Qualitative post-test evaluation of ESENER – National ... · Qualitative post-test evaluation of...

ISSN: 1831-9343

Qualitative post-test evaluation of ESENER: National overview report FINLAND European Risk Observatory

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Qualitative post-test evaluation of ESENER – National overview report - Finland

Authors: Jim Hillage, Alice Sinclair, Beth Foley, Institute for Employment Studies,

Carsten Brück, Reka Zayzon, Katariina Röbbelen-Voigt, Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE GmbH,

Katariina Röbbelen-Voigt - Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE GmbH

Project Management: William Cockburn (EU-OSHA)

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found on the cover of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

ISBN: 978-92-9240-164-1

doi: 10.2802/70155

© European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2013

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers, or these calls may be billed.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work – EU-OSHA 2

http://europa.eu/


1 Finland National Overview Report

1.1 National context

1.1.1 Section 1: Structure of the Finnish Economy Finland is a Nordic welfare state, with public institutions having traditionally played a significant role in providing social security and in levelling inequalities. Since the recession of the early 1990s, Finland has increasingly opened its financial markets; the energy and telecommunications sectors have internationalised and have been privatised and a large information and communication technology sector has developed.

The major trends regarding the structure of Finnish economy over the past decades are comparable to those in other European economies; there was a shift to a service-based economy and towards smaller organisations.

The economic performance of Finland, although decreased following the recession, is still strong compared to the European average, with a GDP of 115.9 in 2012. The largest sector of the economy is services (65.7%), followed by manufacturing (31.4%), with construction and agriculture accounting for just a small share (Statistical Yearbook, 2009). In terms of employee numbers, the services sector is also the largest, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Share of sectors by number of enterprises and employees (2012)

Sector No. Enterprises

No. employees

A Agriculture 56,923 65,367

B,C Mining and quarrying; Manufacturing 23,342 350,766

D,E Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply; Water supply, sewerage etc. 1,796 17,185

F Construction 41,186 143,037

G,H,I,J Wholesale, retail trade, repair; Transport and storage; Accommodation and food services; Information and communication;

88,820 517,301

K,L Financial and insurance services; Real estate activities; 20,118 63,918

M,N Professional, scientific and technical activities; Administration and support service activities 44,866 188,524

O Public administration, defence, compulsory social security 27 2,809

P, Q, R,S

Education; health and social work, Arts, entertainment, other services 43,502 98,423

The distribution of enterprises by size is comparable to the European average: according to estimates for 2011, micro-sized enterprises accounted for the biggest share (91.7%), whereas large enterprises only accounted for 0.3 per cent (cf. Figure 1). As regards the labour force, 61.7 per cent were employed in SMEs and 38.3 per cent in large enterprises. The share of added value was at 57 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively.



In terms of sectoral distribution, the trade sector only accounts for 22.4 per cent of all SMEs which is lower than the European average. The share of manufacturing, services and, most notably, construction account for this difference. A considerable number of SMEs in Finland (16% of all SMEs compared to 12% in EU27) perform high-tech or medium- to high-tech activities (manufacturing computers, electronics, and optical products as well as electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals and chemical products) creating more than a third of the total value added in the manufacturing sector.

The volume of GDP fell by 0.2 per cent in 2012, compared to a decrease of 0.3 in the EU27 area. The biggest decrease in value added was accounted for by the electrical and electronics industry, and was increased most by information and communication and trade and business services.

Table 2: Distribution of Finnish enterprises by size (2012)

Number of enterprises Employment Value added

Finland EU27 Finland EU27 Finland EU27

No. Proportion

(%) Proportion

(%) No.

Proportion (%)

Proportion (%)

No Proportion

(%) Proportion

(%)

Micro 195,446 91.7 92.2 345,521 24.5 29.6 18 21.1 21.1

Small 14,706 6.9 6.5 288,906 20.5 20.6 16 18.3 18.5

Medium 2,356 1.1 1.1 235,349 16.7 17.2 15 17.6 18.4

SMEs 212,508 99.7 99.8 869,776 61.7 67.4 49 57 58.1

Large 603 0.3 0.2 540,314 38.3 32.6 37 43 41.9

Total 213,111 100 100 1,410,090 100 100 86 100 100

Source: European Commission: SBA Fact Sheet 2012, Finland

The Finnish labour market was strongly affected by the economic crisis. The unemployment rate rose from 6.5 per cent in 2007 to a peak of 8.5 per cent in 2010. Although it has decreased since then, it remains well above pre-crisis level (OECD 2013). Long-term unemployment rose significantly after the 2008-09 recession, but has dropped again to 21.6 per cent, which is half of the EU27 average and in line with the average for Nordic countries (ibid).

As a response to the financial crisis, different programs have been applied to minimise direct dismissals, which have led to decreases in hours worked and productivity. Consequently, during 2006-2010, there was general wage moderation in Finland, even though average wages among the employed have been increasing slightly (EWCO 2011).

1.1.2 Section 2: Human Resources Women are well-represented in the Finnish labour market. Since the 1990s, the ratio of women in the labour market has increased. Actual figures show that the employment ratio among women (68.1%) was higher than that among men (67.2%), which is quite exceptional by international standards. This is in line with changes in working arrangements.



Table 3: Key indicators on the Labour Force Survey by sex 2013/02

Indicator Sex %

Employment rate, persons aged 15–64

Both sexes 67.6

Males 67.2

Females 68.1

Unemployment rate, persons aged 15–74

Both sexes 8.7

Males 9.7

Females 7.6

Activity rate, persons aged 15–74

Both sexes 65.2

Males 66.5

Females 63.9

Source: Labour force survey 2013, February. Statistics, Finland

Between 2008 and 2009, the unemployment rate increased for all age groups. Since 1989, the highest unemployment rates have been found amongst those aged between 15 and 24. In 2009, the share of unemployed young persons in the labour force was 21.5 per cent and the number of unemployed young persons reached a peak of 69,000.1

Although the share of atypical working arrangements in Finland is relatively low, there has been a growth of atypical forms of work in the last decade (Marttinen and Raatikainen 2010). However, this trend is not simply a reflection of the needs of employees for more flexible working time. According to the Labour Force Survey in 2012, about two thirds of the persons performing temporary work were doing this involuntarily. The number of employees working involuntarily in temporary jobs grew in 2012. Of these, 137,000 were women and 83,000 men. The likelihood of working involuntarily on a temporary contract increases with age.

There is an increasing share of Finnish nationals with a BME 2 background in the workforce, accounting for 1.3 per cent. In terms of participation in the labour market, they are not as well represented as nationals with a Finnish background (with an employment rate of 58.1% compared to 67.3%), but see better rates than migrant workers (50.3%) (EWCO 2011).

1.1.3 Section 3: Overview of the public OSH infrastructure Protection of the labour force is guaranteed constitutionally in Finland and public authorities are responsible for ensuring safe and healthy working conditions. The legal basis of OSH is founded in the Occupational Safety and Health Act (738/2002), which is the transposition of the European Framework Directive on OSH.

The Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (MSAH), via the Department of OSH, is responsible for legislation and policy concerning the development of social protection, social welfare and health, including the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health. These include monitoring, steering and financing the state administrative apparatus, policy development and coordinating research and development. In 1998, the MSAH played a leading role in developing the Finnish Occupational Health and Safety strategy.

1 http://www.stat.fi/til/tyti/2009/tyti_2009_2010-02-16_kat_001_en.html 2 Black, minority or ethnic


http://www.stat.fi/til/tyti/2009/tyti_2009_2010-02-16_kat_001_en.html


The OSH Department of the MSAH works closely with the Health Department. Unified competencies are needed, especially when it comes to general health issues and to extending working life. MSAH also co-operates with several other ministries, the Ministry of Labour being the most relevant in respect of OSH.

The OSH Department has created a network involving other relevant stakeholders, both public and non-governmental. Examples of governmental organisations that play a crucial role in the monitoring, implementation and development of OSH are the Safety Technology Authority (TUKES) and the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), as well as national research organisations like the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the Finnish Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (TTL, or FIOH in English). Other relevant stakeholders are the Social Insurance Institution (KELA) and the Finnish Centre for Pensions. These Institutions provide up-to-date research reports and collect national and international data, which is fundamental to effective monitoring.

