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 2007-2012151action to be taken in detail (as it is not possible to plan in such detail for such along period).During interviews, many stakeholders have commented that <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> is notsufficiently focused and that it lacks clear targets and indicators. Manystakeholders point out that <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> has a clear overall objective, but lacks clearand measurable objectives/targets at <strong>the</strong> intermediate level and also, that <strong>the</strong><strong>strategy</strong> lacks a framework for action planning. These statements tie in with <strong>the</strong>finding that <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> is not inconsistent as such but, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, is notvery clear with regard to what has to be achieved and which measures can beapplied to achieve this.5.6.1 Summary <strong>of</strong> findingsAlthough <strong>the</strong>re are no major inconsistencies in <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>, <strong>the</strong> intervention logicis, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, not very clear. For future policy instruments, it isrecommended to rethink <strong>the</strong> structure and to distinguish more clearly betweenobjectives and means to achieve those objectives, and to accompany this with anaction-planning framework.5.7 Community added valueThe assessment <strong>of</strong> community added value considers <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> added valuearising from community action within OSH compared to a situation, where nocommunity action was taken.Q12: To what extent has <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> contributed to achieve broad policy goals,comparing EU action to action conducted at national level? Which were <strong>the</strong> limits if any?Q13: Were <strong>the</strong> actions/actors identified appropriate?Our assessment <strong>of</strong> community added value builds on <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> degreeto which <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> contributed to:› additional actions compared to what would have been <strong>the</strong> case without <strong>the</strong>European Strategy;› better coordination <strong>of</strong> efforts;› <strong>the</strong> achievement <strong>of</strong> broader EU policy goals› transnational exchange <strong>of</strong> experienceInfluence on national<strong>strategy</strong>development5.7.1 Contribution to additional actionsThe preliminary data indicates that <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> influenced national<strong>strategy</strong> development. In some countries, <strong>the</strong>re is a very direct influence, whereasin o<strong>the</strong>rs it is more indirect or very limited. Stakeholders generally acknowledgeand appreciate that having a <strong>strategy</strong> at European level gave legitimacy to OSH asa policy area and <strong>the</strong>refore also induced national action. Thus, <strong>the</strong> European<strong>strategy</strong> was an important driver, set directions and <strong>the</strong>reby enriched nationalhttp://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
152 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-2012152strategies. Several stakeholders at national level mention that <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>European Strategy was endorsed by <strong>the</strong> Parliament and by <strong>the</strong> Council gaveadditional political strength to <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>. This gave impetus for national action in<strong>the</strong> OSH area, which, according to national stakeholders, is <strong>of</strong>ten not a highlyprioritised policy area.Influence on EUlevel actionsThe European <strong>strategy</strong> provided a framework for action by <strong>the</strong> European levelstakeholders, and, especially for DG EMPL, ACSH and EU-OSHA. It resulted in<strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> specific initiatives. However, it should be notedthat <strong>the</strong> data indicates that <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> initiatives undertaken by EU bodiesunder <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> would probably have been implemented in some form, evenwithout <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>. The main value added <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Strategy was toprovide a common sense <strong>of</strong> direction and more focus to <strong>the</strong> work done. In respectto <strong>the</strong> European level social partners, <strong>the</strong>y felt limited ownership towards <strong>the</strong><strong>strategy</strong> and it is questionable whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> led <strong>the</strong>m to implement actionsthat would not o<strong>the</strong>rwise have been implemented.5.7.2 Contribution to better coordinationAs shown in chapter 2 and 4, <strong>the</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> actors involved in relation toOSH policy development and implementation at EU and Member State levels. One<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> key areas <strong>of</strong> value added <strong>of</strong> a European <strong>strategy</strong> should <strong>the</strong>refore be <strong>the</strong>coordination <strong>of</strong> actions between <strong>the</strong>se actors <strong>the</strong>reby leading to <strong>the</strong> avoidance <strong>of</strong>duplications and realisation <strong>of</strong> synergies.As part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interviews with stakeholders at Member State level, we asked about<strong>the</strong> degree to which <strong>the</strong>y found that <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> led to bettercoordination. The answers are summarised in <strong>the</strong> table below.Table 5-12Member State Stakeholders responses to <strong>the</strong> question: To which extent do youconsider that <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> has led to increased coordination amongactors involved in OSH in Europe?Response/rate1 (notat all)2 3 4 5 (highextent)Do notknowNo. <strong>of</strong> responses 4 16 33 28 11 14Note: 1=not at all, 3=to some extent, 5=to a high extent. (n=104).The views <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stakeholders are quite varied on this subject. Some stakeholderspoint out that <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> set <strong>the</strong> framework and provided common goalsand thus contributed to a better coordination. O<strong>the</strong>rs find that, whereas <strong>the</strong>European <strong>strategy</strong> clarified tasks at <strong>the</strong> institutional level, <strong>the</strong> actual coordinationwhich resulted was not sufficient.A number <strong>of</strong> stakeholders have indicated that <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> did notsufficiently take into account <strong>the</strong> various relevant actors at European level and thatcoordination with <strong>the</strong>se stakeholders has been insufficient. The stakeholders <strong>of</strong>tenmention that <strong>the</strong>y consider <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> to be very much centred on DGEmployment and that opportunities for synergies with o<strong>the</strong>r EU-level players havehttp://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:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99: EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?