This report has been produced for the international evaluation
of FIOH, which was carried out in 2014 by an independent
international evaluation group of experts, appointed by
the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health of Finland.
2014
ISBN 978-952-261-433-9 (pdf)
The report is available at:
http://www.ttl.fi/en/publications/
Electronic_publications/
Development of occupational safety
and health work at the workplace
Report for the international evaluation of
the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH)
Work group (in alphabetical order):
Rauno Hanhela, Chief Specialist; Mika Liuhamo, Head of Development;
Rauno Pääkkönen, Director of Thematic Area, FIOH
Contents
Assignment ............................................................................................................. 3
1. Proposals for action ............................................................................................. 3
1.1. Research and development ................................................................................. 3
1.2. Roles ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Expertise and resources ..................................................................................... 3
1.4. Division of labour .............................................................................................. 4
1.5. What should the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health do? .................................. 4
2. What does OSH mean? ........................................................................................ 4
2.1. Development of OSH ......................................................................................... 5
2.2. OSH at the workplace ........................................................................................ 5
2.3. Expert organizations in the field of OSH ................................................................ 6
2.4. Supervision of OSH ........................................................................................... 6
3. The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health as an OSH actor .............................. 7
3.1. Legislative mandate .......................................................................................... 7
3.2. OSH training .................................................................................................... 7
3.3. OSH services .................................................................................................... 8
3.4. OSH research ................................................................................................... 8
3.5. OSH publications ............................................................................................... 9
4. Situation at workplaces ....................................................................................... 9
4.1. Successful implementation of OSH ....................................................................... 9
4.2. Polarization of workplaces ................................................................................. 12
4.3. Workplace resources......................................................................................... 12
4.4. Summary ........................................................................................................13
5. Sources ............................................................................................................. 13
5.1. Websites .........................................................................................................13
5.2. Publications .....................................................................................................14
5.3. Legislation ......................................................................................................14
5.4. Reports, studies, statements .............................................................................14
5.5. Research reports .............................................................................................. 15
5.6. Books .............................................................................................................16
3
Assignment
This is a review of the current situation and future challenges of occupational safety and
health (OSH) and the role of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) in this field.
The review examines the development of OSH, the division of labour between the Ministry of
Social Affairs and Health, the Centre for Occupational Safety and FIOH, and the potential for
networked activities. It pays special attention to OSH activities at workplaces and the key
research needs.
1. Proposals for action
1.1. Research and development
As the statutory foundation for well-being at work and productive operations, OSH cannot be
compromised, even in lean times. Since it has been estimated that workplaces invest a total
of approximately one billion euros per year in OSH, there is reason to investigate what this
money accomplishes and whether the efficiency of OSH activities could be improved. Workplaces themselves could update and develop OSH at workplaces, and expert organizations
could revise and support these efforts.
Are Finnish OSH personnel sufficiently effective and are their activities up to date? Do OSH
organizations keep abreast of today’s constantly transforming jobs; in other words, do workplaces make a real effort to develop OSH and, more widely, to improve the quality of wellbeing at work and the quality of work life? And what is the situation at SME workplaces?
These are some questions for further research and development.
FIOH would be the natural choice to conduct research of this type, because other public actors
or consultants do not necessarily have enough research power to implement a project of this
magnitude.
1.2. Roles
FIOH has a fragmented role in providing support for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. As regards official bodies, FIOH is represented on the Advisory Committee on
Occupational Safety and Health, in its Bilbao division, in the rural trades division and in the
division of the Forum for Well-being at Work. In addition, FIOH has a representative on the
advisory board that prepares legislation on occupational safety.
OSH work has a statutory basis at FIOH. If the aim is to develop work life in Finland, in line
with, for instance, the goals specified in the Working Life 2020 project, it is essential to invest
in OSH work. Only when the foundation of OSH is assured at workplaces is it possible to develop the finer and more complex aspects of well-being at work. OSH is also needed because
work life is undergoing intense structural changes – the need is even greater than before. A
new perspective on OSH is obtained by combining the gained experience regarding well-being
at work and the challenges of future work life.
1.3. Expertise and resources
FIOH does not have a great deal of extensive expertise or system-level management of OSH ,
even though we are efficient in its individual aspects. Up to 10 person-years of extensive OSH
expertise can be found per year at FIOH, which are used for research, training and services. If
the focus extends to the various aspects of OSH, such as psychosocial factors, ergonomics,
occupational hygiene, accident research and well-being at work, the resources rise dramati-
4
cally to over 200 person-years. FIOH’s strong fields include occupational hygiene, ergonomics
and occupational safety, and FIOH carries out research, services and training in all of these.
1.4. Division of labour
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, FIOH and the Centre for Occupational
Safety should consider how to make their activities more efficient. It is particularly important
to consider the division of labour and co-operation between FIOH and the Centre for Occupational Safety with regard to the training and development of OSH and associated communications.
1.5. What should the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health do?











