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

124 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-2012124This area was also highlighted as crucial for <strong>the</strong> integration between public andwork-related health and should <strong>the</strong>refore have had a stronger emphasis on <strong>the</strong>synergies between two policy areas. Finally, a few stakeholders have voiced <strong>the</strong>irscepticism with regard to <strong>the</strong> extensive promotion <strong>of</strong> “preventive culture” and <strong>the</strong>risk <strong>of</strong> losing focus on <strong>the</strong> main issues which are seen as <strong>the</strong> implementation andenforcement <strong>of</strong> legislation.As indicated in Table 5-5, 77 percent <strong>of</strong> national stakeholders interviewed scoredthis objective at 4 or above, confirming and even streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> EUlevel interviews. This is also explained by fact that this objective is quite generaland can be interpreted in many different ways, giving all interest groups anopportunity to agree with it. Some stakeholders have criticized <strong>the</strong> extensive use <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> term “preventive culture” as a fashionable “feel good” trend without much realeffect behind it. However, <strong>the</strong> large majority <strong>of</strong> national stakeholders agree that thisobjective is highly relevant and most (if not all) health and safety pr<strong>of</strong>essionalswould subscribe to <strong>the</strong> view that prevention <strong>of</strong> risks to health and safety at sourceis <strong>the</strong> preferred option.Table 5-5MS 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 (Promotion <strong>of</strong> a preventiveculture)?Type <strong>of</strong> stakeholder1 (not atall)2 3 4 5 (highextent)Do notknowASCH Employers 1 3 5 14 1ASCH Workers 5 7 11 2ASCH Government 2 3 4 16 1EU-OSHA Focal point 6 1SLIC 3 7 10 1Grand Total 0 3 14 29 52 4Note: 1=not at all, 3=to some extent, 5=to a high extent, n=104Priority area 4 –Identification <strong>of</strong> newrisksThe divide between <strong>the</strong> EU-level representatives <strong>of</strong> workers’ organisations/publicinstitutions and employers’ organisations is once again quite striking in relation tothis priority area. While for <strong>the</strong> former it is crucial to identify new risks in order toset up appropriate preventive measures as early as possible (including through <strong>the</strong>development <strong>of</strong> simple tools for SMEs), for <strong>the</strong> latter, <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> newrisks is never a goal in itself and this objective is ambiguous, in particular because<strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> new risks is ultimately related to <strong>the</strong> difficulties <strong>of</strong> legislatingon “s<strong>of</strong>t” issues, such as psychosocial problems. It was also mentioned by a fewstakeholders that putting too much emphasis on new “sexy” risks can preventfocusing on more traditional but much more common risks such as <strong>the</strong>development <strong>of</strong> MSDs or falling from heights. However, most EU stakeholdersindicated that research on <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> workers’ exposure to nanotechnologies andnanomaterials was crucial, to avoid past mistakes (e.g. asbestos).http://projects.cowiportal.com/ps/A019055/Documents/3 Project documents/Interim and final report/Final report October 2012/OSH <strong>evaluation</strong>report_Final_submitted14 March 2013.docx