63rd meeting of the Committee of Senior LabourInspectors (SLIC)

Thematic Day “Workplace Ergonomics”

Filoxenia Conference CentreNicosia, 29th November 2012

The Thematic Day is supported by the European UnionProgramme for Employment & Social Solidarity –PROGRESS(2007-2013)

1

SUMMARY

During the Thematic Day, the current situation in workplace ergonomics in variousMember States and the prevailing trends regarding ergonomics were examined. TheThematic Day was concluded with a panel discussion focussing on the applicability ofthe presented issues in other Member States, and European initiatives on ergonomicsimplemented under SLIC.

The following is a summary of the presentations and discussions made at theThematic Day.

A. INTRODUCTION

1. “State of Play on ergonomics-Innovation of MSD prevention?!”, Palle Ørbaek

The focus of the presentation on Innovation of MSD prevention was the detailedstudy of employees’ physical workloads and their associated negative effects(MSDs, reduced work ability) while taking into account challenges such asdemographic changes, globalization effects and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle.In the pursuit of a balance between demands and resources, prevention methodsfor MSDs are a useful tool in the multifaceted actions and research to preventMSDs, alongside workability and sustainability, as well as methods for objectivemeasurements and interventions.

Discussion:During the panel discussion following the above presentation, chaired by

Athanasios Hadjimanolis, the need to get people to work was mentioned andmoreover to give them the capacity to work until an older age, without being bored. Inorder to achieve that, the ergonomics experts are willing to try and cooperate withindividuals, since they all have the same goal, the improvement of working conditions.

Pain is not socially constructed but fear and worries are. The problem shouldnot be assigned to the individuals. It’s important to develop systems for healthyworkplaces that are multifaceted and take into consideration the environment. Thesystem approach should not rely on the individuals, since the influence of theworkplace on the individual is only 8 hours per day and taking the advice to exercisefor the rest of the day is completely somebody’s own decision.

Having in mind the above statements, new thoughts on work ability and painshould be promoted in order to stop workforce losses.

2

B. SESSION I – Current Situation in Ergonomics

2. “The EU Ergonomics Legal Framework and Possible Future Initiatives”,Antonio Cammarota

Ergonomic related risks at the workplace are responsible for MusculoskeletalDisorders and Display Screen Vision Conditions, among workers across theEuropean Union. Taking no actions will worsen the problem in the future thereforethe Commission proceeded with an assessment of the current legal framework inthe area of ergonomics, aiming, through regulatory and non regulatory initiatives,in the reduction of the prevalence of MSDs and DSVs by covering a wider range ofrisk factors and enhancing the preventive measures.

3. “Management of health and safety in micro enterprises in Cyprus-Survey onergonomics”, Dr. Athanasios Hadjimanolis/ Dr. George Boustras

In the under researched area of health and safety in micro – enterprises, i.e.companies where fewer than 10 persons are employed, lack of knowledge andresources are critical. In cooperation with the Department of Labour Inspection(DLI), a relevant survey among micro – enterprises was recently carried out inCyprus. By analyzing the survey questionnaires, several important conclusionswere obtained, such as the positive correlation of safety performance with theexistence of a safety policy in a micro – enterprise, employee resistance to PPEusage as well as resistance to the adoption of General Protective Measures. Thesurvey revealed the need for quantitative research on workplace safetydeterminants.

4. “Survey on the situation on Ergonomics among Member States LabourInspectorates”, Anastasios Yiannaki

An OSH survey focusing on ergonomic issues was carried out among member-states using a questionnaire prepared by the DLI. A marked improvement hasbeen achieved concerning workplace ergonomics during the period 2007-2012.The following actions of the Labour Inspectorates (LIs) have contributed to thispurpose:

- Introduction and implementation of national strategies, with specific referencesto ergonomics

- Better enforcement of OSH legislation by the LIs (inspection and informationcampaigns, preparation and distribution of informative material and stafftraining).

- Development of support mechanisms such as the use of incentives forenterprises to introduce new ergonomic improvements.

3

5. “Low cost high benefits ergonomics-case from the construction sector”,Kim Borch

In its efforts to address the challenges caused by Manual Handling in theworkplace, the Danish Working Environment Authority (DWEA) focused onergonomics in the construction sector which is in the top 10 sectors where MSDshave been identified. Specifically, the DWEA targeted the manual handling ofplasterboards. As a result, utilizing DWEA knowledge, a joint venture ofemployers’ associations, unions, producers and suppliers worked together, usingbest practices and developing new technical aids to reduce the associated healthrisks for the workers. Other ergonomic challenges have since been dealt withsimilarly. In the future, the DWEA would like to expand the cooperation in theconstruction sector among the key players to achieve high ergonomic benefits atthe lowest cost.

