Trade Union News from Finland

Enterprises should regard occupational safety as a strategic factor, says professor Liesivuori

Helsinki (21.02.2003 - Juhani Artto) Why has the rapid decline in work-related accidents and diseases virtually stopped? "There are competent risk studies in practically all industries, but the results are not transmitted effectively to the workplaces," comments Jyrki Liesivuori, who is professor of occupational and environmental toxicology at the University of Kuopio in Eastern Finland.

One obvious weakness is a shortage of training at all levels. "Only 20 per cent of the occupational safety staff of enterprises have participated in basic occupational safety courses" Liesivuori notes, referring to findings reported by the Centre for Occupational Safety.

"Preparing the risk analysis required by the new European Union Occupational Safety and Health Directive is a much more demanding matter than performing routine safety work. The training needed for conducting such an analysis has not yet been organised."

"Since enterprises lack basic knowledge, the results of new studies and other relevant information that are nowadays also available in abundance on the Internet cannot be utilised," Liesivuori observes.

There is also a lack of concrete monitoring at workplaces. "It is estimated that almost one million employees are exposed to chemicals to some extent. Unfortunately we have no estimates of the degree of exposure, and there is barely any information about the health impacts of such exposure."

"Compared with the extent of exposure, far too little concrete monitoring is performed. In its research and service work the Institute of Occupational Health charts exposure at 1,000 workplaces annually. Some 7,000 biological samples are analysed and 10,000 antibody determinations performed."

Professor Liesivuori also stresses that risk levels are often exceptionally high when employees not affected by these risks are excluded in epidemiological studies from whole industry averages.

He points out that several studies on occupational accidents show that attention paid to accident risks when planning production reduces the average number of accidents. It is safe to assume that a similar method would also be the most effective way of avoiding other work environment risks, such as those posed by biological, physical, chemical or ergonomic factors.

There are good reasons for integrating occupational and environmental health matters into strategic development work for the whole enterprise, Liesivuori emphasises. "Both the economic efficiency of the enterprise and its image gain from doing so."

He sounds somewhat frustrated when speaking about the captains of industry in Finland: "They do nothing to improve occupational safety unless they are forced to." Neither is Liesivuori willing to give good marks to the trade union movement: "Altogether there is too much indifference in the various organisations concerned. Behind every figure in the accident and disease statistics there are human beings. Losing the sense of hearing or sustaining a whole lifetime allergic eruption is a major loss for an individual."

The penalties for negligence or for clear mistakes in matters of health and safety are at best modest: until now very few cases have been taken to court. Judges have viewed involuntary manslaughter as deserving of no sterner sanctions than a fine: "Why should anyone bother to minimise risks when the legal consequences of accidents are no worse than this?"

Even before the traditional risks such as noise and chemicals had been overcome, new kinds of risk such as exhaustion, haste and the results of VDU work have emerged: "For example, we are still ignorant of the long-term impacts of prolonged staring at a computer monitor," professor Liesivuori observes, and continues: "Research should be pre-emptive but in this sphere it has not been. Unfortunately, we still first have a patient with severe symptoms before we begin to evaluate processes, factors and stresses cauing the disease."

Read also: