6th European working conditions survey : 2017 update.
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: Eurofound
Subjects: organisation of work, quality of life, social survey, working conditions, working time

OVERVIEW REPORT

thEuropean

Working
Conditions 
Survey

2017 UPDATE

thEuropean

Working
Conditions 
Survey

2017 UPDATE

When citing this report, please use the following wording: 
Eurofound (2017), Sixth European Working Conditions Survey – Overview report (2017 update), Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg. 

Authors: Agnès Parent-Thirion, Isabella Biletta, Jorge Cabrita, Oscar Vargas, Greet Vermeylen, Aleksandra Wilczynska and 
Mathijn Wilkens.

Project team: Agnès Parent-Thirion, Gijs Van Houten, Greet Vermeylen, Mathijn Wilkens, Sophia MacGoris, David Foden, Jorge 
Cabrita, Victoria Rahm.

The project was supported by a supervisory board consisting of Juan Menéndez-Valdés, Erika Mezger, Barbara Gerstenberger, 
David Foden and Agnès Parent-Thirion.

Research project: Sixth European Working Conditions Survey

The authors wish to thank Francis Green and Serge Volkoff for their advice in the drafting of this report.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Print 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-897-1596-6 

doi: 10.2806/784968 

TJ-02-17-731-EN-C

ISBN 978-92-897-1597-3 

doi: 10.2806/422172 

TJ-02-17-731-EN-N

© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2017

For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Director, European Foundation for the 
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, D18 KP65, Ireland.

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) is a tripartite European Union 
Agency, whose role is to provide knowledge in the area of social, employment and work-related policies. Eurofound was 
established in 1975 by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1365/75 to contribute to the planning and design of better living and 
working conditions in Europe.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Telephone: 
Email:  
Web:  

(+353 1) 204 31 00 
information@eurofound.europa.eu 
www.eurofound.europa.eu

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

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Printed in Luxembourg 

Cover Image: Shutterstock

 
Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report

Abbreviations used in the report

EU-OSHA

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

EWCS

European Working Conditions Survey

GDP

ICT

ISCED

ISCO

gross domestic product

information and communication technologies

International Standard Classification of Education

International Standard Classification of Occupations

EU-LFS

European Union Labour Force Survey

NACE

ILO

OECD

WHO

Nomenclature  statistique  des  activités  économiques  dans  la  Communauté  Européenne  (Statistical 
classification of economic activities in the European Community)

International Labour Organization

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

World Health Organization

Country codes 

EU28

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Germany

Denmark

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Candidate countries

AL

MK 

Albania

Macedonia (former 
Yugoslav Republic of)1

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

ME

RS

Finland

France

Croatia

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

Montenegro

Serbia

EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries

NO

CH

Norway

Switzerland

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sweden

Slovenia

Slovakia

United Kingdom

TR

Turkey

1 

Corresponds to ISO code 3166. This is a provisional code that does not prejudge in any way the definitive nomenclature for this country, which will be agreed 
following the conclusion of negotiations currently taking place under the auspices of the United Nations. For convenience, the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia is abbreviated as FYROM in this report.

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report

Sectors of economic activity used in the sixth EWCS
Sectoral analysis of sixth EWCS data was carried out based on the NACE Rev. 2 classification. In this report, the 21 NACE 
sectors have been condensed into 10 categories.

Sector

Agriculture

Industry

Corresponding NACE Rev. 2 sectors

A Agriculture, forestry and fishing 01–03

B Mining and quarrying 05–09

C Manufacturing 10–33

D Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35

E Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 36–39

Construction

F Construction 41–43

Commerce and hospitality

G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 45–47

Transport

Financial services

I Accommodation and food service activities 55–56

H Transportation and storage 49–53

K Financial and insurance activities 64–66

L Real estate activities 68

Public administration

O Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 84

Education

Health

Other services

P Education 85

Q Human health and social work activities 86–88

J Information and communication 58–63

M Professional, scientific and technical activities 69–75

N Administrative and support service activities 77–82

R Arts, entertainment and recreation 90–93

S Other service activities 94–96

T Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods- and services-producing 
activities of households for own use 97–98

U Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies 99

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report

Occupational groups cited in the report
The occupational groups mentioned in the report are based on the ISCO-08 categories; shortened forms of these categories 
have been used throughout the report. The ISCO group ‘armed forces occupations’ has been excluded when breaking down 
by ISCO group because of insufficient observations. The respondents in this group have been included when presenting 
a total for all occupations.

Occupational group

Corresponding ISCO-08 group

Managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

1. Managers

2. Professionals

3. Technicians and associate professionals

4. Clerical support workers

Service and sales workers

5. Services and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

6. Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers

7. Craft and related trades workers

Plant and machine operators

8. Plant and machine operators and assemblers

Elementary occupations

9. Elementary occupations

In this report, the most recent classification systems for NACE (Rev. 2) and ISCO (08) are used whenever results are presented 
for 2010 and 2015. Because the new classifications are not available for the previous waves of the survey, the earlier versions 
of the classifications (NACE Rev. 1 and ISCO-88) are used when trends are shown.

Note on numerical data
Numerical data in this report are rounded to zero decimals and therefore percentages might not add up to 100%.

Table of contents

Executive summary 

Introduction 

1 –  Portrait of the workforce in Europe 

1.1 

Employment situation 

1.2  Occupations and sectors 

1.3 

1.4 

Employment status 

Self-employment 

1.5  Workplace and company size 

1.6  Company ownership 

1.7  Gender segregation 

1.8  Multiple job-holders 

1.9  Workers of foreign origin or background 

1.10  Educational level 

1.11  Seniority 

1.12  Health status 

1.13  Household characteristics 

Summary - Portrait of the workforce in Europe 

2 –  The multiple dimensions of job quality 

2.1 

2.2 

Job quality indices – Overview 

Improving the physical environment 

Summary - Physical environment 

2.3 

Addressing work demands 

Summary - Work intensity 

2.4  Developing working time quality 

Summary - Working time quality 

2.5  Building a supportive social environment 

Summary - Social environment 

2.6 

Favouring skills use and discretion 

Summary - Skills and discretion 

2.7  Guaranteeing prospects 

Summary - Prospects 

2.8 

Ensuring fair pay 

Summary - Ensuring fair pay 

6

8

12

18

18

19

19

21

25

26

26

27

27

28

29

29

30

33

36

37

42

46

47

51

52

62

64

78

79

90

91

97

98

99

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report3 –  Perspectives on working life in Europe 

3.1  Career and employment security 

3.2  Developing skills and competences 

3.3  Maintaining and promoting health and well-being 

3.4  Reconciling working and non-working life 

3.5  Work sustainability 

Summary - Perspectives on working life 

4 – Profiles of job quality 

4.1 

Five distinct profiles of job quality 

4.2  Distribution of workers in job quality profiles 

4.3 

Job quality profiles and quality of working life 

Summary - Job quality profiles 

5 – Conclusions 

Bibliography 

Annexes 

Annex 1: Survey methodology 

Annex 2: Coordination team and national partners 

Annex 3: Expert questionnaire development group 

Annex 4: Job quality clusters 

102

102

107

109

114

120

124

128

128

130

132

134

138

143

148

148

155

156

159

7

Executive summary

Introduction
Since 1991, Eurofound has been monitoring working 
conditions in Europe through its European Working 
Conditions Survey (EWCS). The survey aims to measure 
working conditions across European countries, analyse the 
relationships between different aspects of these, identify 
groups at risk, highlight issues of concern and areas of 
progress and, ultimately, contribute to developing EU 
policy aimed at improving job quality.

In 2015, the sixth EWCS interviewed almost 44,000 
workers (both employees and self-employed people) in 35 
European countries: the 28 EU Member States, the five EU 
candidate countries, and Norway and Switzerland. Workers 
were asked a range of questions concerning employment 
status, work organisation, learning and training, working 
time duration and organisation, physical and psychosocial 
risk factors, health and safety, work–life balance, worker 
participation, earnings and financial security, as well as 
work and health.

Key findings
Overall, structural inequalities and differences in terms 
of gender, employment status and occupation are still 
significant. The research constructed seven job quality 
indices, representing different dimensions of job quality: 
Physical environment, Work intensity, Working time quality, 
Social environment, Skills and discretion, and Prospects and 
Earnings. These dimensions were selected on the basis of 
their proven impact (positive or negative) on the health 
and well-being of workers. In the last 10 years, there has 
been limited progress in some job quality indices.

Job quality indices

Physical environment
The Physical environment index assesses physical risks in 
the workplace.

  The exposure of men and women to physical risks 

differs markedly, pointing to sectoral and occupational 
segregation in the workplace.

pressure, and experiencing emotional demands, such as 
dealing with angry clients.

  One-third of workers in the EU work to tight deadlines 

and at high speed.

  Workers in the health sector are exposed to the 

greatest levels of work intensity.

Working time quality
This index measures the incidence of long working hours, 
scope to take a break, atypical working time, working time 
arrangements and flexibility. Overall, the working time 
quality index has improved in the EU28 since 2005.

43% of workers have very regular working schedules.

  One worker in five (22%) works in their free time to 

meet work demands several times a month.

Social environment
This index measures the extent to which workers 
experience supportive social relationships as well as 
adverse social behaviour, such as bullying and harassment.

  The social climate in work is generally positive, 89% of 
workers stating they enjoy good cooperation with their 
colleagues.

  Around 16% of workers – more women than men – 

report exposure to adverse social behaviour.

Skills and discretion
This index measures learning and training opportunities in 
the job.

  There has been a narrowing of the gender gap, with 
women catching up and younger age groups closing 
the gap with older groups.

33% of workers in elementary occupations are 
directly involved in decisions that affect their work; for 
managers the figure is almost 80%.

Prospects
This index combines a number of indicators, including 
prospects for career advancement and the likelihood of 
losing one’s job.

  Over the last decade, there has been an uneven 

  Part-time workers score less than full-time workers (59 

improvement: exposure to noise, for example, has 
decreased in the EU28 significantly while exposure to 
chemical and infectious products has increased.

Work intensity
This index measures the level of work demands in the 
job: for instance, working at high speed and under time 

points compared to 66).

Job insecurity remains at the same level as in 2010: 
16% of workers feel they could lose their job in the 
next six months.

8

 
 
 
Earnings
This index measures the monthly income of workers.

  Most workers are concentrated at the lower end of the 
income distribution, with very few at the upper end.

  The income of men is substantially higher than that of 
women, partly due to differences in working hours.

Profiles of job quality
Jobs that scored similarly in terms of the different 
dimensions of job quality were grouped together in five 
‘job quality profiles’.

High flying
This profile scores highest in Skills and discretion, Earnings 
and Prospects. The downside of these well-earning, high- 
skilled jobs is greater Work intensity and lower Working time 
quality.

Smooth running
Jobs in this profile score low (hence favourably) in Work 
intensity and high in Working time quality. This profile has 
the strongest positive associations with most measures of 
well-being, with health problems being least prevalent.

Active manual
Jobs in this profile have poor scores for Physical 
environment and Working time quality. However, scores on 
the Social environment index are high. Jobs in this profile 
are characterised by a working environment with more 
physical risks – of all types.

Under pressure
This profile has the lowest score for Social environment and 
for Work intensity. However, it ranks second in Earnings and 
in Skills and discretion (behind the ‘high flying’ profile). The 
prevalence of health problems and absence is highest and 
work–life balance is very difficult to achieve.

Poor quality
This profile scores negatively on all job quality indices, 
with the lowest scores for Skills and discretion, Earnings 
and Prospects. However, it scores better than the ‘under 
pressure’ profile on the Work intensity and Working time 
quality indices.

Perspectives on working life 
in Europe
Going beyond the objective measures of job quality, the 
report also looks at workers’ own assessment of their 
working lives. It finds associations between the different 
dimensions of job quality and factors such as engagement, 
financial security, the development of skills and 
competences, health and well-being, the reconciliation 
of work and private life, and the sustainability of work. 
The findings underline the importance of company and 
workplace practices in safeguarding health and safety 
(including against psychosocial risks), improving work–life 
balance, supporting career development, promoting skills 
use and development, managing workload and designing 
meaningful jobs.

Policy pointers
Looking at the findings through the lens of the job quality 
profiles, jobs in the ‘poor quality’ profile would benefit 
most from actions to support the various dimensions of 
job quality and labour market policies focused on moving 
workers into better-quality roles.

For ‘under pressure’ jobs, the focus should be on improving 
management quality, ensuring social support in the 
workplace, facilitating training and providing strategies for 
coping with emotional demands such as those arising from 
dealing with angry customers.

The level of physical demands at work in ‘active manual’ 
jobs calls for greater attention to workplace risks and 
health aspects. Better working time management and 
workload organisation could also improve job quality.

Actions to improve job quality in ‘high flying’ jobs should 
address working time organisation and work intensity. 
Introducing a shift in values to tackle the culture of working 
long hours could be one important improvement.

While ‘smooth running’ jobs score highly on most 
indices, workers earn less than in other jobs, and express 
a preference for working more hours. Addressing this 
(bearing in mind the relationship between earnings and 
working hours) would improve the quality of these jobs.

More generally, job quality can be supported by a wide- 
ranging set of policies and actions aimed at addressing the 
issues raised in the survey’s analysis of job quality indices 
and profiles and that support workers throughout their 
working lives. In addition to policy initiatives at EU level, by 
national authorities and social partners, progress can also 
be achieved through workplace practices and policies at 
company level.

9

Introduction

Introduction

‘Making sure Europeans can fully participate in society 
and equipping them for modern working life is a key 
social concern, but it is also crucial for our productivity 
and ability to compete globally.’

Mission letter from Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker 
to Marianne Thyssen, Commissioner for Employment, Social 
Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility, 1 November 2014

Policy context
Working conditions and job quality are high on the 
European policy agenda. Indeed, the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) underlines 
as significant objectives the ‘promotion of employment, 
improved living and working conditions … proper social 
protection, dialogue between management and labour, 
the development of human resources with a view to lasting 
employment and the combating of exclusion’ (Article 151 
TFEU).

In the main slogan of the Europe 2020 strategy – ‘smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth’ – the ideas of working 
conditions and job quality are implicit rather than 
explicit; however, ‘improving the quality of work and 
working conditions’ is a pivotal objective of the European 
Commission’s 2010 ‘Agenda for new skills and jobs’ 
initiative:

High quality of work goes hand in hand with high 
employment participation. This is because the working 
environment plays a crucial role in enhancing the potential 
of the workforce and is a leading competitiveness factor. 
In order to innovate and to deliver promptly and efficiently, 
EU companies depend for their survival and expansion on 
a committed workforce, thriving in a high-quality working 
environment, with safe and healthy working conditions.

Improving working conditions and job quality continues 
to be a significant goal in European policies, underpinning 
Europe’s capacity to compete. It is a cross-cutting issue 
that both influences and is influenced by many other 
European policies. For example, the Commission’s recent 
industrial renaissance and enterprise policies have 
implications for working conditions and job quality. And 
conversely, the improvement of working conditions is 
important for the implementation of other European 
policies – for example, innovation and gender equality.

The improvement of working conditions takes place 
in a context of subsidiarity. Governments and social 
partners, companies and workers all have a role to play. Yet 
experience has shown that the EU is also a key player and 
has contributed to improving working conditions through 
its various measures with regard to the improvement of 
health and safety at work and gender equality, and its 
wider coordination of employment policies.

12

Current European policy concerns include work–life 
balance (in particular for working parents), fighting 
undeclared and fraudulent work, extending working life, 
addressing the challenge of segmented labour markets 
and ensuring a proper balance between flexibility and 
security, investing in human capital, preparing individuals 
for potential risks over their life course, and addressing 
the significant inequalities that people face in the labour 
market (European Commission, 2014a).

The current policy debates on new forms of employment 
(Eurofound, 2015b) and undeclared and fraudulent work 
(Eurofound, forthcoming) highlight the importance of 
monitoring working conditions and of providing data 
and analysis that can both enhance understanding of the 
common challenges faced by Europe and the Member 
States and support policymaking in these areas.

European Working Conditions 
Survey series
Since 1991, Eurofound has been monitoring progress on 
the improvement of working conditions in Europe through 
its European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS). The 
survey’s main objectives are to:

  measure working conditions across European 

countries on a harmonised basis;

analyse relationships between different aspects of 
working conditions;

identify groups at risk and issues of concern, as well as 
areas of progress;

  monitor trends over time;

contribute to European policy development – in 
particular, on quality of work and employment issues.

A quarter of a century after the first survey, the EWCS 
is the authoritative source of cross-national data on 
working conditions in Europe and has been used to 
measure working conditions in countries outside Europe 
as well. The sixth wave was carried out in 2015 and covers 
35 European countries: the 28 EU Member States plus 
the candidate countries for EU membership – Albania, 
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Serbia and Turkey (all supported by the EU Instrument 
for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA)) – as well as Norway 
and Switzerland. The sample size ranges from 1,000 to 
3,300 people per country, with three Member States 
(Belgium, Slovenia and Spain) having subsidised a bigger 
sample size in their countries. In total, 43,850 employees 
and self-employed workers were interviewed between 
February and September 2015 (see Annex 1: Survey 
methodology).

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
 
The survey questionnaire covers a wide-ranging set 
of topics: worker characteristics (including household 
situation), job design, employment conditions, working 
time, exposure to physical risks, work organisation, skills 
use and autonomy, work–life balance, worker participation 
and representation, the social environment at work, and 
health and well-being. For each wave of the survey, the 
questionnaire has been thoroughly reviewed by a group 
composed of users, experts of national working conditions 
surveys and representatives of the research community, 
along with representatives of Eurofound’s Governing 
Board, the European Commission and international 
organisations (see Annex 3: Expert questionnaire 
development group).

The questionnaire has been reviewed at each survey wave 
in order to take into account issues prominent in policy 
debate and emerging concerns. This review also enables 
the EWCS team to build on the lessons learned from the 
previous waves. Many questions have been retained in 
their original form so that a picture of trends over time can 
be drawn.

Furthermore, a number of countries outside Europe 
(the US, South Korea and to a lesser extent some Latin 
American countries and China) have developed or are 
developing surveys using the framework of the EWCS. 
Cooperation with the International Labour Organization 
will continue in this field. In 2017, the first comparative 
analysis building on results from these surveys will be 
carried out.

Structural drivers of change
Numerous changes – demographic, structural and 
technological – are affecting the composition of 
the workforce, employment levels, job content and 
how workers experience their working lives. These 
developments challenge the role that work plays in our 
societies, with working life actors responding in different 
ways, and have a knock-on effect on working conditions 
and job quality.

Demographic change
The ageing of the European working population calls for 
policy attention to two issues: ensuring that demanding 
working conditions can be undertaken by an older 
workforce and ensuring that working conditions are 
sustainable over the life course to allow people to remain 
in work longer (Eurofound, 2015d).

Related to this is the position of women in the workforce. 
While more women have entered the labour market in 
recent years, it appears that gender inequalities are 
still prevalent despite a strong commitment to gender 
equality, advances in the education of women – now 
accounting for the majority of graduates in Europe – 
and progress in closing the gender employment gap 
(European Commission, 2014a). Women are still the main 
providers of care in the domestic sphere. Gender-mixed 
occupations are the exception more than the rule. There 

Introduction

are many inequalities between men and women at work 
and these take many forms: the gender pay gap, the 
overrepresentation of women in part-time work, the glass 
ceiling, gender discrimination, and subtle differences in 
working conditions and their associated costs in terms 
of access to training and career progression (Eurofound, 
2013b).

The demographic challenge has drawn attention to the 
need for a life-course perspective on working conditions. 
The ability of individuals to reconcile, grow in and meet 
the expectations of different roles – such as worker, carer 
or volunteer – is a challenge that needs to be made more 
visible and supported by policies and practices. This is 
critical if Europe is to increase the participation of people 
in longer careers and improve gender equality at work 
and in life between men and women. The provision of care 
infrastructure, leave arrangements and other supports, 
and a job quality that helps people to navigate between 
changing needs over the life course, are all fundamental to 
addressing this challenge.

The European workforce is better qualified than ever 
before. A good skills match, designing jobs that make full 
use of workers’ skills, lifelong learning and promoting 
learning organisations that support the development of 
competence (and prevention of skills obsolescence) are 
all related to job quality and working conditions. There 
are also challenges around the more knowledge-based 
content of work: in effect, it is harder to know when 
work has finished. In addition, new risks in working 
conditions need to be considered. At the other end of the 
spectrum, the low-skilled remain an important policy 
concern, particularly as inequalities are increasing and 
unemployment remains high.

Structural change
The economic and financial crisis that Europe and its 
workforce have grappled with since 2008 can be viewed 
as a wake-up call regarding the long-term structural 
challenges facing the Union. It is also, perhaps, a timely 
reminder of the contribution that working conditions and 
job quality make to the economy.

Through a long-term process of structural change, 
employment in agriculture and industry has decreased 
while employment in services has increased. Work in the 
service sector has become more industrialised while at 
the same time work in manufacturing is more customer- 
driven. Restructuring of companies and jobs can have an 
impact on the activities of companies and can at times 
drastically change the conditions under which work is 
performed. When decisions are taken in decision centres, 
away from and not including the local workplaces, the 
role of the local management is challenged. Furthermore, 
the implementation of decisions can lead to difficulties in 
understanding and achieving the organisation’s objectives.

The boundaries of companies are blurring, and their 
perimeters seem to be constantly expanding and 
contracting. These changes have brought about what 
one expert calls ‘external competition inside companies’ 

13

(Cohen, 2012). Companies have at their disposal a wide 
range of options; they can choose from a multitude 
of commercial and labour contracts to organise their 
production, resulting in the coexistence at workplace level 
of workers hired under different labour and commercial 
arrangements.

The combination of unclear boundaries in companies 
and increased demographic diversity of the workforce 
highlights the critical importance of aspects such as 
fairness, trust, social climate, mentoring and collaboration 
in workplaces.

Technological change
Technological change affects working conditions in many 
ways: the type of jobs, skill needs, use and developments, 
task content and processes used to manage work. While 
the use of information and communication technologies 
(ICT) has led to huge gains in flexibility and agility and 
provided opportunities for greater autonomy, it has 
also increased work demands. Badly used, it can lead to 
unclear boundaries between work and non-work life, the 
depersonalisation of relationships at work and a lack of 
clarity in job roles. The use of ICT is radically changing the 
collective experience of work – from a group of people who 
interact physically to a dispersed community of contacts, 
whose interaction may be more ad hoc.

Recent progress in machine intelligence and the ‘rise of 
the robots’ has provoked both fears and hopes: fears that 
numerous jobs including knowledge ones will disappear 
and that the new jobs will give fewer opportunities 
to engage in meaningful activities; hopes that dirty, 
dangerous and monotonous work will be left to machines, 
allowing jobs necessitating human qualities to flourish and 
develop.

The digital economy is changing the contours of work, 
bringing activities that were previously unpaid or 
informal into the formal paid economy and enabling the 
outsourcing to clients of activities that were previously 
part of formal paid work.

Some commentators consider this trend to be extremely 
challenging, jeopardising the relevance and durability of 
the social model of paid employment and the very concept 
of a job. Others view it as a way to unleash creativity 
and individual initiative, free from the shackles of the 
traditional employment model.

Evolution of work
Work is a cornerstone in the cohesion of societies and plays 
a fundamental role in their capacity to integrate and grow. 
Hand in hand with family and care, other key aspects of 
people’s lives, work is a core around which other activities 
are organised. It is a determinant in creating collective time 
norms at societal level and frames time use at individual 
level. Work has a huge influence on the design of welfare 
systems.

14

The changes in the world of work – in particular, questions 
around digitalisation – pose a challenge to the meaning of 
work. The purposes of work have been seen as threefold: 
first, work is a production factor – what matter most are 
the goods and services produced by work and their value; 
second, work is an instrument through which individuals 
grow, develop and become themselves – in this case, the 
conditions of work are crucial for achieving self-fulfilment; 
third, work is a system for redistributing income, rights 
and protection. The current changes in the economy and 
workforce are challenging the status quo on these three 
dimensions: digitalisation is redefining the products and 
services that are being produced; it is also reshaping 
the ways in which they are produced – offering new 
opportunities for individuals but perhaps circumscribing 
others; and new forms of employment are testing 
the systems of income distribution, rights and labour 
regulations.

Inequalities in working conditions
Analysis of the EWCS series highlights the diversity, 
richness and complexity of working life in Europe. It points 
to the existence of multiple and contradictory paths 
of change among the workforce. There are substantial 
variations across Member States in terms of job quality 
and working conditions, and it is clear that Member States 
are not converging upward on all dimensions of job quality 
over time (Eurofound, 2015a).

Tensions between security and flexibility, commitment and 
mobility, upskilling and knowledge transfer, cooperation 
and individualisation are addressed in different ways. The 
transformation of work has resulted in increasing and 
multiple sources of inequalities in working conditions. In 
some cases, unfavourable working conditions cluster and 
affect specific groups disproportionally. Yet many win–win 
arrangements have proved both possible and practicable.

Content of the report
Chapter 1 describes the main characteristics of the 
workforce in the 35 countries covered by the sixth EWCS. 
Apart from traditional aspects, such as employment levels 
broken down by occupation, sector or employment status, 
it also looks at indicators such as sex, age, educational 
attainment, country of origin, seniority, health status and 
household circumstances.

Chapter 2 focuses on developments in job quality in 
Europe. Its point of departure is the work Eurofound 
carried out in 2012, based on the fifth EWCS, in which 
indices were constructed to measure different aspects 
of job quality (Eurofound, 2012b). The current analysis 
is based on the following seven indices: physical 
environment; work intensity; working time quality; 
social environment; skills and discretion; prospects; and 
earnings. The indices cover extrinsic and intrinsic job 
features captured from an objective perspective. They 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportIntroduction

are based on positive and negative self-reported features 
of the job, which measure the concrete experiences of 
work and have been proven to have a causal effect – 
either positive or negative – on the health and well-being 
of workers. The analysis of each index’s components is 
supplemented by other features of the job or the working 
environment, such as dealing with customers or place of 
work. Other organisational resources provided through 
employee representation at the workplace are also 
considered.

Chapter 3 examines work from the perspective of the 
individual job-holder: how their skills match their job, 
what their level of engagement is with their job, whether it 
provides them with financial security, what their work–life 
balance and time preferences are like, and how they juggle 
their different roles as worker, family member and citizen. 
Finally, issues around health and well-being, as well as 
workers’ views on the sustainability of work, are explored.

Chapter 4 clusters workers into five groups based on jobs 
that share similar scores on the job quality indices: ‘high 
flying’, ‘smooth running’, ‘active manual’, ‘under pressure’ 
and ‘poor quality’ jobs. The characteristics of the workers 

belonging to each group are analysed, as well as the 
association between clusters and work–life balance, skills 
match, worker engagement and financial security.

Finally, Chapter 5 summarises the findings and presents 
conclusions.

Technical information
This report covers the 28 EU Member States (EU28), the 
five candidate countries for EU membership – Albania, 
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Serbia and Turkey – as well as Norway and Switzerland. 
Sections on trends over time cover the EU28 in 2010 and 
2015 and the EU27 in 2005. The different versions of the 
questionnaire are available on the Eurofound website.2

In the current report, occupation is defined using the 
International Standard Classification of Occupations 
2008 (ISCO-08), sector is defined using the Statistical 
Classification of Economic Activities in the European 
Community (NACE) Rev. 2, and educational attainment is 
defined using the International Standard Classification of 
Education (ISCED) 2011.

2 

Available at https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-2015/ewcs-2015-
questionnaire

15

1  Portrait of the workforce 

in Europe

1  Portrait of the workforce in Europe

This chapter sets out to describe the main characteristics 
of the workforce in the 35 countries covered by the 
sixth EWCS: the EU28 Member States, the five candidate 
countries for EU membership – Albania, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and 
Turkey – and Norway and Switzerland. It refers, whenever 
possible, to the period between 2005 and 2015.

Apart from standard features such as employment levels 
according to occupation, sector or type of employment 
status, this chapter will also address a number of 
additional elements based on individual sociodemographic 
traits (such as sex, age, level of education, national origin, 
seniority and health status), which will help to provide 
a comprehensive portrait of the workforce as captured by 
the EWCS in the year it was carried out – 2015.

1.1  Employment situation
In 2015, the employed population in the 35 countries 
covered by the sixth EWCS stood at 259 million – this 
compares to about 150 million employed people (over 15 
years of age) in the US at the end of 2015, and to 221 million 
employed people in the EU28, according to Eurostat’s 
Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS, 2015).3

By comparison, total employment in the EU28 was around 
216 million in 2010 (the time of the fifth EWCS) and 212 
million in 2005 (the fourth EWCS).

The employment rate among people aged 15–64 in the 
EU28 also increased in this 10-year period – from 63% to 
66%. As shown in Figure 1, the growth is mostly the result 
of the increased participation of women in the labour 
market, which rose from 56% in 2005 to 60% in 2015. 
Despite the reduction in the gender employment gap, the 
female employment rate is still 11 percentage points lower 
than that of men.

Figure 1: Employment rates in the EU28, by sex (%)

71 

63 

56 

2005

70 

64 

58 

71 

66 

60 

2010

2015

Men

Women

Total

Source: EU-LFS 2005–2015; individuals aged 15 years or over.

The ageing of Europe’s population can be seen in the 
changes in the size of each age group (Figure 2). The 
proportion of workers aged 50 or over in total employment 
has markedly increased, from 24% in 2005 to 31% in 2015. 
At the same time, there has been a continuous drop in the 
proportion of younger workers (aged under 35) – from 35% 
in 2005, to 32% in 2010 and 30% in 2015. For the first time 
in many years, the proportion of workers aged 50 and over 
(31%) has surpassed that of the younger cohort (30%), 
albeit marginally.

Figure 2: Workforce age structure in the EU28 (%)

24 

41 

35 

27 

41 

32 

31 

50 and over 

39 

35–49 

30 

Under 35 

2005

2010

2015

Source: EU-LFS 2005–2015.

3 

For Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey, the source is the ILO database ILOSTAT (2014 data).

18

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportOne important feature of employment in the EU is the 
proportion of part-time workers in total employment. This 
has been steadily growing, from 18% in 2005 to 20% in 2015 
(Figure 3). This trend is observed both among men (from 
7% to 10%) and women (from 31% to 33%). The proportion 
of women working part time continues to be much larger – 
three times that of men.

Figure 3: Part-time employment as a proportion of 
total employment in the EU28, by sex (%)

31 

18 

7 

2005

32 

19 

9 

2010

33 

20 

10 

2015

Men

Women

Total

Source: EU-LFS 2005–2015; individuals aged 15 years or over.

Chapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

1.2  Occupations and sectors
Figure 4 presents the distribution of employment in the 
EU28 by occupation in 2015. While the structure has 
remained relatively stable over several years, the 2011 
break in the EU-LFS series of data on employment by 
occupation precludes any discussion of developments over 
time.

Figure 5 presents the distribution of employment in the 
EU28 by sector in 2008, 2010 and 2015.4 Overall, the three 
largest economic sectors are commerce and hospitality 
(19%), other services (18%) and industry (17%). Health, 
education and public administration constitute 11%, 8% 
and 7% of total employment, respectively. Transport 
comprises 5% of total employment, while financial services 
and agriculture are both around 4%. In terms of trends 
over time, the data show that education, health and 
other services have been growing in relative terms, while 
industry and construction are in relative decline.

1.3  Employment status
In 2015, 15% of the European workforce are self-employed, 
12% are temporary employees and the remainder (73%) 
are employees with a permanent contract or another 
arrangement. The EWCS shows that the latter group 
(with ‘other or no contract’5) comprises about 8% of the 
workforce.6 Globally, and apart from a small reduction in 
the proportion of self-employed workers, the picture has 
not changed markedly since 2005 (Figure 6).

Figure 4: Employment by occupation in the EU28, 2015 (%)

Professionals 

Service and sales workers 

Technicians 

Craft workers 

Clerks 

Elementary occupations 

Plant and machine operators 

Managers 

Agricultural workers 

Source: EU-LFS 2015.

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

4 

5 

6 

The EU-LFS implemented the new sectoral classification NACE Rev. 2 in 2008.

‘Other or no contract’ is a category that covers a wide variety of contractual arrangements.

The term ‘workforce’ in the context of the EWCS refers to employees and self-employed workers, excluding unemployed workers.

19

Figure 5: Employment by sector, EU28, 2008–2015 (%)

Commerce and hospitality 

Other services 

Industry 

Health 

Education 

Public administration 

Construction 

Transport 

Agriculture 

Financial services 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

Source: EU-LFS 2008–2015.

2008 

2010 

2015 

Figure 6: Employment status based on self-reported 
status, 2005–2015 (%)

16 

12 

16 

12 

15 

12 

Self-
employed 

Temporary
employees 

73 

73 

73 

Other
employees 

2005

2010

2015

Source: EU-LFS 2005, 2010 and 2015.

Despite the world of work and employment being in a state 
of transformation, working conditions and working rights 
are still based on the notion of ‘standard employment 
relations’, which assumes a long-term, full-time work 
relationship between a worker and a single employer. 
The benefits of this type of contract for the worker are 
summarised in the fifth EWCS overview report:

This type of contract in principle gives workers high 
security in the labour market (because of its open 
duration), social benefits (social protection, unemployment 
benefits) and rights (representation rights).

(Eurofound, 2012a)

20

When the core characteristics of standard employment 
relations are modified – in such matters as the duration of 
the contract, working hours, type of employer – there are 
consequences for the rights and benefits related to these 
characteristics.

The proportion of temporary employees remains low 
(12%). The various contractual forms are distributed 
differently across Member States, with nine Member States 
having a proportion of self-employed and temporary 
employees above the average (Figure 7). The EWCS shows 
(not in the figure) that in Cyprus, more than a third of 
workers have an ‘other or no contract’. This is one worker 
in four in Malta and nearly one in five in Greece, Ireland and 
Albania.

When the types of employment contracts are considered 
in relation to individual characteristics such as sex, age 
and educational level, the EWCS shows that different types 
of segmentation on the labour market are apparent. The 
proportion of younger workers in temporary contractual 
arrangements (19%) or in ‘other or no contract’ (13%) is 
much higher than that of the other age groups. A gender  
division is also evident in all age groups, with self-
employment being male dominated, while among 
female workers there is a higher proportion of indefinite, 
fixed-term and ‘other or no contract’ situations (with 
the exception, in the latter category, of the under-35 age 
bracket).

Indefinite contracts are predominant among workers with 
tertiary (72%) and secondary (66%) education levels while 
only about four in 10 (39%) of those with primary education 
have this status. Workers with a primary education are 
more likely to be found among the self-employed without 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

Figure 7: Employment status in selected Member States (%)

19 

23 

32 

8 

17 

21 

17 

18 

23 

11 

16 

17 

14 

18 

14 

16 

13 

16 

Self-employed 

Temporary
employees 

58 

60 

62 

65 

66 

67 

69 

71 

72 

Other
employees 

Poland 

Greece 

Spain 

Portugal 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Slovenia 

Source: EU-LFS 2015.

employees (21%) or employees with ‘other or no contract’ 
(20%) and 15% of this category have a fixed-term contract.

The median duration of non-permanent contracts is one 
year for fixed-term contracts and six months for `other or 
no contract’, which is in line with the results of previous 
waves of the EWCS.

1.4  Self-employment
The extent of self-employment as a proportion of total 
employment of the 28 EU Member States has decreased 
only slightly since 2005. However, this relative stability 
masks great variations. First, the proportion varies 
considerably across countries – between 7% in Norway and 
31% in Greece, according to EU-LFS data (Figure 8). Second, 

changes are not all in one direction. Between 2005 and 
2015, the proportion of self-employed workers increased in 
12 Member States but decreased in 10.

Third, it is difficult to get a full picture of the self-employed 
group, as the individuals themselves are not always clear 
about their status and its designation.

In the sixth EWCS, a series of questions were included in 
an effort to obtain a more accurate identification of the 
worker’s status. Respondents were asked to select from 
a list of possible descriptions (or criteria) which would help 
classify them as either ‘employees’ or ‘self-employed’. In 
cases where there was no response to this question, the 
interviewer would continue with a series of sub-questions – 
around income and decision-making capacity – to elicit the 
nature of the respondent’s status.

Figure 8: Self-employment as a proportion of total employment, by country (%)

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Greece 

Turkey 
Italy 
Romania 

Poland 

FYROM 

Czech Republic 
Portugal 
EU28 

Slovakia 
Netherlands 
Ireland 
Spain 
Belgium 
United Kingdom 

Finland 
Malta 

Croatia 

Switzerland 
Slovenia 
Latvia 
Cyprus 

Austria 
Bulgaria 

France 
Norway 
Estonia 
Sweden 
Germany  
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Denmark 
Luxembourg 

Source: EU-LFS 2015; no comparable data were available for Albania, Montenegro or Serbia

21

The proportion of workers who say they do not know 
whether they fall into the category of employee or self- 
employed remains low (1.1% of respondents). In order to 
ascertain the status of these workers, the questionnaire 
asks those who reported that they did not know their 
status whether they are paid a salary or wage; answering 
‘Yes’ to this places the respondent in the ‘employees’ 
group.

For the remaining workers – those who describe 
themselves as self-employed and those who do not 
know their status and are not paid a salary or wage – the 
questionnaire proposes a number of possible descriptions, 
such as: sole director of own business; partner in 
a business or professional practice; working for oneself; 
working as a subcontractor; and doing freelance work (the 
categories are not mutually exclusive).

Almost half the self-employed (46%) indicate that they 
work for themselves (Figure 9). This is more often the case 
for men than for women and there is very little difference 
between age groups in this respect. There are more men 
than women among the 30% of self-employed who are 
sole directors of their own business and the 3% who work 
as subcontractors. In terms of age, sole directors tend to 
be in the older age groups, while subcontractors are in the 
younger age group. The subcategory ‘partner in a business 
or a professional practice’ comprises 12% of the self- 
employed, while freelance workers comprise 9%; there are 
scarcely any differences in terms of age and sex for these 
two subcategories.

There are differences across sectors in the number of 
people working in one or other of the main forms of self- 
employment. In public administration and agriculture, 61% 
of the self-employed work for themselves. Sole directors 
are prevalent in commerce and hospitality, transport, 
and financial services, while partners in a business or 
a professional practice tend to be found in industry, 
commerce and hospitality, and health. Freelance workers 
tend to be prevalent in education, health and other 
services, while subcontractors are more often reported in 
the transport and construction sectors.

The reported reasons for becoming self-employed reflect 
both the overall economic situation in the country and 
the choices available to the worker. The sixth EWCS asked 
workers what was their main driver for self-employment 
(Figure 10). The results display a wide range of responses 
across countries: 86% of self-employed workers in Sweden 
said they opted for self-employment ‘mainly through 
own personal preferences’. Equivalent figures are around 
one-third of workers in Austria (34%), Croatia (33%), 
Serbia (32%), around one-quarter in Montenegro and the 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (26% and 27% 
respectively) and less than one-fifth in Albania (16%). In the 
latter group of countries (Serbia, Montenegro, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania), at least 50% 
of respondents give ‘no other alternatives for work’ as 
a reason.

Figure 9: Different types of self-employment, by sex and age, EU28 (% of total self-employed)

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Total 

Men 

Women 

Under
35 years 

35–49 years 

50 years 
and over

Working for oneself

Sole director 

Partner in business 

Freelance 

Subcontractor 

Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive.

22

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Figure 10: Main reason for being self-employed, by country (%)

7 

5 

8 

13  11  5 
6  7  9  14 

12  13  14 

13 

9  14  15  13 

17 

9 

11  11 

13 

17 

16  20 

14  24 

19 

16  17 

19 

17 

14 

21 

26 

7 

12 

18 

22  23  17 

17  18 

21  19 

13 

40 

26 

36 

23 

13 

16 

26  27  33 

86 

81  79  78  77  76  72  71  71  70  70  68  67 

62  61  61  60  60  59  58  57  54  54  52  49  49  48  45  44 

38 

34  33  32 

27  26 

16 

0 

United Kingdom 
Montenegro 
Poland 
Portugal 
Greece 
Latvia 
Romania 
Turkey 
Spain 
Czech Republic 
Albania 
FYROM 
Serbia 
Croatia 
Austria 
Hungary 
Estonia 
Germany 
Italy 
Bulgaria 
Belgium 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
Slovenia 
EU28 
Luxembourg 
Denmark 
Cyprus 
Norway 
Slovakia 
France 
Malta 
Ireland 

Chapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

12 

18  20  18 

Neither of the
other reasons 
A combination
of both 

24 

29 

11 

24 

53 

18 

35  37 

22 

52  51 

63 

No other
alternatives
for work 

Mainly through
own personal
preferences 

In another 15 countries, a relatively high proportion of 
respondents cite ‘no other alternatives for work’ as their 
reason: 35% or more in Austria, Croatia, Romania and 
Turkey, 33% in Portugal, 27% in Greece, 26% in Latvia and 
Spain and around 20% in Ireland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Italy, 
Estonia, Poland and Hungary.

Becoming self-employed is a more common personal 
preference for professionals (76%), managers (68%) and 
technicians (65%), as well as for workers in the health 
sector (76%), education (65%), other services (64%) and 
financial services (63%). In contrast, ‘no other alternatives 
for work’ is more likely to be cited as a reason by those 
in elementary occupations (42%) and agricultural 
workers (26%), and also by those in transport (24%) and 
construction (20%).

Turning to individual characteristics, such as sex, age and 
education, self-employment remains male-dominated and 
taken up mainly by people with only a secondary level of 
education and by older age cohorts. 

The self-employed encompasses two subcategories: ‘self-
employed with employees’ and ‘self-employed without 
employees’. However, this dichotomy conceals a great deal 
of variety – the self-employed form a very heterogeneous 
group.

In 2015, self-employed without employees formed a group 
twice as large as that of self-employed with employees – 

10% and 5% of the workforce, respectively. Again, there 
are considerable variations across Member States, the self-
employed without employees being particularly numerous 
in countries such as Greece (26%), Italy and Portugal 
(both 18%), as well as in a number of countries outside the 
EU: more than one-fifth of workers were self-employed 
without employees in Albania, FYROM, Montenegro, Serbia 
and Turkey.

The heterogeneity of the self-employed group is 
particularly evident when the reasons for being self-
employed are examined. While 61% of self-employed 
have opted for this employment status through personal 
preference, the figure is even higher for the self-employed 
with employees (71%). Overall, the ‘no other alternatives’ 
choice is reported by around one out of five (18%) self-
employed workers; however, this proportion rises to nearly 
one in four for the self-employed without employees 
(23%) – compared to 9% for the self-employed with 
employees.

Variations according to occupation and sector also exist. 
Almost half of all agricultural workers (48%) are self-
employed without employees, compared with just 14% of 
managers and craft workers and 10% of professionals. The 
self-employed without employees are notably present in 
the agricultural sector (42%) and in construction and other 
services (17% and 16%, respectively).

23

Employment status and the economically dependent worker

Employment status has an impact on working conditions. Significant issues in this regard are, for example, labour 
rights and social protection benefits, and the financial stability and sustainability of the professional activity. The 
emergence of so-called ‘new forms of work and employment’, the blurring of boundaries between self-employment 
and dependent employment, and a growing recognition of the heterogeneity of self-employment have been 
acknowledged in national and European policy discussions. This has led to numerous initiatives clarifying the 
legal status of so-called ‘economically dependent workers’ through various routes: introduction of a new legal 
employment status, extension of labour protection by legislative intervention, case law, and introduction of soft 
regulation. The emergence of crowdwork makes these discussions even more relevant.

There is considerable variation in workers’ descriptions of the way they perform their activity: only 56% of self-
employed without employees and 32% of self-employed with employees describe themselves as ‘working for 
themselves’. Another interesting aspect is the working hours reported: for example, while freelance workers are 
mainly self-employed without employees, they frequently report working part time as their main activity.

Several pieces of research have examined developments in employment relations and the increasingly unclear 
boundaries between the status of subordinated employee and that of independent self-employed person. Indeed, 
despite a ‘formal qualification’ of ‘self-employment’, some situations lack the key features that characterise 
independent and autonomous employment relations (European Commission, 2016). An analysis of data on the self- 
employed from the fifth EWCS explains:

In recent years, practices such as outsourcing and contracting-out have increasingly blurred the boundaries 
between dependent employment and self-employment. A new group of workers has emerged, which comprises 
workers who are formally ‘self-employed’, but present some characteristics of employees. These ‘economically 
dependent workers’ usually have a commercial contract (or ‘service contract’) rather than an employment contract; 
they are therefore registered as self-employed when in reality their working conditions have a lot in common with 
those of employees.

This development makes it difficult to distinguish (within those who are registered as self-employed), between 
people who are really self-employed and running their own business, and people who for example depend on 
a single employer for their income and thus have no real autonomy in running their ‘business’.

(Eurofound, 2013a, p. 1)

The international classification ICSE-93 can be used to differentiate between self-employment situations. According 
to ICSE-93, the ‘genuine’ self-employment jobs are those jobs where:

the remuneration is directly dependent upon the profits (or the potential for profits) derived from the goods 
and services produced (where own consumption is considered to be part of profits). The incumbents make the 
operational decisions affecting the enterprise, or delegate such decisions while retaining responsibility for the 
welfare of the enterprise. (In this context ‘enterprise’ includes one-person operations.)7

The three main distinguishing features of self-employment are the economic aspects, the autonomy and authority to 
run the business. In an effort to scrutinise self-employment and learn more about economically dependent workers, 
three criteria were used in a secondary analysis of the fifth EWCS (Eurofound, 2013a) to assess the genuine character 
of the ‘self-employed without employees’ status. Self-employed without employees who have only one client and/
or have no authority to hire staff and/or to make important strategic decisions are considered to be economically 
dependent workers. Nearly 1% in the EU27 was considered to be an economically dependent worker.

The sixth EWCS includes the same questions – number of clients, authority to hire and dismiss employees, and decision-
making autonomy. The results for 2015 show that over half (51%) of the self-employed without employees are ‘genuine’ 
independent workers (fulfilling all three criteria), while 14% (1% of all workers in the EU28) cannot be considered 
independent workers (none or only one of the criteria were met). In between, there is a substantial grey zone, in view of 
the fact that around 29% of the formally designated ‘self-employed without employees’ meet two criteria.

7 

ICSE-93: The International Conference of Labour Statisticians adopted in 1993 the International Classification of Status in Employment (ICSE-93), currently 
under revision. It includes employers, own-account workers, members of producers’ cooperatives, contributing family workers, a residual category called 
‘workers non-classified by status’ and, depending on the country, also owner-managers, contractors and outworkers.

24

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

1.5  Workplace and company size
One important determinant of the quality of working 
conditions is the size of both the workplace and the 
organisation. The workplace (the establishment where 
a worker performs the activity) and its size are important, 
for example, in relation to the quality and quantity 
of social interactions and contact, as well as work 
organisation. Furthermore, the size of the company or 
organisation where people work is usually associated with 
different types and levels of rights and benefits such as 
remuneration, representation and leave.

The majority of respondents in the EU28 (54%) work for 
companies and organisations that operate from a single 
site. Unsurprisingly, workers reporting that their company 
operates in multiple sites are mainly to be found in large 
companies. Most workers in large organisations (83%) 
report they have more than one site; this is the case for only 
30% and 8% of those who work in small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs) and micro companies, respectively.

Workers in the EU28 are almost equally distributed between 
micro companies (up to 9 workers), SMEs (between 10 and 
249 workers) and large companies or organisations (250 or 
more workers) (Figure 11). However, 47% work in medium-
sized workplaces (between 10 and 249 workers) and another 
38% work in micro workplaces (up to 9 workers). This means 
that, in practice, only 15% work in sites with 250 workers or 
more (Figure 12). There are substantial differences between 
countries in terms of the size of each group.

Figure 13 presents data on the proportion of workers 
in different-sized organisations in various sectors. Most 
individuals in agriculture (79%) work in micro companies; 
only 3% work in large companies. Around half the workers 
in construction (50%) and in other services (48%) work 
in micro companies. By contrast, the majority of workers 
in public administration and financial services (57% and 
58% respectively) work in large organisations. In financial 
services, health, transport, industry, education and public 
administration, individuals tend to work either in SMEs or 
in large companies or organisations.

Figure 11: Company size, EU28 (%)

Figure 12: Workplace size, EU28 (%)

32 

33 

38

15

47

35 

Micro  

SME 

Large 

Micro

Medium 

Large 

Figure 13: Distribution of workers across economic sectors, by company size, EU28 (%)

3 

18 

79 

11 

39 

24 

28 

50 

48 

26 

29 

45 

58 

20 

22 

Agriculture 

Construction 

Other services 

Financial services 
Commerce and
hospitality 

41 

42 

39 

38 

38 

45 

21 

20 

Health 

Transport 

16 

Industry 

29 

57 

14 

57 

Large 

35 

8 

SME 

Micro 

Public administration  
Education 

25

Figure 14: Employed people, by occupation and sex, EU28 (%)

Craft workers 

Plant and machine operators 

Managers 

Agricultural workers 

Technicians  

Professionals 

Elementary occupations 

Service and sales workers 

Clerks 

89 

82 

67 

67 

11 

18 

33 

33 

50 

48 

45 

36 

33 

50 

52 

55 

64 

67 

Figure 15: Employed people, by economic sector and sex, EU28 (%)

Men 

Women 

Construction 

Transport 

Industry 

Agriculture 

Public administration 

Other services 

Commerce and hospitality 

Financial services 

90 

10 

78 

72 

65 

53 

50 

50 

49 

22 

28 

35 

47 

50 

50 

51 

Education 

Health 

28 

22 

72 

78 

Men 

Women 

Source (Figures 14 and 15): EU-LFS 2015.

1.6  Company ownership
According to the sixth EWCS, some 71% of EU28 workers 
work in the private sector, 21% in the public sector and 
7% in joint private–public organisations or companies, 
the non-profit sector or a non-governmental organisation 
(NGO) or ‘other’ sector. Since 2005, there has been a slight 
decrease in employment in the public sector matched by 
an increase in the private sector.

