COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of the European Union occupatinal safety and health Directives (REFIT evaluation) Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Safer and Healthier Work for All - Modernisation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health Legislation and Policy
Date: 2017-01-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, accident prevention, carcinogenic substance, health legislation, health risk, labour standard, occupational safety, public awareness campaign, safety standard, small business

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.1.2017  SWD(2017) 10 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of the European Union occupatinal safety and health Directives (REFIT evaluation) Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Safer and Healthier Work for All - Modernisation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health Legislation and Policy {COM(2017) 12 final} {SWD(2017) 9 final}  
 
 
Commission Staff Working Document 

Ex-post evaluation of the EU occupational safety and health Directives 

(REFIT evaluation) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 4 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7 

1.1.  Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................ 7 

1.2.  Scope of the evaluation ................................................................................................ 8 

2.  BACKGROUND TO EU OSH FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 8 

2.1.  Baseline ....................................................................................................................... 8 

2.2.  Key pillars of the EU OSH Framework ....................................................................... 9 

3.  EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS ............................................................ 11 

4.  METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 12 

4.1.  Methodology .............................................................................................................. 12 

4.2.  Limitations – robustness of findings ......................................................................... 13 

5.  TRANSPOSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY .............................. 16 

5.1.  Transposition ............................................................................................................. 16 

5.2. Implementation .............................................................................................................. 18 

6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...................................................... 27 

6.1.    Relevance .................................................................................................................... 27 

6.2 

Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 32 

6.3.  Efficiency – Assessment of costs, benefits and broader effects ................................ 48 

6.4  Coherence .................................................................................................................. 60 

6.5 

EU added value .......................................................................................................... 67 

7.  CONCLUSIONS AT EU AND NATIONAL LEVEL ..................................................... 69 

Annex 1 -  Procedural information ........................................................................................... 77 

Annex 2 -  Stakeholder consultation ........................................................................................ 80 

Annex 3 - Methods and analytical models used in preparing the evaluation ........................... 89 

Annex 4 - Analytical Annex (effectiveness and efficiency) .................................................... 92 

Annex 5 -  List of EU OSH Directives under ex-post evaluation .......................................... 100 

Annex 6 - Relevant non-OSH EU legislation ........................................................................ 103 

Annex 7 - Coherence with EU non-OSH legislation ............................................................. 104 

2 

 
 
 
Annex 8 - OSH Glossary ........................................................................................................ 106 

Annex 9 - The EU Occupational Health and Safety Legislation intervention logic .............. 110 

Annex 10 -  Summary of the findings based on the Country Summary Reports ................... 111 

Annex 11 – Summary of the findings of the evaluation for OSH Directives ........................ 195 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Occupational safety and health (OSH) forms an integral part of the European labour market. It 
is  an  important  element  of  the  European  social  protection  structure.  In  the  context  of 
European  integration  and  realisation  of  the  internal  market,  a  common  framework  was 
established  through  Directive  89/391/EEC  (Framework  Directive)  aiming  at  securing  a 
minimum level of protection from work-related health and safety risks for the workers of all 
Member  States.  This  framework  built  on  the  existing  systems  at  the  time  and  laid  down 
important  common  principles  of  prevention,  risk  assessment,  information,  training  etc.  It 
established  minimum  protection  levels  while  allowing  Member  States  to  go  further  if  so 
desired.  Building  on  these  common  principles,  23  further  Directives  have  been  adopted 
dealing  with  specific  risks  and  situations.  Together  this  set  of  rules  constitutes  the  OSH 
framework.   

The Commission is required to regularly evaluate the implementation of the OSH framework. 
This  evaluation  report  draws  from  a  number  of  elements,  including  an  independent  study, 
National Implementation Reports (NIRs) from all Member States and numerous consultation 
mechanisms  involving  independent  experts,  inspectors  and  representatives  from  industry, 
workers and Member States. The value of occupational safety and health interventions has to 
be considered in the light of which interventions at which level are most useful. This exercise 
also  forms  part  of the Commission's  Regulatory  Fitness  (REFIT)  Programme  with  a  special 
focus  on  SMEs.  The  REFIT  Programme  focuses  on  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  legislative 
simplification including avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden. 

In  overall  terms,  the  evaluation  suggests  that  EU  OSH  legal  framework  remains  relevant. 
Ideally, in order to evaluate the full impact of the framework, an assessment would have had 
to be made at the time of the changes in national law and practice required by the adoption of 
the  directives  along  with  EU-wide  monitoring  arrangements  to  check  on  progress,  possibly 
with additional counter-factual analysis to ascertain what would have been the development 
across  the  Member  States  in  its  absence.  This  was  not  possible  due  to  the  lack  of  a  robust 
'comparison'  group,  the lack of prospective data design for the evaluation at the time of the 
adoption of the Directives as well as the difficulties in differentiating between the impact of 
the EU legislation and the national legislation as well as other factors (non-OSH legislation, 
technological  progress,  structural  changes 
labour  markets,  socio-economic 
developments etc.).  

the 

in 

Looking  at  the  specific  directives,  the  current  levels  of  exposure  to  the  different  hazardous 
agents and the continued existence of previously identified risks still justify their need overall. 
The EU OSH framework in the EU has been transposed and implemented. The compliance is 
better  in  large  establishments  compared  to  SMEs  and  micro-establishments,  and  varies 
depending on the type of requirement considered.  

4 

 
 
 
 
On  effectiveness,  the  statistical  evidence  shows  that  the  incidence  and  the  number  of 
accidents  at  work  have  considerably  decreased  over  the  evaluation  period1.  The  decrease  is 
likely  to  have  been  influenced  by  other  external  factors  and  the  contribution  of  the  OSH 
framework  to  this  decrease  could  not  be  quantified.  However,  the  different  stakeholders 
consulted  expressed  their  views  that  the  OSH  Directives  are  achieving  their  aims  and  do 
contribute to improving the health and safety of workers. Indeed, the external study found that 
a majority of stakeholders believe the Directives are effective and the analysis of NIRs also 
suggests this is the case.  

Despite the 9.8% reduction in the percentage of workers with (a) health problem(s) caused or 
made  worse  by  work  over  the  evaluation  period2,  work-related  ill-health  in  the  EU  still 
remains high3, with almost 8% of workers suffering from work-related ill-health. In particular, 
and despite the EU OSH directive on carcinogens and mutagens, work-related cancer remains 
the first cause of work-related deaths4. There were calls from a host of stakeholders, including 
workers,  Member  States  and  some  employers  for  an  update  of  protection  in  this  area  also 
citing the need to catch up with international developments.  

Assessment  of  efficiency  is  hampered  by  lack  of  systematic  European  monitoring  data,  and 
this  data  challenge  needs  to  be  taken  into  account  in  any  future  work  and  monitoring 
arrangements5.  

As to the benefits of reduced levels of work related accidents and ill-health, literature studies 
suggest that there is indeed a business case for occupational health and safety interventions. 
Further  data  from  the  International  Social  Security  Association  assessed  the  return  on 
prevention  index  for  investments  in  occupational  health  and  safety  to  be  2.26.  A  study 
contracted by the Commission, assesses that the profitability index for OSH interventions was 
ranging between 1.29 and 2.89, with a benefit to costs ratio from 1.21 to 2.187. However, the 
evaluation could not quantify the benefits generated by the EU OSH framework distinct from 
Member  State  legislation  already  in  place  or  with  more  extensive  coverage  or  providing  a 
higher level of protection.    

As to the costs of the EU OSH framework, the evaluation confirmed that on the basis of the 
available  information,  administrative  and  substantive  compliance  costs  vary  considerably 
across Member States and are presumed to be higher per employee in SMEs. Fostering further 

1 Based on Eurostat, ESAW, as well as national accident at work data collected by the Member States. 
2 Based on Eurostat, EU LFS ad hoc modules on accidents at work and work-related health problems 2007 and 
2013.  
3 Indeed, 7.9% of persons who work or have worked before declare suffering from one or more work-related 
health problems caused or made worse by work, EU-27. Eurostat, 2013 EU-LFS ad hoc module on accidents at 
work and work-related health problems (online data code hsw_pb1). Data including HR. Data for NL not 
available. 
4 Global Estimates of the Burden of Injury and Illness at Work in 2012, Journal of Occupational and 
Environmental  Hygiene. 2014 May; 11(5): 326–337. 
5 The Better Regulation Package adopted in May 2015 focuses, inter alia, on better monitoring. 
6 Calculating the international return on prevention for companies: costs and benefits of investments in 
occupational safety and health, International Social Security Association; 2013. 
7 Socio-economic costs of accidents at work and work-related ill-health, European Commission, November 
2011. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
use  of  support  tools  and  developing  better  guidance  to  enterprises,  especially  SMEs  (in 
particular  as  regards  the  obligation  to  document  the  risk  assessment)  were  identified  as  a 
possible solution to make complying with the existing legislation simpler (and less costly) for 
enterprises.   

The  evaluation  also  pointed  to  a  number  of  issues  related  to  the  structure  and  scope  of  EU 
OSH framework.  

The  Framework  Directive  covers  all  workplaces  and  all  risks  and  as  such  remains  relevant.  
However, it is not always clear what role some of the provisions of the Framework Directive 
play where no more specific implementing provisions have been developed, particularly in the 
context  of  constantly  changing  organisational  setting,  technological  developments  and 
scientific  advances.  Consequently,  there  is  a  need  to  consider  how  to  ensure  clear,  better 
understood and more effective outcomes from the application of the Framework Directive.  

For  example,  there  is  a  growing  incidence  of  psychosocial  risks  and  musculo-skeletal 
disorders (MSDs) in the workplace. While the scope of the EU framework covers these risks, 
the  evaluation  shows  that  considerable  uncertainty  remains  over  measures  that  may  be 
appropriate to apply at the workplace or more broadly in society. It is also noted that MSDs 
and  psychosocial  risks  are  related  to  a  complex  interaction  between  occupational  and  non-
occupational  factors  and  therefore  particularly  challenging.  Further  analysis  would  be 
required to establish what type of action at what level, is needed and appropriate to improve 
the situation on the work floor.  

The overall approach and structure of the OSH acquis was considered by stakeholders to be 
relevant for OSH management. There are no major inconsistencies between legal provisions 
and  stakeholders  raised  concerns  that  any  changes  to  the  overall  legal  structure  might  have 
unintended  consequences  and  potentially  lead  to  higher  burden  for  business  and  lower 
protection of workers. At the same time, in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of 
the  acquis  the  co-existence  and  complementarity  of  the  Framework  Directive  and  the 
individual directives could be better explained and clarified.  

The  six  Common  Processes  and  Mechanisms  (CPMs)  built  into  the  OSH  framework  are 
central  to  its  operation  and  designed  to  contribute  to  achieving  overall  health  and  safety 
objectives.  The  evaluation  found  that  compliance  with  CPM's  is  reasonable  but  that  the 
quality  and  the  implementation  of  risk  assessments  and  the  management  of  risks  should  be 
further enhanced. 

Regarding the personal scope, the evaluation of the OSH acquis pointed out that for most of 
the OSH Directives, some Member States implement more detailed or stringent requirements, 
with  the  result  that  the  level  of  protection  differs  for  some  categories  of  workers  such  as 
domestic servants, self-employed persons and certain categories of vulnerable workers. 

In terms of enforcement on the ground, the evaluation finds that there is a considerable degree 
of  variation  in  the  number  and  frequency  of  inspections  across  the  Member  States.  Legal 
requirements  combined  with  inspection  are  seen  to  be  key  determinants  in  explaining  why 

6 

 
 
establishments  develop  OSH  policies  and  take  OSH  action,  so  there  is  a  need  to  further 
examine  the  existing  role  and  impact  of  Member  State  use  of  inspections  and  broader 
enforcement actions to target any appropriate future actions, either by the Member States or 
the  EU,  with  respect  to  the  role  of  inspection,  competence  building  and  guidance  to 
inspectorates. 

Finally,  it  is  clear  that  there  is  limited  data  at  EU  level  to  assessing  the  effects,  costs  and 
benefits of the EU OSH framework showing the need for a better monitoring framework with 
appropriate  indicators  to  measure  performance.  At  the  same  time  there  is  a  common 
understanding  that  further  reporting  requirements  can  cause  administrative  burden  on 
companies and administrations. A number of new methodologies, studies and tools are being 
developed to address this by the Commission and the European Agency for Safety and Health 
at Work (EU-OSHA).  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Purpose of the evaluation 

In the area of occupational safety and health ('OSH'), the Commission is required, every five 
years,  to  produce  a  single  report  based  on  a  comprehensive  evaluation  of  the  practical 
implementation  of  the  OSH  framework,  comprising  Directive  89/391/EEC8  hereafter  "the 
Framework  Directive", which is the main piece of legislation in  this  area, and of 23 related 
Directives9.  This  comprehensive  reporting  obligation  was  introduced  by  an  amendment  in 
2007  of  the  Framework  Directive10  simplifying  considerably  the  previous  system  of 
individual reports per Directive.  

The evaluation draws on national reports from Member States on the practical implementation 
of  the  framework  and  covers  specific  consultations  of  social  partners  (trade  unions  and 
employers'  organisations),  including  organisations  representing  SMEs.  The  aim  is  to  take 
stock of the various aspects of the practical implementation of the Directives11 and inform the 
other  EU  institutions  and  bodies  of  the  results  and  any  suggestions  on  how  to  improve  the 
operation  of  the  regulatory  framework.  The  first  report  formally  covers  the  period  2007  to 
2012 but conclusions can in many cases be drawn to date.  

In  2012,  the  Commission  launched  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme 
('REFIT')12 which aims at the identification of burdens, inconsistencies, gaps and ineffective 
measures and the adoption of initiatives which result in significant regulatory cost reduction 
or  simplification.  This  is  in  line  with  its  "evaluate  first"  policy,  whereby,  in  principle,  the 

8 Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of 
workers at work (OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1).  
9  Article  17a  (1)  of  the  Framework  Directive;  Article  22  of  Directive  2009/148/EC;  Article  10a  of  Directive 
91/383/EEC; Article 9a of Directive 92/29/EEC and Article 17a of Directive 94/33/EC.   
10 Directive 2007/30/EC (OJ L 165, 27.6.2007, p. 21). 
11 Directive 2007/30/EC, recital 4.  
12 COM(2012) 746 final of 12.12.2012, EU Regulatory Fitness, introducing the REFIT programme.  

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Commission  will  not  examine  proposals  in  areas  of  existing  legislation  until  the  regulatory 
mapping and appropriate subsequent evaluation work has been conducted13.  

The  Commission  included  the  OSH  ex-post  evaluation  in  the  REFIT  Programme14  which 
focuses  on  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  legislative  simplification  including  avoiding 
unnecessary  regulatory  burden.  However,  due  to  its  broader  scope  and  specific  regulatory 
regime under the Framework Directive, the OSH evaluation covers a broader range of issues 
and  aims  at  a  wider  evaluation  of  the  legislation,  including  on  relevance,  research  and  new 
scientific knowledge. It has a special focus on SMEs.  

1.2. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The  ex-post  evaluation  covers  the  implementation  of  the  OSH  framework  in  27  Member 
States15. The 24 Directives listed in Annex 5 are considered by this report while the following 
Directives are not included: 

The  Sharp  Injuries  Directive  2010/32/EU16  is  not  covered  by  the  evaluation  as  it  does  not 
contain  the  above-mentioned  obligation  to  evaluate  its  implementation  as  laid  down  in  the 
Framework Directive 89/391/EEC and related Directives; 

The  Electromagnetic  Fields  Directive  2013/35/EU  ('EMF')17,  which  entered  into  force  and 
repealed  Directive  2004/40/EC  from  29  June  201318.  The  latter  Directive  was  part  of  the 
comprehensive OSH ex-post evaluation system, but the Commission, prior to the expiry of its 
(prolonged) transposition period, decided to thoroughly reconsider some of its provisions on 
the  basis  of  new  scientific  information  produced  by  internationally  recognised  experts. 
Subsequently,  the  new  EMF  Directive  was  adopted,  after  the  period  covered  by  the 
evaluation. 

BACKGROUND TO EU OSH FRAMEWORK 

2. 
This section presents a description of the EU OSH framework, its objectives and the problems 
it was intended to solve. 

2.1.  Baseline  
Occupational  safety  and  health  is  one  of  the  EU’s  longest  standing  priorities  in  the  social 
field.  Due to a lack of an explicit legislative competence in this area in the Treaty until the 
mid-1980s, occupational safety and health was seen as an accessory to market harmonisation 

13 COM (2012) 746, p. 4. 
14 See also COM(2013) 685 final of 2.10.2013: Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next 
Steps, and the REFIT scoreboards published regularly. 
15 Croatia was not yet a Member State during the period of the current evaluation. 
16 Council Directive 2010/32/EU of 10 May 2010 implementing the Framework Agreement on prevention from 
sharp  injuries  in  the  hospital  and  healthcare  sector  concluded  by  HOSPEEM  and  EPSU  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance) (OJ L 134, 1.6.2010, p. 66). 
17 Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health 
and  safety  requirements  regarding  the  exposure  of  workers  to  the  risks  arising  from  physical  agents 
(electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) 
and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1).  
18 The deadline for the transposition is 1st July 2016. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
and the economic policies of the European Economic Community (EEC). The first Directives 
were adopted on the basis of the general market harmonisation provisions of the EEC Treaty, 
such as Directive 77/576/ EEC19 on the harmonisation of national laws on safety signs in the 
workplace and Directive 78/610/ EEC20 on the harmonisation of occupational exposure limits 
to  vinyl  chloride  monomers.  As  a  result,  the  EU  action  in  the  field  of  health  and  safety  at 
work was fragmentary and limited to accompanying the needs of market harmonisation.  

Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the legal basis for OSH policy is Article 153 
of the TFEU, stating that the EU is to support and complement the activities of the Member 
States  as  regards  the  "improvement  in  particular  of  the  working  environment  to  protect 
workers'  health  and  safety".  In  this  respect,  actions  for  the  improvement  of  OSH  can  be 
adopted  through  legislative  (Directives)  and  non-legislative  initiatives.  The  legislative 
framework  rests  on  a  double  foundation:  minimum  requirements  provide  on the  one  hand a 
level  playing  field  for  businesses  operating  within  the  single  market  and  on  the  other  hand 
ensure a high degree  of protection to workers. In addition, Member States  are free to  adopt 
more stringent protective measures when transposing EU directives into national law.  

OSH instruments at international/global level 

in 

international 

labour  standards 

The  ILO  adopts 
the  form  of  conventions  and 
recommendations, including in the field of OSH. A large part of the Framework Directive has 
to a considerable degree been influenced by prior work that took place within the ILO. This 
includes  a  wide  range  of  issues  such  as  risk  assessment,  control  and  supervision  by  the 
authorities  (labour  inspection),  the  obligation  to  prepare  a  list  of  occupational  accidents, 
protective  and  preventive  services,  health  surveillance,  rules  on  specific  risks  including 
cancer,  asbestos  and  chemicals,  and  on  specific  sectors,  such  as  construction,  mining  and 
agriculture. 

The EU OSH legislation adopted in this area is more detailed and covers more aspects than 
the  ILO  Conventions;  it  applies  throughout  the  EU,  while  ILO  conventions  can  only  be 
ratified by individual States and therefore the levels of ratification vary per convention. 

Some subject matters of the conventions fall under the exclusive competence of the EU and 
therefore Member States should be authorised  – by Council decision  - before ratifying such 
ILO rules, whether or not the exclusive competence of the EU covers the whole convention, 
or only elements of the convention. 

2.2.  Key pillars of the EU OSH Framework 

19  Council  Directive  77/576/EEC  of  25  July  1977  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the provision of safety signs at places of work (OJ L 
229, 7.9.1977, p. 12). 
20  Council  Directive  78/610/EEC  of  29  June  1978  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative  provisions  of  the  Member  States  on  the  protection  of  the  health  of  workers  exposed  to  vinyl 
chloride monomer (OJ L 197, 22.7.1978, p. 12). 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
Prevention is the guiding principle of the EU OSH Framework. On this basis, the Framework 
Directive aims at "introducing measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health 
of  workers  at  work"  and  contains  general  principles  and  common  rules  concerning  the 
assessment and prevention of occupational risks, the protection of safety and health according 
to  a  hierarchy  of  prevention  measures,  the  elimination  of  risk  and  accident  factors,  the 
principle  of  the  responsibility  of  the  employer,  rights/duties  of  workers,  including  the 
their 
informing,  consultation,  balanced  participation  and 
representatives, health surveillance as well as general guidelines for the implementation of the 
said  principles.  The  Directive  applies  to  both  public  and  private  sectors.  It  provides  that 
"individual" Directives shall be adopted, inter alia in the areas listed in its Annex (e.g. work 
places, work equipment, personal protective equipment). 

training  of  workers  and 

Employer  risk  assessment  is  a  key  element  in  the  prevention  and  protection  system  of  the 
Framework  Directive,  since  it  obliges  employers  to  effectively  take  the  measures  necessary 
for the safety and health protection of workers, including risk prevention and the provision of 
information  and  training  of  workers.  This  goal-orientated  approach  means  that  instead  of 
merely  complying  with  prescriptions  and  limit  values,  employers  have  the  responsibility  to 
decide on improvement measures that best meet the identified risk profile of their company. 
The  Framework  Directive  can  thus  be  considered  an  important  innovation  at  the  time  for 
workplace prevention measures and culture.  

Most of the individual Directives were adopted in the five years following the adoption of the 
Framework  Directive.  The  legislation  has  thus  been  in  place  for  a  considerable  amount  of 
time. 

The individual OSH Directives develop the general principles and instruments/common rules 
of  the  Framework  Directive  with  regards  to  specific  hazards  at  work  (e.g.  exposure  to 
dangerous  substances,  or  physical  agents),  to  specific  activities  (e.g.  manual  handling  of 
loads, working with visual display units), to sectors with higher risks (e.g. construction sites, 
extractive industries, fishing vessels) and to vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and 
breastfeeding  mothers.  The  individual  Directives  define  in  more  detail  how  risks  are  to  be 
assessed, and the setting and measuring of limit values at the workplace. 

The general provisions of the Framework Directive apply in full to all the areas covered by 
each  individual  Directive,  without  prejudice  to  more  stringent  and/or  specific  provisions 
contained in the individual Directives (lex specialis). 

The provisions of the Framework Directive and its related Directives are to a large extent goal 
or process-oriented, combined with provisions of a more prescriptive nature. 

Goal or process-oriented regulations set the goals to be achieved, but leave it to the employers 
/ workers involved to decide on the best way to achieve these results. An example is Article 
6(1) of the Framework Directive which requires employers to take the measures necessary for 
the safety and health protection of workers. Such provisions are generally more flexible and 
allow for different ways to achieve the results to best suit a particular situation. On the other 

10 

 
 
hand,  it  may  be  less  clear  for  employers  how  to  comply,  or  for  the  workers  in  relation  to 
Article 13 of the Framework Directive. 

Prescriptive  provisions  lay  down  in  detail  what  is  required  to  be  achieved  and  the  way  to 
obtain the outcome. An example is Article 3(1) of the Noise Directive 2003/10/EC which lays 
down  specific  limit  values  and  action  values  for  the  exposure  to  noise.  Such  provisions  are 
easier to enforce, but they require more frequent updating / modification. 

3. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS  

The ex-post evaluation has addressed the following five evaluation criteria. 

Relevance  

Relevance refers to the extent to which a particular intervention is consistent with the needs 
and  problems  experienced  by  the  target  groups.  In  the  case  of  the  OSH  framework,  the 
essential  issue  examined  was  therefore  whether  or  not  the  framework  addresses  the  current 
and emerging OSH risks prevalent within the Member States.  

Effectiveness  

Under the effectiveness, the ex-post evaluation assessed whether the EU OSH Directives have 
achieved their objectives in improving the health and safety of workers and how significant 
these  achievements  were.  Under  this  criterion  the  contribution  of  various  elements  to  these 
objectives  has  been  assessed  (e.g.  common  processes  and  mechanisms  -  CPMs,  derogations 
and transitional periods). Unintended effects have also been analysed. The CPMs foreseen by 
the  Directives  comprise  risk  assessment  processes,  training,  consultation,  participation  and 
information of workers, preventive and protective services and health surveillance. 

Efficiency 

Under efficiency, the ex-post evaluation has looked at the benefits (e.g. reduction in working 
days  lost  due  to  work-related  accidents  or  health  problems;  reduction  in  the  number  or 
severity  of  work-related  accidents  or  health  problems);  costs  which  arise  for  society  and 
employers  from  fulfilling  the  requirements  of  the  EU  OSH  framework's  requirements 
(including administrative and compliance burden). The analysis placed particular emphasis on 
SMEs, including risk assessment. 

Coherence 

Under  coherence21  the  evaluation  assessed  whether  there  are  any  inconsistencies,  overlaps 
and/or synergies across and between the Directives and whether the Directives interrelate with 
other measures and/or policies that also cover aspects related to health and safety at work. 

21 Considering the internal logic between the EU OSH Directives as well as the external coherence between the 
Directives and other measures and policies at EU and international levels. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
EU added value 

EU-added  value  looks  for  changes  which  are  reasonably  assumed  to  be  due  to  EU 
intervention rather than any other factors.  

4. 

METHOD 

4.1.  Methodology 

Sources of findings 

The evaluation is based on three main building blocks: 

1) a study by an external contractor ('the study') - commissioned mid-2013. The final report 
was  delivered  in  December  2015  and  covers  a  total  of  24  OSH  Directives  and  their 
implementation in all Member States (except Croatia), in the period 2007-2012. A validation 
seminar  was  held  in  Brussels  on  9  December  2014  to  consult  stakeholders  on  preliminary 
findings, results and conclusions of the study.  

2)  national  reports  on  the  practical implementation  of  the  Directives  ('NIRs')  established  by 
the Member States (and including the views of social partners) in accordance with Article 17a 
of  the  Framework  Directive.  In  the  NIRs,  Member  States  provided  data  following  the 
structure and questionnaire of the report as defined by the Commission22.  

3) extensive data collection (including in particular the NIRs, official statistics at national and 
EU  level,  past  practical  implementation  reports,  Commission  communications  and  other 
policy documents, other external studies), through mapping of OSH at Member State level, as 
well as interviews with stakeholders carried out at both EU and Member State level. 

Consultation  

In  parallel  the  Commission  services  received  input  from  other  sources  such  as  individual 
Member States, the Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work (ACSH)23, the Senior 
Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC) and the Sectorial Social Dialogue Committee. 

The  ACSH  and,  in  particular,  its  Working  Party  on  Evaluation  of  OSH  directives,  have 
assisted  the  Commission  services  during  the  contractor's  work.  The  draft    opinion  on  the 
external study24, put forward by the WP Evaluation, was approved on 24 September 2015 by 
the ACSH plenary and contained viewpoints agreed between the government, employers' and 
workers' representatives in the Committee.  

22 Commission Decision C/2011/9200 of 20 December 2011 notified to Member States on 21 December 2011 on 
defining the structure and questionnaire for the practical implementation report to be drawn up by the Member 
States  regarding  Directive  89/391/EEC,  its  individual  Directives,  and  Directives  2009/148/EC,  91/383/EEC, 
92/29/EEC and 94/33/EC.   
23 The tripartite ACSH is composed of government, employers' and workers' representatives. These discuss the 
issues in Working Parties to come to a common conclusion in the form of a draft opinion. 
24 ACSH, Opinion on the report by COWI et al on the Evaluation of the  Practical Implementation of the EU 
Occupational  Safety  and  Health  (OSH)  Directives  in  EU  Member  States  (Doc.1674-EN  (2015)),  adopted  on 
24/09/2015.  

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The SLIC also prepared a contribution to the ex-post evaluation25. 

Steps in the evaluation methodology and intervention logic 

The figure below presents the key steps in the evaluation methodology. 

Figure 1: Steps in the evaluation methodology  

Those consisted in particular in: 

- Identifying and understanding the hazards which the Directives are meant to prevent. 

-  Identifying  the  important  provisions  of  each  Directive.  The  mapping  of  the  provisions 
served  as  basis  for  developing  the  intervention  logic  of  the  EU  OSH  legislation26.  As  an 
integral part of this step, a mapping exercise was undertaken in order to understand the way 
the  main  provisions  of  each  Directive  were  transposed  and  implemented  in  each  Member 
State.  This  step  aimed  also  to  gather  the  available  data  on  the  level  of  compliance  with  the 
legislation from the EU and national sources. 

-  Identifying  the  workplace  impacts.  This  part  of  the  evaluation  aimed  at  assessing  to  what 
extent  legislation  the  accompanying  tools  have  influenced  the  behaviour  of  establishments 
and in turn how this has influenced the final health and safety  outcomes (accidents at work 
and  different  forms  of  work-related  ill-health).  This  part  of  the  evaluation  aimed  as  well  at 
assessing  and  better  understanding  the  broader  effects  of  the  legislation  and  possible 
confounding factors to the outcomes achieved.  

- Finally, on this basis, the assessment of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and 
EU added value was undertaken.  

4.2.  Limitations – robustness of findings  

25  SLIC,  Challenges  faced  by  Labour  Inspectorates  relating  to  enforcement  -  Contribution  to  the  ex-post 
evaluation of the OSH legislation, adopted by 68th SLIC Plenary in Riga (LV), 27/05/2015.  
26 See Annex 9 to this report. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Data limitations in the area of occupational health and safety were already highlighted in the 
Commission Communication from 2004 on the implementation of Directive 89/391/EC27.  

Since  then,  substantial  efforts  have  been  deployed  at  the  EU  level  in  order  to  improve  the 
evidence  base  in  this  policy  field.  In  December  2008,  the  European  Parliament and  the 
Council adopted Regulation 1338/2008 on Community statistics on public health and health 
and  safety  at  work28.  The  implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  349/2011  on  statistics  on 
accidents at work was consequently adopted in 201129. In 2007 and 2013 EU Labour Force 
Survey  ('LFS')  ad  hoc  modules  were  performed  to  provide  complementary  evidence  on 
accidents at work and work related health problems. In parallel, data sources were developed 
by  the  EU-OSHA  agency,  including  the  ESENER  and  ESENER-2  surveys  and  by  the 
Eurofound,  which  conducted  its  European  Working  Conditions  Surveys  (EWCS)  in  2005, 
2010  and  2015.  Together,  these  sources  provide  valuable  information  on  several  themes 
pertinent to the policies in the field of health and safety at work.  

Nevertheless,  the  quantification  of  the  impact  of  EU  legislation  is  a  challenging  task, 
requiring very specific input data to be developed for this purpose over time. Several studies 
conducted  at  national  level  highlighted  already  the  difficulties  in  quantifying  the  impact  of 
regulatory  activities  on  health  and  safety  final  outcomes.  National  econometric  research 
feasibility studies performed so far in the EU Member States assessed most of the time that 
given the current evidence  and data sources, it is not  possible to  demonstrate links between 
regulatory activities and changes in the health and safety outcomes30.  

The following factors render such work challenging: the complexity of  model specification, 
empirical  and  methodological  problems  and  the  available  data  sources  not  being  fit  for 
purpose.  Those  difficulties  compound  at  the  EU-level,  where  the  national  differences  in  the 
implementation of the legislation and collection of outcome indicators and the nature of the 
EU OSH acquis (mix of goal-oriented and prescriptive approach) are even a greater challenge 
when  attempting  to  differentiate  between  the  effects  of  the  EU  vs.  (pre-existing)  national 
legislation, other policy tools developed in the OSH policy field developed at national or EU 
level, as well as other confounding factors (technological progress, structural changes in the 
labour markets, socioeconomic developments etc.).  

For  these  reasons,  as  explained  in  Chapter  7.3,  a  fully-fledged  cost–benefit  analysis  for  the 
EU OSH Directives under evaluation could not be undertaken.  

27 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the practical implementation of the provisions of the 
Health and Safety at Work Directives 89/391 (Framework), 89/654 (Workplaces), 89/655 5work Equipment), 
89/656 5personal Protective Equipment), 90/269 (Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 (Display Screen 
Equipment); COM (2004)62 final. 
28 Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on 
public health and health and safety at work (OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 70-81). 
29 Commission Regulation (EU) No 349/2011 of 11 April 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at 
work, as regards statistics on accidents at work (OJ L97, 12.4.2011, p. 3-8).  
30 See as example in Linking HSE activities to health and safety outcomes- A feasibility study. Prepared by 
Cambridge Econometrics for Health and Safety Executive, HSE, 2012. 

14 

 
 
                                                            
To assess the effectiveness of the EU OSH legislation, the evaluation relied, however, to the 
extent possible on the data developed so far both at the EU and national level, complementing 
it with results of more targeted studies on specific topics. Though the exact impact of the EU 
legislation could not be assessed in detail due to methodological challenges mentioned above, 
the assessment tried to take to the extent possible the impact of other factors, such as cyclical 
variations  on  the  presented  indicators  (in  particular  on  the  (standardised)  accidents  at  work 
incidence rates). Whenever the relevant information was not available from the EU datasets 
the available national data sources were consulted. This was the case, in particular, as regards 
harmonised data on occupational diseases statistics, unavailable to date at the EU level. 

As regards the evaluation study, it faced challenges and limitations in relation to the collection 
of interview data. Additional difficulties encountered in the framework of the study related to 
finding an adequate interview coverage for certain sector-specific directives and for SMEs. In 
such  cases  mitigating  actions  were  taken  by  the  contractor.  Those  measures  included  e.g. 
additional literature review for those directives for which adequate interviews coverage was 
not reached. 

Furthermore,  the  assessment  of  compliance  was  marked  by  specific  methodological 
challenges. In this regard, available data allowed for a mapping of the quantitative aspect of 
compliance (i.e. the extent to which establishments perform specific, measurable OSH-related 
actions,  such  as  performing  risk  assessments  or  formulating  an  OSH  management  policy 
plan). However, the EU OSH framework contains requirements which are essentially quality 
and  content  oriented,  rather  than  activity  oriented31  and  the  mapping  exercise  revealed  that 
this  qualitative  aspect  of  compliance  could  not  be  systematically  assessed  due  to  a  lack  of 
data. 

ESENER and ESENER-2 survey data were used to estimate compliance in the external study. 
In  this  document,  findings  from  the  ESENER  surveys  as  regards  certain  aspects  of 
compliance  and  OSH  management  measures  represented,  whenever  relevant,  together  with 
information from other sources (EWCS, National surveys covering inter alia the thematic of 
compliance,  reports  from  labour  inspectorates  etc.).  The  difficulty  in  triangulating  findings 
from  these  different  sources  comes  from  the  different  target  population  and  scope  of  the 
surveys and administrative data quoted.  

31 e.g. an OSH management plan may be incomplete, it may lack essential elements, may not take all risks into 
account, may not be well executed etc., all of which undermines compliance. 

15 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
5. 

TRANSPOSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

This  section  presents  the  overall  findings  concerning  the  state  of  transposition  and 
implementation of the EU OSH acquis in the Member States with cross-Directive references. 
The assessment focusses on transposition and implementation of the CPMs and of other key 
requirements of the Directives.  

The  section  is  structured  in  two  sub-sections:  1)  transposition,  including  use  of  derogations 
and  transitional  periods,  and  2)  implementation,  with  a  focus  on  the  assessment  of 
compliance,  on  the  accompanying  actions  at  national  and  EU  level,  enforcement  and 
implementation in SMEs and micro-enterprises.  

5.1.  Transposition  

The architecture/structure of the national OSH framework 

With regard to the architecture/structure of the national OSH framework, most Member 
States  (22)  have  transposed  the  Framework  Directive  by  means  of  an  OSH  framework  act 
(which  was  not  necessarily  newly  adopted  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Framework 
Directive); often  existing  national OSH  legislation  has  been  brought together into one  main 
OSH framework act or an existing OSH act has been amended to comply with the Framework 
Directive.  

The  individual  OSH  Directives  are,  as  a  rule,  transposed  one-to-one  through  secondary 
legislation.  Some  exceptions  have  been  identified  which  are,  seemingly,  depending  on  the 
Directive(s)  involved.  The  three  OSH  Directives  targeting  vulnerable  workers  are  often 
transposed  through  a  specific  act  and  secondary  legislation  or  directly  through  the  OSH 
framework  act  or  the  Labour  Code.  Member  States  also  often  transpose  the  two  OSH 
Directives on mineral extracting industries through several pieces of secondary legislation or 
through e.g. the national Mining Act and secondary legislation. The transposition of the two 
OSH Directives on vessels follows the same trend, although to a lesser degree. 

78 infringement proceedings for failure to transpose the Framework Directive correctly into 
national legislation have been opened. The transposition seems, in particular, to have caused 
difficulties in Spain being subject to 26 of the 78 infringement proceedings, although most of 
the cases have subsequently been closed. Germany has been subject to eight cases, Italy seven 
and Portugal six. Several other Member States had a limited number of cases. 

One of the typical non-conformities seems to be the failure to make the Framework Directive 
provisions applicable to the public sector or to the use of public installations  – i.e. problems 
with the scope of application. Another typical non-conformity is imprecise implementation of 
Article 5.1 – i.e.  of the employers'  duty  to  ensure the safety and health of workers  in every 
aspect related to the work.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Observed discrepancies in national transposing legislation 

Observed discrepancies 

No observed discrepancies 

IE, IT, NL, EE, FI, PL, MT, CY, 
LV, HU, SI, DE, RO, BG, UK 
Source:  Country Summary Reports. 

LT, AT, BE, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FR, 
LU, PT, SK 

With regard to the transposition into national legislation of the CPMs, 16 Member States 
have  transposed  one  or  more  such  requirements  through  distinct  secondary  legislation, 
principally in relation to preventive and protective services and health surveillance. Only four 
Member States32 adopted separate OSH legislation for the public and the private sector.  

Although  a  large  number  of  infringement  proceedings  have  been  initiated  regarding  the 
national  transposition  of  the  Framework  Directive  and,  to  a  lesser  degree,  of  Directive 
1999/92/EC  (ATEX),  Directive  2002/44/EC  (vibration),  Directive  2003/10/EC  (noise), 
Directive 2006/25/EC (artificial optical radiation) and Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents), 
most of them regarded late transposition (non-communication of national measures) and were 
subsequently  closed.  Apart  from  these,  few  cases  of  incorrect  transposition  have  been 
observed in the transposition of the OSH acquis.  

Furthermore,  for  most  of  the  OSH  Directives,  Member  States  have  implemented  more 
detailed more stringent or more protective requirements. This is the case for example in 
several Member States for the Directive 92/57/EEC (temporary or mobile construction sites) 
in  relation  to  the  appointment  of  the  health  and  safety  coordinator33.  Ten  Member  States34 
have  established  a  broader  personal  scope  of  application  of  the  legislation  transposing  the 
Framework Directive by including 'domestic servants' in the definition of ‘worker’. Similarly, 
in  a  large  number  of  Member  States  the  scope  of  the  legislation  transposing  Directive 
94/33/EC  (young  people)  is  broader,  for  example  because  it  applies  to  trainees  and  young 
students studying in technological or vocational college35, because it covers all work carried 
out for employers, principals, customers and those responsible for schools who let minors do 
work for them or study36 or because it covers self-employment of young people. 

Derogations and transitional periods 

About half of the Member States have  applied transitional periods in the implementation of 
most of the Directives for which such possibility was provided. In the vast majority of cases, 
Member States who opted for the application of transitional periods have also respected them.  

The  evaluation  shows  a  mixed  picture  as  to  the  use  of  derogations  by  Member  States.  The 
derogations most frequently used are those laid down in Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents) 

32 AT, FR, LU and PT.  
33  Several  Member  States  impose  minimum  qualifications  with  regard  to  coordinators,  or  require  a  signed 
document  for  the  appointment  of  a  health  and  safety  coordinator  for  a  construction  site  and  of  his/her 
acceptation. 
34 PT, IE, PL, SE, FI, LU, MT, EE, CY, LV. 
35 FR. 
36 SE. 

17 

 
 
                                                            
concerning the prohibition of the use of certain chemical agents and two of the derogations set 
out in Directive 94/33/EC (young people): the derogation from the prohibition of employment 
of young people in the case of adolescents where such derogations are indispensable for their 
vocational training and the derogation from the prohibition of night work for young people in 
the case of adolescents and in specific areas of activity. 

5.2. Implementation 

Compliance 

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

Figure 3.  Major reasons for addressing health and safety (% establishments, EU-28). 

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Fulfilling legal
obligation

Meeting expectations
from employees or
their representatives

 Avoiding fines from
the labour
inspectorate

Maintaining the
organisation's
reputation

Maintaining or
increasing
productivity

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), Second European Survey of Enterprises 
on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2) (2014); Base: Establishments employing 5 employees and more,  EU-
28.   

On the basis of the data collected in the framework of the evaluation study37 it was found that 
overall  compliance  with  the  EU  OSH  acquis  across  the  EU  and  across  establishment 
sizes is good even if it varies across establishment size.  

The findings on quantitative compliance with individual provisions common to EU OSH 
Directives  (CPMs)  across  Member  States  and  establishment  sizes  are  summarized  in  the 
table below:  

37 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in EU 
Member States, COWI, 2016 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 1: 

Conclusion of quantitative compliance with CPMs38 

Conclusion by CPM 

Interpretation 

Moderate to good quantitative compliance 

Risk assessments 
Preventive and protective services   Good quantitative compliance 
Good quantitative compliance 
Information for workers 
Moderate quantitative compliance 
Training of workers 
Moderate quantitative compliance 
Health surveillance 
Poor 
Consultation of workers 
compliance 

to  moderate/good 

quantitative 

Source:   COWI evaluation team 

Regarding the  obligation  to  perform  an  occupational  health  and  safety  risk  assessment, 
which  is  the  cornerstone  of  the  EU  OSH  legislative  framework,  ESENER-2  indicates  that 
76%  of  establishments  in  the  EU-28  carry  out  a  risk  assessment  and  the  majority  of  them 
(92%) report having it in a documented form. Compliance varies to a great extent depending 
on the establishment size (ranging from 69% among microenterprises employing five to nine 
workers  up  to  96%  among  those  employing  more  than  250  people).  Substantial  differences 
were  also  found  from  Member  State  to  Member  State,  with  highest  values  in  Italy  and 
Slovenia, to the lowest in Luxembourg39.  

Figure 4: Risk assessments conducted regularly (% of establishments, EU-28) 

38 The qualitative assessment was made based on the following benchmarks: 90%-100% - very good quantitative 
compliance; 75%-89% - good quantitative compliance; 60%-74% - moderate quantitative compliance; 40%-59% 
- poor quantitative compliance; 0%-39% very poor quantitative compliance. It has to be noted that important 
differences were noted depending on the Directive, sector and company size. Source: Evaluation of the Practical 
Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in EU Member States (Main 
report), COWI, 2016. 
39 EU-OSHA, ESENER-2 (2014): https://osha.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/documents/esener-ii-
summary-en.PDF. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014).  

A  document  explaining  responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety  is  available  to 
workers in 90% of all establishments in the EU-28, with a higher prevalence noted in larger 
establishments.  While  having  such  a  document  is  not  a  legal  obligation,  it  is  indicative  of 
adoption by the employer of the systematic approach to health and safety management set out 
in the directives. 

When  focusing  on  those  establishments  that  have  other  types  of  workers  beyond  directly 
employed  people  -such  as  temporary  agency  workers,  subcontractors  and  self-employed, 
among  others-,  62%  of  those  establishments  in  the  EU-28  that  carry  out  risk  assessments 
report covering these other types of workers in their risk assessments 

Looking at those establishments that do not carry out regular risk assessments (Figure 5), the 
main reasons given for not doing so are that the risks and hazards are already known (83 % of 
establishments) and that there are no major problems (80 %). It is however not certain to what 
extent this result reflects the fact that on average the smallest establishments are exposed to 
fewer  risks  (or  their  risk  profile  is  more  stable)  or  if  they  are  simply  less  aware  of  the 
workplace risks. 

Interestingly,  enterprises  in  the  smallest  size  classes  report  less  frequently  than  their  larger 
counterparts that the procedure is too burdensome: 22 % among those employing five to nine 
people as opposed to 31 % among those employing more than 250 people (Figure 5). 

20 

 
 
 
Figure  5.  Reasons  why  workplace  risk  assessments  are  not  carried  out  regularly,  by 
establishment size (% establishments, EU-28). 

100

80

60

40

20

0

 5-9

 10-49

50-249

250+

The hazards and risks are already known

There are no major problems

The necessary expertise is lacking

The procedure is too burdensome

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014)..  Base: establishments 
in the EU-28 that do not carry out risk assessments regularly.   

The  ESENER-2  survey  also  reflects  important  differences  in  the  access  to  OSH  training 
depending on the establishment size. Among all respondents of the survey (person who knows 
most  about  OSH  in  the  establishment),  68%    declared  having  received  training  on  how  to 
manage health and safety, whereas among those in microenterprises, this figure was only 62 
%  and  in  large  companies  (with  more  than  250  employees)  as  high  as  93%.  Important 
differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of training provided to 
employees    (emergency  procedures  –  81%,  lifting  people  and  heavy  loads  –  79%,  use  of 
dangerous substances – 84%, proper use and adjustment of work equipment furniture – 67%, 
prevention of psychosocial risks – 37%). 

Looking  at available  data from surveys  where  respondents are workers, the first  findings of 
the  Sixth  European  Working  Conditions  Survey  (EWCS)40  show  that  9  out  of  10  workers 
report being either well informed or very well informed about health and safety risks related 
to  the  performance  of  their  jobs.  Again  differences  were  noted  depending  on  the 
establishment  size.  In  line  with  the  findings  of  the  Flash  Eurobarometer  on  working 
conditions,  more  than  three  quarters  (77%)  of  current  workers  say  health  and  safety 
information and/or training is available in their workplace. 

As regards health surveillance, ESENER-2 shows that 65% of establishments arrange regular 
medical examinations to monitor the health of employees. Again, important differences in this 
respect  can  be  noted  depending  on  the  company  size  (58%  for  micro  and  89%  for  large 
enterprises). 

The most frequently used health and safety services (being internal or external) are those of 
occupational  health  doctors  (68%),  generalists  on  health  and  safety  (63%)  and  experts  in 

40 Eurofound, European Working Conditions Survey (2015): 
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/resume/2015/working-conditions/first-findings-sixth-european-
working-conditions-survey-resume. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                            
health  prevention  (52%),  with  again  important  differences  depending  on  the  establishment 
size (See Figure 6 below).   

Figure 6: Use of health and safety services, by establishment size (% establishments in 
the EU-28). 

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014),.  

Important  differences  in  this  respect  exist  between  the  different  Member  States,  which 
partially can be explained by the different ways of transposing Articles 7 and 14 of Council 
Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the 
safety and health of workers. 

As regards the consultation and participation of workers, ESENER-2 shows that 81% of all 
establishments in the EU-28 report involving employees in the design of measures following a 
risk assessment. The same survey reveals that health and safety issues are discussed 'regularly' 
between employee representatives and the management in 56% of establishments in the EU-
28 that have some form of employee representation.  

Focusing  on  specific  OSH  representation,  ESENER-2  asked  about  the  presence  of  a  health 
and  safety  representative  and  of  a  health  and  safety  committee  (Figure  7).  The  share  of 
establishments that reported the existence of either one of these two forms was considerably 
higher  than  for  general  employee  representation:  61%  vs.  30%.  This  higher  incidence  is 
driven by the broad presence of health and safety representatives, which are found in 58% of 
establishments in the EU-28. Meanwhile, a health and safety committee was reported by 21% 
of establishments surveyed in ESENER-2. In general health and safety committees tend to be 
present in those establishments where there is already a health and safety representative and 
they are more likely to coexist in middle-sized and large establishments. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  7.  Establishments  with  a  specific  OSH  representation  in  place,  by  size  (% 
establishments, EU-28). 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

 5-9

 10-49

50-249

250+

Health and safety committee

Health and safety representative

Total specific health and safety representation (H&S committee or H&S representative)

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014),.  

Concerning  differences  between  Directives,  for  instance,  while  the  results  of  the  evaluation 
indicate that Directive 92/91/EEC (extractive industries - drilling) is complied with to a large 
extent,  in  contrast,  Directive  2006/25/EC  (artificial  optical  radiation)  is  characterised  by  a 
moderate  level  of  compliance,  as  the  issue  of  artificial  optical  radiation  is  regarded  as 
complex.  In  particular,  employers  within  this  field  find  the  technicalities  and  acquired 
competency to measure, monitor and assess difficult to understand and/or attain. 

Furthermore,  both  EU  and  national  stakeholders  assessed  compliance  with  EU  OSH 
Directives  requirements  to  be  higher  in  large  establishments  compared  to  SMEs  and 
micro-establishments. This is supported by quoted above ESENER-2 data, EWCS, the Flash 
Eurobarometer  on  Working  Conditions,  by  the  NIRs  and  corroborated  during  the  directive-
specific evaluations.  

Compliance and specific measures targeting SMESs and micro-enterprises 

The  most  reported  challenge for compliance for SMEs, in  the NIRs produced  by Member 
States,  are  the  lack  of  financial,  technical  and  human  resources.  Other  identified  challenges 
include  the  lack  of  established  OSH  traditions,  of  managerial  experience,  of  information, 
knowledge  and  training,  of  equipment,  of  financial  resources,  of  ensuring  availability  and 
quality  of  external  expert  services  and  of  time.  The  evaluation  study  found  that  the  most 
reported reasons by national stakeholders during interviews are that the large enterprises more 
often  have  dedicated  OSH  experts  and/or  departments  that  enable  them  to  comply  with 

23 

 
 
 
 
legislation and international OSH standards; large establishments often have well-established 
safety and health cultures, partly developed through the accessibility of internal programmes 
and procedures, which are often a result of investing more financial resources than is available 
in smaller companies; large enterprises are often particularly concerned about company image 
and about negative safety and health stories in the media. The complexity of legal obligations 
was also identified as one of the main barriers for OSH management for SMEs according to 
the findings of the ESENER-2 survey. 

25 Member States have established (a combination of) specific measures to support SMEs and 
micro-enterprises  in  the  implementation  of  their  legislation  transposing  the  Framework 
Directive.  These  specific  measures  include  exemptions,  lighter  regimes  and/or  financial 
incentives.  Only  a  few  of  the  individual  Directives  have  been  transposed  using  additional 
incentives for SMEs to comply with their requirements. However, many Member States have 
developed numerous accompanying actions targeted at SMEs, which are typically of a more 
general nature, not linked to a specific individual Directive. 

As  regards  for  example  the  obligation  to  conduct  and  to  document  risk  assessment,  the 
evaluation shows that Member States tend to favour lighter regimes and financial incentives 
to  support  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises;  almost  half  of  the  Member  States  make  use  of 
financial incentives for SMEs and micro-enterprises to comply with the Framework Directive. 
Most  of  the  Member  States  have  guidelines  on  completing  a  risk  assessment.  A  number  of 
Member  States  provide  specific  guidance  for  particular  sectors41.  An  important  number  of 
Member  States  provide  guidance  specifically  addressed  to  SMEs42.  Many  Member  States 
provide online guidelines and tools on how to conduct a risk assessment and document it, free 
of  charge.  Several  Member  States  are  involved  in  using  the  Online  Interactive  Risk 
Assessment  web  application  (OiRA)43  to  develop  risk  assessment  tools.  OiRA  is  developed 
by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work44.  

The quality of guidance and support tools is crucial, as is ensuring that it actually reaches the 
target audience. Thus, simply looking at the number of guidance documents does not in itself 
provide evidence of adequate guidance for SMEs45.  

It  has  not  been  possible  to  assess  the  quality  of  the  extensive  body  of  guidance  listed  and 
described  in  the  study.  Nevertheless,  despite  the  quantity  of  material  available  there  still 
appear to be a need for more and better guidance to support implementation in SMEs as well 
as for effective ways of delivering it to the intended user46. 

41 Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands. 
42 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Spain. 
43 http://www.oiraproject.eu/. 
44 Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health 
at Work (OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1). 
45 See e.g. The Anderson Review – The Good Guidance Guide, Department of Businesses, Enterprises and 
Regulatory Reform in the UK, 2009. 
46 Assessment made based on the findings of the Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU 
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in EU Member States (Main report), COWI, 2016 and the 
National Implementation Reports. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                            
Accompanying actions 

The number of accompanying actions varies greatly from Directive to Directive, both at the 
Member State and at the EU level. In addition, EU-level guidance serves mainly as a basis for 
national-level  guidance  and  rarely  reaches  individual  workers.  At  the  Member  State  level, 
there are some Directives for which the number of accompanying actions is limited and there 
is  a  general  demand  for  more  targeted  actions,  especially  those  directed  to  SMEs.  Practical 
tools,  forms  and  check-lists  that  enable  employers  to  comply  with  OSH  obligations  are 
considered by stakeholders as the most useful accompanying  actions. Sectoral templates  for 
risk assessment (e.g. OIRA) are welcomed by all stakeholders that recognise the potential for 
simplification and gain of time when using such tools. 

According  to  the  study,  there  appear  to  have  been  very  few  formal  evaluations  of  the 
utilisation  or  impact  of  any  such  material  although  some  isolated  studies  of  individual 
measures have been reported47. 

Enforcement 

The evaluation identified general enforcement authorities responsible for occupational safety 
and  health  matters,  although  other  authorities  may  be  involved  and/or  fully  responsible  for 
areas covered by certain individual directives, in particular Directive 92/104/EEC (extractive 
industries  -  mines  and  quarries)  and  Directive  92/91/  (extractive  industries  -  drilling); 
Directive 92/57/EEC (mobile construction sites); Directive 92/29/EEC (medical treatment on 
vessels)  and  Directive  93/103/EC  (fishing  vessels);  and  Directives  targeting  vulnerable 
workers 
92/85/EEC 
(pregnant/breastfeeding workers) and Directive 94/33/EC (young people). 

(temporary  workers),  Directive 

91/383/EEC 

(Directive 

While  the  actual  number  of  inspectors  in  the  EU  has  remained  almost  constant  in  the 
evaluation  period  (2007-2012),  substantial  differences  in  the  evolution  of  the  number  of 
inspectors  could  be  observed  between  Member  States.  While  in  the  majority  of  Member 
States  the  number  of  inspectors  has  decreased  (16),  it  remained  stable  or  increased  in  the 
remaining 11 Member States. Many stakeholders emphasised that there is room for improving 
enforcement  in  general,  such  as  the  use  of  more  risk-based  inspections,  as  already  done  in 
several Member States. Thus focussing inspections on where the main risks are expected to be 
encountered is thought to be a more efficient use of dwindling resources than a truly random 
selection would be. 

All Member States have criminal and/or administrative sanctions in place, providing not only 
for imprisonment and/or fines but also for other types of sanctions such as various emergency 
measures to stop non-compliance, which can also prove very efficient. The strategic priorities 
for inspection are generally set per sectors or sub-sectors, groups of workers, type of risks or 
the company size. 

47 Melrose AS, Graham MK, Graveling RA, George JPK, Cowie H, Hutchison PA, Mulholland RE.. Assessing 
the effectiveness of the manual handling assessment chart (MAC) and supporting website. Sudbury: HSE Books, 
2006 (Research Report No. 486). 

25 

 
 
                                                            
Initiatives targeting potentially vulnerable workers 

Initiatives  targeting  potentially  vulnerable  workers  principally  address  their  specific 
requirements  through  various  forms  of  guidance,  tools  and  initiatives  at  a  number  of  levels 
(government, industry or other stakeholders), rather than through legislation which typically 
does  not  go  beyond  the  EU  requirements  as  far  as  vulnerable  workers  are  concerned.  As  a 
consequence, women, pregnant and breastfeeding workers, young people, temporary workers 
and disabled workers are the most frequently covered groups as they are regulated under EU 
OSH  legislation.  Other  groups  also  covered  include,  in  particular,  older  workers,  migrants, 
part-time  workers,  and  parents.  The  evaluation  found  that  approaches  within  establishments 
with regard to potentially vulnerable groups of workers are often not documented. 

26 

 
 
 
 
6. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This section contains the answer to the evaluation questions across the EU OSH framework.  

6.1. Relevance 

Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  24  occupational  health  and  safety  Directives,  important 
changes in the labour markets and working methods took place, with a potential impact on the 
relevance of the OSH legislative framework. 

The  continued  shift  towards  third  sector  jobs  accompanied  with  the  shrinking  of  certain 
industries, the changes in the global supply chains, the technological progress and changes in 
the working methods are only a few factors which have influenced the profile, the level and 
the nature of the hazards to which the European workers are subject. The increasing share of 
women in total employment and the ageing of the EU workforce are other factors shaping the 
relevance of certain directives for the future. Finally, the evaluation period (2007-2012) was 
marked by the financial crisis and the subsequent economic crisis with a major impact on the 
labour  markets.  While  economic  output  and  employment  have  both  started  to  recover  in 
recent quarters, the employment and social impacts of the crisis will take years to redress48. 
The ongoing structural changes linked to technological advance and innovation (including the 
development  of  robotics),  globalisation,  demographic  change  and  the  greening  of  the 
economy  offer  opportunities  for  the  creation  of  high  quality  jobs  and  shifts  in  work 
organisation,  but  also  pose  new  challenges  for  occupational  health  and  safety  management 
with  the  emergence  of  new  risks.  Certain  forms  of  employment  (for  ex.  remote  work, 
teleworking),  mobile  workplaces49,  or  specific  employment  relationships  (dependent  self-
employment,  self-employed  working  de  facto  as  employees)  pose  new  challenges  to  OSH 
management. 

Last  but  not  least,  new  scientific  evidence  available  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  24 
occupational health and safety EU Directives have played a crucial role in the understanding 
of certain occupational hazards, allowing potentially for better prevention.  

In  this  context,  the  evaluation  aimed  at  assessing,  based  on  the  available  data  sources  the 
current  and  future  relevance  of  the  EU  occupational  health  and  safety  framework  and  the 
factors which could improve the acquis for the future. The criteria used for this purpose were: 
the labour  market coverage  of the Directives,  the existence of occupational hazards that  the 
Directives  were  meant  to  prevent,  the  latest  scientific  information  as  regards  these  hazards, 
the labour market developments and changes in working practices which might have impacted 
some of the provisions of the OSH Directives. 

48 Employment and Social Developments in Europe, DG EMPL, 2015, p.9. 
49 Though according to the findings of the EWCS 2015 most workers have a single main place of work, 
generally in their employer's business premises (or their own if self-employed), nearly a third of workers (30%) 
divide their working time across multiple locations, working at least several times a week at each different place 
of work. Eurofound, first findings Sixth European Working Conditions Survey (2015).  

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
At a general level, statistical data shows that despite progress achieved in some areas over the 
last years50, a need for policy intervention exists in order to safeguard the health and safety of 
workers at work in the EU. In 2012 3,918 fatal accidents were recorded in the EU-2851. The 
2013 EU LFS ad hoc module data shows that the percentage of the population suffering from 
one or more work-related health problems caused or made worse by work, in that year in the 
EU-27 was on average 7.9%52. 

The assessment of relevance in relation to labour market coverage showed that almost all 
of the 24 OSH Directives are relevant in all 27 Member States covered by the evaluation 
as  all  Member  States  have  workers  employed  in  relevant  industrial  sectors  who  are 
consequently exposed to relevant risks or who are members of vulnerable groups that are the 
subject of specific rules. 

The  main  exceptions  to  this  are  the  two  Directives  relating  to  maritime  sectors  (Directive 
93/103/EC (fishing vessels) and Directive 92/29/EEC (medical treatment on board vessels), as 
a  minority  of  Member  States  do  not  have  any  workers  employed  within  one  or  both  of  the 
maritime  and  fishing  sectors  (or  at  least  those  parts  of  these  sectors  addressed  by  the  two 
Directives). In such cases, some Member States appear to have taken the administrative action 
to  transpose  the  provisions  whilst  others  have  not  done  so.  A  further  exception  relates  to 
Directive 92/91/EEC (extractive industries  – drilling)  where, although the provisions of this 
Directive have been transposed into national legislation in all Member States, approximately 
20% of Member States apparently have no drilling industry at present. 

Across  the EU,  the  proportion of workers potentially covered by each of  the  Directives 
varies. For some Directives, including the Framework Directive and Directive 2009/104/EC 
(use of work equipment), almost all workers are affected. By contrast, a number of Directives, 
including  the  two  Directives  in  the  maritime  sector,  the  two  Directives  in  the  mineral 
extractive  industries  (Directive  92/104/EEC  (extractive  industries  -  mines  and  quarries)  and 
Directive 92/91/ (extractive industries - drilling) and Directive 94/33/EC (young people) are 
of relevance to less than 1% of the EU workforce.  

As  regards  the  assessment  of  relevance  in  view  of  existing  work-related  hazards,  the 
evaluation  found,  based  on  available  data53,  that  the  provisions  for  most  of  the  EU  OSH 
Directives remain relevant.  

The main possible areas for improvement identified during the evaluation, in relation to the 
relevance criterion were the following: 

50 For details, see Chapter 7.2. 
51 Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_02). Note: Any further reference to ESAW data from datasets 
hsw_n2_02 and hsw_n2_01 made in this document is based on figures as extracted on 16/09/2016. 
52 Eurostat (online data code hsw_pb1). Data including HR. Data for NL not available. 
53 This assessment was made based on the information from the NIRs, commissioned studies, existing EU 
surveys covering questions on exposure to physical risks and risks to mental well-being at work. National data 
sources were also explored for more detailed information about exposure to specific hazards. The data about the 
actual current levels of exposure and the exact prevalence of exposure though was not always readily available 
from all MSs. The information on which the evaluation relied was therefore not always complete. 

28 

 
 
                                                            
-  In  terms  of  relevance  in  scope,  the  exclusion  of  domestic  servants  from  the  Framework 
Directive might need to be reconsidered54. 

-  In  the  changing  labour  market  with  the  emergence  of  new  forms  of  work  and  increasing 
uncertainty over the status of workers and self-employed, the question of application of health 
and  safety  rules  to  all  becomes  even  more  important  to  prevent  accidents  and  occupational 
diseases.  Considering  the  recommendations  from  the  NIRs,  the  conclusions  of  the  external 
evaluation study, the development of the case-law of the ECJ on the definition of worker in 
EU  law  and  the  treatment  of  self-employed  under  construction  site  and  fishing  vessel 
directives,  promoting  inclusion  of  self-employed  and  in  particular  those  self-employed 
working alongside workers might be considered as a possible action in the context of future-
proofing of the OSH Framework. Any future action in that area should take into account the 
Opinion  on  that  matter  issued  by  the  ACSH  in  201455,  which  found  that  a  single  EU-wide 
approach  in  this  area  could  not  conceivably  address  all  the  very  different  national  systems 
fairly and coherently56.  

- In the Directive 89/654/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the 
workplace,  the  changes  in  the  nature  of  some  modern  workplaces  call  for  a  reflection  on  a 
potential need to redefine the notion of 'workplace' as defined in this Directive. Suggestions 
from  the  NIRs  as  regards  the  Annexes  to  the  Directive  should  be  given  further 
consideration57. 

- As regards Directive 2000/54/EC (biological agents) the classified list of biological agents is 
out  of  date  and  should  be  updated  to  improve  the  relevance  of  the  Directive.  As  regards 
Annex  V  of  the  Directive,  adopting  a  more  flexible  approach  scoping  the  measures  in 
accordance with the results of the risk assessments should be considered. 

- In relation to Directive 2009/104/EC on the minimum safety and health requirements for the 
use of work equipment by workers at work, the recommendations from the NIRs to adopt a 
clearer definition of the notion of 'specific risk' - in order to reduce the inconsistencies in the 
interpretation of this term in different Member States – should be given further attention. 

- In the Directive 89/656/EEC (use of personal protective equipment/PPE) the exclusion from 
the definition of PPE of equipment used by emergency and rescue services might need to be 
reconsidered. 

-  As  regards  Directive  92/57/EEC  on  the  implementation  of  minimum  safety  and  health 
the 
requirements  at  temporary  or  mobile  construction  sites,  give  consideration  to 

54. This issue identified as a relevance issue based on the finding of the external study, as well as main 
recommendation in the NIRs, due, inter alia, to the share of this work group in the workforce (at least 1%), but 
could also be qualified as an internal coherence issue, based on the legal analysis as regards the inclusion or not 
of this work group under the national OSH legislation and the resulting differences between the Member States. 
55 ACHS, Doc. 524-01/2014, adopted on 22/05/2014. 
56 This issue identified as a relevance issue in the context of the need to consider the appropriate coverage of the 
workforce in the changing world of work and the employment relationships could also be qualified as an internal 
coherence issue, based on the legal analysis as regards the inclusion or not of this work group under the national 
OSH legislation and the resulting differences between the Member States. 
57 Findings of the external study and the NIRs 

29 

 
 
                                                            
recommendation given in several national implementation reports, to clarify the status of the 
coordinator and reinforce his function, namely to clarify the services expected to be provided 
by  coordinators,  especially  with  regard  to  project  design,  and  to  set  out  the  qualifications 
coordinators should have. 

- As regards the Directives 92/29/EEC the review of the compulsory list of medical supplies 
should be given consideration. 

- In terms of relevance related to the state of technological and workplace developments, 
in  the  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display  screen  equipment/DSE)  the  minimum  requirements 
which  all  DSE  workstations  must  meet  (Articles  4  and  5),  are  widely  recognised  to  be 
outdated and to not adequately reflect modern computing technologies or ways of working.  

-  In  terms  of  relevance  related  to  the  state  of  scientific  knowledge,  the  DSE  Directive 
includes  provisions  aimed  at  the  “Protection  of  workers’  eyes  and  eyesight”  (Art.  9)  even 
though there is scientific evidence that work with computers does not cause any damage to the 
eyes or eyesight. The Directive also includes reference to “problems of mental stress” (Art. 3). 
Up  to  date  epidemiological  surveys  suggest  that  the  prevalence  of  such  problems  amongst 
DSE users is no different from that amongst the general population.  

-  Other  Directives  affected  by  scientific  development  are  Directives  98/24/EC  (chemical 
agents),  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and  mutagens)  and  2009/148/EC  (asbestos).  In 
particular, contributions received from different stakeholders point to a need for the adoption 
of  further  occupational  exposure  limit  values  (OELVs)  and/or  the  revision  of  existing  ones. 
Following concerns reflected in the NIRs, there seems also to be a need to consider the most 
appropriate  approach  to  managing  risks  that  may  arise  from  exposure  to  reprotoxic 
substances.  It  should  also  be  clarified  that  risks  related  to  exposure  to  nano  sized  particles 
(nanomaterials) are already covered under the existing Directives.  

The  individual  directives  are  complementary  to  the  Framework  Directive  which  already 
covers  all  risks.  Adapting  OSH  acquis  to  new  risks  may  in  many  cases  be  done  more 
effectively  and  efficiently  through  providing  interpretative  guidance  to  employers,  workers 
and enforcers on how to apply existing provisions in the new context. In accordance with the 
better  regulation  principles  legislative  action  should  only  be  considered  in  case  where  the 
added value can be clearly established. In view of avoiding unnecessary burden on businesses, 
the exact scope of any modifications of existing legislation and the related costs and benefits 
should be subject to further discussions with stakeholders in the ACSH and a thorough impact 
assessment and related SME test.  

The analysis of relevance also suggests that improved data is necessary in this area so as to 
support future policy development.  

Indeed,  for  many  Directives,  data  about  the  actual  number  of  workers  exposed  to  different 
hazardous agents and about the levels of exposure in the populations at risk was not gathered 
so  far  at  the  EU  level  and  information  available  at  national  level  is  scarce.  Also  as  another 
example,  there  have  been  efforts  to  set  up  statistical  systems  to  an  EU  data  collection  on 

30 

 
 
occupational  diseases  (e.g.  the  European  Occupational  Diseases  Statistics).  However,  this  is 
associated  with  considerable  challenges  due  to  the  large  variation  in  Member  States' 
recognition of occupation diseases.  

The evaluation found that although some changes in the relative importance of different work 
sectors  (or  activities)  can  be  anticipated,  the  current  levels  of  exposure  to  the  different 
hazardous  agents  and  the  continued  existence  of  previously  identified  risks  justify  the 
need for the action to address those risks.  

The evaluation also confirmed the high prevalence of exposure to both risks leading to MSDs 
and psychosocial risks (Figure 8). 

Figure 8: Risk factors reported in the establishments (% of all establishments, EU-28)58 

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014),.  

However,  there  are  and  will  be  new  or  emerging  risks  which  may  not  yet  be  fully 
addressed  in  the  workplace  and  it  may  require  some  clarification  how  the  existing 
provisions  of  the  framework  directive  apply to  them.  These  risks  could  be related  to  the 
demographic changes as well as to the changing world of work (e.g. new technologies  and 
innovations  in  work  organisation  and  the  new  products  and  processes  to  which  they  lead, 
possibly  increasing  sedentary  work  and  reducing  physical  activity,  changes  in  work 
organisation brought about by information technology developments, as well as the increasing 
workforce diversity, as reflected in new atypical contractual arrangements and work patterns, 

58 In red –risk factors leading to MSDs and in yellow – psychosocial risk factors. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                            
and  a  higher  job  turnover  associated  with  shorter  job  assignments,  especially  for  younger 
workers).  

6.2 

Effectiveness 

This  section  presents  the  findings  on  the  assessment  of  the  extent  to  which  the  OSH 
framework  achieved  its  aims  and  what  factors  have  particularly  contributed  to  the 
achievement of the objectives.  

The  general  aims  of  the  OSH  framework  are  to  improve  the  health  and  safety  situation  for 
workers across the EU. However, the more specific intended impacts, such as – for example – 
the  kinds  of  occupational  diseases  to  be  prevented  or  reduced  are  often  not  identified.  This 
means that, for many Directives, there are no clear parameters against which to measure the 
progress towards achievement of objectives.  

This  also  reflects  the  complex  interrelations  between  exposures  to  various  risks  at  the 
workplace  and  specific  health  and  safety  impacts  –  and  between  different  OSH  measures 
targeting  various  groups  of  workers,  types  of  risk  or  sectors  and  their  effects  on  levels  of 
exposure.  

In  addition,  the  existing  mixture  of  Directives  representing  a  goal  and  process-oriented 
approach  and  Directives  representing  a  prescriptive  approach  results  in  different  ways  of 
evaluating effectiveness. In general, those with specific actions prescribed are more open to 
confirming  compliance,  while  those  Directives  which  are  more  goal-setting  need  suitable 
outcome measures to confirm that their goal has been achieved. 

Four specific evaluation questions were set:  

-  To  what  extent  have  the  Directives  influenced  workers'  safety  and  health, the activities  of 
workers' representatives, and the behaviour of establishments? 

-  What  are  the  effects  on  the  protection  of  workers'  safety  and  health  of  the  various 
derogations and transitional periods foreseen in several of the Directives concerned? 

- How and to what extent do the different Common Processes and Mechanisms contribute to 
the effectiveness of the Directives?  

-  To  what  extent  do  sanctions  and  other  related  enforcement  activities  contribute  to  the 
effectiveness of the Directives? 

Impact on workers' safety and health, the activities of workers' representatives, and the 
behaviour of establishments 

  Accidents at work 

Over the evaluation period, a declining trend for accidents at work could be observed in the 
EU-27.  

32 

 
 
 
According  to  data  collected  in  the  framework  of  the  Eurostat  data  collection  European 
Statistics  on Accidents at Work  (ESAW)  for all  economic activity sectors,  both  the number 
and the incidence rate of serious accidents at work59 in the EU-27 declined between 2008 and 
2012 by 18.1% and 19.6%60 respectively (Figure 9) 

Figure 9: Non-fatal accidents at work, resulting in an absence from work of more than 3 
days, number and incidence rate per 100 000 persons employed, EU27, 2008-2012. 

Source: Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_01). 

During the same period, the number of fatal work accidents fell by 18.4% while the incidence 
rate for this category of accidents declined by 19.9%61, in  the 27 Member States  concerned 
(Figure 10).  

Figure  10:  Fatal  accidents  at  work,  number  and  incidence  rate  per  100  000  persons 
employed, EU27, 2008-2012. 

59 According to the ESAW methodology a serious, non-fatal accident at work is defined as an accident involving 
an absence from work of more than 3 calendar days. 
60 Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_01). 
61 Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_02). 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_02). 

Over this period, the financial and economic crisis which has followed had without any doubt 
an important impact on the evolution of this indicator. A recent UK HSE study modeled the 
relationship  between  injury  rates  and  GDP  for  Great  Britain  and  estimated  that  for  the  last 
recession;  approximately  10%  of  the  fall  in  injury  rates  between  2007/08  and  2009/10  is 
likely to have been due to economic cycle variations62. 

Most  data  prior  to  2008,  collected  at  EU  level  according  to  the  ESAW  methodology,  is 
available  only  for  a  limited  number  of  economic  sectors63  and  for  a  limited  number  of 
Member States (EU-15). Looking at those data sets, the standardised incidence rate over the 
evaluation  period  fell  substantially  from  2,736  accidents  per  100,000  employed  persons  in 
2007 to 2,073.5 in 2012 for non-fatal accidents at work and from 2.9 accidents per 100,000 
employed persons in 2007 to 2.3 in 2012 for fatal accidents at work64. 

The  declining  trend  is  confirmed  by  national  statistics  in  the  NIRs  and  the  Scoreboard 
exercise for the evaluation of the EU Strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work65. 

An analysis of longer time series based again on the ESAW records, and starting in years just 
after  the  adoption  of  the  health  and  safety  Directives66,  confirms  the  declining  trend  over  a 
longer period. The standardised incidence rate of non-fatal accidents at work fell from 1994 to 
2012  by  54.3%,  while  that  of  fatal accidents  declined in  the  same  period  by  61.8%67  in  the 
EU15.    More  detailed  data  on  the  evolution  of  accidents  at  work  from  1994  until  2012  is 
available in Annex 4 Figures 1 and 2.  

Over the period 2008-2012 a decline in the incidence rate of both fatal and non-fatal accidents 
leading  to  an  absence  of  more  than  three  days  could  be  observed  in  almost  all  NACE 
sectors68.  As  regards  the  share  of  different  sectors  in  the  overall  number  of  accidents, 
manufacturing accounted for the highest proportion of all accidents (21.2% in 2012) followed 
by construction (13.3% of all accidents) and the sector of wholesale and retail trade, repair of 
motor vehicles and motorcycles (13.2%)69.  

In order to analyse the situation by Member State, the dataset for fatal accidents at work, for 
the subset of accidents excluding road traffic accidents on board of any mean of transport in 
the  course  of  work  was  analysed,  providing  for  most  comparable  data  by  Member  State.  In 
most  Member  States  both  the  number  and  the  rate  for  this  subset  of  fatal  accidents  at  work 
decreased from 2008 to 2012. At the end of the evaluation period (2012) the incidence rate for 

62  Effects of the Economic Cycle on Workplace Injury Rates: A Time Series Analysis of RIDDOR Data,, UK 
HSE, 2013. 
63 Data for the so called 'common branches', i.e. NACE Rev. 1.1 economic activity sections A_D-K prior to 2008 
and NACE Rev. 2 economic activity sections A_C-N after from 2008 onwards. 
64 Eurostat, ESAW (online data codes hsw_aw_inasx and hsw_mi01).  
65 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Improving quality and productivity at work: Community 
strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work; COM(2007)62 final. 
66 European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW)  are available from 1994 onwards. 
67 Eurostat, ESAW (online data codes hsw_aw_inaag and hsw_mi01). 
68 For detailed information about the evolution of the incidence rate of accidents at work for the different NACE 
Rev. 2 economic activities at section level in the EU27 between 2008 and 2012, see Tables 1 and 2 in Annex 4. 
69 Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_02_04).  Data as extracted on 16/09/2016. 

34 

 
 
                                                            
this  type  of  fatal  accidents  ranged  from  0.58  in  the  United  Kingdom  to  4.7  in  Latvia  (See 
Figure 11 below).   

Figure  11  Fatal  accidents  at  work,  excluding  road  traffic  accidents  on  board  of  any 
mean of transport in the course of work, EU-27, standardised incidence rate (accidents 
per 100 000 persons employed), NACE Rev.2. sections A_C-N.  

Source: Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_mi03) 

The  EU  statistics  on  the  rate  of  fatal  accidents at  work,  broken  down  by  establishment  size 
enabling  to  follow  the  situation  in  microenterprises  and  SMEs  as  compared  with  large 
enterprises,  available  for  200770,  show  the  differences  in  the  standardised  incidence  rate 
depending on the size of the enterprise: 3.6 for establishments from 1 to 9 employees; 3.3 for 
establishments  from  10  to  49  employees;  2.7  for  establishments  from  50  to  249  employees 
and 1.8 for establishments of 250 employees and more71. According to the same source, the 
standardised  incidence  rate  is  higher  for  SMEs  as  compared  with  enterprises  with  over  250 
persons  employed  also  for  non-fatal  accidents  at  work.  An  exception  to  this  trend  is  the 
situation in establishments from 1 to 9 employees, featuring a standardised incidence rate for 
non-fatal accidents of 2,184 against 3,216 for entities with 250 employees or more72. At the 
same time, it should further be studied to what extent under-reporting affects these results.  

Data from the EU LFS73 ad hoc modules on 'accidents at work and other work-related health 
problems'  (reference  years  1999,  2007  and  2013)  shows  a  slightly  decreasing  trend  in 

70 The latest ESAW incidence rate data broken down by enterprise size is available for 2007 only, for EU15. It 
covers the so called 'common branches', i.e. NACE Rev. 1.1 economic activity sections A_D-K. 
71 Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_aw_inasz). 
72 Eurostat, ESAW, 2007 (online data code hsw_aw_inasz). At the same time under-coverage problems for the 
self-employed population do not allow to draw definitive conclusions for this group.; As regards other relevant 
sources see in Theo Nichols, Amanda Dennis and Will Guy, Size of employment unit and injury rates in British 
manufacturing: a secondary analysis of WIRS 1990 data, Industrial Relations Journal, 1995; Gli infortuni sul 
lavoro. Dall'analisi delle cause alla loro prevenzione, 2008, p.116-117. 

73 This data is based on a European wide, representative household survey, while ESAW data is based mostly on 
administrative records of national labour inspectorates or insurance.  It should also be noted that there are 
considerable differences between LFS and ESAW data, including that LFS collects not only serious but also 
minor accidents (with less than 3 days absence from work). 

35 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
accidents from 1999 to 200774.  At EU27 level (all Member States except the Netherlands), 
there is no trend visible between 2007 and 2013: in both years the percentage of the workers 
having had one or more accidents is 3.0%, which corresponds to an incidence rate of 3,000 
workers having had an accident per 100,000 workers employed75. However, when looking at 
data by country, 18 Member States showed a negative trend, only 7 a positive trend and 2 no 
change between the two years. The LFS figure should be interpreted with caution as the EU-
27  aggregate  does  not  take  into  account  the  Netherlands  and  several  Member  States  used 
survey questions which differed to the EU model questionnaire at least for one of the years. 

In conclusion, the available EU data collections on accidents at work, as well as information 
gathered in the NIRs and the Scoreboard exercise of the EU Strategy 2007-2012 on health and 
safety  at  work  give  a  strong  indication  that  both  the  incidence  and  the  number  of 
accidents  at  work  have  considerably  decreased  since  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
framework and in particular over the evaluation period.  

The evaluation found that other factors, independently of the EU Directives might have also 
influenced this trend, in particular the more detailed national legislation (of which the effect 
cannot  be  easily  dissociated  from  that  of  the  Directives  which  they  have  transposed),  other 
policies, structural changes in the labour markets, working methods and global supply chains. 
Due to the complexity of interaction between the different factors influencing the evolution of 
accidents at work, no exact estimate for  the fraction of avoided accidents attributable to the 
entry into force of the Directives exclusively can possibly be established in a sound scientific 
way in the framework of this evaluation.  

However, even though it is qualitative evidence, it is worth emphasizing that the majority of 
stakeholders  interviewed  during  the  evaluation  stated  that  the  Directives,  by  establishing 
minimum  common  requirements  for  occupational  health  and  safety  management  at  work, 
were  successful  in  achieving  their  intended  aims  and  benefitted  considerably  the  health  and 
safety of workers, including the reduction in accidents at work.  

  Work-related ill health 

The EU OSH framework aims at achieving a reduction not only in the incidence and number 
of accidents at work but also work-related ill-health. 

There  are  significant  methodological  issues  that  complicate  the  evaluation  in  this  respect. 
Firstly,  the  individual  Directives76  often  cover  more  than  one  disease,  especially  those 
directives that are of general nature or target specific types of workers (and all diseases are in 
principle covered by the Framework Directive) or the risks of a disease are covered by more 
than one Directive.  

74  Data  for  DK,  ES,  FI,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LU,  PT,  SE,  UK.  Health  and  safety  at  work  in  Europe  (1999-2007).  A 
statistical portrait, European Commission, 2010, p. 34. 
75 Final statistical report on the quality assessment and statistical analysis of the 2013 Labour Force Survey ad 
hoc module, Agilis S.A. Statistics and Informatics, 2015, p. 103, and Eurostat website update following last data 
received from Germany. 
76 The EMF Directive has not been evaluated for effectiveness as it has yet to be widely implemented in its latest 
(2013) version. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
Secondly, as regards occupational diseases77, comparable and harmonised data is not available 
to  date  at  EU  level.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  major  differences  in  the  recording  and 
recognition  practices  within  the  different  social  security  systems  across  the  Member  States. 
The evaluation relied thus mainly in this respect on available national occupational diseases 
statistics. 

Thirdly,  while  the  evaluation  period  encompasses  the  time  horizon  2007-2012,  in  the 
particular case of many forms of work-related ill-health, this time frame is not appropriate to 
judge  the  effectiveness  of  the  policy  intervention.  Each  occupational  disease  has  a  different 
minimum duration of exposure, maximum latent and minimum induction period. The decline 
or fall in the incidence of recognised occupational diseases in a given Member State during 
the  evaluation  period  cannot  only  be  attributed  to  the  policy  intervention,  but  also  to  the 
differences in the national recognition and recording systems as well as the weight which each 
disease with its specific exposure, latency and induction period has in the overall aggregate.  

Different trends concerning the numbers of recognised occupational disease cases were noted 
across EU-27. In some Member States, such as France, Italy, Denmark or Germany there was 
an increase, while in other Member States, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden or Spain a 
decrease  was  recorded78.  In  most  Member  States,  which  recognise  MSDs  as  occupational 
diseases,  those  forms  of  work-related  ill-health  constituted  a  high  proportion  of  recognised 
cases, showing often increasing trends.  

Other impact indicators contributing to the analysis of the effectiveness of Directives derive 
from  the  existing  population  surveys  covering  the  thematic  of  work-related  problems79.  The 
2013 EU LFS ad hoc module data shows that the percentage of the population suffering from 
one or more work-related health problems caused or made worse by work, in that year in the 
EU-27 was on average 7.9%. Overall, the percentage of workers aged 15 to 64 that reported a 
work-related health problem in 2013 decreased by 9.8%, as compared with 2007 for the EU-
26 (without France and the Netherlands) 80,81. Again, this assessment must be considered with 
caution, as the EU-26 aggregate does not take into account two countries and several Member 
States used survey questions which differed to the EU model questionnaire at least for one of 
the years. 

77 In line with Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 
2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work,  a case of 'occupational disease' is 
defined as a case recognised by the national authorities responsible for recognition of occupational diseases. 
78 Based on Eurogip reports: 
http://www.eurogip.fr/en/component/search/?theme_document=Statistics&date_document=Select%20a%20date
&pays_document=Select%20a%20country&searchword=Keywords&type_de_document=publication&limitstart
=0, as well as information from the NIRs. 
79  In line with Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 
2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, work-related health problems and 
illnesses are those health problems and illnesses which can  be caused, worsened or jointly caused by working 
conditions. This includes physical and psychosocial health problems. A case of work-related health problem and 
illness does not necessarily refer to recognition by an authority 
80 Eurostat calculation based on 2013 LFS ad hoc module on accidents and work-related health problems. 
81 France was excluded from this trend analysis because it exhibited major conceptual differences concerning 
this variable in 2007 and the Netherlands did not participate in the entire 2013 ad-hoc module. 

37 

 
 
                                                            
Another  possible  measure  to  be  considered  is  the  workers'  overall  satisfaction  of  the  health 
and  safety  conditions  which  they  find  at  the  workplace.  In  this  respect,  in  a  Flash 
Eurobarometer  commissioned  in  2014,  85%  of  respondents  expressed  satisfaction  with  the 
health and safety arrangements at their workplace82.  At the same time, the EWCS indicates a 
declining trend with regard to the percentage of workers who consider their health and safety 
to be at risk because of their work: 23% of workers in 2015 in the EU, compared to 31% in 
200083. 

Finally, the 500 key stakeholders at EU and Member State level, interviewed in the course of 
the evaluation, provide further support for the view that the Directives appear collectively to 
have  been  reasonably  successful  in  achieving  their  intended  aims  and  benefitting  the  health 
and safety of workers as a result. The justification for this opinion was primarily linked to the 
role the Directives have played in establishing common, minimum health and safety at work 
requirements  across  the  EU.  Differences  could  be  observed  among  the  different  national 
stakeholders'  groups  when  assessing  if  the  transposed  legislation  has  fulfilled  its  objectives. 
The competent national authorities were more positive in their assessment as compared with 
other  stakeholders'  groups.  Among  EU  stakeholders,  the  employers  were  the  most  positive 
when  assessing  the  effects  of  the  EU  OSH  Directives  on  the  safety  and  health  of  workers, 
while  the workers were the least positive.  When replying to the question to  what extent the 
national  legislation  transposing  the  Directives  affected  establishments'  behaviour  for  the 
securing  of  OSH,  the  assessment  of  all  stakeholders  groups differed  according  to  enterprise 
size.    The  aggregated  scores  of  the  national  stakeholders  for  the  Directives'  impact  on  the 
behaviour of SMEs was somewhat lower than for larger establishments. Both employer and 
worker organisations,  on average,  agreed that the nationally transposed OSH  legislation  has 
had  a  medium  impact  on  SMEs,  while  national  authorities  were  more  optimistic  in  their 
assessment.  These  findings  provided  by  national  stakeholders  were  confirmed  during 
interviews with EU stakeholders. 

There are specific challenges related to some particular types of ill-health related to work. 

Several  studies  based  on  the  attributable  fraction  method84  underline  the  burden  of 
occupational  cancer  in  the  overall  weight  of  work-related  ill-health.  According  to  estimates 
for 2012 for the EU and other industrialised countries, occupational cancer had a 57% share in 
all work-related deaths. Other major work-related death causes are circulatory diseases (23%) 
and  respiratory  diseases  (6%)85.  A  study  made  in  UK  in  2010  estimated  that  5.3%  (8023) 
cancer  deaths  were  attributable  to  occupation  in  2005  (men:  8.2%  (6366);  women  2.3% 
(1657). Attributable estimates for total cancer registrations were 13694 (4.0%); and for men: 
10074  (5.7%)  and  women  3620  (2.1%)86.  According  to  a  study  published  in  November 

82 Flash Eurobarometer 398/ April 2014 – TNS Political & Social. 
83 First findings: Sixth European Working Conditions Survey, Eurofound, 2015. 
84 The population attributable fractions (AFs) for work-related illnesses are commonly used to measure the 
component or fraction of such illnesses and deaths that are related to work. 
85  Global  Estimates  of  the  Burden  of  Injury  and  Illness  at  Work  in  2012,  Journal  of  Occupational  and 
Environmental  Hygiene. 2014 May; 11(5): 326–337. 
86  The  burden  of  occupational  cancer  in  Great  Britain,  Overview  report  prepared  by  the  Imperial  College 
London,  the  Institute  of  Environment  and  Health,  the  Health  and  Safety  Laboratory  and  the  Institute  of 
Occupational Medicine, Health and Safety Executive, 2010. 

38 

 
 
                                                            
201387,  around  8,000-8,500  deaths/year  from  occupational  cancer  are  estimated  to  occur  in 
Italy.  

The hazards leading to cancer are primarily covered in Directive 2004/37/EC (Carcinogens or 
Mutagens  at  Work  Directive)  and  Directive  2009/148/EC  (Asbestos  Directive).  Due  to  the 
long  latent  period  for  this  type  of  diseases,  it  must  be  underlined  that  today's  mortality  and 
morbidity  cases  relate  to  past  exposures,  occurring  often  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Directives meant to prevent these forms of work-related ill-health.  

The  evaluation  found  a  decrease  in  exposure  to  a  number  of  chemical  agents.  This  does 
however  not  seem  to  be  the  case  for  all  substances  or  mixtures  classified  as  carcinogens 
1A/1B  or  mutagens  1A/1B  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/200888.  In  addition,  in  the 
majority of the EU Member States, national limit values for highest concern substances and 
mixtures  belonging  to  the  aforementioned  IARC  groups  exist.  However,  the  values  often 
differ  by  orders  of  magnitude89  and  therefore  lead  to  different  levels  of  health  and  safety 
protection  of  workers  across  the  EU  as  well  as  complex  considerations  for  companies  with 
production across the EU.  

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

There  is  no  indication  of  an  appreciable  reduction  in  MSDs  which  remain  a  major  type  of 
work-related  ill-health.  According  to  the  findings  of  the  EU  LFS  ad  hoc  module  2013, 
musculoskeletal  disorders  were  the  most  prevalent  type  of  work-related  health  problem. 
Among  respondents  in  the  EU  who  declared  having  a  work-related  health  problem,  60.1% 
pointed to musculoskeletal disorders as to their most serious issue90. According to the findings 
of  the  EWCS,  though  the  reported  exposure  to  posture-related  risks  declined  over  the  last 
years, it still remains at a very high level (43%). Exposure to repetitive movements, tiring and 
painful  positions  as  well  as  carrying  or  moving  heavy  loads  still  rank  among  the  most 
prevalent physical occupational risk factors in the EU91. 

J 

Ind  Med.  2013  Nov;56(11):1272-9.  doi:  10.1002/ajim.22224.  Epub  2013 

87  Am 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23797976. 
88 Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP 
Regulation) (OJ L 353 31.12.2008, p. 1). 
89 Based on results of a survey with the Member States competent authorities 
90 Eurostat, EU LFS ad hoc module on accidents at work and work related health problems (online data code: 
hsw_pb5). 
91 First findings: European Working Conditions Survey 2015, Eurofound. The results should be interpreted with 
caution as the questions of the survey, were not designed to monitor the effectiveness of the OSH Directives. 
Also over the past few decades, the employment structure in terms of occupation and sector has changed. This 
shift could at least partly explain patterns of risk exposure described above, which would imply that risk level 
associated with the jobs themselves might not have changed much at all. 

Jun  24, 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The hazards associated with  MSDs are covered by the Framework Directive and by several 
specific  Directives,  most  importantly  the  Manual  Handling,  the  Display  Screen  and  the 
Vibration  Directives.  The  Work  Equipment  Directive  also  includes  references  to  poor 
working postures from inadequate attention to ergonomics principles which could give rise to 
posture-related MSDs. The Directives do not relate specifically to all risks leading to MSDs 
(repetitive movements, tiring of painful positions) nor do they deal with the issue of combined 
exposure. 

Considering psychosocial health problems, different data sources confirmed an increase in the 
forms  of  work-related  ill-health  related  to  the  exposure  to  psychosocial  risks.  Indeed, 
according to the findings of the EU LFS ad hoc module 2013, stress, depression and anxiety 
were the second largest type of work-related ill-health identified by the respondents. Indeed, 
15.9%  of  respondents  of  this  survey  declaring  being  affected  by  a  work-related  health 
problem over the last 12 months declared that those types of problems were the main type of 
work-related problems that they have had92. 

The psychosocial risks need to be seen in a wider context. The WHO suggest that nearly one 
in  two  people  will  suffer  from  mental  illness  at  some  point  in  their  lifetime,  while  it  is 
estimated that almost 10% of the population suffer from depression in any year while a further 
2.6%  suffer  from  a  psychotic  disorder.  Anxiety  is  also  a  major  issue.  Many  of  the  risks  to 
mental health have their source in the professional context (job content, workload and work 
pace, control, environment and equipment, organisational culture and function, interpersonal 
relationships at work, role in the organisation, career development, violence and bullying)93.  

Different data sources show that the extent of exposure to those types of risks and the related 
costs to society remain very high. In Europe 25% of workers say they experience work-related 
stress for all or most of their working time, and a similar proportion reports that work affects 
their  health  negatively.  Psychosocial  risks  contribute  to  these  adverse  effects  of  work.  The 
incidence  of  some  psychosocial  risk  factors  has  fallen  since  2005.  Fewer  people  report 
working long hours and a lack of social support. However, job insecurity has grown, and one-
fifth of workers still work long hours or have irregular schedules. Recently, increases in work 
pressure and violence and harassment have been reported in some countries; this is associated 
with workplace changes brought on by the economic crisis. Psychosocial risks are of concern 
to  a  majority  of  companies:  nearly  80%  of  managers  express  a  concern  about  work-related 
stress, and nearly one in five considers violence and harassment to be of major concern94.  

The costs of mental ill health have a major impact on workplaces. As part of the work on the 
European  Mental  Health  Pact,  it  has  been  estimated  that  the  total  productivity  costs  of 
absenteeism  due  to  mental  illness  was  €136  billion  in  2007.  Mental  ill  health  has  a 
disproportionate  influence  on  absence  from  work,  disability  and  early  retirement.  When 

92 Eurostat , EU LFS ad hoc module on accidents at work and work related health problems (online data code: 
hsw_pb5). 
93 Promoting mental health in the workplace – Guidance to implementing a comprehensive approach, DG 
EMPL 2014. 
94 Psychosocial risks in Europe – prevalence and strategies for prevention, EUROFOUND, 2014. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
people develop a mental health problem, they are likely to be out of work for longer, they are 
more likely to become disabled and they are more likely to retire early. Moreover, data from a 
number  of  countries  indicate  that  mental  ill  health  accounts  for  an  increasing  proportion  of 
absenteeism,  disability  and  early  retirement  as  time  passes.  For  example,  in  Germany  early 
retirements  due  to  mental  ill  health  have  risen  from  just  over  20%  to  almost  40%  of  all 
retirements  due  to  ill  health  between  1989  and  2010.  The  proportion  of  such  mental  health 
related  early  retirements  has  continued  to  rise95.  Moreover,  mental  ill  health  as  a  cause  of 
absence from work in Germany has also increased – between 1989 and 2012 it has risen 2.5 
times  while  absence  due  to  other  health  causes  has  remained  substantially  the  same.  These 
trends in Germany are reflected in data from many other countries across the EU. Data from 
the UK suggests that not only is there an increase in stress or mental health related disorders 
as a cause of absence, but that the absences due to these conditions are longer than those for 
physical health causes96. 

While  there  is  no  EU  OSH  Directive  which  lays  down  detailed  provisions  on  psychosocial 
risks, the Framework Directive covers this risk and there is a reference to mental stress in the 
DSE Directive. The analysis of compliance shows some difficulties that establishments face 
in  including  these  types  of  risks  in  the  risk  assessments.  Further  evaluation  regarding  the 
situation at national level and the costs and benefits of national and social partner/enterprise 
initiatives to tackle these challenges would seem warranted.   

Impact of derogations and transitional periods  

As  described  in  the  section  5.1.,  derogations  and  transitional  periods  are  not  considered  to 
have had a major impact on the implementation and effectiveness of the Directives.  

Impact of the different CPMs  

The  six  Common  Processes  and  Mechanisms  (CPMs)  built  into  the  OSH  framework  are 
central to its operation and contribute to achieving overall health and safety objectives.  

Two factors have  been identified which may influence  the impact of CPMs.  Firstly, the co-
existence  of  the two  levels  of  EU  legislation,  having  its impact  on  the  national legislations: 
the  overarching  framework  directive  and  individual  directives  with  provisions  specific  to 
some sectors, risks or groups of workers and the fact that obligations described on those two 
levels are complementary might not always be well understood, particularly amongst SMEs. 
Furthermore,  scientific  literature  as  well  as  analysis  of  compliance  levels  across  sectors 
indicate that not being aware that one is not complying, particularly in SMEs, undermines the 
effectiveness  of  the  CPMs.  This  is  supported  by  ESENER  data  that  shows  that  many, 
especially small, establishments perceive that no major problems exist at the workplace. Such 
recognition may primarily be achieved by means of external intervention from inspectors and 
consequential iterative dialogue (see below).  

95 SUGA (Bericht zur Sicherheit und Gesundheit bei der Arbeit) 1998-2008. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und 
Medizin (BAUA), Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health http://www.baua.de/de/Startseite.html 
96 Department of Work and Pensions 2013. DWP Statistics. Available at: http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/, 
London, DWP. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                            
Turning to the specific CPMs, the relatively good levels of compliance (compliance being a 
first condition for legislation being potentially effective) with the requirement to perform risk 
assessments (cf. section 5) above, imply that the CPM may potentially have been effective at 
ensuring  OSH  at  workplaces.  The  OSH  management  infrastructure  set  up  in  the 
establishments in relation to the risk assessments contributes to this goal. This interpretation 
received support during national and EU stakeholder interviews. Risk assessments are viewed 
as the foundation for forming and applying a risk prevention strategy rather than as a reactive 
approach to occupational safety and health. ESENER-2 survey results support this, as 90% of 
surveyed establishments in the EU-28 that carry out regular risk assessments regard them as a 
useful way of managing health and safety97.  

This  was  a  consistent  finding  across  activity  sectors  and  establishment  sizes.  The  2014 
ESENER-2  survey  results  also  show  that  fewer  establishments  than  in  2009  refrain  from 
conducting risk assessments because the procedure is regarded as too burdensome or because 
they lack the necessary expertise98.  But the same survey also reflects the difficulties in taking 
certain  types  of  risks  into  account  in  the  risk  assessment  (only  56%  of  respondents  of  the 
survey declared having sufficient information on how to include psychosocial risks in the risk 
assessment).  While preventive measures are taken in establishments where a given risk was 
identified  as  being  relevant,  their  nature  and  uptake  differs  between  Member  States  and 
establishments of different sizes99. This links to the difficulties for SMEs in complying with 
the legislation identified in the previous chapters (lack of sufficient information and training, 
complexity of legal obligation, lack of resources).  

Also the stakeholder interviews conducted in the framework of the evaluation indicate that the 
provision  on  risk  assessment  would  benefit  from  being  more  closely  linked  to  risk 
management  and  the  proactive  prevention  of  identified  risks  on  the  part  of  employers,  as 
stakeholders  point  to  a  tendency  that  risk  assessment  performance  occasionally  diverts 
attention  away  from  managing  identified  risks,  particularly  in  SMEs.  This  highlights  the 
impact  of  non-recognition  as  SMEs  tend  to  believe  that,  having  followed  legislative 
requirements  and  conducted  a  risk  assessment,  they  are  in  compliance.  Contrarily,  risk 
assessments in SMEs are often of insufficient quality to ensure adequate risk management as 
they  sometimes  lack  the  resources  (human  and  financial)  to  identify  and  manage  hazards 
adequately100.   

One  finding  of  the  evaluation  is  that  while  risk  assessments  performed  by  external  service 
providers  reduce  the  need  to  maintain  in-house  expertise,  they  often  result  in  a  lack  of 
subsequent  'anchoring'  in  the  establishment  and  consequent  risk  reduction  in  comparison  to 
risk  assessments  performed  by  internal  staff101.  This  is  particularly  the  case  when  the 

97 EU-OSHA, ESENER-2 (2014). 
98 EU-OSHA, ESENER-2, (2014). 
99 See analysis for preventive measures in relation to risks leading to musculoskeletal disorders, ESENER-2 
Overview Report: Managing Safety and Health at Work.  
100 NIRs (e.g. NIR-PL and SI), Validation Seminar, national stakeholder interviews. 
101 EU-OSHA (2013c), European Risk Observatory, Analysis of the determinants of workplace occupational 
safety and health practice in a selection of EU Member States:  
https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/analysis-determinants-workplace-OSH-in-EU 

42 

 
 
                                                            
available  external  services  are  of  poor  quality.  As  SMEs  are  more  inclined  to  use  external 
service  providers,  risk  assessments  in  SMEs  may  not  have  the  same  quality  as  in  larger 
establishments, nor to the same extent result in an OSH management approach that is integral 
to the particular business and priorities of the SME. Development of digital risk assessment 
tools  such  as  EU-OSHA’s  OiRA  could  provide  efficiency  gains  and  cost  reductions  in  this 
respect.  

On  the  subject  of  protection  and  preventive  services,  this  CPM  is  subject  to  varying 
assessments regarding its contribution to the safety and health impacts of the OSH acquis by 
national and EU stakeholders, respectively. While during the stakeholders' interviews national 
stakeholders do not place significant emphasis on the CPM, EU-stakeholders find it to be the 
second  most  contributing  CPM.  This  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  many  external 
protection  and  preventive  services  seem  to  design  and  target  their  products  to  larger 
companies which means that their aid is of less use to SMEs, who make the most use of them. 
This  imbalance  has  reduced  the  effectiveness  of  the  CPM  to  some  extent.  In  this  context, 
some  Member  States  have  taken  measures  to  improve  the  quality  of  available  preventive 
services (e.g. certification, auditing, setting minimum qualifications). 

ESENER-2  findings  confirm  that  the  existence  of  a  formal  OSH  employee  representation 
does  play  a  role  in  OSH  risks  management.  According  to  this  survey,  lower  proportions  of 
workplace  risk  assessments  are  reported  among  those  establishments  without  a  health  and 
safety  representative  than  those  with  a  health  and  safety  representative:  62%  versus  87%, 
respectively.  The  gap  widens  with  the  decrease  of  the  establishment  size102.  Establishments 
with  a  formal  OSH  representation  score  also  better  as  regards  the  existence  of  a  document 
explaining  OSH  procedures  and  responsibilities  in  the  establishment,  training,  support  for 
return to work after long-term absence or routine analysis of sickness absences (See Figure 12 
below). 

Figure 12: OSH management measures by existence of formal employee representation 
(% establishments, EU-28) 

102 EU –OSHA (2016), Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2), 
Overview Report: Managing Safety and Health at Work, European Risk Observatory,p.21.  

43 

 
 
 
                                                            
Source: EU–OSHA (2016) , Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2), 
Overview Report: Managing Safety and Health at Work, European Risk Observatory, p. 75. 

Finally, evidence suggests that training and information is a pivotal element in the process 
of improving the safety and health of workers.  

However,  a  clear  indication  of  a  potential  need  for  improvement  of  the  effectiveness  of  the 
training  of  workers  is  that  training  on  prevention  and  measures  related  to  psychosocial 
risks and risks associated with exposure to chemical and biological agents, non-ionising 
radiation  or  dust  hazards  has  been  provided  to  less  than  half  of  the  surveyed  worker 
representatives. Of these, a total of 57 % report that they have received a sufficient amount 
of training. Important differences were also noted as regards the thematic coverage of training 
to employees. There is in other words a continued need for training on these matters, and on 
emerging  risks  in  particular.  As  these  proportions  refer  to  the  training  of  safety  and  health 
representatives,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  training  of  workers  is  more  limited. 
Interestingly, evidence suggests that worker representatives in SMEs tend to be more satisfied 
with the training they receive, than those working in larger establishments. 

Impact of sanctions and labour inspections  

The main responsibility for enforcing EU OSH law lies with national authorities. Article 4 of 
the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  on  safety  and  health  of  workers  at  work  requires 
Member  States  to  ensure  adequate  controls  and  supervision,  leaving  Member  States  free  to 
organise their enforcement authorities according to their national law and traditions. The body 
competent  for  OSH  inspections  varies  from  one  Member  State  to  another  depending  on  the 
institutional setting of the country. The Commission supports the efforts of the Member States 
in  this  regard  through  various  measures,  where  appropriate,  in  particular  to  ensure  that 
effective and efficient enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are put in place. 

National  labour  inspectorates  cooperate  closely  at  EU  level  on  effective  and  equivalent 
enforcement of the EU health and safety at work legislation in the context of the Committee 
of  Senior  Labour  Inspectors  (SLIC)103.  Several  activities  are  being  carried-out  by  SLIC  to 
facilitate cooperation and coordination between inspectorates such as the development of an 
electronic  handbook  comprising  all  OSH  enforcement  authorities'  competences  and  contact 
points  facilitating  mutual  assistance  among  labour  inspectorates  or  the  European  inspection 
campaigns. 

As  regards  the  effectiveness  of  enforcement  in  the  area  of  health  and  safety104,  a  relatively 
recent literature review concludes that: 

103 Commission Decision 95/319/EC of 12 July 1995 setting up a Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors, (OJ L 
188, 9.8.1995, p.11).  
104 Building an evidence base for the Health and Safety Commission Strategy to 2010 and beyond: A literature 
review of interventions to improve health and safety compliance- Prepared by Greenstreet Berman Ltd for the 
Health and Safety Executive 2004. 

44 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
  Enforcement  is  an  effective  means  of  securing compliance,  creating  an  incentive  for 
self-compliance and a fear of adverse business impacts such as reputation damage in 
all sectors and sizes of organisations, including major hazard sectors. 

  Fear of enforcement is a significant motivator for organisations, there may be value in 
exploring new types of penalties, charging regimes and enforcement strategies so as to 
maximise the deterrent effect of enforcement, such as court ordered publicity. 

  There is evidence that enforcement is an important element in prompting major hazard 

firms to manage health and safety, including major accident prevention. 

  Enforcement supported by advice and guidance is considered to be of equal benefit to 

health hazards as it is to safety risks. 

The evaluation confirmed fear of enforcement is a key driver to comply with OSH legislation, 
as companies rated legal requirements and enforcement as major reasons for developing OSH 
policies and take OSH action. The EU-OSHA ESENER-2 survey results show that fulfilling 
legal obligations and avoiding fines from the labour inspectorate is among three main reasons 
for establishments to address health and safety issues105. 

Although  at  macroeconomic  level,  no  strong  correlation  could  be  identified  between  fatal 
accidents  incidence  rates  in  the  different  Member  States  and  the  level  of  enforcement,  
evidence based on studies at micro-economic level, including longitudinal data, points to the 
fact  that  enforcement,  and  particularly  the  combined  role  of  inspectors  enforcing  legislation 
and  providing  guidance  on  implementation,  contributes  to  the  compliance  with  the  OSH 
acquis.  This  is  particularly  true  in  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises,  where  non-compliance  is 
more important than in large companies.  

Two  major  concerns  have  been  identified  in  this  regard  in  the  framework  of  the  EU  OSH 
Directives evaluation: 

Firstly,  it  is  the  level  of  enforcement  across  Member  States  varies  significantly.  Secondly, 
while  a  strong  link  between  the  number  of  workers  per  inspector  and  data  on  work-related 
accidents  rates  could  not  be  established,  also  given  other  confounding  factors  in  play,  the 
number  of  inspections  carried  out  per  100,000  workers  appears  insufficient  and  there  is  a 
large spread between Member States ranging from 4,000 to 22,000 workers per inspector. The 
challenge  to  enforcement  is  further  compounded  by  falling  resources  allocated  to  labour 
inspectorates in many Member States. Some Member States have experienced a considerable 
decrease  in  the  number  of  inspections  per  100,000  workers,  while,  in  other  Member  States, 
the  situation  is  the  opposite.  One  important  observation  is  that  the  respective  increases  or 
decreases of inspections across Member States is not linked to previous levels of enforcement 
(e.g.  number  of  inspections  per  100,000  workers)  and  thus  does  not  constitute  a  process  of 
levelling out inspection frequencies across Member States.  

105 EU-OSHA, ESENER-2 (2014). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
According to SLIC, inspectorates subject to budget cuts have, thus, not affected the number of 
inspectors/inspections  carried  out  in  all  Member  States,  but  they  can  have  implications  on 
salary  levels  and  educational/training  budgets.  Notably,  a  majority  of  those  Member  States, 
which have managed to increase the number of inspections per 100,000 workers from 2007 to 
2012, have done so largely by increasing the number of inspections made by each inspector, 
i.e. by improving the effectiveness of national inspectorates.  

There  is  also  significant  evidence  that  points  to  the  benefits  associated  with  stressing  the 
preventive and advisory role of inspectors. This is particularly true for SMEs because face-to-
face interventions, discussions and negotiation allow them to internalise the rules of the OSH 
acquis and recognize a need for action. However, exploiting this potential to its fullest entails 
training labour  inspectors and providing them  with  sufficient  information  and knowledge  to 
cope with emerging risks and new realities106. 

Overall,  the  evidence  outlined  above  points  to  a  need  for  a  strong  effort  in  the  area  of 
enforcement, and inspections in particular, to ensure the implementation of the directives and 
to  aim  for  a  greater  harmonisation  in  the  way  the  legislation  is  enforced107.  The  degree  to 
which the inspection strategies developed at Member States level together with other policy 
tools  contributes  to  better  enforcement  and  compliance  needs  to  be  further  studied.  It  is 
critical that labour inspectors are seen as facilitating compliance with legislation rather than 
obstacles to business activity. The effectiveness of labour inspections depends largely on the 
expertise of labour inspectors and their capacity to carry out these inspections. 

Effectiveness of current data and systems enabling monitoring of the implementation of 
the Directives 

The  evaluation  identified  that  an  important  challenge  in  the  assessment  of  effectiveness  is 
related  to  the  effectiveness  of  current  data  and  systems  enabling  monitoring  of  the 
implementation of EU OSH framework.  

As  also  described  in  the  Commission's  better  regulation  guidelines,  part  of  effective 
regulation  is  monitoring  to  generate  evidence  on  activities  and  impacts  over  time  in  a 
continuous and systematic way. The guidelines, among other things, state that the monitoring 
system should provide time series data, which is more reliable in explaining behaviour than 
one-off data collection exercises.  

The  Directives,  apart  from  most  of  them  referring  to  the  five-yearly  reporting  requirement, 
make little or no reference as to how they will be monitored. As shown in the analysis of 
effectiveness  above,  there  are  some  important  sources  of  data  at  the  EU  level,  which  do 
enable  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  Directives  to  some  extent.  ESENER, 
ESAW, the EU-LFS ad hoc modules of accidents at work and work-related health problems 

106 European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) (2012), A mapping report on Labour Inspection 
Services in 15 European countries: 
http://www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/EPSU_Final_report_on_Labour_Inspection_Services.pdf 

107 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in 
EU Member States (Main report), COWI, 2016. 

46 

 
 
                                                            
and  EWCS  do  provide  valuable  input.  In  some  cases,  the  ongoing  work  on  methodological 
issues  such  as  under-coverage  and  underreporting  in  the  ESAW  data  collection  can  bring 
valuable input for future evaluations. The periodicity of the ESENER and EWCS surveys is 
however not fully aligned with the periodicity of the evaluations. Furthermore, the monitoring 
of  the  directives  often  requires  data  at  a  level  of  detail  going  beyond  the  capacities  of  the 
existing EU data collections. The absence of longitudinal studies assessing the effects of the 
policy intervention, of up-to-date data on occupational exposures, the difficulties in matching 
or linking different data sources necessary to study the effects of the policy intervention, as 
well  as  the  absence  of  EU  level  detailed  data  on  work-related  ill-health  (including 
occupational  diseases)  are  other  challenges  for  the  evaluation.  More  up-to-date  data  on  the 
incidence  rates  of  accidents  at  work,  broken  down  by  enterprise  size  would  be  valuable  in 
order  to  establish  the  nature  of  the  connexion  between  the  levels  of  compliance  in 
establishments  of  different  size  (micro,  small,  medium  and  large  enterprises)  and  OSH 
outcomes. 

Most  of  the  Directives  are  covered by  the  general  requirement  to  report  to  the  Commission 
about  their  implementation  every  five  years.  The  resulting  NIRs  for  the  period  2007-2012 
constitute one of the three main building blocks for this evaluation. Having a report every five 
years from the Member States on the implementation of all these Directives hence also marks 
a  unique  opportunity  for  collecting  data  and  filling  gaps  where  sources  such  as  those 
mentioned above, do not give sufficient insight.  

Analysis  of  data  from  the  NIRs  for  the  present  evaluation  also  shows  that  while  they  do 
provide  valuable  information,  the  scope  of  information  provided  varies  between  Member 
States  and between Directives. This is  partly  because the respondents in the Member States 
have taken different interests in answering the questions posed in the questionnaire devised by 
the Commission. However, this is also due to the fact that the questions are often phrased in 
an  open  manner.  For  this  reason,  the  responses  from  the  Member  States  are  often  not 
comparable and reflect different interpretations of the question posed.  

Furthermore, fifteen Directives contain reporting obligations. These obligations could be seen 
as  a  basis  for  EU  wide  data  collection  of  data  pertaining  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Directives, but no initiatives have been taken to streamline reporting in these areas.  

The lack of data, and the resulting limitations, have not only posed a methodological problem 
for  the  evaluation,  but  also  reflect  a  fundamental  problem  for  policy  and  regulatory 
development in  relation to  OSH.  A  clear understanding of the relationship  between specific 
risks and their adverse consequences provides an important basis for addressing those risks. 
Follow-up actions are therefore needed to address this issue in the future. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
6.3.  Efficiency – Assessment of costs, benefits and broader effects  

One key concern in the Better Regulation Agenda is to assess the efficiency of interventions, 
i.e.  whether  objectives  are  met  at  proportionate  cost  (the  protection  of  workers  health  and 
safety under the 24 EU Directives) without imposing unnecessary burdens on enterprises, in 
particular  SMEs.  As  EU  level  data  on  costs  was  not  available  to  answer  this  question,  the 
approach  taken  consisted  in  bringing  together  a  number  of  sources  of  evidence:  a  literature 
review; national data; and the results of stakeholders' interviews conducted in the framework 
of the external study.  

The  result  is  a  preliminary  qualitative  assessment  of  both  the  benefits  for  the  main 
stakeholders  groups  (the  workers,  employers,  governments)  and  main  costs  (incurred  in 
particular by the enterprises) in relation to the health and safety legislation. Enterprise level 
case studies were also examined to provide further perspective. The assessment was carried 
out  at  the  level  of  the  OSH  acquis  in  general,  as  the  provisions  of  different  Directives  are 
interlinked and do not allow for an analysis by Directive. 

  Difficulties  in  relation  to  building  a  model  to  compare  the  costs  and  benefits  of 

the EU health and safety legislation 

A  major  challenge  in  applying  cost-benefit  type  methods  to  assess  the  efficiency  of  the  EU 
OSH  framework  is  the  difficulty  in  establishing  a  robust  baseline  scenario,  and  the  lack  of 
sufficient input data on both benefits and costs.   

As  far  as  the  baseline  is  concerned,  the  mapping  exercise  showed  that  the  Directives  were 
often  put  in  place  in  parallel  to  pre-existing  national  legislation  of  varying  detail.  In  other 
cases,  the  Directives  have  influenced  the  way  the  national  legislation  has  evolved.  It  is, 
however,  difficult  to  judge  ex-post  what  would  have  happened  if  the  EU  OSH  legislative 
framework  would  not  exist.  An  experimental  or  quasi-experimental  counter-factual  design 
model was impossible to implement because no robust 'comparison' group could be envisaged 
as compared with the 'treatment' group due to the general character of the policy intervention. 
At  the  same  time  no  prospective  data  design  for  the  evaluation  was  envisaged  when  the 
Directives  were  adopted  and  the  data  available  ex-post  was  not  fully  fit  for  purpose.  While 
considering an analysis based on a non-experimental design the difficulties in differentiating 
between  the  impact  of  the  EU  legislation  and  the  national  legislation  as  well  as  other 
confounding  factors  (non-OSH  legislation,  technological  progress,  structural  changes  in  the 
labour markets, socio-economic developments etc.) rendered the analysis impossible.  

Secondly,  as  explained  in  Chapter  6.2,  an  additional  difficulty  lies  in  the  timeframe 
appropriate  for  the  analysis.  Each  form  of  ill-health  (independently  of  accidents  at  work), 
which  the  Directives  are  meant  to  prevent  has  its  own  minimum  duration  of  exposure, 
maximum latent and minimum induction period. For each form of ill-health a different time 
frame for the analysis would need to be considered. As diseases such as cancers have a very 
long latent period, a 2007-2012 evaluation time frame cannot address efficiency in relation to 
ill health. 

48 

 
 
 
Finally, several pieces of input data are missing to make a full cost-benefit type assessment. 
On the costs side of the equation, no information is currently available to date on this topic at 
EU level. The study gathered information primarily from national studies, but findings from 
one  Member  State  cannot  be  easily  extrapolated  to  another  due  to  differences  in  the 
transposition  of  the  Directives  and  different  methodologies  applied  to  measure  costs.  In 
addition,  the  costs  of  the  EU  legislation  cannot  easily  be  dissociated  from  more  detailed 
national requirements.  

On  the  benefit  side,  information  was  not  systematically  gathered  in  all  Member  States  in  a 
comparable  way  during  the  evaluation  period  and  in  prior  years.  In  particular,  data  on  the 
levels  of  exposure  in  the  exposed  populations  as  compared  to  exposure  limit  values  in  the 
Directives  and  the  actual  number  of  workers  exposed  is  often  not  available.  This  renders 
difficult to properly forecast the benefits, in particular in the case of Directives aiming at the 
prevention  from  forms  of  ill-health  with  long  latent  periods.  An  additional  difficulty  is  to 
identify the correct appraisal value for the health outcomes.  

  Overall compliance costs and administrative burdens 

This section presents findings in relation to the costs of complying with EU OSH legislation 
that  arise  for  society,  workers,  and  employers  ('compliance  costs').  The  evaluation  of  this 
point was carried out on the basis of the external study, and of the NIRs, but also on the basis 
of the results of the measurement undertaken in the framework of the EU Action Programme 
for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU108 as well as a distinct specific study on the 
consequences  of  the  existing  obligation  to  document  risk  assessment  and  of  a  possible 
exemption109  outsourced  by  the  Commission  (hereinafter,  'the  external  study  on  risk 
assessment documentation'). 

The external study analysed the compliance costs arising from EU OSH legislation using the 
Standard Cost Model (SCM)110 framework which divides compliance costs into substantive 
compliance  costs  (such  as  investments  in  safety  equipment  or  physical  changes  in  the 
workplace)  and  administrative  costs111  (costs  generated  by  the  legal  obligation  to  provide 
information,  such  as  reporting  obligations112,  including  documentation).  The  result  is  a   
mapping  of  all  provisions  which  could  potentially  give  rise  to  those  in  costs  in  all  the 
Directives.    

Several  methodological  challenges  for  estimating  compliance  costs  and  administrative 
burdens  were  encountered.  Following  the  detailed  mapping  of  the  way  the  Member  States 
transposed the provisions of the Directives, it became clear that Member States frequently go 

108 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/index_en.htm 
109  Europe  Economics,  Final  Report,  Study  on  the  consequences  of  the  documentation  of  the  risk  assessment 
(Article 9 of Directive 89/391/EEC) by very small enterprises engaged in low-risk activities, compared with a 
possible exemption from that obligation, 12 December 2012.  
110 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/scm_en.htm 
111  It  is  to  be  noted  that  costs  in  relation  to  information  that  would  be  collected  by  businesses  in  absence  of 
legislation (business-as-usual costs) are not included in the category administrative burdens. 
112 In brief, reporting obligations include the obligation to supply information (on request or automatically) to the 
competent authorities; and the obligation to keep certain documents at  the workplace (e.g. health records, risk 
assessment, explosion protection documents) in view, for example, of an inspection. 

49 

 
 
                                                            
beyond  EU  requirements.  Consequently,  it  was  felt  that  that  the  approach  whereby  isolated 
results available from chosen Member States will be extrapolated to other Member States is 
not appropriate. Furthermore, reservations about the SCM assumption of full compliance did 
not  seem  to  be  consistent  with  evaluation  evidence  of  different  levels  of  compliance  by 
Member State, individual provisions, and other factors such as the size of the enterprise.   

The Commission has been working to reduce the regulatory burdens created by EU legislation 
– making administrative processes easier and more efficient for citizens and businesses since 
2006,  Prior  to  the  external  study,  the  EU  Action  Programme  for  Reducing  Administrative 
Burdens  in  the  EU  examined  OSH  legislation  with  a  focus  on  the  provisions  of  the 
Framework  Directive  (Council  Directive  89/391/EEC)  and  the  Construction  Sites  Directive 
(Council Directive 92/57/EEC). The measurement concluded that the information obligations, 
which had the most significant impact on all administrative costs related to OSH legislation, 
generated  a  cost  of  around  4.2  bln  EUR.  Out  of  this  number,  3.8  bln  EUR  (88.6  %)  were 
assessed to be administrative burdens. The most significant administrative costs were related 
to the obligation to possess an assessment of risks to safety and health at work (2.9 bln EU, 
i.e. more than half of the overall administrative costs)113. The SCM methodology applied in 
the framework  of the Action Programme suggest that most  goal-oriented provisions of both 
Directives were classified as an EU administrative burden.  

In this context, ETUI (2010)114 has questioned whether the goal-oriented legal requirements 
present  in  some  directives  (in  particular  the  Framework  Directive)  can  be  translated  into 
substantive compliance costs and information obligations (administrative costs and burdens). 
According to ETUI, the Framework Directive (and most other OSH Directives) contains few 
detailed  substantive  rules  (such  as  exposure  limits,  medical  checks  etc.).  Rather,  they  lay 
down general objectives and establish procedures to create a management system, which links 
between  health  and  safety  at  work  to  business  management  systems.  This  makes  the 
distinction  between 
information  obligations  and  other  substantive  compliance  costs 
meaningless,  because  the  production,  processing  and  passing  on  of  information  are  the 
building blocks of that process.   

Nevertheless, in the framework of the evaluation study, in line with the SCM methodology a 
detailed mapping of the provisions which might lead to administrative and compliance costs 
was  made.  Most  of  the  principles  and  rules  common  to  all  Directives  as  information 
obligations (generating administrative costs) and found that the main cost category related to 
these obligations is labour cost. It was also found that the substantive obligations will generate 
costs  through  the  following  obligations:  requirements  to  change/alter  the  way  the  work  is 
organised (work organisation); requirements to invest in safety equipment (safety equipment); 
and  requirements  to  change  physical  working  aspects,  like  equipment  or  workstations 
(physical aspects of work).  

113 Detailed information about the level of administrative costs and burdens related to the information obligations 
steaming from the Framework and Construction Sites Directives is summarized in Table 4, Annex 4.  
114 L.Vogel,  Eric Van den Abeele, Better Regulation: a critical assessment, ETUI, 2010. 

50 

 
 
                                                            
The study concluded that it was not possible to estimate the actual monetary costs or estimate 
the  time  used  in  relation  to  the  obligations  set  by  the  Directives.  The  principles  and  rules 
common  to  all  Directives  laid  down  in  the  Framework  Directive  generally  do  not  indicate 
exactly  how  enterprises  should  carry  out  the  relevant  activities  nor  the  exact  frequency  of 
recurrent  obligation.  Therefore,  the actual  costs of  compliance  is  dependent  not  only  on  the 
specific  national  rules  but  also  on  the  enterprises  interpretation  and  operations  and  they  are 
likely to differ markedly from one enterprise to another depending on the specific risk factors, 
workplace operations and the level of compliance. It is noted that other studies have attempted 
to quantify costs under certain circumstances / in particular sectors115. 

Other  sources  of  information  were used  to  attempt  such  an  assessment  including  interviews 
with EU and national stakeholders. However, they did not provide the foundation for a robust 
quantitative  assessment,  as  most  of 
the  stakeholders  did  not  distinguish  between 
administrative or substantive compliance costs. The external study also conducted a literature 
review, which showed that current knowledge is limited and fragmented. It was not possible 
to directly compare the results from the studies, because they differ in methodology and cover 
different pieces of legislation, information obligations and Member States. However, based on 
the  available  data  several  provisional  conclusions  could  be  reached  as  regards  substantive 
compliance costs, administrative burdens and compliance costs in SMEs.  

All  Directives  contain  obligations  which  can  potentially  generate  either  administrative 
costs  or  substantive  compliance  costs.  Those  are,  however,  dependent  on  the  situation  in 
place in a given Member State before the entry into force of the Directives. The external study 
found  that  15  of  the  24  Directives  contain  reporting  obligations  (i.e.  obligations  to  supply 
information to the competent authority or to keep and record certain documents). 

Compliance  costs  stemming  from  the  Directives  appear  to  primarily  fall  on  the  enterprises 
(employers) and on the governments to a lower degree (compared to enterprises). However, it 
has proven difficult to estimate whether some requirements are more costly than others, as the 
different data sources are not directly comparable and present conflicting results.  

115 See the results of the Cumulative Cost Assessment of the Chemical Industry (Technopolis, 2016, , pp. 110-
111,  available  online:  http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/17784/attachments/1/translations/):  "The 
average cost of the workers’ safety package amounts approximately €2b per year. The main cost drivers are the 
operating cost and the investment related to the improvement of  safety conditions and protection of the health of 
workers. The yearly cost borne by companies remains stable over the period covered by the study, as there are 
no significant changes in the legislation. However, changes in processes, product formulations or classification 
of substances can require updates of safety standards in place at a manufacturer’s site. As an example, when a 
substance  classified  as  hazardous  is  introduced  in  a  chemical  process,  the  manufacturer  must  implement 
measures  such  as  individual  protective  equipment,  emission  control  systems,  emission  abatement  measures 
including  ventilation  or  closed  systems,  bio  monitoring  of  workers  and  safety  training.  Changes  in  the 
classification  of  substances  trigger  adaptations  in  the  workers’  protection  measures.  Investments  in  safety 
measures  are  usually  one-off  at  the  start  of  a  plant  and  changes  are  limited  to  upgrades  or  expansion  of 
facilities. Overall CAPEX is kept around 0.8%. On the other hand, operating costs recur on an annual base and 
amount  to  approximately  2%  of  the  value  added.  Operating  costs  include  periodic  maintenance  of  safety 
systems,  regular  replacement  of  individual  protective  equipment  (overwear,  gas  mask,  goggles,  gloves),  bio-
monitoring and training of workers." 

51 

 
 
                                                            
 
OSH  Directives  that  target  all  enterprises  (especially  the  Framework  Directive),  and 
provisions  that  are  common  to  all  EU  OSH  Directives  generate  the  highest  costs  from  a 
societal  perspective.    However,  this  might  not  be  the  case  from  the  enterprise  perspective. 
Indeed, some obligations might be rather costly for the individual enterprise, but because the 
obligation  only  applies  to  a  small  sector  or  industry,  the  total  cost  from  the  societal 
perspective  can  be  quite  small.  The  evaluation  study  also  pointed  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
strong business as usual factor in costs incurred for OSH116, as reasons to address health and 
safety go beyond the legal obligations (see also figure 3). 

Available  literature,  which  uses  the  SCM  to  assess  administrative  costs,  does  not  separate 
between costs stemming from national and/or EU legislation. Also no firm conclusions could 
be  drawn  in  the  external  study  concerning  administrative  costs  arising  from  'gold  plating'. 
However,  some  of  the  EU  stakeholders  expressed  the  opinion  that  administrative  costs,  in 
general, stem from complying with national legislation rather than the EU OSH acquis. This 
view seems  to  be supported by results of a large  scale 2014 survey117 of  49,320 enterprises 
across  the  Member  States,  which  showed  that  the  regulatory  burden  (percentage  of 
establishments  reporting  that  the  complexity  of  legal  obligation  is  a  major  difficulty)  varies 
from around 67% in Italy to around 14% in Slovenia and Lithuania (Figure 13). This suggests 
that  a  significant  proportion  of  the  administrative  burden  could  be  attributed  to  the  national 
differences rather than the common EU minimum rules.  National differences may be due to 
several factors,  such as differences in  the  transposition of the EU Framework Directive, the 
availability of guidance, support and external services that combined with other issues lead to 
this very diverse perception of how complex legal obligations on OSH are. 

Figure  13.  Difficulties  in  addressing  health  and  safety,  by  country:  the  complexity  of 
legal obligations (% establishments). 

116 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in 
EU Member States (Main report), COWI, 2016. 
117 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, ESENER-2 (2014),. 

52 

 
 
                                                            
Italy
Greece
France
Belgium
Netherlands
Portugal
Poland
EU-28
Germany
Croatia
Cyprus
Austria
Czech Republic
Ireland
Spain
Luxembourg
Bulgaria
United Kingdom
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
Sweden
Malta
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Latvia
Slovenia
Lithuania

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Major difficulty

Minor difficulty

Not a difficulty

No answer

Source: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), ESENER-2 (2014),. Base: all 
establishments.   

As  regards  compliance  costs  in  SMEs,  the  study  concluded  that  costs  per  employee  are 
likely to be higher in SMEs. This conclusion is based on a UK study118, which showed that 
while  SMEs  spent  less  (measured  in  absolute  numbers)  compared  to  large  enterprises,  the 
costs  per  employee  is  considerably  higher119.    However,  another  study  from  the  UK  shows 
that external consultancy might have a strong effect on costs in SMEs. In this context, the 
evaluation found evidence that smaller enterprises are more likely to use external consultants.  

118  Costs  of  compliance  with  health  and  safety  regulations  in  SMEs,  HSE,  2003.  The  Health  and  Safety 
Executive  in  the  UK  conducted  a  study,  to  assess  the  extent  of  disproportion  in  the  cost  of  OSH  compliance 
across  differently  sized  sectors.  The  study  included  enterprises  from  five  sectors  (agriculture/forestry, 
construction, manufacturing, transport and health). 
119 In the aforementioned study the average mean spend on OSH equalled 4,136 £ for small enterprises (0-49) 
and 628,926 £ for very large enterprises (more than 5,000 employees). At the same time the average spent per 
employee by size of organisation equalled 149.38 £ for small entities (0-49 employees) and 19.54 £ for very 
large organisations (more than 5,000 employees). 

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
This  may  be  because  larger  enterprises  more  often  have  the  competency  in-house,  while 
microenterprises and SMEs find it easier to acquire the service from external providers, even 
if they have less financial resources at their disposal.  

According  to  another  2008  survey  based  study120,  third  parties  (like  business  consultants, 
health  and  safety  experts,  lawyers,  financial  service  companies,  and  occupational  health 
professionals)  play  a  significant  role  in  shaping  how  employers  experience  and  feel  about 
health  and  safety.  However,  this  also  means  that  the  third  sector  (e.g.  insurers  and  OSH 
consultancy) also likely to play a role in relation to cost of compliance among SMEs121. 

• 

The obligation to document the risk assessment 

As  the  documentation  of  the  risk  assessment  was  identified  since  2009  as  the  provision 
generating most administrative costs in relation to the EU health and safety legislation,  the 
evaluation of the 24 EU occupational health and safety directives put a special emphasis on 
this requirement, in particular in relation to SMEs, to explore possibilities for administrative 
burden and costs reduction.  

The evaluation of this point was carried out on the basis of sources previously mentioned, as 
well  as  of  a  specific  mapping  of  the  situation  in  the  Member  States  carried  out  by  the 
Commission  services  from  2010  to  2011.  The  two  EU  relevant  advisory  bodies,  i.e.  the 
Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) and the Senior Labour Inspectors 
Committee (SLIC) also adopted opinions on this point122.  

Risk  assessment  is  as  an  essential  part  of  OSH  management  and  the  documentation 
obligation. However, this is also an area where the Commission has received requests  123, 124 
to exempt microenterprises from the risk assessment obligation of the Framework Directive.   

The  Framework  Directive  requires  an  employer  to  possess  documents  containing  an 
assessment of the risks to safety and health at work. Those documents must be accessible to 
workers  and/or  their  representatives  with  specific  responsibility  for  the  safety  and  health  of 
workers  must  have  access  under  its  Article  10(3)(a).  Risk  assessment  should  be  regularly 

120  Department  for  Business  Enterprise  and  Regulatory  Reform  (2008),  Improving  outcomes  for  health  and 
safety. 
121 While highly specialised consultant might be cheaper, the third sector increasingly demand health and safety 
assessment, compliance and/or forms of pre-qualification from clients that want to work with them. For many of 
the  employers  that  face  them,  these  requirements  have  become  a  significant  source  of  health  and  safety 
bureaucracy. SMEs in particular struggle to act as informed consumers of third party advice: knowing when –
and when not – it is in their interest to buy in health and safety support. 
122Opinion of  the  ACSHW  on  the  recommendations of  the High  Level Group of  Independent  Stakeholders  on 
Administrative Burdens, 10 December 2009, Doc. 2353/09; Opinion of the SLIC on the recommendations of the 
High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, 31 December 2009.   
123  See  for  example  Report  from  the  Business  Task  Force,  Cut  EU  Red  Tape,  October  2013,  p.  22;  United 
Kingdom suggestion in the NIR. 
124http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/betterregulation/files/hlg_opinion_working_environment_09052009_en.
pdf. 

54 

 
 
                                                            
adjusted when circumstances change and improvements allow125 and they can be recorded on 
paper or another stable support. 

A  degree  of  flexibility  for  the  needs  of  SMEs126  is  foreseen  firstly  in  that  the  structure  and 
authorship of the documents containing the results of the risk assessment is not fixed127 and 
Member States can allow equivalent methods of recording the risk assessment128. Secondly, 
Member States  are to define the obligations to  be met by the undertakings in  respect  of the 
drawing-up of the risk assessment documents depending on the nature of the activities and/or 
the size of the undertakings129. Member States thus benefit from flexibility in this area which 
may  consist  for  example  in  requiring  the  use  of  a  simplified  format  or  a  lighter  regime  for 
certain categories of companies.  

Nevertheless,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (CJEU)  established  that  Member 
States  cannot  exempt  small  business  from  being  in  possession  of  the  risk  assessment  in  a 
documentary form130.  

The evaluation finds that a very limited number of Member States exempt certain categories 
of undertakings from the requirement to document risk assessment (Article 9 (1) (a))  131,  132, 
e.g. on grounds of their size, or the nature of their activities.  

Member States use the flexibility under Article 9 (2) of the Framework Directive by allowing 
simplified  documentation  obligations  for  smaller  companies,  depending  also  on  the  level  of 
risk  of  sector  of  activity  in  which  they  operate133.  Most  Member  States  do  not  have  any 
particular requirement for the structure of the document, but many of them specify the kind of 
information that must be included in the document. 

Most Member States do not define "low risk activities" or "high risk activities"134. Moreover, 
several Member States expressed their opposition and/or concerns towards a classification of 
activities in low and high risk135, indicating in  particular the lack of a  necessary connection 

125 According to Article 6 (1), the employer shall be alert to the need to "adjust" the measures necessary for the 
safety and health protection of workers, including prevention of occupational risks, to take account of changing 
circumstances and aim to improve existing situations.  
126  M.L.A. GEELHOED,  Opinion  on  ECJ, 7  February  2002,  Commission / Germany,  C-5/00,  ECR  2002 p.  I-
1305, para 60.  
127 ECJ, 7 February 2002, Commission / Germany, C-5/00, ECR 2002 p. I-1305, para 25. 
128 ECJ, 7 February 2002, Commission / Germany, C-5/00, ECR 2002 p. I-1305, para 27. 
129 Article 9 (2) of the Framework Directive.  
130 ECJ, 7 February 2002, Commission / Germany, C-5/00, ECR 2002 p. I-1305, para 35.  
131 Based on the NIRs and on a comprehensive mapping carried out by the Commission services during 2010 and 
2011. 
132 United Kingdom and Malta.  
133 Austria, Slovenia, Spain. 
134 One Member State (Italy) has adopted in August 2013 a law that gives competence to the Minister of Labour 
and Social policies to define by decree "sectors of activities of low risk on the basis of the incidence of accidents 
and occupational diseases on the basis of objective criteria and parameters, resulting from the accidents index of 
INAIL  (National  insurance  institute)  and  relative  to  sectoral  occupational  diseases  and  specific  to  a  given 
undertaking".  
135 Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Malta, Sweden. 

55 

 
 
                                                            
between  an  undertaking  size  and  the  risks  its  activities  involve.  However,  several  Member 
States classify activities depending on their level of risk136 and list 'high risk' activities137. 

Some  Member  States138  have  carried  out  an  assessment  in  order  to  determine  whether  the 
obligation to document risk assessment constitutes a necessary or unnecessary administrative 
burden  for  companies,  but  have  generally  not  considered  the  size  of  the  companies.  No 
Member State has carried out an assessment of the impact of the requirement to document risk 
assessment for micro-companies undertaking low risk activities and very few Member States 
have specific information in this context about the situation of SMEs. 

In line with a recommendation made by the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens, a 
study139  investigated  the  possible  consequences  of  an  exemption  of  SMEs  from  a  risk 
assessment  documentation  obligation.  The  results  suggest  that  under  certain  scenarios  an 
exemption from the documentation obligation for micro-enterprises in low risk sectors might 
lead to a modest net benefit, but that the possibility that an exemption might lead to a negative 
net impact cannot be ruled out. The very limited available evidence  would seem  not to point 
to  overall  higher  work-related  accidents  rate  because  of  the  exemption  from  carrying  out  a 
risk assessment. However, the causal link between an exemption and a fall in costs of work-
related  ill  health  seems  difficult  to  prove.  The  study  investigated  the  consequences  of  the 
exemption under three different definitions of 'low risk'. Given the high degree of uncertainty 
in relation to certain input variables to the model, the sensitivity analysis undertaken showed 
that  there  is  a  risk  that  the  policy  would  lead  to  a  negative  outcome  in  all  three  Low  Risk 
definition scenarios, ranging from a net cost of 15 million EUR to 424 million EUR in the low 
sensitivity scenario.  

An exemption from the documentation obligation can also impact the ability of enforcement 
bodies  to  monitor  companies’  compliance  with  health  and  safety  practices140.  Labour 
inspectorates in some Member States rely heavily on the documentation as a signal of SMEs 
and micro-enterprises’ compliance with the health and safety legislation, and in the absence of 
any documentation such monitoring would need to be done through inspections, at a greater 
cost. 

Also, there is a possibility that an exemption from documenting risk assessments could have 
negative  consequences  for  small  companies  through  rising  insurance  premiums  that  would 
affect all companies, even those that do not have any claims against them. Available evidence 
regarding  an  exemption  from  risk  assessment  documentation  would  seem  not  to  point  to 
overall higher work-related accidents rate because of the exemption. However, the causal link 
between an exemption and a fall in costs of work-related ill health seems difficult to prove.  

136 Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Slovakia. 
137 Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland. 
138 Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania. 
139  Europe  Economics,  Final  Report,  Study  on  the  consequences  of  the  documentation  of  the  risk  assessment 
(Article 9 of Directive 89/391/EEC) by very small enterprises engaged in low-risk activities, compared with a 
possible exemption from that obligation. See also references in note 1.  
140 See also Opinion of the SLIC on the recommendations of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders 
on Administrative Burdens, 31 December 2009. 

56 

 
 
                                                            
Several challenges as to the availability of harmonised data at EU level for the purposes of a 
possible  "low  risk"  sector  definition  remain.  This,  in  particular,  concerns  the  data  on 
occupational  exposures  and  work-related  ill-health  (in  particular  occupational  diseases).  In 
view  of  the  data  challenges  in  determining  what  sectors/occupations/hazards  should  be 
covered by the definition of low risk at European level, the exercise of categorizing low risk 
sectors  appears  to  be  somewhat  subjective  and  to  have  corresponding  limitations,  including 
the possibility of inclusion/exclusion errors of sectors from the low risk definition.  

Research  undertaken  so  far  on  the  relationship  between  the  size  of  establishments  and  the 
injury  rates  for  accidents  at  work  provide  another  counter  argument  to  exempting  smaller 
establishments  from  the  obligation  to  document  the  risk  assessment  (the  obligation  to 
document  the  risk  assessment  being  an  integral  part  of  the  general  health  and  safety 
management).  While  no  up-to-date  data  is  available,  based  on  available  evidence  the  major 
injury  rates  (triggering  also  the  highest  costs  for  workers,  social  security  systems  and 
employers141)  seem  to  be  higher  for  SMEs  than  for  larger  establishments142.  Further  efforts 
are therefore needed to bring the incidence for most serious accidents down in SMEs, through 
focussing  on  solutions  which  could  improve  and  facilitate  and  improve  the  management  of 
OSH risks in those establishments.  

As regards the solutions identified in the course of the evaluation which could contribute to 
making the risk assessment procedure easier for the SMEs, those include the development of 
tools and templates to help guide the companies and digital solutions for assessment of risks 
to safety and health. Since the adoption of the EU occupational safety and health Directives, 
substantial efforts were deployed to develop this type of tools.  

At  the  EU  level,  an  example  of  this  approach  is  the  OiRA  project.  Similar  tools  are  being 
developed at national level and their use can also lead to reduction in costs due to the way the 
legislation has been implemented at national level or at least to create incentives to renew the 
risk assessment based on existing provisions. In the Netherlands, the acknowledgement of a 
relevant  risk-assessment  tool  for  small  companies  with  less  than  25  employees  replaces  the 
need for an OSH expert to approve their risk assessment, making it easy and convenient to use 
for these small businesses. There is a requirement to review and update all risk assessments 
performed  with  the  tools  every  three  years  and  if  this  does  not  happen,  the  mark  of 
acknowledgement will be removed and the advantage of not having to employ an OSH expert 
will  be  lost  (which  can  easily  cost  €1,500).  This  acts  as  an  incentive  for  both  sectorial 
organisations and individual companies to renew their risk assessments143. 

141, Minor injuries contribution to total costs is small (2%). Based on The costs to Britain of workplace injuries 
and work related ill health, HSE. 
142 EU incidence rates of accidents at work broken down by establishment size are available until 2007 for 15 
Member States (Source: Eurostat, ESAW). In 2007, the latest year for which the data was available, the 
standardised incidence rate of fatal accidents at work for all establishments was 2.9. The rate for establishments 
of 1 to 9 employees was 3.6, while for large enterprises (250 employees and more) – 1.8.  Findings confirmed by 
studies conducted at national level. See, as example in: Gli infortuni sul lavoro. Dall'analisi delle cause alla loro 
prevenzione, 2008, p.116-117.  
143 http://www.oiraproject.eu/Resources/case-studies/review-of-dutch-experience/at_download/file 

57 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Benefits 

Accidents  at  work  and  work-related  ill-health  are  a  major  cost  to  EU  Member  States. 
Estimates  from  different  Member  States  indicate  these  costs  range  from  2.6%  to  3.8%  of 
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)144. Action against poor Health and Safety can consequently 
provide benefits through avoiding costs that would otherwise result from cases of accidents at 
work and work-related ill-health. 

A recent EU-OSHA literature review study145 categorizes the costs of work-related ill-health 
and  accidents  at  work  into  five  types:  productivity  costs,  healthcare  costs,  quality  of  life 
losses,  administration  costs  and  insurance  costs.  Those  costs  are  not  equally  distributed 
between  the  different  stakeholders,  i.e.  the  workers  and  their  families,  the  employers,  the 
governments and consequently by the society in general146.  

In the absence of EU-level estimates, an overview of the distribution of costs of work related 
ill-health  among  the  different  stakeholders'  categories  can  be  drawn  from  studies  made  at 
national level (though based on different cost models).  

According to recent estimates from the United Kingdom147, 57% of the total costs fell on the 
workers, whilst 23% fell on government and 20% on the enterprises. The same source shows 
that non-financial human costs (which we refer to as quality of life losses) account for 57% of 
total costs of workplace injury and ill health. Productivity losses (which we refer to as indirect 
costs)  accounts  for  31%  of  total  costs  followed  by  health  and  rehabilitation  costs  (6%), 
administrative costs (1%) and compensation (referred to as insurance costs) (4%)148.  

Figure 5 in Annex 4 shows the trend in the cost of workplace injuries and ill health in the UK 
from  2006/07  to  2012/2013.  Those  costs  in  the  UK  have  fallen  by  14%  since  2006/07 
reflecting  downward  movements  in  the  number  of  cases.  The  estimate  does  not  include 
though the costs of long latency illness. It is not possible to exactly identify what part of this 
reduction can be attributed to the legislation, and it should be borne in mind that UK results 
cannot be extrapolated to other EU Member States. 

  Profitability 

Though  a  cost-benefit  analysis  of  the  effects  of  the  EU  occupational  health  and  safety 
legislation  was  not  undertaken  at  macroeconomic  level  for  reasons  stated  above,  several 
studies  have  been  reviewed  as  a  basis  for  assessing  the  profitability  for  enterprises  of 
different OSH activities. The International Social Security Association assessed the return on 
prevention index for investments in occupational health and safety to be 2.2149. In line with 
the findings of the study on Socioeconomic costs of accidents at work and work-related ill-
health the profitability index for all types of interventions analysed was ranging between 1.29 

144 EU-OSHA. 
145 Estimating the costs of accidents and ill-health at work: a review of methodologies, EU-OSHA, 2014, 
https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/estimating-the-costs-of-accidents-and-ill-health-at-work. 
146 For details, see Table 3 in the Annex 4 
147 See Figure 3 in the Annex 4 
148 See Figure 4 in Annex 4 
149 Calculating the international return on prevention for companies: costs and benefits of investments in 
occupational safety and health, International Social Security Association; 2013. 

58 

 
 
                                                            
and 2.89. The benefit to costs ratio was assessed to be 1.21-2.18150,151. Benefit to cost ratios 
over 1 were also observed in most of the case studies analysed in a study undertaken recently 
by EU-OSHA, targeting SMEs152.  

Case  study  literature  suggests  that  wide-ranging  interventions  are  more  profitable  than 
interventions  targeting  a  particular  issue  related  to  a  specific  sector  or  type  of  enterprise. 
Moreover, interventions that mainly concern training and organizational change appear to be 
more  profitable  compared  to  interventions  based  on  technical  changes,  such  as  personal 
protective  equipment.  Finally,  the  case  studies  show  that  participatory  interventions  that 
include workers appear to be most profitable153. 

As regards new and emerging risks, such as psychosocial risks, a recent study has estimated 
that  the  net  return  on  investment  generated  by  workplace  mental  health  promotion 
programmes over a 1 year period varied from €0.81 to €13.62 for every €1 of expenditure in 
the programme154. 

As  regards  benefits  in  SMEs,  the  external  study  found  that  SMEs  might  in  particularly 
benefit from health and safety effects of the EU OSH acquis, because a serious incident can 
lead to closure of a business due to the direct costs of dealing with the incident or the loss of 
contract/costumers.  Thus,  it  is  usually  more  difficult  for  SMEs  to  recover  from  a  serious 
accident, because key workers cannot easily be replaced and because short-term interruptions 
to business can lead to dissatisfied clients/breach of contract.  

  Broader effects 

The evaluation also suggests that the EU OSH acquis has had positive effects by influencing 
agenda  setting  and  national  priorities  in  Members  State  and  by  creating  more  awareness  at 
enterprise  level.  The  evidence  for  innovation,  quality  of  products,  competitiveness  is  much 
weaker, but the literature also points to a link between competitiveness and a safer working 
environment. No conclusions, however, could be drawn in this regard.  

Finally,  the  evaluation  also  points  to  negative  side  effects.  Most  notably,  stakeholders 
expressed  concern that unbalanced emphasis  on  risk  assessments  vis-à-vis  risk  management 

150 Socio-economic costs of accidents at work and work-related ill-health, European Commission, November 
2011. 
151 As regards different project types, the median value for the profitability index depending on the scenario 
ranged between 2.56 to 4.08 for substitution/avoidance measures (with a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.60 to 
2.25); 1.74 to 3.18 for organisational measures (with a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.04 to 1.36); 1.41 to 2.76 
for new equipment/auxiliaries measures (with a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.40 to 2.70); 1.37 to 2.15 for 
workplace adjustment measures (with a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.22 to 1.66); 0.95 to 3.39 for training 
measures (with a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.12 to 2.51); and 1.05 to 1.83 for personal protective 
equipment uses (with a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.18 to 2.10). 
152 The business case for safety and health at work: cost-benefit analyses of interventions in small and medium-
sized enterprises, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2014. 
153 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in 
EU Member States, COWI, 2016, p. 434. 
154  Matrix  Insight  (2013).  Economic  analysis  of  workplace  mental  health  promotion  and  mental  disorder 
prevention programmes and of their potential contribution to EU health, social and economic policy objectives, 
Matrix  Insight,  Research  commissioned  by  the  European  Agency  for  Health  and  Consumers.  Available  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/mental_health/docs/matrix_economic_analysis_mh_promo tion_en.pdf 

59 

 
 
                                                            
and preventive measures could be ineffective, in particular in situations where the preventive 
and risk management measures do not follow after the risk assessment phase. 

Coherence  

6.4 
This  section  describes  the  main  findings  on  how  the  Directives  operate  together, with  other 
EU interventions and with measures at international level to achieve their objectives. 

6.4.1  Coherence between the OSH Directives (internal coherence) 

The  evaluation  suggests  that  there  are  no  major  contradictory  provisions  and  the  legal 
articulation  between  the  OSH  Directives  through  in-built  mechanisms  (e.g.  specific  scope, 
without prejudice clause, exemptions, lex specialis principle) has in most cases contributed to 
avoiding  inconsistencies.  The  analysis  of  the  interlinkages  of  the  common  processes  and 
mechanisms (CPMs) across Directives also showed that the overall approach is relevant.  

The  external  study  has  identified  a  number  of  specific  requirements  within  individual 
directives that could apply to all risks, workers and workplaces. These are provisions with 
a  scope  and  rationale  corresponding  to  that  of  the  Framework  Directive  and  a  level  of 
prescription  that  would  not  restrict  the  Member  States  and  employers’  flexibility  in 
implementing  these  general  principles.  Specific  examples  of  provisions  which  are  currently 
included  in  some  of  the  individual  directives  but  could  possibly  be  applied  across  the  OSH 
framework are given below.  

The  study  could  not  establish  to  what  extent  this  would  be  beneficial  and  what  additional 
costs for employers it would generate. Stakeholders pointed out the risk that conducting even 
these  seemingly  straightforward  modifications  to  the  framework  directive  could  in  practice 
result in creating additional burdens for employers while having no effect on actual protection 
of workers, or even de facto lowering current protection standards. Another approach, to be 
further  explored,  could  be  to  provide  clearer  explanation  of  what  is  considered  as  effective 
implementation of the framework directive. 

a)  Risk assessment 

The requirement to conduct a risk assessment is set as a general, ‘a minima’, principle in the 
Framework  Directive.  Most  Directives  regulating  specific  risks  define  in  detail  the 
elements/risks that must be covered by this assessment. Out of those Directives which include 
an  obligation  to  carry  out  a  risk  assessment,  the  majority  (15)  establishes  detailed  risk 
assessment  procedures.  Eight  directives  provide  for  an  obligation  to  be  in  possession  of  an 
assessment.  Out  of  the  24  directives  all  except  one  refer  to  risk  management  measures, 
undefined or detailed.  

However, in some cases, these detailed provisions are not directly linked to the specific scope 
of  the  Directive  and  could  apply  to  all  workers  regardless  of  the  risks  or  the  sector.    The 
evaluation suggests that the following risk assessment and derived risk management measures 
could be applied across the whole OSH framework: 

  To update or periodically repeat the risk assessment.  

60 

 
 
 
 
  To  record  the  risk  assessment  on  a  suitable  medium  and  to  preserve  it  in  a  suitable 

form to permit consultation at a later stage. 

  To  take  particular  attention,  when  carrying  out  the  risk  assessment,  to  appropriate 
information obtained from health surveillance, including published information, as far 
as possible. 

  To  preserve  in  a  suitable  traceable  form  the  protection  and  prevention  measures 

derived from the risk assessment.    

b)  Preventive and protective services 

The evaluation has not revealed any coherence issues, nor have stakeholders raised concerns, 
in relation to the provisions relating to preventive and protective services. Only one instance 
of  possible  streamlining  has  been  identified  in  relation  to  the  Framework  Directive  and 
Directive 91/383/EEC (temporary workers).  

Under Directive 91/383/EEC (temporary workers), Member States must ensure that workers, 
services or persons designated to carry out preventive and protective activities are informed of 
the  assignment  of  temporary  workers  to  the  extent  necessary  to  carry  out  adequately  their 
protection  and  prevention  activities  for  all  the  workers.  This  requirement  is  potentially 
applicable  to  all  newly  employed  workers  and  workers  who  need  specific  attention  (e.g. 
young workers and pregnant/breastfeeding workers) due to the risks they encounter.  

c)  Information to workers 

The  Framework  Directive  (Article  10)  sets  out  the  requirement  of  providing  information  to 
workers  in  a  general  manner.  All  individual  Directives  apart  from  Directive  1999/92/EEC 
(explosive  atmospheres/ATEX  Workplace)  contain  specific  provisions  on  information  for 
workers  that  apply  to  the  specific  risks  or  workplaces  they  cover.  In  some  cases,  these 
additional details and examples of information to be communicated to the workers are more 
general  and  could  bring  an  added  value  to  the  general  principles  set  in  the  Framework 
Directive. Consequently, the evaluation suggests that the following provisions on information 
to workers under individual Directives could be applied across the whole OSH framework:   

  The requirement to inform all workers concerned in a comprehensible manner. 
  The requirement to inform all workers on the outcome/results of the risk assessment 
including an explanation of their significance and potential risks, on the circumstances 
in  which  workers  are  entitled  to  health  surveillance,  on  safe  working  practices  to 
minimise  exposure  or  risks,  on  how  to  detect  health  effects  of  exposure  and  how  to 
report them. 

  Specific  information  requirements  in  particular  cases,  namely  in  cases  of  abnormal 

situations, in cases of accidents and incidents. 

  The requirement to provide information to workers before they take up activity. 
  The  requirement  to  inform  workers  about  any  significant  findings  from  the  health 

surveillance, taking into account any medical confidentiality. 

61 

 
 
 
 
d)  Training of workers 

The  Framework  Directive  sets  the  general  principle  of  ensuring  adequate  training  to  all 
workers  (Article  12)  and  most  individual  Directives  also  contain  specific  provisions  on 
training  of  workers  that  apply  to  the  specific  risks  or  workplaces  they  cover.  However,  in 
some  cases,  the  additional  details  and  examples  of  training  that  should  be  provided  to  the 
workers are more general and could bring an added value if applied to all workers.  

Consequently,  the  evaluation  suggests  that  the  following  provision  on  training  of  workers 
under the individual Directives could be applied across the whole OSH framework:  

  The  requirement  to  organise  demonstrations,  e.g.  how  to  wear  personal  protective 

equipment. 

  The  requirement  concerning  training  instructions  understandable/  comprehensible  to 

the workers concerned. 

  The inclusion of safe working practices among the training topics. 
  The provision of specific training to workers at particular risk. 
  The  inclusion  of  special  circumstances  and  what  to  do  in  that  case  in  the  training 
topics  as  well  as  inclusion  of  information  on  how  to  perform  and  execute  the  tasks 
safely in the training topics.   

e)  Health surveillance 

Article  14  of  the  Framework  Directive  set  general  principles  on  health  surveillance  of 
workers.  While  some  specific  Directives  have  established  more  detailed  and  specific  health 
surveillance  requirements,  some  individual  directives  set  general  health  surveillance 
provisions  that  could  potentially  bring  an  added  value  to  the  general  principle  of  health 
surveillance under the Framework Directive, as follows:  

  To  ensure  that  medical  examinations  or  surveillance  must  be  made  available  during 
hours chosen by the worker (Directive 2004/40/EC (electromagnetic fields/EMF). 
  To ensure that the doctor, the occupational health professional or the medical authority 
responsible for the health surveillance has access to the results of the risk assessment 
where  such  results  may  be  relevant  to  the  health  surveillance  (Directive  2006/25/EC 
(artificial optical radiation/AOR)). 

  To ensure that the doctor or the authority responsible for the health surveillance must 
be familiar with  the exposure  conditions  or circumstances of each worker (Directive 
2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and  mutagens);  Directive  2009/148/EC  (asbestos)  and 
Directive 2000/54/EC (biological agents). 

  Obligation  to  inform  the  employer  of  any  significant  findings  from  the  health 
surveillance, taking into account medical confidentiality set in Directive 2002/44/EC 
(vibration) and Directive 2006/52/EC (artificial optical radiation). 

  To  take  into  account  advice  from  the  person/authority  responsible  for  health 
surveillance  in  implementing  risk  management  risks  including  assigning  alternative 
work  (Directive  2002/44/EC  (vibration);  Directive  2003/10/EC  (noise);  Directive 

62 

 
 
 
 
2004/40/EC  (electromagnetic  fields/EMF);  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and 
mutagens); Directive 2009/148/EC (asbestos)). 

  To ensure that result of health surveillance are kept under health records (requirement 

in relation to health records are set in eight directives).  

f)  

Limit values 

Limit  values  are  set  after  scientific  assessment  and,  for  binding  limit  values,  subsequent 
analysis  of socio-economic  factors.  Rapid  technological change  and  scientific  developments 
put  high  demands  on  timeliness  and  quality  of  these  assessments.  The  Commission  should 
strive  to  consistently  improve  robustness  and  coherence  of  methodologies  across  relevant 
directives155.   

g)  Workers with particular sensitive risks 

Directive  89/654/EEC  (workplace),  Directive  92/57/EEC  (construction  sites),  the  two 
Directives  on  mineral  extracting  industries  and  Directive  2013/35/EU  (EMF)  contain  some 
measures on pregnant workers and nursing mothers. In order to ensure better clarity and avoid 
that  provisions  on  pregnant/nursing  workers  are  spread  across  different  directives,  the 
streamlining of these provisions could be considered. 

h) 

Sanctions, judicial protection, inspection and other enforcement measures 

The  Framework  Directive  does  not  contain  express  provisions  on  sanctions  or  defence  of 
rights (by judicial process or by recourse to other competent authorities). By contrast, several 
individual  Directives  do  contain  specific  provisions  on  sanctions  (Directive  2013/35/EU 
(electromagnetic  fields),  Directive  2006/25/EC  (artificial  optical  radiation),  Directive 
2009/148/EC (asbestos) and to a certain extent Directive 94/33/EC (young people) and means 
of redress (Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers)). These provisions could be 
applied across the whole OSH framework.  

6.4.2.  Coherence between the OSH Directives and other EU measures and/or policies 
and international instruments (external coherence) 

With  regard  to  external  coherence  of  the  OSH  acquis  with  other  EU  legislation/policies 
the evaluation found that, in several cases, there are some concerns on coherence between 
one  or  more  OSH  directives  and  one  or  several  inter-related  non-OSH  EU.  The  coherence 
issues identified can be classified under the following categories: 

Inconsistencies 

Despite  close  links  with  Directive  2000/54/EC  (biological  agents),  the  scope  of  Directive 
2010/32/EU  (sharp  injuries)  does  not  cover  all  the  categories  of  workers  that  might  be 

155 Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents), Directive 2004/37/EC (carcinogens and mutagens) and Directive 
2009/148/EC (asbestos) 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
exposed to infection through sharp injuries (e.g. workers dealing with special/ contaminated 
waste management treatments or researchers in laboratories).  

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 ('CLP Regulation') and OSH Directive 98/24/EC (chemical 
agents) could, according to some stakeholders, give reason for concern about the consistency 
of the definition of "hazardous chemical agent" in the two Directives. 

There are close links between Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), Directive 98/24/EC 
(chemical agents) and Directive 2004/37/EC (carcinogens and mutagens). 

REACH  and  OSH  legislation  are  complementary  and  both  protect  workers  from  the  risks 
from  chemicals.    In  general,  REACH  applies  without  prejudice  to  worker  protection 
legislation  and  OSH  legislation  applies  without  prejudice  to  existing  or  future  Union 
provisions  that  are  more  favourable  to  the  protection  of  the  safety  and  health  of  workers  at 
work. There are, nevertheless in this interaction, points of friction that need to be addressed. 

Under  OSH,  assessing  and  managing  risks  to  workers  is  principally  the  responsibility  of 
employers.  REACH, via registration and obligations to communicate hazards and risks along 
the supply chain, places risk management duties on all the actors in the supply chain. Often, 
these  actors  are  employers  in  terms  of  producers  or  downstream  users  of  a  chemical 
substance. REACH requires suppliers to compile and supply a 'safety data sheet' (SDS) when 
certain  conditions  are  met.    The  SDS  provides  important  information  to  employers  helping 
them  to  perform  their  risk  assessment  at  the  workplace  and  to  adopt  adequate  risk 
management measures.  It must specify national OELs and biological limit values established 
to implement corresponding EU limit values and, where a 'chemical safety report' is required 
under  the  REACH  Regulation,  also  relevant  'derived  no-effect  levels'  (DNELs).    This  can 
confuse employers/downstream users who may receive different values reported in the same 
SDS section for the same substance. 

Both  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents)  and  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or 
mutagens)  make  provision  for  employers  to  eliminate  or  minimise  risks  from  hazardous 
chemical agents to the safety and health of workers at work via ‘substitution' for non- or less-
hazardous  alternatives  where  feasible  –  or,  in  the  case  of  carcinogens  or  mutagens,  where 
technically  possible.  Under  REACH  the  substitution  principle  also  applies  in  particular  in 
relation  to  authorisation.  In  the  case  of  restriction,  substitution  is  required  by  the  restriction 
terms,  while  authorisation  obliges  users  to  move  to  alternatives  where  alternatives  are 
technically  and  economically  feasible.  Authorisations  for  continued  use  of  a  substance  are 
periodically reviewed to determine whether such alternatives exist. 

The evaluation has identified that data generated by REACH can support employers’ efforts 
to  find  alternatives  –  and  stakeholders  have  identified  cases  where  the  preparation  of  an 
application  for  authorisation  under  REACH  has  resulted  in  improved  consideration  of 
substitutes and reduced exposures in the workplace. 

64 

 
 
 
Key points of the interface therefore include the conclusions made by REACH registrants and 
employers  regarding  appropriate  risk  control,  and  concerning  the  lack  of  clarity  in  the 
relationship  between  the  OSH  OEL  and  the  REACH  DNEL  concepts,  and  proposals  for 
REACH  'authorisation'  or  'restriction'  measures  intended  to  address  worker  protection 
concerns.    These  points  can  pose  challenges  for  authorities  and  employers  –  but  can  also 
result  in  improved  standards  of  worker  protection  under  the  provisions  of  both  OSH  and 
REACH. 

In particular, the coexistence of national OELs and DNELs, which are communicated in 
the SDS, needs further clarification for employers with regard to the limit values they must 
take into account in the risk assessment and for the definition of appropriate risk management 
measures.  The  evaluation  noted  that  provisions  could,  for  example,  be  included  in  REACH 
and/or the Chemical Agents Directive to coordinate how OELs and DNELs are derived in 
order to define the most accurate way of using them in the risk assessment, and that there is 
cooperation  between  SCOEL  and  ECHA's  Risk  Assessment  Committee  (RAC)  when 
establishing  limit  values  as  required  under  REACH  and  COM  Decision  2014/113/EU  to 
reduce the potential scientific divergences. 

Concerning  the  interface  between  the  REACH  Regulation  and  Directive  2009/148/EC 
(asbestos),  the  benchmark  value  used  by  ECHA  in  the  risk  assessment  supporting  the  
amendment of the restriction on chrysotile in entry 6 of Annex XVII to REACH Regulation156 
is  lower  than  the  value  for  maximum  airborne  asbestos  fibre  concentration  in  the  Directive 
2009/148/EC (asbestos). The difference indicates that the limit value for airborne asbestos (or 
at least for chrysotile) may need to be reconsidered. 

In conclusion, there is potential for further developing synergies between OSH, REACH, CLP 
and other EU chemicals legislation.  

Lack of legal clarity in the interface  

-  Directive  2013/30/EU  on  safety  of  offshore  oil  and  gas  operations  refers  to  the 
complementarity  of  the  reporting  requirements  under  this  Directive  and  the  ones  under 
Directive 92/91/EEC (extractive industries - drilling). However, it does not provide further 
details on the articulation between the two reporting requirements.   

-Directive  92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding  workers)  and  Directive  94/33/EC  (young 
people) set specific employment rights that are not always linked to occupational health and 
safety  issues  (e.g.  working  time  provisions  allowing  young  people  to  combine  work  with 
school  attendance  or  time  off  for  ante-natal  examinations  and  prohibition  of  dismissal  of 
pregnant/breastfeeding workers). Those other provisions which aim at protecting and ensuring 
the  rights  of  pregnant/breastfeeding  workers  represent  another  important  function  of  the 
maternity leave directive.  

156 ECHA, Annex XV Restriction Report, Amendment to a Restriction, Asbestos (Substance name Chrysotile), 
p. 27, http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/annex_xvi_chrysotile_en.pdf.  

65 

 
 
                                                            
- Directive 2009/13/EC (Social partners Agreement on the Maritime Labour Convention) 
contains equivalent medical treatment requirements to Directive 92/29/EC (medical treatment 
on board vessels). Directive 2008/106/EC (implementing the IMO Convention on Standards 
of  Training,  Certification  and  Watchkeeping  for  Seafarers  (STCW)  and  Directive  92/29/EC 
set  equivalent  training  requirements  for  commercial  seagoing  ships.  This  does  not  lead  to 
double regulation in practice but may be confusing as similar requirements are set by different 
texts. 