6. “Ergonomics challenges in SME-improving meat cutters’ working conditionsthrough low cost-high benefit ergonomics”,Jörgen Eklund

The Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA) focused on improving workingconditions for meat cutters in order to decrease injuries and diseases (especiallyMSDs) for these workers. Via a research project which included meat cuttingcompanies, associations, researchers and employer representatives, solutionswere developed to (a) improve the working conditions for meat cutters and (b)contribute to production efficiency. The resulting innovations lead to a betterworking environment for all meat cutting companies with a subsequent decrease inthe frequency of MSDs to workers.

Ernst Christenson

The required standards set by the SWEA in the above mentioned industry resultedin an efficient risk reducing implementation for the affected employees whichincluded measures such as, setting time limits for monotonous repetitive work,increased job rotation and work widening, regular breaks, better technical facilitiesand a review of the work organization. Achieving a 50% reduction of the reportedmusculoskeletal illnesses in the meat industry is evidence of the project’s success.It is apparent that in any highly competitive industry, constructive dialoguebetween all concerned parties (SWEA, companies, researchers, employeerepresentatives) is essential to improve the working environment (thus satisfyingthe Authority’s requirements) and, at the same time, to achieve efficiency andprofitability (thus satisfying the businesses concerned).

Discussion on Session I:During the ensuing panel discussion chaired by Karolina Woelke, the need for

practically incorporating safety policy including ergonomics into businessesmanagement was explored. The vital role of Labour Inspectorates in safety policyenforcement was highlighted. The impact of health and safety cultures in variousbranches of economic activity was quoted as a factor affecting ergonomic issues.Europe-wide, the need is to adequately assess the existing OSH framework and agree

4

on fixed sets of risk factors so as to improve legislation without imposing excessiveburdens on companies.

Alternative approaches to revised legislation were mentioned such as newequipment to decrease the Manual Handling of Loads and promoting good ethics andcompany reputation. Summarizing the above, a multidisciplinary approach is neededto ensure ergonomics issues are dealt with effectively. The involvement of insurancecompanies must also help in promoting OSH issues.

Finally, it was mentioned that awareness of each and every concerned party isvery important in regulating ergonomics.

C. SESSION II – Trends in Workplace Ergonomics

7. «Ergonomics Research and Industrial Applications – A literature overviewon new management concepts and musculoskeletal consequences», JörgenEklúnd

Total Quality Management (TQM) and Lean Production influence work design andconditions and therefore the employee’s health. The outcome of literatureoverview focusing on Musculoskeletal and performance consequences is that bothTQM and Lean Production have either positive or negative consequences andtherefore the goal is these concepts to be used in such a way so as to improveworking conditions. It’s of great importance the management strategies that aregoing to be used to be focused on safety and health and especially ergonomics.

8. «A holistic approach to the challenges in maintaining the work force in thefuture», Bitten Højmar Døjholt

At the same time that demographic challenges arise due to the aging of theworkforce, new technological possibilities require new ways of working. InDenmark ⅓ of work absences is because of OSH sickness and mainlyMusculoskeletal Disorders. The goal is by 2020 to reduce the MSDs by 20%.This will be achieved by inspecting the enterprises with the most severe problemsor the sectors that are exposed to MSDs and have poor psychosocial workingenvironment, using a broader more holistic approach. Examples of the Cleaningas well as the Day and Home Care Sectors approaching MSDs in new ways werepresented. Also a tool has been presented that helps enterprises to assesswhether MSDs arise from heavy lifting. The tool also works as a smart phoneapplication and is a great innovation in the health and safety sector.

9. «Ergonomics and Green Jobs. Promoting Safety and Health at Work in aGreen Economy: from Prevention development to Design», Iavicoli S

The new EU 2020 strategy for smart inclusive and sustainable growth placesinnovation and better use of resources, as a stimulus to create green jobs. In2008, there were 11 million employees in the green sector whereas in 2030 thenumber is expected to reach 20 million. Workers in the green industry except fromthe common risks may also face new and emerging risks. A qualitative

5

assessment of green jobs is of great importance, especially as far as health andsafety concerns, in order to identify the measures to enhance the skills of theworkers and improve the working environment and ergonomic conditions.

