display screens at work regulations quotation

IEC 62563-1:2010 Medical electrical equipment – medical image display systems – part 1: evaluation methods. International Standards Organisation, Geneva

ISO 13406 Ergonomic requirements for work with visual displays based on flat panels, part 1: introduction and part 2: ergonomic requirements for flat panel displays. International Standards Organisation, Geneva

Management of health and safety at work (2000) Management of health and safety at work regulations 1999. Approved code of practice and guidance L21, 2nd edn. HSE Books, London. ISBN 0 7176 2488 9

Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) [Official Journal L 156 of 21.06.1990]

HSE (Health and Safety Executive) (2003) Work with display screen equipment – health and safety (display screen equipment) regulations 1992 as amended by the health and safety (miscellaneous amendments regulations 2002. Guidance on regulations, 2nd edn. HSE L26. HMSO, London

HSG90 (2000) The law on VDUs: an easy guide: making sure your office complies with the health and safety (display screen equipment) regulations 1992 (as amended in 2002). HSE Books, London. ISBN 0 7 76 2602 4

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred on her by sections 15(1), (2), (5)(b) and (9) and 82(3)(a) of, and paragraphs 1(1)(a) and (c) and (2), 7, 8(1), 9 and 14 of Schedule 3 to, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974(1) and of all other powers enabling her in that behalf and for the purpose of giving effect without modifications to proposals submitted to her by the Health and Safety Commission under section 11(2)(d) of the said Act after the carrying out by the said Commission of consultations in accordance with section 50(3) of that Act, hereby makes the following Regulations:

1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 and shall come into force on 1st January 1993.

(i)display screen equipment (whether provided with software determining the interface between the equipment and its operator or user, a keyboard or any other input device),

(iii)any disk drive, telephone, modem, printer, document holder, work chair, work desk, work surface or other item peripheral to the display screen equipment, and

meets the requirements laid down in the Schedule to these Regulations to the extent specified in paragraph 1 thereof not later than 31st December 1996.

4.  Every employer shall so plan the activities of users at work in his undertaking that their daily work on display screen equipment is periodically interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as reduce their workload at that equipment.

(b)is an employee who does not habitually use display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work but is to become a user in the undertaking in which he is already employed,

his employer shall ensure that he is provided at his request with an appropriate eye and eyesight test, any such test to be carried out by a competent person.

(a)in any case to which sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph applies, be carried out as soon as practicable after being requested by the user concerned; and

(3) At regular intervals after an employee has been provided with an eye and eyesight test in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), his employer shall, subject to paragraph (6), ensure that he is provided with a further eye and eyesight test of an appropriate nature, any such test to be carried out by a competent person.

(4) Where a user experiences visual difficulties which may reasonably be considered to be caused by work on display screen equipment, his employer shall ensure that he is provided at his request with an appropriate eye and eyesight test, any such test to be carried out by a competent person as soon as practicable after being requested as aforesaid.

(5) Every employer shall ensure that each user employed by him is provided with special corrective appliances appropriate for the work being done by the user concerned where–

(b)is an employee who does not habitually use display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work but is to become a user in the undertaking in which he is already employed,

his employer shall ensure that he is provided with adequate health and safety training in the use of any workstation upon which he may be required to work.

(2) Every employer shall ensure that each user at work in his undertaking is provided with adequate health and safety training whenever the organisation of any workstation in that undertaking upon which he may be required to work is substantially modified.

(2) Every employer shall ensure that users at work in his undertaking are provided with adequate information about such measures taken by him in compliance with his duties under regulations 4 and 6(2) as relate to them and their work.

(3) Every employer shall ensure that users employed by him are provided with adequate information about such measures taken by him in compliance with his duties under regulations 5 and 6(1) as relate to them and their work.

8.—(1) The Secretary of State for Defence may, in the interests of national security, exempt any of the home forces, any visiting force or any headquarters from any of the requirements imposed by these Regulations.

(2) Any exemption such as is specified in paragraph (1) may be granted subject to conditions and to a limit of time and may be revoked by the Secretary of State for Defence by a further certificate in writing at any time.

(b)“headquarters” has the same meaning as in article 3(2) of the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1965(3); and

9.  These Regulations shall, subject to regulation 1(4), apply to and in relation to the premises and activities outside Great Britain to which sections 1 to 59 and 80 to 82 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 apply by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application Outside Great Britain) Order 1989(4) as they apply within Great Britain.

THE SCHEDULE(WHICH SETS OUT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WORKSTATIONS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE ANNEX TO COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 90/270/EEC ON THE MINIMUM SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS FOR WORK WITH DISPLAY SCREEN EQUIPMENT(5))

The characters on the screen shall be well-defined and clearly formed, of adequate size and with adequate spacing between the characters and lines.The image on the screen should be stable, with no flickering or other forms of instability.

The brightness and the contrast between the characters and the background shall be easily adjustable by the operator or user, and also be easily adjustable to ambient conditions.

The keyboard shall be tiltable and separate from the screen so as to allow the operator or user to find a comfortable working position avoiding fatigue in the arms or hands.The space in front of the keyboard shall be sufficient to provide support for the hands and arms of the operator or user.

The work desk or work surface shall have a sufficiently large, low-reflectance surface and allow a flexible arrangement of the screen, keyboard, documents and related equipment.The document holder shall be stable and adjustable and shall be positioned so as to minimise the need for uncomfortable head and eye movements.