Possibility to enhance synergies 

The  relevant  provision  concerning  the  award  criteria  under  the  Public  Procurement 
Directive  mentions  ‘social  characteristics’  as  a  possible  criterion  to  be  used  by  contracting 
authorities, without further details or specific reference to OSH obligations on behalf of the 
tenderers.  The  synergies  between  the  two  sets  of  EU  legislation  might  be  enhanced  by 
reintroducing the link between the award criteria or contract performance conditions and the 
fulfilment of OSH requirements by the (potential) contractor  in the provisions of the Public 
procurement Directives. 

The  main  interaction  between  Directive  94/9/EC  (ATEX  Equipment)  -  recast  by  Directive 
2014/34/EU - and Directive 1999/92/EC (ATEX Workplace Directive) concerns the selection 
of  equipment  and  protective  systems  as  defined  under  Directive  94/9/EC  to  be  used  in  the 
different zones as defined under Directive 1999/92/EC. Although it was generally perceived 
that  both  Directives  work  well  with  no  major  coherence  problems,  some  Member  States 
expressed  some  concerns  about  this  interaction  leading  to  potential  barrier  to  the  free 
movement  of  equipment  across  the  EU,  as  more  MSs  can  impose  more  stringent  national 
provisions when transposing Directive 1999/92/EC. 

Positive synergies can also be found between  Directive 2006/42/EC (Machinery Directive) 
and  the  following  OSH  directives  or  groups  of  directives:  the  Work  Equipment  Directive, 
physical agent Directives, Directive 89/656/EEC (use of personal protective equipment/PPE), 
and the ATEX Directive as they complement each other (e.g. work equipment, ATEX) in a 
way  that  raises  the  level  of  protection  of  the  workers  concerned  and  leads  to  a  better 
application of the Directives (e.g. PPE). 

Another  positive  synergy  can  be  identified  between  the  OSH  Directive  2009/148/EC 
(protection  of  workers  from  asbestos  exposure)  and  Directive  87/217/EEC  on  the 
protection of the environment from asbestos whereby the former contributes to the meeting of 
the  objectives  of  the  latter,  in  particular  in  respect  of  activities  involving  the  demolition  of 
buildings,  structures  and  installations  containing  asbestos  and  the  removal  therefrom  of 
asbestos  and  of  products  containing  asbestos  involving  the  releases  of  asbestos  fibres  or 
dust.157 

157  Concerning    the  Directive  2009/148/EC  on  the  protection  of  workers  against  asbestos  exposure,  a  deeper 
analysis  is  required  to  determine  whether  the  combined  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  Directive 
2009/148/EC in particular on the demolition of buildings containing asbestos and asbestos-added products and 
on  the  removal  therefrom  of  these  raw  material  and  products  (Article  12(c)),  and  of  the  provisions  set  out  in 

66 

 
 
                                                            
b) Coherence between OSH Directives and other international instruments 

With regard to external coherence of the EU OSH acquis with international instruments, 
in  several  instances  international  conventions  (i.e.  15  International  Labour  Organization 
('ILO')  Conventions  and  the  International  Maritime  Organization  Conventions  (‘IMO’) 
International  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training,  Certification  and  Watch  keeping  for 
Fishing Vessel Personnel (the STCW-F Convention)) ratified by at least some Member States 
set  additional  or  more  stringent  requirements  than  the  EU  acquis.  The  incorporation  of  the 
more stringent provisions in the EU OSH acquis would ensure a level-playing field across the 
different  Member  States.  However,  further  analysis  is  needed  to  determine  whether  further 
ILO Conventions should be implemented through the EU OSH acquis. 

The  evaluation  also  found  that  there  is  uncertainty  as  regards  the  legal  hierarchy  between 
Directive 92/58/EEC (safety and health signs) and the Graphical Symbols  standard  EN ISO 
7010  (that  includes  safety  signs)  which  complicates  national  implementation  and  causes 
confusion amongst manufacturers and employers. There is also a lack of clarity regarding the 
interrelationship between the Directive and the EN ISO standard, the REFIT Programme can 
potentially ensure a greater clarity on the relationship between them. 

6.5 

EU added value  

The  evaluation  shows  that  despite  the  progress  achieved,  in  the  light  of  continued  workers' 
exposure to occupational risks and observed levels of work-related ill-health, intervention is 
necessary to ensure minimum safety and health conditions for the workforce throughout the 
EU. 
In line with the European Court of Justice jurisprudence158, minimum requirements in the area 
of health and safety at work are adopted at EU level contribute to achieving the objective set 
in the Treaty of raising the level of protection as regards the health and safety of workers and 
to harmonize the conditions in this area while maintaining the improvements made. 

Results  from  several  studies  (including  qualitative  or  qualitative  structured  stakeholders' 
interviews) as well as a detailed analysis of the NIRs show that the OSH Directives ensured a 
minimum protection level for workers in Member States with regard to OSH.,  

  The  OSH  legislation  plays  a  role  in  preventing  unfair  competition  between  Member 
States based on low standards for working conditions. Different standards in terms of 
workers'  health  and  safety  protection  across  the  Member  States  provide  potential 
incentive for companies to locate their production facilities in Member States with the 
lower  standards,  thus  impacting  the  cost  of  production.  In  all  cases,  differences  in 
labour  standards  have  an  impact  on  competitiveness,  because  they  impose  different 
costs  on  operators.  EU  OSH  acquis  contributes  to  reduce  potential  differences  of 
competition at the cost of the health and well-being of workers. 

other Union instruments (e.g. Regulation 1907/2006 (REACH)) ensure the full achievement of the objective of 
Article 7(2) of Directive 87/217/EEC (protection of human health and the environment against asbestos).          

158 See Case C-84/94, United Kingdom / Council, ECR 1996 p. I-5755. 

67 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
 
As  risks  to  workers'  health  and  safety  are  broadly  similar  across  the  EU,  setting  minimum 
requirements prevents duplication of efforts in Member States in assessing risk levels. There 
is thus an efficiency gain for the EU to agree on common values when developing EU-OSH 
legislation.  Indeed,  this  requires  often  a  high  level  of  scientific  expertise  and  can  therefore 
bring costs savings to national administrations incurred in relation to scientific advice. This is 
for example the case for the legislation aiming at the protection of workers from the chemical 
agents  as  well  as  carcinogens  and  mutagens  at  work,  where  the  scientific  expert  evaluation 
plays an important advisory role in establishing evidence-based occupational exposure limits 
as minimum requirements at the EU level.  

Furthermore,  as  the  EU  legislator  considered  it  necessary  to  improve  the  existing  level  of 
protection  as  regards  the  health  and  safety  of  workers  and  to  gradually  implement  the 
conditions in this area, the achievement of that objective through the imposition of minimum 
requirements  necessarily  presupposes  EU-wide  action  to  ensure  that  Member  States 
implement provisions in a similar way159 The evaluation found evidence that the legislation of 
Member  States  have  aligned  to  common  minimum  requirements.  Indeed,  the  contributions 
received from the NIRs for the 24 OSH Directives as well as the detailed mapping exercise 
performed during the evaluation shows that the adoption of the Framework Directive and the 
related individual Directives have triggered changes both in the structure and the content of 
the national OSH legislations in the Member States aiming at aligning it to common minimum 
requirements,  even  though  those  came  often  in  the  context  of  an  already  existing  national 
legislation. The main 'new elements' or positive aspects brought by the Framework Directive 
and  the  Individual  Directives,  as  highlighted  in  the  NIRs  were:  the  contribution  to  the 
dissemination  of  main  occupational  risk  prevention  concepts  (such  as  the  upstream 
assessment  of  risks  at  the  workplace  and  definition  of  corresponding  preventive  and 
protective measures, the reinforcement of the basic prevention principles of substitution and 
planning),  reaffirmation  of  the  general  principles  of  risk  prevention,  the  involvement  of 
preventive services, in the sense of Article 7 of Directive 89/391/EEC in the risk-prevention 
measures; a stronger focus on preventive rather than remediation measures. In some Member 
States, the transposition of the OSH Directives has proven to be the occasion for the further 
development  of  the  national  legislation  or  the  regrouping  of  a  number  of  pre-existing 
elements160.  The  Framework  Directive  introduced  in  many  countries  a  modern  goal-setting 
process-based regulatory approach, replacing detailed prescriptive legislation.161 

Although in this area of shared competence, Member States are allowed to set high levels of 
protection, through EU OSH legislation workers across the EU can be assured of a minimum 
level  of  health  and  safety  protection,  also  when  executing  their  rights  as  regards  free 

159 See Case C-84/94, United Kingdom / Council, ECR 1996 p. I-5755. 
160 Based on Commission's services analysis of the National Implementation Reports and Evaluation of the 
Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in EU Member States, 
COWI, 2016. 
161 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in 
EU Member States, COWI, 2016 

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
movement  when  working  abroad  in  another  Member  State.  As  an  example  of  how  the  EU 
OSH legislation contributes to ensuring a more even protection of workers, data gathered in 
the preparatory work for a revision of the CMD Directive, indicated wide differences in the 
Member  States  regarding  the  setting  of  limit  values  for  the  carcinogens  under  the  proposal. 
Some Member States have already established binding limit values that are at the same value 
or  lower  than  the  value  recommended  by  the  ACSH.  This  demonstrates  that  unilateral 
national action is possible as regards setting a limit value for these chemical agents. However, 
there  are  also  many  cases  where  Member  States  have  no  limit  values  or  ones  that  are  less 
protective  of  worker  health  than  the  value  put  forward  in  the  Commission's  proposal.  In 
addition, where national limit values exist, they vary considerably, leading to different levels 
of  protection.  Some  of  these  limits  are  considerably  higher than  recommended  by  scientific 
evidence. Establishing a European limit value leads to ensuring a more even, minimum level 
of protection of workers across the EU. 

As regards the contribution to broader EU policy goals, the findings of this evaluation point at 
a certain level of impact in terms of the goals of promotion of better job quality and working 
conditions of the EU 2020 Strategy. 

7. 

CONCLUSIONS AT EU AND NATIONAL LEVEL 

Implementation and Compliance 

While  the  Member  States  have  chosen  various  models  for  their  legal  transposition  of  the 
Directives'  requirements,  the  requirements  of  the  EU  OSH  Directives  contain  the  core 
elements of the national systems. EU OSH legislation – through the Framework Directive - 
has contributed to a focus on the risk management cycle.  

The evaluation found that overall compliance with the EU OSH acquis across the EU and 
across establishment sizes is good. Compliance with EU OSH Directives requirements is 
higher  in  large  establishments  compared  to  SMEs  and  micro-establishments.  Overall 
compliance  increases  with  the  size  of  the  establishment.  The  available  data  shows  that  the 
lower level of compliance in smaller establishments to a large extent is coupled with the 
lack of a safety and health representative. The most reported challenge for compliance for 
SMEs is the lack of financial, technical and human resources. 

Relevance 

Based  on  the  existing  data,  the  evaluation  suggests  that  most  of  the  provisions  of  the  EU 
OSH  Directives  remain  relevant  in  view  of  prevalence  of  work  related  risk.  Although 
some  changes  in  the  relative  importance  of  different  work  sectors  (or  activities)  can  be 
anticipated, the current levels of exposure to the different hazardous agents and the continued 
existence of previously identified risks justify the need for the Directives. 

Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  identified  some  provisions  where  the  updating  of  the  outdated 
provisions or some guidance to employers and enforcers on interpretation in the light of the 

69 

 
 
 
 
changing working methods in the workplaces, technological changes as well as new scientific 
knowledge could be considered.  

Effectiveness 

Concerning the effectiveness of the OSH framework, the available statistical data shows that 
both  the  incidence  and  the  number  of  accidents  at  work  have  considerably  decreased 
over the evaluation period. Several research studies and available statistical evidence show 
that  SMEs,  reporting  lower  levels  of  compliance  with  the  OSH  legislation,  experience  also 
higher (standardised) incidence rates for serious and fatal accidents at work. Data for smallest 
entities (microenterprises) presents a mixed picture with again higher standardised incidence 
rates for fatal accidents as compared with large enterprises, but lower non-fatal accident rates 
as compared with larger enterprises162. At the same time, it should further be studied to what 
extent under-reporting affects these results. 

Due to the complexity of interaction between the different factors influencing the evolution of 
accidents  at  work,  the  causal  links  between  the  decreasing  trend  and  OSH  acquis  given  the 
existence  of  many  external  factors  could  not  be  properly  quantified.  However,  qualitative 
evidence  from  stakeholders  confirms  that  in  their  view  the  Directives  were  at  least 
reasonably successful in achieving their intended aims and contribute to benefitting the 
health and safety of workers, including the reduction in accidents at work.  

One of the main exceptions to the declining rates of work-related ill-health is work-related 
cancer  which  still  seems  to  be  very  high  in  the  EU.  The  latent  period  for  cancer  is  often 
particularly  long  and  currently  recognised  cases  are  to  a  large  extent  the  effect  of  past 
exposures.  Nevertheless,  the  absence  of  minimum  OELs  for  certain  substances  of  high 
concern and process generated substances or mixtures, as well as lack of common EU-level 
definitions  for  the  latter,  might  lead to  continued  inefficiencies  in  the  protection  of  workers 
from  carcinogens  at  work.  EU  level  protection  of  workers  concerning  carcinogens  and 
mutagens  has  been  broadly  identified  by  stakeholders  and  Member  States  as  in  need  of 
updating, also in the light of international developments. 

Other  major  risk  areas  of  ill-health  are  musculoskeletal  disorders  and  mental  ill-health. 
However, considerable uncertainty remains over measures that may be appropriate to apply at 
the workplace or more broadly in society.  

Efficiency 

The  evaluation  shows  that  administrative  and  substantive  costs  are  likely  to  vary 
considerably from Member State to Member State and from enterprise to enterprise.  

162 Eurostat, ESAW, 2007 (online data code hsw_aw_inasz). At the same time under-coverage problems for the 
self-employed population do not allow to draw definitive conclusions for this group.; As regards other relevant 
sources see in Theo Nichols, Amanda Dennis and Will Guy, Size of employment unit and injury rates in British 
manufacturing: a secondary analysis of WIRS 1990 data, Industrial Relations Journal, 1995; Gli infortuni sul 
lavoro. Dall'analisi delle cause alla loro prevenzione, 2008, p.116-117. 

70 

 
 
                                                            
 
This is related firstly to the fact that much of the EU legislation is goal-oriented - the EU-level 
legislation  does  not  exactly  specify  how  different  measures  should  be  put  in  place  and  the 
actual costs will depend on the specific situation of an enterprise and its interpretation of the 
obligations.  

Secondly,  the  costs  of  the  EU  legislation  cannot  easily  be  dissociated  from  more  detailed 
national  requirements.  No  firm  conclusions  could  be  drawn  in  the  evaluation  concerning 
administrative  costs  stemming  from  more  detailed  national  requirements  and/or  EU 
legislation. Many factors might also influence compliance costs – especially the availability 
of support and accompanying measures from the EU, such as OiRA, and in Member States. 
However,  it  should  be noted  that  developing  more  accompanying  measures  also  comes  at  a 
cost.  

Although some compliance costs may be business as usual costs, as enterprises would likely 
make  some  OSH-related  investments  irrespective  of  OSH  legislation,  complying  with  legal 
obligations  is  given  as  the  major  reason  for  addressing  health  and  safety.  Therefore, 
compliance cost cannot be fully regarded as being business as usual costs. A UK 2003 study 
points  out  that  compliance  costs  per  employee  are  likely  to  be  higher  in  SMEs  than  in 
large  enterprises.  The  reason  might  be  that  larger  enterprises  more  often  have  the 
competency  in-house  and  benefit  from  the  economies  of  scale,  which  may  be  cheaper  than 
relying on external services (e.g. OSH consultancy), which plays a role in cost of compliance 
among SMEs. 

The evaluation concluded that it is not possible to quantify the exact impact of the EU OSH 
legislation on the health and safety of workers, due to numerous confounding factors and the 
lack of appropriate data. There is some data that might serve as an indication of the magnitude 
of  the  benefits  that  derive  from  occupational  accidents  and  ill-health  related  prevention 
measures  thereby  avoiding  related  costs.  Estimates  from  different  Member  States  indicate 
these costs range from 2.6% to 3.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Estimates from the 
HSE in the UK have shown that the societal costs of work related accidents and ill health have 
fallen  by  14%  from  2006/07  to  2012/13.  The  International  Social  Security  Association 
assessed the return on prevention index for investments in occupational health and safety to 
be 2.2. Thus, it is likely that the reductions in work related accidents also have translated 
into economic benefits for workers, enterprises and society even if the contribution that 
EU legislation made to these economic benefits could not be quantified. Several exercises, 
including  an  OSH  cost-benefit  methodology  study  by  EU-OSHA,  have  or  will  shortly  be 
launched in order to improve our understanding and data in this area.  

EU added value 

The  evidence  gathered  through  the  (structured)  qualitative  stakeholders  interviews  made  in 
the context of different studies, as well as throughout the analysis of the NIRs shows that the 
EU OSH Directives have contributed to a more even protection of workers ensuring  a level 
playing field in occupational health and safety and minimum requirements for the protection 
of  workers  in  the  EU.  The  results  of  the  evaluation  have  shown,  in  particular,  that  the  EU 
OSH acquis, with its stronger emphasis on the preventive approach, has influenced in many 

71 

 
 
cases not only the content of the provisions in place but also the structure of the national OSH 
legislations.  

Challenges 

The  evaluation  also  points  out  a  number  of  issues  and  challenges  related  to  the  OSH 
framework (with a view to improving its performance while respecting the policy objectives 
set). It remains to be examined further how to best address these issues. 

Challenge 1:   Structure and coherence of the EU OSH acquis 

The structure of EU OSH acquis  

The evaluation looked at the inter-relation between the over-arching framework directive and 
the  individual  directives.  Whilst  some  overlaps  were  identified,  there  was  no  tangible 
evidence that this has led to higher costs or lack of implementation. However, the fact that the 
Framework  Directive  covers  in  general  all  sectors  and  risks  would  point  to  a  potential 
approach of addressing specific details not dealt with by detailed regulation by a combination 
of general rules and complementary paths such as guidance and other supporting tools. 

Another  question  to  be  further  explored  is  how  to  reduce  the  use  by  Member  States  of  any 
national  legislative  techniques  that  add  additional  requirements  that  may  result  in  costs  for 
companies while not bringing added value for workers' protection. 

The external coherence of the Directives 

The  evaluation  identified  interfaces  between  the  OSH  Directives  and  other  EU  measures 
and/or policies, where there could be scope for  removing overlaps leading to application of 
contradictory requirements, improve legal clarity (which may otherwise cause confusion) and 
possibly enhance synergies. Examples of such interfaces can be found in the Annex 7. Most 
notably,  it  is  important  to  analyse  and  clarify  the  interface  between  OSH  and  the  REACH 
Regulation. 

The framework for vulnerable groups 

The evaluation concluded that vulnerable groups are not addressed in a consistent manner in 
the current acquis. Some groups (young workers, pregnant/breastfeeding workers, temporary 
workers) are addressed by an individual Directive whereas others are not (e.g. older workers, 
migrant  workers,  newly  employed  workers).  New  groups  of  vulnerable  workers  may  be 
identified in the future and it might require clarification how such groups could be taken into 
account in the existing legal framework. Furthermore, there are cross-references to vulnerable 
groups  of  workers  between  worker-specific  Directives  and  risk-specific  Directives.  While 
these references are not incoherent from a legal perspective, they do add to the complexity of 
the legal framework.  

72 

 
 
 
 
Challenge 2:   Addressing on-going and emerging risks 

Addressing emerging risks  

The evaluation suggests that the evolution of the workplace, technological developments, and 
demographic change bring about new occupational risks, which might not be fully addressed 
in  the  workplace.  Depending  on  the  nature  of  these  risks,  the  most  appropriate  level  and 
manner of addressing them will have to be further explored, notably with regard to adaptation 
to changing circumstances. 

Furthermore,  risks  such  as  the  MSDs  or  psychosocial  risks  are  related  to  a  complex 
interaction  between  occupational  and  non-occupational  factors.  These  are  covered  by  the 
framework  directive  but  clarification  is  needed  on  what  this  means  and  the  corresponding 
obligations  for  Member  States  and  employers.  Further  analysis  and  discussion  would  be 
required to establish  whether and if further action would be necessary, and at what level. It 
would be important to analyse the situation at national level and to examine the effectiveness 
of existing national, sectorial and/or enterprise level initiatives to address these risks. At EU 
level, awareness raising activities and practical guidance e.g. by the EU-OSHA have shown 
promising results to date. 

Future-proofing the acquis 

While  the  world  of  work  is  constantly  changing,  the  Framework  Directive  is  designed  to 
cover all risks and workplaces and as such covers such changes, although - as stated above in 
relation  to  musculoskeletal  disorders  -  further  work  may  be  required  as  new  issues  arise  to 
ensure any clear outcome from the application of the framework provisions alone. Employers 
and  enforcers  could  be  better  supported  in  interpreting  existing  provisions  in  light  of  the 
various changes and clear guidance could contribute to making the acquis more future-proof. 

There  are  cases  where  some  provisions  of  the  individual  Directives  do  not  fully  reflect 
technological  change.  One  example  would  be  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display  screen 
equipment Directive). Updating outdated provisions and removing obsolete ones will be done 
in  close  consultation  with  relevant  stakeholders  such  as  social  partners,  inspectorates  and 
relevant authorities.  

Challenge 3:   Compliance, enforcement and SMEs 

Compliance of SMEs 

The  evaluation  provides  evidence  to  suggest  that  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the 
OSH directives is more challenging for SMEs than large establishments. At the same time the 
major  and  fatal  injury  rates  (triggering  also  the  highest  costs  for  workers,  social  security 
systems  and  employers)  are  higher  for  SMEs,  representing  99%  of  EU  businesses,  than  for 
large establishments163. Almost all Member States already have established specific measures 

163 See in ESAW 2007 (latest available data). See also in Theo Nichols, Amanda Dennis and Will Guy, Size of 
employment unit and injury rates in British manufacturing: a secondary analysis of WIRS 1990 data, Industrial 
Relations Journal. 

73 

 
 
                                                            
to  support  SMEs,  including  micro-companies,  in  implementation.  A  peer  review  process 
could be set up with Member States to build on best practices with a view to encourage and 
facilitate the compliance of SMEs. This may lead to additional benefits in terms of avoiding 
work-related accidents and diseases. 

The key challenge in this respect is both to confirm the link between compliance and health 
and  safety  outcomes  for  different  sizes  of  company  and  then  further  to  investigate  how  to 
reach those SMEs where improved results can be expected to be achieved and to encourage 
them  to  improve  compliance  and  see  how  compliance  cost  might  be  reduced  so  facilitating 
better compliance. The data suggests that SMEs are often not consciously non-compliant; that 
they typically do not react well to written guidance (often finding it too complicated); and that 
they rely on external services to a greater extent than large establishments thereby increasing 
compliance cost. Consideration could be given to how different categories of SMEs might be 
best  targeted  through  a  more  personalised  approach  combining  enforcement  and  guidance. 
The challenge is to confirm the impact of compliance on results and then to identify the extent 
to  which  it  would  be  useful  to  apply  new  and  innovative  ways  of  reaching  the  SMEs  and 
increasing compliance in an efficient and effective way.  

Establishing exemptions for SMEs and micro-enterprises may lead to a lowering of the 
levels  of  protection  for  workers  considering  the  feedback  on  effectiveness  from  key 
stakeholders,  although  micro-companies  have  relatively  high  compliance  costs.   
Alternative measures, such as regimes better adapted to what different categories of SME can 
be expected to be able to manage, could be considered. These could include, for example: 

-  Continuing  the  further  development  linked  to  digitalisation  and  dissemination  of  already 
existing effective tools, in particular the OiRA tool. The role of EU-OSHA is important in this 
respect.  

-  Support  the  use  and  development  of  new  digital  tools  and  ICT  solutions  (including  in  the 
field of robotics), in order to allow for simpler and more efficient solutions in terms of day to 
day OSH risk management and the daily OSH risks monitoring; 

-.Better assist SMEs through developing improved and better targeted guidance.  

- Encourage use of on-line tools like OiRA that are set up to facilitate SME compliance. 

-In  cooperation  with  Member  States,  best  practices  on  compliance  cost  reduction  for  SMEs 
could be identified and further developed. Free advice and guidance could be examined. 

These  measures  would  be  considered  together  with  the  Member  States  and  with  the 
representatives  of  employers  and  workers  to  make  sure  the  most  relevant  way  forward  is 
chosen. 

Enforcement 

The  OSH  Directives  require  Member  States  to  enforce  the  legislation  transposing  the 
Directives; however this is not always clearly articulated in the current provisions in the 

74 

 
 
Directives. There is  literature that  enforcement  is  an important element in  prompting  major 
hazard  firms  to  manage  health  and  safety,  including  major  accident  prevention.  The 
evaluation suggests that there is a large degree of variance in the number and frequency of 
OSH  inspections  across  the  Member  States.  To  some  extent  this  undoubtedly  reflects 
national  differences  in  the  approach  to  inspections.  The  degree  to  which  the  inspection 
strategies  developed  at  Member  State  level  together  with  other  policy  tools  contributes  to 
better enforcement and compliance needs to be further studied. 

At the same time, the evaluation found that legal requirements and enforcement164 are major 
reasons for companies to develop OSH policies and take OSH action, so consideration could 
be given to the value of a strong effort to ensure the implementation of the Directives and to 
aim for a greater consistency in the way the legislation is enforced. Certain recommendations 
from  the  NIRs  regarding  inspection  for  specific  Directives,  as  is  the  case  for  inspection 
standards for work equipment and competences of persons charged with inspection referred to 
in Article 5 of Directive 2009/104/EC could be given further attention in order to identify any 
possibilities to enhance the effectiveness of the current provisions. 

On this basis, a process of identifying best practices regarding enforcement and inspection 
by  Member  States  could  be  initiated  with  the  aim  to  understand  better  the  role  and 
impacts of inspections, potentially coupled with a greater emphasis on competence building 
and guidance to inspectorates. The SLIC would be a key actor in this respect. 

Focus on risk management 

The evaluation suggests that there is a good level of compliance with the requirement to 
perform  a  risk  assessment,  whereas  compliance  is  relatively  lower  in  relation  to  the 
other  CPMs.  The  evaluation  also  calls  attention  to  evidence  from  some  Member  States  at 
least that the issue that a sole focus on the requirement of compliance with the risk assessment 
obligation is not always followed by the introduction of effective risk management measures. 
However,  it  should  also  be  noted  that  in  several  cases,  evaluations  of  individual  Directives 
resulted in conclusions regarding inadequate or insufficient risk assessment procedures for a 
given  Directive,  which  did  not  adequately  address  Directive-specific  hazards,  risks, 
challenges and/or circumstances. There is thus a need for a dual focus on further enhancing 
the  quality  of  risk  assessments  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  the  measures 
identified  in  the  risk  assessment  are,  in  fact,  implemented  and  the  risks  properly 
managed. 

More specifically, issues which may require further attention include the need to clarify the 
question  on  how  the  use  of  external  services  to  carry  out  risk  assessments  affects  the 
Framework Directive’s objectives of prevention and protection and a possible need to revisit 
the  provisions  related  to  the  CPM  of  health  surveillance.  Finally,  the  evaluation  shows 
that  there  is  a  continued  need  for  training  on  health  and  safety  risks,  and  on  emerging 
risks in particular.  

164 EU-OSHA, ESENER-2 (2014). 

75 

 
 
                                                            
Challenge 4:   Data and monitoring of effects 

Evidence  based  policies  need  high  quality,  comparable  and  timely  data.  The  evaluation 
provides  evidence  that  despite  the  substantial  efforts  made  so  far  in  order  to  develop 
comparable datasets on health and safety at the EU level, those datasets are not always "fit for 
purpose"  when  it  comes  to  assessing  to  what  extent  the  EU  OSH  Directives  have  achieved 
their  objectives.  International  cooperation  to  expand  data-sets  and  detect  trends  as  early  as 
possible should also be explored. 

There  is  a  need  for  better  monitoring  systems  to  be  able  to  follow  up  on  whether  the 
legislation is working as intended in terms of reducing exposure to hazards and consequently 
reducing the incidence of accidents and work-related disease. This includes a need to better 
define and execute the monitoring plan for the Directives. 

In view of informing future policy development, work will continue, within the Commission 
and in collaboration with other actors such as EU-OSHA and Eurofound on the development 
of  the  EU-level  data  collections.  This  will  include,  for  example,  the  continuation  of  the 
methodological  work  on  the  issues  of  under-coverage  and  under-reporting  as  regards  the 
ESAW  data  collection  and  the  ongoing  work  on  the  pilot  data  collection  on  European 
Occupational Diseases Statistics. It will include as well exploring the possibility of ensuring 
up-to-date data at the EU-level about the incidence rate of accidents at work broken down by 
enterprise size. New editions of existing multiannual EU surveysi will also be conducted by 
the horizon of 2020. Important  efforts will also  be  devoted to  develop better exposure data. 
The use of new ICT solutions to improve the information base will be explored. 

Finally,  cost-benefit  analysis  provides  important  information  for  policy  makers,  but 
there is a need for better national data on both costs and benefits. Moreover, to conduct 
cost benefit analysis at the EU level, more in-depth examination of existing country specific 
literature  and  databases,  analyses  of  structural  difference  between  Member  States  and  a 
standardisation of national methodologies, is needed. Monitoring arrangements should be set-
up  in  collaboration  with  Member  States,  bearing  in  mind  that  creating  additional 
administrative burden in relation to data collection should be avoided 

76 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1 -  Procedural information  

DG EMPL is the lead DG for the ex-post evaluation of 24 EU OSH Directives. 

The  ex-post  evaluation  is  part  of  the  on-going  EU  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance 
Programme (REFIT). 

Pursuant  to  Article  17a  of  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC165,  the  Commission  is 
required, every five years, to produce a single report based on a comprehensive evaluation of 
the practical implementation of that Directive and of 23 related Directives, in terms of their 
relevance, of research and of new scientific knowledge in the various fields in question, and 
inform  the  other  EU  institutions  and  bodies  of  the  results  and  any  suggestions  on  how  to 
improve the operation of the regulatory framework. 

The evaluation is mainly based on: 

  National reports on the practical implementation of the Directives established by the 

Member States - including the views of the social partners; 

  A study by an independent external contractor; 
  Experience the Commission gained from monitoring the transposition and application 

of the Directives in the Member States. 

Timing 

  The first report covers the period from 2007 to 2012. 

  December  2011:  adoption  of  the  Commission  decision  on  the  structure  and 
questionnaire  for  the  national  implementation  reports  and  notification  to  Member 
States. 

  March 2012: setting up of an Inter-Service Group comprising 12 DGs and 2 agencies: 
DG  for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs  (ECFIN),  DG  for  Energy  (ENER),  DG  for 
Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (GROW),  DG  for  the 
Environment (ENV),  Eurostat (ESTAT), DG for Communications Networks, Content 
and Technology (CNECT), DG for Justice and Consumers (JUST), DG for Maritime 
Affaires  and  Fisheries  (MARE),  DG  for  Research  and  Innovation  (RTD),  DG  for 
Health and Food Safety (SANTE), Secretariat-General (SG), Legal Service (SJ), EU-
OSHA agency (Bilbao), Eurofound agency (Dublin). The ISG held 9 meetings; 

  June 2012: conclusion of contract with a consortium of COWI (lead), Milieu Ltd. and 

IOM Consulting Ltd for an external study; 

  End  2013:  deadline  for  the  Member  States  to  produce  their  national  implementation 
reports – all 27 Member States concerned166 transmitted a report to the Commission; 

165 Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of 
workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.  
166 Croatia was not included in the evaluation as it was not a Member State during the evaluation period. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  December  2014:  validation  seminar  organised  by  the  contractor  with  wide  group  of 

stakeholders (workers, employers, governments); 

  December 2015: finalisation of the final report by the contractor; 

  September 2015: adoption of ACSH opinion on the ex-post evaluation study; 

Consultation of RSB  

See RSB opinion in Ares (2016) 649284  

Use of evidence 

The following sources have been used in the SWD: national implementation reports of the 27 
Member States concerned, the above-mentioned external study, other external studies (e.g.  on 
MSDs,  chemical  agents,  OSH  in  SMEs),  national  legislation,  official  statistics  at  EU  and 
national level (e.g. Eurostat's EODS, ESAW, ESENER and ESENER-2), literature, interviews 
by  the  external  contractor,  Commission  reports  on  practical  implementation  of  some  of  the 
Directives, the ACSH opinion, SLIC contribution. 

A  chapter  on  the  robustness  of  data  is  included  in  the  main  text  of  the  SWD.  Quality 
assurance was applied by the external contractor. 

External expertise 

The following expert groups were involved in the process: 

  The  Advisory  Committee  on  Safety  and  Health  at  Work  (ACSH),  a  tripartite 
committee  (government,  workers’  and  employers’  representatives)  from  all  28 
Member States (84 members); 

  ACSH Working Party Evaluation of OSH Directives, involved since the beginning of 

the exercise (first meeting on 7 February 2012); 

  ACSH Standing Working Party; 
  ACSH Working Party on Chemical Agents; 

  Senior  Labour  Inspectors’  Committee  (SLIC),  comprising  senior  labour  inspectors 

from all 28 Member States; 

  SLIC Working Group Enforcement, with a special sub-Working Group "Contribute to 

the review of EU OSH legislation"; 

  SLIC Working Group “MACHEX” (machinery, work equipment); 

  EU Offshore Authorities Group (DG ENER) regarding Directive 92/91/EEC (drilling); 

  Social Dialogue Committee and Sectorial Social Dialogue Committees; 

A study was carried by an external contractor, a consortium of COWI (lead), Milieu Ltd. and 
IOM  Consulting  Ltd,  following  a  call  for  tender  procedure  on  the  "Evaluation  of  the  EU 
Occupational Safety and Health Directives" (VT/2012/056 and VC/2013/0049). The contract 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was  closely  followed  by  the  ISG  (9  meetings)  and  the  ACSH  Working  Party  Evaluation  of 
OSH  Directives  (6  meetings).  The  contractor  mainly  produced  three  interim  reports  and  a 
final report, Directive reports for each of the 24 Directives and Country summary reports for 
each of the 27 Member States concerned. The contractor also organised a validation seminar 
in December 2014 to test preliminary conclusions of the study. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2 -  Stakeholder consultation  

1. 

Summary of the consultation process 

The Commission services made major efforts to ensure the larger involvement possible of all 
relevant stakeholders (employers and workers organisations, Member States) throughout the 
ex-post  evaluation  process,  and  the  external  consultant  that  prepared  the  evaluation  has 
consulted various additional stakeholders. In addition, ad hoc contributions were received by 
the Commission services from different stakeholder groups.  

The following stakeholders and expert groups were consulted through the following channels:  

-  Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) 

The  ACSH  is  a  tripartite  committee  established  by  Council  Decision  2003/C  218/01167, 
comprising representatives of governments, trade unions and employers' organisations, from 
all  28  Member  States  (84  members),  appointed  by  Member  States  and  nominated  by  the 
Council.  Co-ordination  for  the  social  partners’  Interest  Groups  is  ensured  by  the  two  most 
important  EU  cross-industry  worker  and  employer  organisations,  that  is  respectively  ETUC 
and  BusinessEurope.  The  remit  of  the  Committee  is  to  assist  the  Commission  in  the 
preparation,  implementation  and  evaluation  of  all  major  activities  in  the  field  of  safety  and 
health  at  work168.  It  delivers  opinions  or  adopts  any  other  political  statements  either  at  the 
Commission's request or on its own initiative.  

For the purpose of the evaluation process, and from the beginning, the ACSH established the 
Working  Party  Evaluation  of  OSH  Directives,  to  assist  the  Commission  in  monitoring  and 
providing input to the ex-post evaluation external study (6 meetings)169. It was composed of 
twelve  permanent  members  of  the  ACSH,  four  from  each  interest  group  (government170, 
workers171  and  employers172.  In  addition,  the  Commission  services  made  available  to  all 
members  of  the  ACSH  the  third  interim  report  and  the  draft  final  report  prepared  by  the 
external consultant. One member from each interest group of the Working Party functioned as 
a  coordinator,  collecting  comments  and  input  from  all  members  of  the  ACSH  from  their 
interest group, with the view to ensure the largest possible involvement in the exercise.  The 
extraordinary  plenary  ACSH  issued  an  opinion  on  the  external  study  on  24  September 
2015173. 

167 Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (2003/C 
218/01), OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1–4. 
168 Art. 2 (1) of Council Decision 2003/C 218/01.  
169 ACSH, Revised Mandate, Evaluation of OSH directives, adopted on 19.6.2012 (Doc.11-795_01-EN).  
170 The governmental representatives come from UK, NL, D and ES.  
171 The workers' representatives come from HU, DK, RO and NL.  
172 The employers' representatives from SE, UK, LU and CZ. 
173 ACSH, Opinion on the report by COWI et al on the Evaluation of the  Practical Implementation of the EU 
Occupational  Safety  and  Health  (OSH)  Directives  in  EU  Member  States  (Doc.1674-EN  (2015)),  adopted  on 
24/09/2015.  

80 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
In addition a Commission services questionnaire was sent to a number of working groups in 
the ACSH, as well as to the EU Offshore Oil and Gas Authorities Group (EUOAG)174. The 
questionnaire covered all the mandatory evaluation criteria175. The ACSH Working Party on 
Chemicals,  the  ACSH  Standing  Working  Party for  the  mining  and  extractive  industries  and 
the  EUOAG  provided  replies.  The  ACSH  Standing  Working  Party  for  the  mining  and 
extractive  industries  adopted  a  paper  in  relation  to  the  evaluation  of  Directive  92/104/EEC 
(extractive industries - mines and quarries). Similarly, the ACSH Working Party on Chemical 
Agents adopted a key message document in relation to Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents), 
and Directive 2004/37/EC (carcinogens and mutagens). 

-  Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee (SLIC) 

SLIC  was  set  up  by  Commission  Decision  95/319/EC  of  12  July  1995176  (as  amended  by 
Commission  Decision  2008/823/EC177)  and  comprises  senior  officials  from  the  labour 
inspection  services  of  all  28  Member  States.  It  gives  opinions,  either  at  the  Commission's 
request or on its own initiative, on all problems relating to the enforcement of OSH legislation 
by Member States. The 68th SLIC plenary adopted a contribution to the ex-post evaluation on 
challenges  faced  by  labour  inspectorates  relating  to  enforcement  and  recommendations  for 
further action178, prepared by the SLIC Working Group Enforcement179.  

In addition, the 68th SLIC plenary also adopted a paper on the evaluation of the evaluation of 
interplay  with  Directive 
Directive  2009/104/EC  (use  of  work  equipment)  and 

its 

174 EUOAG was established by Commission Decision of 19 January 2012 on setting up of the European Union 
Offshore  Oil  and  Gas  Authorities  Group  (2012/C  18/07).  The  group  is  formed  by  Member  States’  authorities 
covering  both  safety  and  environmental  protection  aspects.  It  is  a  forum  for  the  exchange  of  experiences  and 
expertise both amongst national authorities and between national authorities and the Commission on all issues 
relating to major accident prevention and response in offshore oil and gas operations within the Union, as well as 
beyond its borders, where appropriate. 
175 The 36 questions concern the changes required to the Directives and their justification, regulatory approaches 
in  the  Member  States  (including  problems  of  application/interpretation  of  the  Directive),  relevance  (through 
questions  in  relation  to  the  scope  of  the  Directives,  the  extent  to  which  the  Directives  set  forth  adequate 
minimum  requirements,  possible  gaps  in  the  Directive),  enforcement,  effectiveness,  (the  extent  to  which  the 
Directive adequately protects the safety and health of worker; options to be used to increase the effectiveness of 
the  Directives),  coherence  (changes  to  ensure  coherence  with  other  EU  legislation;  overlaps  with  other  EU 
legislation); administrative burdens and changes necessary to minimise them; future regulatory approach. 
176 OJ L 188, 9.8.1995, p. 11. 
177 OJ L 288, 30.10.2008, p. 5. 
178  SLIC,  Challenges  faced  by  Labour  Inspectorates  relating  to  enforcement  -  Contribution  to  the  ex-post 
evaluation of the OSH legislation, adopted by 68th SLIC Plenary in Riga (LV), 27/05/2015.  
  For more detailed information see Chapter 7.3, p.[…].  
179 For this purpose, a questionnaire was submitted to the members of the Working Group, with the following 
sections : description of perceived enforcement challenges; specific macro enforcement challenges, enforcement 
problems  relating  to  the  Strategic  Framework  for  OSH  and  recommendations  for  further  action.  The 
Questionnaire with all responses are included in Annex 1 to the SLIC Contribution. There were 25 respondents 
in total.  

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2006/42/EC180,  prepared  by  SLIC  Working  Group  MACHEX 
equipment)181.  

(machinery,  work 

-  Member States and social partners in the context of the National Implementation 

Reports (NIRs) 

In  accordance  with  Article  17a  of  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  the  27  concerned 
Member States have submitted NIRs to the Commission on the basis of a questionnaire laid 
down in a Commission Decision. The questionnaire was prepared in close cooperation with 
the ACSH. Pursuant to the Framework Directive, Member States were required to indicate the 
points  of  view  of  the  social  partners  in  the  NIRs.  In  all  27  Member  States  concerned,  the 
social  partner  organisations  have  therefore  been  consulted  on  the  NIRs.  The  Commission 
services  have  analysed  the  NIR  and  drawn  up one  document  containing  all  suggestions  and 
recommendations  put  forward  by  the  Member  States  in  the  NIRs  and  one  document 
containing  the  suggestions  and  recommendations  put  forward  by  the  Member  States  in  the 
NIR supported by more than one Member State. The main recommendations and suggestions 
from the NIRs are reflected and referred to in the SWD. 

-  Consultations carried out in the context of the external contract - 

The  external  consultant  made  provisions  for  the  carrying  out  of  interviews  with  EU-level 
OSH stakeholders and national stakeholders with a view to collect information and nuance the 
analysis.  

In  total, 540 interviews with  national  stakeholders (national authorities, labour inspectorates 
workers’  representatives,  employers’  representatives,  other  national  stakeholders)  were 
carried  out  by  the  national  experts  in  the  27  Member  States182.  Compared  to  the  planned 
balance  between  stakeholder  groups,  it  proved that  national  authorities,  labour  inspectorates 
and  other  national  stakeholders  were  more  readily  available  to  be  interviewed,  compared  to 
worker and employer organisations. Interviews with EU-level stakeholders were also carried 
out in accordance on the basis of an interview guide183. 59 interview persons were contacted 
for  interviews  and  44  of  these  participated  in  an  interview.  The  selection  of  stakeholder 
organisations  interviewed  was  based  on  a  list  of  proposed  organisations  collated  by  the 
evaluation team combined with feedback/comments by the Commission (DG EMPL and the 
ISSG) and the ACSH. As a result, a final list of selected stakeholder organisations was agreed 
upon with DG EMPL. 31 EU organisations184 were interviewed which include 17 employer 
organisations, five worker organisations, three DGs, three EU agencies and bodies, and three 
other OSH knowledge institutions. 

180  SLIC,  Evaluation  of  2009/104/EC  Work  Equipment  Directive  and  it’s  interplay  with  related  Directives, 
adopted by 68th SLIC Plenary in Riga (LV), 27/05/2015. 
181 A sub-group was tasked with the 'Review EU OSH legislation', composed of members from Portugal, Italy, 
Netherlands, Cyprus, France, Sweden, United Kingdom and Spain. 
182 Cf. also Appendix D.  
183 The interview guide is included in Appendix I to the COWI, Main Evaluation Report. 
184 Cf. COWI, Main Evaluation Report, Table 2 4, EU stakeholders interviewed.  

82 

 
 
 
                                                            
In addition, a validation seminar was organised in December 2014 by the contractor with wide 
group of stakeholders (workers, employers, governments) with the aim to consult stakeholders 
on  preliminary  findings,  results  and  conclusions  of  the  external  study  (57  stakeholders 
participated). The stakeholders attending the seminar did not represent any official views and 
opinions of the social partners, but provided very helpful reactions and viewpoints. The inputs 
from the seminar have been used by the evaluation team as additional background knowledge 
from stakeholders with long OSH experience to complete conclusions and recommendations 
in the individual directive reports and as input for the Main Report. 

-  Consultation  of  EU  Offshore  Oil  and  Gas  Authorities  Group  (EUOAG)185  (DG 

ENER) regarding Directive 92/91/EEC (drilling)  

In February 2015, the Commission services (DG EMPL) requested the contribution from the 
EUOAG on the application and possible improvements of the Directive 92/91/EC (extractive 
industries-drilling), and in particular in addressing the interactions between this Directive and 
the Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations186. A questionnaire was 
sent  to  EUOGA  to  that  effect.  While  it  was  not  possible  to  reach  a  common  EUOGA 
position187, the replies of several Member State (UK, NL, FR, IT and PT), as expressed by the 
members of EUOAG, were transmitted to the Commission188.  

Furthermore,  the  EU  North  Sea  Offshore  Authorities  Forum  (NSOAF)  Working  Group189 
submitted  to  the  Commission  services  a  Position  Paper  on  how  to  improve  Directive 
92/91/EEC, in May 2012190. The Position paper was the outcome of a two year project chaired 
by the United Kingdom and aimed to help NSOAF members to prepare their contributions to 
the Commission’s evaluation of Directive 92/91/EEC. 

-  Ad-hoc contributions 

An  important  number  of  ad-hoc  contributions  was  received  from  several  Member  States 
(UK191, NL192, FI, AT, DE193), from employers' organizations (CEEMET)194, as well as from 

185 EUOAG was established by Commission Decision of 19 January 2012 on setting up of the European Union 
Offshore  Oil  and  Gas  Authorities  Group  (2012/C  18/07).  The  group  is  formed  by  Member  States’  authorities 
covering  both  safety  and  environmental  protection  aspects.  It  is  a  forum  for  the  exchange  of  experiences  and 
expertise both amongst national authorities and between national authorities and the Commission on all issues 
relating to major accident prevention and response in offshore oil and gas operations within the Union, as well as 
beyond its borders, where appropriate. 
186 Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore 
oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, OJ L 178, 28.6.2013, p. 66.  
187 Cf. 10th EUOAG meeting, 10th-11th June 2015.  
188 Reply to Commission questionnaire on ex-post evaluation of February 2015. 
189 The North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF) consists of representatives of authorities responsible for 
the supervision of offshore activities in North West Europe. The current membership represents Denmark, Faro 
Islands, Germany, Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The NSOAF 
was  founded  in  1987.  It  has  the  aim  to  “ensure  and  encourage  continuous  improvement  in  Health,  Safety, 
Environmental Care and the Welfare of offshore workers”.  
The members of NSOAF have 
190  North  Sea  Offshore  Authorities  Forum  (NSOAF)  Final  Position  paper,  Directive  92/91/EEC  Project,  May 
2012. The Project aims to produce proposals on how to improve Directive 92/91/EEC.  
191 UK Non paper – Review of EU OSH Framework  

192 Letter of Mr L.F. Asscher, of 9 July 2015 on the Dutch concept of EU OSH acquis.  

83 

 
 
                                                            
 
National  Institutes  (on  Directive  2000/54/EC-biological  agents195;  on  Directive  94/33/EC 
(young people))196. 

1.2.  Compliance  with  the  Commission  minimum  requirements  on  stakeholder 

consultation 

An open public consultation was not organised. The reason is that the 24 OSH Directives are 
very  technical  texts  concerning  safety  of  the  work  place,  where  the  input  that  may  be 
collected  through  consultation  will  solely  originate  with  employers  and  employees.  It  was 
thus important to ensure the consultation of the social partners in the evaluation process. The 
Commission services consulted social partners and Member States throughout the evaluation 
process,  and  the  external  consultant  who  has  prepared  the  evaluation  has  consulted  various 
additional stakeholders.  

Targeted  and  specialised  consultations  of  particular  stakeholder  groups  and  experts  were 
privileged,  with  a  view  to  collect  expertise  effectively,  in  an  area,  OSH,  which  is 
characterised by highly technical subjects. Stakeholder consultation was used both to collect 
evidence in relation to the evaluation criteria (e.g. stakeholders interviews carried out by the 
external consultant in charge of the evaluation) and to test/validate already existing analysis or 
evidence coming from different sources (e.g. validation seminar, ACSH opinion; the views of 
national social partners on NIRs). All relevant and interested stakeholder groups which have 
to  implement  and/or  are  affected  by  EU  OSH  legislation  have  been  provided  with  the 
opportunity  to  express  their  views,  both  at  national  and  EU  level,  an  all  evaluation  criteria. 
Furthermore, groups with expertise ort technical knowledge were consulted or presented ad-
hoc contributions (e.g. ACSH Working Party on Chemicals).  

In addition, future consultations will take place, which are mandatory. Firstly, in accordance 
with  Article  17a  (4)  of the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  the  Commission  is  to  inform 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Advisory  Committee  on  Safety  and  Health  at  Work  of  the  results  of  the  evaluation  and,  if 
necessary, of any initiatives to improve the operation of the regulatory framework. Secondly, 
in  accordance  with  Article  154  TFEU,  a  two  stage  consultation  of  the  social  partners  is 
mandatory on any legislative proposals to improve the EU OSH regulatory framework further 
to  the  evaluation.  Finally,  public  consultations  are  also  to  be  launched  in  the  context  of  the 
preparation of the impact assessment for such new legislative proposals. These consultations 
are  more  important  for  stakeholders  as  they  will  concern  the  essential  elements  of  the  new 
proposals. 

2. 

Detailed summary of all consultations and their results  

-  Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) 

193  Non-Paper  by  the  GIG  Members  Finland,  Austria  and  Germany,  The  Evaluation  of  the  OSH  Directives  – 
Cost Effective Exercise or Unnecessary Administrative Burden.  
194 Position paper, 30 January 2014. 
195  National  Institute  for  Public  Health  and  the  Environment,  Classification  of  biological  agents,  RIVM  Letter 
report, 205084002/2012, M.R. Klein.  
196 Health and Safety Executive  

84 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
The ACSH in the opinion adopted on 24 September 2015 mentions that there is no need for a 
full recast of the EU OSH Directives system and that the current structure with a Framework 
Directive  and  individual  Directives  should  be  maintained.  However,  it  also  mentions  that 
"there  is  a  need  for  an  update  of  some  outdated  Directives,  or  certain  requirements  in  the 
Directives, as they do not take account of the present technical situation" and it underlines that 
"there  are  some  opportunities  to  streamline  certain  Directives  and  to  better  ensure  the 
effectiveness of provisions and to manage complexities". As regards compliance, the ACSH 
acknowledges the conclusions of the external study that legal requirements are an important 
factor  (but  certainly  not 
the  compliance  behaviour  of 
establishments, which suggests that, by requiring the introduction of such requirements in all 
MSs, the Directives had an impact on compliance behaviour. As regards the relevance of the 
acquis,  the  ACSH  mentions  that  "consideration  should  be  given  to  work-related  MSDs, 
psychosocial  risks  and  the  aging  worker  population,  with  a  view  to  clarifying  any  need  for 
action".  

the  only  one) 

influencing 

The ACSH  underlined the recommendation to  focus on better enforcement and compliance, 
whereby it is recommended that the Commission considers how efforts to ensure compliance 
can  be  further  enhanced  with  particular  focus  on  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  and  also 
considering  the  need  for  risk  based  approaches,  as  well  as  the  need   to  find  new  and 
innovative ways of reaching SMEs and micro- enterprises – for example tools such as OIRA, 
and  exploring  the  approaches  adopted  in  some  Member  States   to  make  the  essential 
requirements  of  the  Directives  more  accessible  –  rather  than  establishing  exemptions  for 
them,  as  this  would  lead  to  a  lowering  of  the  levels  of  protection  of  workers.  The 
ACSH   agreed  that  the  focus  of  OSH  management  should  be  on  the  full  management  cycle 
and the consistent application of the general principles of prevention and not just on certain 
processes or procedures. Finally, the ACSH considered that any specific proposals  in regard 
to the OSH acquis should take account of the opinion of the ACSH and the contributions of 
social partners according to the provisions of the EU Treaties on social dialogue.  

-  SLIC contribution  

In its contribution, SLIC described five perceived major enforcement challenges, starting with 
those  inherent  to  the  Labour  Inspectorates  themselves197  (e.g.  the  exclusion  of  certain 
category  of  workers  from  the  responsibilities  pertaining  to  Labour  Inspectorates;  regional 
enforcement  differences);  the  nature  of  the  employment  relationship198  (e.g.  the  problems 
faced in enforcing OSH legislation in regard to self-employed persons and domestic workers, 
either because these categories are excluded from the scope of the legislation or in the case 
where  these  are  not  excluded;  precarious  work;  work  carried  out  by  migrant  workers  and 
posted workers, in particular in relation to health surveillance in this latter case; teleworking). 
Third, according to certain respondents199, the EU OSH Directives themselves give rise to a 
number  of  challenges,  as  they  are  deemed  too  technical,  creating  difficulties  for  Labour 
Inspectorates  or  leading  to  compliance  difficulties  for  duty-holders,  especially  SMEs 

197 12 respondents identified these challenges. 
198 10 respondents identified these challenges. 
199 7 respondents.  

85 

 
 
                                                            
(Directive  2002/44/EC  (vibration)  and  other  physical  agents  directives  (in  particular  due  to 
system of multiple limit values) were specifically mentioned in this regard). Repetition within 
the  different  existing  directives  and  duplication  of  requirements  was  also  mentioned200,  as 
well as the lack of legal instruments addressing new and emerging risks, including new forms 
of  employment  and  new  technologies  (in  particular,  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display  screen 
equipment))201. The fourth major challenge identified concerns the size of the enterprises202, 
the  ageing  workforce,  specific  risks  or  high  risks  work  activities  which  pose  significant 
challenges  (psychosocial  risks,  ergonomic  risks,  construction  work,  handling  of  asbestos 
containing  material,  chemical  agents),  old  equipment  and  machinery  still  in  use203  and 
occupational diseases204. 

SLIC  recommended  that  opportunities  need  to  be  provided  for  the  voluntary  continuous 
professional  development  of  Labour  Inspectors.  Such  training  should  go  beyond  the  initial 
training  which  inspectors  receive  within  the  national  framework  at  the  time  of  recruitment, 
and should tackle those areas providing particular technical difficulties especially with regards 
to  new  and  emerging  risks.  The  provision  of  information  and  guidance  for  duty-holders  in 
areas  where  this  is  not  yet  available  will  also  aid  compliance.  In  the  case  of  Labour 
Inspectorates,  exchanges  of  information  should  be  facilitated  and  encouraged.  Such 
information  exchanges  need  to  include  areas  such  as  the  health  and  safety  risks  associated 
with atypical work relationships, and how these are tackled within different Member States. 
The  setting up  of  close regional  cooperation  between  Labour  Inspectorates  also  needs  to  be 
considered as it facilitates the exchange of good practice by Member States facing common 
problems,  have  common  approaches  or  similarities  in  processes,  procedures  or  even 
legislation. Even though a number of Member States are currently against the establishment 
of ‘minimum’ or ‘recommended’ inspector-worker ratios, a number of Member States favour 
such a development, as it would assist the Labour Inspectorates’ claims for the allocation of 
adequate resources; In view of such a divergence of opinion, it is being suggested that a wide 
discussion is organised on whether such a ration needs to be determined at a European level. 
Finally, SLIC proposes that structures at national or at a European level are established so as 
to  provide  assistance  to  inspectorates  wishing  to  apply  for  and  manage  projects  using  EU 
funds, and that procedures are simplified. 

-  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents),  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and 
mutagens) – ACSH Working Party on Chemicals –Relevance and Effectiveness  

The  ACSH  Working  Party  on  Chemicals  presented  its  view  in  relation  to  the  EU  OSH 
chemicals  legislation  architecture.  First  in  relation  to  EU  OSH  occupational  exposure  limit 
values (OELs) it highlighted that OELs are an important tool for chemical risk management at 
the  workplace.    However,  there  is  a  need  to  update  and  simplify  the  legal  procedure  for 
adopting OELs. This should result in a simpler and quicker legal procedure for the adoption 

200 2 respondents.  
201 2 respondents.  
202 6 respondents.  
203 2 respondents.  
204 2 respondents.  

86 

 
 
                                                            
and  revision  of  OELs.    According  to  the  WP  issues  to  consider  include:  the  need  to  adopt 
values  for  more  substances  of  high  concern,  in  particular  carcinogenic,  mutagenic  and 
reprotoxic substances based on duly justified reasoning including guidance on methodology; 
There is a need to further develop the approach taken for identifying priority substances for 
evaluation  by  SCOEL  and  thereafter  as  candidates  for  future  EU  OELs.  The  WP  also 
considered  that  other  lists  established  at  national  or  EU  level  may  be  also  used  as  starting 
material;  the  need  to  address  threshold  and  non-threshold  issues  for  carcinogens  and  other 
substances  where  relevant;  a  more  detailed  explanation  of  how  feasibility  factors  are  taken 
into  account;  the  need  for  a  terminology  used  to  describe  different  types  of  OELs  (and 
corresponding procedures) based on clearly described concepts; the basis on which an OEL is 
set  should  be  indicated;  in  the  longer  term  it  may  be  advisable  to  move  to  a  single  list  of 
limits;  guidance  on  the  practical  use  of  OELs  should  be  developed;  take  account  of  similar 
concepts  in  other  legal  fields  and  their  corresponding  adoption  procedures;  the  speedy 
adoption of more OSH OELs would facilitate REACH implementation if the registrant could 
use OELs as relevant DNELs; the fundamental role of SCOEL in the limit setting process for 
workers' health protection; the need to improve the management of the interface and further 
enhance synergies between EU OSH legislation and other EU chemical legislation such as the 
REACH  and  the  CLP  Regulations;  the  need  to  consider  the  most  appropriate  approach  to 
managing risks that may arise from exposure to reprotoxic substances; the need to consider if 
and how biomonitoring could be used more effectively for workplace risk management; the 
need to consider the potential adverse health affects arising from exposure to dusts with low 
specific toxicity, clarification that; there is no need for a specific directive on nanomaterials as 
the  existing  directives  already  cover  the  known  risks;  any  identified  emerging  risk  not 
adequately covered by the existing legal framework should be promptly addressed as a matter 
of  concern;  develop  more  EU  guidance  on  a  range  of  topics205;  the  guidance  should  be 
developed  using  modern  communication  methods  and  tools  with  a  clear  indication  of  the 
target  audience;  other  substances  such  as  sensitisers  should  be  considered  as  a  high  priority 
that  may  merit  further  consideration  to  ensure  that  the  risk  management  requirements  are 
appropriate. 

As  regards  the  overall  structure  and  interface  between  Directive  98/24/EC  and  Directive 
2004/37/EC,  a  systematic  examination  of  a  number  of  issues,  including  the  aforementioned 
issues is  necessary to  determine whether the merging  of the two Directives  would lead to  a 
simplified and more effective approach resulting in practical benefits in controlling chemical 
risks at the workplace.  

-  Directive 92/104/EEC (extractive industries - mines and quarries) 

ACSH  Standing  Working  Party  for  the  mining  and  extractive  industries  indicated  made 
several recommendations for changes, including that an important number of the provisions of 
the Directive are generic and could be included in EU OSH Directives that apply to all work 
places). In addition, where a Directive applicable to all workplaces contains provisions similar 

205 In particular such as practical risk management e.g. substitution, how to design, install, use and maintain local 
exhaust ventilation, managing dermal risks, use of OELs, bio-monitoring, personal protective equipment etc. 

87 

 
 
                                                            
to  those  in  Directive  92/104/EC,  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  latter  Directive  should  be 
repealed.  

-  Directive 2009/104/EC and Directive 2006/42/EC (machinery)  –SLIC – External 

coherence  

SLIC206  recommends  to  enhance  synergies  between  the  two  Directives  in  particular  through 
the  clarification  of  the interplay  between  these two  Directives  in  relation  to  modification  or 
adaptation of a machine provided to workers in for the first time before or on  31 December 
1992;  the  alignment  of  certain  requirement  in  the  Annex  I  to  Directive  2009/104/EC  to 
Directive 2006/42/EC; the adaption of existing guidance to take into account the current state 
of the art in terms of standardization. 

206  SLIC,  Evaluation  of  2009/104/EC  Work  Equipment  Directive  and  it’s  interplay  with  related  Directives, 
adopted by 68th SLIC Plenary in Riga (LV), 27/05/2015. 

88 

 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 3 - Methods and analytical models used in preparing the evaluation 

The  evaluation  relied  on  a  number  of  different  data  sources,  including  the  information 
provided  in  the  NIRs,  the  results  of  external  studies  commissioned  by  the  Commission 
services for the evaluation of the 24 EU Directives and some specific topics in relation to the 
evaluation  (for  example  the  consequences  of  exempting  very  small  enterprises  in  low-risk 
sectors from the obligation to document the risk assessment) 207, statistical sources both at EU 
and national level and a number of targeted studies covering specific topics discussed in this 
evaluation. 

As regards the chapter on administrative costs and burdens, the study based, inter alia on the 
Standard  Cost  Model.  The  main  aim  of  the  model  is  to  assess  the  net  cost  of  information 
obligations imposed by EU legislation (net costs = costs introduced by a proposal if adopted, 
minus the costs it would eliminate at EU and/or national level). 

Administrative  costs  are  defined  as  the  costs  incurred  by  enterprises,  the  voluntary  sector, 
public  authorities  and  citizens  in  meeting  legal  obligations  to  provide  information  on  their 
action or production, either to public authorities or to private parties. Recurring administrative 
costs and, where significant, one-off administrative costs have to be taken into account. 

The administrative costs consist of two different cost components: the business-as-usual costs 
and  administrative  burdens.  While  the  business-as-usual  costs  correspond  to  the  costs 
resulting from collecting and processing information which would be done by an entity even 
in the absence of the legislation, the administrative burdens stem from the part of the process 
which is done solely because of a legal obligation. 

Components of administrative costs 

207 For details about the cost-benefit analysis applied in case studies see, for example, in Socio-economic costs of 
accidents at work and work-related ill health, DG EMPL, 2010, p. 123-130. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Core equation of the cost model  

According to the Standard Cost Model, administrative  costs are assessed on the basis of the 
average cost of the required administrative activity (Price) multiplied by the total number of 
activities  performed  per  year  (Quantity).  The  average  cost  per  action  is  estimated  by 
multiplying a tariff (based on average labour cost per hour including prorated overheads) and 
the  time  required  per  action.  Where  appropriate,  other  types  of  costs  such  as  outsourcing, 
equipment or supplies’ costs should be taken into account. The quantity will be calculated as 
the frequency of required actions multiplied by the number of entities concerned. In case of 
multiple relevant administrative activities per information obligation these need to be summed 
up  to  calculate  the  administrative  cost  per  information  obligation.  The  core  equation  of  the 
SCM is as follows: 

Core equation of the Standard Cost Model  

Σ P x Q  

where P (for Price) = Tariff x Time; and 

where Q (for Quantity) = Number of businesses x Frequency 

As  regards  the  estimates  on  the  consequences  of  a  possible  exemption  of  microenterprises 
from the obligation to document the risk assessment in low risk sectors, the model referred to 
investigated over a ten year period: the costs of the risk assessment documentation obligation 
to  all  micro-enterprises  under  the  current  situation  ('the  counterfactual');  the  cost  savings  to 
micro-enterprises in low risk sectors if they were exempt from the obligation. The exemption 
scenario  was  calculated  in  relation  to  the  current  situation  and  represented  only  additional 
costs or cost savings.  

Three  different  definitions  of  'low  risk'  were  formulated  within  the  study,  using  a  sectoral 
approach.   

The limitations of the model developed, were mainly related to the availability of certain data 
necessary to better define the notion of 'low risk', such as better EU level data on occupational 
diseases and occupational exposures. Other limitation related to the lack of robust information 
about the link between the documentation of the risk assessment and the OSH impacts.  

As  a  consequence,  due  to  the  uncertain  values  of  some  of  the  inputs  to  the  cost  model 
developed in the study ('analysis of uncertainty'), the latter made use of a range of values for 
the uncertain inputs to present low, medium and high sensitivity scenarios of the net benefit of 
the  proposed  exemption.  This  uncertainty  was  due  to  either  difference  in  data  that  were 
collected from different sources; or to the need to adjust data, using assumptions, to construct 
the input. In case of the exemption, the low sensitivity scenario represents the lowest likely 
net benefit of the proposed exemption, and uses values for the input that result in the lowest 

90 

 
 
 
net  benefit.  The  high  sensitivity  scenario  represents  the  highest  likely  net  benefit  of  the 
exemption.  

For reasons discussed in Chapter 7.3, a cost-benefit analysis of the 24 EU Directives could not 
be  undertaken.  The  same  chapter  refers,  however,  to  cost-benefit  analyses  undertaken  to 
assess the profitability of health and safety interventions at an enterprise level208.  

208 For details about the cost-benefit analysis applied in case studies see, for example, in Socio-economic costs of 
accidents at work and work-related ill health, DG EMPL, 2010, p. 123-130 and in Calculating the international 
return on prevention for companies: costs and benefits of investments in occupational safety and health, 
International Social Security Association, p.3. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 4 - Analytical Annex (effectiveness and efficiency) 

Figure 1 

Source: Eurostat, ESAW, online datasets hsw_aw_nnasx, hsw_aw_inasx and hsw_mi01. 
(*)  Data  on non-fatal  accidents  collected  in  the  framework  of  the ESAW  data  collection  includes accidents at 
work resulting in more than 3 days' absence from work  
(**) Data for NACE Rev.1.1 Section A and D to K until 2007 and NACE Rev. 2 Sections A and C to N from 2008 
onwards. 

Figure 2 

Source: Eurostat, ESAW, online datasets hsw_aw_nnasx, hsw_aw_inasx and hsw_mi01. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 (**) Data for NACE Rev.1.1 Section A and D to K until 2007 and NACE Rev. 2 Sections A and C to N from 
2008 onwards. 

Table 1 Incidence rate for non-fatal accidents at work (absence of more than 3 calendar 
days), EU27, 2008-2012. 

Economic activity (NACE Rev. 2) 
Total - All NACE activities 
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 
Mining and quarrying 
Manufacturing 
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning 
supply 
Water supply; sewerage, waste management 
and remediation activities 
Construction 
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor 
vehicles and motorcycles 
Transportation and storage 
Accommodation and food service activities 
Information and communication 
Financial and insurance activities 
Real estate activities 
Professional, scientific and technical activities 
Administrative and support service activities 
Public administration and defence; compulsory 
social security 
Education 
Human health and social work activities 
Arts, entertainment and recreation 
Other service activities 
Activities of households as employers 
Activities of extraterritorial organisations and 
bodies 
Unknown NACE activity 
Source:Eurostat, ESAW, hsw_n2_01. 

2011 

2010 

2009 

2008 
1,956.02  1,666.37  1,700.27 
1,694.8  1,572.43 
1,794.62  1,219.13  1,283.83  1,707.85  1,492.73 
1,897.2  1,899.49  2,209.63  1,950.22  1,607.06 
2,688.06  2,230.94  2,371.25  2,230.39  2,101.89 

2012 

726.58 

612.74 

779.05 

615.46 

501.65 

3,465.26 
3,442.5  3,679.46  3,522.95  2,883.53 
3,735.24  3,477.89  3,226.04  3,442.21  3,112.08 

1,677.05 
1,534.7  1,545.64  1,507.47  1,394.77 
3,031.56  2,838.23  3,012.11  2,786.66  2,620.52 
2,051  1,971.26  1,759.37  1,827.23  1,718.39 
332.28 
454.12 
476.76 
411.77 
274.44 
339.17 
359.4 
313.66 
808.81 
1,257.09  1,165.76  1,112.72 
396.96 
372.06 
428.47 
3,002.68  2,521.45  2,347.75  2,394.98  2,144.92 

389.58 
286.27 
957.66 
427.46 

474.85 

1,036.7  1,066.91 
958.68  1,253.34 
1,089.06 
620.83 
576.56 
656.84 
562.54 
1,552.4 
1,381.6  1,532.03  1,573.89  1,479.99 
1,736.81  1,728.06  1,685.75  1,619.99  1,659.58 
798.2 
773.92 
144.95 
272.11 

751.21 
: 

748.49 
181.94 

809.03 
311.46 

605.4 

657.31 
: 

502.89 
: 

637.25 
: 

756.73 
: 

281.6 
: 

Table 2 Incidence rate for fatal accidents at work, EU27, 2008-2012. 

NACE_R2 
Total - All NACE activities 
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 
Mining and quarrying 
Manufacturing 
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning 
supply 
Water supply; sewerage, waste management 
and remediation activities 
Construction 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2.41 
8.31 
13.02 
2.39 

2.03 
3.49 
12.17 
2.07 

2.1 
4.53 
11.16 
2.17 

2.04 
5.69 
15.21 
2.09 

1.93 
5.16 
10.65 
2.01 

3.43 

2.92 

2.93 

2.52 

3.42 

7.23 
7.50 

5.33 
7.33 

6.04 
6.63 

4.69 
6.34 

7.05 
6.78 

93 

 
 
 
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor 
vehicles and motorcycles 
Transportation and storage 
Accommodation and food service activities 
Information and communication 
Financial and insurance activities 
Real estate activities 
Professional, scientific and technical activities 
Administrative and support service activities 
Public administration and defence; compulsory 
social security 
Education 
Human health and social work activities 
Arts, entertainment and recreation 
Other service activities 
Activities of households as employers;  
Activities of extraterritorial organisations and 
bodies 
Unknown NACE activity 
Source:Eurostat, ESAW, hsw_n2_02. 

1.24 
6.81 
0.59 
0.67 
0.52 
1.26 
0.81 
2.30 

0.74 
0.27 
0.23 
1.18 
0.59 
0.17 

2.6 
: 

1.23 
5.60 
0.72 
0.55 
0.44 
1.59 
0.68 
2.12 

0.77 
0.26 
0.25 
0.88 
0.51 
0.06 

: 
: 

1.27 
6.54 
0.57 
0.66 
0.54 
0.91 
0.60 
1.83 

0.93 
0.3 
0.37 
0.78 
0.73 
0.08 

1.6 
: 

1.19 
5.97 
0.52 
0.48 
0.29 
0.68 
0.51 
1.85 

0.66 
0.23 
0.25 
1.14 
0.55 
0.23 

2.23 
: 

1.15 
5.49 
0.45 
0.62 
0.24 
1.33 
0.74 
1.87 

0.65 
0.17 
0.34 
0.82 
0.45 
0.11 

0.59 
: 

Table 3 Economic costs of work-related accidents and ill-health, by perspective and type 

Source: Estimating the cost of accidents and ill-health at work: a review of methodologies, EU-OSHA, 2014, p. 
15. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  3  Distribution  of  types  of  costs  of  workplace  injuries  and  ill-health  in  Britain 

(2012/2013) 

Source:   Adapted from HSE: Costs to Britain of workplace fatalities and self-reported injuries and ill-health 

2012/2013 

Figure  4  Costs  of  workplace  injuries  and  ill  health  in  Britain  (2012/13)  by  type  and 

stakeholder 

Source:   Adapted from HSE: Costs to Britain of workplace fatalities and self-reported injuries and ill-health 

2012/2013 

95 

3161457Percentage of total costsProductivityHealth and rehabilitationcostsAdministration and legalcostsCompensation costsNon-financial human costs-20000200040006000800010000WorkerEnterpriseGovernmentCosts in £millions (2012 prices)Non-financial human costsCompensationAdministration and legalcostsHealth and rehabilitationProductivity 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5 Costs to Britain of workplace injuries and new cases of work-related illness, 
2006/07 to 2012/13 (2012 prices) 

Source:   Costs to Britain of workplace fatalities and self-reported injuries and ill-health 2012/2013 
Note:  

Costs for 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2012/13 are shown in dark grey and include an error bar to 
show the 95% confidence interval around the estimate. Cost estimates for 2012/13 are independent of 
cost estimates for 2006/07-2008/09 and can be reliably compared to these. 

Table 4 Total Administrative Costs and National Obligations going beyond EU 
requirements 

96 

 
 
 
 
97 

 
 
 
98 

 
 
 
Source: Final Report Measurement data and analysis as specified in the specific contracts 5&6 on Modules 3&4 
under the Framework Contract n° ENTR/06/61 Report on Working Environment/Employment Relations Priority 
Area. EU project on baseline measurement and reduction of administrative costs. June 2009. 

99 

 
 
 
 
Annex 5 -  LIST OF EU OSH DIRECTIVES UNDER EX-POST EVALUATION 

-  Directive  89/391/EEC209  of  12  June  1989  on  the  introduction  of  measures  to  encourage 

improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, as amended by: 

-  Council Directive 89/654/EEC210 of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety 
and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of 
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Directive 2009/104/EC211 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 
2009  concerning  the  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  the  use  of  work 
equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 
16(1)  of  Directive  89/391/EEC  –  Codification  of  Directive  89/655/EEC,  as  amended  by 
Directives 95/63/EC and 2001/45/EC); 

-  Council  Directive  89/656/EEC212  of  30  November  1989  on  the  minimum  health  and 
safety  requirements  for  the  use  by  workers  of  personal  protective  equipment  at  the 
workplace  (third      individual  directive  within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(1)  of  Directive 
89/391/EEC);  

-  Council  Directive  90/269/EEC213  of  29  May  1990  on  the  minimum  health  and  safety 
requirements  for  the  manual  handling  of  loads  where  there  is  a  risk  particularly  of  back 
injury  to  workers  (fourth  individual  directive  within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(1)  of 
Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Council  Directive  90/270/EEC214  of  29  May  1990  on  the  minimum  safety  and  health 
requirements  for  work  with  display  screen  equipment  (fifth  individual  directive  within 
the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);  

-  Directive 2004/37/EC215  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 
on  the  protection  of  workers  from  the  risks  related  to  exposure  to  carcinogens  or 
mutagens  at  work  (sixth  individual  directive  within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(1)  of 
Directive 89/391/EEC - Codification of Directive 90/394/EEC); 

-  Directive 2000/54/EC216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 
2000  on  the  protection  of  workers  from  risks  related  to  exposure  to  biological  agents  at 
work  (seventh  individual  directive  within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(1)  of  Directive 
89/391/EEC) -  Codification of Directive 90/679/EEC); 

-  Council  Directive  92/57/EEC217  of  24  June  1992  on  the  implementation  of  minimum 
safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eight individual 
directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Council  Directive  92/58/EEC218  of  24  June  1992  on  the  minimum  requirements  for  the 
provision  of  safety  and/or  health  signs  at  work  (ninth  individual  Directive  within  the 
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Council  Directive  92/85/EEC219  of  19  October  1992  on  the  introduction  of  measures  to 
encourage  improvements  in  the  safety  and  health  at  work  of  pregnant  workers  and 

209 OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p.1. 
210 OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p.1. 
211 OJ L 260, 3.10.2009, p. 5. 
212 OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p.18. 
213 OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p.9. 
214 OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p.14. 
215 OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p.23. 
216 OJ L 262, 17.10.2000, p.21. 
217 OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p.6. 
218 OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p.23. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
workers  who  have  recently  given  birth  or  are  breastfeeding  (tenth  individual  Directive 
within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) ; 

-  Council  Directive  92/91/EEC220  of  3  November  1992  concerning  the  minimum 
requirements  for  improving  the  safety  and  health  protection  of  workers  in  the  mineral-
extracting industries through drilling (eleventh individual directive within the meaning 
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC ); 

-  Council Directive 92/104/EEC221 of 3 December 1992 on the minimum requirements for 
improving  the  safety  and  health  protection  of  workers  in  surface  and  underground 
mineral-extracting industries (twelfth individual directive within the meaning of Article 
16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Council  Directive  93/103/EC222  of  23  November  1993  concerning  the  minimum  safety 
and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual directive 
within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);  

-   Council Directive 98/24/EC223 of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety 
of  workers  from  the  risks  related  to  chemical  agents  at  work  (fourteenth  individual 
directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Directive 1999/92/EC224 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 
1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers 
potentially  at  risk  from  explosive  atmospheres  (fifteenth  individual  directive  within  the 
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Directive 2002/44/EC225 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the 
risk  arising  from  physical  agents  (vibration)  (sixteenth  individual  directive  within  the 
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Directive  2003/10/EC226  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6  February 
2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements  regarding the exposure  of workers 
to the risk arising from physical agents (noise) (seventeenth individual directive within the 
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

-  Directive 2004/40/EC227 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the 
risks  arising  from  physical  agents  (electromagnetic  fields)  (18th  individual  Directive 
within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(1)  of  Directive  89/391/EEC),  );  as  amended  by 
Directive 2008/46/EC228; 

-  Directive 2006/25/EC229  of the European Parliament and of  the Council of 5 April 2006 
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to risks 
arising  from  physical  agents  (artificial  optical  radiation)  (19th  individual  Directive 
within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); 

219 OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1. 
220 OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p.9. 
221 OJ L 404, 31.12.1992, p.10. 
222 OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p.1. 
223 OJ L131, 5.5. 1998, p.11. 
224 OJ L 23, 28.1.2000, p.57. 
225 OJ L 177, 6.7.2002, p.13. 
226 OJ L 42, 15.2.2003, p.38. 
227 OJ L 184, 24.5.2004, p.1. 
228 OJ L 114, 26.4.2008, p. 88 
229 OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p.38. 

101 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
-  Council  Directive  91/383/EEC230  of  25  June  1991  supplementing  the  measures  to 
encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of workers with a fixed-duration 
employment relationship or a temporary employment relationship; 

-  Council  Directive  92/29/EEC231  of  31  March  1992  on  the  minimum  safety  and  health 

requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels; 

-  Council  Directive  94/33/EC232  of  22  June  1994  on  the  protection  of  young  people  at 

work; 

-  Directive 2009/148/EC233 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 
2009 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work. 

230 OJ L 206, 29.7.1991, p. 19. 
231 OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p.19. 
232 OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12. 
233 OJ L 330, 16.12.2009, p. 28. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 6 - Relevant non-OSH EU legislation 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and 
Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH),  establishing  a  European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending 
Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC)  No 793/93 and Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1488/94  as  well  as  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC  and  Commission 
Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC; 

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008  on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and 
mixtures,  amending  and  repealing  Directives  67/548/EEC  and  1999/45/EC,  and  amending 
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006; 

Council  Directive  87/217/EEC  of  19  March  1987  on  the  prevention  and  reduction  of 
environmental pollution by asbestos; 

Directive  2006/42/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  May  2006  on 
machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast) 

Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 
on the minimum level of training of seafarers (recast) 

Council Directive 2009/13/EC of 16 February 2009 implementing the Agreement concluded 
by the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) and the European Transport 
Workers’  Federation  (ETF)  on  the  Maritime  Labour  Convention,  2006,  and  amending 
Directive 1999/63/EC  

Directive  2013/30/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  June  2013  on 
safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC 

Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on 
the award of concession contracts  

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on 
public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC 

Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on 
procurement  by  entities operating  in  the  water, energy,  transport  and  postal  services  sectors 
and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC 

Directive 2014/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on 
the  harmonisation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  relating  to  equipment  and  protective 
systems  intended  for  use  in  potentially  explosive  atmospheres  (recast)Commission  Decision 
2014/113/EU  on  setting  up  a  Scientific  Committee  on  Occupational  Exposure  Limits  for 
Chemical Agents and repealing Decision 95/320/EC 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7 - Coherence with EU non-OSH legislation:  

Directive 2000/54/EC (biological agents) and Directive 2010/32/EU (sharp injuries) - review 
of the scope of Directive 2010/32/EU (sharp injuries)  to cover all workers exposed to sharp 
injuries leading to infections by biological agents should be considered since it would have a 
positive impact on limiting worker exposure to biological agents.  

There is a need to develop synergies between OSH, REACH, CLP and other EU chemicals 
legislation.  There  is  a  need  to  improve  the  interface  and  further  enhance  synergies  between 
OSH and other EU legislation on chemicals such as REACH and CLP.  

Application  of  OSH  OELs  and  REACH  DNELs:  The  inclusion  of  in-built  provisions  under 
REACH and/or Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents) and Directive 2004/37/EC (carcinogens 
and mutagens) to coordinate how OELs and DNELs are derived in order to define the most 
appropriate way of using them in the risk assessment. Other options would be to: 

-  To enhance the cooperation between SCOEL and ECHA (RAC); 
-  To  evaluate  the  methodologies  used  to  define  OELs  and  derive  relevant  DNELs  in 

order to align the approaches and promote convergence; 

-  To ensure that REACH registrants take into account OELs recommended by SCOEL 

when deriving DNELs without being challenged in other regulatory processes; 

-  To ensure that for a given substance SCOEL considers DNELs derived under REACH 

when establishing new or reviewing existing, outdated OELs; 

-  To reconsider the nature and extent of Member States’ capacity to set different OELs 
in  the  case  of  the  currently  so-called  'indicative'  OEL  values  established  under  the 
terms of Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents); 

-  Simplification of the procedures to set occupational limit values at EU level – and in 
particular currently so-called 'binding' limit values – is needed. This would also have a 
positive impact under OSH and also on other EU policy areas such as REACH. 

Similarly,  one  of  the  main  suggestions  of  the  NIRs  is  to  better  align  Directives  98/24/EC 
(chemicals  agents)  and  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and  mutagens)  and  Regulations  (EC)  No 
1272/2008 (CLP) and 1907/2006 (REACH).  

Concerning Directive 2009/148/EC on the protection of workers against asbestos exposure, a 
deeper  analysis  is  required  to  determine  whether  the  combined  implementation  of  the 
provisions of Directive 2009/148/EC in particular on the demolition of buildings containing 
asbestos and asbestos-added products and on the removal therefrom of these raw material and 
products  (Article  12(c)),  and  of  the  provisions  set  out  in  other  Union  instruments  (e.g. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  (REACH))  ensure  the  full  achievement  of  the  objective  of 
Article  7(2)  of  Directive  87/217/EEC  (protection  of  human  health  and  the  environment 
against asbestos). 

Reporting  requirements  under  Directive  2013/30/EU  on  safety  of  offshore  oil  and  gas 
operations  and  under  Directive  92/91/EEC  (drilling):  The  articulation  of  the  reporting 
requirements should be clarified through the adoption of guidelines on the interface between 

104 

 
 
 
 
the  two  directives.  The  main  recommendation  from  the  NIRs  are  to  better  align  Directive 
92/91/EEC and Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations. 