10.«Incorporation of ergonomics to improve productivity and employeesatisfaction», Mathew Birtles

Manual handling in warehouses is responsible for 18% of major injuries and 45%of over three day injuries. The survey that was carried out by the Health andSafety Laboratory in the UK, showed that the increase of the order pick rates atthe ASDA distribution centers, can be achieved safely without increasing the MSDrisk exposure of the workforce. The questionnaire used for the survey focused oneight body areas, psychosocial issues and work characteristics as well as onmeasures of the heart rates over whole shifts. The capacity to work more can onlybe increased after ergonomic improvements in the picking up activity, for exampleby using alternate picking up methods that lead to improved posture and reducedforces, better job allocation and rotation, more suitable work, rest allocation andawareness raising.

Discussion on Session II:

In the short discussion which then took place, chaired by Brian Higgisson, theneed for effective communication to achieve health and safety was emphasized.Moreover, for improvements in productivity in businesses to be successful, the workstructure and human factors, including the need for tangible benefits to employees,resulting from the implementation of health and safety measures, must be included.

The need to experiment with new ideas arising from advertising impact studieswas mentioned. Since such studies indicate people’s attitudes to loss and gain, withthe impact on the loss of something regarded as valuable being more important thanits substitution with a gain in something else, it is possible to promote Health andSafety issues in the workplace and especially ergonomic issues, while bearing this inmind.

D. PANEL DISCUSSION

During the Panel Discussion which followed, Alexandros Karageorgiou (Greece),acting as a moderator, summarized the value of ergonomics. He elaborated on theneed for a balance between business parameters and human well being at work.

Based on the presentations, it seems that this balance can be achieved byconstructive dialogue between multidisciplinary groups. Since each stakeholder maynot perceive ergonomics in a “balanced way”, SLIC and national Labour Inspectorates,as major stakeholders, must strengthen and promote the demand for high-qualityergonomics. Thus, the key elements of performance and well being at work can beachieved.He then submitted relevant questions to the following four panelists.

6

Question 1 to Palle Orbaek was on how the interaction can be improved betweenEuropean level research projects, SLIC and Labour Inspectorates, with a view totransfer OSH research to the workplace. Mr Orbaek answered that this can beachieved by promoting ideas originating from public researchers and subsequentlybringing together SLIC and PEROSH partners on a large scale in various MemberStates to implement such ideas in a more comprehensive way. The ensuing evaluationof the common efforts will help not only to reduce related workplace risk factors, butwill improve work rates, business efficiency and product quality, which will in turn helpreduce MSDs. Close cooperation with the Labour Inspectorates will ensure theprovision of enough scientific evidence to actually judge whether the above results arebeing achieved.

Question 2 to Mark Gauci, on the levels of preparedness of the L.I.s to address thefollowing issues, received the following responses from Mr. Gauci-

(i) New MSD Directive - Labour Inspectorates expect to gain simplification of thetwo existing directives (Visual Display Screen equipment and Manual Handling ofLoads) and a streamlined application from a new Musculoskeletal Directive.

(ii) Adequate tools and competence in L.I.s to deal with ergonomics - L.I.s need newknowledge, tools and competencies since the causes of MSDs are not easilydiscernible, since we have seen that they are often the results of interactionbetween work itself, management, tools, workers involved, etc.

(iii) Duty holders’ ergonomics awareness - Duty holders are also missing some of theknowledge needed to be aware of the risks from MSDs. Additional complexitiesarise from subcontracting work which makes it difficult to monitor and take actionto deal with MSDs.

(iv) L.I.s’ tools, information or guidance to Inspectors - To better enforce the Directive,L.I.s will need to train their Inspectors to adequately identify possible MSDs andintervene in a timely manner. The difficulty lies in the need for the approach to berisk based and proportionate to include such technological advances such ashand held devices and their implications on MSDs. It is noted that the rate atwhich Information Communication Technology is advancing may soon render theDirective outdated. Information and guidance to Labour Inspectors must besimple, adequate and understandable.

(v) MSDs awareness of Occupational Physicians - Occupational physicians need tobe more aware and alert in identifying possible MSDs in workplaces and pass theinformation onto the L.I.s in time for a positive intervention. It is stressed that theinteraction of MSD causative agents is many times unknown, making the needfor Labour Inspectors’ training more pertinent.

Question 3 to David Ashton was about the preconditions, steps and support neededin L.I.s in making the business oriented ergonomic approach.

