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

Rasa Šidagytė; Maija Eglīte; Anne Salmi; Dovilė Šorytė; Ivars Vanadziņš; Leila Hopsu; Jaana Lerssi-Uskelin; Laima Bulotaitė; Lāsma Kozlova; Svetlana Lakiša; Sigita Vičaitė

doi:10.1186/s12995-015-0060-y

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

J Occup Med Toxicol. 2015 May 10:10:18. doi: 10.1186/s12995-015-0060-y. eCollection 2015.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Occupational Health Centre, Institute of Hygiene, Didžioji str. 22, Vilnius, Lithuana.
² Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Riga Stradins University, Dzirciema str. 16, Riga, Latvia.
³ Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Aapistie 1, Oulu, Finland.
⁴ Institute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga Stradins University, Dzirciema str. 16, Riga, Latvia.
⁵ Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, Helsinki, Finland.
⁶ Department of General Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Vilnius University, Universiteto str. 9/1, Vilnius, Lithuania.
⁷ Occupational Health Centre, Institute of Hygiene, Didžioji str. 22, Vilnius, Lithuana ; Positive Health Team, Šviesos str. 4B-7, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Abstract

Background: This 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.

Methods: In 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.

Results: Only 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.

Conclusions: Finland 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.

Keywords: Enterprise; Legislation; Occupational health; Workplace health promotion.