Our consultations
Have your say on policy issues relating to OSH and what affects you the most
Response to the European Commission Health & Safety at Work
About this consultation
This initiative will contribute to improving health and safety at work, including helping to prevent workers from having accidents at work and getting avoidable work-related illnesses. The initiative will also improve productivity and contribute to preventing unnecessary health costs, such as medical or rehabilitation costs, as well as to reducing public healthcare spending, so improving the sustainability of social security systems.
This requires an inclusive and crosscutting strategic approach to address the main challenges which will be identified for this decade and ensure that workers in the EU can benefit from the highest standard when it comes to health and safety at work.
Background
The current consultation concerns an initiative for a future Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work. The workers’ safety and health at work is a matter of broad interest. For this reason, this public consultation is collecting the views of all interested citizens and organisations. Contributions are particularly sought from OSH professionals.
The Commission has committed to ensuring the right of EU workers, both to a high level of protection of their health and safety at work, and to a working environment adapted to their professional needs, which enables them to prolong their working life. The current EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work ends in 2020 and a new one will be adopted in 2021.
Proposed changes
The aim of this open public consultation is to take stock of the quality and implementation of the Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020 and to receive input for the future Strategic Framework 2021-2027.
The objective of this public consultation is twofold. The information and opinions collected will be used to take stock of the current EU Strategic Framework. At the same time, it will also provide input to prepare and improve the new one for the period (2021-2027).
Consultation questions
We invite IOSH members to send us comments on the European Commission consultation on the Health & Safety at Work – EU Strategic Framework (2021-2027) to help inform an IOSH submission. Please complete the comments form and send it to consultation@iosh.com by 15 February 2021.
You can contribute to this consultation by addressing the following set of questions from the European Commission:
- Thinking about the situation in your country / the EU, has workplace safety and health in your opinion become better since 2014? Please specify why: 500 character(s) maximum.
- Do you agree or disagree that the EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020 contributed to better work place health and safety for specific groups of workers who may be identified as potentially facing specific risk factors, such as women, older workers, workers with disabilities, seasonal workers, migrant workers, etc. as well as the self-employed? Please provide further details regarding the specific group potentially at risk and/or risks faced. 500 character(s) maximum.
- In your opinion, what were the most significant barriers to fulfilling the EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020 objectives. Please specify what other barrier(s) you perceive? 500 character(s) maximum.
- Please briefly explain why you believe the EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020 contributed – or not – to improved health and safety at work. 500 character(s) maximum.
- Thinking about the future (the next seven years), what priorities a new EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work should focus on? Please specify: 500 character(s) maximum
- Thinking ahead to the next 7 years (2021-2027): What are the key challenges that are common across the EU and require further OSH policy action? 500 character(s) maximum. What practical solutions do you suggest to address all or some of these key challenges? 2500 character(s) maximum.
- Should a new EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work define in detail a list of objectives, actions, timelines and actors involved in the implementation of such actions, or should it set a vision for the future, and a definition of goals and priorities? 500 characters maximum.
- In your view, what main issues should be included in the successor to the current EU OSH Strategic Framework, covering the next seven years? 2500 character(s) maximum.
- You may share any additional remarks or statement(s) regarding the topic of this public consultation here. 500 character(s) maximum.
Response to the European Commission proposal for an initiative on Sustainable Corporate Governance
About this consultation
This initiative is complementary to the review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD, Directive 2014/95/EU), which currently requires large public-interest companies to disclose to the public certain information on how they are affected by non-financial issues, as well as on the company’s own impacts on society and the environment. The NFRD also requires companies to report on their social and environmental policies and due diligence processes if they have them, or otherwise explain why they do not have any (comply or explain approach). While the NFRD is based on incentives “to report”, the sustainable corporate governance initiative aims to introduce duties “to do”.
The initiative would build upon relevant international standards on business and human rights and responsible business conduct, such as the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and its Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct.
Background
This initiative looks to strengthen the respect of human rights, including labour rights and corporate social responsibility criteria throughout the value chains of European companies.
Sustainability in corporate governance encompasses encouraging businesses to frame decisions in terms of their environmental (including climate and biodiversity), social, human and economic impact, as well as in terms of the company’s development in the longer term (beyond 3-5 years), rather than focusing on short-term gains.
Reporting to the public on the application of sustainability in corporate governance and on the fulfilment of directors’ and corporate duties would enable stakeholders to monitor compliance with these duties, thereby helping to ensure that companies are accountable for how they mitigate their adverse environmental and social impacts.