Countries differ considerably in the proportions of workers 
reporting the different ownership classification of the 
organisations they work for. The Nordic countries – Norway 
(36%), Denmark (34%), Sweden (34%) and Finland (32%) – 
as well as Slovenia (32%) and Luxembourg (33%), have the 
highest proportions of individuals working in the public 
sector. In contrast, the private sector is the most prominent 
type in Albania (82%), Turkey (78%), Spain and Cyprus 
(both 77%). The proportion of individuals working in joint 

private–public organisations, in the non-profit sector or an 
NGO, or in ‘other’ sector is relatively high in countries such 
as the Netherlands (20%), Serbia (14%) and Greece (16%).

1.7  Gender segregation
While the participation of women in paid work is increasing 
across Europe, labour markets continue to be highly 
gender-segregated. Some occupations such as craft 
workers and plant and machine operators are intensely 
male-dominated (Figure 14). A predominant presence 
of male workers can also be seen in other occupations, 
such as managers or agricultural workers. By contrast, 
some occupations are predominantly female: clerks or 
service and sales workers. At the level of aggregation 
of occupations presented in the figure, there is less 
evidence of segregation among elementary occupations, 
professionals and technicians.

26

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

Another important difference between those who have 
second job and those who do not concerns remuneration: 
the proportion of workers reporting that they consider 
they are not well paid in their main job is higher among 
those who have a second job (37%) than among those with 
a single job (29%). In fact, controlling for the effects of 
country, sector and occupation, those with multiple jobs 
are nearly 1.5 times more likely to report not being well 
paid in their main job than those who report having only 
one job.

1.9  Workers of foreign origin or 

background

Eurofound research has shown that non-national workers 
and nationals of foreign background are frequently 
segregated into low-paid, unskilled and precarious 
employment (Eurofound, 2007a, 2009a and 2011b). 
Respondents in the sixth EWCS were asked whether they 
and their parents were born in the country of residence.

The results show that 13% of all workers in the EU28 
are of foreign origin or foreign background (Figure 17). 
The majority of this group (65%) were born in a different 
country to their country of residence (foreign origin); the 
remaining 35% were born in the country of residence but 
both their parents were born elsewhere, which means they 
are nationals with a foreign background.

Figure 17: Workers of foreign origin or with a foreign 
background, EU28 (%)

In terms of economic sector, there is also a high degree of 
gender segregation (Figure 15). Construction, transport, 
industry and agriculture remain highly male-dominated 
sectors, while health and education are female-dominated. 
On the other hand, commerce and hospitality, other 
services, financial services and public administration seem 
to have balanced proportions of women and men.

In order to gauge the level of segregation at the level of the 
workplace, the sixth EWCS asked respondents to indicate 
the sex of the majority of their colleagues having a similar 
job title to theirs (Figure 16). The results clearly indicate 
that gender segregation continues to be a feature of EU 
workplaces: 58% of men and 54% of women declare that 
their ‘co-workers with the same job title’ are mostly of the 
same sex. Only 19% of men and 22% of women stated that 
there were an equal number of men and women working in 
a similar position at their place of work.

Figure 16: Sex of co-workers with the same job title, 
by sex, EU28 (%)

16 

21 

30 

Nobody else
has the same
job title 

Approximately
equal 

Mostly
women 

15 

19 

7 

58 

16 

22 

54 

8 

34 

Mostly men 

8 

5 

Men 

Women 

Total 

1.8  Multiple job-holders
According to the sixth EWCS, nearly 8% of workers in the 
EU28 report having more than one job. In most cases 
(58%), the second job is an ‘occasional’ job rather than 
a ‘regular’ one. The proportion of multiple job-holders is 
slightly larger for employees with a fixed-term contract 
(11%) or ‘other or no contract’ (13%); it is also larger among 
professionals (10%) and those working in elementary 
occupations (10%). It is noteworthy that the proportion of 
workers reporting a job other than their main one varies 
across countries, being considerably larger in northern 
countries such as Denmark and Norway (both 19%), 
Estonia (16%) and Sweden (15%) and smaller in Bulgaria, 
Greece, Montenegro and Turkey, where the proportion is 
under 5%.

On average, workers who have a second job are more likely 
to work very short hours (27%) than workers with only one 
job – 14% of whom work very short hours. More than half 
of multiple job-holders (55%) work full time (35 hours or 
more) in their main job.

87

Nationals 

Foreign origin  

Foreign background 

There are substantial differences between countries in 
the proportion of workers with foreign origin or foreign 
background (Figure 18). Luxembourg has by far the highest 
proportion of workers of foreign origin or background 
(66%) and 80% of them are of foreign origin. Other 
countries with high proportions of workers of foreign origin 
or background are Switzerland (29%), the United Kingdom 
(25%), France (24%) and Ireland and Sweden (both 23%). In 
Croatia, a high number (24%) of interviewed workers stated 
that either they or their parents were born in a different 
country. However, there is not enough information to verify 
whether they were in fact referring to the former Socialist 

27

Figure 18: Proportion of workers of foreign origin or background, by country (%)

Foreign background 
Foreign background 

Foreign origin 
Foreign origin 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Luxembourg 
Switzerland 
Croatia 
United Kingdom 

Ireland 
Sweden 
France 

Belgium 
Norway 
Estonia 
Austria 
Latvia 
EU28 
Netherlands 
Montenegro 
Serbia 

Cyprus 
Germany 
Malta 
Slovenia 
Denmark 
Spain 

FYROM 

Albania 
Romania 
Turkey 
Hungary 
Slovakia 
Bulgaria 
Finland 
Poland 
Czech Republic 
Lithuania 
Greece 
Italy 
Portugal 

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from which Croatia 
declared independence in 1991.

In most countries, the proportion of workers of foreign 
origin (born abroad) surpasses that of foreign background. 
This is the case in most Mediterranean countries (Spain, 
Greece, Italy, Malta and Portugal) but also in Ireland, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom.

1.10  Educational level
The EU workforce is becoming increasingly educated. The 
proportion of workers with a tertiary level of education in 
the EU28 rose from 25% to 33% in the ten-year period from 
2005 to 2015, while the proportion of those with a primary 
or lower secondary level of education decreased – from 
25% to 18%. It is important to note the distribution of the 
levels of education by age and sex, in particular in the 
younger age cohort, as it gives an indication of how the 
distribution among older groups will look in the future. 
In 2015, 4 out of every 10 female workers (42%) in the 
under-35 cohort has a tertiary education, against 29% of 
their male counterparts (Figure 19). In the over-50 cohort, 
this percentage is the same for men and women.

Figure 19: Educational level, by age and sex, EU28 (%)

29 

53 

42 

33 

40 

29 

29 

Tertiary 

49 

46 

46 

48 

48 

Upper
secondary 

18 

12 

19 

14 

23 

23 

Men  Women  Men  Women  Men  Women 

Under 35 

35–49 

50 and over 

Source: EU-LFS 2015.

Primary 
and lower
secondary 

28

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

1.11  Seniority
Seniority – the number of years working in one’s company 
or organisation – is an important dimension of a person’s 
working experience, shaping expectations and ensuring 
working life stability and access to social protection rights. 
Figure 20 presents data over a 10-year period regarding the 
number of years worked by workers in their company or 
organisation. Overall, the largest group is that of workers 
with 10 years of tenure or more (42%). This proportion, 
as well as the proportion of individuals working for 5 to 9 
years (20%) has remained fairly stable since 2005.

The EWCS data also show that the proportion of workers 
working less than a year in their jobs has shrunk: from 
18% in 2005 to 16% in 2010, and 12% in 2015. The same 
evolution has taken place for men and women, which 
indicates that, on average, the job tenure of male and 
female workers is getting progressively longer.

1.12  Health status
The sixth EWCS contains information on the self-reported 
health and well-being of workers. The health status of 
individuals is a strong determinant of their participation in 
the labour market.

Nearly eight out of 10 workers in the EU28 report good or 
very good health (Figure 21). This is a higher proportion 
than that of the general EU28 population (aged 16 and 
over in 2014) and is in line with other comparable data. 
Subjective well-being is measured through the World 
Health Organization’s Well-Being Index (WHO-5), which 
assesses the following aspects: ‘positive mood’ (good spirit 
and relaxation), ‘vitality’ (being active and waking up fresh 
and rested) as well as ‘general interest’ (being interested in 
things). The index score ranges from 0 to 100. On average, 
the subjective well-being of workers in Europe is quite 
high – 68 (out of 100 points). Across all countries, the score 
for men is the same as, or marginally higher than, the score 
for women (Figure 22).

Figure 20: Number of years worked in company or organisation, EU28 (%)

43 

18 

21 

17 

35 

22 

24 

19 

39 

20 

23 

18 

43 

19 

23 

15 

37 

41 

20 

25 

17 

20 

24 

16 

Men 

Women 

Total 

Men 

Women 

Total 

2005 

2010 

Figure 21: Reported good health, by country and sex (%)

44 

19 

25 

11 

Men 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

39 

42 

10 or more
years

21 

27 

13 

Women 

Total 

2015 

20 

5–9 years 

26 

12 

1–4 years 

Less than
a year 

Men 

Women 

0 

Slovakia 
Romania 
Italy 
Portugal 
Lithuania 
Estonia 
Latvia 

Slovenia 
EU28 
Germany 
Poland 
Serbia 

Hungary 
Spain 

Belgium 
Finland 

Norway 
FYROM 

Ireland 
Albania 
Turkey 
Czech Republic 
Switzerland 
Bulgaria 
Netherlands 
Montenegro 
Croatia 
United Kingdom 
France 
Malta 
Luxembourg 
Denmark 
Austria 
Sweden 

Greece 

Cyprus 

29

Figure 22: Scores on the Subjective well-being index, by country and sex

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Men 

Women 

0 

Albania 

Serbia 

United Kingdom 
Turkey 

France 
Italy 

Luxembourg 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Slovakia 
Poland 

Greece 

Hungary 
Latvia 

Sweden 
Malta 

Estonia 
Montenegro 
Lithuania 
Slovenia 
EU28 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 

Portugal 
Romania 

Finland 

Ireland 
Denmark 
Germany 

Norway 

FYROM 
Switzerland 
Austria 
Spain 
Czech Republic 
Netherlands 

1.13  Household characteristics
Given that the preferences and choices of workers are 
shaped in part by household factors, it is important to 
know how many people in a household are working and if 
there are dependants. These factors influence how work, 
both paid and unpaid (carried out in the private domain), 
is organised and how it affects work–life balance – an 
important element of working conditions. In the EWCS, 
only households where at least one partner works are 
included.

Of the workers in the survey, more than half in the EU28 
(56%) belong to a dual-earner household, where both 
partners work full time (Figure 23). Some 32% of workers 
belong to a household with a single earner: 21% are male 
single-earners and 11% are female. An additional 11% of 
workers live in a household where one partner works full 
time and the other works part time. In the vast majority 
of cases, the man works full time and the partner works 
part time, a model reported by 9% of all workers. As Figure 
23 also illustrates, there are large differences between 
countries.

Dual-earner households more prevalent: The vast 
majority of workers (more than 70%) live in dual-earner 
households in Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania 
and Finland.

Single-earner households more prevalent: Single-earner 
households comprise over 50% of households in Turkey 
(73%), Montenegro (58%), the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia (56%), Malta (54%), Albania (52%) and Serbia 
(51%). In Greece, the percentage is smaller: 48% of workers 
report living in a single-earner household; nevertheless, 
this proportion is still higher than that of the country’s 
dual-earner households (45%).

One full-time and one part-time worker: Workers living 
in households with one full-time and one part-time worker 
are more prevalent in the Netherlands (26%), Switzerland 
(22%) and Belgium (20%).

30

Some 72% of the male respondents living in multi-earner 
households say that they contribute most to the household 
income, compared with 17% of women. Only 10% of 
workers indicate that all earners contribute equally.

There are important differences between the main-earner 
models according to sex. Relatively more main earners 
in the higher income quintiles are male (Figure 24). There 
are also relatively more male earners than single female 
earners in the higher income quintiles, regardless of 
a second income in the household or not.

People’s needs, especially in terms of time for work and 
private life, vary throughout the life course, according to 
their household circumstances.

When the EWCS data are analysed according to a person’s 
reported life stage, the following findings emerge (Figure 25).

  Some 9% of workers are 45 or under, single and living 

independently.

  A small proportion of workers (2%) are aged 18–35 and 

living with their parents.

  Around 11% of workers are living in a couple without 

children (where the female partner is aged 45 or under).

  The largest group of workers (40%) report that they 
are part of a couple with children: for 14% of this 
group, the youngest child is aged 7 or under, for 8% the 
youngest child is aged 7–11 and for 17% the youngest 
child is aged 12 or over.

  Some 10% of workers are living in a couple without 
children and the female partner is aged 46–59 years.

  A small minority – 3% – of workers are living in 

a couple, without children, and are 60 years of age or 
older.

  Some 6% are older single people (over 50), without 

children.

  Around 20% are living in other household types.

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 23: Distribution of workers, by household type and country (%)

Chapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

Hungary
Czech Republic
Estonia
Lithuania
Finland
Slovenia
Sweden
France
Denmark
Latvia
Slovakia
Portugal
Norway
Bulgaria
Austria
EU28
Germany
Poland
Belgium
Cyprus
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Romania
Switzerland
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Croatia
Serbia
Greece
Netherlands
FYROM
Malta
Montenegro
Albania
Turkey

Dual earners
full-time

73
71
71
71
70
67
66
65
61
61
61
61
60
59
57
56
56
55
54
54
54
53
52
51
51
51
51
50
48
45
44
41
40
39
36
25

Single
earner, man
15
19
12
18
13
20
15
16
17
19
24
21
19
24
16
21
16
25
18
23
20
19
26
19
24
32
26
27
34
34

19

38
39
38
32

64

10
7
12
7
12
10
8
9
11
13
13
14
10
13
10
11
9
15
8
14
9
11
16
8
12
11
14

20
18
14
11
18
15
20
21

9

Single
earner,
woman

Man full-time,
partner
part-time

Woman
full-time, partner
part-time

2
2
3
3
3
2
9
8
8
5
1
2
9
2

15
9
17

3

6

16

13
14

3

18
9
5
7
2
0
5

21

2
5
1
4
1

1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
8
1

Figure 24: Main-earner models and household types by income quintile, EU28 (%)

18 

20 

21 

22 

19 

19 

20 

23 

23 

16 

32 

27 

21 

12 

8 

Main earner: man 

Main earner: woman 

Equal contribution 

8 

12 

19 

28 

33 

Not main earner 

10 

12 

16 

24 

39 

22 

21 

21 

20 

16 

22 

20 

23 

17 

18 

35 

30 

21 

9 
6 

13 

18 

18 

20 

30 

Highest income
quintile 

Second highest
income quintile 

Middle income
quintile 

Second lowest
income quintile 

Lowest income
quintile 

Dual earners full-time 

Single earner: man 

Single earner: woman 
Woman full-time, partner part-time 
Man full-time, partner part-time 

31

Figure 25: Distribution of workers according to life stage by domestic situation, EU28 (%)

 Men 

Women 

Total 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

18–35
living at
home

45 or under  Woman 45
or under

Youngest 
child 7 or 
under

Youngest
child over 7 
and under 12

Youngest
child 12 
or over

Woman
46–59

Both 60
or over 

50 or over 

Single
No children 

Couple
No children 

Couple
With children

Couple
No children 

Single
No children

Others 

Viewing the data by life stages helps to understand the 
concrete impact that aspects of working conditions – 
such as working hours, working time arrangements, 
time needed for work in the private sphere and work– 

life balance – can have on workers. Analysing how the 
impacts and needs may vary over the different stages of an 
individual’s life can contribute to forming a holistic picture 
of a person’s working conditions.

32

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 1 – Portrait of the workforce in Europe

Portrait of the workforce in Europe

Workforce becomes more female and gender segregation still common: Between 2005 and 2015, the 
employment rate of people aged 15–64 in the EU28 rose – from 63% to 66%. Largely, this is due to the increased 
participation of women in the labour market. However, the female employment rate is still 11 percentage points 
below that of men. Moreover, gender segregation remains very high and takes multiple forms.

Ageing of the workforce: As well as becoming more female, the workforce has got substantially older: the 
proportion of people in employment who are aged 50 years or over has increased markedly – from 24% to 31% over 
10 years. At the same time, there has been a continuous decline in the proportion of younger workers (aged under 
35): from 35% of the workforce in 2005 to 30% in 2015.

Rise in part-time employment: The proportion of part-time workers in the workforce rose from 18% in 2005 to 20% 
in 2015. Part-time working is much more common among women, 33% of women working part time as against 10% 
of men.

Sectoral growth and decline: The three largest sectors are commerce and hospitality (accounting for 19% of the 
workforce), other services (18%) and industry (17%). Health and education constitute 11% and 8%, respectively, of 
total employment; however, although smaller, these two sectors (along with other services) have been growing in 
relative terms, whereas industry and construction are in relative decline.

Employed on indefinite contract is still the norm: The majority (73%) of EU28 employees holds an indefinite 
contract, 12% have a fixed-term contract, and 8% have either another type of contract or hold none. Some 15% of 
the workforce is self-employed. This picture is little changed since 2000.

Self-employment a preference for many: A majority (61%) of self-employed workers in the EU28 reported that 
they became self-employed out of preference; 18% said they had no other alternative for work; and 17% cited 
a combination of these two factors.

33

2 The multiple dimensions 

of job quality

2  The multiple dimensions  

of job quality

Job quality is important to all citizens and is also central to 
policy concerns as Europe tries to boost economic growth 
and address the demographic challenge and the threats to 
the welfare systems. Making work sustainable and keeping 
people in work for longer are two key aspirations of many 
European countries. Maintaining and developing job 
quality is crucial for attaining these goals.

This chapter analyses the sixth EWCS data using the seven 
indices of job quality developed by Eurofound in its report 
on job quality (Eurofound, 2012b). The development of the 
seven indices reflects the multidimensional nature of the 
concept of job quality and the fact that each dimension – 
as captured in the respective index – has an independent 
influence (positive or negative) on the health and well- 
being of workers.8

In contrast to Eurofound’s previous work (Eurofound, 
2012b), the seven indices are presented independently. In 
particular, this study does not make use of the intrinsic job 
quality that was constructed as a combination – with equal 
weight – of the four indices: physical environment, social 
environment, work intensity and skills and discretion. The 
seven job quality indices included in this study are:

  Physical environment

  Work intensity

  Working time quality

  Social environment

  Skills and discretion

  Prospects

  Earnings.

The seven indices have a number of features in common.

First, they are developed at the level of the job. The 
objective is to capture how workers perform their work 
and under what conditions. The job level is of particular 
significance, as it is the level at which the contractual 
relationship between employers and employees is set; 
it is also the unit of design and implementation of many 
regulations devised by governments and social partners. In 
addition, a person’s job determines their task set as well as 
their practical experience of work.

Women and men fare differently in relation to job quality: 
women report lower Earnings, but a higher score in 
Physical environment and Working time quality. Men 

score one index point more in terms of Prospects and 
Skills and discretion but also one point more for Work 
intensity (higher scores on this index being less favourable 
for workers). Men and women report the same scores for 
Social environment.

Second, the indices are constructed with indicators of 
positive and negative job features. These indicators 
reflect the job resources (physical, psychological, social or 
organisational aspects) and job demands or the processes 
that influence these. For example, the training indicator 
reflects the ability of workers to develop job resources, 
while worker participation could reduce the level of job 
demands and, therefore, the associated physical and 
psychological costs.

Third, these indices cover job features captured from 
an objective perspective. This means that they refer 
to specific job quality features, which can be observed 
and are related to meeting people’s needs from work. 
In particular, these features have been proven through 
epidemiological studies to have a causal effect – positive 
or negative – on the health and well-being of workers.9 
Section 2.1 explores this in more detail.

Many job quality features that are beneficial for workers 
are also positively associated with company performance, 
productivity and innovation. Research indicates that 
improving job quality, for example, is associated with 
a reduced level of sickness absence and minimised loss 
of productivity due to working while sick (presenteeism) 
(EU-OSHA, 2014; Goetzel et al, 2004; Sainsbury, 2007). 
In addition, job quality contributes to developing 
organisational commitment and motivation among 
workers, as well as shaping a climate that is supportive of 
creativity and innovation.

Furthermore, job quality can play a central role in the 
development of the workforce. The indices capture 
characteristics of job quality that can result in sustainable 
work and hence extend working life, build and develop the 
workforce’s competence, and result in productivity. Job 
quality is also a factor in balancing flexibility in working 
hours and employment with financial and job security. The 
indices also take into account the experience of working 
in a social environment, where the workforce is managed 
well and is not subject to adverse social behaviour. 
Such an experience of work is supportive of business 
competitiveness, as evidenced, for example, by findings from 
the third European Company Survey (Eurofound, 2015g).

It should be noted that the seven job quality indices relate to the EU28 Member States and not to the 35 countries in the sixth EWCS.

See, for example, Fishta and Backé, 2015; Theorell et al, 2015; Theorell et al, 2016; Harrington, 2001; Kivimäki et al, 2012; Kivimäki et al, 2015; Bannai and 
Tamakoshi, 2014; Virtanen et al, 2013.

8 

9 

36

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportBefore examining each index in detail, the next section 
provides an overview of the job quality indices, illustrating 
the variety of job quality combinations experienced, the 
independence of each index and the contribution of the 
dimensions they measure to a positive experience of 
working life.

Figure 26: Overview of job quality indices and their 
indicators

Physical environment
Posture-related (ergonomic)
Ambient (vibration, noise,
temperature)
Biological and chemical

Social environment
Adverse social behaviour
Social support
Management quality

Work intensity
Quantitative demands
Pace determinants and
interdependency
Emotional demands

Working time quality
Duration
Atypical working time
Working time arrangements
Flexibility

Skills and discretion
Cognitive dimension
Decision latitude
Organisational participation
Training

Prospects
Employment status
Career prospects
Job security
Downsizing

Earnings

2.1  Job quality indices – 

Overview

This section introduces the job quality indices and looks 
at the distribution of occupations and sectors in relation 
to the indices. The validity of the indices is shown by 
testing their association with health and well-being, and 
hence corroborates the importance of job quality for 
a good working life. The section concludes by examining 
associations between the various job quality indices, 
further underlining the multidimensional perspective.

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Job quality indices
All the job quality indices are measured on a scale from 0 to 
100, except for Earnings, which is measured in euros. With 
the exception of work intensity, the higher the index score, 
the better the job quality.

Job quality – as operationalised by seven indices – is not 
distributed equally. Although these indices share the same 
scale, their distribution is far from identical. Figure 27 
illustrates the distribution of six of the job quality indices, 
while the seventh – Earnings – is illustrated in Figure 28.

As Figure 27 demonstrates, the Social environment index 
has the largest variation for workers in the EU28. The 
distribution of the index shows a large concentration of 
workers with a high-quality social environment (right- 
hand side of scale), but also a large concentration of 
workers having a low-quality environment (left-hand 
side of scale). It is skewed, indicating that the range of 
values for the Social environment index is wider for those 
reporting less than the mean than those on the other side 
of the tail. Similarly, the Physical environment index is also 
left-skewed, although not to the same extent as the Social 
environment index. Working time quality, on the other 
hand, shows the least variation of all the indices: almost all 
workers score between 41 and 88 on this index, and 50% 
score between 63 and 81. Prospects and Work intensity – 
the latter being a negative job quality indicator – both 
follow a mainly normal distribution, with a similar variance. 
Finally, Skills and discretion shows some more variation 
and a slight left-hand skew.

The distribution of the Earnings index (Figure 28) is 
right- skewed, reflecting inequality also in earnings. Most 
workers are concentrated at the lower end of the earnings 
distribution, with few concentrated in the high end of the 
distribution. It should be noted that these are monthly net 
earnings not corrected for working hours.

Figure 27: Distribution of six job quality indices in the EU28, 2015

Working time quality  

Prospects 

Work intensity 

Physical environment 

Social environment 

Skills and discretion 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Range (P5–P95) 

Range (Q1–Q3) 

Median 

Mean

Note: Range Q1–Q3 (the grey boxes) shows the range of the values of the index for the middle 50% of the respondents, when arranging them from 
lowest to highest. Range P5–P95 (between the orange dots) shows this range for the middle 90% of the respondents.

37

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28: Distribution of monthly net earnings at PPP in the EU28

8
2
U
E
n

i
s
r
e
k
r
o
w

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

10

8

6

4

2

0

Mean = 1,458.73
Std. dev. = 1,058.638
N = 29,718

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Monthly earnings in PPP (euros)

Note: PPP = purchasing power parity.

Measuring earnings

The EWCS survey includes a series of questions on earnings. The main question (Q104) is about the net monthly 
earnings from a person’s main paid job, referring to the average earnings in recent months. These are earnings from 
the main job – minus tax and social security contributions – at an individual level. Because tax and social security 
contributions vary between countries, differences in net earnings not only reflect differences in rewards for the job, 
but also the effects of the welfare system in which the job and the individual are embedded.

Although the survey question corrects for taxes and social security contributions, it does not include any benefits 
accruing from these deductions. For example, contributions to occupational pension schemes will benefit the worker 
after retirement and could therefore be considered as suspended earnings. Moreover, in some countries, taxes could 
depend on household characteristics or are levied at household level. The survey question does not take these 
elements into account. Therefore, the inclusion of these elements is dependent on the respondent’s interpretation of 
the question.

For respondents who are unable to give an exact figure of their monthly net earnings, a range of earnings bands 
are presented from which the respondent is asked to choose (Q105). The earnings bands are based on national 
income distributions and are presented in the national currency. The level of earnings that is presented in this 
report combines the two questions (Q104 and Q105) by taking the middle of the earnings band as a proxy for the 
exact income of respondents who were unable to give an exact amount of net earnings. For countries without the 
euro as a national currency, the figures are converted into euros. Finally, all figures are corrected for differences in 
purchasing power between countries.

As Figure 29 shows, a substantial proportion of EWCS respondents is reluctant to disclose information about the 
amount they earn (17% in the EU28). This proportion varies significantly across countries: from under 3% in Norway 
and Sweden to over 30% in Italy, the Czech Republic and Poland and reaching 47% in Hungary. However, even 
when the country effect is taken into account, the binary logistic regression shows that factors such as sex, age, 
employment status, occupation, sector of activity and capacity to make ends meet all help to explain the reluctance 
to disclose earnings.

38

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
 
 
Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Figure 29: Refusal to disclose net earnings, by country (%)

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Norway 
Denmark 
Sweden 
Cyprus 
Finland 
France 

Italy 
EU28 
Croatia 
Greece 
Serbia 
Spain 
FYROM 
Estonia 
Albania 
Ireland 
Slovenia 
Bulgaria 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Czech Republic 
Portugal 
Belgium 
Germany 
United Kingdom
Montenegro 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Switzerland 
Poland 
Turkey 
Latvia 
Malta 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 
Austria 

Men, older workers, the self-employed, managers, professionals, technicians, those working in the transport sector 
and those who find that it is ‘easy’ or ‘relatively easy’ to make ends meet are all less likely to report how much they 
earn than other groups. This would suggest that the level of net earnings in the EWCS is under-estimated.

Distribution by sector and occupation
While the indices of job quality are developed at the level 
of the job, it is important to take into account the overall 
employment context, as this can influence the job’s 
characteristics. In this regard, occupation and sector are 
key determinants.

Figures 30 and 31 highlight the variety of possible 
combinations of job quality features. The very different 
portraits of sectors and occupations that emerge and the 
scores on the job quality indices indicate how specific 
sectoral policies could complement more general policies 
aimed at increasing job quality.

No sector or occupation scores consistently high across all job 
quality indicators. Figure 30 shows high scores for financial 
services across all indices, but this includes Work intensity, 
which is a negative aspect of job quality. Furthermore, 
sectors – such as transport and agriculture – that have lower 
scores for certain dimensions of the job quality indices also 
report more positive scores for other dimensions.

In terms of occupation, Figure 31 shows that professionals 
and, to a lesser extent, technicians report above-average 
scores on all indices of job quality, including Work intensity, 
which has a negative, albeit small, effect. Managers score 
relatively high on several job quality indices, but also have 
a high score on Work intensity and have the lowest score 
for Working time quality.

Figure 30: Mean scores on the job quality indices, by economic sector, EU28

Skills and
discretion

Social
environment

Physical
environment

Work intensity

Prospects

Working time
quality

Earnings (€)

Agriculture

Industry

Construction

Commerce and hospitality

Transport

Financial services

Public administration

Education

50

51

55

51

44

68

61

66

Health

61

Other services

59

81

78

79

77

72

80

75

77

72

77

76

78

71

85

82

93

88

91

82

88

25

36

36

34

33

35

32

29

38

31

53

65

61

62

64

71

66

65

66

61

67

72

70

69

66

74

73

71

69

72

1,070

1,576

1,623

1,199

1,554

2,133

1,686

1,492

1,471

1,537

Note: A higher score for Work intensity means a less favourable situation for the worker.

39

Figure 31: Mean scores on the job quality indices, by occupation, EU28

Skills and
discretion

Social
environment

Physical
environment

Work intensity

Prospects

Working time
quality

Earnings (€)

Managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

 Elementary occupations

75

72

67

55

48

51

51

38

37

79

78

76

78

74

81

79

73

75

89

89

87

91

85

76

70

75

79

37

35

35

33

32

24

35

34

29

69

68

68

66

60

53

61

63

54

64

70

72

77

69

68

71

67

74

2,426

1,952

1,729

1,343

1,063

1,131

1,472

1,413

887

Association between job quality indices and health and well-being

In order to validate the seven job quality indices used in this report, their association with health and well-being is 
tested using data from the sixth EWCS (Figure 32). These positive associations corroborate the value of job quality 
for workers and account for the policy emphasis placed on job quality. The dimension measured in each index 
contributes independently to a better experience of working life.

Figure 32: Association between job quality indices and well-being indicators

Subjective
well-being

Satisfaction
with
working
conditions

Work–life
balance

Sustainable
work

Overall
health

Meaningful
work

Ability to 
make ends
meet

Engagement Number of

health
problems

Skills and discretion
Social environment
Physical environment
Work intensity (reversed)
Prospects
Working time quality
Earnings

Note: The bars in the figure represent the relative association between each job quality index and a dependant variable (i.e. the standardised 
coefficients of the job quality indices), showing only significant coefficients (p<0.01). Blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See text below for more details on the methodology.

The well-being indicators used in the analysis are defined as follows:

‘Subjective well-being’ refers to the WHO-5 index (see section 1.12 Health status in Chapter 1).

‘Number of health problems’ is based on a calculation of workers’ health issues.

‘Work–life balance’ is a subjective measure of the workers’ own work–life balance.

‘Meaningful work’ is based on a scale made up of questions relating to workers’ perceptions of ‘doing useful 
work’ and a ‘job well done’.

‘Sustainable work’ is based on questions around workers’ assessment of their ability to work until the age of 60 
and beyond (in the current job or a similar one).

‘Ability to make ends meet’ is a measure of one’s finances.

‘Engagement’ is based on a series of questions on workers’ relationship with their work.

All these indicators, analysed in Chapter 3, combine to form a multidimensional picture of the worker’s work experience.

As expected, the dimensions measured by the indices are positively related to the indicators (although not to the same 
extent) except in some instances. For example, Earnings are somewhat negatively associated with meaningful work, which 
suggests that higher earnings do not make a job more meaningful or that very meaningful work is not necessarily a job with 
the highest level of earnings. Each job quality index is associated with a wide range of positive assessments of working life.

40

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Separate regression models are estimated for each indicator, and all job quality indices are included simultaneously 
within each model in order to isolate the association between each job quality dimension and each individual 
indicator. As personal circumstances could determine the extent to which aspects of job quality fulfil personal needs, 
the estimates were controlled for sex, age, country, sector, occupation and workplace size. Only respondents to the 
sixth wave of the EWCS in the EU28 are included.

The resulting coefficients show the relationship between each job quality index, in the context of the other job 
quality indices and control variables.

The logit specification is used to predict dichotomous variables, ordered logit for Likert-scale variables, Poisson 
for count variables and OLS for variables that follow a normal distribution. Monthly earnings are converted into the 
logarithmic form, and the control variables are included in the model as dummy variables.

The job quality indices are simultaneously included in each model, given that the correlation between the indices 
is low. The control variables (sex, age, country, sector, occupation and workplace size) are included following 
a combined forward and backward stepwise procedure to avoid possible multicollinearity.

The bars in each figure in this chapter show the size and the direction of the x-standardised coefficients of the 
regressions and therefore the association between each job quality index and the relevant indicator, showing only 
significant effects (p<0.01). X-standardisation implies that the coefficient represents the change in y for a standard 
deviation increase in x.

Despite standardisation of the coefficients of the job quality indices, each indicator is modelled separately and 
generally represents a different concept. Therefore, the coefficients should be compared vertically across the 
different job quality indices, rather than horizontally across the different indicators.

Associations between job quality indices
In order to further explore the issue of how various 
dimensions of job quality combine, an analysis of the 
correlation between the job quality indices was carried 
out. The results show some limited correlations between 
the indices. The strongest associations are between 
Earnings and Skills and discretion, between Work 
intensity and both Working time quality and Physical 
environment, and between Prospects and Skills and 
discretion (Figure 33).

Prospects, Skills and discretion and Earnings show 
positive correlations to each other, indicating that these 
indices are more likely to be similar within jobs.

Work intensity is moderately and negatively associated with 
Working time quality, Physical environment and Social 
environment, indicating that high work intensity does not 
usually coincide with good working time quality, a supportive 
social environment or a workplace low in physical risks.

Earnings is positively associated with Skills and 
discretion and Prospects. It shows no association at all 
with Social environment, a negative association with 
Working time quality (indicating a trade-off between the 
two dimensions) and a weak association with Physical 
environment and Work intensity. Using it alone as 
a measure of job quality would be problematic.

In Eurofound (2012b), four of the indices (Physical 
environment, Social environment, Skills and discretion 
and Work intensity, with equal weights for each index) were 
collapsed into an ‘intrinsic job quality’ index. This is not 
the approach pursued in this report, which aims rather at 
providing an in-depth analysis of working conditions through 
the prism of job quality and quality of working life, and is 
therefore interested in providing a detailed description of the 
features of job quality. Furthermore, as indicated, correlation 
between these four indices is weak. Reduction in the number 
of indices would also be at the price of obfuscation of 
significant European and national policies.

Figure 33: Correlations between the job quality indices

Skills and
discretion

Social
environment

Physical
environment

Work
intensity

Prospects

Working time
quality

Earnings

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.3

-0.1

0.4

0.1

-0.3

0.2

0.2

0.0

-0.3

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.3

0.1

0.0

0.2

-0.2

41

Aggregating further all indices into one single index would 
be for the same reasons more problematic. It would obscure 
variety, and perhaps draw attention away from the various 
dimensions of job quality. These grounds justify the decision 
to present the seven indices as independent dimensions and 
allow for a deeper analysis of the issues at stake.

2.2 

Improving the physical 
environment

The absence of physical hazards that pose a risk to health 
and well-being is an acknowledged feature of job quality. 
Eliminating or minimising these risks is at the core of 
occupational health and safety policy in EU Member States 
and is a longstanding plank in European social policy. 
Article 153 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European 
Union (TFEU) authorises the Council to adopt, by means 
of directives, ‘minimum requirements’ to encourage 
‘improvement in particular of the working environment 
to protect workers’ health and safety’. Legislative 
requirements vary across Member States, as each country is 
free to adopt stricter rules for the protection of the workers 
when transposing the EU directives into national law. 
Directive 89/391/EEC places an explicit responsibility on the 
employer to adapt ‘… the work to the individual, especially 
as regards the design of the workplaces, the choice of 
equipment and the choice of production methods’.

Traditionally, physical risks have been the subject 
of numerous preventive actions across traditional 
manufacturing industries. However, although the economy 
is shifting to a more service-oriented economy, the level 
of exposure to physical risks is not declining significantly. 
Some risks are increasing: for example, use of chemicals or 
exposure to electromagnetic fields. The industrial application 

Physical environment index

of new technologies could in fact generate new hazards - 
nanomaterials are one example. Other emerging risks are 
linked to the development of biotechnologies and green 
technologies (European Commission, 2014b). In general, 
there could be increasing potential for the release of novel, 
difficult-to-identify and potentially hazardous materials all 
along the lifecycle of green technologies and products, and in 
particular during end-of-life processing (EU-OSHA, 2013).

Moreover, there are still some jobs that – due to the level of 
exposure to physical or psychosocial hazards – pose a serious 
risk to workers’ health. ‘Arduous’ jobs entail workers being 
exposed over a period of time to several risk factors, resulting 
in conditions that can have long- lasting and irreversible 
effects on health. There are some occupations that tend to 
combine certain conditions which make workers in those jobs 
more vulnerable in terms of their physical and mental health 
(Eurofound, 2014e). Musculoskeletal disorders are one of the 
most common work-related complaints, affecting millions of 
workers and costing billions of euros to employers. Several 
causes have been identified: physical risk factors such as 
repetitive movements, heavy lifting, frequent bending and 
twisting, exposure to cold and insufficient recovery time, as 
well as psychosocial risk factors (da Costa and Viera, 2010). 
Exposure to noise has been associated with cardiovascular 
disease. In particular, there seems to be ‘scientific evidence 
that employees, both men and women, who report specific 
occupational exposures, such as low decision latitude, job strain 
or noise, have an increased incidence of ischemic heart disease 
(IHD), a form of cardiovascular disease’ (Theorell et al, 2016).

This section will first describe the Physical environment 
index and its individual components, and will then examine 
the evolution of physical risks over time, highlighting 
exposure to different types of risks and the use of personal 
protective equipment.

Monitoring the physical environment at work has been central to the EWCS since its inception. Several risks have been 
observed over the years. The Physical environment index comprises 13 indicators related to specific physical hazards 
(see Table 1).

The evolution of the index over a decade shows a small increase (of two index points) at European level in the period 
2005–2010 and 2010–2015, indicating a small improvement in this dimension of job quality.

In 2015, men on average reported a lower physical environment score (81) than women (87). The Physical 
environment index has increased for men in the last 10 years by two index points and remained almost constant for 
women (with a one index point increase over the 10 years), thus slightly reducing the gender gap.

Nevertheless, the evolution of the index masks changes in several areas in terms of individual hazards (Table 1). Since 
2005, there has been a reduction in the proportion of workers exposed to ‘breathing in smoke, fumes... powder or 
dust’, and an especially substantial decline in tobacco exposure, probably due to the stringent legislation in relation to 
workplace smoking introduced in many European countries (European Commission, 2013a). Also important is the fall in 
exposure to noise. Exposure to other ambient risks – high temperatures, low temperatures and breathing in vapours – has 
remained constant over the period. However, there is a trend of growing exposure to other biological and chemical risks, 
such as ‘handling or being in skin contact with chemical products or substances’ and ‘handling or being in direct contact 
with materials which could be infectious, such as waste, bodily fluids, laboratory materials, etc.’ Another relevant change 
is in the percentage of workers exposed to ‘lifting or moving people’, which is the only posture-related risk among those 
included in the EWCS that is shown to be on the increase. One explanation could be the recent expansion of the care 
sector in Europe, where a number of occupations require these types of tasks (European Commission, 2013b).

42

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Table 1: Physical environment index: proportion of workers in EU28 (%) and mean index scores (0–100), 2005–2015

Proportion of workers in EU28 exposed one-quarter of the time or more (%)

2005

2010

2005

Vibrations from hand tools, machinery

Noise so loud that you would have to raise your voice to talk to people

High temperatures which make you perspire even when not working

Low temperatures whether indoors or outdoors

Breathing in smoke, fumes (such as welding or exhaust fumes), powder or dust (such as wood dust or 
mineral dust)

Breathing in vapours, such as solvents and thinners

Handling or being in skin contact with chemical products or substances

Tobacco smoke from other people

Handling or being in direct contact with materials which could be infectious, such as waste, bodily 
fluids, laboratory materials, etc.

Tiring or painful positions

Lifting or moving people

Carrying or moving heavy loads

Repetitive hand or arm movements

Physical environment index

24

30

25

22

19

11

14

20

9

46

8

35

62

23

29

22

23

17

10

15

11

11

46

9

34

63

20

28

23

21

15

11

17

9

13

43

10

32

61

Mean index scores (0–100)

82

83

84

Slight improvement in physical risks
The evolution of the Physical environment index indicates 
improvements since 2005 in most European countries, 
with the exception of France (the second-lowest-scoring 
EU country) and the United Kingdom (Figure 34). The most 
notable improvements were reported in Greece, Portugal 
(both countries show a seven-point increase), Hungary and 
Croatia (up by five and six points, respectively).

In terms of sector, construction has by far the lowest 
score (71) on the Physical environment index, while 
financial services and education report the highest (93 and 
91 respectively). Occupational differences are also important: 

for example, there are 21 points of difference between craft 
workers (70) and clerks (91). Plant and machine operators 
(75), agricultural workers (76) and elementary occupations 
(79) are all lower than the European average (84), while 
service and sales workers are one point above the EU average. 

Based on questions in the EWCS regarding exposure to 
physical risks, three combined indices were constructed.

Posture-related (ergonomic) risks: This index measures 
exposure to vibrations, tiring positions, lifting people, 
carrying heavy loads and repetitive movements. These are 
the most prevalent risks in Europe and include the risks 

Figure 34: Physical environment index (0–100), by country, 2005–2015

2005 

2010 

2015 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 

65 

Turkey 

FYROM 
Romania 
Albania 

France 

Greece 
Spain 

Cyprus 

Lithuania 
Montenegro 
Finland 
Croatia 
Poland 

Sweden 
Estonia 

Slovenia 
Latvia 

Serbia 
Malta 

Hungary 
EU28 

Portugal 
Belgium 
Norway 
Ireland 
Austria 
Bulgaria 
Slovakia 
Netherlands 
Denmark 
Luxembourg 
Switzerland 
Germany 
Czech Republic 
United Kingdom 

Italy 

43

that can play a role in the common workplace complaint, 
musculoskeletal disorders.10

Ambient risks: This index measures exposure to 
vibrations, noise, and high and low temperatures related to 
the experience of specific conditions in specific activities 
of the economy (mostly in industry, construction and 
agriculture), as well as generalised exposure to noise.

Biological and chemical risks: This index measures 
exposure to inhaling smoke and toxic vapours and handling 
chemical products and infectious materials. Biological and 
chemical risks can have lethal long-term effects. In 2008, 
according to the Commission’s strategic framework on health 
and safety for 2014–2020, fatalities associated with chemical 
substances accounted for almost half of all work- related 
deaths (European Commission, 2014b). Emerging risks in this 
area include nanomaterials and other factors linked to the 
development of biotechnologies. From 2010 to 2015, this area 
of risk was the only one shown to be increasing.

Figure 35 illustrates levels of exposure to the three forms of 
risk by country, ordered by exposure to posture-related risks. 
In addition to the variation across countries, it can be seen 
that the country ranking is different for each risk category. 
The fact that posture-related risks are most prevalent does 
not mean that they necessarily represent the greatest risk 
to workers’ health. The health consequences of exposure 
must also be considered and, as noted above, these can be 
especially serious in the case of biological and chemical risks.

In the EU28, Greece, Romania and Cyprus have the highest 
levels of exposure to posture-related risks, while the lowest 
levels are found in the Czech Republic, Ireland and Germany. 
In terms of ambient risks, the countries with the lowest levels 
of exposure are Italy, Portugal and Belgium, with the highest 
levels found in Romania, Spain, Greece, France and Slovenia. 
In relation to the third group of risks, biological and chemical 
risks, the highest exposure levels are found in Romania, 
France, Poland and Hungary and the lowest in Portugal and 

the Netherlands. Some countries score high on all or at least 
two of these physical risks, such as France and Spain, while 
others – such as Italy – score consistently on the lower end.

Patterns across the workforce
Although women have lower levels of exposure to all 
three types of physical risk (posture-related, biological 
and chemical, and ambient) than men, this is not the 
case for some specific risks (Figure 36). For example, the 
most prevalent posture-related risk – repetitive hand 
and arm movements – is reported equally by men and 
women (both 61%). Some 33% of women are exposed 
to such movements ‘all or almost all of the time’ – three 
percentage points more than men. Another posture-
related risk, which affects more women (14%) than men 
(6%), is ‘lifting or moving people’ and the difference 
increases when focusing only on those exposed to this risk 
all or almost all of the time.

Finally, being involved in jobs with posture- related hazards 
affects more women than men, except in the case of 
‘carrying or moving heavy loads’.

The opposite pattern is reported in relation to noise – with 
35% of men and 19% of women being exposed to it. Men 
(20%) also report higher exposure to the most prevalent 
biochemical risk – handling or being in contact with 
chemicals (five percentage points more than women). 
Women, however, are more exposed than men to direct 
contact with materials which can be infectious – 15% and 
12% respectively. This picture is a reflection of gender 
segregation across sectors and occupations.

In the context of demographic ageing, it is important to 
ensure improvements of the physical work environment 
for all workers. In relation to age, when considering 
three groups (50+, 35–49 and under 35), the older groups 
are overall slightly less exposed to posture-related and 
biological and chemical risks, but not to ambient risks 
(with the exception of exposure to tobacco smoke).

Figure 35: Exposure to posture-related, ambient and biological and chemical risk indices (0–100), by country

Posture-related 

Biological and chemical

Ambient 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Montenegro 
Slovakia 
Austria 
Hungary 
Latvia 
Switzerland 
United Kingdom 
Serbia 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Netherlands 
Germany 
Italy 
Norway 
Ireland 

Poland 
EU28 

Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Sweden 
Estonia 
Slovenia 
Portugal 
Finland 
Malta 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

Greece 
France 
Spain 

Turkey 

Cyprus 

FYROM 
Romania 
Albania 

10 

There is a growing body of literature on the association between psychosocial risks and MSDs.

44

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 36: Exposure to different posture-related risks, by sex, EU28 (%)

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Tiring and 
painful positions

Men 

Women 

Lifting  people

Men 

4 

2 

32 

30 

29 

12 

13 

11 

9 

6 

Carrying
heavy loads

Repetitive 
movements

Sitting

Women 

Men 

Women 

Men 

Women 

Men 

Women 

18 

5 

31 

28 

31 

29 

30 

33 

25 

31 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

¼ to ¾ of the time

All or most of the time 

There are wide variations in sectors and occupations 
concerning exposure to risk levels. The occupations 
with the greatest exposure are craft workers, plant and 
machine operators, agricultural workers and elementary 
occupations.

Overall, construction displays the highest reported 
exposure to all types of risk, while financial services 
displays the lowest.

High exposure to posture-related risks is reported in 
the construction, agriculture, industry, transport and 
health sectors. Ambient risks, especially in relation to 
temperatures, are associated with working outdoors, and 
this is the situation of many workers in construction and 
agriculture. In agriculture, 53% of workers are exposed to 

very low temperatures and 51% to very high temperatures; 
the comparable figures for construction are 53% and 45%, 
respectively. Apart from construction, other sectors with 
a high level of biological and chemical risk are industry, 
health and agriculture. In the health sector, the main 
risk is handling or being in direct contact with infectious 
materials (50% of workers), while in industry both 
breathing in smoke, fumes, powder or dust and handling 
or being in contact with chemical products are more 
prevalent risks, at 31% and 24% respectively.

In terms of occupation, craft workers, plant and machine 
operators and agricultural workers are the occupations 
with the highest levels of exposure to posture-related risks 
(Table 2).

Table 2: Scores on posture-related, biological and chemical and ambient risk indices, by occupation, EU28

Posture-related risks

Biological and chemical risks

Ambient risks

Managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

Elementary occupations

EU28 average

16

16

18

16

24

31

37

34

30

24

6

6

8

3

8

13

21

14

13

10

11

10

11

8

14

30

31

27

20

16

45

 
Use of personal protective equipment

According to the EU Framework Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the ‘introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work’, it is an obligation for employers to give collective 
protective measures priority over individual protective measures (meaning protective personal equipment – PPE). 
However, sometimes it is not possible to address and eliminate all risks through collective measures – in cases, for 
example, where it is technologically impossible, interferes with the production process or is too expensive – and then 
wearing PPE becomes a requirement.

The EWCS asked respondents to the survey whether their jobs ever require them to wear PPE. About 39% of workers 
in the EU28 replied that their jobs do require this. However, of this group, 8% reported that they do not use it. There 
are many possible reasons for this: the equipment is uncomfortable, access to the equipment is lacking, work has to 
be carried out at speed, workers are not informed, and so on.

Unsurprisingly, the requirement for PPE is higher in sectors with greater exposure to physical risks (such as 
construction) and for occupations such as plant and machine operators, craft workers and agricultural workers. The 
situation regarding the non-wearing of equipment in sectors that require it is worrying, as these are sectors with high 
exposure to physical risks; in construction and agriculture, 11% and 12%, respectively, report that they do not always 
use PPE.

Other groups in which a high proportion of workers do not always use PPE even though it is a requirement are 
self-employed workers without employees (13%), workers with fixed-term contracts (11%), and workers with only 
a primary level of education (15%).

The findings imply that there is still considerable scope for improving awareness about the need to use PPE as 
a prevention measure in some sectors with a high exposure to risks (such as agriculture and construction), especially 
for workers on temporary contracts, in low-skilled jobs, and with low education levels.

Physical environment

The Physical environment index measures the physical risks people encounter in their workplace. They include: 
exposure to noise, dust, chemicals or infectious agents; lifting heavy loads; and repetitive hand movements.

Over the last 10 years, the EU28 as a whole has seen a slow but ongoing improvement on physical risks. On average, 
men report a lower physical environment score (81 out of 100) than women (87), indicating that they face somewhat 
greater physical risks. However, conditions have not improved uniformly. There has been a marked reduction since 
2005 in the exposure of employees to tobacco smoke, doubtless due to legislation on smoking in workplaces in 
many countries. In contrast, exposure has increased to chemical products and potentially infectious materials. And 
with an expansion of the care sector in Europe, more work is being performed in lifting or moving people. Notably, 
the exposure of men and women to risks differs markedly in many cases, pointing to sectoral and occupational 
segregation.

Not surprisingly, workers in the construction sector are the most exposed to physical risk (the sector scoring 71 
on the index), whereas workers in financial services and education are the least exposed (93 and 91, respectively). 
Occupational differences display a similar range, with 21 points of difference between craft workers (70) and clerical 
workers (91).