Medical treatment and training requirements for commercial seagoing ships: The existence of 
equivalent medical treatment requirements in Directive 2009/13/EC and Directive 92/29/EC, 
as  well  as  of  equivalent  training  requirements  in  Directive  2008/106/EC  and  Directive 
92/29/EC, while not leading to double regulation in practice, may create confusion. One of the 
main  recommendations  from  the  NIRs  is  to  better  align  the  Directive  92/29/EEC  (medical 
treatment on board vessels), with certain international  standards (e.g. International Maritime 
Organisation  (IMO)  -  Life  Saving  Appliances  (LSA)  Code  4.15.1.8.;  ISO  3864-1:2011 
"Graphical  symbols  — Safety colours  and safety  signs; International  Labour Organization’s 
2006 Maritime Labour Convention and 2007 Convention on Work in Fishing). 

Public Procurement Directives and OSH award criteria: The reintroduction of a link between 
the award criteria or contract performance conditions and the fulfilment of OSH requirements 
by the (potential) contractor in the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives should be 
considered to enhance health and safety at work through public procurement incentives. 

Directive  1999/92/EC  (ATEX)  and  Directive  94/9/EC  (ATEX  equipment):  In  view  of  the 
concerns  raised  by  some  Member  States,  the  review  of  the  definition  of  zones  to  ensure 
similar technical interpretations in Member States to avoid barriers to the free movement of 
ATEX  equipment  should  be  considered.  However,  this  would  imply  to  set  up  prescriptive 
conditions without allowing Member States to set more stringent definitions of zones, which 
is contrary to the a minima approach of the EU OSH acquis. The  development  of guidelines  
for  the  application  of  Directive  1999/92/EC  (ATEX)  to  equipment  and  protective  systems 
placed on the market before the entry into force of  Directive 94/9/EC (ATEX equipment) and 
equipment not falling under the scope of this Directive could also be considered to enhance 
the synergy between the two Directives.  

Directive 92/58/EEC (OSH signs)- the main recommendation from the NIRs is to update the 
Directive and further align it with international standards (e.g. EN ISO 7010).  

International instruments: The incorporation of additional requirements under international 
instruments in the relevant EU OSH legislation would ensure a level-playing field across the 
different Member States. As an alternative (or a first step), when it is not yet the case, the 
adoption of a Council Decision authorising the ratification of the relevant convention by 
Member States and to further promote ratification should be envisaged. 

105 

 
 
 
 
Annex 8 - OSH GLOSSARY  

ACSH 
ACSH (WP) 

AIL 
APCMA 

AT 
ATEX 
BE 
BenOSH 
BG 
BusinessEurope 

CAD 
CEEMET 

CEFIC 
CIETT 

CMD Directive 
CPM 
CSR 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DG EMPL 
DG ENV 
DG GROW 

DG JUST 
DK 
DNEL 
DSE 
DWEA 
EASE 
ECSA 
EE 
EFBWW 
EFCI 
EFFAT 

EHIS 

organisation 

Advisory Committee on safety and health at work 
Advisory  Committee  on  safety  and  health  at  work 
(Working party) 
Analytical intervention logic 
L'Assemblée permanente des chambres de métiers et de 
l'artisanat 
Austria 
Explosive atmospheres 
Belgium 
Benefits of Occupational Safety 
Bulgaria 
Advocate  for  growth  and  competitiveness  at  European 
level 
Chemical Agents at Work Directive 
European 
representing  
employers' 
companies  of  the  metal,  engineering  and  technology-
based industries 
European Chemical Industry Council 
International  Confederation  of  Private  Employment 
Agencies 
Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive 
Common process and mechanism 
Country Summary Report 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Germany 
Directorate-General Employment 
Directorate-General Environment 
Directorate-General 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate-General Justice 
Denmark 
Derived No Effects Level 
Display Screen Equipment 
Danish Working Environment Authority  
European Association for Storage of Energy 
The European Community Shipowners’ Associations 
Estonia 
European Federation of Building and Woodworkers 
European Federation of Cleaning Industries 
European  Federation  of  Food,  Agriculture  and 
Tourism Trade Unions 
European Health Interview Survey 

Internal  Market, 

Industry, 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
EL 
EMF 
EODS 
EPSU 
EQC 
EQE 
EQR 
ER 

ES 
ESAW 
ESENER 
ETF 
ETUI 
ETUC 
EU 
EU-OSHA 
Eurocoal 
Eurofer 
Eurofound 

Eurometaux 
Euromines 

Europêche 

Eurostat 
EWCS 
FEVE 
FI 
FIEC 
FR 
FWD 
Glass for Europe 

HOSPEEM 
HOTREC 
HU 
ILO 
IMA-Europe 
IR 
ISO 
ISSA 
ISSG 
IT 
IWG 
JICA 

Greece 
Electromagnetic Field 
European Occupational Diseases Statistics 
European Federation of Public Service Unions 
Evaluation question Coherence 
Evaluation question on Effectiveness 
Evaluation question on Relevance 
Employee  Representative  for  occupational  safety  and 
health matters 
Spain 
European Statistics on Accident at Work 
European Survey on New and Emerging Risks 
European Transport Workers' Federation 
European Trade Union Institute 
European Trade Union Confederation 
European Union 
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 
European Association for Coal and Lignite 
European Steel Association 
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and 
Working Conditions 
European Association of Metals 
Recognized  representative  of  the  European  metals  and 
minerals mining industry 
Association  of  National  Organisations  of  Fishing 
Enterprises in the European Union 
European Statistics 
European Working Conditions Survey 
The European Container Glass Federation 
Finland 
European Construction Industry Federation 
France 
Framework Directive 
Trade  association 
building, automotive and transport glass 
European Hospital & Healthcare Employers' Association 
Hotels, Restaurants & Cafés in Europe 
Hungary 
International Labour Organisation 
Industrial Minerals Association – Europe 
Ireland 
International Organization for Standardization 
International Social Security Association 
Inter-Service Steering Group  
Italy 
Intergovernmental Working Group  
Japan International Cooperation Agency 

for  Europe's  manufacturers  of 

107 

 
 
JISHA 
KR 
LFS 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MH 
MODERNET 

MQ 
MSD 
MT 
NACE 

NIR 
NL 
OECD 

OEL 
OSH 
PL 
PlasticsEurope 
PT 
RAC 
REACH 

RO 
SBS 
SCOEL 
SE 
Seveso Directive 

SI 
SK 
SLIC 
SME 

and 

for  Economic  Co-operation 

Japan International Safety and Health Association  
Key requirement 
Labour Force Survey 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Manual Handling 
Programme  which  aims  at  establishing  a  network  for 
monitoring  trends  in  occupational  diseases,  such  as 
allergic and infectious diseases and reproductive hazards, 
and  new  and  emerging  occupational  risks  caused  by 
biological agents 
Mapping question 
Musculoskeletal Disorder 
Malta 
(Nomenclature  of  Economic  Activities)  is  the European 
statistical classification of economic activities 
National Implementation Report 
Netherlands 
Organisation 
Development 
Occupational Exposure Limit 
Occupational Safety and Health 
Poland 
Association of Plastic Manufacturers 
Portugal 
Committee for Risk Assessment 
the 
Regulation 
Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction 
of  Chemicals  (REACH),  establishing  a  European 
Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and 
repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  793/93  and 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1488/94  as  well  as 
Council  Directive  76/769/EEC 
and  Commission 
Directives  91/155/EEC,  93/67/EEC,  93/105/EC  and 
2000/21/EC 
Romania 
Structural Business Statistics 
Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits 
Sweden 
Directive  82/501/EC  aimed  at  improving  the  safety  of 
sites containing large quantities of dangerous substances, 
also  known  as  the  Seveso  Directive  (after  the  Seveso 
disaster). 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Senior Labour Inspectors Committee 
Small and Medium Enterprise 

(EC)  No  1907/2006  concerning 

108 

 
 
TEU 
TFEU 
TS 
UEAPME 

UK 
UNIZO (SME) 
UPEG 

US 
VOV 

WHO 
WorkSafeBC 

Treaty on European Union 
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 
Tender Specifications 
European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized 
Enterprises 
United Kingdom 
UNIZO's platform for growing entrepreneurs 
"Union  Européenne  des  Producteurs  de  Granulats" 
(European Aggregates Associati) 
United States 
Virksomhedsovervågning  (Monitoring  Preventive  Work 
Safety and Health Measures at Workplace Level) 
World Health Organisation 
Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia 

109 

 
 
 
 
Annex 9 - The EU Occupational Health and Safety Legislation intervention logic 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 10 -  Summary of the findings based on the Country Summary Reports 

The purpose of this Annex is to present for each Member State, based on an analysis of the 
elements  detailed  in  the  Country  Summary  Reports,  the  main  findings  regarding:  1)  the 
general legal framework and competences in the area of OSH, 2) examples of more stringent 
and more detailed national measures; 3) the level of compliance by different stakeholders; 4) 
enforcement and 5) SMEs and micro-enterprises. 

The section concerning the general legal framework and competences covers the structure of 
the national legal framework in the area of OSH, its scope, and the main national authorities 
responsible for implementation and enforcement in this area.  

The  section  concerning  more  stringent,  broader  or  more  detailed  requirements  set  out  in 
national  transposing  measures  is  limited  to  an  analysis  in  relation  to  the  common  processes 
and  mechanisms  in  the  EU  OSH  Directives,  key  requirements,  provisions  on  scope, 
definitions  and  limit  values.  However,  the  purpose  of  this  Annex  is  not  to  provide  an 
exhaustive presentation of such requirements, but rather to highlight for each Member States 
certain  examples.  In  this  regard,  a distinction  needs  to  be made  between  :  on  the one  hand, 
more  "stringent"  requirements,  which  refer  to  those  measures  more  protective  for  workers 
which in line with Article 153 (4) TFEU go beyond the requirements set out in the EU OSH 
Directives e.g. more severe limit values; and on the other hand, more "specific" or "detailed" 
requirements,  which  relate  to  the  extent  to  which  national  measures  set  out  more  detailed 
mechanisms  for  the  implementation  of  EU  minimum  requirements.  In  such  cases,  Member 
States have set up more detailed rules on e.g. procedures, responsibilities, etc. 

The section on enforcement presents findings in relation to the national competent authorities, 
strategies  for  inspection,  the  nature  of  the  role  carried  out  by  the  labour  inspectors  and  the 
framework concerning sanctions. 

The  section  on  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  concerns  measures  at  national  level  to  support 
compliance with EU OSH legislation.  

1. AUSTRIA 

1.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

In Austria, the main act transposing the Framework is the Federal Law on Health and Safety 
at Work (ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzgesetz – 'AschG') of 1994. That law applies to employees 
and  temporary  staff,  but  not  to  persons  employed  by  the  federal  or  provincial  governments 
and  local  or  municipal  councils,  the  workers  in  the  agriculture  or  forestry,  in  private 
households,  and  those  who  work  from  home.  The  excluded  categories  are  covered  by 
measures  adopted  at  Federal  or  provincial  level.  Although  the  AschG  does  not  apply  to 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"employees of the government, local government and community organizations, who are not 
employed in factories", and "workers in the federal departments to which the Federal Officials 
Protection Act is to apply”, 72 out of the 114 regulations applying specifically to the public 
sector  refer  to  the  general  occupational  health  and  safety  legislation  (AschG)  as  directly 
applicable.  The  related  EU  OSH  directives  have  been  transposed  mostly  through  secondary 
legislation,  i.e.  Regulations.  Directive  94/33/EC  has  been  transposed  through  a  specific  law 
(Federal  Law  on  Work  of  Children  and  Young  People),  together  with  an  implementing 
Regulation.  Directive  91/383/EEC  has  been  transposed  through  the  Federal  Law  on  Hiring 
Out, and Directive 92/85/EEC has been transposed through the Federal Law on Protection of 
Mothers. 

Competences  over  OSH  mainly  fall  under  the  direction  of  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Labour, 
Social  Affairs  and  Consumer  Protection,  also  responsible  for  employment-related  issues 
including  working  conditions  and  labour  inspections.  Another  important  ministry  is  the 
Federal Ministry of Health. The Labour Inspectorate is part of the Federal Ministry of Labour, 
Social  Affairs  and  Consumer  Protection.  In  total,  19  regional  labour  inspectorates  and  one 
special  inspectorate  for  construction  work  (only  responsible  for  Vienna  and  Lower  Austria) 
are directly responsible to the Central Labour Inspectorate. 

1.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  legislation  transposing  Directive  89/391/EEC,  there  are  more  specific 
requirements  on  risk  assessment,  preventive  and  protective  services  and  information  for 
workers.  More  particularly,  the  AschG  describes  in  a  specific  manner  the  risks  to  be  taken 
into  account,  as  well  as  the  content  and  methodology  of  the  risk  assessment.  These  more 
specific requirements from the AschG are also applicable as regards the measures transposing 
a  large  number  of  individual  EU  OSH  directives.  More  specific  requirements  on  risk 
assessment  in  specific  national  legislation  are  also  to  be  found  in  relation  to  Directive 
2009/104/EC  (work  equipment),  Directive  92/58/EEC  (OSH  signs),  Directive  2004/37/EC 
(carcinogens  or  mutagens),  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents  at  work),  Directive 
2000/54/EC  (biological  agents),  Directive  92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral-
extracting  industries),  Directive  92/91/EEC  (mineral-extracting  industries  through  drilling), 
and Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers).  

The scope of the individual directive is different from the transposing national legislation with 
regard  to  Directive  92/58/EEC  (OSH  signs),  Directive  92/57/EEC  (temporary  or  mobile 
construction sites), and Directive 92/91/EEC (mineral-extracting industries through drilling).  

More  broader  or  detailed  measures  on  information  for  workers  are  laid  down  in  national 
measures  transposing  Directive  89/654/EEC  (workplace),  Directive  2009/104/EC  (work 
equipment), Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents at work), Directive 2000/54/EC (biological 
agents),  Directive  92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral-extracting  industries), 
Directive 91/383/EEC (temporary workers), and Directive 94/33/EC (young people at work). 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally,  more  detailed  provisions  with  regard  to  health  surveillance  are  set  forth  in  national 
measures  transposing  Directives  2003/10/EC  (noise),  2000/54/EC  (biological  agents),  and 
91/383/EEC (temporary workers). 

1.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Austria is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study.  

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Austria shows a moderate level of compliance as regards the obligation 
to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  56%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey,  workplace risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted by internal  staff 
(54.1%).  ESENER-2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be 
it  in  house  or  contracted  externally.  As  regards  health  surveillance  only  29%  of  the 
respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 
examinations  to  monitor  the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  very  high 
number  of  establishments  (84.6%)  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining 
responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The  external  study  based  its  conclusions  on  compliance  only  on  the  data  provided  by  the 
labour inspectorates in the context of the 2011 labour inspection report. However, information 
only concerned risk assessment as no information could be gathered for the other CPMs. The 
level of compliance assessed across the Directives in relation to risk assessment's performance 
is  higher  in  comparison  to  the  level  reported  by  the  ESENER-2  survey.  Also  the  study 
highlighted that the degree of compliance increased with the size of the companies. Finally, 
the  study  highlighted  that  the  results  of  a  focused  inspection  campaign  conducted  by  the 
Austrian Labour Inspection in 2008/2009 reported that two-third of companies with less than 
10  employees  and  nearly  90  %  of  companies  with  10  to  50  employees  performed  a  risk 
assessment234. 

1.4 Enforcement 

The Austrian OSH infrastructure is characterised by a dual system of state inspection bodies 
and social insurance. Enforcement of OSH-measures happens via the labour inspectorates and 

234 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Austria. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
special units in regional governments and municipalities that have  been installed to monitor 
safety  and  health  of  their  employees.  The  general Labour  Inspectorate (Arbeitsinspektion) is 
by far the larger of these bodies. It covers industries, services, the public sector, and transport. 
It  is  centralised  and  acts  nationwide  through  19  regional  departments  and  one  central 
office. Like in other countries, the Austrian Labour Inspectorate has progressively changed its 
approach, increasingly focusing on advisory work – although punishment keeps being one if 
its main tasks. Only a small proportion of companies can be reached via inspections, so the 
Labour  Inspectorate  has  enabling  strategies  to  support  compliance.  Austria  has  labour 
inspectors  dedicated  to  specific  tasks  or  groups  of  workers,  such  as  protection  of  young 
workers, construction sites, pregnant and breastfeeding workers and workers in the hospitality 
industry235. 

1.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Austria  has  not  set  up  any  exemptions,  lighter  regimes  or  incentives  to  assist  SMEs  and 
micro-entreprises in the implementation of OSH requirements. The few other types of actions 
which  have  been  identified  are  guidelines  (for  Directive  1999/92/EC  on  ATEX,  Directive 
2002/44/EC on vibration, and Directive 89/656/EEC on PPE). The statistical yearbook of the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  indicates  that  most  of  the  Austrian  industry  consists  of  SMEs.  It  is 
therefore  considered  that  SMEs  are  naturally  addressed  within  the  measures  taken  and 
therefore, without the practise of special documents addressing them236.  

2. BELGIUM 

2.1 Legal Framework and competences 

Occupational  safety  and  health  at  work  is  covered  by  the  Law  of  4  August  1996  on  Well-
Being of Workers in the Performance of their Work and its Royal Decrees. That Law, which 
transposes  into  Belgian  law  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  forms  with  its 
implementing  Royal  Decrees  the  Code  on  Well-being  at  Work  (Code  sur  le  bien-être  au 
travail).  The  Code  will  gradually  replace  the  previous  Regulation  for  Labour  protection 
(Règlement général pour la protection du travail – "RGPT"), which was in force since 1947.  

Institutional  aspects,  such  as  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  and  external 
protection and prevention services or of the consultation committees have been transposed in 
specific Royal Decrees.  Most individual OSH Directives are transposed in one specific piece 
of  legislation,  typically  a  Royal  Decree,  adopted  under  the  framework  of  the  1996  Law. 
Several  Royal  Decrees  were  necessary  to  transpose  Directive  89/654/EEC  (workplace)  and 
Directive  2009/104/EC  (work  equipment).  The  main  requirements  of  the  Directive 
2009/104/EC  are  transposed  in  the  Royal  Decree  of  12  August  1993  on  the  use  of  work 

235 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities and Table 5-4 Type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary 
Report for Austria. 
236 See Table 7-2 Description of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary 
Report for Austria. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
equipment,  while  individual  royal  decrees  regulate  the  use  of  various  specific  equipment, 
respectively  mobile  work  equipment,  work  equipment  for  lifting  loads  and  work  equipment 
provided for temporary work at height.  

The  Belgian  legislation  in  the  area  of  health  and  safety  at  work  covers  all  types  of 
undertakings and sectors, without distinction, including undertakings in the public sector and 
all enterprises, irrespective of size. The enforcement body competent for occupational health 
and safety issues and the procedures in case of infringement in the public sector are the same 
as in the private sector.  

Employment legislation and legislation on health and safety at work are a competence of the 
Federal  Ministry  of  Employment,  Labour  and  Social  Dialogue.  Labour  and  employment 
policy is still an exclusive competence of the federal authorities. The main OSH Law and its 
implementing decisions are therefore adopted by the Federal government.  

2.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  national  provisions  relating  to  risk 
assessment  are  more  detailed.  In  particular,  the  employers,  together  with  the  prevention 
adviser and with  the  OSH  dedicated  committee,  are  required  to  prepare  a  global  prevention 
plan, which is then declined in yearly action plans. Also, the national legislation lists twelve 
major risks to be considered, as a minimum, including psychosocial risks, such as the risk of 
harassment and violence.  

Similarly,  Belgium  has  set  more  detailed  requirements  in  relation  to  the  preventive  and 
protective  services  referred  to  in  Article  7  of  the  Directive.  In  particular,  every  employer  is 
required  to  establish  an  internal  service  for  prevention  and  protection  at  work  (ISSP), 
consisting of at least one employee. The composition of the ISSP (depending of the size of the 
company)  and  competences  required  are  regulated,  as  well  as  the  external  services.  The 
Belgian  legislation  also  details  the  content  of  the  information  to  be  provided  to  workers. 
Specific arrangements on health surveillance records are specified. The law requires an OSH 
dedicated committee to be established in any undertaking employing more than 50 employees, 
as well as for smaller undertakings in specific sectors.  

With  regard  to  Directive  89/654/EC  (workplace),  the  Belgian  legislation  lays  down  more 
detailed  requirements  concerning  the  minimum  health  and  safety  requirements  set  in  the 
Annexes to that Directive.  

With  regard  to  Directive  2002/44/EC  (vibration),  the  national  legislation  establishes  more 
detailed  requirements  concerning  risk  assessment,  health  surveillance  and  consultation  of 
workers.  

With  regard  to  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents),  a  formula  for  determining  the 
cumulative  effect  of  exposure  to  various  chemical  agents  is  provided.    Also,  the  national 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
legislation sets more stringent occupational exposure limit values and additional limit values. 
Other  additional  requirements  are  also  set  concerning  the  measurements  of  chemical  agents 
presenting a risk for workers’ health. 

As  regards  Directive  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board  vessels),  the  scope  of  the 
Belgian  legislation  is  broader,  as  it  includes  warships.  Moreover,  the  national  legislation 
requires with regard to vessels with 300 or more people on board that the doctor responsible 
for the medical care of the workers on board be accompanied by a nurse.  

In  relation  to  Directive  93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels),  the  Belgian  legislation 
sets more detailed or additional requirements on information to workers, training of workers 
and regular checks and implementation of a dynamic risk monitoring system. 

2.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Belgium is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. Concerning the 
provisions  referred  to  as  the  common  processes  and  mechanisms  (CPMs),  the  ESENER-2 
results for Belgium shows a good level of compliance as regards the obligation to carry out 
workplace risk assessments regularly (with 66% of establishments doing so). According to the 
survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted  by  internal  staff  (42.3%).  
ESENER-2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety  services  used,  be  it  in 
house or contracted externally.  

As  regards  health  surveillance  87%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their 
establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. 
The survey also indicates that a very high number of establishments (82.7%) make available 
to the workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. A 
medium proportion of establishments declared as well that training on how to manage health 
and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most 
about  health  and  safety  in  the  establishment).  Differences  could  be  observed  when 
considering  the  thematic  coverage  of  the  training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and 
microenterprises were less likely to have the necessary OSH management structure in place as 
compared with larger establishments. 

The results of the external study as regards compliance are based on the annual reports from 
labour  inspectors  over  the  period  2007-2012  and  on  stakeholders'  interviews.  The  study 
reported lower levels of compliance with CPMs in comparison with the data reported by the 
ESENER-2 survey,  considering the OSH acquis as  a whole (between  20-40%) and  a lower, 
but still high, level of compliance in relation to available health surveillance (60-79%). Also 
the  study  highlighted  that  the  level  of  compliance  appears  significantly  lower  in  SMEs237. 

237 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms of the Country Summary Report 
for Belgium. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
According  to  the  study  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  SMEs  face  particular  challenges  as  they 
often rely on external prevention and protection services which are relatively heterogeneous 
in terms of quality.  

2.4 Enforcement  

The main authority in charge of OSH legislation enforcement is the Directorate General for 
the Control of Well Being at Work under the Federal Public Service for Employment, Labour 
and Social Dialogue, and its eight regional directorates. Within the Directorate General for the 
Control of Well Being at Work, the Department for control on chemical risks is specifically 
responsible  for  chemical  risks,  hence  for  the  four  chemical-related  OSH  Directives.  With 
regard to the two mineral-extracting directives, the competent authority for enforcement is the 
Federal Public Service Economy. For the two Directives on vessels, it is the Federal Public 
Service Mobility who is responsible. 

The legislation sets both criminal and administrative sanctions for non-compliance with OSH 
requirements.  Criminal  sanctions  are  mostly  fines,  with  imprisonment  sanctions  being  the 
exception (for some infringements in relation to legislation on young people at work and the 
framework  legislation  in  case  of  obstruction  to  inspection  or  non-compliance  with  the 
measures imposed by the social inspectors). In some cases, the judge may impose other type 
of  sanctions  such  as  operating  prohibition,  professional  exclusion  or  closure  of  the 
establishment. 

2.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

The SME measures laid down in the national legislation transposing the Framework Directive 
are equally applicable to all of the transpositions of the other OSH individual Directives.  

Different types of internal services of protection and prevention are prescribed depending on 
the  size  of  the  enterprise.  For  smaller  companies,  there  is  no  obligation  to  set  up  a 
consultation  committee.  Finally,  a  recent  legislation  differentiates  the  price  of  the  services 
provided  by  external  services  depending  on  the main  activity  and  the  size  of  the enterprise, 
with a smaller rate for very small companies (between 1 and 5 workers)238.  

3. BULGARIA 

3.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The  Safety  and  Health  at  Work  Act,  (December  1997)  –  as  amended  and  supplemented  in 
2007 and 2010 –transposes the Framework Directive 89/391/EC and enshrines the rights and 
obligations of the public authorities, the employers and workers for ensuring healthy and safe 

238 See Table 7- 2 Description of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary 
Report for Belgium. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
 
working  conditions  at  work.  The  related  EU  OSH  directives  have  been  transposed  mostly 
through  secondary  legislation,  i.e.  Ordinances  and  Regulations.  Directives  98/24/EC 
(chemical agents at work) and 2009/148/EC (asbestos) have also partially been transposed by 
the 2004 Law on Health – as amended and supplemented in 2006239.  

The Law on Health and Safety at Work applies to all groups of employees and all enterprises 
and places where work or training is carried out, regardless of the form of organisation, the 
type of ownership or the grounds on which the work or training is performed. The Bulgarian 
legislation  in  the  area  of  health  and  safety  at  work  covers  all  types  and  sectors,  without 
distinction, including the public sector and all enterprises, irrespective of size. 

Competences over OSH are divided between the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and the 
Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy carries out an integrated control 
of all branches and sectors through the General Labour Inspectorate Executive Agency. The 
latter  is  responsible  for  the  overall  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  labour  legislation, 
offers  assistance  to  employers  to  fulfil  their  legal  duties,  and  provides  the  Ministry  with 
annual data on the number of inspections carried out, decisions taken, etc. 

3.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  legislation  transposing  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  the 
Bulgarian legislation sets forth additional conditions for employees working from home.  

As  regards  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and  mutagens),  the  national  transposing 
legislation  covers  also  category  1A  and  1B  reprotoxic  substances  according  to  the 
classification  set  out  in  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/2008  ('CLP  Regulation').  That 
legislation,  as  well  as  the  national  legislation  transposing  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical 
agents at work) include more specific information on the scope of workers' training.  

With regard to Directive 93/103/EC (work on board fishing vessels), the content or form of 
information provided to workers is further specified in national legislation.  

Finally,  with  regard  to  Directive  92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding  workers),  national 
legislation is broader in scope to the extent that it covers also those workers which are under 
advanced in vitro treatment procedures. 

3.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Bulgaria is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER -2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

239 See Table 1-1 General Legal Framework of the Country Summary Report for Bulgaria. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2  results  for  Bulgaria  shows  a  very  good  level  of  compliance  as  regards  the 
obligation  to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  90%  of  establishments 
doing  so).  According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  contracted  to 
external providers (71.3%). ESENER-2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and safety 
services used, be it in house or contracted externally.  As regards health surveillance 83% of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 
examinations  to  monitor  the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  very  high 
number  of  establishments  (95%)  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining 
responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 
The results of the external study on compliance are based on the ESENER-1 survey and the 
reports of the General Labour Inspectorate Executive Agency (GLIEA). The study reported a 
general trend of improvement with regard to compliance with carrying out a risk assessment 
but it highlighted that stakeholders have declared during the interviews that the percentage of 
establishments that carry out risk assessments and risk management activities resulting from 
the  risk  assessment  is  lower  than  what  is  officially  reported.  The  study  also  assessed  the 
percentage of enterprises providing training to workers to be high240. 

3.4 Enforcement 

The main authorities in charge of OSH legislation enforcement are the Ministry of Labour and 
Social Policy, the Ministry of Health, and the General Labour Inspectorate Executive Agency 
(GLIEA).  They cover all directives, both in the private and the public sector241. GLIEA is the 
main enforcement body, which controls the application of labour relations legislation, applies 
a  specialised  control  on  the  upholding  of  the  Law  on  OSH  and  other  laws  related  to  work 
conditions and labour relations,  gives prescriptions to eliminate the identified infringements,  
gives  information  and  advice  to  employers  and  employees  on  methods  and  measures  to  be 
applied and informs the competent bodies on the gaps in labour legislation.   

3.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

It should be taken into account that the SME measures laid down in the national legislation 
transposing the Framework Directive are equally applicable to all of the transpositions of the 
other  OSH  individual  Directives.  Bulgaria  has  only  set  up  a  lighter  regime  for  those 

240 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Bulgaria. 
241 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities and Table 5- 4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the 
Country Summary Report for Bulgaria. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
enterprises having less than five employees, as they are now exempted from the obligation to 
have  a  OSH  Committee.  In  addition,  the  Working  Conditions  Fund  co-finances  OSH 
activities especially in SMEs, through their Programs and Guidelines for Risk Assessment of 
SMEs.  The  help  from  the  Working  Conditions  Fund  is  very  much  welcomed,  but  OSH 
stakeholders  emphasise  that  OSH  legislation  for  micro-companies  and SMEs  is  problematic 
and not effective242. 

4. CYPRUS 

4.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  is  transposed  into  Cypriot  law  by  the  2002 
Regulations  on  the  Management  of  Occupational  Health  and  Safety  Issues  and  a  cluster  of 
laws  brought  together  under  the  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  Laws  of  1996  to  2011.  The 
Framework  Directive  thus  is  transposed  by  one  main  law  which  has  been  amended  several 
times. The EU OSH Directives are – as a rule – each transposed in one single act, in the form 
of  Regulations.  The  only  exception  concerns  Directive  94/33/EC  (young  people  at  work), 
transposed through one Law on the Protection of Young Persons at Work and two regulation. 
Institutional aspects are also covered by separate Regulations. 

The national legislation in the area of OSH covers all sectors, both public and private, and all 
categories of undertakings, independently of size.  

The  Department  of  Labor  Inspection  is  the  competent  authority  for  monitoring  the 
implementation of this legislation.  

4.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With regard to the scope of the legislation transposing the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, 
the provisions of the Health and  Safety at Work Laws of 1996 to 2011 cover in addition to 
workers,  self-employed  persons  and,  so  far  as  is  reasonably  practicable,  third  persons  not 
directly  employed  by  the  employer  who  may  be  affected  by  the  business’s  activities.  Most 
acts transposing the   EU  OSH  individual  directives  include  special  provisions  for  the  self-
employed.  A  "self-employed  person"  is  defined  to  mean  a  person  working  for  gain  or 
remuneration  who  is  not  employed  by  another  employer.    The  definition  of  the  term 
"employer"  is  also  broader  as  it  includes  any  person  who  employs  workers,  as  well  as  any 
person who conducts an economic activity or who manages a business.  In addition, with the 
amendment  to  these  laws  in  2011  [Law  33{Ι)/2011],  their  scope  has  been  extended  so  that 
their  provisions,  and  those  of  regulations  adopted  to  implement  them,  may  fully  apply  to 
private households employing domestic staff. Further, more specific requirements are set forth 
in the Health and Safety at Work Laws of 1996 to 2011 on risk assessment, preventive and 

242 See Table 7- 1 Overview of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary Report 
for Bulgaria. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
protective services and information of workers.  

With  regard  to  Directive  89/654/EEC  (workplace),  more  detailed  requirements  are  set  as 
regards for example the overcrowding and minimum available space at the workplace.  

With regard to Directive 92/58/EEC (OSH signs), more detailed requirements are laid down 
on training of workers. 

4.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Cyprus is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Cyprus show a moderate level of compliance as regards the obligation 
to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  52%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey,  workplace risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted by internal  staff 
(51%). ESENER-2 shows high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be it in-
house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance only 27% of the respondents to 
the survey declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor 
the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  high  number  of  establishments 
(64.3%) make available to the workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures 
on  health  and  safety.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments  declared  as  well  that  training  on 
how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to 
persons who know most about health and safety  in the establishment). Differences could be 
observed when considering the thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME 
and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in 
place as compared with larger establishments. 

The  results  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  are  based  on  a  survey  targeting  micro-
enterprises conducted by the European University of Cyprus and on the data from ESENER-
1.  For  all  CPMs,  the  degree  of  compliance  was  assessed  as  medium  to  low  and  it  was 
concluded that the national legislation transposing the Directives was generally very effective 
in establishments with over 10 workers and reasonably effective in establishments with less 
than 10 workers243. 

4.4 Enforcement 

In Cyprus, the main authority in charge of OSH legislation enforcement is the Department of 
Labour  Inspection,  which  is  part  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Insurance,  which 
covers all industrial sectors and all directives, with the exception of Directives 92/29/EEC and 
93/103/EC. For the latter, the Department of Merchant Shipping enforces shipping legislation 

243 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Cyprus. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
including  OSH  issues  on  board  vessels.    In  addition,  the  Department  of  Labour  has  joint 
enforcement responsibilities with regard to the OSH directives aiming at vulnerable workers. 

In Cyprus, as a rule, there are no administrative sanctions applicable to non-compliance with 
OSH  legislation.  However,  the  inspectors  can  issue  ‘Improvement  Notices’  imposing 
compliance requirements within a specific period of time or ‘Prohibition Notices’ prohibiting 
the  use  of  the  premises,  plant  or  place  of  work  or  the  carrying  on  of  activities  which  may 
expose serious risks to the safety and health of the workers or/and the public, until the risk is 
eliminated  or  reduced  to  an  acceptable  level  for  the  inspector.  They  also  have  the  right  to 
request a court’s order in relation to hazardous conditions and practices in  order  to prohibit 
the  use  of  machines,  plants  or  workplaces,  until  the  risk  is  eliminated  or/and  impose 
compliance requirements244. 

4.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Cyprus does not have any directive-specific guidance for SMEs or micro-enterprises. This is 
not surprising as SME-related guidance is not deemed to be especially helpful for the Micro 
—  Enterprises  and  SMEs  which  make  up  the  great  majority  of  enterprises  in  Cyprus.  Such 
enterprises require a holistic approach to OSH, not piecemeal information.  

Nevertheless two EU non-binding guides (related to the ATEX Directive and related to Work 
at  Height)  have  been  approved  as  code  of  practice  in  national  legislation  to  help  SMEs.  A 
third specific guide on Music and Entertainment has also been introduced to protect workers  
in  SMEs.  Furthermore,  Cyprus  has  introduced  a  number  of  accompanying  actions,  such  as 
awareness  raising  campaigns,  seminars  and  workshops,  as  well  as  education  and  training 
activities for SMEs representatives.  Cyprus has only introduced one grant scheme for SMEs, 
namely  the  grant  scheme  for  building  contractors.  The  objective  of  the  scheme  was  to 
improve  the  metal  scaffoldings  industry  in  Cyprus,  as  well  as  to  better  place  the  metal 
scaffoldings industry on the market and in line with European standards. In addition, Cyprus 
makes use of the European OiRa tool and the national eGnosis online information system. 

5. CZECH REPUBLIC 

5.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The  Framework  Directive  was  mainly  transposed  into  the  Labour  Code  (Act  No.  262/2006 
Coll.),  Part  Five,  on  occupational  health  and  safety.  The  Labour  Code  also  transposes  the 
Directive 94/33/EC (young people at work). There are significant OSH-related provisions also 
in other parts of Czech legislation, such as Act No. 309/2006 Coll. on further requirements on 
occupational  health  and  safety  ("OSH  Act"),  which  completes  the  Labour  Code  with  more 
specific  provisions.  The  implementation  of  the  remaining  EU  OSH  individual  directives  is 

244 See Table 5- 1Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary report for Cyprus. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
mainly  regulated  by  the  OSH  Act  and/or  the  Labour  Code,  while  further  requirements  on 
specific  aspects  have  been  transposed  through  Decrees  issued  by  the  Government,  the 
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs or the Ministry of Health. All of the OSH Directives 
concerned have been fully transposed in the Czech Republic, with the exception of Council 
Directive 92/29/EEC (medical treatment on board vessels) and Council Directive 93/103/EC 
(work on board fishing vessels), given the territorial situation of the Czech Republic. Due to 
the  traditional  distinction  in  the  Czech  Republic  between  safety  at  work  and  occupational 
health,  the  latter  is  regulated  by  the  separate  Act  No.  258/2000  Coll.  on  public  health 
protection, Section 7 dealing with protection of health at work.  

The legislation in the area of OSH covers all sectors, without distinction, including the public 
sectors.  

While  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Affairs  is  responsible  for  occupational  safety  and 
labour  inspection,  the  Ministry  of  Health  is  competent  for  public  health,  which  includes 
occupational  health  and  is  in  charge  of  occupational  health  inspection.  Although  the 
distinction  between  occupational  safety  and  occupational  health  is  also  followed  by  the 
executive agencies of the two ministries, they cooperate closely on international, national and 
regional levels in the field of OSH. 

5.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With regard to the scope of the Framework Directive, the specific areas referred to in Article 
2 (2) of the Framework Directive are regulated in the Czech Republic by specific legislation. 
With  regard  to  the  health  surveillance  provisions,  according  to  the  national  transposing 
legislation, all workers are obliged to undergo a preventive mandatory medical examination, 
regardless of the level of risks to which they are exposed during their work. This obligation is 
established by  the  Labour  Code,  which  also  requires  the employer  to organize  at least  once 
per year an OSH audit in all workplaces and of all equipment of the employer in agreement 
with trade unions or OSH workers´ representatives. 

The  scope  of  application  of  the  national  legislation  transposing  Directive  89/654/EEC 
(workplace) and Directive 90/269/EEC (manual handling of loads) is broader. 

More  stringent  limit  values  are  noted  in  the  national  legislation  transposing  Directives 
2002/44/EC  (vibration),  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or  mutagens),  and  98/24/EC  (chemical 
agents at work). 

5.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Czech Republic is based, on the one hand, on the findings 
of the ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Czech Republic shows a very good level of compliance as regards the 
obligation  to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  77%  of  establishments 
doing  so).  According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  contracted  to 
external  providers  (53.2%).  ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and 
safety  services  used,  be  it  in  house  or  contracted  externally.  As  regards  health  surveillance 
85%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular 
medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. The survey indicates that a very 
high number of establishments (96.3%) make available to the workers a document explaining 
responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. A very high proportion of establishments 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The  conclusions  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  are  based  on  the  experience  from  the 
control  activities  of  the  labour  inspectors  and  on  data  from  ESENER-1  Survey.  The  study 
reported  that  compliance  with  all  of  the  CPMs  is  considered  to  be  very  high  to  high.  It 
highlighted  as  well  that  the  degree  of  compliance  is  decreasing  with  the  size  of 
establishment.245. 

5.4 Enforcement 

In the Czech Republic, the State Labour Inspection Office and its eight subordinated regional 
Labour  Inspectorates  are  concerned  with  the  inspection  of  compliance  with  occupational 
safety  and  health  protection,  as  well  as  the  control  of  protection  of  labour  relations  and 
working conditions. In addition, the state public health supervision is exercised in practice by 
the  Regional  Health  Offices.  There  are  fourteen  Regional  Health  Offices  with  79  district 
offices.  Amongst  its  various  public  health  tasks,  the  Offices  classify  works  into  categories, 
issue  decisions,  permits,  or  certificates  concerning  issues  related  to  health  at  work  and 
chemical  safety.  They  perform  inspections  in  the  area  of  protection  of  health  at  work  and 
surveillance of workplaces.  

The  enforcement  bodies  for  public  sector  (professional  soldiers,  firemen,  police,  etc.)  are 
subordinated  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  of  the  Czech  Republic  and  the  Ministry  of 
Defence and Armed Forces of the Czech Republic246. 
According  to  NIR  2013,  applicable  legislation  stemming  from  the  Directives  in  terms  of 
compliance with legal obligations in the field of occupational safety and dedicated technical 
equipment  is  enforced  by  sanctions  pursuant  to  Act  No  251/2005  Coll.  on  labour 
inspectorates,  as  amended,  and  Act  No  174/1968  Coll.  on  the  state  expert  supervision  of 

245 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary report for the Czech Republic. 
246 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for the Czech Republic. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
occupational safety, as amended. Occupational health legislation is also enforced by means of 
sanctions pursuant to Act No 258/2000 Coll. on the protection of public health and amending 
certain related laws, as amended247. 

5.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

It  must  be  noted  that,  from  the  perspective  of  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises,  Czech 
legislation does not distinguish between employers by size or number of employees when it 
comes  to  the  adoption  of  measures  intended  to  increase  the  standard  of  occupational  safety 
and health. However, in the practical application of the Framework Directive – for example, 
in occupational safety, and specifically in risk prevention pursuant to Section 9(3) of Act No 
309/2006 Coll. on further occupational safety and health requirements, as amended – the size 
of an undertaking is taken into account. The Czech Republic also promotes the involvement 
of small and medium-sized enterprises in the organisation of various occupational safety and 
health events (exhibitions, competitions, seminars, workshops, etc.)248.  

6. DENMARK 

6.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

Regulation  of  occupational  safety  and  health  has  been  shared  among  four  ministries  and 
separate  legal  acts  are  in  place  for  work  carried  out  on  ground/land  (Working  Environment 
Act),  offshore  work  in  relation  to  mineral  extracting  industries  (Offshore  Safety  Act), 
shipping/fishing (Act on Safety at Sea) and civil aviation (Act on Aviation).  

The Working Environment Act ('OSH-Act') also covers ground work in relation to aviation, 
loading and unloading of ships including fishing vessels, shipyard work carried out on board 
vessels  and  offshore  work  in  relation  to  wind  turbines.  With  regard  to  work  carried  out  on 
land, the OSH-act is a framework act and the main piece of legislation setting out the general 
principles and requirements of occupational health and safety. Additional general and specific 
requirements  are  included  in  the  OSH  Executive  Orders.  Also  the  EU  OSH  individual 
directives have been implemented in national legislation through Executive Orders. Directives 
93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels)  and  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board 
vessels) have been transposed in the Danish legal order through the Technical regulation on 
occupational health and safety in ships (or OSH-ships). 

The Danish OSH legislation applies in general to both public and private enterprises, as well 
as to all enterprises, irrespective of size.  

247  See  Table  5-3  Result  table  –  type  and  level  of  sanctions  of  the  Country  Summary  Report  for  the  Czech 
Republic. 
248 See Table 7- 2 Description of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary report 
for the Czech Republic. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
The Ministry of Employment is responsible for regulating the working environment when the 
work is carried out on land, as well as for work carried out on the loading and unloading of 
ships and aircraft, as well as shipyard work that takes place on board ships. The Ministry has 
exclusive  competence  for  legislation  and  programmes  in  relation  to  labour  law,  safety  and 
health at work and compensation in connection with industrial injuries.  The Danish Working 
Environment Authority (Arbejdstilsynet) operates under the auspices of the Danish Ministry 
of Employment. The responsibilities of DWEA are based on the  Working Environment Act 
(OSH-act)  and  related  Executive  Orders.  DWEA  is  the  authority  which  contributes  to  the 
creation  of  safe  and  sound  working  conditions  at  Danish  workplaces  through  carrying  out 
inspections  of  companies,  drawing  up  rules  on  health  and  safety  at  work  and  providing 
information  on health  and safety  at work. Rules  are issued in the form  of Executive Orders 
and guidelines describe how the provisions in the working environment legislation are to be 
interpreted. 

6.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

Certain provisions in the OSH-act apply to the exceptions listed in the Framework Directive 
as  well  as  to  self-employed  workers.  Examples  of  such  provisions  include  rules  about 
performing work, technical equipment, and use of substances and materials.  

Work  environment  councils  are  assigned  the  task  of  developing  information  and  guidance 
material  for  workplace  risk  assessment  as  well  as  developing  and  carrying  out  information 
and training activities. Additional requirements are also set in relation to training of workers 
and health surveillance. More detailed provisions on the scope have been noted in relation to 
the Danish legislation transposing Directive 2009/104/EC on work equipment (which includes 
a detailed definition of “technical equipment”), Directive 90/269/EEC on manual handling of 
loads  (which  does  not  only  address  back  injury  but  also  focuses  on  the  prevention  of 
musculoskeletal disorders), Directive 2003/10/EC on noise (which is based in limiting daily 
noise strain, as opposed to weekly noise strain), and Directive 2004/37/EC on carcinogens or 
mutagens (which also includes substances classified as Carc3 and materials containing such 
substances in a concentration of 1% or more). In addition, the national legislation transposing 
Directive 89/656/EEC (PPE) does not exclude  – contrary to the Directive – equipment used 
by emergency and rescue services, personal protective equipment for means of road transport, 
and  PPE  worn  or  used  by  other  public  order  agencies.  Further,  Directive  94/33/EC  (young 
people  at  work)  includes  work  carried  out  in  the  employer’s  private  household  and  work 
carried  out  exclusively  by  members  of  the  employer's  family,  as  long  as  it  belongs  to  the 
household.  

In  relation  to  Directives  2009/104/EC  (work  equipment),  1999/92/EC  (ATEX),  and 
2004/37/EC (carcinogens or mutagens), the national transposing legislation details the content 
of the risk assessment. With regard to limit values, more stringent limit values are included in 
the  national  legislation  transposing  Directive  2003/10/EC  (noise)  and  Directive  98/24/EC 
(chemical agents at work). Finally, temporary workers (Directive 91/383/EC) are covered by 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the  same  rules  as  all  other  workers  in  Denmark  through  the  Executive  Order  on  the 
Performance of Work. 

6.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Denmark is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. Concerning the 
provisions  referred  to  as  the  common  processes  and  mechanisms  (CPMs),  the  ESENER-2 
results for Denmark shows a very good level of compliance as regards the obligation to carry 
out workplace risk assessments regularly (with 91% of establishments doing so). According to 
the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted  by  internal  staff  (83.2%).  
ESENER-2 shows high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be it in house or 
contracted externally.  

As regards health surveillance only 10% of the respondents to the survey declared that their 
establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees.  
The survey indicates that a very high number of establishments (88%) make available to the 
workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. A high 
proportion  of  establishments  declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and 
safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about 
health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the 
thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less 
likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in  place  as  compared  with  larger 
establishments. 

The  results  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  are  based  on  the  systematic  surveys 
monitoring  the  status  for  the  OSH  work  at  enterprise  level  carried  out  since  1999  by  the 
Danish  Working  Environment  Authority  (DWEA).    As  the  ESENER  -2  survey,  the  study 
assessed  that  the  degree  of  compliance  for  all  CPMs  in  Danish  enterprises  is  high  to  very 
high, with the exception of making available health surveillance. According to the study only 
a  very  low  percentage  of  Danish  workers  have  access  to  health  checks  due  to  the  fact  that 
health care in Denmark is funded through the taxes and is accessible to all and free of charge. 
As regards sectors of activity, the study reported that the sectors showing the highest degree 
of  compliance  were  residential  care and  home  care,  chemistry  and  medicine,  and  home  and 
day care. On the other side, it was assessed that restaurants and bars, hairdressers and other 
personal care, and hotels and campings, film, press and books, and repair of machinery and 
equipment did not perform satisfactorily on the CPMs249.    

6.4 Enforcement 

249 See Table 3- 1Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Denmark. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  Denmark,  the  main  authority  in  charge  of  OSH  legislation  enforcement  on  land  is  the 
Danish  Working  Environment  Authority.  The  DWEA  is  an  agency  that  works  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Ministry  of  Employment  at  national  and  regional  level,  contributing  to  the 
creation of safe working conditions. It is empowered with supervision and enforcement rights, 
which  are  commonly  designated  to  labour  inspectorates  in  other  countries.  The  DWEA  has 
the authority to penalise companies which do not comply with the working environment rules. 
They can also issue administrative fines for clear violations of the Working Environment Act, 
and  in  cases  of  extreme  danger,  they  may  also  order  work  to  be  suspended.  Further,  the 
DWEA is responsible for the review of OSH conditions in companies. This includes verifying 
that a written evaluation has been carried out, specific to that particular workplace250. 

The  different  forms  of  sanctions  of  the  Danish  Working  Environment  Authority,  i.e. 
improvement notices, legal charges, administrative fines and guidelines, will depend on both 
the enterprise’s actual working environment standards and on its own efforts. As an executive 
authority,  the  DWEA  focuses  in  particular  on  enterprises  with  poor  safety  and  health 
conditions and no serious policy in relation to working environment issues. If a company does 
not  fulfil  its  obligations  under  the  OSH-act,  the  DWEA  can  administer  a  time-bound 
injunction, a consultancy notice, a prohibition, an administrative fine or file a police report251. 

6.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

The  DWEA  does  not  generally  distinguish  between  small  and  large  undertakings  in  its 
inspections  although  some  flexibility  is  allowed  for  micro-enterprises.  It  is  however  aware 
that it may be difficult for small undertakings to have the necessary knowledge and abilities 
themselves, and has therefore launched some initiatives aimed at micro-enterprises and small 
undertakings. DWEA offers special guidance during inspection for the small enterprises and 
has  developed  start-up  packs  for  new  and  small  enterprises  introducing  the  requirements  of 
the  OSH  act.  It  has  also  established  a  call-center  which  can  provide  immediate  response  to 
enquiries  about  the  working  environment  which  may  be  necessary  for  small  enterprises.    It 
should  be  taken  into  account  that  the  SME  measures  laid  down  in  the  national  legislation 
transposing the Framework Directive are equally applicable to all of the transpositions of the 
other OSH individual Directives252. 

7. ESTONIA 

7.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

Estonia has transposed the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC in one main framework law, the 
Occupational Health and Safety Act ('OHSA') and a series of "horizontal" implementing acts 
(secondary  legislation)  relating  to  preventive  and  protective  services,  external  services, 

250 See Table 5- 1Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Denmark. 
251 See Table 5- 4Level of fines issued by DWEA of the Country Summary Report for Denmark. 
252 See Table 7- 2 Overview of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary Report 
for Denmark. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
training of workers and medical examination. Examples include Regulations of the Minister 
of Social  Affairs on the procedure of  medical examination of workers253 or  on OSH-related 
training254. 

The individual EU OSH directives are as a rule transposed by one implementing regulation, 
typically adopted at the governmental or ministry level, while some aspects are regulated by 
the OHSA or the "horizontal" implementing acts. There are exceptions to this with regard to 
the  mineral  extracting-industries  directives  92/91/EEC  and  92/104/EEC  –  transposed 
thorough  several  regulations  and  the  Mining  Act,  which  provides  for  key  definitions  -  ;  the 
vessels related EU OSH directives, where general maritime safety legislation also applies; and 
Directives 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers) and 94/33/EC (young people at work) 
transposed through several acts.  

The  Estonian  legislation  in  the  area  of  occupational  health  and  safety  covers  all  sectors, 
without  distinction,  including  the  public  sector  and  all  types  of  enterprises,  irrespective  of 
size.  
In Estonia, the Ministry of Social Affairs takes the lead on governing occupational safety and 
health matters. Both the national labour inspection and occupational health affairs are under 
the jurisdiction of this Ministry, which also has responsibility for strategic level planning and 
follow-up of implementation. 

7.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  national  transposing  legislation  is 
broader in scope, as it covers domestic workers as well as, to a certain extent, self-employed 
persons  (as  from  1  July  2007,  OSH  requirements  extended  to  the  work  of  self-employed 
workers  if  they  work  at  a  shared  workplace  together  with  the  employer’s  workers.  A  self-
employed  worker  must  also  ensure  the  soundness  and  proper  use  of  the  work  equipment, 
personal  protective  equipment  and  other  equipment  belonging  to  him  or  her  in  every  work 
situation).  

More  detailed  or  specific  requirements  are  set  forth  in  relation  to  risk  assessment  (e.g.  the 
requirement to take into account the gender and age of the workers, including special risks to 
pregnant and nursing women, to minors and disabled workers; as regards the content of risk 
assessment,  the  requirement  to  measure  parameters  of  working  environment  hazards  if 
necessary) and preventive and protective services (the national legislation defines in line with 
Article  7  (8)  of  the  Framework  Directive,  the  necessary  capabilities  and  aptitudes  for 
designated workers and the external services or persons). More detailed requirements are also 
set in relation to the training of workers and to health surveillance in regulations adopted by 
the Ministry of Social Affairs. Rules on the provisions of first aid in companies are set in a 
separate regulation.  

With regard to Directive 90/269/EC (manual handling of loads), more detailed provisions are 

253 SoMM No 74 of 24 Apr. 2003.  
254SoMM No 80 of 14 Dec. 2000. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
also laid down concerning risk assessment and preventive and protective measures for women 
, pregnant/breastfeeding workers and young people at work.  

With regard to Directive 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment), national legislation covers 
"computer systems mainly intended for public use" which are among the elements expressly 
excluded from the scope of application of the directive. In addition,  several of the minimum 
requirements are further developed, in particular on risk assessment (in addition to the factors 
endangering  the  worker’s  eyesight  and  potential  physical  or  mental  overload  at  work,  the 
employer is obliged to take into account risk factors of work environment, including lighting, 
noise,  electromagnetic  radiation  and  internal  atmosphere  of  work  room,  as  well  ergonomics 
and suitability of design of workplace for the worker)), the duration of breaks, the conditions 
and periodicity of medical examinations.  

7.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Estonia is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Estonia shows a good level of compliance as regards the obligation to 
carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  68%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey,  workplace risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted by internal  staff 
(64.7%). ESENER -2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be 
it in house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 75% of the respondents to 
the survey declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor 
the health of the employees.  

The survey indicates that a very high number of establishments (95.4%) make available to the 
workers a document explaining  responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. A high 
proportion  of  establishments  declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and 
safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about 
health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the 
thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less 
likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in  place  as  compared  with  larger 
establishments. 

The  external  study  based  its  conclusions  on  compliance  on  the  2013  labour  inspectorate 
annual report for risk assessment, the Estonian  Work  Life  Survey  2009 and on consultation 
with  the  labour  inspectorate.  The  study  assessed  that  the  level  of  compliance  with  CPMs 
considering  the  OSH  acquis  as  a  whole  varied  from  high  (60-79%)  for  risk  assessment, 
ensuring  protective  and  preventive  services,  making  available  health  surveillance,  and  even 
very  high  (89%)  for  training  of  workers,  to  a  medium  degree  of  compliance  in  relation  to 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
information for workers and consultation of workers.  It highlighted as well that the level of 
compliance appeared lower in SMEs, and even lower in micro-enterprises255. 

7.4 Enforcement 

In  Estonia,  the  main  authority  in  charge  of  OSH  legislation  enforcement  is  the  Labour 
Inspectorate  under  the  Ministry  of  Social  Affairs.  The  Health  Board  is  also  competent  for 
occupational  health  and  chemical  safety  related  aspects.  With  regard  to  the  two  mineral-
extracting  directives,  enforcement  is  exercised  jointly  by  the  Labour  Inspectorate  and  the 
the  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and 
Technical  Surveillance  Authority  under 
Communications. For the two directives on vessels, responsibility for enforcement is shared 
with  the  Maritime  Administration  also  under  the  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and 
Communications. The Labour Inspectorate is responsible for both the private and the public 
sectors256. 

The legislation sets both criminal and administrative sanctions for non-compliance with OSH 
requirements. Criminal sanctions are pecuniary sanctions and imprisonment (up to 5 years if 
the  infringement  has  caused  a  person’s  death  and  it  was  committed  by  negligence.  The 
Estonian legislation also provides for administrative fines257. 

7.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

There are no specific exemptions or lighter regime provided for SMEs. However, Estonia has 
put  in  place  financial  incentives  with  the  support  of  the  European  Social  Funds,  whereby 
SMEs  with  less  than  45  workers  can  apply  for  financial  support  to  carry  out  the  risk 
assessment  envisaged  and  to  provide  health  surveillance  to  the  workers  on  the  basis  of  the 
outcomes of the risk assessment.  

8. FINLAND 

8.1 Legal Framework and Competences  

In  Finland,  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  is  transposed  through  the  Occupational 
Safety  and  Health  Act  (No  738/2002)258  and  the  Occupational  Health  Care  Act  (No 
1383/2001). The Occupational Safety and Health Act lays down the minimum level of safety 
and  health  at  work,  the  responsibilities  of  employers  and  workers,  and  the  cooperation  of 
employers and workers required to promote occupational health and safety. The Occupational 

255 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Estonia. 
256 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Estonia. 
257 See Table 5- 1 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Estonia. 

258 http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2002/en20020738.pdf.  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Health Care Act requires employers to organize at his own expenses preventive services for 
all workers. Each employer is required to describe the organization and content of the services 
in a company-wide plan.  

Most  individual  EU  OSH  directives  are  transposed  by  one  Government  Statute  or 
Government  Decree,  apart  from  Council  Directive  92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding 
workers),  which  is  transposed  by  a  single  law  :  Law  55/2001  of  26  January  2001  on  work 
contracts.  

The Finnish legislation in the area of occupational health and safety covers all sectors, without 
distinction, including the public sector and all enterprises, irrespective of size. .  

Competences in the area of OSH in the public and private sector are mainly with the Ministry 
of  Social  Affairs  and  Health,  which  –  through  its  Department  on  OSH  –  is  the  highest 
government body for OSH administration in Finland. 

8.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  Framework  Directive,  more  broader  provisions  concern  its  scope,  as  the 
transposing Finnish legislation applies to work carried out under the terms of an employment 
contract (including to work carried out in an employment relationship in the public sector or 
in  comparable  service  relation  subject  to  public  law),  including  domestic  workers. 
Organization of OSH is voluntary for self-employed persons.  

Finland also established more detailed provisions in the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
(738/2002)  than  those  of  Directive  89/931/EEC  and/or  related  directives  on  the  following 
issues, for example: Section 10 – Analysis and assessment of the risks at work;  Section 11 – 
Work that causes particular risks;  Section 12 – Design of the working environment;  Section 
13  –  Work  design;    Section  24  –  Ergonomics  of  the  workstation,  work  postures  and  work 
motions;  Section  25  –  Avoiding  and  reducing  workloads;    Section  27  –  Threat  of  violence; 
Section  28  –  Harassment;    Section  29  –  Lone  working;  Section  49  –  The  duty  of  those 
operating at a shared workplace to exercise care;  Section 50 – Information and cooperation at 
a shared workplace;  Section 51 – Obligations of the employer exercising the main authority 
at a shared workplace;  Section 52 – Obligations on a shared construction site;  Section 52a – 
Identification of persons working on a shared construction site;  Section 52b – List of persons 
working on a shared construction site;  Section 53 – Obligations of self-employed workers at 
a shared workplace; Section54 – Elimination of mutual hazards in workplaces.  

In relation to Directive 2006/25/EC (artificial optical radiation), national legislation sets more 
stringent provisions in respect of health surveillance for vulnerable workers , to the extent that 
it requires those checks to be carried out prior to exposure.  

Regarding  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and/or  mutagens  at  work),  more  stringent 
requirements  are  set  out  in  relation  to  benzene,  to  the  extent  that  the  use  of  benzene  as  a 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
soaking agent in a confined space is prohibited.  

With  regard  to  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents  at  work),  more  detailed  and  stringent 
requirements are laid down in relation to measurement of hazardous chemical agents, to the 
extent  that  the  competent  national  authorities  can  decide  the  following  :  how  and  when  the 
measurement of chemical agents should be carried out; what measures should be used; who 
should  be  informed  of  the  results  of  the  measurement;  the  medium  and  the  period  for  the 
keeping of the  results of exposure;  under what circumstances  an independent measurement 
institute should be used. 

8.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Finland is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Finland shows a good level of compliance as regards the obligation to 
carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  73%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey,  workplace risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted by internal  staff 
(63.8%). ESENER -2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be 
it in-house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 90% of the respondents to 
the survey declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor 
the health of the employees. The survey indicates that a very high number of establishments 
(82%) make available to the workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures 
on health and safety. A medium proportion of establishments declared as well that training on 
how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to 
persons who know most about health and safety  in the establishment). Differences could be 
observed  when  considering  the  thematic  coverage  of  the  training  provided  to  employees.. 
SME and microenterprises were less likely to have the necessary OSH management structure 
in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The  results  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  are  based  on  a  survey  among  safety 
representatives and safety managers within companies and on the work environment surveys 
of the years 2008 and 2009. The study assessed a very high degree of compliance for all the 
CPMs (80-89%). It established as well that differences could be observed between different 
sized  companies.  The  study  also  underlined  that,  according  to  the  survey  among  safety 
representatives  and  safety  managers,  many  small  enterprises  have  never  performed  a  risk 
assessment259. 

8.4 Enforcement 

259 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Finland. 

133 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
In  Finland,  the  main  authority  in  charge  of  OSH  legislation  enforcement  is  the  Ministry  of 
Social Affairs and Health, covering all directives. Its inspecting bodies, covering five regions 
in  Finland,  are  the  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Inspectorates  (Regional  State 
Administrative Agencies). The Inspectorates provide instructions and advice on applying the 
regulations  on  occupational  safety  and  health  matters,  working  conditions,  employment  and 
equality,  and  ensure  that  there  is  adherence  to  these  regulations  and  guidelines  in  the 
workplaces.  The  Department  for  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  of  the  Ministry  of  Social 
Affairs  and  Health  directs  the  activities  of  the  Regional  State  Administrative  Agencies’ 
Divisions of Occupational Safety and Health (regional OSH administration) by means of four-
year framework agreements and annual performance agreement.  

The  Finnish  legislation  provides  either  criminal  or  administrative  sanctions  for  violation  of 
occupational  health  and  safety  (OSH)  legislation.  These  sanctions  apply  to  all  OSH 
Directives. The health and safety inspectors have the right to deny hazardous work (usually 
certain work tasks). A case where the full workplace was shut down could not be identified260.   

8.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Finland has only set up an exemption regime concerning the presence of a representative of 
workers  in  companies  with  less  than  10  workers  and  the  presence  of  a  safety  committee  in 
companies with less than 20 workers. There are no specific measures targeting SMEs, because 
the  Finnish  legislation  includes  all  enterprises.  There  are  no  special  financial  incentives 
available for SMEs to help them to implement existing legislation. 

9. FRANCE 

9.1 Legal Framework and competences 

The  French  system  was  developed  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Framework  Directive.  The 
Framework Directive  and other six individual EU OSH directives were transposed by Law no 
91-1414  of  31  December  1991  amending  the  Labour  Code  and  Public  Health  Code  to 
promote prevention of occupational risks and this enabled to go beyond the basis provided in 
former legislative acts. Most Directives have been transposed by several Orders and Decrees 
amending  or  supplementing  the  Labour  Code.  The  exceptions  are  Directive  90/270/EEC 
(display screen equipment) and Directive 2006/25/EC (artificial optical radiation), transposed 
through  a  single  Decree,  and  Directive  2004/40/EC  (electromagnetic  fields),  which  was  not 
transposed.  

While  the  public  sector  is  regulated  by  specific  legal  texts  regulating  health  and  safety  at 
work, those texts  refer explicitly  to the provisions of the books I  to  V of the part  IV of the 
Labour Code and to their enforcing Decrees261. 

260 See Table 5- 1 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Finland. 

261 See Table 1- 1 General Legal Framework of the Country Summary Report for France. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
The national system for health and safety operates along three major horizontal axes: (i) the 
control  body:  Labour  Inspectorate,  (ii)  the  insurance  system:  the  Work  Accidents-
Occupational Illness Branch (“AT-MP Branch”) (of the CNAMTS (National Health Insurance 
Fund – Workers) and (iii) a screening and prevention system organized as an "occupational 
medicine  service",  responsible  for  the  regular  medical  follow-up  of  individuals  and 
populations, as well as for improving working conditions. 

9.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  legislation  transposing  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  additional 
requirements are laid down mainly in relation to organisational arrangements (e.g. operation 
of the joint hygiene and safety committees for specific sector), as well as health surveillance. 
In  this  area,  France  provides  protection  of  workers  in  the  public  sector  in  relation  to 
prevention medicine. Health surveillance is also set out by a national collective agreement for 
part time workers employed by an employer that is a natural person. French legislation also 
includes  additional  measures  regarding  sexual  and  moral  harassment  and  work  hardness 
(pénibilité au travail). 

With  regard  to  Directive  89/654/EC  (workplace),  the  national  legislation  establishes 
additional  requirements  on  the  information  to  be  provided  to  workers.  Other  additional 
requirements  concern  rules  for  the  use  of  temporary  and  permanent  electrical  installations, 
preparation  of  a  file  for  the  maintenance  of  the  workplace  by  the  building  owner,  the 
existence of two levels of responsibility, of  the building's owner and of the user. 

In  relation  to  Directive  89/656/EC  (personal  protective  equipment/PPE),  the  French 
legislation covers PPE used by emergency and rescue services. In relation to the requirements 
on workers’ training set forth in Article 4 (8) of that Directive, and in line with Article 12 of 
the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  the  French  legislation  requires  the  employer  to 
elaborate an instruction for use of the PPE and organise periodic training in accordance with 
the instruction. It also sets further requirements regarding the use of and information on PPE 
to protect against specific risks, e.g. chemical risks, asbestos, etc… 

In  relation  to  Directive  92/58/EEC  (OSH  signs),  additional  requirements  are  reported  with 
regard to traffic signs, signs used to indicate emergency roads for persons with disability and 
forestry vehicle drivers. 

With regard to Directive 2002/44/EC (vibration), the French legislation sets more detailed or 
additional requirements in relation to the definition of the physical parameters characterising 
the  exposure  to  mechanical  vibrations,  the  provision  of  the  risk  assessment  to  national 
authorities  on  request,  the  minimum  duration  for  keeping  risk  assessment  records,  the 
periodicity  of  health  surveillance,  the  prohibition  of  certain  hand-arm  vibration  work  for 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
 
 
pregnant  and  breastfeeding  women.  Finally,  national  legislation  provides  that  the  labour 
inspectors may request measurement of exposure to mechanical vibration at the workplace. 

Concerning  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and  mutagens/CMRs),  the  scope  of  the 
French legislation is broader as it applies to reprotoxic substances (category 1 A and 1 B in 
accordance  with  Annex  I  to  Regulation  1272/2008).  More  stringent  occupational  exposure 
limit  values  are  set  for  vinyl  chloride  monomer  and  hardwood  dusts.  More  stringent 
occupational  exposure  limit  values  are  also  set  in  relation  to  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical 
agents) and its implementing Directives and Directive 2009/148/EC (asbestos). 

9.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for France is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for France shows a moderate level of compliance as regards the obligation 
to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  56%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According  to  the  survey,  a  high  proportion  of  workplace  risk  assessments  is  conducted  by 
internal  staff  (74.3%).  ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety 
services used, be it in house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 93% of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 
examinations to monitor the health of the employees. The survey also indicates that 82% of 
establishments  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining  responsibilities  and 
procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  moderate  proportion  of  establishments  declared  that 
training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to 
management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the  establishment). 
Differences  could  be  observed  when  considering  the  thematic  coverage  of  the  training 
provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less likely to have the necessary OSH 
management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The external study based primarily its conclusions as regards compliance on various surveys 
of the Research, Studies and Statistics Directorate of the Ministry of Labour, with particular 
reference to the use of health and safety service and to training and information for workers. 
The surveys showed a moderate degree of compliance in relation to risk assessment, ensuring 
protective and preventive services, a low degree for training and information for workers and 
a very high level for making available health surveillance and consultation of workers. As a 
rule, the degree of compliance increased with the size of the companies 

The external study also pointed out that, on the basis of the 2012 annual report from labour 
inspectors and of the information obtained during interviews and of expert opinions, a mixed 
level of compliance was assessed in relation to each Directive, with some Directives featuring 
a  high  degree  of  compliance  (such  as  the  Framework  or  Workplace  Directives),  others  a 

136 

 
 
 
 
medium level of compliance and one a very low degree of compliance (Directive 2006/25/EC 
(artificial optical radiation)262. 

9.4 Enforcement 

With  the  exception  of  Directive  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board  vessels)  for  which 
the  Regional  Directorate  of  Sea  and  Health  Services  of  Seafarers,  under  the  Ministry  of 
Ecology,  Sustainable  Development  and  Energy,  is  competent,  the  Labour  Inspectorate  is 
competent  for  enforcing  all  OSH  directives.  For  certain  sectors/activities,  the  Labour 
Inspectorate does so in coordination with other inspection services263. 

Criminal sanctions for infringement to OSH legislation include fines and imprisonment. The 
company  can  also  be  condemned  to  the  payment  of  compensation  to  the  worker  in  case  of 
accident.  The  number  of  reported  infringements  increased  by  about  30%  between  2007  and 
2012,  although  the  percentage  of  reported  infringements  without  further  legal  action 
augmented by about 160%. This seems to suggest that more cases are settled before sanctions 
are initiated264. 

9.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

The  main  instrument  of  public  policy  to  support  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  is  the 
Occupational Health Plan, in which priority area 3 is devoted to encouraging risk-prevention 
initiatives  in  enterprises,  particularly  in  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises.  More  specifically, 
objective 7 of that priority area is to raise awareness of occupational risks among occupational 
groups,  enterprises  and  employees,  thereby  enhancing  the  ability  of  micro-enterprises  and 
SMEs to engage in activities designed to improve working conditions.  

In terms of financial assistance to companies, mechanisms exist for this purpose, such as the 
Fund for the Improvement of Working Conditions (FACT), which is a type of aid that can be 
awarded in the form of a public grant to enterprises and establishments with fewer than 250 
employees that  devise and implement  measures which serve to  improve working  conditions 
and contribute to better prevention of occupational risks265. 

National  target  agreements  can  be  concluded  between  the  CNAMTS  and  business 
organisations or the Central Office of the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund and the farmers’ 
and farmworkers’ unions. When a national agreement on prevention targets is concluded, any 
company  affiliated  to  the  signatory  organisation  which  has  fewer  than  200  employees  may 
conclude a prevention contract with the regional social insurance fund. This contract enables 
the company to benefit from financial assistance for the implementation of projects designed 

262 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
summary report for France. 
263See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for France. 
264 Table 5- 4 Result table – types and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for France. 
265 National Implementation Report 2013, Section II, Directive 89/654/EEC (EN) p. 42-43 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
to  improve  health  and  safety  at  work.  One  of  the  declared  objectives  of  most  national 
agreements relates to improvements in the safe use of machinery and work equipment and in 
the conditions governing their operation. 

10. GERMANY 

10.1 Legal Framework and competences 

The German OSH legal system is characterised by a feature which is commonly described as 
"dualism". The dual system is characterised, on the one hand, by strong autonomous sector-
oriented accident insurance institutions, which are constituted as bodies under public law. On 
the  other  hand,  there  is  the  public  or  governmental  side,  where  the  competences  on 
occupational  health  and  safety  are  split  between  the  Federal  Parliament  (Bundestag, 
Bundesrat),  the  Federal  Ministry  (Bundesminsterium  für  Arbeits  und  Soziales,  'BMAS')  and 
its  institutions  (e.g.  the  Federal  Institute  for  Occupational  Safety  and  Health),  and  the 
authorities of the 16 Federal States (“Länder”) and their ministries and labour inspectorates. 
The Federal (national) layer has the legislative competence while the Federal States (regional) 
control their implementation in their territory under surveillance.  

The Framework Directive 89/391/EEC is mainly transposed by the Occupational Safety and 
Health  Act  (Arbeitsschutzgesetz,  ArbSchG).  This  act  defines  the  basic  OSH  principles  and 
OSH  measures  for  the  employer  and  employees.  Book  VII  of  the  German  Social  Code  - 
Accident  Insurance  (Siebtes  Buch  Sozialgesetzbuch  -  Gesetzliche  Unfallversicherung,  SGB 
VII)  is  the  legal  basis  for  accident  insurance  and  statutory  accident  insurance  at  work.  The 
Working  Conditions  Act  (Gesetz  über  Betriebsärzte,  Sicherheitsingenieure  und  andere 
Fachkräfte  für  Arbeitssicherheit,  Arbeitssicherheitsgesetz,  'ASiG')  is  the  legal  basis  for 
occupational  physicians  (Betriebsärzte,  Werksärzte)  and  OSH  specialists  (Fachkräfte  für 
Arbeitssicherheit).  

Other key laws and regulations governing safety and health at work are the: Chemicals Acts 
(Gesetz  zum  Schutz  vor  gefährlichen  Stoffen,  Chemikaliengesetz,  ChemG);  Federal  Mining 
Act (Bundesberggesetz, BbergG); Hazardous Substances Ordinance (Gefahrstoffverordnung, 
GefStoffV); Law on the Protection of Expectant and Nursing Mothers (Gesetz zum Schutz der 
erwerbstätigen  Mutter,  Mutterschutzgesetz,  MuSchG);  Ordinance  on  Occupational  Diseases 
(Berufkskrankheitenverordnung, BKV); Ordinance on Safety and Health Protection at Work 
involving  Biological  Agents  (Biostoffverordnung,  BioStoffV);  Product  Safety  Act  (Gesetz 
über  die  Bereitstellung  von  Produkten  auf  dem  Markt,  Produktsicherheitsgesetz,  ProdSG); 
Working 
(Arbeitszeitgesetz,  ArbZG);  Works  Constitution  Act 
(Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, BetrVG) and Young Workers OSH Law (Gesetz zum Schutze der 
arbeitenden Jugend, Jugendarbeitsschutzgesetz, JArbSchG). 

Time  Act 

10.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

In general, Germany has transposed the EU OSH Directives in a more detailed manner, both 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
through  the  specific  Ordinances  and  the  numerous  Technical  Rules  and  other  rules  of  the 
statutory accident insurance.  

With regard to the scope of the legislation transposing the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, 
the  national  legislation  includes  expressly  workers  with  disabilities  working  in  sheltered 
workshops. More detailed requirements are set mainly in relation to the performance of risk 
assessment  and  the  preventive  and protective  services  in  the  sense  of  Article  7  of  Directive 
89/391/EEC.  German  law  generally  does  not  contain  elements  on  the  frequency  of  the  risk 
assessment,  but  it  does  require  the  risk  assessment  to  be  updated  whenever  conditions  or 
persons at the workplace change or when the current situation requires a re-check. A safety 
committee is obligatory in those companies with more than 20 full-time workers.   

In  relation  to  Directive  89/654/EEC  (workplace),  the  definition  of  the  term  "workplace"  is 
broader as it includes for example, accommodations. Also the scope of the national legislation 
transposing  Directive  2000/54/EC  (biological  agents),  Directive  92/104/EEC  (surface  and 
underground  mineral-extracting  industries),  and  Directive  92/91/EEC  (mineral-extracting 
industries  through  drilling)  appears  to  be  broader.  In  addition,  the  national  legislation 
transposing  Directive  91/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels) 
includes  special 
requirements for young workers. Finally, the Maternity Protection Act transposing Directive 
92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding  workers)  applies  to  all  women,  includes  those  women 
employed in home-working or similar employment, and includes special requirements for all 
female workers of childbearing age. 

10.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Germany is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Germany  show a good level of compliance as regards the obligation to 
carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  65%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey, 56.7% of workplace risk assessments is conducted by internal staff. 
At the same time, the survey also indicates that 84% of establishments make available to the 
workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. ESENER 
-2  shows  medium  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety  services  used,  be  it  in-house  or 
contracted  externally.  As  regards  health  surveillance  54%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey 
declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health 
of the employees. A high proportion of establishments declared as well that training on how 
to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons 
who know most about health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed 
when  considering  the  thematic  coverage  of  the  training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and 
microenterprises were less likely to have the necessary OSH management structure in place as 
compared with larger establishments. 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  results  of  the  external  study  are  based  on  the  evaluation  of  the  German  Joint  OSH 
Strategy (GDA), stakeholders' interviews and a CATI survey by TNS infratest conducted in 
2011. The study reported that the highest compliance rate in German establishments could be 
observed  in  relation  to  training  and  information  of  workers  (more  than  85%).    Lower 
compliance rates have been assessed in relation to micro-enterprises (1-9 workers), with only 
the 41% conducting a risk assessment. In contrast, the compliance rate in establishments with 
50+ workers was assessed as higher than 90% in almost all categories266. 

In  addition,  according  to  the  study,  public  establishments  performed  above  average  in  all 
CPMs  categories,  while  sector  groups  representing  private  services  were  always  below 
average (often among the lowest). Also compliance in health and social work establishments, 
which are often in public ownership, was assessed as above average. This was considered by 
the  external  study  as  a  reliable  indicator  that  general  OSH  compliance  in  public 
establishments is quite positive in comparison to private sector establishments in Germany. 

10.4 Enforcement 

Enforcement  of  OSH  legislation  is  delegated  to  the  Federal  States.  There  are  16  OSH 
authorities of the “Länder” which are in charge  of supervision. The 16 Länder inspectorates 
have  different  areas  of  activity  (some  covering  also  the  implementation  of  labour, 
environment  legislation,  or,  respectively,  product  safety).  In  addition,  there  are  special 
authorities  for  the  mining  and  seafaring  industries.  The  public  authorities  of  the  Federal 
Government  are  supervised  by  the UK  Bund,  the  Statutory  Accident  Insurance  Body  of  the 
Federal Authorities. Further inspections are done by the technical inspection services (TAD) 
of the Accident Insurance Bodies which supervise and advise each accident body’s member 
companies267.   

Paragraph  25  and  26  of  the  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Act  (ArbSchG)  are  the  central 
provisions that establish administrative and criminal sanctions for not complying with the law 
and  for  not  fulfilling  administrative  orders  of  the  labour  inspectorate.  Further  fines  for 
administrative actions in cases of not complying are regulated regionally by Federal States for 
the  16  labour  inspectorates.  They  must  respect  the  limit  set  out  by  the  Federal  laws  and 
ordinances.  Apart  from  the  criminal  or  administrative  sanctions,  labour  inspectorates  can 
intervene  in  processes  and  shut  down  sites,  plants  or  parts  of  the  production  if  there  is  an 
elevated risk for the health, life or environment268. 

10.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Micro-enterprises  (10  or  less  workers)  are  no  longer  treated  differently  with  regard  to  the 
obligation  to  provide  documentation  of  the  risk  assessment.  Since  2013,  risk  assessments 

266 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
National Report for Germany. 
267 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country National Report for Germany. 
268 See Table 5- 4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country National Report for Germany. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
must be documented by all enterprises, regardless of their size. However, any establishment 
can be exempted on request e.g. when only working with biological agents of risk group one. 
Nevertheless,  there are some other  regulatory  provisions which are differentiated for micro- 
and  small  enterprises  (less  than  50  workers).  The  so-called  “Unternehmermodell”  (literally 
“entrepreneur model”, sometimes referred to as “employer model”) offers employers, through 
the  statutory  accident  insurance  bodies,  the  chance  to  qualify  as  a  safety  expert 
(“Sicherheitsfachkraft”)  in  their  own  company.  This  doesn’t  take  away  the  need  to  contract 
the  OSH  services,  but  it  certainly  reduces  their  involvement.  Finally,  there  are  no  special 
financial measures or tax reductions adopted to support SMEs, but they can of course make 
use of the general financial incentives. Also some accident insurance bodies will offer special 
OSH services to their members, which are often SMEs269.  

11. GREECE 

11.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

In Greece, the legislative framework in the area of OSH was simplified through the adoption 
of  Law  3850/2010  (Government  Gazette,  Series  I,  No  84)  ratifying  the  "Code  of 
Laws/Statutes for the Health and Safety of Workers" which codified several pre-existing OSH 
acts.  This  codification  covers  the  national  provisions  transposing  the  Framework  Directive 
89/391/EEC  and  Directive  91/383/EEC  (workers  with  a  fixed-duration  employment  or  a 
temporary  employment  relationship).That  code  covers  a  wide  range  of  issues,  including 
protective  and  preventive  services,  health  monitoring,  training  of  workers,  employers’ 
obligations.  There  are  special  legal  provisions  for  the  protection  of  pregnant  workers  and 
workers  who  are  breastfeeding  (Presidential  Decree  176/97,  Presidential  Decree  41/2003). 
Furthermore, there are additional provisions established by Article 125 of Law 4052/2012, for 
the safety and health of workers employed through temporary agencies. Each OSH individual 
directive has been mainly transposed through a single Presidential Decree. 

The Greek legislation in the area of OSH covers all sectors, without distinction, including the 
public sector, and all types of enterprises, irrespective of size. However, the definition of the 
term "worker" does not include domestic workers. 

Competences over OSH are attributed to the General Directorate of Working Conditions and 
Health,  which  falls  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Security  and 
Welfare.  Its  activities  include  preparing  draft  legislation  on  OSH,  as  well  as  circulars  and 
technical  guides  to  assist  other  OSH  competent  administrative  authorities.  The  Ministry  of 
Environment,  Energy  and  Climate  Change  has  competence  over  the  OSH  directives  on 
mineral-extracting  industries,,  while  the  Ministry  of  Mercantile  Marine  and  the  Aegean  is 
responsible for the  OSH  issues relating  to  the  shipping and fisheries sectors in  the scope of 
Directives 92/29/EEC and 93/103/EC.  

269 Table 7- 1 Overview of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country National Report for 
Germany. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
11.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

The  Code  of  Laws/Statutes  for  the  Health  and  Safety  of  Workers  generally  sets  forth  more 
detailed  requirements  than  the  Framework  Directive.  With  regard  to  the  content  of  risk 
assessment,  it  sets  out  specific  risks  and  further  requirements  on  the  data  and  other 
information  to  be  considered  when  the  assessment  is  carried  out.  With  regard  to  the 
preventive  and  protective  services  referred  to  in  Article  7  of  the  Framework  Directive, 
companies are obliged to use the consultative services of health and safety experts, i.e. safety 
technicians  and  occupational  physicians,  for  a  minimum  period  of  work  period  per  year 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  workers  of  the  company  and  the  type  of  business 
activity.  In  general,  every  company  with  one  or  more  workers  must  use  the  services  of  a 
safety  technician  while  companies  with  more  than  50  workers  must  use  the  services  of  an 
.occupational  physician.  The  health  and  safety  experts'  services  may  be  provided  either  by 
workers of the company or by external persons that have the necessary qualifications set by 
legislation or by licensed external preventive and protective services. Greece also made use of 
the possibility set out in Article 7 (7) of the Framework Directive to provide that the employer 
himself  may exercise the  duties  of safety officer (following an accredited training  program) 
for companies carrying "low risk" activities with less than 50 workers.  