Proposed changes
This public consultation aims to collect the views of stakeholders with regard to a possible Sustainable Corporate Governance Initiative. It builds on data collected in two studies: the study on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance; and the study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain; as well as on the feedback received in the public consultation on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy.
It includes questions to allow the widest possible range of stakeholders to provide their views on relevant aspects of sustainable corporate governance.
Consultation questions
Here are the key questions from the European Commission:
- Human rights, social and environmental due diligence requires companies to put in place continuous processes to identify risks and adverse impacts on human rights, health and safety and environment and prevent, mitigate and account for such risks and impacts in their operations and through their value chain. In the survey conducted in the context of the study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain, a broad range of respondents expressed their preference for a policy change, with an overall preference for establishing a mandatory duty at EU level.
- Do you think that an EU legal framework for supply chain due diligence to address adverse impacts on human rights and environmental issues should be developed?
- Do you consider that corporate directors should be required by law to (1) identify the company´s stakeholders and their interests, (2) to manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests, including on the long run (3) and to identify the opportunities arising from promoting stakeholders’ interests?
- Do you believe that corporate directors should be required by law to set up adequate procedures and, where relevant, measurable (science – based) targets to ensure that possible risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders, ie. human rights, social, health and environmental impacts, are identified, prevented and addressed?
- Do you believe that corporate directors should balance the interests of all stakeholders, instead of focusing on the short-term financial interests of shareholders, and that this should be clarified in legislation as part of directors’ duty of care?
- Which risks do you see, if any, should the directors’ duty of care be spelled out in law? How could these possible risks be mitigated?
- As companies often do not have a strategic orientation on sustainability risks, impacts and opportunities, do you believe that such considerations should be integrated into the company’s strategy, decisions and oversight within the company?
For the purposes of this consultation, “due diligence duty” refers to a legal requirement for companies to establish and implement adequate processes with a view to prevent, mitigate and account for human rights (including labour rights and working conditions), health and environmental impacts, including relating to climate change, both in the company’s own operations and in the company’s the supply chain. “Supply chain” is understood within the broad definition of a company’s “business relationships” and includes subsidiaries as well as suppliers and subcontractors. The company is expected to make reasonable efforts for example with respect to identifying suppliers and subcontractors. Furthermore, due diligence is inherently risk-based, proportionate and context specific. This implies that the extent of implementing actions should depend on the risks of adverse impacts the company is possibly causing, contributing to or should foresee.
Please explain whether you agree with this definition and provide reasons for your answer
- How could companies’- in particular smaller ones’- burden be reduced with respect to due diligence? Please indicate the most effective options.
- Enhancing sustainability expertise in the board Current level of expertise of boards of directors does not fully support a shift towards sustainability, so action to enhance directors’ competence in this area could be envisaged. Please indicate which options are in your view effective to achieve this objective.
- Do you consider that any other measure should be taken at EU level to foster more sustainable corporate governance? If so, please specify.
- A clarified duty of care and the due diligence duty would be expected to have positive impacts on stakeholders and the environment, including in the supply chain. According to your own understanding and assessment, if your company complies with such requirements or conducts due diligence already, please quantify / estimate in quantitative terms the positive or negative impact annually since the introduction of Improvements on health and safety of workers in the supply chain, such as reduction of the number of accidents at work, other improvement on working conditions, better wages, eradicating child labour, etc.
A matter of principles: The future of corporate reporting – discussion paper
About this consultation
The UK’s Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has issued a discussion paper proposing The future of corporate reporting founded on a principles-based framework. The paper outlines a model for what FRC describe as “a more agile approach to corporate reporting which challenges existing thinking about how companies can more effectively meet the information needs of investors and other stakeholders.”
FRC highlight that companies and society face significant challenges, heightened by the Covid-19 pandemic, and that stakeholders are increasingly interested in companies’ wider actions and the reporting that supports these.
The paper considers a common criticism that corporate annual reports are too lengthy, and that information is difficult to access. FRC intends that its proposals are tested with stakeholders and stimulate discussion about the future landscape of corporate reporting.
Please view FRC’s supporting literature review and the results of the FRC’s initial survey.
Background
The UK’s FRC regulate auditors, accountants and actuaries, and set the UK’s Corporate Governance and Stewardship Codes. It seeks to promote transparency and integrity in business, with its work aimed at investors and others who rely on company reports, audit and corporate risk management.
The FRC is working towards becoming the Audit Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA), which will require primary legislation. It is looking to implement the recommendations of the Independent Review of the FRC; The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) review; and Sir Donald Brydon’s review into the quality and effectiveness of audit, using six workstreams as one holistic programme.