FIOH’s strategy work will determine its role and input in the development of OSH on the
basis of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Act on Occupational Safety and
Health Enforcement, as well as in the development of OSH at workplaces.
FIOH’s role should be considered in relation to other developers of OSH, above all the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centre for Occupational Safety.
The role of FIOH as an expert in Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the substance areas of OSH will be clarified.
A total of three to five person-years of research into OSH issues should be conducted every year in order to create a sufficiently solid base for OSH activities and to ensure the development of OSH work.
OSH work has been labelled an outdated activity. OSH training will be updated and rationalized in co-operation with other actors.
OSH materials should be scrutinized, evaluated and developed so as to meet current
standards.
OSH activities at workplaces should be updated to meet the requirements posed by the
restructuring of work life, globally organised enterprises and the needs of enterprises.
Tailored structural viewpoints will be developed for the OSH aspects of small enterprises.
The provision of services based on the Occupational Safety and Health Act will be evaluated and developed.
The dissemination of information on OSH will be evaluated and developed. An example is
the information that FIOH’s “Influence through Knowledge” area of activity targets towards OSH personnel.
The OSH representatives in FIOH’s Executive Committee (cf. occupational health services)
will be defined.
2. What does OSH mean?
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (738/2002) and the Act on Occupational Safety and
Health Enforcement and Cooperation on Occupational Safety and Health at Workplaces
(44/2006) regulate the measures taken at the workplace for implementing OSH. The Occupational Safety and Health Act lists the employer’s obligations, such as the occupational safety
and health policy, the assessment of risks, work that poses particular risks, the planning of
work and the work environment, the instruction and guidance provided to employees, protective equipment, and co-operation. The Occupational Safety and Health Act also includes provisions on the employee’s obligations and on ergonomics; physical, mental and social loading;
the structures of the work environment; occupational hygiene; the safety of machinery; eliminating the risk of accidents; as well as on the obligations of other people who influence safety
at work. The Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement defines the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration and the powers and responsibilities of the OSH authorities,
the monitoring of product safety, and co-operation in OSH. All of these aspects, as well as
5
other issues defined in more detail by decrees, are included in the OSH activities of the workplace, when the above issues are supplemented with the management of occupational safety.
2.1. Development of OSH
The original objective of OSH was measures to maintain and promote the safety of work,
working conditions and employee health (Figure 1). OSH means the state of the work environment from the perspective of employee safety and health. Over the years, these concepts
have undergone changes and have even blended, but measures to maintain and promote employee safety and health are today’s core message. It also includes the principle of promoting
activities at the workplace and the idea of benefiting business. In addition, many new concepts have been introduced, such as work ability, well-being at work and the quality of work
life. Ideas on the contents and meaning of the term ‘work environment’ vary widely. According to Section 18 of the Constitution of Finland (731/1999), the public authorities are responsible for the protection of the labour force – whatever this means today. Discussion is needed
on the current meanings of these terms.
Figure 1. Concept diagram of OSH (Vocabulary of Safety and Health at Work, FIOH 2006).
2.2. OSH at the workplace
In Finland, the employer is responsible for OSH at the workplace. Effort must be made to already ensure safety during the planning of work and work premises. Employers must provide
their employees with occupational health services in order to prevent work-related health
hazards and to develop working conditions (www.tyosuojelu.fi/fi/tyosuojelutoiminta). The
employer is responsible for the measures to be taken and for their costs. Employees must
also ensure their own safety and that of other employees. When the concept of the workplace
changes due to restructuring, a new approach and new information are needed. During restructuring and in micro-enterprises, OSH issues are at risk of being neglected. This means
that an ever-expanding group of enterprises do not even provide statutory OSH services, let
alone ensure well-being at work.
6
OSH co-operation at the workplace and at shared workplaces promotes interaction between
the employer and employees. Co-operation makes it possible for employees to participate in
and influence issues concerning safety and health at the workplace. The co-operative parties
are the employer and the employees. The employer takes the initiative in organizing cooperation in OSH matters and for the procedures applied
(www.tyosuojelu.fi/fi/tyosuojeluyhteistyo).
In most cases, co-operation in OSH matters at the workplace is based on agreements signed
by labour market organizations. However, the Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement includes provisions for situations in which there are no such agreements. The scope
of matters discussed in OSH co-operation covers all work-related issues that have an impact
on employees’ safety and health. (Työsuojelu Suomessa 2010). Agreement on co-operation
prescribed by the Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement can also be reached in
other ways. Some issues can be agreed in a national collective agreement while others can be
agreed locally. The opportunities for OSH co-operation secured for employees by the local
agreement must be at least at the same level as the participation opportunities prescribed by
law.
In practice, OSH policy and risk assessment at workplaces are updated annually, and the priorities of activities and co-operation with occupational health services are discussed. Induction
training is an important activity when employees change and are given new tasks. A good
number of enterprises change their operations at frequent intervals. At these times, new
premises, machines, work methods and the organization of work are also considered from the
perspective of OSH. Structural changes and resulting redundancy consultations at enterprises
must be managed so that no one is subjected to unreasonable stress. A representative of the
OSH authorities or occupational health services may visit the workplace and propose or demand development measures. OSH personnel can participate in the planning of investments
or acquisitions at the workplace. Co-operation and its organization is challenging, as it does
not involve decision-making. Alongside restructuring, the priorities of OSH should be outlined
more firmly in various business sectors.
2.3. Expert organizations in the field of OSH
Many other organizations in addition to FIOH engage in expert work in the field of OSH in
Finland. The Centre for Occupational Safety improves well-being at work by developing
the activities of work communities and co-operation among parties, by advancing health,
