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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-2012127Table 5-8MS 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 (international cooperation)?Type <strong>of</strong> stakeholder1 (not atall)2 3 4 5 (highextent)Do notknowASCH Employers 3 12 3 7 3ASCH Workers 2 8 8 4ASCH Government 2 2 10 4 8EU-OSHA Focal point 1 3 3SLIC 1 3 9 8Grand Total 2 9 36 27 27 3Note: 1=not at all, 3=to some extent, 5=to a high extent, n=1045.1.3 Summary <strong>of</strong> findingsOn <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> general objective and <strong>the</strong> six priorities <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>, national stakeholders have, on average, provided positive answers. Forall priorities, a large majority <strong>of</strong> national stakeholders have scored 3 or higher to<strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> relevance. At <strong>the</strong> European level, <strong>the</strong> divide between <strong>the</strong> twointerest groups “workers” and “employers” has been more distinctive than at <strong>the</strong>national level, except regarding <strong>the</strong> relevance <strong>of</strong> Objective 1 on improvement andsimplification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulatory framework for which <strong>the</strong> difference <strong>of</strong> opinionbetween workers’ and employers’ representatives at national level is also clearlyvisible. This is explained by <strong>the</strong> particularly controversial nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>“simplification” component <strong>of</strong> this objective.One important factor that should be taken into account is that many stakeholdershave focused <strong>the</strong>ir answer on whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> objective/priority covers an importantissue that should be addressed, ra<strong>the</strong>r than whe<strong>the</strong>r it was right to select it as anobjective/priority in <strong>the</strong> first place. Therefore what our analysis really shows is that<strong>the</strong> stakeholders interviewed think that <strong>the</strong> objective/priorities chosen coveredrelevant or adequate issues (but not necessarily all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relevant issues).5.2 EffectivenessEffectiveness refers to <strong>the</strong> extent to which objectives have been achieved.Evaluation questions:Q3: What are <strong>the</strong> outputs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> at Member State level in relation to <strong>the</strong>objectives put forward by <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>?Q4: What are <strong>the</strong> outputs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> at EU level in relation to <strong>the</strong> objectives putforward by <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>?Q5: To what extent have <strong>the</strong> objectives been addressed during <strong>the</strong> period 2007-2012?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
128 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-2012128Referring to <strong>the</strong> methodology, <strong>the</strong> specific criteria for assessing effectivenessinclude an analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> consistency between EU and Member State actions andoutputs with those put forward in <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>, and an assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong>fulfilment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> objectives. This section is organised accordingly.5.2.1 Actions and outputs and <strong>the</strong>ir correspondence with<strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong>Chapter 4 provided details on <strong>the</strong> actions taken and <strong>the</strong> resulting outcomes withineach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> priority areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong>. The findings presented showthat many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> planned actions have been implemented, although <strong>the</strong>re are alsoimportant gaps. In several areas, it is not possible to assess <strong>the</strong> actual level <strong>of</strong>fulfilment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>, because <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> is not always very specific aboutexactly what is to be achieved. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, it can be ascertained that actionshave been taken and also that <strong>the</strong>se have led to outcomes, which support <strong>the</strong> sixpriority areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>.Below, key achievements and shortcomings are summarised for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sixobjectives. Reference is made to chapter 4 for details.Objective 1:LegislationObjective 2:National strategiesObjective 3:PreventionThe majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> planned actions have been implemented and <strong>the</strong> Commission,<strong>the</strong> ACSH and SLIC have been active with drafting <strong>of</strong> supporting guidance,exchanges <strong>of</strong> best practices and preparing <strong>the</strong> development or revision <strong>of</strong>legislation. However, <strong>the</strong> guidance produced has not been sufficiently disseminatedand is not sufficiently targeted at SMEs. In addition, in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> updating andsimplification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulatory framework, little substantive progress has beenmade and <strong>the</strong> Commission has not acted in relation to <strong>the</strong> two important issues <strong>of</strong>subcontracting and preventive services.Almost all Member States now have a national <strong>strategy</strong> or a similar instrument.Member States are generally actively working in <strong>the</strong> area and implementing <strong>the</strong>irstrategies, however, implementation is progressing at a slow pace in somecountries. The priorities emphasised in <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> are generallyreflected in <strong>the</strong> national strategies, with <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> those related to healthsurveillance <strong>of</strong> workers.Several campaigns at European level have been successfully implemented throughEU-OSHA. A risk-assessment tool for SMEs (OiRA) has been developed andinformation on this has been disseminated. It is being used in several countries.However, knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual take-up <strong>of</strong> EU-OSHA information and tools atnational and company level is insufficient and this gives rise to concerns that <strong>the</strong>seare not being used to <strong>the</strong>ir full potential.The ACSH and <strong>the</strong> Commission have not acted in relation to <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong>mainstreaming OSH into training programmes. Member States are working tointegrate OSH into <strong>the</strong>ir education and training programmes, but this has not been aprimary concern for <strong>the</strong>m and <strong>the</strong> EU Social Fund has only been used to a limitedextent to support this area.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
Page 1 and 2:
MARCH 2013DG EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFF
Page 3 and 4:
EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
10 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75: EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
2/8 Lige titelNo Question Answer Co
Page 208 and 209:
4/8 Lige titel23. Does the<
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?