work grew slightly 
compared  with  the  2000  figure.  The  most  serious  increase  was  recorded  in  the 
education and health sector (by 3%), and its 15.5% was the highest share among all 
sectors under consideration.

The figures on stress from different Member States show that in the education and 
health  sector,  work-related  stress  is  most  common  in  Slovenia  (reported  by  60%  of 
workers), followed by Greece and Latvia (where stress was reported by 54% and 52% of 
health and education workers respectively). Even in the countries where the general 
level  of  stress  was  lower  than  the  EU  average,  such  as  the  United  Kingdom,  Czech 
Republic or the Netherlands, more than 20% of workers from the education and health 
sector reported work-related stress (see Figure 20). 

66

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Figure 20. Stress in education and health by country (2005) [14]

%

70

60

50

40

54

40

52

38

35

30

27

31

22 21

23

25

23

25

20

10

0

60

45

44

45

41

33

29 28

26

22

34

36

30

21

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL

ES FR IE

IT

CY LV LT

LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI

SK FI

SV UK

Figures from the agriculture sector show that as many as 72% of Greek workers suffer 
from work-related stress. This is also the case for 40% of agricultural workers in Finland 
and 36% in Romania (see Figure 21). 

Figure 21.  Stress in agriculture by country (only those where the sample in this category was at least 50 

persons) (2005)  [14]

%

72

37

29

29

25

20

40

36

29

13

22

14

CZ

EL

ES

IE

LV

LT

HU

AT

PL

RO

SK

FI

07

BG

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

65% of transport and communication workers in Greece, almost half of all those in the 
same  sector  in  Slovakia  and  Sweden,  and  more  than  40%  in  Poland  and  Portugal 
believed that stress negatively affected their health and safety (see Figure 22). 

Figure 22.  Stress  in  transport  and  communication  by  country  (only  those  where  the  sample  in  this 

category was at least 50 persons) (2005)  [14]

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

%

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

65

33

26

25

70

21

15

36

35

29

47

46

41

41

28

13

13

BE

BG

CZ

DK

EL

FR

IE

LV

LT

HU

NL

PL

PT

SK

FI

SV

UK

67

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

The Eurostate data (1999) show that “stress, depression, anxiety” was a common reason 
for absences of longer than 14 days in sectors such as health and social work, education, 
public  administration  and  defence  and  compulsory  social  security.  In  these  sectors 
psychological problems were almost as often a reason for absence as musculoskeletal 
disorders (see Figure 23).

Figure 23.  Work-related health problems that caused an absence longer than 14 days, by sector (rate 

per 100,000 workers) (1999) [42]

Extra-territorial organisations
and bodies

Activities of households

Other community, social,
personal service activities

Health and social work

Education

Public administration and defence; 
compulsory social security

Real estate, renting and 
business activities

Financial intermediation

Transport, storage and 
communication

Hotels and restaurants

Wholesale and retail trade; repair of 
motor vehicles, motorcycles and 
personal and household goods

Construction

Electricity, gas and water supply

Manufacturing

Agriculture, hunting and forestry

Total

Total

Musculoskeletal disorders

Stress, depression, anxiety

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

%

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Stress, depression, 
anxiety contribute 
significantly to absences 
longer than 14 days

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

68

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

In 2005, skilled 
agricultural and fishery 
workers reported  the 
highest level of stress

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Anxiety and irritability 
are prevalent among 
skilled agricultural and 
fishery workers, as well 
as professionals

S t r e s s   b y   o c c u p a t i o n

According to the 2005 data (see Figure 24), the largest group of stressed workers was 
in skilled agriculture and fishery (32.1%), which also recorded the largest percentage 
growth compared to 2000 (a rise of 13.7%). Elementary occupations had the smallest 
number of stressed workers (17.3%). 

In  2000  the  largest  group  of  stressed  workers  was  in  professionals  (39.5%),  legislators, 
senior, officials and managers (32.0%), and technicians and associate professionals (34.6%). 
The highest increases in the number of employees suffering from work-related stress, by 
occupation,  between  1995  and  2000,  occurred  in  the  technicians  and  associate 
professionals group, rising from 29.2% in 1995 to 34.6% in 2000 and among clerks, rising 
from  22.2%  to  25.2%.  A  drop  in  the  number  of  employees  suffering  from  stress  was 
recorded among the majority of the remaining occupational groups. The most significant 
reductions were among skilled agricultural and fishery workers (by 10.4%), armed forces 
personnel (by 9.7%) and legislators, senior officials and managers (by 5.1%). 

The results of the survey carried out in 2001 in the acceding and candidate countries [16] 
showed that the armed forces (45%), managers (42%) and technicians (41%) had the 
highest incidence of stress. The lowest percentage of employees suffering from stress-
related health problems was found in the unskilled workers group (14%).

Based on the data for 2005, the occupational group with the highest work-related anxiety 
incidence is skilled agricultural and fishery workers (11.1%) as well as professionals (10.7%). 
Groups that suffer least from anxiety at work are elementary occupations and craft and 
related trades workers (6.6% of the total number of workers falling under this category).

Between  1995  and  2000  the  biggest  rise  in  workers  reporting  anxiety  was  among 
technicians and associate professionals (up by 2.8%). The steepest drop in the number 
of  workers  who  suffered  from  anxiety  was  recorded  in  the  skilled  agricultural  and 
fishery workers group (by 3.5%). The highest figures for anxiety were recorded among 
technicians and associate professionals (10.5%) and professionals (10.1%).

In 2000 irritability was highest among workers in the professional group (15.1%) and 
armed forces (14.0%). The armed forces, however, were also the group that recorded 
the sharpest drop in the number of its staff who were irrritable at work between 1999 
and  2000,  down  from  24.8%  to  14%.  The  occupational  group  with  the  smallest 
percentage of employees reporting irritation in 2000 was skilled agricultural and fishery 
workers (4.9%), and this group also recorded the most significant drop in the number 
of irritable workers, a drop of 5.1% compared to five years earlier. In the 2005 survey 
professionals were again the group that recorded the highest levels of irritability (12.2%). 
Elementary occupations recorded the lowest levels (7.9%). 

69

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Figure 24. Prevalence of stress by occupation (2005) [14]

Armed forces

Elementary occupations

Plant and machine operators and assemblers

Craft and related trades workers

Skilled agricultural and ﬁshery workers

Service, shop and market sales workers

Clerks

Technicians and associate professionals

Professionals

Legislators, sen. oﬃcials and managers

Stress
Anxiety
Irritability

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

In  March  2007,  the  European  Trade  Union  Committee  for  Education  (ETUCE)  sent  a 
questionnaire on “Teachers’ Work-related stress” to 115 ETUCE member organisations 
and associated member organisations across Europe [46]. Responses from 38 unions 
(27 countries) were received. They represented the primary (32 respondents), secondary 
(30 respondents) and vocational education (22 respondents) sectors. The authors of 
the study stated that the small number of participants (38) put some limitations on the 
interpretation of the results. However, all respondents were experts in health and safety 
issues in education, and had appropriate experience and knowledge.  

The experts were asked to assess the impact of 16 stressors which often appear in the 
teaching  profession  (from  1  -  the  smallest  impact  to  5  -  the  biggest  impact).    The 
ranking  of  the  stressors  based  on  the  average  answers  received  from  the  unions  is 
presented in Table 32. Workload/working intensity turned out to contribute most to 
teachers’ stress. At the top of the list were also role overload, increased class size per 
teacher, unacceptable pupil behaviour, and bad school management/lack of support 
from management. 

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

Workload/working 
intensity contribute the 
most to teachers’ stress

70

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 32. Ranking of stressors in educational sector according to teacher unions (2007) [46]

Ranking of stressors

Average score

1. Workload / working intensity

2. Role overload 

3. Increased class size per teacher 

3. Unacceptable pupil behaviour 

5. Bad school management / lack of support from management 

6. Insufficient funding for the school / lack of resources

7. Bad social climate / atmosphere in the school

8. Low social status of teachers

9. Self-defeating beliefs

9. Fear of conflict

11. Lack of parental support

12. Poor pay

13. Evaluation apprehension

14. Lack of social support from colleagues

15. Lack of job stability and security

16. Lack of career development

3.80

3.61

3.52

3.52

3.29

3.07

3.00

2.96

2.84

2.84

2.79

2.69

2.53

2.41

2.27

2.25

The respondents were also asked to rank the consequences of stress (“stress indicators”) 
that  teachers  are  facing  (see  Table  33).  The  most  important  stress-related  problem 
indicated was burnout / depression / emotional exhaustion. 

Table 33. Ranking of stress indicators in educational sector according to teacher unions (2007) [46]

The most important 
stress-related problem 
among teachers is 
burnout/depression/
emotional exhaustion

Ranking of stress indicators

Average score

1. Burnout / depression / emotional exhaustion

2.  High absenteeism / sickness

3. Sleeping problems / insomnia 

4. Cardiovascular diseases / symptoms 

5. Frequent interpersonal conflicts

6. Migraines

7. Hypertension / high blood pressure

8. Gastrointestinal disorders

9. High staff turnover

10. Addictions (drinking, smoking, drugs)

3.62

2.60

2.51

2.50

2.42

2.39

2.34

2.08

1.67

1.48

71

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

V i o l e n c e   a n d   h a r a s s m e n t 

Physical violence was 
mostly reported by 
workers employed in 
education and health, 
and in public 
administration and 
defence

According to the European Working Conditions Surveys and the scientific literature some 
occupations are particularly at risk from different forms of violence. In 2005 (see Figure 25), 
threats of physical violence were mostly reported by workers employed in education and 
health (14.6%), public administration and defence (11.6%), transport and communication 
(9.8%),  hotels  and  restaurants  (9.3%),  and  service,  shop  and  market  sales  (9.2%).  Actual 
physical violence (from people outside the company) was experienced by 8.8% of workers 
in public administration and defence, 8.4% of workers in education and health, 7.4% in 
hotels and restaurants, 7.2% in transport and communication, and 6.8% in service, shop 
and market sales [14].

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Figure 25. Physical violence by sectors (2005) [14]

Education and health

Public administration and defence

5

3.5

14.6

8.4

8.8

11.6

Real estate

0.5

1.4
2.2

Financial intermediation

0

Transport and communication

3.1

1.7

1.7

Hotels and restaurants

Wholesale and retail trade

Construction

Electricity,gas and water supply

Manufacture and mining

1.3

0.7

1.9
1.9

1.1

1.3

1.2
1.4

1.8

4.5

5.4

3.8

4.5

7.2

7.4

9.8

9.3

0

10

Physical violence from colleagues
Physical violence from other people
Threat of physical violence

%

20

Harassment was mostly 
reported by workers from 
hotels and restaurants, 
education and health

Harassment was mostly reported in sectors such as hotels and restaurants (reported by 
8.6% of workers), education and health (7.8%) and transport and communication (6.9%). 
Unwanted sexual attention was reported by 3.9% of workers in hotels and restaurants, 
2.7% in education and health, and 2.6% in transport and communication (see Figure 26).

72

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26. Bullying/harassment and unwanted sexual attention by sectors (2005) [14]

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Education and health

2.7

Public administration and defence

Real estate

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

Financial intermediation

Transport and communication

1.3

1.3

3.1

1.9

2.4

2.6

7.8

5.3

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

Hotels and restaurants

3.9

Wholesale and retail trade

1.8

Construction

Electricity, gas and water supply

0.8

0.5

2.9

Manufacture and mining

1.4

4.1

6.1

5.9

0

Unwanted sexual attention

Bullying/harassment

6.9

8.6

%

10

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Farmers, farm workers and work-related stress

This  research  explored  the  ways  in  which  stress  affects  farming  communities, 
how  this  has  changed  in  recent  years,  and  the  degree  to  which  work-related 
stress may be reduced by support interventions. A qualitative case study research 
approach was employed to address these issues, involving 60 interviews in five 
locations across England and Wales. 

In  examining  farming  stress,  a  distinction  was  made  between  its  intrinsic, 
extrinsic  and  work-related  dimensions.  Interviewees  associated  day-to-day 
worries and acute stress with farming’s intrinsic demands (such as stock crisis and 
disease,  adverse  weather  conditions).  The  external  causes  of  tension  (such  as 
competition and regulation), together with worries about finances and family, 
were associated with more sustained anxieties. Work-related aspects of farming 
stress, such as workload issues and farming practices, involved a combination of 
physical and mental health effects, resulted in exhaustion and workplace injuries. 
The  most  common  were  lack  of  sleep,  back  problems,  worrying  about  work, 
irritability and feeling down. Notably, work-related and extrinsic dimensions of 
stress have increased in recent years in relation to organisational and policy shifts, 
price fluctuations, mounting paperwork demands, workload intensification, and 

73

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

changes  in  agricultural  regulation.  These  have  prompted  an  escalation  in  the 
aspects  of  the  work  that  farming  communities  feel  powerless  to  control,  and 
represent a major area for policy intervention.

It was emphasised that support agencies need to overcome the stigma attached 
to asking for help among farming communities and offer a range of responsive 
and proactive services. Support must be multidimensional, reflecting the wide 
range of stressors and their impacts among farming communities.

Source: Research Report 362 prepared by Policy Studies Institutes for the Health 
and Safety Executive, 2005. http://www.hse.gov.uk/RESEARCH/rrhtm/rr362.htm

Stress management in the catering trades

The catering trades are a high-risk sector for stress, which not only harms human 
health but also damages performance and competitiveness. Most of the stress 
arises from conditions that are characteristic of the sector. These include shift 
work,  long  periods  standing  up,  heat,  and  emotional  stress  in  dealing  with 
customers. 

