Survey on work environment of white-collar workers

A recent survey on the work environment of white-collar workers revealed that most of the companies surveyed are in breach of the Work Environment Act. A particularly alarming finding concerns the shortcomings in relation to the poor identification of physical and psychosocial risks at work leading to strain. Furthermore, more than one out of five companies does not comply with the Swedish law, which requires measures to identify psychosocial risks in the work environment.

About the survey

In 2007, the Swedish Union for Technical and Clerical Employees (Svenska Industritjnstemannafrbundet, Sif) and the Salaried Employees Union (Handelstjnstemannafrbundet, HTF), which merged to form the Unionen trade union on 1 January 2008, carried out the second work environment survey. Sif had conducted the first survey of this kind in 2006. The work environment survey aims to achieve a better understanding of how workplace safety representatives and trade union members view their work environment and how they consider that the Systematic Work Environment Management (353Kb PDF) functions within their workplaces. The Swedish Work Environment Authority (Arbetsmiljverket, AV) has issued the rules for systematic work environment management, which set out the basic elements required in this regard. The AV guidelines explain and define the procedures that employers must follow in order to meet their work environment responsibilities. On the basis that work environment surveys will be conducted annually, it will be possible to chart trends in working conditions over time and, thus, take action aimed at improving the work environment in Swedish workplaces. The work environment survey sample is representative of the 500,000 whitecollar workers among the trade union members. In all, about 2,400 workplace safety representatives and 1,847 trade union members participated in the study. Survey data were collected through a web-based questionnaire between 21 August and 7 September 2007.

Main survey findings

Lack of systems supervision In the majority of cases, the deficiencies that emerged from the survey reflect the lack of systems supervision of the work environment and the Systematic Work Environment Management. The expression systems supervision denotes the approach to overseeing the work environment which is focused on monitoring the employers routines, resources, plans of action and organisation for dealing with health and safety matters. Therefore, it represents a key element of the procedure for ensuring compliance with the 1977 Work Environment Act (Arbetsmiljlagen, AML (251Kb PDF)). In this respect, systems

supervision is the prerequisite for achieving a good work environment, according to the trade unions. The survey findings reveal that only 54% of the workplaces are conducting a systems supervision of the work environment a figure which is remarkably low. Other survey findings indicate that two out of three workers spend more than half of their working time in front of a computer screen. Some 23% of the workplace safety representatives have not received any training in either health and safety at the workplace or systematic work environment management. Identifying risks leading to work-related strain According to the study, shortcomings in systems supervision relate, in particular, to those companies which do not carry out any surveys to identify physical and psychosocial risks factors. Only 27% of the companies surveyed conduct such surveys required by the Work Environment Act, in order to identify physical risks associated with work-related strain. At the same time, about 82% of the workplace safety representatives report that companies also neglect to carry out surveys to identify work-related psychosocial risk factors. Regarding the identification of work-related risk factors, 20% of trade union members report that their employer conducts surveys to identify work-related physical risk, while only 12% of trade union members report that their employer does the same to identify psychosocial risks. This finding highlights the general perception that ill-health is mainly associated with physical risks; hence, the identification of psychosocial risks is neglected. Furthermore, only about 50% of the safety representatives consider their workplace to have a good or a very good psychosocial work environment. In light of these findings, recommendations were made that employers and trade unions should pay greater attention to the psychosocial dimension of the work environment. Work-related problems The survey reveals that 54% of the Sif members have, to some extent, suffered from pain in the back, neck, shoulders and joints during the year preceding the work environment survey. It is assumed that these pains are related to the work environment. Half of these cases were not reported to the management, and nine out of 10 companies did not notify the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Frskringskassan) of any cases of work-related ill-health. Impact of company size on work environment A clear correlation exists between company size and the extent to which the systematic work environment management operates: the larger the company, the better the work environment. The survey findings indicate that some improvements in the work environment can be perceived in medium-sized companies employing between 10 and 50 staff. In larger workplaces with more than 100 employees, the most common improvements include action plans, risk and consequence analyses and documented routines in relation to the work

environment. Moreover, the access to healthcare and rehabilitation facilities provided by companies is generally better in larger workplaces.