COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT [ ] Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/148/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work
Date: 2022-09-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: asbestos, cancer, carcinogenic substance, disease prevention, health risk, occupational safety

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.9.2022  SWD(2022) 312 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  […] Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  amending Directive 2009/148/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work {COM(2022) 489 final} - {SEC(2022) 342 final} - {SWD(2022) 310 final} - {SWD(2022) 311 final}  
 
 
Why? What is the problem being addressed?  

A.  Need for action 

Occupational  cancer  is  the  main  cause  of  work-related  deaths  in  the  EU1.  It  is  primarily 
caused  by  exposure  to  carcinogenic  substances  such  as  asbestos.  Asbestos  is  a  highly 
dangerous carcinogenic substance and although no longer in general use in the EU, it is still 
present  in  many  older  buildings.  Exposure  to  asbestos  can  lead,  for  example,  to 
mesothelioma2 and lung cancer, with a lag between exposure to asbestos and the first signs of 
disease  of  as  much  as  30  years.  Of  all  cancers  recognised  as  occupational  cancer  in  the 
Member States, 78% are related to asbestos3.  

The risk of exposure is mostly related to the handling of asbestos and dispersion of asbestos 
fibres  during  construction  works,  such  as  during  renovation  and  demolition.  The  pace  of 
asbestos removal can vary between countries depending on the age of the building stock and 
the  strategies  for  addressing  asbestos,  but  the  growing  need  to  increase  energy  efficiency 
means  that  workers  in  all  Member  States  are  increasingly  affected.  This  need  reflects  the 
ambition  of  the  EU  set  in  the  European  Green  Deal  to  become  the  first  climate-neutral 
continent by 20504. The exposure of workers to asbestos is thus expected to increase in all EU 
countries as the implementation of the Renovation Wave Strategy5 progresses. It is estimated 
that  4.1  to  7.3  million  workers  are  exposed  to  asbestos,  97%  of  whom  work  in  the 
construction sector. 

In the EU, the protection of workers against risks related to exposure to asbestos is regulated 
by  Directive  2009/148/EC  (the  Asbestos  at  Work  Directive  (AWD)).  The  most  recent 
in-depth  evaluation  of  the  AWD6  concluded  that  the  AWD  remains  highly  relevant  and 
effective.  The  study  supporting  this  evaluation7  concluded  that  there  is  evidence  to  support 
lowering  the  occupational  exposure  limit  (OEL)  value,  to  increase  the  relevance  and 
effectiveness of the AWD. Revising the OEL is also supported by the latest assessment of the 
implementation  of  the  EU  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  (OSH)  Directives,  covering  the 
period from 2013 to 20178. In addition, in November 2021, the tripartite Advisory Committee 
on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) unanimously agreed on the need to lower the current 
OEL. 

1 With a share of 52%, occupational cancer is the first cause of work-related deaths in the EU, before circulatory 
illnesses (24%),injuries (2%) and all other causes (22%) (2017 data, thus covering the EU and the United 
Kingdom (https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-costs#!/)). 
2 Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops from the thin layer of tissue that covers many of the internal 
organs (known as the mesothelium). 
3 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/experimental-statistics/european-occupational-diseases-statistics 
4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 
5 Commission Communication A Renovation Wave for Europe – greening our buildings, creating jobs, 
improving lives (COM(2020) 662 final). 
6 2017 ex post evaluation of the EU OSH Directives (SWD(2017) 10 final). 
7 Evaluation of the Practical Implementation of the EU Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in EU 
Member States. 
8 Staff working document accompanying the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work for 2021-2027 
(SWD(2021) 148 final). 

1 

 
 
                                                           
If no action  is  taken  at  EU level  and  considering only those occupations where  exposure to 
asbestos  currently  occurs,  an  estimated  884  cases  of  cancer  attributable  to  occupational 
exposure to asbestos9 will occur in the EU over the next 40 years. It is also predicted that 707 
workers will die from cancer attributable to occupational exposure to asbestos over the same 
period. These estimated cancer cases will result in health costs of between EUR 228 million 
and EUR 438 million. 