The project was aimed at providing resources to help meet these challenges. It 
took  the  form  of  preparing  general  guidelines,  coaching  schemes  and  the 
establishment of ‘stress hotlines’. Training formats were tailored to the individual 
trades and included: workplace design, management style, work organisation 
and  time  management,  stress  management,  handling  complaints,  employee 
and  customer  communications,  recommendations  for  female  entrepreneurs, 
and practical operating advice. For example, in Flanders, the team carried out a 
study into psychosocial stress in four different small businesses (two restaurants, 
one training centre and one catering firm). By using the participatory risk analysis 
method, they identified the psychosocial stresses and their causes and drew up 
options to alleviate them. Two workshops on psychosocial stress in the catering 
trade were run in Ghent and Turnhout, publicised in two specialist magazines 
and on the partners’ websites. The 20 German, Dutch and Belgian institutions 
representing  more  than  600,000  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs) 
were involved in the project.

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. 
http://sme.osha.europa.eu/publications/fs2002/2003/en/index_12.htm

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

74

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

5.2.  information from tHE m EmbEr StatES

B e l g i u m

According to a survey carried out in 2004 [21], the highest level of stress occurred in 
post and telecommunications and financial sectors (problematic stress was reported 
by 34% of workers). More than 30% of workers reported stress in education, business 
services and construction, and health and welfare sectors (see Table 27). 

Figure 27. Workers reporting “problematic” and “acutely problematic” stress by sector, Belgium (2004) [21]

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

police : 

11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

Health and welfare sector

Education

Public administration

Business services

Financial sector

Post and telecommunications

Transport

Hotels and restaurants

Wholesale and retail

Construction

Metal

Chemical industry

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

Textiles and clothes-making

Food

Problematic

Acutely problematic*

0

10

20

30

%

40

*Acutely problematic is a subgroup within the category of problematic (the orange zone), but is shown as 
a percentage of the total survey population.

Among  occupational  groups  stress-related  problems  are  most  common  among 
executives (middle-managers/professionals and senior management/directors), workers 
with an educational or care function, and unskilled/inexperienced blue-collar workers. In 
each of these groups more than 30% of workers belong to the “problematic category” 
and more than 10% to the “acutely problematic category” (see Figure 28).

75

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Figure 28. Percentage of workers reporting work-related stress by occupation, Belgium (2004) [21]

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

76

%

40

30

20

10

0

Senior 
management/
directors

Middle-
managers/
professionals

Educational 
or care 
functions

Non-management 
white collar 
workers

Skilled 
blue-collar 
workers and 
technicians

Unskilled/
inexperienced 
blue-collar 
workers

Problematic

Acutely problematic*

*Acutely problematic is a subgroup within the category of problematic, but is shown as a percentage of 
the total survey population.

A study on stress in the agriculture sector revealed that 31% of farmers displayed a high 
level of stress and 29% reported a high level of burnout. The most stressful and the 
most  frequent  problems  were  administrative  pressure  and  financial  problems  [43]. 
Another study points to five areas of stress in agriculture. The first two relate to weather 
conditions and livestock diseases, which make agriculture a high-risk profession. The 
next  two  areas  relate  to  the  financial  situation  of  the  business  (investments,  loans, 
income,  etc.)  and  to  economic  development  and  policy  (price  levels  and  changes, 
administration, regulations, etc.). The fifth area identifies work pressure as a significant 
cause of stress (long, arduous working days and time pressure). The most common 
stress symptoms are back pain and tension/nervousness, headaches, difficulties with 
relaxing and chronic fatigue [47]. 

Data based on the questionnaires filled in by more than 4,000 Belgian workers from 
the public sector (federal governments, community and regional, municipalities) and 
more than 24,000 workers from the private sector showed that workers from the public 
sector: 

n   have greater emotional demands and ambiguity at work (workers are unclear what 

is expected from them and what they can expect from others);

n   receive less information about the purpose and results of their work;

n   worry more about work and have more sleeping problems [48].

F r a n c e

French  sources  indicate  that  companies  there  are  becoming  increasingly  customer-
oriented.  They  need  to  be  more  responsive  to  market  requirements  and  devise  new 
forms  of  work  organisation.  In  2003,  55%  of  workers  stated  that  they  had  to  respond 
rapidly to external requirements, 6% more than in 1994. Dependence on work colleagues 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

has also risen. In 2003, 28% of workers stated that their work rate depended on colleagues, 
2% more than in 1994. Changes of work pace in different occupations are presented in 
Table 34 [49].

Table 34. Changes of work pace in different occupations in France [49] 

Techni-
cians, 
associate 
profes-
sionals

Managers,  
profes-
sionals

Office 
workers

Service 
workers,
shop and 
market
sales 
workers

Elementary 
occupa-
tions, 
agricultural 
workers

Skilled
workers

66

75.6

56.2

67.9

56.6

68.7

43.4

52.6

35.8

45.5

25.5

39.5

75.5

68.3

65.2

54.6

45.3

38.4

64.9

66.2

60.3

63.1

60.1

63.9

68.8

70.1

34

41.8

20.5

27.9

65.6

63.9

62.5

69.8

41.2

26.9

22.7

27.3

26.7

27.7

24.6

24.9

18.5

21.2

29

31.7

33.1

33.2

27.9

29.7

26.6

24.8

33

35.2

  %

Have to frequently 
stop working on one 
job to do another, 
non-scheduled one 

1994

2003  
(constant field values)*

2003  
(total field values)**

Working to a pace 
imposed by a request 
or requirement from 
outside that demands 
an immediate 
response 

1994

2003  
(constant field values)

2003  
(total field values)

Working to a pace set 
by an immediate 
dependency on 
colleagues 

1994

2003  
(constant field values)

2003  
(total field values)

* 
**  

constant field values: the same sample of workplaces as in 1994.  
 total field values: the more extended sample than in 1994 (workers of electricity and gas, public 
hospitals, post, and train companies, as well as Air France are also included).

Looking at working hours, the 2003 SUMMER SURVEY [42] showed that 23.2% of workers 
from agriculture, 18.3% from industry, 18.6% from construction, and 21.4% from service 
sectors had worked more than 40 hours in the week before the survey was carried out. 
In comparison to the 1994 data, however, the number of workers working more than 
40 hours per week dropped in most of the sectors listed above (see Table 35). 

77

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 35. Long working hours by sector, France [49] 

 %

Agriculture

Industry

Construction Service sector

Total of
employees

More than 40 hours 
worked the previous 
week 

1994

2003  
(constant field values)

2003  
(total field values)

23.5

23.2

23.2

25.8

18.3

18.3

32.2

18.6

18.6

31

21.4

20

29.1

20.4

19.6

More workers are coming into direct contact with the public, in person or by telephone; 
71% in 2003, compared with 63% in 1994. Almost all workers (92%) from the category 
service workers, shop and market sales workers    as  well  as  office workers  (89%)  were  in 
contact with the public in 2003 (see Table 36). For workers in this situation, there is an 
increase of a perceived risk of physical aggression. Generally, 18% of workers reported 
being threatened with physical violence in 1994 and 23% in 2003. In the retail sector in 
2003, 40% of workers who had had contact with the public reported being exposed to 
the risk of physical aggression.

Table 36. Direct contact with the public by occupation, France [49]

Techni-
cians, 
associate 
profes-
sionals

Office 
workers

Service 
workers,
shop and 
market
sales 
workers

Elementary 
occupa-
tions, 
agricultural 
workers

Total of 
employees

Skilled
workers

Managers,
profes-
sionals

 %

Direct contact with the public  
(face to face or by phone)

1994

85

79.8

82.6

86.3

39.1

19.6

63.2

77.4

81.9

88.6

92.5

51.9

34.9

70.9

75.8

81.5

86.8

92

50.5

32.4

70

2003  
(constant 
field 
values)

2003  
(total field 
values)

G e r m a n y

According to the BIBB/IAB survey (1998), about half the workers in all sectors (44.4% - 
50.8%)  felt  stress  and  work  pressure  had  either  not  increased  or  had  decreased. 
However,  similar  numbers  of  workers  (38.8%  -  48.9%)  reported  that  stress  and  work 
pressure were on the increase (see Table 37). Irritability/nervousness during/after work 
was  reported  by  12%  of  workers  on  average,  and  slightly  more  often  by  workers  in 
public administration and defence, education and health and other services (14.5%) [40].

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

78

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 37.  Sector change: stress and work pressure, Germany (1998) [40]

Sector

Change: stress and work pressure

increased

constant

decreased

Agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing

Mining and manufacturing, Electricity, 
gas and water

Construction

Wholesale and retail, repairs, Hotels and 
restaurants, Transport and 
communication

Financial intermediation, Real estate, 
business activity 

Public administration and defence, 
Education and health, Other services

Total

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

279

38.8%

4,811

47.3%

1,255

48.9%

3,036

42.4%

1,725

48.1%

4,233

45.8%

15,339

45.8%

365

50.8%

4,746

46.6%

1,204

46.9%

3,513

49.0%

1,592

44.4%

4,343

47.0%

15,763

47.1%

35

4.9%

378

3.7%

72

2.8%

370

5.2%

156

4.3%

367

4.0%

1,378

4.1%

Taking stress and work pressure by occupational group, the survey also revealed that in 
nearly  half  of  the  groups  38.9%  -  56.3%  felt  this  was  much  the  same,  and  a  similar 
percentage (33.7% - 55.5%) reported increasing stress and pressure. The biggest growth 
in  workplace  stress  was  observed  in  technical  occupations  (55.5%)  (see  Table  38). 
Irritability/nervousness during/after work was considered to be a problem by 12% of 
workers  from  all  occupational  groups  on  average,  notably  by  other  occupations  in 
services (13.9%) [40].

Table 38. Occupation change: stress and work pressure, Germany (1998) [40]

Occupation

Change: stress and work pressure

increased

constant

decreased

Occupations in agriculture etc.

Occupations in production,  
mining and minerals

Occupations in construction

Technical occupations

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

283

33.7%

3,190

44.8%

1,063

46.1%

1,220

55.5%

473

56.3%

3,490

49.0%

1,147

49.8%

856

38.9%

36

4.3%

262

3.7%

74

3.2%

93

4.2%

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

79

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

(continued)

Occupation

Traders

Occupations in transport

Occupations in administration, in offices

Other occupations in services

Total

G r e e c e

Change: stress and work pressure

increased

constant

decreased

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

N

% 

2,014

43.9%

942

45.7%

3,204

50.5%

3,792

42.7%

15,708

45.8%

2,181

47.5%

978

47.4%

2,680

42.3%

4,357

49.1%

16,162

47.1%

229

5.0%

77

3.7%

270

4.3%

390

4.4%

1,431

4.2%

The  survey  carried  out  by  the  Hellenic  Institute  for  Occupational  Health  and  Safety 
(ELINYAE) [50] on the hotel sector revealed that 43.6% of workers suffered from stress 
“rather  often”,  or  “often  or  almost  always”.  Among  the  workers  who  said  they  were 
required to work at a high speed, the majority (67.3%) suffered from stress “often or 
almost  always”.  Similarly,  among  workers  who  shouldered  high  responsibility,  65.4% 
reported suffering from stress “often or almost always”.

H u n g a r y

According  to  the  ILO  report  “Safety  and  Health  at  the  Workplace  -  Trade  Union 
Experiences  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe”  [51],  serious  complaints  about  stress, 
irritability, high blood pressure, and depression were reported in between 10% and 
30% of Hungarian workplaces. Stress affected workers in primary production (in 38.6% 
of workplaces), services (30.8%), manufacturing (30.6%), and construction and energy 
(22.1%). The primary production sector also has the highest rate of stress symptoms 
such as irritability (25.9% of workplaces), depression (25.8%) and high blood pressure 
(24.1%) (see Figure 29). 

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

80

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Figure 29. Stress-related symptoms in the workplaces of different industries, Hungary (2000) [51]

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

%

38.6

50

40

30

20

10

0

25.9

25.8

24.1

30.6

21.2

20.9

22.1

30.8

23.3

22.3

6.5

11.8

7.4

0

3.8

Primary

Manufacturing

Construction and energy

Services

Stress

Irritability

Depression

High blood pressure

I r e l a n d

Irish data on accidents and injuries show that workers from public administration and   
health and social work sectors are, when compared to other sectors, particularly at risk 
of  injuries  caused  by  “shock,  fright,  violence  of  others”  (between  4%  and  7%  of  all 
reported injuries each year since 2004) and they were on the receiving end of incidents 
described as “injured by person – violent” (between 5% and 7% of all reported injuries 
in the same period) [28]. 

L a t v i a

The  report  “Working  conditions  and  risks  in  Latvia.  2005-2007”  shows  that  51%  of 
workers  have  contact  with  people  from  outside  the  company  (buyers,  passengers), 
and  42%  of  workers  reported  sometimes  coming  into  conflict  with  people  from 
outside.  Conflicts  with  clients  are  most  common  in  education  (reported  by  55%  of 
respondents), and in health and social care sectors (52%). Health and social care workers 
are most exposed to physical violence or violence threats (18%), against the average for 
all respondents of 7%. They are also more likely to experience psychological harassment 
(31%) and sexual harassment (4%). Both physical and psychological violence are more 
prevalent in the public sector than in private companies. 

Additionally,  a  significant  number  of  workers  admit  that  they  have  had  workplace 
conflicts with managers (59%), colleagues (49%), and between groups of workers (27%). 
35% of respondents say that discord they have experienced was caused by internal 
competition  between  workers.  Discord  between  workers  and  managers  is  most 
prevalent in education (69%) and in metal, metal products and equipment mechanism 
manufacturing companies (68%). The majority of conflicts between workers occur in 
education (60%) and timber, wood and cork products, furniture sectors (65%). Conflicts 
between  groups  of  workers  and  internal  competition  between  workers  are  most 
common in the education sector (38% reporting conflict between groups of workers, 
and 54% internal competition between workers) [29]. 

