Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Health and safety in the workplace - Application of Community measures and new risks'
23. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/33 failure to study and think out properly the basis for the Council Decision of December 1998 — which does not as such justify adoption of a new committee procedure. That would also set a precedent in other spheres and further complication of the committee procedures should be avoided. Future restrictions on further transitional arrangements, especially where repeated and relating to the accession of new member countries, is another issue. Brussels, 8 December 1999. 3. Special comments 3. 1. The title of Directive 64/432/EEC and its Danish translation should be revised at an appropriate juncture and, for instance, aligned with the English version, which refers to animal health, as opposed to veterinary policy, problems. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Health and safety in the workplace — Application of Community measures and new risks’ (2000/C 51/11) On 29 April 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Health and safety in the workplace — Application of Community measures and new risks’. The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Beirnaert. At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 8 December) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes to one, with one abstention. 1. Introduction The important issue of health and safety in the 1. 1. workplace has recently been the subject of a number of European-level initiatives, all of which provide food for thought: — the European Parliament debates on the report compiled by the Advisory Committee for Health, Hygiene and Safety at Work, and the Commission’s mid-term report on the Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000). These were included in the report submitted by Ms Ojala on 1 February 1999 (1); — the recent study by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, known as the Bilbao Agency, on the Economic impact of occupational safety and health in the Member States of the European Union; — the conference organised by the Commission and the Bilbao Agency on the Changing World of Work (19-21 October 1998) and the conference organised by the Finnish presidency and the Agency on Safety, Health and Employability (27-29 September 1999); (1) EP 228. 815/final. — the conference on Occupational Health and Safety Manage- ment Systems, held in Dortmund on 18-19 March 1999. C 51/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 2. 2000 1. 2. Three key questions emerge from the above: 2. What is the role of the EU in the field of health and safety? — how can we make European health and safety legislation more effective? — how can we strengthen the link between employability and health and safety? — how can we deal with new health and safety risks? 1. 3. The Economic and Social Committee intends to con- tribute to what it considers to be a particularly important debate. The Committee has always given priority to health and safety issues, and feels these should also be a major concern for employers and workers. The following are some of the Committee’s key opinions in this area: — Opinion of 22 November 1995 on the Commission Communication on a Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000) (1); — Opinion of 30 June 1993 on health/safety at the workplace — training (2); As the Committee 2. 1. stressed in its opinion of 22 November 1995, the Commission must have a balanced policy combining legislative and non-legislative measures, of a binding and voluntary nature. The legislative role is still important, and can be 2. 2. justified on the grounds that it affords social protection for the employee and economic protection for the employer against unfair competitive practice. There is a considerable body of legislation in the field of occupational health and safety. As the Commission emphasises in its mid-term report of 3 September 1998(5), there is a need to assess ‘whether the legislation is really effective in creating and maintaining the right health and safety conditions, or if it needs improvement. The Commission will continue its policy of reviewing the existing Directives with a view to ensuring modernisation and rationalisation wherever required. ’ (6) The Committee endorses this approach as the Commission’s remit includes the duty to assess and monitor the way legislation is implemented and suggest improvements. — Opinion of 3 July 1991 an Action Programme for the European Year of Safety (3); 2. 3. The Committee believes that the EU’s non-legislative role should be better promoted and highlighted, without prejudice to its legislative role, as pointed out in 2. 1 above. — Opinion of 27 September 1984 on Occupational Medi- cine (4). 1. 4. This opinion will address the key issues mentioned above (c. f. point 1. 2). However, before doing so, we must ask: what is the EU’s role in the field of health and safety? The chosen approach is decidedly forward-looking. The Com- mittee has opted for a general policy approach, whilst stressing that it must be underpinned by scientific and technical research. In this respect, the Committee would emphasise the important contribution of bodies such as the Bilbao Agency. The key role played by the Tripartite Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work should also be highlighted, for the excellent opportunity it affords for discussion, including with the social partners. In order to exploit this potential to the full, the Advisory Committee intends to improve its operational procedure. This also raises the problem of funding. The EU does indeed have a role to play in providing information and awareness campaigns, reference material, training and benchmarking. 