Turning from the index and looking at the indicators, it is clear that posture-related risks – in particular, repetitive 
hand and arm movements – are the most prevalent in Europe. Some 61% of workers report this, which plays a role in 
causing musculoskeletal disorders.

46

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

2.3  Addressing work demands
While work intensity can be presented as a way to maintain 
and develop workers’ interest in their activity, high work 
intensity is associated with a negative impact on health 
and well-being. Moreover, work intensity is not necessarily 
linked to better performance for companies: indeed, in 
many cases, working too fast does not correspond to 
working in an effective way. Work intensity can lead to poor 
planning and preparation of tasks at hand, and to delays 
and defects in quality. High work intensity can be therefore 
considered to make a negative contribution to job quality.

increased risk of cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal 
disease and depression. This is especially the case when 
combined with limited decision latitude (a dimension 
included in the Skills and discretion index) and limited job 
support (a dimension covered in the Social environment 
index). Two models are particularly influential in this 
regard: the ‘demand–control model’ of occupational 
stress (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1992) and the 
‘effort–reward imbalance model’ (Siegriest, 1996). Both 
models examine the level of demands in conjunction with 
other important dimensions of work. Demands that are too 
limited can also be problematic – in different ways.

Numerous epidemiological studies have demonstrated 
that a high level of demands in itself is associated with an 

This section presents the Work intensity index, and goes on 
to examine its individual components.

Work intensity index

This index measures the level of work demands in the job. If the workload is very high, if the job absorbs too much 
mental and physical energy, or if the job requires juggling various demands, it becomes difficult to perform tasks in 
the most effective way.

To measure work demands, the index includes the following: quantitative demands (working fast), time pressure 
(having tight deadlines, not having enough time to do the job), frequent disruptive interruptions, pace determinants 
and interdependency, and emotional demands. A total of 13 questions are included in the index (see Table 3).

Looking at the evolution of work intensity over time, there has been a slight re-intensification of work since 2010 – 
reflected in a one-point increase in the index – but a small decrease overall since 2005. The trend version of the Work 
intensity index includes a smaller set of indicators because not all questions are measured in previous waves of the 
EWCS.

In terms of sectors, the health sector has the greatest intensity, at 37 points. It is followed by construction (36), 
industry and financial services (both 35) and commerce and hospitality (34), which all report above-average levels of 
work intensity.

In terms of occupations, managers have the highest work intensity (37 on the index). In addition, professionals, 
technicians and craft workers (all 35) along with plant and machine operators (34) and clerks (33) report above-
average levels.

The highest levels of work intensity are found among employees on indefinite contracts (35), and self-employed 
workers with employees and those on fixed-term contracts (both 34). Self-employed workers without employees 
have the lowest score on the index (26).

And in terms of company size, the Work intensity index score is highest in bigger companies (38), followed by SMEs 
(34) and micro companies (29).

Older workers report lower work intensity than younger and middle-aged workers. Traditionally, more intensive 
work is assigned to younger workers, as older workers find it particularly difficult.

Men and women report a very similar level of work intensity (34 and 33 respectively). The source and components 
of work intensity are different, however; men report more quantitative demands whereas women report more 
demands linked to meeting customer requests.

47

Figure 37: Work intensity index, by country, EU28

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Latvia 
Bulgaria 
Slovakia 
Poland 
Serbia 
Czech Republic 
Lithuania 
Estonia 
Portugal 
Croatia 
Netherlands 
Montenegro 
Luxembourg 
France 
Switzerland 
Germany 
Austria 
Finland 
Belgium 
EU28 
Albania 

Italy 

Ireland 

FYROM 
Slovenia 
Norway 
Hungary 
Malta 
United Kingdom
Denmark 
Spain 
Sweden 
Greece 

Turkey 
Romania 
Cyprus 

Table 3: Work intensity index: proportion of workers in EU28 (%) and mean index scores (0–100), 2005–2015

2005

2010

2015

Proportion of workers in EU28 (%)

Included in 
trend version 
of the index

Quantitative demands

Pace determinants and 
interdependency

Emotional demands

Working at very high speed (three-quarters of the 
time or more)

Working to tight deadlines (three-quarters of the 
time or more)

Enough time to get the job done (never or rarely)

Frequent disruptive interruptions

Interdependency: three or more pace determinants

Work pace dependent on: the work done by 
colleagues

Work pace dependent on: direct demands from 
people such as customers, passengers, pupils, 
patients, etc.

Work pace dependent on: numerical production 
targets or performance targets

Work pace dependent on: automatic speed of  
a machine or movement of a product

Work pace dependent on: the direct control of your 
boss

Hiding your feelings at work (most of the time or 
always)

Handling angry clients, customers, patients, pupils, 
etc. (three-quarters of the time or more)

Being in situations that are emotionally disturbing (a 
quarter of the time or more)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

35

37

12

15

34

42

68

42

19

36

32

35

9

14

32

39

67

40

18

37

25

10

33

36

10

16

33

39

68

42

18

35

31

16

30

Work intensity index

Trend index score based on limited number of 
indicators

Full index score

Mean index scores (0–100)

43

41

42

33

48

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportQuantitative demands
In the EWCS, four questions document the experience of 
work intensity from the workers’ perspective: working 
at very high speed, working to tight deadlines, frequent 
disruptive interruptions, and not having enough time to do 
the job.

Intensive work is quite prevalent in Europe: 36% of workers 
in the EU report working to tight deadlines while 33% 
report working at high speed ‘around three-quarters of the 
time’. One in 10 (10%) – men and women – reports ‘never’ 
or ‘rarely’ having time to do their job.

Men report greater work intensity than women in the 
case of working to tight deadlines three-quarters and 
more of the time (a six percentage points difference) and 
working at high speed (two percentage points difference). 
Women, on the other hand, are more subject to frequent 
disruptive interruptions than men (three percentage points 
difference).

Frequent disruptive interruptions in the performance 
of one’s job are reported by 16% of all workers. Of all 
interruptions, 35% are judged to be disruptive, while 
the majority (56%) are assessed as being without 
consequence; 8% are assessed as positive. Frequent 
disruptive interruptions are reported by 29% of managers 
in general and by 26% of workers in the health sector.

Pace determinants and interdependency
The number of pace-of-work determinants and their 
interdependency are considered an objective indicator of 
work intensity. These determinants include demands from 
clients, performance targets, the speed of an automated 
machine or system, or direct demands from a supervisor. 
Many studies have analysed the effects of having multiple 
pace determinants on work intensity; the clash of different 
determinants can result in the deterioration of other 
working conditions. The more determinants that come 
together, the higher the so-called ‘interdependency rate’.

Survey findings show that 33% of workers (36% of 
men and 29% of women) are exposed to three or more 
pace determinants. Differences between countries are 
noteworthy: more than 40% of workers are exposed to 

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

a high level of interdependency in Luxembourg (41%), 
France (42%), Romania (49%) and Cyprus (51%). Nearly half 
of craft workers and plant and machine operators (both 
45%) report three or more pace determinants.

The survey confirms the importance of customers in 
dictating the rhythm of work: 68% of workers report 
that their pace of work is dependent on direct demands 
by customers. This is the pace determinant showing 
the greatest variation across occupations: there are 49 
percentage points’ difference between service and sales 
workers (81%) and agricultural workers (32%). A large 
majority of service and sales workers (81%), managers 
(77%), professionals (76%) and technicians (72%) report 
direct demands as a key pace determinant.

Over 4 in 10 workers (42%) report that their pace of 
work is dependent on numerical production targets or 
performance targets (an increase of two percentage points 
since 2010). These targets are reported by around half of all 
managers (47%), plant and machine operators (52%) and 
craft workers (55%).

The work done by colleagues is an important determinant 
of the pace of work for many – 39% on average. It does 
not show much variation between occupations. Direct 
hierarchical control from one’s supervisor remains 
a significant feature of work organisation for 35% of 
workers.

Production lines set the rhythm for 18% of workers (largely 
plant and machine operators and craft workers).

Emotional demands
Emotional demands captures the situation at work where 
workers are expected to manage their emotions. Workers 
may have to hide their emotions, deal with angry clients, or 
work in emotionally disturbing situations. It takes effort to 
manage emotions.

Emotional demands are more frequent in jobs that involve 
dealing with people (particularly those requiring care) 
and giving them support. High emotional demands have 
been found in studies to be a predictor of mental health 
issues, fatigue and burnout. In jobs where emotional 
demands represent a significant part of the activity, 

Figure 38: Components of the Work intensity index, by occupation, EU28 (%)

Working at
high speed 
(¾ of time +)

Working to
tight deadlines
(¾ of time +)

Three or
more pace
determinants 

Enough time
to do job
(never/rarely)

Hide emotions
(most of
time/always) 

Handling
angry clients
(¾ of time +)

Emotionally
disturbing
situations
(¾ of time +)

Managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

 Elementary occupations

EU28

30

27

29

31

34

29

42

40

40

33

41

37

35

34

29

26

46

45

36

36

32

29

32

32

29

17

45

45

28

33

13

12

10

9

8

9

8

10

11

10

35

36

35

28

41

10

20

24

21

31

17

19

17

17

24

6

9

9

6

16

9

14

11

7

12

4

6

8

5

10

Disruptive
interruptions
(frequent)

86729

23

22

17

15

8

12

6

7

16

49

recruitment and retention have been identified as 
significant issues. Support measures can be developed – 
for example, training to prepare for difficult situations – 
while supportive managers can help to reduce emotional 
strain, enabling work to be less exhausting mentally. 
Furthermore, research has shown how workers can 
develop individual and collective strategies to deal with 
the emotionally difficult aspects of their job.

Differences between countries with regard to levels of 
reported emotional demands are striking. While one in 
three workers in the EU28 hides their feeling ‘always’ or 
‘most of the time’ (31%), this is reported by fewer than one 
in five workers in Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway 
(18% each), but by almost half of all workers in France 
(45%), Bulgaria (46%) and Greece (50%).

In terms of the indicator ‘handling angry clients, 
customers, patients, pupils’, 16% on average report facing 
this situation three-quarters or more of the time: this 
ranges from 3% to 4% in Denmark, Finland and Norway to 
37% in Albania and 30% in Spain. This indicator has been 
increasing since 2010; similarly, the proportion of workers 
handling angry clients all or almost of all the time nearly 
doubled between 2010 and 2015. In terms of sector, the 
greatest increases in intensity in terms of dealing with 
angry clients are seen in education, followed by the health 
sector. These are, of course, the sectors where workers 
have to deal considerably with third parties. This raises 
the question as to whether relationships between workers 
and third parties may have deteriorated during the last five 
years in Europe – an issue that merits further research.11

Another indicator of emotional demands is being in 
situations that are emotionally disturbing: one in three 
workers (30%) on average in Europe reports being in such 

situations one quarter or more of their time. This ranges 
from one in five in Portugal and Ireland to more than twice 
as frequently in Malta (40%), Montenegro (41%), Albania 
and Serbia (both 45%) – and nearly 6 out of 10 in Lithuania.

Women tend to report experiencing emotional demands 
more frequently than men: 35% of women report 
having to hide their feelings always or most of the time 
compared with 28% of men; 35% of women report being in 
emotionally disturbing situations (25% of men); and 18% 
of women report having to deal with angry clients three-
quarters or more of the time (13% of men).

Work intensity and occupation
Looking more closely at occupations, it is interesting 
to study the various combinations of answers on the 
individual items constituting the index (Figure 38). Craft 
workers and plant and machine operators report the 
highest levels of interdependency (three or more pace-of- 
work determinants) and are most likely to report working 
to tight deadlines and working at speed; service and sales 
workers and professionals report the highest incidence of 
emotional demands. Frequent disruptive interruptions are 
more commonly reported by managers, professionals and 
technicians.

Work intensity and sectors
Sectors display differentiated combinations of work 
intensity features as Figure 39 illustrates. Workers in 
industry, construction and transport report a high level of 
quantitative demands; those in health and commerce and 
hospitality, too, but at a lower level. These two sectors, 
however, present high levels of emotional demands (health 
by far the highest).

Figure 39: Components of the Work intensity index, by sector, EU28 (%)

Working at high
speed (3/4 of
time +)

Working to
tight deadlines
(3/4 of time +)

Three or 
more pace
determinants 

Enough time to
do job
(never/rarely)

Hide emotions
(most of
time/always) 

Handling angry
clients
(3/4 of time +)

Emotionally
disturbing
situations
(3/4 of time +)

Disruptive
interruptions
(frequent)

Agriculture

Industry

Construction

Commerce and hospitality

Transport

Financial services

Public administration

Education

Health
Other services

EU28

32

39

39

39

34

30

20

18

34

30

33

27

43

48

35

44

37

29

24

35

36

36

20

47

43

33

33

35

30

21

28

24

33

8

11

9

8

9

11

8

10

14

9

10

12

23

20

36

29

35

38

36

44

29

31

6

7

12

20

14

19

17

22

26

13

16

4

6

6

7

9

7

13

11

22

8

10

8

16

15

15

9

20

22

17

26

15

16

11 

This is the most frequently reported risk factor in the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2) (EU-OSHA, 2015).

50

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Work intensity

Research has found that demanding work, especially when combined with limited latitude for decision-making 
and limited support, is associated with an increased risk of serious ill-health. Moreover, from an organisation’s 
perspective, work intensity can result in poor planning of tasks, in delays and in reduced quality of outputs.

The Work intensity index combines the following indicators: working at speed and to tight deadlines, not having 
enough time to do the job; frequent disruptive interruptions; pace determinants and interdependency; and 
emotional demands.

High work intensity is quite common in Europe. The index is similar for both men and women. Older workers report 
lower work intensity than younger and middle-aged workers, more intense work being traditionally allocated to 
younger workers.

Intensity is related to the pace of work – among other aspects – and different elements of a job play a role in 
determining this pace; these include demands from clients or colleagues, numerical production targets and the pace 
of an automatic production line. These determinants may act independently, or a number may act together. The 
more determinants, the greater the intensity. Some 33% of workers (36% of men and 29% of women) are exposed to 
three or more pace determinants.

Sectors: Industry, construction and transport report a high level of quantitative demands; health and commerce and 
hospitality too, but at a lower level. On the other hand, these two sectors present high level of emotional demands: 
workers in health reporting by far, the highest levels.

Occupations: Craft workers and plant and machine operators report the greatest interdependency (45% of both 
occupations reporting three or more pace determinants). They also report the highest levels of quantitative 
demands (working to tight deadlines and working at speed). Service and sales workers and professionals report the 
highest incidence of emotional work. Managers report exposure to all components of work intensity.

Emotional demands are more frequent in jobs that involve dealing with people – particularly those that require 
giving care or support. Research indicates that high levels of emotional demands predict mental health issues, 
fatigue and burnout. Workers may have to hide their emotions, deal with angry clients or work in emotionally 
disturbing situations. Differences between countries are striking. Fewer than 19% of workers in Denmark, the 
Netherlands and Norway feel they have to hide their feelings, but for workers in France, Bulgaria and Greece the 
figure is almost 50%. Having to deal with angry clients, customers or pupils is on the increase since 2010 – most 
notably in the education sector, followed by the health sector and commerce and hospitality, the sectors where 
workers have to deal more with third parties. This is an indication that the relationship between workers and third 
parties might have deteriorated in recent years.

In part reflecting occupational segregation and the fact that women work more in the service sector, women more 
frequently face emotional demands than men: 35% have to hide their feelings always or nearly always, as against 
28% of men. Meanwhile, 35% of women face emotionally disturbing situations (as against 25% of men), while 18% of 
women have to deal with angry clients compared with 13% of men.

51

2.4  Developing working time 

quality

Working time – its duration and organisation – is important 
for job quality in two ways. On the one hand, working time 
plays a role in workers’ health and well-being. For example, 
the extent to which workers are exposed to workplace risks 
increases with the duration of work, while the availability 
of sufficient periods for rest is crucial for a proper recovery. 
On the other hand, a good fit between working time and 

non-working time throughout the life course is essential for 
workers to be able to work and to continue working. A good 
fit can be promoted through adapting both the duration 
and the organisation of working time to the needs of 
organisations and individuals. Today, increasingly flexible 
and non-standard working time arrangements are being 
developed with regard to starting and finishing times, 
rest periods, on-call time, and so on; this is also a result of 
information and communication technologies (ICT) that 
allow work to be performed anytime and anywhere.

Working time quality index

This index comprises four dimensions: duration, atypical working time, working time arrangements and flexibility 
(see Table 4). The first dimension includes long working hours (48 hours or more a week), long working days (10 
hours or more a day) and the lack of a recovery period between two working days. Long working hours have been 
associated with negative health and well-being outcomes such as cardiovascular disease (Kivimäki et al, 2015; 
Theorell et al, 2016), symptoms of depression (Theorell et al, 2015) and musculoskeletal disorders (Trinkoff et al, 
2006).

The second dimension – atypical working time – includes weekend work, night work and shift work. Shift work 
and night work are associated with negative consequences for health and well-being, such as increased risk of 
cardiovascular disease, fatigue, reduction in the quantity and quality of sleep, anxiety, depression, gastrointestinal 
disorders, increased risk of miscarriage, low birth weight and premature birth, and cancer (Harrington, 2001).

The third dimension covers discretion over working time arrangements, based on answers to questions on who 
sets the working time arrangements and to what extent workers are informed in advance of changes in their work 
schedules or are requested to come to work at very short notice. In principle, more discretion by workers is a positive 
resource.

The last dimension – flexibility – includes the possibility to take an hour or two off during working hours to take care 
of personal or family matters, as well as the issue of working in one’s free time to meet work demands.

The evolution of working time quality over time is presented in a reduced index (the trend index). This covers all 
indicators except for recovery period, requests to come to work at short notice, the possibility to take time off to 
take care of personal or family matters and working in one’s free time. The index shows that working time quality 
has increased in the EU28 by two points since 2005, with an overall score of 84 points in 2015. It has increased or 
remained stable in most European countries in the same period.

The full Working time quality index results (an overall score of 71 points in 2015) show that differences in working 
time quality between men and women, age groups and countries are minimal. Women report a higher working time 
quality than men (+4 points) and older workers have a higher quality than workers in the middle age category – 35 to 
49 years (+2 points).

There are moderate differences in working time quality by country, occupation and sector. The lowest value 
for working time quality is reported in Greece (66 points out of a possible 100), the Czech Republic, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Spain (67 points each) and the highest in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, the 
Netherlands and Portugal (all 73).

In line with the results of the fifth wave of the EWCS, working time quality is lowest in transport (66) and agriculture 
(67) and highest in financial services (74) and public administration (73). In terms of occupations, clerks report the 
highest value on the index (77), while managers (64) and plant and machine operators (67) show a lower score.

Differences are visible in terms of employment status: employees report a higher working time quality (71 points) 
than self-employed without employees (69) and self-employed with employees (61). These differences can in part be 
explained by existing regulations: the Working Time Directive limits long working hours, but this is not applicable to 
self-employed individuals.

52

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportTable 4: Working time quality index: proportion of workers in EU28 (%) and mean index scores (0–100), 2005–2015

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

2005

2010

2015

Proportion of workers in EU28 (%)

Included in 
trend version 
of the index

Duration

Long working hours (48 hours or more a week)

No recovery period (less than 11 hours between 
two working days in the past month)

Long working days (10 hours or more a day)

Night work

Saturday work

Sunday work

Shift work

•  daily split shift

•  permanent shift

•  alternating/rotating shifts

•  other type of shift work

Control over working time arrangements

Set by the company

Can choose between different schedules

Can adapt working hours

Entirely determined by self

Change in working time arrangements

No regular change

Change the same day

Change the day before

Change several days in advance

Change several weeks in advance

Requested to come to work at short notice  
(at least several times a month)

Very easy to arrange to take an hour off during working 
hours to take care of personal or family matters

Work in free time to meet work demands  
(several times a month)

Atypical working time*

Working time 
arrangements**

Flexibility

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

19

36

19

53

28

17

7

38

50

5

56

9

17

18

69

8

9

11

4

17

32

18

51

28

17

8

38

50

4

59

8

16

17

65

8

9

13

4

16

23

32

19

52

30

21

7

40

49

4

56

9

19

16

69

5

8

13

5

12

25

22

Working time quality 
index

Trend index score

Full index score

Mean index scores (0–100)

82

84

84

71

Notes:  * Contribution of shift work to index: no shift scores 100, permanent shifts scores 66, alternating shifts scores 33 and daily split shifts scores 0.

**  Scores 100 if working time arrangement is not set by the company or set by the company but no changes in arrangements occur. Scores 75 if 
set by the company and changes occur several weeks in advance, 50 if several days in advance, 25 if the day before, 0 if on the same day.

53

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 40: Usual weekly working hours for men and women, EU28, 2005–2015 (%)

Men

21

10

57

6
7

2010

24

10

56

5
5

2005

21

10

53

6
10

2015

48 or more

41–47

35–40

21–34

20 or less

11

6

49

17

17

Women

10
6

46

19

19

9
6

44

20

22

2005

2010

2015

Part-time work continues to be extensively used in the 
Netherlands (by 42% of workers) and in Germany, Ireland 
and the United Kingdom (all around 30%). On the opposite 
end of the scale lies a group of countries where only 10% of 
respondents or fewer work part time: Slovakia, Hungary, 
Czech Republic, Turkey, Cyprus, Slovenia, Serbia and 
Croatia. Country differences in the distribution of working 
hours are important because they reflect both sectoral 
and occupational composition, national traditions and the 
influence of working time regulations (Figure 41).

While some countries, such as Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Cyprus or Sweden, do not display a wide distribution 
of hours worked, in others, such as Greece, Poland and 
Croatia, dispersion is much wider. The classic 40-hour 
week remains the standard reference period and is the 
mode in the vast majority of countries, with the exception 
of Belgium (38 hours), France (35 hours), Denmark 
(37), Norway (38), Switzerland (42) and Turkey (60). 
Nevertheless, 28% of all workers (42% of women and 16% 
of men) work 34 hours or fewer per week – this contrasts 
with the figure of 21% of workers in 2005.

Working hours vary also according to employment status, 
sector, occupation and the size of the workplace (Figure 
42). Self-employed workers tend to work more hours than 
employees – in particular, those with employees. Short 
working hours (34 hours or fewer per week) are more 
frequent among employees with fixed-term contracts or 
with ‘other or no contract’. Very short working hours (20 
hours or less) were reported by over 20% of self-employed 
workers without employees.

Working hours’ duration
Overall, the trend towards a decline in the average usual 
weekly working hours continues. The EU28 average shows 
a decrease over time: from 38.6 hours in 2005 to 37.6 hours 
in 2010 and 36.6 hours in 2015 (following the same pattern 
as identified in the EU-LFS – from 38 hours in 2005 to 37.2 
hours in 2014).

This decline is essentially due to the fact that more 
workers are working part time and fewer are working long 
working hours (48 hours per week or more), a trend equally 
prevalent among women and men. In 2015, some 15% of 
workers worked 20 hours per week or fewer, compared 
with just 11% of workers in 2005, while the proportion of 
those working 48 hours or more declined from 18% to 15%. 
On average, men continue to work more paid hours than 
women (Figure 40).

The decrease in weekly hours was experienced by most 
groups of workers defined by age, sex, employment status 
and contract, with the exception of self-employed workers 
with employees and part-time workers, who, on average, 
are working longer in 2015 than in 2005. Self-employed 
workers without employees, however, report the largest 
decline in average working hours (7 fewer hours per week 
on average than in 2005).

Recent Eurofound research on this topic has pointed to 
the variety of regimes for setting working time in the EU, 
in which regulation and collective bargaining interact in 
different ways and at different levels to define working 
time standards (Eurofound, 2016a).

54

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 41: Usual weekly working hours, by country and sex, 2015 

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Average men 

Average women 

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Czech Republic 
Bulgaria 
Montenegro 
Turkey 
Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Croatia 
Sweden 
Poland 
Malta 
Slovakia 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
Romania 
Hungary 
Luxembourg 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Italy 

Albania 
FYROM 
EU28 
Switzerland 
Serbia 
Ireland 

Austria 
United Kingdom 
Belgium 
France 
Netherlands 
Denmark 
Norway 
Germany 
Finland 
Cyprus 

Note: The grey box represents the interquartile range (i.e. 50% of workers fall within the box limits) and the lines (whiskers) represent the 5th and 95th 
percentiles.

Figure 42: Usual weekly working hours by employment status, occupation, sector and workplace size, EU28 (%)

20 hours
or fewer

21–34 hours

35–40 hours

41–47 hours

Self-employed with employees

Self-employed without employees

Employee, indefinite contract

Employee, fixed-term contract

Employee, other or no contract

Agriculture

Industry

Construction

Commerce and hospitality

Transport

Financial services

Public administration

Education

Health

Other services

Managers

Professionals

Technicians 

Clerks

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

41

7

22

11

22

6

9

8

7

8

22

19

23

17

22

7

13

11

16

22

22

7

6

Elementary occupations

34

Micro (1–9)

22

SME (10–249)

Large (250+)

13

10

6

12

12

15

16

8

5

4

13

8

12

12

23

24

14

7

16

14

15

17

8

4

5

14

12

12

13

56

47

21

25

30

26

40

54

52

55

67

68

41

46

41

37

48

38

26

40

34

55

60

61

60

55

57

10

8

9

5

3

6

8

11

9

10

11

6

7

6

8

12

10

8

6

7

6

9

8

5

8

8

9

48 hours
or more

55

34

11

11

10

37

14

23

19

21

15

36

37

7

7

8

14

13

12

15

4

19

20

8

24

12

11

55

Table 5: Working hours and association with aspects of working conditions, EU28

Very short 
working hours 
(20 hours or 
fewer) (% of 
respondents)

Short working 
hours (34 
hours or 
fewer) (% of 
respondents)

35 hours or 
more (% of 
respondents)

Odds ratio 
(very short 
working 
hours)

Odds ratio 
(short 
working 
hours)

Belongs to the 20% with the lowest income  
[40% with lowest income]

Would prefer to work more hours than currently

Good fit between working hours and family and 
social commitments

Very easy to take time off to take care of personal 
or family issues

Job offers good career prospects

Might lose job in the next six months 
(job insecurity)

Non-indefinite contracts and self-employed 
without employees

Engages in night work

Health or safety at risk because of work

Work affects health negatively

68 [83]

49 [73]

7.7 [26]

16.806

43

92

35

28

21

49

11

14

16

36

90

30

31

19

41

12

17

19

4.9

79

23

42

15

22

22

25

28

8.206

2.717

1.851

0.658

1.396

3.302

0.542

0.566

0.539

13.708

12.729

2.486

1.536

0.672

1.444

2.470

0.498

0.688

0.669

Note: The effect of working short or very short hours on the different variables is given by the odds ratio, which compares the probability of 
a phenomenon occurring between the presence and absence of a given situation. In this situation, an odds ratio of 1 means the phenomenon is equally 
likely for those working short or very short hours and those not working short or very short hours. If it is greater than 1, it means the phenomenon is 
more likely for those working short or very short hours; if it is less than 1, it means that the phenomenon is less likely for those working short or very 
short hours. The effects are controlled for variation between country, sectors and occupations. All odds ratios are statistically significant (p<0.05).

Very short working hours

Working very short working hours (Table 5) is associated 
both with lower earnings and with a strong preference for 
working longer hours, suggesting that this type of schedule 
is not the preferred option for many. In addition, job 
insecurity is highest for those working very short working 
hours and this group is less likely to report having good 
career prospects.

On the positive side, those working very short hours are 
more likely to report a better work–life balance, as well 
as finding it easier to take time off to attend to family and 
personal issues. They are also less likely to report that their 
health and safety is at risk due to work, that work affects 
their health negatively or to engage in night work.

Long working hours

Long working hours have proved to be associated with 
such conditions as depression, anxiety, sleep disorders and 
coronary heart disease (Kivimäki et al, 2015; Bannai and 
Tamakoshi, 2014). They also make reconciling work with 
other parts of life more difficult.

Some 15% of workers in the EU28 usually work long 
hours (48 hours or more per week): 21% of men and 9% of 

women. Long working hours are reported by more than 
half of the self-employed with employees (55%), one-
third of the self-employed without employees (35%) and 
about one in 10 employees. The proportion of individuals 
reporting long working hours varies greatly between 
countries. In Montenegro, Albania, Greece and the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, more than one-third 
of workers report long hours. In Turkey, the proportion 
reaches 57%. At the opposite extreme are Luxembourg, 
Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway where 
long working hours are reported by 10% of workers or 
fewer.

Workers reporting long working hours are more likely to 
have problems with work–life balance and health than 
workers with standard working hours: as Table 6 shows, 
they are almost four times less likely to report a good 
balance between working hours and social commitments. 
This group is more likely to report that their health and 
safety is at risk because of work, that work affects their 
health negatively and that they feel exhausted at the end 
of the working day. Moreover, they are twice as likely to 
report presenteeism – working when sick – than other 
workers.

56

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Table 6: Long working hours and association with aspects of working conditions, EU28

Working fewer  
than 48 hours  
(% of respondents)

Working 48 hours 
or more  
(% of respondents)

Odds ratio  
(working 48 hours 
or more)

Good balance between working hours and family and social 
commitments

Health and safety at risk because of work

Work affects health negatively

Working at high speed at least half the time

Not feeling well paid for the job

Consulted before work targets are set (always or most of the time)

Presenteeism

Feeling exhausted at the end of the working day

86

22

24

45

29

45

41

31

62

31

35

56

35

55

55

44

0.267

1.633

1.696

1.522

1.388

1.363

2.008

1.677

Note: The effect of working long hours on the different variables is given by the odds ratio, which compares the probability of a phenomenon occurring 
between the presence and absence of a given situation. In this situation, an odds ratio of 1 means the phenomenon is equally likely for those working 
fewer than 48 hours and those working long hours (48 hours or more); if it is greater than 1, it means the phenomenon is more likely for those working 
long hours; if it is less than 1, it means that the phenomenon is less likely for those working long hours. The effects are controlled for variation between 
country, sectors and occupations. All odds ratios are statistically significant (p<0.05).

Long working days

Time between work periods

About one-third of respondents (32%) in the EU28 worked 
more than 10 hours a day at least once in the month prior 
to the survey. On average, men worked 3.2 long days per 
month and women 1.5 long days. Workers aged 35–49 
years – an age group typically having substantial care 
responsibilities (two-thirds being working parents) – report 
the highest incidence of long days. The average number of 
long working days varies significantly by country: it is very 
high in Turkey (4.6 days a month), Malta (4.2), the United 
Kingdom (3.6), Ireland (3.4), Sweden (3.1), Albania (3.1), 
Greece (3.1) and Finland (3.0).

Self-employed workers are much more likely to report long 
working days: 66% of the self-employed with employees 
and 45% of those without reported working at least 
one long working day a month. A higher proportion of 
employees with indefinite contracts work long days (31%) 
than those with fixed-term contracts (24%) or with ‘other 
or no contract’ (19%).

Managers, agricultural workers and professionals are the 
occupations with the largest proportions of individuals 
reporting long working days, while clerks and elementary 
occupations have the smallest.

According to the EU Working Time Directive, workers are 
entitled to a ‘minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive 
hours per 24-hour period’ and to a rest break when the 
working day is longer than six hours. A new question in the 
sixth EWCS asks workers whether – at least once during 
the previous month – they had a break of fewer than 11 
hours between the end of one working day and the start of 
the next. Nearly one-quarter of all workers (23%) reported 
such an occurrence: about 20% of employees but 34% 
of self-employed workers without employees and 43% 
of self-employed with employees (the latter two groups 
are not necessarily covered by the directive as they have 
‘autonomous decision-making powers’).

Health, transport, construction and agriculture are the 
sectors with the largest proportions of workers reporting 
having fewer than 11 hours between two days of work; 
in terms of occupations, above-average proportions of 
managers and agricultural workers report this.

Proportions per country for employees range from 7% 
in Bulgaria to 26% in Sweden and 32% in Norway (Figure 
43). Spain is exceptionally high with 47% of employees 
reporting such an occurrence. The reasons for such a high 
proportion will be further explored.

57

Figure 43: Workers reporting fewer than 11 hours between the end of one working day and the start of the next, 
by employment status and country (%)

Self-employed 

Employees 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Spain 
Norway 

Finland 
Albania 
Malta 
Denmark 
Sweden 
Montenegro 
France 
United Kingdom  
Netherlands 
Romania 

Serbia 
EU28 
Ireland 
Slovenia 
Luxembourg 
Turkey 
Belgium 
Estonia 
Lithuania 
Switzerland 
Czech Republic  

Germany 
Hungary 
Slovakia 
Poland 
Austria 

FYROM 
Italy 

Greece 

Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Portugal 
Croatia 
Latvia 

Note: The reported incidence is at least once in the previous month.

The proportion of workers reporting having a period of less 
than 11 hours between two days of work increases with 
the level of income and with the number of hours worked. 
Workers who have multiple workplaces also more frequently 
report not having enough rest between two working days.

One group that is particularly at risk are those working 
48 hours or more (Table 6). Workers with long working weeks 
are not only more likely to feel exhausted at the end of the 
working day, but also are more than twice as likely to have 
insufficient rest between days of work, making recovery from 
work more difficult. Exhaustion might also be related to their 
high work intensity, which is confirmed by their intensity 
index score of 38 compared to 33 for other workers.

Atypical working time arrangements
In certain situations, work is performed at times that are 
usually reserved for other parts of life such as weekends, 
evenings and nights. These working hours are also known as 
‘atypical’ and give workers fewer opportunities to interact 
socially.

More than half of the EU28 respondents (52%) report 
working at least one Saturday a month – the same 
proportion as in 2005. Almost one-quarter (24%) reports 
working at least three Saturdays a month, roughly the 
same as in 2010. Saturday work is more commonly 
reported by men (56%) than women (47%). Between 
2010 and 2015, the extent of Saturday work decreased 
for agricultural workers (from 85% to 77%) and increased 
for managers (from 56% to 60%), for technicians (40% to 
44%) and for craft workers (47% to 51%). Unsurprisingly, 
Saturday work is extensively practised by the self-
employed (over 75% doing so).

12 

The EU-LFS reports a lower level of shift work (18%) than the EWCS.

58

Three workers in every 10 report working at least one 
Sunday a month (an increase of two percentage points 
since 2010) and 10% at least three times a month. As 
with Saturday work, Sunday work is reported more by 
men (31%) than women (28%). Between 2010 and 2015, 
it increased for managers (from 31% to 39%) and service 
and sales workers (from 43% to 46%), but decreased for 
agricultural workers (from 62% to 49%). Sunday work is 
particularly extensive in agriculture (decreasing from 56% 
to 50%), commerce and hospitality (increasing from 34% 
to 38%), and health (increasing from 46% to 49%). Sunday 
work is also frequently reported by the self-employed, 
especially if they have employees: 46% compared to 41% 
for the self-employed without employees.

Almost two workers in every 10 (19%) report working 
during the night (defined as working two or more hours 
between 22:00 and 05:00) at least once a month. This is 
more common among men (24%) – particularly if they are 
under 50 years of age – than among women (14%).

According to the EWCS, about 21% of all workers in the EU 
report working shifts, which represents a strong increase 
from the 17% recorded in both 2010 and 2005.12 The most 
prevalent type of shift work is alternating or rotating shifts, 
followed by permanent shifts (mornings, afternoons or 
nights). Daily split shifts, which involve a break of at least 
four hours between working periods, are less common. 
This distribution has remained relatively steady since 2005.

Differences in the proportions of men and women doing 
shift work are small. In terms of occupation, shift work is 
most prevalent among service and sales workers (36%) and 
plant and machine operators (39%). By sector, shift work 
is most common in health (40%), transport (33%), industry 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Table 7: Shift work and association with aspects of working conditions, EU28

Shift work  
(% of respondents)

No shift work  
(% of respondents)

Odds ratio  
(shift work)

Good fit between working hours and family and social commitments

Health and safety at risk because of work

Work affects health negatively

Working at high speed at least half the time

Not feeling well paid for the job

Feeling exhausted at the end of the working day

Consulted before work objectives are set (always or most of the time)

Able to do job until 60

72

33

34

58

36

41

37

62

85

20

23

43

28

31

49

75

0.511

1.932

1.628

1.792

1.301

1.381

0.722

0.587

Note: The effect of shift work on the different variables is given by the odds ratio, which compares the probability of a phenomenon occurring between 
the presence and absence of a given situation. In this situation, an odds ratio of 1 means the phenomenon is equally likely for those working shifts and 
those not working shifts. If it is greater than 1, it means the phenomenon is more likely for those working shifts. If it is less than 1, it means that the 
phenomenon is less likely for those working shifts. The effects are controlled for variation between country, sectors and occupations. All odds ratios are 
statistically significant (p<0.05).

(28%) and commerce and hospitality (27%). What is striking 
is the low proportion of the self-employed reporting shift 
work: 7% of those with employees and only 5% of those 
without employees.

As Table 7 shows, workers doing shift work – irrespective 
of the type of shift – are less likely to report a good 
fit between working hours and family and social 
commitments and are more likely to report that their 
health and safety is at risk because of work and that work 
affects their health negatively. They are also more likely 
to report working at high speed, feeling exhausted at 
the end of the working day and not feeling they are paid 
appropriately for their efforts and achievements in their 
job. In addition, they are less likely to report that they feel 
they will be able to do the same job when they are 60 years 
old.

Regularity of working hours
The regularity of working hours refers to the extent to 
which people work the same hours every day or every week 
and the same number of days every week. In general, this 
regularity facilitates the planning and combination of work 
with private or family life but – depending on a number 
of factors such as household composition, non-work 
activities or life stage – some workers may find irregular 
working hours more suitable for them and their families. 
They may also prefer some employee-orientated flexitime. 
Regular (or irregular) working can be the results of workers’ 
choices in a context where companies do not require it of 
them.

The EWCS captured four aspects of regularity – working 
the same number of hours every day, the same number of 

hours every week, the same number of days every week 
and fixed starting and finishing times. The vast majority 
of workers works the same number of days every week 
(75% doing so) and the same number of hours every week 
(63%). Regular working hours (the same hours every day) 
are a pattern reported by 56% of respondents – more so by 
women aged 35–49 years (61%) and less so by men aged 50 
and over (52%). Moreover, 61% of all workers report having 
fixed starting and finishing times, again a pattern more 
common among women (66%) than men (56%).

Working hours can be grouped into three categories 
according to their regularity.

High regularity: All four aspects of regularity: the same 
number of hours every day, the same number of days every 
week, the same number of hours every week, and fixed 
starting and finishing times; 43% of workers in 2015 report 
high regularity, three percentage points less than in 2005.

Medium regularity: Between two and three of the four 
aspects; the proportion of workers with medium regularity 
has increased – from 19% in 2005 to 28% in 2015.

Low regularity: One aspect only; the proportion of 
workers with low regularity has been decreasing – from 
36% in 2005 to 30% in 2015.

Low regularity is reported more often by men (34%) than 
by women (26%), and by more self-employed workers than 
employees. Figure 44 shows the breakdown by country: 
Bulgaria, Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg have the greatest 
regularity, and Denmark, Finland and Sweden have the 
least regular work schedules.

59

Figure 44: Regularity of working hours, by country (%)

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

High 

Medium 

Low 

0 

Turkey 
Cyprus 
Luxembourg 
Spain 
Bulgaria 
Malta 

FYROM 
EU28 
United Kingdom 
Greece 
Belgium 
Sweden 
Montenegro 
Germany 
Italy 
Hungary 
Austria 
Switzerland 
Slovenia 
Finland 
Netherlands 
France 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Norway 
Denmark 
Czech Republic 
Serbia 
Lithuania 
Slovakia 
Croatia 
Latvia 
Poland 
Albania 
Portugal 
Romania 

In terms of occupation, agricultural workers (60%) and 
managers (44%) display the largest proportions of low 
regularity of working hours. By sector, agriculture has the 
largest proportion of workers reporting low regularity 
(59%), while industry has the largest proportion of workers 
reporting high regularity (54%). Commerce and hospitality 
and public administration also have a large proportion 
of workers with a high regularity of working hours 
(above 45%).

The regularity of working hours is strongly associated with 
a good fit between working hours and workers’ family and 
social commitments: workers with a high regularity are 
almost 2.5 times more likely to report a good or very good fit.

Working time arrangements
For most workers in the EU (56%), working time 
arrangements are set by the company (or organisation) 
with no possibility for change. Almost 1 in 10 workers (9%) 
says they can choose between several fixed schedules, 
while 2 in 10 (19%) report they can adapt their working 
hours within certain limits. The remainder (16%) report 
that working hours are entirely determined by themselves. 
This is very similar to the situation in 2005.

By occupation, managers and agricultural workers are the 
least likely to have their working hours determined by the 
company or organisation. By sector, more than 60% of 
workers in transport, education and industry have their 
working hours set by their organisation.

Workers whose working time arrangements are set by 
the company or who can choose between several fixed 
schedules were also asked if there are regular changes 
to these arrangements and, if so, how long in advance 
are they informed about those changes. A majority of 
workers (69% in the EU28) report that changes to their 
working time arrangements do not happen regularly. 
However, if changes happen, notice can be short: 5% of 
workers are informed about changes in their working time 
arrangements the same day as they occur (9% in 2005), 8% 
are given a day’s notice (the same figure as 2005), 13% are 
informed several days in advance (a two percentage point 
increase since 2005) and 5% are informed several weeks in 
advance (the same figure as 2005). Those who are informed 
of changes on the day or the day before are three times less 
likely to report a good work–life balance.

60

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Blurring the boundaries between work and other aspects of life

Working in one’s free time to meet work demands is carried out by one worker in five (22%) several times a month, 
with 7% reporting that they do this several times a week and 2% doing it every day. Conversely, 55% of respondents 
say they have never had to work in their free time to meet work demands; there are differences between men and 
women in this respect (52% and 58% respectively reporting this). There are slightly more men than women working 
in their free time in the 35–49 years age group: 50% compared with 44%.

On average, 2% of all workers report working daily in their free time to meet work demands, and this is more 
common among managers (7%), agricultural workers (7%) and professionals (5%), as well as self-employed workers 
with employees (7%) and without employees (5%).

Working in one’s free time is associated with a poor work–life balance. While only 14% of the group not working in 
their free time reported difficulties with work–life balance, the figure for those who work in their own time on a daily 
basis is 39%. This relationship with work–life balance is stronger for men.

Working in one’s free time seems also to be related to income level and the usual number of working hours, as can be 
seen in Figures 45 and 46.

A large proportion of respondents – almost 40% – stated that over the previous 12 months they had been requested to 
come into work at short notice. As a daily occurrence this is rare, fewer than 1% of respondents reporting it. It is more 
common several times a month (for 9%) and several times a week (3%). It most commonly happens occasionally, 27% 
saying it happens ‘less often’.

Being requested to come into work at short notice at least several times a month is more common among certain 
occupations – service and sales workers and agricultural workers (both 17%) – and less common for clerks (5%). It 
is also prevalent among certain sectors of activity: agriculture, transport, health (all 16%) and construction (17%). 
Employment status is also relevant: self-employed workers (25% of those with employees and 20% of those without) 
and employees with ‘other or no contract’ (18%) present higher-than-average proportions of individuals reporting 
being requested to come into work at short notice.

Figure 45: Working in free time and at short 
notice, by income quintile, EU28 (%)

Figure 46: Working in free time and at short notice, 
by usual weekly hours in main paid job, EU28 (%)

15

1

15 
11 

2

19 

11 

3

Income quintiles 

24 

11 

4

37 

14 

5

36

15

19
13

15
8

21–34 

35–40 

41–47 

15

20 or
fewer

45

21

48 or
more

Worked in free time to meet work demands 
at least several times a month 

Requested to come into work at short 
notice at least several times a month 

Note: The income quintiles are numbered in ascending order; 
hence, ‘5’ is the highest quintile.

Worked in free time to meet work demands
at least several times a month 

Requested to come into work at short notice
at least several times a month 

61

Time off for personal matters
Overall, 65% of workers in the EU28 (68% of men and 62% 
of women) report that arranging to take an hour or two 
off during working time to take care of personal or family 
matters is fairly easy (40%) or very easy (25%). There is 
a wide variation regarding this dimension across countries, 
from 42% in the Czech Republic to 85% in the Netherlands.

The possibility of taking time off during working hours 
to take care of personal or family matters varies greatly 
according to the worker’s occupation: it is fairly difficult or 
very difficult for 47% of plant and machine operators and 
for 43% of service and sales workers.

Place of work
Place of work is an important determinant of a person’s 
work experience. Developments in ICT have facilitated 
working from places other than the employer’s premises. 
Working outside the employer’s premises – either working 
from home or from other places of work – is a feature of 
working life for a number of occupations. The diffusion of 
mobile ICT, combined with incentives to limit travel time 
due to traffic and CO2 emissions, and an awareness of the 
benefits of work–life balance, have all triggered an increase 
in working away from the company’s premises. (The issue 
of e-nomads is discussed in Section 2.6 below.)

The vast majority of workers in the EU (70%) have a single 
regular workplace (particularly employees), while 30% 
carry out their work in multiple locations. The proportion 
of workers with multiple workplaces varies substantially 
between countries: from a low of 18% in Turkey to over 
40% in the Nordic countries.

The proportion of workers reporting working in multiple 
workplaces is larger for men than for women and increases 
with age. It is also larger for self-employed workers 
(with and without employees), agricultural workers and 
managers and is particularly prevalent in the construction, 
transport and agriculture sectors. Having multiple places 
of work seems to be associated with a slightly poorer 
work–life balance: 78% of those who have multiple places 
of work report that their working hours fit well or very well 
with family and social commitments, compared with 84% 
of those with a single main workplace.

Working in multiple workplaces is common among 
workers whose job consists either totally or in part of 
visiting customers, patients and clients. Some 57% of all 
individuals working in multiple workplaces are involved in 
this role. A majority of the self-employed with employees 
report working daily in their own premises (71% doing 
so) but are also more likely to work on a daily basis in the 
client’s premises (13%), in a car or vehicle (15%), outdoors 
(13%) or from home (17%). Self-employed workers without 
employees are less likely to work in their own premises 
(only 46% doing so) but are more likely to work daily in the 
client’s premises (19%) or from home (24%).

In general, a small proportion of workers report working in 
public spaces such as coffee shops and airports: 3% daily, 
3% several times a week, and 4% several times a month.

Perhaps not surprisingly, working from home is most 
frequently practised by agricultural workers, then by 
self-employed individuals, professionals and managers. In 
terms of sectors, it is again most common in agriculture, 
then in education and other services. Working from home 
tends to be slightly more common in older age groups.

Working time quality

An overview of the Working time quality index indicates that working time quality has improved in the EU28 – rising 
by 2 points to 84 points since 2005; it has increased or remained stable in most Member States. The index is lowest in 
transport and agriculture; it is highest in financial services and public administration. Differences between sectors 
are moderate, ranging from 66 to 74 index points. They are similarly moderate in terms of occupations (from 64 to 
77 points); clerks have the best working time quality, while managers and plant and machine operators have the 
lowest. Employees have a somewhat higher working time quality than self-employed workers, in part the result of 
the Working Time Directive, which limits long working hours – but not for self-employed workers.

Shorter working week: This is the outcome of more workers working part time and fewer workers working long 
working hours (48 hours or more). On average, men continue to work more paid hours than women. Interestingly, 
self-employed workers without employees report the largest decline in working hours – seven fewer hours per week 
than in 2005.

Long working hours: Some 15% of workers in the EU28 habitually work 48 hours or more per week. Gender 
differences are stark: 21% of men work such long weeks as against 9% of women. Self-employed workers are much 
more likely to work long weeks: 55% of the self-employed with employees and 34% of those without employees. In 
contrast, only around 10% of employees do so. The proportions of individuals reporting long working hours vary 
greatly between countries, reflecting the influence of working time regulations. In Turkey, 57% of workers work more 
than 48 hours per week. In contrast, only 10% in Luxembourg, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway do so.  

62

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Workers who work long hours are almost four times less likely than other workers to report a good fit between 
working hours and social commitments. They are also more likely to say that their health and safety is at risk because 
of work, work affects their health negatively, and they feel exhausted at the end of the working day. And they are 
twice as likely as other workers to say that they go to work when they are sick (so-called ‘presenteeism’).

Short working hours: Working very short hours (20 hours or fewer) is associated with earning less; it is also 
associated with a strong preference for working more, suggesting that many people are not working such short 
hours by choice. Moreover, for such workers, job insecurity is often high, and they are less likely to have good career 
prospects. However, they are more likely to report better work–life balance and find it easier to take time off for 
family and personal issues.

Daily rest periods: The Working Time Directive entitles workers to a daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours in 
every 24-hour period. Some 23% of workers reported that at least once in the month prior to the survey they had 
a break of less than 11 hours between the end of one working day and the start of the next. This is substantially 
more prevalent among self-employed workers (34% of self-employed workers without employees and 43% of self-
employed with employees) than employees (about 20%). Working longer hours (48 or more per week) and having 
a higher income is associated with not having sufficient rest between working days.

Working long days: About one-third of the respondents in the EU28 have worked more than 10 hours in a day at least 
once in the month prior to the survey. On average, men worked 3.2 long days per month and women 1.5.

Working weekends: The proportion of the EU workforce who works Saturdays is largely unchanged since 2010: more 
than half work at least one Saturday per month. Around one-third of workers work at least one Sunday per month 
(a two percentage point increase since 2010) and 10% at least three times a month. Some 75% of self-employed 
workers work Saturdays, and almost 45% work Sundays.

Shift work: Shift work is more prevalent among service and sales workers and plant and machine operators, and 
in the sectors of health, transport, industry, and commerce and hospitality. Shift work is associated unfavourably 
with a number of outcomes. Shift workers find work–life balance more difficult, feel their health and safety is at risk 
because of work, and that work affects their health negatively. They are more likely to feel exhausted at the end of 
the day and to report that they are not appropriately paid and are less likely to feel they can work until 60 years of 
age.

Regularity of work schedule: High regularity – working the same number of hours every day, and hours and days 
every week, along with fixed starting and finishing times – is associated with a good work–life balance: workers 
whose schedules are regular are almost 2.5 times more likely to report a good fit between work and private life. 
Agriculture is the sector with the largest share of workers reporting irregular hours; in contrast, workers in industry 
work the most regular hours, along with workers in commerce and hospitality and public administration.