Mr Ashton responded that to make the move from an ergonomics-only focus to a morebusiness-oriented ergonomics approach, L.I.s and SLIC do have to “take the step tosell ergonomics” to businesses, as providing other additional benefits to them other

7

than just OSH and MSD prevention. The need exists to talk to and convincebusinesses about these extra benefits which are-

1) profit and improved business performance – must have relevant case studies toprove that spending on OSH, provides savings on other aspects of the business(improved performance, better product quality, etc.)

2) compliance with the relevant legislation - a criminal record is highly undesirablefor businesses

3) ethical position / reputation – bad reputation may kill a company

4) sustainability – must have convincing arguments or evidence for linkingsustainability to OSH.

Question to 4 Antonio Cammarota regarding the Commission’s proposal (Maastricht)for the new Directive, on whether or not SMEs must carry out simplified riskassessments on ergonomics and DSV Conditions.

Mr Cammarota replied that there is no intention to exclude SMEs from the obligation tocarry out a risk assessment. The proposal referred to in the question was intended tominimise the impact of compliance costs to SMEs through a preliminary simplified formof risk assessment, which could be carried out in-house without the support of externalprevention services. This simplified form has in any case to be completed by anextended analysis of risks, whenever hazards are identified that could seriously put atrisk the health of workers.

On the other hand, it is clear that the implementation of preventive measures is neverwarranted. It depends to a large extent on the willingness of companies to takeinitiative. Motivational tools can vary, as illustrated by Mr Ashton in the previous reply.However, as regards ethical position and reputation of companies, this is very muchdependent on the size and nature of the market where a company operates. For verysmall enterprises operating in a restricted local market and with short-term lifeexpectances, reputation and ethical concerns may play a very marginal role.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR INSPECTION

(The information contained in this summary does not necessarily reflect the position oropinion of the European Commission)

8

APPENDICES

1. Programme of the Thematic Day

2. Abstracts of the presentations

3. List of participants

9

10

11

63rd MEETING OF THE SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTORS COMMITTEE29-30 NOVEMBER 2012

NICOSIA, CYPRUSTHEMATIC DAY

ABSTRACTS

«State of Play on ergonomics - Innovation of MSD prevention?!»

Palle ØrbækDirector General of the Danish Research Institute

For many years large efforts have been made in Europe to prevent musculoskeletaldisorders (MSD) that lead to reduced workability and quality of life due to pain.Although some workers in Europe are still exposed to excessive loads, the preventionof painful disorders and reduced workability seems to need more dimensions than thesimple limits of accepted loads currently implemented in Europe. Looking at recentdata on Danish public employees with and without heavy workloads, the occurrence ofpain in the neck and low back is very similar across job groups and reaching nearly 60percent having had pain during the last 4 weeks. Up to 25 percent of employees in jobgroups with well-known high physical workloads, musculoskeletal pain had restrictedtheir work performance during the last 4 weeks. However, even in job groups with noheavy loads as much as 10 percent have had restrictions in their work performancedue to musculoskeletal pain.

Learning from pain physiology and pain psychology a more comprehensive bio-psychosocial model could guide the way to a more complete prevention of bothoccurrence and consequences of painful states and thus improve both workability andquality of life for a huge number of persons. Securing a demands-resources balancein combination with existing prevention methods (reduction of too heavy loads, soundwork organization and biomechanical work positions) promises to be a useful path toreach the goal of MSD prevention: less pain, fewer pain restrictions at work, and thusgood workability in all age groups, and higher quality of life.

«The EU Ergonomics Legal Framework and Possible Future Initiatives»

Antonio Cammarota(European Commission, DG EMPL B/3)

Ergonomic-related risks at the work place are among the major occupational safetyand health problems facing the European Union today. They are responsible for theoccurrence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and display screenvision conditions (DSVCs) among workers in all sectors of activity across theEuropean Union. This results in major financial costs to businesses and society atlarge.

12

Given current levels of prevalence in most of the EU Member States, as well as thedynamic of future trend factors, it is unlikely that the problem can be substantiallyreduced without additional action. The current scenario suggests that status quo (noaction taken) is on the contrary very likely to contribute to aggravating problems in thefuture.

For this reason, the Commission is assessing whether the existing legislation issufficient to address the key challenges or additional action is required in order tocover a wider range of risk factors and work situations and enhance preventivemeasures in the field of ergonomics. Different options, both regulatory and non-regulatory, are currently under scrutiny with the aim of reducing the prevalence ofWRMSDs.

The lecture will start with an overview of the problem, will then move on to illustrate thecurrent legal framework in the area of ergonomics, and will finally provide an update ofthe current discussion on possible options for future Commission initiatives in this area.