The activities of the OSH Department of the MSAH are supported by tripartite councils. Cooperation with all social partners is fostered at all levels. The OSH Advisory Board is responsible for implementing and evaluating the OSH strategy, while the Committee on Occupational Health Services is in charge of coordinating all measures that aim to maintain and promote people’s ability to work. The work of these committees is also regularly supplemented by experts representing other stakeholders such as the National Health Authority and the Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. Committees operating at OSH district level have the same tripartite structure as the national OSH board.

Legal enforcement and its monitoring is performed by the OSH Administration (formerly the regional OSH Authorities), which is a subordinate of the MSAH. Since January 2010, the OSH Administration has been operational in OSH districts corresponding to the territories of the six Regional State Administrative Agencies. The mandate of the regional OSH Authorities also includes providing companies with information, training and consultation. Developing the work of the OSH Administration is one of the main issues for the Finnish OSH strategy.

Occupational or work-related diseases must be reported to the OSH inspection, under the Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement and Cooperation on Workplace Safety and Health (44/2006).

In accordance with §35 of the Employment Accidents Insurance Act, two percent (1.7% as of 2005) of insurance premiums should be allocated to the Finnish Work Environment Fund as revenue. With these resources, the Fund has to provide financial support for research and development projects related to working life. The aim is to improve working conditions, promote safety, consider aspects of workplace activities that relate to productivity, as well as accounting for the practical application of the research results. The Finnish Work Environment Fund is administered by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in cooperation with the social partners. The activities of the Fund are monitored by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.

The Fund also finances the activities of the Centre for Occupational Safety (TTK), the most important body of the social partners in the field of OSH, operating on the basis of bipartite bilateral convention and regulations. The Centre acts in cooperation with the manufacturing sector, private and public sector, as well as with the 21 sector-specific OSH committees, which are organised on the basis of equal representation. Furthermore, the centre is charged with keeping records of the OSH representatives declared by the employers in the private and public sector. It also provides seminars and trainings for OSH representatives, information tools on OSH topics, and support for companies carrying out risk assessments. It promotes cooperation in the workplace and, more generally, the improvement of working conditions.

Finland was amongst the first European states to launch a National OSH strategy, entitled ‘Occupational Safety and Health Strategy of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’, in 1998. Its main goal is “to maintain and promote the population’s working ability and functional capacity so as to reduce premature retirement from working life”. To support this, six key goals were formulated:

1. maintenance and promotion of working ability and functional capacity, 2. prevention of occupational accidents and diseases, 3. prevention of work-induced musculoskeletal disorders,



4. mental well-being at work, 5. coping at work, and 6. working autonomy (MSAH 1999, p5).

These objectives were complemented by the inclusion of the principles “well-being of workers” and “maintenance of working ability”, which can be traced back to the government declaration of 1995. Strategy implementation is based on two different action levels. On one hand, the strategy puts emphasis on responsibilities of the companies themselves relative to safety and health in the workplace and calls upon them to use their initiative (MSAH 1999, p8). On the other hand, measures to enhance the activities of the authorities have been introduced in order to support the companies, particularly around the monitoring and information function of the regional OSH authorities. The specific goals of the strategy were developed based on an assessment of risk factors that particularly affect working conditions.

1.1.4 Section 4: Overview of OSH obligations for enterprises The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which applies to all paid work and any other comparable activities, stipulates the obligation of the employer to protect the health and safety of the employee. To this end, the employer must consider and cover all aspects of work and working conditions and the work environment, as well as the personal prerequisites of the employee, including professional skills, experience, age, gender and other relevant aspects. According to Section 9 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, “the employer shall have a policy for action needed in order to promote safety and health and to maintain the employees’ working capacity.” The objectives for promoting safety and health and maintaining working capacity deriving from the policy must be taken into account in workplace development and planning, and they must be discussed together with the employees or their representatives.

The employer must provide and pay for healthcare services and other professional services required for preventing risks and adverse health effects arising from work and working conditions (MSAH 2006a, p6).

In the planning of safety and health measures, the principles of primary prevention and elimination or substitution of hazards must be followed. Collective safety and health measures shall be prioritized over individually targeted ones. The development of technology and other available means must be considered. The working environment, the state of the working community and the safety of working practices must be continuously followed up. The impact of the implemented measures on safety and health must be evaluated, including physical and mental health and safety and the functioning of social relations at the workplace, plus aspects of possible harassment as well as inappropriate behaviour. Safety and health measures must be considered at all levels of the organisation.

Special provisions of the Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement and Co-operation on Occupational Safety and Health at Workplaces stipulate the collaboration between employers and employees. Employees are assured the right to be informed concerning safety and health and other aspects related to working conditions at work, assessments, investigations and plans, to consult about the above matters with employees and their representatives. Employees also have the right to take initiatives and make proposals related to OH&S. At the same time, the Act stipulates the duty of employees to collaborate in OH&S activities with the employer. This, however, does not diminish or abolish the employer's responsibility to carry out any measures necessary for the safety and health of the employees.

The employer may delegate the duties related to OSH to another person (OSH Act, Section 16). The duties of the employer’s substitute should be carefully defined, taking into account the employer’s line of business, the nature of the work or activities and the size of the workplace. The employer should ensure that the substitute is sufficiently competent to perform these duties.



1.1.5 Section 5: Approach to risk assessment Since January 2003, when the new Occupational Safety and Health Act (738/2002) came into effect, it has been obligatory for every company in Finland to perform risk assessment. The new law emphasises the relevance of systematic and continuous actions to improve working environment and working conditions, taking into consideration all factors or processes that might cause injuries or damages to the health of employees. The Act emphasises the importance of all phases of risk assessment, including: planning, hazard identification, assessing risk scale, prioritising risks, choosing preventive measures, communication, follow-up and feedback. To fulfil the demands of the laws, companies generally rely on management systems that also consider OSH issues.

According to Section 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the employer shall be in possession of the analysis and assessment. The analysis and assessment must be revised when needed and be kept up-to-date. Further provisions on the written or other verifiable form and content of the risk assessment are specified by Government decree.

As part of a risk assessment, measures for the elimination of hazards and preventive measures have to be formulated. The provisions of the Finnish Occupational Health and Safety Act specifies the factors that must be considered in the identification and assessment of hazards and risks, such as the risk of accidental injury; registered accidents; occupational and work-related diseases; hazardous conditions; the age, gender, professional skills and other personal prerequisites of the employee; workload; possible risk for reproductive health (both female and male); especially dangerous (high-risk) jobs; and hazards for pregnant women. The results of the assessment must be documented, updated, and repeated if the conditions of work change.

The Act also specifies the principles should form the basis of planning the working environment and the working process, such as planning safe work tasks and working environments; consideration of handicapped and otherwise vulnerable employees; responsibilities of the planners (internal or external); good planning practice; considering the physical and psychological capacities of the employees, with particular attention to physical and mental workload; and the use of external experts.

In Finland, municipal healthcare centres are responsible for providing occupational health services to employers who request them. Employers may also organise these services themselves or through private service providers. The compliance of the employer is inspected by the OSH Authorities, whereas the competence and activities of the health personnel are supervised by health authorities. The Social Insurance Institution reimburses employers 50 per cent of the costs of occupational health services and 60 per cent of the expenses of workplace surveys.

There are plenty of risk assessment methods, but in Finland only a few are in wider use. SMEs usually use a simple method (using a simple risk evaluation form), whilst complex risk evaluation methods are applied in larger workplaces. There is a model for risk assessment for three different risk levels. Only if the basic evaluation and surveillance determines a higher level of risk, which requires expert knowledge, should one move to the second and third level, involving OSH specialists in the risk assessment.

The impact of the OSH legislation on risk assessment practice was evaluated in work environment surveys in 2008 and 2009, respectively (Anttonen – Pääkkönen 2010). The survey showed an appropriate commitment to risk assessment on behalf of management. Managers rated their own commitment at over 90 per cent on average, and the majority (80%) of managers were familiar with the obligations laid down in the OSH Act; 95 per cent could name their responsibilities in OSH. About 70 per cent of managers thought that the training provided to employees was sufficient. Of the representatives of the occupational health services, 46 per cent thought that the risks of accidents, physical and mental stress factors, as well as physical and chemical risk factors were properly considered in the risk assessments. Three out of four employer respondents, two-thirds of employees and two-thirds of OHS felt that the legislative regulations had also promoted the engagement of the upper management. Occupational health services were used as experts in risk assessment reasonably often (68%) and they often participated in development processes based on risk assessment (66%).



