evaluation of the european strategy on safety and health at work ...

EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-2012123Member States should have <strong>the</strong> flexibility to adapt <strong>the</strong> targets and objectives incoordination with <strong>the</strong>ir national social partners.Looking at Member States scores (see Table 5-4), more than 85 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>stakeholders interviewed have given this objective a score <strong>of</strong> 3 or above, almosthalf <strong>of</strong> which have given <strong>the</strong> highest possible score, recognizing <strong>the</strong> development<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national <strong>strategy</strong> as <strong>the</strong> main implementation tool <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Strategyfor Member States. However, many interviewees have highlighted that flexibilityshould be embedded in this objective as, in order to ensure a high degree <strong>of</strong>ownership by <strong>the</strong> national stakeholders, <strong>the</strong> national <strong>strategy</strong> should be adapted to<strong>the</strong> local situation and not be a copy-paste <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Strategy. Somestakeholders, in particular from <strong>the</strong> EU-15, have mentioned that <strong>the</strong> development<strong>of</strong> national strategies is probably more relevant for EU-12 countries. However,although not shown here, it is interesting to note that <strong>the</strong>re is no major difference in<strong>the</strong> scores between EU-15 and EU-12 stakeholders. Finally, some stakeholdershave mentioned that <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> any legal constraint means that <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> national strategies on <strong>the</strong> protection <strong>of</strong> workers have been quite limited.Table 5-4MS stakeholders responses to <strong>the</strong> question: to which extent do you considereach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> six priorities to have been relevant (Development <strong>of</strong> nationalstrategies)?Type <strong>of</strong> stakeholder1 (not atall)2 3 45 (highextent)Do notknowASCH Employers 4 6 8 7 2ASCH Workers 4 5 14ASCH Government 3 2 4 5 12EU-OSHA Focal point 3 2 2SLIC 4 7 10Grand Total 3 6 21 27 45 2Note: 1=not at all, 3=to some extent, 5=to a high extent, n=104Priority area 3 –Promotion <strong>of</strong>preventive cultureThis priority area was highlighted by a large majority <strong>of</strong> EU stakeholders as being<strong>the</strong> second most important area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> (after <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong>implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislation), from both workers’ and employers’ sides.However, a few issues were mentioned in relation to this objective, which seem tohinder its full relevance. First <strong>of</strong> all, a few stakeholders mentioned that <strong>the</strong>distinction between behavioural factors (i.e. what comes from individualbehaviours) and structural factors (i.e. what comes from work organisation andmanagement) in prevention policies was not clearly made in <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>. Whilesome stakeholders (mainly representing <strong>the</strong> workers’ point <strong>of</strong> view) think thatstronger emphasis should have been put in <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> on changes in workorganisation and management, o<strong>the</strong>r (mainly representing <strong>the</strong> employers’ point <strong>of</strong>view) have highlighted <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> emphasis on education and training (inparticular <strong>of</strong> managers and engineers).http://projects.cowiportal.com/ps/A019055/Documents/3 Project documents/Interim and final report/Final report October 2012/OSH <strong>evaluation</strong>-report_Final_submitted 14 March2013.docx