2. 3. 1. The Commission has taken a decisive step in this direction with the establishment of the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work, known as the Bilbao Agency, and the proposal for a broad programme of non-legislative measures to improve health and safety at work (SAFE). The Committee fully endorses this line, but particularly regrets the fact that this important programme has still not been adopted. It is an appropriate instrument for promoting a culture of health and safety as an important factor in good management. The programme rightly focuses on SMEs and micro-businesses. (1) OJ C 39, 12. 2. 1996. (2) OJ C 249, 13. 9. 1993. (3) OJ C 268, 14. 10. 1991. (4) OJ C 307, 19. 11. 1984. (5) COM(1998) 511 final. (6) COM(1998) 511 final, pp. 5-6. 23. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/35 information and 2. 3. 1. 1. The Committee believes that awareness campaigns, reference material, training, bench- marking and, not least, research should be developed system- atically, particularly as regards: This is already the case with DG III initiatives on the placing on the market of safe machinery, working equipment and personal protective equipment. In order to achieve the declared objective, mutually enhancing parallel initiatives must be implemented in unison. — occupational health and safety training from primary school level upwards; this particularly important point was addressed in the Committee’s opinion of 30 June 1993 on health/safety at the workplace — training (1); — training for the teachers concerned (1); — vocational and academic training for future employers and employees; — mobility, journeys between home and workplace; The Commission’s mid-term report rightly stresses the fact that other Community policies such as transport and the environment also contribute to improved health and safety in the workplace. The Committee fully endorses the Com- mission’s declared intention to look into the impact these policies have on health and safety. — public health, and the use of toxic and cancerogenous substances in particular; 3. How can legislation be made more effective? — environmental measures, risk impact; — specific features of SMEs and micro-businesses; — the link between occupational health and safety and the division of labour between men and women; — specific aspects of temping, outsourcing, home-working and tele-working; — promoting quality employment, with due regard for health and safety in the workplace; — health and safety for the self-employed. Without adopting an excessively regulatory approach to the above issues, the EU should look into the best way of addressing these concerns and objectives. This will be dealt with in points 4 and 5 below. The Committee believes the Bilbao Agency will be a useful instrument in this respect. 2. 3. 2. For reasons of efficiency and cohesion, these actions will require, from the very outset, as broad a framework as possible. This means mainstreaming better health and safety provision for workers into all aspects of European policies, and into the initiatives of other competent Commission bodies. (1) ESC opinion, 30. 6. 1993, OJ C 249, 13. 9. 1993. 3. 1. Legislation has a twofold objective: on the one hand, a social one, in that the aim is to protect the health and safety of workers in the workplace; and an economic one on the other, as it ensures that the machines and products which circulate freely within the EU comply with safety and hygiene regu- lations. Article 118a of the Single Act — which provides the legal basis for most social directives in this area — aims to combine harmonisation with progress. To this end, the directives lay down ‘minimum requirements to be introduced gradually, taking account of the specific situation and technical regu- lations in each Member State’. The Committee believes that agreed minimum safety levels should not be allowed to differ between the Member States or according to the size of the firm. Harmonisation is not, however, necessarily best 3. 1. 1. achieved through detailed, legislation. The Com- mission’s mid-term report emphasises the need to be able to assess whether a specific piece of legislation does actually help to create and maintain the right climate for health and safety. formal The effectiveness question raises the issue of enforcement. In this respect, the Committee would refer to the opinion adopted on 15 November 1998 by the Tripartite Advisory Committee on the social and economic assessment of proposed legislation. The opinion rightly emphasises the fact that socio-economic analysis can play an important role in providing quality legislation, by keeping politicians informed of the costs firms the social advantages. The usually have to bear, and of Tripartite Advisory Committee believes that an analysis of this kind should take place in two stages. The first stage should C 51/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 2. 2000 involve examining the aims, expected health and safety gains, investment and administrative costs for firms, and providing information on the unintended impact on the risks involved. The second analysis would be carried out if the first one revealed that firms would have to bear considerable costs, or that the benefits needed further research. 3. 2. 2. In addition to the traditional directives which lay down both the objectives and the protection arrangements (some areas will in fact still require a more thorough approach), the Committee calls for directives to set clear Europe-wide objectives, but which leave the implementation arrangements up to the Member States, subject to assessment and monitoring guarantees. Responsibility could be shared as follows: 3. 