1.1.6 Section 6: Drivers for taking measures on OSH According to the ESENER study (ESENER 2010), the most common reasons for addressing OSH in Finnish establishments were ´fulfilment of legal obligation´ and ´requests from employees or their representatives´ (96% of the respondents in both cases), as well as ´staff retention and absence management´(93%). ´Economic and performance related reasons´ as well as ´client requirements or concern about the organisation’s reputation´ were given as reasons by 78 per cent and 77 per cent of the respondents, respectively. ´Pressure from the labour inspectorate´ was considered as a reason in 48 per cent of the responses.

There is evidence that legislation has had a positive impact on the OSH practice in Finnish companies. In a study commissioned by the Finnish Ministry for Social Affairs and Health (STMS, 2009b), the effectiveness of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the effectiveness of risk assessment on working conditions and health in workplaces, as well as on safety-related activities in workplaces, was examined. Based on the sample of 1,478 employers, 1,416 employees (the bulk, that is 80 per cent of companies being from small and medium sized enterprises), and 469 occupational physicians, the study showed that the provisions of the Act on Occupational Safety and Health is predominantly regarded as having a positive impact on the workplace conditions and practice of protective and preventive measures across industrial sectors. Large enterprises were more likely to find a positive impact of the legislation than smaller enterprises. Detailed figures are set out in the following table:

Table 4: Assessment of the impact of the OSH Act on the accomplishment of risk assessment in work places:

Company size Employers Employees

Total Resp. Yes (%) No (%) Total Resp. Yes (%) No (%)

1-49 employees 531 65 35 428 69 31

50-249 employees 476 76 24 368 80 20

> 250 employees 282 80 20 230 80 20

Source: MSAH, 2009b, pp. 44, 51

The Finnish OSH administration is subordinate to the Ministry for Social Affairs and Health. There are separate divisions of inspectors that supervise OSH conditions and employment regulation. Of the 450 staff employed in the five regional offices, 360 are field inspectors, the large majority of which supervise OSH issues. As the Finnish economy is concentrated in the Helsinki area, employing 40 per cent of the working population, a big share of inspectors (170) is working in this area, from which 145 focus on OSH activities. On national level there are about 300 inspectors mainly dealing with OSH issues. Thus, the likelihood for companies of being inspected by the authority is rather small. In recent times, there has been a staff reduction of 100 employees and further downsizing is planned over coming years, which means even fewer inspections per year (Frick 2010).

In the period between 2004 and 2008, the number of first workplace visits grew from 11,207 to 14,717 but, at the same time, the time spent on inspection shrank from 2.6 to 2.1 hours. Of the visits were carried out, 52 per cent were in micro-sized enterprises, and only eight per cent were enterprises with more than 100 employees (Frick 2010).

The Finnish labour inspectorate runs a policy of empowerment and persuasion. They try to persuade employers to comply with the regulations, including attempts to demonstrate that good OSH is good business. There have been many research projects on the benefits of OSH (Bjurström 2009, Ahonen 2011) that are used as arguments by the inspectors (Frick 2010). The return of costs invested in the health and safety of employees is three to seven-fold according to Finnish studies (Anttonen – Pääkkönen 2010).

Finland strongly promotes the coverage of OSH services. Employers are compensated for 60 per cent of their costs for such services. In 2007, about 80 per cent of employees were covered by OSH



services, mainly those of large enterprises. Inspired by the Netherlands and the UK, a special work safety card for entrepreneurs was introduced in Finland, certifying training in OSH. Such cards are often required when larger firms purchase maintenance and other subcontracted work (Frick 2010). More than half a million workers were registered to hold an OSH card in 2009 (MSAH, 2009). Safety competitions that reward companies with the lowest accident rates are also meant as tools for broader implementation of OSH.

Research showed that CSR in Finland has expanded from a concept of quality and environmental management towards a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability. Finnish companies have been relatively progressive regarding CSR and they perceive it as a potential competitive advantage.

1.1.7 Section 7: Level of concern at national level with OSH risks In European comparison, Finland has outstandingly good registration and statistical systems and there are a number of studies carried out regularly by the Finnish OSH institute FIOH and other R&D institutions. There is a new information system on occupational diseases and early retirement, which provides detailed data on the OSH situation in the country. The Ministry evaluates the national OSH strategy using the following indicators:

accidents, occupational diseases and other adverse effects on workers´ health working conditions experienced by workers themselves changes to the work environment activities of the OSH administration. Long-term trends are monitored in Finland through disability pension statistics. The largest groups of sicknesses and disorders accounting for sickness allowance in 2009 were MSD (32.7%) and mental health and behavioural disorders (25.0%). The percentage of MSDs remained relatively stable between 1990 and 2009, but the share of mental health and behavioural disorders increased significantly during the same period (MSAH 2011).

In 2009, the highest percentages of sick days were recorded in health care and social services (5.9%), and transport and storage (5.6%). Construction and industry accounted for 5.1 per cent and 5.0 per cent, of sick days respectively; in administration and support services it was five per cent. The average number of sick days per employee was 9.3 days, or 4.4 per cent of working days, in the same period (ibid).

On average, Finns estimate their working ability to be good, and differences between genders and age groups are negligible. According to the Working Life Barometer of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy for 2009, industrial employees estimate their working ability to be better than employees in other sectors, the lowest figure being in local government. (ibid)

As regarding mental strain at work, there is contradictory evidence from different studies. According to the Work and Health in Finland 2009 study, the mental strain of work seems to have decreased between 1997 and 2009, particularly for women. Perceived mental strain has decreased in local government jobs, but also in the private sector and in central government jobs (Työterveyslaitos 2010). However, the working conditions study conducted by Statistics Finland shows that the mental strain of work increased from 1977, remained stable in the 1990s, then increased slightly in the 2000s. The greatest increase has occurred in sectors dominated by women, and in the perception of women. Perceived mental strain of work has particularly increased in local government. Conflicts in the workplace and bullying also account for mental strain. Both observations and experiences of workplace bullying increased in the period between 1997 and 2008 (Lehto & Sutela 2008).

A total of 135,000 accidents at work occurred in Finland in 2010. Around 124,000 of these occurred to wage and salary earners and some 10,900 to self-employed persons, including farmers. From these, 20,000 were commuting accidents. These numbers also include minor accidents at work that led to incapacity lasting under four days, and on which insurance companies paid compensation only for medical treatment expenses (Statistics Finland). In 2010, a total of 61 persons died at the place of work or while commuting. The number of fatal accidents at work rose markedly from the year before, as in 2009 a total of 48 persons died at work or while commuting (ibid).



1.1.8 Section 8: OSH training of employee representatives As mentioned in the previous section on risk assessment, the Occupational Safety and Health Act stipulates that it is the obligation of the employer to assure compliance with the requirements imposed by relevant regulation. In this regard, (s)he may appoint a competent person to undertake measures for the safety and health of the employees. In addition, the employer must ensure that employees are provided with adequate health and safety training. However, the law does not specify what is meant by sufficient competence and training.

Four week training courses for safety managers covering various topics are offered by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. There are also special training courses, designed for the needs of occupational safety and health representatives and the vice-representatives (elected by the workers) that qualify them for carrying out their co-operational duties. The employer and the representatives are required to evaluate the need for training and to undertake the arrangements within two months of the election of OSH representatives. The training must be free of charge and may not cause any loss of income to the representatives.

A number of institutions provide Occupational Safety Card Training which covers basic information on occupational health and safety. The OSH Card is awarded after a one-day introductory training session and it is granted to employees for a five-year period. The OSH Card is specially designed for employees working at certain worksites, for example on large construction sites that are shared by several enterprises and where different employers are operating.

1.1.9 Section 9: Worker involvement and participation in OSH The principle of tripartite collaboration is firmly rooted in Finland. All key policies related to work life, occupational safety and health, social security and the labour market are negotiated collectively between the three partners (government, employers and trade unions) and agreements are signed on a consensual basis. Recently, trade unions in particular have been active in the field of OSH legislation. Finland has a long tradition of systematic agreements on national income policies, which has also significantly influenced the social dialogue on OSH matters.

Level of unionisation in Finland is 74 per cent.3 The Finnish dialogue is characterised by openness in discussing and handling disagreements, but also by the goal of identifying a common ground between the social partners (Eurofound). The national Occupational Safety and Health Act stipulates that employers and employees shall cooperate in improving and maintaining safety in workplaces. OSH matters should be discussed between employer, employees or their representatives.

