TITLE of the presentation Healthy Workplaces Good for

TITLE of the presentation Healthy Workplaces Good for you. Good for business Ljubljana, 25 th October 2010 Results of the "European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks" (ESENER 2009) William Cockburn European Risk Observatory, EU-OSHA

New challenges are giving rise to ‘emerging risks’ - as highlighted in the Community strategies q Technological development § New tools and new ways of working, resulting especially from information and communication technology (ICT) q Tertiarisation § Service sector growth leading to ‘new’ health and safety risks, particularly psychosocial and musculoskeletal q Changes in employment § Shift towards outsourcing and increased specialisation, resulting in greater employment in SMEs q Demographic change § Ageing working population, increased (im)migration q Women at work § Increasing participation with specific risks and needs

ESENER: a new tool for EU-OSHA that complements the existing sources of information on OSH in Europe q Workers’ surveys § EU Labour Force Survey (Eurostat) § European Working Conditions Survey (Eurofound) q Registers ü § 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) û We have little information linking policies to outcomes (why are some effective and others not)

What do we want to achieve with ESENER? q Contribute to OSH strategies at national and EU level § As a potential source of indicators and a ‘snapshot’ against which to measure progress q Improve effectiveness of policy implementation § By identifying factors that encourage preventative measures and those that discourage or impede them q Provide better support for enterprises § By defining enterprises’ needs according to their characteristics – size, sector, location, age, etc. q Ensure more efficient communication § Through improved targeting of measures such as support, guidance, information, campaigns, etc.

ESENER specifications q Computer-assisted telephone interviews (“CATI”) § Native language interviewers based in each country q 2 questionnaires § Most senior manager in charge of OSH (~25 min) + employee representative dealing with OSH (~15 min) q 31 countries: 36, 000 interviews § EU-27 + Croatia, Turkey, Norway and Switzerland q 41 national versions of each questionnaire § Adapted for language and national OSH terminology q “Enterprises” = both public and private sectors q “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 Establishments with 10+ employees 3 million enterprises 136 million employees

ESENER in Slovenia q Universe: 13, 000 establishments, 611, 000 workers § Establishments in sectors covered by the survey and with ten or more employees q Total number of interviews: 607 § 529 managers and 78 employee representatives q Fieldwork centre: RM Plus, Maribor § Interviewing from 26 th March to 26 th April 2009 q Sampling matrix: 10 -19 20 -49 50 -249 250 -499 500+ All 52% 31% 15% 1% 1% Slovenia 47% 36% 14% 2% 1% Establishment proportional weight

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 q 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 q 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 q 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 q 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

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

Measures taken Risk assessments conducted in-house or contracted to external service providers by establishment size % establishments, EU 27 Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are carried out

Measures taken Risk assessments conducted in-house by establishment size in selected countries Risk assessment conducted only by own staff % establishments, EU 27 Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are carried out

Management commitment Prevalence of a documented policy, established management system or action plan on health and safety % establishments 33% of managers state that the policy has a large impact and 52% that it has some impact - 24% and 56% in Slovenia -

Management commitment Health and safety issues raised regularly in high level management meetings % establishments

Main concerns about workplace risks Level of concern about various health and safety issues % establishments, EU 27

Sources of expertise, advice or information Use of OSH information from different bodies % establishments, EU 27, lowest, average and highest 21% EE SE 29% SE EL 40% IE DK 55% RO EE 56% DE AT 58% LT EL 65% EE ES

2. How are the ‘new’ psychosocial risks such as stress, violence and harassment being managed? q 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. )? q 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) q 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

Main concerns and causes Concern regarding violence or threat of violence % establishments

Main concerns and causes Concern regarding bullying or harassment % establishments

Main concerns and causes Concern about various psychosocial risk factors % establishments, EU 27

Main concerns and procedures in place Concern about work-related stress and existence of procedures to deal with it % establishments

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, EU 27

Measures taken Employees informed about whom to address in case of workrelated psychosocial problems % establishments

Measures taken Areas that are routinely checked as part of a risk assessment % establishments, EU 27, lowest, highest and average Note: only establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are carried out 97% IE CY 45% EE FI 60% DK EE 76% LT RO

3. Drivers and barriers: what motivates managers to take action and what are the main obstacles? q 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 q 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

Barriers Reasons for not having developed a policy, management system or action plan on health and safety? % establishments, all 31 and Slovenia Note: establishments with no documented policy on health and safety

Barriers Reasons for not carrying out risk assessments regularly % establishments, EU 27 Note: establishments where risk assessment or similar measures are NOT carried out

Barriers Main difficulties in dealing with health and safety and with psychosocial risks % establishments, EU-27

4. Worker participation: what arrangements are in place and what effect does it have? q 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 q 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 q Impact of worker participation § Effect of formal and direct participation on management of health and safety and of psychosocial risks q 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, EU 27

Direct participation Consultation of employees regarding measures to deal with psychosocial risks % establishments, EU 27 Note: establishments that report having procedures and measures to deal with psychosocial risks

Key findings q 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 q Preventative health and safety culture § Involvement of top management and existence of documented policy, action plan or management system is very variable q In-house vs. outsourced risk assessment § Very different practices across Member States § Even the smallest firms can do RA without contracting experts q Concerns about the level of awareness of risks § If no risk is perceived, no preventive action is taken § Particularly among the smaller enterprises q Worker representation has a positive effect § Especially in SMEs and if the representation is ‘formal’

Conclusions q 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 q Legislation is necessary… § Main driver regardless of size is legal obligation q … 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 q Important to produce information to emphasise that: § ‘Good health & safety is good business’ § Worker participation makes a positive difference

Some ESENER results for Slovenia q ‘Mixed picture’ of OSH management § Above average on risk assessment; high level of medical checks and use of OH doctor, safety expert and general OSH. But low on other procedures, use of ergonomists and psychologists q Low management commitment to OSH § Few managers consider the OSH policy has a large impact; OSH is seldom discussed in management meetings; those without a policy say it is not necessary or of no benefit q Stress is the main concern regarding psychosocial risks § Above average concern for stress; very low for violence and harassment or bullying. Little action is taken on psychosocial risks, but employees are well informed q Average level of workers’ participation § 27% have a health and safety representative; they give a generally positive picture but are not so involved in implementation and follow-up

Follow-up studies q EU-OSHA ‘secondary analyses’ reports (for publication 1 st quarter 2011) § § OSH management success factors Worker involvement Management of psychosocial risks Actions, drivers and obstacles for psychosocial risks q ‘Independent’ research § § § National authority initiatives Social partners Academic researchers

ESENER information resources q Printed publications § Descriptive overview report in English § Summary of main findings available in 25 languages q 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 q 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