The Impact of EU Democracy on Health and Safety at Work Directive

This paper critically examines the EU's Health and Safety at Work (HSW) Directive 89/391/EEC, assessing its democratic aspects and effectiveness in ensuring workplace safety. The introduction highlights debates surrounding the EU's democratic nature, particularly concerning the non-elected EU Commission. The discussion section delves into the directive's responsibilities, its impact on workplace safety, and the ongoing debates about its efficacy. The analysis includes discussions on EU regulations, deregulation, and the importance of objective decision-making by the EU Commission. The paper also explores the need for reforms, including extending the scope of co-decision to enhance democratic governance and employee rights. It also addresses the challenges of information gathering and evaluation by the EU Commission. The essay concludes by emphasizing the need for reforms and a democratic process to address safety issues for all employees, advocating for a more inclusive and effective approach to worker protection.

1
EU DEMOCRACY THROUGH A HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (HSW) DIRECTIVE
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

2
Introduction
One of the key arguments raised by a majority of critics regarding the EU’s way of
governance is that, it is “undemocratic”. Others argue that there are multiple opportunities to
hand EU a democratic system with the mandate of guiding the region towards the right cause.
On the fact of it, the EU has a democratic system. In addition, the EU Commission is not
elected but is fully responsible of the decisions it makes on behalf of the member states.
Moreover all the EU affiliates are represented in the council of ministers. Nevertheless, this
does not make it any democratic. However, we ought to expect certain flaws to be present in
any democracy .If such flaws are present in any democratic institution then it would be easy
to enjoy its validity and power. Therefore. The main objective of this paper is to discuss one
EU, Health and Safety at Work directive or the Directive 89/391/EEC, 2007 and provide any
reforms that would ensure that the new, more democratic governance structure works more
effectively.
Discussion
The health and safety at work directive imposes a wide range of responsibilities to
employers, the self-employed and the workers themselves. It is a fundamental directive as it
offers the legal framework that would encourage high standards of health safety at work in
the EU jurisdiction, by seeking to reflect the laws of the member states on workplace health
and safety .The Act set out specific issues that are applicable to certain industrial sectors with
more detailed subsidiary regulations (Lèfstedt, 2011).
It is undeniable that the EU has become a much safer region since the implementation
of the directive. The degree of which, facts can be attributed to the Act versus other factors
such as general shifts from SMEs protection are still debatable. However, figure from
members states reveal that there have been more than thirty time more work-related deaths

3
than before (Bicchi, 2010).This is a clear proof that we ought to consider much better
frameworks that would improve governance and the effectiveness of the directive on millions
of employees across Europe. Even though such statistics might be a little solace to those who
might have lost friends or relatives within the EU member states, it cannot be denied that
certain measures have been put in place in order to improve the condition of employees at
work and reduce the number of fatalities.
EU regulation
There have been several reviews conducted by researchers in the issue of health and
safety, and how it has conducted through European regulations. In the case of some critics
they emphasise that the law should focus on burdens on businesses. Hughes, & Ferrett,
(2011) simply argues that “there is sufficient evidence that there have been significant
regulation creep of the Health and Safety at Work (HSW) directive over the past few years.”
However, he does not provide any proposal that would be used to make the necessary reforms
and deregulation. Therefore, it is important for the European Commission to look into
exempting some of the requirements stipulated within the act. That being said, this is not a
process that can be achieved by only one country and thus, it suggests a fundamental change
that a deregulatory EU commission might seek to introduce, removing some unnecessary
requirement for millions of employees.
Hughes, & Ferrett, (2012) indicates that “the increased influence of the EU in the
regulation of health and safety has offered a number of benefits to Europe as a whole. This is
because most of EU legislation are designed in a prescriptive manner which might have
helped small and medium enterprises who usually welcome greater certainty over what they
are required to do. Where EU directive have already been implemented, it has offered the
opportunity to consolidate a number of newly deregulated regulations. However, these