The work chair shall be stable and allow the operator or user easy freedom of movement and a comfortable position.The seat shall be adjustable in height.

Any room lighting or task lighting provided shall ensure satisfactory lighting conditions and an appropriate contrast between the screen and the background environment, taking into account the type of work and the vision requirements of the operator or user.Possible disturbing glare and reflections on the screen or other equipment shall be prevented by co-ordinating workplace and workstation layout with the positioning and technical characteristics of the artificial light sources.

Workstations shall be so designed that sources of light, such as windows and other openings, transparent or translucid walls, and brightly coloured fixtures or walls cause no direct glare and no distracting reflections on the screen.Windows shall be fitted with a suitable system of adjustable covering to attenuate the daylight that falls on the workstation.

Noise emitted by equipment belonging to any workstation shall be taken into account when a workstation is being equipped, with a view in particular to ensuring that attention is not distracted and speech is not disturbed.

All radiation with the exception of the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum shall be reduced to negligible levels from the point of view of the protection of operators" or users" health and safety.

In designing, selecting, commissioning and modifying software, and in designing tasks using display screen equipment, the employer shall take into account the following principles:

(b)software must be easy to use and, where appropriate, adaptable to the level of knowledge or experience of the operator or user; no quantitative or qualitative checking facility may be used without the knowledge of the operators or users;

1.  Subject to the exception specified in paragraph 2 below, these Regulations give effect as respects Great Britain to the substantive provisions of Council Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (OJ No. L156, 21.6.90, p.14)

(d)in the circumstances specified in paragraph (2) of that regulation, to review (and where necessary change) any assessment such as is referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above.

meets the requirements laid down in the Schedule to these Regulations. In the case of workstations first put into service on or before 31st December 1992, the employer has until 31st December 1996 to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned requirements.

6.  Regulation 4 requires each employer to plan the activities of users at work in his undertaking in such a way that their daily work on display screen equipment is periodically interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as reduce their workload at that equipment.

(c)with additional eye and eyesight tests on request, where the users concerned are experiencing visual difficulties which might reasonably be considered to be caused by work on display screen equipment; and

(d)with appropriate special corrective appliances, where normal corrective appliances cannot be used and any eye and eyesight tests carried out on the users concerned in accordance with regulation 5 show such provision to be necessary.

9.  Regulation 7 requires each employer to ensure that operators and users at work in his undertaking are provided with adequate health and safety information, both about their workstations and about such measurements taken by him to comply with regulations 2 to 6 of these Regulations as relate to them and their work.

10.  Regulation 8 enables the Secretary of State for Defence to grant certificates of exemption from these Regulations in the interests of national security.

DSE (Display Screen Equipment) are devices or equipment that have an alphanumeric or graphic display screen and includes display screens, laptops, touch screens and other similar devices. Simply put they are almost everything we use and need to send and receive information in the modern world.

The HSE states that a very high proportion of workers using display screen equipment report aches and pains and eye discomfort. These afflictions can cause misery for the sufferers and can be responsible for lower productivity and high rates of absence. The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 aims to protect the health of people who work with DSE.

In April 2020, 46.6% of people in employment did some work at home. Of those who did some work from home, 86.0% did so as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. With many companies now having a large proportion of their workforce working from home, employees are having to adapt quickly to this change, raising potential issues of compliance with the DSE regulations. Appropriate DSE training has never been so important for people in employment.

Incorrect use of DSE or faultily designed workstations or work environments can result in a pain in the neck, shoulders, back, arms, wrists and hands, as well as fatigue and eye straining. The causes may not always be apparent. Actions to reduce risks include the right desk set up with appropriate seating, appropriate screen size and position, reducing glare from windows, and the provision of auxiliary aids such as document holders and foot stools.

Training and education can be provided in face to face sessions or more typically these days as part of a combined assessment and training online module. Advice on good posture; adjusting chairs and desks, for example; arranging desk space; screen adjustment and lighting; breaks and changes of activity should be included together with information on reporting problems.

Splitting up long periods of DSE work helps prevent tiredness, eye strain, arm problems and backache. As an employer you must plan, so users can break up prolonged use of DSE with changes to their activity. Organised or prearranged rest breaks may sometimes be a solution.

Timing and length of changes in activity or breaks for DSE use is not set down in law and arrangements will vary depending on a particular situation but five to ten mins every hour is a good rule of thumb. Employers are not responsible for providing breaks for the self-employed.

These controls stated above will also reduce the DSE risks associated with laptops. Although, the following may also help reduce manual handling, fatigue and postural problems:

Some of the things you’ll learn with Shout Out Safety are quite straightforward; sitting at your desk correctly, resting your eyes and making sure you position your monitor so you’re not under any strain. There’s plenty of advice on other good habits that you’ll need to consider too.

It also gives advice on how to avoid the health risks associated with screenbased work, which can include musculoskeletal disorders, visual fatigue and

10 The DSE Regulations are for the protection of people - employees and selfemployed - who habitually use DSE for the purposes of an employer’s undertaking

Maybe means either this applies to the job on some days but not others, or that it applies to some such jobs but not others. In either case, there may be a need for further thought or investigation to reach a decision.

