Subsidies for Safe and Healthy Workplaces: Sectoral Covenants in The Netherlands, 1999 – 2007

1. Subsidies for Safe and Healthy Workplaces:Sectoral Covenants in The Netherlands, 1999 – 2007 Theo J. Veerman AStri, Leiden, the Netherlands 16 November 2009

2. Topics • Outline of the Covenants programme • Participation rate of sectors • Types of goals of Covenants • Monitoring and evaluation • Effects: working conditions and sickness absence • Costs and benefits • Conclusion: did the programme work?

3. Outline of the programme (1) • Motives: • Improvement of working conditions • Custom-tailored sectoral interventions • Reduction of sickness absence • Savings: € 3 for each € invested • Written tripartite agreements between sectoral organizations of: • workers • employers • Ministry of Social Affairs

4. Outline of the programme (2) • Concrete targets (quantitative, time-limited, measurable) • Co-financing by sectors and Ministry(roughly 50/50)

5. Participation rate of sectors Expected: • 20 covenants, programme duration 4 years Realized: • 67 covenants, programme duration 8 yearscovering 52% of all workers

6. Number of covenants by year of signing

7. Number of covenants by expiry year

8. Types of goals of covenants • Each covenant set one or more goals • Average: 4 goals per covenant

9. Top 5 (% of all 259 goals)

10. Monitoring and evaluation (1) • Independent research and monitoring of each covenant • at onset: "zero-measurements“(often used for setting targets) • (often) mid-term measurements • final measurements (for evaluation)

11. Monitoring and evaluation (2) • Standardized instruments for measuring main goals(bonus for application: € 75,000) • Standard format for final evaluations(bonus for application: € 25,000) • Aggregate national evaluation, including use of national databases

12. Effects on working conditions and sickness absence (1) A) Were covenants' targets achieved? • fully: 41% of measurable targets • partly: 36% • not at all: 23% • Better achievement in sickness absence(helped by national downward trend) • Less achievement in working conditions

13. Effects on working conditions and sickness absence (2) B) Did covenant sectors perform better than the rest? • Employers were more active • Sickness absence fell more

14. Development of sickness absence rates, 1999-2005

15. Development of sickness absence rates, 1999-2005

16. … but • No substantial difference in occupational risks and health complaints A typical example: • Exposure to computer screen work

17. Computer screen work

18. Convenant sectors: higher risk from start, but no improvement (absolute nor relative)in the short run

19. Costs and benefits (1) Costs of covenants: • € 303 million • 55% from sectors • 45% from the Ministry = € 10-30 per worker per year

20. Costs and benefits (2) Benefits: • Co-financing attracted extra funds from sectors • But how about the poor sectors? • Added value of extra drop in sickness absence:2.7 billion euro • If 1/3 attributed to covenants:payout-ratio 3:1

21. Conclusion: did the programme work? Yes, in • attracting participation of many sectors • attracting extra funds • activation of employers • reduction of sickness absence No, in • reduction of risk factors • improvement of self-reported health Yes, in • creating infrastructure for future improvements

22. IT TAKES TIME !