safety and productivity at work, and by improving the role of supervisors. The Federation of
Accident Insurance Institutions (FAII) co-ordinates the practical application of statutory
accident insurance. The Finnish Work Environment Fund finances research and development that improves working conditions and promotes the safety and productivity of activities
within work communities. The State Treasury supports OSH activities within the government sector. In addition to the above bodies, occupational health service providers, accident
insurance institutions, pension insurance companies, labour market and trade organizations,
research and educational institutes, and many other experts support OSH activities at workplaces. Finland has many support organizations that promote OSH, and no one has proposed
that they should be disbanded. However, their co-operation could be developed.
2.4. Supervision of OSH
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration comprises the Department of Occupational
Safety and Health of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the five Occupational Health
and Safety Divisions of the Regional State Administrative Agencies. Their goal is, by influencing the working conditions at workplaces, to maintain the safety and health of workplaces. By
doing this, they promote the quality of work life and the work ability and functional capacity
7
of the working-age population at different stages of their careers so that premature retirement from work life is reduced. In 2012, the work input of the Department of Occupational
Safety and Health amounted to 66 person-years, whereas the total work input of the Occupational Health and Safety Divisions was 421 person-years.
The focus of supervision during the framework agreement period of 2012–2015 is on the rules
of work life and the extension of work careers. The themes emphasised under these are the
reduction of harmful workloads (management of the threat of violence from clients, harassment and inappropriate treatment, manual lifting and moving, repetitive work), the prevention of occupational accidents, the management of risks posed by chemicals and the safe use
of chemicals, and the monitoring of humidity and mould problems. The number of inspections
conducted in 2012 totalled about 22,000. These were targeted at about 18,000 sites.
3. The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health as an OSH actor
3.1. Legislative mandate
The Act (L159/1978) and the Decree (A501/1978) on the Operations of the Finnish Institute
of Occupational Health provide a basis for FIOH to implement research, development and services pertaining to OSH. When performing its tasks, FIOH must co-operate with the OSH authorities and the principal labour market organizations. It is worth noting that the above regulations present OSH and occupational health as equal and parallel concepts that fall within the
scope of FIOH’s operations. Even though OSH as a term does not appear in FIOH’s structures,
FIOH nevertheless carries out important work to develop OSH in Finnish work life.
In practice, OSH is divided between two centres of excellence at FIOH: Work Environment
Development and Development of Work and Organizations. The thin segments of OSH include
holistic OSH competence, the development of OSH at workplaces, the planning of work and
work premises areas, preventing the risk of accidents, the safety of products, proactive OSH
during restructuring, research into OSH, the safety of machinery, social OSH, lobbying for
legislation, and communications.
3.2. OSH training
We use OSH training to refer to a basic course in OSH or to other similar established training
that aims at creating and developing the prerequisites for OSH co-operation at the workplace.
Over the years, the content of training has acquired established forms regardless of the actor.
OSH training for workplaces and for students in educational institutes is offered both on market terms and as training subsidized in various ways. The actors who offer the training can
broadly be divided into two groups: private or public organizations operating on market
terms; and training units under labour market organizations. Finland has rather little OSH
training provided purely on market terms; nearly all OSH training is subsidized by the government, interest groups, insurance companies or providers of funding.
FIOH has co-operated with the Centre for Occupational Safety, for instance, in producing materials and organizing training events. The division of labour has also become more or less
established: the Centre for Occupational Safety provides sector-specific basic courses while
FIOH’s established products are the basic course in OSH, courses for OSH managers and various events on topical issues. An estimated 20% of the training offered by FIOH focuses on
occupational safety. Especially in the training of OSH managers, FIOH is the principal actor on
the market. Training has been organized and marketed in co-operation with the Association of
Finnish Safety Managers.
8
3.3. OSH services
By virtue of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the employer must be involved in many
issues at the workplace. These include co-operation, external employees, risk assessments,
occupational health services, work permits, information and training for employees, smoking,
accidents, initiatives, induction training, performance appraisals, people with alcohol or drug
problems, investments, repairs and maintenance, quality systems, inspections and measurements, safety of machinery, electrical safety, chemical safety, radiation sources, ergonomics,
fire and rescue issues, and equality issues. FIOH has expertise in only some of these issues,
and services have been shaped mainly by demand based on history in fields such as psychosocial loading, accidents, occupational hygiene or the activities of occupational health services. We have traditionally provided services pertaining to the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and the supervision of OSH, which are still carried out by the authorities.
OSH accounts for a very marginal, although highly important share of the total volume of services. According to the Decree on the Operations of the Finnish Institute of Occupational
Health, the concept of ‘OSH’ encompasses occupational hygiene, toxicology, occupational
safety and ergonomics. If the field is defined as broadly as this, most of the services provided
by FIOH today seem to pertain to OSH. We have some weaknesses in the sector of OSH, such
as ATEX legislation, the safety of machinery and robots, shared workplaces, electrical safety,
and fire and rescue issues.
3.4. OSH research
OSH research is conducted by FIOH, the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, and many
universities and institutes of higher education. The most important provider of funding for this
research is the Finnish Work Environment Fund, which receives its income from employers’
accident insurance premiums (approximately EUR 10 million per year). The Fund mainly provides financing for applied research and development and the associated training and information activities. Other providers of funding include the Work Environment Fund of the State
Administration, the Academy of Finland and Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation. OSH as a systemic issue has not been the main topic of the research and
development projects carried out by FIOH. The OSH research conducted by FIOH has recently
particularly focused on the effectiveness of laws and authorities’ actions, such as