1. 2. The effectiveness conundrum will be dealt with from two standpoints. Firstly, how can Community and national legislation best be dovetailed? This implies looking at the roles of the European level and national level. Secondly, how can legislation accommodate the needs of SMEs and micro- businesses? At European level: — more focused objectives; — definition of the arrangements for monitoring and assessing the success of the objective; How can we dovetail Community and national regu- 3. 2. lation in order to improve the effectiveness of legislation? — establish — with the help of the relevant sectors — what tools are available (research, practical solutions, information campaigns); — decide how to involve the social partners. 3. 2. 1. es some major problems: Dovetailing Community and national legislation pos- At national level: — while a legal assessment of the monitoring arrangements for the transposition of a Community directive into national law is, of course, necessary, it is not sufficient. An assessment of how the directive is actually implemented — particularly on a sectoral basis — is also required, because if the disparities continue or even increase, as is sometimes the case at the moment, then worker health and safety becomes a factor in competitiveness. This will be addressed in point 3. 2. 4. — establish — with the help of the relevant sectors — certain implementation arrangements, according to certain target groups and activities; — establish monitoring and inspection arrangements and procedures; — inform and educate employers and employees, in cooperation with the social partners. — the world of work is facing new challenges which require a different approach to the one usually adopted to deal with traditional occupational health and safety risks such as stress in the workplace, muscle and back complaints, etc. New employment patterns are emerging, raising specific questions which will be addressed in point 5. 6. 1. These problems cannot be dealt with in the same way as traditional occupational accidents and illnesses. Given that the picture and perceptions of these issues differ across the nations, sectors and regions of the Member States must be given greater leeway and responsi- bility for drawing up the implementation arrangements. There could be a case for a new type of directive setting the objectives, and — annexed to this — a catalogue of back-up measures to guide Member State action (c. f. 3. 2. 2 and 3. 2. 3). In this respect, the benefits of a prior selection and dissemination of examples of best practice should be stressed. Benchmarking is a non-legislative measure which the Committee would recommend (c. f. 2. 3). the Community, The Bilbao Agency must be able to assist the Commission and the Member States, without taking over from them. 3. 2. 3. Objective-setting directives should be backed up by guidelines providing more detailed information than binding legislation. This would be a handbook for firms rather than a legislative text, i. e. its use would not be a pre-requisite for certification. The handbook could be adapted to the relevant sectors and businesses. The social partners would be involved in the Advisory Committee’s tripartite consultation process. 3. 2. 4. As emphasized above, it is not enough to carry out legal checks on the transposition of a European Directive, i. e. on whether the obligation has been incorporated into national legislation. In addition to scrutinising the legal text, an audit of its practical implementation at Member State level will also be 23. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/37 required, based on criteria such as: the number of firms implementing the directive; implementation arrangements in small and large enterprises; why they are/are not applying it; results. information and back-up measures for workers and firms will, of course, differ according to the size of the firm. — As the Commission pointed out in its report of 3 September 1998, it must implement its plan to establish Community indicators to assess national policy. The indicators will draw on statistics for accidents in the workplace and occupational illnesses. In this connection, the Committee feels that, in order to monitor the effective- ness of existing legislation, it would be worthwhile pushing ahead with the efforts already undertaken by the Com- mission to harmonise European statistics for accidents in the workplace and occupational illnesses. The Committee would also suggest establishing a Community Regulation to facilitate data transfers from the Member States to Community departments. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the statistics should include a breakdown according to gender; — the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work recently looked into the operation of multidisciplinary prevention services and the implemen- tation of health checks. This type of research must be supported and developed further. It must be used to provide exchange of best practice, more thorough assess- ment of the implementation and impact of current legis- lation, and to propose amendments to promote improved protection levels in the workplace; 3. 3. 2. Some SMEs have expressed reservations about the various legal provisions which cannot be realistically applied by smaller firms. These are mostly administrative constraints which make legislation more cumbersome and are generally unfathomable for most firms. The more detailed technical guidelines discussed in 3. 2. 3 above could be extremely helpful both for SMEs and for assessing implementation in smaller firms. 3. 3. 