«Management of health and safety in micro enterprises in Cyprus -Survey on ergonomics»

Dr. Athanasios Hadjimanolis, Professor, European University CyprusDr. George Boustras, Assistant Professor, European University Cyprus

Management of health and safety in micro-enterprises is a critical issue due to theirlack of knowledge and resources. It is also an under-researched area in theinternational safety literature. The present paper is based on a major survey, with thecooperation of the relevant health and safety authority, among micro-enterprises inseveral economic sectors. Micro-enterprises with less than ten employees comprise amajor percentage of business firms in a small economy like that of Cyprus. Thesurvey involved the workers and the owners/managers of the firms, but also obtainedinformation for compliance and safety performance of the particular firms from safetyinspectors. The present research approach overcomes potential problems of commonmethod bias when all data are obtained from the same group of respondents.

Information was collected on demographic characteristics of respondents and firmsand major influencing factors of safety performance like organizational commitment,participation in safety decisions, and willingness to use personal protective equipmentand training. A part of the questionnaire was focused on the discovery of relevantergonomics factors. The analysis of the results illustrates the correlation of the resultsof the survey with those widely available in literature. A comparison of the opinions ofemployers-employees-labour inspectors with regards to the use of personal protectiveequipment and general protective measures is presented.

13

«Survey on the situation on Ergonomics among Member StatesLabour Inspectorates»

Anastasios YiannakiPrincipal Labour Inspector OffIcer, Department of Labour Inspection, Cyprus

The major task of the Labour Inspectorates (LIs) is the protection of workers from workaccidents and occupational diseases as well as the improvement of well being ofworkers at work.

To achieve this task LIs carry out various activities in relation to occupational safetyand health (OSH). This is why a survey has been conducted, among Member States(MS) of the European Union (EU), to capture an overview concerning ergonomics.

The survey has shown that an improvement of the protection of workers, in relation toergonomics, has been achieved because:

i. National legislations, harmonized with the relevant EU Acquis, have beenintroduced and implemented.

ii. National strategies in OSH have been prepared and in many MS thesestrategies contain specific references to ergonomics.

iii. Better enforcement of OSH Legislation has been achieved through LIs activitiessuch as inspection and information campaigns, preparation and distribution ofinformative material and training of staff.

iv. The development of supporting mechanisms such as the use of incentives forenterprises to introduce new ergonomic solutions, the provision of highereducation and research in ergonomics.Additionally, the survey has shown that there is still need for improvement tobetter protect the workers in relation to ergonomics by supporting SMEs, givingmore attention to fight risks related to manual handling of loads, improvingmore the enforcement of legislation and changing procedures and workpractices.

«Low cost high benefits ergonomics – case from the constructionsector»

Kim BorchDanish Working Environment Authority

Manual handling still causes several challenges today. Not only do we still havesevere accidents but early retirement has profound negative impact of the workforce.

This is of course also true in the construction sector, which in its nature changesworkplaces, but construction is characterized by processes, rather than stabileproductions. When addressing ergonomics in the construction sector, there is seldom

14

practicable solution for every aspect. Often the challenges in finding ergonomicsolutions are linked to planning the construction itself; thus demanding knowledge andcommitment from clients, architects, engineers, contractors and construction workers.

A specific challenge in today’s construction is the manual handling of plasterboards.The weight of standard plasterboards depends on the size. Years ago the weight of astandard plasterboard was approximately 30 kg, and combined with the way theseplasterboards are handled lead to a genuine health risk on both a short term and along term basis.

In the start of this millennium, the Danish Working Environment Authority issuedseveral improvement notices on this matter. The unions and the employers’associations then began working on a solution covering the entire construction sector.It was agreed, that a description of best practices, including size and weight of theplasterboards that can be manually handled, and the development of new technicalaids should be the outcome. The funding was entirely put forth from the unions andemployers’ associations, but the DWEA participated with knowledge.

This agreement has reduced the health risks when working with plasterboardsprofoundly while keeping increased cost to a minimum. Other ergonomic challengeshave since been dealt with in a similar manner.