81

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

P o l a n d

The results of the study on the prevalence of work-related stress in different occupations, 
carried  out  by  the  means  of  a  validated  Polish  questionnaire  based  on  the  Demand-
Control-Support model of job stress, showed that the highest level of work-related stress 
was  experienced  by  the  following  occupations:  teachers  (34%),  medical  staff  (30.6%), 
government administration clerks (30.2%) and bank workers (29.6%) (see Figure 30) [52]. 

Figure 30. Prevalence of work-related stress in different occupations, Poland (1997- 2000) [52]

29.6

30.6

30.2

18.1

24.8

21.2

22.9

%

10

20

26.6

30

34

40

Bank workers

Government and local government administration clerks

Middle medical staﬀ

IT specialists

Construction workers

Public transport drivers

Salesmen

Teachers

All occupations

Additionally,  another  study  on  psychosocial  work  conditions  based  on  the  same 
questionnaire and carried out among the same occupational groups revealed that [53]:

n   Teachers  (M=3.42)  and  drivers  (M=3.41)  obtained  the  highest  scores  on  work 

demands. The lowest score was observed in construction workers (M=2.87). 

n   The lowest level of job control was observed in drivers (M=3.06), the highest one in 

computer scientists (M=3.44) and salesmen (M=3.43). 

n   Drivers scored lowest in social support (M=2.84), while the highest social support 

levels were reported among banking and insurance specialists (M=3.44). 

n   The highest level of well-being at work was reported by computer scientists (M=3.88), 

and the worst by teachers (M=3.65) and mid-level medical personnel (M=3.69).

The results of a study which aimed to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder among 
policemen and firemen, suggested that 8.4% of the latter, and 4.4% of the former group 
were  affected  by  PTSD  (in  2003)  [54].  Policemen  and  firemen  involved  in  traumatic 
events  coped  with  impaired  well-being  by  taking  sick  leave  (14.9%),  or  by  taking 
medicine and tranquillisers (7.5%).

There is also data confirming that work-related violence is a significant problem among 
social  workers,  labourers  and  finance  inspectors  [55].  The  most  frequent  forms  of 
aggression  are  abuse  and  insults,  but  14%  of  workers  also  said  that  they  had  been 
physically attacked at work. This problem was more frequently reported by women, 
and the group at the greatest risk of violence was social workers. 

82

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

P o r t u g a l

A survey carried out by the General Direction of Health (DGS) in 2004 shows that 81% 
of hospitals and 77% of local health centres have registered complains about violence 
against health professionals, 54% of which involved physical assault [56].

A study on work-related stress in production companies (2005) [57] revealed that 14.7% 
of  workers  from  this  sector  presented  a  high  risk  of  developing  health  problems 
because of work-related stress, and 37.6% reported feeling the need to reduce stress.

S l o v e n i a

A study carried out among doctors revealed that 37% of them feel they are exposed to 
high  stress  at  work,  whereas  40%  reported  moderate  stress,  and  27%  of  doctors 
reported low stress at work. The reasons given for high stress levels were related to 
work duties, high demands and responsibility at work, work with patients who were ‘a 
nuisance’, high numbers of patients, having to report bad news about patients’ health 
and dealing with death. Physicians employed in the public sector were at highest risk 
of experiencing stress at work [58].

S p a i n

The Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo (2003, [31]) indicated that the sectors 
most  influenced  by  stress  are  financial  intermediation,  and  social  services  and  other 
services. Workers from the financial intermediation sector were the ones who consulted a 
doctor  most  often  about  stress-related  health  issues  (42.9%),  while  workers  from  the 
construction sectors were least likely to consult a doctor about stress at work (0.40%) (see 
Figure 31).  Stress-related symptoms were most common in financial intermediation, social 
services and other services (around 6-7%), and least common in Construction (1%). 

By occupation, stress was the most common reason for seeking medical advice among 
clerks (29%) and technicians (24%) (see Figure 32).  Technicians, non-qualified workers, 
clerks and service workers were the occupations where an above-average percentage 
of workers reported stress-related symptoms (around 7-8%).

Figure 31. Workers who consulted a doctor for stress by sector, Spain (2003) [31] 

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

%

42,9

50

40

30

20

10

0

n
o
i
t
a
i
d
e
m
r
e
t
n

i

l
a
i
c
n
a
n
i
F

13,9

13,1

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

l
a
i
c
o
S

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

r
e
h
t
O

4,3

s
e
i
r
t
s
u
d
n

i

g
n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
m

r
e
h
t
O

19,9

s
t
n
a
r
u
a
t
s
e
r
d
n
a
s
l
e
t
o
h
/
l
i
a
t
e
r
d
n
a
e
l
a
s
e
l
o
h
W

3

l
a
t
e
M

1,4

s
e
i
r
t
s
u
d
n

i

r
e
h
t
O

1,1

y
r
t
s
i

m
e
h
C

0,4

n
o
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

83

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

Figure 32.  Workers who consulted a doctor for stress by occupation, Spain (2003) [31] 

%

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Clerks

Technicians

Service workers

Assistant
technicians

Unqualiﬁed
workers

Qualiﬁed 
workers

Operators

T h e   N e t h e r l a n d s

The percentages of Dutch workers with burnout complaints (emotional exhaustion) 
(see section 2.2) seemed to fluctuate strongly between 1997 and 2004 in the different 
sectors. In general, over these years burnout was most often mentioned by workers in 
the education, manufacturing industry, mining, energy, gas and water, and hotels and 
restaurants sectors, and least often in the environment, culture, recreation and other 
services, public administration and banking and finance sectors. No clear increasing or 
decreasing trends can be distinguished in the sectors regarding burnout complaints 
(see Table 39) [41].

Table 39. Percentage of Dutch workers with burnout complaints (emotional exhaustion) by sector [41]

Sector

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Manufacturing industry, 
mining, energy, gas and 
water

Construction

Trade

Hotels and restaurants

Transport, storage and 
communication

Banking and finances

Real estate, business 
services

Public administration

Education

Health and welfare

Environment, culture, 
recreation, other services

11

10

9

12

11

7

9

8

13

11

10

9

8

6

4

7

9

8

9

15

5

3

10

10

10

14

9

11

9

8

11

11

9

10

7

4

8

6

6

8

7

16

9

9

10

13

10

8

8

5

9

9

15

9

10

12

7

9

19

8

6

11

7

12

9

7

11

6

10

10

10

7

12

6

14

9

5

15

10

11

10

15

13

11

8

9

11

8

H
t
l
a
E
H

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

d
n
a

t
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

84

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Over  the  period  1997-2000  malaise  complaints  (see  section  2.2)  were  most  often 
reported  in  environment,  culture,  recreation  and  other  service  and  the  hotels  and 
restaurant sectors, followed by education and health and welfare. These complaints 
were least often reported by workers in transport, storage and communication and 
construction. Between 1997 and 2000 there seemed to be an increase in the percentage 
of  workers  reporting  malaise  complaints  in  most  sectors  except  for  hotels  and 
restaurants,  environment  culture,  recreation,  other  services,  trade  and  health  and 
welfare (see Table 40). Workers in education, hotels and restaurants, transport, storage 
and communication and health and welfare had the highest scores on the ‘need to 
recover’ scale. In most sectors there was a slight increase in this scale between 2003 
and 2005, the highest being in construction and public administration. Sectors with a 
slight decrease on the ‘need to recover’ scale were agriculture, education, environment, 
culture,  recreation,  other  services.  In  the  banking  and  finances  sector,  the  score 
remained stable between 2003 and 2005 [59].

Table 40. Percentage of Dutch workers with malaise complaints by sector [59]

Sector

1997

1998

1999

2000

Manufacturing industry, mining, energy, gas and water

Construction

Trade

Hotels and restaurants

Transport, storage and communication

Banking and finances

Real estate, business services

Public administration

Education

Health and welfare

Environment, culture, recreation, other services

10

6

11

15

7

7

11

7

10

15

19

8

9

8

11

8

9

9

9

14

10

19

12

9

10

20

6

13

11

11

9

11

15

15

8

9

15

9

11

14

12

18

14

8

As shown in Table 41, psychological complaints, overstrain, burnout were most often 
mentioned as the type of complaints that had caused the most recent absence from 
work among employees working in public administration (5.4%), health and welfare 
(5.3%), banking and finances (5.3%), and culture and other services (5.1%). Fatigue or 
concentration  problems  causing  absence  were  most  often  reported  by  workers  in 
education  (3.4%)  and  public  administration  (3.0%).  High  workload  and  work-related 
stress were most often mentioned as the reason for absence by workers employed in 
banking  and  finances  (58.3%),  education  (51.7%),  public  administration  (44.9%)  and 
business services (42.4%) [34].

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

85

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 41. Percentage sickness absence due to stress among Dutch employees in 2003 - 2005 by sector [34]

Type of complaints that caused the latest 
absence period:

Main reason for 
their last work 
related absence 
period:

Psychological 
complaints, 
overstrain, burnout

Fatigue 
concentration 
problems

High workload and 
work-related stress

Agriculture

Manufacturing industry

Construction

Trade

Hotels and restaurants

Transport and 
communication

Banking and finances

Business services

Public administration

Education

Health and welfare

Culture and other 
services

1.2

4.5

2.8

4.6

3.5

4

5.3

3.9

5.4

4.8

5.3

5.1

1.4

1.8

1.1

1.2

2.1

1.6

2

1.8

3

3.4

2.1

1.3

19.3

26.9

21.6

31.5

30.3

33

58.3

42.4

44.9

51.7

32.8

35.9

In terms of occupational diseases, a high percentage of psychological diseases were reported 
in education (78%), financial institutions (58%) and health care (48%) (see Figure 33) [60].

Figure 33. Occupational diseases by sector, the Netherlands (2005) [60] 

%

100

80

60

40

20

0

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

86

Transport

Education

Construction

Health care

Manufacturing 
industry

Financial
institutions

Repairs
 and trade

Psychological diseases

Musculoskeletal diseases

Hearing diseases

Skin diseases

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

U n i t e d   K i n g d o m

The SWI survey data for 2004/05 indicate higher rates of work-related stress, depression 
or anxiety in public administration and defence, financial intermediation, education, 
and health and social work (see Table 42). This is largely consistent with results from the 
two previous surveys for 2003/04 and 2001/02 [35].

Table 42.  Estimated prevalence rates of self-reported stress, anxiety or depression caused or made 

worse by current or most recent job, by sectors, UK (2004/05) [35] 

Sector

Estimated prevalence rate (%)   95% CI

central

lower

upper

Manufacturing

Construction

Wholesale and retail, repairs

Transport and Communication

Financial intermediation

Real estate, business activity

Public administration and defence

Education 

Health and social work

Other services

All

0.80

0.56

0.70

0.85

2.00

1.30

2.20

2.00

1.80

0.86

1.20

0.60

0.32

0.52

0.55

1.40

1.00

1.80

1.60

1.50

0.52

1.10

1.00

0.80

0.88

1.20

2.50

1.60

2.70

2.40

2.10

1.20

1.30

The prevalence of self-reported work-related stress, depression or anxiety from SWI survey 
for 2004/05 by occupation is shown in Table 43.  This data and earlier surveys indicate that 
teachers  and  nurses  have  the  highest  prevalence  rates  of  work-related  stress.  Further 
detailed analysis of SWI 2004/05 data at minor and unit occupational group level, where 
numbers were sufficiently large, showed significantly higher prevalence rates for teaching 
professionals (3.0%), in particular secondary education teaching professionals (4.2%) and 
primary and nursery education teaching professionals (1.6% and 3.8%). The lowest stress 
levels were observed in the elementary occupations (1.2%). 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

87

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 43. Estimated prevalence rates of self-reported stress, anxiety or depression caused or made 
worse by current or most recent job, by occupational group, UK (2004/05) [35]

Occupational group

Estimated prevalence rate (%)   95% CI

central 

lower 

upper

Legislators, senior officials and managers

Professionals

Technicians and associate professionals

Administrative and secretarial

Skilled trades

Personal service

Sales and customer service occupations

Plant and machine operators and assemblers

Elementary Occupations

All

1.60

2.10

1.70

1.30

0.45

0.76

0.91

0.61

0.58

1.20

1.30

1.80

1.40

1.10

0.27

0.49

0.63

0.37

0.39

1.10

1.90

2.50

2.00

1.60

0.63

1.00

1.20

0.85

0.77

1.30

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

88

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Preventing burnout in psychiatric care

Burnout often affects people working in the caring professions and notably in 
psychiatry. It may be damaging not only to the person concerned, but also to 
family and friends, organisation, colleagues and patients, and can in some cases 
force staff to leave their jobs altogether.

The aim of the Italian project was to develop training activities and procedures 
to combat burnout in psychiatric care in Italy and Greece. It set out to acquaint 
staff with the potential risks posed by their working environment and by their 
interpersonal relationships; to introduce preventive training in order to foresee 
and manage stress; to train managers in order to eliminate the organisational 
and psychosocial factors contributing to burnout; and to train staff in relaxation 
techniques and in improved stress management strategies. 

During the first stage, an eight-page information leaflet on burnout was widely 
distributed  in  Italy  and  Greece.  It  described  the  project,  burnout  and  its 
symptoms, the problems it causes and suggested remedies. In Greece a CD on 
relaxation  techniques  was  also  produced.  Subsequently,  a  handbook  that 
covered the syndrome and its symptoms; remedial measures; useful strategies 
to  prevent  stress  caused  by  ’disturbing  emotions’  arising  from  contact  with 
psychiatric patients; ways to manage interpersonal relations with colleagues in 
order to prevent stress; self-protection strategies to cope with interpersonal and 
organisational stress; and organisational methods most likely to avoid burnout in 
caring  institutions  was  produced.  The  project  was  publicised  by  newspaper 
articles, and television and radio broadcasts in Italy and Greece.