3. from this approach if the documents: SMEs and micro-businesses will only really benefit — are simple and adaptable; — offer practical solutions; — are drafted in a spirit of cooperation, involving SME organisations in particular; — are disseminated by the bodies normally consulted by SMEs; — are distributed according to activity: e. g. mechanics, car- penters, restaurateurs, etc. — the Dublin Foundation’s research into employment con- ditions, different employment categories and different types of work is intended to add to the analysis of the effectiveness of European measures and the extent to which the objectives have been fulfilled. 3. 3. 4. Information and inspection procedures must be backed up by specific aid programmes, pilot projects, and be included in vocational training programmes (Leonardo). 3. 3. Application to SMEs and micro-businesses: this does not mean advocating different standards according to the size of the firm, but taking into account the specific nature of SMEs and their greater information and training needs, and the greater difficulty they have in coping with red-tape. It should be remembered that Article 118a states that directives should avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which might hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Declared objectives and health and safety levels 3. 3. 1. must be the same for all workers. The arrangements for implementation, inspection and especially dissemination of 4. The link between employability and health and safety: economic cost? 4. 1. While accidents in the workplace, occupational illness- es and other health and safety risks are — first and foremost — a serious human and social problem for the victim, they also involve considerable economic costs for society and the firm concerned. The European Agency in Bilbao has studied the economic impact of health and safety in the workplace in the EU Member States. Some states put the cost of occupational illnesses at between 2. 6 % and 3. 8 % of GNP. It should be stressed, however, that the different calculation methods make compari- son difficult. The Committee emphasises the need for reliable comparable data, which would also make it possible to identify the most efficient systems. C 51/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 2. 2000 4. 2. An effective health and safety policy is warranted not just for obvious human reasons and because of the economic cost of accidents and illness, but also because it enhances worker employability and productivity and boosts employ- ment. The Committee therefore feels that occupational health and safety issues should be included in future employment guidelines. The guidelines should be backed up by examples of best practice, along the lines of the benchmarking system currently used to back up existing guidelines. The impact of employment policies on occupational health and safety should also be assessed. Turning to the question of employment conditions for men and women, it should be remembered that one of the main aims of the employment guidelines is to bring more women into the labour market. This concern is also highlighted in the ESC Opinion on the Proposal for guidelines for Member States’ employment policies 2000. (1) Initiatives must be developed for both employers and 4. 3. workers. 4. 4. Since the employer is responsible for the way his firm is organised, he must also answer for the impact of his decisions on the health and safety of his employees. This responsibility is enshrined in the framework directive of 12 June 1989, which requires the employer to know the most appropriate prevention measures for his company, and the organisational arrangements which will enable him both to provide health and safety protection for his employees, whilst avoiding unsuitable regulations which might hamper competitiveness. — highlight the key role of the organisation of work in promoting health and safety in the workplace; — stress the proper importance of prevention and employee health monitoring services; in this respect the Committee would refer to the important contribution made by occupational medicine to improving protection of health and safety in the workplace (2). In the course of their duties, the prevention and health monitoring services will need to take account of the different information and training requirements of the workforce. To this end it is important to: — collate and catalogue best practice in companies and highlight state-of-the-art systems. Research has revealed the following useful examples: — systems for regularly assessing safety conditions, backed up by incentives to exploit the good scores attained by company departments; — health and safety management systems as part of a global approach; — adapting work stations to the needs of older people and people with disabilities; — establish and disseminate criteria for best practice, policy assessment machinery and measures undertaken; 4. 4. 1. Good employment conditions are essential to the production of quality goods and services. Accidents in the workplace and other health and safety risks are first and foremost a human and social problem, but they also involve economic costs for the firm in terms of absenteeism, social insurance contributions, and losses in output, know-how, etc. — give a higher profile to the benefits of good policy; a more accurate cost/benefit assessment will provide decision- makers with better guidance. Priority should be given to continuing research and developing simple practical instruments for objective cost/benefit analysis, in order to provide for more judicious, informed decision-making. Initiatives and tools must therefore be developed to: 4. 4. 