(such as BS EN ISO 9241, Part 3)9 specify that screens should appear flickerfree to 90% of users; screens that do this can be regarded as satisfying the

and for anyone who finds difficulty in refocusing. Where a holder is used by touchtypists it should: position working documents at a height, visual plane and viewing

software design is an important element of task design. For many tasks, off-theshelf software packages are available and such packages may be entirely adequate

If you’ve employees who regularly use computers as part of their job, you’re obliged to comply with the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, to protect your employees from any associated risks.

There are a number of associated Health & Safety risks when working with computers. Some of the most common symptoms employees may experience if using their computer improperly are:

Remember, symptoms aren’t always the result of the employee using their computer improperly, they could be down to poorly designed workstations or work environments.

You’re also responsible for ensuring all employees working with computers are provided with sufficient information, instruction and health and safety training, alongside the provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) where required. This will enable employees to identify risks themselves, and implement their own safe working practices.

You should review your Display Screen Equipment assessments each time an employee’s workstation or work environment changes, when an employee raises a concern or when the nature of the job changes significantly.

For help with any element of Health & Safety support requirements when working with computers, such as risk assessment support get in touch with one of our experts today.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Directives 89/391 (Framework), 89/654 (Workplaces), 89/655 (Work Equipment), 89/656 (Personal Protective Equipment), 90/269 (Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 (Display Screen Equipment)

Prevention is the guiding principle for occupational health and safety legislation in the European Union. In order to avoid accidents from happening and occupational diseases to occur, EU wide minimum requirements for health and safety protection at the workplace have been adopted.

This report examines how the Framework directive of 1989 and five of its individual directives have been transposed and are applied within the Member States. It also draws conclusions from the application - and in some domains rather the lack of proper application - for Europe"s health and safety legislation and its impact on the economy and society.

The 1989 directive lays down the principles for the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers and provides a framework for specific workplace environments, developed in individual directives. The goal of instilling a culture of prevention rests on the double foundation that the minimum requirements provide a level playing field for businesses operating within the large European domestic market and provide a high degree of protection to workers, avoiding pain and suffering and minimising the income foregone for enterprises as a result of preventing occupational accidents and diseases.

The EU legislation reportedly has had a positive influence on the national standards for occupational health and safety. At the same time, the health and safety measures at the workplace are reported to have widely contributed towards improved working conditions, boosting productivity, competitiveness and employment.

The statistical evidence as well as the national reporting on achievements point to an important improvement in terms of health and safety protection. They show that the implementation and application of the EU legislation played a crucial role in bringing down the figures. The data are convincing: a real structural change has been fostered.

Preliminary estimations based on Eurostat data for 2000 highlight that the number of accidents per 100,000 workers, resulting in more than three days" absence from work, fell from 4,539 in 1994 to about 4,016 in 2000. The decline of this headline indicator clearly points to an improvement in bringing down accidents, even taking into account a shift in the economic structure and the typology of jobs as well as considering new risks.

However, in absolute numbers, every year nearly 5 200 workers lose their life as a result of a work related accident. In total, there are still about 4.8 million accidents per year. This means also that about two thirds of the accidents lead to an absence of more than 3 days at work. Almost 14% of workers suffered more than one accident in a year. Annually about 158 million days" work are lost.

The high risk areas largely coincide with the sectors and types of jobs on which the report underlines major shortfalls in proper application, showing the case of a consolidation of compliance with the health and safety acquis to further bring down the number of accidents.

Sticking out are Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. Also the public sector shows significant shortcomings. High-risk workers are also found amongst the young, the ones on temporary contracts and those with low qualifications. This evidence clearly underlines the scope and importance of the priority attached to quality in work as a policy vehicle for implementing the EU"s social policy agenda.

The fact that about 7% of those who are involved in an accident cannot return to the same job and that about 4% must reduce their working hours or cannot work any longer, is a major setback for working towards the Lisbon full employment goal. It is also evidence for the fact that "more and better" jobs are two sides of the same coin. Every year, nearly 300,000 workers will get various degrees of permanent disabilities, resulting from a workplace related accident or disease.

It is estimated that the total costs to the economy amounts to between 2.6% and 3.8% of GNP. All these data are testimony of the high economic costs of not having appropriate social policy in place. The still high levels of accidents and diseases, backed up by a wide range of gaps as documented in detail in this report, underline the need for reinforced attention to the sectors and workers concerned to bring about the necessary changes.

To clarify and solve misunderstandings and to correct any defective situation that may occur in the application of the legislation is an urgent task. Labour inspectorates have a crucial role to play here: using labour inspectors as agents of change to promote better compliance in SME"s, first through education, persuasion and encouragement and through increase of enforcement, where necessary.

A high level of protection of the safety and health of workers which is the overriding objective of the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual directives, can only be achieved if all actors concerned, employers, workers, workers" representatives, national enforcement authorities, make the efforts necessary for an effective and correct application and engage in a co-operative interaction. The Communication from the Commission - Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006 [1] contains clear indications in this regard.

The reinforced commitment to address the miscellaneous flaws identified in this report will bring about the changes that will improve the implementation and application levels of the Health and Safety Directives and make the health and safety protection a tangible reality for all workers, contributing in this way to the improvement of productivity and quality of work.

This action will be at the heart of the top priority given to the consolidation of the acquis, as outlined in the Mid-term review of the social policy agenda [2] for the coming years.