Flexibility in working time: For most workers in the EU (56%), working time arrangements are set by the 
organisation with no possibility for change. And for a majority (69%), changes to their working time arrangements do 
not happen regularly. However, almost 40% were asked to come to work at short notice in the 12 months prior to the 
survey. In terms of flexibility to suit a worker’s needs, for 65% of workers in the EU28, it is easy to take an hour or two 
off during working hours to take care of personal matters. But for some occupations, this is not the case: around 45% 
of plant and machine operators and service and sales workers find it difficult.

63

2.5  Building a supportive social 

environment

Work is a fundamental activity for individuals, providing 
opportunities for interacting with people and developing 
a social network, becoming integrated into the workplace or 
team, and developing their capacities and skills. The quality 
of the social environment at work is critical for personal 
growth and development but also facilitates workplace 
integration and the building of workers’ self-esteem through 
receiving recognition from peers and superiors.

The place that workers give to the meaning and function of 
work plays an important role in shaping their expectations 
of work. The ability of companies and managers to 
meet these expectations is central to the company’s 
performance. Regulations – legislation as well as company 
rules and organisational culture and practices – help 
develop and maintain a secure social environment.

Human resource policies and practices deal extensively 
with this topic, as it is known to be linked to performance, 
organisational commitment and worker engagement. 
Being well integrated socially at work is also important 
in terms of performance and innovation, as good 
quality interaction can be associated with high worker 
engagement, better use of workers’ tacit knowledge and 
enhanced collective intelligence at work.

In terms of health and well-being, the negative effects of 
adverse social behaviour such as violence and bullying/ 
harassment at work are well known and documented: they 

Social environment index

are strongly associated with increased staff turnover and 
increased absenteeism. At individual level, the impact on 
well-being can last for years, and it may be very hard for 
individuals to recover fully. Building on Karasek’s demand–
control model, research has recorded and assessed the 
positive effects of social support from managers and 
colleagues.

Furthermore, an important and influential model, that 
of organisational justice, focuses on the quality of social 
interaction at work and the rules governing decision- 
making and managerial behaviour. It is used to evaluate 
the extent to which people perceive that they are treated 
fairly by their supervisors; it takes as an assumption that 
stress-related illness happens when the individual does 
not feel treated fairly in the organisation.

Various behaviours and practices at work can contribute 
to creating a good social environment: for example, the 
social support provided by colleagues and managers, 
good-quality management and the absence of physical, 
mental and sexual violence. The sixth EWCS assesses 
these practices, at job level, across Europe, supplementing 
the analysis with information on the social climate 
at the workplace and on employee representation. 
A further Eurofound initiative, the European Company 
Survey, provides extensive complementary information 
on workplace practices in terms of work organisation, 
human resource management, direct participation and 
social dialogue across Europe as reported by managers of 
companies and workplaces and employee representatives, 
where available (Eurofound, 2015g).

This index measures the extent to which workers experience (on the positive side) supportive social relationships 
and (on the negative side) adverse social behaviour such as bullying/harassment and violence at the workplace.

As with the other job quality indices, this index measures the specific properties of the job, excluding aspects related 
to the overall organisation or the individual. The index comprises two subdimensions: the incidence of adverse social 
behaviour and the presence of support (support being experienced as quality of leadership and social support from 
colleagues).

The index comprises 15 indicators (Table 8). Logically, the questions related to ‘management quality’ were addressed 
to employees only; consequently, the results reported on this index are for employees only. The other indicators 
include answers from both employees and self-employed.

Comparison over time is not possible on the full index, as the leadership questions were revised in 2015. The main 
results for this index can be summarised as follows.

On the quality of the social environment, men score higher than women – by one point only. Women report greater 
exposure to adverse social behaviour.

Differences by sector are moderate: the highest scores for the social environment are reported in agriculture (81) and 
financial services (80) while transport and health (both 72) report the lowest. In terms of occupation, agricultural 
workers report the highest quality social environment (scoring 81), while service and sales workers and plant and 
machine operators report the lowest (74 and 73, respectively).

As Figure 47 shows, the range in scores between countries is somewhat bigger (14 points): at one extreme the 
Netherlands and France (both 72) and Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Portugal at the other 
(86). The overall picture is consistent with previous results, underlying the very high level of reported adverse social 
behaviour in the Netherlands and France.

64

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Table 8: Social environment index: proportion of workers in EU28 (%) and mean index scores (0–100)

2015

Proportion of workers in EU28 (%)

Adverse 
social 
behaviour

In the last 
month

Over the last 
12 months

Exposure to verbal abuse

Exposure to unwanted sexual attention

Exposure to threats

Exposure to humiliating behaviours

Exposure to physical violence

Exposure to sexual harassment

Exposure to bullying/harassment

Management 
quality 
(employees only)

Social 
support

Your immediate boss respects you as a person: strongly agree and tend to agree

Your immediate boss gives you praise and recognition when you do a good job: strongly 
agree and tend to agree

Your immediate boss is successful in getting people to work together: strongly agree and 
tend to agree

Your immediate boss is helpful in getting the job done: strongly agree and tend to agree

Your immediate boss provides useful feedback in your work: strongly agree and tend to 
agree

Your immediate boss encourages and supports your development: strongly agree and 
tend to agree

Social support

Help and support from colleagues (most of the time/always)

Help and support from your manager (most of the time/always)

12

2

4

6

2

1

5

89

71

73

66

70

68

71

58

Social environment index

Mean index score (0–100)

76

Figure 47: Scores on the Social environment index, by country (employees only)

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Estonia 
Slovakia 
Netherlands 
France 

Sweden 
Switzerland 
Latvia 
Italy 
Germany 
Denmark 
Poland 

Montenegro 
Croatia 
Romania 
Lithuania 
United Kingdom 
Finland 
Luxembourg 
Czech Republic 
Slovenia 
Serbia 
Austria 
Belgium 
EU28 

Norway 
Ireland 

Albania 

Cyprus 
Hungary 

Turkey 

Spain 

Greece 
Malta 

Bulgaria 
Portugal 
FYROM 

65

Management quality
Managers play an important role in relation to job quality 
and employee commitment. Their mission is to ensure 
that the collective performance of work produces the 
expected outcomes. While they are in a position of 
authority, they may in certain instances misuse or, in 
extreme cases, abuse this authority. They have a leading 
role to play in determining the social climate at work. Their 
position in organisations and companies – even in matrix 
organisations where it is difficult to identify one’s boss – 
remains very influential.

While managers can support the development of job 
quality practices, they can also be a source of risk – 
psychosocial, for example. They are in an intermediary 
position between the more abstract decision-making 
function at company level and the concrete experience 
of work by members of their team. They have to relay 
and balance ‘top-down’ decisions with ‘bottom-up’ 
contributions within the company. Managers may also be in 
situations where they have to oversee the implementation 
of job quality practices of lower quality.

Over time, the role of managers has changed: the ‘leader’ 
figure has emerged as a new role model. As well as being 
managers, leaders are expected to inspire motivation, 
develop a vision that can be shared and accompany the 
development of individuals.

Good leaders show consideration and respect for their 
employees. In the EWCS, 89% of EU28 employees agree 
(33%) or strongly agree (56%) that their supervisors 
respect them as a person. In addition, 73% agree that their 
immediate boss is successful in getting people to work 
together, 70% that their boss provides useful feedback on 
their work and 66% that their boss is helpful in getting the 
job done. Equally large proportions report that their boss 
encourages and supports their development (68%) and 
agree that their boss gives them praise and recognition for 
doing a good job (71%).

There are substantial differences found regarding 
employees’ views of their boss’s performance across 
occupations (Figure 48), with professionals having the most 
positive views and plant and machine operators the least 
positive. Only 58% of plant and machine operators feel that 
their supervisor gives them recognition for doing a good 
job, while 78% of managers think that their immediate boss 
gives them praise and recognition. Just one in two plant 
and machine operators (53%) states that their supervisor 
encourages their development.

Cross-cultural studies on leadership examine whether the 
type of leader’s behaviour that is accepted, enacted and 
proved effective is universal or varies between countries. 
The EWCS evidence indicates some country differences 
in the quality of management reported by employees in 
Europe, ranging from around 70% to 80%.

Figure 48: Proportion of workers rating their boss’s performance positively, EU28 (%)

Managers

78

Professionals

92

74

76

Technicians

Clerks

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

84

58

Elementary occupations

75

68

72

58

60

53

Respects you

Gives you 
 recognition

Gets people 
to work together

Helps getting 
job done

Provides useful 
feedback

Encourages 
your development

Within 
category

Above average

Highest percentage

Below average

Lowest percentage

66

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Women managers: the glass ceiling effect

Symptomatic of the segregation and discrimination women continue to face at the workplace, the ‘glass ceiling’ issue 
has been on the agenda for many years, both in Europe and at national level. Data from the sixth EWCS show that 
progress is being made, albeit slowly.

At managerial level, women are still not on an equal footing with men. The proportion of women with a supervisory 
role (12%) is about half the proportion of men (20%), a figure that has remained constant since 2010. And while the 
proportion of men supervising ‘up to 10 people’ has been almost stable (16%) since 2000, the proportion of women 
in this situation decreased, by three percentage points: from 12% in 2000 to 9% in 2015.

On the other hand, since 2000, the proportion of workers – men and women – having a female boss has been on the 
rise: from one-quarter to one-third of all workers. Indeed, workers increasingly report having a woman as a boss: 
15% of men and 51% of women workers in 2015, up from 9% of men and 42% of women in 2000 (Figure 49).

Figure 49: Proportion of male and female bosses, by sex, EU28, 2000–2015

Boss

Male

Worker

Men 91

Women 58

Total 76

2000

2005

2010

2015

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

9

42

24

90

58

75

10

42

25

88

53

71

12

47

29

85

49

67

15

51

33

There are substantial differences by country regarding the proportion of supervisory roles held by men and women 
(Figure 50).

Figure 50: Proportion of male and female bosses, by country (%)

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Female
boss 

Male
boss 

0 

Netherlands 
Serbia 
Luxembourg 
Albania 
France 
Croatia 
Czech Republic 
Romania 
Spain 
Hungary 
Bulgaria 
Poland 
EU28 
Slovakia 
Portugal 
Belgium 
Slovenia 
Ireland 
Latvia 
Norway 
Estonia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Denmark 
Lithuania 

Italy 

Montenegro 
Greece 
Malta 
Germany 
FYROM 
Austria 
Switzerland 

Turkey 
Cyprus 

Despite the increase in women managers, the sixth EWCS finds that female managers continue to manage more 
female workers and younger people, and that older workers tend to be supervised by male managers. Looking at 
company size, the proportion of those having women managers is highest in large companies (250+ employees): 
some 35% of the workers in these companies report having a female manager. However, men constitute the bulk of 
managers across the board. In terms of occupations, service and sales workers form the occupation with the greatest 
proportion of female bosses, 47% having female supervisors. This is followed by professionals (43%) and workers in 
elementary occupations (37%). Conversely, the great majority (over 70%) of managers, agricultural workers, plant 
and machine operators, and craft workers have male bosses.

Labour market segregation is evident also through the distribution of different types of employment status: 
workers with indefinite contracts (68%) more often report having a man as a boss compared to workers with other 
contracts – fixed-term (64%) and other and no contract (63%). The impact of sector and occupation plays a role in 
this distribution and the full-time/part-time divide also reinforces the segregation effects.

67

Social support

Social support from colleagues

Social support from colleagues is prevalent: in 2015, some 
71% of workers in the EU28 reported that their colleagues 
help and support them always or most of the time; this is 
three points more than in 2005 but one point less than in 
2010. Between 2010 and 2015, the proportion of workers 
who report never or rarely getting support from their 
colleagues has remained at about 11%. An improvement 
compared to 2005 (falling from 15%), this figure still 
represents a substantial 1 in every 10 workers.

Social support from colleagues is highest for younger 
workers (those aged under 35 years), particularly women – 
77% of women compared with 73% of men. It is lowest for 
workers aged 50 and over (69% for both men and women).

There are very substantial differences in terms of 
occupation: 21% of workers in elementary occupations 
and 20% of agricultural workers report rarely or never 
getting social support from colleagues – nearly three times 
the proportion of managers and professionals. Turning to 
sectors, social support from colleagues is highest in health 
(79%), education, construction and public administration 
(74% in all three sectors) and lowest in transport (61%) 
as well as agriculture (63%). Part-time workers report 
more frequently than full-time workers that they never 
or rarely get social support from their colleagues (13% as 
against 10%).

Social support from managers

Social support from managers is reportedly high but less 
so than social support from colleagues: 58% of workers 
report getting social support from their managers (always 
or most of the time), and 19% report receiving it never or 
rarely. Globally, it has increased by two percentage points 
since 2005 but decreased by two percentage points since 
2010. Again, the same pattern regarding age groups and 
sectors applies. Social support from managers is highest 
for younger workers (63% receiving it) and lowest for 
older workers (56%). Social support from managers is 
highest in education, public administration and financial 
services; it is lowest in transport and in industry. Workers 
in these sectors, however, even if they do have colleagues 
in their workplaces, may be in work situations where no 
support is available as part of their work takes place in 
different sites.

Social support from managers is highest for technicians 
and professionals and lowest for elementary occupations, 
plant and machine operators, and agricultural workers. 
In these three occupations, absence of social support by 
managers is experienced by more than one in four workers.

Adverse social behaviour
Respondents of the sixth EWCS were asked if they 
had been exposed to different forms of adverse social 
behaviour in the month prior to the study, such as verbal 
abuse (12% reporting this), unwanted sexual attention 
(2%), humiliating behaviour (6%) or threats (4%); or within 
12 months prior to the study: physical violence (2%), sexual 
harassment (1%) and bullying/harassment (5%).

Although occurrence of such behaviours remains relatively 
low, it is important to gain an insight into the groups 
bearing the highest risk of exposure to adverse social 
behaviours. Exposure to such behaviours might have 
a serious harmful effect on health and well-being and can 
also trigger early exit from the workforce. All adverse social 
behaviours are experienced by women to a much greater 
extent than by men, except for threats (about 60% of the 
people reporting having been threatened were men).

There are considerable differences in reporting adverse 
social behaviour between countries (Figure 51). These 
differences in the reported magnitude of the issue might be 
partly a result of cultural differences. Firstly, the tolerance 
of undesired behaviours may differ from country to 
country. Second, the problem of underreporting might be 
more prevalent in some countries than others. The victims 
of adverse social behaviours might often feel too ashamed 
or even guilty to report such issues, especially if public 
awareness and discourse on the subject is limited. Due to 
the sensitive and complex nature of the issue, victims of 
these behaviours might be reluctant to talk about them 
and incidence might be underestimated.

In terms of occupation, almost all adverse social 
behaviours are most commonly reported by service and 
sales workers (Figure 52). Workers from this occupational 
group report – considerably more often than the average – 
being subjected to unwanted sexual attention (4%) and 
sexual harassment (2%). This happens partly because the 
service and sales occupation is dominated by women, 
who, in general, tend to experience these behaviours 
more, and because there is relatively more exposure to 
third parties (such as clients). Service and sales workers 
are also considerably more often the victims of verbal 
abuse (16%), humiliating behaviour (8%) and threats (7%). 
As many as 5% of workers from this group report having 
been subjected to physical violence at work in the previous 
12 months and around 6% to bullying/harassment.

Adverse social behaviours are particularly prevalent in 
some sectors (Figure 53). The health sector reported the 
highest percentage of workers subjected to all of the 
adverse social behaviour indicators, with the exception of 
workplace threats, which was found to be highest in public 
administration (11%).

68

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 51: Proportion of workers reporting at least one adverse social behaviour, by country (%)

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Turkey 
Portugal 
Albania 

FYROM 
Bulgaria 

Croatia 
Greece 
Serbia 
Hungary 
Montenegro 

Italy 

Poland 
Spain 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 
Slovenia 
Germany 
Romania 
Malta 
Lithuania 

Austria 
EU28 

Norway 
Latvia 

Belgium 
Luxembourg 
Ireland 
Estonia 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
United Kingdom 
Finland 
Slovakia 

Denmark 
France 
Netherlands 

Figure 52: Adverse social behaviour (ASB), by occupation, EU28 (%)

Managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

Service and sales workers

16

Agricultural workers

3

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

Elementary occupations

4

0

7

1

8

2

6

6

1

0

5

2

0

Verbal 
abuse

Unwanted sexual 
attention

Threats

Humiliating 
behaviour

Physical 
violence

Sexual 
harassment

Bullying/ 
 harassment

Within each
type of ASB

Above average

Highest percentage

Below average

Lowest percentage

About one in 10 self-employed workers (10%) reports 
having experienced one or more adverse social behaviours. 
This is less than for employees (17%). Aspects related to the 
nature of the work could explain this difference. First, when 
performing their economic activity, the self- employed are 
in a different position than employees: they are usually 

perceived as being on an equal footing with their clients 
and not in a subordinate position. Second, their legal 
protection is of a different nature, with no entitlement 
to labour law coverage (nevertheless, the abuse is still 
a matter of civil and criminal regulation).

69

Figure 53: Adverse social behaviour (ASB), by sector, EU28 (%)

Agriculture

4

0

1

2

0

1

Industry

Construction

Commerce and hospitality

Transport

Financial services

0

Public administration

11

Education

Health

20

3

8

7

2

9

Other services

Verbal 
abuse

Unwanted sexual 
attention

Threats

Humiliating 
behaviour

Physical 
violence

Sexual 
harassment

Bullying/ 
 harassment

Within each
type of ASB

Above average

Highest percentage

Below average

Lowest percentage

Discrimination
In the EU28, some 7% of workers felt they had been 
discriminated against in the 12 months prior to the 
survey on grounds of sex, race, religion, age, nationality, 
disability or sexual orientation. European legislation 
protects workers against all these types of discrimination, 
with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 
establishing a general framework for equal treatment 
in employment and occupation. The consequences of 
discrimination can be very damaging for the individuals 
concerned, including negative effects for their health and 
well-being, and also for their career.

The consequences of discriminatory behaviour towards 
workers – for example, in terms of wages, promotion or 
access to other rewards at the workplace – are difficult to 
study through a cross-sectional questionnaire such as the 
EWCS. However, the EWCS does enable the identification of 
those groups that are most seriously affected.

Overall, the groups reporting higher levels of 
discrimination are younger workers, employees with 
non-permanent contracts, women in middle management 
(supervising fewer than 10 staff) and workers experiencing 
restructuring or a downsizing in their companies.

Discrimination based on age is the most prevalent form, 
followed by discrimination based on sex, nationality and 
race (including ethnic background and skin colour).

Age discrimination is reported by 3% of workers. Sex 
discrimination (2%) is reported by more women (3%) 
than men (1%). Discrimination linked to race, ethnic 
background, colour and nationality is reported by 2% of 

70

workers (for each form of discrimination). Finally, 1% of 
workers report being discriminated against for reasons 
related to their religion, disability or sexual orientation.

Although these results involve relatively small proportions 
of workers, it should be highlighted that discrimination 
is a serious offence, with consequences not only for 
individuals but also for the entire organisation.

Social climate
Ensuring a good social climate and organisational justice, 
mutual trust between management and employees, 
recognition and good cooperation, is an important aspect 
of organisational management, as it results in positive 
outcomes both for the organisation and the workers. 
Failure to provide these aspects of the social climate may 
be harmful both for the organisation and the well-being of 
the workers, resulting in adverse outcomes such as poorer 
worker performance, lower organisational commitment 
and absenteeism.

In the sixth EWCS, employees were asked about different 
aspects of social climate at their workplaces; the key 
findings are summarised here.

  Almost three-quarters (73%) agree or strongly agree 

that employees are appreciated when they have done 
a good job.

  Some 73% agree or strongly agree that work is 

distributed fairly in their organisation.

  Some 71% agree or strongly agree that conflicts are 

resolved in a fair way.

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

  Around 82% agree or strongly agree that management 

trusts the employees to do their work well.

  Some 69% agree or strongly agree that, in general, 
employees trust management in their workplace.

  The vast majority of employees in the EU28 (89%) 

agrees or strongly agrees that there is good 
cooperation between them and their colleagues.

As shown in Figure 54, on most of the indicators, the level 
of agreement differs considerably between workplaces 
of different sizes. Employees from smaller workplaces, 
especially micro companies, are more inclined to agree 
that their workplace is characterised by the different 
aspects of good social climate. Only the dimension ‘good 
cooperation between you and your colleagues’ seems to be 
similar across all sizes of workplace.

All of the seven job quality indices – apart from the 
earnings index – are positively associated with a better 
social climate (Figure 55).

Employee representation
Eurofound’s online European Industrial Relations 
Dictionary defines employee representation as ‘the right of 
employees to seek a union or individual to represent them 

for the purpose of negotiating with management on such 
issues as wages, hours, benefits and working conditions’. 
This may encompass a range of issues concerning, for 
example, the terms and conditions of employment, 
working practices, conduct at work, disciplinary and 
grievance matters, as well as health and safety. Research 
shows that the existence of employee representation in 
the workplace can be a determining factor in improving 
working conditions (Eurofound, 2011c).

The EWCS analyses two types of employee representation in 
the respondent’s company or organisation: representation 
that is strictly related to health and safety matters – 
a health and safety delegate or committee – and other, 
broader, forms of representation such as trade unions, 
works councils or similar bodies. In addition, respondents 
are asked if there is a regular meeting in their workplace 
‘in which employees can express their views about what 
is happening in the organisation’. It must be highlighted 
that these variables should be interpreted very carefully, 
as they only signal the possibility for respondents’ views to 
be considered and expressed collectively (through a health 
and safety committee and/or trade union or works council) 
or individually, through meetings. They do not provide any 
information on the nature, extent, impact or efficiency of 
the functioning of these entities.

Figure 54: Proportion of employees reporting good social climate, by workplace size, EU28 (%)

In general, employees trust management

Good cooperation between you
and your colleagues

Work is distributed fairly

Conflicts are resolved in a fair way

Management trusts employees
to do their work well

Employees are appreciated when
they have done a good job

0 

25 

50 

75 

100 

Micro (1–9) 

SME (10–249) 

Large (250+) 

Figure 55: Association between job quality indices and social climate

Employees are
appreciated

Management
trusts
employees

Conflicts are
resolved
in a fair way

Fair work
distribution

Good cooperation Employees trust

management

Skills and discretion
Social environment
Physical environment
Work intensity (reversed)
Prospects
Working time quality
Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to Figure 32 for 
more details on the methodology used.

71

The Framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction 
of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and 
health of workers at work indicates that ‘the employer 
shall designate one or more workers to carry out activities 
related to the protection and prevention of occupational 
risk’ (Article 7). The Directive defines a workers’ 
representative with specific responsibility for the safety 
and health of workers as ‘any person elected, chosen 
or designated in accordance with national laws and/ or 
practices to represent workers where problems arise 
relating to the safety and health protection of workers at 
work’.

In the EU28, 58% of employees report the existence of 
a health and safety delegate or committee. The proportion 
is larger in large companies or organisations (83%). It varies 
with the sector of activity, ranging from 31% in agriculture 
to almost 79% in public administration (Figure 56).

In practice, the way this representation is organised 
varies significantly across the EU, ranging from individual 
delegates to committees composed either of employee 
representatives or jointly of representatives of employees 
and the employer. There are also different thresholds 
in terms of company or establishment size from which 

this representation can or must take place. According to 
information made available by the European Trade Union 
Institute, in some countries the minimum threshold from 
which a delegate should be elected is 5 employees (for 
example, Cyprus, Latvia, Sweden and Spain), while in 
others there is no minimum (Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia 
and the United Kingdom).13 In others, the threshold 
starts at 10 (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 
Malta and Romania), at 15 (Luxembourg and Italy), at 20 
(Germany and Finland), or even at 50 (Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Croatia, France, Hungary, Lithuania and the Netherlands).

Figure 57 shows how diverse the European situation 
is in relation to the presence of health and safety 
representatives at the workplace. The proportion of the 
workforce covered varies from 16% in Albania to 88% in 
Norway. Differences in countries should be considered 
in the context of provisions included in the national 
legislation applicable to each company (there are 
exceptions for some sectors; the public sector, for example, 
is often subject to different rules) but also the economic 
structure of the Member States, where there are significant 
variations in the proportions of organisations of different 
sizes in terms of the number of employees.

Figure 56: Employees reporting the existence of a health and safety delegate or committee, by sector and 
organisation size, EU28 (%)

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

Agriculture 

Industry 

Commerce and hospitality 
Construction 

Financial services 
Transport 
Public administration 

Education 

Other services 
Health 

13 

See http://www.worker-participation.eu 

72

Micro (1–9) 

SME (10–249) 

Large (250+) 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 57: Employees reporting the existence of a health and safety delegate or committee, by country (%)

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Norway 

EU28 
Malta 
France 
Ireland 
Finland 
Sweden 
Slovakia 
Belgium 
Germany 
Romania 
Denmark 
Netherlands 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 

Poland 
Estonia 

Spain 

Latvia 
Austria 
Czech Republic 

Italy 
Croatia 
Bulgaria 

Turkey 
Cyprus 
FYROM 
Hungary 
Slovenia 
Portugal 
Lithuania 
Switzerland 

Serbia 
Greece 
Albania 
Montenegro 

Information on health and safety risks

Under the EU Framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in 
the safety and health of workers at work, employers are obliged to inform and consult workers and to ensure that 
each worker receives adequate health and safety training. Information on health and safety is part of efficient risk 
prevention strategies – one of the three main challenges of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Strategic 
Framework 2014–2020 (European Commission, 2014b).

In 2015, 10% of workers in the EU reported being ‘not very well informed’ or ‘not at all well informed’ about health 
and safety risks at work, the same proportion as in 2010 – this group is labelled ‘not informed’. Some groups of 
workers are comparatively less informed than others: for example, those in elementary occupations (18% report not 
being informed) and employees with ‘other or no contract’ (20%) or with fixed-term contracts (15%). Other groups 
with high proportions of workers not being informed include those with a low level of education (19%) and those 
working for a company for less than one year (16%).

Of particular importance is the fact that the proportion of workers reporting that they are not well informed about 
health and safety risks in their job varies with the level of exposure to the different types of risks. As Figure 58 shows, 
the categories of workers most exposed to each type of risk also display larger proportions of individuals reporting 
that they are not informed about health and safety risks at work. This implies that it is those who most need the 
information (because they are more exposed to work-related risks) who are least likely to be reached by information 
about health and safety.

Figure 58: Lack of information on health and safety risks, by exposure to physical risk, EU28 (%)

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

No exposure 

Lowest exposure 

Second-lowest
exposure 

Second-greatest
exposure 

Greatest exposure 

Posture-related risks 

Biological and chemical risks

Ambient risks 

73

The percentage of workers not informed also varies according to the size of the workplace (Figure 59). While 14% of 
workers in very small establishments report not being well informed on their health and safety risks, this is reported 
by only 8% of workers in establishments with 500 employees or more. That difference might be partly explained by 
the fact that, in many Member States, small and micro companies are exempt from the obligation to set up a health 
and safety committee, or to have a delegate (Eurofound, 2010a).

Figure 59: Proportion of workers not informed about health and safety risks, by workplace size, EU28 (%)

15 

10 

5 

0 

2–4 

5–9 

10–49 

50–99 

100–249 

250–499 

500+ 

This association should be considered in the light of the REFIT (European Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and 
Performance Programme) debate, in which action is taken to make EU law simpler and easier to apply and to 
reduce regulatory costs – thereby contributing to a clear, stable and predictable regulatory framework supporting 
growth and jobs. REFIT foresees that some companies, under a certain size threshold, may be exempt from applying 
particular regulations. The findings reported here suggest possible negative consequences of exempting smaller 
companies from requirements to inform workers in relation to OSH.

Provision of information varies not only with company or workplace size: there is also a link to the presence of 
structures responsible for health and safety. Workers reporting the existence of an occupational safety and health 
delegate or committee in their organisation are almost two and a half times less likely to not be informed about the 
risks at the workplace: only 7% of workers in companies with a health and safety committee are not well informed, 
whereas for workers in companies without such a structure, the percentage of those not well informed increases to 
15%.

The data suggest that promoting the set-up and development of health and safety committees and/or having health 
and safety delegates in all companies might have a significant effect on the percentage of workers who are well 
informed about health and safety risks.

Apart from health and safety issues, there are many 
other issues about which workers may be represented by 
a person or group elected or designated for that purpose. 
These issues may include the terms and conditions of 
employment, working practices, conduct at work and 
many others.

In practice, representation takes many different forms 
across the EU Member States: employee representatives 
or delegates; trustees; works councils or local trade 
unions; shop stewards; or joint consultative committees. 
These entities may function differently in different 
systems, and different rules may be applicable according 
to circumstances such as the size of the company or 
establishment. The sixth edition of the EWCS asks – 
employees only – whether a trade union, works council or 
a similar committee representing employees exists in their 
company or organisation. In total, half of all employees in 
the EU28 said that some such body existed (Figure 60).

Formal employee representation can take the form of 
a trade union, works council or similar committee and/ 
or a health and safety committee or representative. The 
proportions of workers reporting the existence of some 
form of formal employee representation at their companies 
are smaller in agriculture, commerce and hospitality, 
construction and other services, as well as among workers 
in SMEs – and much smaller in micro companies (Figure 61).

In total, over one-third (37%) of the employees in the EU28 
has no formal employee representation. Of this group:

about 89% work in micro companies and SMEs

85% are in the private sector

  nearly 80% have achieved only a primary or secondary 

level of education

  over half (54%) are in the bottom 40% according to 

income

74

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
Figure 60: Employees reporting existence of trade union, works council or similar body, by country (%)

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

100

80

60

40

20

0

Sweden 

Norway 

Belgium 
Luxembourg 
Austria 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Slovenia 
Denmark 
France 

Spain 
Germany 

EU28 

United Kingdom 
Ireland 
Malta 

FYROM 
Montenegro 
Cyprus 
Switzerland 
Italy 
Serbia 
Czech Republic 
Slovakia 
Croatia 
Latvia 
Romania 

Greece 
Hungary 
Portugal 

Estonia 
Lithuania 
Bulgaria 

Albania 
Poland 

Turkey 

Figure 61: Formal employee representation, by sector and company size, EU28 (%)*

Other services 

Health 

Education 

Public administration 

Financial services 

Transport 

Commerce and hospitality 

Construction 

Industry 

Agriculture 

Micro (1–9) 

SME (10–249) 

Large (250+) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Note: * Formal employee representation can take the form of a trade union, works council or similar committee and/or a health and safety committee 
or representative.

  over half (52%) has a seniority of up to four years

  over one-third (35%) is aged under 35

about one-third (32%) has a contract other than an 
indefinite one.

In some Member States, the employee representative 
bodies may also have responsibility for health and safety 
issues at the workplace. Despite this, data from the EWCS 
suggest that across the board there is a strong positive 
relationship between the proportion of employees 
reporting the existence of employee representation and 
the proportion of employees reporting the existence 
of a health and safety delegate or committee: 87% of 
employees reporting employee representation also report 
having a health and safety delegate or committee. Plotting 
the affirmative responses to both questions by country 
highlights this relationship (Figure 62).

Respondents to the sixth EWCS were also asked whether 
regular meetings take place in which employees can 
express their views about what is happening in the 
organisation.

In the EU28, a total of 55% said that such meetings did 
take place; the proportions vary by country from 26% in 
Hungary to 78% in Sweden.

Figure 63 presents a breakdown of employee 
representation and voice by company size. Nearly half 
(43%) of employees report the existence of both forms of 
collective representation and the possibility to express 
their individual voice in regular meetings; conversely, over 
one-quarter (26%) report the existence of neither.

75

 
Figure 62: Existence of health and safety delegate committee and employee representation body, by country (%)

e
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
c
r
o
e
t
a
g
e
l
e
d
y
t
e
f
a
s
d
n
a
h
t
l
a
e
H

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 

10 

NO 

DK 

FI 

SE 

BE 

FR 

LU 

NL 

RO 

SK 

LV 

CZ 

CH 

UK 

IE 

EU28 
DE 

AT 

ES 

MT 

IT 

HR 

MK 

EL 

RS 

ME 

SI 

EE 

PL 

BG 

LT 

CY 

HU 

PT 

TR 

AL 

70 
20 
Trade union, works council or a similar committee representing employees

40 

50 

60 

30 

80 

90 

Figure 63: Representation and voice at the workplace, by company size, EU28 (%)

Representation

Voice

Micro (1–9)

SME (10–249)

Large (250+)

Regular meetings

No health and safety committee, trade union or works council

Regular meetings

18

No regular meetings

60

Health and safety committee or trade union or works council

Health and safety committee and trade union or works council

Regular meetings

No regular meetings

Regular meetings

No regular meetings

8

8

5

2

11

21

18

13

28

9

4

7

13

9

15

53

The proportions also vary extensively according to the 
size of the organisation in which individuals work (Figure 
63). Representation and voice are much less available if 
individuals work in micro organisations. In contrast, if 
they work in large organisations (with 250+ employees) or 
even SMEs (with 10–249 employees), it is much more likely 
that there is collective representation or the possibility to 
express views in a meeting, or both.

Not surprisingly, in light of different structures in terms of 
company or organisation size, the extent of representation 
and voice also vary significantly across sectors (Figure 64). 

Sectors with larger proportions of individuals working 
in larger organisations – such as public administration, 
health, education, financial services, industry and 
transport – display relatively larger proportions of 
workers reporting strong employee representation and 
the possibility to express views in regular meetings. In 
contrast, in sectors with a large prevalence of micro 
organisations – agriculture, other services, construction, 
and commerce and hospitality – more workers report the 
absence of representation and of the possibility to express 
their views.

76

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Figure 64: Representation and voice at the workplace, by sector, EU28 (%)

Agriculture

59

Industry

Construction

Commerce and hospitality

Transport

Financial services

Public administration

8

Education

Health

Other services

13

6

3

14

4

13

7

13

53

19

No 
representation, 
no voice

Some 
representation, 
no voice

Strong 
representation, 
no voice

No 
representation, 
voice

Some 
representation, 
voice

Strong 
representation, 
voice

Within each representation/voice category

Above average

Highest percentage

Below average

Lowest percentage

77

Social environment

While the social aspect of work is important for individuals – enabling them to meet other people, develop a network 
of colleagues and be integrated into a workplace – it can also bring risks due to adverse social behaviour, such as 
bullying/harassment.

In terms of the Social environment index (some dimensions are calculated for employees only), sectoral differences 
are moderate: the best quality social environment is reported in agriculture (a score of 81 out of 100) and financial 
services (80). Transport and health report the poorest environments (72 for both). The range between countries is 
somewhat bigger (14 points): the Netherlands and France have the lowest scores (both 72), consistent with the high 
levels of adverse social behaviour reported in these countries. The social environment is best in Bulgaria, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Portugal (all at 86).

Positive view of management: Employees in the EU28 seem to hold their managers in high regard. Some 89% 
feel that their supervisors respect them as a person. In addition, around 70% agree that their boss gets people to 
work together, provides useful feedback, helps get the job done, encourages and supports their development, and 
recognises their good work.

Sex of managers: Since 2000, the proportion of workers having a female boss has risen from one-quarter to one-
third. However, female managers continue to have a different profile of subordinates: they manage more female 
workers and younger people. Notably, countries differ. In Cyprus, Greece and Malta only one-quarter of workers have 
a female boss, while the figure in Sweden is 45%.

Differences are also stark in terms of occupations: professionals and service and sales workers more frequently have 
a female boss (around 45%). Conversely, the great majority (over 70%) of managers, agricultural workers, plant and 
machine operators, and craft workers have male bosses.

Help and support from colleagues: This is very widespread: 71% of workers in the EU28 state that their colleagues 
nearly always help and support them. On the other hand, 11% say they never or rarely get support from their 
colleagues. Part-time workers are somewhat more likely to say they rarely or never receive support than full-time 
workers. Workers at lower occupational levels receive substantially less support than those at higher levels. In terms of 
sectors, colleagues appear to deliver the greatest support in health, education, construction and public administration.

Help and support from managers: The extent reported is high, but less than that reported from colleagues: some 
58% of workers say that their manager helps and supports them – with just 19% stating that this is the case only 
rarely or even never.

Adverse social behaviour: Small, but still notable proportions of workers were on the receiving end of abusive 
behaviour in the workplace in the month prior to the survey: verbal abuse (12%), unwanted sexual attention (2%), 
humiliating behaviour (6%) and being threatened (4%). Women are much more likely to experience all of these than 
are men (with the exception of being threatened).

There are considerable differences in the citing of adverse social behaviour between the countries: the rate of citing 
of instances of such behaviour in the Netherlands is seven times that of Portugal (perhaps, in part due to cultural 
differences). Service and sales workers, largely a female occupation, are much more vulnerable to adverse social 
behaviour. And by sectors, workers in health are most vulnerable.

Discrimination: Younger workers, employees with non-permanent contracts, women in middle management, 
and workers having experienced restructuring or downsizing are most likely to experience discrimination. Age 
discrimination – against younger workers – is the most prevalent form.

Social climate: Failure to provide a beneficial social climate may be harmful both for the organisation and workers’ 
well-being. Findings from the survey are broadly positive: 82% feel their management trusts employees to do their 
work well, 73% of workers state that they feel they are appreciated when they have done a good job, while 69% feel 
that employees trust management in their workplace. And the vast majority (89%) feels there is good cooperation 
between them and their colleagues. Employees from the smallest workplaces (at most nine staff) give the best 
report of their social climate. With the exception of earnings, all the job quality indices are positively associated with 
a better social climate.

Provision of health and safety information: In some 58% of workplaces, there is a health and safety delegate or 
committee. However, in smaller organisations, it is much less likely that such a body exists: employees in only 19% 
of micro companies report that one exists, as against 83% in large organisations. And the picture also varies for 
sectors – only 31% in agriculture, as against almost 79% in public administration.

78

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

In 2015, some 11% of workers in the EU report being ‘not very well informed’ or ‘not at all well informed’ about health 
and safety risks at work. The findings show that the workers who are least informed are the most likely to be exposed 
to physical risks.

Formal employee representation body: Around two-thirds of employees in the EU28 say there is a trade union, 
works council or a similar committee and/or a health and safety delegate or committee in their workplace. This is less 
frequently the case in SMEs – considerably less in micro companies.

The corollary of this is that over one-third (37%) of employees in the EU28 do not have any formal system of 
employee representation. Of this group, the vast majority (89%) work in micro companies and SMEs; 85% are in the 
private sector; almost 80% have achieved only a primary or secondary level of education; about half (54%) are in 
the bottom 40% according to earnings; half (52%) has a seniority of less than four years; and one-third (32%) has 
a contract other than an indefinite one.

About a third of employees say that in their workplace there is a health and safety delegate/committee as well as 
a trade union/works council or similar employee representation committee, and there are regular meetings in which 
one can express one’s views. However, one-quarter of all employees say that none of these elements exists in their 
workplace.

2.6  Favouring skills use 
and discretion

‘Skills use and discretion’ is a dimension of work allowing 
workers to develop and grow through the experience of 
work; the concept comprises the skills required in the job as 
well as the autonomy given to the workers to apply them. 
The level of discretion (or ‘decision latitude’) is an important 
component of Karasek’s demand–control model (Karasek, 

1979). A low level of decision latitude has been associated with 
an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal 
disorders and mental health issues, for both men and women.

This section analyses the job quality index on skills, before 
examining its different components. This section also looks 
in more detail at the use of ICT at work and examines forms 
of work organisation such as team work and task rotation – 
all aspects that can contribute to the development of skills 
in the workplace.

Skills and discretion index

This index – which ranges from 0 to 100 – measures the skills required in the job. It also studies the opportunities 
workers may have to understand and influence the way work is performed, as well as the possibilities available to 
develop their job-related skills through training.

Building on 14 indicators, the index comprises the following dimensions: the skill content of the job (cognitive 
dimension), decision latitude, worker participation in the organisation, and training (Table 9). The level of education, 
as measured by the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) and the occupational group according 
to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) are also integrated into the index as external 
measures of the skill content of jobs.

The trend index – using the indicators that have been included in all previous waves of the EWCS – allows for an 
analysis over time. The Skills and discretion job quality index shows that skills levels have been increasing in the 
EU28 since 2005. At the same time, there has been a reduction of the skills gender gap, with women catching up 
(Figure 65). Younger age groups are also progressively closing the gap with older groups.

When comparing changes over time, it is important to note that the questions on organisational participation were 
introduced only in 2010 and are thus not included in the trend index.

When the full index is taken into account by including the organisational participation variables, the difference 
between the two countries at either end of the index amounts to 19 points (Figure 66).

As expected, skills use and discretion is higher for self-employed workers (71 for those with employees and 62 for 
those without employees) than for employees. It is 57 for those with an indefinite contract, 48 for those with a fixed-
term contract and 43 for workers with ‘no or other contract’. Full-time workers display higher skills use (58) and 
discretion than part-time workers (52). The index score increases with seniority. The range of differences is larger 
when occupations are examined: the score for managers (75) is twice as high as that for elementary occupations (37) 
and plant and machine operators (38).

79

Table 9: Skills and discretion index: proportion of workers in EU28 (%) and mean index scores (0–100), 2005–2015

2005

2010

2015

Proportion of workers in EU28 (%)

Included in 
trend version 
of the index

Cognitive 
dimension

Solving unforeseen problems

Carrying out complex tasks

Learning new things

Working with computers, smartphones and laptops, etc. (at 
least a quarter of the time)

Ability to apply your own ideas in work (‘sometimes’, ‘most of 
the time’ and ‘always’)

Ability to choose or change order of tasks

Ability to choose or change speed or rate of work

Decision latitude

Ability to choose or change methods of work

Having a say in choice of work colleagues (‘always’ or ‘most 
of the time’)

Consulted before objectives are set for own work (‘always’ or 
‘most of the time’)

Organisational 
participation

Involved in improving the work organisation or work 
processes of own department or organisation (‘always’ or 
‘most of the time’)

Training

Ability to influence decisions that are important for your 
work (‘always’ or ‘most of the time’)

Training paid for or provided by employer over the past 
12 months (or paid by oneself if self-employed)

On-the-job training over the past 12 months

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Skills and 
discretion index

Trend index score (maximum 100)

Full index score (maximum 100)

Figure 65: Skills and discretion index (trend), EU28

81

60

69

36

77

63

69

67

24

26

26

62

82

58

68

44

75

66

70

67

27

47

47

40

34

32

83

63

72

57

78

68

71

69

29

46

49

47

38

34

Mean index scores (0–100)

63

54

66

56

67 
66 

66

65 
63 

62 

2010

2015

Men

Women

EU28

63 
62 
61 

2005

80

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 66: Skills and discretion index, by country, EU28

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Montenegro 
Greece 
Albania 
Portugal 
Turkey 
Bulgaria 

Serbia 
Cyprus 

Poland 
Spain 
Germany 
Czech Republic 
Lithuania 
Romania 
Hungary 
Latvia 
FYROM 
Italy 
Croatia 
Slovakia 

Switzerland 
EU28 
Austria 

Netherlands 
United Kingdom 
Slovenia 
Ireland 
Belgium 
France 
Luxembourg 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Sweden 
Malta 

Norway 
Finland 

Cognitive dimension of work
Creative work and task variation can contribute to self- 
development at work; they are also key drivers of work 
motivation. In general, there is a high level of creativity 
and task variety associated with work in the EU28. This 
is indicated by the large proportion of workers reporting 
that their job involves solving unforeseen problems on 
their own or applying their own ideas in their work (Figure 
67). Moreover, a considerable proportion of workers say 
that their job involves learning new things and that they 
carry out complex tasks. However, the data also show that 
almost half of all workers report that their job involves 
monotonous and/or repetitive tasks – in other words, their 
jobs have little task variation. The changes over time in all 
these indicators are limited.

The lowest levels of creativity at work and task variety are 
reported by workers in elementary occupations and plant 
and machine operators, by workers in a part-time or fixed- 
term contract and by younger workers.

Decision latitude
Decision latitude, or discretion, is fundamental for 
workers, allowing them to deal with the demands of their 
job – particularly when those demands are considerable. 
Decision latitude allows workers to work in the way that 
best suits them and is safest for them. Lack of such latitude 
can put a strain on workers’ health and well-being.

Between 2005 and 2015, the proportion of workers 
experiencing decision latitude increased, as the following 
details show.

The ability to change the order of tasks has increased by 
five percentage points, the figure for women being three 
percentage points higher than for men.

Having a say in the choice of working colleagues: 
(‘always’ or ‘most of the time’) has increased from 24% to 
29%, but has increased more for women (six percentage 
points more to 25%) than for men (three percentage points 
more to 32%), hence resulting in a narrower gender gap.

Figure 67: Selected indicators for use of creativity and task variety, EU28 (%)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Non-monotonous
tasks 

Non-repetitive
tasks

Complex tasks 

Learning new
things 

Applying own ideas  Solving unforeseen

problems 

2005 

2010 

2015 

81

The ability to choose or change the speed or rate of 
work as well as the ability to change or choose methods 
of work have increased by two points in the 10-year period 
(from 69% to 71% and 67% to 69%, respectively).

Workers’ discretion to change some aspects of work 
is increasing, but not for all workers. Underlying the 
employment relationship is the exchange of subordination 
in return for a wage, and this is visible in the data on 
discretion: latitude is greater among the self-employed, 
particularly those with employees (Figure 68). Decision 
latitude is also higher in micro and small companies. 
Managers, professionals and agricultural workers report 
higher levels of discretion at work.

Participation in the organisation
Participation means the possibilities that workers may 
have to take part in organisational decisions that affect 
their work – specifically, the capacity of workers to 
influence decisions as individuals rather than through 

their representatives. The involvement of workers in 
decisions about their immediate tasks has been discussed 
in the previous section (‘Decision latitude’); this section 
focuses on the involvement of workers in changes affecting 
work organisation. About half of all workers in the EU are 
involved in decisions that directly affect their work: 46% 
in the EU28 are consulted (always or most of the time) 
before objectives are set for their work while 49% are 
involved (always or most of the time) in improving the 
work organisation or work processes of their department 
or organisation. In addition, some 47% report they can 
influence decisions that are important for their work – 
always or most of the time.

Differences between occupations are very substantial: 
about one-third of plant and machine operators and 
elementary occupations are involved (‘always’ or ‘most of 
the time’) in decisions that affect their work while this is 
the case for eight out of 10 managers (Figure 69).

Figure 68: Discretion at work, by company size, employment status and occupation (%)

Can change
speed of work

Can change order
of tasks

Can change
methods of work

Have say in
choice of
colleagues

Micro (1–9)

SME (10–249)

Large (250+)

Self-employed with employees

Self-employed without employees

Employee, indefinite contract

Employee, fixed-term contract

Employee, other contract or none

Managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

Elementary occupations

77

68

67

89

89

69

64

65

86

78

75

74

67

81

72

49

63

74

63

67

91

87

66

58

58

90

79

76

72

61

77

61

38

59

75

67

65

91

88

68

58

61

89

81

75

69

64

77

67

43

61

41

24

20

92

60

25

18

21

64

31

28

20

26

54

32

19

18

82

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Figure 69: Involvement in decisions affecting work, by occupation (%)

Managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

Elementary occupations

Involved in
improving
the work

81

59

52

43

45

46

66

31

31

Consulted before
personal objectives
are set

Influence
important
decisions

70

78

58

49

43

41

44

51

32

33

57

53

36

41

70

48

29

33

Access to training
Lifelong learning has been an objective of European policy 
since the 1990s. The Commission’s 1993 White Paper on 
‘Growth, competitiveness, and employment’ highlighted 
the importance of continuous training, calling it a ‘catalyst 
for a changing society’ (European Commission, 1993). 
The EWCS data confirm that access to training has been 
increasing over time: for example, the proportion of 
workers who report having received training paid for by 
their employer (or by themselves if self-employed) rose 
from 26% in 2005 to 38% in 2015.

The sixth edition of the EWCS provides more detailed 
information than past editions on the different forms of 
training in which workers have participated to improve 
their skills.

41% of employees report that their employer paid 
for or provided training. In the majority of cases, the 
duration was less than five working days: 14% of those 
who received training reported one day of training 
in the previous 12 months, 30% reported between 
two and three days and 24% reported between four 
and five days. Some 32% attended longer periods in 
training.

34% of all workers in the EU28 have participated in 
on-the-job training (training given by co-workers or 
supervisors).

  A small minority – 8% – of all workers paid for training 
themselves (6% of employees and 23% of the self-
employed).

15% report having received some other training.

10% of employees report not having been granted the 
training they requested.

Workers appreciate training for its direct benefit in 
improving their job, and for its potential benefits for job 
security and employability. Focusing on workers whose 
employer paid for or provided training, the following 
findings emerge.

42% strongly agree that training has helped improve 
the way they work; a further 41% agree with this 
statement.

  Under one-third (29%) strongly agree that their job is 
more secure because of their training; a further 31% 
agree with the statement.

29% strongly agree that their prospects for future 
employment are better because of the training.

The picture of access to training varies substantially across 
the surveyed countries (Figure 70). What is also evident is 
the variation in the extent to which workers were denied 
the training they requested and the pattern between the 
two: in countries with high levels of provided training, the 
proportion of workers who requested training but were not 
provided with it is higher than in countries with a limited 
provision of training. Although not a consistent pattern, 
it does show that in countries where training is more 
common, it is also more common for a worker to ask their 
employer if they can pursue training.

83

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 70: Access to employer-provided training, by country (% of employees)

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

United Kingdom 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Luxembourg 
Austria 
Slovenia 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Ireland 
Estonia 
Norway 
Czech Republic 
Slovakia 

France 

Malta 

EU28 
Spain 
Switzerland 
Denmark 
Lithuania 
Poland 

Latvia 

Hungary 
Italy 
Croatia 
Portugal 

Serbia 

FYROM 
Turkey 
Cyprus 
Greece 
Montenegro 
Bulgaria 
Albania 
Romania 

Underwent training provided by employer 

Did not get training but asked employer for it 

Figure 71: Access to training by type of contract, education level and occupation – employees, EU28 (%)

Did not have training but asked for it 

Five days or fewer of training

Had training provided by employer 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Other contract or none 
Fixed-term contract 
Indefinite contract 

Tertiary education 
Secondary education 
Primary education 

Professionals 
Managers 

Clerks 

Agricultural workers 
Service and sales workers 
Craft workers 
Technicians 
Plant and machine operators 
Elementary occupations 

The data highlight substantial inequalities in the access to 
training. Of particular concern is the fact that workers who 
might need training the most have the least access to it: 
workers in lower-level occupations and with lower levels of 
education, and those on non-indefinite contracts or part- 
time contracts.