The national legislation sets more detailed requirements on health surveillance in relation to 
Directives 90/269/EEC (manual handling of loads), 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment), 
2002/44/EC  (vibration),  2003/10/EC  (noise),  2006/25/EC  (artificial  optical  radiation), 
98/24/EC  (chemical  agents  at  work),  2009/148/EC  (asbestos),  2000/54/EC  (biological 
agents),  92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral-extracting  industries),  92/91/EEC 
(mineral-extracting  industries  through  drilling),  91/383/EEC  (temporary  workers),  and 
94/33/EC (young people at work).  

11.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Greece is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Greece shows a moderate level of compliance as regards the obligation 
to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  50%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  contracted  to  external 
providers  (46.8%).  ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety 
services used, be it in-house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance only 27% 
of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 
examinations to monitor the health of the employees. The survey indicates that a high number 
of establishments (69%) make available to the workers a document explaining responsibilities 
and procedures on health and safety. A medium to high proportion of establishments declared 
as well that training on how to manage health and safety was performed (training available to 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the  establishment). 
Differences  could  be  observed  when  considering  the  thematic  coverage  of  the  training 
provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less likely to have the necessary OSH 
management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The  results  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  for  the  CPMs  are  based  on  data  extracted 
from the LI Annual Reports for the period 2007-2012 and from the interviews conducted with 
stakeholders. As the ESENER-2 survey, the study reported a medium level of compliance as 
regards  risk  assessment  performance  and  information  to  workers.  Very  low  levels  of 
compliance  were  assessed  in  relation  to  health  surveillance  and  consultation  of  workers.  In 
relation to training of workers, the study underlined that stakeholders indicated that numerous 
OSH training activities are carried out  – although exact data on numbers are lacking  – both 
intra  and  inter-enterprise.  Intra-enterprise  training  is  subsidised  by  the  Special  Fund  for  the 
Employment & Vocational Training (LAEK) of the Manpower Employment Organisation. It 
also  highlighted  that  particularly  in  Public  Administration  (e.g.  ministries)  there  is  no  OSH 
training for workers. 

11.4 Enforcement 

The main authority in charge of OSH legislation enforcement – both in the public and private 
sector – is the Labour Inspectorate (LI) (and the Mines Inspectorate with regard to Directives 
92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral-extracting  industries)  and  92/91/EEC 
(mineral-extracting industries through drilling)), which operates under the Ministry of Labour  
and  Social  Security.  OSH  legislation  preparation  falls  under  the  auspices  of  the  General 
Directorate for Working Conditions and Hygiene at Work, also operating under the Ministry 
of Labour and Social Security. OSH legislation enforcement in Greece is, however, weak and 
non-homogenous, due to staffing, expertise, training, equipment and administrative problems. 
The  LI  has  a  wide  set  of  competences  laid  down  in  L  3996/2011.  In  this  context,  when 
carrying  out  inspections  and  if  violations  of  labour  law  (including  OSH  legislation)  are 
observed, the LI can proceed to several further actions: it can impose administrative sanctions 
(fines and/or cessation of activity/works) or file a report to introduce the violation into penal 
procedures where  in  some  cases  there  are  grounds  for  further  prosecution  and,  furthermore, 
referral  to  penal  courts.    The  LI  includes  distinctive  units,  one  for  the  wider  area  of  labour 
legislation  (Services  of  Social  Labour  Inspectorate  -  ‘Υπηρεσίες  Κοινωνικής  Επιθεώρησης 
Εργασίας’)  and  one  for  the  specific  area  of  OSH  (Services  of  Technical  and  Health 
Inspectorate - ‘Υπηρεσίες Τεχνικής και Υγειονομικής Επιθεώρησης Εργασίας’). 

11.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Greece  has  set  up  different  actions  to  support  SMEs  in  implementing  the  OSH  directives. 
These range from various information days to the publication of information leaflets. It is also 
one  of  the  key  roles  of  the  inspectors  to  support  the  SMEs,  through  provision  of  advice  on 
legislation and improvement of working conditions during the inspections. However, there are 
very  few  financial  incentives  (and  no  lighter  regulatory  regime,  nor  regulatory  exemptions) 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
directed to SMEs. The LAEK fund for training of workers aims at reaching SMEs and there is 
some financial aid available to SMEs in the manufacturing, tourism, trade and services sectors 
in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC. 

12. HUNGARY 

12.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

In Hungary, the structure of the national legislation on OSH is very similar to the structure of 
the EU OSH acquis. The main and basic legal act on OSH, which transposes the requirements 
of  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  is  the  Act  XCIII  of  1993  on  Occupational  Safety 
("OSH  Law").  The  OSH  Law  is  further  implemented  by  Regulation  5/1993270  and  Decree 
33/1998 of 24 June 1998 on the medical examination and assessment of aptitude for a specific 
job or profession and aptitude from the point of view of personal hygiene, which focuses on 
improving the health and safety of vulnerable workers. The individual EU OSH directives are 
transposed through specific ministerial decrees or joint decrees. The only exceptions relate to 
Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents at work) – transposed through the Act XXV of 2000 on 
chemical  safety  and  the  Joint  Decree  No  25  of  30  September  2000  on  chemical  safety  at 
work- and to Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers) - transposed through the 
Labour Code, a specific Act CCXI on the Protection of Families and the ministerial Decree 
33/1998. Directive 2004/40/EC (electromagnetic fields) has not been transposed.  

The  Hungarian  OSH  legislation  covers  all  sectors,  without  distinction,  including  the  public 
sector  and  all  types  of  enterprises,  irrespective  of  size.  It  does  not  cover  self-employed 
persons.  

The Hungarian system of health and safety institutions is based on the WHO Constitution, the 
Conventions and Recommendations of the ILO and the EU OSH Directives, taking national 
traditions  into  consideration.  During  the  modernisation  of  public  administration  in  2011, 
Budapest/county  government  offices  were  set  up 
including  specific  administrative 
departments. Labour inspectorates were incorporated into the health and safety administrative 
departments  of  the  Budapest  and  county  government  offices  as  autonomous  organisational 
units  with  specific  competence  and  responsibilities.  (A  total  of  20  inspectorates  were 
established  to  replace  the  7  former  regional  inspectorates).  With  effect  from  1  December 
2011, the National Institute of Occupational Hygiene and Occupational Health (‘OMFI’) was 
merged with the National Health and Safety and Labour Chief Inspectorate (‘OMMF’) as the 
Occupational  Hygiene  and  Occupational  Health  Department.  With  effect  from  1  January 
2012, the OMMF became an autonomous organisational unit, with specific competence and 
responsibilities and the designated occupational hygiene and occupational health body of the 
Health and Safety and Labour Directorate of the National Labour Inspectorate (‘NMH MMI’) 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  Occupational  Inspectorate.  The  NMH  MMI  carries  out 

270 Regulation of the Minister of Labour on the implementation of certain provisions of Act XCIII of 1993 on 
Occupational Safety (5/1993. (XII. 26.) MüM rendelet a munkavédelemről szóló 1993. évi XCIII. törvény egyes 
rendelkezéseinek végrehajtásáról).  

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
occupational safety and occupational health-related administrative duties in cooperation with 
the  Budapest/county  labour  inspectorates  and  the  labour  inspectors;  with  regard  to  the 
exercise of specific competences, it operates under the supervision of the Ministry of National 
Economy  as  the  professional  (functional)  managing  body  of  the  labour  inspectorates.  With 
regard  to  the  government  offices,  organisational  management  is  carried  out  by  the  Ministry 
responsible for public administration and justice. 

12.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  scope  of  the  Framework  Directive,  the  Hungarian  legislation  appears  to 
include  a  broader  definition  of  the  term  ‘employer’  which  covers  the  entity  who  hires 
employees for organized employment. Further, an employer providing employment to a hired-
out employee through a placement agency, a person providing hands-on vocational training, 
as well as any private entrepreneur who does not employ others but performs his work solely 
by  himself,  must  also  be  construed  as  an  employer  with  regard  to  the  provisions  on  the 
protection  of  persons  inside  the  proximity  of  the  area  where  the  work  is  performed.  In 
addition,  the  ‘necessary  capabilities  and  aptitudes"  of  the  persons  in  charge  of  the 
implementation  of  protective  and  preventive  measures  referred  to  in  Article  7  (8)  of  the 
Framework  Directive  have  been  defined.  Act  XCIII  of  1993  also  provides  for  a  strict 
reporting,  investigation  and  registration  system  concerning  occupational  diseases  and 
increased exposures.  

With  regard  to  Directive  89/654/EEC  (workplace),  the  Hungarian  transposing  legislation 
includes more detailed requirements consultation of workers, given that the employer appears 
to  be  obliged  to  provide  the  possibility  of  a  consultation  between  the  employer  and  the 
workers and their representatives for occupational safety, in preparation of any decisions that 
need to be taken concerning the workers’ health and safety. 

In  relation  to  Directive  89/656/EEC  (personal  protective  equipment/PPE),  PPE  used  by 
emergency and rescue services is covered by Hungarian transposing legislation.  

With regard to Directive 92/58/EEC (OSH signs), the national transposing decree lays down 
more specific provisions (concerning minimum admissible dimensions of safety signs and the 
punctuation  marks  on  the  supplementary  signboard).  Also,  more  "prohibition  signs"  were 
added.  

With  regard  to  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display  screen  equipment),  the  Hungarian  legislation 
sets  more  detailed  requirements  on  health  surveillance  and  other  key  requirements.  In 
particular, eye and eye sight test must be to be repeated every two years. While the directive 
provides  that  workers  covered  by  it  (i.e.  any  worker  as  defined  in  Article  3  (a)  of  the 
Framework Directive who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his 
normal  work)  the  national  legislation  is  more  specific  by  establishing  that  those  tests  are 
required for workers using at least four hours a day a device with a monitor.  

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With  regard  to  Directive  2006/25/EC  (artificial  optical  radiation),  a  more  specific 
methodology  for  risk  assessment  is  provided  in  the  national  legislation.  Further,  the 
periodicity of health surveillance must depend on several circumstances, including the age of 
the worker. 

12.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The  information  on  compliance  for  Hungary  is  based  exclusively  on  the  findings  of  the 
ESENER-2  survey.  Concerning  the  provisions  referred  to  as  the  common  processes  and 
mechanisms (CPMs), the ESENER-2 results for Hungary shows a good level of compliance 
as  regards  the  obligation  to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  77%  of 
establishments doing so).  According to the survey, a very high proportion of establishments 
externalises this type of service. ESENER -2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and 
safety services used, be it in-house or contracted externally.  

As  regards  health  surveillance  89%  of  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their 
establishments arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. 
The survey also indicates that a very high number of establishments (94%) make available to 
the  workers  a  document  explaining  responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A 
high proportion of establishments declared as well that training on how to manage health and 
safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about 
health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the 
thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less 
likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in  place  as  compared  with  larger 
establishments. 

12.4 Enforcement 

While  previously  enforcement  responsibilities  were  shared  between  various  bodies,  namely 
the  National  Work  Safety  and  Labour  Chief  Inspectorate  (OMMF),  the  Hungarian  Mining 
Authority  and  the  National  Public  Health  and  Medical  Office  Service  (ÁNTSZ)  under  the 
direction of several ministries, there is now only one  authority in charge of OSH legislation 
enforcement,  namely  the  National  Labour  Office  (NMH)  under  the  Ministry  of  National 
Economy,  with  an  autonomous  branch  specifically  dedicated  to  OSH  the  ‘Occupational 
Safety  and  Health  and  Labour  Inspections  Directorate’.  From  2007  to  2012,  the  number  of 
labour inspectors, number of inspections and their frequency has decreased overall, while the 
number of workers per labour inspector increased from 32448 to 38019.  

The  National  Labour  Office  issues  annual  inspection  directives  which  set  the  main  targets, 
areas  and  expectations  for  the  year.  Priorities  are  set  in  terms  of  sectors  and  groups  of 
vulnerable workers. It is based on the European and national strategy on OSH and the annual 
reports of the labour inspections.  

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Hungarian legislation sets both criminal and administrative sanctions for non-compliance 
with OSH requirements. Criminal sanctions are pecuniary sanctions and imprisonment (up to 
8  years  if  the  infringement  has  caused  a  person’s  death  or  a  fatal  mass  catastrophe).  The 
Hungarian  legislation  also  provides  for  administrative  fines,  along  with  other  coercive 
measures  that  the  inspectors  can  apply  such  as  prohibiting  employees  from  suspending 
hazardous activities. These sanctions apply for infringement of all OSH-related legislation. It 
should, however,  be noted that,  with the entry  into  force of  Act II of 2012 on offences, the 
offence  procedure  and  the  offence  registration  system,  the  competence  of  the  health  and 
safety  authority  concerning  offences  was  abolished.  The  only  fine  it  is  now  authorised  to 
impose  is  a  health  and  safety  fine.  Labour  inspectorates  now  lack  an  appropriate 
administrative means in the case of the infraction of health and safety rules by workers271. 

12.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

There  is  no  specific  lighter  regime  for  SMEs  in  Hungary  with  the  notable  exception  of  the 
new rules on fining whereby, pursuant to the SME Act, unless human life, safety or health is 
directly  endangered,  damage  is  done  to  the  environment  or  the  protection  of  minors  is 
infringed, the health and safety authority warns the enterprise instead of imposing a fine for 
the first time an infringement by a SME is detected272. 

13. IRELAND 

13.1 Legal Framework and competences 

The  Framework  Directive  was  transposed  through  the  Safety  Health  and  Welfare  at  Work 
('SHWW')  Act  1989, which  was updated in  2005  to  the Safety  Health  and  Welfare  at  work 
('SHWW')  Act.  This  programme  of  regulatory  reform  culminated  in  the  introduction  of  the 
Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Applications) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 299 of 
2007)  (SHWW  General  App  (2007)).  These  Regulations  replace,  simplify  and  update  25 
existing sets of regulations and orders and apply to all places of work. In addition, during the 
2007-2012 period, regulations were introduced to further clarify or complete transposition of 
EU legislation. 

Overall responsibility for occupational safety and health policy at national level lies with the 
Minister  for  Jobs,  Enterprise  and  Innovation.  The  Department  of  Jobs,  Enterprise  and 
Innovation  is  responsible  for  formulating  and  developing  national  OSH  policy.  It  works 
closely  with  the  Health  and  Safety  Authority  (HSA)  which  has  a  statutory  mandate  to 
implement safety and health policy at all places of work, through the delegated powers from 
the  Minister  for  Jobs,  Enterprise  and  Innovation  under  the  Safety,  Health  and  Welfare  at 
Work Act 2005.  

271 See Table 5- 1 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Hungary. 
272 See Table 7- 1 Overview of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary Report 
for Hungary. 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  
13.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  scope  of  the  legislation  transposing  Directive  89/391/EEC,  the  national 
legislation also applies to domestic workers. Additional requirements are set in relation to risk 
assessment,  where  Ireland  has  introduced  the  idea  of  a  ‘safety  statement’  to  reflect  a  safe 
system of work.  

As regards the Directive 89/656/EEC (PPE), the definition of PPE is broader, as not excluding 
all the categories excluded from the definition of PPE in that directive.  

As regards Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers), on the basis of Article 2 of 
that  directive,  the  national  legislation  defines  a  "post  natal    worker"  as  a  worker  who  gave 
birth not more than 14 weeks preceding a material date.  

With regard to Directive 2009/148/EC (asbestos), the content of the risk assessment is more 
detailed in the national legislation, 

13.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Ireland is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. Concerning the 
provisions  referred  to  as  the  common  processes  and  mechanisms  (CPMs),  the  ESENER-2 
results  for  Ireland  shows  a  good  level  of  compliance  as  regards  the  obligation  to  carry  out 
workplace risk assessments regularly (with 72% of establishments doing so). According to the 
survey, workplace risk assessments are mainly conducted by internal staff (63.3%).  ESENER 
-2 shows high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be it in-house or contracted 
externally.  

As regards health surveillance only 15% of the respondents to the survey declared that their 
establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. 
The survey also indicates that a very high number of establishments (93.7%) make available 
to the workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. A 
high proportion of establishments declared as well that training on how to manage health and 
safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about 
health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the 
thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less 
likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in  place  as  compared  with  larger 
establishments. 

The results of the external study as regards compliance are based on the ESENER-1 survey, 
supplemented by the Report on Economic Impact of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work 
Legislation (2006) with regard to estimating compliance with the risk assessment. The study 
reported that, in general terms, compliance in the fisheries and agriculture sector is low and 
that  compliance  increases  with  the  size  of  the  company.  According  to  the  study,  SMEs  and 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
micro-industries have difficulties due to their lack of resources and they seek practical (paper 
based and online) tools for compliance such as simplified guidance, risk assessment templates 
etc.  

The  study  also  pointed  out  that  the  data  sources  which  have  been  identified  relating  to 
quantified  estimates  of  compliance  relating  to  the  CPMs  are  limited  to  the  percentage  of 
employers inspected who had safety statements in the mines & quarries (78.3%); agriculture 
(28.9%)  and  construction  (71.2%)  sectors,  with  some  additional  data  available  for  the 
construction sector on consultation and representation273. 

13.4 Enforcement 

The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) is the national statutory body with responsibility for 
enforcing occupational safety and health law (in the private and public sector), promoting and 
encouraging  accident  prevention,  and  providing  information  and  advice  to  all  companies, 
organisations  and  individuals.  In  addition,  the  Irish  Maritime  Administration  (IMA)  has  the 
responsibility to enforce the Irish legislation with regard to maritime safety. Inspectors of the 
HSA  carry  out  reactive  and  pro-active  inspections  of  workplaces.  Reactive  inspections  may 
arise  following  an  accident,  incident  or  complaint.  Pro-active  inspections  may  be  routine  or 
targeted.  Most  inspections  are  targeted  at  the  high  risk  sectors  such  as  construction, 
agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, mines, quarries, transport of dangerous goods by road, or 
the  chemical  sectors.  These  sectors  are  set  out  in  our  Annual  Work  Programme  and  each 
inspector picks the premises to be inspected based on their local knowledge. Inspectors will 
collect information  from inspections and record the results electronically on the Authority’s 
GeoSmart  Information  Storage  System.  There  is  hence  abundant  statistical  information 
available on the inspections performed, although the frequency of inspections is not known. 

Sanctions  are  provided  for  under  the  main  Safety  Health  and  Welfare  at  Work  Act  2005. 
Other  legislation  is  prepared  as  Regulations  under  that  Act  and  breaches  are  therefore 
regarded as breaches of the Act and sanctions do not distinguish between different Directives. 
The  HSA  allows  its  inspectors  to  take  actions  where  statutory  contraventions  are  observed, 
e.g.  where  there  is  a  risk  of  serious  potential  injury  or  poor  management  of  dangerous 
chemicals274. 

13.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Ireland has not introduced any exemptions, financial incentives, or a lighter regime for SMEs 
and  micro-enterprises.  The  HSA  nevertheless  provides  a  series  of  practical  information  and 
guidance notes in relation to small businesses. Also the BeSMART tool has been developed 

273 See Table 3- 1Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Ireland. 
274 See Table 5- 4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Ireland. 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
especially  for  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises.  In  construction,  a  Safety  Management  Pack  for 
Contractors Employing 20 or less workers (SMP 20) was also developed and launched. The 
aim  of  the  pack  is  to  assist  small  contractors  in  establishing  and  maintaining  an  effective 
safety management system. 

14. ITALY 

14.1 Legal Framework and competences 

In Italy, Legislative Decree no. 81 of 9 April 2008 reorganised and consolidated in a single 
regulation  the  legislation  on  workplace  health  and  safety.  It  completes  the  transposition  of 
Directive  89/391/EEC  and  of  the  other  individual  Directives.  In  addition,  Directives 
92/29/EEC (medical treatment on board vessels), 93/103/EC (work on board fishing vessels), 
92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding  workers),  and  91/383/EEC  (temporary  workers)  have 
been  transposed  into  national  legislation  through  several  pieces  of  legislative  decrees  and 
specific laws. 

The provisions of the Legislative Decree no. 81 of 9 April 2008 apply to all activities, sectors 
and risks, as well as to all workers and self-employed persons.  

At  national/central  level,  the  competences  in  relation  to  OSH  are  divided  between  the 
Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, and the Ministry of Health. At central level, a National 
Steering Committee for pro-active policies and coordination of surveillance activities, set out 
on the basis of the Legislative Decree no. 81 of 9 April 2008, is the body where central and 
regional  authorities  define  the  general  principles  of  their  respective  prevention  and 
surveillance policies. At local level, coordination of surveillance and prevention activities are 
entrusted primarily to the Regions and to the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano 
which must plan and conduct in a standardised manner activities in their respective territories 
through cooperation with and the coordination of all competent agencies, local authorities and 
social partners. 

14.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

As a general rule, the national legislation transposing EU OSH Directives presents in a more 
specific  manner  than  in  the  relevant  Directive  the  risks  to  be  taken  into  account  by  the 
employer in the risk assessment, including those risks arising from exposure to physical and 
biological agents, hazardous substances/mixtures or explosive atmospheres. Standardised and 
simplified procedures for the performance of risk assessment apply to businesses employing 
up to 10 workers, but can also be used by companies employing up to 50 workers.  

In addition, Legislative Decree 81/2008 sets forth more detailed provisions concerning skills, 
education and training required for workers, employers, the preventive and protective services 
and the competent medical officer.  

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
With  regard  to  the  preventive  and  protective  services  referred  to  in  Article  7  of  the 
Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  Italy  used  the  possibility  given  to  Member  States  in 
Article  7  (7)  of  that  Directive  and  defined  in  Legislative  Decree  81/2008  the  categories  of 
undertakings  in  which  the  employer  may  himself  take  responsibility  of  the  activities  of 
preventive and protective services. 

As  regards  health  surveillance,  the  results  of  such  surveillance  must  be  inserted  in  the 
worker’s  individual  health  and  risk  record  in  all  cases,  whereas  this  requirement  is  not  set 
forth in all EU OSH Directives. In many cases, the periodicity of health surveillance is set at 
once a year, but this frequency can be modified by the competent medical officer on the basis 
of the risk assessment. In the field of application of Directive 2002/44/EC (vibration), and in 
line  with  Article  8  (1)  last  indent  of  that  directive,  a  preventive  medical  examination  is 
mandatory for workers whose exposure exceeds the upper exposure action values, as part of 
general health surveillance procedures.  

Furthermore,  in  line  with  Article  15  of  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  Legislative 
Decree 81/2008 provides that the employer shall adapt the protective and preventive measures 
to  take care of specific  needs of exposed workers who are particularly sensitive to risk (i.e. 
pregnant women and minors).  

Finally, Legislative Decree 81/2008 provides for a national information system for prevention 
in the workplace. 

In relation to Directive 92/58/EEC (OSH signs), the employer is required, in line with Article 
12  of  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  on  training,  to  take  the  proper  measures  to 
provide information or instructions on dangerous situations that are not covered by means of 
signs, according to good practices, specific characteristics of the activity and experience.  

In relation to scope of Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers), which defines  
a  “worker  who  has  recently  given  birth”  and  “worker  who  is  breastfeeding”  to  mean  
respectively a worker who has recently given birth and a worker who is breastfeeding “within 
the  meaning  of  national  legislation  and/or  national  practice  (…)”,  pursuant  to  the  national 
transposition measures the provisions for the protection of the health and safety of pregnant 
and breastfeeding workers also apply to women who have taken in adopted or foster children 
until they turn seven months; the breastfeeding period lasts up to seven months after giving 
birth.  

In the field of application of Directive 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment), in relation to 
health  surveillance,  and  in  line  with  Article  14  of  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC, 
workers  are  entitled  to  a  more  comprehensive  medical  examination  which  includes 
musculoskeletal  disorders.  More  specific  provisions  are  laid  down  as  regards  “daily  work 
routine”  in  the  sense  of  Article  7  of  that  directive,  as  workers  who  use  display  screen 
equipment are entitled at least to a break of fifteen-minutes every two hours.  

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With  regard  to  occupational  exposure  limit  values  for  hazardous  chemicals  set  forth  in  EU 
OSH  relevant  directives,  the  national  legislation  generally  establishes  more  stringent  limit 
values.  

14.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The  information  on  compliance  for  Italy  is  based,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the  findings  of  the 
ESENER-2 survey and on the other hand on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Italy show a very good level of compliance as regards the obligation to 
carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  94%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey, a high proportion of establishments externalises this type of service. 
ESENER-2 shows high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be it in-house or 
contracted  externally.  As  regards  health  surveillance,  88%  of  respondents  of  the  survey 
declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health 
of  employees.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments  declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to 
manage health and safety was performed (training available to management, to persons who 
know most about health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed when 
considering  the  thematic  coverage  of  the  training  provided  to  employees.  SMEs  and 
microenterprises were less likely to have the necessary OSH management structure in place as 
compared with larger establishments. 

Lower,  though  still  good,  levels  of  compliance  with  the  CPMs,  were  reported  through  the 
external  study,  which  based  its  conclusions  on  surveys  and  information  obtained  during 
stakeholders interviews (between 60-79%).  The study assessed the level of compliance in the 
public  sector  to  be  lower,  as  compared  with  the  private  sector,  because  of  less  stringent 
surveillance. A lower level of compliance was also expected for micro-enterprises and SMEs, 
although  the  study  assessed  that  micro  and  small  enterprises  affiliated  with  the  employers’ 
organizations  scored  better  in  their  level  of  compliance.  The  external  study  pointed  also  to 
some factors which, despite high levels of formal compliance, might affect the effectiveness 
of  the  legislation:  avoiding  fines  as  the  main  driver  for  compliance  with  the  OSH 
requirements,  as  a  consequence  the  management  framework  being  very  bureaucratic,  lower 
likelihood for the less threatening risks to  be tackled by effective actions, externalisation of 
services to allow a cost reduction 275.  

14.4 Enforcement 

The inspection activities related to the hygiene, health and safety at the workplace are carried 
out by Local Health Agencies (ASL) acting under the responsibility of Regional Directorates 

275 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Italy. 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
for Prevention276. The inspections related to compliance with health and safety legislation are 
also carried out by the Inspectors under the Ministry of Labour in undertakings in the field of 
construction or civil engineering, diving work and underwater caisson work and undertakings 
involving particularly high risks277.  

The  strategies  for  inspections  are  developed  by  the  DG  for  Inspection  Activities  of  the 
Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Policies  and  their  implementation  is  reviewed  on  a  yearly 
basis. The Standing Advisory Committee on Health and Safety at Work delivers this annual 
programme for the inspection activities. 

Labour  inspectors  can  also  act  as  advisors  of  the  enterprises,  providing  guidelines  on  the 
application  of  general  labour  standards,  circulars,  directives,  and  all  others  instructions 
received by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies. 

As  regards  sanctions,  the  Italian  legislation  sets  primarily  criminal  sanctions  for  non-
compliance with OSH requirements. Criminal sanctions vary from the imposition of fines to 
imprisonment  and  every  kind  of  infringement  has  a  different  sanction  attached  to  it. 
Administrative sanctions are hardly ever applicable. 

14.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Different risk assessments and different requirements apply to enterprises employing up to 10 
workers, which until now have carried out the risk assessment with self-certification, as well 
as  to  other  businesses  employing  up  to  50  workers.  INAIL  (Italian  Workers  compensation 
authority)  also  foresees  several  types  of  funding,  especially  directed  to  SMEs,  and  has 
established  the  Fund  to  Support  the  Small  and  Medium  Enterprise.  In  order  to  favour  the 
implementation  of  OSH  management  systems,  especially  by  SMEs,  INAIL  makes  available 
application models for specific industries. These models are based on the OSH management 
system guidelines published in 2001 by the International Labour Organization – ILO278. 

15. LATVIA 

15.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The  legal  framework  in  the  area  of  health  and safety  at  work  in  Latvia  comprises  laws  and 
regulations  issued  by  the  government  based  on  these  laws.  The  majority  of  those  laws  and 
regulations  were  adopted  before  its  accession  to  the  European  Union  and,  where  necessary, 
were brought into line with the relevant EU OSH directives.  

276 See Table 5- 1 nspections by Local Health Services - Statistical data 2007-2011 of the Country Summary 
Report for Italy. 
277 See table 5-2 Inspections by Labour Inspectors - Statistical data 2007 – 2012 of the Country Summary Report 
for Italy. 
278 See table 7-2 Description of measures Description of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the 
Country summary report for Italy. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
the 

relevant 

regulations, 

The  provisions  of  the  Framework  Directive  are  incorporated  in  the  Labour  Protection  Law 
(Darba aizsardzības likums) adopted on 20 June 2001, which is the main legal act in this area.  
In addition to the Labour Protection Law, the Labour Law adopted on 20 June 2001 covers, 
transposition  of  Directive  92/85/EEC 
together  with 
(pregnant/breastfeeding  workers),  Directive  91/383/EEC  (temporary  workers)  and  Directive 
94/33/EC  (young  people  at  work).  Under  the  Labour  Protection  Law  there  are  more  than 
twenty  different  Regulations  that  set  out  in  more  detail  its  particular  requirements.  All  EU 
OSH  individual  directives  are  transposed  through  one  regulation,  with  the  exception  of  the 
following  directives,  which  are  transposed  by  multiple  regulations:  Directive  2009/104/EC 
(work  equipment),  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or  mutagens),  Directive  92/29/EEC 
(medical  treatment  on  board  vessels)  and  Directive  93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing 
vessels).  

The Latvian laws and regulations in the area of OSH apply to any employer that is employing 
at  least  one  employee,  to  all  sectors,  including  the  public  sector  and  to  all  categories  of 
undertakings, independently of their size.  

Competences regarding OSH in the public and private sector are mainly with the Ministry of 
Welfare,  which  is  responsible  for  policy  and  legislation  on  employment  and  OSH.  The 
Ministry  also  supervises  the  work  of  the  State  Labour  Inspectorate  which  ensures  the 
compliance with labour and OSH legislation in practice. 

15.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  the  national  transposing  legislation 
applies to  all groups of persons  in employment;  Latvian laws and regulations in the area  of 
OSH do not exclude domestic servants from their scope. 

As regards risk assessment, the Labour Protection Law specifically lists the risks to be taken 
into account and specifies in more detail the content of risk assessment. A specific form to be 
considered  when  carrying  out  a  risk  assessment  is  laid  down  in  the  Internal  Supervision 
Regulation. That regulation also sets out the general rules regarding the persons that should be 
in  charge  of  the  risk  assessment  and  the  conditions  for  resorting  to  external  preventive  and 
protective services. 

With regard to  Directive  89/654/EEC (workplace), the Latvian Workplaces Regulation is  in 
various aspects more detailed than the requirements of the directive, in particular as regards 
the minimum requirements on temperature and natural and artificial lighting. For instance, the 
regulation lists minimum level of lighting for 23 workplaces, further differentiating between 
specific  tasks.  It  also  sets  forth  requirements  specifying  the  range  of  air  humidity  and  air 
movement  rate,  as  well  as  the  period  of  time  for  which  work  is  permissible  in  cold 
temperatures.   

Regarding  Directive  92/58/EEC  (OSH  signs),  it  was  reported  that  the  national  transposing 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
legislation provides the use of additional signs.  

With  regard  to  Directive  2002/44/EC  (vibration),  the  national  legislation  sets  more  specific 
requirements regarding the methodology and persons responsible for the conduct of the risk 
assessment. The Labour Inspectorate has the prerogative to request any relevant information 
from employers, including on risk assessment.  

In  relation  to  Directive  92/57/EEC  (temporary  or  mobile  construction  sites),  Latvian 
legislation  provides  an  exhaustive  list  of  works  to  which  OSH  requirements  apply,  which 
appears to be broader than the non-exhaustive list of provided in Annex I of the directive. It 
also lays down more detailed or broader requirements for health and safety coordinators (e.g. 
the  coordinator  must  have  obtained  a  certificate  in  relation  to  architecture  or  construction, 
have basic knowledge of OSH matters or have a higher professional education in the field).  

15.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Latvia is  based,  on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Latvia shows a very good level of compliance as regards the obligation 
to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  81%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey,  workplace risk  assessments  are conducted mainly  by internal  staff 
(56.1%). ESENER -2 shows high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be it in 
house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 77% of the respondents to the 
survey declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the 
health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  very  high  number  of  establishments 
(96.7%) make available to the workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures 
on  health  and  safety.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments  declared  as  well  that  training  on 
how  to  manage  health  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed 
(training available to management, to persons who know most about health and safety in the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 
The  conclusions  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  are  mainly  based  on  data  from  the 
national survey “Working conditions and risks in Latvia 2012-2013”. The study reported very 
low  to  medium  levels  of  compliance  in  relation  to  risk  assessment  and  consultation  of 
workers,  while  the  other  CPMs  were  assessed  as  having  a  high  or  very  high  degree  of 
compliance.  Large  differences  were  found  between  different  types  of  sectors  and  size  of 
establishments;  the  study  also  assessed  that  compliance  among  micro  and  small  companies 
was significantly lower compared to large companies279. 

279 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Latvia. 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
15.4 Enforcement 

In  Latvia,  the  main  authority  in  charge  of  OSH  legislation  enforcement  is  the  State  Labour 
Inspectorate, which is subordinated to the Ministry of Welfare and which covers all directives 
(both public and private sector). Latvian legislation also provides certain powers, e.g. to carry 
out inspections, to specialised institutions in case of certain conditions or requirements. These 
institutions  either  work  together  with  the  State  Labour  Inspectorate,  or  the  State  Labour 
Inspectorate  requests  support  from  The  Health  Inspectorate,  The  State  Fire  and  Rescue 
Service and the Consumer Rights Protection Centre.   

The  local  building  authorities  are  in  charge  of  enforcement  of  OSH  legislation  related  to 
construction  works  and  control  of  work  on  construction  sites,  which  covers  Directive 
92/57/EEC (temporary or mobile construction sites). The Maritime Administration of Latvia 
is  responsible  for  enforcement  of  OSH  legislation  on  ships;  Directive  92/29/EEC  (medical 
treatment on board vessels) and Directive 93/103/EC (work on board fishing vessels). Finally, 
the  State  Inspectorate  for  Protection  of  Children’s  Rights  is  the  administrative  body 
subordinated  to  the  Ministry  of  Welfare,  which  supervises  and  controls  legal  requirements 
concerning  children’s  rights,  including  working  permits,  working  hours  and  working 
conditions (Directive 94/33/EC (young people at work))280.  

Depending on the seriousness of offences, the Latvian legislation provides either criminal or 
administrative  sanctions  for  violation  of  occupational  health  and  safety  (OSH)  legislation. 
These sanctions apply to all OSH Directives and, for example, the administrative law provides 
as  a  general  principle  that  a  violation  of  any  of  the  OSH  requirements  could  lead  to 
administrative  punishment.  The  few  exceptions  where  potential  damage  is  more  significant 
include OSH signs, PPE, risk assessment, training of workers, not sending workers for health 
surveillance, hiding of the occupational accidents and use of faulty work equipment. 

15.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Latvia has only set up a lighter regime concerning OSH services that may be carried out by an 
employer  himself  in  undertakings  of  less  10  employees  and  provided  that  the  employer  has 
had  special  training  (article  9,  part  3,  of  the  Labour  Protection  Law).  Similarly,  a  lighter 
regime  applies  to  companies  with  less  than  10  workers  concerning  the  involvement  of 
external OSH experts (article 9, part 5, Labour Protection Law). Moreover, the Work Safety 
Law  amended  in  2010  in  order  to  remove  the  obligation  for  enterprises  of  50  and  more 
workers to appoint several work specialists or to set up a work safety unit. This amendment 

280 See Table 5- 1Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Latvia. 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
was  particularly  targeted  to  SMEs,  which  were  then  able  to  appoint  only  one  work  safety 
specialist only when not exposing workers to hazardous substances281. 

16. LITHUANIA  

16.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

In Lithuania, the hierarchy of legal acts in relation to occupational health and safety consists 
of  three  distinct  levels:  the  Laws  and  the  Labour  Code  which  are  issued  by  the  Parliament 
(Seimas);  further  implementation  is  developed  through  Resolutions  of  the  Government 
(second level) and then through Orders of Ministers (lowest level). 

The  main  legal  acts  in  the  area  of  OSH  are  the  Labour  Code  and  the  Law  on  Safety  and 
Health  at  Work.  These  acts  transpose  into  Lithuanian  law  the  Framework  Directive 
89/391/EEC. They are supplemented by related regulations covering different OSH sub-areas. 
The EU OSH individual directives are transposed through individual legal acts (Resolutions 
of the Government with regard to Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers) and 
Directive  94/33/EC  (young  people  at  work))  and,  for  the  rest,  mainly  through  Orders  of 
Ministers). 

National OSH legislation applies to all employers who employ at least one worker and to all 
undertakings  established  in  the  national  territory.  That  legislation  applies  to  all  sectors, 
without distinction, including the public sector, and to all enterprises, irrespective of size.  

Within the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Working Environment Division of the 
Labour  Department  is  responsible  for  OSH  policy.  The  Minister  of  Social  Security  and 
Labour also represents the interests of the Republic of Lithuania related to safety and health at 
work in other countries and in international organisations. 

The  performance  of  occupational  safety  and  health  requirements  at  enterprises  is  controlled  by  the 
State  Labour  Inspectorate  (http://www.vdi.lt/),  which  is  a  state  control  body  functioning  under  the 
Ministry  of  Social  Security  and  Labour.  The  body  consists  of  the  administration  and  10  regional 
inspection  units  managed  by  the  Chief  State  Labour  Inspector.  The  functions,  rights  and 
responsibilities of the Labour Inspectorate are laid down in the Law on the State Labour Inspectorate 
(http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=350626). 

16.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

More  detailed  requirements  on  risk  assessment  are  generally  laid  down  in  all  national  acts 
transposing  the  OSH  individual  Directives.  This  is  the  case  in  relation  to  Directives 
89/654/EEC  (workplace),  2009/104/EC  (work  equipment),  89/656/EEC  (PPE),  1999/92/EC 

281  See  Table  7-  1  Description  of  measures  targeting  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  of  the  Country  Summary 
Report for Latvia. 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
(ATEX), 90/269/EEC (manual handling of loads) 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment) and 
94/33/EC  (young  people  at  work).  In  respect  of  Directives  2002/44/EC  (vibration), 
2003/10/EC  (noise),  2004/40/EC  (electromagnetic  fields)  and  2006/25/EC  (artificial  optical 
radiation),  the  national  legislation  requires  employers  to  submit  risk  assessment  to  national 
authorities on request.  

With regard to Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents at work) and its implementing directives, 
the  national  transposing  legislation  sets  forth  for  some  chemical  agents  more  stringent 
occupational exposure limit values that the EU limit values.  

16.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders  

The information on compliance for Lithuania is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Lithuania shows a good level of compliance as regards the obligation 
to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  76%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  contracted  mainly  to  external 
providers  (61.5%).  ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety 
services used, be it in house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 87% of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 
examinations  to  monitor  the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  very  high 
number  of  establishments  (96.9%)  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining 
responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. A very high proportion of establishments 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The  external  study  based  its  conclusions  on  compliance  on  a  study  on  occupational  health 
care activities in Lithuanian enterprises, on stakeholders’ experienced views, and the annual 
reports from the State Labour Inspectorate over the period 2007-2012. The study assessed that 
very  important  differences  existed  between  micro-  and  small  establishments  and  large 
establishments.    In  particular,  it  reported  that  the  vast  majority  of  medium-sized  enterprises 
had OSH departments  - which were not present in micro- and small enterprises  - where the 
employees  regularly  raised  their  skills  in  various  assessment  considerations  of  occupational 
risks282.  

282 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Lithuania. 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
16.4 Enforcement 

In Lithuania, the main (and only) authority in charge of OSH legislation enforcement is the 
State Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Lithuania SLI, which covers all directives in the 
private and public sector. Remit of the State Labour Inspectorate under the Ministry of Social 
Security and Labour includes the prevention of accidents at work, occupational diseases and 
violations  of  occupational  safety  and  health  requirements  of  standard  acts  on  labour  law.  It 
also covers the control of compliance of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, laws 
and other standard acts regulating occupational safety and health as well as labour relations in 
enterprises,  institutions, organisations or  other  organisational  structures, irrespective of their 
forms of ownership, type, nature of activity, also in these cases when an employer is a natural 
person.In  2013,  thirteen  Tripartite  Labour  Dispute  Commissions  were  established  under  the 
State  Labour  Inspectorate  territorial  divisions.  The  main  task  of  these  Commissions  is  to 
resolve individual conflicts between an employer and an employee. Decisions of the Labour 
Dispute Commissions are obligatory for both sides of the conflict. If any side disagrees with 
the Commission decision they can appeal to the Administrative Court283. 

16.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Lithuania has only set up a lighter regime as to the requirement to organise an internal service 
of  occupational  health  and  safety.  OSH  committees  should  be  established  and  their  work 
should be organized in those undertakings which employ more than 50 workers. If less than 
50 workers are employed in an undertaking, the committee may be established on an initiative 
of the employer or the workers’ representative, or on a proposal of more than half of workers 
of the undertaking. There are further no particular exemptions or incentives directed to SMEs 
and micro-enterprises in Lithuania284. 

17. LUXEMBOURG 

17.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  was  transposed  by  the  Laws  of  17  June  1994  on 
respectively the safety and health of workers at work and on occupational health services. The 
related  EU  OSH  Directives  have  been  transposed  mostly  through  secondary  legislation,  i.e. 
Grand-Ducal Regulations. Solely Directive 92/29/EEC (medical treatment on board vessels) 
has  been  transposed  through  a  specific  law,  together  with  an  implementing  Grand-Ducal 
Regulation.  Finally,  provisions  transposing  the  three  Directives  on  specific  groups  of 
vulnerable workers (Directive 92/85/EEC on pregnant and workers who have recently given 
birth  or  are  breastfeeding;  Directive  91/383/EEC  on  temporary  workers  and  Directive 
94/33/EC (young workers)) are incorporated directly in the Labour Code.  

283 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Lithuania. 
284 See Table 7- 1 Description of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary 
Report for Lithuania. 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
The public sector is regulated by distinct laws and regulations, specific to public servants and 
employees  of  public  establishments.  Safety  in  the  public  sector  was  first  regulated  in 
Luxembourg  by  a  1979  Grand-Ducal  Regulation  and  more  largely  implemented  in  a  1988 
Law that created the public sector’s entity on prevention of occupational risks. Pursuant to the 
transposition of the Framework Directive, these texts were revised by the OSH Public Sector 
Law of 1994 and complementing Grand-Ducal Regulations of 1995.  

Competences  on  OSH  in  the  private  sector  are  divided  between  the  Ministry  of  Health,  in 
charge  of  coordinating  occupational  medicine  services,  and  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and 
Employment, under which the Labour and Mines Inspectorate (ITM) is in charge of enforcing 
OSH  legislation.  For  the  public  sector,  the  Ministry  of  Civil  Service  is  the  main  authority, 
with two distinct departments in charge of, respectively, occupational medicine and safety at 
work.  OSH  services  are  organised  in  a  dual  system.  All  private  companies  are  providing 
occupational health services internally, through inter-company medical services managed by 
trade unions or the Multi-Sector Occupational Health Service (STM), a public body, under the 
Ministry of Health. 

17.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With regard to Directive 89/391/EEC, the national implementing legislation covers domestic 
workers. More detailed requirements are set mainly in relation to organisational arrangements 
(e.g.  on  the  competencies  of  ‘designated  workers’  or  ‘safety  representatives’),  as  well  as 
health  surveillance  (internal  service  of  occupational  health  is  compulsory  for  companies 
employing more than 5000 employees as well as those with than 3000 employees with at least 
100  occupying  a  position  with  risks;  smaller  companies  may  use  one  of  the  four  inter-
enterprises  services  or  join  the  Multi-sector  Occupational  Health  Service  (STM)  or  create 
their own internal service; provisions on the frequency of medical examinations).  

For  both  Directives,  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and  mutagens)  and  98/24/EC  (chemical 
agents),  similar  more  detailed  requirements  are  laid  down  in  relation  to  health  surveillance. 
The  legislation  transposing  Directive  2004/37/EC  also  establishes  a  more  stringent 
occupational exposure limit value for hardwood dusts. In relation to Directive 98/24/EC, the 
national  legislation  establishes  a  limit  value  also  for  nicotine.  The  legislation  transposing 
Directive 2009/148/EC (asbestos) sets more detailed requirements on training of workers, in 
terms  of  frequency  in  particular.  With  regard  to  Directive  92/57/EEC  (temporary  or  mobile 
construction  sites),  national  legislation  sets  more  detailed  requirements on  health  and  safety 
coordinators  for  sites  where  at  least  two  companies  are  operating.  Other  more  stringent 
requirements  were 
92/85/EEC 
established 
(pregnant/breastfeeding workers).  

of  Directive 

transposition 

the 

in 

17.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Luxembourg is  based  exclusively  on the findings  of the 
ESENER-2 survey. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Luxembourg shows a low level of compliance as regards the obligation 
to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  37%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey,  workplace risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted by internal  staff 
(66.6%).  ESENER -2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be 
it in-house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 70% of the respondents to 
the survey declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor 
the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  high  number  of  establishments 
(67.7%) make available to the workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures 
on health and safety. A medium proportion of establishments declared as well that training on 
how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to 
persons who know most about health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be 
observed when considering the thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME 
and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in 
place as compared with larger establishments. 

17.4 Enforcement 

In Luxembourg, the main authority in charge of OSH legislation enforcement is the Labour 
and Mine Inspectorate (ITM), which covers all directives but only in the private sector. The 
ITM  is  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Employment.  There  is  no 
inspection as such for the public sector, as the Departments in charge of OSH are tasked with 
ensuring  compliance  with  OSH  requirements  in  the  public  sector.  However,  the  National 
Service  of  Occupational  Safety  of  the  Public  Sector  is  vested  with  generic  competence  on 
monitoring the security of normal operation and the maintenance and control of installations 
and equipment of the public sector. Moreover, it carries out expertise in order to homologate 
public  establishments  facilities  during  their  lifetime.  This  service  is  therefore  competent  to 
inspect equipment but not personnel285.  
Criminal sanctions for infringement to OSH legislation include fines and imprisonment. The 
inspectors  may  also  impose  administrative  sanctions,  in  particular  emergency  measures  to 
stop non-compliance286. Inspectors can ask companies to comply within deadlines. When this 
compliance  is  not  effective,  companies  can  be  ordered  (mise  en  demeure  /  injunction)  to 
comply and eventually be brought to court. 

17.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Luxembourg  has  only  set  up  a  lighter  regime  as  to  the  requirement  to  organise  an  internal 
service of occupational health is compulsory only for larger companies. In addition the AAA 
has  set  up  a  labelling  programme  on  occupational  safety  for  SMEs  with  less  than  50 
employees. Apart from these, the rules are general and applied to all enterprises regardless of 

285 See Table 5- 1Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Luxembourg. 
286 See Table 5- 4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Luxembourg. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
their  size.  As  mentioned  by  the  National  Implementation  Report  for  Luxembourg,  ‘The 
measures taken by the competent authorities are the same for all enterprises in Luxembourg 
and do not depend on size’287. However, given the high proportion of SMEs in Luxembourg, 
they are indeed the primary recipient of all documents and measures on OSH288.  

18. MALTA 

18.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The Framework Directive is transposed by the Occupational Health and Safety Authority Act, 
No XXVII, Cap 424, published on 17 November 2000 and entered into force on 29 January 
2002  (OHSA  Act),  which  is  the  foundational  piece  of  national  legislation  in  the  area  of 
occupational  health  and  safety  in  Malta.  That  Act  enshrines  the  principles  of  protection  of 
health  and  safety  at  the  work  into  national  law  and  establishes  the  national  Occupational 
Health and Safety Authority. It applies to all workplaces, sectors of activity, both private and 
public, and work activities. However, certain activities carried out by members of the armed 
forces, the police force or of the civil protection services appear to be excluded. The OSHA 
Act empowers the responsible Minister to lay down regulations regarding any matter that may 
affect health and safety, after seeking the Authority’s advice.  

The legal principles established in  that that act are applicable to  all downstream legislation. 
Most  EU  OSH  individual  Directives  are  transposed  in  one  specific  piece  of  legislation 
adopted on the basis of the OHSA Act, with the exception of Directive 92/29/EEC (medical 
treatment on board vessels) and Directive 93/103/EC (work on board fishing vessels).  

The  main  competent  authority  is  the  Occupational  Health  and  Safety  Authority  (OHSA), 
established within the institutional framework of the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer 
Affairs  and  Civil  Liberties.  OHSA,  which  is  composed  of  a  tripartite  Board  including 
representatives  of  the  government,  trade  unions  and  employers,  plays  a  central  role  in 
developing and driving national level occupational health and safety strategies, programmes, 
initiatives and policies. In matters related to fishing vessels, the main regulatory authority is 
Transport Malta.  

18.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  scope  of  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  the  national  legislation 
applies  to  domestic  workers  and  to  self-employed  persons  (the  term  “worker”  is  defined  as 

287 See the Ministry of Health, Luxembourg National Implementation Report regarding Directive 89/391/EEC, 
its  specific  Directives  and  Directives  2009/148/EC,  91/383/EEC,  92/29/EEC  and  94/33/EC,  2014,  Part  A, 
Section 2.7. 
288  See  Table  7-2  Description  of  measures  targeting  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  of  the  Country  Summary 
Report for Luxembourg. 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
"any person employed by an employer to perform work, or who provides a service to another 
person under a contract of service or for service, and includes a trainee, an apprentice and a 
self-employed person"). In addition, the scope of risk assessment is wider, as employers must 
also  consider  the  risks  to  visitors  at  the  workplace.  In  respect  of  preventive  and  protective 
services, Malta made use of the option laid down in Article 7(8) of the directive by providing 
that the Occupational Health and Safety Authority may determine the capabilities, aptitudes 
and level and type of training required. Finally, the workers’ representative in the area of OSH 
must not carry out, or be involved with, any work which can give rise to a conflict of interest 
in the discharge of his functions.  

As regards Directive 2006/25/EC (artificial optical radiation), national transposing legislation 
sets out a more specific methodology for risk assessment by establishing requirements for a 
"suitable  medium"  for  the  record  of  risk  assessment  in  accordance  with  Article  4 (4)  of  the 
directive.   

Employers  are  also  encouraged,  in  the  risk  evaluation,  to  consider  workers’  exposure  to 
natural  optical  radiation,  for  instance  from  the  sun.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for  those 
workers who work outdoors and are exposed to the sun’s radiation, especially in summer. 

18.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The  information  on  compliance  for  Malta  is  based,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the  findings  of  the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2  results  for  Malta  show  a  good  level  of  compliance  as  regards  the  obligation  to 
carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  65%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According to the survey,  workplace risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted by internal  staff 
(44.4%). ESENER -2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be 
it  in  house  or  contracted  externally.  As  regards  health  surveillance  only  25%  of  the 
respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 
examinations  to  monitor  the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  medium 
number  of  establishments  (50.9%)  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining 
responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  medium  to  high  proportion  of 
establishments  declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was 
performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and 
safety  in  the  establishment).  Differences  could  be  observed  when  considering  the  thematic 
coverage of the training provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less likely to 
have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in  place  as  compared  with  larger 
establishments. 

The conclusions of the external study on compliance are mainly based on the study entitled 
“Occupational Health and safety  in Malta: A Snapshot of prevailing standards published by 
the OHSA in 2011”. The study reported that only half of the surveyed workers declared that a 
risk assessment was carried out (whether regularly or not), and that 24% of the workers did 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
not remember.  The study assessed that 80% of workers had been offered occupational health 
and  safety  information,  and  only  less  than  60%  of  them  could  rely  on  health  surveillance 
during their employment289. 

18.4 Enforcement 

In  Malta,  the  main  authority  in  charge  of  OHS  legislation  enforcement  is  the  Occupational 
Health and Safety Authority OHSA. The enforcement body competent for occupational health 
and safety issues and the procedures in case of infringement in the public sector is the same as 
in the private sector. The OHSA Act does not distinguish between the public sector and the 
private  sector  with  respect  to  enforcement  of  occupational  health  and  safety  legislation  in 
Malta. Transport Malta ensures the application of the required occupational health and safety 
measures  on  board  fishing  vessels.  Transport  Malta  is  the  regulator  and  not  OHSA  in  this 
case.  
The  Maltese  legislation  sets  both  criminal  and  administrative  sanctions  for  non-compliance 
with OHS requirements. Criminal sanctions include fines and imprisonment up to two years. 
Due  to  recent  legislation,  the  Maltese  view  on  administrative  sanctions  has  changed.  It  has 
been  decided  that,  in  the  event  of  admission  of  guilt,  payment  of  a  fine,  and  the  taking  of 
remedial action, the Authority shall not take judicial action in the courts of law290. 

18.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

OHSA does not distinguish on the basis of size of the enterprise. The only exception is in the 
case  of  construction  sites,  where  Prior  Notice  and  the  Health  and  Safety  Plan  are  only 
required in the case of construction sites on which work is scheduled to last longer than thirty 
working  days  and  on  which  more  than  twenty  workers  are  occupied  simultaneously,  or  on 
which the volume of work is scheduled to exceed five hundred person-days. 

The Financial Incentives, which are tax credits given to SMEs for investing in OHS capacity 
building, are hence given to all Maltese enterprises, even though they are in fact directed to 
SMEs.  The  scheme,  called  MicroInvest  and  launched  by  Malta  Enterprise  (the  national 
development  agency  responsible  for  development  and  growth  of  Maltese  enterprises), 
introduced  a  scheme  with  which  microenterprises  and  the  self-employed  are  encouraged  to 
invest  in  their  businesses,  to  innovate,  expand  and  implement  directives  and  develop  their 
operations.  In  this  scheme,  microenterprises  and  self-employed  are  helped  by  means  of  tax 
credits  that  represent  a  percentage  of  eligible  expenditure  and  the  wages  of  employees  and 
newly engaged apprentices. Following discussions between OHSA and ME, the scheme has 
been restructured to include occupational health and safety on the list of eligible activities for 
tax credits.  

289  See  Table  3-1  Degree  of  compliance:  Common  processes  and  mechanisms  (across  Directives)  of  the 
Country Summary Report for Malta. 

290 See Table 5- 1 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Malta. 

164 

 
 
  
                                                            
With regard to other specific actions for SMEs, it can also be noted that all initiatives taken by 
OHSA,  both  those  concerning  enforcement  actions  and  those  involving  dissemination  of 
information or raising awareness, have already been largely addressed to SMEs291.  

19. NETHERLANDS 

19.1 Legal Framework and competences 

The  main  Dutch  legal  texts  regarding  health  and  safety  at  work  consist  of  the  Working 
Conditions  Act  (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet  /  Arbowet),  the  Working  Conditions  Decree 
(Arbeidsomstandighedenbesluit  /  Arbobesluit)  and  the  Working  Conditions  Regulation 
(Arbeidsomstandighedenregeling / Arboregeling).  

The  Working  Conditions  Act  sets  out  the  general  provisions  for  employers  and  workers 
concerning OSH and provides certain powers to the Labour Inspectorate. The Act is the main 
legal instrument that, together with the Medical Examinations Act, transposes the Framework 
Directive  (together  with  the  Working  Conditions  Decree  and  Regulation).  It  also transposes 
partially  Directive  92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding  workers),  Directive  94/33/EC  (young 
people  at  work)  and  Directive  91/383/EEC  (temporary  workers).  The  Working  Conditions 
Decree  covers  a  more  specific  range  of  OSH  topics  and  directly  transposes  the  following 
directives: Directive 1999/92/EC (ATEX), Directive 90/269/EEC (manual handling of loads), 
Directive  2002/44/EC  (vibration),  Directive  2003/10/EC  (noise),  Directive  2006/25/EC 
(artificial optical radiation), Directive 92/57/EEC (temporary or mobile construction sites) and 
Directive 92/104/EEC (surface and underground mineral-extracting industries).  

The  Working  Conditions  Regulation  contains  very  specific  provisions,  and  transposes, 
together with the Decree, the following directives: Directive 2009/104/EC (work equipment), 
Directive  92/58/EEC  (OSH  signs),  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display  screen  equipment), 
Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or  mutagens),  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents  at 
work), Directive 2009/148/EC (asbestos) and Directive 2000/54/EC (biological agents). The 
remaining  EU  OSH  individual  directives  are  transposed  by  the  Working  Conditions  Act, 
Decree and/or Regulation, in combination with other national legislation specific to the OSH 
topic addressed.   

The Dutch legislation in the area of health and safety at work covers all types of undertakings 
and sectors, without distinction, including the public sector and all enterprises, irrespective of 
size.  In  particular,  the  Working  Conditions  Act  does  not  distinguish  between  private  and 
public  sectors.  Some  exceptions  are  mentioned  by  the  Act  concerning  matters  of  state 
security. 

291  See  Table  7-  1Description  of  measures  targeting  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  of  the  Country  Summary 
Report for Malta. 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Employment legislation and legislation on occupational health and safety are the competence 
of  the  Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and  Employment  (‘Ministerie  van  Sociale  Zaken  en 
Werkgelegenheid’,  'SZW').  Also  all  OSH  policies  are  the  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of 
SZW.  

19.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

The  personal  scope  of  the  national  legislation  is  broader  as  it  covers  in  certain  cases  self-
employed persons292.   

The evaluation found that in recent years, several more detailed or broader requirements have 
been  withdrawn.  At  some  point,  a  deliberate  choice  was  made  to  have  more  stringent 
requirements,  concerning  professional  services,  certification  and  expertise,  sexual 
intimidation,  aggression  and  violence  and  psychosocial  disorders,  limit  values  for  several 
carcinogenic  substances  and  the  substitution  of  volatile  organic  solvents.  According  to  the 
employers, there are a number of more stringent requirements in the Working Conditions Act. 
Examples  are  the  Additional  Risk  Assessment  obligation  (ARIE)  for  high  risk  companies, 
certification  schemes  for  fork  lift  trucks,  cranes,  elevators,  certification  schemes  for 
professional  skills,  requirements  concerning  health  surveillance  in  relation  to  privacy  and 
professional  confidentiality,  specific  requirements  for  maintenance  of  tank  ships.  More 
stringent requirements are also set for pregnant workers. 

19.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Netherlands is based, on the one hand, on the findings of 
the ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. Concerning 
the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the ESENER-2 
results  for  Netherlands  shows  a  good  level  of  compliance  as  regards  the  obligation  to  carry 
out workplace risk assessments regularly (with 73% of establishments doing so). According to 
the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted  by  internal  staff  (57.3%).  
ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety  services  used,  be  it  in 
house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance only 24% of the respondents to 
the survey declared that their establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor 
the health of the employees. The survey indicates that a very high number of establishments 
(78.5%) make available to the workers a document explaining responsibilities and procedures 
on health and safety. A medium proportion of establishments declared as well that training on 
how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to 
persons who know most about health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be 
observed when considering the thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME 

292 See the Decree of 13 June 2012 amending the Working Conditions Decree in relation to further protection for 
self-employed workers, location-independent work and the introduction of the general obligation for employers 
to digitally report data. Cf. also National Implementation Report, Chapter 1, 1, (EN) p.8. 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in 
place as compared with larger establishments. 

The  results  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  with  the  CPMs  are  based  on  annual  data 
monitor reports of the Labour Inspectorate (‘Arbo in bedrijf’) and the Employers Survey on 
Labour (‘Werkgeversenquête Arbeid’). For all CPMs, as well as in relation to each individual 
Directive, the study assessed a  degree of compliance varying between very low to high, and it  
concluded  that  overall,  the  national  legislation  transposing  the  Directives  is  generally 
effective  in  medium  or  large  companies  compared  to  small  or  micro  enterprises.  The  study 
reported that compliance is higher in the public sector. It also underlined that in sectors such 
as  agriculture,  wholesale,  retail  and  construction,  significantly  less  risk  assessments  are 
conducted compared to sectors such as industry, energy supply, water management and waste 
disposal.  Finally,  as  regards  the  information  for  workers,  the  study  assessed  that  more 
information  is  provided  in  sectors  with  high  risk  levels,  such  as  construction,  agriculture, 
fishery, industry, financial, and utility sectors and in the public services293.   

19.4 Enforcement 

The  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  has  two  inspecting  bodies:  the  ‘State  Supervision  of  
Mines’,  in  charge  of  the  inspection  and  enforcement  of  OHS  law  in  the  mineral  extracting 
industries, and the ‘Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority’, in charge of 
the inspection and enforcement of OHS law in the catering and recreational sectors. Finally, 
the  ‘Human  Environment  and  Transport  Inspectorate’  of  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and 
Environment is in charge of the inspection and enforcement of OHS law in transport by rail, 
on the road and on rivers and seas294. 

Co-ordination between the  different inspectorates at the general level  takes place  within the 
structure  of  the  Inspectorate  Council.  This  coordination  concerns  the  overall  strategic 
orientation of inspectorates and the development of common general methods, tools (e.g. for 
data exchange), trainings, etc... It does not concern specific inspection and enforcement issues 
at content level. The enforcement bodies competent for occupational health and safety issues 
and the procedures in case of infringement are the same for the public and private sector. The 
Dutch sanctions system for infringement of the Arbowet is based primarily on administrative 
sanctions. Criminal sanctions are only invoked in cases the employer knowingly risks the life 
of workers, or ignores or refuses orders of the Inspectorate to shut down operations295. 

19.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

293 See Table 3- 1Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for the Netherlands. 
294  See  Table  5- 1Enforcement  authorities  and  Table  5-4   Inspections  statistical  data  of  the  Country Summary 
Report for the Netherlands. 
295 See Table 5-4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for the Netherlands. 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
There  are  no  specific  measures  adopted  by  the  Dutch  national  authorities  in  order  to  assist 
SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  in  the  implementation  of  OSH  requirements,  other  than  the 
lighter regime concerning the obligation to have the risk assessment checked by an external 
service, which does not apply to employers with 25 or less workers if it is based on a model 
risk  assessment.  Additionally,  the  NIR  mentions  four  other  measures  in  support  of  SMEs. 
These include Digitising HIRA tools for the SME, a project to reinforce the safety culture in 
SMEs; the ‘Gezond bedrijf’ (Healthy Undertaking) project; and the Arboportal – which is the 
major website on OSH designed for (also) SME’s. 

20. POLAND 

20.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The  Labour  Code  of  1974  (with  subsequent  amendments)  and  its  implementing  acts 
(Ordinances)  regulate  the  rights  and  duties  for  both  parties  of  the  employment  relationship, 
the consequences for violating the health and safety regulations, supervision over the working 
conditions, procedures in case of accidents at work and occupational diseases as well as their 
respective  benefits  and  payments.  The  majority  of  the  employers’  duties  are  described  in 
Section X of the Labour Code entitled “Work safety and hygiene”, Section VIII “Employees’ 
rights  connected  with  parenthood”  and  Section  IX  “Employment  of  young  adults”.  The 
Labour  Code  establishes  delegation  of  power  to  adopt  Ordinances  concerning  detailed 
provisions  in  respect  of  health  and  safety  at  work.  Each  individual  EU  OSH  Directive  has 
been transposed through the Labour Code and a specific Ordinance.  

The Polish legislation in the area of occupational health and safety covers all sectors, without 
distinction, including the public sector and all enterprises, irrespective of size.  

The main competent authority is the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, as it is the main 
body  responsible  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  OSH  national  strategy  and 
policies. The Ministry of Health has also a very important role to play, as it is responsible for 
issues  related  to  occupational  health  (medicine)  and  the  monitoring  of  the  occupational 
medicine service. The bodies which serve to supervise and control the compliance with legal 
requirements are the National Labour Inspectorate, the State Sanitary Inspectorate, and other 
sector-specific authorities.  

20.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  scope  of  the  Framework  Directive  scope,  the  Polish  legislation  includes 
domestic  servants,  since  the  term  "employee"  is  defined  as  "an  individual  employed  on  the 
basis  of  a  contract,  appointment  (nomination),  choice  or  a  co-operative  contract  of 
employment".  Hence,  as  long  as  the  work  of  a  natural  person  is  based  on  any  of  the 
aforementioned  forms  of  employment,  the  activity  falls  within  the  scope  of  the  national 
legislation  transposing  the  Framework  Directive.  Poland  has  also  set  more  specific 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
requirements in relation to preventive and protective services. In particular, in instances where 
the employer employs more than 100 employees, it is compulsory for him to establish a work 
safety  and  hygiene  service.  If  the  number  of  workers  varies  between  100  and  600,  the 
employer is further obliged to establish a separate work safety and hygiene unit (operated by 
one or more individuals) or employ a person to perform the duties of the service. In instances 
where the employer employs more than 600 workers, one representative of the service must 
be employed on a full-time basis per every 600 workers. In instances where there are less than 
100 employees, the respective tasks are normally performed by a member of the staff.  

Finally, with regard to consultation of workers, national transposing legislation specifies that, 
in  instances  where  the  employer  employs  over  250  employees,  it  is  obliged  to  establish  an 
internal  ‘OSH  Commission’  (advisory  body).  The  Commission  consists  of  employers’ 
representatives (including the representatives of the work safety and hygiene service, and an 
occupational  physician)  and  the  representatives  of  employees  (including  the  social  labour 
inspector). Meetings of the Commission should not take place less frequently than once per 
every quarter of the year. 

In  relation  to  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display  screen  equipment),  the  definition  of  the  term 
"worker"  provided  in  the  main  national  implementing  ordinance  refers  to  a  habitual  use  of 
display screen equipment by a worker for at least half the time of his daily working routine (as 
opposed to the referral to a "significant part" in the directive).  

More stringent limit values are set with regard to Directive 2003/10/EC (noise), and also with 
regard  to  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or  mutagens)  in  the  national  implementing 
legislation. In relation to Directive 2004/37/EC, the transposing legislation obliges employers 
to keep a register of works the execution of which requires the employee to handle chemical 
agents, their preparations or technological processes with carcinogenic or mutagenic effects. 
The  employer  is  obliged  to  inform  the  territorially-due  sanitary  and  labour  inspector, 
immediately  after  the  commencement  of  business  activity  and,  ever  since  every  year.  The 
employer  is  obliged  to  keep  such  register  for  40  years.  Similar  requirements  are  set  in  the 
legislation transposing Directive 2000/54/EC (biological agents). 

20.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Poland is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for Poland shows a good level of compliance as regards the obligation to 
carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  67%  of  establishments  doing  so). 
According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  contracted  to  external 
providers  (60.8%).  ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety 
services used, be it in house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 94% of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
examinations  to  monitor  the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  very  high 
number  of  establishments  (98.2%)  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining 
responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The conclusions  of the external study on compliance are based primarily  on the findings  of 
ESENER1  survey,  supplemented  by  the  estimates  taken  up  in  the  reports  of  the  National 
Labour  Inspectorate  (for  certain  individual  OSH  Directives)  and  by  the  findings  of 
stakeholder interviews.  

The  study  assessed  that  in  general,  Polish  enterprises  formally  display  a  high  level  of 
compliance with due regulations, although certain reservations should be made with regard to 
the quality of the practical implementation of the CPMs. The study underlined that the least 
satisfactory is the situation in establishments employing less than 10 workers. It reported that 
the  National  Labour  Inspectorate,  in  reports  prepared  by  the  Chief  Labour  Inspector,  stated 
every  year  that  employers  often  have  a  very  formalistic  approach  and  do  not  sufficiently 
appreciate the importance of the CPMs in the creation of safe work conditions. One area that 
was ranked worst across all directives  was the consultation of workers, which, according to 
the  study,  largely  depends  on  the  size  of  establishments  and  the  existence  of  trade  unions 
(very rarely present in micro and small enterprises).   

20.4 Enforcement 

In Poland, both the National Labour Inspectorate and the State Sanitary Inspectorate supervise 
whether  OSH  provisions  (laid  down  mainly  in  the  Labour  Code  Act)  are  fulfilled  by  the 
employers. The former is subordinate to the lower House of Parliament and supervision of the 
inspectorate is exercised by the Labour Protection Council, whereas the latter is headed by the 
Chief  Sanitary  Inspector,  who,  contrary  to  the  Chief  Labour  Inspector,  is  a  body  of 
governmental administration. NLI is the main inspection body responsible for the supervision 
of compliance with labour law and regulations concerning work safety and hygiene, while the 
SSI  is  the  main  inspection  body  responsible  for  the  supervision  of  compliance  with  public 
health and environmental regulations as well as with sanitary conditions of the establishments. 
According  to  Article  283  of  the  Labour  Code,  failure  to  observe  the  provisions  and  rules 
which  govern  work  safety  and  hygiene  may  result  in  an  administrative  sanction,  that  is  an 
imposition of a  fine from PLN 1,000 (ca. € 250)  to  PLN 30 000 (ca.  € 7,500)  on the entity 
responsible for the offence. In  practice, this responsibility can concern any of the following 
entities:  the  employer,  person  in  charge  of  other  employees  or  an  employee  responsible  for 
work  safety  and  hygiene  at  the  workplace.  In  order  for  an  OSH  offence  to  arise  on 
administrative  grounds,  it  is  enough  for  an  entity  not  to  observe  the  provisions  and  rules, 
which  govern  work  safety  and  hygiene.  In  other  words,  it  does  not  matter  if  the  offence 

170 

 
 
 
 
endangers the health or life of an individual or whether it causes any material losses296.  

20.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Generally, in Poland, there are no specific legal measures adopted in order to assist SMEs and 
micro-  enterprises  in  the  implementation  of  OSH  requirements.  The  existing  measures  and 
accompanying actions are available for all enterprises, irrespective of their size. Nevertheless, 
measures  that  can  be  especially  relevant  to  SMEs  can  be  found  in  the  Polish  legislation 
transposing Directives 2002/44/EC (vibration), 2003/10/EC (noise), 2004/37/EC (carcinogens 
or  mutagens),  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents),  and  2009/148/EC  (asbestos).  In  addition,  the 
Central  Institute  of  Labour  Protection-  National  Research  Institute  (CIOP-  PIB)  is  the 
coordinator  and  main  executor  of  the  long-term  ‘Programme  for  the  improvement  of  work 
safety and work conditions’, under which several pieces of research were conducted and soft 
measures  have  been  elaborated.  The  latter  include,  in  particular,  guidelines,  control 
procedures, checklists, textbooks and IT applications297. 

21. PORTUGAL 

21.1 Legal Framework and competences 

Law 102/2009 of 10 September 2009 on the legal framework of the promotion of safety and 
health  at  work  -  as  amended  by  Law  3/2014  of  28  January  2014  –  is  the  main  piece  of 
legislation setting out the general OSH principles and requirements. Occupational health and 
safety  for  the  public  sector  is  covered  by  separate  laws,  which  are  Law  59/2008  of  11 
September 2008 approving the Scheme of Employment Contract in Public Functions and Law 
35/2014 of 20 June 2014 approving the General Law on Employment in Public Functions.  

The  requirements  of  the  remaining  directives  have  mainly  been  transposed  through  specific 
legislation,  which  are  further  implemented  or  regulated  by  other  pieces  of  legislation. 
Directive  2003/10/EC  (noise)  has  been  transposed  in  the  Decree  Law  182/2006  of  6 
September  2006,  and  also  in  the  regional  legal  order  of  Azores  by  Regional  Decree  Law 
23/2010/A  of  30  June  2010.  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  and  mutagens)  has  been 
transposed by the Decree-Law n. 301/2000 of 18 November 2000.  In the  field of Directive 
2004/20/EC (electromagnetic fields), Portugal considered that transposition was not necessary 
and  Law  30/2010  of  2  September  2010  regulates  the  mechanisms  and  defines  the  limits  of 
human  exposure  to  magnetic,  electrical  and  electromagnetic  fields  deriving  from  electrical 
lines, installations and equipment.  

Law  102/2009  applies  to  all  branches  of  activities  in  the  private  and  social  or  cooperative 
sectors,  to  workers  and  employers,  including  non-profit  organisations, and  to  self-employed 

296 See Table 5- 1 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Poland. 
297 See Table 7- 1 Overview of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary Report 
for Poland. 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
workers. 

In  Portugal,  employment  legislation  and  legislation  on  health  and  safety  at  work  are  a 
competence  of  the  Ministry  of  Solidarity,  Employment  and  Social  Security.    The  Ministry 
approves  and  implements  policies  related  to  employment,  vocational  and  qualification 
training,  labour  market  and  industrial  relations  through  the  Directorate-General  for 
Employment and Labour Relations and the Working Conditions Authority. The Directorate-
General  for  Employment  and  Labour  is  responsible  for  supporting  the  development  of 
policies, legislation and regulations on employment and vocational training and on industrial 
relations,  including  working  conditions  and  health,  safety  and  welfare  at  work.  It  is  also 
responsible  for  the  legal  framework  for  transposition  of  European  and  international  legal 
instruments  namely  the  OSH  Directives.  The  main  authority  with  competences  in  the 
framework  of  the  enforcement  and  implementation  of  the  directives  is  the  Working 
Conditions Authority.  

21.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  scope  of  the  legislation  transposing  the  Framework  Directive,  national 
legislation covers domestic workers and self-employed persons. The national legislation also 
sets  more  detailed  and/or  stringent  requirements  with  regard  to  risk  assessment,  preventive 
and protective services, worker information training and consultation and health surveillance. 
Additionally,  Law  102/2009  refers  to  psychosocial  risks,  providing  that  the  employer  must 
ensure that exposure to psychosocial risks is limited and that the safety and health of workers 
is  not  at  risk.  Furthermore,  the  national  legislation  specifies  the  reporting  requirements,  the 
authorities in  charge  of controls  at  the  workplace  and  sets  out  detailed provisions  regarding 
the appointment of OSH committees and representatives within companies.  

21.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Portugal is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. Concerning the 
provisions  referred  to  as  the  common  processes  and  mechanisms  (CPMs),  the  ESENER-2 
results for Portugal shows a  good level of compliance as regards the obligation to carry out 
workplace risk assessments regularly (with 77% of establishments doing so). According to the 
survey,  a  high  proportion  of  establishments  externalises  this  type  of  service  (68.5%).  
ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety  services  used,  be  it  in-
house or contracted externally.  

As  regards  health  surveillance  93%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their 
establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. 
The survey also indicates that a very high number of establishments (84%) make available to 
the  workers  a  document  explaining  responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A 
high proportion of establishments declared as well that training on how to manage health and 
safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about 
health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed  when considering the 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
thematic  coverage  of  the  training  provided  to  employees..  SME  and  microenterprises  were 
less likely to have the necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger 
establishments. 

The results of the external study as regards compliance are based on the ESENER -1 survey 
and on  “Relatório Único” (Single Report), which is an administrative information source that 
every  employer  -  working  on  the  mainland  of  Portugal  and in  the  private  sector  (the  public 
administration  is  not  bound  to  complete  the  report  and  it  also  does  not  cover  services  and 
agencies that fall within the scope public functions) is obliged to complete.  

On  the  basis  of  the  Single  Report,  the  study  assessed  a  very  low  degree  of  compliance  in 
relation to admission to medical examination, a medium degree of compliance in relation to 
periodical examination and a very low degree of compliance concerning training of workers. 
The  above  mentioned  results  differ  substantially  from  the  ones  assessed  in  ESENER-2  and 
ESENER-1 survey. However the study also mentioned that, on the basis of consultation with 
workers organisation, OSH experts and other stakeholders, data on compliance based on the 
Single  Report  were  deemed  to  be  not  accurate  and  representative  of  the  reality  by  different 
stakeholders. While for the private sector the study reported higher levels of compliance with 
the CPMs, in relation to the public sector it pointed out that the level of compliance with OSH 
legislation is generally considered to be low298. According to the study, this is due to a number 
of factors, in particular the lack of action on OSH in this sector, and of organized and fully 
implemented OSH services in most Public Administration entities.  

Furthermore 
the  study  underlined  coordination  problems  between  different  public 
organisations  in  order  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  occupational  health  and  safety  legal 
orientations299. 

 21.4 Enforcement 

The  main  authority  in  charge  of  OSH  legislation  enforcement  and  implementation  is  the 
Working  Conditions  Authority  (ACT),  which  is  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of 
Solidarity,  Employment  and  Social  Security  and  which  covers  all  directives,  with  the 
exception of Directive 92/29/EEC on medical treatment on board vessels. For this Directive, 
the  Directorate-General  of  Port,  Shipping  and  Maritime  Transport  enforces  relevant 
legislation.  This  Directorate-General  is,  together  with  the  ACT,  also  responsible  for  the 
enforcement of Directive 93/103/EC (work on board fishing vessels). The Directorate-General 
of  Health  is  in  charge  of  the  enforcement  of  OSH  legislation,  together  with  the  ACT,  of 

298  This  conclusion  is  based  on  a  study  by    Baptista  C.,  Anjos  C.,  Gago  da  Silva  M.:  Portuguese  Strategy  for 
Occupational Safety and Health 2008 - 2012 for Public Administration: Priorities for action, progress in the implementation 
of the proposed measures and their impact on occupational safety outcomes, INA, 2011. 

299 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Portugal. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
Directive  89/391/EEC  (Framework  Directive),  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or 
mutagens)  and  Directive  2000/54/EC  (biological  agents).  Finally,  Regional  Delegations  of 
Industry  and  Energy  enforce,  together  with  the  ACT  legislation  related  to  Directive 
industries)  and  Directive 
92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral-extracting 
92/91/EEC (mineral-extracting industries through drilling)300.  
In the case of very serious administrative offences or repeated serious administrative offences, 
which  are  committed  intentionally  or  with  gross  negligence,  the  sanctions  applied  to  the 
offender  are  published  in  website  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour;  in    case  the  administrative 
offences  above  are  committed  repeatedly,  the  offender  can  be  prohibited  of  exercising 
activities in the establishment, plant or site for a period of up to two years and/or prohibited of 
participating in public tenders for a period of up to two years301. 

21.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

There  are  no  specific  measures  adopted  by  the  Portuguese  national  authorities  in  order  to 
assist SMEs and micro-enterprises in the implementation of OSH requirements, other than the 
lighter  regime  concerning  OSH  activities  that  may  be  carried  out  by  the  employer  or 
designated worker(s) in undertakings of less than 10 workers and with no high risk activity. 
Apart from these, the rules are general and applied to all enterprises regardless of their size. 

However,  in  2010,  the  ACT  established  a  protocol,  together  with  the  Portuguese 
Confederation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (CPPME), which aimed to stimulate 
micro-enterprises and SMEs to comply with labour law and OSH requirements in particular. 
Under  this protocol,  the  ACT  is  able  to  support  and  fund  studies,  awareness raising  actions 
and  other  proposals  made  by  the  CPPME.  Additionally,  the  ACT  has  provided  financial 
support to employers and trade union structures to promote projects aimed at promoting safety 
and  health  at  work.  These  entities  have  developed  publications  to  disseminate  the  general 
principles of prevention of occupational risks, the duties and rights of employers and workers, 
as well as the methodologies for assessing occupational risks, which are placed at the disposal 
of enterprises and their workers, with special focus on micro- and small enterprises302.  

22. ROMANIA 

22.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

In Romania, the main act in the field of occupational health and safety is Law 319/2006 of 14 
July 2006 on Safety and Health at Work, which transposes Framework Directive 89/391/EEC 
('Law  319/2006').  Law  319/2006  is  implemented  through  the  Government  Decision 

300 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Portugal. 
301 See Table 5- 4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Portugal. 
302  See  Table  7-  2  Description  of  measures  targeting  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  of  the  Country  Summary 
Report for Portugal. 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
1425/2006,  Approving  Methodological  Norms  for  the  Implementation  of  Law  319/2006 
('Government  Decision  1425/2006').  Particular  aspects  related  to  health  surveillance,  fire-
fighting  at  work  and  emergency  situations  are  regulated  by  separate  laws,  government 
decisions  and  methodological  norms.  The  individual  EU  OSH  Directives  are  transposed 
through  specific  Government  Decisions.  Directive  92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding 
workers) is transposed through a Governmental Ordinance and a Government Decree, while 
Directive  91/383/EEC  (temporary  workers)  is  transposed  through  two  Government  Decrees 
and the Labour Code.  

Law  319/2006  applies  to  every  employer,  worker  and  workers’  representative  and  to  all 
sectors, both private and public. 

The Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly together with the Ministry 
of  Health  are  the  central  authorities  having  specific  attributions  in  the  field  of  health  and 
safety at work. Generally, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly is 
mainly focused on ensuring the necessary legal and institutional framework for the protection 
of  safety  at  work,  while  the  Ministry  of  Health  is  primarily  responsible  for  ensuring  the 
necessary  protection  of  health  at  work.  The  Labour  Inspection  is  the  competent  authority 
regarding the enforcement of legislation on health and safety at work; 

22.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  scope  of  the  Framework  Directive,  Law  319/2006  contains  a  broader 
definition  of  the  term  "worker"  which  has  been  extended  to  "other  participants  to  the  work 
process" (that is to say people at the company and/or establishment with the permission of the 
employer  during  the  preliminary  verification  of  the  professional  skills  for  employment; 
persons  visiting;  people  providing  community  services  or  activities  on  a  voluntary  basis; 
unemployed persons  during their professional  retraining  or refresher engaged  in  the activity 
for  which  they  are  prepared;  people  who  do  not  have  a  work  contract  concluded  in  written 
form, and for whom the contractual provisions and the services performed can be proven by 
any other means of evidence). The Government Decision 1425/2006 regulates in more detail 
the content of the risk assessment process and defines, in implementation of Article 7 (8) of 
the  Framework  Directive,  the  capabilities  and  aptitudes  that  must  be  fulfilled  by  the 
designated workers or the external services or persons in the area of safety at work and their 
training.  With  regard  to  workers'  information,  a  health  and  safety  committees  must  be 
organized  and  must  function  at  the  employer’s  level.  This  is,  however,  not  compulsory  for 
undertakings  employing  less  than  50  workers.  As  regards  training,  Government  Decision 
1425/2006 provides that the interval between two training sessions may not be longer than 6 
months.  Training  shall  be  repeated  in  addition  to  that  periodically  programmed  in  case  of 
occurrence of amendments of health and safety norms.  

With  regard  to  Directive  2003/10/EC  (noise),  national  legislation  establishes  a  list  of  the 
maximum values of noise for specific jobs involving neuro-psychical fatigue and increased or 
special psycho-sensorial fatigue.  

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In relation to Directive 2004/37/EC (carcinogens or mutagens), more stringent requirements 
are set in relation to health surveillance, which must be performed prior to exposure, as well 
as at regular intervals thereafter, independently of whether or not this is "appropriate" (while 
the Directive sets out in Article 14 (2) that each worker shall be able to undergo such health 
surveillance "if appropriate").  