This report is the response by the Commission to the request laid down in the final provisions of Directives 89/391, 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 [3] that "the Commission shall submit periodically to the European Parliament (EP), the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the implementation of this Directive".

[3] Article 18 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work; article 10 of Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), Article 10 of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), Article 10 of Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace (third individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), Article 9 of Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and Article 11 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).

A major input to this Communication are the national reports [4] provided by the Member States in accordance with the directives which state that "Member States shall report to the Commission every five years (every four years for Directives 90/269 and 90/270) on the practical implementation of the provisions of this Directive, indicating the points of view of employers and workers". It also builds on an independent experts" report, analysing the implementation of the directives in all sectors, including the public sector. Finally, the report reflects the experiences gained by the Commission in its work of monitoring the transposition of the Directives into national laws and their application across the economy.

[4] The national reports were based on a commonly agreed outline. The level of participation of the social partners in the establishment of the reports varies considerably from one Member State to the other according to the national practices. All the Member States transmitted their reports concerning the Framework Directive 89/391. For the five first individual directives France and Ireland have not submitted all the reports. The national reports have been transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament.

The analysis concerns the transposition and application of the framework directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work as well as of the first five individual directives, addressing particular workplace environments or risks. The individual directives concern in particular:

The report looks first at the scope of the legal impact of the framework directive and the individual directives in the Member States. Then it addresses the control executed on the transposition of the legislation, highlighting the delays caused at the moment of transposition and the impact of the conformity control on the quality of the national legislation.

A large section is devoted to the implementation across the economy. On an area by area basis, a detailed state of play will be given on the core characteristics of this legislation. Particular attention will be given to the situation in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises and in the public sector.

By way of conclusion, an overview is given of what the Member States suggested themselves in their national reports to improve the correct application. The report finally addresses next steps for facilitating full and correct application throughout an enlarged European Union.

Prior to the adoption of the Framework Directive and its five first individual directives, the protection of the health and safety of workers at work within the areas covered varied widely across Member States. Directive 89/391 has changed the practical approach of the protection of the safety and health of workers in Member States as it laid down an integrated preventive approach to health and safety at work, requiring a continuous improvement of the health and safety conditions. The responsibility of the employer, the prevention principles established and the workers" information, training, consultation and balanced participation are the cornerstones on which the new approach to health and safety at work protection is based. The basic principles for occupational health and safety at the workplace established by the Framework Directive were subsequently defined and supplemented in the individual directives. As a result, minimum requirements should be guaranteed throughout Europe, while the Member States are allowed to maintain or establish higher levels of protection [5].

[5] See in this sense the decision of the Court of Justice of 12 November 1996, United Kingdom v. Council, case C-84/94, point 17 "In conferring on the Council power to lay down minimum requirements, Article 118a does not prejudge the extent of the action which that institution may consider necessary in order to carry out the task which the provision in question expressly assigns to it namely, to work in favour of improved conditions, as regards the health and safety of workers, while maintaining the improvements made. The significance of the expression "minimum requirements" in Article 118a is simply, as indeed Article 118a(3) confirms, that the provision authorises Member States to adopt more stringent measures than those which form the subject-matter of Community action (see, in particular, Opinion 2/91, paragraph 18)".

The levels of repercussion into the national legal systems of the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual directives fall into three categories.

* In certain countries [6] the Framework Directive had considerable legal consequences due to the fact that they had antiquated or inadequate legislation on the subject when the Directive was adopted.

Finally, in the opinion of a few Member States [8], transposition did not require major adjustments since they had already rules in place which were in line with the directives concerned. Member States which benefited most from the legislation to modernise their health and safety rules emphasise the following innovative aspects of the Framework directive: the large scope of application including the public sector, the principle of the objective responsibility of the employer, the requirement that a risk assessment shall be drawn up and documented, the obligation to establish a prevention plan based in the results of the risk assessment, the recourse to prevention and protective services and the workers" rights to information, consultation, participation and training.

* Directive 89/654: the description of the term "workplace", which includes any modifications, extensions or conversions as well as the introduction of specific requirements for emergency doors, availability of sufficient area space, ambient conditions, rest areas and for the protection of pregnant workers.

* Directive 89/655: had a large unifying effect of the national legislation regarding work equipment. In general, it has not introduced large innovations, but it has contributed to a rationalisation and generalisation of the existing national regulations. The majority of the Member States indicated that the transposition of the minimum requirements regarding the work equipment enlarged the scope of application of the national legislation to all sectors of activity. This legal impact was greater in some countries, as for example in Greece where the new Directive meant a large positive step, while in other countries [9] the impact in their legislation was less pronounced.

* Directive 89/656: the incorporation of certain obligations upon the employer such as the assessment, selection, supply and maintenance of personal protective equipment for workers. The extension of the employer"s responsibility regarding this point as well as his obligation to assess hazards when selecting personal protective equipment, are other important issues. In general, the transposition of the directive enlarged the scope of application of the existing national legislation [10].

* Directive 90/269: unified existing legislation by simplifying and completing existing regulations on injuries resulting from handling of loads. In the majority of Member States the scope was extended to all sectors of activity and the obligation to determine and assess the risks associated with manual handling of loads is recognised as being an innovation. Some countries underlined the importance of the principle of avoiding the manual handling of loads and the obligation of the employer to reduce the risks by the use of appropriate organisational or technical measures.