The Occupational Safety and Health Committees must be set up in workplaces with 20 or more employees. The Committee represents the main forum for collaboration at the enterprise and workplace level between workers and employers on OSH issues.

1.2 Participants Interviews were carried out in 19 establishments across Finland. In all establishments both the management representative and the employee representative were interviewed.

Table 4 shows the allocation of the establishments across the nine categories. In the largest establishments, the management representatives were usually health and safety managers or their position combined quality management and/or environmental management with health and safety. In the smaller establishments the management representatives were mostly finance managers or staff managers whose responsibilities included health and safety tasks.

Table 1: Achieved sample breakdown Finland

3 http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/finland.pdf


http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/finland.pdf


Sector Size No. establishments

No. employee representatives interviewed

Producing Micro/very small (10 to 19) 3 3

Small (20 to 49) 2 2

Medium (50 to 149) 1 1

150+ 1 1

Private services 10 to 19 2 2

20 to 49 2 2

50 to 149 2 2

150+ 1 1

Public services 10 to 19 2 2

20 to 49 1 1

50 to 149 1 1

150+ 1 1

Total 19 19

Please note that size relates to the size of the establishment rather than the organisation as a whole; some establishments were part of larger multi-site organisations.

The employee representatives were all elected employee delegates; in larger companies they usually represented one area or department, in smaller companies they represented the whole establishment. The time dedicated to OSH issues varied greatly according to both the size of the establishment but also the branch or type of work carried out. In general, OSH issues (except for ergonomic issues) were considered more important in producing units. In offices where mostly desk-based work was carried out, ergonomic issues tended to be considered the most important aspect of OSH.

1.3 Main findings This section of the report addresses the technical issues and summary of responses for each question, looking at each area of the survey in turn.

In some cases the interviewees were quite uncertain about the correctness of their answers and/or needed a long time to reflect before providing an answer. This happened both with management and employee representatives. In general, interviewees would have liked more response options for many of the questions.

1.3.1 Management of health and safety Technical points

MM155/ER200 ‘Is there a documented policy, established management system or action plan on health and safety in your establishment?’

Almost all interviewees stated that they had an established management system or action plan, although few mentioned that they had a documented policy. However, in some establishments (of different sizes and sectors), it seemed that any kind of OSH awareness or compliance with legally-required actions was incorrectly taken as evidence of these systems or plans.



An employee representative from a micro women’s refuge establishment thought this question was complicated as it lists three different things, a policy, management system and action place. In her response she listed different types of actions plans, including one on safety, health and well-being at work, as well as plans on threatening situation model and bullying. One possibility would be to ask about the three different types of documents separately in order to get a better picture of what really exists.

MM156/ER202 'In practice, how much of an impact does this policy, management system or action plan have on health and safety in your establishment? Does it have a large impact, some impact, or practically no impact?'

This question was well understood by the interviewees. However, views on what could be seen as evidence of an impact varied. For some interviewees there was impact if employees knew where to find information on OSH. For others, impact was based on clear OSH results such as lower accident rates, lower absence rates or the active participation of employees in preventive measures. It was also clear from the discussions that high levels of perceived impact did not necessarily correlate with better OSH practise. In some cases, the impact was considered to be large even if the policy/management system/action plan did not consist of anything more than checks by the authority, some meetings and monitoring of accidents and vaccination. This was the case in small and micro establishments where any awareness on OSH was considered evidence of impact. On the other hand, in a large establishment manufacturing mining equipment, which had a very comprehensive OSH system in place, the management representative felt that there was only some impact because awareness of OSH could still be improved.

MM159/ER214 'Overall, how would you rate the degree of involvement of the line managers and supervisors in the management of health and safety? Is it very high, quite high, quite low or very low?'

According to many interviewees, it was difficult to answer this question because the level of involvement varied. Different levels of involvement were attributed to the personal attitude of managers or supervisors and also the fact that some had more experience or had received training in talking with employees about sensitive issues such as stress, alcohol or bullying. As a result of this variation, one interviewee from a small public research institute felt unable to give an answer, whilst others explained that they wanted to give a mid-scale answer (somewhere between ‘quite high’ and ‘quite low’).

’Nowadays line managers are more involved than before. Something like on average; neither quite high nor quite low.’

Management representative, large establishment manufacturing mining equipment

In some of the smaller establishments, the only ‘manager’ in the establishment was the individual who took part in the management representative interview (often the head of the institution/department). As such, management representatives sometimes assessed their own involvement in OSH in answering this question. In other cases, the director of the establishment was also mentioned as he had the ultimate responsibility for health and safety.

Interpretations The answers to MM155/ER200 varied a lot. Most interviewees referred to their own systems or plans, which they tended to review annually together with an external service provider. Few mentioned a documented policy. In some establishments there were no policies, management systems or action plans, only the two representatives interviewed and some written guidance, plus checks carried out by an external service provider. In other establishments (mostly large establishments and those involved



in industry-type work such as logistics, storage, and production) systems and plans were very comprehensive and many of the checks were conducted internally.

Most interviewees stated that their management system or action plan had some impact. They referred to regular updates and checks taking place in the establishment as well as to favourable results of checks and low accident rates. The involvement of the management and employee representatives was also mentioned. In some cases the impact was considered to be large, but in most cases interviewees felt that the impact could be greater. No one answered that there was no impact at all. The answers of the management and employee representatives were usually the same but not always.

In the majority of the establishments, the involvement of managers and supervisors was considered to be quite high. When asked for evidence on this, activities were usually mentioned such as taking responsibility for teams/units on OSH issues, involvement in risk assessments and choosing and implementing follow-up actions. This was particularly the case in establishments where work was not desk-based, where supervisors sometimes conducted daily checks of the workplace. In offices and public administrations the involvement was mostly rated as quite high, but some rated it as quite low. A common reason given for a low rating was that the managers did not have time for OSH issues.

1.3.2 Level of concern with OSH risks Technical points

MM200/ER250 'For each of the following issues, please tell me whether it is of major concern, some concern, or no concern at all in your establishment?'

01) Dangerous substances (e.g. dusts, chemical, biological); 02) Accidents; 03) Noise and vibration; 04) Musculoskeletal disorders; 05) Work-related stress; 06) Violence or threat of violence; 07) Bullying or harassment.

Interpretations of ‘concern’ varied amongst the respondents. This is unlikely to be due to a translation issue, as there is equivalence between the Finnish and English terms used. For some, a risk was considered no concern if the establishment had good preventative measures. For others, it remained a concern even if these measures were in place, because the actual risk or exposure was high and the possible consequences were significant. A management representative from a small public publishing establishment first answered that something was of ‘no concern’, but later changed her mind as prevention activities did exist and guidance had been prepared. For her, evidence of carrying out work in this area indicated that it was a concern. As the word ‘concern’ is understood differently, it may be clearer if the question asks instead about the ‘risk of accidents’.

Sometimes management and employee representatives from the same establishment had different understandings of the term ‘concern’. For example, in a medium sized IT establishment, the management representative felt that musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) were of ‘no concern at all’, because the company was aware of the problem and offered measures such as massage, training and subsidised gym membership. It also carried out ergonomic checks at the workplace. In contrast, the employee representative viewed the issue as between ‘some concern’ and a ‘major concern’ because the work was computer/office-based, despite the fact that she was aware of all of the preventive measures in place. Whilst the situation was described in the same way by both interviewees, they selected opposite responses. In a medium-sized logistics establishment, the management representative thought that a risk was not a (major) concern if they were prepared to deal with it, whilst the employee representative thought it was a major concern if the consequences were significant.

Many interviewees asked for more response options falling between the three given. For example, one wanted an option between ‘no concern at all’ and ‘some concern’.

‘It is actually not zero, I would say it is a small concern.’



Management representative, large establishment manufacturing mining equipment

With regard to item 7 (violence or the threat of violence), one interviewee thought it was unclear whether this was about violence between members of staff or from members of the public. This could be clarified in the question.

Interpretations Despite different interpretations of ‘concern’, the answers of the management and employee representatives did not differ significantly on this question. Where they did, it was usually just by one point of the scale.

