Occupational safety and health in Europe - state and trends 2023 
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work – EU-OSHA 45 
Looking at the data, it is quite obvious that the n orthern and the central European countries are 
underrepresented in the group of countries with the highest share of physical and ergonomic risks. The 
central European countries (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France, and 
the two northern European countries Denmark and Sweden) are practicall y not present in these lists. 
The picture changes if it is about lifting or moving of people, a consequence of the relatively larger 
relevance of care work in these countries.  
Physical inactivity and permanent or prolonged sitting or standing is a specific ergonomic risk with 
health impacts for the musculoskeletal system but also contributing to other health impacts like 
cardiovascular diseases, tendency to overweight and so on.60 According to ESENER 2019, the second 
most frequently reported risk factor in the EU27 was prolonged sitting. By sector, it was most frequently 
reported by enterprises in financial and insurance activities (92% of establishments in the sector in the 
EU28), information and communication (92%) , and public administration (89%). On av erage, three to 
four hours of this sedentary behaviour occurs at work. In the EU, 28% of workers report that their work 
involves sitting almost all the time and a further 30% report sitting a quarter to three quarters of the time, 
and throughout Europe 18% of the workers sit more than 7.5 hours a day. 
As mentioned in previous chapters, there exists a share of workers exposed to physical risks that is 
prevalent in spite of all structural and sectoral changes. Some of the structural changes of the economy, 
for example, from industrial production to maintenance and repair,61 might even cause higher ergonomic 
risks; in general it will be more difficult to use technical help tools in varying maintenance and repair 
situations, compared to more homogenous tasks in industry. Growing sectors, for example, home care 
of ill or elderly people, involve ergonomic risks due to transport and moving of patients and/or  tiring 
positions. 
 
OSH Barometer – Physical risks: 
https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-barometer/working-conditions-preventions/physical-
risk/vibrations-loud-noise-and-temperature 
ESENER – Data visualisation:  
https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/esener/en/survey/datavisualisation/2019 
EU-OSHA Themes – Musculoskeletal disorders: 
https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/musculoskeletal-disorders 
 
3.3 Contract types and work locations  
The chapter deals with the impact of non-standard types of work on working conditions in comparison 
to standard work, focusing on the impact of the ‘Conditions of employment’ on OSH .  
Most studies that dealt with the connection between the employment forms  and health outcomes 
and in particular safety and health aspects found significant correlations. 62 A census-based study from 
Belgium on non-standard forms of work and mortality from Belgium concluded (2021):  
‘Our study, which to our knowledge is the first  one to assess associations between forms of non-
standard employment and mortality using population- wide data, revealed considerable mortality 
inequalities within the salaried employee population in Belgium. Over the subsequent 13 years and three 
months of  follow-up, certain non- standard workers were at increased risk of death compared to 
permanently employed workers.’63 
The conventional non-standard types of work start with widespread temporary (or fixed- term) work, 
seasonal work, casual work, remote work in different forms (at home or other places), self -employed 
work, family work, mobile work in transport and often in construction, domestic work, care and craft work 
at the places of clients, plus several types of less regular and undeclared work.