* Directive 90/270: the introduction of provisions dealing with work with display screens and the consideration of ergonomic aspects. Member States also indicate that breaks or changes in the activity of workers using display screens and the right to eyesight checks and, where necessary, the provision of correction devices, as major innovations introduced in national law by the directive. The requirements on emissions, equipment, the working environment and the man/computer interface also contributed to modernise national legislation.

It results from the national reports and the analysis performed by the Commission that Framework Directive 89/391 and Directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 have been the driving force for instilling a culture of prevention throughout the EU as well as for rationalising and simplifying the national legislative corpus on health and safety at work. Evidently, this impact has been greater in those Member States who had either less developed legislation in the field or legislation based on corrective principles rather that on a preventive approach to fight the occupational risks.

The shift of paradigm imposed by the EU health and safety legislation - which mean to move away from a technology-driven approach for accident prevention and towards a policy of occupational safety and health that would be much more focused on the persons behaviour and organisational structures - is recognised as having represented the major impact in the Member States national systems. In transposing it, Member States had to change from prescriptive detailed legislation to objective-driven law. This subsequently had repercussions in its interpretation by courts and in its enforcement.

This chapter addresses the control of the transposition of the directives into national law. It looks in particular at the lengthy process which was needed to transpose the directives. It also details the effective commitments by the Member States, despite the deficiencies which occurred throughout the European Union as revealed in the conformity analysis.

The transposition of the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 into the national legislative framework of Member States was a lengthy process. The transposition delays have had a considerable impact on the levels of the practical implementation at workplace level.

Despite the fact that all the directives had been the object of prior in-depth consultations of social partners at the European and national level and the fact that they all have been adopted with unanimous agreement in the Council, the majority of Member States failed to meet the commitments taken as regards the delays for transposition. Finland, Austria and Sweden carried out the necessary changes partly in advance of membership and partly shortly after joining the European Union [11].

[11] See in Annex a list of the national provisions communicated by Member States concerning the Framework Directive 89/391 and its five first individual Directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270.

As early as in 1993, infringement proceedings were launched by the Commission against those Members States that had not communicated in due time their national legislation transposing the directives. Due to the opening of these infringements proceedings, Member States accelerated their legislative efforts and adopted the necessary legislative measures to transpose the directives before reaching the final steps of the infringement proceedings. In one case - Spain - the infringement proceedings launched on the basis of the failure to communicate the national measures transposing directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270 resulted in a ruling of the Court of Justice [12].

Following transposition into national law, the Commission carried out a conformity control of the national legislation. Rather than launching immediately infringement proceedings, the Commission undertook discussions with national authorities to clarify and solve misunderstandings and to correct the defective situation. The individual complaints submitted to the Commission were of great value in detecting the weak spots.

Although the conformity analysis underlined effective commitment, it also revealed deficiencies in virtually all Member States with regards to the transposition of the Framework Directive 89/391 into national legislation.

The Commission opened infringement proceedings on non-conformity against all Member States as regards Framework Directive 89/391, with the exception of Greece (nevertheless an infringement proceeding has been open regarding the defective application and enforcement of the Greek legislation transposing Directive 89/391). After the sending of letters of formal notices and reasoned opinions, eleven Member States - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, The Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom - modified their legislation in order to remedy the identified deficiencies. However, as not all of the deficiencies pointed out by the Commission were recognised by the Member States, the Commission referred several cases to the Court of Justice [13].

[13] Commission v. Germany, case C-5/00; Commission v. Italy, case C-49/00; Commission v. Portugal, case C-425/01; Commission v. The Netherlands, case C-441/01; Commission v. Luxembourg, case C-335/02. It should be noted that there are still infringements proceedings running against certain Member States (Austria, France, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom).

* The scope of application (article 2): this was limited by several Member States in the national legislation. It should be noted, in this regard, that by a judgement of 3 October 2000 in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, the Court of justice examined the scope of the Framework Directive 89/391 indicating that "...it is clear both from the object of the basic Directive, namely to encourage improvement in the safety and health of workers at work, and from the wording of Article 2(1) thereof, that it must necessarily be broad in scope"; and that "It follows that the exceptions to the scope of the basic Directive, including that provided for in Article 2(2), must be interpreted restrictively." [14].

[14] See in the same sense the opinion of the Advocate General of 6 May 2003 in joint cases C-397/01-C-403/01, Bernhard Pfeiffer e.a. v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Kreisverband Waldshut eV., point 22.

* The extent of the obligation to evaluate the risks to the safety and health of workers (article 6(3)a)): this raised a conformity problem in the Italian transposition (the Italian legislation only required employers to evaluate specific risks) clarified by the Court of justice in its judgement of 15 November 2001 [15]. In particular in point 12, the Court states that "It must be noted, at the outset, that it follows both from the purpose of the directive, which, according to the 15th recital, applies to all risks, and from the wording of Article 6(3)(a) thereof, that employers are obliged to evaluate all risks to the safety and health of workers." Point 13 of this judgement is of particular importance: "It should also be noted that the occupational risks which are to be evaluated by employers are not fixed once and for all, but are continually changing in relation, particularly, to the progressive development of working conditions and scientific research concerning such risks.".