«Ergonomics challenges in SME – improving cutters´ workconditions though low cost – high benefit ergonomics»

Jörgen Eklund, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and Helix,Linköping University, Sweden

This presentation describes an intervention in the meat industry in Sweden. Meatcutters have high risks for work injuries and work related diseases, especiallymusculoskeletal disorders. The Swedish Work Environment Authority initiated asupervision project that included all industrial meat cutting companies in Sweden,starting with the 10 largest. The companies were inspected and a number ofrequirements were put on the companies. The aim was to obtain a dialogue betweenthe relevant parties. In order to develop relevant work environment improvements, theSwedish Meat Industry Association organized a partnership between researchers fromKTH and employer representatives and trade union representatives. An interactiveresearch project, STAR was initiated, which performed sub-studies in order to developsolutions that improved work conditions for meat cutters and also contributed toefficient production without disturbances. Among the results was a documentation oflocal innovations that created a better work environment. These innovations werecollected and spread among meat cutting companies. Other studies focused ways ofimproving and maintaining sharpness of the knife, and work pace influence on yieldand quality. The result is a successful project that improved cooperation among theparties in the branch. Knowledge and insights into prevention of work related injuriesand diseases improved in the meat cutting companies. The frequency ofmusculoskeletal disorders in the industry decreased during the project period. Can

15

this type of collaboration between researchers, the industry and the Work EnvironmentAuthority constitute a new model for branch interventions?

Ernst Christenson, The Swedish Work Environment Authority

Employees in the meat industry, in particular meat cutters and butchers, but alsoslaughter and other meat production workers, are occupational groups in the risk zoneof ergonomic hazards, with a significantly higher share of musculoskeletal-related illhealth and disease, in comparison with a national average for all industries. The risksof musculoskeletal-related ill health seem to increase concurrently with an increasingtransition to line-driven production. According to the requirement standards of theSwedish Work Environment Authority, an efficient risk-reducing implementation isrequired for these employees. Risk identification methods should also include thecapabilities and limitations of the individual. Moreover, it requires a time limit formonotonous repetitive work, increased job rotation and work widening, regular breaks,better technical facilities and, with regard to the working environment, a review of theorganisation of the work.During the period 2006 to 2011 we have seen a halving of the reportedmusculoskeletal illness in the meat industry.

In order to have an impact in a highly competitive (nationally and internationally)industry, it has become evident that a constructive dialogue between companies,researchers, parties and the authority, has been an efficient strategy to have an impactregarding the Swedish Work Environment Authority's requirements with a view toreducing work-related risks in an industry. The dialogue will contribute to improvedknowledge and understanding of the purpose of an active work environment effortwithin the companies. From an individual perspective and a socio-economicperspective, it is essential that the companies are willing and able to implement workenvironmental improvements. This is just as important from a business economicperspective. Therefore, the work environment effort becomes more efficient ifresearchers, parties on the labour market and the Authority cooperate.

«Ergonomics Research and Industrial Applications – A literatureoverview on new management concepts and musculoskeletalconsequences»

Jörgen EklundRoyal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and Helix, Linköping University,Sweden

The background of this presentation is that management concepts such as TotalQuality Management (TQM) and Lean Production influence work design, workconditions and thereby the health of the employees. However, these concepts alsoinfluence the opportunities for the employees to perform their work tasks, and therebyalso the organizational performance. This presentation is based on a literatureoverview of scientific publications focusing the relationships between managementconcepts and the work environment, in particular musculoskeletal consequences.

16

Further, also some consequences for organizational performance are included. Theconclusion from the literature overview is that some reports point to positiveconsequences and other reports point to negative consequences resulting from themanagement concepts TQM and Lean. The goals and the way these concepts havebeen implemented and used seem to be crucial for the outcome. There are manyopportunities to improve working conditions by use of solid knowledge aboutmanagement concepts.

«A holistic approach to the challenges in maintaining the work forcein the future»

Bitten Højmark DøjholtDanish Working Environment Authority

The presentation will take its outset in the demographic challenges that we are facingdue to the aging work force. At the same time new technological possibilities requiresnew ways of working.

In Denmark 1/3 of all absence of work that is due to sickness relates to OSH. Inparticular musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD) and the psychosocial workingenvironment have the greatest impact.

Denmarks strategy is to reach the goal that 20% fewer people will be exposed to MSDin 2020.

The primary tool to address these issues as an authority is inspection. The inspectionmethod of the DWEA is based primarily on risk – thus the Authority only visits theenterprises with the most severe problems. At the same time the Authority alsoconducts special inspections in sectors exposed to MSDs and a poor psychosocialworking environment.

However, to solve the issues of ergonomics it is not enough to address the traditionalergonomic risk factors. A broader more holistic approach is necessary.

Thus the DWEA addresses the issues with a more focused and also more innovativeapproach. DWEA will focus on the most severe problems in the sectors andenterprises that experience the most severe problems. At the same time we will seewhether we can supplement our traditional methods with new approaches.