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 
http://sme.osha.europa.eu/publications/fs2002/2003/en/index_14.htm

The European NEXT-Study

The  NEXT-Study  investigated  the  reasons,  circumstances  and  consequences 
surrounding premature departure from the nursing profession. The project was 
financed  by  the  European  Commission,  coordinated  by  the  University  of 
Wuppertal (Germany), and carried out simultaneously in Belgium, Finland, France, 
Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and Slovakia. The 
study began in February 2002 and run until June 2005, and it brought together 
interdisciplinary  expertise  from  e.g.  nurses,  nursing  scientists,  (occupational 
health) physicians, psychologists, sociologists and statisticians.

The situation of nurses in different European countries was analysed in relation 
to aspects such as burnout, commitment, effort-reward-imbalance, influence at 
work/decision latitude, intention to leave nursing, job satisfaction, meaning of 
work, physical load, social work environment, work ability index, and work-home 
interference. The results of the studies carried out in the frame of this project are 
available at http://www.next.uni-wuppertal.de/index.html. 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

89

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

Combating stress in vehicle repair shops

An Austrian vehicle repair company was already aware of an increase in stress 
levels among its workforce, arising from changing and more demanding tasks, 
and believed that these were an important contributory factor to sickness and 
absenteeism. The research carried out in the course of this project seemed to 
bear  out  their  concerns  as  they  found  a  much  higher  than  average  rate  of 
absenteeism through sickness. 

This  project  was  about  the  management  and  prevention  of  stress  within  the 
wider context of occupational safety and health and the quality of the working 
environment in a vehicle repair workshop and dealership. They sought to tackle 
the problem through a health management system and through health forums 
in which staff could talk about their problems and discuss measures to improve 
the quality of the working environment. They adopted a ‘bottom up’ approach, 
involving  staff  heavily  in  the  implementation  of  the  project.  This  had  the 
advantage of gaining wider and more sustained acceptance within the company. 
Through questionnaires and an outside analysis of sick leave they tried to get an 
accurate picture of stress factors in the company’s working life. They refined this 
and looked for solutions during a series of regular health forums for each of six 
departments,  moderated  by  external  health  professionals.    There  were  43 
meetings in all with a total of 37 staff for a minimum of two hours each session. 
All staff were invited to attend on a voluntary basis, but top management were 
excluded to avoid unduly influencing staff.  

The results were summarised in a set of guidelines on ‘Stress in the workplace in 
an automotive company’. These were influenced by a variety of factors specific 
to the company, but are likely to be of value to other similar companies as well. 

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 
http://sme.osha.europa.eu/publications/fs2002/2003/en/index_24.htm

90

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

STRESS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS6.

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

6.1. 

Well-being scores for 
self-employed workers 
are lower than for 
employed workers

rElationSHip WitH EmploymEnt StatuS – 
gEnEral prEvalEncE and trEndS

The EWCS data (2005) revealed that well-being scores for self-employed workers are 
lower than for employed workers: 41% of the former consider that work has an adverse 
impact on their health, and 25% suffer from stress at work. The corresponding figures 
for employed workers are 33% and 21% respectively. The figures for detailed well-being 
indices, such as irritability, overall fatigue, sleeping problems and anxiety were also less 
advantageous for the self-employed (see Figure 34). However, it is worth noting that 
the results of the 2001 survey showed stress more often affected the self-employed 
who employed staff (40%), than the employed (29%), or those self-employed who did 
not hire any staff (24%) [14]. 

Figure 34. Workers reporting health problems and stress by employment status (2005) [14]

24.9

21.3

27.3

20.2

%

30

20

10

0

17.3

14.3

9.4

8.1

9

7.6

11.2 10.4

stress

overall
fatigue

sleeping
problems

anxiety

irritability

headaches

Self-employed

Employee

3.3

1.8

heart
disease

The above trend was already discernable in the results from EWCS 1995 and 2000 [15, 
17], although it was much less evident when compared to the 2005 figures. Also, in 
1995 and 2000, self-employed workers tended to report more often than other groups 
that work adversely impacted their health, but stress indices were higher for this group 
only in 1995 and had not increased in the 2000 survey (see Table 44). The number of 
self-employed workers reporting irritability was particularly low. However, other stress 
indices such as overall fatigue and anxiety were higher (see Table 45). 

Among employed workers, the type of employment contract they have affects stress 
levels and detailed stress-related indices. Identifying four contract types – permanent 
contract,  fixed  term  contract,  temporary  contract  and  apprenticeship  –  the  studies 
showed  that  workers  with  permanent  contracts  displayed  the  highest  stress  levels 
both in 1995 and 2000. Some detailed well-being indices were also less favourable for 
this group in the 2000 survey, including irritability, sleeping problems, and anxiety (see 
Tables 44 and 45). The higher levels of stress, depression and anxiety among workers 
with permanent contracts compared to those with temporary contracts was also seen 
in Eurostat’s data (from 1999) [42]. 

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

Workers with permanent 
contracts display the 
highest levels of stress

92

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Table 44. Percentage of workers reporting health problems and stress by employment status, EU15 [15, 17]

Employment status

Work affects my health

Stress

1995

2000

1995

2000

Self-employed

Employed

Employed, on a permanent basis

Employed, on a fixed term contract

Employed, on a temporary 
employment agency contract

On apprenticeship or other training 
scheme

EU

60.3

55.8

56.8

50.6

55.8

44.0

56.6

63.2

59.4

59.6

62.3

48.7

61.0

59.9

33.1

26.8

27.9

21.7

23.7

14.1

27.8

27.4

28.2

29.5

25.7

14.1

18.6

28.0

Table 45. Percentage of workers reporting stress-related symptoms by employment status, EU15 [15, 17]

Employment status

Irritability

Overall 
fatigue

Sleeping 
problems

Anxiety

1995

2000

1995

2000

1995

2000

1995

2000

Self-employed

10.4

9.4

23.1

28.6

Employed

11.1

10.8

19.1

22.3

11.2

11.1

18.5

21.8

7.6

6.8

7.3

6.8

8.2

8.8

11.5

6.5

6.6

9.5

6.9

7.1

11.0

9.2

22.9

25.6

5.0

5.9

5.2

6.6

10.4

7.6

22.1

23.7

4.6

2.9

7.3

5.5

Employed, on a 
permanent basis

Employed, on a fixed 
term contract

Employed, on a 
temporary employment 
agency contract

On apprenticeship or 
other training scheme

EU

10.9

10.5

19.9

23.2

6.4

7.3

9.7

16.1

17.0

2.5

4.6

7.9

6.7

7.3

4.3

7.3

V i o l e n c e   a n d   h a r a s s m e n t 

While reported threats of physical violence are more prevalent among employees than 
self-employed workers (6.4% and 4.9% respectively in 2005), actual physical violence is 
reported by a similar number of workers from both groups (4.5% of employees and 
4.4% of the self-employed). 

Employees  are  more  often  subjected  to  harassment  (5.6%  in  2005)  than  the  self-
employed  (2.8%).  For  unwanted  sexual  attention  the  figures  are  similar;  1.8%  in  the 
former group, and 1.5% in the latter [14]. 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

93

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Tackling psychosocial problems in the workplace 

The  Spanish  project  “PSICORISC”  sets  out  to  help  organisations  identify, 
understand, and manage psychosocial risks and problems. The overall objective 
was  to  improve  the  health  of  workplaces  and  reduce  the  accidents  and 
absenteeism that arise from stress, fatigue and a generally unsatisfactory working 
environment. 

Using  the  web  page,  businesses  interested  in  the  project  could  register  and 
members of their workforce could take tests that enabled the project team to 
evaluate  the  psychosocial  risks  at  their  workplace.  The  business  would  then 
receive the results and specific recommendations. They chiefly focused on ways 
to overcome stress, avoid burnout, improve work environment, prevent mobbing 
(harassment), improve relationships within the workplace, enhance employees’ 
self-esteem, and provide incentives for further training. As a result, a ‘Manual of 
healthy  workplace  behaviour’,  as  wells  as  reports  and  conclusions  from 
participating  companies  were  produced.  An  e-mail  service  for  dealing  with 
queries was also provided. 

The project also carried out a public relations campaign to raise awareness of 
psychosocial risks in the workplace, aiming in particular at those sections of the 
media specialising in labour affairs and business news. A number of radio stations 
carried stories, interviews and debates. There were also newspaper and magazine 
articles and reports about the project and the issues that arose.  

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 
http://sme.osha.europa.eu/publications/fs2002/2003/en/index_69.htm

6.2.   information from tHE mEmbEr StatES

B e l g i u m

The  WBM  study  (2004)  revealed  small  but  remarkable  discrepancies  between 
permanent and temporary workers in terms of stress. 29% of permanent workers and 
25.5%  of  temporary  workers  reported  that  work-related  stress  posed  a  problem  for 
them (see Figure 35). The survey also captured the differences between full-time and 
non-full-time workers. The full-time workers more often tended to report stress as a 
problem - 29% - and 10.4% of them considered stress to be an acute problem (the 
respective figures for non-full-time workers were 24.7% and 8.4%) [21]. 

94

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Figure 35. Workers reporting work stress by employment status, Belgium (2004) [21] 

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

%

100
90

80

70

60

50
40

30

20

10

0

71

74.5

29

Fixed

10.3

25.5

Temporary

8.8

Non - problematic

Problematic

Acutely problematic

*Acutely problematic is a subgroup within the category of problematic, but is shown as a percentage of 
the total survey population

F i n l a n d

The Finnish study Work and Health (1997-2006) [39] revealed the highest level of stress 
among seasonal workers (16.7% in 2006). Work-related stress also appears to be more 
common among the self-employed with no staff than among the employed. Finnish 
permanent workers reported higher stress levels than fixed-term contract employees. 
Nevertheless, in 2006, in all of these groups, the level of stress was almost the same 
(10.1%  among  the  self-employed,  9.9%  among  fixed-term  contract  employees  and 
9.4% among the permanently employed). 

It  should  be  noted  that  2006  saw  a  significant  fall  in  the  stress  index  for  the  self-
employed (10.1% in comparison to 19.7% in 1997), for workers employed on permanent 
contracts (from 16% in 1997 to 9.4% in 2006) and for fixed-term contract holders (from 
13.2% to 9.9%). In the case of seasonal and casual workers, an increase of the level of 
stress experienced was seen in 2000 and 2003 (from 12.5% in 1997 to 16.7% in 2000 
and 19.4% in 2003). There was a small decrease in these figures in 2006 (to 16.7%) (see 
Table  46).  Respondents  from  this  group  were  largely  employed  in  sectors  such  as 
construction, health service and other service sectors. 

Table 46. Prevalence of stress by employment status, Finland [39]

Year

N

Not at all

Only a little

To some extent

Rather

Permanent

1997

2000

2003

1,558

1,508

1,739

24.4

28.3

26.1

26.4

23.3

30.5

33.1

34.9

31.7

16.0

13.5

11.7

95

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

N

1,643

213

221

261

232

40

35

31

36

218

199

213

237

(continued)
Year

2006

1997

2000

2003

2006

1997

2000

2003

2006

1997

2000

2003

2006

G e r m a n y

Not at all

Only a little

To some extent

Rather

33.0

29.9

27.6

9.4

Fixed-term contract

23.0

32.1

25.3

29.3

37.6

23.5

32.6

30.2

Seasonal or irregular

32.5

48.6

22.6

38.9

30.0

14.3

16.1

27.8

Self-employed

22.0

28.6

20.2

32.5

26.2

21.6

26.3

28.7

26.3

34.4

32.2

30.6

25.0

20.0

41.9

16.7

32.1

33.2

32.4

28.7

13.2

10.0

10.0

9.9

12.5

17.1

19.4

16.7

19.7

16.6

21.1

10.1

The BIBB/IAB surveys revealed that permanent workers are more likely to be affected 
by  increased  work-related  stress  (46.5%  in  1998)  than  temporary  workers  (34%)  (see 
Table  47).    Work  under  time  pressure  was  also  more  common  among  permanent 
workers  (15%  reported  that  they  worked  under  pressure  virtually  always,  and  29% 
often) than among temporary workers (12.1% and 23.8% respectively). Health problem 
figures were also slightly lower for temporary workers (see Figure 36) [40].  

Table 47. Change in stress and work pressure by employment status, Germany (1998) [40]

Employment status

Change: stress and work pressure

increased

constant

decreased

temporary

permanent

N

%

N

%

978

34.0%

11,563

46.5%

1,503

52.2%

11,792

47.4%

204

7.1%

901

3.6%

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

96

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Figure 36. Health problems by employment status, Germany (1998) [40] 

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

18.6

17.9

17.5

17

%

20

10

0

General
fatigue

Temporary

Permanent

S p a i n

11.5

9.6

7.8

6.4

4.8

3.5

2.9

1.7

Headache

Sleeping
disorders

Irritability /
nervousness

Digestive
disorders

Heart
complaints

Spanish permanent workers were the group most likely to seek a doctor’s advice in 
relation  to  their  work-related  stress  (as  many  as  92.1%  of  all  employed  in  2003)  (see 
Table 48). However, the group in which stress symptoms were most common and yet 
where  individuals  did  not  seek  medical  advice  were  apprentices  or  participants  in 
training courses (28.4%) (see Table 49) [31]. 

 Table 48. Workers (%) who consult a doctor for stress by employment status, Spain (2003) [31]

Employment status

Employed, on a permanent basis

Employed, on a fixed-term contract

On apprenticeship or other training scheme

Other

Stress 

92.10

2.70

1.40

3.50

Total 

84.00

11.40

2.80

1.40

 Table 49. Workers with symptoms of stress by employment status, Spain (2003) [31] 

Employment status

Employed, on a permanent basis

Employed, on a fixed-term contract

On apprenticeship or other training 
scheme

Other

Possible case of stress

n

253

19

16

7

%

5.89

4.55

28.44

16.67

n total

4,298

675

170

42

97

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

The VI ENCT carried out in 2007 showed that workers employed on temporary contracts 
have less control over their work compared to those with permanent contracts (see 
Figure  37).  Not  being  allowed  to  take  a  holiday  at  the  time  of  their  choosing  was 
reported by 24.2% of workers with permanent contracts and 36.5% of workers with 
temporary contracts, not being allowed to put their own ideas into practice: 11.2% and 
19.5% respectively, to decide the order of tasks: 22.2% and 35.1%, to choose methods 
of work: 24.5% and 36.8%, rhythm of work: 23.7% and 35.7, and when to take breaks: 
24.3% and 36.9% [32]. 

