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 2007-201251Relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>topicsDissemination andadaption to SMEsThe non-binding guides can ei<strong>the</strong>r focus on <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> a specificDirective (Noise, Vibrations, Artificial optical radiation, etc.) ; address a specificsector, known to be <strong>of</strong> particularly high-risk (healthcare, fisheries, forestry); or aspecific risk (exposure to chemicals). The justifications for <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong>guides on <strong>the</strong>se specific topics are diverse and range from <strong>the</strong> identification in <strong>the</strong><strong>evaluation</strong> reports <strong>of</strong> particular difficulties on <strong>the</strong> implementing <strong>of</strong> certainDirectives (e.g. construction sites or small fishing vessels) to <strong>the</strong> anticipation <strong>of</strong>potential difficulties with <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> a specific Directive (e.g. artificialoptical radiation). The development <strong>of</strong> non-binding guidance documents can beseen as a relative success in terms <strong>of</strong> relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> topics identified andusefulness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> information contained in <strong>the</strong>m. Member States and nationalrepresentatives <strong>of</strong> workers and employers have found <strong>the</strong> guides “useful for a betterunderstanding and implementation <strong>of</strong> OSH directives”. 44 It is certain that <strong>the</strong>production <strong>of</strong> such guides is necessary considering <strong>the</strong> complexity <strong>of</strong> certain pieces<strong>of</strong> EU legislation and doing so at EU level (ra<strong>the</strong>r than at national level) shouldensure a uniform interpretation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various requirements and provision <strong>of</strong>common solutions to common problems across <strong>the</strong> 27 Member States.The Strategy has recognized <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACSH in developing an approach tomake guides easier to understand for SMEs. In relation to this, <strong>the</strong> ACSH hasmandated a Working Party (WP) to assess <strong>the</strong> quality and penetration (awareness<strong>of</strong> existence) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing guides in <strong>the</strong> different sectors <strong>of</strong> activity and <strong>the</strong> needsalong with priorities for future guides. 45The assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> penetration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> guides has been done through aquestionnaire sent by <strong>the</strong> WP to representatives <strong>of</strong> government, employers andworkers both within and outside <strong>the</strong> ACSH. However, as <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> answershas been very low (only 36 for <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU), <strong>the</strong> results cannot beconsidered representative and this low level <strong>of</strong> response is certainly <strong>the</strong> firstindication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> awareness <strong>of</strong> and interest in <strong>the</strong> guides from those outside<strong>the</strong> ACSH. The main conclusion from this exercise was that <strong>the</strong>re is a real interestfrom <strong>the</strong> respondents <strong>of</strong> having non binding documents to assist interested partiesin implementing <strong>the</strong> OSH Directives but that <strong>the</strong> dissemination should beenhanced, in particular by more involvement in <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> EU-OSHA, EU-OSHA focal points and o<strong>the</strong>r relevant organisations, such as Enterprise EuropeNetwork (EEN), toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> various interest groups.Lack <strong>of</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> guides clearly appears as <strong>the</strong> main barrier to <strong>the</strong>ireffectiveness. This is regrettable considering <strong>the</strong> relatively high level <strong>of</strong> resourcesdevoted to <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se guides, which have been translated into <strong>the</strong> 22<strong>of</strong>ficial EU languages. During interviews conducted in <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> presentstudy, <strong>the</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main European cross-industry social partners(BUSINESSEUROPE, ETUC, UEAPME) have acknowledged a certain degree <strong>of</strong>44 Results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questionnaire sent by <strong>the</strong> Working Party established to develop amethodology for <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> guides45Report from <strong>the</strong> Working Party "Assessment and Development <strong>of</strong> User Guides" to <strong>the</strong>Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work, Final Version, p3, 10 May 2010.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
52 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-201252responsibility in <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> guides towards <strong>the</strong>ir nationalmembers, mostly because <strong>of</strong> a low level <strong>of</strong> ownership. One solution from <strong>the</strong>Commission to address this issue has been to draft a letter to accompany <strong>the</strong> guides<strong>of</strong>ficially asking MS <strong>of</strong>ficials to disseminate <strong>the</strong>m. However it is doubtful that thissolution will increase dissemination drastically as long as <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> ownership<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> guides by <strong>the</strong> EU and national social partners (both cross-industry andsectoral) remains low.The WP has also developed recommendations to ensure that SME-specific issuesare better accounted for in future guides. In its final report, <strong>the</strong> WP has developed amodel structure for <strong>the</strong> future guides and has enumerated a number <strong>of</strong> principlesand recommendations to be followed, in particular to facilitate <strong>the</strong>ir reading bynon-OSH experts, including SME-owners. In particular, <strong>the</strong> recommendationsinclude:› Keep guides as simple and as didactic as possible to facilitate <strong>the</strong> reading by<strong>the</strong> owners <strong>of</strong> SMEs, but without giving <strong>the</strong> impression that <strong>the</strong> risk is notimportant;› Involve networks such as SME networks to understand <strong>the</strong> acceptance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Guides by SMEs;› Develop complementary products to help disseminate <strong>the</strong> guides tocompanies, mostly SMEs;Looking at <strong>the</strong> guides published since <strong>the</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> report (2010), it isclear that progress has been made in terms <strong>of</strong> readability, and that emphasis hasbeen put on best practices and risk assessment procedures. In particular <strong>the</strong> latestguide, produced on protecting <strong>the</strong> health and safety <strong>of</strong> workers in agriculture,provides many didactic tools to help farm-owners make <strong>the</strong>ir own assessment <strong>of</strong>risks and take <strong>the</strong> right preventive measures. However, we note two shortcomings:› EU-level stakeholders have complained that, despite <strong>the</strong> recommendationsmade by <strong>the</strong> WP, <strong>the</strong> guides remain too detailed and complex for non-OSHexperts, in particular SME managers, and that <strong>the</strong> “think small first” principlestill has not been sufficiently taken into account.› The guides that have already been developed, some <strong>of</strong> which deal with crucialpieces <strong>of</strong> legislation (e.g. <strong>the</strong> Chemical Agents Directive), have not beenrevised in view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se recommendations.Future perspectivesIt can be expected that <strong>the</strong> uptake <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> WP recommendations will continue toimprove with <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> guides produced but work should continue to improve<strong>the</strong> quality, readability and publicising <strong>of</strong> existing and future guides. A futureStrategy should formalize <strong>the</strong> recommendations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> WP and take <strong>the</strong>m fur<strong>the</strong>r:› A new assessment should be carried out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> penetration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> newguides produced to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> recommendations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> WP havebeen sufficiently effective and ambitious;› Solutions for innovative and effective development and dissemination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>guides should be carefully thought through (e.g. different sets <strong>of</strong> guides fordifferent target groups);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 7 and 8: 10 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION
Page 33: 36 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION
Page 98 and 99:
EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
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?