In general, groups who report less access to training also 
report a shorter duration of training. This is the case for 
people holding part-time contracts, workers with low 
levels of education and in occupations requiring fewer 
qualifications (Figure 71).

Use of machinery and ICT at work
The EWCS includes some questions that can be used as 
proxies for the use of specific technologies by workers. The 
first indicator is being ‘exposed to vibrations from hand- 
tools or machinery’; this refers to workers using standard 
tools or machinery – for example, a pneumatic drill.

The second indicator is ‘pace of work dependent on the 
automatic speed of a machine or movement of a product’, 
which is typical of assembly lines in industry, for example. 
These indicators can be considered as proxies for workers 
working with more traditional technologies. The third 
indicator refers to newer technologies, more specifically 
to information and communication technologies (ICT). It is 
based on responses to the question: ‘Does your main paid job 
involve working with computers, laptops, smartphones, etc.?’

The overall trend from 2000 to 2015 is of a slow but 
continuous decline in using hand tools or machinery. 
Also visible is a long trend of a decreasing proportion of 
respondents working in assembly lines or other automatic 
systems.

By sector, the highest proportions of workers use 
hand tools or machinery in construction, industry and 
agriculture (Figure 72). Industry is the sector with the most 

84

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 72: Use of selected types of technologies, by sector, EU28 (%)

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Agriculture 

Industry 

Construction 

Commerce and hospitality 

Transport 

Financial services 

Public administration 

Education 

Health 

Other services 

EU28 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Pace of work dependent
on automatic machine 

Exposed to vibrations
at least ¼ of time 

Working with computers, smartphones
and laptops at least ¼ of time 

workers for whom their pace of work is dependent on 
the speed of an automatic system. The use of ICT is most 
widespread in the service sectors – and of these, most 
widespread in financial services.

In terms of occupations, agricultural workers, those in 
elementary occupations, plant and machine operators 
and craft workers make higher-than-average use of 
automatic systems that determine the pace of work, 
and of hand tools and machinery. However, tools and 
machines are used more by craft workers, while the use of 
automatic machines determining the pace of work is more 
common among plant and machine operators. Managers, 
professionals and technicians are most likely to use ICT.

Digital technology is characterised by its greater potential 
for storing, transmitting and manipulating information. ICT 
increases the speed and ease with which information can 
be gathered, processed, analysed, and shared, fostering 
a greater volume of mediated communications. These 
changes may bring about a blurring of boundaries between 
different dimensions of work and between work and life.

The penetration of digital technology is spreading, the 
number of workers using ICT devices increasing between 
2005 and 2015.14

In 2010, some 26% of workers reported a high intensity 
of ICT use at work; in 2015, that figure had risen to 37%.15 
Conversely, over the same period, the proportion reporting 
a low intensity of ICT use, or none, declined from 56% to 
43%. The extent of a medium intensity has remained fairly 
stable over time (Figure 73). It should be noted that there 
was a break introduced in the trend in 2015, new devices 
like smartphones being added to address technological 
changes in recent years. Nevertheless, the figures show 
a similar trend over 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, although 
with a larger increase more recently.

Figure 73: Use of ICT at work – proportion of 
workers, by intensity of use, EU28, 2005–2015 (%)

64 

15 

21 

56 

18 

26 

43 

Low 

20

37 

Medium 

High 

2005
Use of 
computer,
network or
mainframe 

2010
Use of
computer,
network or
mainframe 

2015
Use of
computer,
laptop,
smartphone 

The intensity of workers’ use of these technologies varies. 
Figure 74 shows the proportion of each occupational group 
that uses ICT with a high intensity, a medium intensity or 
a low intensity. In addition, it shows the trend in these figures 
from 2010 to 2015. Most agricultural workers, craft workers, 
plant and machine operators, service and sales workers 
and those in elementary occupations either never or almost 
never use ICT – resulting in a substantial absolute number of 
workers who make little use of ICT (low intensity). Managers, 
professionals, technicians and clerks largely use ICT at a high 
level of intensity. Figure 74 also shows that between 2010 
and 2015 there was an increase in the use of ICT by those 
occupations that were already using ICT more intensely and 
a decrease for those who were not using it intensely.

14 

15 

The question in the sixth EWCS was slightly changed to reflect the increasing use of ICT devices such as laptops and smartphones, as well as computers.

‘High intensity’ = using ICT at least three-quarters of the time; ‘medium intensity’ = half or one-quarter of the time; ‘low intensity’ = almost never, or never.

85

These figures suggest that, in the near future, a large 
proportion of workers who rarely or never use ICT will 
coexist with an increasing number of workers using ICT at 
high intensity. These two groups will have very different 
experiences of work with potentially profound impacts on 
career development, occupational mobility and working 
life.

Drawing from analysis of the previous EWCS (Eurofound 
2012a), a group of workers has been identified who work 
using ICT outside the employer’s premises (at home, in 
their car, in a client’s premises or in a public space). The 
group is defined as those using ICT at least three-quarters 
of the time outside the employer’s premises – either daily 
or several times a week. Referred to here as ICT-mobile 
workers, the group is highly heterogeneous: it is therefore 
important to differentiate between the genuine mobile 
workers from those who in reality work mainly from home 
(and are referred to here as teleworkers). Self-employed 
workers who always work at home are excluded from this 
analysis.

Around 9% of workers in the EU use ICT outside of the 
employer’s premises: 2% telework mainly from home and 
7% are exclusively ICT-mobile workers (Figure 75). The 
proportion of ICT-mobile workers is highest in the financial 
services sector; these are mainly at higher occupational 
levels (managers, professionals and technicians). Denmark, 
the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg have the highest 
proportions of ICT-mobile workers and teleworkers.

The working conditions of these workers may differ from 
those of other workers. For example, some types of 
working time flexibility (for example, the choice of fixed 
schedules, flexitime and total working time autonomy) are 
more frequently available for ICT-mobile workers (67% of 
whom have this sort of flexibility) and teleworkers (74%); 
for other workers, the figure is 41%. However, discussion 
about the effects of telework and ICT-mobile work mainly 
concerns work–life balance. The EWCS shows that 23% of 
ICT-mobile workers report having a poor work–life balance, 
as against only 18% of the rest of the workforce. This could 
be partially explained by the fact that a larger proportion 

Figure 74: Percentage of workers working with ICT, by occupation and intensity of use, 2010–2015

Managers 

Professionals 

Technicians 

Clerks 

Service and sales workers 

Agricultural workers 

Craft workers 

Plant and machine operators 

Elementary occupations 

EU28 

Managers 

Professionals 

Technicians 

Clerks 

Service and sales workers 

Agricultural workers 

Craft workers 

Plant and machine operators 

Elementary occupations 

EU28 

Managers 

Professionals 

Technicians 

Clerks 

Service and sales workers 

Agricultural workers 

Craft workers 

Plant and machine operators 

Elementary occupations 

EU28 

h
g
i
H

i

m
u
d
e
M

w
o
L

86

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

2010 

2015 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
 
Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Figure 75: ICT-mobile workers and teleworkers by sector and occupation, employees only (EU28)

Managers 
Professionals 
Technicians 
Clerks 
Craft workers 
Service and sales workers 
Plant and machine operators 
Agricultural workers 

Elementary occupations 

2 

5 
4 
4 
4 
4 

10 

12 
2 

0 

21 

5 

9 

2 

14 

11 

13 

3 

4 

2 

3 

9 

12 

1 

Financial services 
Other services 
Public administration 
Education 
Transport 
Construction 
Health 
Commerce and hospitality 
Industry 
Agriculture 

6 
6 
5 

4 
4 

EU28 

7 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

2 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

ICT-mobile worker 

Teleworker 

of ICT-mobile workers work more than 48 hours per week 
(26% as against 14%). Overall, according to the job quality 
indices, ICT-mobile workers and teleworkers experience 
greater work intensity but more autonomy at work and 
better career prospects and higher income.

Teamwork
Apart from the indicators contained in the job quality index 
on Skills and discretion, there are other ways in which 
workers can be involved in decisions affecting their work: 
for example, through teamwork. This section looks at 
incidence of teamwork, examines some of the forms it can 
take, and describes workers’ experience of it.

More than half of all employees in the EU28 work in a team 
that has common tasks and can plan its work. The incidence 
of teamwork varies considerably across countries, from 
less than 40% in Albania, Turkey and Italy to around 70% in 
Sweden, the United Kingdom, Norway and Malta. Men and 
women work in teams to an equal extent; however, older 
workers are less likely to do so than younger workers. In 
terms of occupation, managers, professionals and technicians 
practise it the most (60% or more working in teams); workers 
in elementary occupations, agricultural workers and plant and 
machine operators practise it the least. By sector, workers in 
the health sector report it the most (69%).

Three-quarters of workers practising teamwork in 
the EU28 do so always in the same team or group. The 
remaining individuals belong to several teams or groups, 
characteristic of the ‘matrix’ type of organisational 
structure – in which individuals may have more than 
one reporting line. The matrix is practised more in 
Norway (where 51% of employees report working in 
such a structure), Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and 
Denmark; it is least practised in Albania and Bulgaria 
(15% or fewer). By occupation, nearly one-third of 
professionals work in a matrix structure, and by sector, 
over one-third of employees in health practice do so.

Teams can be autonomous, deciding on the division of 
tasks, who will head the team and its timetable. Such 
autonomous types of teams have been recognised for 
their potential in improving organisational performance, 
using better the tacit knowledge of employees, and 
improving employees’ communication with actors outside 
their group. This way of organising work gives employees 
a lot of autonomy and wide access to resources in their 
work. Figure 76 presents an overview of the incidence of 
teamwork and teamwork autonomy.

87

Figure 76: Teamwork and teamwork autonomy in the 
EU28 (employees only, %)

Full autonomy 

7 

3 

Some autonomy 

22 

7 

No autonomy 

15 

5 

No teamwork 

41 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

Single teams 

Several teams 

Members of the team decide on the division of tasks in 
only a small majority (57%) of cases. There are substantial 
country differences, the figure being 70% or more in 
Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. 
By occupation, this freedom to decide is greatest for 
professionals (64% being able to do so) and agricultural 
workers (66%). By sector, it is greatest in education, 
agriculture and health (all 65%); it is lowest in transport 
(43%).

Team members decide the head of the team in 28% 
of the teams – over 40% in Sweden, Norway, Finland, 
Romania and Switzerland. Differences in terms of 
occupation and sector are noticeable.

Members can decide the timetable of the work in 42% of 
cases in Europe; more than half of the workforce involved 
in teamwork can decide on the timetable in Denmark, 
Serbia, Montenegro, Finland, Austria, Norway, Switzerland, 
the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.

Teamwork: a double-edged sword

For employees, teamwork is associated with both positive and negative aspects of work. Figure 77 shows that 
teamwork is associated with an increased likelihood of being able to learn new things and apply one’s own ideas in 
work, as well as obtain more help and support from colleagues.

Workers in autonomous teams are more likely to be learning new things; moreover, workers in matrix-type 
organisations are more likely to be learning new things than workers in single teams. Workers are more likely to be 
applying their own ideas in work when they work in teams, except in cases where teams have no autonomy. (Working 
in several teams or in a single team is not relevant in this respect.) Another positive association of teamwork is with 
support from colleagues. As employees need to rely on each other more if teams are more autonomous, support 
increases with team autonomy. Employees in single teams report they have more support from colleagues than 
employees working in matrix organisations.

The downside of teamwork is more intense work, as well as an increased likelihood of being in emotionally disturbing 
situations or being confronted with adverse social behaviour. The association is stronger for employees working 
in several teams than for workers in single teams. Encountering adverse social behaviour is no more likely for 
employees in single teams than for employees in multiple teams. There is no association between autonomy and 
work intensity, but workers in more autonomous teams are more likely to be in emotionally disturbing situations or 
be confronted with adverse social behaviour.

Figure 77: Positive and negative associations with teamwork, EU28 (employees only)

Learning
new things

Apply own ideas 
in  work

Help and support Work intensity

Emotionally
disturbing
situations

Adverse social
behaviour

Autonomy
None
Some
Full
None
Some
Full

e
l
g
n

i

S

l
a
r
e
v
e
S

s
m
a
e
t

s
m
a
e
t

Note: The figure shows the coefficients of teamwork variables from regressions controlled for gender, country, age, sector, workplace size and 
occupation, compared with employees who do not work in teams. Blue bars represent associations favourable to workers and orange bars 
represent unfavourable associations.

88

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportTask rotation

The original motivation for introducing task rotation was 
to permit workers a faster recovery from demanding 
tasks and reduce the risk of errors or injury (and hence 
enable higher productivity). Originally begun in manual 
work settings, this practice has now spread to other 
types of work. In service work situations, it is argued that 
a workforce trained to carry out different tasks can be 
more easily – flexibly – allocated where customer needs 
dictate.

Task rotation is practised by nearly half of all workers 
(45%) in the EU28, a proportion not much changed since 
2005. However, there is considerable country variation. 
Task rotation is most widely practised in Denmark, 77% 
of employees reporting it. High percentages are also 
reported in Slovenia (72%) and the Netherlands (64%). 
This contrasts with Hungary, where only 26% of employees 
report practising task rotation, followed by Italy (28%), 
Turkey (29%) and Latvia (32%).

Task rotation is most frequently practised by younger 
workers: 52% of those aged under 35 do it, compared to 
only 39% of those aged 50 or over. By occupation, service 
and sales employees practise it the most (53%), and 
employees in elementary occupations the least (37%). By 
sector, employees in health report the highest incidence 
(61%).

Task rotation can be organised in different ways: the tasks 
to be rotated may or may not require different skills from 
workers and the level of centralisation may be different. 

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Task rotation requires different skills in 78% of cases. For 
two-thirds of the workers who do practise task rotation, 
management decides on the division of the tasks. For the 
remaining one-third, those practising it decide on the task 
division. The combination of these dimensions allows the 
identification of four types of task rotation (Table 10). This 
then enables a picture to be drawn of the incidence of 
these four types (Figure 78).

Figure 78: Task rotation types, EU28 (%)

12 

23 

3 

7 

55 

No task rotation 

Management-controlled fixed-task rotation 

Autonomous fixed-task rotation 

Management-controlled multitasking 

Autonomous multitasking 

Table 10: Types of task rotation

Tasks rotated do not require different skills Management controlled fixed task rotation

Autonomous fixed task rotation

Tasks rotated require different skills

Management controlled multitasking

Autonomous multitasking

Management decides  
on task division

Division of tasks is decided by the people 
who are rotating task

89

Skills and discretion

The Skills and discretion index score has been increasing in the EU28 since 2005, rising more for women (and 
hence reducing the gender gap). Similarly, younger age groups are closing the gap with older groups. The difference 
in the index scores for the countries surveyed is large. Between the two ends of the scale, it is 19 points. The index 
is higher for self-employed workers than for employees and full-time workers have a somewhat higher score than 
those working part-time. The differences between occupations are larger, the score for managers being twice that for 
elementary occupations and plant and machine operators.

Cognitive dimension of work

For 83% of workers, their job involves solving unforeseen problems on their own and applying their own ideas. 
A smaller though considerable proportion of workers learn new things on the job and carry out complex tasks. 
However, almost half the workforce performs monotonous or repetitive tasks, and there has been little change 
in these indicators over time. The lowest levels of creativity at work and task variety are reported by elementary 
workers and plant and machine operators, workers in a part-time or fixed-term contract, and younger workers.

Decision latitude

Between 2005 and 2015, the proportion of workers experiencing decision latitude increased. There is greater scope 
for decision latitude among the self-employed, particularly those with employees, among workers in micro and small 
companies and – in terms of occupations – among managers, professionals and agricultural workers.

Organisational participation

Employees may have scope to take part in organisational decisions that affect their work – as individuals rather 
than through their representatives. Nearly half the workers in the EU are involved in decisions that directly affect 
their work. Differences between occupations are substantial: about 30% of plant workers and those in elementary 
occupations are involved in decisions that affect their work, while for managers the figure is almost 80%.

Access to training

Access to training has been increasing over time: the proportion of workers who had training paid for by their 
employer rose from 26% to 38% in the period 2005–2015. Training brings a sense of personal benefit: over 80% of 
employees feel that training has improved the way they work and around 60% believe that their prospects for future 
employment are better because of the training. However, the workers who need training the most have the least 
chance of receiving it from their employer: these are workers with low levels of skills and level of education, as well as 
those in non-permanent or part-time contracts.

Use of technology at work

The number of workers using ICT has increased. For instance, the extent of its use at a high level of intensity rose 
from 26% to 37% between 2010 and 2015. However, a large minority of the workforce rarely or never uses ICT. The 
use of ICT is more widespread in the service sectors, mainly in financial services, and in terms of occupation among 
managers, professionals and technicians.

Around 2% of employees telework mainly from home, while 7% are exclusively so-called ‘ICT-mobile workers’: 
they work in a range of external locations. More ICT-mobile workers and teleworkers are found in the financial and 
services sectors – mainly managers, professionals and technicians. The countries with the highest proportions of 
ICT-mobile workers and teleworkers are Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg.

Poor work–life balance is reported by 23% of ICT mobile workers, as against 18% for other workers; in part due to the 
longer hours they work. As a group, ICT-mobile workers and teleworkers have greater autonomy at work and better 
career prospects.

Teamwork

Teamwork is another way in which people can be involved in decisions affecting their work. Managers, professionals 
and technicians practise it the most (roughly 60% work in teams); agricultural workers, elementary occupations and 
plant and machine operators, the least. Workers in the health sector report it the most (69% doing so).

90

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

2.7  Guaranteeing prospects
‘Prospects’ relates to those aspects of the job that 
contribute to a person’s need for employment – both the 
material necessity for an income and the psychological 
need associated with a person’s self-esteem and identity. 
The concept of prospects includes job security and the 
prospect of career advancement. The inverse of job 
security – job insecurity – is recognised as a significant 
cause of stress (see, for example, Green, 2015); when 
prolonged, it can have damaging effects on people’s career 
paths and health and well-being.

At the same time, change is a permanent feature of today’s 
workplaces as organisations respond to changed economic 
circumstances, explore new markets and clients and 

adopt new technologies or production models. Hence, 
the sixth EWCS includes questions that address workers’ 
experiences of restructuring or reorganisation (in terms 
of how it has affected their work), changes in the volume 
of employment at the workplace, changes in the number 
of hours worked, changes in personal income, and change 
regarding workers’ influence over the work.

Downsizing, for example, has been associated with 
negative effects on health and is a risk factor for those who 
retain their jobs (Westgaard and Winkel, 2011). A recent 
systematic review of longitudinal studies on the impact 
of restructuring on employee well-being concluded that 
restructuring events (whether with staff reductions or not) 
have a negative impact on the well-being of employees (de 
Jong et al, 2016).

Prospects index

The Prospects index measures the continuity of employment as assessed through a person’s employment status 
and type of contract, job security, and career prospects (Table 11). Job prospects are different from employment 
security, the latter dependent not only on the features of the current job, but also on the individual’s own qualities 
and on the labour market environment.

The different employment statuses – such as indefinite contract, fixed-term contract and self-employment – that 
form part of the index are examined in more detail in Chapter 1.

Figure 79 shows the Prospects index score across countries. Denmark, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom are the 
EU Member States with the highest score for Prospects; Greece, Cyprus and Italy have the lowest scores.

In terms of occupations, agricultural workers (53 points) and elementary occupations (54 points) score lowest on the 
index while technicians, professionals (both 68) and managers (69) score highest. By sector, the highest score is in 
financial services (71 points) and the lowest is in agriculture (53).

One noteworthy detail is that part-time workers score seven points below full-time workers in the Prospects index: 
59 as against 66.

Table 11: Prospects index: proportion of workers in EU28 (%) and mean index scores (0–100), 2005–2015

Employment  
status

(Question on employment status 
was modified in 2015)

What kind of employment 
contract do you have in your 
main job?

Self-employed with employees

Self-employed without employees

Employee, indefinite contract

Employee, fixed-term and temporary 
employment agency contract

Employee, other or no contract

Career  
prospects

My job offers good prospects for career advancement (strongly agree and 
tend to agree)

Job security

I might lose my job in the next six months (strongly agree and tend to agree)

Downsizing

During the last three years (or last year according to seniority in the company), 
has the number of employees at your workplace increased, stayed the same 
or decreased?

Prospects index

2005

2010

2015

Proportion of workers in EU28 (%)

5

12

64

10

9

31

14

4

11

67

10

7

32

16

5

10

67

10

8

39

16

22

Mean index score (0–100)

63

91

Figure 79: Prospects index, by country

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

United Kingdom 
Luxembourg 
Denmark 
Switzerland 
Norway 

Sweden 
Belgium 
Germany 
Romania 
Malta 

Slovakia 
Finland 

Estonia 

France 

FYROM 

Austria 
Ireland 
Netherlands 
Czech Republic 
Hungary 
Turkey 
Slovenia 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Bulgaria 
EU28 

Montenegro 
Albania 
Serbia 
Portugal 
Spain 
Croatia 
Poland 

Cyprus 
Italy 
Greece 

Career prospects
Almost four out of 10 workers (39%) agree with the 
statement that their job offers good prospects for career 
advancement – seven percentage points more than in 2010 
(32%) and eight more than in 2005 (31%). In contrast, 38% 
of workers disagree with this statement in 2015.

As Figure 80 illustrates, the proportion of workers who feel 
their job offers good prospects for career advancement is 
over 45% in Malta, Turkey, Denmark, the United Kingdom, 
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ireland, 
Romania and Luxembourg. In contrast, only one-third 
or fewer feel this in Albania, Greece, Germany, Slovakia, 
Serbia, Lithuania and Italy.

The gender differences are small; still, however, more men 
than women agree that their job offers good prospects 
(40% as against 37%). Conversely, more women than 
men disagree that their job offers good prospects: 
41% compared with 35%. Gender differences are more 
pronounced among older cohorts; the higher proportion of 
older workers – particularly older women – reporting poor 
prospects (50% of those aged 50 and over) is of concern in 
the context of very high unemployment levels for older and 
younger workers and also at a time when policymakers are 
looking for ways to extend working life.

There are important differences in terms of sectors. 
Financial services has the largest proportion of workers 
stating they have good career prospects (56%) while 
transport (33%) and agriculture (30%) have the smallest 

Figure 80: Good prospects for career advancement, by country (%)

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

Disagree 

Neither
agree nor
disagree 

Agree 

0% 

Montenegro 
Lithuania 
Serbia 
Slovakia 
Sweden 
Austria 
Germany 
Albania 
Greece 
Croatia 
Portugal 
Czech Republic 
EU28 
Belgium 
Cyprus 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Norway 
Slovenia 
Switzerland 
United Kingdom 
Ireland 
Romania 
Netherlands 
Malta 
Turkey 
Luxembourg 
Denmark 
FYROM 
Estonia 
Latvia 
Finland 
Poland 
Bulgaria 
Hungary 

Note: The ‘Agree’ category combines ‘strongly agree’ and ‘tend to agree’. The ‘Disagree’ category, similarly, combines ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘tend to disagree’.

92

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 81: Good prospects for career advancement, by occupation, EU28 (%)

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Managers 

Professionals 

Technicians 

Clerks 

Craft workers 

Service and sales workers 

Agricultural workers 

Plant and machine operators 

Elementary occupations 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Agree 

Neither agree nor disagree 

Disagree 

Note: The ‘Agree’ category combines ‘strongly agree’ and ‘tend to agree’. The ‘Disagree’ category, similarly, combines ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘tend to 
disagree’.

proportions. Public administration and other services are 
above average on this dimension (both 42%) but transport 
(33%) and commerce and hospitality (36%) are below 
average. 

In terms of occupations, a majority of managers agree 
with the statement that their job offers good prospects for 
career development. However, most elementary workers 
and plant and machine operators disagree (Figure 81).

Job security and employability
Self-reported job insecurity has been interpreted as a good 
predictor of future unemployment (Campbell et al, 2007, 
Stephens, 2004, Dickerson and Green, 2009, Green, 2015). 
The survey asked respondents whether they felt they might 
lose their job in the coming six months; the replies ‘tend 
to agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ were considered to indicate 
perceived job insecurity.

The level of job security in the EU28, according to this 
measure, remained unchanged between 2010 and 2015: some 
69% of workers disagreed with the statement that they might 
lose their job in the next six months. Conversely, 16% in 2015 
and 2010 feel they might lose their job in the next six months.

However, when asked if it would be easy to find a job 
with a similar salary if they were to quit their current 
job (indicating their perceived employability), 37% of 
respondents agree with this statement in 2015. This 
represents an increase of five percentage points between 
2010 and 2015.

While older workers report less job insecurity than younger 
workers, their perceived level of employability is far lower 
(Figure 82).

Figure 82: Job security and employability, by age 
group, EU28 (%)

42

15

57

14

35–49 years 

50 years + 

30

19

Under
35 years 

Might lose job in next six months 

Not easy to find similar job 

Note: ‘I might lose my job in the next 6 months’ (in blue) combines 
strongly agree and tend to agree. ‘If I were to lose or quit my current 
job, it would be easy for me to find a job of similar salary’ (in orange) 
combines strongly disagree and tend to disagree.

In terms of occupations, workers in elementary 
occupations report the highest level of job insecurity and 
also relatively low employability. At the other end of the 
spectrum, professionals, managers and technicians feel 
themselves to be more secure and more employable.

Workers who feel insecure in their jobs tend to display low 
scores across several aspects of working conditions. In 
general, they are less likely to have a good work–life balance, 
to have the opportunity to learn new things in the job or 
to have undergone training provided by their employer. As 
Table 12 shows, they are much less likely to feel they will 

93

be able to continue their job to the age of 60 than other 
workers. In addition, they are much more likely to feel that 
work affects their health negatively and to have experienced 
adverse social behaviour. They are more than twice as likely 
to report ‘poor well-being’ than other workers (see section 
3.3 ‘Maintaining and promoting health and well-being’ in 
Chapter 3). It is important to underline that 29% of those 
reporting job insecurity are part-time workers.

Associations also exist between low employability and 
poor scores for some aspects of working conditions; 
however, as Table 12 shows, the associations generally 
are not as strong as for job insecurity. Disagreeing with 
the statement that it would be easy to find a job with 
a similar salary seems to be linked to feeling that health 
and safety is at risk because of work, reporting that work 
affects health negatively and reporting poor well-being. 
Employability does not seem to be strongly linked to 
having a good balance between working hours and family 
and social commitments, being able to learn new things in 
the job, or being subject to adverse social behaviour.

Overall, what is disturbing is the fact that 44% of the 
workers who feel they might lose their job also do not 
believe it would be easy to find a job of a similar salary; this 
group represents 7% of all workers in the EU.

Change at the workplace
Measuring and understanding change is not 
straightforward. In order to gain a better picture of the 

changes experienced by workers, the EWCS examines 
changes in three spheres: the volume of employment 
change in the company, the worker’s experience of 
restructuring or reorganisation at the workplace, and 
changes in individual dimensions of work such as working 
hours, salary, influence and tasks and duties. Answers to 
these questions reflect the variety of change experienced.

Change in volume of employment

A new question in the sixth EWCS measures whether 
the number of employees at the worker’s workplace has 
increased, stayed the same or decreased in the three years 
prior to the survey (or, for workers with less seniority, since 
starting their job).

Most workers in the EU28 (56%) report no change in the 
volume of employment at their workplace. The rest is split 
between those reporting an increase in employment levels 
(4% ‘a lot’ and 18% ‘a little’) and those reporting a decrease 
(18% ‘a little’ and 5% ‘a lot’). This helps to identify the 
proportion of workers who were not laid off following 
a downsizing in their organisation.

Figure 83 shows wide variations by country. Sweden and 
Denmark report the highest incidence of change: 60% in 
both countries report a change in the volume of employment 
(the combined ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ indicators).

Workers who remain in the company after a downsizing 
exercise account for 30% or more of respondents in Greece 
(34%), Cyprus (33%), Italy (31%) and the Netherlands (30%).

Table 12: Job insecurity and low employability, by aspects of working conditions, EU28

Job 
insecurity

No job 
insecurity

Low 
employability

Medium- to-high 
employability

Odds ratio job 
insecurity

Odds ratio low 
employability

Good balance between working 
hours and family and social 
commitments

Health or safety at risk because of 
work

Work affects health negatively

Learning new things

Not feeling well paid for the job

Being among the 40% with lowest 
incomes (one of the two lowest 
income quintiles)

Part-time contract

Able to do the job until 60

Undergone training paid for by the 
employer

Poor well-being (WHO-5)

Exposed to adverse social behaviour

77

28

33

68

39

51

29

61

33

10

21

83

22

24

74

28

36

21

75

43

5

16

81

26

29

70

34

39

22

70

38

7

17

82

21

23

74

28

40

23

74

43

5

16

0.690

0.878

1.361

1.517

0.860

1.601

1.796

1.603

0.559

0.775

2.162

1.661

1.298

1.329

0.904

1.276

0.896

ns*

0.847

0.844

1.511

1.124

Note: * ns = not significant. The effect of job insecurity (low employability) on the different variables is given by the odds ratio, which compares 
the probability of a phenomenon occurring between the presence and absence of a given situation. In this situation, an odds ratio of 1 means the 
phenomenon is equally likely for those with job insecurity (low employability) and the other workers. If it is greater than 1, it means the phenomenon is 
more likely for those with job insecurity (low employability). If it is less than 1, it means that the phenomenon is less likely for those with job insecurity (low 
employability). The effects are controlled for variation between country, sectors and occupations. All odds ratios are statistically significant (p<0.01).

94

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 83: Employment change at workplace in previous three years, by country (%)

Chapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

United Kingdom 
Romania 
France 
FYROM 
Estonia 
Switzerland 
Lithuania 
Germany 
Belgium 
Ireland 
Slovenia 
Turkey 
Finland 
Netherlands 
Czech Republic 
Slovakia 
Croatia 
EU28 
Denmark 
Luxembourg 
Serbia 
Austria 
Norway 
Sweden 
Malta 

Greece 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Portugal 
Spain 
Albania 
Hungary 
Bulgaria 
Montenegro 
Poland 
Latvia 

Decrease 

No change 

Increase 

Note: The question was adapted to take into account workers who had started in their role less than three years before the survey: ‘Since you started in 
your main job, has the number of employees at your workplace increased, stayed the same or decreased?’

Figure 84: Employment change in previous three years, by sector, EU28 (%)

Industry 

Financial services 

Transport 

Health 

Construction 

Other services 

Commerce and hospitality 

Education 

Public administration 

Agriculture 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Increase 

No change 

Decrease 

In terms of sectors, the largest proportion of workers 
reporting downsizing in their workplace is in public 
administration, followed by transport, health and 
industry (Figure 84). Workers in industry and transport 
(alongside those in financial services) also have the highest 
proportions reporting an increase in employment levels.

Impact of restructuring

According to Eurofound’s online European Industrial 
Relations Dictionary:

Restructuring is a term used to describe a wide range of 
different activities which lead to the reorganisation of an 
enterprise. Restructuring can have serious consequences 
for the workforce regarding levels of employment and the 
terms and conditions of employment offered to workers.

According to the sixth EWCS, restructuring or 
reorganisation at the workplace that substantially 
affected a person’s work over the previous three years is 
reported by 23% of workers in the EU (25% of employees). 
Downsizing is not exclusively and necessarily linked to 
restructuring but it has been reported by 44% of the 
workers reporting restructuring. Over one quarter (28%) of 
those reporting restructuring also reported an increase in 
employment at their workplace.

Restructuring is most frequently reported by employees 
in the Nordic countries, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, 
Ireland, the United Kingdom and France, while it is 
reported least by workers in Turkey, Hungary, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, 
Slovakia and Bulgaria (Figure 85).

95

Figure 85: Proportion of employees reporting restructuring that substantially affected their work, by country (%)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Sweden 
Denmark 

Estonia 
France 
United Kingdom 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Malta 
Luxembourg 
Cyprus 
Switzerland 
Norway 
Ireland 

Austria 

Spain 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
Belgium 
EU28 

Albania 
Croatia 
Czech Republic 
Italy 
Germany 
Latvia 

Turkey 
Montenegro 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Greece 
Hungary 
FYROM 
Bulgaria 
Serbia 
Slovakia 
Romania 

In terms of occupations, managers (32%), professionals 
(30%) and technicians (29%) report an above-average 
incidence of substantial restructuring at their workplace 
while agricultural workers (9%) and elementary 
occupations (13%) show a low incidence. In terms of 
sectors, public administration (36%), financial services 
(33%) and health (31%) report the highest incidence of 
substantial restructuring.

About 79% of workers who experienced a substantial 
restructuring were informed about the forthcoming 
change before it took place, while 38% were asked to give 
their opinion prior to the restructuring or reorganisation 
taking place.

Associations emerge between the cases of restructuring 
and employment change and selected aspects of working 
conditions. Workers who have experienced a substantial 
restructuring or reorganisation at their workplace are 
more likely to report presenteeism, sickness absence, 
greater work intensity and being exposed to adverse social 
behaviour than other workers. At the same time, they are 
less likely to report having felt engaged, being treated 
fairly at work, and having enough time to do the job. 
Workers who experienced a reduction in employment at 
their workplace display similar associations with the same 
aspects of working conditions except for autonomy and 
working hours (the association being non-significant) and 
enough time to do the job.

Changes in salary, working hours and influence

The questionnaire for the sixth EWCS contains new 
questions that address changes that the worker may 
have experienced – in the year prior to the survey – in the 
following areas: salary or income, number of working hours 
per week, amount of influence over their work, and tasks 
and duties.

More than one third of workers (38%) in the EU28 report no 
changes in their salary, working hours, amount of influence 
over their work or tasks and duties. Some 31% of workers 
report an increase in their salary and 11% a decrease.

96

Some 21% report an increase in their working hours, and 
22% report an increase in the influence they have over 
their own work. In addition, one-third report an increase 
in their tasks and duties – which can be interpreted as an 
indication of an increase in workload during the year prior 
to the survey (Figure 86).

Figure 86: Changes in salary, working hours, 
influence over work and tasks and duties, EU28 (%)

Salary or income 

31 

Number of hours
per week

Influence over
one's work

21 

22 

58 

72 

74 

Tasks and duties 

34 

63 

0 

50 

11 

8 

3 

3 

100 

Increase 

No change 

Decrease 

There are differences between occupations in terms of 
these changes. Managers, professionals and technicians 
report a salary increase more than other workers while 
agricultural workers report an above-average decrease 
in their salary. Also noteworthy is the fact that 11% of 
managers report that their working hours and 19% that 
their tasks and duties have increased a lot.

There are also substantial differences regarding the 
different dimensions of change by country. Sweden and 
Ireland (both 29%), and France and Denmark (both 26%) 
have the largest proportions of workers whose working 
hours increased while Sweden (67%), Norway (50%) 
and Estonia and Germany (both 44%) have the largest 
proportions of workers who had an increase in their salary 
or income. Again, Sweden (40%) leads the field for the 
largest proportion of workers reporting that their influence 
over their own work increased, followed by Denmark 
(35%). Finally, Denmark (49%), Sweden (48%) and Romania 
(46%) have the largest proportions of workers reporting an 
increase in their tasks and duties.

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Prospects

The Prospects index combines the indicators of employment status (self-employed or employee), type of 
contract, the prospects for career advancement as perceived by the worker, perceived likelihood of losing one’s 
job and experience of downsizing in the organisation. By country, Denmark, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom 
rank highest on the index and Italy, Cyprus and Greece the lowest. By occupation, managers, technicians and 
professionals rank highest, with agricultural workers and elementary occupations lowest. By sector, financial 
services has the highest ranking and agriculture the lowest.

Career prospects: 39% of workers believe that their job offers good prospects for career advancement, a rise of 
six percentage points since 2010. By contrast, 38% of workers feel they do not have good career prospects. Men 
rate their prospects better than women. A high proportion of older workers (women in particular) feel that their 
prospects are poor: 50% of those aged 50 or over.

Job security and employability: 69% of workers have no fears about losing their job in the next six months while 
16% of workers do feel at risk. Some 37% of workers feel they could find a job at a similar salary if they were to lose 
their current job.

Older workers feel less insecure about their job than younger workers; however, they feel far less employable. In 
terms of occupation, elementary workers feel the most insecure, and also consider themselves less employable.

Job insecurity and poor working conditions: Workers who feel insecure in their jobs are less likely to feel they have 
a good work–life balance. They are also less likely to be able to learn new things in the job or receive paid training. 
They are less likely to feel their job to be sustainable. They are more likely to feel a negative impact from work on 
their health and to have experienced adverse social behaviour. They are more than twice as likely to report poor 
mental well-being (as measured by the World Health Organization’s Well-Being Index – WHO-5) as other workers. It is 
important to underline that 29% of those reporting job insecurity are part-time workers.

Poor employability and working conditions: Workers who feel themselves to be less employable are more likely to 
feel that their health and safety is at risk because of their work and that work affects their health negatively. Notably, 
almost half of those workers who do fear they may lose their job also do not feel they could readily find a job of 
a similar salary – this group represents 7% of all workers in the EU.

Change in employment: Public administration is the sector in which the largest proportion of workers report 
downsizing; this is followed by transport, health and industry. Workers in industry, transport and financial services 
also most frequently report increases in employment.

Restructuring: Restructuring or reorganisation at the workplace (that substantially affected one’s work) is reported 
by 23% of employees in the EU and over 30% in the sectors of public administration, financial services and health. 
About 79% of workers who experienced substantial restructuring were informed about the forthcoming change 
before it took place, while 38% were asked to give their opinion prior to the restructuring or reorganisation taking 
place.

Impact of restructuring: Workers who have experienced a substantial restructuring are more likely to report 
presenteeism, absenteeism, greater work intensity and being at the receiving end of adverse social behaviour. They 
are less likely to report feeling engaged, being treated fairly at the workplace and having enough time to do the job. 
Workers who report a decrease in employment at their workplace (but do not report restructuring) report some of 
the same associations.

Other job changes: Almost one-third of workers (31%) report an increase in salary, and one in five (21%) an increase 
in working hours, with a similar proportion saying they have more influence over their own work. In addition, one-
third report an increase in their tasks and duties.

Managers, professionals and technicians report a salary increase in the 12 months prior to the survey more than 
other workers; agricultural workers report an above-average decrease in their salary.

Meanwhile, 11% of managers report that their working hours have increased a lot and 19% that their tasks and duties 
have increased a lot.

97

2.8  Ensuring fair pay
Most job quality indices in this report focus on the non- 
material features of the job. Monetary rewards, however, 
are a crucial element of working life. Earnings – salary 
for employees and profit for the self-employed – provide 
a means to make a livelihood and support a person’s 
lifestyle and family, as well as also potentially being 
a motivation to work. Earnings, therefore, are a core 
element of job quality.

Not only is the absolute level of earnings important, but 
also the extent to which monetary rewards are fairly 
determined. If the worker does not perceive that the level 
of rewards (including earnings) is in proportion to the effort 
they expend (this situation is termed an ‘effort–reward 
imbalance’), stress and adverse health effects can result 
(Siegrist, 1996). The EWCS asks respondents to state 
whether they feel they get paid appropriately, given their 
efforts and achievements. About half of all workers tend 
to agree or strongly agree with this statement, although 
there are considerable differences in terms of within-
country monthly real income deciles and gender (Figure 
87). The relationship between the perception of being paid 
appropriately and monthly income seems to be slightly 
u-shaped: middle-income workers are least likely to 
feel they are paid appropriately. In the lowest half of the 
income distribution, a considerably higher proportion of 
women than men feel they are paid appropriately – almost 
ten percentage points more.

Earnings index

Figure 87: Perception of being paid appropriately, by 
within-country monthly real earnings deciles (%)

80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 

1

2

3

5

4
Men 

6

7
Women 

8

9

10

Employee payment system
Nearly all workers in the EU (94%) receive a basic fixed 
salary or wage in exchange for their work. Many also 
receive one or more additional components that might be 
of a variable nature.

The most common additional components are extra pay 
for overtime and extra pay for Sunday work, both of which 
have been increasing in importance since 2000 (Figure 
88). Extra pay for dangerous working conditions has been 
reported by around 8% of workers since 2005. Of the 
workers who work at least one Sunday per month, 44% 
receive extra pay for this.

This index measures the monthly earnings of workers. In contrast to the other job quality indices, this index is based 
on only one indicator.

This indicator takes monthly real earnings after tax (see box ‘Measuring earnings’ in section 2.1) to capture the part 
of earnings that workers actually have available to use every month. Income will consequently be higher for workers 
with more working hours. An alternative to correct for this would be to examine hourly wages, but this would not 
reflect the objective of the job quality index, which is to analyse the extent to which the job is meeting the worker’s 
needs – in this case, the need to make a living.

The distribution of earnings is skewed. Most workers are concentrated at the lower end of the income distribution, 
with very few in the upper end. When comparing occupational groups, the highest median monthly income is earned 
by managers, professionals and technicians. In contrast, workers in elementary occupations, service and sales 
workers and agricultural workers earn the lowest. In terms of sector, workers in financial services earn the most, 
followed by those in public administration and construction. The median income of men is substantially higher than 
that of women – which can partly be explained by differences in working hours.

98

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 2 – The multiple dimensions of job quality 

Figure 88: Extra components of pay (employees 
only), EU28 (%)

Figure 89: Performance-related components of pay 
(employees only), EU28 (%)

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

2000

2005

2010

2015

2000 

2005 

2010 

2015 

Extra pay for overtime 

Extra pay for Sunday work 

Extra pay for dangerous working conditions 

Advantages of another nature 

Pay based on individual performance 

Shares in the company 

Profit-sharing scheme 

Piece rate/productivity payments 

A question on pay based on individual performance 
was introduced for the first time in the sixth EWCS 
questionnaire; it is reported by 16% of all employees. 
Profit-sharing schemes and shares in the company have 

been slowly increasing in importance since 2000, involving 
13% and 4%, respectively, of workers in 2015. Piece rate or 
productivity payments are reported by 10% of employees 
in 2015 (Figure 89).

Ensuring fair pay

The Earnings index measures the monthly earnings of workers. In contrast to the other job quality indices, this index 
is only based on one indicator.

The distribution of earnings is skewed, with most workers concentrated at the lower end of the income distribution.

In terms of occupation, managers, professionals and technicians earn the most – workers in elementary occupations, 
service and sales workers and agricultural workers, the lowest. By sector, workers in financial services earn the most, 
followed by public administration and construction. Men’s earnings are substantially higher than those of women, 
partly due to differences in working hours.

About half of all workers in the EU feel that they are paid fairly for the work they do. However, middle income workers 
are less likely to feel that they get paid appropriately.

Nearly all workers in the EU (94%) receive a basic fixed salary or wage in exchange for their work. The most common 
additional components are extra pay for overtime (37%), advantages of another nature (19%) and extra pay for 
Sunday work (18%), which have been increasing in importance since 2000.

Pay based on individual performance is reported by 16% of all employees. Profit sharing schemes and shares in the 
company have been increasing in importance since 2000, reaching 13% and 4%, respectively, in 2015.

Piece rate or productivity payments are reported by 10% of employees in 2015.

99

3  Perspectives on working  

life in Europe

3  Perspectives on working  

life in Europe

There are multiple factors at play that determine whether 
workers assess their experience of working life positively 
or negatively: these include the division of domestic duties 
between members of a household and the worker’s social 
infrastructure, as well as social and employment policies, 
including the availability of social and employment 
services. The workplace itself is pivotal to this, as it shapes 
working life and individual experiences of work. The 
workplace is also where individuals pool their actions to 
achieve a collective output.

This chapter looks at workers’ subjective experience 
of their working life and analyses the role of job quality 
in contributing to a positive experience of work. In the 
framework developed in 2001 in its research into job 
quality indicators, Eurofound identified four key objectives 
that would ensure quality of work and employment for 
workers (Eurofound, 2002). These four objectives are:

ensuring career and employment security

  developing skills and competences

  maintaining and promoting the health and well-being 

of workers

reconciling working and non-working life.

This framework is used to examine issues around quality 
of work and employment in this chapter and to inform the 
selection of topics to be addressed.

Ensuring career and employment security: The issue of 
employability has already been dealt with in Chapter 2. 
The analysis in this section covers workers’ motivation – in 
the EWCS linked to the current job – as well as factors such 
as meaningful work and the terms of employment and 
financial security.

Developing skills and competences: This looks into the 
issue of skills, especially skills match and mismatch and 
the question of workers being under-skilled or over-skilled. 
(The topic of skills development and training has already 
been dealt with in Chapter 2.)

Maintaining and promoting the health and well-being 
of workers: This deals with health in the broad sense, 
encompassing both physical and mental health, looking 
in particular at the phenomena of sickness absence and 
presenteeism (working while sick). The issue of including 
people with chronic diseases in the workplace will also be 
considered.

Reconciling working and non-working life: Facilitating 
a balance between working and non-working life is an 
essential precondition to encourage entry into the labour 
market and to enable people to remain at work. This objective 
will be examined through an analysis of work–life balance and 

102

working time arrangements and preferences, as well as the 
areas of work–family conflict and work– family enrichment.

One additional aspect that will be examined at the end of 
the chapter is the sustainability of work: enabling workers 
to continue working over the life course by safeguarding 
the quality of their jobs and work environment and 
ensuring that their personal and domestic needs (such as 
their health situation or care requirements) are adequately 
taken into account (Eurofound, 2015d).

3.1  Career and employment 

security

This section looks at two dimensions: a person’s 
engagement with their work – including work as 
a motivating factor and a meaningful activity – and the 
financial security that work brings to the worker and 
their household. The job quality indices on earnings and 
prospects as well as the issue of employability (in Chapter 2) 
complement this theme. It should be noted that this section 
only briefly touches on the broad topic of ensuring career 
and employment security. The EWCS does not cover the 
topic of transitions between jobs, for example.

Engagement at the workplace
Previous research has confirmed the importance of worker 
engagement in contributing to workers’ well-being and 
sense of personal fulfilment, as well as its being a factor 
in company performance. Building worker engagement 
is a central goal of human resource policies and work 
organisation practices. Moreover, good leadership is also 
crucial in creating, developing and sustaining worker 
engagement.

Work in modern societies is assigned substantial value 
(Méda and Vendramin, 2013). Equally, workers’ expectations 
of what work should deliver to them are both high and 
diverse. Some workers emphasise the financial benefits 
associated with the performance of work (remuneration 
and the social status that work brings); others underline 
the social value of work (as an opportunity to be engaged 
in a community); while a third group values the expressive 
dimension of work: work as an opportunity for self-
development and fulfilment. It is widely acknowledged that 
being frustrated in meeting these expectations can have 
a negative impact on mental health.

The data from the EWCS shed some light on the nature 
of workers’ commitment – both to their work and 
the organisation in which they work – and factors 
that motivate them to perform well. Four aspects are 
examined: the various dimensions of engagement (and 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
Figure 90: Dimensions of engagement, EU28 (%)

1 
5 

22 

55 

17 

2 
6 

21 

45 

25 

1 
4 

18 

42 

34 

6 

18 

42 

22 

11 

Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

48 

Never 

28 

15 

7 
3 

Rarely 

Sometimes 

Most of the time 
Always 

At work I feel full
of energy

I am enthusiastic
about my job

Time flies when
I am working 

I feel exhausted at
the end of the day

I doubt the
importance of my work 

the association with positive or negative aspects of job 
quality); meaningful work and its role in worker motivation; 
the role of the organisation in motivating workers to 
perform their best; and, finally, satisfaction with working 
conditions – a prerequisite for worker motivation.

Dimensions of engagement

Work engagement has been described as a ‘positive, 
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized 
by vigour, dedication and absorption’ (Schaufeli and 
Salanova, 2007) – the opposite, according to Maslach 
and Jackson (1981), of the core dimensions of burnout: 
exhaustion and cynicism.

Engagement is positively related to job performance at 
an individual level, a factor that can boost performance, 
creativity, income, and health and well-being, while 
preventing absence from work. It also has positive 
implications at a collective level: commitment to the 
organisation, client satisfaction, good safety record, and 
employee retention.

This section first examines the various components 
of work engagement. It then combines them into an 
‘engagement index’ and explores associations between 
this and a number of aspects of working conditions.

Findings from the EWCS paint a generally positive picture 
across the EU28 (Figure 90). The majority of workers 
(71%) report feeling full of energy ‘always’ or ‘most of 
the time’. The same proportion (71%) of workers are 
enthusiastic about their job, while 76% feel that time flies 
at work. Moreover, some 75% say they either ‘never’ or 
‘rarely’ doubt the importance of their job. The only aspect 
of engagement generating a mixed picture is feeling 
exhausted at the end of the day: 33% of workers feel this 
way ‘most of the time’ and ‘always’; 25% experience it 
‘rarely’ and ‘never’.

Based on the answers to these questions (the mean score 
of all dimensions), an engagement index ranging from 0 

to 100 was constructed. Differences by sex, sector and 
employment status are very small, but there is a more 
nuanced picture in the analysis regarding occupations 
(Figure 91). Managers, professionals and technicians have 
the highest scores for engagement (around 70 points), 
while workers in elementary occupations and plant and 
machine operators have the lowest scores (63).

Figure 91: Engagement by occupation, EU28

Elementary occupations 

Plant and machine operators 

Service and sales workers 

63 

63 

Agricultural workers 

Craft workers 

EU28 

Clerks 

Technicians 

Professionals 

Managers 

67 

67 

66 

67 

67 

69

70 

71 

Workers in higher-quality jobs are more engaged. All job 
quality indices apart from Earnings (detailed in Chapter 2) 
are positively associated with the engagement scale 
and its components – in particular, skills and discretion, 
social environment, and prospects (Figure 92 – overleaf). 
Conversely, workers in low quality jobs are likely to be less 
engaged as all the job quality indices are in turn associated 
with negative aspects of motivation or disengagement, 
which have the potential to lead to burnout.