The presentation will address two examples on how the Danish Authority throughinspection addresses MSDs in new ways (in the cleaning sector and the Day-andHomecare sector). Health promotion is a specific topic during inspections and anotherexample of how to address MSDs with a new approach. Finally the presentation willpresent a concrete tool provided as a help for the enterprises. The tool helps theassessment on whether MSDs might be developed due to heavy lifting. This tool willbe showed on the screen.

17

«Ergonomics and Green Jobs. Promoting Safety and Health at Workin a Green Economy: from Prevention development to Design»

Iavicoli S, Valenti A, Boccuni V, Badellino EINAIL – Research Area, Department of Occupational HealthMonteporzio Catone (Rome), Italy

The search for alternative models of growth in the midst of the financial and ecologicalcrisis has increased interest in the "green growth paradigm”. The new EU 2020strategy for smart, inclusive and sustainable growth, in fact, puts innovation and abetter use of resources as a stimulus to create new jobs and services.

New jobs are beginning to emerge in favor of greener, cleaner and more sustainableoccupations (so called green jobs): at global level, in 2008 there were 11 million ofpeople employed in the green sector that according to some projections will be 20million in 2030.

The identification of these new professionals, or the redefinition of the traditional worksin ecological perspective, involves different and more defined skills at the fore-front oftechnological development and innovation above all those related to the OH&S fieldand new challenges for workers and employers. Although green jobs must preserveenvironmental quality and/or produce green products and services, they have norequirement that be safe for those individuals performing the jobs (or for that matter,the consumers using green products and services). Workers in the green industriesmay face hazards that are commonly known in workplaces, but additionally they maybe exposed to new hazards which probably have not been previously identified.

The ergonomic dimension in this emerging transversal sector is important for acomprehensive and sustainable development that takes in consideration health andwell-being at work.

It is necessary a qualitative assessment covering all aspects of “green jobs”,organization, professional growth, wages, and in particular health and safety at work(e.g. the new and emerging risks in the workplace due to the introduction of newtechnologies), in order to identify information/training measures to enhance skills ofemployees at all levels and to protect their working conditions.

«Incorporation of ergonomics to improve productivity and employeesatisfaction»

Mathew BirtlesHealth and Safety Laboratory, UK

Manual handling is a key risk factor within warehouses, traditionally representingapproximately 18% of major injuries and 45% of over three day injuries (HSE UKstatistics 2005/6). However, in order to meet their business needs, the supermarketchain, which employs thousands of workers in the UK, in 25 distribution warehouses,intended to increase the pick rates of their warehouse workers, effectively asking them

18

to work faster and harder, but at the same time remained committed to reducing therates of musculoskeletal injury. Through a large MSD prevalence survey of a sampleof the workforce, the measurement of workers' heart rates and survey of workerattitudes, HSL have established that increasing the pick rates can be achieved safely,without increasing the MSD risk exposure of the workforce. One of the keys to safelyachieving this increase in work rates is through ergonomic improvements in the pickingactivity, such as the use of alternative picking methods that lead to improved postureand reduced forces; better job allocation and increased job rotation; providing moresuitable work/rest allocation; and awareness raising amongst the workforce in wellbeing and ergonomics. The promise of HSL independently monitoring the short andlong term well-being of the workforce during the period of change helped to securerecent Union agreement to the increased work rates, as part of a national negotiationwhich included significant pay increases for the workforce and improved efficienciesfor the supermarket chain. Phases Two and Three of this work is still ongoing, withHSL repeating the surveys to establish the medium to long term effects of the changesto the work processes.