Figure 37.  Lack of control at work reported by workers on permanent and temporary contracts, Spain 

(2007) [32]  

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

36.5

24.4

19.5

11.2

35.1

22.2

36.8

35.7

36.9

21.5

23.7

24.3

Terms of
holidays

Employing own 
ideas

Order of tasks

Methods of
work

Rhythm of work

Breaks

Permanent

Temporary

98

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Diagnosing psychosocial problems in SMEs 

The Danish project was aimed at improving working conditions, psychosocial 
health,  and  reducing  stress  in  small  businesses  by  developing  methods  to 
diagnose risk and strengthen work on safety and health issues.

A  series  of  seminars  and  interviews  with  medium-sized  companies  (50-500 
employees)  were  organised.  The  companies  chosen  had  had  substantial 
experience  of  improving  the  psychosocial  working  environment,  in  order  to 
agree  on  good  practice  in  this  field.  Through  interviews  and  discussions 
diagnostic  tools  to  identify  psychosocial  risks,  and  a  methodology  that  could 
easily be used by companies of a similar size, were developed. 

As a result of the project, a manual “One big family – making the small business 
an  attractive  workplace”  (available  in  Danish  and  English)  was  developed.  It 
consists of the following chapters:  

1.  Why  bother  about  the  psychosocial  climate  when  everything’s  running  so 
smoothly? 

2. Visible problems and warning signs. 

3. The small business – a productive family. A chapter about the importance of 
social relations. 

4. The production process. A chapter about the relation between the production 
process and the psychosocial working environment.

5. Doing a job you enjoy.

6. Is there a good way to find good solutions? 

7.  Typical  situations  and  interventions  that  address  a  range  of  stress-related 
problems. 

8. Shifting the focus to the demands of the job – a checklist. 

A  website  that  carries  a  more  interactive  version  of  the  manual,  leading  the 
reader from one issue to other related chapters, descriptions and tools was also 
launched.  

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 
http://sme.osha.europa.eu/publications/fs2002/2003/en/index_28.htm 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

99

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

7.

EMERGING PSYCHOSOCIAL RISKS - 
EXPERTS’ SURVEYS 

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Emerging risks were 
identified by means of 
the Delphi method and 
the analysis of scientific 
literature

Significant changes in the world of work during recent decades bring new challenges 
for  workers’  safety  and  health.  The  need  to  identify  and  anticipate  emerging  risks 
related  to  occupational  safety  and  health  (OSH)  has  been  emphasised  on  several 
occasions at the European level. More particularly, the Community strategy on health 
and safety at work 2002-2006 mandated the European Agency for Safety and Health at 
Work to set up a risk observatory. In order to realise its objectives, the European Risk 
Observatory identified and explored emerging occupational safety and health risks by 
two means; firstly, an expert survey using the Delphi method and, secondly, the analysis 
of scientific literature. In this way, the targeting of resources and the development of 
interventions and strategies to tackle emerging risks can be made more timely, better 
planned, and overall effectiveness enhanced.

What are emerging risks?

An ‘emerging OSH risk’ has been defined as any occupational risk that is both new 
and increasing.

By new, it is meant that:

n   the  risk  was  previously  unknown  and  is  caused  by  new  processes,  new 
technologies, new types of workplace, or social or organisational change; or

n   a long-standing issue is newly considered as a risk due to a change in social or 

public perceptions; or

n   new  scientific  knowledge  allows  a  long-standing  issue  to  be  identified  as  a 

risk.

The risk is increasing if:

n   the number of hazards leading to the risk is growing; or

n   the likelihood of exposure to the hazard leading to the risk is increasing (exposure 

level and/or the number of people exposed); or

n   the  effect  of  the  hazard  on  workers’  health  is  getting  worse  (seriousness  of 

health effects and/or the number of people affected).

 Ex p E r t  f o r E c a S t  o n  E m E r g i n g  p S y c H o S o c i a l  r i S k S

The  forecast  on  psychosocial  risks  reflects  the  views  of  experts  in  the  field  who 
completed three questionnaire-based surveys in 2003 and 2004 [12]. 62 experts in the 
first  survey  round,  and  79  experts  in  the  second  and  third  rounds,  were  invited  to 
participate in the survey. The response rate varied between 45% (first survey round), 
27% (second survey round) and 21% (third survey round). The experts represented 13 
Member States of the European Union, the USA and International Labour Organisation 
(ILO), and they had at least five years’ experience in the field of OSH and psychosocial 
risks. They mostly worked in the field of psychological research and many were also 
involved  in  consulting,  teaching  and  training  activities.  Some  had  roles  in  labour 
inspection and policy development.

7.1. 

Three questionnaire-
based surveys were 
carried out to identify 
emerging psychosocial 
risks

102

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

The experts rated eight 
risks as strongly 
emerging and 19 as 
emerging

In  the  first  round,  experts  were  asked  to  propose  and  prioritise  risks  which,  in  their 
opinion,  are  emerging.  Based  on  the  results  of  the  first  survey  round,  a  second 
questionnaire was developed. All items mentioned in the first round were fed-back 
and  rated  by  the  experts  in  the  second  survey  round.  A  five-point  Likert  scale  (1  = 
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was employed. This procedure was repeated 
in the third survey round. The parameters of interest were:

n   the mean value of the ratings given to each item: the higher the mean value, the 

stronger the agreement that the item is an emerging risk;

n   the standard deviation of the mean value; a reduction of standard deviation from 

round two to round three indicates an increase in consensus.

The risk was considered as strongly agreed to be emerging if the mean value of the rating 
was above four (MV > 4), and as an emerging risk, when a mean value was between 3.25 
and 4 (3.25 < MV ≤ 4). The comments that the experts added to their ratings provide 
additional background information about how the ratings should be interpreted.

Results

The experts proposed 42 psychosocial risks, and rated eight of these risks as strongly 
emerging  and  19  as  emerging.  The  survey  results  were  supplemented  by  literature 
reviews on the key topics identified by the experts. The prevalence of the emerging risks, 
health and safety outcomes, need for future research, as well as examples of possible 
preventive measures at national and company level were analysed. The survey and the 
literature  studies  reveal  that  emerging  psychosocial  OSH  risks  are  often  the  result  of 
technical or organisational change. Socio-economic, demographic and political changes, 
including the current phenomenon of ‘globalisation’, are also significant factors.

The  main  emerging  psychosocial  risks  identified  in  the  forecast  (see  Figure  38)  were 
further grouped into the following five areas: 

(1) New forms of employment contracts and job insecurity 

(2) The OSH risks for the ageing workforce

(3) Work intensification, high workload and work pressure

(4) High emotional demands at work, violence and harassment

(5) Poor work-life balance 

Figure 38. The 10 most important emerging psychosocial risks identified in the survey [12]

s
n
o
i
t
a
i
v
e
d
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
s
d
n
a
e
l
a
c
s

i

t
r
e
k
i
L
t
n
o
p
5
-
o
t
-
1
e
h
t
n
o
s
e
u
l
a
v
n
a
e
M

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

4.56

4.38

4.25

4.25

4.19

4.13

4.07

4.06

4.00

4.00

Precarious 
contracts in 
the context 
of unstable 
labour 
market

Increased 
workers' 
vulnerability 
in the 
context of 
globalisation

New 
forms of 
employment 
contracts

Feeling 
of job 
insecurity

Ageing 
workforce

Long 
working 
hours

Work 
intensiﬁcation

Lean 
production 
and 
outsourcing

High 
emotional 
demands at 
work 

Poor 
work-life 
balance

103

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

An increasing number of 
jobs are described as 
precarious

New forms of employment contracts and job insecurity 

The experts said that the use of more precarious employment contracts, together with 
the trend towards ‘lean’ production (producing goods and services with less waste) and 
outsourcing (using outside organisations for certain tasks), can affect workers’ health 
and safety. Workers on precarious contracts tend to carry out the most hazardous jobs, 
work in poorer conditions and receive less OSH training. The experts also highlighted 
the risk of marginalisation as a result of successive short-term contracts and the resulting 
discontinuity  in  careers.  Workers’  isolation  caused  by  new  working  patterns  such  as 
telework  or  temporary  work  was  also  put  forward.  In  unstable  labour  markets  these 
developments increase workers’ feelings of job insecurity, which augments the level of 
work-related stress and may have a negative impact on workers’ health.  

Scientific literature supports the results of the experts’ forecast. An increasing number 
of jobs are described as precarious, and in scientific literature this is often associated 
with ‘non-standard’ forms of work, such as temporary, part-time, on-call, day-hire or 
short-term  positions,  and  with  the  increase  in  the  prevalence  of  self-employment. 
Additionally,  home-working  and  individuals  with  multiple  jobs  contribute  to  the 
increasing significance of non-standard forms of work. Research shows that workers on 
non-standard contracts face higher job insecurity, poorer job conditions, higher job 
demands  and  a  higher  risk  of  occupational  accidents.  Stress-related  tension  and 
exhaustion also appear to be more severe for precariously employed workers than for 
workers in permanent jobs, although it should be noted that there are studies where 
this has not been proven. Some of the figures presented in this report indicate that 
workers on permanent contracts report higher levels of work-related stress than short-
term workers. More research is needed in this area.  

There is a growth in employment that has a low level of continuity certainty, mainly 
due to the rise in the number of temporary contracts in recent decades, although this 
trend is not seen in all European countries [61, 62]. According to the Eurostat data [62], 
temporary contracts are most common in Spain (33% of all employees had this kind of 
contract in 2005), and quite common in Portugal (19%), Finland (16.5%) and Sweden 
(16%). They are rather rare in the United Kingdom (6%), Luxembourg (5.3%) and Ireland 
(4%) (see Figure 39). Among EU12 countries, this kind of work is more popular in Poland 
(26% in 2005) and Slovenia (17%), and less widespread in Malta (4%) and Estonia (3%). 
Overall,  in  2005,  14.5%  of  employees  from  EU25  countries  had  a  temporary  job.  By 
sector,  the  Fourth  EWCS  (2005)  [14]  showed  that  temporary  contracts  were  most 
prevalent in hotels and restaurants (21%), education and health (15%) and the wholesale 
and retail trade (14%).

104

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 39.  Temporary employment in EU 15 [62]

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

i

m
u
g
l
e
B

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

n
i
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

y
l
a
t
I

1992

2000

2005

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

*
d
n
a
l
n
i
F

*
n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

* Note: 1995 instead of 1992 for Finland and Sweden 

Generally, women work on temporary contracts slightly more often than men. Eurostat 
data [62] showed that in 2005, in all EU25 countries, 15% of women and 14% of men had a 
temporary job. There are, however, differences between individual countries. Figure 40 
shows those European countries where the differences between the numbers of men 
and women working on short-term contracts are more significant. In 2005, temporary 
work was more common among women in Cyprus (19% women vs. 9% men), Finland 
(20% women vs. 13% men) and Italy (15% women vs. 10% men), and more widespread 
among men in Latvia (11% men vs. 6% women) and Lithuania (8% men vs. 4% women). 

Figure 40.  Temporary employment by gender in selected European countries (2005) [62]

% of employees

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

i

m
u
g
l
e
B

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

Men

Women

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

e
c
e
e
r
G

n
i
a
p
S

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
o
P

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

n
e
d
e
w
S

5
2
U
E

105

police : 

11 pt

Myriad pro semibold condensed 

ordre des couleurs : 

dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 

dans l’ordre)

légende : 

à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Ageing workers are more 
vulnerable to hazards 
resulting from poor 
working conditions

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH risks for the ageing workforce

The proportion of young and old people in the European population is changing. The 
numbers of young people are decreasing in proportion to a growing elderly population 
(see  Figure  41)  [63,  64].  Low  birth  rates  have  intensified  this  change  [63,  65].  One 
consequence of an ageing population and higher retirement ages (in some countries) 
is that Europe’s workforce is also ageing. From 1995-2002, the number of those aged 
15-24  in  work  increased  by  0.36  million  (2%)  for,  while  those  workers  aged  55-64 
increased by 2.38 million (16%) [66]. From the occupational safety and health point of 
view, questions about the work performance of older workers arise. Do older workers 
have more accidents at work? Are there any differences in health between young and 
older workers? Are older workers able to carry out certain occupations? 

The  experts  participating  in  the  forecast  suggested  that  ageing  workers  are  more 
vulnerable  to  the  hazards  resulting  from  poor  working  conditions  than  younger 
employees. The failure to provide ageing workers with life-long learning opportunities 
also increases the mental and emotional demands made upon them. This may affect 
their health and increase the chance of work-related accidents. However, the literature 
sources  stress  that  general  conclusions  about  the  performance  of  ageing  workers 
cannot be drawn because of differences in their working environments and conditions, 
and  individual  differences  in  relation  to  decreasing  and  increasing  abilities  linked  to 
age. In order to promote healthy and safe work during a prolonged working life, good 
working conditions have to be provided and need to be tailored to the needs of each 
employee, including ageing workers.