103

Figure 92: Association between job quality indices and engagement

Engagement
index

Full of energy

Enthusiastic 
about job

Time flies 
when working

Exhausted at 
end of day

Doubt
importance
of job

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to Figure 32 for 
more details on the methodology used.

Multivariate analysis confirms, in particular, the strong role 
that management quality, organisational participation 
and social climate can play in promoting engagement; 
other important factors are being fairly paid for the 
work done, being able to easily take time off to deal with 
personal issues, and social support from one’s manager. 
Finally, engagement is also associated with higher levels of 
presenteeism and lower levels of sickness absence.

Meaningful work

Performing work that is meaningful – that a worker feels 
is worthwhile and is done well – is another factor that 
encourages motivation. It is important for a worker’s 
health and well-being to feel that their work is meaningful, 
as feeling the reverse could constitute a psychosocial risk.

The great majority of workers (82%) feel that their work 
has been well done ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’. Notably, 
5% of workers ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ have this feeling. These 
percentages were similar in 2010 and 2005.

However, in a majority of countries there has been a fall in 
the proportion of workers who report ‘always’ feeling that 
their work has been well done. This is counterbalanced by 
a group of eight countries where this proportion increased 
by five percentage points or more; in two of these, the 
increases are especially high – 12 percentage points in 
Turkey and 11 in the Czech Republic since 2010.

In addition, there has been a decrease since 2010 in 
several occupational groups ‘always’ feeling that their 
work has been done well: for managers, for example, this 
was a decline of nine percentage points; for the other 
occupations, a decline of up to six points.

Being able to perform useful work is also important for 
workers as it gives meaning to the job and offers the 
possibility for self-development and personal fulfilment. 
Just over half (52%) of all workers in the EU28 report that 
they always feel that the work they are doing is useful. 
Since 2005, this proportion is more or less the same.

Women and older workers are more likely to feel that their 
work is useful. And there are striking differences between 
sectors: more than 60% of those in the health, education 
and agricultural sectors always feel their work is useful, 

104

as against less than half of those in financial services, 
transport, industry and commerce and hospitality.

Both of these elements – feeling that work is well done and 
that it is useful – demonstrate a very strong association 
with engagement (the association is confirmed by 
multivariate analysis). Workers score highest on the 
engagement index when they answer ‘always’ and ‘most 
of the time’ regarding these two items. The two items are 
combined to construct a meaningful work scale. Analysing 
the EWCS data on this scale, it is clear that workers in 
the health, education and construction sectors are most 
likely to see their jobs as meaningful while those working 
in transport, commerce and hospitality, and industry are 
least likely to take this view (Figure 93).

Figure 93: Meaningful work, by sector

Health 

Education 

Construction 

Agriculture 

Other services 

Public administration 

Financial services 

EU28 

Industry 

Commerce and hospitality 

Transport 

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100 

Workers are more likely to view their jobs as meaningful 
if their work involves tasks at higher skills levels and 
offers greater scope for autonomy or discretion. This is 
demonstrated by the association of the Skills and discretion 
index with meaningful work (Figure 94). A good Social 
environment also contributes to work being considered 
meaningful, as do Prospects (albeit to a lesser extent). 
Other indicators – Physical environment, Work intensity, 
Working time quality and Earnings – are either unrelated to 
meaningful work, or are related only to a very limited extent.

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 94: Association between job quality indices 
and meaningful work

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to 
Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

Role of organisation in motivating workers

Finally, one question in the EWCS – regarding workers’ 
perceptions about whether their organisation motivates 
them to give their best job performance – aims to elicit 
workers’ commitment to the organisation in which they 
work. The share of workers agreeing with this statement is 
highest in Norway and lowest in Albania. The share in the 
EU28 is 63%.

From an occupational perspective, there is some variation; 
but in all occupations, at least half of all workers report 
that the organisation they work for motivates them to give 
their best performance. This is particularly the case for 
managers, of whom 77% agree that that this is the case. 
In terms of sectors, workers in transport, industry and 
public administration are the least likely to feel themselves 
motivated by their organisation. However, the majority of 
workers in these sectors still feel motivated.

There is a positive association between the Social 
environment, Skills and discretion, and Prospects 
indices, and workers’ assessment of their organisation as 
motivating them (Figure 95). The Physical environment, 

Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Work intensity, Working time quality and Earnings indices 
are not associated – or are only slightly associated – with 
motivation.

Figure 95: Association between job quality indices 
and motivating organisation

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to 
Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

Satisfaction with working conditions

The degree of satisfaction of workers with their working 
conditions is a key element of motivation.

The great majority (86%) of respondents in the EU28 report 
being either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their working 
conditions. This percentage has increased slightly since 
2000, when 82% gave this positive rating of their working 
conditions.

When the results are looked at in terms of occupation, 
notable differences are evident. The level of satisfaction 
increases according to the respondent’s occupational level. 
Workers in elementary occupations express the greatest 
dissatisfaction: 23% being either ‘not very satisfied’ or ‘not 
at all satisfied’ with their working conditions. In contrast, 
only 10% of managers express this level of dissatisfaction 
(Figure 96).

Figure 96: Satisfaction with working conditions, by occupation, EU28 (%)

Managers 

Professionals 

Technicians 

Clerks 

EU28 

Service and sales workers 

Agricultural workers 

Craft workers 

Elementary occupations 

Plant and machine operators 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Very satisfied 

Satisfied 

Not very satisfied 

Not at all satisfied 

105

Multivariate analysis identified aspects of working 
conditions that are positively associated with workers’ 
satisfaction with their working conditions. These include 
having a good quality of management, a good work–life 
balance, and having career prospects. Workers with 
a supervisory role are also more likely to say they are 
satisfied with their working conditions.

On the other hand, aspects of working conditions that 
are likely to lead to workers’ not being satisfied with 
their working conditions are exposure to adverse social 
behaviour, feeling that one’s health is at risk because 
of work, holding a temporary contract and having 
experienced restructuring in the company.

In terms of association with job quality indices, satisfaction 
with working conditions is most strongly related to 
Social environment, Prospects, and Skills and discretion 
(Figure 97). This reflects the results of the multivariate 
analysis regarding the strong effects of management 
quality, adverse social behaviour, being a supervisor with 
autonomy and career prospects, as well as contract type. 
Furthermore, satisfaction with working conditions is also 
associated with the other indices – except for Earnings.

Figure 97: Association between job quality indices 
and satisfaction with working conditions

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to 
Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

Financial security
This dimension, part of career and employment security, 
covers three main aspects: the level of earnings; the terms 
of employment; and the social protection afforded by 
work. The level and fairness of the income are important 
determinants of job quality (see Chapter 2, section 2.8 
Ensuring fair pay).

This section will examine the financial security of the 
household and analyse the differences in findings for 
employees and self-employed workers.

Household level

Since 2010, the EWCS has assessed workers’ financial 
vulnerability by asking to what extent the respondent’s 
household is able to ‘make ends meet’ – in other words, is 
able to pay for all the basic household expenses.

Respondents were asked to assess their household ability 
to make ends meet on a six-point scale – from ‘very easily’ 
to ‘with great difficulty’. This indicator is a well-established 
indicator of poverty.

Between 2010 and 2015, the ability of households to make 
ends meet increased somewhat. While in 2010, some 62% 
of respondents said their households could make ends 
meet fairly easily, the equivalent figure in 2015 was 65%. 
However, more than one-third of workers reported that 
their household experienced ‘some’ or ‘great’ difficulty 
in making ends meet. Some countries show a very 
positive development between 2010 and 2015, in terms 
of a dramatic reduction in the proportion of workers 
reporting difficulties: in Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta 
and Romania, for instance, there was a drop of between 20 
and 28 percentage points. One of the contributing factors 
for this development may be the significant increases 
in the statutory minimum wages, in real terms, in these 
countries. In contrast, some countries show increasing 
shares of households with difficulty in making ends meet, 
up to an increase in 16 percentage points in Greece since 
2010.

In line with previous findings, the characteristics of the 
workers’ households are closely associated with their level 
of financial vulnerability. Women who are the main earner 
in a household are much more likely to say they have 
difficulty in making ends meet than the EU28 average and 
any other group (44% saying this). Single parents are more 
likely to have difficulties – 55% state they have some or 
great difficulty in making ends meet – and especially single 
mothers, 59% reporting great difficulty.

Employment status

A person’s employment status and the terms of their 
employment determine the level and components of pay 
as well as future security of earnings, and protection rights.

Self-employed workers who have employees and 
employees on indefinite contracts have the greatest 
financial security (Figure 98). In contrast, self-employed 
workers without employees, employees on fixed-term 
contracts and employees with no contract (or another 
type) are the most vulnerable financially.

Another aspect of financial insecurity for self-employed 
workers is their exposure to loss of income if they were not 
able to work. Self-employed workers were asked if they felt 
they would be financially secure if they had a long-term 
illness. Almost half of the self-employed (47%) stated 
they would not be financially secure in this situation, 
particularly the self-employed without employees (53%).

106

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Figure 98: Financial insecurity, by employment status, EU28 (%)

6 

10 

22 

2 

6 

23 

1 

3 

17 

5 

11 

32 

9 

13 

29 

With employees 

Without
employees 

Indefinite
contract

Self-employed 

Fixed-term
contract

Employees 

Other contract
or none

With great difficulty 

With difficulty 

With some difficulty 

Looking at the job quality indices, it is not surprising that 
Earnings are positively related to being able to make 
ends meet (Figure 99). Prospects are also associated with 
financial security, indicating that the prospect of career 
advancement is likely to boost a respondent’s confidence 
of being able to make ends meet. The other job quality 
indices are also positively associated with financial 
security, though less strongly (except for Working time 
quality, which shows no association).

Figure 99: Association between job quality indices 
and financial security

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to 
Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

3.2  Developing skills and 

competences

Developing skills and competences is an important 
dimension of quality of work and employment, and the 
benefits for workers, companies and society are widely 
acknowledged. The development of skills and lifelong 
learning has long been a priority on the policy agenda, 
both at EU and national level.

While the scope of this area is wide, the EWCS analysis 
focuses on a limited number of items. This section will 
briefly look at the issue of skills match and the related 
question of under-skilling and over-skilling. The resulting 

findings will supplement the job quality index on Skills and 
discretion.

‘Skills match’ is viewed as a highly efficient way to use 
workers’ potential, while ‘skills mismatch’ is linked to 
an ineffectual use of people’s capabilities. Workers 
performing tasks below their level of ability could be 
better employed and contribute more if they took on more 
challenging tasks. And conversely, when workers need 
greater skills to do their job, increasing their skills level 
can help them become more productive. In economic 
terms, a better matching of skills means a more efficient 
allocation of labour. This is beneficial for employers, 
employees and governments, as it contributes to greater 
labour productivity, better incomes and higher economic 
growth. For the worker, skills mismatch is related to 
lower wages and to less job satisfaction and greater job 
insecurity (Cedefop, 2015). Workers with skill deficits 
are also more likely to worry about their skills becoming 
redundant or obsolescent.

In the EWCS questionnaire, workers were asked to indicate:

if their present skills corresponded well with their 
duties

if they felt they needed further training to cope well 
with their duties (indicative of being under-skilled)

if they had the skills to cope with more demanding 
duties (indicative of being over-skilled).

(It should be noted that the answers correspond to 
a subjective assessment on the part of the worker, which 
might not match the employer’s assessment.)

Nearly half (43%) of workers in the EU28 are either under- 
skilled or over-skilled. About 14% need further training to 
perform their duties well (and hence are under-skilled). 
Meanwhile, 28% have the skills to cope with more 
demanding duties (and hence are over-skilled).

107

 
 
 
Fortunately, skills mismatch in general is decreasing in 
the EU28 (Figure 100). Between 2005 and 2015, there was 
an increase in the proportion of workers whose skills 
corresponded with their duties: from 52% to 57%. The 
extent of under-skilling remained almost constant in this 
period, while there was a fall in the proportion of over- 
skilled workers. Generally, the proportion of over-skilled 
workers is higher than the proportion of under-skilled 
workers.

Figure 100: Development in skills matching, 
2005–2015, EU28 (%)

35 

32 

28 

I have the skills
to cope with more
demanding duties

52 

55 

13 

2005

13 

2010

57 

14 

2015

My present skills
correspond well 
with my duties 

I need further 
training to cope 
well with my duties 

Skills matching, and its development over time (between 
2005 and 2015), differs markedly between countries 
(Figure 101). In 2015, the proportion of under-skilled 
ranged from 6% to 30%, while the proportion of over-
skilled ranged from 16% to just over 40%. France and 
Sweden were the countries showing the greatest increase 
in the proportion of under-skilled workers in the period 
between 2005 and 2015: from 10% to 19% in France and 
from 6% to 15% in Sweden. In contrast, Greece and Turkey 
had the largest decline. Turning to the issue of workers 
being over-skilled – that is, having the skills to cope with 
more demanding duties – France shows the greatest 
decrease in the proportion of over-skilled workers over the 
period (from 46% to 26%), with a similar sharp decline in 
Croatia (from 43% to 29%). In very few countries was there 
an increase in the proportion of over-skilled workers.

Job quality shows an ambiguous association with skills 
match. Figure 102 shows that the Skills and discretion 
index is positively related to the odds of being under-
skilled. As skills requirements in organisations are 
constantly changing, skills mismatch is more likely in 
jobs with greater use of skills. Prospects are negatively 
associated with being over-skilled, because being able 
to cope with more demanding duties than in the current 
job is an indication of poor prospects within the job and 
therefore possibly within the organisation. Workers who 
enjoy a better Social environment are less likely to be 
over-skilled. This might indicate that good management 
prevents over-skilling by providing opportunities for job 
tailoring to ensure that the job will match the worker’s 
skills; it may, however, be that workers rate the quality of 
management more highly when their tasks correspond 
well to their skills.

Figure 101: Skills mismatch 2005–2015, by country (%)

Needs further training 

Can cope with more demanding duties 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

46 
43 

34 

22 

40 

30 

22 

Slovenia, 35 

Croatia, 29  
France, 26 
Czech
Republic, 23 

2005 

2010 

2015 

14 
10 

6 

13 

10 

8 

France, 19 
Sweden, 15 

Greece, 7 
Turkey, 6  

2005 

2010 

2015 

Note: These figures highlight the two countries with the highest increase and the two countries with the highest decrease between 2005 and 2015.

108

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 102: Association between job quality indices 
and skills match

Underskilled

Over-skilled

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to 
Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

3.3  Maintaining and promoting 
health and well-being
Promoting health and well-being is a key goal of European 
policy. The EU Framework Directive on Safety and Health at 
Work (89/391/EEC) made a strong commitment to that goal, 
its stated objective being to ‘encourage improvements in 
the safety and health of workers’.

The relationships between work and health are numerous 
and bidirectional. Work has specific impacts on health 
while health is a determinant of the ability to work and 
remain in work. Direct and indirect impacts can have 
immediate or delayed effects on health outcomes.

The literature on health and safety and public health has 
shown how exposure to specific risk factors in a job, as 
well as organisational factors, may lead to injuries, work- 
related illnesses or other long-term health consequences.

Conversely, several aspects of work contribute positively 
to health and well-being, such as income and the security 
it provides, the quality of interpersonal relationships, 
and opportunities for personal development, fulfilment 
and self-expression. Moreover, work also plays a key role 
in shaping the socioeconomic status of the individual 
which, in turn, has been identified as one of the main 
determinants of health and health inequalities.

General health and subjective well-being
As already mentioned in Chapter 1, the health of workers 
is good and better – on average – than that of the general 
population. Some 78% of workers report being in good 
or very good health (52% and 26% respectively). It can be 
assumed that workers who are unable to work because of 
poor health exit the labour market and healthy workers 
remain. There are hardly any gender differences reported 
in terms of health. However, the proportion of workers 
reporting poor health increases with age.

Substantial differences can be seen between the 
occupations. Agricultural workers and those working in 
elementary occupations report a greater incidence of 
poor health – as do those with a lower level of education. 
Employment status also appears to be important: for 

Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

instance, self-employed workers without employees, and 
employees without a contract, are less likely to report that 
they are in good health.

Subjective well-being was measured through the World 
Health Organization’s well-being index – WHO-5. In a series 
of five questions, interviewees were asked to indicate if 
over the previous two weeks they: 1) felt cheerful and in 
good spirits, 2) felt calm and relaxed, 3) felt active and 
vigorous, 4) woke up feeling fresh and rested, and 5) their 
daily life was filled with things that interest them. For each 
item, a range of 0 to five points was given, with a potential 
maximum score of 100 overall. A high score is associated 
with a good level of psychological well-being while a low 
score indicates that the person is at risk of mental health 
problems, including depression. The overall average score 
for workers in the EU28 is 68 – two points higher than in 
2010. Men score slightly higher than women (69 compared 
to 67). And younger workers (those aged under 35) score 
somewhat higher than older workers (aged 35 and over) – 
70 compared to 68 (for both older age groups).

Overall, 6% of workers have a score that indicates they are 
at risk of mental health problems (below 28), with more 
women than men being at risk (7% compared to 5%). While 
there are no differences between age groups, there are 
differences across sectors and occupations: for example, 
the proportion of workers at risk is greater for elementary 
occupations (9%) and service and sales workers (7%).

As indicated in Chapter 2, the association between all job 
quality indices and general health and subjective well- 
being is positive – the only exception being the association 
between Skills and discretion and general health, which 
is weak (one explanation could be that the physical health 
capacity of a worker is less important for performing a job 
with high skills content).

It is not possible to provide a definite answer on the 
direction of causality, for a number of reasons. Good 
job quality could lead to a high level of subjective well- 
being. However, the reverse causation is also possible, 
whereby workers with high subjective well-being are more 
successful in securing jobs that have a higher level of job 
quality – what is termed a ‘selection effect’. It is even 
possible that the causation operates in both directions 
simultaneously. The results might also reflect the 
operation of labour markets: they may be inclusive, and 
succeed in facilitating the participation of individuals with 
poor health; or they may be selective, and over time retain 
only the healthiest individuals.

Reported health problems
Respondents were asked to indicate any health problems 
they may have experienced in the 12 months prior to the 
survey, from a list of 10 types of problems (it is important 
to underline that the question does not link these 
problems to the job).

The most reported health problem is backache (reported 
by 43%), followed by muscular pains in the neck or upper 
limbs (42%), headache and eyestrain, and overall fatigue 
(both 35%), muscular pains in the hip or lower limbs (29%), 

109

anxiety (15%), injuries and skin problems (both 8%) and 
hearing problems (6%).

More women than men report problems with most of the 
health issues, except for injuries and hearing problems, 
which are more often reported by men.

The reported health problems vary according to 
occupation. Figure 103 shows that agricultural workers 
report the highest incidence of backache, and muscular 
pains in the arms and legs (57% reporting backache, for 
instance). They are followed by workers in elementary 
occupations, craft workers and plant and machine 
operators. In addition, more workers in these four 

occupational groups have hearing problems and injuries. 
Clerks are most likely to report headaches (40%), followed 
by professionals, technicians and managers. Meanwhile, 
workers in elementary occupations and agricultural 
workers are most likely to report fatigue (38%), followed by 
managers, professionals and service and sales workers.

Almost all health problems are strongly associated with the 
Physical and Social environment (Figure 104). Higher Work 
intensity, lower Working time quality and Prospects are 
all job features negatively associated with overall fatigue 
and anxiety and, to a lesser extent, with backache and 
headache.

Figure 103: Health problems, by occupation, EU28 (%)

Managers

20

7

Professionals

35

35

Technicians

Clerks

3

20

40

5

30

Service and sales workers

9

Agricultural workers

6

57

55

46

Craft workers

9

29

13

5

Plant and machine operators

Elementary occupations

10

38

Hearing 
problems

Skin 
problems

Backache

Upper 
limb pain

Lower 
limb pain

Headaches, 
eyestrain

Injury

Anxiety

Overall 
fatigue

Other

Within health problem

Above average

Highest percentage

Below average

Lowest percentage

Figure 104: Association between job quality indices and health problems

Muscular pains
(upper body)

Muscular pains
(lower limbs)

Headaches,
eyestrain

Injury

Anxiety

Overall
fatigue

Other

Hearing
problems

problems
Skin

Backache

Skills and discretion
Social environment
Physical environment
Work intensity (reversed)
Prospects
Working time quality
Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to Figure 32 for 
more details on the methodology used.

110

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportSleeping problems
Sleeping problems are another health concern, having the 
potential to affect both safety and workers’ performance. 
Over a prolonged period, they can result in sickness 
absence and in presenteeism and – in extreme cases – lead 
to mental and physical health issues.

Sleep problems are tracked through three questions in the 
EWCS: difficulty falling asleep (reported by 12% of workers 
at least several times a week), waking up repeatedly (17%), 
and waking up feeling tired (14%).

What is apparent from the graph is the gender gap, with 
women having greater difficulty in terms of sleep than men: 
in particular, 61% of female managers report problems 
sleeping (Figure 105). Figures are almost as high for female 
agricultural workers and professionals. Male agricultural 
workers, in contrast, experience the least problems in 
sleeping while managers, professionals, clerks and service 
and sales workers are the occupations most likely to report 
sleep problems.

Figure 105: Sleep problems, by occupation and sex (%)

Men

Women

Agricultural workers 

Elementary occupations 

Managers 

Plant and machine operators 

Craft workers 

EU28 

Technicians 

Professionals 

Service and sales workers 

Clerks 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

Most job quality indices are negatively related to sleeping 
problems (Figure 106), suggesting that increasing job 
quality could enhance the quality of sleep. This is in 
line with research showing that negative work-related 
psychosocial factors can be a predicator of decreasing 
well-being – in particular, sleeping problems (Elovainio et 
al, 2015). At the same time, people experiencing sleeping 

Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

difficulties may find it hard to meet their job demands, and 
so perceive the work environment as being more difficult.

Better social and physical environments are associated 
with fewer sleeping problems. Skills and discretion 
shows the opposite association – greater use of skills and 
discretion is associated with greater difficulty in falling 
asleep and a tendency to wake up repeatedly during the 
night.

Impact of work on health (subjective 
assessment)
The EWCS asks workers whether work affects their health 
and to indicate if it does so in a positive or a negative way – 
clearly a subjective assessment. Since 2010, the proportion 
of workers declaring that work does not affect their health 
has fallen slightly – from 68% to 63%. Over the same 
period, the proportion declaring that work affects their 
health positively has risen from 7% to 12%, while there has 
been no change in the proportion who think their health is 
negatively affected (25%).

More men than women say that work affects their health 
negatively, but there is no gender difference evident in the 
assessment of work affecting health positively.

There are considerable differences between occupations. 
Plant and machine operators are most likely to feel that 
work affects their health negatively, 38% reporting this. 
They are followed by craft workers (35%) and agricultural 
workers (32%). Conversely, agricultural workers, 
professionals and managers are the groups reporting 
most frequently that work affects their health positively 
(between 14% and 15%).

In term of sectors, workers in industry, agriculture, health, 
transport and – especially – construction (37%) report 
more than other sectors that work affects their health 
negatively. Simultaneously, in a number of the same 
sectors, workers also report more often that work affects 
their health positively: the agricultural sector, education, 
and health.

Workers are more likely to feel that work benefits 
their health when job quality indices are high. Physical 
environment and Social environment demonstrate the 
strongest association. The association for all job quality 

Figure 106: Association between job quality indices and sleeping problems

Difficulty falling asleep

Waking up repeatedly

Waking up with
a feeling of exhaustion

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to Figure 32 for 
more details on the methodology used.

111

indices is positive, with the exception of earnings – for 
which there is a negative association.

to 41% of men), although they also report more absence 
because of sickness.

Sickness leave
Some 28% of workers said they were absent for health 
reasons for five or more days in the 12 months prior to 
the survey: this was the case for 30% of women and 27% 
of men. There are considerable differences between 
age groups: 25% of workers aged under 35 years report 
this level of absence, as against 28% of workers aged 
35–49 years and 32% of workers aged over 50. Among 
occupations, sickness absence is reported more often by 
plant and machine operators, clerks and technicians.

Presenteeism
Presenteeism is the phenomenon whereby a worker, 
although contending with a physical or psychological 
health problem, still comes to work. There is increasing 
awareness of the costs of presenteeism; not least, it is 
associated with lower productivity (Sainsbury Centre for 
Mental Health, 2007).

Women report more often than men that they work while 
they are sick (44% of women reporting this compared 

In terms of age groups, older workers – those aged 50 and 
over – are the least likely to report presenteeism (39%) 
while reporting more sickness absence. In contrast, 44% of 
workers aged under 35 report presenteeism. Presenteeism 
is highest among managers, professionals and technicians.

When the relationship between sickness absence and 
presenteeism is examined, a strong association is apparent 
between low levels of sickness absence and high levels of 
presenteeism for both men and women in most countries 
(Figure 107).

Both sickness absence and presenteeism are undesirable 
for both employers and employees. An analysis of the 
association between the two phenomena and the 
job quality indices finds that good physical and social 
environments are strongly associated with less general 
absence from work, absence due to accidents, absence for 
more than five days and absence due to a (self-reported) 
work-related illness. Additionally, better job quality is 
associated with less presenteeism, with the exception of 
Skills and discretion.

Figure 107: Sickness absence and presenteeism, by country and sex

Absenteeism

Presenteeism

80

60

40

20

n
e
m
o
W

60 

n
e
M

40 

20 

0 

Belgium 
Croatia 
Norway 
Finland 
Slovakia 
Poland 
Czech Republic 
Netherlands 
Bulgaria 
Denmark 
EU28 
Austria 
Switzerland 
Lithuania 
Germany 
Turkey 
Italy 

Portugal 
Albania 
Estonia 
Sweden 
Latvia 
Hungary 
Cyprus 
Malta 
Romania 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 
Ireland 

FYROM 

France 
Montenegro 
Slovenia 
Greece 
Spain 

Serbia 

112

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Figure 108: Association between job quality indices and sickness absence/presenteeism

Absence

Absence
(accidents)

Absence (ESAW)

Absence (WRI)

Presenteeism

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to Figure 32 for 
more details on the methodology used. WRI = work-related injury; ESAW = European Statistics on Accidents at Work

Workers with a chronic disease: Workplace adaptation needed

The inclusion of workers with a chronic disease – or long-standing health issue – is increasingly recognised as an 
important policy concern. It is made more urgent by ongoing improvements in healthcare and the ageing of the 
workforce, which means that increasing numbers of workers are likely to be dealing with a chronic disease in the 
future.

Eurofound research underlines the importance of chronic disease in the context of work and employment: 
‘Chronically ill employees often experience great difficulties either staying in work or returning to work after a long 
period of absence’ (Eurofound, 2014a).

In the sixth EWCS, almost one in every five workers in the EU28 (18%) reported having an illness or health problem 
lasting, or expected to last, for more than six months. (This is a self-reported indicator).

In line with similar trends, for example shown in Eurostat data on self-perceived health, a slightly higher proportion 
of female workers report chronic disease – 19% of women compared to 17% of men. The proportion increases with 
age: just 12% of workers aged under 35 years reported having a chronic disease, compared to 16% of 35–49 year-olds 
but 26% of those aged 50 or over. The proportion of workers with a chronic disease varies substantially between 
countries – from 5% in Romania to 36% in Finland. This can be related to a number of factors: it may mean that more 
workers have health issues; but it may also be the case that specific policies and measures result in workplaces being 
more open to retaining these employees – through workplace adaptation, for instance, or more flexible working time 
arrangements.

In terms of employment status, self-employed workers without employees are more likely to report chronic disease. 
From a sectoral perspective, it is more widely reported in public administration and in health.

Chronic disease can have an impact beyond work, affecting a worker’s normal daily activities. More than half (54%) 
of those who reported having chronic disease also stated that their daily activities are limited because of their health 
problem, 56% of women stating this compared to 51% of men. Almost one in ten workers who reported having 
a chronic health problem (9%) said that their daily activities are severely limited because of this.

To accommodate workers with a chronic disease, organisations can adapt various aspects of work or of the 
workplace. Respondents with a chronic disease were asked whether their workplace or work activity had been 
changed to accommodate their health condition: only 21% said that it had been changed. The picture was slightly 
better for those with more severe conditions: 29% of those whose daily activities are limited because of their 
condition said that their workplace or work activity had been changed to accommodate it. Of these, 42% still felt 
that their workplace or work activity needed to be further adapted – either because the current arrangement is 
inadequate or because their condition could worsen. Among those whose workplace or work activity had not been 
changed to accommodate their condition, only 25% declared that future changes would be necessary.

113

3.4  Reconciling working and 

non-working life

To encourage people to enter the labour market, and 
to enable those already working to stay doing so, it is 
essential that workers are facilitated in balancing their 
working and non-working lives. Work–life balance becomes 
a particularly urgent issue against the background of an 
ageing population – given the associated care needs.

A good balance between working life and private life can 
reap benefits not only for the worker and their family 
but also for the company and society as a whole. More 
accommodating working time arrangements and a good 
social infrastructure can help workers to balance the dual 
demands of work and non-work and to participate more 
fully in the workforce.

Work–life balance
In 2015, four workers in five (or 82%) reported a good 
fit between their work and their family or social 
commitments, with just 18% reporting that the fit was 
poor. The proportion of workers reporting a good ‘fit’ has 
increased somewhat since 2005 (79%).

There are considerable differences between countries 
regarding this aspect, ranging from 92% in Romania to 74% 
in Greece (Figure 109).

Men are more likely to say that their working hours do not 
fit with their private commitments than women: 20% of 
men declare this compared to 16% of women. However, 
interpreting this finding is not a straightforward matter. As 
it is generally acknowledged that women continue to carry 
out the majority of domestic tasks at home, it may seem 

surprising that this finding reflects a slightly higher work–
life balance among women than men. It may be indicative 
of women making choices that adapt to their situation – 
assessing if and how they will be able to combine their 
professional and private life and choosing a pattern of 
working life on the basis of that assessment. Men, in 
contrast, are more likely to make choices that conform to 
the dominant model of a full-time, long-term employee – 
and adapt as necessary when they need to accommodate 
private commitments.

Women without any caring responsibilities (for example, 
care of children, disabled or elderly dependants) more 
frequently report a good fit than women with care 
responsibilities. The same goes for workers in general, with 
workers having the care of young children reporting the 
poorest fit of all.

Employees in indefinite contracts, self-employed without 
employees and part-time workers fare better in this regard, 
reporting more often a good fit than the EU average.

Working time arrangements
Workers are more likely to say they can readily balance 
working hours with other commitments outside work if 
one or more of the following conditions are present: they 
work shorter working hours, can take an hour off for their 
own needs, have regular and predictable working hours, 
and can work from home.

On the other hand, workers are more likely to say that the 
balance between their work and private life is poor if they 
work long hours (over 48 per week), work at home outside 
working hours to get work done, and perform night work, 
shift work (particularly daily split shifts) and weekend work 
(Figure 110).

Figure 109: Fit between work and commitments outside work, by country (%)

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Czech Republic 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Switzerland 
Denmark 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Bulgaria 
Belgium 
Sweden 
Norway 
Finland 
Ireland 
Austria 

Germany 
Estonia 
Croatia 

Cyprus 

United Kingdom 
Albania 
Poland 
Malta 

EU28 

Lithuania 
Hungary 
Slovenia 
Portugal 
Latvia 
Italy 

Montenegro 
FYROM 
France 
Serbia 

Turkey 
Spain 

Greece 

114

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Figure 110: Working time arrangements and fit 
between work and commitments outside work (%)

Figure 111: Association between job quality indices 
and work–life balance

Working time per week 
20 hours or fewer 
21–34 
35–40 
41–47 
48 or more 
Arranging an hour oﬀ is 
Easy 
Diﬀicult 

Changes in schedule 
None 
Changes 

Working time regularity 
High regularity 
Medium regularity 
Low regularity 

Working in free time 
No 
Yes 

No Sunday work 
Sunday work 

No Saturday work 
Saturday work 

No night work 
Night work 

No shift work
Shift work

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

Workers with poor work–life balance (%)

Having a say over one’s working hours has only a limited 
effect on having a good work–life balance. Indeed, workers 
who have complete autonomy over their working time 
are more likely to indicate problems with their work–life 
balance. This may be related to the fact that this group is 
often self-employed and/or works long hours.

Working time quality
Of the seven job quality indices, working time quality has 
the greatest effect in boosting workers’ assessment of 
their work–life balance (Figure 111). With the exception of 
Earnings, all other job indices are also positively associated 
with a better work–life balance (though to a much lesser 
extent). Not surprisingly, perhaps, having a job with less 
work intensity gives a worker more space to deal with 
their private life. And a positive association with the Social 
environment index may reflect workers’ appreciation 
of their managers’ or colleagues’ consideration for their 
private life.

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to 
Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

Working time preferences
The majority of workers (57%) report that they would like 
to work the same number of hours that they currently work 
(men and women reporting this equally). Some 30% would 
like to work fewer hours – and here a gender difference 
does emerge: 32% of men wish to work less, as against 
28% of women. An age difference is also apparent: 32% of 
workers in the older age groups (35–49 years and 50 years 
and over) would like to work less while this is the case for 
only 25% of workers aged under 35. And only a very small 
minority (around 12%) of workers over 35 would like to 
work more hours. There are substantial differences for this 
dimension between countries, and differences between 
men and women within some countries: generally, men are 
more likely to want to work less, and women more.

Unsurprisingly, people who work very long hours are more 
likely to say they want to work less: compared to the EU 
average of 30% who want to work less, some 65% of people 
working 48 hours or more per week want to work fewer 
hours (Figure 112 – overleaf). And while on average only 
13% of workers want to work more hours per week, this 
figure rises to 42% among those whose working week is 20 
hours or less. Again, predictably, people at the lowest end 
of the income scale are more likely to want to work more 
hours, while those at the highest end are more likely to 
say they either wish to work the same hours or reduce the 
length of their working week.

There is almost no association between the job quality 
indices and working time preferences. Preferences for 
working more or less hours, however, are clearly linked 
with earnings – more earnings are likely to be associated 
with a wish to decrease working hours and vice versa. 
Those with a preference for more hours are usually not 
exposed to several aspects of poor working time quality, 
such as working 48 hours or more, working long days, 
working atypical hours and working in one’s free time.

115

Figure 112: Working time preferences, working hours and income, EU28 (%)

Less than
currently

Same as
currently

More than
currently

17

25

16

25

s
r
u
o
h
g
n

i
k
r
o
W

20 or fewer

9

21–34

35–40

41–47

48 or more

Lowest

e
m
o
c
n
I

s
e
l
i
t
n
a
u
q

Second lowest

Middle

Second highest

Highest

EU28

33

35

30

44

57

65

40

34

49

57

49

59

59

59

52

57

45

26

42

69

6

3

1

35

17

9

6

4

13

Figure 113: Association between job quality indices 
and preference for working more hours

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to 
Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

Reconciling roles in work and private life 
People have different roles in life – citizen, worker, 
member of a household, parent, carer, volunteer and so 
on. Ensuring that people can fulfil their various roles is 
important for social cohesion. Being able to reconcile the 
different roles would involve examining the time needs 
linked to the performance of these roles and also the 
spillovers between roles – that is, the benefits and possible 
pressures arising from performing different roles.

In this regard, work and working conditions play an 
important role, as well as the social infrastructure and 
social protection provisions.

This section looks at the following aspects: the overall time 
spent by men and women on paid and unpaid work, the 
spillover effect from work to family and from family to work 
(resulting either in work–family conflict or work– family 
enrichment) and the associations with the job quality 
indices.

Paid and unpaid working time

A person’s overall working time consists of the length 
of time spent in the main paying job (and if relevant the 
second job) and the amount of time spent on unpaid 
domestic tasks and care responsibilities.16

The division of time over the different phases of life depends 
very much on decisions made at household level, as well as 
on the labour market, social infrastructure and organisation 
of society (Eurofound, 1999). Throughout a person’s 
working life, time needs in the private sphere can vary 
considerably. For example, care responsibilities for children, 
grandchildren, disabled and elderly dependents can be 
more intensive at particular times of life.

When paid and unpaid working hours are combined, 
women continue to work more hours than men: 55 hours 
per week compared to 49 (Figure 114). While men on 
average work more hours in their paying job, women 
carry out the most unpaid working hours. Both men and 
women spend more time on unpaid work when there are 
children in the household, but this expansion of unpaid 
work is greater for women, hence further widening the 
divide between the different time use of men and women. 
In addition, as the figure shows, the characteristics of the 
household – young single earner living with parents, couple 
with young children, etc. – affects the pattern of time use.

Spillovers between work and private life

Working life and private life inevitably impact on each 
other. Working life can infringe on a person’s private life in 
a negative way, in the form of work–family conflicts. However, 
working life can also benefit a person’s private life – leading 
to work–family enrichment. Previous research has shown 
that work–family conflicts are associated with individual 
health problems, as well as having broader consequences for 
workers, their families and the organisations they work in.

16 

In addition, the EWCS looked at the length of time spent in a second job. Because the incidence of holding a second job is low, this average figure is very low – 
less than one hour per week, on average. See also Chapter 1 – section 1.8: Multiple job-holders.

116

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Figure 114: Paid and unpaid working time, by household composition and gender (hours per week), EU28

Main paid (and second
job if relevant) job

Unpaid work

Single, 18–35, living with parents
or other relatives

Single, 45 and under, no children
and not living with parents

Couple without children, woman
aged 45 and under

Couple with youngest child under 7

Couple with youngest child 7–12

Couple with youngest child 12 and over

Couple without children, woman aged 46–59

Couple without children, both 60 and over

Single, 50 and over, without children

Other

EU28

37

38

31

34

36

40

41

32

32

33

34

43

41

40

27

32

32

33

33

36

38

39

39

35

12

8

10

5

5

12

19

15

9

5

6

9

12

7

9

23

15

17

21

22

Men

Women

Figure 115: Work–family enrichment, by country (%)

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

Disagree 

Neither agree
nor disagree 

Agree 

0% 

Romania 
Slovenia 
FYROM 
Turkey 
Malta 

Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 

Ireland 

Finland 

Hungary 
Greece 
Serbia 

United Kingdom 
Czech Republic 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Montenegro 
Switzerland 
Lithuania 
Denmark 
Slovakia 
Belgium 
Sweden 
Norway 
Albania 
Estonia 
Poland 
Austria 
Latvia 
EU28 

Germany 
Portugal 
France 
Spain 
Italy 

In the sixth EWCS, a new question set out to measure 
‘work–family enrichment’. Almost half of the respondents 
living with children (49%) state that they get on better with 
their children because they have a job. Almost one- quarter 
(22%) feels they get on worse, while 29% has no strong 
opinions either way. There is little difference between men 
and women on the issue (three percentage points); workers 

on higher incomes are more likely to feel that having a job 
benefits their private and family life.

The results indicate wide differences between countries, 
as Figure 115 illustrates. In the former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia and Romania, over 75% of workers feel that 
having a job improves their relationship with their children. 
In Italy, by contrast, the equivalent figure is just 26%.

117

Work–family conflicts

When working life spills over into a person’s private life 
in a negative way, this results in work–family conflicts – 
leading either to problems in work or in family life.

Either type of conflict simultaneously affects both the 
worker and the organisation they work in. Work–family 
conflicts can have work-related outcomes, impacting 
on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and 
engagement. They may have also non-work related 
outcomes, affecting overall life satisfaction, satisfaction 
with family life and marriage. Or they may induce health- 
related outcomes – particularly psychological strain, 
mental health problems and sickness absence (Allen et al, 
2000; Amstad et al, 2011). According to research findings, 
workers point to issues with health, social relations and 
concentration when work–family conflicts arise, while 
organisations allude to a lack of focus on the part of 
workers and insufficient time spent on delivering good 
quality outputs.

The sixth EWCS included questions addressing both work–
family conflicts and family–work conflicts. Some 21% of 
workers state that they are – always or most of the time – 
too tired after work to carry out necessary household 

tasks. Meanwhile, 14% worry about work when they are 
not working. And for 11% of workers, their job prevents 
them from giving the time they would like to their family.

In line with other research (Gallie, 2013a), work being 
adversely affected by family concerns is reported 
dramatically less often than family life suffering because 
of work. Only some 3% of workers have difficulty 
concentrating on their job because of their family 
responsibilities. A similar proportion (3%) state that their 
family responsibilities have prevented them from giving 
the time they should to their job.

In terms of occupations, there are some noticeable 
differences (Figure 116). Managers, followed by agricultural 
workers, most often report work–family conflicts: for 
instance, 31% of managers worry about work outside of 
working hours. In contrast, only 8% of clerks report this.

Certain work situations make it more likely that work–
family conflicts will arise: for instance, where people work 
atypical hours, or in a supervisory position. In addition, the 
configuration of the household is important: single parents 
and workers in households with children experience more 
pressure in this respect.

Figure 116: Extent of work–family conflict, by occupation (% ‘always’ and ‘most of the time’)

Managers

31

Professionals

Technicians

Clerks

8

26

13

16

5

4

9

3

2

Service and sales workers

Agricultural workers

Craft workers

Plant and machine operators

Elementary occupations

118

Worrying  
about work

Too tired 
for housework

No time 
for family 
because of job

Cannot focus on 
job due to family 
responsibilities

No time for 
job because 
of family

Within work−family conflict

Above average

Highest percentage

Below average

Lowest percentage

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Working conditions and work–family conflicts and spillovers

There is a better balance between work and family life when certain working conditions are present, for example, 
when work is considered meaningful, workers get recognition for their work and there are flexible time arrangements 
in place (allowing workers to take time off for family reasons when necessary).

Table 13 summarises the results of six regression analyses on the variables shown in the columns as dependent 
variables. The regressions control for sex, age, country, sector, occupation, employment status, workplace size, 
household composition, being a supervisor and having a second job. The plus signs indicate statistically positive 
significant associations and minus signs indicate statistically significant negative associations (blank cells indicate 
no significant association present).

Table 13: Working conditions and work–family conflict

Worrying 
about work at 
home

Too tired to 
do household 
chores

Job affects 
family time

Cannot 
concentrate 
on job 
because of 
family

Family affects 
job time

Working more hours

Night work

Weekend work

Able to take an hour off

Flexibility in working schedules

Regularity in working time

More intense work

Frequent disruptive interruptions

Three or more determinants of work pace

Meaningful work

Support from colleagues

Receive recognition for my work

Organisational participation

Adverse social behaviour

Job insecurity

Restructuring in the last three years

+

+

-

+

-

+

+

+

-

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+

-

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

-

+

+

+

-

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

-

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+

The different job quality indices reveal some associations 
with work–family conflict. Work–family conflicts are 
negatively related – most notably – to Working time 
quality; they are also negatively related to the Social and 
Physical environment, Work intensity and Prospects. (This 
holds true as well for family–work conflicts – at the right of 
Figure 117 (overleaf) – where family life affects both time 
and the level of concentration given to the job.)

The different indices have varying impacts depending on 
the particular aspect of the work–family spillovers being 
investigated. The Physical environment has a relatively 
bigger impact on tiredness. Workers who have a good 

score on Skills and discretion are more likely to worry 
about work. High levels of Earnings are associated with 
higher levels of work–family conflict. And these jobs 
often require greater use of skills which – as mentioned 
above – is associated with worry. It is common knowledge 
that in these kind of jobs workers frequently continue 
to think about their job outside of working hours. This 
calls for attention to be paid to devising measures to 
assist individuals draw a boundary between working life 
and personal life. It also points to the need or right to 
disconnect from ICT devices – the use of which is included 
in the Skills and discretion job quality index.

119

Figure 117: Association between job quality indices, work–life balance and work–family conflict

Positive

Negative

Work–life
balance

Worrying about 
work at home

Tired after work

Job aﬀects 
family time

Family aﬀects 
job time

Concentration
problems due to
family issues

Skills and discretion
Social environment
Physical environment
Work intensity (reversed)
Prospects
Working time quality
Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers and the orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See note to Figure 32 for 
more details on the methodology used.

3.5  Work sustainability
The idea behind sustainable work is that how we work 
today will have an impact on how we work in the future 
(Eurofound, 2015d). Faced with the diversity and flexibility 
of working life, and given its potential to address the 
demographic challenge of an ageing population and the 
increased individualisation of society, the concept of 
sustainability of work is gaining increasing public and 
political recognition.

Sustainability of work comprises two elements:

ensuring that people are able and willing to work until 
retirement age – in particular, by paying attention to 
the quality of their jobs and their working environment 
over the life course

guaranteeing that workers’ personal circumstances 
and needs, in relation to such issues as care, are 
accommodated, hence enabling them to continue 
working over the life course.

Research shows that working conditions and work 
organisation are of crucial importance in ensuring that 
workers can build up and regenerate their personal 
resources in terms of capacities, health and well-being, 
and skills rather than depleting them (Docherty et al, 
2009; Volkoff and Gaudart, 2015; de Wind et al, 2016). 
Furthermore, previous research findings (Wahrendorf et 
al, 2012) also underline that improving working conditions 
may help keep older workers in employment – particularly 
those at lower occupational levels.

Sustainable work takes both a preventive and a proactive 
approach: managing the work over the life course to enable 
longer, good-quality working lives and, where it is needed, 
facilitating workers with more limited abilities, in order to 
ensure their participation in paid employment.

Findings from the sixth EWCS can inform the discussions 
on making work sustainable by providing evidence 
regarding workers’ preferences in terms of their working 
lives, as well as bringing understanding to the role that 
job quality and working conditions play in fostering 
sustainability.

120

Self-reported preferred age for stopping 
work
Respondents were asked to state their preferred age for 
stopping work: ‘Until what age do you want to work?’ They 
could either cite an ideal age or answer simply ‘as late as 
possible’. Some 69% of workers mentioned a specific age, 
while 19% said they would like to work as long as possible.

Expectations regarding the length of one’s career 
appear to be determined in part by the age profile of the 
respondent’s occupation: workers in occupations with the 
highest average age of worker are more likely to indicate 
that they want to work as long as possible. Agricultural 
workers (both men and women) state a wish to work the 
longest: around 32% want to work as late as possible, and 
the average stated age is 63 for men and 62 for women 
(Figure 118). Plant and machine operators are most likely 
to want to stop working early: only 16% want to work as 
late as possible and the desired retirement age is 60 for 
men and 59 for women.

The desired retirement age indicated by workers is 
highest in the Scandinavian countries (Norway 65 years, 
Denmark 64, Sweden 63). It is lowest in Turkey (53), Cyprus 
and Slovenia (57) and the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Poland and Malta (58).

Perceived ability to work until the age of 60
The EWCS asked respondents whether they felt they would 
still be able to do their job when they reached an older age. 
The question was nuanced according to the respondents’ 
age. Workers aged 55 or younger were asked whether 
they felt they could do their current job until they reached 
the age of 60. Those aged 56 or over were asked whether 
they felt they could do their current job in five years’ time. 
It should be noted that many respondents were unable 
to answer this question, with 9% of those aged 55 or 
under and 13% of those aged 56 and over answering ‘Do 
not know’ (these responses were excluded from further 
analysis).

Some 73% of the under-55 cohort of workers in the EU28 
said they felt they would be able to do their current job 
until the age of 60, with 27% saying they felt they could 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
 
Figure 118: Age at which workers wish to stop working, by occupation and sex, EU28 (%)

Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Managers 

Professionals 

Technicians 

Clerks 

Service and sales workers 

Agricultural workers 

Craft workers 

Plant and machine operators 

Elementary occupations 

Men

Women

Men

Women

60 

61 

60 

61 

61 

62 

60 

62 

60 

61 

62 

63 

60 

60 

59 

60 

60 

61 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

Want to work as long as possible

Want to work until <age>

Figure 119: Self-reported ability to work until the age of 60 by respondents aged 55 and under, by country and sex (%)

Men

Women

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Sweden 
Denmark 
Germany 
Portugal 

Estonia 

Czech Republic 
Cyprus 
Norway 
Latvia 
Romania 
Greece 
Finland 
EU28 
Serbia 
Malta 
Austria 
Hungary 
Spain 
Montenegro 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Slovakia 
United Kingdom 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 
Luxembourg 
Switzerland 
Ireland 
Italy 

Albania 
Croatia 

FYROM 
Poland 

Slovenia 
France 

Turkey 

not. Men were slightly more optimistic than women in 
this respect: 74% of men answering in the affirmative 
compared to 72% of women.

There are notable differences in terms of employment 
status: 81% of the self-employed workers without 
employees (83% with employees) stated that they felt 
they could work until the age of 60, compared with 74% 
of workers on an indefinite contract, and around 62% of 
workers with a fixed-term or other contract.

Differences also exist between the different occupations. 
More than 75% of clerks, professionals and managers 
indicated they would be able to work until 60, compared 
with less than 60% of elementary workers and service and 
sales workers.

There are also considerable country differences in terms of 
workers’ expectations of their work capacity. In Germany, 
Portugal, Denmark and Sweden more than 80% of workers 
(men and women) aged under 55 felt they could work up to 
the age of 60. This contrasts sharply with 60% or less – for 
some countries, markedly less – in Poland, Slovenia, France 
and Turkey. In most countries, differences between men and 
women are slight; however, in Turkey and Slovenia, there is 
a gap of around 15 percentage points, women being markedly 
less optimistic regarding their future work capacity.

For the second cohort – workers aged 56 or over – the 
findings show substantial differences between men and 
women across countries. In most countries, more men 
than women believe they will still be able to do their jobs 

121

Figure 120: Self-reported ability to work in five years’ time by respondents aged 56 and over, by country and sex (%)

Men

Women

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Ireland 
Portugal 

Switzerland 
Estonia 
Montenegro 
Denmark 
United Kingdom 
Sweden 
Austria 
Netherlands 
Cyprus 
Finland 
Spain 
Germany 
Norway 

Croatia 
Italy 

Latvia 
EU28 
Lithuania 
Bulgaria 

Poland 
Romania 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Luxembourg 
Malta 

Hungary 
Slovakia 
France 
FYROM 
Greece 

Albania 
Turkey 

Slovenia 
Serbia 

in five years’ time; however, differences between sexes 
are greater than for the younger age cohort – particularly 
in Slovenia, Albania, Turkey and Romania where the 
difference ranges from 21 to 26 percentage points. The gap 
is reversed in a few countries, with a higher percentage of 
women declaring they would be able to do the same job 
as currently in five years’ time: Austria, Finland, Croatia, 
Norway and Slovakia.