7. 01) Dangerous chemicals

Chemicals were rated as a major concern in only a few establishments. Most interviewees stated that they were some concern or no concern at all. Even if chemicals were stored, they were stored correctly and could only be accessed by those who had received training on how to use them. In a medium-sized logistics establishment, the consequences of an accident involving chemicals could be significant (for example if there was a leak of ammonia from the closed freezing system) so regular alarm exercises were conducted. The management representative felt this was of some concern and the employee representative described it as a major concern.

8. 02) Accidents

Accidents were considered a major concern in only a few establishments (such as a mining equipment manufacturer and roof renovation establishment), but even in these cases only one interviewee saw it this way. Most interviewees felt accidents were of some or no concern at all. Almost all establishments conducting desk-based work thought accidents were no concern. Most interviewees told how their accident rate had decreased over time.

9. 03) Noise and vibration

Most responses to this question were based on issues of noise rather than vibration. In most establishments these were felt to be only of some concern because very good PPE was used. In establishments conducting desk-based work noise was usually no concern at all. However, in a city administration office noise was of some concern because the workplace included a telephone customer service centre. Only a minority of establishments rated noise a major concern.

10. 04) Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)

These were considered a concern in almost all establishments. In establishments where work was mainly office-based, MSDs presented a problem due to sitting and working at a computer; in the health care sector they were an issue due to lifting of patients; whilst in producing establishments they were an issue due to the use of heavy machinery. In many cases MSDs were only of some concern because preventative measures were in place, such as massages for staff, training in ergonomics, use of adjustable desks and chairs or other equipment. In many of the establishments, MSDs accounted for a significant proportion of absenteeism.

11. 05) Work-related stress

This was considered either some concern or a major concern in most cases and hardly any interviewees said it was no concern at all. Several causes of stress were mentioned, such as tight deadlines or high workloads. In the health care sector, shift work was also mentioned as a source of stress. In a large mining equipment manufacturer, the bad economic situation of the company was felt to have raised stress levels as employees were fearful of losing their jobs.

12. 06) Violence or threat of violence

In most establishments, the threat of violence was felt to be of no concern at all. However, it was some concern or a major concern in a number of establishments dealing with the public, such as those in the health care sector, an emergency station, a women’s refuge, a public-sector customer centre and a research institute involved in criminology research. Where the risk was a concern, some



establishments had installed protective systems such as lockable lift doors and emergency buttons in the workplace. No one mentioned violence between members of staff in the establishment.

13. 07) Bullying or harassment

Most management and employee representatives felt this was either only some concern or no concern at all. Only a few interviewees felt it was a major concern. In all cases any reported bullying was taken seriously and considered an important management issue. Where it was a concern, this was usually due to the possibility of it occurring; only a few were able to report actual cases. In a medium-sized manufacturing establishment, the views of the two interviewees were contradictory; the management representative stated that there had been no cases of bullying or harassment whilst the employee representative said that there had.

1.3.3 Approach to risk assessments Technical points

MM161/ER207 'Are workplaces in the establishment regularly checked for safety and health as part of a risk assessment or similar measures?'

The term ‘regularly’ in this question was understood in different ways. For some interviewees it meant a certain frequency, up to every five years. Others felt that once every two years was not often enough to be considered ‘regular’. Sometimes the answer to this question was changed after discussion as the interviewee realised that any checks conducted were not done so ‘regularly’. One management representative from a small clothes manufacturer initially said yes to this question as they had run an ergonomics check some months earlier. However, after closer questioning by the interviewer, she changed her mind because she could not remember when checks had been conducted before that point. In a small demolition establishment, both interviewees mentioned the same health checks conducted by an external service provider. However they gave different answers to this question as the frequency with which these were carried out (every one to three years depending on the employee’s tasks) was considered ‘regular’ by the employee representative but not by the management representative.

Most interviewees mentioned regular checks by external providers and their own staff. From their initial answers, it was not always clear to which type of checks they referred, which influenced responses to the subsequent questions in this section.

MM162 ‘Are these risk assessments or workplace checks mostly conducted by your own staff or are they normally contracted to external service providers?’

On this question it was sometimes unclear what sorts of checks were being referred to and the answers occasionally contradicted what had been said at MM161. For example, in a small establishment manufacturing clothes, the management representative responded to MM162 by saying that checks were mostly conducted by in-house staff. However, when responding to MM161 he had discussed workplace checks that were conducted by an external provider. It appears that he was referring to two different types of checks in his answers.

Sometimes the difference between internal staff and external service providers was not clear where the establishment was part of a corporate group or a department of a public administration. Some considered the group’s OSH representative as external, because he/she was not from their unit, whereas others classed this person as a member of in-house staff.

In a small publishing establishment, the responses of management and employee representatives differed. While the management representative said that they carried out checks internally only if requested, the employee representative stated that internal checks were carried out annually. This difference may relate to the fact that the management representative was not the head of work safety, so was not fully involved in the company’s risk assessment processes.



MM163 ‘On which occasions are these risk assessments or workplace checks carried out?’

01) Following a change in the staffing, layout or organisation of work, 02) At the request of employees e.g. in case of complaints, 03) At regular intervals, without any specific cause.

One management representative requested more response options to this question beyond ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not applicable’. In his establishment (a large manufacturer of mining equipment) checks were carried out sometimes but not always, so an option of ‘sometimes’ would have been preferred.

MM164 ‘Which of the following areas are routinely considered in these checks?’

01) Equipment and working environment, 02) The way work is organised, 03) Irregular or long working hours, 04) Supervisor-employee relationships.

Again, there was a technical issue with this question relating to the fact that in some establishments many different type of checks were carried out, either in-house and by external providers. Some of these did and some of these did not consider these different areas.

According to a management representative from a large establishment manufacturing mining equipment, giving a clear ‘yes‘ or ‘no’ answer to this question was difficult. Items 2, 3 and 4 were sometimes considered in checks, but not always. These sorts of issues were checked together with the external occupational health and safety service but, depending on the department, this could be several times a year or not even once a year. In a medium-sized rescue unit, item 2 (the way work is organised) was checked sometimes but not routinely, so the management representative suggested the inclusion of another response option, ‘in certain cases’.

One management representative, from a medium-sized IT establishment, gave a positive answer to item 4 (supervisor-employee relationships) but later clarified that this topic was not part of a check but a ‘personal development’ talk between an employee and manager.

MM166 And which of the following actions have been taken as a follow-up to these checks?

01) Changes to equipment or working environment, 02) Changes to the way work is organised, 03) Changes to working time arrangements, 04) Provision of training.

In one case, the responses to this and MM164 above contradicted. The management representative from a medium-sized manufacturing establishment responded to MM164 by stating that there was no need to check the work organisation because all the processes were already fixed through the production line. However, in responding to MM166 he said that changes to work organisation (ie organisation of the production line) had been made.

Often the respondents mentioned that actions had been taken, but when discussed in more detail it was clear that these had not always occurred as a result of checks. For example, one management representative said yes to item 4 (provision of training) but the OSH training he referred to was part of a regular training offer rather than an action following a check. Another, from a small establishment carrying out roof and façade renovations, said yes to this but then explained that all employees were trained on how to do their job. Again, this suggests that the training referred to was not prompted by a check. Positive answers were also given when changes were made due to problems identified by staff rather than through checks. For example, in a micro women’s refuge, staff had previously worked on three consecutive shifts and identified that this had been too strenuous. As a result of their concerns, the work arrangements were changed to two consecutive shifts and extra resources were provided.



The term ‘the way work was organised’ had to be explained to some interviewees as it was not always understood. Some respondents felt that this question would benefit from another answer option, such as ‘to some extent’ or that action had been taken ‘in certain cases’.

ER209 ‘Do you have a say in the decisions on when and where these risk assessments of workplace checks are carried out?’

In a small publishing establishment, the employee representative answered ‘yes’ to this question. However, her answer referred to checks carried out internally, not to those conducted by the company’s external OSH provider (which she could not influence). Meanwhile, the management representative in the same establishment referred only to the latter when answering other questions on risk assessments. Looking at survey responses alone, it would not be clear that management and employee representatives from the same establishment gave responses concerning different types of checks.

ER210 ‘If the risk assessment or workplace check identifies a need for action: Is the necessary follow-up action normally taken?’

One employee representative from a medium-sized software establishment would have liked another response option here of ‘in most cases’.

ER211 – ‘And are you as health and safety representatives usually involved in the choice of follow-up actions?’