Figure 41.  Age distribution in Europe from 1960 to 2060 [64]

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

7.9.2

15.2

35

15.8

24.9

1960

0 - 14

15 - 24

25 - 49

50 - 64

65 - 79

80 +

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

Work intensification

10.7

15.4

32.7

15.5

23.7

1975

12.3

17.2

36.9

13

17.1

2000 

16.2

21.3

31.1

10.5

14.4

2025

18.6

18.6

28.2

9.7

13.3

2060 

year

Experts involved in the forecast say that work intensification is related to the reduction in 
jobs and job insecurity, and also to the growing amount of information that workers must 
handle  because  of  the  growth  of  Information  and  Communication  Technologies  (ICT) 
used in the workplace. As a result, many workers have to cope with higher workloads and 
greater pressure at work. The experts said that some workers, particularly those employed 
in new forms of employment or in highly competitive fields, may fear being monitored 
more closely for efficiency and output and, as a result, tend to work longer hours to finish 
tasks without proper compensation or social support. 

many workers have to 
cope with higher 
workloads and greater 
pressure at work

106

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

High emotional demands 
may be especially 
problematic in the 
growing and increasingly 
competitive healthcare 
and service sectors

Both the figures presented in this report and the 
literature review show that work intensification has been 
one of the most significant of the many changes that 
have happened in companies in most developed 
countries since the 1980s.  The relevant literature broadly 
associates work intensification with deterioration in 
working conditions, whether this is assessed in terms of 
physical or psychological discomfort, nuisance or 
occupational risk.

High emotional demands at work, including 
violence and harassment

Some experts involved in the Delphi study are of the 
opinion that although high emotional demands on 
workers are not new, they are a matter of great 
concern, particularly in the growing and increasingly 
competitive healthcare and service sectors. Violence and harassment at work were 
identified as contributing factors to the increased emotional demands being made on 
workers. Research shows that for both the victims and witnesses, violence and 
harassment result in stress and may seriously affect both mental and physical health.  

A growing social preoccupation and awareness of the problem of third party violence 
and harassment at work has been observed in recent years. There is a need for a further, 
deeper analysis of the problem, sharing experiences across sectors and countries, as 
well as disseminating appropriate preventive measures.

Poor work-life balance

The experts stressed that all of the changes in work organisation mentioned above 
may lead to higher pressure on workers and could spill over into private life. The 
literature  sources  also  confirm  that  uncertain  casual  work,  high  workloads  and 
variable or unpredictable working hours, especially when there is no possibility for 
the  employee  to  adjust  them  to  their  personal  needs,  can  lead  to  a  conflict 
between  the  demands  of  work  and  private  life.  The  result  is  a  poor  work-life 
balance, which has a detrimental effect on a worker’s well-being. 

Other phenomena, such as more 
women joining the workforce, 
contribute to the fact that a poor 
work-life  balance  is  affecting 
more and more people. The 2005 
study indicates that the number 
of women taking on management 
roles has been steadily rising for 
the  last  ten  years.  Overall, 
between  1991  and  2005  the 
proportion  of  women  in  the 
workforce grew (40% in 1991, 44% 
in 2005) (see Figure 42) [19].

Changes in work 
organisation may lead to 
higher pressure on 
workers and can spill 
over into private life

107

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

y
t
E
f
a
S

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

d
n
a

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

Figure 42.  EU workforce by gender [19]

Millions

250

300

150

100

50

0

40.1%

41.7%

42.7%

44.2%

59.9%

58.3%

57.3%

55.8%

1991 (EU12)

1995 (EU15)

2000 (EU15)

2005 (EU25)

Male

Female

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

c o m b i n E d   E x p o S u r E  t o  p S y c H o S o c i a l   
a n d   p H y S i c a l   r i S k S 

7.2.

Psychosocial risks were also mentioned in European Risk Observatory’s expert forecast 
which  dealt  with  physical  risks.  The  expert  forecast  on  emerging  physical  risks  related  to 
occupational safety and health, carried out in 2002-2004, was based on a three consecutive 
questionnaire-based survey following the Delphi method [67].  

Growing concern about multi-factorial issues and combined exposure to musculoskeletal 
disorders (MSDs) risk factors and psychosocial risk factors was particularly emphasised in 
this forecast. According to the experts, ‘job insecurity’ and ‘fear of the future’ resulting from 
an unstable labour market both accentuate the effects of physical risk factors such as poor 
ergonomic design, thus contributing to an increase in the incidence of MSDs. 

The relevant research shows that workers highly exposed to a combination of occupational 
physical and psychosocial risk factors are more likely to report MSDs than workers highly 
exposed to just one of these factors. Typical psychosocial factors include: job demands 
that  are  too  high  or  too  low;  complex  tasks  leading  to 
mental exhaustion; high time pressure; low job control and 
low decision level; poor support from colleagues and from 
the hierarchy; fear of downsizing, job insecurity and fear of 
unemployment; and violence and harassment at work.

The  physical  characteristics  of  workplaces,  such  as  poor 
ergonomic  design  of  human–machine  interfaces,  also 
augment workers’ mental and emotional strain. Complaints 
of problems with the shoulder/neck region and low back 
area due to poor physical and psychosocial aspects of the 
working  environment  are  often  seen  in  workers  in  the 
healthcare sector, for instance, among nurses and dentists, 

There is a growing 
concern for multi-
factorial issues and 
combined exposure to 
mSDs risk factors and 
psychosocial risk factors

108

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

call centre agents and visual display terminal users. An example of the kind of workplace 
where multiple exposure to these factors is common is in the increasing number of call 
centres, where workers can be exposed to prolonged sitting, background noise, inadequate 
headsets,  poor  ergonomics,  low  job  control,  high  time  pressure,  and  high  mental  and 
emotional  demands.  MSDs,  varicose  veins,  nose  and  throat  diseases,  voice  disorders, 
fatigue, stress and burnout are often seen in call centre agents. 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

Physical discomfort among visual display terminal users – a study of 
prevalence and relation to psychosocial and physical/ergonomic 
factors

The  study  was  aimed  at  assessing  the  relationship  between  psychosocial  and 
physical/ergonomics risk factors and the visual and musculoskeletal discomforts 
among  video  display  terminal  (VDT)  users  in  a  semiconductor  manufacturing 
company (n = 119). Based on the data collected by means of questionnaire surveys, 
multivariate  logistic  regression  models  were  developed  to  predict  physical 
discomforts of 11 body areas. 

The prevalence of upper extremity discomfort was 42%, which is similar to the 
prevalence  among  VDT  users 
in  telecommunication  companies  and  the 
newspaper  industry.  Full-time  VDT  users  (data-entry  personnel,  programming 
engineers, and CAD engineers) had significantly higher rates of physical discomfort 
(66%) than part-time VDT users (fabrication engineers) (41%). Physical/ergonomic 
variables were found to be more dominant than psychosocial factors for visual 
and upper extremity discomforts. However, psychosocial variables were dominant 
for back and lower extremity discomfort when compared with the subjectively 
characterised  physical/ergonomic  factors.  Because  both  physical/ergonomics 
variables and psychosocial factors and some of their interactions were associated 
with visual and musculoskeletal discomfort, integrating psychosocial prevention 
with  physical/ergonomic  design  improvements  is  an  effective  approach  to 
reducing the prevalence of discomfort.

Source:  Hsu,  W.-H.  and  Wang,  M.-J.:  ‘Physical  discomfort  among  visual  display 
terminal users in a semiconductor manufacturing company: A Study of Prevalence 
and Relation to Psychosocial and Physical/Ergonomic Factors’, American Industrial 
Hygiene Association Journal, vol. 64, pp. 276–282, 2003.

109

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

8.

COSTS OF STRESS-RELATED  
HEALTH PROBLEMS

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

Studies suggest that 
between 50% and 60% 
of all lost working days 
are linked to work-
related stress

Health and safety at work is not only essential for workers’ well-being but is also very 
important economically to companies and society. Studies suggest that between 50% 
and  60%  of  all  lost  working  days  have  some  link  with  work-related  stress  [68].  This 
represents  a  huge  cost  in  terms  of  both  human  distress  and  impaired  economic 
performance. In 2002, the European Commission reported that the yearly cost of work-
related stress in the EU15 was EUR 20,000 million each year [69]. Some national statistics 
are presented below. 

France

It has been estimated that in 2000 for a French working population of 23.53 million, 
between 220,500 and 335,000 (1% to 1.4%) people were affected by a stress-related 
illness. Depending on whether figures are taken from the lower or the upper end of 
the scale, the cost to society of occupational stress is somewhere between EUR 830 
and EUR 1,656 million, the equivalent of between 10% and 20% of all expenditure by 
the Occupational Accident and Disease branch of the social security system [70].

Germany

In Germany, the cost of psychological disorders (with depression accounting for 37% of all 
of them) was estimated to be EUR 3,000 million in 2001 [71].  

The Netherlands

To assess the economic aspects of poor working conditions, a special model on societal 
costs of working conditions has been developed [72]. The model assesses the impact of 
poor working conditions on factors such as health, occupational accidents, companies’ 
performance  and  investment  in  improvements.  The  outcomes  of  poor  worker  health 
were assessed in relation to medical care, lost working days, absenteeism, disability and 
company performance (see Figure 43).

Figure 43.  Model of costs of poor working conditions [72]

→

→

→→

Investment in 
improvement

Companies’ 
performance

Working
conditions

→

Health 
eﬀects

→

→

Lost working days
Absenteeism
Disability

→

→
→

COSTS
(ﬁnancial eﬀects)

→
→

→

→

Medical care

→

Occupational 
accidents

Material damage
Liability
Legal costs

police : 
Myriad pro semibold condensed 
11 pt

ordre des couleurs : 
dernier dossier dans la palette
(la couleur du fond est la première 
de la palette, les autres suivent 
dans l’ordre)

légende : 
à droite ou en dessous du graphique

Les repères dépassent de 2 mm et 
tous les traits sont à 0.5 pt
les barres n’ont pas de contours

        carrés sans contours 4x4 mm

112

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

The analysis of the data from 2001 indicates that the estimated total cost of poor working 
conditions in the Netherlands that year was up to EUR 6,000 million, equivalent to 2.96% 
of GNP.  Most of the costs to society of poor working conditions come from work-related 
absence and disability, which are mainly (83% of the all diagnoses) caused by musculoskeletal 
disorders (43%) and psychological diseases (40%). Other diagnoses associated with high 
costs were heart and vascular diseases (5%), problems with the nervous system including 
the eyes and ears (4%), and occupational accidents (4%). The detailed analysis is presented 
in Table 50. 

Table 50. Estimated total costs of work-related illness per worker in 2001, the Netherlands [72]

All sectors and services

EUR per worker

% of total

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

77 .3

29.8

34.4

5.8

7.3

22 .7

6.8

8.9

0.6

0.1

5.8

0.3

0.2

100

Costs as a result of work-related illness

1,368

Cost of resulting absenteeism

Cost of occupational disability

Cost of reintegration grants

Cost of curative health care

Cost of prevention

Preventive occupational health and safety (OSH) measures

Company investment and expenses for prevention

OSH research and development

Judicial cost

Administration by companies

Legislation and inspection

Subventions and grants for improvement

Total costs per worker per year

United Kingdom

527

609

103

129

400

120

157

10

2

102

6

3

1,768

In the United Kingdom, 70 million days are lost every year through poor mental health, 
and 10 million of these are the result of anxiety, depression, and stress which, according 
to employees, is directly caused by their work or working conditions [10].

In  2005/6  work-related  stress,  depression  and  anxiety  cost  Great  Britain  in  excess  of 
£530 million.  The number of workers who had sought medical advice for what they 
believed to be work-related stress increased by 110,000 to an estimated 530,000 [73].   

113

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

Recognition of occupational stress as a cause of heart attack and suicide in 
France

In 2007, the French Social Security recognised a heart attack as an “occupational 
accident, mainly due to chronic stress and multiple efforts resulting from 
his function as team leader”. The victim, aged 52, died 20 days after collapsing 
at his workplace, a pneumatic plant, with a myocardial infarct. The head of the 
production unit refuted the link between work and the infarct and consequently 
the Social Security, in its first decision, had refused to recognise the infarct as an 
occupational  accident.  However,  the  Social  Security  reviewed  and  changed  its 
decision on the basis of medical evidence presented after the widow appeal. 

A few months earlier the management of a car company had refused to recognise 
the  suicide  of  a  technician  employed  in  one  of  its  centres  as  an  occupational 
accident.  But  the  Social  Security  had  decided  that  there  were  pressures  and 
stressors in the workplace that had triggered the worker’s extreme action. Also, 
according to the newspaper Le Monde in September 2007, the regional health 
insurance representation of the “Haut-de-Seine” region confirmed that 3 suicides 
among  workers  in  a  car  company  had  been  recognised  as  occupational 
accidents.

Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-955210,0.html

114

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

LEGISLATION9.

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Framework Directive 89/391/EEC

Work-related  stress  is  not  specifically  mentioned  in  European  legislation.  However,  the 
main  document  referring  to  this  issue,  the  EU  Health  and  Safety  Framework  Directive 
89/391/EEC,  says  that  the  employers  have  a  legal  obligation  “to  ensure  the  safety  and 
health of workers in every aspect related to their work”, and that prevention should include 
“avoiding risks”, “combating the risk at source”, and “assessing risks”. Because work-related 
stress is a risk factor, the Framework Directive refers to it, too. 

Article 6 of the Framework Directive obliges employers to:

n   “adapt the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the 
choice  of  work  equipment  and  the  choice  of  working  and  production  methods, 
with a view, in particular, to alleviating work and work at a predetermined work-rate 
and to reducing their effects on health” (&2(d)).

n   “ensure that the planning and introduction of new technologies are the subject of 
consultation  with  the  workers  and/or  their  representatives,  as  regards  the 
consequences of the choice of equipment, the working conditions and the working 
environment for the safety and health of workers” (& 3 (c)).

Framework agreements

The  “Framework  agreement  on  work-related  stress”  [74]  was  signed  by  the 
social  partners  in  October  2004.  Its  objective  is  “to  provide  employers  and  workers 
with a framework to identify and prevent or manage problems of work-related stress”. 
The  agreement  commits  the  members  of  all  signatory  organisations  (workers’  and 
employers’ representatives at EU level) to implement formulated demands to prevent 
work-related stress within three years, in accordance with the procedures and practices 
specific to management and labour in the Member States and in the countries of the 
European Economic Area.