Safety management, OSH co-operation and the impacts of OSH inspections at workplaces in the chemical industry (2013)
The impact of the Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement on OSH activities at workplaces (2011)
The impact of the Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement on the supervision of OSH by the authorities (2010)
The functioning of the State organization for occupational safety and health (2010)
The effectiveness of OSH regulations concerning the assessment of risks (2009)
Study of the impacts of the revised Occupational Safety and Health Act on safety activities at workplaces (2007).
In practice, FIOH’s ‘Well-being solutions for the workplace’ theme covers the OSH research
carried out at FIOH. OSH as a whole is investigated in only a few of the 60 projects encompassed by the theme. An example of such a project is “The effect of OSH at workplaces”,
which combines the views of the authorities, workplace representatives and experts. Some
projects have investigated occupational safety aspects in individual sectors or occupations,
such as the safety of tourism or the occupational safety of rescue personnel. The theme does
not focus on OSH but is much wider, including, in particular, research associated with well-
9
being at work. Little research has been conducted purely on OSH co-operation at workplaces
and on the functioning and effectiveness of procedures.
3.5. OSH publications
OSH is visible in FIOH’s publications, since they form the core of the ‘business books’ sold on
market terms. At present, FIOH is the only actor in Finland to publish the Työsuojelun perusteet book [The basics of OSH]. The FIOH Online Bookstore has around thirty titles sold under
the heading “OSH”. However, most of them deal with a narrower topic
(https://verkkokauppa.ttl.fi/). Online books are published on the internet and websites have
been designed and so forth. The OSH websites should be co-ordinated with other websites
dealing with OSH issues. For instance, the websites of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (www.työsuojelu.fi) and the Centre for Occupational Safety (www.ttk.fi) are
wider in scope and have a more practical approach than the FIOH website.
4. Situation at workplaces
4.1. Successful implementation of OSH
According to Statistics Finland, Finland has 309,000 enterprises. Together they have 340,000
places of business. Places of business with over ten people number 24,000. These must have
an OSH representative, an OSH manager and two deputy representatives. In addition, places
of business for more than twenty people (9000 in total) must also have an OSH committee,
which, as well as the above members, usually has at least two others. In small-scale enterprises (285,000 in total) at least one person is in charge of OSH issues.
Person-years for OSH at workplaces
24,000 places of business x 4 persons x 100 h x €30/h = €290 million
9,000 places of business x 2 persons x 100 h x €30/h =
285,000 places of business x 1 person x 40 h x €30/h
=
€54 million
€340 million
Calculated in this way, the total input of enterprises into OSH is about €0.7 billion per year. In
terms of work input, this means roughly 15,000 person-years. Including the public sector, the
total annual input into OSH can be estimated to reach approximately one billion euros, corresponding to about 20,000 person-years. In these more stringent economic times, we must
ask what this one billion euros accomplishes. Could this vast number of people also be used to
achieve something new in developing the quality of work life?
OSH in Finland