There were no technical issues with this question.

MM169/ER213 – ‘Are there any particular reasons why these checks are not regularly carried out?’


Interpretations Risk assessments or other checks were carried out in almost all establishments. In many where desk work was carried out, the checks focussed on ergonomic issues, whereas in producing firms, they tended to be more comprehensive. In most cases checks were performed by an external OSH provider, although in many large establishments risk assessments were conducted internally (in most cases by a member of the safety committee). Where conducted in-house, guidance on how to do this and appropriate tools had usually been delivered by an external OSH provider and often the same provider was involved in evaluating the outcomes. The frequency of checks conducted by external providers varied, from annually to every five years depending on the nature of the contract. In almost all establishments a member of the work safety committee either participated alongside an external OSH provider in conducting checks or, where no external OSH provider was used, conducted the check.

In the small establishment of a heating, water and ventilation installation company, no checks were carried out because employees worked on construction sites or in customers’ homes. The interviewees explained that they had to follow the safety rules at each construction site and that checks were conducted there.

If an establishment comprised of different work functions, it was often the case that these were checked at different frequencies. For example, the workplace of operatives in an establishment manufacturing mining equipment were checked daily or weekly, with comprehensive risk assessments conducted several times a year. For employees working in the administration function of the same



establishment, risk assessments focussing on ergonomic issues were conducted regularly but far less often.

Risk assessments were usually carried out following a change in the staffing, layout or organisation of work, but not in all cases and many said this depended on how much change had been introduced. Nearly all interviewees said that checks were conducted at the request of employees and at regular intervals without any specific cause. As mentioned above, a few stated that there were no regular checks either because they did not consider the frequency at which these were carried out as ‘regular’ or because they could not remember whether checks had been conducted more than once.

Almost every establishment ‘routinely considered’ equipment and the working environment in these checks. Irregular or long working hours were sometimes considered, although in many cases they were not because employees either worked shifts or normal working hours. The supervisor-employee relationships were only sometimes included in checks. Instead, these issues were usually discussed between supervisors and employees or in meetings with occupational nurses and physicians. Many establishments conducted staff surveys on well-being at work, which included questions on supervisor-employee relationships.

Almost all interviewees stated that follow-up actions had been taken and were able to give examples of each type listed. Changes to equipment and the working environment were undertaken in almost all establishments. However, changes to the way work was organised were made less frequently. In some establishments using production lines or small teams, changes of this sort were not easy to carry out. In a fire and rescue department, changes to the way work was organised were considered impossible. Many interviewees explained that changes to working time were not made, either because there was a shift system in place or because staff did not work irregular or long hours. A number said that working arrangements in the establishment were generally very flexible and that employees were offered all kinds of possibilities, such as part time work and working from home. In most cases training was also offered but it was not always clear whether this was as a follow-up to a risk assessment or part of a more general training offer.

All employee representatives stated that they had a say in decisions on when and where checks were carried out, or at least that they could have a say if they wanted to. Some had only been in post for a short time so were yet to receive complaints from staff that needed chasing up. A number said that it was not necessary for them to be involved, either because there was already a comprehensive programme of checks in place or because the establishment was small enough for employees to be able to openly discuss OSH concerns with managers.

Most employee representatives believed that follow-up actions were taken in their establishments. However, many explained that the timeliness of implementation varied. In the case of expensive changes, sometimes other cheaper solutions were considered first. All employee representatives stated that they were involved in the choice of the follow-up actions, or at least thought that they could be if they wished. In most cases members of the work safety committee discussed the follow-up actions with the employee concerned and, in some cases, with the occupational nurse or physician as well.

1.3.4 Drivers and barriers to measures on OSH Technical points



MM171 ‘In your establishment, how important are the following reasons for addressing health and safety? For each one, please tell me whether it is a major reason, a minor reason, or no reason at all.'

01) Fulfilment of legal obligation; 02) Requests from employees of their representatives; 03) Staff retention and absence management; 04) Economic or performance-related reasons; 05) Requirements from clients or concern about the organisation’s reputation; 06) Pressure from the labour inspector.

Almost all interviewees stated that they had never received pressure from the labour inspectorate. However, there was still some variation in responses to item 6; some answered no to this question whilst others answered yes from a hypothetical standpoint stating that if there were pressure it would be important. Others gave no answer at all.

On some items, management representatives needed to think carefully before giving their answers. A few requested additional response options, particularly one between ‘a major reason’ and ‘a minor reason’ (the suggestion was ‘somewhat a reason’).

A management representative from a micro women’s refuge thought that item 3 (staff retention and absence management) should be divided into two separate questions as it covers two separate issues. In his establishment, absence management was a major reason for addressing health and safety whilst staff retention was only a minor reason.

MM172 ‘In your establishment, what are the main difficulties in dealing with health and safety? Please tell me for each of the following whether it is a major difficulty, a minor difficulty, or not a difficulty at all.’

01) A lack of resources such as time, staff or money; 02) A lack of awareness; 03) A lack of expertise; 04) A lack of technical support or guidance; 05) The culture within the establishment; 06) The sensitivity of the issue.

Some management representatives found it difficult to answer this question or needed time to consider each item carefully. Several requested additional response options and wanted five possibilities instead of three.

An interviewee from a large public hospital did not understand the term ‘technical support’ in item 4 and mistook this for IT support. Four management representatives proposed separating ‘time, staff and money’ from item 1 into two separate questions, one addressing time and staff and another addressing money. Sometimes interviewees asked what was meant by ‘culture’ in item 5, although they all correctly defined it as the occupational health and safety culture in the establishment.

Interpretations The responses to MM171 (reasons for addressing health and safety) were as follows:

14. 1) Fulfilment of legal obligation

Almost all management representatives considered fulfilment of legal obligation a major reason for addressing health and safety. Only one said it was no reason at all and another that it was a minor reason.

15. 2) Requests from employees or their representatives

All interviewees stated that requests from employees were a major reason for addressing health and safety.

16. 3) Staff retention and absence management



Most management representatives said that this is a major reason for addressing health and safety, whilst some considered it a minor reason. A few interviewees said that absenteeism was an issue in their establishment but staff retention was not. In a small establishment conducting facade and roof renovations, staff retention was extremely important as it took time to train each employee to do the work.

17. 4) Economic or performance-related reasons

Again, most management representatives said that this was a major reason for addressing health and safety, whilst some considered it a minor reason. The interviewees explained how a good approach to OSH and risk prevention had a positive impact on the establishment’s economic results.

18. 5) Requirements from clients or concerns about the organisation’s reputation

Again, most interviewees said that this was a major reason for addressing health and safety. In the public sector, this was either only a minor reason or no reason at all. Management representatives from these establishments explained that they had no clients and considered their reputation good already.

19. 6) Pressure from the labour inspectorate

Most interviewees explained that they had never received pressure from the labour inspectorate but still thought this was a major reason for addressing health and safety as they wished to avoid this scenario. Regular checks from the labour inspector were not identified as ‘pressure’. Only one large logistics establishment reported that it had received pressure following an accident. However, the interviewee criticised the inspector who visited them for focusing too much on who was to blame rather than providing constructive feedback on the prevention measures in place.

The responses to MM172 (difficulties in addressing health and safety) were as follows:

20. 1) A lack of resources such as time, staff or money

Most interviewees stated that a lack of resources such as time, staff and money was a minor difficulty or no difficulty at all when it came to addressing health and safety. Most considered a lack of time and staff as a greater difficulty than a lack of money. However, in some large establishments time was not a difficulty at all because a considerable proportion of the management representative’s role was dedicated to OSH. Money was sometimes a difficulty, for example in a medium-sized manufacturing establishment .

21. 2) A lack of awareness

A lack of awareness was usually considered a minor difficulty or no difficulty at all. Many told how employees were informed about OSH or knew where to find information if required. In a small public-sector customer centre a lack of awareness presented an issue because employees failed to appreciate the importance of OSH. In a large public hospital it was considered a major difficulty.

22. 3) A lack of expertise

This was also considered a minor difficulty or no difficulty at all in almost all establishments. Either expertise was available in the establishment or through an external OSH provider.

23. 4) A lack of technical support or guidance

In most establishments this was considered either a minor difficulty or no difficulty at all.