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

116

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

The  “Framework  agreement  on  harassment  and  violence  at  work”  [75]  was 
signed in April 2007. The aim of the document is to:

n   increase  the  awareness  and  understanding  of  employers,  workers  and  their 

representatives of workplace harassment and violence,

n   provide  employers,  workers  and  their  representatives  at  all  levels  with  an  action-
oriented framework to identify, prevent and manage problems of harassment and 
violence at work.

The  members  of  all  the  organisations  which  signed  this  document  are  obliged  to 
implement its demands (preventing and managing harassment and violence at work) 
within three years of the signing of the document, in accordance with the procedures 
and practices specific to management and labour in the Member States and in the 
countries of the European Economic Area.

The “European Pact for Mental Health and Well-being” established in June 2008 
by  the  European  Commission  [76]  invites  policy  makers,  social  partners  and  other 
stakeholders  to  take  action  on  mental  health  in  the  workplace  by  improving  work 
organisation,  organisational cultures and  leadership practices, implementing mental 
health and well-being programmes, and recruiting and supporting people with mental 
health problems. 

Some other EU documents related to stress at work

The stress issue is also mentioned in the following European documents:

n   Display  Screen  Directive  87/391/EEC  (“employers  shall  be  obliged  to  perform  an 
analysis  of  workstations  in  order  to  evaluate  the  safety  and  health  conditions  to 
which they give rise for their workers, particularly as regards possible risks to eyesight, 
physical problems and problems of mental stress”).

n   Organisation of Working Time Directive 93/104/EC – Article 13: Pattern of work

n   The  international  standards  ISO  10075,  Part  1  (EN  ISO  10075-1:2000  Ergonomic 
principles related to mental workload – Part 1: General terms and definitions) and 
Part 2 (EN ISO 10075-2:2000 Ergonomic principles related to metal workload – Part 2: 
Design principles) 

National  legislations  related  to  psychosocial  issues  (work-related  stress,  harassment 
and violence) have also been developed in many of the Member States. For instance, 
new Italian OSH legislation (introduced in April 2008) explicitly mentions work-related 
stress  which  has  to  be  included  in  any  risk  assessment  (art.28),  “according  to  the 
contents of the European agreement of 8.10.2004”.  

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

117

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

CONCLUSIONS10.

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

European and national statistics related to work-related stress and psychosocial risks 
presented in this report indicate that stress at work may be a problem for a significant 
number  of  European  workers.  It  has  knock-on  effects  for  health  problems,  work 
absence and lower productivity, and generates cost for enterprises and societies.  

In  the  surveys  carried  out  every  five  years  by  the  European  Foundation  for  the 
Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions,  respondents  rated  stress  as  the 
second most prevalent threat posed by the working environment, preceded only by 
musculoskeletal problems. According to the fourth EWCS (2005), stress is experienced 
by  22%  of  working  Europeans  on  average.  Although  there  was  a  decrease  in  the 
average level of work-related stress in the whole EU in 2005, this trend was observed 
mainly  in  the  EU15  countries.  The  average  level  of  work-related  stress  in  EU12  has 
increased in the last few years. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between 
individual  countries  from  both  groups  in  the  levels  of  stress  and  the  levels  of  other 
stress indicators. An analysis of national data is essential to gain a clearer picture and 
deeper understanding of this problem in each of the EU Member States.  

Future research should focus on: 

1.   Further investigation of the level of awareness and the prevalence of psychosocial 
risks  and  work-related  stress,  as  well  as  of  preventive  measures  employed  by  the 
Member States. 

2.   Analysing  cultural  differences  related  to  the  perception  and  reporting  of  work-

related stress and psychosocial risks in workplaces. 

3.   Exploring different possible indicators of work-related stress.

4.   Developing  appropriate  preventive  measures  (at  national  and  company  level)  to 
deal with work-related stress and psychosocial risks, and methods of assessing their 
efficiency. 

5.   Investigating,  especially  in  longitudinal  studies,  the  possible  effects  on  workers’ 
health and safety of emerging risks and current trends in the world of work, such as 
work intensification, job insecurity, third party violence, harassment, demographic 
changes including an ageing workforce and more women in the workplace, new 
forms of employment contracts such as temporary and part-time work, and variable, 
irregular or unpredictable working hours.

Perceived risk from occupational stress: a survey of 15 European countries

The analysis aimed to assess whether socio-cultural factors influence the level of 
work-related stress perceived by workers (according to the 3rd EWCS, 2000) from 
15  European  countries.  The  results  indicated  that,  indeed,  factors  such  as 
demographics, perceived job conditions, and job satisfaction do not explain all of 
the differences between countries in terms of work-related stress. This means that 
the level of perceived stress and health problems in a given country are influenced 
by cultural norms, such as risk tolerance, or the role of media in highlighting these 
health issues. It turned out, for instance, that workers in Austria and Ireland are 
least likely to believe that work causes stress and stress-related health problems, 
whereas workers in Greece are most likely to believe it. 

Source:  Daniels,  K.  Perceived  risk  from  occupational  stress:  a  survey  of 
15 European countries. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004;61;467-470.

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

An analysis of national 
data is essential to give a 
clearer picture and 
deeper understanding of 
stress-related problems 
in each of the EU member 
States

120

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

MORE INFORMATION11.

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

European Week 2002 “Preventing psychosocial risks at work”

In 2002, stress and psychosocial risks at work were chosen as the focus of a campaign 
organised and co-ordinated by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in all 
EU  Member  States  and  other  European  countries  (8).    More  information  about  this 
campaign, as well as a wide range of publications related to stress and psychosocial issues 
are available on http://ew2002.osha.europa.eu/.

The Agency’s publications which deal with work-related stress and 
psychosocial risks:

n   Factsheets: Research on work-related stress (Facts 8); Work-related stress (Facts 22); 
Bullying at work (Facts 23); Violence at work (Facts 24); Practical Advice for Workers 
on Tackling Work-related Stress and its Causes (Facts 31);  How to Tackle Psychosocial 
Issues  and  Reduce  Work-related  Stress  (Facts  32);  Expert  forecast  on  emerging 
psychosocial risks related to occupational safety and health (OSH) (Facts 74). 

n   Reports: “Research on Work-related Stress”; “How to Tackle Psychosocial Issues and 
Reduce  Work-related  Stress”;  “Good  Practice:  Prevention  of  psychosocial  risks  and 
stress at work in practice”.

n   Magazine “Working on Stress” (no 5)

n   Forum “The Changing World of Work” (no 5)

n   Publications on work-related stress related to different groups of workers: 
“Gender issues in safety and health at work - a review”; “Young workers – Facts and 
figures”; “Literature study on migrant workers”.

All the information published by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is 
available  on  http://osha.europa.eu/  .  The  work  carried  out  by  the  European  Risk 
Observatory is available on http://riskobservatory.osha.europa.eu.

(8)   The  Agency’s  campaigns  are  aimed  at  rising  the  awareness  of  a  given  topic,  and  provides  a  good 
opportunity to focus attention on it, as well as provide people involved in occupational safety and 
health matters (safety and health institutions and occupational insurance organisations, trade unions 
and  employers’  organisations,  companies,  managers,  employees  and  safety  representatives)  with 
relevant information.

122

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY12.

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

The data presented in this report have been collected from surveys carried out at the EU 
level, as well as from studies carried out in individual Member States. All statistics have 
been collected from published sources or sources available online.

The most important types of data sources were as follows.

Surveys

European surveys on working conditions 

The  European  working  conditions  surveys  are  carried  out  every  five  years  by  the 
European  Foundations  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working 
Conditions. The first three surveys (1990, 1995 and 2000) included only the old EU 
members. However, in 2001 the survey applying the same methodology was carried 
out for the first time in candidate countries. It was published under the title “Working 
conditions  in  the  acceding  and  candidates  countries”.  In  2005,  the  European  survey 
was carried out in all 25 EU countries, and in two acceding countries (Romania and 
Bulgaria).

The  European  surveys  provide  information  on  psychosocial  and  physical  working 
conditions in the European countries. They contain questions concerning work-related 
stress, as well as phenomena closely related to stress, such as overall fatigue, anxiety, 
and  irritability.  Information  concerning  stress-provoking  job  characteristics,  such  as 
tight deadlines, working at very high speed, lack of job control and others can also be 
obtained from the database of these surveys. In the present report, the results of the 
European  Surveys  of  Working  Conditions,  carried  out  in  1991,  1995,  2000/2001  and 
2005, as well as comparative analyses of the results of these surveys developed by the 
European  Foundation  for  Improving  Living  and  Working  Conditions  -  for  example 
“Fifteen years of working conditions in the EU: charting the trends” - were used.

Additionally, data collected by the EUROSTAT, as well as the international study “Working 
Life Barometer in the Baltic Countries” were used. 

National surveys on working conditions and health

In some countries it was possible to use data from national surveys. The weak point of 
this type of data is the fact that comparison is difficult. Nevertheless, they may offer 
deeper and more detailed characteristics of a given country. Examples of this kind of 
sources are:

n   In Germany: the BIBB/IAB surveys. These are large representative surveys of 0.1% of 
the  labour  force  in  Germany  gathering  information  about  qualifications,  career 
history and current occupational situations.

n   In France: Working Conditions surveys carried out by the French Ministry of labour in 
1978, 1984, 1991, 1998, and the “Medical surveillance of occupational risk” survey. The 
latter were compiled in 1987, 1994, and 2003, and covered, among other things, such 
as working time and organisational constraints.

n   In Spain: “National survey of working conditions”. The first edition of this survey was 

in 1987 and the sixth edition, the most recent, was published in 2007.

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

124

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Administrative data sources

In  some  countries,  administrative  national  data  sources  have  been  used  to  present 
statistical  data  concerning  work-related  problems,  such  as  mental  disorders  like 
depression or anxiety. 

This report summarises the most important information collected at international and 
national level in order to obtain, as far as possible, a picture of stress that is both reliable 
and  general.  An  attempt  was  also  made  to  identify  the  trends  that  underpin  work-
related  stress  so  that  it  would  be  possible  to  forecast  its  future  dynamics  and  to 
determine the necessary preventive measures. Statistics from European and national 
sources were complemented by examples of initiatives and research on work-related 
stress. 

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

125

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

REFERENCES

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

128

[1]  Selye, H. The Stress of Life, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956.

[2]  Lazarus, R.S., Folkman S. Stress, appraisal and coping, New York, Springer Publishing 

Company, 1984.

[3]  Factsheet 22: Work-related stress, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; 

http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/factsheets/22/view 

[4]  Schnall, K. Belkić, P. Landsbergis, Baker, D. (Eds). The workplace and cardiovascular 
disease, Occupational Medicine: State of the art - reviews, 15, 1 (January-March), 2000,  
24-46.

[5]  Theorell,  T.,  Tsutsumi,  A.,  Hallquist,  J.,  Reuterwall,  C.,  Hogstedt,  C.,  Fredlund, 
P., Emlund, N., Johnson, J. V., at al. Decision Latitude, Job Strain, and Myocardial 
Infarction: A study of working Men in Stockholm, American Journal of Public Health, 
88, 1998, 382-388.

[6]  Bongers, P. M., de Winter, C., Kompier, M. A. J. Psychosocial factors at work and 
musculoskeletal disease, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 19, 
1993, 297-312.

[7]  Kawakami,  N.,  Tanigawa,  T.,  Araki  S.,  Nakata,  A.,  Sakurai,  S.,  Yokoyama,  K.,  Morita, 
Y.  Effects  of  Job  Strain  on  Helper-Inducer  (D4+CD29+)and  Suppressor-Inducer 
(CD4+CD45RA+)  T  Cells  in  Japanese  Blue-Collar  Workers,  Psychotherapy  and 
Psychosomatics, 66, 1997, 192-198.

[8]  Boedeker, W., Klindworth, H. Hearts and minds at work in Europe. A European work-
related  public  health  report  on  cardiovascular  diseases  and  mental  ill  health.  BKK 
Bundesverband, Federal Association of Company Health Insurance Funds, Essen, 
2007. 

[9]  Maslach, C.; Jackson, S. E. The measurement of experienced burnout, Journal of 
Occupational Behaviour, 2, 1981, 99-113 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~sjacksox/PDF/
TheMeasurementofExperiencedBurnout.pdf 

[10]  The  Sainsbury  Centre  for  Mental  Health,  Mental  health  at  work:  developing  the 
business case, Policy Paper 8, London, December 2007. http://www.scmh.org.uk/
publications/MH_at_work.aspx?ID=575 

[11]  Houtman  I.  Work-related  stress.  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of 

Living and Working Conditions, 2005. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ 

[12]  European  Agency  for  Safety  and  Health  at  Work,  Expert  forecast  on  emerging 
psychosocial  risks  related  to  occupational  health  and  safety,  Office  for  Official 
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2007. http://osha.europa.
eu/en/publications/reports/7807118/view 

[13]  Karasek, R. A. & Theorell, T. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction 

of Working Life. New York, Basic Books, 1990.

[14]  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions, 
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey, Office for Official Publications of the 
European  Communities,  Luxembourg,  2006.  http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/
ewco/surveys/EWCS2005/index.htm 

[15]  Paoli,  P.  &  Merllié,  D.,  Third  European  Working  Conditions  Survey  2000,  European 
Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions,  Office  for 
Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  Luxembourg,  2001.  http://
eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0121.htm 

[16]  Paoli, P. & Parent-Thirion, A., Working Conditions in the acceding and candidate countries, 
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office 
for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  Luxembourg,  2003.  http://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0306.htm 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

[17]  Paoli, P. Second European Working Conditions Survey, European Foundation for the 
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of 
the  European  Communities,  Luxembourg,  1997.  http://www.eurofound.europa.
eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef9726.htm 

[18]  Daniels,  K.  Perceived  risk  from  occupational  stress:  a  survey  of  15  European 

countries, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61, 2004, 467-470. 

