text: The authors conclude on the**relevance of the EU OSH directives**: 
  
  *‘The evaluation shows very clearly that the EU OSH acquis is the reference frame for national OSH*
  *regulatory regimes. While the Member States have chosen various models for their legal implementation*
  *of the Directives’ requirements, there is no doubt that the Directives’ requirements form the core of the*
  *national systems in one way or the other. The significance of the Directives in setting the scene for OSH*
  *regulation in the EU is therefore very high.’*
  
  The authors also distinguish between the two major principles of legislative approaches in OSH, that is, 
  either setting an objective and letting the actors define how this goal can be achieved**(goal-oriented**
  **approach)**, or prescribing also quite detailed measures to reach the objective**(prescriptive**
  **approach)**:352 
  
  *‘There seems to be a general view that the Framework Directive, with its orientation towards a goal-*
  *oriented approach to OSH (rather than prescriptive) successfully lays out a suitable template for*
  *managing workplace risks – but not in itself enough to ensure that all risks are dealt with sufficiently.*
  *One criticism of the goal-setting approach is that the absence of prescriptive intermediate goals makes*
  
  *compliance harder to verify and, in the absence of that verification procedure, harder to enforce*
  *(especially in OSH cultures with a history of the prescriptive approach).’*353 
  
  Regarding the**level of compliance with the legal goals or prescriptions**, the study authors assess it 
  as ‘moderate to good.’ They see major differences depending on the topic and the size of the 
  enterprises: 