With regard to Directive 92/85/EEC (pregnant/breastfeeding workers), transposing legislation 
obliges  employers  to  submit  the  risk  assessment  to  the  occupational  physician  from  the 
territorial  public  health  authority  as  well  as  to  the  territorial  labour  inspectorate  within  5 
working days as of the date when the risk assessment was drafted. The risks to be taken into 
account in the assessment are set forth more specifically in the Methodological Norms for the 
enforcement of the provisions on maternity protection303. 

22.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The  information  on  compliance  for  Romania  is  based  exclusively  on  the  findings  of  the 
ESENER-2 survey. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2  results  for  Romania  shows  a  very  good  level  of  compliance  as  regards  the 
obligation  to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  89%  of  establishments 
doing  so).  According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  contracted  to 
external  providers  (55.9%).  ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and 
safety  services  used,  be  it  in-house  or  contracted  externally.  As  regards  health  surveillance 
91%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular 
medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. The survey indicates that a very 
high number of establishments (98%) make available to the workers a document explaining 
responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  medium/  high  proportion  of 
establishments  declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was 
performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and 
safety  in  the  establishment).  Differences  could  be  observed  when  considering  the  thematic 
coverage of the training provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less likely to 
have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in  place  as  compared  with  larger 
establishments. 

22.4 Enforcement  

In  Romania,  the  enforcement  of  OSH  legislation  is  attributed  to  two  authorities.  While  the 
Territorial  Labour  Inspectorates  are  the  main  interface  for  the  enforcement  of  the  OSH 
obligations  and  are  primarily  oriented  towards  the  control  and  sanctioning  of  the 
undertakings, Public Health Directorates are primarily focused on offering to all stakeholders 
holding an interest in this field the necessary counselling, guidance and technical expertise in 

303 Government Decision No 537/2004 approving the Methodological Norms for the application of Government 
Emergency Order No 96/2003 on maternity protection at workplaces. 

176 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
order  to  determine  the  proper  means  for  ensuring  an  effective  protection  of  the  workers’ 
health  at  the  workplace.  With  regard  to  the  two  Fishing  Vessels  Directives,  the  Romanian 
Naval  Authority  has  the  main  responsibility  with  regard  to  inspection,  control  and 
supervision304.  
When  an  infringement  of  OSH  legislation  is  established, the  labour/public  health  inspectors 
draft  a  formal  report  on  the  infringement.  On  this  basis,  the  inspectors  can  order  specific 
remediation  measures,  administrative  sanctions  (warning  or  administrative  fine)  and/or 
complementary  administrative  measures  (such  as  cessation  of  using  specific  equipment, 
temporary suspension of activity etc.). Also, the inspectors can file a complaint to the criminal 
authorities in case the infringement has a criminal nature. The Romanian legislation therefore 
sets both criminal and administrative sanctions for non-compliance with OSH requirements. 
Administrative fines generally range from approx. EUR 1,100 to approx. EUR 2,200, while 
the maximum time of imprisonment seems to be 3 years. 

22.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

Romanian legislation is not particularly focused on SMEs and micro-enterprises from an OSH 
perspective. The main OSH obligations (such as drafting a risk evaluation, elaborating health 
and safety instructions) are the same for all undertakings, irrespective of its size, the sector of 
activity and the risks which can be associated therewith. The only legal differentiation, which 
could  be  construed  as  a  lighter  regime  for  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises,  is  related  to  the 
manner  in  which  undertakings  can  organize  the  services  of  protection  and  prevention,  in 
which case specific differences in regime are made depending on the size of the enterprise305. 
Stakeholders have indicated that they are not aware of specific financial supporting programs 
dedicated to SMEs. 

23. SLOVAK REPUBLIC 

23.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

In  Slovakia,  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  is  transposed  through  the  Act  No. 
124/2006 on Occupational Safety and Health ("OSH Law"). Due to the traditional distinction 
between workplace safety and health at work, protection of health is regulated in chapter three 
of  the  separate  Act  No.  355/2007  on  the  protection,  promotion  and  development  of  public 
health ("Public Health Act").  

The  large  majority  of  the  EU  OSH  individual  directives  has  been  transposed  by  individual 
Government  Regulations.  The  only  exception  is  Council  Directive  91/383/EEC  (temporary 
workers), which is transposed by way of specific provisions in the Labour Code. The Labour 
Code  also  transposes  partially  Council  Directive  94/33/EC  (young  people  at  work)  and 
Directive  92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding  workers).  The Public Health Act also contains 
general requirements on the protection of workers against physical and chemical risks, which 

304 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Romania. 
305 See National Implementation Report 2013, Part A, Section II, (EN) p. 21-22. 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
partially  transposes  the  relevant  directives,  although  these  general  requirements  are 
complemented by specific Government Regulations. 

The legislation in the area of OSH covers all sectors, without distinction, including the public 
sectors.  

In Slovakia, occupational safety and health issues fall within the competence of the Ministry 
of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family  of  the  Slovak  Republic  (‘Ministry  of  Labour’),  while 
occupational health issues are covered by the Ministry of Health. Employment legislation and 
legislation  on  occupational  safety  and  health  are  a  competence  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour. 
Decisions about the implementation of OSH laws are thus taken and adopted by the Slovak 
Government. Moreover, this Ministry is responsible for the preparation and implementation of 
state  policy  documents,  such  as  the  national  Occupational  Health  and  Safety  Strategy.  The 
National Labour Inspectorate is a state administration body with nation-wide competence that 
oversees  tasks  concerning  labour  inspection,  manages  and  supervises  the  Regional  Labour 
Inspectorates (8), and unites and rationalizes their working methods, acting under the Ministry 
of Labour.  

23.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With regard to the scope of the Framework Directive, the national transposing legislation sets 
forth a broader definition of the term "employer", as it does not include the condition related 
to having the responsibility for the undertaking laid down in that directive. Also, according to 
the  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Act,  occupational  safety  and  health  requirements  also 
apply  to  self-employed  persons  to  the  extent  necessary  to  ensure  occupational  safety  and 
health in relation to the nature of the activities they perform. 

In general, the Occupational Safety and Health Act sets forth more detailed requirements than 
the Framework Directive, aiming at a concrete implementation in practice of that directive's 
general  principles  and  requirements.  For  example,  with  regard  to  the  protective  and 
preventive  referred  to  in  Article  7  thereof,  an  employer  who  employs  more  than  100 
employees  must  establish  a  Commission  for  safety  and  health  protection  at  work  as  his 
advisory  body.  Also,  that  law  further  specifies  the  content  and  form  of  information  to 
workers.  

Regarding  Directive  89/656/EEC  (PPE),  more  detailed  requirements  are  laid  down  in  the 
national transposing legislation. All documents related to the purchase of PPE must be made 
available to the Safety Technical Service and OSH Committee. Moreover, an instruction note 
must be provided with instructions on the functioning, use, maintenance, storage, end date and 
inspections of the PPE.  

With  regard  to  Directive  90/269/EEC  (manual  handling  of  loads),  the  Slovak  legislation 
specifies  that  the  "load"  includes  humans  and  animals.  Additional  measures  on  work  with 
loads  are  also  included  reflecting  occupational  safety  and  health  regulations  adopted  before 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the transposition of the Directive.  

With regard to Directive 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment), Article 9 of that directive is 
transformed into the employer’s obligation to arrange for assessments of the medical fitness 
of workers to work with display screen equipment and the content of these preventive medical 
examinations for workers working with display screen equipment is laid down in Annex 6 to 
the  Instruction  published  in  the  Journal  of  the  Ministry  of  Health,  Volume  58,  on  1  March 
2010.  More  detailed  requirements  in  relation  to  the  eye  tests  referred  to  in  Article  9,  which 
must be repeated every two years (whereas the directive refers to "regular intervals").  

With  regard  to  Directive  2002/44/EC  (vibration),  the  Slovak  legislation  sets  additional 
requirements  in  relation to  risk assessment, health  surveillance,  consultation  of workers and 
other  key  requirements.  Very  similar  requirements  have  been  noted  with  regard  to  the 
legislation transposing Directive 2003/10/EC (noise).  

With  regard  to  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or  mutagens),  the  Slovak  legislation 
prohibits the use of carcinogens and mutagens in teaching at primary and secondary schools, 
while  the  use  of  carcinogens  and  mutagens  at  higher-education  institutions  and  research 
institutions  is  subject  to  an  assessment  by  a  public  health  body.  With  regard  to  Directive 
98/24/EC  (chemical  agents  at  work),  the  Slovak  legislation  sets  additional  requirements  in 
relation  to  risk  assessment,  information  for  workers  and  consultation  of  workers.  It  also 
includes  more  stringent 
implementing  Directive 
2009/148/EC  (asbestos)  is  more  detailed  in  respect  of  risk  assessment,  health  surveillance, 
and other key requirements.  

limit  values.  National 

legislation 

Finally,  Slovakia  has  transposed  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  94/33/EC  (young  people  at 
work) into national law and supplemented them to include the obligation to draw up a list of 
work and workplaces that are prohibited to young workers.  

23.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The  information  on  compliance  for  the  Slovak  Republic  is  based,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the 
findings of the ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for the Slovak Republic shows a moderate level of compliance as regards 
the obligation to carry out workplace risk assessments regularly (with 59% of establishments 
doing  so).  According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  contracted  to 
external  providers  (54.8%).  ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and 
safety  services  used,  be  it  in-house  or  contracted  externally.  As  regards  health  surveillance 
60%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular 
medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. The survey indicates that a very 
high number of establishments (97.4%) make available to the workers a document explaining 
responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The conclusions of the external study on compliance are based on the annual reports of labour 
inspection  and  on  interviews  with  relevant  OSH  stakeholders.  For  all  CPMs,  the  degree  of 
compliance  is  estimated  between  medium  to  high.  In  terms  of  effective  risk  assessment 
performance  and  carrying  out  of  risk  management  activities  resulting  from  the  risk 
assessment,  the  study  pointed  out  that  many  employers  do  not  perform  risk  assessment 
because they are not persuaded that it can help them to decrease the amount of work accidents 
or improve working conditions. It further reported that in micro-companies risk assessment is 
rarely performed, and where it is performed, only formally.  A higher degree of compliance in 
the OSH field was assessed in large undertakings as opposed to SMEs.  

Furthermore, the study reported that, on the basis of the interviews with inspectors from the 
National  Labour  Inspectorate,  compliance  was  found  higher  in  the  public  sector  compared 
with  the  private  sector.  According  to  the  study,  an  explanation  may  lay  in  the  increased 
responsibility  of  public  institutions  (public  administration  and  government)  for  compliance 
with the laws and obligations in the field of OSH306. 

23.4 Enforcement 

The  National  Labour  Inspectorate  manages  and  controls  the  eight  regional  labour 
inspectorates and unifies and rationalises working methods of the labour inspectors, who are 
civil  servants.  Inspections  aim  at  adherence  to  legal  provisions  in  several  fields  of  OSH: 
safety  at  work,  safety  of  technical  equipment,  working  environment  agents,  nuclear 
equipment, major industrial accidents, chemicals, and market surveillance of certain products. 
The National Labour Inspectorate works closely together with the Public Health Authority of 
the Slovak Republic. The Public Health Authority supervises the performance of occupational 
health  services  and  carries  out  specialized  tasks  focused  on  monitoring  of  health  status  of 
employees  in  relation  with  working  conditions.  In  addition,  the  State  Mining  Office  is  the 
competent  authority  ensuring  performance  in  the  area  of  state  mining  administration.  State 
defence, police and armed forces have their own labour inspection bodies.  

The legislation only sets administrative sanctions for non-compliance with OSH requirements. 
These  administrative  sanctions  include  imposed  fines  up  to  200,000  EUR  in  relation  to  the 
OSH  Directives  falling  under  the  authority  of  the  National  Labour  Inspectorate,  and  fines 
from 1,659 EUR to 33,193 EUR in relation to those OSH Directives transposed through the 

306 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for the Slovak Republic. 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Public  Health  Act.  Neither  the  Criminal  Code  nor  any  other  legal  regulation  provides  for 
criminal  sanctions  for  violation  of  OSH  regulations.  In  addition,  labour  inspectors  are 
authorised  to  prohibit  certain  works,  to  order  the  elimination  of  certain  deficiencies,  to 
propose certain measures, depending on the gravity of the ascertained facts307. 

23.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

In the Slovak republic, certain exemptions are applicable to smaller enterprises depending on 
the number of workers. For smaller companies, there is, e.g., no obligation to set up an OSH 
Commission  or  to  prepare  a  written  corporate  OSH  policy.  There  are  no  further  financial 
measures directed towards micro-companies and SMEs308. 

24. SLOVENIA 

24.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

In  Slovenian  law,  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC  is  transposed  by  the  "Health  and 
Safety at Work Act" ('OSH Act'). The other OSH individual Directives have been transposed 
into the Slovenian legal order through one specific piece of legislation, typically Rules, which 
are  adopted on  the  basis  of  the  OSH  Act.  Directives  92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground 
mineral-extracting  industries),  93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels),  92/85/EEC 
(pregnant/breastfeeding workers) and 94/33/EC (young people at work) have been transposed 
through  several  pieces  of  primary  and  secondary  legislation.  Directive  2004/40/EC 
(electromagnetic fields) has not been transposed. 

The  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  Act  applies  to  every  employer  who  employs  at  least  one 
worker, to every person that is present in the work process, to the private sector and to public 
services. 

The  two  main  competent  authorities  are  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Family,  Social  Affairs  and 
Equal  Opportunities  and  the  Ministry  of  Health.  Two  advisory  bodies,  the  Economic  and 
Social Council and the Council for Safety and Health at Work, support the government.  

The  Labour  Inspectorate  within  the  Ministry  of  Labour  is  responsible  for  the  supervision  of  the 
implementation of the OSH Act and of the regulations as on safety and health at work. 

24.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  scope  of  the  Framework  Directive,  the  definition  of  the  term  "employer"  is 
broader, as that term covers a person who on any other legal basis ensures work to a worker, 
as  well  as  a  natural  person  who  performs  a  gainful  or  other  activity.    Provisions  relating  to 

307 See Table 5- 1Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for the Slovak Republic. 
308  See  Table  7-  1  Description  of  measures  targeting  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  of  the  Country  Summary 
Report for the Slovak Republic. 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
risk  assessment  are  more  detailed  in  national  legislation,  which  expressly  provides  in 
particular that third-party violence and all forms of psychosocial risks must be included in the 
risk  assessment.  Risk  assessment  must  be  revised  every  time  the  preventive  protection 
measures  in  place  are  insufficient  or  no  longer  adequate,  data  or  information  on  which  the 
assessment was based is no longer valid or the assessment can be improved or complemented. 
The employer is required to publish the risk assessment document in the ordinary manner and 
communicate it to workers in the part applicable to them following each revision or review, as 
well  as  to  the  newly-employed  and  all  other  persons  present  at  the  workplace  upon  the 
commencement of work. The information to be provided to workers is also regulated in more 
detail.  

With regard to Directive 92/58/EEC, the Rules on Health and Safety at Work Signs309 were 
supplemented  in  2010  with  reference  to  Directive  2006/25/EC  (artificial  optical  radiation), 
with a special safety sign (‘Optična sevanja’/Optical radiation) being added that is not set out 
in the Directive. The aim is to give workers clearer and more detailed information on those 
areas in which there is a danger of exposure to artificial optical radiation. 

In  relation  to  Directive  2003/10/EC  (noise),  practical  guidelines  have  been  prepared  for 
workers  and  employers  in  the  music  and  entertainment  sector,  as  provided  in  that directive. 
The  Slovenian  transposing  legislation  sets  forth  more  details  on  the  measurement  methods 
and procedures for the risk assessment.  

In  relation  to  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or  mutagens),  Slovenia  has  adopted  more 
protective provisions with regard to occupational exposure limit values and with regard to the 
safety  data  sheets.  This  is  also  the  case  for  the  legislation  transposing  Directive  98/24/EC 
(chemical agents), which establishes occupational exposure limit values for other substances 
than  set  at  EU  level.  With  regard  to  the  risk  assessment,  the  employer  must  submit  to  the 
Labour Inspectorate all information on the concentration of hazardous chemical agents at the 
workplace.  

24.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Slovenia is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2  results  for  Slovenia  shows  a  very  good  level  of  compliance  as  regards  the 
obligation  to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  94%  of  establishments 
doing  so).  According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  contracted  to 
external providers (87.1%). ESENER-2 shows very high levels of uptake for health and safety 
services used, be it in house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 97% of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 

309 Ur. list RS, 89/99, 39/05, 34/10.  

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
examinations  to  monitor  the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  very  high 
number  of  establishments  (98%)  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining 
responsibilities and procedures on health and safety. A very high proportion of establishments 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 
The  results  of  the  external  study  on  compliance  are  based  on  the  annual  reports  from  the 
labour  inspectorate  for  2012,  on  data  from  the  ESENER-1  survey  and  on  stakeholder 
interviews. The study assessed that the level of compliance with CPMs considering the OSH 
acquis  as  a  whole  is  generally  high  (between  60  and  79%),  with  the  exception  of  the 
appointment  of  a  workers’  representative  and  the  provision  of  information  to  workers.  It 
pointed  out  that  larger  companies  have  safety  sections  and/or  experts  employed  and 
responsible for OSH and invest substantial time, personnel and financial resources in creating 
a healthy and safe working environment., while smaller and especially micro-companies often 
neglect OSH because of their lack of resources.  The study further assessed that, with regard 
to  the  risk  assessment,  RA  documents  in  larger  companies  are  generally  based  on  insider 
analysis  of  a  specific  situation  in  companies,  while  smaller  employers  usually  outsource 
preparation of risk assessment, leading to only minimal OSH standards310. 

24.4 Enforcement 

Supervision over the implementation of the OSH Act and other regulations governing OSH, 
and the safety measures specified in general acts of the employer or collective agreements are 
carried out by the Labour Inspectorate, under the authority of the Ministry of Labour, Family, 
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. The Energy and Mining Inspectorate is in charge of 
mining operations and underground construction works using mining operation methods. The 
Port  State  Control  carries  out  supervision  on  commercial  seagoing  vessels  entered  in  the 
Slovene  Ship  Register,  with  the  exception  of  supervision  on  fishing  vessels.  The  body 
competent  for  aviation  safety  supervises  aviation  operations  and  other  airborne  aviation 
activities  and  the  inspectorate  competent  for  protection  against  natural  and  other  disasters 
supervises  the  implementation  of  fire  safety,  rescue  and  evacuation  measures.  The 
enforcement  body  competent  for  health  and  safety  issues  and  the  procedures  in  case  of 
infringement in the public sector is the same as in the private sector311.   

The Slovenian legislation sets both criminal and administrative sanctions for non-compliance 
with  OSH  requirements.  Administrative  sanctions  are,  depending  on  the  type  of  violation, 
directed  towards  the  employer,  the  employer’s  responsible  person  committing  the  violation, 
the  worker, the  self-employer  person,  or  the  legal  entity.  The  fines  range  from  100  EUR  to 
40.000  EUR.  It  is  possible  to  bring  a  case  to  the  Administrative  Court  against  the  final 

310 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Slovenia. 
311 See Table 5- 1Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Slovenia. 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
decision  in  the  administrative  procedure.  Criminal  sanctions  relate  to  causing  danger  to 
human life and/or resulting in serious injury and vary between less than one year and up to 
eight years imprisonment. Prison sentences up to two or three years are laid down with regard 
to harassment in the workplace. It is possible to bring a case to the Offense court against the 
final decision issued in offense proceedings. The Labour Court has jurisdiction in individual 
labour  disputes  concerning  the  rights  and  obligations  of  industrial  property  arising  between 
workers and employers on the basis of the employment relationship312. 

24.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

In  Slovenia,  the  only  lighter  regime  having  SMEs  in  mind  relates  to  the  number  of  safety 
officers that have to be present in the enterprise. This number shall depend on the size of the 
enterprise. Even though there are generally no other exemptions, lighter regime or incentives 
aimed  to  assist  SMEs  in  implementing  the  requirements  of  the  OSH  directives,  some 
specificity can be found. The OSH law explicitly allows for employers to carry out health and 
safety at work tasks themselves. The purpose of this provision is primarily to allow smaller 
employers whose work process involves less dangerous activities to compile a risk assessment 
themselves and to adopt appropriate measures where required, to attend to the safety at work 
training  of  workers  and  issue  appropriate  instructions  on  safety  at  work  themselves,  and  to 
perform other tasks to ensure OSH at work. However, the trade union respondents as well as 
the representatives of the national authorities qualified this practice as a risk to OSH in SMEs 
and micro-enterprises313. 

25. SPAIN 

25.1 Legal Framework and competences 

In Spain, the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC is mainly transposed by Law 31/1995 on the 
Prevention  of  Work-Related  Risks,  which  establishes  the  general  principles  for  health 
monitoring of all workers, with the exception of domestic workers and self-employed.  

Law  31/1995  is  complemented  by  various  Decrees  and  some  general  Laws.  Some  of  these 
Decrees  are  complemented  by  Technical  Instructions  (see  e.g.  the  transposition  of  Council 
Directive  92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral-extracting  industries))  and  Orders 
(see  e.g.  the  transposition  of  Council  Directive  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board 
vessels)). Finally, provisions transposing the three directives on specific groups of vulnerable 
workers  (Directives  92/85/EEC  (pregnant/breastfeeding  workers),  91/383/EEC  (temporary 
workers), and 94/33/EC (young people at work)) are incorporated directly in the Law 31/1995 
and their transposition is further complemented by one or more specific decrees.  

312 See Table 5- 4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Slovenia. 
313 See Table 7- 1Overview of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary Report 
for Slovenia. 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
In Spain, employment and OSH legislation are a competence of the Ministry of Employment 
and  Social  Security.  OSH  Laws  are  enacted  at  national  level  by  the  Parliament  and 
implemented through various mechanisms such as Royal Decrees which are among the most 
important  means  of  enactment.  Regional  authorities  (Autonomous  Communities)  and  local 
municipalities  may  establish  regional/local  departments  to  deal  with  OSH  issues.  However, 
the national laws are generally implemented by the authorities in the seventeen Autonomous 
Communities (Comunidades Autónomas) under the surveillance of the central authorities. 

25.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With regard to the scope of the legislation transposing the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, 
for  the  specific  activities  referred  to  in  Article  2  (2)  of  Directive  89/391/EEC,  e.g.  police, 
security,  armed  forces  and  military  activities,  as  well  as  civil  protection,  separate  acts  have 
been  adopted  to  cover  workers  performing  these  activities.  Additional  or  more  specific 
requirements are set in relation to risk assessment, preventive and protective services, and the 
content and form of information related to workers’ and training. The content, methodology 
and persons responsible for the risk assessment are laid down in more detail.  

The national legislation requires the Spanish National Institute for Health and Safety at Work 
(Instituto  Nacional  de  Seguridad  e  Higiene  en  el  Trabajo/'INSHT'),  which  belongs  to  the 
Ministry of Labour, to develop and update a technical guide on the evaluation and prevention 
of risks addressed in the national legislation transposing the EU OSH individual Directives.  

Also, the national legislation establishes that where as a result of health surveillance, a worker 
is found to have an identifiable disease or adverse health effect which is considered to be the 
result  of  exposure  to  risks  addressed  in  the  national  legislation  transposing  the  EU  OSH 
Directives, the employer is required to review the risk assessment carried out as well as the 
measures aimed at eliminating or reducing the risk. The employer is also required to consider 
the recommendations provided by the health surveillance department and provide continuous 
monitoring of the health of the concerned worker as well as other workers that may have been 
similarly exposed. 

25.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The  information  on  compliance  for  Spain  is  based,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the  findings  of  the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study.  Concerning 
the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the ESENER-2 
results for Spain show a very good level of compliance as regards the obligation to carry out 
workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  89%  of  establishments  doing  so).    According  to 
the  survey,  a  high  proportion  of  establishments  externalises  this  type  of  service  (78%). 
ESENER-2 shows high levels of uptake for health and safety services used, be it in-house or 
contracted externally.  

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As  regards  health  surveillance  93%  of  the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their 
establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. 
The survey also indicates that a very high number of establishments (96%) make available to 
the  workers  a  document  explaining  responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A 
very high proportion of establishments declared as well that training on how to manage health 
and  safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most 
about  health  and  safety  in  the  establishment).  Differences  could  be  observed  when 
considering  the  thematic  coverage  of  the  training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and 
microenterprises were less likely to have the necessary OSH management structure in place as 
compared with larger establishments. 

Very  high  levels  of  compliance  with  the  CPMs  were  reported  as  well  through  the  external 
study, which based its conclusion on the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate Annual Reports 
and on several stakeholders' surveys. It also highlighted that SMEs have major shortcomings 
in  complying  with  basic  OSH  requirements  (with  exception  of  the  requirements  established 
by  Council  Directive  89/656/EEC  (PPE)),  in  particular  regarding  risk  assessment,  workers 
participation in training, and specifically in primary sectors such as agriculture, livestock and 
construction.  It  finally  pointed  out  that  Spanish  legislation  was  recently  adapted  to  ensure 
better compliance of SMEs with the OSH requirements314. 

25.4 Enforcement 

The main authority in charge of OSH legislation enforcement is the Ministry of Employment 
and Social Security. Under the responsibility of this Ministry, the Labour and Social Security 
Inspectorate LSSI (Inspección de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, ITSS) is responsible for general 
labour  relations  and  compliance  with  social  security  regulations  and  also  observes  and 
controls  risk  prevention  regulations.  Despite  being  a  national  authority,  the  labour 
inspectorate  is  organised  in  local  branches:  each  of  the  50  provinces  has  teams  of  labour 
inspectors. They follow Action Plans that are set up by the governments of the Autonomous 
Communities. These action plans define priorities as well as inspection goals. 
With  regard  to  Council  Directive  92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral-extracting 
industries) and Council Directive 92/91/EEC (mineral-extracting industries through drilling), 
the  General  Directorate  of  Mines  (MINETUR),  under  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of 
Industry, Energy and Tourism, is responsible for improving safety in mining workplaces, as 
well as promoting technological development and competitiveness of the mining sector. 

All  infringements  concerning  OSH  requirements  are  typified  in  Royal  Legislative  Decree 
5/2000  of  4  August  2000,  which  establishes  fines  and  infringements  concerning  the  social 
order,  which  also  includes  OSH  compliance.  This  RD  establishes  that  minor  OSH 
infringements  shall  prescribe  after  one  year,  major  infringement  shall  prescribe  after  three 

314 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Spain. 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
years,  and  severe  infringement  shall  prescribe  after  five  years,  from  the  date  of  the 
infringement. Furthermore, Royal Decree 597/2007 of 4 May 2007 establishes the procedure 
of publication of penalties for severe infringements concerning OSH.  

According  to  Article  26  of  Royal  Decree  928/1988,  of  14  May,  amending  the  General 
Regulation on procedures for the Imposition of sanctions for social and labour infringements 
as  well  as  Article  53  of  the  OSH  Law,  it  is  established  that  the  Central  Government  or,  if 
applicable,  the  Regional  governments,  when  exceptionally  serious  breaches  in  safety  and 
health at work occur, may order the suspension of work activities for a specified time or, in 
extreme cases, the closure of the corresponding work place without prejudice to the payment 
of  wages  or  compensations  and  the  procedures for  their  guarantee.  However,  these  “serious 
breaches” or/ and “extreme cases” are not typified in the regulations315. 

25.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

A considerable number of measures have been taken to assist SMEs and facilitate fulfilment 
of  their  statutory  obligations,  and  these  measures  have  taken  various  forms.  First,  the  OSH 
Law  and  the  OSH  RD  define  the  categories  of  establishments  where  the  employer  has  the 
necessary capacity and can personally assume certain functions – in line with the Framework 
Directive. The OSH administrative procedures for SMEs have also been simplified in order to 
facilitate compliance with OSH requirements. Also, occupational risk prevention management 
has been simplified and now it is possible that those enterprises with less than 50 workers also 
implement occupational risk prevention plan, risk assessment and preventive activity planning 
in  a  simplified  manner,  provided  that  this  does  not  entail  any  reduction  in  the  level  of 
protection for the health and safety of workers. Financially, small companies have access to a 
reduction in their contribution – under certain conditions – when they improve the prevention 
of accidents at the workplace316. 

Between 2007 and 2012, the National Institute of Hygiene and Safety at Work (INSHT), in 
collaboration  with  the  Autonomous  Communities,  has  launched  "Prevención  10",  a  free 
public  advice  service  on  prevention  of  occupational  risks  for  micro  companies  and  self-
employed. This is an important tool to help employers and self-employed learn the measures 
to be taken in order to prevent occupational risks and comply with the Law on Occupational 
Risks Prevention. 

26. SWEDEN 

26.1 Legal Framework and Competences 

The  main  legal  act  that  governs  occupational  health  and  safety  in  Sweden  is  the  Work 
Environment Act (WEA), which is a framework law.  

315 See Table 5- 1 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for Spain. 
316 See Table 7- 2 Description of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary 
Report for Spain. 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  Swedish  Work  Environment  Authority  is  authorized  to  issue  and  enforce  secondary 
regulations.  These  secondary  regulations  are  compiled  in  the  Authority's  own  Statute  Book 
(Arbetsmiljöverkets författnings samling, AFS) which defines more closely the requirements 
to be met concerning the work environment. As a rule, the EU OSH individual directives are 
all  transposed  through  a  specific  AFS.  The  only  exception  is  the  transposition  of  Directive 
93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels),  which  is  transposed  through  a  large  number  of 
secondary  regulations. Most  of  the  AFS  are  further  complemented  by  several  other  specific 
regulations. 

The  Work  Environment  Act  applies  to  all  sectors  without  distinction,  including  the  public 
sector and to all enterprises, irrespective of size.  

The Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA), which includes the labour inspection, is 
responsible  for  specifying  the  requirements  of  the  Work  Environment  Act  (WEA)  and  for 
promoting their implementation. The Ministry of Employment only occasionally intervenes in 
this process. SWEA is thus the key actor responsible for the transposition of EU Directives on 
the  work  environment.  With  regard  to  Directives  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board 
vessels)  and  93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels),  the  Swedish  Transport  Agency 
supervises all shipping vessels, including working conditions on ships/vessels. 

26.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With regard to the scope of the Framework Directive, the Swedish legislation applies to every 
activity in  which  employees perform work on  behalf of an employer, including to domestic 
servants. In addition, the following persons are to be treated as employees  for the purposes of 
parts of the national legislation : persons undergoing education or training, with the exception 
of  children  in  preschool  and  pupils  in  out-of-school  centres;  persons  in  institutional  care 
performing  work  that  they  have  been  assigned;  persons  serving  under  the  National  Total 
Defence Service Act (1994:1809) and other persons performing duties prescribed by an act or 
voluntarily  participating  in  education  or  training  for  activities  within  the  scope  of  the  total 
defence. As regards the territorial scope, the national legislation also applies to work on ships 
even  when  a  Swedish  ship  is  used  for  maritime  transport  outside  the  territorial  waters  of 
Sweden.  Generally,  the  Swedish  legislation  includes  more  detailed  requirements  than  the 
Framework Directives as employers need to integrate OHS within their general management 
control and as their OHS provisions are then improved through yearly audits. 

With  regard  to  Directive  90/269/EEC  (manual  handling  of  loads),  the  Swedish  transposing 
legislation  covers  all  risks  within  musculoskeletal  ergonomics,  all  combination  of  work 
movements,  postures,  positions  and  workloads.  The  scope  of  that  legislation  is  hence  much 
broader,  with  the  handling  of  loads  constituting  a  part  of  that  legislation.  The  Swedish 
legislation also provides that risks are to be assessed alone and in combination, with particular 
notion  of  their  duration,  intensity  and  frequency.  More  detailed  provisions  are  set  out  in 
relation to the content of information for workers and the scope of training of workers. 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With regard to Directive 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment), some of the items excluded 
from the scope of that directive are included in the Swedish legislation, such as drivers’ cabs 
or  control  cabs  for  vehicles  or  machinery,  computer  systems  on  board  a  means  of  transport 
and computer systems mainly intended for public use. Also, the national legislation sets more 
detailed provisions on risk assessment, which is to be reviewed once a year. Eyesight tests at 
regular intervals are also foreseen for all employees who normally work more than one hour 
per day at display screens. 

In  relation  to  Directive  2004/37/EC  (carcinogens  or  mutagens),  national  implementing 
legislation  sets  more  detailed  provisions  on  risk  assessment,  information  for  workers  and 
health  surveillance.  The  transposing  legislation  also  sets  more  stringent  limit  values  for 
benzene, vinyl chloride and hardwood dusts. 

With  regard  to  Directive  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board  vessels),  the  obligation to 
provide a sick-bay is  broader, as it is mandatory for all ships over 500 tonnes, but applies also 
in respect of all ships between 200 and 500 tonnes, as long as this is reasonable considering 
the ships’ construction.  

As  regards  Directive  93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels),  the  scope  of  the  national 
transposing legislation is broader, as it applies to all fishing vessels managed by employers. 

26.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The information on compliance for Sweden is based, on the one hand, on the findings of the 
ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study.  

Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2  results  for  the  Sweden  shows  a  very  good  level  of  compliance  as  regards  the 
obligation  to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  80%  of  establishments 
doing  so).  According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted  by 
internal  staff  (82.5%).    ESENER  -2  shows  very  high  levels  of  uptake  for  health  and  safety 
services used, be it in house or contracted externally. As regards health surveillance 51% of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  declared  that  their  establishment  arranges  regular  medical 
examinations  to  monitor  the  health  of  the  employees.  The  survey  indicates  that  a  very  high 
number  of  establishments  (83%)  make  available  to  the  workers  a  document  explaining 
responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A  high  proportion  of  establishments 
declared  as  well  that  training  on  how  to  manage  health  and  safety  was  performed  (training 
available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about  health  and  safety  in  the 
establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the thematic coverage of the 
training  provided  to  employees.  SME  and  microenterprises  were  less  likely  to  have  the 
necessary OSH management structure in place as compared with larger establishments. 

The conclusions of the external study on compliance are based on a  large research review of 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
how  Swedish  employers  implement  the  provision  on  Systematic  Work  Environment 
Management  (SWEM,  Sweden's  transposition  of  the  Framework  directive)  ordered  and 
published  by  the  Swedish  Work  Environment  Authority  (SWEA).  The  study  assessed  that 
although the overwhelming majority of employers tries to comply with the CPMs, they hardly 
ever fully comply, bringing the compliance rates to low or even very low. As an example, the 
study reported that the majority of large private and public employers (who employ some 3/4 
of employees) have documented RAs that cover most technical risks, i.e. for accidents, noise, 
chemical  and  vibrations,  while  they  are  much  poorer  for  organizational  risks,  for  stress, 
threats and violence, harassments and macro-ergonomic risks. Furthermore, the study reported 
that  a  difference  between  fairly  often  assessing  risks  and  much  less  preventive  measures 
against such risks is especially notable in public employers317. 

26.4 Enforcement 

In  Sweden,  the  only  authority  in  charge  of  OHS  legislation  enforcement  is  SWEA,  the 
Swedish  Work  Environment  Authority.  SWEA  operates  under  the  Work  Environment  Act 
WEA.  This  enforcement  body  is  competent  for  all  health  and  safety  issues  at  work  and 
supervises both the private and public sector. With regard to Directives 92/29/EEC (medical 
treatment  on  board  vessels)  and  93/103/EC  (work  on  board  fishing  vessels),  the  Swedish 
Transport  Agency  supervises  all  shipping  vessels,  including  working  conditions  on 
ships/vessels318. 

The  Swedish  legislation  sets  both  criminal  and  administrative  sanctions  for  non-compliance 
with OHS requirements. Although a prison sentence up to one year is legally prescribed for 
violating  an  injunction,  this  will  only  be  considered  –  and  then  also  rarely  –  in  case  of  an 
accident. The violation of OHS provisions is therefore nearly always linked to administrative 
penalties, but these cannot be imposed on governmental employers. Even though the law does 
not  include  a  maximum  amount  for  these  administrative  penalties,  an  established  praxis  is 
normally  followed.  Finally,  a  violation  of  the  more  technical  directives  can  directly  be 
prosecuted. 

26.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

In Sweden, the national legislation has barely adopted any measures in order to assist SMEs 
and  micro-enterprises  in  the  implementation  of  OHS  requirements.  There  are  only  some 
exemptions  foreseen  with  regard  to  the  Framework  Directive,  Directive  92/57/EEC 
(temporary  or  mobile  construction  sites),  and  Directives  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on 
board vessels) and 93/103/EC (work on board fishing vessels). In particular, enterprises with 
less than ten employees are exempted from the obligation to provide written risk assessment 

317 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for Sweden. 

318 See Table 5- 1 Enforcement authorities of the Country Summary Report for Sweden. 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
documentation. There are no special financial incentives or lighter regulatory norms directed 
to SMEs and micro-enterprises319. 

27. UNITED KINGDOM 

27.1 Legal Framework and competences 

The core of the United Kingdom’s regulatory framework for health and safety is contained in 
the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (with further significant modifications in 2008) 
and  the  Management  of  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  Regulations.  The  Health  and  Safety  at 
Work  Act  sets  out  the  general  duties  that  employers  and  the  self-employed  have  towards 
employees and members of the public, and employees have to themselves and to each other. 
The  Act  provides  a  unified  institutional  structure  and  legal  framework  for  health  and  safety 
regulation and has proved to be both robust and enduring.  

The Framework Directive 89/391/EEC is  primarily  implemented  in  the United Kingdom by 
the  Management  of  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  Regulations  1999,  which  established  broad 
obligations for employers to evaluate, avoid and reduce workplace risks.  

Most OSH individual Directives are transposed in one specific piece of legislation, typically 
regulations, often adopted under the framework of the Health and Safety at Work Act. There 
are,  however,  a  few  exceptions.  Especially,  Council  Directive  92/104/EEC  (surface  and 
underground  mineral-extracting  industries)  and  Council  Directive  92/91/EEC  (mineral-
extracting  industries  through  drilling)  have  been  transposed  through  various  regulations  on 
offshore installations, quarries, mines. Also the requirements of Council Directive 92/29/EEC 
(medical  treatment  on  board  vessels)  have  been  transposed  in  several  acts  and  regulations. 
Several  transposing  regulations  are  supplemented  by  other  relevant  applicable  legislation, 
such as Fire Precaution Regulations or Building Regulations.  

In the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, advised by the Health 
and Safety Executive ('HSE'), has primary responsibility for the health and safety of workers.  
The HSE is concerned almost exclusively with OSH.  

27.2 More stringent and more detailed measures 

With  regard  to  the  Framework  Directive,  in  relation  to  risk  assessment,  the  national 
implementing legislation provides that employers must also assess the risks to the health and 
safety  for  persons  not  employed  by  the  employer  arising  from,  or  in  connection  with  the 
conduct by him of his undertaking.  Similarly, every self-employed person is required to make 
a suitable and suﬃcient assessment of the risks to which he is exposed whilst he is at work, as 
well as  for  persons  not  in  his  employment in  relation to  risks arising  from or  in  connection 
with the conduct by him of his undertaking.  

319 See Table 7- 1 Overview of measures targeting SMEs and micro-enterprises of the Country Summary Report 
for Sweden 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
As regards Directive 89/654/EEC (workplace), the national is more specific providing that a 
suitable seat shall be provided for each person at work whose work can or must be performed 
sitting.  

More detailed requirements with regard to the regular review of the risk assessment have been 
signalled in relation to the legislation transposing Directives 90/269/EEC (manual handling of 
loads) and 90/270/EEC (display screen equipment).  

Health  surveillance  prior  to  exposure  is  required  in  the  legislation  transposing  Directives 
2002/44/EC (vibration) and 2003/10/EC (noise), if the risk assessment indicates that there is a 
risk to the health of the employees who are, or are liable to be, exposed to vibration or noise, 
respectively.  

Continued  health  surveillance,  also  after  the  end  of  exposure,  is  required  (if  appropriate)  in 
the  case  Directive  2006/25/EC  (artificial  optical  radiation).  The  legislation  transposing  this 
Directive  also  specifies  the  arrangements  for  health  surveillance  records.  With  regard  to 
Directive 2004/37/EC (carcinogens or mutagens), the legislation details the content of the risk 
assessment. The risks to be taken into account in the assessment are also described in a more 
specific  manner  in  the  UK  legislation  transposing  Directive  2009/148/EC  (asbestos).  And, 
with  regard  to  the  latter  Directive,  UK  legislation  provides  that  a  periodic  medical 
examination must take place at intervals of at least once every 2 years.  

Finally,  the  scope  of  legislation  in  relation  to  Directive  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on 
board vessels) differs from the Directive’s in the following: the legislation requires a sick-bay 
in  which  medical  treatment  can  be  administered  under  satisfactory  material  and  hygienic 
conditions on every ship carrying more than 15 crew members on a voyage  of more than 3 
days  (with  scope  for  relaxing  the  requirement  for  a  vessel  operating  exclusively  on  coastal 
voyages)  –  therefore  not  including  the  weight  restriction  set  by  the  Directive.  Also,  the 
legislation requires vessels to have a doctor responsible for medical care on board for vessels 
with  100  or  more  persons  on  board  –  while  the  Directive  requires  a  crew  of  100  or  more 
workers and engaged on an international voyage of more than three days. It is indicated that 
these  national  provisions  are  in  line  with  the  International  Labour  Organization’s  2006 
Maritime  Labour  Convention  (MLC)  and  previous  ILO  conventions  which  the  UK  has 
ratified. 

27.3 Level of compliance by different stakeholders 

The  information  on  compliance  for  United  Kingdom  is  based,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the 
findings of the ESENER-2 survey and, on the other hand, on the results of the external study. 
Concerning the provisions referred to as the common processes and mechanisms (CPMs), the 
ESENER-2 results for United Kingdom shows a very  good level of compliance as regards the 
obligation  to  carry  out  workplace  risk  assessments  regularly  (with  91%  of  establishments 
doing  so).  According  to  the  survey,  workplace  risk  assessments  are  mainly  conducted  by 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
internal staff (74.8%).  ESENER-2 shows high levels of uptake for health and safety services 
used, be it in house or contracted externally.  

As regards health surveillance only 18% of the respondents to the survey declared that their 
establishment arranges regular medical examinations to monitor the health of the employees. 
The survey also indicates that a very high number of establishments (98%) make available to 
the  workers  a  document  explaining  responsibilities  and  procedures  on  health  and  safety.  A 
high proportion of establishments declared as well that training on how to manage health and 
safety  was  performed  (training  available  to  management,  to  persons  who  know  most  about 
health and safety in the establishment). Differences could be observed when considering the 
thematic coverage of the training provided to employees. SME and microenterprises were less 
likely  to  have  the  necessary  OSH  management  structure  in  place  as  compared  with  larger 
establishments. 

The results of the external study as regards compliance are based on ESENER-1 survey and 
on stakeholder interviews.  It reported approximately the same levels of compliance with the 
CPMs  assessed by the ESENER-2 survey. In  addition, the study pointed out  that HSE does 
not routinely collect compliance information and reported a view, expressed in the National 
Implementation  Report  by  the  main  worker  stakeholder  (TUC)  and  by  various  expert 
interviewees, that there are inadequate resources devoted to the inspections which provide the 
main  check  on  risk  management  and,  by  inference,  compliance.    The  study  also  considered 
that the main driver for the completion (and retention) of risk assessments is the threat of civil 
litigation, where documentary evidence of such assessments is routinely sought320. 

27.4 Enforcement  

In the UK, HSE and Local Authorities (LA) mainly share responsibility for regulating health, 
safety  and  welfare  for  those  at  work  and  for  those  affected  by  work  activity,  including  the 
public sector. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and associated regulations do not apply 
to  seamen  working  on  board  ships  under  the  control  of  the  ship’s  master.  Comparable 
Merchant Shipping Health and Safety Regulations do apply to ships’ crew and are enforced 
by  the  Maritime  and  Coastguard  Agency  (MCA)  where  there  are  separate  provisions  for 
sanctions and penalties321.   

The  enforcing  authorities  use  a  mixed  intervention  approach  with  duty-holders  in  which 
enforcement of the law is only one factor, alongside the provision of good practice advice, the 
use of awareness campaigns and work with stakeholders to influence behaviour change. 

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, section 33 (as amended) sets out the offences 
and  maximum  penalties  under  health  and  safety  legislation.  These  apply  to  all  regulations 

320 See Table 3- 1 Degree of compliance: Common processes and mechanisms (across Directives) of the Country 
Summary Report for United Kingdom. 
321 See Table 5-1 Enforcement authorities in Great Britain of the Country Summary Report for United Kingdom. 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
enacted  under  this  Act.  Inspectors  also  have  to  power  to  serve  improvement  notices, 
prohibition  notices,  and  Crown  notices.  Sanctions  vary  between  a  maximum  of  £20  000 
and/or  12  months’  imprisonment  in  the  Lower  court,  and  an  unlimited  fine  and/or  2  years’ 
imprisonment in the Higher court322.  

27.5 SMEs and micro-enterprises 

The  UK  has  not  adopted  any  specific  measures  (apart  from  guidance  documents)  to  assist 
SMEs and micro-enterprises in the implementation of OSH requirements.  

322 See Table 5- 4 Result table – type and level of sanctions of the Country Summary Report for United 
Kingdom. 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 11 – Summary of the findings of the evaluation for OSH Directives  

This  annex presents a  summary of  the main findings  of the evaluation for each of the OSH 
Directives,  assessed,  based  on  Article  17a  of  the  Framework  Directive.  Those  findings  are 
presented for each of the Directives according to the following structure: Objectives and main 
provisions;  State  of  transposition  and  implementation;  Relevance;  Effectiveness;  Coherence 
and Main Conclusions. Findings in relation to efficiency are presented in the main report. 

1. Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in 
the safety and health of workers at work (Framework Directive) 

Objectives and main provisions  

The  objective  of  the  Framework  Directive  is  to  introduce  measures  to  encourage 
improvements  in  the  safety  and  health  of  workers  at  work.  To  that  effect  it  applies  to  all 
sectors  of  activity,  both  public  and  private,  but  it  is  not  applicable  where  characteristics 
peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or 
to  certain  specific  activities  in  the  civil  protection  services  inevitably  conflict  with  it. 
However, in that case, the safety and health of workers must be ensured as far as possible in 
the  light  of  the  objectives  of  the  Framework  Directive.  Furthermore,  it  does  not  apply  to 
domestic servants. 

State of transposition and implementation  

Overall, the Framework Directive is implemented and complied with. 

A  first  evaluation  of  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  was  conducted  and 
finalised in 2004323. 

Numerous infringements concerning the transposition of the Framework Directive have been 
initiated since 1990324. However, most of the early stage issues have been overcome and only 
a  few  minor  cases  of  incorrect  transposition  in  the  national  transposing  legislation  remain. 
Also, all Member States have established more detailed or stringent requirements than those 
laid down in the Framework Directive.  

The findings of the external study and the results of the ESENER-2 survey indicate that the 
level  of  compliance  with  the  Framework  Directive  is  good  among  undertakings  in  the 
Member  States.  Compliance  levels  are  higher  in  large  establishments  when  compared  to 
SMEs and microenterprises325.  

323 See the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on the practical implementation of the 
provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Directives 89/391 (Framework), 89/654 (Workplaces), 89/655 
(Work Equipment), 89/656 (Personal Protective Equipment), 90/269 (Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 
(Display Screen Equipment), COM(2004)62 final. 
324 See Chapter 5.1 of the report for more details. 
325 See Chapter 5.2 of the report for more details on the compliance with the common processes and mechanisms 
enshrined in the Framework Directive. 

195 

 
 
 
                                                            
This  good  compliance  level  is  supported  by  a  number  of  accompanying  actions  at  both 
Member State and EU level towards the achievement of the safety and health targets of the 
Framework  Directive.  However,  there  are  indications  of  information  gaps,  particularly  for 
SMEs, and of uncoordinated and unsystematic information.  

Furthermore,  all  Member  States  enforce  the  Framework  Directive  provisions  through 
competent enforcement authorities and through criminal and administrative sanctions.  

In  order  to  improve  compliance,  some  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  division  of 
responsibilities for carrying out preventive and protective services as it results from Article 7 
of the Framework Directive could be further clarified.  

Relevance  

The  European  statistics  on  accidents  at  work,  as  well  as  work-related  health  problems  (see 
main report) clearly demonstrate the current relevance of the Framework Directive in helping 
to improve workplace safety and health. Work-related injuries and ill-health have caused, and 
are  still  causing,  burdens  to  the  individual  workers,  to  their  employers,  and  to  the  wider 
society. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Framework  Directive  remains  relevant  for  the  future.  While 
progress is seen and is expected to continue as regards the management of certain traditional 
workplace hazards (exposure to chemical agents, carcinogens and mutagens, physical agents, 
biological agents, hazards related to the poor design of work equipment and processes etc.), 
exposures to those risk factors in the EU still occur. Furthermore, new risks emerge, related 
for  example  to  the  use  of  nanotechnologies  and  nanomaterials,  green  technologies  and 
alternative  energy  sources.  In  addition,  the  exposure  to  risks  leading  to  MSDs  and 
psychosocial  risks  are  one  of  the  main  challenges  for  OSH  management  for  the  future  (see 
main report).  

Labour  market  trends  which  could  be  observed  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  EU  OSH 
Directives, such as the ageing of the EU workforce, increasing labour market participation of 
women,  trends  in  migration,  and  an  increased  use  of  atypical  and  non-standard  forms  of 
employment suggest an increased need for addressing the specific issues affecting vulnerable 
groups – although this is already partly done through a number of specific Directives. 

However, the contributions from the National Implementation Reports and the findings of the 
evaluation  study  indicate  that  the  scope  of  the  Framework  Directive  could  be  considered  in 
relation to:  

- The exclusion of domestic servants326; 

-  The  inclusion  of  self-employed  and  in  particular  those  self-employed working  alongside 
workers; 

326 This would imply also the consideration of reviewing the way an employer is defined. 

196 

 
 
                                                            
-  The  exclusion  from  the  scope  of  application  of  the  Directive  related  to  specific  public 
service activities (Article 2 (2)); 

In  addition,  the  evaluation  found  that  psychosocial  and  musculoskeletal  disorders  (MSDs) 
appear to be a growing occupational health and safety concern. Some NIRs and the external 
study included as one of the possible solutions to tackle these risks, the suggestion to mention 
those  risks  explicitly  under  the  Framework  Directive,  while  issuing  further  guidance  and 
providing for other non-legislative measures. 

Effectiveness 

In  this  regard,  the  evaluation  –  including  the  views  of  both  national  and  EU  stakeholders 
consulted  during  this  evaluation  –  suggests  that  the  Framework  Directive  has  positively 
affected  enterprises'  behaviour  in  ensuring  occupational  safety  and  health  in  the  Member 
States leading to positive workplace impacts as well as safety and health impacts. This has in 
particular  been  the  case  for  the  large  enterprises  and  less  for  SMEs  and  microenterprises 
where  the  impacts  are  lower  due  to  difficulties  in  complying  with  provisions  on  account  of 
insufficient  financial  resources,  lack  of  safety  and  health  expertise  and  cultural  issues.  The 
main areas were the Framework Directive combined with other EU OSH legislation has been 
seen as less effective are the prevention of psychosocial risks and MSDs.  

Both national stakeholders and EU stakeholders tend to attach relatively higher importance to 
risk  assessment  as  it  is  seen  as  a  foundation  for  developing  a  risk  prevention  culture  rather 
than taking a more reactive approach to safety and health. 

Furthermore, the evaluation shows that sanctions and other related enforcement measures and 
activities are a factor contributing to the effectiveness of the Framework Directive. The most 
effective measures seem to be combining enforcement with guidance measures. 

Efficiency 

The assessment of efficiency was mainly done at the level of the EU OSH acquis – i.e. for the 
24  OSH  Directives  together.  Efficiency  was  assessed  by  looking  at the  benefits  –  including 
the broader benefits in society and the economy– and  the costs that arise to  society and the 
employers as a result of fulfilling the requirements of the Framework Directive.   

Coherence 

Since  the  general  principles  contained  in  the  Framework  Directive  form  the  basis  for  the 
provisions  in  the  other  OSH  Directives,  there  is  naturally  high  synergy  between  the 
Framework Directive and the other OSH Directives. However, some provisions overlap or are 
duplicated across the Framework Directive and the individual directives. While theoretically 
it could be possible to streamline the EU legal framework, there are significant concerns about 
the added value of such an exercise (due, inter alia, to the fact that many MS transposed the 
legislation  following  the  same  structure  as  the  EU  acquis  and  a  possible  streamlining  could 
trigger for them a new complex transposition process).   

197 

 
 
The general principles of the Framework Directive are in line with other EU legislative and 
non-legislative measures as well as non-EU international instruments. 

Main conclusions  

The  evaluation  confirmed  the  relevance  of  the  Framework  Directive,  though  –based  on  the 
findings  of  the  evaluation  study  and  the  National  Implementation  Reports-  consideration 
could  be  given  to  those  recommendations  pertaining  to  its  scope  of  application,  i.e.:  the 
extensions  of  its  scope  to  domestic  servants,  the  self-employed  (in  particular  those  working 
alongside workers); clarification of the scope of exclusion under Article 2(2).  

While  the  evaluation  confirmed  that  the  Framework  Directive  has  led  to  many  positive 
workplace  impacts,  psychosocial  risks  and  MSDs  continue  to  be  a  source  of  growing  OSH 
concern.  It  has  however  to  be  acknowledged  that  MSDs  and  psychosocial  risks  fall  already 
under the scope of the Framework Directive and that the complex nature of those risks does 
not  easily  lend  itself  to  a  legislative  response  at  the  EU  level.  Further  guidance  and  other 
accompanying  tools  developed  at  the  EU  level  could  provide  useful  support  for  different 
legislative or non-legislative measures developed in this respect at national level327. There is a 
large consensus that further action in order to tackle those risks is needed and a dialogue on 
the possible policy options should be initiated, having regard to their socioeconomic impacts. 

As regards coherence, the OSH acquis structure as it is – i.e. with a Framework Directive and 
specific Directives - should be maintained.  

Directive  89/654/EEC  concerning  the  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements 

2. 
for the workplace (workplace) 

Objectives and main requirements 

The  Directive  establishes  minimum  requirements  for  the  workplace  with  the  objective  of 
guaranteeing a better standard of safety and health.  

According  to  Article  2  of  the  Directive  'workplace'  means  the  place  intended  to  house 
workstations  on  the  premises  of  the  undertaking  and/or  establishment  and  any  other  place 
within the area of the undertaking and/or establishment to which the worker has access in the 
course of his employment. The Directive provides for a distinction between workplaces used 
for the first time after 31 December 1992 which, according to Article 3 thereof, must satisfy 
the minimum safety and health requirements laid down in Annex I, and workplaces already in 
use  before  1  January  1993,  which  according  to  Article  4  thereof  must  satisfy  the  minimum 
safety and health requirements laid down in Annex II (Article 4 of the Directive).  

327 As regards psychosocial risks, a number of solutions including legislative and non-legislative measures have 
been adopted so far across the Member States including: defining psychosocial risk in the legislation, actions for 
better psychosocial risks prevention developed at labour inspectorate level, collaboration initiatives between 
social partners to prevent those risks, non-binding guidance, branch-level agreements etc. 

198 

 
 
 
                                                            
Certain types of workplaces are excluded from its scope of application, namely: the means of 
transport used outside the undertaking and/or the establishment, or workplaces inside means 
of  transport;  temporary  or  mobile  work  sites;  extractive  industries;  fishing  boats;  fields, 
woods and other land forming part of an agricultural or forestry undertaking but situated away 
from the undertaking's buildings. 

State of transposition and implementation  

A  first  evaluation  of  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  was  conducted  and 
finalised in 2004328. 

Most of the Member States implemented the Workplace Directive through several acts. The 
majority of the Member States established more detailed requirements or extended the scope 
of  application  of  the  requirements.  This  is  in  particular  the  case  for  Articles  1  (scope  of 
application) and  2 (definition of the term  'workplace'),  as  well as  Articles 7 (information  of 
workers) and 8 (consultation of workers and workers' participation). 

Specific  provisions  for  workplaces  related  to  vulnerable  groups  are  reported  from  four 
Member States covering pregnant workers, ageing workers, young workers, migrant workers, 
part-time workers or disabled workers.  

Few  Member  States  seem  to  have  developed  specific  measures  to  support  SMEs  and 
microenterprises.  Among  these,  one  Member  State  provides  for  an  exemption  for  SMEs  or 
microenterprises  and  four  Member  States  provide  for  lighter  regimes  and  financial  support, 
although these do not appear to be Directive-specific. 

Guidance documents appear to be the most employed accompanying actions at Member State 
and EU level. The level of compliance with the common principles and requirements (CPMs) 
appears to be high – the majority of estimates from available sources being over 50% to 84%. 
The  findings  of  a  separate  study  support  this,  reporting  that  both  employers  and  workers 
considered the provisions of the Directive to have been wholly or largely implemented. 

Relevance  

The  provisions  of  the  Workplace  Directive  are  relevant  to  all  Member  States  and  to  an 
important share of the EU-27 workforce329.  

However,  the  evaluation  shows  that  changes  in  the  nature  of  some  modern  workplaces  are 
likely to diminish the relevance of the Directive (and possibly its effectiveness) in the future 
in the absence in particular of a redefinition of the term 'workplace', to reflect the changing 
nature  of  modern  workplaces  and  of  different  methods  of  working  (e.g.  remote  or 
teleworking). This was one of the recurrent suggestions from the NIRs. The first findings of 

328 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Health 
and  Safety  at  Work  Directives  89/391  (Framework),  89/654  (Workplaces),  89/655  (Work  Equipment),  89/656 
(Personal Protective Equipment), 90/269 (Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 (Display Screen Equipment). 
329 Assessment based on the information provided in the NIRs and the results of the evaluation study, including 
the EU and national stakeholders' interviews. 

199 

 
 
                                                            
the EWCS 2015 show that while most workers – 62% of men and 78% of women – have a 
single main place of work where they work almost all of the time330, nearly a third of workers 
(30%)  divide  their  working  time  across  multiple  locations,  working  at  least  several  times  a 
week at each different place of work. The ESENER-2 data shows that slightly over 10% of 
establishment  report  having  employees  working  from  home.  At  the  same  time  only  29%  of 
those establishments include workplaces at home in the scope of their risk assessments. The 
evaluation study put also forward suggestions as regards the reconsideration of the scope of 
certain exclusions under Article 1(2) of the Directive. 

In  order  to  bring  the  Directive  up-to-date  (but  also  increase  its  effectiveness)  some  NIRs 
proposed as well to update the Annexes of the Directive and to consider the development at 
the EU level of guidelines for the application of the Directive detailing the terms "adequate, 
sufficient, appropriate" and to specify in clear values or ranges of values such parameters as: 
proper temperature; sufficient  natural  lighting; sufficient  area, height  and air in the working 
areas; dimensions in pathways and traffic etc.  

Effectiveness  

Finding suitable data to monitor the effectiveness of the Workplace Directive is a particular 
challenge.  Many  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  directed  towards  the  general  welfare  or 
wellbeing of workers, and indicators for monitoring those provisions are not available. In this 
respect,  a  previous  study  concluded,  based  on  the  opinions  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed 
that the Workplace Directive contributes more globally  to  the working conditions and well-
being  seen  as  a  whole.  Some  of  them  perceived  an  improvement  in  terms  of  occupational 
accidents331. As regards the safety aspects, since the Workplace Directive covers workplaces 
as defined in Article 2, with notable exceptions mentioned under Article 1 (2), EU data on the 
causes and circumstances of accidents at work was analysed in order to determine the trend in 
accidents  at  work  in  different  working  environments  covered  by  the  Directive332.  The 
information  presented  below  was  based  on  data  from  16  MSs  for  which  this  type  of 
information  was  available333.  The  greatest  share  of  accidents  in  2013  occurred  on  industrial 
sites (around 40% of all accidents). Between 2008 and 2013 the number of accidents in this 
working  environment  dropped  by  34.1%.  Accidents  happening  in  a  tertiary  activity  area  or 
office represented 17.4% of all accidents, followed by accidents in public areas (the result for 
this  working  environment  includes  a  high  proportion  of  accidents  happening  on  boards  of 
means  of  transport  in  the  course  of  work  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Workplace 
Directive).  The  decline  in  the  number  of  accidents  at  work  in  the  aforementioned  working 
environments  equalled  -10.8%  and  -13.6%  respectively.  Other  Working  Environments 
accounting  for  an  important  share  of  all  accidents  in  2013  were  accidents  occurring  in 
the  Workplace  Directive:  construction  sites, 
environments 

largely  not  covered  by 

330 Generally their employer's premises (or their own if self-employed). 
331 WPD Analysis Report based on the Generic Methodology for the evaluation of the EU OSH Directives, 
Prevent- Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE- TNS Infratest, 2012. 
332 Even though some studies suggest that only a small proportion of those could be attributed to the Directive. 
WPD Analysis Report based on the Generic Methodology for the evaluation of the EU OSH Directives, Prevent- 
Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE- TNS Infratest, 2012 
333 Eurostat, ESAW, Phase III, Variable Working Environment. 

200 

 
 
                                                            
construction,  open  cast  quarry,  open  cast  mine  (10.4%  of  all  accidents)334  and  farming, 
breeding,  fish  farming,  forest  zone  (3.1%  of  all  accidents).The  decline  in  the  number  of 
accidents between 2008 and 2013 in those sectors equalled -49.6% and -11.6% respectively. 
While accidents in health establishments accounted for almost 6% of all accidents, each of the 
other working environments categories335 did not exceed 2% of the total. In those categories, 
between 2008 and 2013 a decline in the total number of accidents at work could be observed 
for all working environments except: the health establishments; sports area; accidents in the 
air, elevated, excluding construction sites (those include accidents aboard aircrafts); accidents 
in high pressure environments excluding construction sites.  

As a conclusion, the number of accidents at work in most working environments covered by 
the Directive has decreased between 2008 and 2013. It has, however, to be acknowledged that 
other  factors  than  the  Directive  itself  have  contributed  to  this  result.  Those  statistics  cover 
only  the  safety  aspects  of  the  Directive  and  information  on  the  health  impacts  was  not 
available to the Commission's services at the time this report was drafted.   

In  this  context,  the  assessment  made  by  the  external  evaluation  study  provides  valuable 
additional information. According to the stakeholders interviews conducted in the framework 
of  the  study,  the  Workplace  legislation  has  fulfilled  its  objectives  to  a  large  extent. 
Stakeholders also generally found that the Directive had a large impact on larger companies 
(average  score  of  4.0),  while  microenterprises  have  struggled  to  implement  the  workplace 
provisions (average score 2.3).   

Coherence 

With regard to the coherence between the Workplace Directive and the other OSH Directives 
no  major  issues  were  identified,  even  though  some  overlaps  exist  between  the  Workplace 
Directive  and  other  sectorial  directives  as  regards  minimum  health  and  safety  requirements 
for  workplaces.  Similarly,  with  other  non-OSH  EU  and  international  instruments,  no  major 
issues  were  identified.  Thus,  no  major  issues  were  identified  with  regard  to  the  coherence 
between the Workplace Directive and instruments such as the European Commission policy 
on  workplace  innovation;  the  Framework  Agreement  on  Telework  (2002);  and  the  ILO 
Hygiene (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1964 (No. 120). 

Main conclusions 

The Workplace Directive remains relevant to all Member States and to an important share of 
the EU workforce. However, due to changes in working methods over the last years (remote 
or  teleworking,  'green'  technologies  etc.)  a  number  of  Member  States  in  their  National 
Implementation Reports seemed to suggest that a reappraisal of the definition of a workplace 
could be considered. Certain exclusions under Article 1(2) could also be reconsidered.  

334  Those  environments  are  however  regulated  under  separate  EU  legislation,  namely  the  Construction  sites 
Directive, the Mining and quarrying Directive. 
335 Those categories are: Work in the home; Sports area; Work in the air, elevated, excluding construction sites; 
underground, excluding construction sites; on/over water, excluding construction sites; in high pressure 
environments, excluding construction sites. 

201 

 
 
                                                            
The  recommendations  from  the  NIRs  as  regards  the  Annexes  of  the  Directive  and  the 
development of the EU level guidelines for the application of the Directive should be given 
further attention. 

There  are  challenges  to  monitoring  the  effectiveness  of  those  provisions  of  the  Directive 
aiming at improving the well-being and health of workers. As regards safety aspects, during 
the  period  2008-2013  the  number  of  accidents  at  work  in  most  workplaces  covered  by  the 
Directive  has  decreased.  According  to  the  evaluation  study,  the  Directive  is  generally  well 
considered in most MS and assessed as meeting its objectives. This view is supported by the 
findings of a previous evaluation study336, which indicated that both employers and workers 
considered the provisions of the Directive to have been implemented.  

Directive  2009/104/EC  on  the  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  the 

3. 
use of work equipment by workers at work (use of work equipment) 

Objective and main requirements  

Directive  2009/104/EC  lays  down  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  the  use  of 
work equipment by workers at work. The main objective of the Directive is a reduction in the 
incidence of accidents, injuries and ill-health associated with the use of work equipment. 

The  Work  Equipment  Directive  places  general  obligations  on  the  employer  to  take  the 
measures  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  work  equipment  made  available  to  workers  in  the 
undertaking or establishment is suitable for the work to be carried out or properly adapted for 
that  purpose and  may be used  by workers without  impairment  to their safety  or health.  The 
provisions  of  the  Directive  are  twofold:  on  the  one  hand,  it  lays  down  general  minimum 
requirement applicable to work equipment which address in general terms the risks to safety 
and health arising from the use of work equipment; on the other hand, it includes additional 
detailed minimum requirements relating to three areas of work and work equipment, namely 
working at a height, mobile work equipment and equipment for lifting loads. 

State of transposition and implementation  

The Directive have been implemented into either one piece of legislation or multiple pieces 
almost  equally  across  MSs,  with  only  few  MSs  establishing  more  detailed  provisions 
(regarding for instance definitions or specifications).  

Guidance appears to be the main accompanying action to encourage the implementation of the 
Directive,  at  Member  State  level.  At  EU  level  four  accompanying  actions  were  identified 
from EU-OSHA, together with two from the Commission.  

No conclusive data on the levels of compliance with the different provisions of the Directive 
could have been gathered through the evaluation process. 

336 WPD Analysis Report based on the Generic Methodology for the evaluation of the EU OSH Directives, 
Prevent- Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE- TNS Infratest, 2012. 

202 

 
 
 
                                                            
Relevance  

The provisions of the Work Equipment Directive are sufficiently broad to be unquestionably 
relevant  to  all  Member  States.  Workers  are  exposed  to  risks  related  to  the  use  of  work 
equipment  and/or  other  risks  covered  by  the  Directive  in  relation  to  work  equipment  and 
therefore the Directive remains relevant to workers in all sectors in all EU Member States.  

As regards safety aspects, an important share of accidents still occurs due to work equipment 
risks  covered  by  the  Directive.  As  an  example,  in  2013,  in  those  Member  States  collecting 
information on the deviation factor of accidents at work, accidents due to the loss of control337 
constituted  overall  the  largest  share  of  all  fatal  accidents  (36.2%)  and  of  non-fatal  serious 
accidents (24.6%)338. During the same year, accidents due to slipping – stumbling and falling, 
including  the  fall  of  a  person  to  a  lower  level,  had  also  a  relatively  high  share  in  the  total 
number of accidents339. Looking more specifically at the statistics on the material agent with 
which the victims came into contact when injured, accidents happening while in contact with 
different types of work equipment340 had again a high share in the overall number of accidents 
in 2013341. 

In the context of the evaluation several suggestions and recommendations were made in the 
NIRs  and  by  national  stakeholders  and  experts  relating  to  anticipated  changes  in  working 
practices, new or emerging risks, or other factors which might impact on the future relevance 
of  the  Directive.  As  regards  emerging  risks,  changes  in  the  work  equipment  used  by  the 
workforce brought by technological development affect the risks the worker is exposed to. In 
particular,  the  EU-OSHA  Risk  Observatory  identified  a  number  of  areas  relating  to 
machinery, work processes and technologies considered to constitute ‘emerging risks’. 

Effectiveness  

The monitoring of the effectiveness of the Directive based on available statistical datasets is 
difficult  in  the  absence  of  up  to  date  incidence  figures  and  the  existing  design  of  the 
classification  of  the  causes  and  circumstances  of  accidents  at  work,  not  always  adapted  to 
study the effectiveness of this specific Directive. Data about the deviation factor of accidents 
at work in the EU show that between 2008 and 2013 the number of fatal accidents due to the 
loss of control342 decreased in 16 out of 21 Member States providing for this information for 
both years. Similarly, the number of serious accidents due to this deviation factor deceased in 

337 This accident category encompasses the loss of control (total or partial) of machine, means of transport or 
handling equipment, hand tool, object but also animal. 
338 Eurostat, ESAW, PHASE III , Variable Deviation, data for the reference year 2013 for the 22 MS providing 
for this type of information. 
339 The Directive sets out, among others, provisions concerning the use of work equipment provided for 
temporary work at height. 
340 Including such equipment type as: motors, systems for energy transmission and storage; hand tools (not 
powered); hand-held or hand –guided tools (mechanical); other hand tools without specification of power source; 
machines and equipment; conveying, transport and storage systems; land vehicles; other transport vehicles; 
machine or vehicle components or debris; safety devices and equipment; office, personal equipment, weapons, 
domestic appliances. 
341 Eurostat, ESAW, PHASE III, Variable Material Agent of the Contact Mode of Injury, data for reference year 
2013, for the 18 MS providing the variable. 
342 See footnote 310 for details of the underlying classification. 

203 

 
 
                                                            
the aforementioned period in most of the MS providing this type of information. From 2008 
to 2013 in most MS from which such data was available a decrease in the number of accidents 
due to the falls from height was registered343. Changes in the number of work accidents when 
in contact with different types of work equipment between 2008 and 2013 point - with some 
exceptions - to the effectiveness of the Directive. However, the situation in this regard differs 
considerably  from  Member  State  to  Member  State344  depending  on  the  equipment  type 
considered.  Similar  conclusions  can  be  drawn  when  analysing  data  on  the  material  agents 
involved in the abnormal event leading to an accident  

In order to assess the effectiveness of the Directive, the evaluation study relied mainly on the 
stakeholder's  assessment.  A  mean  of  3.9  (scale  of  1–5)  suggests  that,  according  to  national 
stakeholder  organisations,  their  national  work  equipment  legislation  has  been  effective  and 
has fulfilled its objectives to a reasonable extent. 

The  main  suggestions/recommendations  from  the  NIRs  as  regards  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive  were  to  adopt  a  uniform  approach  towards  old  and  new  equipment,  to  define 
"specific  risk"  and  to  define  criteria  for  inspection  of  work  equipment  and  competence  of 
persons charged with inspection referred to in Article 5 of the Directive (inspection of work 
equipment). As  regards the notion of 'specific risk', the NIRs show that some Member States 
do not define the notion of ‘specific risk’, some define it as those risks covered specifically by 
the  Directive  (i.e.  those  concerning  working  at  height,  mobile  plant  and  lifting  equipment 
etc.),  and  some  MSs  define  it  in  terms  of  severity  of  the  risk.  Adopting  a  clearer  definition 
would  possibly  reduce  the  inconsistencies  in  its  interpretation,  might  improve  its  future 
implementation and, through that, its effectiveness. 

Coherence 

No  major  internal  coherence  issues  were  identified  with  the  exception  of  some  potential 
overlaps related to training requirements on work equipment between on one hand, the Work 
Equipment  Directive and, on the other hand, the Mines  and Quarries Directive, the Drilling 
Directive and the Fishing Vessels Directive.  

Concerning  external  coherence,  positive  synergies  were  identified  between  the  Machinery 
Directive (2006/42/EC) and the Work Equipment Directive. In its opinion of 27/05/2015, the 
SLIC recommended enhancing synergies between the two Directives , in particular, through 
the  clarification  of  the interplay  between  these two  Directives  in  relation  to  modification  or 
adaptation of a machine provided to workers in for the first time before or on 31 December 
1992;  the  alignment  of  certain  requirements  in  the  Annex  I  to  Directive  2009/104/EC  to 
Directive  2006/42/EC;  the  adaptation  of  existing  guidance  to  take  into  account  the  current 
state of the art in terms of standardisation. 

343 Eurostat, ESAW, PHASE III, Variable Deviation, based on data for 20 MS for which such information was 
available. 
344 Eurostat, ESAW, Phase III, Variable Material Agent Associated with the Contact Mode of Injury, based on 
data of 17 MS providing information for both years. 

204 

 
 
 
                                                            
Main conclusions  

The Work Equipment Directive remains relevant to safeguard the health and safety of workers 
in the EU.  

The  available  statistics  on  the  causes  and  circumstances  of  accidents  at  work  point  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  Directive  has  been  broadly  effective,  though  the  situation  differs 
considerably  from  Member  State  to  Member  State  depending  on  the  work  equipment  type 
considered. The stakeholders' interviews conducted in the framework of the evaluation study 
also suggest that the Directive has been effective in achieving its objective. 

The  main  suggestions/recommendations  from  the  NIRs  were  to  adopt  a  uniform  approach 
towards old and new equipment, to define the notion of "specific risk" used in the Directive 
and  to  define  criteria  for  inspection  of  work  equipment  and  competence  of  persons  charged 
with inspection referred to in Article 5 of the Directive (inspection of work equipment). 

Furthermore, based on the conclusions of the evaluation study and the recommendations made 
by  SLIC,  further  consideration  should  be  given  to  enhancing  synergies  between  the  Work 
Equipment Directive and Directive 2006/42/EC. 

4. 
Directive  89/656/EEC  on  the  minimum  health  and  safety  requirements  for  the 
use  by  workers  of  personal  protective  equipment  at  the  workplace  (use  of  personal 
protective equipment/PPE) 

Objectives and key requirements  

The  Directive  lays  down  minimum  requirements  for  personal  protective  equipment  used  by 
workers  at  work  in  order  "to  guarantee  better  health  and  safety  for  the  user  of  personal 
protective equipment". According to Article 3 of the Directive, the PPE which is an individual 
protective measure shall be used "when the risks cannot be avoided or sufficiently limited by 
technical  means  of  collective  protection  or  by  measures,  methods  or  procedures  of  work 
organization". 

With a view to achieve its objectives the Directives lays down general provisions on  selection 
and use of PPE, assessment of PPE and the obligation of Member States to establish rules for 
use of PPE. The Directive requires in particular employers to ensure that PPE is appropriate 
for  the  risks  involved  (without  itself  leading  to  any  increased  risk),  corresponds  to  existing 
conditions at the workplace, takes account of ergonomic requirements and the worker's state 
of health and fits the wearer correctly after any necessary adjustment. 

For  the  purposes  of  the  Directive  ‘personal  protective  equipment’  means  all  equipment 
designed  to  be  worn  or  held  by  the  worker  to  protect  him/her  against  one  or  more  hazards 
likely  to  endanger  his  safety  and  health  at  work,  and  any  addition  or  accessory  designed  to 
meet this objective. However, this definition excludes: ordinary working clothes and uniforms 
not  specifically  designed  to  protect  the  safety  and  health  of  the  worker;  equipment  used  by 
emergency and rescue services; PPE worn or used by the military, the police and other public 

205 

 
 
order agencies; PPE for means of road transport; sports equipment; self-defence or deterrent 
equipment; portable devices for detecting and signalling risks and nuisances. 

State of transposition and implementation  

A  first  evaluation  of  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  was  conducted  and 
finalised in 2004345. 

The  Directive  has  been  implemented  either  in  one  or  several  piece  of  legislation  equally 
across  MSs.  A  majority  of  Member  States  adopted  more  detailed  requirements  than  those 
foreseen  in  the  Directive.  This  is  in  particular  the  case  for  Articles  1  and  2  (scope  and 
definition) and 7 (information for workers). 

Relevance  

The Directive is  relevant  to  approximately 40%  of the EU workforce346. Out of the persons 
employed being required to wear personal protective equipment in their job, 91% report doing 
so.  

Concerns over a lack of awareness and knowledge amongst the workforce on the importance 
of the correct selection and use of PPE were reported in the context of the evaluation study, in 
particular  as  regards  SMEs.  This  however  was  seen  to  be  more  of  an  issue  of  the 
implementation of the Directive, rather than a deficiency of the Directive’s provisions.  

One  finding  of  the  evaluation  study  is  that  the  exclusion  from  the  definition  of  PPE  of 
equipment  used  by  emergency  and  rescue  services  might  need  to  be  reconsidered.  Indeed 
approximately  20%  of  Member  States  have  not  excluded  this  equipment.  Given  the 
potentially  severe  environments  in  which  such  personnel  normally  operate  it  does  not  seem 
appropriate  not  to  provide  for  the  ergonomic  requirements  in  the  use  of  PPE  as  it  has  been 
shown that failure to do so can lead to injury.  

Effectiveness 

The  available  data  considering  the  impact  of  individual  provisions  common  to  EU  OSH 
Directives  was  drawn  from  the  EU  and  national  stakeholder  interviews  conducted  for  this 
evaluation.  Overall,  the  extent  to  which  national  stakeholders  from  EU  Member  States 
consider the transposed PPE legislation to have fulfilled its objectives was very high. Twenty 
stakeholder groups from seven different Member States provided a score from 1 – 5. The total 
average  score  of  4.1  indicates  that  the  PPE  legislation  is  considered  to  have  fulfilled  its 
objectives to a large extent.  

345 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Health 
and  Safety  at  Work  Directives  89/391  (Framework),  89/654  (Workplaces),  89/655  (Work  Equipment),  89/656 
(Personal Protective Equipment), 90/269 (Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 (Display Screen Equipment).  
346 Eurofound, European Working Conditions Survey (2010). 

206 

 
 
 
                                                            
Coherence 

No  major  internal  coherence  issues  were  identified  with  the  exception  of  potential  overlaps 
related  to  training  requirements  on  PPE  between  the  Use  of  PPE  Directive  and  the  Noise, 
AOR, Carcinogens or Mutagens, Asbestos, and the Biological Agents Directives.  

Concerning external coherence some positive synergies have been identified between the Use 
of PPE Directive and the Machinery Directive and the PPE Product Directive. 

Main conclusions 

The Use of Personal Protective Equipment Directive remains relevant for around 40% of the 
EU workforce. 

Even though the stakeholders interviewed in the framework of the evaluation study assessed 
that overall the Directive fulfils its objectives to a large extent, some concerns were expressed 
as  regards  the  awareness  of  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  and  certain  difficulties  with  its 
implementation,  in  particular  for  SMEs.  This  fact  points  to  a  potential  need  for  further 
guidance  in  relation  to  the  Directive.  The  external  evaluation  study  suggested  that 
consideration  be  given  to  the  preparation  of  freely  available  EU-level  guidance  on  the 
selection and use of PPE, possibly targeted at SMEs. This guidance material could be a cross-
cutting guidance which combined aspects both of the present Directive (89/656/EEC) and that 
on the free movement of PPE (89/686/EEC). 

The exclusion of firefighters and other emergency workers has attracted considerable adverse 
comment and has not been implemented within a number of MSs. Some MSs also encompass 
PPE used by the military. The evaluation study recommended that consideration be given to 
amending the definition of PPE contained in Article 2 of the Use of PPE Directive to remove 
the exclusion of equipment used by emergency and rescue services and possibly also that in 
relation to its use by one or more of the police, military or other public order agencies. 

Directive  92/58/EEC  on  the  minimum  requirements  for  the  provision  of  safety 

5. 
and/or health signs at work (safety and health/OSH signs)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The Directive lays down minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health sign 
at  work.  It  repealed  previous  EU  legislation  in  this  area  -  Council  Directive  77/576/EEC. 
According  to  Article  2  (a)  of  Directive  92/58/EEC  "safety  and/or  health  signs  means  signs 
referring  to  a  specific  object,  activity  or  situation  and  providing  information  or  instructions 
about safety and/or health at work by means of a signboard, a colour, an illuminated sign or 
acoustic signal, a verbal communication or a hand signal, as the case may be". However, the 
Directive does not apply to "signs for the placing on the market of hazardous substances and 
mixtures, products and/or equipment, unless other Union provisions make specific reference 
thereto", as well as to "signs used for regulating road, rail, inland, sea or air transport".  

207 

 
 
 
Employers must provide or ensure that safety and/or health signs are in place in accordance 
with the Directive where hazards cannot be avoided or adequately reduced by techniques for 
collective protection or by measures, methods or procedures used in the organization of work. 
To that effect, employers are required to take into account all risks identified through the risk 
assessment  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  Framework  Directive.  The  Directive  is  thus 
expected to address both long-term health problems and acute health effects. It is a horizontal 
Directive always operating in tandem with other Directives. 

The annexes to the Directive lay down minimum requirements for the different categories of 
safety and health signs at work. 

State of transposition and implementation 

The Directive has been transposed in all Member States and two thirds of the Member States 
have  established  more  detailed  or  stringent  requirements.  Most  Member  States  had  existing 
legislation  in  place  transposing  Directive  77/576/EEC,  but  Directive  92/58/EEC  had  some 
impact on national legislation since it supplemented, broadened or updated the existing legal 
framework.  There  are  no  observed  cases  of  incorrect  transposition  and  no  infringement 
proceedings have been launched on that account.  

Existing  evidence  strongly  suggests  that  the  Directive  is  generally  complied  with  to  a  large 
extent, and the rationale for the Directive is widely accepted across MSs and establishments. 
This seems to be the case for all establishments, regardless of size, yet with better compliance 
levels in large establishments than in smaller ones. 

The  majority  of  the  Member  States  report  that  SMEs  do  not  have  specific  problems  in 
complying  with  the  Directive.  However,  some  Member  States  point  to  challenges  in 
compliance  for  SMEs  concerning  the  maintenance  and  renewal  of  signs,  thus  highlighting 
traditional  challenges  for  SMEs  (e.g.  lack  of  financial  resources,  necessary  expertise, 
knowledge of specific requirements etc.).  

Manufacturers,  labour  inspection  and  insurance  companies  were  identified  as  the  three 
potential sources of information for establishments on requirements concerning the instalment 
of OSH signs. 

Relevance  

In essence, OSH signs are used to warn or advise workers on a wide variety of hazards and 
risks,  courses  of  action  etc.  Since  such  hazards  and  risks  remain  present,  OSH  signs  as  a 
general concept remain relevant. The Directive is therefore relevant in all Member States and 
to all EU workers.  

Effectiveness  

Generally,  national  stakeholders  and  Member  States  find  that  the  Directive  has  positively 
contributed  to  the  prevention  of  accidents  and  the  protection  of  the  safety  and  health  of 

208 

 
 
workers. The possibility to  apply for derogations was used by a minority of Member  States 
and it does not seem to have had an adverse impact on the effectiveness of the Directive.  

Coherence 

No  issues  of  internal  coherence  were  identified  between  the  OSH  signs  Directive  and  the 
other OSH Directives. With regard to external coherence, no double legislation or overlap has 
been identified between the OSH signs Directive and other EU and international policies and 
legal instruments. 

However, the legal hierarchy between the OSH signs Directive and the EN ISO 7010 seems to 
be  unclear  in  several  MSs,  which  complicates  national  implementation  and  in  some  MSs 
causes confusion amongst manufacturers. Legally, establishments are required to abide by the 
provisions of the OSH signs Directive and may choose to do so by implementing the EN ISO 
7010  standard,  which  constitutes  a  best  practice  standard  and  thus  fulfils  the  minimal 
requirements of the Directive. 

Nevertheless,  during  the  evaluation,  several  MSs  and  national  stakeholders  have  raised  an 
issue of alignment and expressed the view that the OSH signs Directive should to be reviewed 
and brought into line with the most recent standards on safety signs (cf. national stakeholder 
interviews  and  several  NIRs).  Furthermore,  in  the  NIRs,  several  MSs  report  that  they  have 
experienced  confusion  over  misalignments  between  the  OSH  signs  Directive  and  the  (EN) 
ISO standard although one is minimum requirements and the other is best practice. 

Apart  from  the  seeming  misperception  in  some  MSs  related  to  the  legal  hierarchy,  the 
confusion is caused by the degree of interpretation that is allowed in the Directive through the 
formulation in section 1.3, annex 1 that the pictograms used may be slightly different from or 
more  detailed  than  those  shown  in  the  Directive  as  long  as  a  corresponding  meaning  is 
maintained. This raises a question of the extent to which general derogations are allowed from 
the Directive. 

Main conclusions 

The OSH signs Directive remains relevant to all MSs. The national stakeholders and Member 
States  interviewed  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  study  assessed  that  it  contributes 
positively  to  the  prevention  of  accidents  and  the  protection  of  the  safety  and  health  of 
workers.   

A main finding of this evaluation is the fact that the legal hierarchy between the OSH signs 
Directive and the EN ISO 7010 is  unclear in  several Member States. Although  the minimal 
requirements established in the Directive are not legally incompatible with the best practice of 
the normative EN ISO 7010, the deviations between the EN ISO signs and the signs depicted 
in  the  Directive  Annexes  causes  confusion  in  the  MSs  as  to  what  can  be  regarded  as  "the 
correct sign". This confusion is exacerbated by the degree of interpretation that is allowed in 
the Directive, which raises a question of the extent to which general derogations are allowed 
from the Directive. Several MSs call for updates of the signs depicted in the annexes and for 
alignment  with  EN  ISO  7010,  indicating  a  lack  of  clarity  regarding  the  interrelationship 

209 

 
 
between  the  Directive  and  the  EN  ISO  standard.  This  confusion,  both  at  MS  and 
establishment  level,  essentially  arises  from  the  coexistence  of  the  EN  ISO  standard  and  the 
minimal  requirements.  It  is  likely  to  have  administrative  costs  in  the  MSs  and  warrants 
additional guidance and clarification. 

In  order  to  accommodate  these  issues,  further  consideration  to  the  possible  policy  options 
should be given, as a follow-up of the evaluation, including the option of replacing the current 
provisions relating to the pictograms in the Directive by a reference to the relevant EN ISO 
7010 standard. 

6. 
Directive 91/383/EEC supplementing the measures to encourage improvements in 
the safety and health at work of workers with a fixed-duration employment relationship 
or a temporary employment relationship (temporary workers) 

Objectives and main requirements  

The Directive applies to employment  relationships  governed by a fixed-duration contract of 
employment  (where  the  end  of  the  contract  is  established  by  objective  conditions  such  as: 
reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event) and 
temporary employment relationships between a temporary employment business, which is the 
employer and the worker, where the latter is assigned to work for and under the control of an 
undertaking and/or establishment making use of his services  

The  Directive  aims  at  ensuring  that  temporary  workers  are  afforded  the  same  level  of 
protection as other workers with regard to safety and health at work. Article 2 clearly states 
that the existence of an employment relationship governed by a fixed-duration contract or a 
temporary employment should not justify different treatment in respect to working conditions 
relating  to  health  and  safety,  especially  with  regard  to  access  to  personal  protective 
equipment. 

State of transposition and implementation  

The latest evaluation of the practical implementation of the Directive was finalised in 2011347. 

All Member States have transposed the Directive into their national legislation. The Directive 
is often transposed either through a specific act and secondary legislation or directly through 
the  national  framework  act  on  OSH  or  the  Labour  Code.  Member  States  have  invariably 
adopted specific rules regarding workers employed by a temporary employment agency. As to 
fixed-term  workers,  the  majority  of  Member  States  have  implemented  the  Directive  by 
adapting  their general  rules on health and safety,  specifying that  they apply  also to the said 
category of workers.  

The  majority  (18  of  27)  of  Member  States  implemented  more  detailed  or  stringent 
requirements. These are most common for the provision of medical surveillance, followed by 

347 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=200. 

210 

 
 
 
                                                            
ensuring protective and preventive services and information for workers. Some requirements 
still appear to be inadequately implemented in many enterprises.  

As  regards  accompanying  tools,  about  ten  Member  States  have  developed  guidance 
documents to support the Directive's implementation.  

Relevance  

In  2014, the proportion of employees in  the EU-28 with  a contract  of limited  duration (fix-
term  employment)  was  14.0  %.  The  share  of  employees  with  this  type  of  contact  was  the 
highest  in  Poland  (28.1  %)  and  lowest  in  Romania  (1.5%).  The  considerable  range  in  the 
propensity to use limited duration contracts between EU Member States may, at least to some 
degree,  reflect  national  practices,  the  supply  and  demand  of  labour,  employer  assessments 
regarding  potential  growth/contraction,  and  the  ease  with  which  employers  can  hire  and 
fire.348  

Large  differences  in  costs  and  workers'  rights  implied  by  the  use  of  permanent  and  non-
standard work, contracts may encourage companies to opt for the latter also in the future.  At 
the  same  time,  non-standard  work  contracts  (among  which  fixed-term  contracts  and 
temporary  agency  work  can  be  classified)  rarely  provide  for  a  sufficient  access  to  lifelong 
learning, social protection and monetary protection in case of termination without fault349. 

A body of literature confirms that temporary work is related to OSH problems. These workers 
often perform hazardous jobs, work under poorer conditions, and often receive less health and 
safety  training  than  permanent  employees.  This  increases  the  risk  of  work-related  accidents 
and health problems350. Data from the EWCS 2010 shows that temporary workers are more 
likely  to  report  higher  job  insecurity.  The  review  study  of  Virtanen  et  al.351  also  suggests 
to  permanent 
higher  psychological  morbidity  among 
employees. Underhill and Quinlan352 found in a range of studies that precarious employment 
is  associated  with  adverse  health  and  safety  outcomes.  Among  the  temporary  workers,  the 
temporary  agency  workers  are  most  vulnerable.  They  experience  a  higher  incidence  of 
workplace injury and a greater likelihood of more severe injuries353. Other studies support as 
well  the  thesis  that  workers  on  temporary  contract,  if  subject  to  a  workplace  accident,  are 
more likely to be confronted with severe injuries than permanent workers354.According to the 
findings  of  the  EU-LFS  ad  hoc  module  2013,  3.11  %  of  temporary  workers  in  the  EU-27 

temporary  workers  compared 

348 Eurostat, EU-LFS. 
349 DG EMPL, Employment and social situation in Europe, 2014. 
350 European Parliament, Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy, New Forms of Physical and 
Psychosocial Health Risks at Work, 2008. 
351 Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., Joensuu, M., Virtanen, P., Elovainio, M. Vahtera, J., Temporary employment and 
health: a review, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vl. 34, No 3, 2005, pp. 610-622. 
352 Underhill, E.M., Quinlan, M.G., How Precarious Employment Affects Health and Safety at Work: The Case 
of Temporary Agency Workers, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 66, No 3, 2011. 

353 https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Temporary_Workers 
354 See as example in Matteo Picchio and Jan van Ours, Temporary Jobs and the Severity of Workplace 
Accidents, IZA Discussion Papers from Institute for the Study of Labour No 10121.  

211 

 
 
                                                            
reported at least one accident at work during the 12 month preceding the survey (3.02% for 
permanent contracts)355.  

The  aforementioned  factors  confirm  the  continued  relevance  of  provisions  aiming  at  the 
protection of this vulnerable group. 

Effectiveness  

As  regards  workplace  impacts,  while  the  formal  compliance  with  the  core  processes  and 
mechanisms of the Directive as assessed in Country Summary Reports of the evaluation study 
seems to be medium to high, several areas where a better implementation could enhance the 
effectiveness of the Directive were identified. This concerns, for example, such requirements 
as information and training, medical surveillance. Though a large majority of temporary and 
fixed-term  workers  declares  to  be  very  well  or  well  informed  about  the  safety  risks  to  the 
performance  of  their  job,  they  are  still  not  as  well  informed  in  this  respect  as  workers  on 
permanent contracts356. Work insecurity continues also to be an issue for temporary workers.  

Statistical  data  on  accidents  and  work-related  ill-health  supporting  the  assessment  of  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Directive  at  the  EU  level  is  limited  and  the  development  of  better 
evidence base for the monitoring of the Directive could be one possible action for the future. 
From 2007 to 2013 in the majority of 8 MSs for which comparable data could be found the 
percentage  of  temporary  workers  reporting  having  at  least  one  work-related  health  problem 
has  decreased357.  As  regards  accidents  at  work,  comparable  information  between  the  two 
years was available from only 5 MS358. Two MSs showed a negative trend, two an increasing 
one and in one the percentage of temporary workers reporting at least one accident at work 
over  the  12  months  preceding  the  survey  remained  stable.  Those  developments  cannot 
however be attributed exclusively to the Directive, due to other factors influencing the results. 
When interviewed in the framework of the evaluation study, the EU stakeholders were unsure 
of  the  safety  and  health  impacts  of  the  Directive  and  were  therefore  reluctant  to  make  an 
assessment.  However,  the  employer  organisations  were  slightly  more  positive,  even  though 
the assessment was made based on a limited number of interviews.  

Coherence 

No internal coherence issues were identified between the Temporary Workers Directive and 
other  OSH  Directives.    Likewise,  no  external  coherence  issues  were  identified  between  the 
Directive and other EU texts and international instruments. 

355 Eurostat, EU-LFS ad hoc module 2013 on accidents at work and work-related health-problems. 
356 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in 
EU Member States, COWI, 2016. 
357 Eurostat, EU LFS ad hoc modules 2007 and 2013, Data for AT, CY, DK, FI, HU, IE, PL and UK.  A decrease 
in percentages between the two years could be observed in all those MS, except in AT, FI (upward trend) and IE 
(stable situation).  
358 Eurostat, EU LFS ad hoc modules 2007 and 2013. Data for AT, DK, FI, IT, UK. 

212 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Main conclusions 

Whereas all Member States have transposed the Directive into national law, the majority have 
done  so  by  stating  that  general  health  and  safety  requirements  also  apply  to  temporary 
workers.  At  enterprise  level,  ambiguity  about  the  role  of  the  user  company  and  that  of  the 
temporary  employment  agency  may  lead  to  inadequate  compliance  in  some  enterprises. 
Moreover, medical surveillance is particularly challenging for this group.  

Temporary  workers  often  perform  hazardous  jobs,  work  under  poorer  conditions,  and  often 
receive less health and safety training than permanent employees. They also experience high 
levels of job insecurity, which is a risk factor for developing mental health problems. For that 
reason  the  evaluation  study  recommended  that  the  Directive  could  focus  more  on  job 
insecurity  and  mental  health.  No  recurrent  recommendations/suggestions  on  this  issue  were 
reported  in  the  National  Implementation  Reports  (NIRs).  While  psychosocial  risks  are  a 
source of major concern (for temporary but also for other workers), the evaluation highlighted 
that  their  complex  nature  does  not  easily  lend  itself  to  a  legislative  response.  The  possible 
future  actions  in  this  field  should  therefore  be  subject  to  a  careful  assessment.  Actions 
developed for temporary workers should be part of a broader policy response in view of better 
psychosocial  risks  prevention  and  inclusive  labour  markets  with  appropriate  transitions 
between different forms of labour contracts. 

Another  point  relates  to  the  scope  of  the  Directive.  Research  has  shown  that  temporary 
workers  are  a  very  heterogeneous  group  of  workers.  This  implies  that  they  are  exposed  to 
very different working conditions.  

The Directive focuses on information to temporary workers. According to the findings of the 
EWCS  2010,  temporary  workers  are  not  afforded  the  same  level  of  information  as  other 
workers.  Further  accompanying  actions,  developed  in  collaboration  with  or  by  the  social 
partners,  could  therefore  be  considered  in  order  to  ensure  a  better  implementation  of  the 
Directive.  

 Finally, common findings for the vulnerable workers-specific Directives are outlined in the 
Main Report. 

Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements 
7. 
in  the  safety  and  health  at  work  of  pregnant  workers  and  workers  who  have  recently 
given birth or are breastfeeding (pregnant/breastfeeding workers)  

This evaluation exercise is limited to those rules of the Directive which protect the health and 
safety of pregnant workers by addressing the risks of exposure to harmful chemical, physical 
and  biological  agents  and  hazardous  industrial  processes  and  working  conditions  including 
night  work.  In  particular,  it  does  not  extend  to  the  rights  to  maternity  leave  and  to  the 
prohibition of dismissals pursuant to Articles 8 and 10 of the Directive. Those aspects which 
are  clearly  distinguishable  and  intrinsically  related  to  the  protection  of  pregnant  workers 
against  discrimination  are  currently  under  review  in  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  a 

213 

 
 
Commission  initiative  to  improve  the  work-life  balance  for  working  parents  and  caregivers 
together with other family leaves and will be addressed in that context. 

Objectives and main requirements  

The Directive aims at implementing  measures to  encourage improvements in the safety and 
health  at  work  of  pregnant  workers  (where  pregnant  worker  means  a  pregnant  worker  who 
informs her employer of her condition, in accordance with national legislation and/or national 
practice);  workers  who  have  recently  given  birth  (where  a  worker  who  has  recently  given 
birth means a worker who has recently given birth within the meaning of national legislation 
and/ or national practice and who informs her employer of her condition, in accordance with 
said  legislation  and/or  practice)  and  workers  who  are  breastfeeding  (where  worker  who  is 
breastfeeding means a worker who is breastfeeding within the meaning of national legislation 
and/or national practice and who informs her employer of her condition, in accordance with 
that legislation and/or practice). 

The  Directive  aims  to  implement  measures  to  encourage  improvements  in  the  safety  and 
health of pregnant/breastfeeding workers. At the same time, the Directive also addresses equal 
treatment of pregnant women and ensures the right to maternity leave, as well as protection 
from  discrimination.  In  the  preamble,  it  states  that  the  protection  of  pregnant/breastfeeding 
women  should  not  work  to  the  detriment  of  EU  Directives  on  equal  treatment  of  men  and 
women in the labour market. 

The Directive addresses risks related to exposure to agents, processes and working conditions 
considered hazardous for the safety and health of pregnant/breastfeeding workers and/or her 
unborn  child.  These  risks  might  cause  a  range  of  adverse  pregnancy  outcomes,  such  as 
premature  birth,  low  birth-weight  and  congenital  anomalies  as  well  as  pregnancy  related 
health problems for the pregnant/breastfeeding worker like pre-eclampsia, high blood pressure 
and inability to breastfeeding. The main group of risks are physical agents, biological agents, 
chemical agents, industrial processes and underground mining work. On this background, the 
Directive establishes in particular the obligations for the employer to assess any risk, to decide 
what measures should be taken and to inform the workers about those; a three-tiered approach 
for action further to the result of the assessment is set up: the priority is to eliminate the risks 
and prevent them at the source; if this is not feasible to accommodate the working conditions, 
if this is not feasible – to move the worker to another job and if this is not feasible neither - to 
grant the worker leave).  

The Directive foresees cases where employers may not oblige pregnant/breastfeeding workers 
to  perform  duties  for  which  the  risk  assessment  has  revealed  a  risk  of  exposure  to  agents 
(listed  in  Annex  II)  which  would  jeopardize  their  safety  or  health.  These  cases  differ  for 
pregnant and breastfeeding workers (see Art. 6).  

State of transposition and implementation  

All Member States have transposed the Directive into national legislation, often either through 
a  specific  act  and  secondary  legislation  or  directly  through  the  national  framework  act  on 

214 

 
 
OSH or the Labour Code. The majority of Member States have established more stringent or 
detailed requirements.  For  instance, some  Member  States  have  included women  undergoing 
advanced in-vitro procedures and women who adopt/foster children. Several Member States 
already  had  provisions  in  place,  but  a  previous  evaluation  assessed  that  the  Directive  has 
increased protection for pregnant/breastfeeding workers in several Member States.  

The  analysis  of  the  accompanying  measures  to  support  implementation  shows  that  the 
majority  of  Member  States  have  developed  guidance  documents  and  support  tools,  for 
instance  checklist  and  guidelines  for  risk  assessment.  Finally,  there  are  several  measures  at 
EU-level, including the Commission Guidelines to facilitate risk assessment in this area. 

Relevance 

In  2014,  there  were  approximately  98  million  women  in  employment.  Though  employment 
rates are higher for men than for women ( 70.1% and 59.6 % respectively in 2014), a longer-
term  comparison  shows  that  while  the  employment  rate  for  men  in  2014  was  below  its 
corresponding level 10 year earlier, there was a marked increase in the proportion of women 
in employment359. 

When pregnant or breastfeeding, women are a particularly vulnerable group of workers. The 
main focus of the Directive is on exposure that could have potentially negative effects on the 
pregnancy  and/or  the  child.  Thus,  the  reach  of  the  Directive  extends  beyond  the  woman. 
Those  factors  confirm  the  relevance  of  provisions  aiming  at  the  protection  of  this  group  of 
workers in all Member States. 

Effectiveness  

Trends  in  adverse  pregnancy  outcomes  are  not  only  affected  by  work,  but  also  by  factors 
related  to  lifestyle,  health  care  and  other  environmental  factors.  While  it  is  not  possible  to 
assess  the  extent  to  which  the  Directive  has  affected  trends  in  adverse  pregnancy  related 
outcomes with available data, according to the external study the Directive may have had an 
effect on the health and well-being of the mother in general.  The EU stakeholders' interviews 
made  in  the  framework  of  the  external  study  assessed  that  the  Directive  has  been  quite 
effective in achieving positive health and safety impacts. 

Coherence  

Apart  from  findings  related  to  the  coherence  between  the  Pregnant/breastfeeding  workers 
Directive and the Framework Directive described and addressed in the Directive report on the 
Framework  Directive,  no  internal  coherence  issues  were  identified  with  the  exception  of 
provisions  on  pregnant  workers  under  various  OSH  Directives  that  could  be  streamlined 
under Pregnant/breastfeeding workers Directive.    

The  analysis  also  reveals  several  interfaces  with  other  EU  legal  acts  related  to,  on  the  one 
hand, chemical exposure (REACH, CLP) and, on the other hand, EU-employment rights (e.g. 
Directive 2003/88/EC on working time).  No coherence issues were identified. 

359 Eurostat, EU-LFS. 

215 

 
 
                                                            
Main conclusions  

The  Directive  has  improved  the  protection  of  pregnant/breastfeeding  workers  in  some 
Member States, but many Member States already had provisions in place before transposing 
the Directive. Moreover, the implementation is hampered by shortcomings in compliance at 
the enterprise level. Enterprises find it difficult to identify special risks for pregnant workers 
(hence to conduct the risk assessment) and to find suitable work accommodations.  

Trends  in  adverse  pregnancy  outcomes  are  not  only  affected  by  work,  but  also  by  factors 
related  to  lifestyle,  health  care  and  other  environmental  factors.  While  it  is  not  possible  to 
assess  the  extent  to  which  the  Directive  has  affected  trends  in  adverse  pregnancy  related 
outcomes with available data, according to the external study the Directive may have had an 
effect on the health and well-being of the mother in general.  The EU stakeholders' interviews 
made  in  the  framework  of  the  external  study  assessed  that  the  Directive  has  been  quite 
effective  in  achieving  positive  health  and  safety  impacts.  The  available  scientific  literature 
shows that paternal exposure also affects the health of the child. Moreover, the Directive only 
provides  provisions  for  women  with  a  recognised  pregnancy  (and  who  have  reported  her 
pregnancy to her employer), however, exposure to chemical agents in the first trimester also 
has  a  substantial  impact  on  the  health  of  the  child.  The  evaluation  study  recommended 
revisiting the risk factors listed in the annexes.  

To  ensure  better  clarity and  avoiding  that  provisions  on  pregnant  workers  are  spread  across 
different  Directives,  the  streamlining  of  these  provisions  under  the  Pregnant/breastfeeding 
workers  Directive  could  be  considered  while  maintaining  full  respect  for  the  principle  of 
equal treatment between women and men: 

-  review  of  the  Pregnant/breastfeeding  workers  Directive  to  streamline  the  provisions  on 
pregnant workers and breastfeeding workers under other OSH Directives ; 

- alignment of the terms nursing mothers and breastfeeding workers in the Directives; 

- streamlining of the provisions on night work concerning pregnant workers under Directive 
2003/88/EC (working time); 

-  such  streamlining  or  revision  should  take  full  account  of  the  Commission's  ongoing  new 
start  initiative  on  possible  action  addressing  the  challenges  of  work-life  balance  faced  by 
working parents and caregivers. 

Any other  aspects  that are not  directly related to the protection of pregnant workers against 
risks  of  certain  agents,  processes  and  working  conditions  will  not  form  part  of  the 
streamlining exercise as considered in this document. 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
8. 

Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work (young people)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The  Framework  Directive  (Art.  15)  provides  that  particularly  sensitive  risk  groups  must  be 
protected against the dangers which specifically affect them. Within this context, children and 
adolescents  were  considered  to  be  specific  risk  groups  requiring  measures  to  be  taken  with 
regard to their safety and health.  

The Young People Directive has as its objectives to prohibit work by children; regulate and 
protect work by adolescents; guarantee young people working conditions which suit their age; 
ensure  that  young  people  are  protected  against  economic  exploitation  and  against  any  work 
likely  to  harm  their  safety,  health  or  physical,  mental,  moral  or  social  development  or  to 
jeopardize  their  education.  To  that  effect  it  establishes  a  series  of  measures  including 
prohibiting  the  employment  of  children,  and  the  employment  of  adolescents  in  a  variety  of 
types  of  work  (including,  for  example,  night  work).  It  also  places  constraints  on  the 
employment  of  young  persons  in  respect  of  rest  breaks,  and  annual  holidays.  The  Directive 
also  makes  provisions  for  the  adoption  of  five  of  the  provisions  common  to  EU  OSH 
Directives (conducting a risk assessment; establishing internal and/or external preventive and 
protective services; information and training of workers; health surveillance).   

State of transposition and implementation  

The  Directive  has  been  implemented  in  all  MSs.  Most  of  them  have  implemented  the 
Directive in various pieces of legislation and fewer implemented it in one piece of legislation.  

The  majority  of  the  MSs  have  implemented  more  detailed  requirements  in  particular  with 
respect  to  Art.  2  (scope)  -14  MSs-  and  conducting  a  risk  assessment  (Art.6(2)),  involving 
preventive and protective services (Art. 6(4)), information for workers (Art 6(3)) and training 
of workers (Art. 6(2)) - 22 MSs.  

At  MS  level,  actions  have  been  taken  in  relation  to  guidance  documents,  awareness  raising 
campaigns, support tools and education and training in order to support the implementation of 
the  legislation  transposing  the  Directive.  In  relation  to  compliance  with  the  information 
requirements, it appears that young people consider themselves not so well informed as their 
older work colleagues about health and safety at work risks, even though the Directive puts 
emphasis  on  information  for  young  people.  The  external  study  identified  consequently  that 
there is a need to improve the knowledge and awareness of the risks of young people and of 
their obligations, therefore perhaps suggesting a need for additional accompanying actions in 
the  area.  At  EU-level,  five  documents  were  identified.  Those  are  four  e-facts  or  factsheets 
from EU-OSHA, together with guidelines developed by the Commission. 

Relevance 

Children  and  adolescents  are  a  vulnerable  group  in  need  of  special  protection  as  a 
consequence of their lack of experience, of absence of awareness of existing or potential risks 
and of the fact that young people are not fully mature and that their bodies are developing.  

217 

 
 
Several  studies  show  that  youngest  workers  are  at  higher  risk  of  accidents,  in  particular 
severe, non-fatal injuries360. According to the EWCS 2015, young workers are more exposed 
to work intensity, shift work, adverse social behaviour and job insecurity than other workers. 

In the light of these increased, but also other risks, provisions aiming at the protection of this 
vulnerable  group  of  workers  remain  therefore  more  relevant  than  ever,  especially  in  the 
context of the  demographic developments in  the EU over the last decades. With ageing EU 
societies, provisions ensuring the protection of youngest workers and children to set the basis 
for  their  functioning  in  good  health  and  safety  conditions  throughout  their  careers  are 
essential.  

Effectiveness  

The EWCS data show a downward trend in the proportion of young people considering their 
health  and  safety  at  work  being  at  risk.  The  same  survey  show  also  that  the  proportions  of 
young  workers  reporting  exposure  to  vibration  and  noise,  chemicals,  smoke,  fumes  or  dust, 
high  and  low  temperatures,  tiring  positions  and  lifting  of  heavy  loads  have  decreased361. 
ESAW statistics show a downwards trend in the incidence and number of accidents at work 
for young people in the EU-27 over the period 2008-2012362. 

EU-stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  study  were,  in  general, 
moderately  positive  in  their  assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  Directive.  In  general,  the  EU 
stakeholders on average assess risk assessments as being of highest relative importance to the 
effectiveness of the Directive, followed by preventive/protective equipment and information 
provided to workers.  However, the EU-stakeholders differ in their assessment of whether the 
directive  has  fulfilled  its  objective.    Employer  organisations  were  more  negative  in  their 
assessment  than  worker  organisations,  authorities  and  other  stakeholders.  Authorities  were 
most positive in their assessment.   

Coherence 

The  Young  People  Directive  contains  additional  risk  assessment  requirements  to  other 
Directives in relation to young people due to them being more vulnerable to certain risks due 
to  potential  lack  of  maturity  and  or  experience.  However,  these  provisions  did  not  result  in 
any legal conflict of lack of coherence between the different OSH Directives. 

According to ILO Convention No. 77 of 1946 on the Medical Examination of Young Persons 
(Industry),  young  persons  under  the  age  of  18  cannot  be  employed  unless  they  have  been 
found  fit  for  the  work  by  a  thorough  medical  examination,  which  must  be  repeated  at  least 
once a year. ILO Convention No. 78 of 1946 on the Medical Examination of Young Persons 
(Non-Industrial  Occupations)  provides  for  identical  requirements,  which  do  not  have  an 

360 In 2012, the incidence of accidents at work leading to an absence of more than 3 days for workers under 18 
years old in the EU-27 equalled 2,018.83, compared to 2,301.35 in 2008. Eurostat, ESAW (online data code 
hsw_n2_03). 
361 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in 
EU Member States, COWI, 2016. 
362 Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_03). 

218 

 
 
                                                            
equivalent  in  the  Young  People  Directive,  while  ILO  Convention  No.  124  of  1965  on  the 
Medical Examination of Young Persons (Underground Work)  contains similar requirements 
for work underground in mines under the age of 21. 

Ratification  of  these  Conventions  by  all  MSs,  or  their  adoption  within  the  Young  People 
Directive, would introduce more specific provisions than at present. Some MSs have already 
chosen to ratify these (for example the ILO No. 77 of 1946 has been ratified by 13 EU MS). 
However, overall the Young People Directive contains stringent provisions. It notably obliges 
Member  States  to  prohibit  the  employment  of  young  people  in  a  number  of  circumstances 
where their safety and health are at risk. It also provides that where the employer's assessment 
of the hazards to young people in connection with their work shows that there is a risk to their 
safety,  physical  or  mental  health  or  development,  an  appropriate  free  assessment  and 
monitoring  of  their  health  shall  be  provided  at  regular  intervals.  Therefore,  the  need  for 
adopting  the  additional  provisions  contained  in  the  above-mentioned  ILO  Conventions  and 
the benefits that would accrue from doing so are not clear. 

Main conclusions 

The Young People Directive has been transposed and implemented in all MSs, with several 
Member States going beyond the requirements of the Directive.  

The provisions of the Young People Directive remain relevant to all Member States. 

In relation to compliance with the specific CPM on information, it appears that young people 
consider  themselves  not  so  well  informed  as  their  older  work  colleagues,  even  though  the 
Directive puts emphasis on information for young people.  

In response to this, consideration could be given to the preparation of guidance on health and 
safety  risks  at  work,  specifically  focussed  on  young  people,  with  the  involvement  of  social 
partners  and  EU-OSHA.  Information  and  guidance  could  be  delivered,  inter  alia,  via  such 
communication channels as social media and other modern communication channels. 

Finally,  common  findings  for  the  vulnerable  workers-specific  Directives  are  outlined  in  the 
Main Report. 

9. 
Directive  92/57/EEC  on  the  implementation  of  minimum  safety  and  health 
requirements  at  temporary  or  mobile  construction  sites  (temporary  or  mobile 
construction sites)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The  Directive  lays  down  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  temporary  or  mobile 
construction  sites.  It  specifically  aims 
tackle  unsatisfactory  architectural  and/or 
to 
organizational  options,  poor  planning  of  the  works  at  the  project  preparation  stage  or 
inadequate  coordination  which  have  played  a  role  in  more  than  half  of  the  occupational 
accidents  occurring  on  construction  sites,  particularly  where  various  undertakings  work 

219 

 
 
 
simultaneously  or  in  succession  at  the  same  temporary  or  mobile  construction  site.  The 
Directive  supplements  the  principles  of  the  Framework  Directive  with  more  stringent  and 
specific provisions.  

At the time the Directive was adopted, the construction sector was an important sector of EU 
economies,  accounting  for  a  large  share  of  all  occupational  fatal  injuries.  Furthermore,  the 
construction  sector  reported  high  levels  of  exposure  to  ergonomic  risk  factors,  biological, 
chemical and noise/temperature risk factors. 

The Directive aims to prevent risks by establishing a chain of responsibility, linking all parties 
involved.  Being  a  sector-specific  Directive  does  not  mean  that  it  establishes  minimum 
requirements  for  all  potential  risks  occurring  at  temporary  or  mobile  construction  sites,  but 
rather  that  the  Directive  describes  some  specific  risks  to  be  evaluated  which  are  not  (or 
insufficiently) covered by other Directives.  

Hence, the Directive lays down minimum requirements for the sector at a fairly general level 
in order to increase focus on the prevention of occupational risks. At the more specific level, 
it contain Annexes that refer to particular types of work and common risks such as slipping, 
stumbling, falling and loss of control of hand-held tools and objects.  

State of transposition and implementation 

With few observed cases of incorrect transposition and infringement proceedings since 1993, 
the  evaluation  found  that  the  national  transposition  of  the  Directive  has  been  smooth. 
Furthermore, most MSs have implemented more detailed or stringent requirements. However, 
ten MSs have derogated from the requirement to draw up a safety and health plan. 

Although there seems overall to be good compliance with the Directive provisions among the 
establishments in the MSs, compliance is relatively poor among the smallest establishments. 
This is partly due to the fact that several of these are sub-contracted construction companies, 
many of which are SMEs or even self-employed workers.  

A number of accompanying actions have been taken at both MS and EU level to encourage 
the  achievement  of  the  safety  and  health  targets  of  the  Directive.  These  include  guidance 
documents,  support  tools,  awareness-raising  campaigns,  education,  training  activities  and 
financial  incentives.  A  few  stakeholders  have  pointed  to  gaps  in  these  actions,  although 
without providing specific recommendations. 

Relevance  

The  factors  leading  to  the  adoption  of  the  Directive  are  still  relevant  today.  Workers  on 
construction sites are exposed to major hazards, among which: the risk of accidents (In 2012 
in the construction sector, the incidence rate of accidents at work was about two times higher 
as compared with the incidence for all NACE sectors for non-fatal accidents and more than 3 
times higher for fatal accidents363, the construction sector ranked first as regards the share of 
all fatal accidents and second just behind the manufacturing sector as regards the share of all 

363 Eurostat, ESAW (online data codes hsw_02_01 and hsw_02_02). 

220 

 
 
                                                            
serious  non-fatal  accidents  at  work  happening  in  the  EU-27364,  looking  more  specifically  at 
the situation on construction sites as such, accidents happening in this working environment 
appear also to constitute a large share of all accidents365), exposure to chemicals, carcinogens 
and mutagens, high levels of exposure to noise and vibration, extreme temperatures, exposure 
to  risks  leading  to  MSDs  etc.  Furthermore,  the  complex  sub-contracting  relationships  on 
construction  sites366  and  high  occurrence  of  dependent  self-employment  in  construction367 
confirm  the  continued  relevance  of  the  rationale  behind  the  Directive  calling  for  a  better 
coordination between the various parties concerned in the construction process.  

The  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  relevant  for  all  MS,  which  is  confirmed  labour  market 
data. Though affected in recent years by the 2009 crisis, the construction sector is still one of 
the  most  important  economic  activity  sectors  in  the  EU,  accounting  for  almost  7%  of  the 
overall  EU  employment368.  But  work  on  construction  sites  involves  also  often  the 
participation of workers from other sectors. 

All these factors confirm the continued relevance of the Directive. 

Effectiveness  

The  external  study  found  that  the  Directive  has  achieved  its  stated  objective  of  introducing 
measures to encourage improvements in terms of safety and health at work. At the same time, 
the  evaluation  has  found  that  securing  occupational  safety  and  health  tends  to  be  a  greater 
challenge in SMEs and microenterprises, often acting as sub-contractors on construction sites. 
The Directive has led to positive workplace impacts as well as safety and health impacts, and 
it has contributed to levelling the playing field by setting common standards for occupational 
safety and health in the EU. 

This  assessment  is  also  supported  by  information  available  from  EU  datasets.  As  regards 
construction,  the  incidence  rate  for  non-fatal  accidents  at  work  in  that  sector  dropped  from 
3,735.24  in  2008  to  3,112.08  in  2012  in  the  EU-27.  A  decline  was  also  observed  in  the 
number  and  incidence  of  fatal  accidents  at  work  in  the  EU27369.The  available  data  for  the 
period starting in 1994 for the EU-15 show also a declining trend for both fatal and non-fatal 
accidents  in  construction  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Construction  Directive.  Available 
data on the trend in accidents in specific working environments, also confirm a very important 
decline in the number of accidents happening on construction sites in the period 2008-2013370.  

However,  areas  for  potential  improvements  were  also  identified  in  the  framework  of  the 
evaluation. One of the main recommendations from the NIRs in relation to this Directive, was 
to  clarify  the  status  of  the  coordinator  and  reinforce  his  function,  namely  to  clarify  the 

364 Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_02_04). 
365 Eurostat, ESAW, Phase III, variable Working Environment, reference year 2013, results for 16 MS for which 
data was available. 
366 EU SMES and sub-contracting, EIM Business & Policy Research, 2009, p.24. 
367  DG  EMPL,  Employment  and  Social  Developments  in  Europe  2015,  Chapter  1.1.  Self-employment  and 
entrepreneurship. 
368 Eurostat, EU LFS, online data code lfsa_egan2. 
369 Eurostat, ESAW (online data codes hsw_n2_01 and hsw_n2_02). 
370 Eurostat, ESAW, Phase III, variable Working Environment, data for 16 MS. 

221 

 
 
                                                            
services expected to be provided by coordinators, especially with regard to project design, and 
to set out the qualifications coordinators should have. 

Coherence 

While there are no significant internal coherence issues related to the Construction Directive, 
certain overlaps exist between the minimum requirements for workplaces in the Construction 
Directive and the Workplace Directive (in particular in relation to Annex IV). In addition, the 
evaluation  identified  issues  in  relation  to  inspection  requirements  on  work  equipment  with 
Directive 2009/104/EC (work equipment).  

Safety  and  health  on  construction  sites  are  addressed  by  other  EU  policies,  hereunder  other 
non-OSH  Directives,  action  plans  and  strategies.  Furthermore,  other 
international 
organisations  –  in  particular  the  ILO  –  pursue  improvements  to  construction  site  working 
conditions.  For  example,  the  ILO  Safety  and  Health  in  Construction  Convention  (No.  167) 
sets additional requirements related to inspection and reporting of occupational accidents and 
diseases. 

Main conclusions 

The Construction Directive has  been transposed and implemented in  all  Member States and 
only a few cases of incorrect transposition and infringement proceedings were observed since 
1993.  The  overall  level  of  compliance  with  the  Directive  is  good,  though  some  challenges 
have  been  reported  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  as  regards  compliance  for  smallest 
enterprises, acting often as sub-contractors on construction sites.  

In  the  light  of  existing  health  and  safety  risks  linked  with  work  on  construction  sites  still 
today,  the  complex  sub-contracting  relationships  between  enterprises  in  this  working 
environment  and  given  the  economic  importance  of  construction  activities  in  the  EU,  the 
Directive is still relevant today. 

The  available  accident  at  work  statistics  and  the  results  of  the  evaluation  study  allow 
assessing  that  the  Directive  has  achieved  its  stated  objective  of  introducing  measures  to 
encourage improvements in terms of safety and health at work and has led to a reduction in 
the  number  and  incidence  of  accidents  at  work  in  the  EU.  However,  a  recurrent  suggestion 
from the national implementation reports in order to improve the impact of the Directive was 
to  clarify  the  status  of  the  coordinator  and  reinforce  his  function,  namely  to  clarify  the 
services expected to be provided by coordinators, especially with regard to project design, and 
to set out the qualifications coordinators should have. 

Based on the conclusions of the evaluation study, it could be considered to assess if there is a 
need  to  better  ensure  the  articulation  between  Directives  92/57/EEC  and  2009/104/EC  as 
regards for instance the inspection of work equipment such as scaffolding. 

A  strategy  to  further  enhance  synergies  could  include  the  promotion  of  safety  and  health 
education,  and  training  and  capacity  building  programmes  within  the  construction  sector. 
Such  programmes  could  specifically  target  safety  and  health  coordinators  on  construction 

222 

 
 
sites. Due to problems with compliance for smallest enterprises identified in the framework of 
the evaluation, there should be a greater emphasis on the safety and health within SMEs and 
microenterprises on mobile constructions sites in the future. 

Finally,  other  international  organisations  –  in  particular  the  ILO  –  pursue  improvements  to 
construction site working conditions. For example, the ILO Safety and Health in Construction 
Convention  (No.  167)  sets  additional  requirements  related  to  inspection  and  reporting  of 
occupational  accidents  and  diseases.  Hence,  there  could  be  a  need  to  assess  if  relevant 
provisions of the ILO Convention could serve as basis for further improvement of the workers 
protection of the workers protection in the construction sector.  

10. 
Directive  92/104/EEC  on  the  minimum  health  and  safety  requirements  for 
improving  the  safety  and  health  protection  of  workers  in  surface  and  underground 
mineral extracting industries (extractive industries - mines and quarries)  

Objectives and main requirements  

This Directive aims at addressing the well- recognised safety and health risks associated with 
this sector. The text of the Directive does not however detail the relevant hazards and risks to 
workers (with the exception of the provisions on protection from fire, explosions and health 
endangering atmospheres).  

In  accordance  with  the  Directive,  the  employers  are  in  particular  required  to  take  the 
following  measures  to  safeguard  the  health  and  safety  of  workers  by  ensuring  that  certain 
requirements in relation to workplaces are fulfilled; that workplaces are designed, constructed, 
equipped, commissioned, operated and maintained in such a way that workers can perform the 
work  assigned  to  them  without  endangering  their  safety  and/or  health  and/or  those  of  other 
workers;  that  the  operation  of  workplaces  takes  place  under  the  supervision  of  a  person  in 
charge, work involving a special risk is only carried out by competent staff in accordance with 
employers’  instructions,  all  safety  instructions  are  comprehensible  to  workers,  appropriate 
first-aid  facilities  are  available,  any  relevant  safety  drills  are  performed  regularly;  that  a 
document concerning safety and health ("safety and health document"), covering the relevant 
requirements  laid  down  in  the  Framework  directive,  is  drawn  up  and  kept  up  to  date.  In 
addition,  where  workers  from  several  undertakings  are  present  at  the  same  workplace,  the 
employer  in  charge  of  the  workplace,  coordinates  the  implementation  of  all  the  measures 
concerning  the  safety  and  health  of  the  workers  –  such  coordination  does  not  affect  the 
responsibility of the individual employers as provided for in the Framework directive.  

The  Annex  to  the  Directive  lays  down  common  minimum  requirements  for  the  workplaces 
applicable  to  surface  and  underground  mineral-extracting  industries  and  to  ancillary  surface 
installations  (part  A),  and  special  minimum  requirements  applicable  to  surface  mineral-
extracting industries (part B) and to underground mineral-extracting industries (part C).  

The mineral-extracting industries through drilling within the meaning of Directive 92/91/EEC 
(extractive industries - drilling) are excluded from the scope of the Directive. 

223 

 
 
 
State of transposition and implementation 

Most MSs have implemented the Directive through several pieces of legislation, only fewer 
using a single piece.  

The majority of Member States have implemented more detailed requirements than those laid 
down in the Directive, in particular with regard to Art. 3 (2) (safety and health document) and 
Art. 8 (health surveillance).  

Evidence  from  the  ESENER-2  survey  suggests  very  good  levels  of  compliance  with  the 
obligation to perform regular risk assessments in the mining and quarrying sector. According 
to the survey, regular medical examinations are performed by 94% of establishments in that 
sector. The sector ranks also high as regards the use of different health and safety services (in 
particular  occupational  health  doctors,  generalists  on  health  and  safety,  experts  in  accident 
prevention) and information to workers371. 

Relevance  

Though a decline in employment in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries in 
the EU could be observed since the adoption of the Directive, the industries falling under its 
provisions are present to some extent in all Member States, covering in 2012 approximately 
0.34% of the total EU-27 workforce372.  

During  the  same  year,  fatal  accidents  incurred  by  workers  in  the  industries  covered  by  the 
provisions of the Directive accounted for approximately 2% of all fatal accidents at work in 
the EU-27 economies. Workers in those industries continue to be at a higher risk of accidents 
at work, as compared with workers in many other sectors of the EU economies. The incidence 
rates,  in  particular,  as  regards  most  serious  accidents  at  work  in  the  main  divisions  of  the 
mining  and  quarrying  sector  covered  by  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  continue  to  be  the 
highest among all sectors in the EU (in 2012, the fatal accidents incidence rate for mining and 
quarrying activities equalled 10.65 against an average incidence rate of 1.93 for all economic 
activities. For the different divisions potentially concerned by the provisions of the Directive, 
the incidence was the following: mining of coal and lignite  – 10.71;  mining of metal ores  -
18.44; other mining and quarrying activities – 15.85; mining support service activities – 2.58). 
Exposure of workers in those working environments to the risk of falls of mine roofs, face and 
sides (ribs), work with mineral-extracting machinery, an increased risk of injuries, explosions, 
fires,  risk  of  ignitions  of  methane  which  can  explode  during  coal  cutting,  exposure  to  toxic 
and  irritating  gases  (such  as  carbon  monoxide  and  nitrogen  oxides),  risk  of  flooding,  are 
among the most important factors leading to this state of play. 

But  workers  in  surface  and  underground  mining  are  also  exposed  to  agents  that  can 
potentially lead to a number of severe work-related diseases, including: physical agents (high 
exposure  to  noise,  vibration,  humidity,  extreme  temperatures,  ionising  radiation,  and 

371 Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2), Overview Report: 
Managing Health and Safety at Work, European Risk Obesrvatory, EU-OSHA, 2016. 
372 Data for the reference year 2012, Eurostat, EU LFS (online data code lfsa_egan22d). 

224 

 
 
                                                            
insufficient light), chemical agents and dust (such as coal, silica and metal dusts and mixtures 
thereof,  skin  irritating  agents  etc.),  biological  agents  as  well  as  a  number  of  ergonomic  and 
psychosocial  factors  linked  to  work-organisation.  As  a  result,  the  surface  and  underground 
mineral-extracting  industries  register  one  of  the  highest  incidence  rates  of  occupational 
diseases as compared with other sectors of economy373. 

Despite  the  fact  that  workers  in  industries  concerned  by  the  provision  of  the  Directive 
represent a relatively low share in overall EU employment, the high severity and number of 
risks to which workers in surface and underground mining are exposed to supports the need 
for minimum EU requirements and standards to protect them. Additional communication and 
specific guidance on emerging risks within those industries, deriving from technological and 
operational changes to processes and/or the sector workforce may be required. 

Effectiveness 

A decrease in the rate of accidents for most industry sectors concerned by the provisions of 
the Directive from 2008 to  2012 could  be observed374. The declining  trend in  accidents  can 
also  be  observed  from  the  longer  time  series  available  at  national  level.  As  regards  work-
related diseases, it is difficult to attribute existing trends to the Directive, due to long latency 
periods  of  certain  types  of  work-related  ill-health  linked  with  work  in  surface  and 
underground  mineral-extracting  industries  and  other  confounding  factors.  In  particular,  the 
interaction between Directive 92/104/EEC, the physical agents' directives, the chemical agent 
and the carcinogens and mutagens at work directives as well as other non-legislative measures 
needs to  be taken into account when analysing the impact on specific types  of work-related 
ill-health.  The  evaluation  study  assessed  that  the  improvements  in  surface  and  underground 
mineral-extracting industries could, at least partially, be attributed to the Directive, triggering 
improvements  in  the  behaviour  of  establishments  in  providing  safer  and  healthier  working 
conditions. 

Coherence 

No  major  internal  coherence  issues  were  identified  in  relation  to  the  Mines  and  Quarries 
Directive,  though  certain  overlaps  exist  as  regards  the  minimum  health  and  safety 

373 In Poland, accounting for around 30% of EU-27 employment in the mining and quarrying industries in 2012, 
the incidence rate of occupational diseases recognised for the mining and quarrying activities is 10 times higher 
than the one for the entire economy (based on Occupational Diseases in Poland (2007-2009 editions), Instytut 
Medycyny Pracy im. Prof. J. Nofera). This data does not distinguish, however, between surface and underground 
mineral extracting industries and mineral extracting industries through drilling.  
374 The incidence rate of serious non-fatal accidents at work per 100,000 persons employed for the mining of 
coal and lignite industry in the EU-27 equalled 1,679.06 in 2012 against 1,999.79 in 2008; for the mining of 
metal ores 1,527.87 in 2012 against 1,742.17 in 2008 and for other mining and quarrying activities – 2,737.32 in 
2012 against 3,131.33 in 2008. For mining support service activities, it evolved from 248.79 in 2008 to 270.83 in 
2012  (Eurostat, ESAW, online data code hsw_n2_01). The incidence rate of fatal accidents at work per 100,000 
persons employed for the mining of coal and lignite industry in the EU-27 equalled 10.71 in 2012 against 14.79 
in 2008; for the mining of metal ores 18.44 in 2012 against 14.05 in 2008, for other mining and quarrying 
activities – 15.85 in 2012 against 16.67 in 2008 and for mining support service activities, it evolved from 4.56 in 
2008 to 2.58 in 2012. Care however should be taken as regards the interpretation of trends in fatal accidents in 
some mining and quarrying divisions due to low number of underlying cases. (Eurostat, ESAW, online data code 
hsw_n2_02). 

225 

 
 
                                                            
requirements for workplace between this Directive and the Workplace Directive. Suggestions 
from the national implementation reports in relation to this Directive included considering the 
merging of Directive 92/104/EEC with Directive 92/91/EEC. 

Conclusions 

The  Directive  has  been  transposed  and  implemented  in  all  Member  States,  with  often  more 
detailed provisions developed at national level.  

Despite  the  fact  that  workers  in  industries  concerned  by  the  provision  of  the  Directive 
represent a relatively low share in overall EU employment, the high severity and number of 
risks  to  which  workers in  surface  and  underground  mining  continue  to be  exposed supports 
the  need  for  minimum  EU  requirements  and  standards  to  protect  them.  Additional 
communication  and  specific  guidance  on  emerging  risks  within  those  industries,  deriving 
from technological and operational changes to processes and/or the sector workforce may be 
required. Available statistics and results of the evaluation study confirm that the Directive has 
been  broadly  effective.  Suggestions  from  the  national  implementation  reports  in  relation  to 
this  Directive  included  considering  the  merging  of  Directive  92/104/EEC  with  Directive 
92/91/EEC. 

11. 
Directive 92/91/EEC concerning minimum requirements for improving the safety 
and  health  protection  of  workers  in  the  mineral  extracting  industries  through  drilling 
(extractive industries - drilling)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The  Directive  is  a  sector-specific  Directive,  which  applies  to  mineral-extracting  industries 
through drilling. Some risks, which are prevalent in the industry, are also covered by other EU 
OSH  Directives.  This  is  the  case  for  risks  from  physical  agents  (vibration  and  noise), 
chemical agents, as well as risks related to manual handling and use of equipment, protective 
equipment  and  signs.  The  Directive  focuses  specifically  on  the  risks  related  to  the 
arrangements  and  organisation  of  the  workplace  but  taking  into  account  the  particular  risks 
prevalent  in  workplaces  where  mineral  extraction  through  drilling  takes  place  (Directive 
89/654/EEC (workplace) does not apply to extractive industries). 

In accordance with the Directive the employers are required to take the following measures to 
safeguard the health and safety of workers by ensuring that certain requirements in relation to 
workplaces are fulfilled; that workplaces are designed, constructed, equipped, commissioned, 
operated and maintained in such a way that workers can perform the work assigned to them 
without  endangering  their  safety  and/or  health  and/or  those  of  other  workers;  that  the 
operation  of  workplaces  when  workers  are  present  takes  place  under  the  supervision  of  a 
person in charge, work involving a special risk is entrusted only to competent staff and carried 
out in accordance with employers’ instructions, all safety instructions are comprehensible to 
all  the  workers  concerned,  appropriate  first-aid  facilities  are  provided,  any  relevant  safety 
drills are performed at regular intervals; that a document concerning safety and health ("safety 

226 

 
 
 
and  health  document"),  covering  the  relevant  requirements  laid  down  in  the  Framework 
directive,  is  drawn  up  and  kept  up  to  date.  In  addition,  where  workers  from  several 
undertakings  are  present  at  the  same  workplace,  the  employer  in  charge  of  the  workplace, 
coordinates  the  implementation  of  all  the  measures  concerning  the  safety  and  health  of  the 
workers – such coordination does not affect the responsibility of the individual employers as 
provided for in the Framework directive. 

The  risk  of  major  accidents  –  for  example  at  oilrigs  such  as  the  2010  Deepwater  Horizon 
Blowout and Explosion in the Gulf of Mexico – is a major concern in relation to this industry. 
In Europe, there have been no such major accidents since the North Sea Piper Alpha accident 
(1988), which spurred the elaboration of the mineral extraction through drilling directive, but 
there have been near misses. 

Apart from this major risk factor, there are also other important risk elements in relation to the 
industry related  to  the nature of the work. The oil and gas  industries are highly capitalized; 
much of the manual work has been replaced by automation, but significant parts of oil and gas 
operations still rely on human input. There is a significant risk of serious accidents (fatal and 
non-fatal)  resulting  from  explosions  and  fires,  vehicle  and  helicopter  accidents,  falls  and 
confined spaces. 

State of transposition and implementation  

Member  States  have  generally  correctly  transposed  the  requirements  on  common  processes 
and mechanisms in the Directive.  

The Commission services have issued two reports on the practical implementation of Health 
and  Safety  at  Work  Directives  92/91/EEC  (mineral  extraction  through  drilling)  and 
92/104/EEC  (surface  and  underground  mineral  extraction)  in  2009    and  commissioned  in 
2011  an  external  study  for  the  analysis  and  evaluation  of  the  effects  of  the  practical 
application  of  national  legislation  related  to  safety  and  health  at  work  in  mineral  extraction 
through drilling as a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident. 

The data gathered for the evaluation gives a solid basis for concluding that compliance with 
the requirements of the Directive is high. The data collected for the evaluation indicates that 
special measures to support SMEs are not used by the Member States. This is probably due to 
the  fact  that  most  activity  in  the  sector  is  associated  with  large  establishments  –  primarily 
large international oil companies. 

There is a lack of guidance and information on implementation and requirements in relation to 
the  Directive.  A  possible  reason  for  the  lack  of  accompanying  actions  might  be  that  other 
global  actors  such  as  the  ICMM  is  developing  international  guides  to  good  practice  in  the 
industry.  

227 

 
 
 
 
Relevance  

The  Directive  can  be  regarded  as  relevant  to  approximately  0.04%  of  the  EU  workforce375, 
though drilling activities are not conducted in all Member States.  

Although the drilling sector appears to have a good safety record when it comes to non-fatal 
accidents, the incidence of fatal accidents (even though very volatile from year to year) still 
remains high as compared with the average EU incidence rate. In addition, drilling remains an 
industry often functioning in highly challenging environments (especially offshore) where the 
risks to safety are ever-present. Similarly, work technologies and working practices mean that 
there are a wide variety of hazards to health present within the sector (again especially but not 
exclusively offshore) and it appears from the information available that the Directive is and 
will remain relevant. 

Effectiveness  

Major  accidents  is  a  key  risk  factor  and  data  shows  that  no  major  accidents  have  occurred 
since  the  adoption  of  the  Directive  and  that  indicators  on  risks  of  major  accidents  depict  a 
falling trend reflecting continuous improvement in safety management. 

The  provisions  common  to  EU  OSH  Directives  are  regarded  as  important  and  as  part  of  a 
safety management culture and systems approach, which is widely practised in the industry.  

This  multi-national  industry  is  to  an  extent  'self-regulating'  with  a  global  application  of 
comprehensive  and  standardised  certification  systems  to  manage  safety  are  used  in  the  vast 
majority of cases. These systems have requirements regarding control and verification, which 
can be seen as a form of enforcement.  

Some NIRs recommended in relation to the Directive to clearly define who is responsible for 
producing health and safety statements and reducing the Annexes to the Directive from three 
to two, so that one Annex applies to onshore drilling and the other to offshore drilling. 

Coherence 

While no major internal coherence issues were identified in relation to this Directive certain 
overlaps and synergies exist between Directive 92/91/EEC and other EU OSH Directives (in 
particular  Directive  92/104/EEC  and  Directive  89/654/EEC.  Suggestions  from  the  NIRs  in 
relation  to  this  Directive  included  considering  the  merging  of  Directive  92/104/EEC  with 
Directive  92/91/EEC.  A  number  of  suggestions  related  as  well  to  a  better  alignment  of 
Directive  92/91/EEC  in  relation  to  Directive  2013/30/EU  on  safety  of  offshore  oil  and  gas 
operations. 

The  external  evaluation  study  formulated  the  following  recommendations  to  improve  the 
internal and external coherence of the Directive:  

375 Data for the reference year 2012, Eurostat, EU LFS (online data code lfsa_egan22d). 

228 

 
 
                                                            
-  Streamline  of  the  training  provisions  on  work  equipment  in  Council  Directive  92/91/EEC 
(mineral-extracting 
through  drilling)  under  Directive  2009/104/EC  (work 
equipment). 

industries 

-  Review  Directive  98/58/EC  (pregnant  workers)  to  streamline  the  provisions  on  pregnant 
workers  and  breastfeeding  workers  under  the  OSH  workplace  Directives  (including 
92/91/EEC) 

-  Clarify  the  reporting  requirements  under  Directive  2013/30/EU  (safety  of  offshore  oil  and 
gas  operations)  and  Directive  92/91/EEC  (mineral-extracting  industries  through  drilling) 
through guidelines (see above). 

Main conclusion 

To enhance relevance and effectiveness of the Directive, it could be considered to: 

-  Follow  up  on  the  specific  recommendations  made  in  the  2013  evaluation  report  on  the 
Directive,  especially  those  relating  to  bringing  the  Directive  up  to  date  with  current  safety 
practises in the industry. This could potentially be done through guidelines or a revision of the 
Directive.  It  is  suggested  that  this  is  considered  in  cooperation  with  industry  and  Member 
State representatives. 

- Issue specific EU guidelines on the implementation of the Directive specifying the types of 
activities, situations and workers to be covered by the Directive. Also, consider whether such 
guidelines should  incorporate guidelines  for good inspections, i.e.  be targeted at  industry  as 
well as at national inspection bodies. 

-  Discuss  the  potentials  for  enhancing  the  dialogue  and  learning  forums  for  inspectors 
specialising in inspection of the drilling industry across Member States. 

- In a dialogue with the industry consider how the current safety management culture can be 
further  developed  to  embrace  the  health  aspects  as  well  –  this  could  also  to  an  extent  be 
addressed through guidelines, but would probably need additional awareness raising efforts. 

- Give consideration to coherence issues identified in the national implementation reports and 
the evaluation study. 

Directive  92/29/EEC  on  the  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for 

12. 
improved medical treatment on board vessels (medical treatment on board vessels) 

Objectives and main requirements  

The  objective  of  this  Directive  is  to  improve  medical  assistance  on  board  vessels  which 
constitute  workplaces  involving  a  wide  range  of  risks.  It  supplements  the  Framework 
Directive  by  introducing  minimum  requirements  as  regards  medical  supplies  and  medicine 
chests, to encourage improvements of the safety and health of workers on board vessels 

229 

 
 
 
The Directive applies to the safety and health of workers on board any vessel flying the flag 
of a Member State, or registered under the plenary jurisdiction of a Member State. However, 
the Directive excludes port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at 
the quayside in  its definition  of workers. However, the Directive contains  requirements that 
only  apply  to  vessels  of  more  than  500  gross  registered  tonnes,  with  a  crew  of  15  or  more 
workers  and  engaged  in  a  voyage  of  more  than  three  days.  Furthermore,  the  Directive 
contains specific requirements for vessels with a crew of 100 or more workers, engaged in an 
international voyage of more than three days, requiring the presence of  a doctor, responsible 
for medical care, on board. 

The Medical Treatment on Vessels Directive does not seek to prevent or eliminate exposure 
to  potentially  dangerous  working  conditions.  In  contrast,  the  Directive  aims  to  ensure 
adequate health care in case of an accident and illness. Such diseases are not only restricted to 
occupational  diseases.  For  instance,  cardiovascular  diseases  (CVDs)  are  one  of  the  most 
common reasons for serious medical emergencies (apart from accidents) at sea. Serious and 
potentially  life  threatening  accidents  and  diseases  require  a  fast  diagnosis  and  initiation  of 
proper  treatment.  This  is  clearly  a  challenge  in  a  workplace  characterized  by  geographical 
isolation. On this background, the Directive includes the obligations for each Member State to 
ensure  that  every  vessel  flying  its  flag  or  registered  under  its  plenary  jurisdiction  always 
carries on board medical supplies which meet at least, in terms of quality, the specifications of 
the Directive; to ensure that the quantities of medicinal products and medical equipment to be 
carried depend on the nature of the voyage - in particular ports of call, destination, duration - 
the type or types of work to be carried out during the voyage, the nature of the cargo and the 
number  of  workers;  to  ensure  that  the  content  of  the  medicines  and  medical  equipment 
included in the medical supplies shall be detailed on a checklist corresponding at least to the 
general  framework  laid  down  in  the  Directive;  to  ensure  for  each  of  its  life-rafts  and  life-
boats,  that  every  vessel  flying  its  flag  or  registered  under  its  plenary  jurisdiction  carries  a 
watertight medicine chest at least containing the medical supplies specified in the Directive; 
to ensure that every vessel flying its flag or registered under its plenary jurisdiction, of more 
than 500 gross registered tonnes, with a crew of 15 or more workers and engaged on a voyage 
of more than three days, has a sick-bay in which medical treatment can be administered under 
satisfactory  material  and  hygienic  conditions;  to  ensure  that  every  vessel  flying  its  flag  or 
registered under its plenary jurisdiction, with a crew of 100 or more workers and engaged on 
an international voyage of more than three days, has a doctor responsible for the medical care 
of the workers on board. 

State of transposition and implementation  

All MS concerned have transposed the Directive and about half have more detailed/stringent 
requirement,  for  instance  regarding  sick  bays  and  medical  doctors  on  board  vessels.  Most 
Member  States  with  a  fishing  or  merchant  fleet already  had legislation  setting  requirements 
regarding the availability of medical supplies and medical assistance on board. Likewise, in 
some MS, radio-consultation services already existed and compulsory training in health were 
also in place.  

230 

 
 
Finally,  the  analyses  show  that,  in  general,  MSs  have  not  developed  specific  measures  to 
support SMEs in the maritime sector.  

Data on compliance collected in the framework of the evaluation study is too limited to draw 
definitive conclusions. In their replies in NIRs several MSs report implementation problems 
in terms of medical supplies. 

Relevance  

The Directive covers a relatively narrow group of workers376.While it does not aim directly at 
preventing  accidents,  the  consequences  of  not  getting  fast  treatment  after,  for  instance,  a 
serious  accident,  a  heart  attack  or  another  critical  condition  can  have  severe  and  even  fatal 
consequences  for  the  worker.  In  addition,  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  have  not  only 
implications for the crew, but also for the passengers, which widens its impact. Workers on 
board vessels are subject to a number of hazards, which without fast medical intervention can 
lead to severe negative health outcomes (increased risk of accidents (in particular for workers 
in  the  fishing  industry),  long  or  irregular  working  hours,  isolation,  shift  work,  extreme 
weather conditions, work with heavy machinery, exposure to biological and chemical agents 
are only some of the important risk factors to be mentioned.  

The suggestions from the NIRs as regards the relevance of the Directive point to the need for 
updating  of  the  medical  supplies  listed  in  the  Directive  to  take  account  of  advances  in 
pharmacy  and  therapeutics,  imponderables  relating  to  the  selling  of  some  medicines  and  in 
particular, constraints involved in the operation of passenger vessels. 

New technological opportunities in telemedicine can provide for an important support for the 
provisions  of  the  Directive  for  the  future.  Technological  advances  have  opened  new 
possibilities for instance by broadening the scope from radio counselling to video conferences 
and exchange of bio-medical data and images.  

Effectiveness 

The information collected in the context of the evaluation on the effectiveness of the Directive 
is  limited.  As  regards  workplace  impacts,  the  evidence  collected  from  a  limited  number  of 
interviews does not allow to draw definitive conclusions. 

As  regards  safety  impacts,  the  evaluation  study  based  its  assessment  on  research  data  from 
selected  Member  States,  including:  Denmark,  Poland  and  the  UK.  National  data  from  these 
Member States shows that the incidence of fatal accidents has fallen among seafarers in the 
merchant  fleet.  While  fatal  accidents  have  fallen  in  several  MSs,  this  downward  trend  was 
initiated before the introduction of the Directive, suggesting that other factors have played a 
role  as  well,  such  as  a  considerable  change  in  the  working  and  living  conditions  of  the 

376 In 2012, the number of persons employed in sectors for which the Directive is most relevant (fishing and 
aquaculture and water transport) equalled 164.9 thousands and 301.7 thousand s respectively. On one hand, not 
all workers from these sectors will fall under the scope of the Directive, given the exclusions under its Article 1 
and the fact that not all workers classified as workers of that sector work on vessels, on the other hand it is likely 
that a small proportion of workers from other sectors might be concerned. Eurostat, EU-LFS (online data code 
lfsa_egan22d). 

231 

 
 
                                                            
seafarers.  Downward  trends  in  fatal  accidents  at  work  in  the  main  sectors  concerned  by  the 
provisions  of  the  Directive  between  2008-2012  could  also  be  observed  from  the  UE 
datasets377. 

As  the  number  of  injuries  has  decreased,  cardiovascular  diseases  (CVD)  have  become  the 
most  common  cause  of  death  on  board.  In  the  1980s  and  the  1990s,  deaths  due  to  CVD 
accounted  for  55-70%  of  all  natural  causes  of  death  among  seamen  on  British  and  Danish 
Merchant ships.  

In this context, the accompanying actions identified in the framework of the evaluation could 
further support the achievement of the objectives of the Directive. 

Coherence  

The  suggestions  from  the  NIRs  as  regards  this  Directive  concerned  a  better  alignment  with 
some  international  standards  (for  ex.  International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO)  –  Life 
Saving  Appliances  (LSA)  Code  4.15.1.8;  ISO  3864-1:2011  "Graphical  symbols  –  Safety 
colours  and  safety  signs;  International  Labour  Organisation's  2006  Maritime  Labour 
Convention and the Convention on Work in Fishing). 

The evaluation study has not identified any issues of internal coherence between the Medical 
treatment on board vessels Directive and the other  OSH Directives. With regard to  external 
coherence, a few inconsistencies and overlaps were found between Directive 92/29/EEC and 
Directive  2009/13/EC  implementing  the  Social  Partners  Agreement  on  the  MLC,  Directive 
2008/106/EC  on  Minimum  level  of  training  of  seafarers  and  the  Social  Partner  Agreement 
concerning the implementation of the ILO Work in Fishing Convention of 2007. 

The evaluation points to external inconsistencies in the legislation. These inconsistencies and 
gaps  suggest  the  potential  need  to  remove  the  provisions  of  Directive  2009/13/EC  and 
Directive  2008/106/EC  on  Medical  treatment  and  to  align  the  provisions  of  Directive 
92/29/EEC  on  Medical  treatment  on  board  vessels  with  the  relevant  provisions  on  medical 
treatment of the ILO MLC, 2006, the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 and the STCW. 

Main conclusions 

The available evidence shows that the Directive has been transposed and well-implemented in 
the  national  legislation.  Many  MSs  already  had  provisions  in  place  before  transposing  the 
Directive, and medical treatment on board vessels is also covered in international agreements 
and conventions. The limited evidence gathered in the framework of the evaluation study does 
not  allow  drawing  definitive  conclusions  on  the  overall  levels  of  compliance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  Directive.  However,  contributions  received  in  the  NIRs  point  to 
implementation problems as regards medical supplies. In this context and having regard to the 
progress in pharmacy and therapeutics, the recurrent suggestions from the NIRs as regards the 
possibility of reviewing the compulsory list of medical supplies should be considered. 

377 Results should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively low number of cases reported. Eurostat, 
ESAW (online data code hsw_02_02). 

232 

 
 
                                                            
The  Directive  does  not  address  preventive  measures,  but  it  could  have  had  some  effects  on 
survival rates after accidents and serious illness.  

However, considered that CVD is the most common cause of death on board vessels, further 
emphasis should be placed on preventive initiatives to reduce risk factors related to CVDs, i.e. 
in  terms  of  ensuring  healthy  nutrition  and  physical  exercise  on  board  ships.  Moreover, 
medical  courses  could  also  put  additional  focus  on  the  prevention  and  treatment  of  CVDs. 
Utilising new technological equipment to improve treatment and diagnosis of disease and/or 
prevention of accidents is a possible option for larger vessels. The advances in telemedicine 
could therefore help reduce mortality on board vessels. 

The  coherence  issues  related  to  the  Directive,  highlighted  in  the  national  implementation 
reports, should be given consideration. 

Directive 93/103/EC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for 

13. 
work on board fishing vessels (fishing vessels)  

Objective scope and main requirements  

The  objective  of  the  Directive  is  to  set  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  the 
protection  of  workers  on  board  fishing  vessels  used  for  commercial  purposes  either  for 
catching  or  catching  and  processing  fish  or  other  living  resources  from  the  sea.  For  the 
purposes  of the Directive, workers are defined as any person carrying out  an occupation  on 
board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices but excluding shore personnel carrying out 
work on board a vessel at the quayside and port pilots. The Directive applies to workers on 
any  fishing  vessel  with  a  length  between  perpendiculars  of  fifteen  metres  or  over  (new 
vessels) or 18 metres or over (existing vessels), which flies the flag of a Member State or is 
registered under the plenary jurisdiction of a Member State.  

The Directive does not enumerate specific risks or types of occupational accidents or diseases 
which it is aimed to address, but the annexes thereto lay down detailed minimum safety and 
health requirements for the fishing. Thus, the Directive addresses the overall risks of flooding, 
fire, being struck or crushed by a moving object (such as trawl equipment), physical risks of 
manual work, the risk of tripping and slipping (e.g. caused by greasy ladders and decks, loose 
equipment,  hoses  and  vessel  structures),  falls  overboard  and  falls  caused  by  working 
alongside  an  open  hatch  or  other  openings  in  a  vessel’s  structure,  the  noise  and  the  risk  of 
breathing polluted gases in the engine room. Finally, potential socio-psychological issues are 
also  addressed  to  a  minor  extent,  by  establishing  minimum  requirements  for  the  living 
quarters. However, socio-psychological risks caused by fatigue, long working hours, isolation, 
etc. are not addressed by detailed provisions. 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
State of transposition and implementation  

Five of the MS are landlocked and do not have a maritime fishing fleet378. The Directive has 
been  transposed  in  the  other  twenty  two  MSs,  of  which  two  thirds  have  transposed  more 
detailed or stringent requirements. The most prevalent additional requirements are related to 
the  training  and  information  of  workers.  Eleven  MSs  had  pre-existing  legislation  to  some 
degree. Data also show that the cases of incorrect transposition are limited. The EC launched 
infringement  procedures  against  Spain,  Italy  and  Cyprus  for  non-conformity.  Transitional 
periods have been applied by twelve MS, two of which have transgressed their deadlines.379  

The  challenges  faced  during  the  assessment  of  levels  of  compliance  were  the  fact  that 
compliance  generally  is  not  systematically  monitored  in  the  MSs,  the  existence  of  different 
characteristics  of  fishing  fleets  across  the  EU  and  the  lack  of  data  sources  for  the  fishing 
sector.  In  general  technical  and  mechanical  aspects  of  the  Directive  have  good  levels  of 
compliance, due to the fact that those aspects are subject to in-port systematic inspections. On 
the  other  hand,  OSH  requirements  on  information,  training  and  consultation  of  workers,  as 
well  as  the  required  risk  assessments  on  a  regular  basis,  seem  to  be  complied  in  a  smaller 
scale. It is likely that it could be a result of limited financial resources and a lack of skilled 
personnel,  which  often  pay  less  attention  to  safety  and  health  management.  Finally,  even 
though national guidance is more likely to reach individual workers than EU level guidance, 
accompanying actions at MS level seem to be rather limited and insufficient. 

Relevance  

The Directive only covers approximately 9.6% of the EU fishing fleet (because it is limited to 
new vessels of 15 metres or over and existing vessels of 18 metres or over). The workforce 
coverage  roughly  corresponds  to  the  proportion  of  the  0.05%  of  the  total  labour  force  that 
works  on  those  9.6%  of  vessels  that  fall  under  the  scope  of  the  Directive.  Nevertheless,  a 
mapping of the NIR reveal that very few MSs make any specific reference to extending the 
scope of the Directive (or at least some of its provisions) to smaller vessels. There seems to be 
an indication that incidence rates for accidents tend to be higher on small vessels380.  

The Directive is highly relevant in terms of the severity and number of risks that workers on 
fishing  vessels  are  subject  to.  Considering  the  whole  fishing  and  aquaculture  sectors  (both 
small  and  big  vessels),  the  incidence  rate  of  fatal  accidents381  is  9.27  times  higher  and  the 
incidence  rate  for  non-fatal  accidents  is  double,  comparing  with  the  average  of  all  sectors 
combined382. In addition, the prevalence of work-related health problems and exposure to risk 
factors that can adversely affect mental wellbeing is higher in the fishing sector than for most 
other sectors (increased ergonomic risks in relation to the heavy manual work, psychosocial 
and social risks due to prolonged isolation and work in a confined environment, intense work 

378 Austria, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Hungary and Slovakia. 
379 Portugal and Slovenia. 
380 ref. e.g. Jensen et al., 2014) 
381 ref. e.g. Jensen et al., 2014) 
382 Note: there are reported fatalities from only 11 out of 22 MSs. Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of 
the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in EU Member States, COWI, 2016 

234 

 
 
                                                            
for  long  hours  unevenly  divided  between  periods,  exposure  to  chemical  agents  (including 
carcinogens), noise etc.). 

Effectiveness  

As regards workplace impacts the evaluation study assessed that the Fishing vessels Directive 
is  well  complied  with  as  regards  the  technical  and  mechanical  aspects,  mainly  due  to  an 
effective system of in-port technical inspections. Provisions with a lower impact are those for 
which non-technical inspections by labour authorities are undertaken.  

Furthermore, relevant literature and EU stakeholders' interviews seem to suggest that overall 
awareness on OSH has increased in the fisheries sector and several NIRs highlight increased 
awareness  as  the  most  important  outcome  of  the  Directive383.  But  the  external  study  found 
also that a majority of interviewed stakeholders had more knowledge of the ILO conventions 
and pieces of legislation than the specific provisions of the Directive.  

As regards safety impacts, the evaluation study observed that incidence rates of fatal accidents 
have decreased384, but at the same time assessed that the improvements might have been also 
caused by the requirements of the national legislations going far beyond the requirements of 
the Directive. The incidence rate for non-fatal accidents in the fisheries and aquaculture sector 
has  also  decreased  as  observed  based  on  longer  time  series  provided  for  in  the  evaluation 
study and based on EU data for the evaluation period385.  

Coherence  

No  coherence  issues  were  identified  between  the  93/103/EC  Directive  and  the  other  OSH 
Directives.  With  regard  to  external  coherence,  the  Directive  is  coherent  with  the  IMO 
International  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training,  Certification  and  Watch  keeping  for 
Fishing  Vessels  (STCW-F)  and  the  ILO  Work  in  Fishing  Convention  (C188),  but  not  as 
detailed and stringent. A general alignment between the Fishing Directive and IMO and ILO 
conventions  would  be  preferable,  because  the  Social  Partners  in  the  European  Union’s  sea-
fisheries sector adopted a Social Partners Agreement aiming at the implementation of the ILO 
Convention 188, on 8 May 2013. The Agreement aims to ensure that ILO 188 Convention's 
clauses are in line with the relevant existing EU acquis. The Commission awaits the findings 
of  an  external  study  on  the  impacts  of  the  Agreement  before  addressing  a  proposal  for  the 
adoption of an EU Directive to implement the Agreement.  

383 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in 
EU Member States, COWI, 2016. 
384 Based on data from UK, PL and DK in order to account for longer time series. EU level data start only in 
2008. From 2008 to 2012 a decline was also observed in the incidence rate for fatal accidents in the EU27 based 
on ESAW data (from 21.25 to 16.72 in 2012) though those figures should be treated with caution due to a 
relatively low number of underlying cases. Unlike some national figures, the EU figures do not provide for a 
distinction by vessel size. Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_02).  
385 The incidence rate for non-fatal accidents for the fisheries and aquaculture sector for the EU27 dropped from 
2,805.83 in 2008 to 2,739.1 in 2012. Eurostat, ESAW (online data code hsw_n2_01). 

235 

 
 
 
                                                            
Main conclusions 

The  Directive  has  been  transposed  in  all  MS  concerned  by  its  provisions,  with  national 
provisions  going  often  beyond  the  general  requirements  of  the  Directive.  The  results  of  the 
evaluation  show  that  provisions  most  complied  with  are  those  covering  the  technical  and 
mechanical  aspects,  due  to  an  effective  system  of  in-port  technical  inspections.  Provisions 
with  a  lower  impact  are  those  for  which  non-technical  inspections  by  labour  authorities  are 
undertaken.  The  analysis  shows  that  considerable  challenges  are  linked  to  performing 
satisfactory risk assessments on fishing vessels as required by Articles 6(3) (a) and 9 (1) of 
the Framework  Directive. It may be one  of the reasons for the low level  of compliance. As 
risk assessments are often performed in harbour, on board risks, such as weather hazards, are 
not  reflected.  Ultimately,  these  challenges  call  for  specific  requirements  to  be  embedded  in 
the  development  of  risk  assessments  in  the  fisheries  sector  along  with  resilience  on  the 
provisions of the Framework Directive may not be sufficient. The provisions of the Directive 
could gain benefit if tailored  to  the specific  workplace  of fishing  vessels. This  would be  an 
effective tool for ensuring compliance and improving OSH on board fishing vessels and for 
risk assessments.  

Working on board fishing vessels continue to be a high risk activity (both as regards safety 
and  health  aspects),  justifying  the  relevance  of  provisions  aiming  at  ensuring  minimum 
requirements for the protection of safety and health of workers in this working environment.  

Both fatal and non-fatal incidence rates in the fisheries and aquaculture sector have decreased 
over  the  last  years,  though  it  is  difficult  to  assess  to  what  extent  these  changes  can  be 
attributed  to  the  EU,  and  to  what  extent  to  the  national,  often  more  detailed  legislation  and 
other factors. Relevant literature and EU stakeholders' interviews seem to suggest that overall 
awareness on OSH has increased in the fisheries sector and several NIRs highlight increased 
awareness as the most important outcome of the Directive 

As regards coherence, the NIRs recommend to combine Directive 93/103 /EC with Directive 
97/70/EC on setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres and over 
and to align the Directive with the standards of the ILO's Maritime Labour Convention and 
Convention on Work in Fishing. 

Directive 2002/44/EC on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding 

14. 
the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration)  

Objective and main requirements  

Directive 2002/44/EC was one of the first in a set of OSH Directives aiming at the protection 
of  workers  against  risks  arising  from  exposure  to  physical  agents.  The  awareness  was  first 
raised by the European Commission (1989) in a Communication stating that physical agents 
such as vibration can lead to unacceptable risks, and that health damaging effects could only 
be observed later in time.  

236 

 
 
 
The Directive has the objective of minimising the incidence of diseases and accidents caused 
by workers’ exposure to vibration. The focus is on long term health issues, rather than acute 
accidents, although some acute risks to safety are also identified. It does so by laying down 
minimum  requirements  for  the  protection  of  workers  from  risks  to  their  safety  and  health 
arising  or  likely  to  arise  from  exposure  to  either  whole-body  or  hand-arm  vibration  –  in 
particular muscular/bone structure, neurological and vascular disorders, namely by setting up 
exposure limit values and action values in respect of the daily exposure to vibration. 

The Directive sets out several obligations for the employer such as to determine and assess the 
risks,  to  avoid  and  reduce  exposure,  to  inform  and  to  ensure  appropriate  training  to  the 
workers exposed relating to the outcome of the risk assessment. 

State of transposition and implementation  

With  only  few  observed  infringement  proceedings  regarding  non-communication,  it  is 
concluded  that  the  national  transpositions  of  the  Directive  have  been  smooth.  Furthermore, 
most  Member  States  have  implemented  more  detailed  or  stringent  requirements.  However, 
derogations  regarding  sea  and  air  transport  or  regarding  occasionally  high  vibration  are 
applied in more than half of the Member States. 

Although there seems overall to be good compliance with the Directive provisions among the 
establishments  in  the  Member  States,  it  is  relatively  low  among  the  smaller  establishments. 
Lower  compliance  among  the  smaller  establishments  is  partly  due  to  financial  burdens  and 
lack of information and expertise. 

A  number  of  accompanying  actions  have  been  taken  at  both  Member  State  level  and  EU 
level  to  encourage  the  achievement  of  the  safety  and  health  targets  of  the  Directive.  These 
include  guidance  documents,  support  tools,  awareness-raising  campaigns,  education  and 
training  activities,  and  financial  incentives.  However,  these  types  of  actions  are  unlikely  to 
have been of significant importance for the overall effectiveness of the Directive. 

Relevance  

According to the findings of the sixth European Working Conditions Survey around 20% of 
the  EU  workforce  is  exposed  at  least  a  quarter  of  the  time  at  work  to  vibration  from 
machinery  and  hand-held  tools386387.  Exposure  to  vibration  mostly  occurs  in  construction; 
manufacturing, mining; agriculture and fishing; electricity gas and water supply; transport and 
communication,  but  a  variety  of  other  sectors  are  also  concerned.  Available  national  data 
shows that those industries use still often machines and equipment that may expose operators 
above action or limit values as set by the Directive388. The exposures to vibration when above 
certain levels and/or duration of exposure, can lead to several severe and invalidating forms of 

386 http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/data-visualisation/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-2015 
387 This statistic only gives general information about the existence of the risk, though they cannot provide 
information about the level of exposure as compared with the daily exposure action value and daily exposure 
limit value as set by the Directive. 
388 Based on EU-OSHA, Workplace exposure to vibration in Europe: an expert review, 2008, information from 
the NIRs and the evaluation study 

237 

 
 
                                                            
work-related ill-health, such as osteoarticular diseases of the hands and wrists, angioneurotic 
diseases  as  well  as  other  diseases389.  Those  factors  confirm  the  continued  relevance  of  the 
Directive,  despite  the  expected  decrease  in  high  levels  of  vibration  over  time  in  relation  to 
technological progress (better design of machines, automation of many production processes, 
less interaction of workers with equipment that vibrates). 

Effectiveness  

The  Directive  is  assessed  to  have  affected  enterprises'  behaviour  regarding  securing 
occupational safety and health – particularly for the larger enterprises, but less for SMEs and 
microenterprises  (explained  by  a  lack  of  resources  and  a  lack  of  awareness  of  occupational 
safety  and  health).  These  improvements  in  behaviour  have  resulted  in  that  since  2001  there 
has  been  a decreasing degree  in  exposure  at  work  to  vibrations  from  hand  tools, machinery 
etc.  –  although  this  development  should,  as  just  mentioned  above,  be  seen  in  the  light  of 
modernisations of machines and production processes.  

include 

lack  of 

Although common processes and mechanisms and the other key requirements work in tandem 
to  produce  impacts,  there  seems  to  be  a  number  of  barriers  to  effectiveness  linked  to  the 
CPMs  and  other  KRs  work.  These 
theoretical  and  practical 
knowledge/assistance  with  the  risk  assessment  process,  and  problems  with  complying  with 
limit  values.  However,  it  is  found  that  in  some  cases  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  has 
represented  an  advancement  of  the  national  legislation  with  emphasis  on  increasing  the 
protection of workers from vibration. Moreover, the Directive provides a good foundation for 
effectively reducing risks related to vibration, due to the fact that employers assess vibration 
magnitudes, and as this is considered an efficient strategy for managing risks.  Hence, while 
the  Directive  provides  a  solid  foundation  for  managing  the  risks  related  to  vibration,  the 
evaluation study found that there are indications that there are some issues regarding effective 
implementation in the workplaces.  

