Views
3 years ago

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

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

EVALUATION OF THE

EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-2012125Once again, ong>theong> majority ong>ofong> national stakeholders interviewed have identified ong>theong>area ong>ofong> a better identification and assessment ong>ofong> new and emerging risks asmoderately to highly relevant (see Table 5-6). There is no visible difference in ong>theong>scores given between EU-15 or EU-12 Member States or across different interestgroups. Certain government representatives have mentioned that this objective isnot as relevant as oong>theong>rs because national research institutes are already at ong>theong>forefront ong>ofong> this research on emerging risks and ong>theong>re is a risk ong>ofong> a duplication ong>ofong>effort at ong>theong> EU level. To take a contrary view, oong>theong>r stakeholders have highlightedong>theong> importance ong>ofong> carrying out this research at EU level as ong>theong>y do not have ong>theong>capacity at ong>theong> national level to do so.Table 5-6MS stakeholders responses to ong>theong> question: to which extent do you considereach ong>ofong> ong>theong> six priorities to have been relevant (better identification andassessment ong>ofong> new risks)?Type ong>ofong> stakeholder1 (not atall)2 3 4 5 (highextent)Do notknowASCH Employers 1 5 13 6ASCH Workers 1 1 8 13 2ASCH Government 1 1 9 6 9EU-OSHA Focal point 2 4 1SLIC 2 6 9 4Grand Total 1 5 23 40 33 2Note: 1=not at all, 3=to some extent, 5=to a high extent, n=104Priority area 5 –Instruments tomonitor progressAll EU stakeholders have found this priority area highly relevant and most ong>ofong> ong>theong>mhave mentioned that ong>theong>re is a need for coordinated action at EU level. Moststakeholders have mentioned that it is very important to work on ong>theong> developmentong>ofong> new instruments to monitor progress and in particular reliable Europeanstatistical systems. A few issues were mentioned:› It is crucial that oong>theong>r types ong>ofong> indicators, such as ong>theong> number ong>ofong> safetyrepresentatives and number ong>ofong> labour inspectors in proportion to ong>theong> numberong>ofong> worker, etc., are included in ong>theong> monitoring ong>ofong> progress, raong>theong>r than purelyhealth indicators (occupational accidents and diseases);› Before any statistical data on occupational diseases can be gaong>theong>red andcompared, ong>theong>re is a need for a common definition ong>ofong> such diseases;› It was mentioned that ong>theong> Commission should consider ong>theong> possibility ong>ofong>setting up common European indicators (through a Framework Directive forinstance).70 percent ong>ofong> national stakeholders interviewed have given a score ong>ofong> 4 or above tothis area. Several stakeholders have highlighted ong>theong> need for common indicatorsand have reinforced harmonized and efficient data collection at EU level (throughEurostat). However, some national government representatives have highlightedthat creating new procedures might be very burdensome and, in addition, that ong>theong>ymight be built on ong>theong> lowest common denominator, ong>theong>refore not actually bringinghttp://projects.cowiportal.com/ps/A019055/Documents/3 Project documents/Interim and final report/Final report October 2012/OSH ong>evaluationong>-report_Final_submitted 14 March2013.docx

126 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-2012126any benefits to ong>theong> few advanced national systems already in place. The Scoreboardwas mentioned as a good practice that should be renewed.Table 5-7MS stakeholders responses to ong>theong> question: to which extent do you considereach ong>ofong> ong>theong> six priorities to have been relevant (Development ong>ofong> monitoringtools to track progress in relation to OSH strategies)?Type ong>ofong> stakeholder1 (not atall)2 3 4 5 (highextent)Do notknowASCH Employers 2 7 11 5 2ASCH Workers 4 9 9ASCH Government 1 1 6 7 11EU-OSHA Focal point 2 4 1SLIC 2 11 8Grand Total 1 3 21 42 34 2Note: 1=not at all, 3=to some extent, 5=to a high extent, n=104Priority area 6 –InternationalcooperationComments from EU-level stakeholders on ong>theong> relevance ong>ofong> this priority area havebeen quite limited. Those stakeholders who have commented on this havementioned that it is indeed very relevant in a globalised economy to promote ong>theong>EU’s standards in health and safety at work and to strengong>theong>n cooperation, inparticular in relation to developing countries (e.g. China and ong>theong> mining sector).Oong>theong>rs have mentioned that ong>theong>re is a need for greater coordination among OSHactors at ong>theong> global level as many initiatives and information are available but in avery scattered and disorganized manner. Improvements in ong>theong> relationship betweenong>theong> EU and ILO were raised by some as a benefit from ong>theong> ong>strategyong> (or at leastarising during ong>theong> lifetime ong>ofong> ong>theong> ong>strategyong>).The most common score for this area among Member State stakeholders is 3,showing a general lack ong>ofong> interest for this specific issue. This area overall receivedong>theong> lowest scores out ong>ofong> all six objectives and, in particular, from governments' andemployers’ representatives. Some employers’ representatives mentioned that thisarea is important for competitiveness on a global economy. However, oong>theong>rstakeholders, from all interest groups, mentioned that ong>theong> EU should focus onimproving its own situation before looking to improve that ong>ofong> third countries.Several government representatives have highlighted that ong>theong>y are already workinga lot in cooperation with ong>theong> ILO, and that EU action on top ong>ofong> this was notnecessary.http://projects.cowiportal.com/ps/A019055/Documents/3 Project documents/Interim and final report/Final report October 2012/OSH ong>evaluationong>report_Final_submitted14 March 2013.docx

Luxembourg - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ...
Hungary - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
France - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
Latvia - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
Austria - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
Cyprus - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
Campaign Guide - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ...
Poland - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
Working on stress - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ...
Austria - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
Lifting postures - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ...
National Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012 – 2022 - Safe Work ...
Lifting postures - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ...
preventing - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - Europa
Safety and Health Tools - Safequarry.com
Independent evaluation of the ILO's strategy to promote decent work ...
52 - Working on Safety 2010
Improving occupational safety and health in SMEs - European ...
Guide to the Work Health and Safety (National ... - NT WorkSafe
Guide to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application)
OSH in figures: stress at work — facts and figures - European ...
Regional health and safety presentation
Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia 2013 - Safe Work ...
Ill - Health and Safety Authority
WHAT To EvAluATE - The European Foundation Centre
Protecting the Safety and Health of Restaurant Workers - UCLA LOSH
Evaluating Health Promotion - Capital Health
European Strategy for the
Work Equipment - Health and Safety Authority
Work at Height - Health and Safety Authority