Number of 
exposed workers 

Health effects caused 

Expected 
no. of cases 
(2021-2061) 

Expected no. 
of deaths 
(2021-2061) 

Estimated health 
costs (net present 
value) 

4 100 000-
7 300 000 

Lung cancer  
Mesothelioma  
Laryngeal cancer 
Ovarian cancer 

884 

707 

EUR 228 million-
EUR 438 million 

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  

The main general objective of this initiative is to further strengthen workers’ right to a high 
level of protection of their health and safety at work and to prevent disease and death caused 
by work-related cancer.  

To support this general objective, this initiative will pursue the specific objectives: 

 

 

to make the OEL value under the AWD more effective by updating it on the basis of 
scientific expertise; and 
to  achieve  a  more  uniform  and  better  protection  of  workers  across  the  EU  against 
asbestos. 

What is the value added of action at EU level?  

Updating the AWD to take account of  the latest available scientific evidence is  an effective 
way to ensure that preventive measures are updated accordingly in all Member States.  

Revising  the  OEL  under  the  AWD  will  not  completely  eliminate  the  differences  between 
Member  States,  but  will  lead  to  a  greater  harmonisation  of  limit  values  across  the  EU. 
Therefore,  a  revised  EU  OEL  helps  achieve  a  more  harmonised  and  better  protection  of 
workers,  and  level  the  playing  field  for  businesses  across  the  EU.  Companies  willing  to 
operate  in  multiple  Member  States  can  further  benefit  from  streamlined  applicable  limit 
values. This may result in  savings,  as common solutions can be adopted across facilities, as 
opposed  to  having  to  design  site-specific  solutions  to  meet  various  OEL  requirements  in 
multiple Member States.  

EU-level  action  will  likely  bring  about  fairer  conditions  for  workers  and  lower  healthcare 
costs that are more fairly distributed across Members States. 

9 Including mesothelioma and lung, laryngeal and ovarian cancer. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Revising the EU OEL eliminates the need for Member States to carry out their own scientific 
analysis, with likely substantial savings on administrative costs. Amending the AWD can only 
be done by action at EU level. 

B. Policy options 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a 
preferred choice or not? Why?  

Both  revising  current  guidelines  and  adopting  specific  measures  for  small  to  medium-sized 
enterprises  (SMEs)  have  been  discarded  as  these  options  were  considered  less  effective  in 
reaching the objectives of this initiative. 

Revising the EU OEL  under the AWD has  been  selected  as  the most appropriate  approach. 
Several OEL scenarios have been assessed taking into account the scientific assessment of the 
Committee  for  Risk  Assessment  of  the  European  Chemicals  Agency10,  the  opinion  of  the 
tripartite  ACSH11,  and  the  OELs  in  place  in  the  Member  States.  The  scientific  evaluation 
provides  a  solid  evidence  base,  while  the  ACSH’s  opinion,  which  also  factors  in  socio-
economic  and  feasibility 
the  successful 
implementation of the revised OEL. 

issues,  provides 

information  for 

important 

Based on a thorough impact assessment, an OEL of 0.01 fibres/cm3 has been selected as the 
preferred  option  as  it  represents  the  best  scenario  in  terms  of  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
coherence. 

The option of revising other provisions of the AWD as requested by workers’ organisations 
and the European Parliament resolution was considered but was not selected. The discussions 
with the tripartite ACSH, the scientific analysis and the two-stage consultation of EU social 
partners  in  line  with  Article  154  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
focused on updating the OEL as a matter of urgency, rather than reviewing the AWD more 
comprehensively, based on the findings of the ex post evaluation of the AWD12. This has no 
bearing on the outcome of future assessments and possible revisions of other provisions of the 
AWD.  Nevertheless,  it  should  be  noted  that  Member  States  can  go  beyond  the  minimum 
provisions  of  the  AWD  and  that  they  are  responsible  for  the  specific  implementation  and 
enforcement  of  the  national  provisions  transposing  the  AWD.  As  appropriate,  the  specific 
requests of workers’ organisations and the European Parliament will be addressed in dedicated 
guidelines. These guidelines would be made available by the Commission after the adoption 
of the revised AWD, to support its implementation. 

