TITLE of the presentation
Launch of main ESENER results in Estonia
28th October 2010
Overview of EU-OSHA: HWC 2010-2011 on
Safe Maintenance and ESENER
Xabier Irastorza
European Risk Observatory – EU-OSHA
Brief description of EU-OSHA-1
 Established in Bilbao in 1996.
 To help improve working conditions in the EU by
collecting, analysing and communicating technical,
scientific and economic information to people involved
in safety and health at work (OSH).
Brief description of EU-OSHA-2
EU-OSHA’s role
 Identify OSH issues related to the changing world of work
 Board, Focal Points, staff, stakeholders, Topic Centre, others
 Analyse the issues and help coordinate research
 European Risk Observatory
 Identify practical approaches to dealing with the issues
 Working Environment Information Unit
 Disseminate the information
 Communication and Promotion Unit
 Pan-European ‘Healthy workplaces’ campaigns
 Bring together interest groups to share information and
promote a positive health and safety culture
 Networks include EFTA/EEA, candidate, pre-accession countries
 Internet-based information exchange
www.osha.europa.eu
SAFE MAINTENANCE
The Healthy Workplaces Campaign
2010 - 2011
http://hw.osha.europa.eu
The Europe-wide Healthy Workplaces Campaign 20102011 aims to raise awareness:
Of the importance of maintenance
Of the risks if it is not carried out properly
The Agency provides many resources to support the Campaign:
A Campaign guide and factsheets
Case studies of good practice
Presentations and animated video clips
News about Campaign events
all in the 22 official EU languages
The Campaign is open to all individuals and organisations.
You can get involved by:
Disseminating Campaign information and materials
Joining in with one of the many events – conferences,
competitions, advertising campaigns – that will be taking
place during the Campaign
Organising your own activities
Pan-European organisations can also apply to be Campaign
partners. They receive:
Recognition (with their logos and contact details listed on
the Campaign website)
Publicity for the events they organise around the
Campaign
Previous campaigns:
2008 - 2009: Risk Assessment
2007: Lighten the Load, Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)
2006: Young people
2005: Stop that noise
2004: Building in safety
2003: Dangerous substances, handle with care
2002: Working on stress
2001: Success is no accident
2000: Turn your back on musculoskeletal disorders
ESENER: a new tool for EU-OSHA that complements the
existing sources of information on OSH in Europe

Workers’ surveys
 EU Labour Force Survey (Eurostat)
 European Working Conditions Survey (Eurofound)

Registers
 European Statistics on Accidents at Work (Eurostat)
 European Occupational Diseases Statistics (Eurostat)

We have a fairly good picture of some outcomes
(injuries and concerns), less comprehensive for others
(occupational diseases)

We have little information linking policies to outcomes
(why are some effective and others not)
What do we want to achieve with ESENER?
 Contribute to OSH strategies at national and EU level
 As a potential source of indicators and a ‘snapshot’ against which
to measure progress
 Improve effectiveness of policy implementation
 By identifying factors that encourage preventative measures and
those that discourage or impede them
 Provide better support for enterprises
 By defining enterprises’ needs according to their characteristics –
size, sector, location, age, etc.
 Ensure more efficient communication
 Through improved targeting of measures such as support,
guidance, information, campaigns, etc.
ESENER specifications
 Computer-assisted telephone interviews (“CATI”)

Native language interviewers based in each country
 2 questionnaires

Most senior manager in charge of OSH (~25 min) + employee
representative dealing with OSH (~15 min)
 31 countries: 36,000 interviews

EU-27 + Croatia, Turkey, Norway and Switzerland
 41 national versions of each questionnaire

