Studies & Surveys
![]()
Latest Studies & Surveys
2021
Machinery Regulation – Focus on the draft intended to supersede Directive 2006/42/EC
In this new Focus, EUROGIP analyses the major changes that the new Machinery Regulation would bring for the different economic operators.
The current Directive establishes a regulatory framework to ensure the free movement of machinery within the European internal market and a high level of protection for users and other exposed persons. Various impact studies initiated in 2016 with interested parties concluded that the text needed to be improved, simplified and adapted to the needs of the market.
For example, the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation on machinery and related products on 21 April 2021. By proposing a regulation, it avoids the cumbersome process of transposing a directive. All elements of the new machinery regulation, once adopted, will become mandatory and directly applicable in each EU Member State.
It is important to note that the points mentioned are likely to change between now and the publication of the final version of the regulation. Discussions, which are now taking place at the level of the European Council and the European Parliament, are expected to continue until the second half of 2022.
2021
Protection of slaughterhouse workers – Focus on the German law of 2020
The German government took measures at the end of 2020 to curb the numerous Covid-19 contaminations in slaughterhouses. EUROGIP reports on the issue in a new Focus.
The Focus is also available in French
2020
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: Reference systems and tools in five European countries
The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines an occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS) as “a set of interrelated or interdependent elements designed to establish an OHS policy and OHS objectives and to achieve those objectives”.
Several reference systems – certification or guidelines – exist at the international level to support the implementation of an OHSMS within the company. They all have the same overall objective: to improve the company’s performance in terms of prevention of accidents at work and occupational diseases.
in some countries, occupational health and safety, prevention and regional bodies have developed reference systems, tools and support systems to help SMEs/VSEs design, structure and implement an OHS approach in a management system.
This EUROGIP note presents international reference systems and some national tools and reference systems.
2020
EUROGIP Position – Definition of occupational safety and health (OSH) injury indicators in the form of international standards
Any initiatives aimed at the rigorous monitoring of occupational risks and accident occurrence should be encouraged in order to better prevent them. But the EUROGIP Executive Board warns about an international standardization of occupational safety and health (OSH) statistics in a position paper on 31 January 2020.
2019
Standardization in occupational health and safety – Essential primary prevention lever
How can standards contribute to improving occupational safety and health and (OS&H)? A document published by EUROGIP answers the question through six concrete examples.
Health Insurance – Occupational Risks within the French Social Security system, has been involved in the development of OS&H standards, under the coordination of EUROGIP, for many years. Indeed, standardization is a primary prevention activity. It makes it possible to integrate OS&H from the design stage of products, particularly concerning machinery and personal protective equipment.
2018
EUROGIP infos December 2018 issue
Our newsletter EUROGIP infos dated DECEMBER 2018 is online. It presents the latest news on occupational risks at Community level, in EU countries or about standardisation in occupational health and safety.
Contents:
Community news
- Healthy workers, thriving companies – a practical guide to wellbeing at work
- Incidence and detection of occupational cancers in nine European countries
- Understanding and taking action to eliminate occupational cancers
- A recommendation on the access of all workers to welfare benefits
Standardization
- Brexit and standardization: A transition period
- December 2018: What’s new in health and safety at work standardization?
- Register for the sixth EUROSHNET Conference on standardization, testing and certification
Abroad
- SWEDEN: Online training in OSH for the retail sector
- AUSTRIA: AUVA continues its activities
- GERMANY: The possibility of early detection of mesotheliomas, a breakthrough
Events
- EUROGIP Discussions 2019: Occupational health and safety: what levers in Europe for a culture of prevention in the workplace?”, 21 March 2019, Paris (France)
- 10th International Conference on the Prevention of Accidents at Work, 23-26 September 2019, Vienna (Austria)
Download the DECEMBER 2018 issue in PDF format
2018
Incidence and detection of occupational cancers in nine European countries
Here is a new report entitled “Incidence and detection of occupational cancers in nine European countries” published by EUROGIP with the precious help of the European Forum of the insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases. The data concern Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.
Cancer cases (reports and recognition) since 2005 have been relatively stable in Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy and Sweden, but have increased in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. For this last group, there are various reasons, such as the inclusion of skin cancer on the national list of ODs in Germany in 2015.
In every country except Germany, cancers due to asbestos dust accounted for the overwhelming majority of cancers recognized as an occupational disease in 2016. For example, mesotheliomas represented more than 30% of occupational cancers in Denmark, 50% in Austria and Italy, 65% in Belgium and around 90% in Sweden.
Comparing the number of cases recognized with the insured population, Germany and France top the list by far, with 15.1 and 11.39 per 100,000 insured respectively. The lowest ratio is posted in Sweden: 0.5. In Germany, cancers account for 32% of recognized occupational diseases. The study also reveals that the off-list recognition system is not the most suitable one for cancers.
The second part of the report discusses programmes designed to detect cancer cases at an early stage in order to improve the chances of healing, and schemes which help victims assert their rights to compensation for an occupational disease. These schemes could be the cross-checking of OD reports with the cancer register for mesotheliomas and cancers of the nasal cavities (Denmark), scouting for a possible work-related origin of lung cancers in a hospital environment (northern Italy), or else targeting and support for the potential victims of a bladder cancer by the OSH insurance organization (France).
2018
EUROGIP infos September issue
Our newsletter EUROGIP infos dated September 2018 has just been published. It presents the latest news on occupational risks at Community level, in EU countries or about standardisation in occupational health and safety.
Download the September issue in PDF format
Subscribe to receive the info point every month
2018
Statistical Review of occupational injuries France: data 2016
EUROGIP publishes a new “Statistical review of occupational injuries France 2016” which presents data on accidents at work, commuting accidents and occupational diseases in 2016 in France. This document is the eighth devoted specifically to the loss experience at work (general scheme) in France, thus giving an overview over 10 years.
The document is available in French also.
2018
Prevention in the field of collaborative robotics
EUROGIP summarizes in this note the thoughts highlighted in various work done notably in France, Germany and the Netherlands in the field of collaborative robotics and risk prevention measures that could be implemented.
Collaborative robotics concerns robots capable of interacting with human beings as part of industrial processes. The human being and the robot thus share the same work area to carry out all or part of their tasks, whereas a “conventional” industrial robot is characterized by its physical remoteness and the fact that there is no collaboration with a human being. Although the stated objectives and expectations of the market players may diverge, it turns out that the identified risks are largely the same. And yet, societal issues involving collaborative robotics and increased interaction with human beings are apparently not neglected.