The six workstreams are: setting up the new regulator; audit scope & regulation; corporate regulation; corporate reporting; corporate governance; and market reform. Activities include a new governance structure, due in January 2021; enhanced complaints handling processes; and engagement with prospective signatories of the revised UK Stewardship Code, which took effect from 2020, with reporting due in 2021.
Proposed changes
The FRC discussion paper proposals include:
- unbundling the existing purpose, content, and intended audiences of the current annual report by moving to a network of interconnected reports;
- a new common set of principles that applies to all types of corporate reporting;
- objective-driven reports that accommodate the interests of a wider group of stakeholders, rather than the perceived needs of a single set of users;
- embracing the opportunities available through technology to improve the accessibility of corporate reporting; and
- a model that enables reporting that is flexible and responsive to changing demands and circumstances.
FRC believes that these proposals are consistent with the themes in the independent Kingman and Brydon reviews. FRC assert that to build trust in the system for corporate reporting, it needs to be supported by a framework for audit and assurance and regulation.
Consultation questions
We invite IOSH members to send us comments on FRC’s discussion paper on The future of corporate reporting to consultation@iosh.com, to help inform an IOSH submission, by 05 January 2021.
IOSH members wishing to also respond individually to the FRC directly can do so by completing the FRC survey or by sending comments to futurereporting@frc.org.uk by 05 February 2021.
Response to UN Business and Human Rights
About this consultation
On 7 July 2020, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UNWG) launched a new global project, ‘Business and human rights: towards a decade of global implementation.” Also known as “UNGPs 10+ / Next Decade BHR,” the project is centred around the upcoming tenth anniversary of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the global authoritative framework on business and human rights that was unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011. See the UN open call for input on UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – towards a decade of global implementation.
The project is taking stock of practice to date, identifying gaps and challenges, and developing a vision and roadmap for scaling up implementation of the UNGPs over the course of the next decade. The project’s consultation process is being carried out in collaboration with OHCHR, UN Development Programme, and others. The UN Working Group seeks to hear perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders from all regions, including government actors, international organizations, national human rights institutions, industry organizations, businesses, consumer associations, investors, trade unions, representatives of affected communities, indigenous peoples, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, professional associations and groups, academia, and others.
Background
The unanimous endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011, represented a watershed moment in efforts to address adverse impacts on people resulting from business activities in all sectors. For the first time there was a globally recognized and authoritative framework for the respective duties and responsibilities of Governments and business enterprises to prevent and address such impacts. The Guiding Principles outlined the steps to take in order to meet existing State obligations and normative standards for business, set out under three pillars:
- The State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation and adjudication;
- The corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse impacts with which a business is involved, by adopting appropriate policies, exercising human rights due diligence and enabling remediation of harms that occur; and
- The need for access to effective remedy for rights-holders when abuse has occurred, through both judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms.
Proposed changes
All interested stakeholders are invited by the UNWG to:
- Respond to the UN via the “Have your say!” written input survey, to help inform the stocktaking exercise and the roadmap for the next decade. Deadline: 30 November 2020.
- Share brief summaries (2 pages) of relevant materials (e.g., reports, research, other relevant publications). Deadline: ongoing basis until end of February 2021.
All interested stakeholders are invited by the UNWG to address the following questions:
- Where has progress taken place in UNGPs implementation over the course of the last decade? What are the promising developments and practices (by governments, businesses, international organizations, civil society organizations, etc.) that can be built on?
- Where do gaps and challenges remain? What has not worked to date?
- What are key obstacles (both visible and hidden), drivers, and priorities that need to be addressed to achieve fuller realization of the UNGPs?
- What systemic or structural challenges need to be tackled to realize sustainable development based on respect for human rights?
- In concrete terms, what will be needed in order to achieve meaningful progress with regard to those obstacles and priority areas? What are actionable and measurable targets for key actors in terms of meeting the UNGPs’ expectations over the coming years?
- Any other comments?
IOSH response to the European Commission consultation on the Roadmap
About this consultation
This roadmap initiative will contribute to improving health and safety at work, including helping to prevent workers from having accidents at work and getting avoidable work-related illnesses. The initiative will also improve productivity and contribute to preventing unnecessary health costs, such as medical or rehabilitation costs, as well as to reducing public healthcare spending, so improving the sustainability of social security systems.
This requires an inclusive and crosscutting strategic approach to address the main challenges which will be identified for this decade and ensure that workers in the EU can benefit from the highest standard when it comes to health and safety at work.
