The legislative backgrounds of workplace health promotion in three European countries: a comparative analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThis article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation.MethodsIn November 2013, a stakeholders’ survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises’ size.ResultsOnly Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements.ConclusionsFinland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland’s practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.

A Cross-Sectional Study of the Awareness and Implementation of the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace in Canadian Employers

“…9 Similar legislations/regulations exist in other countries as well, such as the Work Health Promotion (WHP) Council Directive 89/391/EEC by the European Union (EU). 14 Adopted in June 1989, the WHP directive has undergone multiple iterations, eventually incorporating psychosocial risks in the workplace and managing them in 2009. 14 The WHP directive is unique in that it provides the broad mandate each country in the EU must follow (i.e., have a health and safety framework covering a range of issues, including psychosocial risks) but also that the details are up to each country individually.…”

“…14 Adopted in June 1989, the WHP directive has undergone multiple iterations, eventually incorporating psychosocial risks in the workplace and managing them in 2009. 14 The WHP directive is unique in that it provides the broad mandate each country in the EU must follow (i.e., have a health and safety framework covering a range of issues, including psychosocial risks) but also that the details are up to each country individually. 14 Some countries, like Latvia, incorporated the mandate into existing legislation (the Latvian Labour Protection Law).…”

“…14 The WHP directive is unique in that it provides the broad mandate each country in the EU must follow (i.e., have a health and safety framework covering a range of issues, including psychosocial risks) but also that the details are up to each country individually. 14 Some countries, like Latvia, incorporated the mandate into existing legislation (the Latvian Labour Protection Law). 14 The main barrier to implementation of laws governing the WHP was reported to be the absence of preexisting workplace occupational health care legislation that was separate from general occupational safety legislation.…”

“…14 Some countries, like Latvia, incorporated the mandate into existing legislation (the Latvian Labour Protection Law). 14 The main barrier to implementation of laws governing the WHP was reported to be the absence of preexisting workplace occupational health care legislation that was separate from general occupational safety legislation. 14 Without specific workplace occupational health care legislation, there were some issues in the implementation of all aspects of the WHP, including the psychosocial aspects.…”

Health Promotion and Obesity in the Arab Gulf States: Challenges and Good Practices

“…Evidence also exists that catering services in schools and workplaces contribute to healthy eating habits in the population [20]. Good examples of healthy meal policies implemented in schools and workplace canteens come from Sweden and Finland [9, 20, 21].…”