- The priority to be given to the internal services had been disputed by several countries. Most Member States corrected their national provisions but in one case the Commission referred the matter to the Court of justice, which ruled on 22 May 2003 [16] that "(...) by not reflecting, in its national legislation the subsidiary nature of the enlistment by undertakings of external competent services to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational risks within those undertakings, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Council Directive 89/391"

- This article also raised serious problems of conformity as regards the French transposition and the fact that France pleaded that the "médecine du travail" would correctly transpose this provision. The Commission did not accept this point of view and, after the opening of an infringement proceeding, France adopted national legislation with a view to integrate a multidisciplinary approach in its transposition of Article 7 [17].

- Another deficiency was linked to the employer"s obligation to enlist competent external services or persons if the protective and preventive measures cannot be organised internally for lack of competent personnel in the undertaking and/or establishment (Article 7(3)). The Court declared in the above mentioned judgement of 15 November 2001 [18] that "It is particularly important, in order to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, that individuals should have the benefit of a clear and precise legal situation enabling them to ascertain the full extent of their rights and duties and, where appropriate, to rely on them before the national courts" (point 22) and "In that regard, it must be noted that Article 7(1) and (3) of the directive require employers to arrange a service of prevention and protection from occupational risks within the undertaking or, if its internal capabilities are insufficient, to enlist external help." (point 23).

- Finally, several Member States have deficiently transposed Article 7 paragraph 8 first subparagraph "Member States shall define the necessary capabilities and aptitudes referred to in paragraph 5" (capabilities and aptitudes of the workers designated and external services or persons in charge of the protective and preventive measures). The Court of justice held in its judgement of 15 November 2000 [19] that "In order to implement that obligation, Member States must adopt laws or regulations which comply with the requirements of the directive and which are brought to the attention of the undertakings concerned by appropriate means, so as to enable them to be aware of their obligations in the matter and the competent national authorities to check that those measures are complied with." (point 36). This provision of Directive 89/391 was still subject of a judgement of the Court of 22 May 2003 [20].

* The transposition of the first aid, fire-fighting and evacuation provisions (article 8): in some cases the difficulties were particularly due to the fact that the responsibility for their implementation was split between different ministries (Ireland, United Kingdom, Finland).

* The obligation to document the risk assessment in all types of undertakings (article 9): The Court of justice considered in its judgement of 7 February 2002 [21] that " At the outset, it should be observed that Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive imposes a duty on the employer to be in possession of documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, documents to which workers and/or their representatives with specific responsibility for the safety and health of workers must have access under Article 10(3)(a) of the Directive." (point 24) and that " In that respect, it should be noted that a provision which, for certain types of undertaking, having regard inter alia to the number of workers employed by them, grants the competent Federal minister the power to exempt occupational physicians and occupational safety specialists the obligation to draw up reports on the assessment of working conditions seems to be clearly contrary to Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of the Directive, inasmuch as undertakings employing 10 or fewer workers may thereby be absolved of the obligation to keep a risk assessment in documentary form."(point 35).

* Workers" information (article 10): In some Member States the legislation limited originally this right to a certain threshold of workers or to a certain degree of information.

* Consultation, participation and training of workers (articles 11 and 12): In the majority of cases, Member States accepted the views of the Commission and corrected the deficiencies amending thus their legislation.

The situation for the conformity in the transposition of the five first individual Directives 89/654, 89/655, 89/656, 90/269 and 90/270, was from the early stage outspoken more positive in that Member States generally incorporated the minimum requirements ipsis verbis in their national legislation. In addition, most deficiencies detected in the transposition were solved without the need to launch infringement proceedings. However it is worth mentioning that in some cases the Commission had to seize the Court of justice [22].

[22] Commission v. Italy, Case 65/01, (transposition of directive 89/655), Commission v. Italy, case C-455/00 (directive 90/270);Commission v. Spain, case C-168/03 (directive C-89/655). It should be stated that there are still infringement proceedings running against certain Member States (Austria, Germany and Sweden).

The majority of the conformity deficiencies detected related to the workplaces directive 89/654, work equipment directive 89/655 and display screen equipment directive 90/270 and were related to the technical requirements of the annexes. As regards the display screen equipment directive 90/270, the provisions related to the interruption of the activity and to the health surveillance also raised difficulties in the transposition in some Member States.

The delays incurred in the transposition as well as the conformity problems, particularly for the Framework directive, have had a considerable impact on the levels of practical implementation as well as on the quality of implementation, since the supporting actions (information, training, technical assistance, etc.) necessary to create the required safety culture were delayed as well.

The analysis of the situation at the workplace level provides an ambiguous portrait with a strand where transposition and application of legislation is largely respected, yielding de facto benefits in terms of reducing health and safety risks and preventing accidents from happening and a strand where significant efforts are needed to meet the standards and to allow to reap in full the prevention benefits of the legislation.

This means that on the one hand, the main objectives of guaranteeing to the worker of the European Union minimum common standard levels of protection by harmonising the health and safety requirements and the reduction of the number of accidents at work and occupational diseases have been attained. On the other hand, the non uniform application of such standards in different sectors of activity and in different sizes of undertakings has precluded accidents and occupational diseases rates to decline further.

A conjunction of several factors has influenced the level of practical implementation at the workplace. Below the relevant characteristics will be documented, covering the following key elements: publicising and flanking of legislation; awareness raising; risk assessment, documentation and supervision; protective and preventive services; information, consultation, participation and training; organisation and management of health and safety at work; enforcement; SMEs; and the public sector.

As early as 1992, the Commission and Member States initiated a series of actions, notably the 1992 European Year on Health and Safety at Work and the subsequent European weeks on health and safety as well as campaigns at national level in view of the promotion and diffusion of the new health and safety legislation and providing advice for the implementation of the directives at workplace level. Since its creation in 1994 [23], the European Agency for Safety and Health and Work took over such information activities at the European level.

[23] Council Regulation EC 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, OJ L 216 of 20.8.1994, p. 1, as amended by Council Regulation EC 1643/95 of 29 June 1995, OJ L 156 of 7.7.1995, p. 1.

Since the adoption of the directives, Member States have undertaken extensive action plans intended to promote an active attitude towards prevention, to instil awareness of the concept of integrated prevention and develop practical guidelines to help employers and workers meet their obligations under the new legislation.

The Member States generally report that the measures adopted are sufficient and satisfactory, although several countries [24] stress the need for further information and advice activities in order to influence small businesses and the self-employed to embrace high standards of health and safety and to recognise their economic and social benefits.

Although the efforts at national and EU level have significantly contributed to a better understanding of the new legislation and made employers and workers more aware of their rights and obligations, the impact of these measures differs across the economic spectrum. For instance, the success in larger enterprises co-exists with the situation in many SMEs across the EU in which a qualitative step forward still has to be made to trigger the development of the sense of safety, the will to control the risks and the necessary participation of those involved in controlling the risks at the workplace.

Despite the big volume of information material available, the level of information of employers and workers, in particular in small- and medium-sized enterprises appears to be insufficient to reach all target groups. This can be illustrated by the following examples:

- Studies undertaken in the Netherlands indicate that the level of information of employers should be improved. Amongst the enterprises that had not fulfilled their obligation to carry out a risk assessment, 9 % said that they had not been familiar with this obligation and 8 % were not aware of an analysis of the working conditions and the evaluation of risks at the workplace. These enterprises are predominantly small- sized enterprises.

- The results of a survey carried out in Spain show that 68% of the enterprises report not to understand the obligations of the employers. 16% of the enterprises reported that the level of information on occupational safety and health was insufficient. 59% of the employers state not to be familiar with the obligation to develop and implement measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers. 18% of the employers claim only to have a very vague idea about such measures and 13% of the employers are informed about their obligation, but had not taken any action.

- In Sweden small-sized enterprises report difficulties in understanding the provisions. The information appears to reach out to health and safety specialists and associations instead of the main actors of prevention: employers and workers.

- In the United Kingdom an empirical investigation confirmed that employers of small-sized enterprises have difficulties in understanding the information material provided by the authorities responsible for the implementation of occupational safety and health.

The insufficient level of understanding is explained by the nature of the provisions - establishing an objective - without providing at national level the appropriate information to help employers establish the adequate prevention plans addressing the risks detected in the risk assessment. In particular employers of small-sized enterprises report that the development of such prevention plans is a very demanding task.

On the motivation of the employers, the only available empirical study as regards health and safety at work was carried out in the United Kingdom. It leads to the conclusion that complying with the legal regulations is the most important reason for the employer to take new measures (80% of the employers). However, the study allows to distinguish three basic patterns of behaviour:

1. A widely spread attitude amongst employers consists of complying with the legal requirements and to ensure that they pass inspections, but without hardly considering the benefits to be gained of improving occupational safety and health. The so called "legalistic behaviour" is thus aimed at containing the implementation costs as low as possible to meet the legal requirements.

2. A second category of employers is genuinely interested in the costs and benefits of occupational safety and health and considers them together with optimising production processes and integrated management systems and introduce them on the basis of what can be called "intrinsic motivation". However, this group is rather small. As a consequence, programmes based on "best practice examples" have only very limited reach.

3. A third group consists of enterprises that are dealing with occupational safety and health because it is connected to the requirements expressed by important customers, public tender conditions, and sanctions imposed by enforcement authorities, etc. In other words, there is an additional so called "external impetus" to commit to occupational health and safety standards.

One of the most important new developments of the European Union health and safety legislation was the introduction of risk assessment and the documentation of the results as a foundation for the establishment of a prevention programme of technical and/or organisational measures to combat the risks. These tasks also include the regular supervision of the efficiency of the measures taken and the continuous improvement of the situation according to the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391. The exercise must be dynamic with the prevention programmes continuously updated as long as the risk situations persist.

It is reported that the tasks of risk assessment, documentation and supervision is not universally spread, including in Member States with a tradition based on prevention. Below are some empirical results:

- In Denmark, a study from 1998 showed that almost half of the enterprises had not carried out any risk assessment. Among the enterprises with 5 to 19 workers, only 27% had conducted a study on the evaluation of risks. Among the enterprises with 20 to 49 workers the percentage was already 61% and in enterprises with 50 to 199 workers 67%. Among the large-sized enterprises with 200 and more workers, 95% had conducted studies on the conditions at the workplace.

- Studies in Germany indicate that between a quarter and a third of the enterprises has carried out systematic and comprehensive risk assessments. Given the size of these companies, this nevertheless covers 75% of all workplaces.