2. Workers and/or involved in this approach: their representatives must be — convince employers that good health and safety conditions enhance competitiveness and the image of the firm, and that a good health and safety policy is a sign of good economic performance; — by including them in the preparation, implementation, assessment and re-alignment of Community policy, via existing consultation committees, particularly the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work; — raise employers’ awareness of the fact that safety policy is one of the main planks of a global policy; — using the information, consultation and participation procedures provided for in the framework directive of 12 June 1989 and other specific directives; (1) OJ C 368, 20. 12. 1999. (2) OJ C 307, 19. 11. 1984. 23. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/39 In this respect, — by including safety issues in education, teaching and training. the Committee endorses the opinion (070/2/97) of the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work. The Committee would also refer to its own opinion of 30 June 1993 on health/safety at the workplace — training, also in relation to the following: — the future citizen (school-age) — the future worker — the worker on entering the firm — management structure — workers’ representatives with a specific role in the protection of health and safety in the workplace. 4. 4. 3. The Bilbao Agency can lay the foundations for the European Commission’s important duty — in addition to continuing to compare best practice — to provide analysis, information and consciousness-raising by carrying out pre- paratory work on the exploration, collation and dissemination of best practice, training programmes, etc. The Member States are individually responsible for dissemination via the appropriate channels. 5. How should the new risks be addressed? 5. 1. The world of work has undergone a number of changes. Work is now organised in various ways, and different conditions of employment and different working hours can be found in one and the same firm. Computer technology has changed what we do and how we do it. Employment conditions have also been diversified: part-time, temporary and casual work are on the increase, as are teleworking and ‘work on-call’. The make-up of the workforce has also changed: there are far more women in employment; the workforce is ageing; the tertiary sector’s employment share continues to grow as a result of the boom in services; many firms are concentrating on their core business and sub-contracting some of their work out, particularly to SMEs, which account for an ever-increasing percentage of businesses; and firms have introduced less centralised management procedures. All this has impacted on employment patterns and consequently on safety and hygiene conditions in the workplace. 5. 1. 1. In some countries there has been a worrying increase in undeclared work in defiance of occupational health and safety requirements. This regrettable trend was addressed in the Commission Communication on undeclared work. The communication calls for a strategy to counter the phenom- enon, and it was ringingly endorsed by the Committee in its opinion of 27 January 1999 (1). 5. 2. It would be simplistic to consider the changes referred to in point 5. 1 in terms of risk only. Economic conditions oblige firms to constantly modernise and adapt the way they manage and organise work. In this respect, investment in new technology often goes hand-in-hand with improved employment conditions. As for new employment patterns, these can suit the flexibility requirements of both employers and workers. there is no doubt 5. 3. While it would be wrong to consider these changes in terms of risk alone, they have produced new occupational risks which differ from traditional occupational accidents and illnesses: psychosocial complaints are more common; stress is on the increase — including at managerial and executive level; workers are burnt out and can no longer cope with challenge. that 5. 3. 1. Compared to other workers, young people, disabled people, (2) migrant and unskilled workers are more likely to be vulnerable. They are sometimes known as labour market ‘risk groups’. Traditional methods are less effective when applied to 5. 4. the new situations and employment patterns. The challenge lies in managing to protect workers properly while finding practical solutions for achieving the objective by: — collating data, objectivising the problem, comparing indi- cators; — devising appropriate tools to suit the target group, work- type and employment patterns. 5. 5. The general legislative framework and its objectives have been fixed at European level. However, the method of achieving the objectives should be constantly monitored and reviewed to take account of new employment patterns, the changing population and new risks. (1) OJ C 101, 12. 4. 1999. (2) In this connection, see the compendium of good practice on employment for disabled people, published by the European social partners, UNICE, the ETUC and the CEEP. Supported by the European Commission. The compendium also contains practical suggestions for getting people back to work. C 51/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 2. 2000 First and foremost, the technical aspects of current legislation must be continuously monitored and adapted in the light of: Know-how resulting from current practice, experience and research in the different Member States must be shared so that a more effective approach can be designed. — new products and procedures; — new findings on the impact of existing products and procedures (e. g. OPS (organic psychosyndrome) and min- eral fibres); — new findings on certain ailments such as muscular and bone pain — so that the declared objectives are in step with scientific and technological progress, particularly as far as thresholds are concerned. 5. 6. Moreover, it is important to ascertain whether there are any practical problems in applying the framework legis- lation to new employment patterns, and to find suitable arrangements and solutions. Relevant areas include: — health controls; — worker information and training; — follow-up of any health risks from new products or procedures. 5. 6. 1. In this respect special attention should be paid to temping, short-term contract work and outsourcing. These particular types of work make it more difficult for the worker to fit in because: — several employers share responsibility for monitoring employment conditions; — workers change their place of employment more often, and have to adapt quickly to a new environment each time. In order to provide adequate protection levels, suitable practi- cal measures will be needed for: — exchanges of information on work-related risks and requirements between the various employers and the worker; — clear, specific instructions whenever someone is recruited; — continuous training; — employer responsibility for medical observation and fol- low-up in case of exposure to hazardous agents or products, and — for epidemiological research. 5. 7. High employee-turnover rates and frequent absentee- ism are often a sign of poor employment conditions, but, generally speaking, the only problem. the latter are not However, psycho-social complaints, stress and exhaustion can be linked to employment conditions. ‘Good management’ includes ways of addressing these problems, but the role and responsibility of the firm in dealing with these risks does not seem so clear-cut as with traditional occupational hazards. Personal life (the family, division of family responsibilities), basic training, and training and recruitment opportunities can all play their part. Without a global approach backed up by measures in other areas, calls for firms and employers to act will be in vain. These measures are needed in the workplace, the home, at school, etc. Consequently, the Commission will have to adopt a global approach (cf. 2. 3. 2). One-off measures are less effective. The various Member States have launched initiatives to in an 5. 8. address the new risks and employment patterns, approach which involves the social partners. The following examples show how the social partners can be involved (1): — in the Netherlands, Agenda 2002 — in which the social partners have established the priorities for negotiation over the coming years — calls on the social partners to give priority to stress and improved employment conditions. Several sectoral collective agreements have latched on to this concern. It should also be noted that some sectors have concluded agreements committing the authorities, employers and workers to combating specific risks; — in Belgium, the social partners have signed a multi-sector collective agreement (30 March 1999) on occupational stress prevention policy, under which employers must submit their policy programme to the Health and Safety Committee. In addition, the social partners in the temping sector have set up ‘Prévention et Intérim’ to raise firms’ awareness of prevention issues and offer appropriate advice; (1) See also the examples of best practice contained in the website of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Bilbao Agency, http://www. eu-osha. es) 23. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/41 — in Denmark, a national agreement to reduce monotonous and repetitive work has been signed by the trade unions and employers’ organisations; is to make all interested parties — whether at Community, national, sectoral, regional or local level — aware of their responsibilities; — in Sweden, the social partners have signed an agreement on the appointment of local prevention officers. One of the most interesting Member State initiatives is the Portuguese government’s programme to improve occupational health and safety by providing incentives for employers whose progress in this field can be used as best practice. 5. 9. By collating these actions, best practice and successful initiatives, the Commission can carry out an assessment in conjunction with the social partners, and — if necessary — amend legislation, design and publicise additional instruments and include them in new and existing support programmes. 6. Conclusions — Promotion of health and safety in the workplace must be a priority concern for the authorities, the social partners, employers and workers. The fact that the world of work is undergoing radical changes makes their support all the more necessary. The best way to achieve this key objective — Without prejudice to the legislative role, which is still important and warranted for social and economic reasons, the EU’s non-legislative role should be better promoted and highlighted via information and awareness campaigns, and training and benchmarking initiatives; — Legislation will be more effective if it aims for a better demarcation of European and national responsibilities, fixing clear objectives at Community level, and leaving implementation — subject to control guarantees — to the national authorities; — In order to boost the link between employability and occupational safety and hygiene, awareness-raising and training activities must be provided for both employers and workers; — The effectiveness of legislation in dealing with the new risks must be constantly assessed, and any amendments should draw on an analysis of best practice in the Member States. Benchmarking should be used to highlight the most useful examples, particularly as regards social partner practice. Brussels, 8 December 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI