Psychosocial Risk Management: Policy Context and Social

Dialogue

M. Ertel, U. Stilijanow

Federal Institute for Occupational Health and Safety, BerlinUnit “Mental Workload, Stress and Work Design”

Presentation outline

• Research field

• Methods

• Analytical results: – EU-Legislation on OSH– European Social Dialogue– Challenges to PRIMA

• Recommendations– Policy level – Branch/ workplace level

• The pyramid model of multi-level approaches

Research field: The macro context of Psychosocial Risk MAnagement (PRIMA)

PRIMAGlobalisation

EU-Enlargement

Economic Performance

Political Priorities

Stakeholder Interests

Industrial Relations/Social Dialogue

EU-Strategies & Initiatives

OSH Legislation

Methods

• Literature review

• Expert Interviews

• PRIMA-EF stakeholder workshop (Jan. 2008) with expert focus groups on Social Dialogue and regulations/initiatives (see www.prima-ef.org)

• Results of the PRIMA-EF stakeholder survey from ISPESL

Results: EU-Legislation on OSH

Starting from Framework directive 89/391/EEC

• General obligation of employers to ensure workers health and safety in every aspect related to work

• Implicitly includes psychosocial aspects

Impact assessment by OSH Stakeholders:

34% of stakeholders in the EU27 consider the directive to be effective for Psychosocial Risk Management (EU 15: 51%; new EU states: 10%) source: PRIMA-EF stakeholder survey

Results: European Social Dialogue(www.ec.europa.eu/socialdialogue)

Framework Agreements: on work-related stress (2004) & on harassment and violence at work (2007)

Agreement on WRS:

Implementation heterogenous and mostly “soft”, e.g. guidelines, recommendations or collective agreements (see: http://www.etuc.org/a/2377)

Impact assessment by OSH Stakeholders:

29% of stakeholders consider the agreement on WRS to have an impact on stress management in their country

(employers‘ associations: 50%, trade unions: 18%) source: PRIMA-EF stakeholder survey

Results: Challenges to PRIMA

EU Enlargement: • Lack of tradition and weak structures of social

dialogue in CEE countries• Preoccupation with issues of economic growth

and productivity

Divergent Stakeholder perspectives: • Trade unions favour binding regulations• Employers call for voluntary approaches

Lack of capacities and awareness

Recommendations: policy level

• To improve the impact of OSH-legislation and Social Dialogue, capacities and expertise need to be strengthened (e.g. enforcement capabilities, SD structures, general problem awareness)

• Different approaches, e.g. Social Dialogue and Legislation, may act in a complementary way

• Existing national Strategies can serve as examples of good practice, e.g.

• Netherlands: Covenants

• UK: Management Standards

• Denmark: Training and tools for labour inspectors

Recommendations: branch/ workplace level

• Social partners should – engage in building mutual trust and a culture of cooperation– create win-win situations (e.g. healthy workforce – higher

productivity)

• Seemingly paradoxical effects of actions should be considered, (e.g. awareness raising on violence and bullying may result in a higher level of complaints)

• Gender issues should be considered, in particular with regard to violence and harassment at the workplace

The pyramid model of multi-level approachesfor psychosocial risk management

OSH-LegislationEnforcement/ Guidance

Social DialogueConsensus building/ Employee Participation

National InitiativesFunding/ Programmes

Voluntary EngagementCSR/ best practice

Awareness RaisingEducation/ Dissemination

PRIMA

ResearchAction

Thank you!

Michael Ertel Ertel.Michael@baua.bund.de

Ulrike StilijanowStilijanow.Ulrike@baua.bund.de

www.prima-ef.org