Job quality and sustainable work

It should be noted that in this section, the focus is 
specifically on the younger cohort of workers (aged 55 or 
younger) being able to work until the age of 60.

Being able to do one’s current job until the age of 60 is 
associated with all the job quality indices, except for 
earnings (Figure 121). Although earning more money 
might be an incentive to work longer, it does not seem to 
be associated with the perceived ability to work longer. 
The physical environment shows the strongest relation 
to sustainability of work. In addition, good job prospects, 
lower work intensity and a good social environment are 
all contributory factors. Skills and discretion, and working 
time quality are also conducive to sustainable work, albeit 
to a lesser extent than the other indices.

Figure 121: Association between job quality indices 
and sustainability of work

Skills and discretion

Social environment

Physical environment

Work intensity (reversed)

Prospects

Working time quality

Earnings

Note: The blue bars represent associations favourable to workers. See 
note to Figure 32 for more details on the methodology used.

122

Working conditions

Looking in greater detail at particular factors that make 
up the indices shows that certain aspects of working 
conditions are very strongly associated with being able to 
work until 60.

The more that workers are exposed to physical risks – 
especially posture-related risks – the more likely it is that 
they will not envisage being able to do the same job at 60 
(Figure 122).

Figure 122: Mean exposure to physical risks and 
sustainability of work, EU28 (scale)

x
e
d
n

i
k
s
i
R

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Not able to do job until 60 

Able to do job until 60 

Men 

Women 

Men 

Women 

Men  

Women 

Posture-
related 

Biological
and chemical

Ambient

In line with the findings from the analysis of the job quality 
indices, multivariate analysis shows that workers are likely 
to be less optimistic regarding the sustainability of their 
work if they are exposed to any of the following adverse 
working conditions: work intensity, shift work (particularly 
daily split shifts), night work, fear of losing their job, unfair 
treatment, and bullying or harassment (Figure 123). (These 
same factors also apply equally to the older age cohort 
(aged 56 or over) who were asked about their perceived 
ability to be doing their current job in five years’ time).

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report 
Chapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Figure 123: Ability to do the job until the age of 60 and exposure to various working conditions, EU28 (%)

Yes

No

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Shift work 

Night work 

Work intensity 

Fear of losing job 

Bullying/harassment 

Treated fairly 
Support from colleagues 

Easy to take an hour oﬀ 

Recognition for work done 

Conversely, workers are likely to be more positive about 
the sustainability of their work if the following conditions 
were present: able to take an hour off work when needed, 
good support from colleagues at work, perception that the 
work they are doing is useful, and praise and recognition 
when they do a good job.

Likely age to finish working
Respondents who answered that they could continue 
working until the age of 60 (or if they felt they could 
continue in their job for the next five years) were given 
a second question: this asked them to state the age up to 
which they felt they could continue working. The average 

age given by respondents was 64 years, and the gender 
differences in this respect were minimal: men 65 and 
women 64 years. Nor was there any marked difference 
between the two age cohorts, with their answers ranging 
from 64 to 65 years. Self-employed workers envisage 
being able to work a little later than employees (66 years 
compared to 64 years).

There are somewhat larger differences between countries 
in terms of anticipated age to finish working. In Denmark, 
the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, workers on average 
feel they can work until 67 years of age. However, in 
Albania, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Slovakia and Turkey, the 
age given was 62 years.

123

Perspectives on working life

Career and employment security

Engagement at the workplace

EU28: Over 70% of workers feel engaged in their job. The majority of workers (82%) feel that their work has been well 
done ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ and just over half (52%) report that they always feel that the work they are doing is 
useful.

Occupation: Managers and professionals score highest in terms of engagement, while workers in health, education 
and construction are most likely to see their jobs as meaningful.

Job quality: Greater engagement is associated with greater use of skills and discretion, a better social environment, 
and good prospects. Workers find their jobs meaningful if they make greater use of skills and discretion, and if the 
social environment and prospects are good.

Satisfaction with working conditions

EU28: 86% of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with their working conditions – a slight increase since 2000.

Occupation: Twice as many workers in elementary occupations as managers are dissatisfied with their working 
conditions.

Job quality: Having a good quality of management, a good work–life balance, and having career prospects are 
positively associated with satisfaction with working conditions.

Financial security

EU28: 65% of respondents said their households could make ends meet fairly easily – a slight rise since 2010 (62%).

Gender: Women who are the main earner in the household are much more likely to say they have difficulty in 
making ends meet than the EU28 average. Single parents, in particular single mothers, are even more likely to have 
difficulties.

Developing skills and competences

Nearly half (43%) of workers in the EU28 are either under-skilled or over-skilled. About 14% need further training to 
perform their duties well (and hence are under-skilled). Meanwhile, 28% have the skills to cope with more demanding 
duties (being over-skilled). Overall, the extent of skills mismatch is decreasing in the EU28.

Maintaining and promoting health and well-being

EU28: 78% of workers report being in good or very good health. The proportion of workers in poor health increases 
with age.

Occupation: Workers at a lower level on the ISCO classification report a greater incidence of poor health – as do 
those with a lower level of education.

Mental well-being: Men score slightly higher than women and workers aged under 35 higher than older workers.

Health problems

The most widely reported health problem by workers is backache (reported by 43%), followed by muscular pains in 
the arms (41%), headache and eyestrain, and overall fatigue (both 35%).

Job quality indices: Issues in the physical and social environments are strongly associated with almost all health 
problems.

Sleeping difficulties: Women have greater difficulty than men in terms of sleep: in particular, 61% of female 
managers report problems sleeping. While a better social and physical environment is associated with fewer sleeping 
problems, greater use of skills and discretion is associated with sleeping difficulties.

Occupation: Plant and machine operators are most likely to feel that work affects their health negatively, 38% 
reporting this. Conversely, agricultural workers, professionals and managers indicate more often that work affects 
their health positively – around 15%.

Job quality: Workers are more likely to feel that work benefits their health when the physical environment and 
social environment are good.

124

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 3 – Perspectives on working life in Europe 

Sickness absence

Over one-quarter of workers (28%) said they were absent for health reasons for five or more days in the course of 
a year – more often, older workers.

Job quality indices: A good physical environment and social environment are strongly associated with less sickness 
absence overall.

Reconciling working and non-working life

Work–life balance

EU28: Some 82% of workers feel there is a good fit between their work and family or social commitments.

Gender: Men are more likely to say that their working hours do not fit with their private commitments, 20% of men 
indicating this compared to 16% of women. Workers with care responsibilities more often report a poor fit.

Employment status: Employees in indefinite contracts, self-employed without employees and part-time workers 
report more often a good fit than the EU average.

Working more and working less

A small majority of workers (57%) would like to work the same hours as they do currently and 30% would like to work 
fewer hours.

People who work long hours (over 48 hours per week) are twice as likely as the average to want to work less. Conversely,  
over three times as many people working short hours (20 hours per week or fewer) want to work more hours than the 
average.

Paid and unpaid working time

When paid and unpaid work are looked at together, women continue to work more hours than men – 55 hours per 
week, as against 49 for men. Men work more hours in their paying job, but women do the most unpaid working hours.

Work–family spillovers

Some 21% of workers state that they are too tired after work to do necessary household tasks.

Some 31% of managers worry about work outside working hours – compared to just 8% of clerks.

Working atypical hours or in a supervisory position makes it more likely that work–family conflict will arise. And 
single parents and workers in households with children experience greater difficulty.

Work sustainability

Some 73% of workers in the EU28 aged under 55 years said they would be able to do their current job until the age 
of 60. Men were slightly more optimistic than women in this regard. Some 71% of workers in the EU28 aged 56 and 
over report being able to do their current job in five years’ time.

125

4 Profiles of job quality

4 Profiles of job quality

Job quality, as underlined in Chapter 2, is a multifaceted 
concept; to capture the different dimensions, Eurofound 
developed seven job quality indices. The analysis shows 
that all seven, independently, have an impact on health 
and well-being. Moreover, they are important in terms of 
productivity (Eurofound, 2012b). The seven indices were 
examined separately in order to allow policymakers to 
consider which particular dimensions of job quality are 
more relevant for certain groups of workers or for certain 
aspects of health, well-being or productivity. Chapter 2 
also demonstrated that jobs show different combinations 
of levels of each job quality index and that associations 
between job quality dimensions are not clear cut: some 
dimensions correlate with each other, others do not 
correlate at all while others are related only marginally 
to each other. The indices focus on objective job features 
and exclude items relating to the personal circumstances 
and qualities of the workers, even though personal 
circumstances may affect certain features of a job.

Chapter 3 moved away from the job quality perspective 
to focus on workers’ own assessments of their experience 
in terms of the following aspects: career and employment 
security; developing skills and competences; maintaining 
and developing health and well-being; and reconciling 
working and non-working life. The chapter also examined 
the association between the job quality indices and 
workers’ experiences in their working life.

This chapter explores to what extent patterns can be seen 
across jobs, by clustering jobs that have similar scores on the 
seven job quality indices. Although the job quality indices are 
not systematically correlated with each other, certain jobs 
display higher or lower levels of some indices. Some jobs are 
characterised by high levels of job quality indices in some 
areas but low levels in others; other jobs score well on all job 
quality indices. These patterns should provide policymakers 
with a comprehensive input for targeted policies aimed at 
addressing and improving job quality.

Clustering job quality using latent class analysis

In order to identify groups of workers with similar job quality features, a statistical technique called ‘latent class 
analysis’ (LCA) is used. Using the 2015 EWCS data from the EU28, this technique classifies workers into a number of 
groups of different sizes based on similarities in the patterns of job quality, with similar jobs being assigned to the 
same type and substantially different jobs assigned to different types. For more information on the methodology, 
see Annex 4: Job quality clusters.

4.1  Five distinct profiles of job 

quality

Patterns in job quality suggest that the picture is more 
nuanced than a straightforward polarisation between high 
and low quality jobs. The analysis groups workers into 
five job quality profiles: ‘high flying’ jobs (comprising 21% 
of workers); ‘smooth running’ jobs (25%); ‘active manual’ 

jobs (21%); ‘under pressure’ jobs (13%); and ‘poor quality’ 
jobs (20%). The pattern of the job quality scores between 
the profiles is dissimilar, reinforcing the premise that job 
quality comprises different dimensions. Figure 124 shows 
how the profiles differ from each other in relative terms. 
Within these profiles, workers are more similar in terms of 
how they score on the job quality indices.

Figure 124: Five job quality profiles, by job quality indices

High flying

Smooth running

Active manual

Under pressure

Poor quality

Skills and discretion
Social environment
Physical environment
Work intensity (reversed)*
Prospects
Working time quality
Earnings

Note: * In contrast to the other job quality indices, a higher level of work intensity lowers job quality. The bars in the figure show the z-scores of each 
cluster (columns) for each of the job quality indices (rows).

128

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportHigh flying jobs
The job quality profile with the highest scores on most 
of the indicators is the ‘high flying’ profile. In the EU28 in 
2015, about one in five workers (21%) holds a job in this 
profile. This profile scores higher in skills and discretion, 
earnings and prospects than the other four. Workers in 
this profile indicate that their job is complex, that they 
often learn new things and that they receive more on-the- 
job training. They can apply their own ideas in the work 
and decide on the order of tasks, methods and speed. 
They are also more involved in work organisation and 
management decisions. The high job prospects in these 
jobs point to opportunities for career progression and job 
security. The downside of these high-earning, high-skilled 
jobs is their higher work intensity and their lower working 
time quality.

Smooth running jobs
Unlike the ‘high flying’ profile, the ‘smooth running’ profile 
(the largest group, comprising one quarter of workers – 
25%) stands out in terms of its low work intensity and 
high working time quality. Workers in this profile more 
often have part-time jobs and work less than 48 hours 
per week. Working time flexibility is high – but not higher 
than in the ‘high flying’ profile – as is the low prevalence 
of atypical or shift work. Levels of work intensity are low: 
the job less often entails working at high speed or tight 
deadlines, there is enough time to get the job done and 
there are few disruptive interruptions. At the workplace, 
the social environment is good: support from colleagues 
and managers is valued and there is very little abuse. 
However, the level of earnings and skills and discretion is 
somewhat lower than for the jobs in the other profiles and 
the prospects are average.

Active manual jobs
The jobs in the ‘active manual’ profile (comprising 21% of 
workers) are characterised by more risks in the physical 
environment. This is in stark contrast to the jobs in the 
‘high flying’ and the ‘smooth running’ profiles, which 
are subject to few or no physical risks. Workers in the 
‘active manual’ profile are more exposed to all types 
of physical risk: ambient risks (noise, temperature), 
biological and chemical risks (smoke, infectious materials), 
and posture-related risks (carrying heavy loads, tiring 
or painful positions). Working time quality in ‘active 
manual’ jobs is lower than average, mostly because of the 
greater incidence of atypical and shift work. The social 
environment is good as a result of low levels of abuse and 
an above-average level of help and support from colleagues 
and management quality. The scores for the other job 
quality indices are more or less at the average level.

Under pressure jobs
The ‘under pressure’ group of jobs is the smallest, 
comprising 13% of workers. The job quality dimension that 
stands out in negative terms is social environment: this 

Chapter 4 – Profiles of job quality

dimension is the lowest of all the profiles, due to having 
the highest incidence of abuse at work. For example, 69% 
of the workers in the ‘under pressure’ profile report having 
been subjected to verbal abuse in the month prior to the 
survey, 28% to threats, 30% to humiliating behaviour and 
29% to bullying or harassment. Incidences of other types of 
abuse are lower, but still high: 13% are subject to physical 
violence, 9% to unwanted sexual attention and 4% to 
sexual harassment. In addition, little support is received 
from managers or colleagues.

Other job quality indices are also quite unfavourable. Work 
intensity is highest in this profile. Most striking is the 
level of emotional demands in these jobs: more than 6% 
of workers in the profile are always in situations that are 
emotionally disturbing – about three times the average. In 
addition, they have to deal with angry clients, customers 
or pupils more frequently while their job requires them to 
hide their feelings. These extensive emotional demands 
are combined with working at high speed, working to tight 
deadlines, and not having enough time to get the job done. 
Moreover, working time quality is very low for workers 
in this profile: their jobs are characterised by extensive 
atypical work (nights, weekends, shifts) and limited 
flexibility. Weekly working hours are longer than average 
(but lower than for the ‘high flying’ or the ‘active manual’ 
profiles). Despite all this, job quality is not bad across all 
dimensions. Earnings and the use of skills and discretion 
in these jobs are high – surpassed only by the ‘high flying’ 
profile.

Poor quality jobs
Jobs in the ‘poor quality’ profile, comprising 20% of 
workers, have the lowest job quality of all the profiles. 
Jobs rank lowest in terms of skills and discretion as 
well as in earnings and prospects. Monthly earnings are 
about a third of those in the ‘high flying’ profile. About 
a third of the workers in this profile fear they may lose 
their job within six months and 42% strongly disagree that 
their job offers good prospects for career advancement – 
about twice the proportion of workers on average for 
both dimensions. Many of the workers in the ‘poor 
quality’ profile have fixed-term contracts (24%); a similar 
proportion have temporary-agency contracts or no 
contracts at all (22%). The use of skills and discretion is 
very low in this profile. Learning new things is uncommon 
and the proportion of workers who have received training 
is low – 18%, less than half of the average (38%).

However, work intensity is slightly better than in the 
‘under pressure’ profile, mostly because of less time 
pressure, and fewer deadlines and disruptive interruptions. 
Jobs in the ‘poor quality’ profile are more often part time, 
with an average working week of 33 hours, compared to 
an average of 36 hours. Working time quality is close to 
the average: workers in this profile are less likely than the 
average to work in their free time to meet work demands; 
they are also less likely to work more than 10 hours a day.

129

4.2  Distribution of workers in job 

quality profiles

The five job quality profiles represent groups of jobs that 
share similar job features. This does not necessarily mean 
that the workers holding these jobs also share the same 
characteristics. Exploring the composition of the workers 
in each profile will help to identify groups of workers that 
are more likely to have a certain job quality profile and to 
reveal groups that are more vulnerable.

A gender analysis shows that in terms of sex, men are more 
likely to have ‘active manual’ jobs and women to have 
‘smooth running’ jobs (Figure 125). In the other profiles, 
gender differences are much less evident, with men being 
slightly overrepresented in the ‘high flying’ profile and 
women overrepresented in the ‘poor quality’ profile. Men 
and women are equally likely to hold an ‘under pressure’ job. 
The same type of distribution applies to the job profile by 
age. The higher proportion of workers aged under 35 in the 
‘poor quality’ profile (24%) underlines the vulnerable position 
of young workers in the EU – this is reinforced by their more 
limited representation in the ‘high flying’ profile (17%).

Striking differences are also evident in terms of the 
distribution of workers according to level of education. For 
instance, workers with only a primary level of education are 
very strongly overrepresented (53%) in the ‘poor quality’ 
profile; conversely, a similar proportion of workers (46%) in 
the ‘high flying’ profile have a tertiary level of education.

The association of job quality and workplace size is less 
striking. The majority of workers in micro companies have 

‘smooth running’ or ‘poor quality’ jobs, while the majority 
of workers in large companies have ‘high flying’ or ‘active 
manual’ jobs.

One type of job quality profile predominates in certain 
sectors. More than half of all workers in the financial 
services have a ‘high flying’ job; and a similar proportion 
of those in the construction sector have an ‘active manual’ 
job. Meanwhile, almost half of workers in the agricultural 
sector have ‘poor quality’ jobs.

The public sector – public administration, education, and 
health – mainly consists of ‘smooth running’ jobs, ‘under 
pressure’ jobs and ‘high flying’ jobs. A quarter of workers in 
health and nearly a quarter in public administration have 
‘under pressure’ jobs – the highest shares of all sectors.

Certain profiles are concentrated in certain occupations: 
the majority of managers (and professionals) have ‘high 
flying’ jobs. Meanwhile, most clerks fall into the ‘smooth 
running’ profile. Craft workers are overrepresented 
by ‘active manual’ jobs, while more than half of the 
elementary occupations are ‘poor quality’ jobs.

Finally, job quality is not equally distributed between 
each country. Workers in Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom fare better in terms of 
job quality. Between 36% and 39% of workers in these 
countries have ‘high flying’ jobs. Meanwhile, more than 
one in five workers in Denmark, Finland, France and 
the Netherlands belong to the ‘under pressure’ profile. 
However, Romania, Greece, Hungary and Latvia stand out 
with a high proportion of workers in ‘poor quality’ jobs.

Figure 125: Job quality profiles, by sociodemographic characteristics, EU28 (% of workers in each category)

High flying

Smooth running

Active manual

Under pressure

Poor quality

Cluster size total

Gender
Men
Women

Age
Under 35
35–49
50 and over

Education
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary

21

23

20

17

23
24

0

10

46

Workplace size
Micro (1–9)
SME (10–249)
Large (250+)

15

22

31

25

21

16

34

30

11

26
22

27

24
28

18

30

24

17

21
22
20

19

27

10

20
21
23

13

13
13

12
15
12

4

10

20

8

14

18

20

18

21

24

18
18

25

26

6

18

12

53

130

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 4 – Profiles of job quality

Figure 126: Job quality profiles, by sector and occupation, EU28 (% of workers in each category)

High flying

Smooth running

Active manual

Under pressure

Poor quality

Cluster size total

21

25

21

Sector
Agriculture
Industry
Construction
Commerce and hospitality
Transport
Financial services
Public administration
Education
Health
Other services

Occupation
Managers
Professionals
Technicians
Clerks
Service and sales workers
Agricultural workers
Craft workers
Plant and machine operators
Elementary occupations

10

18

10
13

6

56

27

35

31

19

11

19

10

30
25
25

32
36

22

28

64

9

50

38

19
23

16

4
7
2
1
0

56

33

10
10
14

25

13

4

8
11
8
12
14

23
20

26

10

20
20
19

10
13

29
33

18

29

54

2

4

12

23

10

6
8

8

16

17

36

39

62

6
7
8

2

19

20

46

22

16

32
28

3
6
5

11

21

1
3
4
10

33

41

38

18

54

Figure 127: Job quality profiles by country, EU28 (% of workers in each country)

Cluster size total

21

High flying

Smooth running
25

Active manual

Under pressure

Poor quality

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

9

16

32

39

5

19

24

17

23

28

12
10
8

16

9

39

31
27

21

11
14

7

22

12

8

36
36
36

47

12

21

21

22

16

21
19

28

35

27

17
18

10

27

21
22
20

28

21
21

11

15
13

20
20

26
25

22

17

21

13

29

33

21
24

18
15

23

23

37

40

14

29

28

19
22

30
33

43

21
22

13
12

18

33

32

13

18

2

10

22

12
15

21
19

2

6

5
8
5
10

19

13

23

16

4

6

2
5

13

8

21
18
18

5

20

30

23

8

10
15

22

25

41

14
12

28

32

37

23

39

7

9

17

13

29
26

24
27

32

5

10
12

54

131

Job quality profiles and working life indicators

The analysis in this section explores the association of cluster membership with a number of indicators. The 
analysis is, by means of an extension to latent class analysis, known as ‘Step 3 analysis’; this relates the posterior 
class membership probabilities to external variables, controlling for covariates. Despite the control for a series of 
covariates, the effects are not necessarily causal, mainly because the direction of causality might be ambiguous. For 
more information on the statistical analysis, see Annex 4: Job quality clusters.

Figure 128: Association between job quality profiles and well-being

Subjective
well-being

Satisfaction with
working
conditions

Work–life balance

Sustainability
of work

Engagement

Making ends meet

High flying

Smooth running

Active manual

Under pressure

Poor quality

Note: The bars in the figure represent the relative association between each job quality cluster and a dependent variable (i.e. the standardised 
coefficients of the latent class step 3 analysis), showing only significant coefficients (p<0.01). Blue bars represent associations favourable to workers 
and orange bars represent unfavourable associations. See box ‘Job quality profiles and working life indicators’ above.

4.3  Job quality profiles and 

quality of working life
This section examines the association between the job 
quality profiles and three sets of indicators: well-being, 
sickness absence and work–life balance. The analysis 
shows that certain groups of workers are likely to be more 
at risk because of lower job quality. This underscores the 
fundamental importance of job quality in working life and 
supports the premise that effective policies to improve the 
job quality of these groups are likely to improve the health 
and well-being of workers concerned. In addition, the 
results could act as a validation of the way the job quality 
indices are constructed, as well as the analysis of the job 
quality clusters.

Job quality profiles and well-being
The ‘high flying’ and the ‘smooth running’ profiles 
show the most favourable associations with well-being 
indicators, while the ‘under pressure’ and ‘poor quality’ 
profiles show the least. Figure 128 shows the association 
between the job quality profiles and six indicators of well- 
being: subjective well-being, satisfaction with working 
conditions, work–life balance, sustainability of work, 
engagement, and ability to make ends meet.

Generally, the ‘smooth running’ profile shows the strongest 
positive association with most measures, followed by the 
‘high flying’ cluster. Workers with jobs in either profile have 
a higher level of subjective well-being, are more satisfied 
with their working conditions, consider their jobs to be 
very sustainable and are also more engaged in working

life. However, the workers in the ‘smooth running’ profile 
generally consider their work–life balance to be very good, 
which is not the case for the ‘high flying’ profile. Workers in 
the ‘high flying’ profile find it considerably easier to make 
ends meet – explained by the high level of earnings in this 
cluster.

On the other side of the spectrum, the ‘poor quality’ profile 
scores very low across all indicators. Worker’s subjective 
well-being is lower, as is satisfaction with working 
conditions, sustainability of work, level of engagement and 
ability to make ends meet. Workers in the profile rate their 
work–life balance more unfavourably than do workers in 
the other profiles – apart from the ‘under pressure’ profile. 
In this case, the slightly higher work–life balance of the 
poor quality profile could be explained by the low number 
of working hours of this group (albeit not voluntary as their 
stated preference to work more hours is very strong).

The ‘under pressure’ profile also scores below average on 
all indicators (although not as low as the ‘poor quality’ 
profile). Subjective well-being is very low, workers are not 
satisfied with their working conditions and are more likely 
to consider their jobs as being unsustainable. Work–life 
balance is exceptionally difficult to achieve for this group 
of workers. However, on the positive side, engagement 
is higher and ability to make ends meet is substantially 
better, albeit less so than the average.

The picture is more mixed for the ‘active manual’ profile. 
Workers in these jobs generally fall between the other 
clusters in terms of the six indicators.

132

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportFigure 129: Association between job quality profiles and health issues and absence

Health problems

Absence

Absence (WRI)

Presenteeism

Chapter 4 – Profiles of job quality

High flying
Smooth running
Active manual
Under pressure
Poor quality

Note: See note to figure 128.

Figure 130: Association between job quality profiles and work–life balance

Work–life
balance

Worrying

Tired after work

Job aﬀects
family time

Concentration
problems due
to family issues

Family
responsibilities
aﬀect job time

Preference for
working more
hours

High flying
Smooth running
Active manual
Under pressure
Poor quality

Note: See note to figure 128.

Job quality and sickness absence
Job quality is also important in terms of promoting health 
and minimising absence from work. This set of indicators 
is made up of four items: health problems, absence (due 
to a work-related illness), absence (due to a work-related 
injury – WRI), and presenteeism.

The prevalence of health problems and absence is highest 
for the ‘under pressure’ profile and lowest for the ‘smooth 
running’ profile. The health problems of the ‘under 
pressure’ profile are of a diverse nature, though the highest 
incidences are for anxiety and overall fatigue. Health 
issues are also relatively high for the ‘poor quality’ profile. 
Absence – measured in the number of days a worker was 
absent from work due to sick leave or health-related leave – 
is quite low in the ‘poor quality’ profile, possibly due to 
the higher incidence of part-time work in this group, which 
would reduce the probability of illness during working time, 
and other factors not covered by this research.

The ‘smooth running’ profile scores low for health 
problems (and has the lowest levels of overall fatigue and 
anxiety), and has lower than average levels of absence 
due to a work-related illness as well as low levels of 
presenteeism. Despite very high levels of well-being, 
satisfaction with working conditions and sustainable work, 
the health and absence-related indicators in the ‘high 
flying’ profile do not differ greatly from the other clusters 
apart from the ‘smooth running’ cluster.

As was the case in the previous section, the ‘active manual’ 
profile occupies the middle ground and shows a more 
mixed picture. Health problems are of a more physical 
nature, with a lower incidence of anxiety but higher 
incidence of backache and muscular pain.

The ‘under pressure’ and the ‘poor quality’ profiles both 
score considerably higher than the other profiles for the 
absence and presenteeism indicators.

Job quality profiles and work–life balance
Workers in the job quality profiles differ in terms of their 
work–life balance and the work–family fit they experience. 
Whereas a headline indicator for work–life balance has 
already been introduced (above), the following aspects 
relating to work fit and working time preferences are 
examined in greater detail in Figure 130:

  worrying about work outside working hours

  being tired after work

  demands of the job affecting family time

family responsibilities affecting work time

  problems concentrating at work due to family issues

  preferences for working more – or fewer – hours.

Workers in ‘smooth running’ jobs have the strongest 
positive association with work–life balance (as already 
shown in Figure 128). In addition, these workers are shown 
to be the least affected by work–family conflict and have 
a preference for working more hours. These favourable 
associations could be explained by the prevalence of part- 
time work within this job profile and some difficulties in 
making ends meet.

Workers with ‘high flying’ jobs are more likely to have 
a preference for working fewer hours, and work–family 
conflict is less prevalent than in the other profiles except 
for the ‘smooth running’ cluster. The other three job 
profiles show a negative association with work–family 
conflict – particularly the ‘under pressure’ cluster. Related 
to the poor working time quality and poor quality social 
environment for this profile, work–family conflicts in both 
directions are common. Unsurprisingly, workers in this 
profile are most likely to want a reduction in their working 
hours.

133

 
Job quality profiles

High flying

Prevalence: 21% of workers in the EU28

Job quality indices: Highest scores for most of the indices; this cluster scores higher in Skills and discretion, 
Earnings and Prospects. The downside is higher Work intensity and lower Working time quality.

Smooth running

Prevalence: 25% of workers in the EU28

Job quality indices: Low Work intensity and high Working time quality. Overall, job quality indices score quite 
high though Earnings and Skills and discretion are somewhat lower than the other profiles; the score for Prospects 
is average.

Survey indicators: More often part-time jobs and jobs with working weeks of fewer than 48 hours. Working time 
flexibility is high, but not higher than in the ‘high flying’ group, as is the low prevalence of atypical or shift work. There 
is enough time to get the job done and there are few disruptions. At the workplace, the social climate is good as the 
support from colleagues and managers is valued and there is very little abuse.

Active manual

Prevalence: 21% of workers in the EU28

Job quality indices: There is a poor score for Physical environment. Working time quality is lower than average 
and scores on Social environment are high. Scores for the other job quality indices are more-or-less average.

Survey indicators: Jobs are characterised by environments with more physical risks – of all types: ambient, 
biological and chemical, and posture-related. Working time quality is lower than average because of a higher 
prevalence of atypical and shift work. The social environment is good due to little abuse, more help and support and 
good-quality management.

Under pressure

Prevalence: 13% of the workforce.

Job quality indices: The Social environment job quality index is the lowest for all the profiles because the 
incidence of abuse on the job is at the highest, and support from managers or colleagues is very low. Work intensity 
has the poorest score of all the profiles. However, Earnings and Skills and discretion are second only to the scores 
in the ‘high flying’ profile.

Survey indicators: Workers are exposed to emotionally disturbing situations, three times more than on average. 
Work is done at high speed, to tight deadlines and there is insufficient time to get the job done. The profile is 
characterised by atypical work and low levels of flexibility. The working week is longer than average (but shorter than 
in the ‘high flying’ or ‘active manual’ profiles).

Poor quality

Prevalence: 20% of the workforce.

Job quality indices: The profile scores negatively on all job quality indices, with the lowest scores for Skills and 
discretion, Earnings and Prospects. However, Work intensity and Working time quality score better than the 
‘under pressure’ profile.

Survey indicators: Monthly earnings are about one-third of those in the ‘high flying’ profile. About one-third of 
workers fear they will lose their job within six months, while 42% do not believe their job offers good prospects – 
about twice the average figure. Half the workers in the profile have either fixed-term contracts, temporary agency 
contracts, or none. In addition, only 18% have received training – less than half the average (38%).

134

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportChapter 4 – Profiles of job quality

Job quality profiles and quality of working life

Well-being

‘Smooth running’: This shows the strongest positive associations with most measures of well-being. Workers 
have greater subjective well-being, are more satisfied with their working conditions, have good work–life balance, 
consider their jobs sustainable and are also more engaged in working life. 

‘High flying’: This comes close to the ‘smooth running’ profile in terms of workers’ well-being. In fact, workers in the 
‘high flying’ profile find it considerably easier to make ends meet. However, work–life balance is not as good.

‘Poor quality’: This profile scores very low in all indicators. Work–life balance is worse than in almost all other 
profiles (apart from the ‘under pressure’ profile).

‘Under pressure’: This profile scores below average on all indicators (though not as low as the ‘poor quality’ profile). 
Work–life balance is particularly difficult.

‘Active manual’: Workers in these jobs generally fall between the other clusters in terms of the six indicators.

Health issues and sickness absence

‘Under pressure’: The prevalence of health problems and absence is highest for the under pressure cluster. The 
health problems of this cluster are of a diverse nature, though the highest incidences are for anxiety and overall 
fatigue.

‘Active manual’: This profile shows a more mixed picture. Health problems are more physical: there is a higher 
incidence of backache and muscular pain, but a lower incidence of anxiety.

‘High flying’: Despite its high scores, this profile does not differ markedly from the others in terms of health and 
sickness absence (apart from the smooth running profile).

‘Poor quality’: Health issues are relatively problematic. Sickness absence however is relatively limited.

‘Smooth running’: The prevalence of health problems and absence is lowest in this profile. It also has the lowest 
levels of overall fatigue and anxiety, less sickness absence and limited presenteeism.

Job quality and work–life balance

‘Smooth running’: this profile has the strongest positive association with work–life balance.

‘High flying’: the positive association is not as strong as for the ‘smooth running’ profile.

‘Under pressure’: This profile has the most negative association with work–life balance. Work–family time conflicts 
in both directions are common. Workers in this profile are likely to want to reduce their working hours.

‘Active manual’: A negative association with work–life balance.

‘Poor quality’: A negative association with work–life balance.

135

5 Conclusions

5 Conclusions

‘The future of work is what we will make it. The challenge 
is to make it the one that we want.’

Guy Ryder, Director-General of the ILO

This report has presented the results of the sixth European 
Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) through a focus on 
job quality, which is at the heart of the European project 
and its strategies. How optimistic can Europe be when 
considering developments in working conditions and 
job quality? Several important positive elements prove 
that many channels are contributing effectively to good 
working conditions, job quality and working life, which 
also lead to benefits for companies. Nevertheless, 
several issues continue to be a cause for concern and 
progress is slow. There are still structural inequalities 
and differences in job quality in European workplaces. In 
fact, there is ample scope to propose and design policies 
relating to each job quality index. Policies and actions to 
support workers over the course of their working lives 
should also be addressed. This should involve efforts 
from all stakeholders, as everyone can make a distinctive 
contribution to making sure that workplaces are good 
places to work.

From its inception in 1990 to the current sixth wave, the 
EWCS has undergone extensive transformation. Created 
initially as an ad-hoc module to a Eurobarometer survey – 
addressing traditional occupational safety and health 
issues, as well as questions on job control and demand – it 
has emerged as a significant standalone survey, covering 
a wide range of aspects of working life. Guided both by 
Eurofound stakeholders – in particular, the tripartite 
actors at European level as well as national and sectoral 
actors – and by developments in research, the EWCS uses 
an interdisciplinary approach to gather information on the 
experience of work in Europe, charting a range of changes 
in jobs and people’s working life and company practices to 
be documented and examined.

Some progress in job quality – but not across 
the board
Building on previous Eurofound research (2012b), this 
first analysis of the sixth EWCS documents developments 
across seven job quality indices: physical environment, 
work intensity, working time quality, social environment, 
skills and discretion, prospects and earnings.

The Physical environment index, which captures 
exposure to a wide variety of physical risks (environmental, 
biological and chemical, and posture-related), shows very 
limited progress in the last 10 years: a one-point increase 
between 2005 and 2010 but no change between 2010 and 
2015. The Physical environment index for men increased 
(indicating an improvement), narrowing the gap between 
men and women slightly. The limited improvement in 
the index highlights changes in different directions on 

138

exposure to certain risks. National situations and changes 
over time are quite diverse. The gap between countries has 
decreased, indicating a possible convergence. One in 10 
workers in the EU reports being ‘not very well’ or ‘not at all 
well’ informed about health and safety risks at work, the 
same proportion as in 2010.

The Work intensity index measures exposure to work 
demands, and while comparability over time is limited, it 
does show a small decrease, indicating a positive trend, 
between 2005 and 2015, but a slight reintensification since 
2010. Analysis of the index in 2015 shows a high level of 
variety in the combinations of the index’s components 
according to occupation and sector. The trend shows 
considerable heterogeneity and changes in different 
directions, which will be explored in future EWCS analysis.

The Working time quality index shows that average 
working time quality increased between 2005 and 2015, 
with working hours falling, on average, continuously 
over time. This is the result of the combined trends of 
an increase in short working hours and a decrease in 
long working hours: both these patterns are of concern 
when other job quality features are considered. The 
findings indicate that Sunday work and shift work are on 
the increase. In the majority of cases, companies set the 
working time arrangements. Around one in five (22%) of 
workers work in their free time to meet work demands 
several times a month, and almost four in 10 have been 
requested to come into work at short notice. Arranging 
to take an hour off during working hours, for personal or 
family matters is ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ easy for slightly more men 
(68%) than women (63%). Of all seven indices, this index 
shows the least variation across the workforce.

The Social environment index has the largest variation 
between workers, indicating very different experiences in 
management quality, social support and the incidence of 
adverse social behaviour (which is negative in the index). 
While 16% of workers report having been exposed to 
adverse social behaviour in the 12 months prior to the 
survey, 7% of workers report having been discriminated 
against on the basis of gender, age, race, religion, 
nationality, disability or sexual orientation. Employees 
from smaller workplaces are more inclined to report that 
their workplace is characterised by different aspects of 
a good social climate.

The Skills and discretion index shows progress over time, 
resulting from an increase in the cognitive dimensions of 
work, wider access to training, more decision latitude and 
increased use of ICT. This positive development highlights 
important differences between groups of workers. 
Involvement in decisions affecting one’s work is limited and 
varies substantially across occupational groups. There are 
substantial inequalities in access to training. Of particular 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportand persistent concern is the lesser access to training of 
those who might need it most. In general, groups reporting 
less access to training also report a shorter duration of 
training.

On the Prospects index, considerable differences 
between groups of workers are apparent. Nearly four in 
10 report good prospects for career advancement – clear 
progress since 2005. Part-time workers report less positive 
prospects, however, than full-time workers. The picture 
of change experienced by workers is quite dynamic: 22% 
report a restructuring event substantially affecting their 
work; 20% report some increase in employment in the 
company for which they work; and 23% report some 
downsizing. Changes in working hours, earnings, influence 
or workload have been experienced by 60% of workers. 
The experience of change is challenging for workers, as it 
involves a number of risks for their working life as well as 
for companies, and needs to be managed.

While limited, the Earnings index confirms clear 
differences among workers. Other European datasets 
indicate that inequalities in relation to earnings have 
increased over time. Elementary workers and service 
and sales workers report the lowest level of the Earnings 
index and managers the highest. Sectoral differences are 
also important between agriculture and commerce and 
financial services. Just over half (51%) of respondents to 
the EWCS agree that they are paid appropriately for the 
work they do, while one third experiences ‘some’ or ‘great’ 
difficulties in making ends meet.

The mapping of job quality indices by occupation and 
sector shows a high variety of combinations of job quality 
features. No sectors or occupations score consistently high 
on all the indices.

Areas where gaps and inequalities need  
to be tackled
Employment status makes a difference to working 
conditions and job quality. Both the self-employed with 
employees and employees on indefinite contracts report 
more favourable job quality, in general, than the self- 
employed without employees and workers on temporary 
contracts. The self-employed without employees and 
employees without a contract also report a lower incidence 
of good or very good health.

Occupation and, to a lesser extent, sector are determinants 
of inequalities between workers. Workers in less-skilled 
occupations report significant differences in motivation, 
well-being, engagement and satisfaction with their 
working conditions; they also report higher levels of 
time pressure at work (quantitative demands), a higher 
number of health problems and less propensity to stay in 
the job until an older age (indicating low sustainability). 
Similarly, there are important differences in job quality 
within sectors. While the job quality indices include 
characteristics of work and employment that are prevalent 
in most occupations, it is important to highlight the 
particular job characteristics conducive to job quality in 
specific sectors and occupations.

Chapter 5 – Conclusions

The findings confirm that gender inequalities are still 
present in the workplace: occupational and sectoral 
segregation exists along with different gender roles at 
home, related to care particularly, as well as different 
welfare and tax systems. The results reflect multiple 
gaps and disparities between women and men that can 
accumulate to the disadvantage of both. There are signs 
of slow progress, however: for example, the proportion 
of women managers has increased, the exposure of men 
to physically demanding work has fallen, and there are 
signs of a less imbalanced sharing of care responsibilities 
between household members. But this is not the case 
for all indicators, and in some cases, gender gaps 
have narrowed due to the drop in the more favourable 
position of one gender (usually male). Efforts towards 
greater gender equality in the workplace still need to be 
supported.

Differences between Member States on these factors are 
substantial. Changes over time do not illustrate upward 
convergence on all dimensions of job quality.

There are still wide disparities on a number of fronts: 
for example, between working hours and working time 
preferences, or between workers’ skill levels and the jobs 
they have. While the majority of workers – nearly six in 
10 – report that their working hours are in line with their 
preferences, 30% would like to work fewer hours and 13% 
would like to work more hours. When considering job and 
skill matches, 43% of workers report being over-skilled 
or under-skilled. These divergences are problematic in 
relation to workers’ well-being, the use and development 
of human capital, and social cohesion.

The participation of workers with care responsibilities 
(vis à vis children – but also for dependent adults) would 
benefit from being supported, as they report a poorer 
work–life balance and constitute a group likely to increase 
in the future.

Unclear boundaries accentuate  
workplace risks
Many boundaries in the world of work are blurring: 
between employment statuses, between working and 
non-working time, paid and unpaid work, and between 
places and time of work – even the border demarcating 
what is inside and what is outside the organisation is less 
distinct. For example, some workers find it difficult to 
define their employment status. A small proportion of the 
self-employed report a very high level of subordination, 
which makes their experience of work closer to that of 
dependent employees than that of self-employed workers. 
Nowadays multiple work situations abound, and what was 
once considered exceptional and rare has become more 
frequent. Digitalisation and the transformation of work is 
resulting in new challenges and casting a different light on 
the traditional challenges. Understanding the effects of all 
these changes is difficult. A minority of workers (8%) are 
multiple job-holders, and they tend to work more hours in 
total than those with one job only. A significant proportion 
of workers are working in their free time to meet the 

139

demands of work while the phenomenon of e-nomads 
has added a new twist to the old issues regarding mobile 
workers.

It is important to acknowledge the risks and also the 
benefits of these work situations and to assess whether 
these changes are different in kind or in nature. There 
needs to be a debate about whether they are contributing 
to new ways of work – ways that we wish to promote. 
This will help to address the emerging needs associated 
with such developments, as well as ensuring that suitable 
prevention frameworks and working life and job quality 
actions are developed to support workers, companies and 
governments in the design of the working life of the future.

Challenges in all job profiles: some jobs are 
more equal than others
A clustering exercise was conducted as part of the EWCS 
analysis to group workers according to jobs that score 
similarly on the job quality indices. This exercise resulted 
in five job profiles: ‘high flying’, ‘smooth running’, ‘active 
manual’, ‘poor quality’ and ‘under pressure’. These sum up 
the diversity and richness of people’s jobs and the current 
variety of jobs in Europe and propose policy orientations 
for continuing to improve job quality in Europe. The results 
suggest that there is more than polarisation at stake 
between higher job quality and lower job quality clusters. 
Social environment, working time quality, physical 
environment and work intensity are issues that need to be 
addressed, as well as earnings, prospects and skills use. 
Policies at European, national, sectoral and company levels 
need to tackle all these dimensions in a complementary 
and mutually reinforcing way.

One out of five workers holds a poor quality job, one that 
scores low on each job quality dimension. Most of these 
jobs are held by workers with a low level of education and 
more women than men hold these kinds of jobs. There are 
few differences by age, but one quarter of younger workers 
is in a poor quality job. A higher proportion of these jobs 
are in micro firms. These jobs are likely to result in an 
unsatisfactory experience of working life and may also add 
to the vulnerability of individuals on the labour market – 
putting job-holders in an even more challenging situation 
when they take the next step of their working life. Jobs in 
the poor quality cluster would benefit most from actions 
to support the various dimensions of job quality at all 
levels including the sectoral level – as shown, for example, 
in Eurofound’s research into occupations with multiple 
disadvantages (Eurofound 2014e and Eurofound 2015f). 
They would also benefit from labour market policies aimed 
at boosting opportunities to move from these jobs into 
better-quality positions and policies to support micro firms 
in meeting their challenges.

Under pressure jobs are held by 13% of workers. These 
jobs score positively on skills and discretion, prospects 
and earnings, but very negatively in relation to social 
environment, work intensity and working time quality. As 
this group also scores negatively on all indicators related 
to quality of working life, it is clear that these workers 

140

should be given next priority after the poor quality cluster. 
The focus should be on improving management quality, 
providing social support in the workplace, facilitating 
training and policies on dealing with emotional demands 
and addressing the prevalence of having to deal with angry 
customers. It is critical to strive to eliminate adverse social 
behaviour through appropriate and effective measures. 
Measures are needed to support harmony in workplaces, 
not only in interactions between colleagues, but also with 
clients and users. Specific discussion at sector level in the 
public administration and health and education sectors 
on work organisation and psychosocial risks could help to 
tackle the multiple issues likely to arise from a poor social 
environment, high work intensity and poor working time 
quality and lead to improving job quality in these types of 
jobs.

A quarter of workers hold a smooth running job. These 
jobs are satisfactory in most dimensions of job quality but 
less so in terms of skills and discretion and earnings. While 
scoring positively on all working life indicators, workers 
in this job profile express a wish to work more hours. 
Making tasks more challenging and developing individuals 
on the job are likely to improve the skills of workers as 
well as reinforcing their motivation and quality of work. 
Addressing working time preferences and earnings, 
bearing in mind the relationship between the two, would 
also improve the quality of these jobs.

One out of five workers works in an active manual job. 
These jobs are positive in relation to social environment, 
prospects and earnings. However, they are more negative 
in relation to the level of physical demands, work intensity 
and working time quality, which in combination are 
problematic and can have synergetic effects. Workers 
holding these jobs show a relatively positive experience 
of working life except in relation to the sustainability of 
the job. These jobs primarily call for the level of physical 
demands at work to be addressed and effective prevention 
policies to be instated. Better working time management 
and workload organisation could also improve job quality.

Another one out of five workers holds a high flying job. 
These jobs are positive on all dimensions – apart from work 
intensity and working time quality – demonstrating the 
ambivalent nature of many working experiences. Actions to 
improve job quality in these jobs should address working 
time organisation and work intensity. In practical terms, 
these jobs entail a high workload, frequent disruptive 
interruptions and a high level of emotional demands. 
A high degree of availability is often expected of these 
workers: working and being contactable during one’s free 
time are often features of these jobs. This suggests a need 
for actions to manage, control and decrease workload, 
by organising work differently to provide more individual 
and collective autonomy, as well as support in the case of 
temporary high workloads. Workers would also benefit 
from training and actions on dealing with emotional 
demands, regulating communication at the workplace and 
managing requests for availability, as well as the ability to 
assert the ‘right to disconnect’. Cultural changes tackling 
the long-hours culture, addressing certain entry paths 

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportinto some professions (such as jobs where, for example, 
young workers are expected to put in unpaid long hours to 
demonstrate their ability to hold a better job in the future), 
developing more efficient and reliable ways to allocate fair 
and manageable workloads, and ensuring that employers 
of their own accord address the high workload of workers 
are all important avenues to explore, as well as being areas 
in which to advance and disseminate good practices.

Towards a good quality of work and more 
labour market participation
Each job quality index is associated with a positive 
assessment of one’s working life and all are associated 
independently with subjective well-being, work–life 
balance, worker engagement, making ends meet, 
sustainability of work, the impact of work on health, and 
satisfaction with working conditions.

The experience of meaningful work is associated with 
four job quality indices: skills and discretion, social 
environment, prospects and work intensity. For work 
intensity, the association is negative.

Strong policy attention is given at European level to the 
extension of working life and increasing the participation 
of workers in paid employment, with particular emphasis 
on creating an inclusive labour market to incorporate 
those who are less active. From a supply perspective, 
supporting job quality and its individual dimensions is 
likely to contribute to a successful experience of working 
life and hence the effectiveness and efficiency of these 
policies. This calls for a wide-ranging mix of policies and 
company practices covering all dimensions of job quality. 
A better understanding of what facilitates the participation 
of people in the labour market and what drives them 
will enable Europe and the Member States to create the 
supports necessary to fulfil the objectives in terms of the 
quantitative and qualitative dimensions of participation in 
the labour market.

Better workplace policies and high employee 
involvement
Each dimension of job quality can be improved through 
workplace practices and policies. Awareness among 
companies and workers of the mutual benefits of realising 
this potential should be promoted and likewise the 
acquisition of skills and organisational competence should 
be better supported. To ensure that policies to improve job 
quality can work and be best adapted to workplaces, the 
involvement of workers in the decisions that affect their 
work and their representation needs to be supported.

Employee representation of some sort is available for nearly 
two-thirds of workers. This means a third of the workforce 
does not have a representation structure. One-third (34%) 
of employees work in low-involvement organisations that 
are low on task discretion, meaning that employees have 
little say over their work, as well as low on organisational 
participation. Working in high-involvement organisations is 
beneficial for employees’ well-being and their motivation, 
and, as other research shows, the benefits extend to the 

Chapter 5 – Conclusions

companies themselves. Changes aimed at developing this 
type of work organisation should be supported.

Policies to shape the working life  
of the future

Policies improving job quality and working life

Improving job quality in Europe calls for more, rather than 
fewer, policies and coordinated responses. Progress can 
be achieved on each dimension of job quality. And the 
different policies and actions that can support workers 
over the course of their working lives should be considered 
together to ensure coordination and mutual reinforcement 
along the path to success.

Given that job quality is crucial for safety at work, 
productivity, creativity, innovation and public health, it 
needs to be underpinned by a wide-ranging set of policies 
and actions that:

safeguard general health and safety at work, including 
psychosocial risks and violence in the workplace

improve working time quality

support career development and make work pay

  promote the use of skills and their development 

support a better allocation and management of 
workload

advance the design of meaningful jobs.

The results show that differences across countries are 
striking and should be noted. Over time, trajectories 
have diverged, highlighting both the role of labour 
market institutions in supporting job quality and the 
diverse experience of working life (as well, perhaps, as 
the increasing difficulty of finding common positions). 
As upward convergence in job quality does not seem to 
occur ‘naturally’, this could be supported: potentially 
leading to numerous positive benefits for workers and their 
households, the companies in which they work and the 
countries in which these companies operate.

To ensure that these policies can work and can best be 
adapted to workers and the companies that employ them 
requires actions that support the involvement of workers 
in decision-making that affects both their work and the 
organisation of the company. The wide range of actions 
likely to contribute to increasing job quality, and the 
evidence provided by this survey of some success, indicate 
that there are many opportunities to succeed.

Support for evidence-based policymaking

The future of working life is under scrutiny in Europe. More 
and high-quality data on working life, along with greater 
exchange of knowledge on challenges, opportunities and 
instruments, will support the EU’s discussions and policy 
aspirations around the future of working life.

Over the next couple of years, Eurofound intends to carry 
out thematic analyses of the sixth EWCS, building on the 
analyses already conducted on the basis of previous waves 
of the EWCS (these are listed in the bibliography).