- In the Netherlands, 58% of the enterprises fulfil the newly introduced obligation to analyse the risks present at the workplace. In enterprises with more than 20 workers this figure amounts to more than 80% and in enterprises with more than 100 workers to 96%. The percentage for small-sized enterprises is lower. Amongst the smallest enterprises with 2 to 9 workers only 52% have fulfilled their obligations. The reasons for refusing to carry out risk assessments are as follows: 30% of the employers are of the opinion that this is not necessary, 21% so far have not yet found the time, 9% did not know about their obligation, 8% had never ever heard about this before and 7% expressed the view that it was too time-consuming and too expensive. For the Netherlands, data concerning the measures set in place on the basis of the risk assessment was also submitted. According to this information, approximately two thirds of the enterprises that had carried out risk assessments have started to work out the appropriate measures and also two thirds of the enterprises have already set in place concrete measures for occupational safety and health.

- In the United Kingdom, 30% of the enterprises that were familiar with the new provisions had analysed the conditions at the workplace even before the European provisions were implemented. Approximately half of the enterprises have conducted risk assessments for the first time after the implementation of the European Directives. In total, more than 80% of all the enterprises have carried out risk assessments. 22% of the enterprises do not have any documentation on the most important findings of these assessments. Amongst them, there are many of the smallest enterprises with less than 5 workers which were discharged from the documentation obligation. But also 3% of the large-sized enterprises and 24% of the enterprises with less than 50 workers do not fulfil their documentation obligation.

In relation to the quality of the risk assessments, the evaluations of the conditions at the workplace and its documentation as well as the supervision of the efficiency of measures taken are clearly geared to meeting the legal obligations.

The supervision within the enterprises of the efficiency of the measures taken shows a rather ambiguous situation. For instance, the results for Germany show that 84% of the enterprises with more than 250 workers supervise the effects of the measures taken for occupational safety and health. However, this is true for less than 30% of the enterprises with under 10 workers.

- In the course of superficial, schematic procedures the focus is being put on obvious risks. Long-term effects (e.g. mental factors) as well as risks that are not easily observed, are being neglected, as for example the ones caused by chemical substances.

- Risks are not being analysed and evaluated globally. As a consequence, separate measures are being set in place, but there is no integrative approach for the analysis of the conditions at the workplace.

Framework Directive 89/391 foresees that each employer shall designate one or more workers to carry out activities related to the protection and prevention of occupational risks for the undertaking and/or establishment and that, if such protective and preventive measures cannot be organised for lack of competent personnel, the employer shall enlist competent external services or persons. In other words, either workers of the undertaking with the necessary aptitudes make the risk assessments and establish the preventive measures or external services are to be used.

The intention of the legislator, in establishing the rule of the priority of the use of an internal preventive service over the use of an external preventive service [25], was to ensure that enterprises already having internal protective and preventive services keep them while giving the possibility to those that do not have such services to have access to protective and preventive services of quality.

The degree of the provision of protective and preventive services constitutes an important indicator for the evaluation of the practical implementation. This refers to the scope, the reach and the quality of the preventive services.

The Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work adopted an opinion on multidisciplinary protective and preventive services and health surveillance at work on 15 May 2001 [26] stating that Member States must ensure quality control, while employers, who are responsible for implementing the safety measures, must have the capacity to involve workers and enlist qualified competent assistance to perform these tasks.

Although there are still significant deficits in ensuring a broad coverage of the protective and preventive services (safety engineering, health aspects at the workplace, psychological aspects at work) considerable improvements have been made in setting-up external preventive services.

- Denmark: The Danish Occupational Health Service has conducted an evaluation that reveals that only 12% of companies with less than 10 workers used an occupational Health Service in 1994 (Danish Working Environment Service, 1995). In a study carried-out in 1999, 38% of small-sized enterprises did not make use of preventive services at all and another 21% used these services less than once a year. [27]

- Germany: In approximately half of the German SMEs with less than 20 workers there is no safety engineer and/or occupational health expert. These SMEs account for 90% of all German enterprises. Roughly 20% to 25% of the workers in the private sector work in these enterprises.

- For Greece, experts indicate that the prevention services to enterprises with more than 150 workers are considered satisfactory. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (with up to 150 workers) have no access to preventive services.

- Finland: The overwhelming majority of workers are covered by preventive services. Only 8 % of the workers are not provided with any medical care at the workplace. There are considerable deficits in particular amongst enterprises with less than 10 workers where no services are provided in roughly 44% of them.

- Until recently France claimed that the existing occupational medicine which was created in 1946, fulfilled the requirements of Article 7 of the Framework Directive. Therefore only occupational health services for workers have been considered here, which is formally guaranteed for approximately 85% of the workforce.

- In Luxembourg almost all the large-sized enterprises provide protective and preventive services to their workers. On the other hand, experts estimate that approximately half of the enterprises with 50 to less than 250 workers and the majority of the small-sized enterprises with less than 50 workers do not make use of preventive services to the extent stipulated by law. As a consequence of this, approximately 100,000 out of the total of 190,000 workers are reported not to be sufficiently covered with protective and preventive services.

- In the Netherlands 97% of the enterprises have signed the prescribed contract for the provision of services with a certified external company providing occupational safety and heal