4
directives are considered by others as not providing a fairground across Europe, which can
significantly skew competitiveness, especially as the UK health and safety law was already in
effect. Some of the fundamental statutes of the Act are “gold plated” which implies that the
EU commission went beyond the required standards when implementing it into a national
law. This might be considered by many as a positive thing in the sense that countries see the
EU regulations as the minimum standard (Garben, 2010). However, some of the recent
studies have looked into how deep the most EU acts and directives are gold-plated and there
is robust evidence suggesting that this is a widespread problem.
Decisions
Directive 89/391/EEC is a complex legal framework and as a result, legal experts
often have questioned its effectiveness in ensuring the safety of all workers. The main goals
of the directive is to safeguard millions of employees and promote their wellbeing while
working. The EU commission can achieve a positive objective through a number of
deregulations on this directive with respect to democracy, including the rights for self-
determination, non-discrimination among other key considerations. Numerous scholars have
addressed these issues and provided a number of sound recommendations. This would ensure
that the directive is well equipped to solve which might be considered as a problem towards
the safety of all employees (Restuccia et al., 2010).
A number of factors are important for the regulation of a formidable Health and safety
directive. First, to the possible extent, the commission ought to be objective. This implies that
the EU commission should ensure that they don’t have any conflict of interest or any
undemocratic professional incentive. Pace, (2009) indicates that, “if the existing societal
values do not support inclusivity, the democratic means that alter the decision ought to be
desirable” (P.135). This implies that democratic societies often thrive on the idea that the

5
actions of the governments towards the safety of its citizens are subject to public participation
.Periodic representation by the EU commission provides the public with the opportunity to
get explanations and for the public officials to justify the decisions . Therefore, any remedies
directive towards the Directive 89/391/EEC requires the EU commission to pay attention to
the effectiveness of alternative recommendations (Stelkens, Weiß, & Mirschberger, 2012).
The evaluation of the Act reveals that amendments are sporadically applied by
member states and thus are considered by some as least relevant. However, Crum, & Fossum,
(2009) expresses that, all remedies directive given on the act contribute to a deterrent effect
and offer a more comprehensive system for suctioning any form of irregularities in employee
safety and wellbeing at work. At least, one of a kind health directive is not always best made
through fully accountable decision makers; the kind that significantly affects individual rights
of workers rather than the majoritarian decision-making process (Joseph, & Castan,
2013).For instance, a workers protection policy that does not include expectant mothers from
unsafe workplaces to promote the wellbeing of an infant, directly violates the fundamental
rights of non-discrimination. Therefore, fetal protection policy under the HWC Act has long
been discriminatory, regardless of most companies having provided scientific evidence that
the foetus of an expectant mother could be at risk ( Sargeant, & Giovannone, 2011).
There EU commission should therefore be positioned to receive and evaluate various
recommendations on all the fundamental aspects of the policy. The EU commission often has
access to a great deal of information, however, evaluating the reliability of such information
is usually complicated. Commissioners receive information from member states governments
among other experts selected by each state. This ensures that information is received from a
wide array of lobbyists and professional groups (Gagliardi, et al., 2012). The EU
commissioners might recognise that some information is coming from potentially biased

6
source, but might be difficult to weigh the relative value they might be receiving. With the
Directive 89/391/EEC having reached its 12 th year, we are entitle to ask:
• Why are accidents, injuries and other work-related incidences still everyday
occurrences?
• Why serious injuries as a result of such events still happening with appalling
regularity.
• Why are the number of legal claims due to personal injuries at work on the rise
instead of falling?
If we are to extrapolate some of the recent statistic in work related accidents and
fatalities, then within the next decade we could conceivably see further number of work-
related accidents with a corresponding number of injuries and even some other cases of
permanent disabilities. Some of these issues suggest a major departure from the existing
structure of the Directive 89/391/EEC and focus on new and more prescriptive reforms.
While some of the suggestions might appear radical, if the EU is to successfully tackle the
many problems faced by workers , then the commission ought to urgently examine a
democratic process that review the responses to safety issues for all employees (Cardwell,
2011).
The introduction of the (HSW) directive or the Directive 89/391/EEC led to many
workers believe that they had at last got means to resolve some, if not all the safety problems
they long had, but didn’t have voice against them. It provided statutory rights of inspection,
regulating the safety of members among other issues. Moreover, the act was an enabling
framework that led to most workers expect future comprehensive legislation, which would be
presented through simplified codes of practice (Dollard, & Neser, 2013). However, a majority

7
of the recent analysis shows that employers have now failed in their responsibilities to ensure
the safety and health of their workforces. There some clear reasons behind this;
• Deregulation of the HSW directive from the Blair years
• Financial challenges in the house budget.
• Changes in emphasis to more friendly approaches.
• Attempt by the CACFOA (Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association) to
have certain occupations exempted from the directive, with consequential impacts.
It is indeed pure speculations as to whether or not work-related accident figures would
indeed be much higher without the existing directive or regulations based on the requirements
of the current EU legislation. However, what is not a speculation is that such has been an
increase in the number of reportable accidents and injuries that the current Health and Safety
directive does not cover.
How democratic governance structure would work.
Extension in the scope of co-decision:
According to section 289 of the EU remedies directive(Directive 89/665), on the
running of the EU, co-decision is the most appropriate process which would comprise of the
joint approval by the European Parliament or a council on any regulations or a directive on
proposals from the public. The process will be extended to other policy and legal areas where
the council is expected to apply democratic procedures (Ebbesson, 2010).This would ensure
that the public is always involved in the amendment process. The most significant field that
would require extension are security for workers, freedom and justice. Moreover, other areas
will include, structural funding and amendments to the statute among others.

8
The process of co-decision is described in section 294 of the EU remedies directive.
This article would provide a structure of first and second reading of public suggestions and
then determine the approval of the statutory drafts. This would result to the conciliation
committee agreeing upon what has not been adopted in the second reading (Barnard, 2012).
While co-decision would be introduced to make the decision-making process more inclusive
and democratic, it would further ensure that the amendment procedure has increased in
formalisation inclusion of the electorates as well as member state parliamentarians. This is
the result of the organisation of the informal discussions commonly knowns as trilogies
between the EU council, commissions representatives and the European public at large. Such
discussions are envisioned to minimise delays in the legislative procedures by avoiding time-
consuming third-reading and the need to resort to a resolution committee. Where the trilogue
is effective, the key stakeholders adopt the text that are later approved officially, allowing an
early agreement at the first reading.
Rights-based approaches to development
It is important to relate the identified possible interventions to the advancements of
human rights approach while developing new reforms or when eliminating certain forms of
exclusion associated with a certain regulation. This perspective helps in defining the role of
the European community in promoting social, economic and political rights. This would
ensure that the policymakers pursue a fair process at arriving at their decisions. However, it
would require careful examination of all the major perspectives from the general public.
Procedures might also include adversarial hearings, investigations other fundamental
procedures that would help in examining the arguments. A fair reform process requires all
that the public or organisations that have legitimate interest to be present and provide the
perspective regarding any regulation. Careful attention to the process of making decision to

9
achieve both an accurate validation of information from the public (Aires, Gámez, & Gibb,
2010).
This would offer a unique opportunity to observe the working in different industries
and how health and safety policy issue has been developed to produce the needed social good
for millions of EU public by enhancing their access to the available safety measures and
reducing discrimination , and lastly allocating any benefits and burdens more equitably
(Barnard, 2014). The Commission is obliged to develop a health safety systems that would be
beneficial to all workers without including their conflict of interest or being paralysed by
competing interests groups. As years of conceptualising healthcare reforms turns to seasons
of political discussions and decisions, the strength of the EU commission might become
painfully clear through this process.
Health and safety Act regulation
The European directive covers diverse aspects of business health and safety
requirements. In the EU the health and safety directive is one of the most fundamental pieces
of legislation as it ensures that there is always a higher degree of safeguarding employees at
work by applying the most appropriate preventative measures that protect against any form of
accidents and other work-related complications.
In respect to this directive, the biggest reform that has ever been implemented was the
Health and Safety Framework Directive (89/391/EEC, 2012) together with the five
“daughter” directive (Council Directive 76/464/EEC). These two reforms provided broad-
based obligations on all the EU members’ states to ensure that employers examine, avoid or
reduce work-related risks through consultations with their employees (Niskanen, Naumanen,
& Hirvonen, 2012). At the time of these changes , little was needed for the implementation of
the directive as most member states had their own legislative systems that met most of the

10
requirements of within the directive in respect to risk management as well as the duties if the
employers. As a result, most states considered their own legislation as adequate as a means of
achieving the necessary standards, and considered the EU directive as less prescriptive, thus
the necessity of extending the law in its future reform efforts. Carefully evading disruptions
to the HSW Act, Magen, Risse, & McFaul, (2009) suggest that it is important to have a new
set of regulations together with a number of fundamental codes of practice and guidance
notes that would bring the EU directive in line with the most necessary provisions of health
and safety at work, including consultation with the employees. Such kind of recommendation
have developed because a majority of legal experts consider that there are still major threats
of infraction proceedings and have also extended to worker representation. Therefore, the EU
commission has to make changes on the HSW directive to ensure that government employees
are also covered by the law.
Other health and safety directives implemented through the EU regulations also
require some levels of changes. This would further ensures that the management of certain
workplace risks are covered as well as safeguarding specific groups of employees such as
expectant mothers, temporary employees and interns. Specific regulations should be
established in order to cover specific areas such as risks of constructions works, chemical
manufacturing, and off-shore works among others (Saurugger, 2010).
Recommendations
Identify the human rights burdens.
This step would require a public enquiry into the nature, scope and duration of
violations of human rights. This would ensure that the amendments do not interfere with the
right to liberty and non-discrimination of workers. For instance, if the policy would require
employers to employ safety equipment as a condition to receive government assistance, they

11
might be interfering with the privacy and discrimination against some professions that do not
need safety wear. Such policies might not be applicable to mean or does not affect high-
income employees (Jain, Leka, & Zwetsloot, 2018).It might also burden small and medium
enterprises if such measurements were made compulsory.
The main idea behind public participation in reforming the HSW directive is the
consideration of human rights approach to develop a system that incorporates all persons and
at the same time advancing the key processes of social democratisation .This would ensure
that inequalities and social exclusion are eliminated and encourage productive
transformation. Inclusive reform process would eventually establish a vigorous European
economy capable of eliminating economic exclusion and regional legitimisation which would
ensure the creation of a representative and efficient apparatus put in pace. The key actors
including the public, private and civil society would have key roles to play in democratization
of the reform process. The primary obligation for putting into practice human rights approach
to HSW directive remains at the regional level. However, even though the primary obligation
is regional, an enabling environment in all the member states is required to facilitate a more
democratic process, consistent with the right to develop a well prescriptive framework for all
workers. Most important, the process requires greater democratic governance of international
organisations, and specifically Regional Workers organisations. It is impossible to delink
democratic governance from Human rights to safety and care as such disconnections might
jeopardise the implementation of right based approaches to the development of a more
prescriptive directive (Trubek, & Mosher, 2010).
Clear, the structure of the EU has a number of defects when assessed through the
perspective of Western democracy. However, I would argue that the EU commission, with its
elected representatives from all the member states is much less democratic. Eurosceptic have
for quite a long period question the legitimacy of certain EU directives such as the HSW Act

12
–but that charge is challenging to sustain. Indeed, member states have agreed to pool their
sovereignty in the EU directives, but they are entitled to consider the safety of the citizens.
Therefore, the HSW act/directive, however good and effective it has been, it has a number of
flaws that ought to be rectified for democratic purposes (Daszkiewicz, & Wach,2012).This
can only be achieved through the national governments as they are still have most powerful
collective influence in shaping the EU directives and not the European government .
Representatives of member states have the obligation of raising issues about any EU
directive, which can compel the commission to consider reforms. This would ensure that the
EU is in the process of strengthening the abilities of its directives into a transformative and
democratic EU legislation.