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

82 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-201282Table 4-16Average scores on effectiveness in implementation and goal achievement <strong>of</strong>national strategiesScore1 (noteffective)2 3 4 5 (highlyeffective)Do notknowNo <strong>of</strong> responses (Question on <strong>the</strong>effectiveness in implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>national <strong>strategy</strong>)No. <strong>of</strong> responses (Question on <strong>the</strong>effectiveness <strong>of</strong> achieving goals <strong>of</strong>national <strong>strategy</strong>)3 7 31 34 5 243 9 32 27 8 25Source: Based on 104 interviews where Member State stakeholders were asked to rate on ascale from 1-5 where 1=not effective, 3=somewhat effective and 5=highly effective).n=104.The table shows that, among <strong>the</strong> countries where action has been assessed bystakeholders, a clear majority <strong>of</strong> countries state that substantial actions have beentaken. The table reflects a general picture that Member States have come quite farin <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir national strategies. However, this coversconsiderable differences between countries. In some countries, such as Spain andSlovakia, respondents almost universally state that about 90% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national action<strong>strategy</strong> has been implemented, whereas o<strong>the</strong>r countries have been almost at astandstill according to interviewees.Based on received data, three countries are perceived to have had little or very littleeffectiveness in implementing and achieving <strong>the</strong>ir national goals. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>secountries is Denmark, which has a new <strong>strategy</strong> which explains whyimplementation is still very limited. Similarly Greece has a relatively new <strong>strategy</strong>– from 2012 – and this is <strong>the</strong> first OSH <strong>strategy</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country, which may explain<strong>the</strong> low scores given. Political instability and <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> economic crisis mayalso be contributory factors. Estonia is also among <strong>the</strong> countries with lower scores.This is not because <strong>the</strong>re is a low level <strong>of</strong> activity in <strong>the</strong> OSH area, but <strong>the</strong> actionsseem to be driven by o<strong>the</strong>r factors, notably <strong>the</strong> Labour Inspectorate which has aseparate work plan.It should be noticed that stakeholders within a country <strong>of</strong>ten have a differentperception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir national <strong>strategy</strong> and thismay blur <strong>the</strong> picture. Several stakeholders mention <strong>the</strong> economic crisis as a reasonfor achieving less than anticipated, but in most cases some progress has been madein spite <strong>of</strong> this.In regard to <strong>the</strong> immediate impacts achieved as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong>national strategies, we have asked <strong>the</strong> Member State stakeholders five keyquestions. The scores given by <strong>the</strong> stakeholders are summarised in <strong>the</strong> table below.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