141

 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring job quality in a global world
A number of countries outside Europe – the USA, South 
Korea and, to a lesser extent, Latin America and China – 
have already developed surveys using the framework of 
the EWCS.

The first comparative analysis will be carried out in 2017 
and should contribute to a better understanding of 
globalisation and quality of working lives. The dataset will 
be made available through the UK Data Archive in 2017 
to the wide community of researchers. It is planned to 
undertake fieldwork for the seventh round of the EWCS in 
2020.

The European Commission, the International Labour Office 
and the OECD have developed monitoring systems on job 
quality and quality of working life to which the EWCS is 
contributing data.

All these actions could indeed help to develop the type 
of working life that working life actors – workers and 
companies and their representatives, governments – want 
in the future.

142

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportBibliography

All Eurofound publications are available at www.eurofound.europa.eu

Åkerstedt, T., Knutsson, A., Westerholm, P., Theorell, T., 
Alfredsson, L. and Kecklund, G. (2002), ‘Sleep disturbances, 
work stress and work hours: A cross-sectional study’, 
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 53, No. 3,  
pp. 741–748.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S. and Sutton, M. 
(2000), ‘Consequences associated with work-to-family 
conflict: A review and agenda for future research’, Journal 
of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2,  
pp. 278–308.

Amstad, F. T., Meier, L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A. and Semmer, 
N. K. (2011), ‘A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and 
various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain 
versus matching-domain relations’, Journal of Occupational 
Health Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 151–169.

Annink, A., den Dulk, L. and Steijn, B. (2016), ‘Work–family 
conflict among employees and the self-employed across 
Europe’, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 126, No. 2,  
pp. 571–593.

Artazcoz, L., Cortès, I., Escribà-Agüir, V., Bartoll, X., Basart, 
H. and Borrell, C. (2013), ‘Long working hours and health 
status among employees in Europe: Between-country 
differences’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment 
and Health, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 369–378.

Bakhuys Roozeboom, M., Houtman, I. and Schaufeli, W. 
B. (2014), Concepts related to engagement – EWCS 2015, 
(working paper), unpublished, TNO contribution, available 
on request from Eurofound, Dublin.

Bakker, A. B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), ‘Towards a model of 
work engagement’, Career Development International,  
Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 209–223.

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M. P. (2011), ‘Key 
questions regarding work engagement’, European Journal 
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1,  
pp. 4–28.

Bevort, A., Lallement, M., Jobert, A. and Mias A. (2012), 
Dictionnaire du travail, Presses universitaires de France, 
Paris.

Bonde, J. P. (2008), ‘Psychosocial factors at work and risk 
of depression: A systematic review of the epidemiological 
evidence’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 
Vol. 65, No. 7, pp. 438–445.

Budd, J. W. and Spencer, D. A. (2014), ‘Worker well-being 
and the importance of work: Bridging the gap’, European 
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 181–196.

Campbell, D., Carruth, A., Dickerson, A. and Green, F. 
(2007), ‘Job insecurity and wages’, Economic Journal,  
Vol. 117, No. 518, pp. 544–566.

Carlson, D., Kacmar, M., Zivnuska, S., Ferguson, M. and 
Whitten, D. (2011), ‘Work-family enrichment and job 
performance: A constructive replication of affective events 
theory’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol.16, 
No.3, pp. 297–312.

Cedefop (2015), Skills, qualifications and jobs in the EU: 
The making of a perfect match? Evidence from Cedefop’s 
European skills and jobs survey, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg.

Cohen, D. (2012), Homo economicus, prophète (égaré) des 
temps nouveaux, Albin Michel, Paris.

da Costa, B. R. and Vieira, E. R. (2010), ‘Risk factors for 
work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic 
review of recent longitudinal studies’, American Journal of 
Industrial Medicine, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 285–323.

Dickerson, A. and Green, F. (2009), ‘Fears and realisations of 
employment insecurity’, Labour Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 
pp. 198−210.

Diener, E. and Eunkook, S. (1997), ‘Measuring the relation 
between job quality and individual indicators’, Social 
Indicators Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 189–216.

Balliu, Q. (2007), National profile of occupational safety 
and health in Albania, International Labour Organisation, 
Tirana.

Docherty, P., Forslin, J. and Shani A. B. (2002), Creating 
sustainable work systems: Emerging perspectives and 
practice, Routledge, London and New York.

Bambra, C. (2011), ‘Health inequalities and welfare state 
regimes: Theoretical insights on a public health “puzzle”’, 
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 65,  
No. 9, pp. 740–745.

Bannai, A. and Tamakoshi, A. (2014), ‘The association 
between long working hours and health: A systematic 
review of epidemiological evidence’, Scandinavian Journal 
of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 5–18.

Docherty, P., Kira, M., and Shani, A.B. (eds.) (2009), Creating 
sustainable work systems, Routledge, London and New 
York.

Elovainio, M., Heponiemi, T., Jokela, M. and Kivimäki, M. 
(2015), ‘Stressful work environment and well-being: What 
comes first?’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 289–300.

143

EU-OSHA (2013), Green jobs and occupational safety and 
health: Foresight on new and emerging risks associated 
with new technologies by 2020, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg.

EU-OSHA (2014), Estimating the cost of accidents and 
ill-health at work: A review of methodologies, Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

EU-OSHA (2015), Second European survey of enterprises 
on new and emerging risks (ESENER-2) – Overview report: 
Managing safety and health at work, Publications Office of 
the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (1992), First European Survey on the Work 
Environment 1991–1992, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (1996), Second European Survey on Working 
Conditions 1995, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Eurofound (1999), Times in the city and quality of life, BEST 
No. 1/1999, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2001), Third European Survey on Working 
Conditions 2000, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2002), Quality of work and employment in 
Europe: issues and challenges, Foundation Paper No. 1, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2003), Working conditions in the acceding and 
candidate countries, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2007a), Employment and working conditions of 
migrant workers, Dublin.

Eurofound (2007b), Fourth European Working Conditions 
Survey 2005, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2009a), Occupational promotion of migrant 
workers, Dublin.

Eurofound (2009b), Self-employed workers: industrial 
relations and working conditions, Dublin.

Eurofound (2010a), Health and safety at work in SMEs: 
Strategies for employee information and consultation, 
Dublin.

Eurofound (2010b), Self-employed workers: industrial 
relations and working conditions, Dublin.

Eurofound (2011a), Social dialogue and working conditions, 
Dublin.

Eurofound (2011b), Working conditions of nationals with 
a foreign background, Dublin.

Eurofound (2011c), Working conditions and social dialogue, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2012a), Fifth European Working Conditions 
Survey, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2012b), Trends in job quality in Europe, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2012c), Sustainable work and the ageing 
workforce, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2012d), Organisation of working time: 
Implications for productivity and working conditions, Dublin.

Eurofound (2012e), Working time and work–life balance 
in a life course perspective: A report based on the fifth 
European Working Conditions Survey, Dublin.

Eurofound (2012f), Wages and working conditions in the 
crisis, Dublin.

Eurofound (2012g), Health and well-being at work: A report 
based on the fifth European Working Conditions Survey, 
Dublin.

Eurofound (2012h), After restructuring: Labour markets, 
working conditions and life satisfaction – ERM Report 2012, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2013a), Self-employed or not self-employed? 
Working conditions of ‘economically dependent workers’ 
(Background paper), Dublin.

Eurofound (2013b), Women, men and working conditions 
in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2013c), Work organisation and employee 
involvement in Europe, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2014a), Employment opportunities for people 
with chronic diseases, Dublin.

Eurofound (2014b), Quality of employment conditions and 
employment relations in Europe, Dublin.

Eurofound (2014c), Working conditions and job quality: 
Comparing sectors in Europe, Dublin.

Eurofound (2014d), National working conditions surveys in 
Europe: A compilation, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2014e), Occupational profiles in working 
conditions: Identification of groups with multiple 
disadvantages, Dublin.

Eurofound (2015a), Convergence and divergence of job 
quality in Europe 1995–2010, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2015b), New forms of employment, Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2015c), Violence and harassment in European 
workplaces: Extent, impacts and policies, Dublin.

144

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportBibliography

Eurofound (2015d), Sustainable work over the life course: 
Concept paper, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg.

Fagan, C., Norman, H., Smith, M. and González Menéndez, 
M. C. (2014), ‘In search of good part-time employment’, ILO, 
Conditions of Work and Employment Series, No. 43.

Eurofound (2015e), Foundation Focus – Sustainable work: 
Toward better and longer working lives, Dublin.

Felstead, A., Gallie, D. and Green, F. (2015), Unequal Britain 
at work, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Eurofound (2015f), Improving working conditions in 
occupations with multiple disadvantages, Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2015g), Third European Company Survey – 
Overview report: Workplace practices – Patterns, 
performance and well-being, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2016), Working time developments in the 
21st century: Work duration and its regulation in the EU, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2016b), Exploring the fraudulent contracting 
of work in the European Union, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg.

European Commission (1993), Growth, competitiveness, 
and employment: The challenges and ways forward into the 
21st century, White paper parts A and B, COM(93) 700 final, 
Brussels.

European Commission (2013a), Tobacco in the EU: Exposure 
to second hand smoke reduced, but still too high, says 
Commission report, Press release, 22 February.

European Commission (2013b), Employment: European 
Vacancy Monitor highlights growing job opportunities in 
healthcare sector, Press release, 9 September.

European Commission (2014a), Draft joint employment 
report from the Commission and the Council accompanying 
the communication from the Commission on the Annual 
Growth Survey 2015, COM(2014) 906 final, Brussels.

European Commission (2014b), Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions on an EU Strategic Framework on health and 
safety at work 2014–2020, COM(2014) 332 final, Brussels.

European Commission (2014c), Commission staff working 
document: Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme 
(REFIT): State of play and outlook accompanying the 
document Better Regulation for better results – An EU 
Agenda, SWD(2015) 110 final, Strasbourg.

European Commission (2016), Employment and social 
developments in Europe 2015, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurostat (2011), Labour force survey ad hoc module on 
employment of disabled people, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg.

Fishta, A. and Backé, E. M. (2015), ‘Psychosocial stress 
at work and cardiovascular diseases: An overview of 
systematic reviews’, International Archives of Occupational 
and Environmental Health, Vol. 88, No. 8, pp. 997–1014.

Gallie, D. (ed) (2013a), Economic crisis, quality of work 
and social integration: The European experience, Oxford 
University Press, Oxford.

Gallie, D. (2013b), ‘Direct participation and the quality of 
work’, Human Relations, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 453–473.

Goetzel, R. Z., Long, S. R., Ozminkowski, R.J., Hawkins, K., 
Wang, S. and Lynch, W. (2004), ‘Health, absence, disability, 
and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and 
mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers’, Journal 
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 4, 
pp. 398–412.

Gollac, M. and Bordier, M. (eds.) (2011), Mesurer les facteurs 
psychosociaux de risque au travail pour les maîtriser, Report 
of the Expert Board on monitoring psychosocial risks 
at work on the request of the French Minister of Labour, 
Employment and Health, La Documentation française, 
Paris.

Green, F. (2015), ‘Health effects of job insecurity’, IZA World 
of Labor, izawol:212.

Greenan, N. and Lorenz, N. (2010), Innovative workplaces: 
Making better use of skills within organisations, OECD 
Publishing, Paris.

Greenhaus, J. H. and Powell, G. N. (2006), ‘When work and 
families are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment’,  
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 1,  
pp. 72–92.

Harrington, J. M. (2001), ‘Health effects of shift work and 
extended hours of work’, Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 68–72.

Hobson, B. (ed) (2013), Worklife balance: The agency and 
capabilities gap, pp. 153–173, Oxford University Press, 
Oxford.

Holman, D. (2013), ‘Job types and job quality in Europe’, 
Human Relations, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 475–502.

Hoven, H. and Siegrist, J. (2013), ‘Work characteristics, 
socioeconomic position and health: A systematic review of 
mediation and moderation effects in prospective studies’, 
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 70, No. 9, pp. 
663–669.

Fagan, C., Lyonette, C., Smith, M. and Saldaña-Tejada A. 
(2011), ‘The influence of working time arrangements 
on work-life integration or “balance”: A review of the 
international evidence’, ILO, Conditions of Work and 
Employment Series, No. 32.

de Jong, T., Wiezer, N., de Weerd, M., Nielsen, K., 
Mattila-Holappa, P., Mockałło, Z. (2016), ‘The impact of 
restructuring on employee well-being: A systematic review 
of longitudinal studies’, Work and Stress, Vol. 30, No.1, 
pp. 91–114.

145

Karasek, R. A. (1979), ‘Job demands, job decision latitude, 
and mental strain: Implications for job redesign’, 
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 285 -308.

Karask, R. and Theorell, T. (1992), Healthy work: Stress, 
productivity, and the reconstruction of working life, Basic 
Books, New York.

Khallash, S. and Kruse, M. (2012), The future of work and 
work–life balance 2025, Futures, Vol. 44, No. 7, pp. 678–686.

Kim, T. J. and von dem Knesebeck, O. (2015), ‘Is an insecure 
job better for health than having no job at all? A systematic 
review of studies investigating the health-related risks of 
both job insecurity and unemployment’, BMC Public Health, 
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 985.

Kivimäki, M. et al (2012), ‘Job strain as a risk factor for 
coronary heart disease: A collaborative meta-analysis of 
individual participant data’, The Lancet, Vol. 380, No. 9852, 
pp. 1491–1497.

Kivimäki, M., Jokela, M., Nyberg, S. T. et al (2015), ‘Long 
working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and 
stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published 
and unpublished data for 603 838 individuals’, The Lancet, 
Vol. 386, No. 10005, pp. 1739–1746.

Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, M., Elovainio, M., Kouvonen, A., 
Väänänen, A. and Vahtera, J. (2006), ‘Work stress in the 
etiology of coronary heart disease – a meta-analysis’, 
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 
Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 431–442.

László, K. D., Pikhart, H., Kopp, M. S., Bobak, M., Pajak, 
A., Malyutina, S. et al (2010), ‘Job insecurity and health: 
A study of 16 European countries’, Social Science and 
Medicine, Vol. 70, No. 6, pp. 867–874.

Magidson, J. and Vermunt, J. K. (2002), ‘Latent class 
models for clustering: A comparison with K-means’, 
Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, pp. 36–43.

Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T. and Schaufeli, W. 
(2016), ‘The longitudinal development of employee well- 
being: A systematic review’, Work and Stress, Vol. 30, No. 1, 
pp. 46–70.

Maslach, C. and Jackson, S. E. (1981), ‘The measurement of 
experienced burn-out’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 99–113.

Méda, D. and Vendramin, P. (2013), Réinventer le travail, 
Presses universitaires de France, Paris.

Messenger, J. and Lutz, G. (2015), ‘Three generations of 
telework’, conference paper, New ICTs and the (R)evolution 
from Home Office to Virtual Office, 17th ILERA World 
Congress, 7–11 September, Cape Town, South Africa.

Molinier, P. (2008), Les enjeux psychiques du travail: 
Introduction à la psychodynamique du travail, Petite 
Bibliothèque Payot, Paris.

Montano, D. (2014), ‘Chemical and biological work-related 
risks across occupations in Europe: A review’, Journal of 
Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 28.

146

Niedhammer, I., Tek, M. L., Starke, D. and Siegrist, J. (2004), 
‘Effort-reward imbalance model and self-reported health: 
Cross-sectional and prospective findings from the GAZEL 
cohort’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 58, No. 8,  
pp. 1531–1541.

Nyberg, A., Alfredsson, L., Theorell, T., Westerlund, H., 
Vahtera, J. and Kivimäki, M. (2009), ‘Managerial leadership 
and ischaemic heart disease among employees: The 
Swedish WOLF study’, Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 51–55.

Nyberg, A., Bernin, P. and Theorell, T. (2005). The impact of 
leadership on the health of subordinates, National Institute 
for Working Life, Stockholm.

Nyberg, A., Westerlund, H., Magnusson Hanson, L.L. 
and Theorell, T. (2008), ‘Managerial leadership is 
associated with self-reported sickness absence and 
sickness presenteeism among Swedish men and women’, 
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health,  
Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 803–811.

Odle-Dusseau H. N., Britt, T. W. and Greene-Shortridge, 
T. M. (2012), ‘Organizational work-family resources as 
predictors of job performance and attitudes: The process 
of work-family conflict and enrichment’, Journal of 
Occupational Health, Vol. 17, No.1, pp. 28–40.

Popma, J. (2013), The Janus face of the ‘New Ways of Work’: 
Rise, risks and regulation of nomadic work, European Trade 
Union Institute (ETUI), Brussels.

Pot, F. D. (2011), ‘Workplace innovation for better jobs and 
performance’, International Journal of Productivity and 
Performance Management, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 404–415.

Ramstad, E. (2009), ‘Promoting performance and the 
quality of working life simultaneously’, International 
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,  
Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 423–436.

Reichl, C., Leiter, M. P. and Spinath, F. M. (2014), ‘Work– 
nonwork conflict and burnout: A meta-analysis’, Human 
Relations, Vol. 67, No. 8, pp. 979–1005.

Schulte, P. and Vainio, H. (2010), ‘Well-being at work: 
Overview and perspective’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, 
Environment and Health, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 422–429.

Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (2007), Mental health 
at work: Developing the business case, Policy Paper 8, 
Sainsbury Institute for Mental Health, London.

Salo, P., Oksanen, T., Sivertsen, B., Hall, M., Pentti, J., 
Virtanen, M. et al (2010), ‘Sleep disturbances as predictor of 
cause-specific work disability and delayed return to work’, 
Sleep, Vol. 33, No. 10, pp. 1323–1331.

Schaufeli, W. and Salanova, M. (2007), ‘Work engagement: 
An emerging psychological concept and its implications 
for organisations’, Managing Social and Ethical Issues in 
Organizations, pp. 135–177, Information Age Publishing, 
Charlotte, NC.

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportBibliography

Siegrist, J. (1996), ‘Adverse health effects of high-effort/ 
low-reward conditions’, Journal of Occupational Health 
Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 27–41.

Siu, O. -L., Lu, J. -F., Brough, P., Lu, C. -Q., Bakker, A. B., 
Kalliath, T. et al (2010), ‘Role resources and work–family 
enrichment: The role of work engagement’, Journal of 
Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 470–480.

Stephens, M. (Jr.) (2004), ‘Job loss expectations, 
realizations, and household consumption’, MIT Press 
Journals, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 253–269.

Stoddard, M. and Madsen, S. (2007), ‘Towards an 
understanding of the link between work-family enrichment 
and individual health’, Journal of Behavioural and Applied 
Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 2–15.

Theorell, T., Jood, K., Järvholm, L. S., Vingård, E., Perk, J., 
Östergren, P. O. et al (2016), ‘A systematic review of studies 
in the contributions of the work environment to ischaemic 
heart disease development’, The European Journal of Public 
Health, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 470–477.

Theorell, T., Hammarström, A., Aronsson, G., Träskman 
Bendz, L., Grape, T., Hogstedt, C. et al (2015), ‘A systematic 
review including meta-analysis of work environment and 
depressive symptoms’, BMC Public Health, Vol. 15, No. 1, 
pp. 738.

Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., Bech, P. 
(2015), ‘The WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review 
of the literature’, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 
Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 167–176.

Volkoff S. and Gaudart C. (2015), Working conditions and 
‘sustainability’: Converting knowledge into action, Centre 
d’études de l’emploi (CEE), Rapports de recherche du CEE, 
n°92, Noisy-le-Grand, France.

Wahrendorf, M., Dragano, N. and Siegrist, J. (2012), ‘Social 
position, work stress, and retirement intentions: A study 
with older employees from 11 European countries’, 
European Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 792–802.

Warr, P. (2007), Work, happiness and unhappiness, Lawrence 
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey (USA).

Westgaard, R. H. and Winkel, J. (2011), ‘Occupational 
musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of 
rationalisation and opportunities to create sustainable 
production systems – A systematic review’, Applied 
Ergonomics, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 261–296.

de Wind, A., van der Pas, S., Blatter, B. M. and van der 
Beek, A. J. (2016), ‘A life course perspective on working 
beyond retirement-results from a longitudinal study in the 
Netherlands’, BMC Public Health, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 499.

de Wind, A., Geuskens, G. A., Ybema, J. F., Bongers, P. 
M. and van der Beek, A. J. (2015), ‘The role of ability, 
motivation, and opportunity to work in the transition 
from work to early retirement: Testing and optimizing the 
Early Retirement Model’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, 
Environment & Health, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 24–35.

de Witte, H. (2016), ‘On the scarring effects of job insecurity 
(and how they can be explained)’, Scandinavian Journal of 
Work, Environment & Health, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 99–102.

Trinkoff, A. M., Le, R., Geiger-Brown, J., Lipscomb, J. and 
Lang, G. (2006), ‘Longitudinal relationship of work hours, 
mandatory overtime, and on-call to musculoskeletal 
problems in nurses’, American Journal of Industrial 
Medicine, Vol. 49, No. 11, pp. 964–971.

Wolff, L., Mardon, C., Gaudart, C., Molinié, A.-F. and Volkoff, 
S. (2015), Les changements dans le travail vécus au fil de la 
vie professionnelle, et leurs enjeux de santé. Une analyse 
à partir de l’enquête SIP, Rapport de recherche No. 94, CEE, 
Noisy-Le-Grand, France.

Zawieja, P. and Guarnieri, F. (2014), Dictionnaire des risques 
psychosociaux, Seuil, Paris.

Vermunt, J. K. and Magidson, J. (2002), ‘Latent class cluster 
analysis’, in J. Hagenaars and McCutcheon, A. (eds.), 
Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106), Cambridge, 
Cambridge University Press.

Vermunt, J. K. and Magidson, J. (2016), Technical guide for 
Latent GOLD 5.1: Basic, advanced, and syntax, Statistical 
Innovations Inc., Belmont, MA.

Virtanen, M. et al (2013), ‘Perceived job insecurity as a risk 
factor for incident coronary heart disease: Systematic 
review and meta-analysis’, British Medical Journal (Clinical 
Research Ed.), Vol. 347, f. 4746.

Vitols, S. and Kluge, N. (2011), The sustainable company: 
A new approach to corporate governance, European Trade 
Union Institute (ETUI), Brussels.

Vogel, L. (2003), La santé des femmes au travail en Europe: 
Des inégalités non reconnues, European Trade Union 
Institute (ETUI), Brussels.

Volkoff, S. (ed) (2005), L’ergonomie et les chiffres de la 
santé au travail: Ressources, tensions et pièges, Octarès, 
Toulouse.

147

Annexes

Annex 1: Survey methodology
The European Working Conditions survey (EWCS) assesses and quantifies the working conditions of employees and the 
self-employed, analyses relationships between different aspects of working conditions, identifies groups at risk and issues 
of concern, and monitors progress and trends. The survey aims to contribute to European policy development, particularly 
regarding quality of work and employment issues. The EWCS has been carried out by Eurofound every five years since 1991.

Eurofound contracted independent market research company Ipsos to undertake fieldwork for the sixth EWCS, which 
was carried out between February and December 2015. Ipsos interviewed 43,850 workers in 35 European countries: the 
EU28, the five candidate countries for EU membership – Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Serbia and Turkey – as well as Norway and Switzerland. For more information on methodology, see: http://www.eurofound.
europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-2015/ewcs-2015-
methodology.

Questionnaire development
Building on previous surveys, Eurofound develops a revised questionnaire for each wave. The work starts well in advance of 
the fieldwork, as several important steps need to be followed to ensure that the questionnaire is of high quality. Particular 
attention is paid to lessons learnt from the previous waves, such as emerging policy issues, comparability over time, 
adherence to internationally validated questions and adapting the questionnaire to the way work is performed.

Eurofound, in the revision of its questionnaires, closely involves its tripartite stakeholders, representatives of international 
and European organisations and agencies, as well as using expert knowledge from survey institutes and researchers working 
with these themes throughout Europe and users’ feedback (see Annex 3: Expert questionnaire development group).

The process includes lessons learnt from the analyses of the fifth EWCS survey, a user survey among those researchers 
who have obtained the dataset from the UK Data Archive at the University of Essex on which the EWCS datasets have been 
posted, and consultation with key Eurofound stakeholders (members of its Advisory Committee on Working Conditions) at 
key moments of revision of the questionnaire.

Stakeholders and users highlighted time comparability as the main priority for the revision of the sixth EWCS in order to 
better capture the impact of the recession on job quality and working lives.

Preparatory work included the analysis of European policy documents with a view to identifying emerging policy issues to 
which the EWCS could contribute, an analysis of national and other important working conditions surveys, as well as two 
specific literature reviews on self-employment and engagement.

A number of new questions were developed to address the experience of change in the job, the varieties of self-employment, 
company size (to complement workplace size), social climate and organisational justice at the workplace, work–family 
conflicts and enrichment, employee representation, engagement, chronic diseases and sleeping issues. Revised questions 
include place of work, leadership, employment status, and sustainability of work.

The process of questionnaire revision was based on a comprehensive number of sources in order to integrate concerns 
arising from the social debate and emerging issues, as well as building on lessons learnt from previous editions of the survey. 
Prior to finalisation, cognitive interviews were carried out to test the questionnaire and to propose new questions.

Translation
Comparability across countries is a key dimension of the quality of the EWCS. In relation to translation of the source 
questionnaire (in English) to all other languages (49 language versions have been developed), a series of actions have 
been implemented to ensure the highest level of equivalence between the language versions of the questionnaire vis à vis 
finalisation of the source questionnaire. These include training of interviewers, and selecting and implementing the 
translation procedures which follow the good practice highlighted in multinational, multicultural survey methods.

148

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportTable A1: Language versions for each country

Country/territory

Language (version)

Separate translation 
process required

Adapted from (if country/territory shares 
a language(s) with another)

Annexes

EU Member States

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Candidate countries

Albania

Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia (FYROM)

Montenegro

German

Dutch

French

Bulgarian

Croatian

Greek

Czech

Danish

Estonian

Russian

Finnish

Swedish

French

German

Greek

Hungarian

English

Italian

Latvian

Russian

Lithuanian

Russian

French

German

Luxembourgish

Maltese

English

Dutch

Polish

Portuguese

Romanian

Slovene

Slovak

Spanish (Castilian)

Catalan

Basque

Swedish

English

Albanian

Macedonian

Albanian

Montenegrin

Serbian

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sweden

Source

Estonia

Estonia

Source

Source

FYROM

149

Country/territory

Language (version)

Separate translation 
process required

Adapted from (if country/territory shares 
a language(s) with another)

Serbia

Turkey

Other countries

Norway

Switzerland

Serbian

Hungarian

Turkish

Norwegian

German

French

Italian

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Montenegro

Hungary

Italy

Before finalisation of the source questionnaire, advance translation was carried out in German and Polish with a view 
to identifying any cultural and translation problems at this early stage, thus assisting in the finalisation of the source 
questionnaire. Following the revision of the questionnaire, a translatability assessment into French, Croatian, Hungarian, 
Lithuanian and Swedish was carried out by Ipsos to ensure the suitability of the source questionnaire for translation, and 
to prepare templates and guidelines for the translation of the questionnaire. This process preceded the appointment and 
training of experienced translators in this field.

The main translation approach relied on the TRAPD model (Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting and 
Documentation) whereby two independent translations are produced which are then combined into one merged 
adjudicated third version with the support of a third party. This method relies on the development of comparable and 
comprehensive documentation.

For languages spoken in two or more countries, such as French (spoken in France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland), 
a process of harmonisation took place where the different translations were shared and discussed between the teams 
responsible for the various versions, prior to the finalisation of the merged and adjudicated version. The aim of this process 
is to ensure the best possible translation while ensuring it is suited for the country in which it is being used.

For languages spoken in multiple countries but where there are no major differences in the languages, such as Swedish (in 
Sweden and Finland), the translation developed using TRAPD in the country where there is the greater number of speakers 
of the language residing in the country was adapted by the other countries.

To maintain the consistency of the data over time, the translations of trend questions (some dating back as far as 1991) were 
changed only in the case of serious discrepancies between the English master and the translation.

At the end of 2014, a pilot test of the full survey as well as the translated versions of the questionnaire was carried in all 
countries covered by the sixth EWCS. Its findings helped to finalise the preparation of the main fieldwork.

The questionnaire has been published separately and is available on the sixth EWCS webpage at http://www.eurofound.
europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-2015

Sampling design
The sample used in the EWCS is representative of those aged 15 and over (16 and over in Bulgaria, Norway, Spain and the UK) 
living in private households and in employment who did at least one hour of work for pay or profit during the week preceding 
the interview.

In each country, a multistage stratified random sampling design was used. At the first stage, Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) 
with probability proportional to size were randomly selected (based on regions – NUTS2 in 18 countries or equivalent and 
the degree of urbanisation using Eurostat’s indicator DEGURBA where available). The number of PSUs in each country was 
at least 50, with a maximum of 20 achieved interviews per PSU. Subsequently, households within each PSU were sampled. 
Finally, a screening procedure was applied to select the eligible respondent within each household (for some countries, 
individuals were sampled directly).

A sampling frame was used in countries where an updated, high-quality address or population register was available. 
Individual registers were used in five countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland) and address registers 
in 11 countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Turkey 
and United Kingdom). For the 19 remaining countries, registers were not available and addresses were enumerated 
following a random procedure that was separated from the interviewing stage.

For more information on sampling, see the sampling implementation report on the EWCS 2015 – Methodology page).

150

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportAnnexes

Fieldwork
The sixth edition of the EWCS covers the 28 EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland in a first fieldwork period (February 
to September 2015), and Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey (between 
September and December 2015).

The minimum reference sample size per country was 1,000, except in Poland (1,200); Spain (1,300); Italy (1,400); France 
(1,500); UK (1,600); Germany and Turkey (2,000 each). Belgium, Slovenia and Spain opted to top up their sample sizes, 
resulting in target sample sizes of 2,500, 1,600 and 3,300 respectively. The achieved sample sizes are shown in Table A2.

The survey interviews were carried out face to face using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) at respondents’ 
homes.17 The average duration of the interview was 45 minutes; no proxy interview was authorised.

The overall response rate was 42.5% and has decreased by 1.7% for the group of countries that were also in the last edition 
of the survey, increasing in 23 of the 33 comparable countries. The pattern of response rate is similar to that of the previous 
wave. An important reason for the low response rate in Sweden was the disappointing contact rates during pre-recruitment 
of respondents by phone, prior to the face to face interviews. Furthermore, response rates in Sweden have been decreasing 
in the last three editions of the EWCS. Declining response rates have been an important concern for many years.

The contacting rate overall declined by 10.8% since 2010, down to 65.5%. In addition to the abovementioned reasons for 
Sweden, other reasons include difficulty of access to apartments and houses due to security codes and the specialisation of 
some sampling points, such as holiday homes. Although contacting respondents was more challenging in 2015, cooperation 
after establishing contact has improved. The cooperation rate for the sixth EWCS increased by eight percentage points 
when compared with the previous survey – to 67.6%. Likewise, the overall refusal rate was 20.4%, down from 29.9% in 2010. 
Fieldwork outcomes are calculated using the American Association for Public Opinion Research standards (AAPOR).

The external survey quality assessment report indicates that the sampling error is similar to that of previous editions and 
other surveys using stratified multi-stage random sampling.18

Table A2: Achieved sample size and response rate per country

Country/territory

Net sample size

Survey languages

Response rates RR3  
in % (10 = 100%)

All EWCS

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

43,850

1,028 German

2,587

French, Dutch

1,064 Bulgarian

1,012 Croatian

1,003 Greek

1,002 Czech

1,002 Danish

1,015 Estonian, Russian

1,001

Finnish, Swedish

1,527

French

2,093 German

1,007 Greek

1,023 Hungarian

1,057 English

1,402

Italian

1,004

Latvian, Russian

1,004

Lithuanian, Russian

1,003

French, Luxembourgish, German

1,004 Maltese, English

1,028 Dutch

1,203 Polish

0.425

0.473

0.363

0.643

0.502

0.694

0.629

0.260

0.589

0.333

0.374

0.510

0.637

0.576

0.543

0.605

0.619

0.615

0.428

0.462

0.366

0.557

17  Some interviews were conducted in other places at the request of self-employed respondents. This occurred in a limited number of cases.

18  https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-2015/ewcs-2015-methodology

151

Country/territory

Net sample size

Survey languages

Response rates RR3  
in % (10 = 100%)

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Candidate countries

Albania

1,037 Portuguese

1,063 Romanian

1,000 Slovak

1,607 Slovene

3,364 Spanish (Castilian), Catalan, Basque

1,002 Swedish

1,623 English

1,002 Albanian

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

1,011 Macedonian, Albanian

Montenegro

Serbia

Turkey

EFTA countries

Switzerland

Norway

1,005 Montenegrin, Serbian

1,033 Serbian, Hungarian

2,000 Turkish

1,006

French, Italian, German

1,028 Norwegian

0.548

0.551

0.654

0.465

0.314

0.109

0.412

0.780

0.751

0.711

0.538

0.361

0.327

0.512

For more information on fieldwork, see the technical report, sampling implementation report and weighting report, which 
are available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys/sixth-european-
working-conditions-survey-2015/ewcs-2015-methodology

Coding
The sixth EWCS included three open-ended questions in order to record the respondents’ occupation and the economic 
activity of the organisation or company they work for. Following data collection, the answers were coded according to the 
international classification systems for occupation (ISCO-88 and ISCO-08) and the activity of companies and organisations 
(NACE Rev. 1.1 and 2.0).

The income scales were constructed using the fifth EWCS and the Eurostat Structure of Earnings survey (SES). The exchange 
rates used for the conversion into euros were those valid at the median date of fieldwork for each country.

For more information on coding, see the Coding report on the sixth EWCS webpage (see link above).

Weighting
Three types of weights were applied to ensure that results based on the sixth EWCS data can be considered representative 
for workers in Europe.

  Design weights adjust for differences in the probabilities of selection associated with individual country sampling 

design.

  Poststratification weights adjust for differences between the sample and the population distribution on selected 

variables (age and sex, NUTS2, industry (NACE) and occupation (ISCO)) and adjust for non-response.

  Cross-national or population weights adjust for the different sizes per countries of their at-work population.

Reference statistics for the poststratification are largely Eurostat’s 2015 Labour Force Survey (LFS).19 For some countries, 
national LFS statistics were used as poststratification weighting targets. For more details, see the sixth EWCS sampling 
implementation report and weighting report.

Quality assurance
Like all Eurofound surveys, a high number of quality checks prior to, during and after fieldwork were carried out, with 
146 quality control targets monitored covering all stages of the survey and the dimensions of quality as identified by the 
European statistical system: relevance, accuracy, timeliness and punctuality, accessibility, coherence and comparability. For 
more information, see the sixth EWCS quality control report.

19  The technical repor t (available on the sixth EWCS webpage) presents poststratification weighting to LFS 2014, because LFS 2015 was not available to Ipsos 
within the contract period. Eurofound updated the poststratification weighting with LFS 2015 without changing the methodology. There was no update for 
countries where LFS 2015 from Eurostat was not available.

152

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview report Annexes

In addition, an external Quality assessment report was commissioned by Eurofound, the results of which are available on 
the sixth EWCS webpage (see https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys/sixth-
european-working-conditions-survey-2015/ewcs-2015-methodology).

Limitations and strengths of the survey
Eurofound acknowledges both the limitations and strengths of this periodic exercise. Reflecting on the limitations and 
trying to curb them – while increasingly reinforcing the strengths – are among the key objectives of the quality assurance 
developed through the years.

Limitations

  The EWCS covers a broad set of topics that are measured with a narrower set of indicators than in highly specialised 

surveys.

  The cross-cultural cross-country setting is particularly challenging and there may be differences in measurement, 

sampling and non-response, which can affect comparability. The dimension of violence at work, for example, illustrates 
this difficulty, as respondents may have varying inclinations to report and different concepts of what ‘violence’ means 
for them.

  Non-response items were low on average, but highest for earnings and absence-related questions, in line with the 

sensitivity of the questions and the results in similar surveys.

  The survey is cross-sectional and even if the survey allowed for investigation of the relationships between the 

different working conditions indicators, causal relations cannot be drawn based on the data. The EWCS can point out 
relationships between work and health, but it does not include workers who have exited the labour market for health 
reasons.

  While the national samples allow for a general population profile to be drawn for each country, they are invariably too 

small to enable detailed analysis of specific subgroups.

  Differences between countries, over time, can occur as a result of sampling rather than reflect real differences. This 

needs to be considered when viewing the figures.

  Not all differences presented in the report have been statistically tested.

Strengths

  The EWCS is a unique tool for portraying the working life of workers and as the most comprehensive source of 

information on working conditions in Europe has become a source of inspiration outside Europe. The questionnaire is 
currently being used in South Korea and the USA, and questions from the EWCS have been included in surveys in Latin 
America and China.

  The survey development has benefited from rich feedback from research and policy users.

  The survey builds on good practice and collaboration with others, in particular the developers of national working 

conditions surveys.

It is widely used to monitor job quality and analyse developments in working life, not only at European level but also by 
the OECD.

  The survey relies on the knowledge of the respondents – namely the workers – to gather a description of real work. 
It does that by means of specific and concrete questions about work, working conditions and companies assessed 
through different dimensions, validated by research as relevant and useful for the monitoring of working lives and job 
quality. The survey aims to select questions relevant to all types of work (different occupations and work situations) and 
is easy to understand.

  The survey is based on an interdisciplinary approach; whenever possible, a validated measurement for a concept is 

used.

  The cross-cultural dimension of the survey is embedded into the design and implementation of the overall project. 

  The EWCS strives to address precise questions to respondents: for example, the survey asks whether respondents 

are exposed to ‘noise so loud that you have to raise your voice to talk to people’, rather than to ‘a noisy environment’ 
which would leave room for an individual interpretation by the respondent of what is ‘noisy’.

  The survey allows for a comparison over time, as a core set of trend questions has been retained.

  The analysis relies on multiple indicators to construct more complex concepts, as clearly exemplified by the 

measurement of work, intensity of work, and the issue of violence at work.

153

 
Gender mainstreaming
Gender mainstreaming is a guiding source for reviewing the questionnaire and designing the analysis. This has been done by 
developing indicators to include the demands of gender-segregated jobs and adding new questions. The wording of some 
questions has been revised in order to ensure that they address both men and women’s concerns in a valid way: for example, 
the indicator on ‘lifting or moving people’ was included when it became obvious that (female) nurses and teachers would 
not answer positively to the question regarding exposure to heavy lifting, as the care of patients and children clearly might 
involve lifting ‘heavy loads’. The survey captures the household composition, work intensity, time use outside work, work–
family conflicts and work–life balance, in order to reflect the different roles of men and women in different life spheres. 
Capturing unpaid work in the survey allows for a better assessment of its influence on preferences regarding paid work and 
working time. It also includes indicators on specific gender issues, such as gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

More information
More information on the sixth EWCS survey and its methodology is available on Eurofound’s website (sixth EWCS webpage). 
It is planned to carry out in-depth thematic analysis of the EWCS findings in 2017.

154

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportAnnexes

Annex 2: Coordination team and national partners
Through its Ipsos Central Coordination team (ICC), Ipsos Belgium was in overall charge of the central coordination and 
management of the sixth EWCS. The ICC itself was made up of professionals from the Ipsos Social Research Institute (ISRI) 
and took the lead in all national partner agency liaison and data quality issues to ensure the sixth EWCS was delivered with 
maximum consistency and quality standards across the surveyed countries.

Ipsos Central Coordination team
Project Director: Andrew Johnson

Deputy Project Director: Jean-Michel Lebrun

Sampling Directors: Patten Smith, Femke De Keulenaer, Hayk Gyuzalyan, Sally Widdop

Project Managers: Jean-Michel Lebrun, Allan Simpson, Emilie Rey-Coquais, Ahu Alanya

Project Coordination: Françoise Schuster, Elena Lucica, Sylvia Vandenbroucke

National partners and local teams

Country/territory

Company/organisation name

Name of national team leader

EU Member States

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Candidate countries

Albania

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Montenegro

Serbia

Turkey

Other countries

Norway

Switzerland

Spectra Marktforschungs GesmbH

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Christian Baumann

Corinne Descamps

Iva Dimova

Mirna Cvitan

CMR – Cypronetwork Marketing Research Ltd.

Christos Michaelides

MEDIAN s.r.o

DMA Research A/S

Faktum & Ariko OÜ

Taloustutkimus Oy

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

SKDS

RAIT Ltd.

TNS Ilres

MISCO International

PMR

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

MEDIAN s.r.o

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

Ipsos

gfs-zürich Markt- & Sozialforschung

Miloš Staněk

Vibeke Tuborgh

Kalev Petti

Tuomo Turja

Robin Pillot

Martin Dankert

Emmanouela Costopoulou

Tímea Korok

Aisling Corcoran

Guido Rambaldi

Ieva Strode

Lina Juodkienė

Luc Biever

Vanessa Bajada

Fons de Rijk

Krzysztof Chmielewski

Isabel Rebelo da Silva

Lorena Cristea

Miloš Staněk

Lenka Hrastar

Álvaro Calvo Romero

Eva Ohlsson

Rebecca Klahr

Alban Bilali

Gjorgji Mitrevski

Vladimir Raičević

Hana Baronijan

Akın Şahin

Nina Berg

Martin Abele

155

Annex 3: Expert questionnaire development group
An expert questionnaire development group was set up in order to discuss the questionnaire of the sixth EWCS. The group 
was composed of national experts and representatives of the European Commission and of international organisations.

Advisory Committee

Governments

Petra Pencs
Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz
Austria

Antti Närhinen
Ministry of Employment and the Economy
Finland

Andreas Horst
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales
Germany

Vladka Komel
Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Slovenia

Employers

Emmanuel Jahan
Air France
Belgium

Kris De Meester
Federation of Enterprises in Belgium
Belgium

Lutz Mühl
Bundesarbeitgeberverband Chemie
Germany

Mario Van Mierlo
Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers
Netherlands

Trade unions

Fabienne Scandella
European Trade Union Institute
Belgium

Herman Fonck
Confederation of Christian Trade Unions
Belgium

Erik Pentenga
Dutch Federation of Trade Unions
Netherlands

European Commission

Catherine Blair
Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Dimitrios Dimitriou
Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Guido Schwarz
Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

156

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportAnnexes

Experts

Jouko Nätti
University of Tampere
Finland

Michel Gollac
Center for Research in Economics and Statistics
France

Colette Fagan
University of Manchester
United Kingdom

National experts

Austria

Belgium

Bernhard Mader, Arbeitsklima

Patricia Vendramin, Fondation Travail-Université

Alain Piette, SPF Emploi, Travail et Concertation sociale

Aline Hoffmann, ETUI

John Morley

Monique Ramioul, KU Leuven

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Vassil Kirov, Institute for the Study of Societies and Knowledge, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (ISSK-BAS) and 
Centre Pierre Naville, University of Evry

Pavlos Kalosinatos, Cyprus Labour Institute (INEK-PEO)

Czech Republic

Jiří Vinopal, Institute of Sociology of Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Anne Illemann Christensen, National Institute of Public Health

Meelis Naaber, Statistics Estonia

Anna Pärnänen, Statistics Finland

Hanna Sutela, Statistics Finland

France

Marilyne Beque, Dares

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Elisabeth Algava, Dares

Herman Burr, BAuA

Sofia Lampousaki, INE/GSEE

Éva Berde, Corvinus University of Budapest

Philip O’Connell, UCD

Valentina Gualtieri, ISFOL

Zaiga Priede, Central Statistical Bureau

Luxembourg

David Buechel, Chamber of Commerce

Malta

Saviour Rizzo, Centre for Labour Studies

Netherlands

Wilmar Schaufeli, Utrecht University

Norway

Cecilie Aagestad, STAMI

Irene Houtman, TNO

Steinar Aasnæss, STAMI

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Heloísa Perista, CESIS - Centro de Estudos para a Intervenção Social

Javier Pinilla, INSHT

Linda Magnusson Hanson, Stockholm University

United Kingdom

Brendan Burchell, University of Cambridge

Duncan Gallie, University of Oxford

Francis Green, LLAKES

157

European Commission
Jadwiga Tudek
Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

European and international institutions
Anne Humbert
EIGE

Xabier Irastorza
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Johan van der Valk
Eurostat

Sangheon Lee
International Labour Office

Alexander Hijzen
OECD

158

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportAnnexes

Annex 4: Job quality clusters
In order to identify groups of workers with similar quality jobs (Chapter 4), a statistical technique called latent class analysis 
(LCA) is used.

LCA postulates a categorical variable that is not observed in order to explain associations between a number of observed 
variables. An important difference of LCA from standard cluster analysis, such as K-means clustering, is that LCA is model-
based (Vermunt and Magidson, 2002). This has several advantages: one is that the choice in the number of clusters is less 
arbitrary because relying on statistical modelling allows the use of statistical information criteria, and another is that LCA 
allows for the inclusion of variables without any rescaling, as the models can take on different functional forms. Therefore, 
continuous variables (with different distributions) as well as (bi)nominal (including ordinal data) can be included.

The latent class five cluster model used in this report consists of several equations that are estimated simultaneously. Figure 
A1 shows the structure of the LCA cluster model used for the clustering of the job quality indices. The postulated categorical 
cluster variable is modelled as a variable to explain the associations between the indicator variables. In this case, the seven 
job quality indices are predicted by the five clusters, meaning that the clusters are formed by finding an optimal solution for 
estimating cluster membership on the job quality indices.

The latent class analysis is based on the 2015 EU28 data, using the cross-national EU28 sampling weights.

Because LCA is a joint analysis of the job quality indices and covariates, missing values were excluded on a casewise 
basis. Most missing values were found in the Earnings index – about 17% of all respondents in the EU28. The number of 
observations included in the LCA is 26,648.

Each of the job quality indices comprises a number of indicators (or their subdimensions). Chapter 2 presents an overview 
of the indicators that were included in each index. Some indices, such as the Physical environment index, represent the 
mean of each indicator rescaled to 0–100. Others, such as the Work intensity index, reflect different subdimensions such 
as quantitative demands or emotional demands and represent the rescaled mean of the subdimensions. All indicators and 
subdimensions were given the same weight when calculating the job quality indices. The Earnings index is based only on one 
indicator (monthly earnings; see ‘Measuring earnings’ in Chapter 2). For the purpose of the clustering exercise, the monthly 
earnings are transformed using the natural logarithm. The latent class clustering therefore reduces six job quality indices 
ranging from 0–100 (plus the natural logarithm of monthly earnings) into a set of – in this case – five distinct clusters.

Covariates enter the model as predictors of the cluster variable. The actual construction of the clusters is based only on the 
indicator variables (the job quality indices), but the size of the clusters is also dependent on the covariates. Figure A1 shows 
the included covariates and the number of categories of each variable. The covariates in this model are all categorical.

LCA makes it possible to classify a large group of heterogeneous workers into a few groups with distinct job quality profiles. 
Workers are clustered into a number of groups of different sizes because the job quality indices of the workers within these 
groups are associated with each other in a similar way. Similar jobs are assigned to the same class and substantially different 
jobs are classified in different classes.

The statistically optimal number of clusters can be determined by selecting the solution that provides the best model fit 
using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Increasing the number of clusters for this model specification further than 
five would still lead to an improvement of the BIC, as well as other information criteria. This indicates that although the 
clusters are substantially and significantly different from each other, the jobs within each cluster still observe a certain 
degree of heterogeneity. In other words, clustering jobs into five groups is a generalisation. Although increasing the number 
of clusters beyond five will improve the model fit from a statistical point of view, it does not refute the validity and meaning 
of the five cluster solution, but merely adds more detail.

The LCA results allow for the examination of the incidence of different types of jobs across the covariates included in the 
model. All covariates in Figure A1 have a significant effect on the clusters, indicating that the clusters are not distributed 
proportionally over the different categories of the covariates.

159

In addition, estimating the effect of belonging to a certain cluster on subjective indicators provides insight into differences 
in variables that indicate, for example, subjective well-being and health. The analysis is, by means of an extension to latent 
class analysis, known as ‘Step 3 analysis’ which relates the posterior class membership probabilities to external variables. 
In doing this, the maximum likelihood correction was applied (Vermunt and Magidson, 2016). Because certain personal 
characteristics, such as age, might be correlated with class membership probabilities as well as the external variables of 
interest, covariates are introduced to the model to control for this potential bias. The reported effects are controlled for the 
covariates that were also included in the estimation of cluster membership: sex, age, education, employment status, sector, 
workplace size, occupation and country. Despite the control for a series of covariates, the effects are not necessarily causal, 
mainly because the direction of causality might be ambiguous.

Figure A1: Latent class cluster model for the job quality indices

W orking  
tim e  quality

Phy s ical 
env ironm ent

Log   of 
earning s

L a t e n t   c la s s  
c lu s t e r s
( 5 )

    I n d ic a t o r s

S ocial 
env ironm ent

S kills   and 
dis cretion

S ex   ( 2 )

A g e  ( 3 )

Job 
pros pects

Work intensity

E m ploy m ent 
s tatus   ( 5 )

E ducation
( 3 )

S ector 
( N A C E   1 0 )

O ccupation
( I S C O   1 0 )

C ountry  
( 2 8 )

Workplace 
s ize
( 3 )

    C o v a r ia t e s

160

Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview reportEF/16/34

T
J
-
0
2
-
1
7
-
7
3
1
-
E
N

-

N

The sixth European Working Conditions Survey 
(EWCS) builds on the lessons learned from the 
previous five surveys to paint a wide-ranging 
picture of Europe at work across countries, 
occupations, sectors and age groups. EU 
employment policy priorities aim to boost 
employment levels, prolong working life, increase 
the participation of women, develop productivity 
and innovation and adapt to the digital challenge. 
The success of these policies depends not just 
on changes in the external labour market but 
also on developing good working conditions 
and job quality. The findings from the EWCS 
draw attention to the range and scope of actions 
that policy actors could develop to address the 
challenges facing Europe today. The analysis 
explores the findings using seven indices of job 
quality – physical environment, work intensity, 
working time quality, social environment, skills 
and discretion, prospects and earnings – and 
categorises workers into five typical job quality 
profiles. Based on face-to-face interviews with 
43,850 workers in 35 European countries, the 
sixth EWCS attempts to capture the multi-faceted 
dimensions of work in Europe today.