10 Opinion on scientific evaluation of occupational exposure limits for Asbestos. 
11 ACSH, Opinion on an EU Binding Occupational Exposure Limit Value (BOEL) for Asbestos under the 
Asbestos at Work Directive 2009/148/EC (Doc. 008-21), adopted on 24.11.2021. 
12 SWD(2017) 10 final, 10.1.2017. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Who supports which option?  

As  part  of  the  formal  two-stage  consultation  of  the  social  partners,  both  employers’ 
organisations and trade unions supported lowering the OEL under the AWD.  

The Employers  Interest  Group and the Government Interest Group of the ACSH support an 
OEL equal to 0.01 fibres/cm3, while the Workers  Interest Group is in favour of adopting an 
OEL equal to 0.001 fibres/cm3. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option?  

Thanks  to  this  initiative,  663  cases  of  cancer  (lung  cancer,  mesothelioma,  laryngeal  cancer 
and ovarian cancer) could be avoided over the next 40 years. This will reduce the suffering of 
workers  and  their  families,  and  increase  the  length,  quality  and  productivity  of  their  lives, 
among  other  things.  In  economic  terms,  this  health  benefit  translates  into  between 
EUR 166 million and EUR 323 million. 

Making asbestos-removal work safer will increase the attractiveness of the sector. As a result 
of  such  an  improvement  in  their  public  image,  companies  may  find  it  easier  to  recruit  and 
retain staff, reducing the cost of recruitment and increasing the productivity of workers.  

What are the costs of the preferred option? 

Action  to  adjust  working  practices  to  comply  with  the  new  OEL  would  result  in  increased 
costs for companies. These include mainly the costs of additional risk-management measures, 
notification,  medical  surveillance,  monitoring  and  training.  However,  average  costs  per 
company over the next 40 years would be lower than EUR 15 000. These costs are, to a large 
extent, likely to be passed on to customers. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  

Small companies, which account for more than 99% of companies working with asbestos in 
all sectors, will more likely be concerned by the reduced OEL. Costs can have a small impact 
(cost/turnover ratio between 2 and 4%) in the sectors of repair of electrical equipment, repair 
and maintenance of ships and boats, and maintenance and repair of motor vehicles (i.e. 0.02% 
of all companies dealing with asbestos). With the exception of SMEs in these sectors, the big 
majority of SMEs will not be impacted by necessary cost increases.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

Enforcing authorities might incur additional administrative and enforcement costs. However, 
these costs are not expected to be significant (around EUR 390 000 per country per year). The 
selected  option  should  also  help  mitigate  financial  losses  of  Member  States’  social-security 
and healthcare systems by preventing ill health. The estimated benefits for public authorities 

4 

 
 
 
(EUR 3.4 million  over  40  years)  are  smaller 
EUR 421 million over 40 years). 

than 

the  quantified  costs 

(around 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

The preferred option will also have a positive impact on fundamental rights, especially with 
regard  to  Article  2  (Right  to  life)  and  Article  31  (Fair  and  just  working  conditions)  of  the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  

Moreover,  it  will  help  achieve  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  on  good  health 
and well-being (SDG 3) and decent work and economic growth (SDG 8). It is also expected to 
have a positive impact on the SDG on industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9) and on 
responsible production and consumption (SDG 12). 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

D. Follow-up 

The effectiveness of the proposed AWD revision would be measured as part of the evaluation 
of the EU OSH Directives under Article 17a of Directive 89/391/EEC. 

5