19th Plenary ACSHW Luxembourg, 5 December 2012

1. Final Report of the external study: consequences of the risk assessment documentation by very small companies in low-risk activitiesContract VC/2011/0451 19th Plenary ACSHW Luxembourg, 5 December 2012

2. Background I • Directive 89/391/EEC – Articles 6 and 9 • Better Regulation Agenda – Commission Programme of Administrative Burdens Reduction - HLG recommendation • Opinions of ACSHW and SLIC • WG of the ACSHW “evaluation” followed the development of the study (meetings with contractor, providing comments)

3. Background II • Carried out by the consultancy firm "Europe Economics" for DG EMPL (further to an open call for tenders) • Full report available on CircaBC website, subject to final changes • Does not necessarily represent the opinion of the European Commission

4. Scenarios • The study compares three scenarios : • (a) Current situation, taking account of actual levels of compliance with the obligation of Art. 9 of Dir. 89/391/EEC; • (b) 100 per cent compliance among micro-enterprises; and • (c) Exemption of micro-enterprises in low risk sectors from the obligation (while retaining the requirement that all firms have to carry out a risk assessment).

5. Conceptual framework Study the consequences of the documentation obligation on enterprises' behaviour and OSH outcomes Study gathers qualitative and quantitative evidence to assess how significant the various impacts are likely to be in practice Study includes a quantitative model to assess the costs and benefits of the 100% compliance and exemption scenarios The modelling results should be treated with caution given the uncertainties involved.

6. AWARENESS & COMPLIANCE I The study assesses: A) how aware micro-enterprises are of their obligations under the Directive and how compliant; B) the scenario of 100 per cent compliance: inspections of all enterprises would be the only way to ensure 100 per cent compliance with the documentation obligation Main finding: the extent of compliance with the requirement to do a risk assessment increases with the size of the company

7. AWARENESS & COMPLIANCE II Range of possibilities as to how thoroughly firms comply with the obligation: (a) Non-compliance (b) Superficial compliance: formal compliance by documenting a risk assessment (c) Thorough compliance: possibility that documenting the risk assessment leads to changes to the physical environment and to the behaviour of management and workers improving health and safety outcomes.

8. Definition of micro-enterprises • Fewer than 10 workers • and annual turnover and/or balance sheet not exceeding €2 millions • EC Recommendation 2003/361/EC

9. Definition of low risk I Possible regulatorydefinitions proposed: • by sectors • by occupations • by exposure to hasards Definitionretained for modellingpurposes: by sector • (onlydefinition type where the number of microenterprisescoveredat EU levelcouldbeidentified)

10. Definition of low risk II Criteria for determining low risk sectors: • Number of days lost per 100,000 employees due to accidents at work and work-related health problems • Incidence of fatalities • Permanent incapacity due to accidents and ill-health According to these criteria, 3 options of low risk definition proposed using different thresholds for each criterion

11. Definition of low risk III

12. Definition of low risk IV Challenges related to the definition proposed: • Sectors selected as low-risk based only on 3 statistical criteria- results might also reflect the effectiveness of existing preventive measures • Timing of the study • EU data on work-related ill-health could only be used for 1999, as 2007 data could not cover all requirements • Limitations as regards EU data on permanent incapacity and fatalities at the level of detail required • As a consequenceanalysisdifficult for manysectors and Member States at the EU level and given the level of detailrequired

13. Quantitative Impacts • Health and safety impacts captured by modelling • Uncertainties involved, in particular as regards the impact of documentation on the number of risk assessments undertaken

15. Qualitative Impacts • Health and safety impacts: • Positive / negative • Other impacts: • Role of document after incident – Related obligations and workers' rights

16. IMPACT ON ENFORCEMENT BODIES Exemption from the documentation obligation unlikely to have a significant direct impact on most enforcement bodies. However, for generalist labour inspectorates; the exemption would either reduce their ability to enforce health and safety compliance effectively, or increase costs of doing so. Indirect effects

17. CONCLUSIONS Modelling: Exemption from the documentation obligation for micro-enterprises in low risk sectors may lead to a small net benefit under the medium scenario for 2 or 3 low risk definitions. Exemption might lead to a negative net benefit (and possibly a substantial one) Modelling: Achieving 100% compliance would not be worthwhile due to the costs outweighing the benefits Qualitative impacts

18. Follow-up Thorough analysis of the results of the study together with the replies to the questionnaire sent to the Member States There are first indications is that further work on low-risksectordefinition is required