24. 5) The culture within the establishment

In most establishments this was again a minor difficulty or no difficulty at all. All interviewees explained that the culture in their establishment was ‘OSH positive’, meaning that awareness levels were high and PPE was used. Most also said that they had a very open culture where issues on OSH could be freely discussed.

‘How could it be that culture is a problem? … We do not have a problem here; the use of PPE is part of the basic education.’



Management representative, medium-sized rescue unit

25. 6) The sensitivity of the issue

The sensitivity of the issue was a minor difficulty in almost all establishments because of the common use of ‘early intervention’ programmes designed by external providers to detect psychosocial issues, such as bullying, stress, and alcohol problems. In some cases, management had received training to run these programmes.

1.3.5 Worker participation and involvement Technical points

ER102 ‘Is there a permanent committee or working group consisting of members of the management and representatives of the employees dealing with safety and health in this establishment?’

In some cases, there was confusion concerning the definition of a ‘permanent committee’ or ‘working group’. In establishments that were branches or units of bigger companies, interviewees were not always clear whether they should include groups that covered the organisation as a whole or just the establishment. In a small establishment carrying out roof and façade renovations (part of a bigger company), the employee representative mentioned a group on well-being at work with members from both management and employees but it was unclear whether this group operated at the unit level or covered the organisation as a whole. In a small public-sector customer centre, the employee representative did not know if there was a committee in the unit, although there was one for the whole city administration.

ER107 ‘How often do controversies related to safety and health arise between the management and the employee representatives? Is this often, sometimes, or practically never the case?’

Three interviewees requested additional response options to this question. All wanted to have an option between ‘sometimes’ and ‘practically never’ the case, such as ‘rarely’.

ER205 ‘Are employees in this establishment regularly informed about safety and health in the workplace?’

In general this question was well understood but, nevertheless, views on what constituted being ‘informed’ differed. For some employee representatives, being regularly informed meant having access to information on the intranet. For most, it was a combination of information being made available and being actively notified via email and in meetings.

ER215_05 Please tell me whether you agree (1), neither agree nor disagree (2) or disagree (3) with the following statement: ‘Our management gives proper consideration to occupational safety and health issues raised by employees or their representatives’.

This question caused some confusion and in seven cases, respondents needed to hear it again before they understood it. This could be a translation problem as to aid clarification the interviewer had to change the ordering of the sentence. One employee representative from a small public-sector customer centre requested an additional response option of ‘agree to some extent’ because management sometimes, rather than always, gave issues proper consideration.



Interpretations Only two employee representatives out of 19 stated that there was no committee dealing with safety and health in their establishment. These were a micro establishment manufacturing kitchen units and a small establishment carrying out heating, water and ventilation installations. Typically committees consisted of a management representative, an employee representative and one or two deputies. In many cases the external health provider was also a member of the committee. In bigger organisations there were numerous employee representatives, often from different work areas with different risk profiles (e.g. administration and production areas). Sometimes safety officers were also involved. A few establishments had only a committee on well-being at work, where OSH issues were discussed, whereas others had this group in addition to a health and safety committee. Usually the committees met four times a year, though some met only once or twice a year. Additional meetings were held in many cases if it was necessary to discuss new preventive actions. In most cases the group members also took part in risk assessments and other checks.

In most establishments, controversies practically never arose or only sometimes arose between management and employee representatives. No one answered that they occurred often. Where they did occur, concerns were usually related to the costs of follow-up actions and delays to the time schedule.

In most establishments, employees were regularly informed about safety and health at the workplace, but what was meant by this varied significantly. In some cases information was sent via email, uploaded onto the intranet (with a notification that there was something new) and disseminated in regular staff meetings (in many of the establishments, OSH issues were a regular agenda item in meetings). In other cases, information was available on notice boards or online but the employees had to actively find it. Some employee representatives thought the employer could be more proactive in providing information, whereas others were happy with what was provided, even in cases where this was just information on a notice board. In a small publishing establishment, the respondent felt the need to caveat a positive response to this by mentioning that employees should be more pro-active in seeking information; generally there was no real demand for the information and little discussion of it. In a medium-sized software establishment, the interviewee said there was no regular information, which she blamed in part on the decision to outsource OSH support.

In most cases, the employee representatives confirmed that management gave proper consideration to OSH issues raised by employees. Only one interview from a small publishing establishment disagreed with the statement.

1.3.6 Resources and training in OSH issues Technical points

ER154 ‘Does the management provide you with the necessary information for carrying out your health and safety tasks properly?’

ER155 ‘Do you usually receive information on time and without having to ask for it?’

In a minority of cases, responses to these questions contradicted each other. For example, in a small publishing establishment the employee representative answered the first question by stating that she received information, at least when she asked for it (which would imply a negative response to the second question). However, she answered the second question positively. Similarly in a medium-sized logistics establishment, the employee representative responded to the first question by saying he received all information he asked for, but later said he got this on time without having to ask for it.



ER159 ‘On which of the following issues have you or your health and safety representative colleagues received training?’

01) Fire safety; 02) Prevention of accidents; 03) Chemical, biological, radiation or dust hazards; 04) Ergonomics; 05) Violence, bullying or harassment; 06) Work-related stress; 07) Discrimination (for example due to age, gender, race or disability).

In many cases, the interviewees referred to training received by all or many employees, not only employee representatives. However, it was not always clear who the training was targeted at.

There were differing opinions on what constituted training and some included written guidance. One employee representative, from a small wholesale establishment, was not sure whether the question was asking about externally- or internally-delivered training.

Many employee representatives included first aid training under the topic of ‘prevention of accidents’.

The researcher felt that the translation of ‘race’ into Finnish ‘rotu/rodun’ was, although accurate, not politically correct. It was suggested that this be replaced with ‘etnisen ryhmän (…) perusteella’ which means ‘due to the ethnic group/affiliation’.

ER160 – ‘Is this training sufficient or would more training in any of these fields be desirable?’


ER 162 ‘Which of the following are the main reasons for receiving no or not sufficient training on these issues?’

01) Difficulties to get time off for such training, 02) Lack of information about available courses, 03) Available courses are not appropriate for our situation, 04) Difficulties to get the financial resources for the training.

An interviewee from a small publishing establishment suggested an additional barrier to training for the list: that ‘only legally required training is provided’.

An employee representative from a medium-sized public sports centre wanted to answer that barriers were ‘sometimes’ a reason for not receiving training. This was particularly for item 1 (difficulties getting time off for training) as his ability to undertake training depended on his workload at the time, and item 2 (lack of information) because, although information on courses was provided, this was not always comprehensive.

Interpretations Most of the employee representatives were given sufficient time off from their normal duties to perform OSH tasks. In some cases, fixed hours were allocated to OSH tasks, varying from a few hours per week to full time. Representatives from large producing establishments tended to receive more time for OSH than their peers. Most interviewees explained that they were able to be flexible about the hours they dedicated to OSH (even where there were fixed agreements) and would be able to put in additional time if required. However, in the event of this there were often no plans in place to cover their other duties.

Nearly all interviewees were provided with the necessary information, but often they had to ask for it or at least actively collect it (eg via the intranet). The topics on which the employee representatives had received training varied widely. Only one interviewee from a large public hospital had received training



on all the topics listed. Three had been trained in six of the topics – one on all except stress and two on all except discrimination. Only one employee representative from a small establishment carrying out roof and façade renovation had not been trained on any of the OSH topics. Most had received training on prevention of accidents, but often they mistakenly included first aid training under this category. For a few this was the only training they had received, so was seen as the ‘minimal’ training offer. Just over half had received training on ergonomics whilst around half had received training on fire safety (eg fire alarm exercises) and chemical, biological, radiation or dust hazards. Fewer employee representatives had received training on psychosocial risks such as violence, bullying or harassment, work-related stress or discrimination.

Most interviewees believed the training they had received was sufficient. Where it was not, the reasons for this were a lack of information and financial difficulties.

1.3.7 OSH and organisational performance Technical points

MM402 ‘How would you rate the level of absenteeism in your establishment compared with other establishments in the sector? Is it very high, quite high, about average, quite low or very low?’

Some management representatives were unsure what to include under the category of ‘absenteeism’. A minority of interviewees wanted to draw a distinction between short- and long-term absence in their establishments, as levels of short-term absence were less of a problem. One management representative, from a large establishment manufacturing mining equipment, asked for separate questions regarding absence due to ill-health and absence due to accidents, since the rates for each were very different.