Adapted for language and national OSH terminology
 “Enterprises” = both public and private sectors
 “Establishment level” = branch, rather than HQ
The universe EU-27
ESENER covers all establishments with 10+ workers
Across all sectors, including public, except agriculture and fishing
Total employment in EU27 (223.4 million)
16%
Establishments with
10+ employees
3 million enterprises
136 million employees
23%
61%
Self-employed
Employed in establishments <10
Employed in establishments 10+
ESENER in Estonia
 Universe: 12,909 establishments, 471,000 workers
 Establishments in sectors covered by the survey and with ten or more
employees
 Total number of interviews: 692
 501 managers and 191 employee representatives
 Fieldwork centre: TNS Emor
 Interviewing from 3rd April to 4th May 2009
 Sampling matrix:
10-19
20-49
50-249
250-499
500+
All
52%
31%
15%
1%
1%
Estonia
52%
29%
16%
2%
1%
Establishment proportional weight
Fieldwork period
12/03/09
First countries to
start (Sweden
and Germany)
26/04/09
First country to
finish (Slovenia)
16/04/09
Last country to
start (Malta)
30/06/09
Last country to
finish
(Norway)
 Shortest fieldwork period: 5 weeks (Estonia)
 Longest fieldwork period: 13 weeks (Netherlands)
Number of interviews with managers and workers’
representatives
 28,649 management interviews
 400 more than planned
 7,226 interviews with workers’ representatives for OSH
 Successful follow-up in 25% of manager interviews
 Ranged from very low (5% PT, 9% TR) to high (69% FI, 52% DK and SE)
 Reasons for differences in workers’ representative
interview rate
 National set-up
 Willingness to participate (manager and workers’ rep)
 Structure of the sample (size classes)
Non-response
 ESENER’s response rate is in line with most business-to
business telephone surveys
 Highest response rates Greece 59%, Estonia 53%, Finland and Sweden
47%
 Lowest response rates 14% in Luxembourg and Croatia and 15% in
Poland
 Factors affecting response rate




‘Survey fatigue’ (especially in ‘older’ MS)
Attitudes to EU
Worries over confidentiality (especially TR)
Economic crisis
What can we learn from an enterprise survey on OSH?
The four survey ‘topics’:
1. Health and safety management

Risk assessment, management commitment, sources of
expertise, advice and information, concern about risks
2. Management of ‘new’ psychosocial risks

Level of concern, measures taken, procedures in place
3. Key drivers and barriers

Why are there appropriate measures and procedures in some
workplaces, but not others?
4. Workers’ participation