Coherence  

Although  there  are  overlapping  requirements  with  the  other  physical  agents  Directives  on 
noise,  optical  radiation  and  electromagnetic  field,  none  of  the  EU  stakeholders  interviewed 
identified major internal coherence issues. A number of possible adjustments were identified 
based  on  the  comparative  study  made  between  the  Vibration  Directive  and  other  physical 
agents  directives.  These  encompassed  in  particular  the  review  of  the  risk  assessment 
procedure or to ensure that the procedure of adoption/amendment of limit values and action 
values is clarified and where relevant harmonised with the other physical agent directives. 

Similarly,  the  review  of  coherence  with  non-OSH  EU  instruments  has  not  revealed  any 
overlaps  or  inconsistencies,  but  some  synergies  with  Directive  2006/25/EC  (machinery).  In 

389 There is moderate evidence that contracture of palmar aponeurosis may occur as an effect of hand-arm 
vibration. The prevalence of musculo-skeletal diseases of upper limb, shoulder or neck is increased in HAV-
exposed but it has not been possible to separate the effect of HAV from the effect of other physical factors, i.e. 
force, repetition and posture. Based on "Information notices on occupational diseases: a guide to diagnosis", 
European Commission, DG EMPL, 2009, p. 439-240. 

238 

 
 
                                                            
terms of coherence with international instruments, the most relevant act is the ILO Working 
Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention (No. 148). 

Main conclusions 

The Directive remains relevant and has fulfilled its objectives. This said, the evaluation study 
made a number of recommendations for the way forward when developing the Directive: 

- Limit values – Limit values can be revised due to the fact that modern machines in general 
emit  less  vibration  and  that  many  production  processes  have  been  automated.  Some  limit 
values  may  be  reduced  as  low-cost  technical  solutions  have  become  available  to  reduce 
vibration.  Others  may  become  less  important  to  address  as  fewer  and  fewer  workers  are 
exposed to certain types of vibration. Consequently, it is recommended that the procedures of 
adoption/amendment  of  limit  values  and  action  values  are  clarified  and  where  relevant  are 
harmonised with the other physical agents Directives. 

-  Review  the  risk  assessment  procedure  under  the  Directive  to  include  the  provision  of 
Directive 2003/10/EC (noise) requiring employers to give particular attention to the extension 
of exposure beyond normal working hours under the employer's responsibility. 

- Review the risk management measures derived from the risk assessment under the Directive 
to  ensure  that  they  include  measures  on  the  limitation  of  the  duration  and  levels  of  the 
exposure,  implementation  of  follow-up  measures  in  case  of  exceedance  of  limit  values 
(appropriate work schedules with adequate rest periods). 

- Based on the ILO approach, consider using a common instrument for vibration and noise. 
Hence,  in  order  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  between  Member  States,  one  could  consider 
aligning with the more stringent requirements set by the 1977 ILO Working Environment (Air 
Pollution,  Noise  and  Vibration)  Convention  (No.  148)  through  encouraging  ratification  by 
Member States or considering their integration in the OSH acquis. 

Directive 2003/10/EC on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding 

15. 
the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The  Directive,  adopted  in  2003,  replacing  the  Directive  86/188/EEC,  applies  to  all  sectors 
covered by the Framework Directive, where workers are or are likely to be exposed to noise.  

The main objective of the Directive is to prevent workers from impairing/losing their hearing, 
as  well  as  any  condition  which  might  arise  from  exposure  to  noise,  for  example  permanent 
ringing  in  the  ears  (tinnitus).  It  includes  obligations  for  implementation  of  the  common 
processes and mechanisms set out in the Framework Directive and provides a set of exposure 
limit values and exposure action values in respect of the daily noise exposure levels and peak 
sound  pressure.  Furthermore,  it  requires  that  measures  to  eliminate  or  reduce  exposure  to 
noise  are  introduced  and  provides  a  set  of  principles  to  be  taken  into  account.  In  addition, 

239 

 
 
 
Member States shall consult social partners and make a code of conduct providing practical 
guidelines for workers and employers in the music and entertainment sectors.  

According to Article 17(2) of the Directive, Member States were entitled if necessary to have 
an additional period (five years) to implement the provisions of Article 7 of the Directive with 
regard  to  the  personnel  on  board  seagoing  vessels,  as  well  as  to  make  use  of  a  transitional 
period  (two  years)  for  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  with  regard  to  music  and 
entertainment sector on the condition that during this period the levels of protection already 
achieved  in  individual  Member  States,  with  regard  to  the  personnel  in  these  sectors,  were 
maintained. 

State of transposition and implementation  

All Member States have transposed the Directive and four Member States have adopted more 
detailed/stringent  requirements  in  respect  to  limit  values.  The  available  evidence  on 
compliance at the enterprise level is limited, but the existent data concludes for a reasonable 
level. However, when considering the music and entertainment industry compliance is low – 
probably  with  a  few  exceptions  of  large  and  well-established  orchestras.  The  data  indicates 
that some Member States have put considerable effort into developing comprehensive codes 
of conduct for the music and entertainment industry whereas others have merely referred to 
the EU level guidance on the Directive or other guidance and have taken only a limited action 
in this field.  

Relevance  

Over a quarter of the EU workforce across all Member States is exposed to loud noise at work 
at  least  a  quarter  of  the  time390391.  Exposure  to  noise  mostly  occurs  in  construction; 
manufacturing;  waste  management,  water  and  electricity  supply;  mining  and  quarrying; 
agriculture, forestry and fishing, but a number of other economy sectors are also concerned. 
Exposure  to  noise,  when  above  a  certain  level,  can  lead  to  acute  effects  such  as  dizziness, 
tinnitus  or  even  acute  hearing  loss  (acoustic  shock).  In  addition,  prolonged  exposures  at  a 
certain  levels  can  lead  to  chronic  effects,  i.e.  partial  or  total  hearing  loss.  Furthermore,  the 
disruption  to  speech  communication  in  noisy  environments  and  the  poor  perception  of 
warning  signals  lead  to  an  increased  accident  risk392.  Those  factors  confirm  the  continued 
relevance of the Directive to workers in all Member States, despite the expected reduction in 
levels of exposure to noise in industries where high levels of exposure to noise traditionally 
occurred. 

Consideration should be given to exploring the possible implications of trends regarding the 
aging of the workforce on the relevance of the Directive. 

390 Eurofound, Sixth European Working Conditions Survey (2015). 
391 This statistic only gives general information about the existence of the risk, though they cannot provide 
information about the level of exposure as compared with the exposure limit values as set by the Directive. 
392 https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Noise 

240 

 
 
 
                                                            
Effectiveness  

The limited existent data indicates that the Directive has had tight effect in terms of reducing 
exposure  and  noise-induced  hearing  damages.  The  evaluation  has  not  found  scientific 
evidence,  which  would  strongly  argue  for  a  change  in  the  limit  values  provided  in  the 
Directive. 

According  to  the  evaluation  study,  the  levels  of  exposure  and  hearing  problems  seem  to  be 
fairly stable, indicating that the issue is under a certain level of control. According to the EU 
LFS  ad  hoc  modules,  the  percentage  of  persons  reporting  a  hearing  disorder  as  their  most 
serious work-related health problem equalled 1.1 in 2013 against 2.2 in 2007393 in the EU-27. 
A  study  analysing  work-related ill-health  data  for  8  EU  countries  from  2000  to  2012  found 
that while an increasing trend in the incidence of noise-induced hearing loss was reported in 
Belgium,  Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  a  decreasing  trend  was  found  in  the  remaining  EU 
Member States (Czech Republic, Finland, France, Italy and UK)394. 

Data on the music and entertainment industry indicates that the Directive has had little or no 
effect in this sector. This indicates that the Directive is not entirely fulfilling its objective of 
protecting workers from risks to their health and safety arising or likely to arise from exposure 
to noise in that industry.   

Risk  assessments  targeting  noise  risks  and  implementation  of  collective/preventive  (rather 
than individual/protective) measures should imply in a higher compliance with the Directive's 
provisions. 

Coherence  

Although  there  are  overlapping  requirements  with  the  other  physical  agents  Directives  on 
vibration,  optical  radiation  and  electromagnetic  field,  none  of  the  EU  stakeholders 
interviewed  identified  major  internal  coherence  issues.  A  number  of  possible  adjustments 
were identified based on the comparative study made between the Noise Directive and other 
physical  agents  directives.  These  encompassed:  review  of  the  risk  assessment  procedure  to 
give particular attention to the extension of exposure beyond normal working hours under the 
employer's responsibility; review the Directive to include an obligation to inform workers on 
the nature of the risks and to inform workers at particular risk. 

The Directive refers to ISO 1999 on daily and weekly noise exposure levels. A new version - 
ISO  1999:  2013  -  is  available,  providing  for  minor  changes  to  the  equations.  The  external 
study suggested considering to update the Directive to reflect the most recent version of ISO 
1999. 

393 Those results should however be interpreted with caution due to differing definitions between the two 
modules in some MS. EU LFS ad hoc modules 2007, 2013 (online data code: hsw_pb5). 
394 Trends in incidence of occupational asthma, contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss, carpal tunnel 
syndrome and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in European countries from 2000 to 2012, Journal of 
Occupational & Environmental Medicine, (Occup Environ Med 2015;72:294-303 doi:10.1136/oemed-2014-
102534). 

241 

 
 
                                                            
No  overlaps  or  inconsistencies  were  found  between  the  Directive  and  non-OSH  EU 
legislation.  There  is  an  interaction  with  the  Directive  2006/42/EC  (machinery),  as  this 
Directive  includes  several  requirements  to  ensure  noise  reduction  from  machinery  and 
equipment. 

Main conclusions 

The  Directive  is  generally  relevant  in  its  current  form.  The  evaluation  has  not  identified  a 
need for major amendments of the Directive, for example concerning exposure limit values.   

However, in order to enhance relevance of the Directive, the evaluation study recommended: 

- An amendment to the Directive to refer to the most recent version of ISO 1999.  

-  Supporting  knowledge  building  in  relation  to  the  ageing  workforce  and  the  possible 
implications for regulation of risks of exposure to noise395.  

-  Ensuring  a  better  implementation  of  existing  requirements  in  the  Directive  through 
awareness raising activities and strengthened inspection and guidance regimes 

-    A  dialogue  with  the  Member  States  and  the  social  partners  on  how  to  achieve  a  better 
implementation of the Directive in music and entertainment sectors.  

-  A  review  and  streamline  of  worker  information  requirements  under  the  physical  agents 
directives  and  the review of  the health  surveillance provisions, to  ensure consistency across 
the four physical agents directives;  

- Adoption of measures to ensure that the procedure of adoption/amendment of limit values 
and action values is clarified and harmonised with the other physical agents Directives. 

Directive 2004/40/EC on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding 

16 
the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic 
fields/EMF)  

Directive 2004/40/EC has been repealed and replaced by the Directive 2013/35/EU396, with 
a transposition deadline of 1 July 2016. The review and reporting on the new Directive will 
fall under Article 17a of Directive 89/391/EEC and will be subject to future evaluations of the 
OSH legislation based on this Article. 

395 i.e. to determine needs for future amendments of Directive or of guidance material to take into account the 
specific risks related to noise exposure and the aging workforce.  
396 Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health 
and  safety  requirements  regarding  the  exposure  of  workers  to  the  risks  arising  from  physical  agents 
(electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) 
and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC, OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1.   

242 

 
 
 
                                                            
Directive 2006/25/EC on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding 

17. 
the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (artificial optical 
radiation/AOR)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The Directive lays down minimum requirements for the protection of workers from risks to 
their health and safety arising or likely to arise from exposure to artificial optical radiation. It 
places  obligations  on  the  employer,  in  the  case  of  workers  exposed  to  artificial  sources  of 
optical radiation, to assess and, if necessary, measure and/or calculate the levels of exposure 
to optical radiation to which workers are likely to be exposed so that the measures needed to 
restrict exposure to the applicable limits can be identified and put into effect. 

The principle impact of the Directive is intended to be a reduction in the incidence of injuries 
associated  with  AOR.  It  aims  to  do  so  by  laying  down  minimum  requirements  for  the 
protection  of  workers  from  risks  to  their  health  and  safety  arising  or  likely  to  arise  from 
exposure to artificial optical radiation during their  work by setting up exposure limit values 
and action values in respect of the exposure to artificial sources of optical radiation. 

State of transposition and implementation  

All  MSs  have  implemented  the  Directive,  mostly  within  one  piece  of  legislation  (which 
facilitated its application in a coherent manner) with fewer implementing it in several pieces.  
There have been no infringement proceedings for non-conformity issues.  

Data on levels of compliance with the requirements of the Directive within MSs is limited as 
most national authorities do not monitor levels of compliance in a directive-specific way. For 
those  three  MSs  for  which  data  was  available,  the  level  of  compliance  with  the  provisions 
common to  EU OSH Directives  can be regarded as  moderate397. Despite recognition of this 
complexity,  MS  level  supporting  actions  are  relatively  sparse  compared  to  some  other 
Directives.  However,  there  is  an  EU  non-binding  guide  to  good  practice  for  implementing 
Directive 2006/25/EC to provide some assistance. 

Relevance  

Artificially generated optical radiation is present in most workplaces, but particularly in such 
sectors as: hot industries like glass and metal working; print industries; arts and entertainment; 
non-destructive  testing;  shop  floor  and  warehousing  industries;  medical  treatment;  cosmetic 
treatment; pharmaceuticals and research; sewage treatment; metal working including welding 
or plastics manufacturing involving laser bonding and a number of other industries in all MS. 
The  evaluation  study  estimated,  using  two  different  approaches  a  range  of  1.6-3.3%,  of  the 
EU  workforce  potentially  at  highest  risks  to  health  and  safety  from  AOR  exposure.  The 
possible  effects  of  optical  radiation  depend  on  the  levels  and  duration  of  exposure  for  each 

397 Two MSs (Slovakia and Romania) reported compliance levels of 45% across all of the articles (estimated by 
the national expert). A third, Estonia, reported 71% compliance with the requirement for risk assessments, but 
provided no further information regarding any of the other articles  

243 

 
 
 
                                                            
radiation  type.  Excessive  short-term  exposure  to  ultraviolet  radiation  can  cause  erythema, 
while  the  most  serious  long-term  effect  of  UV  radiation  is  the  induction  of  skin  cancer. 
Chronic exposure to UVR can also cause photoageing of the skin and might affect immune 
responses. Responses of the human eye to acute overexposure of UVR include photokeratitis 
and  photoconjunctivitis.  Chronic  exposure  to  UVA  and  UVB  can  cause  cataracts  due  to 
protein  changes  in  the  lens  of  the  eye.  Visible  radiation  can  cause  heat  strain  from  thermal 
stress  the  skin  and  sever  visual  handicaps.  IRA,  IRB  and  IRC  can  also  have  a  number  of 
adverse effects on the skin and the eyes. The severity of potential risks in relation to this agent 
and the variety of sectors concerned across all MS confirm the relevance of the Directive. 

As regards the recommendations from the external study, a number of national stakeholders 
expressed  a  variety  of  sometimes  conflicting  views.  These  included:  the  Directive  was 
insufficient  in  that  it  did  not  cover  outdoor  work  and  the  associated  increased  risk  of  skin 
cancer (a view shared by a multinational expert group on skin cancer); awareness-raising via 
guidelines  would  have  been  preferable  to  legislation;  the  Directive  had  great  relevance,  in 
particular  for  the  health  sector,  where  the  problem  was  prevalent  in  their  MS;  the  Directive 
brought  no  additional  benefit  to  the  MS,  an  opinion  which  was  echoed  by  a  subject  matter 
expert; although AOR presented hazards, it was considered that both were already generally 
well  managed  and  that  the  actual  degree  of  risk  was  relatively  low  and  the  AOR  Directive 
should  be  rescinded;  the  Directive  was  not  relevant  at  present  and  that  its  relevance  would 
reduce  further  with  technological  advances.  The  external  study  also  suggested  that  the 
existing ELVs could be subject to a possible review in the light of new scientific evidence. 

As regards the recommendations from the NIRs, two Member States suggested the extension 
of the scope of application of the Directive to natural optical radiation.  

Effectiveness  

National stakeholders gave an average score of 4.3 (scale 1-5) on whether the Directive had 
fulfilled its objective, indicating that it was to a large extent.  

On health issues, although it is widely accepted that exposure to AOR can have adverse health 
effects,  no  appropriate  data  sources  on  occupational  diseases/injuries  have  been  found. 
Current EU databases do not provide any classification appropriate for AOR and the majority 
of scientific papers tend to focus on other issues such as solar UV. To aid future evaluations 
of the effectiveness and impact of the AOR Directive, further development of data to monitor 
the effectiveness of the Directive is required. 

Coherence  

Although  there  are  overlapping  requirements  with  the  other  physical  agents  Directives  on 
noise, vibration and electromagnetic field, none of the EU stakeholders interviewed identified 
major internal coherence issues. A number of possible adjustments were identified based on 
agents 
the comparative study made between the AOR Directive   and 
directives.  These  encompassed:  review  of  the  risk  assessment  procedure  to  give  particular 
attention  to  the  extension  of  exposure  beyond  normal  working  hours  under  the  employer's 

physical 

other 

244 

 
 
 
responsibility; review the Directive to include an obligation to inform workers on the nature 
of  the  risks  and  to  inform  workers  at  particular  risk;  ensure  that  the  procedure  of 
adoption/amendment  of  limit  values  and  action  values  is  clarified  and  where  relevant 
harmonised with the other physical agent directives.  

Main conclusions 

The AOR Directive remains relevant in the light of severe risks related to high levels and/or 
long term exposure to (artificial) optical radiation. It should however be noted that during the 
evaluation process (evidence from the NIRs and the evaluation study) the Directive attracted 
most contradicting comments as regards its relevance, with some stakeholders advocating for 
a broadening of its provisions to natural optical radiation and others suggesting the repealing 
of the Directive.  

The  stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  study  assessed  that  the 
Directive  has  met  its  objectives  to  a  large  extent.  As  regards  its  impact  on  the  health  and 
safety  of  workers,  better  quality  data  on  the  both  acute  and  chronic  effects  of  workers' 
exposure to AOR in the EU should be developed in order to assist the Commission's services 
in future evaluations of the effectiveness of the AOR Directive.  

In  addition,  the  evaluation  study  recommended  a  review  of  the  ELVs  enshrined  in  the 
Directive. This should be considered having regard to the recent (2013) ICNIRP guidance and 
up-to-date  scientific  evidence.  Consideration  should  also  be  given  to  the  suggestions  of  the 
evaluation  study  as  regards  its  scope  and  synergies  between  the  provisions  of  the  Directive 
and the emergence of harmonised standards on products emitting AOR which include health 
and safety aspects. 

18 
Directive 1999/92/EC on minimum requirements for improving the safety and 
health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (explosive 
atmospheres workplace/ATEX Workplace)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The  Directive  lays  down  minimum  requirements  for  the  safety  and  health  protection  of 
workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres.  

The  Directive  obliges  the  employer  to  take  technical  and/or  organisational  measures 
appropriate to the nature of the operation, in order of priority and in accordance with the basic 
principles of prevention of the formation of explosive atmospheres, or where the nature of the 
activity does not allow that, of the avoidance of the ignition of explosive atmospheres, and of 
the mitigation of the detrimental effects of an explosion so as to ensure the health and safety 
of workers. 

The  risk  of  explosions  arises  as  a  result  of  uncontrolled  effects  of  flame  and  pressure,  the 
presence  of  noxious  reaction  products  and  consumption  of  the  oxygen  in  the  ambient  air. 

245 

 
 
 
 
Explosion  risks  should  be  assessed  overall.  The  Directive,  thus,  sets  out  requirements  on 
conducting  a  risk  assessment,  training  of  workers,  explosion  protection  document,  written 
instructions and permits to work, measures to prevent and protect against explosions, duty of 
coordination. 

State of transposition and implementation  

All  Member  States  transposed  the  Directive  into  their  national  legislation.  Nineteen  MSs 
implemented more detailed or stringent requirements, especially regarding the risk assessment 
requirement.  Infringement  procedures  for  non-communication  of  national  implementing 
measures were launched against 12 Member States and all of them are now closed.  

Data on compliance at enterprise level is weak and fragmented. The available data from MSs 
shows  that  compliance  is  medium  but  it  varies  from  MS  to  MS.  Moreover,  there  is  a 
considerable  inadequacy  in  the  implementation  in  SMEs  and  microenterprises  in  most 
Member  States.  These  problems  are  particularly  related  to  risk  assessments,  assessment  of 
hazardous zones and explosion protection documentation.   

There  is  a  good  level  of  information  developed  at  EU  level  to  ease  implementation  of  the 
Directive and the majority of Member States have developed guidance documents. However, 
these are not tailored specifically to the needs of SMEs and Member States rarely make use of 
support  tools,  awareness  raising  campaigns,  education  and  training  and  financial  incentives. 
Moreover, several Member States report information gaps. 

Relevance  

Directive 1999/92/EC is relevant to a variety of economic activity sectors in all MSs, but in 
particular  to  manufacturing,  where  almost  1/3  of  all  accidents  at  work  due  to  explosion 
currently occur. Other sectors concerned in particular are: wholesale and retail trade, repair of 
motor  vehicles  and  motorcycles,  construction.  As  regards  fatal  accidents,  the  sector  most 
concerned  is  again  manufacturing  (44%  of  all  fatal  accidents  due  to  explosion),  but  also 
wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, mining and quarrying as 
well as administrative and support service activities398. This confirms the continued relevance 
of  the  Directive.  The  external  study  highlighted  that  it  is  important  to  note  that  researchers 
have strongly criticised the fact that the Directive does not adequately differentiate between 
dust clouds and gasses/vapours, which reduces the relevance of the Directive.  

Effectiveness  

Eurostat's data for 18 MS, for which a trend analysis was possible, show that the number of 
serious accidents with the explosion deviation factor decreased from 1,211 in 2008 to 828 in 
2013.  The  total  number  of  fatal  accidents  due  to  explosion  dropped  from  50  to  21  over  the 
same  period399.  It  is  not  possible  to  assess  in  a  scientifically  robust  way  to  what  extent  this 
reduction  is  due  to  the  provision  of  the  Directive  and  to  what  extent  to  other  EU/national 

398 Based on Eurostat, ESAW, PHASE III, variable deviation, EU-18, 2013. 
399 Based on Eurostat, ESAW, PHASE III, variable deviation, EU-18, 2008-2013. 

246 

 
 
                                                            
policy  measures  and  external  factors.  No  information  in  this  respect  was  available  from  the 
stakeholders interviews'' conducted in the framework of the evaluation study. 

Coherence  

With regard to internal coherence, no major issues were identified apart from inconsistencies 
between  the  provisions  of  Directive  1999/92/EC  and  Directives  on  extracting  industries. 
Concerning  external  coherence,  several  non-OSH  Directives  complement  Directive 
1999/92/EC.  

Some  simplification  suggestions  were  provided  in  the  NIRs  –  inclusion  of  the  explosion 
protection  document  as  an  integral  part  of  the  document  on  workplace  risk  assessments 
discussed in Article 9 of Directive 89/391/EEC. 

Main conclusions 

The external study recommended in relation to this Directive: 

- The inclusion of relevant ATEX aspects in the EU level databases, registers and surveys. 

- Increasing the level of support for SMEs at the national level. 

- The revision of the Directive in order to make clear: a) the ways that explosive gas/vapours 
and dust clouds are generated and sustained; b) to include smouldering dust fires as a hazard 
in its own right; c) to include combustible dust layers in the definition of hazardous areas. 

-  A  review  of:  a)  information  for  workers  under  Directive  1999/92/EC  to  include  relevant 
information requirements on explosive atmosphere under Directive 92/104/EEC and Directive 
92/91/EEC;  b)  the  definition  of  zones  to  ensure  similar  interpretations  in  Member  States  to 
avoid barriers to the free movement of ATEX equipment; c) guidelines  for the application of 
Directive  1999/92/EC  to  equipment  and  protective  systems  placed  on the  market  before  the 
entry into force of  Directive 94/9/EC (ATEX equipment) and equipment not falling under the 
scope of this Directive.  

- To combine existing explosion risk assessment documents or other reports to minimise the 
administrative burden.  

- To simplify the Directive by including the explosion protection document as an integral part 
of  the  document  on  workplace  risk  assessments  referred  to  in  Article  9  of  Directive 
89/391/EEC. 

247 

 
 
 
 
 
Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to 
19 
exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (carcinogens and mutagens/CMD)    

Objectives and main requirements  

Directive  2004/37/EC  aims  at  the  protection  of  workers  from  risks  arising  or  likely  to  arise 
from exposure to carcinogens and/or mutagens during their work. It constitutes specific law 
for those chemicals, causing this type of adverse health effect and also covered by Directive 
98/24/EC  (CAD)  which  applies  to  any  hazardous  chemical  agents  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 2(b) thereof.  

Directive  2004/37/EC  establishes  a  hierarchy  of  risk  control  measures  and  also  sets  out 
obligations  for  the  employers,  being  the  substitution  of  the  carcinogen  or  mutagen  by  "a 
substance,  preparation  or  process  which,  under  its  conditions  of  use,  is  not  dangerous  or  is 
less dangerous to workers' health or safety", the priority measure to implement, to eliminate 
or  reduce  the  risks  provided  that this  is  technically  possible.  Other  provisions  are related to 
unforeseen exposure  and  foreseeable  exposure;  hygiene  and  individual protection measures; 
information and training of workers; information for workers; consultation and participation 
of workers; health surveillance and record-keeping. Moreover, it lays down provisions for the 
establishment  of  binding  occupational  exposure  limit  values  on  the  basis  of  the  available 
information,  including  scientific  and  technical  data,  in  respect  of  all  those  carcinogens  or 
mutagens  for which this is possible, and, where necessary, other  directly related  provisions. 
The Directive, as codified in 2004, sets occupational exposure limit values for three agents400.   

State of transposition and implementation  

The provisions of the Directive have been transposed through multiple pieces of legislation in 
twenty  eight  MS.  No  infringement  proceedings  for  non-communication  of  transposing 
measures were initiated against any of the MSs. 

As regards compliance, no conclusive assessment was possible, based on existing data. With 
regards to SMEs and microenterprises, only three of the MSs provide specific lighter regimes 
or financial support for SMEs and microenterprises. Furthermore, only two of the MSs have 
included specific exemptions for SMEs or microenterprises. 

Considering accompanying actions adopted in the MSs, guidance documents were by far the 
most  employed  action401  .  At  the  EU  level  a  considerable  number  of  accompanying  actions 
were identified. A general approach to vulnerable groups is adopted amongst the MSs.  

Relevance  

Estimates  made  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  study  show  that  the  Directive  is 
potentially relevant to 12.3% of the EU workforce. Chemicals classified as carcinogens and 

400 Benzene, Vinyl Chloride Monomer and Hardwood dust. 
401 Sixteen MSs having developed at least one guidance document 

248 

 
 
 
                                                            
mutagens  continue  to  be  manufactured  across  the  EU402  and  workers  in  manufacturing  but 
also downstream users continue to be exposed to them. In some industries, process generated 
agents continue to be a source of major concern. 

A  number  of  issues  were  identified  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  as  regards  the 
relevance of  the CMD in the light of scientific progress and new working methods. Several 
stakeholders considered the need to incorporate the prevention of potential risks of exposure 
to  nanomaterials  in  the  provisions  of  this  Directive.  However,  it  is  noted  that  there  are 
uncertainties  regarding 
the  health  effects  of  nanoparticles  and  nanomaterials.  One 
consequence  of  this  is  that  some  advocate  their  inclusion  in  the  CAD,  some  in  the  CMD, 
some in both and some in a separate Directive. Discussions with subject matter experts tended 
to the view that nanomaterials should be considered under the CAD. A study commissioned 
by DG EMPL supported the view that they are already under the scope of CAD on the basis 
of article 2(b)(iii)403.  

The  issue  related  to  substances  toxic  for  reproduction  was  raised  by  the  stakeholders  as 
expressed  in  an  Opinion  of  the  ACSH  and  has  been  the  subject  of  a  Commission  review. 
Some  MSs  already  include  some  if  not  all  the  chemical  agents  classified  as  R1A  and  R1B 
under the CLP Regulation ((EC) No 1272/2008) within their transposition of the provisions of 
the CMD. According to the NIRs, some few MSs support extending the scope of the CMD to 
substances toxic for reproduction.   

The CMD assumed, at the time it was adopted, that threshold limits cannot be  identified for 
carcinogens  and  mutagens  below  which  there  is  no  risk  to  health.    Hence,  there  is  a  strong 
focus on measures such as substitution and the use of closed systems (as well as an explicit 
requirement for exposure levels to be reduced as low as technically possible). However, the 
scientific  knowledge  has  evolved  since  the  adoption  of  the  CMD  in  2004  and  currently 
SCOEL  (Scientific  Committee  on  Occupational  Exposure  Limits)  is  able  to  recommend  in 
certain cases, based on evidence, and on the mode of action of the chemical, 'mode of action 
based', safe  thresholds for certain carcinogenic substances404.  The existence  or  not  of  a safe 
threshold for exposure to the chemical was the main difference between CAD and CMD and 
the  reason  for  adopting  more  stringent  provisions  in  the  latter,  and  also  not  including 
substances  toxic  to  reproduction,  because  for  those  substances  health-based  threshold  limits 
can be identified. As far as this principle seems not valid in all cases anymore, there may be a 
need for better alignment between the two directives, as expressed by some MSs in the NIRs, 
including the possibility of merging both pieces of legislation.   

402 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Production_of_toxic_chemicals,_EU-
28,_2004%E2%80%9313_(%C2%B9)_(million_tonnes)_YB15.png 
403 Nanomaterials in the Workplace: assessing the need for modifications to existing EU OSH Legislation, 
European Commission, DG EMPL, 2013. 
404 Strategy of the scientific committee on occupational exposure limits (SCOEL) in the derivation of 
occupational exposure limits for carcinogens and mutagens, 2007. 

249 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Effectiveness  

The data at EU level on which to base any assessment of the effectiveness of the CMD, as for 
example  occupational  diseases  or  occupational  exposure  data,  are  difficult  to  collect. 
Subjectively, among EU stakeholders, there was the view that the CMD has had a moderate 
effect on the safety and health of EU workers. Employers and experts rated the effect higher 
than workers organisations. 

Data  on  the  impact  of  the  CMD  on  health  outcomes  was  not  available  because  of  the  long 
latency  period  for  most  cancers  and  the  difficulties  in  data  reporting  and  data  collection  on 
occupational  diseases  at  national  and  EU  level.  However,  it  is  recognised  that  cancer  is  the 
first  cause  of  work-related  deaths  in  the  EU.  In  2012,  an  estimated  2.7  mln  new  cases  of 
cancer were diagnosed in EU Member States405, and 7.2 mln people were living with cancer 
(within 5 years of diagnosis)406,407. The number of deaths attributed to occupational cancer in 
the EU is reported to be  79,700 (range: 57,700-106,500) in 2012408. 

Some national data on the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure are available. For 
example,  data  from  Finland  suggests  that  the  proportion  of  the  workforce  exposed  to  most 
chemical agents, including some carcinogens (and including benzene and wood dust covered 
by the CMD) has decreased substantially across a period from 1970 – 2008 and predicts that 
exposures  in  2020  will  remain  low  –  or  decrease  further.  One  study  (SHEcan)  provided 
estimates  for  some  substances,  suggesting  considerable  potential  for  exposure  and  this, 
supplemented by estimates from national studies suggests that workers in the EU continue to 
be potentially at risk from exposures to carcinogenic and mutagenic substances and that there 
is  therefore  an  ongoing  need  to  control  such  exposures  to  remove  or  reduce  the  risks.  Data 
reported in the NIRs present a limited and mixed picture of trends in outcomes (deaths/cases) 
with some showing upward tendencies and others little consistent change in recent years. It is 
estimated that although a significant decrease in exposure has occurred for some chemicals in 
certain  uses,  for  some  others  or  in  other  exposure  situations  they  remain  of  concern  and 
further  efforts  to  reduce  exposure  should  be  made.  The  need  to  set  new  binding  OELs  or 
revise the existing ones in the CMD was stressed by some MSs in the NIRs. 

The  on-going  study  Hazchem@work,  managed  by  DG  EMPL,  is  intended  to  identify 
exposure data sources in the EU and to provide occupational exposure data to a list of selected 
chemicals in the EU and EFTA countries. The outcome of this work should facilitate future 
policy discussions. 

The  overall  opinion  of  stakeholders  on  how  effective  the  enforcement  activities  have  been 
across the industry types was that they have had an effect slightly greater than the midpoint 
(average 3.6) in terms of a 1-5 rating scale.  

405 Health at a glance, European Commission,  2014. 
406 IARC, cancer fact sheets, http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx 
407 Data for more recent years (2013,2014) are available only for a limited number of Member States, which does not allow 

compilation of estimates for EU totals (according to Eurostat's guidance an estimate for an EU total can be compiled only 
if the available figures cover 90% of the EU population). 

408 W.P. Jongeneel et al, Work-related cancer in the European Union. Size, impact and options for further prevention. RIVM 
Letter report 2016-0010. 

250 

 
 
                                                            
Coherence  

The  external  study  did  not  identify  any  major  internal  coherence  issues  in  the  CMD. 
However,  there  are  identified  tensions  between  CAD  and  CMD.  While  the  CAD  applies  to 
any  hazardous  chemical  present  at  work,  the  CMD  constitutes  specific  legislation  for  a 
subgroup  of  chemicals  (carcinogens  and  mutagens)  with  serious  adverse  health  effects 
resulting  from  exposure.  Thus,  it  establishes  a  more  stringent  framework  of  prevention  and 
protection measures.  

Current  scientific  knowledge  is  able  to  discern  among  different  modes  of  action  for 
carcinogenesis, and can identify health-based limit values in some cases. This means that they 
could fit under the provisions of CAD without lowering the level of protection for workers. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  challenging  to  identify  safe  thresholds  for  certain  substances  (e.g., 
respiratory sensitizers, currently under the CAD), and therefore they could be better managed 
under a stricter regime as provided for in the CMD. The issue of simplifying the regulation of 
chemicals  (including  carcinogens  and  mutagens)  by  merging  the  CMD  and  CAD  was 
discussed amongst stakeholders attending a validation seminar held as part of the evaluation 
project.  The  conclusion  was  in  the  sense  that  merging  the  two  directives  would  provide  a 
more coherent legal framework for the management of all chemical substances.  

There  is  scope  for  examining  whether  merging  CAD  &  CMD  into  a  single  directive  would 
lead to a simplified and more effective approach resulting in practical benefits in controlling 
chemical risks at the workplace. This would necessitate a systematic examination of a number 
of issues including those presented above. 

Concerning  external  coherence,  the  main  issues  identified  concern  the  interface  between 
REACH  Regulation  and  the  CMD,  more  specifically,  the  potential  overlaps  and 
discrepancies between exposure limit values set under the two pieces of legislation. There is a 
need to review the process of identifying and managing risks to health, ideally to formulate a 
common approach between the CMD and REACH, but also to bring into the discussion the 
use of data for this purpose.  

Main conclusions 

The  CMD  is  of  high  relevance.  While  some  data  on  occupational  exposures  is  available  at 
national  level,  a  systematic  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  will  necessitate 
the  development  of  better  data  on  occupational  exposures  to  different  carcinogens  and 
mutagens. This should be one of the action points for the future.  

Following concerns raised by different stakeholders' groups in the evaluation process and in 
the NIRs the following issues in relation to the CMD will need to be considered: 

- The need to adopt limit values for more substances for better chemical risk management in 
the  future,  based  on  duly  justified  reasoning.  For  this  purpose  an  updated,  simplified  and 
quicker legal procedure for the adoption of OELs could be considered. The adoption of these 
OELs  should  be  based  on  the  substance  prioritisation  approach  established  and  with  the 
scientific advice of SCOEL. Threshold and non-threshold issues need to be addressed and a 

251 

 
 
more  detailed  explanation  of  how  feasibility  factors  are  taken  into  account  need  to  be 
provided. 

- The simplification of the procedures to set occupational limit values at EU level could also 
lead to improving the management of interface and further enhance synergies between OSH 
and  other  EU  requirements  such  as  REACH  and  CLP,  facilitating  implementation  if  the 
registrant  could  use  OELs  as  DNELs,  or  conversely,  if  OELs  were  set  at  the  same  level  as 
DNELs . 

- The need to consider the most appropriate approach to managing risks that may arise from 
exposure to reprotoxic substances; 

-  The  need  to  consider  if  and  how  biomonitoring  could  be  used  more  effectively  for 
workplace risk management; 

- The need to consider the potential adverse effects arising from exposure to dusts with low 
specific toxicity; 

-  As  regards  nanomaterials,  clarifying  that  the  existing  OSH  Directives  already  cover  the 
known risks; 

-  Clarifying  some  aspects  of  the  interface  between  CMD/CAD  with  other  pieces  of  EU 
legislation on chemicals, mainly the REACH Regulation and CLP. 

-  Considering  developing  EU  guidance  on  a  range  of  topics,  such  as  practical  risk 
management, using modern communication methods and tools; 

- Better alignment of CAD and CMD, including the possibility of merging them into a single 
Directive, with a possible single list of OELs.  

Directive  98/24/EC  on  the  protection  of  workers  from  the  risks  related  to 

20. 
chemical agents at work (chemical agents/CAD)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The Directive lays down minimum requirements for the protection of workers from risks to 
their safety and health arising, or likely to arise, from the effects of chemical agents that are 
present  at  the  workplace  or  as  a  result  of  any  work  activity  involving  chemical  agents.  It 
places obligations on the employers to determine whether any hazardous chemical agents are 
present  at  the  workplace  and  to  take  steps  to  assess  and  reduce  any  risk  to  the  safety  and 
health  of  workers  arising  from  the  presence  of  those  chemical  agents  at  the  workplace. 
Exposure  to  chemical  agents  can  lead  to  many  potential  health  consequences,  ranging  from 
acute effects – such as accidental burns from strongly acidic or alkaline materials  – to long-
term insidious (long-latency) effects such as respiratory or skin diseases, e.g. silicosis. 

252 

 
 
 
The requirements of the CAD embody the principles of risk assessment, with a preference for 
either elimination or substitution of hazardous chemicals: elimination of the need to use the 
chemical,  or  substitution  with  a  different  (safer)  chemical  or  substitution  with  a  different 
physical form of the same chemical. Where the nature of the activity does not permit the risk 
to  be  eliminated  by  substitution,  employers  are  required  to  adopt  protective  and  preventive 
measures including, in order of priority: design of appropriate work processes and engineering 
controls; application of collective protection measures at the source of the risk; application of 
individual protection measures including personal protective equipment. 

State of transposition and implementation  

Most  MSs  have  implemented  the  CAD  in  one  rather  than  several  pieces  of  legislation.  A 
number  of  Member  States  had  some  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  Directive  and 
national  legislation.  However,  in  most  cases,  this  is  related  to  the  setting  of  occupational 
exposure limit (OELs) values which differed from the EU indicative OEL that are adopted in 
Commission Directives under the procedure foreseen in CAD. Nonetheless, indicative OELs 
are not binding, as regards their exact numerical value, and therefore these differences do not 
constitute  a  failure  in  transposition.  All  MSs  have  some  more  stringent  requirements  than 
those  set  out  by  the  Directive,  again  mainly  relating  to  limit  values  and/or  more  detailed 
specification  for  the  risk  assessment,  embodying  features  which,  in  other  MSs,  might  be 
included within guidance material.  

Data  on  levels  of  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Directive  is  quite  scarce.    The 
study did not arrive at concluding results as regards the assessment of the level of compliance 
with the Directive. Opinions are divided as to the extent to which SMEs had problems with 
complying. No information is available regarding differences in compliance between sectors 
or between public and private enterprises.  

Guidance  documents  are  by  far  the  most  common  action  undertaken  by  Member  States  to 
support  the  implementation  of  the  legislation  transposing  the  CAD,  although  awareness 
campaigns and support tools are both commonly actioned. No evidence is available over the 
usage of such material or how beneficial it was found to be in practice. Some few MSs have 
expressed in the NIRs the need for additional accompanying actions, in particular in the areas 
of  SMEs,  measurement  of  airborne  concentrations,  and  risk  assessment  and  management 
measures. 

The  findings  from  the  national  studies  show  that  most  Member  States  have  general 
approaches  to  vulnerable  groups,  which  are  not  targeted  by  specific  Directives  (except  the 
following  Directives,  which  are  specifically  designed  to  address  vulnerable  groups: 
Temporary Workers Directive; Pregnant Workers Directive; Young People Directive). 

253 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevance  

According  to  the  EWCS  2015  17%  of  the  EU  workers  declare  being  exposed  to  chemical 
products or substances at least a quarter of the time409. Large quantities of those continue to be 
manufactured410,  imported  and  used  across  the  EU,  being  an  important  source  of  possible 
workplace  exposures  and  potentially  adverse  health  effects  where  such  exposures  are  not 
adequately  controlled.  Exposure  to  chemical  agents  above  certain  concentrations  (normally 
via  inhalation  or  dermal  exposure)  and/or  duration  of  exposure  can  lead  to  both  acute  and 
chronic adverse health effects. The nature of the potential adverse health effects depends on 
the specific properties of each chemical and may include: poisonings, damage to the nervous 
and  immune  system,  impairment  of  reproductive  function,  organ-specific  damage,  skin 
diseases  and  respiratory  diseases.  The  severity  of  potential  effects  of  exposure  if  not 
appropriately controlled and the important  proportion of workers potentially exposed justify 
the high relevance of the Chemical Agents Directive. 

A  number  of  issues  were  identified  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  as  regards  the 
relevance  of  the  Directive  in  the  light  of  scientific  progress  and  new  working  methods. 
According  to  the  intervention  logic  used  at  the  time  the  EU  OSH  chemicals  legislation 
architecture  has  been  designed,  the  existence  of  a  safe  threshold  of  exposure  is  the  main 
difference  between  the  agents  covered  only  by  CAD  and  those  also  under  the  scope  of  the 
CMD,  which  were  thought  not  to  have  a  safe  threshold  at  the  time  of  adoption  of  the 
Directive.  However,  according  to  the  current  scientific  knowledge  a  safe  threshold  can  be 
defined  for  certain  carcinogens  and  mutagens.  Consequently  their  inclusion  under  the  CAD 
could be justified. This issue is further discussed under the coherence chapter. 

Regarding  the  question  of  how  best  to  deal  with  nanoparticles  and  other  nanomaterials, 
discussions  with  subject  matter  experts  tended  to  the  view  that  nanomaterials  should  be 
considered under the CAD. A study commissioned by DG EMPL supported the view that they 
are already under the scope of CAD on the basis of article 2(b)(iii)411.  

A third issue considered was the setting of limit values and the procedure for their adoption 
and, related to this, the issue of dealing with the risks associated with chemical mixtures. In 
the NIRs, some MSs raised the need to revise the occupational exposure limits for lead and its 
inorganic compounds currently set in Annex I and II of the CAD in the light of new scientific 
evidence. 

Finally, the topic of the distinction between OSH OELs and REACH DNELs is also examined 
within the evaluation report, concluding that more clarification between the interrelation and 
use of both types of limits is needed. Some stakeholders suggested that the speedy adoption of 

409 This statistic does not provide thought details about the exposure to different agents nor about the average 
level of exposure. 
410 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Production_of_toxic_chemicals,_EU-
28,_2004%E2%80%9313_(%C2%B9)_(million_tonnes)_YB15.png 
411 Nanomaterials in the Workplace: assessing the need for modifications to existing EU OSH Legislation, 
European Commission, DG EMPL, 2013. 

254 

 
 
                                                            
more OSH OELs would facilitate REACH implementation if the registrant could use OELs as 
relevant DNELs. 

Effectiveness  

The assessment of the effectiveness of the CAD is challenging due to the scarcity of data on 
the  populations  exposed  to  different  chemical  agents  and  the  levels  of  exposure  (including 
temporal  trends).  Some  databases  exist  at  national  level  (see  also  the  report  for  CMD), 
however the data is not readily available and when available it is not necessarily comparable 
due to different national data collection systems. In this context, there is an identified need to 
improve the knowledge base on current exposures to chemicals in the EU workplaces. 

Interviewees at EU and MS level were asked to provide an assessment on a scale of 1-5 of the 
extent  to  which  the  CAD  has  been  successful  in  achieving  its  objectives  (indicating  ratings 
from ‘very low’ to ‘very high’). Stakeholders representing employers and ‘other’ stakeholders 
at MS level gave relatively high average scores of 3.9. Worker organisations were markedly 
more  positive  and  provided  an  average  score  as  high  as  4.3.  These  can  be  compared  to  the 
mean rating amongst EU stakeholders of 3.4, with no separate EU stakeholder groups giving 
ratings higher than 4.0. In interviews, EU employer organisations generally assessed the CAD 
to have had a higher impact on the overall safety and health of workers (3.75), compared to 
worker  organisations,  who  considered  the  effectiveness  of  the  CAD  to  be  markedly  lower 
(2.75). In contrast, stakeholders in the 'others' category (SLIC and OSHA) responded that the 
CAD has had a high impact (4) on the safety and health of workers.  

In  the  context  of  the evaluation,  different  stakeholders  highlighted  a  need  for  a  simpler and 
quicker legal procedure for the adoption and revision of OELs for more substances at the EU 
level in order to better manage the risks related to the exposure to chemical agents. 

Coherence  

The  external  study  did  not  identify  any  major  internal  coherence  issues  in  the  CAD. 
However,  there  are  identified  tensions  between  CAD  and  CMD.  While  the  CAD  applies  to 
any  hazardous  chemical  present  at  work,  the  CMD  constitutes  specific  legislation  for  a 
subgroup  of  chemicals  (carcinogens  and  mutagens)  with  serious  adverse  health  effects 
resulting  from  exposure.  Thus,  it  establishes  more  stringent  framework  of  prevention  and 
protection measures.  

Current  scientific  knowledge  is  able  to  discern  among  different  modes  of  action  for 
carcinogenesis, and can identify health-based limit values in some cases. This means that they 
could fit under the provisions of CAD without lowering the level of protection for workers. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  challenging  to  identify  safe  thresholds  for  certain  substances  (e.g., 
respiratory sensitizers, currently under the CAD), and therefore they could be better managed 
under a stricter regime as provided for in the CMD. The issue of simplifying the regulation of 
chemicals  (including  carcinogens  and  mutagens)  by  merging  the  CMD  and  CAD  was 
discussed amongst stakeholders attending a validation seminar held as part of the evaluation 

255 

 
 
project.  The  conclusion  was  in  the  sense  that  merging  the  two  directives  would  provide  a 
more coherent legal framework for the management of all chemical substances.  

There is scope for examining whether merging the CAD and the CMD into a single directive 
would  lead  to  a  simplified  and  more  effective  approach  resulting  in  practical  benefits  in 
controlling chemical risks at the workplace. This would necessitate a systematic examination 
of a number of issues including those presented above. 

Concerning  external  coherence,  the  main  issues  identified  concern  the  interface  between 
REACH  Regulation  and  the  CAD,  more  specifically,  the  potential  overlaps  and 
discrepancies between exposure limit values set under the two pieces of legislation. There is a 
need to review the process of identifying and managing risks to health, ideally to formulate a 
common  approach  between  the  CAD  and  REACH,  but  also  to  bring into  the  discussion the 
use of data for this purpose.  

Main conclusions 

The  CAD  continues  to  be  a  highly  relevant  Directive.  Determining  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Chemical Agents Directive is challenging because of the scarcity of data that could show the 
temporal  trends  in  occupational  exposure.  In  conclusion,  there  is  an  identified  need  to 
improve the knowledge base on current exposures to chemicals in the EU workplaces. Some 
databases exist at national level, however the data is not readily available and when available 
it is not necessarily comparable due to different national data collection systems. In relation to 
this, the Commission services have launched a pilot study (the HazChem@Work project) in 
order to assess the feasibility of developing a better evidence base on occupational exposure 
to priority chemicals in the future. 

Following concerns raised by different stakeholders' groups in the evaluation process and in 
the NIRs the following issues in relation to the CAD will need to be considered: 

- The need to adopt values for more substances for better chemical risks management in the 
future, based on duly justified reasoning. For this purpose an updated, simplified and quicker 
legal procedure for the adoption of OELs could be considered. The adoption of these OELs 
should  be  based  on  the  substance  prioritisation  approach  established  and  with  the  scientific 
advice of SCOEL. Threshold and non-threshold issues need to be addressed, a more detailed 
explanation of how feasibility factors are taken into  account need  to  be delivered. This  will 
include the revision of occupational exposure limits for lead established in Annex I and III of 
the CAD; 

- The simplification of the procedures to set occupational limit values at EU level could also 
lead to improving the management of interface and further enhance synergies between OSH 
and  other  EU  requirements  such  as  REACH  and  CLP,  facilitating  implementation  if  the 
registrant  could  use  OELs  as  DNELs,  or  conversely,  if  OELs  were  set  at  the  same  level  as 
DNELs .. 

- Better alignment of CAD and CMD, including the possibility of merging them into a single 
Directive, with a possible single list of OELs. 

256 

 
 
- The need to consider the most appropriate approach to managing risks that may arise from 
exposure to reprotoxic substances; 

-  The  need  to  consider  if  and  how  biomonitoring  could  be  used  more  effectively  for 
workplace risk management; 

- The need to consider the potential adverse effects arising from exposure to dusts with low 
specific toxicity; 

- As regards nanomaterials, to reconfirm that the existing OSH Directives, in particular CAD, 
already cover the known risks; 

-  Clarifying  some  aspects  of  the  interface  between  CMD/CAD  with  other  pieces  of  EU 
legislation on chemicals, mainly the REACH Regulation and CLP; 

-  Considering  developing  EU  guidance  on  a  range  of  topics,  such  as  practical  risk 
management, using modern communication methods and tools; 

Directive 2009/148/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to 

21. 
exposure to asbestos at work (asbestos)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The  Directive  aims  at  the  protection  of  workers  against  risks  to  their  health,  including  the 
prevention of such risks, arising or likely to arise from exposure to asbestos at work. It lays 
down limit values for the exposure, as well as other specific requirements. 

Asbestos has been and remains one of the main occupational health challenges facing Europe. 
The widespread uncontrolled use of asbestos, particularly in Western Europe has resulted in 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  workers  dying  prematurely  from  mesothelioma,  lung  cancer,  and 
other asbestos-related diseases. 

The Directive, targets the risk arising  from exposure to asbestos at work through defining a 
series  of  measures  including:  prohibiting  certain  activities  using  asbestos;  prohibiting  other 
uses of asbestos; introducing measures to reduce exposure to asbestos to a minimum (and in 
any  case  below  the  limit  value  laid  down);  establishing  maximum  limits  for  exposure  to 
asbestos;  requiring  the  measurement  of  asbestos  exposures;  in  the  case  of  certain  activities 
such as demolition, asbestos removal work, repairing and maintenance, taking the appropriate 
measures  to  ensure  protection  of  the  workers  while  they  are  engaged  in  such  activities; 
monitoring the health of those working with asbestos. 

State of transposition and implementation  

The  Directive  has  been  transposed and  implemented in  all MSs.  As  regards  compliance,  no 
conclusive assessment was possible, based on existing data.  

257 

 
 
 
Guidance, and other supporting material, has been prepared at both MS and EU level, and the 
views  expressed  from  individual  MSs  suggest  that  this  is  sufficient.  Very  little  support  for 
SMEs relating specifically to asbestos has been identified.  

Relevance 

A  considerable  number  of  deaths  from  asbestos-related  diseases  are  registered  every  year 
across  the  EU,  which  reflects  the  effect  of  past  exposures,  given  the  long  latency  of  most 
asbestos-related  diseases,  but  also  confirms  the  severity  of  the  consequences  of  exposure  to 
this hazard. Looking further ahead, available projections suggest that asbestos-related deaths 
will  start  to  decline,  as  protective  measures  taken  previously  begin  to  have  an  effect. 
However,  the  available  data  from  some  national  occupational  exposure  databases,  registers 
and  asbestos  notifications  made  to  the  national  competent  authorities  show  that  asbestos  is 
still present (for ex. in existing infrastructures)  and that the exposure to this carcinogen still 
occurs among the EU workforce. This confirms the continued relevance of the Directive.  

Recommendations  from  the  NIRs  pointed  to  the  need  of  assessing,  in  the  light  of  current 
scientific  knowledge,  if  the  current  limit  values  in  the  Directive  are  appropriate  to  protect 
workers (recommendation pertaining also the effectiveness of the Directive).  

Effectiveness  

Quantitative determination of the effectiveness of the Directive in terms of health benefits is 
difficult,  because  of  the  issue  of  the  latency  of  asbestos-related  diseases  and  the  scarcity  of 
exposure  data  at  EU  level.  However,  the  available  evidence  from  some  Member  States 
regarding  the  levels  of  exposure  to  asbestos  over  time  and  other  data,  such  as  the  very 
important  reduction  in  the  use  of  asbestos  and  articles  containing  asbestos  across  the  MSs, 
supports  the  view  that  the  Directive  has  been  effective  (although  care  should  be  taken  over 
attribution because of measures in addition to the Directive). 

It  would  seem  likely  that  the  prohibition  of  asbestos  by  means  of  the  spraying  process  and 
working procedures that involve using low-density insulating or soundproofing materials which 
contain  asbestos  and  of  the  activities  which  expose  workers  to  asbestos  fibres  during  the 
extraction  of  asbestos  or  the  manufacture  and  processing  of  asbestos  products  or  the 
manufacture  and  processing  of  products  containing  intentionally  added  asbestos  are  the  most 
effective  aspects  of  the  Directive  although  there  are  no  data  sources  which  enable  the 
determination of the effectiveness of other component parts. 

The  external  study  recommended  that  a  further  emphasis  should  be  put  on  collecting  more 
comprehensive  data  on  workers'  exposure  to  asbestos  and  the  asbestos-related  cases  of 
(recognised) ill-health in the EU. This should allow for better monitoring of the effectiveness 
of the Directive's provisions for the future.  

Coherence  

Some  coherence  issues  were  identified  between  the  Directive  and  the Chemical  Agents  and 
Carcinogens or Mutagens Directives. A number of amendments could be considered to better 

258 

 
 
align  their  provisions  although,  in  each  case,  any  amendment  would  be  to  the  ‘other’ 
Directive not the Asbestos Directive. A positive synergy can be identified between the OSH 
Directive  2009/148/EC  (protection  of  workers  from  asbestos  exposure)  and  Directive 
87/217/EEC  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  from  asbestos  whereby  the  former 
contributes to the meeting of the objectives of the latter, in particular in respect of activities 
involving the demolition of buildings, structures and installations containing asbestos and the 
removal therefrom of asbestos and of products containing asbestos involving the releases of 
asbestos fibres or dust.412 

Main conclusions  

The  Asbestos  Directive  remains  highly  relevant.  Though  the  use  of  asbestos  has  been 
considerably limited in the EU, inter alia, as a consequence of its implementation, workers in 
some sectors (such as construction or maintenance) are still potentially exposed to it. 

Together with the absence of detailed knowledge about exposure patterns, the long latency of 
asbestos-related diseases does not allow to monitor yet fully the effectiveness of the Directive 
through  ill-health  data.  The  available  national  data/research  results  suggest  a  decreasing  of 
asbestos  exposure,  tough  this  information  is  not  available  systematically  from  all  Member 
States.  Further  development  of  a  proper  evidence  base  for  the  future  monitoring  of  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Directive  (exposure,  ill-health)  should  be  one  of  the  actions  to  be 
considered in the future.  

In the light of scientific progress and in order to increase the effectiveness of the Directive for 
the  future,  the  lowering  of  exposure  limits  as  set  in  the  Directive  should  be  considered,  the 
consultation of SCOEL on this issue being the 1st important step.  

The  external  study  recommended  regarding  the  issue  of  incidental  exposure,  to  request 
owners of public or commercial buildings to:   

(a) screen buildings for the presence of asbestos-containing materials;  

(b) prepare plans to manage the risks they present;  

(c) ensure that such information is available to the public and workers who may disturb such 
materials  in  the  course  of  their  professional  activities  and  others  not  so  concerned,  but 
occupying the premises.  

412  Concerning    the  Directive  2009/148/EC  on  the  protection  of  workers  against  asbestos  exposure,  a  deeper 
analysis  is  required  to  determine  whether  the  combined  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  Directive 
2009/148/EC in particular on the demolition of buildings containing asbestos and asbestos-added products and 
on  the  removal  therefrom  of  these  raw  material  and  products  (Article  12(c)),  and  of  the  provisions  set  out  in 
other Union instruments (e.g. Regulation 1907/2006 (REACH)) ensure the full achievement of the objective of 
Article 7(2) of Directive 87/217/EEC (protection of human health and the environment against asbestos).          

259 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
Directive 2000/54/EC on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure 

22. 
to biological agents at work (biological Agents)  

Objectives and main requirements  

The Directive has as its aim the protection of workers against risks to their health and safety, 
including  the prevention of such  risks, arising or  likely to  arise  from exposure to biological 
agents  at  work.  It  applies  to  all  workers  exposed  –  intentionally  or  unintentionally  –  to 
harmful  biological  agents  at  work.  According  to  Article  2  biological  agents  mean  micro-
organisms,  including  those  which  have  been  genetically  modified,  cell  cultures  and  human 
endoparasites, which may be able to provoke any infection, allergy or toxicity. They represent 
a  risk  because  they  can  be  infectious  and  toxic,  but  also  because  they  can  cause  allergic 
reactions  such  as  hypersensitivity  pneumonitis,  allergic  rhinitis,  some  types  of  asthma  and 
organic  dust  toxic  syndrome  (ODTS).  In  addition,  some  agents  may  have  a  carcinogenic 
effect after a chronic infection. 

The  Directive  lays  down  minimum  requirements  for  the  protection  of  workers  from  risks 
related  to  exposure  to  biological  agents  at  work.  The  objective  of  the  Directive  is  thus  to 
protect workers against risks to their health and safety and the prevention of such risks arising 
or  likely  to  arise  from  exposure  to  biological  agents  at  work  by  building  on  a  hierarchy  of 
measures  whereby  the  first  priority  is  to  avoid  the  use  of  biological  agents  the  second  is  to 
substitute dangerous substances with less dangerous ones, and, thirdly, if this is not possible, 
to introduce measures that reduce the exposure to biological agents. 

State of transposition and implementation  

The  Directive  has  been  transposed  in  all  Member  States.  The  majority  of  Member  States 
transposed more detailed or stringent requirements most of which concern health surveillance 
and the content and form of worker information.  

The  evidence  on  level  of  compliance  with  the  Directive  is  weak  and  fragmented.  The  data 
indicates  that  compliance  is  generally  at  a  medium  to  high  level  with  50  –  90%  of 
establishments being in compliance. Based on the data, it seems that the level of compliance 
relies to an extent on sectors rather than on size of establishment, with the sectors comprising 
intentional  users  or  handlers  of  biological  agents  (laboratories,  health  care  facilities,  etc.) 
being most aware and thus most in compliance. Stakeholders, who assess the importance of 
the  Directive,  generally  recognise  that  the  Directive  has  played  a  role,  but  some  NIRs  also 
consider that national measures were in place before the adoption of the Directive.  

Relevance  

Exposure to biological agents can occur whenever people are in contact at work with natural 
or organic materials such as: soil, clay, plant materials (hay, straw, cotton, etc.), substances of 
animal  origin  (wool,  hair,  etc.),  food,  organic  dust  (e.g.  flour,  paper  dust,  animal  dander), 
waste, wastewater, blood and other body fluids. They are therefore potentially encountered in 

260 

 
 
 
a wide variety of occupational groups and sectors represented in all Member States and so the 
Directive remains relevant in all Member States. 

The  cumulative  evidence  from  ill-health  associated  with  infection  from  biological  agents  is 
that biological agents remain a significant potential cause of work-related ill-health. However, 
it is apparent that the classified list of biological agents is out of date and should be updated to 
improve the relevance of the Directive. There is also evidence to suggest that the prescriptive 
approach  to  identifying  correct  measures  in  Annex  V  is  not  suitable  and  a  more  flexible 
approach scoping the measures in accordance with the results of the risk assessment would be 
more appropriate. 

Effectiveness  

The  data  does  not  allow  for  firm  conclusions  about  the  effect  of  the  Biological  Agents 
Directive on occupational safety and health. Workplace impacts are assessed as medium-high 
and there is there is good reason to believe that the Biological Agents Directive has also led to 
positive safety and health impacts. However, based on the available data it is not possible to 
quantify this impact. 

The data indicates that implementation is strongest where biological agents are intentionally 
used. It points to a high degree of objective achievement in the sectors and workplaces which 
handle  biological  agents  as  part  of  the  work  processes,  e.g.  health  care  sector,  test 
laboratories,  etc.  It  is  likely  that  awareness  and  compliance  in  these  sectors  are  higher 
precisely  because  these  sectors  comprise  intentional  users  of  biological  agents  or 
professionals who through their occupation and training are aware of the risks (e.g. doctors, 
nurses, laboratory workers). 

However,  the  Directive  does  not  encompass  all  biological  agents,  and  as  such,  it  does  not 
provide for an all-encompassing protection against risks associated with biological agents. In 
addition, the Directive does not include limit values for exposure to various biological agents 
(and  neither  does  it  include  methods  for  measuring  biological  agents),  which  gives  rise  to 
uncertainty about whether workers are sufficiently protected.  

Coherence  

The Directive contains a detailed risk assessment procedure. Despite the differences between 
chemical  agents  and  biological  agents  and  the  differences  on  the  risk  control  measures  for 
these  two  distinct  agents,  several  requirements  under  Directive  98/24/EC  (chemical  agents) 
could  also  apply  to  the  risk  assessment  of  biological  agents  as  they  are  not  specifically 
tailored for chemical agents. 

The definition of biological agents under Directive 2000/54/EC includes micro-organisms that 
have  been  genetically  modified.  However  according  to  Article1  of  Directive  2000/54/EC 
(biological agents) must apply without prejudice to Directive 90/219/EEC on contained use of 
genetically  modified  micro-organisms413.  There  are  overlaps  between  the  Biological  Agents 

413 This Directive was repealed by Directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms 

261 

 
 
                                                            
Directive and Directive 2010/32/EU (sharps injuries) concerning obligations to offer vaccines 
to  workers.  However,  these  do  not  lead  to  double  regulation  in  practice.  Despite  the  close 
links  with  Directive  2000/54/EC  (biological  agents),  the  scope  of  Directive  2010/32/EU 
(sharps  injuries)  does  not  cover  all  the  categories  of  workers  that  might  be  exposed  to 
infection  through  sharp  injuries  (e.g.  workers  dealing  with  special/  contaminated  waste 
management treatments, cleaners, police or researchers in laboratories). The broadening of the 
scope to all workers exposed to sharp injuries could have a positive impact on limiting worker 
exposure to biological agents. 

Main conclusions  

To enhance the relevance and effectiveness of the Directive, it could be considered to: 

-update Annex III with the list of biological agents to ensure that it covers comprehensively 
and clearly all relevant biological agents; 

-amend  the  Directive  to  ensure  a  procedure  which  allows  for  a  more  flexible  approach  to 
future updates of the list of biological agents; 

-consider whether the contents of Annex V in the Directive should be taken out and instead 
form part of a guidance material, which elaborates more on the measures to be decided based 
on the classification and risk assessment; 

-support  further  knowledge  building  on  cause-effect  relationships  between  exposure  to 
various  biological  agents  and  occupational  diseases;  and  the  use  of  knowledge  for 
development  of  better  tools  and  techniques  for  measurement,  criteria  and  protocols  for 
assessing  exposure  to  hazardous  biological  substances  as  well  as  occupational  exposure 
limits; 

-develop  guidance  on  implementation  of  the  Directive,  especially  on  risk  assessment  and 
ensure  that  models  and  tools  developed  in  some  Member  States  are  shared  to  the  extent 
feasible and possible; 

-support  awareness  raising  so  that  sectors  with  unintentional  use/contact  with  biological 
agents become more aware of the risks involved and can take appropriate action; 

To enhance the coherence of the biological agents Directive with other Directives, it could be 
considered to: 

-  review  the  risk  assessment  procedure  under  Directive  2000/54/EC  to  include  several 
requirements from Directive 98/24/EC (chemical agents), such as the obligations to take into 
account the effect of preventive measures, to obtain additional information from suppliers, to 
take into account conclusions to be drawn from health surveillance, to include activities with 
foreseeable exposures in the risk assessment and include a justification by the employer that 
the nature and extent of the risks make a further detailed assessment unnecessary; 

262 

 
 
-  review  the  worker  information  provisions  under  Directive  2000/54/EC  to  include  the 
obligation to inform  workers on how to  detect health  effects of exposure and how to  report 
them; 

- review the health record requirements under Directive 2000/54/EC to include the obligation 
to update these; 

-  review  the  scope  of  Directive  2010/32/EU  to  cover  all  workers  exposed  to  sharp  injuries 
leading to infections by biological agents and/or merge it with Biological Agents Directive; 

The main suggestions/recommendations from NIRs consist of suggestions/recommendations: 

-to  adapt  the  Directive  in  order  to  include  the  increasing  number  of  situations  outside 
laboratories involving a threat of biological agents; 

-to  update  the  Directive’s  classification  of  pathogens  and  the  Directive’s  microbial 
classification; 

-to  revise  the  Directive’s  classification  of  biological  agents  in  four  risk  groups  in  order  to 
include the risk of allergic reactions and toxic and carcinogenic risks; 

-to revise the definition of an accident at work/accident in service of any case where workers 
are found to have been accidentally exposed to pathogenic biological agents (in order to make 
it unequivocal) 

-to reconsider the notification requirement; 

-to adopt a clear approach towards allergens (currently certain allergenic agents are specified 
as such and others are not classified as allergens, this constitutes poor guidance in relation to 
the risks); 

-to adopt guidelines. 

23. 
Directive 90/269/EEC on the minimum health and safety requirements for the 
manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers 
(manual handling of loads)   

Objectives and main requirements  

This Directive lays down minimum health and safety requirements for the manual handling of 
loads where there is a risk  particularly of back injury to workers with a view to avoid or to 
reduce  these  risks.  According  to  Article  2  thereof  'manual  handling  of  loads'  means  "any 
transporting or supporting of a load, by one or more workers, including lifting, putting down, 
pushing,  pulling,  carrying  or  moving  of  a  load,  which,  by  reason  of  its  characteristics  or  of 
unfavourable ergonomic conditions, involves a risk particularly of back injury to workers". 

263 

 
 
 
Employers are in  particular  required  to  take  appropriate  organizational  measures, or  use  the 
appropriate  means,  in  particular  mechanical  equipment,  in  order  to  avoid  the  need  for  the 
manual  handling  of  loads  by  workers.  Where  the  need  for  the  manual  handling  of  loads  by 
workers  cannot  be  avoided,  employers  are  required  to  take  the  appropriate  organizational 
measures, use the appropriate means or provide workers with such means in order to reduce 
the risk involved in the manual handling of such loads, having regard to Annex I (reference 
factors).  

State of transposition and implementation  

A  first  evaluation  of  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  was  conducted  and 
finalised in 2004414.  

The provisions  of the Directive have been  fully implemented in all Member States, in  most 
Member States in one piece of legislation. Some MS have adopted more stringent or detailed 
measures as regards in particular the provisions on risk assessment and proper training on the 
manual handling of loads, or provisions on weight limits.  

Data  on  levels  of  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Directive  is  quite  sparse  with 
relatively  few  Member  States  having  numerical  data  available.  Such  data  as  were  sourced 
made  no  distinction  between  private  undertakings  and  public-sector  bodies,  across  different 
sectors  of  economic  activity,  or  across  different  sizes  of  companies.  The  level  of  reported 
compliance with the common processes and mechanisms is very varied – ranging from 8% up 
to 90% and since these values were reported from the same Member States it is unlikely that 
the lower levels are attributable to a lack of awareness of the legal duties. No conclusive data 
on compliance was either available from the NIRs.  

Very  few  Member  States  have  developed  particular  measures  to  support  SMEs  and 
microenterprises  in  the  implementation  of  their  legislation  transposing  the  Directive.  No 
Member State has any Directive-specific guidance specifically for SMEs.  

In  all  Member  States  the  enforcement  of  the  Directive  typically  comes  under  the  general 
authority  responsible  for  OSH  inspections/enforcement.  There  are  no  specific  tools  or 
approaches which focus in particular on vulnerable groups and the risks associated with the 
Directive. However, a small number of Member States do make special provisions.  

Relevance  

According  to  the  EWCS  2015  32%  of  EU  workers  declare  being  exposed  to  carrying  or 
moving  heavy  loads  at  least  a  quarter  of  the  time.  10%  declare  lifting  or  moving  people415. 
47%  of  EU  enterprises  declare  that  lifting  or  moving  people  or  heavy  loads  is  among  risk 

414  See  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  Regions  on  the  practical  implementation  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  Directives  89/391  (Framework),  89/654  (Workplaces),  89/655 
(Work  Equipment),  89/656  (Personal  Protective  Equipment),  90/269  (Manual  Handling  of  Loads)  and  90/270 
(Display Screen Equipment) 
415http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/data-visualisation/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-2015  

264 

 
 
                                                            
factors  present  in  their  establishment416.  Workers  are  affected  in  a  variety  of  sectors.  A 
number  of  risk  factors  that  make  manual  handing  of  loads  hazardous  increase  the  risk  of 
musculoskeletal injury.  These  risk factors  may independently contribute to  the development 
of  musculoskeletal  disorders,  but  the  risk  is  greater  if  several  risk  factors  are  present  at  the 
same time417. 

The Manual Handling Directive is likely to remain relevant in the future. Occupational risks 
associated with manual handling activities are expected to persist and it is expected that the 
aging of the EU workforce will lead to an increased susceptibility to such risks. 

According to the findings of the LFS ad hoc module 2013, MSDs are today the most prevalent 
type of work-related health problem and also the first cause of work-related absenteeism. 

They  cover  a  broad  range  of  problems  ranging  from  discomfort,  minor  aches  and  pains  to 
more serious medical conditions which can lead to permanent disability The causes of work-
related  MSDs  are  multifactorial  and  there  are  numerous  work-related  risk  factors  for  the 
various  types  of  MSDs.  Physical  factors  contributing  to  the  development  of  the  disorders 
include the risk factors associated with the handling heavy loads but also other physical risks 
factors418.  In  addition  psychosocial  and  individual  factors  also  seem  to  contribute  to  the 
development  of  those  disorders.  Consequently,  many  MSD-related  risks  factors  are  not 
specifically  addressed  by  the  existing  Manual  Handling  of  Loads,  DSE  and  Vibration 
Directives, nor do these Directives exhaustively address all work situations where such risks 
can occur.  

In this context a recurrent suggestion from the NIRs was to explore ways to better address the 
MSDs-related risk-factors. 

The evaluation found that a variety of approaches  of addressing  MSDs has  been adopted in 
the  Member  States.  Many  of  them  have  prepared  relevant  guidance  material  (including  risk 
assessment aids) and the results of the evaluation study suggest that the wider preparation and 
distribution  of  such  material,  combined  with  some  form  of  enabling  legislation  offers  a 
potentially  effective  and  efficient  solution.  At  the  same  time  the  study  highlighted  the 
challenges related with adopting a prescriptive approach at the EU level and called for further 
feasibility studies in this area. 

Effectiveness  

It is suggested that there is a clear need for the collection of data better suited to address the 
question of the effectiveness of this and other OSH Directives.  From the limited data, there 
has  been  little  change  in  the  incidence  of  either  reported  accidents  or  ill-health  relating  to 
manual  handling,  or  of  musculoskeletal  disorders,  either  collectively,  or  specifically 
addressing  back  problems.  EU  stakeholders  considered  that  the  legislation  transposing  the 
Manual Handling Directive has only moderately achieved its objective. There is a perception 

416 https://osha.europa.eu/en/surveys-and-statistics-osh/esener/2014 
417 ttps://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Risk_factors_for_musculoskeletal_disorders_in_manual_handling_of_loads#cite_note-
4 
418 https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Introduction_to_musculoskeletal_disorders 

265 

 
 
                                                            
that the Directive has had a good impact on worker health and safety in larger establishments, 
but that any effect is markedly diminished in smaller and especially micro-businesses419. 

No statistics are available to enable the separate objective examination of the contribution of 
the  different  common  processes  and  mechanisms  to  the  effectiveness  of  this  Directive. 
However,  opinions  provided  by  national  stakeholders  during  interviews  suggest  that  risk 
assessment/analysis  and  training  play  the  main  roles.  There  is  a  general  agreement  among 
stakeholders  interviewed  that  the  Directive  has  had  a  reasonably  high  impact  on  agenda 
setting  and  influencing  national  priorities,  on  learning/increasing  OSH  knowledge,  on 
motivation of workers, on quality of products/services, and on environmental effects.  

In  order  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive,  suggestions  from  the  national 
implementation reports included: modernising the Directive, by including more contemporary 
risks,  such  as  work  postures  and  one-sided  and  repetitive  work,  updating  the  Annex  to  the 
Directive, if possible- adopting limit values at EU level.  

Coherence  

No inconsistencies were identified across and between the Manual Handling Directive and the 
EU  OSH  Directives  or  other  measures  and/or  policies  at  European  or  International  level. 
However, some suggestions from the national implementation reports related to combining of 
Directives  90/269/EEC  (manual  handling  of  loads)  with  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display 
screen equipment) in order to better take into account all risks related to ergonomics.  

Main conclusions  

The Manual Handing of Loads Directive remains relevant in the light of high prevalence of 
exposure to risk factors potentially leading to MSDs and high prevalence of this type of work-
related problems. The causes of work-related MSDs are multifactorial and the existing OSH 
Directives (Manual Handling of Loads, DSE and Vibration) do not address specifically all the 
potential risk factors, nor do they address all the work activities where such risk factors can 
occur.  In  this  context,  the  suggestions  expressed  in  many  NIRs  to  explore  ways  to  better 
address these risks and the recommendations of the evaluation study should be given further 
consideration.  

The  evaluation  study  identified  the  following  possible  adjustments  to  the  current  Directive 
(excluding those which might relate to wider considerations of the role and function of CPMs 
within  the  general  OSH  milieu).  Given  the  evidence  from  the  scientific  literature  for  the 
ineffectiveness  of  manual  handling  training,  supported  by  the  views  from  NIRs  and 
stakeholders, the study recommended that Article 6(2) should be revised. Whilst education to 
raise awareness of the risks arising from handling activities remains of value, the text should 
be amended to diminish the perceived requirement for training in manual handling techniques. 

419 External study findings from interviews with national stakeholders.  

266 

 
 
                                                            
To  accompany  this  ‘downgrading’  of  the  ‘requirement’  for  training  in  manual  handling 
techniques it would seem advisable to clarify the risk-based approach embodied in Article 3 
to emphasise the hierarchy of: 

• 

• 

• 

Risk prevention; 

Risk reduction; 

Risk (personal) protection. 

In  this  hierarchy,  manual  handling training could  correctly  be  seen as  a potential  adjunct  to 
workplace  design  improvements  (prevention  &  reduction  of  risks)  and  as  a  personal 
protection approach. 

Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health requirements for work 

24. 
with display screen equipment (display screen equipment/DSE)  

Objectives and main requirements 

The  Directive  lays  down  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  work  with  display 
screen equipment. According to the Directive employers are required in particular: 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;  to  take  appropriate  measures  to  remedy  the  risks 
found on the basis of that evaluation; to plan the worker's activities in such a way that daily 
work on a display screen is periodically interrupted by breaks or changes of activity reducing 
the workload at the display screen. The Directive also foresees that workers should be entitled 
to an appropriate eye and eyesight test. The Annex to the Directive lays down the minimum 
requirements to be met by workstations. 

Exposure to risk factors related to the use of display screen equipment at work can result in 
both  musculoskeletal  disorders  (notably  of  the  upper  limbs  and  shoulder  and  neck  regions) 
and display screen vision conditions (a group of eye and vision related predicaments derived 
from  extensive  display  screen  equipment  or  computer  use  -  most  common  symptoms 
including eyestrain, headache, blurred vision and dry eyes).  

State of transposition and implementation  

A  first  evaluation  of  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  was  conducted  and 
finalised in 2004420. 

420 See the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on the practical implementation of the 
provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Directives 89/391 (Framework), 89/654 (Workplaces), 89/655 
(Work Equipment), 89/656 (Personal Protective Equipment), 90/269 (Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 
(Display Screen Equipment) 

267 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The Directive has been transposed in all MSs, in one or several pieces of legislation (in almost 
equal number). All MSs adopted additional material to support implementation of the national 
measures, mainly in the form of guidance. However, few of them have any material tailored 
specifically  for  SMEs.  The  majority  of  Member  States  have  adopted  more  detailed 
requirements,  particularly  in  regard  to  Articles  3  (risk  assessment)  and  9  (protection  of 
workers' eyes and eyesight). 

The  evaluation  suggests  that  the  level  of  compliance  with  the  Directive  is  not  satisfactory. 
Evidence  is  available  from  very  few  Member  States  relating  to  compliance  with  national 
legislation by employers and the available data appears to suggest that approximately 60-70% 
of employers do comply. However, other material seems to suggest that compliance with the 
requirements of the Directive by employers is not strong, with some Member States reporting 
less than 50% compliance with the requirement to perform risk assessment and a general view 
that  more  information  and  training  on  ergonomics  aspects  of  the  workplace  (which  could 
include  DSE-related  material)  was  required.  Material  from  expert  ergonomists  interviewed 
suggested  that  compliance  by  workers  was  also  deficient,  possibly  as  a  result  of  the 
inadequate implementation of the requirements on information and training. 

Relevance  

The  Directive  remains  relevant  though  both  the  NIRS  and  the  external  study  highlighted 
strongly the need to update it in the light of the modern working methods and technological 
progress.  In  terms  of  relevance  related  to  the  state  of  technological  and  workplace 
developments,  as  reported  in  a  large  majority  of  the  national  implementation  reports,  the 
minimum  requirements  which  all  DSE  workstations  must  meet  (Articles  4  and  5  and  the 
related  Annex),  are  widely  recognised  to  be  outdated  and  to  not  adequately  reflect  modern 
computing technologies or ways of working. A number of recommendations related as well to 
the exemptions granted in Article 1(3) of the Directive which need to be reviewed to ensure 
that they are up to date. 

In terms of relevance related to the state of scientific knowledge, the DSE Directive includes 
provisions  aimed  at  the  “Protection  of  workers’  eyes  and  eyesight”  (Art.  9)  while  scientific 
literature  indicates  that  work  with  computers  does  not  cause  any  damage  to  the  eyes  or 
eyesight.  

Several  suggestions  from  the  NIRs  pertaining  to  this  Directive  related  to  the  need  to  better 
tackle psychosocial risks and MSDs. 

Effectiveness  

In general, opinions amongst stakeholders regarding the extent to which the Directive has met 
its  objectives  are  rated  as  a  little  above  average,  although  as  a  group,  workers  are  less 
convinced than other stakeholders (e.g. government, employers) that this is the case. There is 
a  perception  that  the  Directive  has  had  less  strong  impact  amongst  smaller  enterprises, 
although this view is not entirely supported by data from some national studies. Actual data 
on the effectiveness of the Directive in terms of the main intended outcome of a reduction in 

268 

 
 
MSDs  is  not  very  clear  and  not  particularly  reliable.  In  part  this  is  due to  the  fact that  data 
sources  do  not  enable  the  determination  of  attribution,  or  even  confirmation  that  a  worker 
reporting  an  injury  or  ill  health  actually  worked  with  DSE.    Some  national  studies  seem  to 
suggest that it has not had a strong impact, if any. 

Coherence 

Some suggestion from the national implementation reports related to combining of Directives 
90/269/EEC  (manual  handling  of  loads)  with  Directive  90/270/EEC  (display  screen 
equipment) in order to better take into account all risks related to ergonomics. 

Main conclusions  

In  order  to  improve  the  relevance  and  effectiveness  of  the  Directive,  the  external  study 
recommended: to revise the Annex to the Directive in order to take account of changes to both 
the technology used and the manner in which it is used. It has also recommended to adopt a 
less  prescriptive  form  (for  example  adopting  a  more  ‘enabling’  approach  that  required 
employers to provide furniture and equipment ‘sufficient to enable the worker to adopt a good 
working  posture’  which  does  not  hinder  the  development  and  introduction  of  further 
technological solutions) or at least agreeing a mechanism to allow it to be updated more easily 
in the future should technological advances warrant it. 

On the other hand, there is currently no reliable scientific or medical evidence of damage to 
eyesight  in using DSE (although it can  give rise to transient  visual symptoms  – see above).  
There  is  therefore  the  need  to  investigate  the  impact  of  the  relevant  scientific  and  medical 
evidence on Article  9 (‘Protection of workers’  eyes and eyesight’). Additionally  deletion  of 
the word ‘visual’ in the third sub-clause might be beneficial, as problems might not directly 
manifest themselves as visual difficulties (as in the case of adverse postures).  

Also, while some aspects of DSE work can contribute to psychosocial risks and mental stress, 
the  evidence  suggests  that  the  risk  of  such  problems  is  no  greater  amongst  DSE  users  than 
other  workers.  A  possible  revision  of  the  Directive  should  therefore  take  into  consideration 
the case for a better definition of risks and related health conditions - essentially limiting this 
to risks related to repetition, duration and poor postures, while discarding mental stress as a no 
specific risk factor.  

The requirement within the Directive to ensure that workers have the opportunity for periodic 
breaks or changes of activity should be reinforced, as should the need to provide information 
and  training.  Good  quality  information  and  training  to  correctly  educate  the  workforce  is 
required.  In  addition,  to  authoritative  guidance  on  what  constitutes  a  good  working  posture 
(and  how  to  achieve  it),  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  preparation  of  further  EU 
guidance  on  this  (possibly  with  training  material)  to  supplement  the  existing  EU-OSHA  e-
facts and provide further support for MSs and employers.  

i ESENER, EWCS, EU LFS ad hoc module on accidents at work and other work-related health problems. 

269