New Question – ‘Compared to other organisations of your size and sector in Finland, how well would you say you perform in terms of health and safety outcomes such as the number of accidents and injuries at work, and the level of sickness absence?’

Many interviewees from smaller organisations or private services did not know how their establishment compared with similar establishments in terms of absence, accidents and injuries. They referred mostly to their own statistics and whether or not these had improved in recent years.

MM403 – ‘How would you rate the current economic situation of this establishment? Is it very good, quite good, neither good nor bad, quite bad or very bad?’


New question – ‘Compared to other organisations of your size and sector in Finland, how well would you say you perform in terms of business outcomes such as profit, turnover or other relevant measures of performance?’


Interpretations Compared to other establishments, all management representatives estimated that their absence levels were average or better than average. Most interviewees felt that, in comparison with other establishments, they performed average or a little bit better on OSH outcomes, and a few based their answers on comparative statistics they had seen.



In the public sector, the economic situation of the establishment was often rated as bad because budgets had been reduced. Where budgets had been maintained, some interviewees stated that the economic situation was quite good. Nonetheless, most of the management representatives estimated that they were performing at average or better than average in terms of business outcomes. In the case of public bodies, some interesting business performance indicators were mentioned. For example, in a medium-sized public sports centre, one indicator used was the number of citizens using the facilities.

1.4 Collecting health and safety performance data Twelve establishments submitted proformas providing data on OSH resources and performance, but sometimes these were not filled in completely. In two cases there was no information on the costs involved, in one case no data on absenteeism or the number of accidents. On two proformas absence rates were not provided separately for managers and employees. All proformas included information on the number of people involved in OSH and hours spent on OSH.

The figures reported for the year January 2011 to December 2011 varied substantially depending on the size of the establishment and the nature of work carried out. The number of management representatives involved ranged from one to 12, employee representatives from one to 80. Only two establishments recorded that more managers were involved in OSH than employees. In a small establishment carrying out heating, water and ventilation installations, four managers and 16 employees were involved in OSH (ie the whole workforce because anyone who took part in carrying out checks had been included on the form). The hours spent on OSH tasks also varied according to the type of work and were greatest for those in the producing industry and a rescue unit.

In general, much more money was spent on OSH services than equipment, except in a large establishment manufacturing mining equipment.

Absence rates tended to be low, ranging between 0.32 per cent of working time to 4.45 per cent. However, they were high in two establishments, including a medium-sized rescue unit where absence accounted for 16.75 per cent of working time and a medium-sized manufacturer where it was nine per cent. The accident rates were often low, even in producing companies (suggesting that these organisations had better awareness of risks and were better at enforcing use of PPE). The highest number of accidents was reported by a large department store, 99 out of 1700 employees. Accidents reported on the forms were all minor ones. The accident rate in a medium-sized rescue unit was higher, with 42 accidents reported over the period. Two establishments reported zero accidents.

1.5 Summary and conclusions In general the questions worked well. However, some small adjustments would help to improve the quality of the data received. In addition to specific issues with individual questions, there were some common themes concerning:

Desire for more response options, in particular mid-scale options. Dislike amongst some of yes/no response options as in some cases it depended on the context,

so a preference for options such as ‘sometimes’ or ‘to some extent’. Use of certain terms which were hard for respondents to define. Need to separate those questions that ask about more than one issue into separate questions. In the questions on risk assessments, different types of checks were mentioned and it was not

always clear to which the answers referred. The main technical issues for each section of the report are summarised in turn below. None of the technical issues appeared to be related to the national context.

Approach to management of health and safety The answers to questions MM155/ER200 on existence of a policy varied a great deal. Sometimes the simple fact that there was awareness of OSH and compliance with legal requirements was seen as evidence of a documented policy, action plan or established management system. With regard to



questions MM156/ER202, views on what constituted evidence of ‘impact’ of the policy varied from awareness and compliance to hard outcomes such as accident and absence rates. As such, perceived impact did not necessarily correlate with better OSH practice. Many interviewees found it difficult to give an overall assessment of the involvement of line managers and supervisors because this varied. For this reason they would have liked a mid-range response option, between ‘quite high’ and ‘quite low’.

Levels of concern with OSH risks Interpretations of the term ‘concern’ varied. Some said a risk was not a concern if they took preventive action on the issue (such as PPE) whereas others said it was a concern because they needed PPE or because the severity of the risk was high. As a result, the responses of management and employee representatives in the same establishment sometimes differed, even if their overall views on the risks and actions taken were the same.

Approach to risk assessments There were a number of technical issues with this part of the survey. In questions MM161/ER207 about whether regular risk assessments are carried out, views on what could be considered ‘regular’ differed. This should either be clarified in the question or an additional question included on the frequency of checks. A general problem with this section was that different types of risk assessments and checks were carried out in establishments and it was not always clear which of these respondents should refer to. This affected responses to questions for both management and employee representatives, including MM162 on who carries out the checks and ER209 on whether employee representatives have a say on when and where these are conducted.

Another general issue was that a minority of management representatives disliked simple yes/no response options as the answer sometimes depended on the context. They would have preferred to say that risk assessments were ‘sometimes’ carried out following a particular change (MM163), that particular issues were ‘sometimes’ included in risk assessments (MM164) or that changes were made ‘to some extent’ following a risk assessment (MM166). In question MM166 on actions taken as a follow-up to risk assessments, some of those mentioned had occurred as a result of other organizational processes rather than a risk assessment. For example, many said that training on OSH had been provided, but this was part of a regular training offer rather than an action prompted by a check.

The questions on risk assessment aimed at employee representatives generally worked well, although the majority said that they either made a contribution to decisions on risk assessments or the choice of follow-up actions, or thought they could if they so wished.

Drivers of and barriers to management of health and safety Some of the responses to question MM172 on the drivers of OSH were hypothetical. A number of management representatives said that pressure from the labour inspector was a reason for addressing OSH because they wished to avoid such pressure, rather than because pressure had been received (although some in the same situation thought the fact it had not been received meant it was not a reason for addressing OSH). Answering question MM172 often took management representatives some time, and a few items were seen as confusing. A general point with this section was that some interviewees wanted more response options to the questions, particularly mid-scale options between ‘minor’ and ‘major’.

Worker participation and involvement In those establishments that were branches or units of bigger companies, interviewees were not always clear on question ER102 whether they should include permanent committees and working groups that covered the organisation as a whole or just the establishment. For question ER107, a number wished for another response option so that they could say that controversies ‘rarely’ occurred rather than ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’ occurred. Views on what could constitute ‘regularly informing’ staff about OSH (ER205) differed, from providing information on an intranet to directly notifying staff via email or in meetings.



OSH resources and training Generally the questions on OSH resources and training for employee representatives worked well, although verbal responses to question ER154 (whether provided with information on OSH) and ER155 (whether information was provided on time without them having to ask for it) occasionally contradicted each other. Training discussed included training provided to employees as well as training specifically for employee representatives, and a few included any written guidance they had received.

OSH and organisational performance In the questions on OSH performance (MM402 and one of the new questions), some management representatives did not know what to include under ‘absence’, as their answers depended on the type of absence referred to. Many did not know how their establishment compared against others in terms of either absence or accidents and injuries at work, so the new version of this question did not offer any improvement. The questions on organizational and economic performance worked much better.

Collecting data on OSH resources and performance Whilst two thirds of establishments completed the proforma, some data fields were left incomplete. Information on absenteeism rates and the individuals involved in OSH was usually provided, but information on costs was more difficult for management representatives as it was sometimes held by the managing or finance director.


Qualitative Post-test Evaluation of ESENER. Bulgaria Establishment Reports 1

TE-RO

-13-305-EN-N

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work E-mail: [email protected] http://osha.europa.eu

The European Agency for Safety and

Health at Work (EU-OSHA) contributes to

making Europe a safer, healthier and more

productive place to work. The Agency

researches, develops, and distributes

reliable, balanced, and impartial safety and

health information and organises pan-

European awareness raising campaigns. Set

up by the European Union in 1996 and

based in Bilbao, Spain, the Agency brings

together representatives from the European

Commission, Member State governments,

employers’ and workers’ organisations, as

well as leading experts in each of the EU-27

Member States and beyond.

mailto:[email protected]

http://osha.europa.eu/

Date post:	09-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Qualitative post-test evaluation of ESENER – National ... · Qualitative post-test evaluation of...

Documents