Background
The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the crucial importance of health, including health & safety at work.
Despite the significant reduction in accidents at work in the EU over the past decades, workers in the Union still fall victim to too many accidents at work. In 2017, there were some 3.300 fatal accidents at work and some 3.2 million non-fatal accidents (with at least 4 days of absence from work) in the EU-27. At the same time, data published in 2017 by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) show that there are some 200.000 deaths per year related to work-related illnesses in the EU-28. The economic costs of work-related illnesses and accidents together account for about 3.3% of GDP or €476 billion in the EU-28 per year.
Proposed changes
The initiative aims at maintaining and improving high OSH standards for workers across the Union, also in the light of new circumstances and the need to prepare for upcoming new crisis and threats, by reducing accidents at work and work-related diseases and by mobilising Member States and stakeholders around common priorities to achieve this. It aims at providing a political policy framework to improve OSH at both national and EU level.
Psychological health and safety at work: managing psychosocial risks — Guidelines
Please note: You must be an IOSH Member to access the full consultation.
About this consultation
Following the development and publication of ISO 45001: 2918 Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements with guidance for use, a draft guidance standard on its requirements in respect to Managing psychological health and safety/psychosocial risk within an OHSMS is now available for stakeholder comment.
IOSH, as a Category A Liaison Body to ISO TC 283, will submit feedback comments directly to ISO TC 283 WG2, where we are represented, as well as to the BSI HS/1 Committee for consideration as part of the UK response.
Background
In recognition of the growing need to improve the management of work-related psychosocial risks worldwide, a new work item proposal was agreed by ISO TC 283 and a work group established (WG2), to produce a supporting guidance standard to ISO 45001.
The initial drafting drew on existing work such as BSI / PAS 1010: 2011 Guidance on the management of psychosocial risks in the workplace; CAN/CSA-Z1003-13/BNQ 9700-803/2013 – Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace; Safe Work Australia 2019 – Work-related psychological health and safety – A systematic approach to meeting your duties; and Australian Human Rights Commission 2010 – Workers with mental illness: a practical guide for managers.
This new psychosocial risk standard aims to provide systematic guidelines for employers that will enable them to promote, develop, and continually improve the management of psychosocial risks, contributing to safer and healthier working environments.
The draft guidelines format reflects the ISO high-level structure for management systems, to align to ISO 45001 and covers scope, normative references, terms and definitions and then context of the organisation, leadership and worker participation, planning, support and operation. The document closes with sections on performance evaluation and management review and improvement.
Consultation questions
We invite IOSH members to send us feedback comments on the draft, using the response template provided by 18 September 2020 – these can be general, technical or editorial. The draft is strictly ISO copyright protected and is only accessible to IOSH members for consultation purposes.
Members need to log into MyIOSH for access to the draft guidelines for review and comment. When using the comment template, please include your name and all the relevant details related to your comment, including clause and paragraph number, why you’re proposing a change and what the suggested change is.
Respondents should note that the overall structure and top-level headings of the standard are now agreed, and no further changes will be made to these. Also that, unfortunately, we’re unable to consider comments submitted after the stated deadline or not on the comment template.
Comments should be sent to consultation@iosh.com.
A renewed Trade Policy for a stronger Europe – Consultation note
About this consultation
In June 2020, the European Commission launched a major review of EU Trade Policy, including a public consultation seeking input from the European Parliament, Member States, stakeholders and civil society. It provides a paper ‘A renewed trade policy for a stronger Europe – consultation note', which includes 13 consultation questions. The results of the consultation will feed into a communication, to be published towards the end of the year.
Background
The European Commission aims to build consensus around fresh medium-term direction for EU trade policy, responding to a variety of new global challenges and taking into account the lessons learned from the coronavirus crisis.
Proposed changes
The European Commission’s aims include a trade and investment policy that supports economic recovery, the creation of quality jobs, protection from unfair practices and coherence related to sustainability, climate change, the digital economy and security. The consultation covers all relevant topics to EU trade policy, with a stated special focus on the following:
- Building a resilient and sustainable EU economy after the coronavirus
- Reforming the World Trade Organisation
- Creating global trade opportunities for businesses and in particular SMEs
- Maximising the contribution of trade policy to addressing key global challenges, such as climate change, sustainable development or the digital transition
- Strengthening of trade and investment relationships with key trading partners
- Improving the level playing field and protecting EU business and citizens
Consultation questions
There are 13 consultation questions from the European Commission, as follows:
- How can trade policy help to improve the EU’s resilience and build a model of open strategic autonomy?