60,000 people designated for OSH co-operation

1 million occupational safety cards

5000 occupational health service experts

350 OSH inspectors.
Closer examination of the OSH expert resources at workplaces (Occupational Safety Personnel
Register, State Occupational Safety Organization Register) reveal that there are only about
13,000 designated OSH managers in the whole of Finland, although by law there should be
about 24,000. There are about 33,000 OSH representatives, which is roughly the required
number. OSH titles total approximately 82,000, which is more or less the required number.
10
OSH measures taken at workplaces entail features characteristic of systematic and consistent
safety management. The manager’s personal values, attitudes and educational background
have an impact on the management of safety and on influencing and developing safety within
the organization. Often the management has no education specific to the sector (Safety
2008). If the implementation of OSH and the activities of FIOH are examined by industry
(Figure 2), FIOH seems to have engaged in considerable research activity in the fields of primary production, processing (incl. mining, industry and construction), information and communications, administration and support services, education, and health and social services.
In contrast, with respect to services, research and training, there could have been more activity in recent years in sectors such as trade, accommodation and food services, and finance,
insurance and real estate activities. We have conducted research in these fields, but today’s
activities in the sectors of trade, accommodation and financing are radically different from
what they were in, for instance, the 1980s.
At workplaces, OSH is often perceived as a compulsory expenditure, in the worst case even
an impediment to work. However, OSH organizations and experts at Finnish workplaces have
accumulated considerable competence capital and resources for developing the workplace and
working conditions. These resources and their effectiveness have not been studied to any
great extent and their importance and benefits are not yet sufficiently known. Inefficient OSH
co-operation may even have a negative impact if the line organization transfers responsibility
to the OSH organization, which lacks the practical powers to act. The roles and tasks of OSH,
HR administration and occupational health services differ from one company to the next, and
a more thorough role division has not been contemplated.
Figure 2. Jobs by sector in Finland in 2010 (source: Statistics Finland)
OSH services as an activity based on law and supervised by the authorities are covered well in
medium-sized and large workplaces. However, most new workplaces established today are
small ones that do not have their own resources and are not willing to invest in law-based
OSH activities. It would therefore be beneficial to consider and highlight the benefits of OSH
11
to businesses more clearly than at present, starting from the aspects of productivity, success
and workplace image. At small workplaces, this would enable the entrepreneur to receive better support from the tax authorities, bookkeepers, the Centres for Economic Development,
Transport and the Environment, and enterprise organizations. Underlining this issue of liability
could save many enterprises from liquidation because when a key employee falls ill or has an
accident, the consequences may be very expensive and serious in today’s complex production
chains. An example of this is a forestry machine contractor who falls ill and cannot harvest
wood for a paper mill. As a result, the paper machine stops and the media house’s operations
are interrupted. All buffer stocks are dismantled.
With regard to the quality of work life, the objective is to maintain and increase OSH
competence in organizations by strengthening the currently weak research on OSH. The development of research increases competence, which will also lead to profitable service provision and enable the maintenance and development of full-scale OSH training in the future.
Research also brings an international perspective to the Finnish model of managing and organizing OSH activities.
We could ask whether the early intervention model should be applied to OSH. Similarly,
there is much talk about proactive measures, although few practical examples exist. There is
greater awareness in many ways of the concepts of theprimary, secondary and tertiary prevention used in occupational medicine, although they come after the proactive measures taken at the workplace. Discussions have often concluded that the OSH legislation at workplaces
is in relatively good form, but restructuring and changes in work create new requirements.
The major concern in these considerations is that the occupational safety situation at workplaces does not, however, comply with the law. The knowledge exists, but the will and the
skills are lacking. This is one opportunity for FIOH, and we have in fact been moving in this
direction for the past ten years (Figure 3).
Knowledge
Will
Skill
Figure 3. Development of OSH at the workplace: knowledge exists, but what about will and
skills?
The downsizing and rationalization of ministries and, more generally, the State administration
also mean in practice that, in the administrative sector of the Ministry of Social Affairs and
Health for instance, the demand for expert resources is shifting towards FIOH. This is also
seen in programmes steered by the State administration (e.g. the Leadership Development
Network, the Forum for Well-being at Work, Work and family, and Working Life 2020), where
the responsibility for operations and competence largely rests with FIOH. When State funding
channelled through the Ministry is reduced, the risk that OSH will be neglected grows, even
though this expertise and innovative application is needed more than ever, especially at ‘indifferent’ workplaces.
12
4.2. Polarization of workplaces
Workplaces are divided according to the level, quantity and quality of OSH activities. Although
there is little research data, it is obvious that this division has become wider. Moreover, small
workplaces do not have the opportunity to purchase OSH expertise in the same way as medium-sized and large workplaces.
At more advanced workplaces, the goals for developing occupational safety are clearly defined
and communicated. Risks are also assessed in a planned manner. At small and medium-sized
average-level workplaces, the OSH organizations are mainly responsible for the activities. At
these workplaces, the assessment of risks has been internalized more slowly and more diffusely. Undeveloped workplaces have no active OSH activities, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act is not known and occupational safety is mainly perceived as a problem-centred
activity associated with monitoring by the authorities (Table 1).
Table 1. Determination and assessment of work hazards at workplaces (Salminen et al.
2007).
Group I
Group II
Group III
Planned adoption
Slow and diffuse adoption
Occupational safety activities independent of the law
Begun when the law entered
into force or implemented by
developing the existing model.
Often delayed after the law
entered into force.
Risks have not been assessed; assessment is
replaced in part by a
workplace survey conducted by occupational health
services.
Implemented by tailoring tools
suited to the sector and the
workplace and by utilizing information systems and electronic tools.
The ambiguity and incomplete implementation of
concepts and methods have
hampered the creation of
suitable practices. Procedures are taking shape.
In practice, the assessment of risks is often limited to health risks and occupational safety
risks. Thus, the practical assessment is left to the OSH personnel. Management’s and supervisors’ understanding of the importance of risk assessment as the basis for operations and development varies. Thus supervisors’ commitment to risk assessments and occupational safety
also remain loose (Rantanen & Pääkkönen 2007). In small enterprises, risk management is
not considered topical or even very important, whereas in medium-sized and large enterprises
it is seen as a component of management (Hämäläinen et al. 2007).
4.3. Workplace resources
Competence and resources for developing occupational safety vary greatly. Activities prompted by an external need and dictated by necessity remain disconnected from daily life at the
workplace. The associated benefits are also non-existent (Liuhamo 2009). Small workplaces
often have no OSH policy or an action plan for occupational health services (Barometer of
Maintenance of Work Ability 2008). Safety management is tied to the entrepreneur’s values,
attitudes and knowledge. Without an understanding of the benefits, cost pressures override
safety (Rantanen & Pääkkönen 2007). It is estimated, however, that one third of the pioneer
13
workplaces have increased their occupational safety resources in the past three years (Virta
et al. 2009).
Workplaces can improve their assessment of hazards and develop occupational safety through
training. This is apparently the case for OSH representatives, but OSH managers and supervisors at small workplaces seldom have training that corresponds to their tasks in this regard.
Another segment requiring expertise is the purchasing of occupational health services. In
most cases, workplaces do not have a clear view of what occupational health services should
include and cover. In consequence, the buyer does not know how to compare various service
providers and their quality levels. In fact, occupational health services are often purchased
out of legal necessity, not because they are seen as bringing definite benefits to the enterprise’s business (Liuhamo 2009). It is also considered that in practice, occupational health
services have insufficient resources and potential for participation in development (Rantanen
et al. 2007).
4.4. Summary







