Occupational safety and health in Europe - state and trends 2023 
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work – EU-OSHA 59 
Some of these groups are directly addressed by European and national legislation , for example, 
workers with disabilities, young workers or pregnant women. For other groups of workers, for example, 
for women or migrant workers , the legislative protection is formulated as a general ‘equal treatment’ 
prescription, like to provide preventive measures for all groups in an enterprise (Framework Directive, 
Article 15 ‘Risk groups’), or to provide solutions that fit to the individual (Framework Directive, Art. 6.2.d.). 
There are some prescriptions that refer to specific preventive activities, for example , to provide written 
instructions in different languages for safe work with chemicals. 
 
3.6 Conclusions  
The exposure to psychosocial risks is increasing, with mental health prevalence still emerging. Major 
work-related exposures have grown in th e past 15 to  25 years that is, time pressure, difficult clients, 
longer working hours and poor communication. There is also some evidence that countries with over -
average employ ment in sectors like health and care or other human and client -oriented services 
(education, social work, tourism, entertainment) suffer from longer working hours and more mental 
burden. The northern countries are at the top of the countries with highest mental burden. The southern 
countries have a high share of specific psychosocial risks related to work in tourism and entertainment, 
characterised by atypical working times and issues with difficult clients.  
 
EU-OSHA found in its ESENER 2014 data analysis: 112  
‘Concerning the sectors, national context appears to be related to differences in psychosocial risk 
management in all types of organisations, although in some sectors this relationship is weak. In the 
agriculture, forestry and fishing sector and the sectors of mining, construction, electricity, trade, 
transport, and accommodation and food, the low level of psychosocial risk management is observed 
also in a favourable national context. An explanation for this finding might relate to the large proportion 
of small organisations in these sectors, which, as concluded earlier, have poorer psychosocial risk 
management independently of the national context.’ 
 
There is a stable block of ‘conventional’ physical health risks — ergonomics and risk from the work 
environment — and ergonomic risks that did not significantly change since 1990. It varies between 15% 
for exposure to smoke, fumes and dusts to over 60% for repetitive hand/arm movements. Ergonomic 
risks develop in two directions: 1) traditional risks stagnate in total, that is, lifting and moving heavy 
loads, painful or tiring positions, and shifts between sectors (from industry to transport, health and care); 
2) risks of inactivity and highly repetitive hand/ arm movements increase. Beside sectoral and 
occupational differences, it can be noted that in general higher percentages of exposed employed 
persons (workers and self-employed) are working in eastern and southern Member States. 
Since 2006 the average working time per week went down by 15 minutes for employees, and a slight 
reduction of most atypical — or unsocial — working times can be observed. Work intensification has 
emerged until 2005 but seems to stagnate since then. There are strong indications but no quantitative 
evidence on the extent to which working long hours, work at atypical times and probably also work with 
higher risks were transferred to workers in non-standard types of employment.  
Non-standard forms of employment are — according to EU -OSHA — characterised by a non-
permanent employment contract and the work not being performed at the premises of the employer. 
Most studies that dealt with the connection between the employment forms and health outcomes