[19]  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions 
Fifteen years of working conditions in the EU: Charting the trends, Office for Official 
Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  Luxembourg,  2007.  http://www.
eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0685.htm 

[20]  Antila, J., Ylöstalo, P. Working Life Barometer in the Baltic Countries 2002, Ministry of 

Labour Finland Labour, Policy Studies No. 247, Helsinki, 2003.

[21]  Flemish  Workability  Monitor,  SERV,  STV-  Innovatie  &  Arbeid,  Belgium  (Flanders), 

2004. http://www.serv.be/uitgaven/603.pdf 

[22]  Assessment  of  the  situation  regarding  physical  and  mental  diseases  of  the  working 
labour.  CYMAR  Market  Research  Ltd.,  on  behalf  of  the  Department  of  Labour 
Inspection  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Insurance.  9-26/10/2006. 
Unpublished report. 

[23]  Health and functional capacity in Finland: Baseline results of the Health 2000 health 
examination survey. National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, 2004. http://www.ktl.
fi/attachments/suomi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja_b/2004b12.pdf    

[24]  L’exposition aux risques et aux pénibilités du travail de 1994 à 2003. Premiers résultats de 
l’enquête  SUMER  2003.  DARES,  Premières  informations  et  premières  synthèses,  2004  
http://www.travail.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/publication_pips_200412_n-52-1_
exposition-risques-penibilites-travail.pdf

[25]  Le  stress  au  travail,  ND  5021,  INRS,  2003,  http://www.inrs.fr.  Le  stress  au  travail, 

dossier web, http://www.inrs.fr/dossiers/stress.html 

[26]  Pathologies  psychiques  liées  au  travail:  quelle  reconnaissance  en  Europe,  EUROGIP, 

Paris, 2004. http://www.eurogip.fr/docs/DP_Pathologies_psychiques.pdf 

[27]  CHINI  B.  Les  facteurs  de  stress  professionnel.  Enquête  auprès  de  salariés  des 
services interentreprises. Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de l’Environnement, 
64, 5, 2003, 297-309.

[28]  Summary  of  injury,  illness  and  fatality  statistics,  2005-2006.  Health  and  Safety 
Authority, Dublin, 2007.http://publications.hsa.ie/index.asp?locID=17&docID=234 

[29]  Working conditions and risks in Latvia, 2005-2007. A/S “Inspecta Latvia” & RSU DVVI, 

Ryga, 2007.

[30]  Eglite, M. Work-related stress in Latvia, Institute of Occupational and Environmental 
Health,  Riga  Stradins  University,  Report  provided  to  the  European  Agency  for 
Safety and Health at Work, 2007.

[31]  V Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo. INSHT Spain, 2003. http://www.
oect.es/Observatorio/Contenidos/InformesPropios/Desarrollados/Ficheros/
Informe_V_ENCT.pdf 

[32]  VI Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo. INSHT Spain, 2007. http://www.
oect.es/Observatorio/Contenidos/InformesPropios/Desarrollados/Ficheros/Informe_
VI_ENCT.pdf

[33]  Permanent Quality of Life Survey, CBS, Statline 2006, http://statline.cbs.nl 

[34]  The  Netherlands  Working  Conditions 

Survey 

(Nationale 

Enquete 

Arbeidsomstandigheden – NEA), 2003, 2005.

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

129

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

[35]  Self Reported Work-Related Surveys (SWI), Health and Safety Statistics, HSE, http://

www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/sources.htm 

[36]  Workplace  Health  and  Safety  Survey  (WHASS),  Health  and  safety  statistics,  HSE, 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/sources.htm 

[37]  Webster,  S.  Buckley,  P.  Rose,  I.  Psychosocial  Working  Conditions  in  Britain  in  2007. 
Health  at  Work  Group,  Statistics  Branch,  HSE,  http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/
pdf/pwc2007.pdf

[38]  British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF), http://www.bohrf.org.

uk/

[39]  Työ ja terveys -haastattelututkimus (Work and health survey), Finnish Institute of 

Occupational Health, 1997-2006. 

[40]  BIBB/IAB  survey.  BIBB/IAB-Erhebungen,  Germany,  1998.  http://www.bibb.de/de/

index.htm 

[41]  Permanent Quality of Life Survey, The Netherlands, CBS, Statline 2006, http://statline.

cbs.nl 

[42]  Work  and  health  in  the  EU  -  A  statistical  portrait.  Data  1994-2002.  Eurostat  2003.  

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

[43]  N. De Cuyper N, De Witte, H, Catholic University of Louvain (Flanders), Bossut M, 
University  of  Liège  (Walloon  region).  Study  on  stress  in  the  agriculture  sector  in 
Belgium, 2002.

[44]  Stres  wśród  Polek  (Stress  among  Polish  women).  Research  International  Pentor, 

Warsaw, 2003, http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/2/1443/m1443282.pdf 

[45]  Data on temporary and permanent absence from work on account of illness, injury, 
care and other causes. Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia http://
www.ivz.si/index.php?akcija=podkategorija&p=50

[46]  Billehoj,  H.  Report  on  the  ETUCE  survey  on  teachers’  work-related  stress.  European 
Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE), Brussels, 2007. www.csee-etuce.
org 

[47]  Everaet  H. (1999). Stress bij de boerin. Werk & Welzijn, 5, 1999, 20-24. 

[48]  Notelaers, G., Hoedemakers, C., De Witte, H., and Pepermans, R. Werken binnen de 
overheidssector:  een  verhaal  met  veel  kleuren.  Vlaams  Tijdschrift  voor 
Overheidsmanagement  (Flemish  Journal  of  Government  Management),  10,  3, 
2005, 37 – 49. http://soc.kuleuven.be/io/ned/publicaties/detail/iovtom.htm

[49]  L’exposition aux risques et aux pénibilités du travail de 1994 à 2003. Premiers résultats 
de l’enquête SUMER 2003. DARES, Premières informations et premières synthèses, 
2004.

[50]  Hotels sectoral survey (ELINYAE 2006). Hellenic Institute for Occupational Health 

and Safety, http://www.elinyae.gr/en/index.jsp 

[51]  Safety and Health at the Workplace – Trade Union Experiences in Central and Eastern 
International  Labour  Organisation,  2000,  http://www.ilo.org/public/

Europe, 
english/region/eurpro/budapest/social/safety_cd/hungary/index.htm 

[52]  Cieślak  R.  and  Widerszal-Bazyl  M.  Psychospołeczne  warunki  pracy  (Psycho-social 
Working Conditions). Central Institute for Labour Protection, Warsaw, 2000, http://
www.ciop.pl/ 

[53]  Cieślak R. and Widerszal-Bazyl M.  Psychospołeczne Warunki Pracy. Normy. Klucz do 
kwestionariusza (Psychosocial Work Conditions: Manual). Central Institute for Labour 
Protection, Warsaw, 2000, http://www.ciop.pl/ 

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

130

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

[54]  Dudek,  B.  Zaburzenia  po  stresie  traumatycznym  (Post-traumatic  stress  disorders), 

Gdańsk, GWP, 2003.

[55]  Dudek B.; Koniarek, J.; Nowicka, M.; Szymczak, M. Narażenie na agresję związaną z 
pracą jako źródło stresu ostrego (Exposure to work-related aggression as a source of 
acute  stress).  Nofer  Institute  of  Occupational  Medicine,  Lodz,  1999,  http://www.
imp.lodz.pl/ 

[56]  Ministry  of  Health.  General  Direction  of  Health  (Dirección  General  de  Sanidad, 

DGS), Portugal, 2004.

[57]  Tavares,  A.S.R.  (2005)  in:  Miguel,  S.  Work-related  stress:  literature  study  report, 
Portuguese Society for Occupational Safety and Health, SPOSHO, Universidade do 
Minho, Report provided to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 
2007.

[58]  Novak,  N.  Stres  pri  delu  zdravnikov  (Physicians and stress at work),  Master  Thesis, 
University of Ljubljana, 2002. http://www.cek.ef.uni-lj.si/magister/novak371.pdf 

[59]  NEA 2003-2005, The Netherlands Centre for Occupational Diseases (NCvB), http://

www.occupationaldiseases.nl/index.php?LanguageID=1 

[60]  The  Netherlands  Centre 

for  Occupational  Diseases 

(NCvB),  http://www.

onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/organisatie/ORG1241610/

[61]  EU  LFS  Ad  hoc  module  ,  1999  http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/
data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Adhoc_modules/Adhoc_modules_mainpage.htm 

[62]  Labour Force Survey 2005; Employment rate in the EU25 was 63.8% in 2005. Statistical 
Office of the European Communities. News Release 118/2006, 11 September 2006 
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/06/118&format=
HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr 

[63]  Live longer, work longer. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 
Paris, OECD, 2006. http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,en_2649_34747_36
104426_1_1_1_1,00.html

[64]  Europe  in  figures:  Eurostat  yearbook  2005.  Statistical  Office  of  the  European 
Communities,  Luxembourg,  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European 
Communities, 2005. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu 

[65]  Buck,  H.,  Kistler,  E.  &  Mendius,  H.  G.  Demographic  change  in  the  world  of  work. 
Opportunities  for  an  innovative  approach  to  work  –  a  German  point  of  view. 
Bundesministerium  für  Bildung  und  Forschung,  Stuttgart,  2002.  http://publica.
fraunhofer.de/eprints/urn:nbn:de:0011-n-104854.pdf 

[66]  European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Ageing workers and occupational 
safety and health. Prevention report. Luxembourg; Office for Official Publications of 
the European Communities, in preparation.

[67]  Expert forecast on emerging physical risks related to occupational health and safety. 
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Luxembourg, Office for Official 
Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  2005.  http://osha.europa.eu/en/
publications/reports/6805478/view 

[68]  Cox, T., Griffiths, A. J., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. Research on Work-related Stress. Report to 
the  European  Agency  for  Safety  and  Health  at  Work.  Luxembourg,  Office  for 
Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000. http://osha.europa.eu/
en/publications/reports/203/view 

[69]  Levi  L.  and  Levi  I.  Guidance  on  work-related  stress  –  Spice  of  life  or  kiss  of  death? 
Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000.

E
u
r
o
p
E
a
n

a
g
E
n
c
y

f
o
r

S
a
f
E
t
y

a
n
d

H
E
a
l
t
H

a
t

W

o
r
k

131

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

k
r
o

W

t
a

H
t
l
a
E
H

d
n
a

y
t
E
f
a
S

r
o
f

y
c
n
E
g
a

n
a
E
p
o
r
u
E

[70]  Le stress au travail, Dossier web, INRS, http://www.inrs.fr/dossiers/stress.html 

[71]  Work-Life-Balance  -  Betriebliche  Strategien  zur  Vereinbarkeit  von  Beruf,  Familie  und 

Privatleben. Fehlzeiten-Report 2003, http://wido.de/fzr_2003.html 

[72]  Koningsveld, E. The costs incurred by poor working conditions:  a burden to society, a 
prospect to companies.  TNO,  Hoofddorp,  2003.  http://www.eanpc.org/pdfs/EPC/
Thu_Soc_1330_Koningsveld.pdf 

[73]  Workplace  stress  costs  Great  Britain  in  excess  of  £530  million.  Press  release  C021:07 

7 November 2007, HSE. http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2007/c07021.htm 

[74]  European  Social  Dialogue:  Framework  Agreement  on  Work-related  Stress.  http://
ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2004/oct/stress_agreement_en.pdf 

[75]  European  Social  Dialogue:  Framework  Agreement  on  Harassment  and  Violence  at 
Work. (http://www.ueapme.com/docs/joint_position/2007_Framework_
Agreement_Harassment_and_Violence_at_Work.pdf)

[76]  “European  Pact  for  Mental  Health  and  Well-being”.  EU  High-Level  Conference 
“Together for Mental Health and Wellbeing”, Brussels, 12-13 June 2008. http://ec.
europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/mental/docs/pact_en.pdf 

132

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

•	

•	

•	

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;

by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact details on 
the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Free publications:

•	

•	

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their 
contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax  
to +352 2929-42758.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2009 — 132 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9191-224-7

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 15

to 

the  working 
improve 
In  order 
environment, as regards the protection 
of  the  safety  and  health  of  workers 
as  provided  for 
in  the  Treaty  and 
successive  Community  strategies  and 
action  programmes  concerning  health 
and  safety  at  the  workplace,  the  aim 
of  the  Agency  shall  be  to  provide  the 
Community bodies, the Member States, 
the  social  partners  and  those  involved 
in the field with the technical, scientific 
and economic information of use in the 
field of safety and health at work.

u

e

.

a

p

o

r

u

e

.

a

h

s

o

/

/

:

p

t

t

h

Gran Vía 33, E-48009 Bilbao
Tel.: +34 944794360
Fax: + 34 944794383
E-mail: information@osha.europa.eu
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 15

k

r

o

W

t

a

h

t

l

a

e

H

d

n

a

y

t

e

f

a

S

r

o

f

y

c

n

e

g

A

n

a

e

p

o

r

u

E

E u r o p e a n   A g e n c y   f o r   S a f e t y   a n d   H e a l t h   a t   W o r k

EUROPEAN RISK OBSERVATORY REPORT

en 9

ISSN 1830-5946

OSH in figures:
stress at work — facts and figures

9
en

T
E
-
8
1
-
0
8
-
4
7
8
-
E
N

-
C

O
S
H

i

n
fi
g
u
r
e
s
:

s
t
r
e
s
s
a
t

w
o
r
k

—

f
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
fi
g
u
r
e
s

E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
R
I
S
K
O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
O
R
Y
R
E
P
O
R
T