Formal or direct participation, impact and resources
1. The quality of health and safety management
 Measures taken
 Risk assessment: In-house or outsourced? On what occasions?
What is checked? How is it followed up? How is its effectiveness
monitored? Reasons for no checks
 Management commitment
 Existence of a documented policy and its perceived impact;
reasons for not having a policy; and involvement of high-level
and line managers
 Sources of expertise, advice or information
 Use of general OSH consultancy, OH doctor, or specialist (safety
expert, ergonomist or psychologist); main sources of
information; and visits from the labour inspectorate
 Main concerns about workplace risks
 Accidents, MSDs, stress, dangerous substances, noise and
vibration, violence and bullying or harassment
Measures taken
Workplaces checked as part of a risk assessment and whether
checks are conducted in-house rather than contracted out
% establishments and % establishments where checks are carried out
100
Workplaces regularly checked
Checks conducted in-house
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
LU
FR
CH
TR
DE
LT
NL
FI
EE
BE
NO
SE
Total 31
EU 27
LV
CY
AT
MT
EL
SI
DK
HR
RO
BG
PL
IE
CZ
PT
HU
SK
ES
UK
IT
0
Measures taken
Proportion of risk assessments that are normally contracted
to external service providers
% establishments
Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are carried out
100
90
80
75
67
70
60
60
49
49
50
48
47
47
46
43
41
40
39
38
36
36
35
35
32
29
30
29
26
26
25
23
22
21
21
17
20
17
15
12
9
7
10
DK
UK
SE
CH
EE
NO
TR
IE
EL
CY
LU
FI
LV
NL
FR
IT
PL
BE
TO
TA
L
31
27
EU
-
M
T
SK
CZ
RO
HR
BG
DE
LT
AT
HU
PT
ES
SI
0
Measures taken
Risk assessments conducted in-house or contracted to
external service providers by establishment size
% establishments, EU27
Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are carried out
100
90
80
7 1.2
70
6 0 .9
60
5 0 .7
50
4 2 .9
4 3 .9
3 9 .6
40
3 5 .9
2 7 .9
30
20
2 0 .1
17 .4
2 1.9
2 1.4
17 .6
17 .2
10 .8
10
0
10 to 19
20 to 49
Own staff
50 to 249
External providers
250 to 499
Both
500 +
Measures taken
Risk assessments conducted in-house by establishment size
in selected countries
Risk assessment conducted only by own staff
% establishments, EU27
Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are carried out
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 to 19
Denmark
20 to 49
United Kingdom
50 to 249
Estonia
EU-27
250+
Spain
Slovenia
Management commitment
Prevalence of a documented policy, established management
system or action plan on health and safety
% establishments
100
98
97
96
95
91
90
89
89
90
88
87
85
83
83
81
79
80
78
78
76
76
74
73
73
70
70
65
64
63
63
59
60
54
53
46
50
85% of managers state that
the policy has an impact
40
30
38
- Slightly lower in Estonia at 72% -
20
10
EL
TR
LU
CY
DE
M
T
CH
FR
PT
PL
AT
LT
EE
T O CZ
TA
L
31
RO
EU
-2
7
BE
NL
HR
SI
IT
HU
SK
DK
LV
FI
NO
SE
BG
IE
ES
UK
0
38
Management commitment
Health and safety issues raised regularly in high level
management meetings
% establishments
100
80
60
40
20
LT
EE
SI
LV
CH
EL
TR
PT
AT
HU
PL
DE
HR
M
T
IT
CY
ES
LU
CZ
FI
TO B
TA G
L
31
RO
EU
-2
7
FR
BE
SK
DK
IE
NO
NL
UK
SE
0
Main concerns about workplace risks
Level of concern about various health and safety issues
% establishments, EU27
100
90
20
21
20
80
70
41
38
26
35
60
62
62
19
19
18
18
Violence or
threat of
violence
Bullying or
harassment
41
50
22
31
40
30
53
44
20
38
36
30
10
0
Accidents
M SDs
M ajor concern
WR Stress
Dangerous
substances
Some concern
Noise and
vibration
No concern
DK/ NA
Sources of expertise, advice or information
Use of OSH information from different bodies
% establishments, EU27, lowest, average and highest
SE
21%
EE
Trade unions
29%
SE
EL
Employers' organisations
40%
DK
IE
Insurace providers
55%
RO
EE
In-house OSH services
56%
AT
DE
Official OSH institute
EL
LT
58%
Labour inspectorate
65%
EE
Contracted OSH experts
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ES
70
80
90
100
2. How are the ‘new’ psychosocial risks such as stress,
violence and harassment being managed?
 Main concerns and causes
 Level of concern about stress, violence and bullying or
harassment; what are the principal risk factors (e.g. time
pressure, poor communication, job insecurity, etc.)?
 Measures taken
 Ad-hoc or ‘reactive’ measures (e.g. training, change to work
organisation, work area redesign, confidential support, changes
to working time, conflict resolution)
 Procedures in place
 More formal or system based than ‘measures’, e.g. procedures
to deal with stress, with violence or with bullying or harassment
Main concerns and causes
Concern regarding work-related stress
% establishments
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Major concern
Some concern
No concern
DK/ NA
IT
FI
LT
SE
NL
EE
HU
CZ
M
T
UK
SK
IE
BE
DK
HR
LV
CH
-2
7
ES
EU
E
TA L
L
31
TO
SI
LU
CY
FR
AT
DE
BG
RO
PL
TR
NO
PT
0%
Main concerns and causes
Concern regarding violence or threat of violence
% establishments
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Major concern
Some concern
No concern
DK/ NA
SI
EE
IT
HU
FI
M
T
NL
SE
LT
SK
DK
AT
EL
HR
LU
DE
CH
UK
CY
-2
7
IE
EU
CZ
L
TA V
L
31
BE
TO
ES
NO
FR
PL
BG
PT
RO
TR
0%
Main concerns and causes
Concern regarding bullying or harassment
% establishments
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Major concern
Some concern
No concern
DK/ NA
SI
FI
SE
HU
IT
EE
NL
LT
M
T
SK
DK
EL
AT
LU
UK
HR
CY
-2
7
BE
EU
DE
CH
31
IE
TA
L
TO
ES
LV
CZ
FR
PL
BG
NO
PT
RO
TR
0%
Main concerns and causes
Concern about various psychosocial risk factors
% establishments, EU27 and Estonia
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time pressure
Having to deal
Poor
w ith difficul
communication
customers,
betw een
patients, pupils, management
etc
and employees
Job insecurity
Poor cooperation
amongst
colleagues
EU-27
Long or
irregular
w orking hours
Estonia
Problems in
supervisor employee
relationships
Lack of
employee
control in
organising their
w ork
An unclear
human
resources
policy
Discimination for example due
to gender, age
or ethnicity
Main concerns and procedures in place
Concern regarding work-related stress and existence of
procedures to deal with it
% establishments
Procedures in place
Prevalence of procedures to deal with work-related stress,
bullying or harassment, or work-related violence
% establishments, EU27
H e a lt h a nd s o c ia l wo rk
E duc a t io n
F ina nc ia l int e rm e dia t io n
H o t e ls a nd re s t a ura nt s
O t he r c o m m unit y, s o c ia l a nd pe rs o na l
s e rv ic e a c t iv it ie s
R e a l e s t a t e , re nt ing a nd bus ine s s a c t iv it ie s
P ublic a dm inis t ra t io n a nd de f e nc e ;
c o m puls o ry s o c ia l s e c urit y
Who le s a le a nd re t a il t ra de ; re pa ir o f m o t o r
v e hic le s , m o t o rc yc le s a nd pe rs o na l a nd
ho us e ho ld go o ds
T ra ns po rt , s t o ra ge a nd c o m m unic a t io n
M ining a nd qua rrying a nd E le c t ric it y, ga s
a nd wa t e r s upply
C o ns t ruc t io n
M a nuf a c t uring
0%
10%
20%
Bullying or harassment
30%
40%
Work-related violence
50%
60%
70%
Work-related stress
80%
90%
100%
Measures taken
Use of measures to deal with psychosocial risks over the
previous three years
% establishments, EU27
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-249 employees
250+ employees
EU-27
Provision of training
Changes to the w ay w ork is organised
A redesign of the w ork area
Confidential counselling for em ployees
Changes to w orking tim e arrangem ents
Set-up of a conflict resolution procedure
Measures taken
Employees informed about whom to address in case of workrelated psychosocial problems
% establishments
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
EL
O
R
PT
CY
EE
IT
H
U
CZ
LV
M
T
TR
CH
FR
SK
D
E
LU
A
EU T
TO - 2
TA 7
L3
1
IE
PL
SI
LT
H
R
ES
N
L
BG
K
U
N
O
FI
D
K
BE
SE
0
3. Drivers and barriers: what motivates managers to take
action and what are the main obstacles?
 Main reasons for addressing health and safety and for
addressing psychosocial risks
 Legal obligations, employee requests, client requirements, staff
retention, absenteeism, labour inspectorate pressure, or
productivity / performance reasons
 Main difficulties in dealing with health and safety and
with psychosocial risks
 Lack of resources, lack of awareness, insufficient expertise,
culture, sensitivity of the issue, or lack of technical support /
guidance
 Difficulty in tackling psychosocial risks compared with other
health and safety issues
Drivers
Major reasons for addressing health and safety
% establishments, EU-27
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-249 employees
250+ employees
Fulfillment of legal obligation
Requests from employees or their representatives
Requirements from clients or concern about the organisation’s reputation
Staff retention and absence management
Pressure from the labour inspectorate
Economic or performance-related reasons
Barriers
Reasons for not having developed a policy, management
system or action plan on health and safety?
% establishments, EU-27 and Estonia
Note: establishments with no documented policy on health and safety
100
80
60
54,1
54,1
51,2
44,2
40,6
40,0
43,2
46,9
46,1
40
28,8
20
0
Not necessary
No expertise
No financial resources
EU-27
Don't see the benefit
Estonia
No time
Barriers
Reasons for not carrying out risk assessments regularly
% establishments, EU27
Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are NOT carried out
10 0
90
80
73
70
70
59
60
50
41
40
38
38
44
41
37
40
38
35
44
44
40
33
38
31
30
25
25
20
10
0
10 t o 19
20 to 49
50 to 249
Lacking necessary expertise
Too complex legal obligations on RA
250 to 499
500 +
RA too time consuming/expensive
Not necessary, no major problems
Barriers
Main difficulties in dealing with health and safety and with
psychosocial risks
% establishments, EU-27
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lack of
resources such
as time, staff or
money
Lack of
aw areness
Lack of
expertise
Health and safety
Culture w ithin Sensitivity of the Lack of technical
the
issue
support or
establishment
guidance
Psychosocial risks
4. Worker participation: what arrangements are in place and
what effect does it have?
 Formal representation
 Participation through works council, trades union, health and
safety committee or health and safety representative
 Requests to deal with stress, violence and bullying or harassment
 Direct participation
 Provision of information to employees
 Encouragement of workers to participate in implementation and
evaluation of measures
 Consultation on measures to deal with psychosocial risks
 Impact of worker participation
 Effect of formal and direct participation on management of health
and safety and of psychosocial risks
 Resources
 Time, information, training, access to workers
Impact of worker participation
Workplaces regularly checked for safety and health as part of
a risk assessment: total and with employee representation
% establishments, EU27
100
9 6 .0
9 6 .3
9 6 .5
9 7 .6
9 4 .9
95
9 3 .2
9 2 .9
9 2 .7
9 1.2
90
8 9 .1
8 7 .3
85
8 4 .2
80
75
10 to 19
Total
20 to 49
50 to 249
250 to 499
500 +
EU-27
Average
Establishments with H&S representative
Direct participation
Consultation of employees regarding measures to deal with
psychosocial risks
% establishments, EU27
Note: establishments that report having procedures and measures to deal with psychosocial risks
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 to 19
20 to 49
50 to 249
250 +
EU27 Average
Formal participation
Health and safety management measures, by existence of a
formal employee representation
% establishments, EU27
Carrying out a risk assessm ent
Existence of an OSH policy, m anagem ent system or action
plan
High involvem ent of line m anagers in OSH
Regular m onitoring of em ployees ' health
Support m easures for em ployees returning from long
sickness absence
Regularly analysing causes of sickness absences
OSH issues regularly raised in high level m anagem ent
m eetings
0
10
20
30
40
50
Establishm ents w ith general em ployee representation
Establishm ents w ithout general em ployee representation
60
70
80
90
100
Key findings
 The majority of establishments carry out workplace
checks as part of a risk assessment or similar measure
 But prevalence varies according to size of enterprise and country
 Preventative health and safety culture
 Involvement of top management and existence of documented
policy, action plan or management system is very variable
 In-house vs. outsourced risk assessment
 Very different practices across Member States
 Even the smallest firms can do RA without contracting experts
 Concerns about the level of awareness of risks
 If no risk is perceived, no preventive action is taken
 Particularly among the smaller enterprises
 Worker representation has a positive effect
 Especially in SMEs and if the representation is ‘formal’
Conclusions
 EU legislation has been successful in encouraging
action at workplace level, but
 Questions remain over the quality of those actions
 Implementation is far from uniform
 Legislation is necessary…
 Main driver regardless of size is legal obligation
 … but not sufficient
 Main reason for not taking action is “we don’t have any major
problems”, especially in the smaller enterprises, which actually
have higher rates of accidents
 Low awareness of risks  unlikely to take action
 Important to produce information to emphasise that:
 ‘Good health & safety is good business’
 Worker participation makes a positive difference
Follow-up studies
 EU-OSHA ‘secondary analyses’ reports
(for publication 1st quarter 2011)




OSH management success factors
Worker involvement
Management of psychosocial risks
Actions, drivers and obstacles for psychosocial risks
 ‘Independent’ research



National authority initiatives
Social partners
Academic researchers
ESENER information resources
 Printed publications
 Descriptive overview report in English
 Summary of main findings available in 25 languages
 Online at www.esener.eu
 Printed publications for free download
 ‘Mapping tool’ showing results by country, size and sector
 Background information, including a technical report
 Data repository at www.data-archive.ac.uk
 Access to full micro-data for non-commercial use
Thank you for your attention
http://ESENER.eu
http://osha.europa.eu
Descargar

osh.sm.ee