The spirit of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is fairly widely known at workplaces, but there are still shortcomings in the implementation of its many basic issues.
Risk assessment has become an essential element in the development of OSH at
workplaces, but the visibility and effectiveness of risk management and its links with
corporate management are still modest.
Supervisors and other employer representatives do not yet have sufficient potential or
skills to implement the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in
practice.
In the light of accidents and sickness absences, the overall situation of OSH has not
much improved in Finland in the 2000s. At the same time, however, encouraging examples of the effectiveness of OSH have been seen at individual workplaces and in
workplace networks.
It is likely that workplaces will become polarized in terms of OSH. While the best organizations actively develop their operations, the weakest are in danger of declining.
Increasingly often, the focus shifts from legislative supervision and the minimization of
risks and hazards to the benefits and added value of OSH.
In the future, the attractiveness and productivity of work and the workplace will be an
important, often even the most important reason for developing OSH. Data on comparisons between organizations will also be used increasingly actively.
5. Sources
5.1. Websites





Työsuojelu. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön verkkosivut.
http://www.stm.fi/tyoelama/tyosuojelu (cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojelu. Valtiokonttorin verkkosivut. http://www.valtiokonttori.fi/fiFI/Virastoille_ja_laitoksille/Henkilostohallintoa_ja_johtamista_tukevat_palvelut/Kaikutyoela
mapalvelut/Tyosuojelu (cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojelu on osa edunvalvontaa. Metallityöväen liiton verkkosivut.
http://www.metalliliitto.fi/tyosuojelu (cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojelu työpaikalla. Työturvallisuuskeskuksen verkkosivut.
http://www.tyoturva.fi/tyosuojelu (cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojelutoiminta työpaikalla. Työsuojeluhallinnon verkkosivut.
http://www.tyosuojelu.fi/fi/tyosuojelutoiminta (cited 1 July 2013)
14

Työväen keskusmuseon sivut: 110 vuotta työsuojelua Suomessa.
http://www.tkm.fi/vanhat/ts_historia.html (cited 1 July 2013)
5.2. Publications





Euroopan työsuojelustrategia 2007 - 2012. Työn laadun ja tuottavuuden parantaminen:
yhteisön työterveys- ja työturvallisuusstrategia. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön
julkaisuja 2007:24. http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/julkaisuja-sarja/nayta/-/_julkaisu/1085104
(cited 1 July 2013)
Keskeisiä työsuojelumääräyksiä ja -ohjeita 2011. Metallityöväen Liitto, Teknologiateollisuus
ja Toimihenkilöunioni.
http://www.metalliliitto.fi/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f094ffd5-2662-41a4-a4e6e85a1d9b06b9&groupId=10137 (cited 3 July 2013)
Työsuojelu Suomessa. Occupational Safety and Health in Finland. STM:n esitteitä 2010:2.
http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/nayta/-/_julkaisu/1536678 (cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojelun valvonta . Teoksessa: Työ ja terveys Suomessa 2012.
http://www.ttl.fi/fi/verkkokirjat/tyo_ja_terveys_suomessa/Documents/Tyo_ja_Terveys_20
12.pdf (cited 2 July 2013)
Työympäristön ja työhyvinvoinnin linjaukset vuoteen 2020. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö,
julkaisuja 2011:13. http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/nayta/-/_julkaisu/1566807 (viit. 1.7.2013)
5.3. Legislation





Laki työterveyslaitoksen toiminnasta ja rahoituksesta 24.2.1978/159.
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1978/19780159 (cited 2 July 2013)
Asetus työterveyslaitoksen toiminnasta ja rahoituksesta 29.6.1978/501.
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1978/19780501 (cited 2 July 2013)
Laki työsuojelun valvonnasta ja työpaikan työsuojeluyhteistoiminnasta 20.1.2006/44.
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2006/20060044 (cited 2 July 2013)
Laki työsuojeluhallinnosta 8.1.1993/16.
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1993/19930016 (cited 3 July 2013)
Laki työneuvostosta ja eräistä työsuojelun poikkeusluvista 19.5.2004/400.
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2004/20040400 (cited 12 July 2013)
5.4. Reports, studies, statements






Työsuojeluvalvonnan resurssiselvitys 8.3.2012. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö.
http://www.stm.fi/tiedotteet/tiedote/-/view/1584645 (cited 1 July 2013)
Länsi- ja Sisä-Suomen aluehallintoviraston (LSSAVIn) lausunto työsuojeluvalvonnan resurssiselvityksestä 1.6.2012.
http://www.avi.fi/documents/10191/139935/LSSAVI_lausunto_+ty%C3%B6suojeluvalvon
nan_resurssiselvitys-2012-06-01.pdf/7710da49-d69f-4387-84f9-7d83d180c359 (cited 1
July 2013)
Työsuojelun vastuualueiden runkosuunnitelma 2012–2015. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö
2011. http://www.tyosuojelu.fi/upload/Runkosuunnitelma_2012-15.pdf (cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojeluhallinnon vuosikertomus 2011. http://www.tyosuojelu.fi/upload/bdb309u2.pdf
(cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojeluvalvonta. Tuloksellisuustarkastuskertomus 230/2011. Valtiontalouden tarkastusviraston tarkastuskertomukset 10/2011.
http://www.vtv.fi/files/2708/2302011_Tyosuojeluvalvonta_Netti.PDF (cited 1 July 2013)
Työsuojelustrategian neljäs seurantaraportti. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön julkaisuja
2010:29. http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/selvityksia-sarja/nayta/-/_julkaisu/1557795 (cited 2
July 2013)
15


Kettunen Pauli. Työsuojelun pitkä linja: luottamus tietoon ja kasvatukseen. Työsuojelunäyttelyn 100-vuotisjuhla, Tampere 24.11.2009.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/ptkettun/ty%c3%b6suojeluTre241109.pdf (cited 1 July
2013)
Laitinen Heikki, Yrjänheikki Erkki. Työolosuhteet ja työsuojelun hallintamenettelyt toimipaikoittain eri aloilla. Työsuojeluhallinnon Valmeri -kyselyjen ja Halmeri –tarkastusten tulokset 2002-2009. Työsuojeluhallinto, Työsuojelujulkaisuja 93.
http://tyosuojelujulkaisut.wshop.fi/documents/2010/12/TSJ_93.pdf (cited 1 July 2013)
5.5. Research reports









Elintarvikealojen koulutus- ja valmennushanke työsuojelun yhteistoimintahenkilöstön
suuntaamiseksi neuvonantajarooliin. Tutkimusraportti. Työturvallisuuskeskus 2010.
http://www.tyoturva.fi/files/1335/Valmennusohjelman_vaikuttavuuden_arvioinnin_loppura
portti.pdf (cited 2 July 2013)
Hämäläinen Päivi, Anttila Sanna 2008. Onnistuneen työterveys- ja työturvallisuusjohtamisen sisältö ja käytännöt. Seurantatutkimus. Tampere: Työsuojeluhallinto, työsuojelujulkaisuja 85. http://tyosuojelujulkaisut.wshop.fi/fi/384/t_165 (cited 2 July 2013)
Louhelainen Kyösti, Niskanen Toivo, Hirvonen Maria L., Kallio Niina, Koponen Milja, Korhonen Pirjo-Irmeli, Hyytinen Eija-Riitta. Turvallisuusjohtaminen, työsuojelun yhteistoiminta ja
työsuojelutarkastusten vaikutukset kemianteollisuuden työpaikoilla. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön raportteja ja muistioita 2013:2. http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/raportteja-jatyoryhmamuistioita/nayta/-/_julkaisu/1851905#fi (cited 2 July 2013)
Niskanen Toivo, Kallio Hannu, Naumanen Paula, Lehtelä Jouni, Liuhamo Mika, Lappalainen
Jorma, Sillanpää Jarmo, Nykyri Erkki, Zitting Antti, Hakkola Matti. Riskinarviointia koskevien työturvallisuus- ja työterveyssäännösten vaikuttavuus. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, selvityksiä 2009:22. http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/selvityksia-sarja/nayta//_julkaisu/1425295 (cited 2 July 2013)
Ruotsala Riikka, Uusitalo Hanna, Niskanen Toivo, Lappalainen Jorma, Piispanen Päivi ja
Mäkelä Tarja. Työsuojelun valvontalain vaikutus työsuojelun viranomaisvalvontaan. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön selvityksiä 2010:20. http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/nayta//_julkaisu/1546494 (cited 2 July 2013)
Salminen Simo, Ruotsala Riikka, Vorne Jarmo & Saari Jorma. 2007. Työturvallisuuslain
toimeenpano työpaikoilla. Selvitys uudistetun työturvallisuuslain vaikutuksista työpaikkojen
turvallisuustoimintaan. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön selvityksiä 2007:4.
http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/nayta/-/_julkaisu/1060131 (cited 2 July 2013)
Uusitalo Hanna, Ruotsala Riikka ja Niskanen Toivo. Asioita saatiin kuntoon. Työsuojelun
valvontalain vaikutus työpaikkojen työsuojelutoimintaan. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön
julkaisuja 2011:18. http://www.stm.fi/julkaisut/nayta/-/_julkaisu/1795164 (cited 2 July
2013)
Uusitalo Teuvo, Heikkilä Jouko, Rantanen Eeva, Lappalainen Jorma, Liuhamo Mika, Palukka
Pertti & Hämäläinen Päivi. 2009. Ennakoiva ja joustava turvallisuuden johtaminen. Resilienssi Suomessa. Tampere: VTT. Raportti VTT-R-09394-09.
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2009/VTT-R-09394-09.pdf (cited 2 July 2013)
Valtion työsuojeluorganisaation toimivuus 2010. Tutkimusraportti. Työterveyslaitos 2010.
http://www.ttl.fi/fi/tyoturvallisuus_ja_riskien_hallinta/tapaturmien_ehkaisy/tutkimuksia_ty
oturvallisuudesta/Documents/Valtion%20työsuojeluorganisaation%20toimivuus%202010.pdf (cited 1
July 2013)
16







Academic dissertations
Halme Kimmo. Työsuojelutoimikunnan merkitys työpaikan turvallisuusjohtamisessa. Tampereen yliopisto 2008. http://tutkielmat.uta.fi/pdf/gradu03476.pdf (cited 2 July 2013)
Juopperi Mari. Työsuojelun yhteistoiminta: valta, vastuu ja velvollisuudet käytännössä ja
erityisesti henkisen työsuojelun tilanteissa. Pro gradu. Lapin yliopisto 2011.
http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:ula-201203011031 (cited 2.7.2011)
Jurvelius Hanna. Työsuojelu ja EU. Asiantuntija-arvioita EU:n vaikutuksista Suomessa ja
Ruotsissa. Tampereen yliopisto 2002. http://tutkielmat.uta.fi/pdf/gradu00168.pdf (cited 1
July 2013)
Kulmala Anni. Työsuojeluviranomaisten tiedonsaanti ja tarkastusoikeuden problematiikka
lain työsuojelun valvonnasta ja työpaikan yhteistoiminnasta 20.1.2006/44 4 §:n mukaan.
Tampereen yliopisto 2007. http://tutkielmat.uta.fi/pdf/gradu01594.pdf (cited 2 July 2013)
Lanne Marinka. Yhteistyö yritysturvallisuuden hallinnassa. Tutkimus sisäisen yhteistyön
tarpeesta ja roolista suurten organisaatioiden turvallisuustoiminnassa. Väitöskirja. VTT,
Tampere 2007. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2007/P632.pdf (cited 2 July 2013)
Puro Vuokko: Yrityksen turvallisuuden hallintamenettelyt työturvallisuustason mittarina.
Diplomityö, Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto 2013.
http://dspace.cc.tut.fi/dpub/bitstream/handle/123456789/21492/Puro.pdf?sequence=1
(cited 1 July 2013)
Tarkkonen Juhani. Yhteistoiminnan ehdoilla, ymmärryksen ja vallan rajapinnoilla. Työsuojeluvaltuutetut ja -päälliköt toimijoina, työorganisaatiot yhteistoiminnan areenoina ja työsuojelujärjestelmät kehittämisen kohteina. Väitöskirja. Oulun yliopisto 2005.
http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514279352/isbn9514279352.pdf (cited 2 July 2013)
5.6. Books




Siiki, Pertti. Uusi työsuojelun yhteistoiminta ja työturvallisuus. Edita 2006. 234 s.
Työsuojelun perusteet 2003. Helsinki, Työterveyslaitos.
Työsuojelun valvonta 2009. Helsinki, Työterveyslaitos.
Työsuojelusanasto 2006. Helsinki, Työterveyslaitos. 306 s.
This report has been produced for the international evaluation
of FIOH, which was carried out in 2014 by an independent
international evaluation group of experts, appointed by
the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health of Finland.
2014
ISBN 978-952-261-433-9 (pdf)
The report is available at:
http://www.ttl.fi/en/publications/
Electronic_publications/
Development of occupational safety
and health work at the workplace
Report for the international evaluation of
the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH)
Work group (in alphabetical order):
Rauno Hanhela, Chief Specialist; Mika Liuhamo, Head of Development;
Rauno Pääkkönen, Director of Thematic Area, FIOH