19

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

NAME DELEGATION E-MAILMr Achillides Stephanos Cyprus sachillides@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Ashton David United Kingdom david.ashton@hse.gsi.gov.ukMs Atanasova Veselina Bulgaria vatanasova@gli.government.bgMr Athanasiou Athanasios Cyprus aathanasiou@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Babic Miroslav Croatia Miro.Babic@inspektorat.hrMs Balogh Katalin Hungary baloghk@ommf.gov.huMr Birtles Matthew United Kingdom matthew.birtles@hsl.gov.ukMr Blok Johannes Experts jblok@InspectieSZW.nlMr Borch Kim Denmark kibo@at.dkMs Bosnari Flavia-Iustina Experts flavia.bosnari@inspectiamuncii.roMr Boustras Georgios Cyprus g.boustras@euc.ac.cyMs Breindl Gertrude Austria gertrud.breindl@bmask.gv.atMr Brunner Eduard Switzerland eduard.brunner@seco.admin.chMr Calvez Yves France dgt.sat@travail.gouv.frMr Cammarota Antonio European Commission Antonio.Cammarota@ec.europa.euMr Charalambous Marios Organisers mcharalambous@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Christensen Ernst Sweden ernst.christensen@av.seMr Constantinou Costas European Commission Costas.CONSTANTINOU@ec.europa.euMs de Andrés María Graciela Spain gandresn@meyss.esMr DemosthenousDemosthenis Cyprus ddemosthenous@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Dorov Bartolomej Slovakia bartolomej.dorov@ip.gov.skMr Dragomir Ciprian Georgian Romania ciprian.dragomir@inspectiamuncii.roMr Economides Aristodemos Cyprus aeconomides@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Eklund Jörgen Sweden jorgen.eklund@sth.kth.seMr Fernandez-RodriguezArsenio European Commission

Arsenio.FERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ@ec.europa.eu

Mr Forte José Portugal jose.forte@act.gov.ptMr Gauci Mark Malta mark.gauci@gov.mtMs Georgaki-Elia Kyriakoula Organisers kelia@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMs Gibodova Jana Experts jana.gibodova@ip.gov.skMs Glowczynska-WoelkeKarolina Poland kancelaria@gip.pip.gov.plMr Hadjimanolis Athanasios Cyprus a.hadjimanolis@euc.ac.cyMr Hahn Rudolf Czech Republic rudolf.hahn@suip.czMr Hassler Robert Liechtenstein robert.hassler@avw.llv.liMs Hickiewicz Iwona Poland kancelaria@gip.pip.gov.plMr Higgisson Brian Ireland brian_higgisson@hsa.ieMs Højmark Døjholt Bitten Denmark bhd@at.dkMr Huberty Robert Luxembourg robert.huberty@itm.etat.luMr IAVICOLI SERGIO Italy s.iavicoli@inail.itMr Jaworski Robert Experts kancelaria@gip.pip.gov.pl

20

NAME DELEGATION E-MAILMr Jensen Jens Søren Denmark jsj@at.dkMr Karageorgiou Alexandros Greece kwnio@otenet.grMr Kokkofitis Christakis Organisers ckokkofitis@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Koudounaris Yiannis Cyprus ykoudounaris@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Kourtellis Marios Cyprus mkourtellis@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMs Kouyialis Marina Cyprus mkouyiali@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Krištofelc Slavko Slovenia SLAVKO.KRISTOFELC@GOV.SIMr Kyriacou Themistoclis Cyprus tkyriacou@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMs Luciano Anna-Maria European Commission anna-maria.luciano@ec.europa.euMr Lusis Renars Latvia Renars.Lusis@vdi.gov.lvMr Martone Mariano Italy mariano.martone@inps.itMs Naoum Loizidou Eleni Organisers eloizidou@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Nicolaides Leandros Cyprus lnicolaides@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMs Nicolaidou Olga Organisers onicolaidou@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Ørbæk Palle Denmark bmh@nrcwe.dkMr Orphanides Michalis Cyprus morphanides@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Pernack Ernst-Friedrich Germany ernst-friedrich.pernack@

masf.brandenburg.deMs Photiou Eleni Organisers elphotiou@papd.mof.gov.cyMs Rammus Carita European Commission carita.rammus@ec.europa.euMr Saemundsson Eyjolfur Iceland eyjolfurs@ver.isMr Sjöberg Mikael Sweden mikael.sjoberg@av.seMr Sunts Herko Estonia herko.sunts@ti.eeMr Suomaa Leo Finland leo.suomaa@stm.fiMs Svendsen Ingrid Finboe Norway ingrid.finboe.svendsen@arbeidstilsynet.noMs Theodoulidou Yiannoula Organisers ytheodoulidou@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Tousseyn Paul Belgium paul.tousseyn@werk.belgie.beMr Tregenza Tim European Agency for

Safety and Health at Work(EU-OSHA)

uribe@osha.europa.eu

Ms Tsoulofta Evangelitsa Cyprus etsoulofta@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMr Van Damme Karel Experts karel.vandamme@deconinck.belgium.beMr Vilius Maciulaitis Lithuania vilius.maciulaitis@vdi.ltMr Yiannaki Anastasios Cyprus ayiannaki@dli.mlsi.gov.cyMs Zuurbier Marga Netherlands MZuurbier@minszw.nl