TITLE of the presentation

1. 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

2. 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).

3. Brief description of EU-OSHA-2EU-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

4. SAFE MAINTENANCE The Healthy Workplaces Campaign2010 - 2011 http://hw.osha.europa.eu

5. The Europe-wide Healthy Workplaces Campaign 2010-2011 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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.

10. 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

11. The universe EU-27 ESENERcovers all establishments with 10+ workers Across all sectors, including public, except agriculture and fishing • Establishments with 10+ employees 3 million enterprises 136 million employees

12. 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: Establishment proportional weight

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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

16. What can we learn from an enterprise survey on OSH? The four survey ‘topics’: • Health and safety management • Risk assessment, management commitment, sources of expertise, advice and information, concern about risks • Management of ‘new’ psychosocial risks • Level of concern, measures taken, procedures in place • Key drivers and barriers • Why are there appropriate measures and procedures in some workplaces, but not others? • Workers’ participation • Formal or direct participation, impact and resources

17. 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

18. Measures takenWorkplaces 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

19. Measures takenProportion of risk assessments that are normally contracted to external service providers % establishments Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are carried out

20. Measures takenRisk 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

21. Measures takenRisk 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

22. Management commitmentPrevalence of a documented policy, established management system or action plan on health and safety % establishments 85% of managers state that the policy has an impact - Slightly lower in Estonia at 72% -

23. Management commitmentHealth and safety issues raised regularly in high level management meetings % establishments

24. Main concerns about workplace risksLevel of concern about various health and safety issues % establishments, EU27

25. Sources of expertise, advice or informationUse of OSH information from different bodies % establishments, EU27, lowest, average and highest SE 21% EE 29% SE EL DK 40% IE 55% RO EE 56% DE AT EL LT 58% 65% ES EE

26. 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

27. Main concerns and causesConcern regarding work-related stress % establishments

28. Main concerns and causesConcern regarding violence or threat of violence % establishments

29. Main concerns and causesConcern regarding bullying or harassment % establishments

30. Main concerns and causesConcern about various psychosocial risk factors % establishments, EU27 and Estonia

31. Main concerns and procedures in placeConcern regarding work-related stress and existence of procedures to deal with it % establishments

32. Procedures in placePrevalence of procedures to deal with work-related stress, bullying or harassment, or work-related violence % establishments, EU27

33. Measures takenUse of measures to deal with psychosocial risks over the previous three years % establishments, EU27

34. Measures takenEmployees informed about whom to address in case of work-related psychosocial problems % establishments

35. 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

36. DriversMajor reasons for addressing health and safety % establishments, EU-27

37. BarriersReasons 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

38. BarriersReasons for not carrying out risk assessments regularly % establishments, EU27 Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are NOT carried out

39. BarriersMain difficulties in dealing with health and safety and with psychosocial risks % establishments, EU-27

40. 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

41. Impact of worker participationWorkplaces regularly checked for safety and health as part of a risk assessment: total and with employee representation % establishments, EU27

42. Direct participationConsultation of employees regarding measures to deal with psychosocial risks % establishments, EU27 Note: establishments that report having procedures and measures to deal with psychosocial risks

43. Formal participationHealth and safety management measures, by existence of a formal employee representation % establishments, EU27

44. 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’

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

49. Thank you for your attention http://ESENER.eu http://osha.europa.eu