- What initiatives should the EU take – alone or with other trading partners - to support businesses, including SMEs, to assess risks as well as solidifying and diversifying supply chains?
- How should the multilateral trade framework (WTO) be strengthened to ensure stability, predictability and a rules-based environment for fair and sustainable trade and investment?
- How can we use our broad network of existing FTAs or new FTAs to improve market access for EU exporters and investors, and promote international regulatory cooperation ̶ particularly in relation to digital and green technologies and standards in order to maximise their potential?
- With which partners and regions should the EU prioritise its engagement? In particular, how can we strengthen our trade and investment relationships with the neighbouring countries and Africa to our mutual
- How can trade policy support the European renewed industrial policy?
- What more can be done to help SMEs benefit from the opportunities of international trade and investment? Where do they have specific needs or particular challenges that could be addressed by trade and investment policy measures and support?
- How can trade policy facilitate the transition to a greener, fairer and more responsible economy at home and abroad? How can trade policy further promote the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? How should implementation and enforcement support these objectives?
- How can trade policy help to foster more responsible business conduct? What role should trade policy play in promoting transparent, responsible and sustainable supply chains?
- How can digital trade rules benefit EU businesses, including SMEs? How could the digital transition, within the EU but also in developing country trade partners, be supported by trade policy, in particular when it comes to key digital technologies and major developments (e.g. block chain, artificial intelligence, big data flows)?
- What are the biggest barriers and opportunities for European businesses engaging in digital trade in third countries or for consumers when engaging in e-commerce?
- In addition to existing instruments, such as trade defence, how should the EU address coercive, distortive and unfair trading practices by third countries? Should existing instruments be further improved or additional instruments be considered?
- What other important topics not covered by the questions above should the Trade Policy Review address?
IOSH has been pleased to respond, based on our recent submission to the UN-WTO Policy Hackathon on Trade.
Response to the European Commission White Paper on Artificial Intelligence
About this consultation
Aiming to promote the uptake of artificial intelligence (AI) while at the same time, addressing the risks associated with its use, the European Commission has proposed a White Paper with policy and regulatory options “towards an ecosystem for excellence and trust”. This document was published on 19 February 2020, along with an online survey, focusing on three distinct topics:
- Specific actions for the support, development and uptake of AI across the EU economy and public administration;
- Options for a future regulatory framework on AI;
- Safety and liability aspects on AI (as outlined in the relevant report)
Background
As digital technology becomes an ever more central part of every aspect of people’s lives, people should be able to trust it. Artificial Intelligence will change our lives by improving healthcare (e.g. making diagnosis more precise, enabling better prevention of diseases), increasing the efficiency of farming, contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation, improving the efficiency of production systems through predictive maintenance, increasing the security of Europeans, and in many other ways that we can only begin to imagine.
At the same time, Artificial Intelligence (AI) entails a number of potential risks, such as risks to safety, gender-based or other kinds of discrimination, opaque decision-making, or intrusion in our private lives.
Proposed changes
The current public consultation comes along with the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence - A European Approach aimed to foster a European ecosystem of excellence and trust in AI and a Report on the safety and liability aspects of AI. The White Paper proposes:
- Measures that will streamline research, foster collaboration between Member States and increase investment into AI development and deployment;
- Policy options for a future EU regulatory framework that would determine the types of legal requirements that would apply to relevant actors, with a particular focus on high-risk applications.
Consultation questions
These are the key consultation questions from the European Commission that IOSH has contributed to:
Section 1 - An ecosystem of excellence
- Are there any other actions to strengthen the research and innovation community that should be given a priority?
Section 2 - An ecosystem of trust
- In your opinion, how important are the following concerns about AI; Do you have any other concerns about AI that are not mentioned above?
- Do you think that the concerns expressed above can be addressed by applicable EU legislation? If not, do you think that there should be specific new rules for AI systems?
- If you think that new rules are necessary for AI system, do you agree that the introduction of new compulsory requirements should be limited to high-risk applications; If you wish, please indicate the AI application or use that is most concerning (“high-risk”) from your perspective.
- What is the best way to ensure that AI is trustworthy, secure and in respect of European values and rules?
Section 3 – Safety and liability implications of AI, IoT and robotics
- The current product safety legislation already supports an extended concept of safety protecting against all kind of risks arising from the product according to its use. However, which particular risks stemming from the use of artificial intelligence do you think should be further spelled out to provide more legal certainty?
- Do you think that the safety legislative framework should consider new risk assessment procedures for products subject to important changes during their lifetime?
For more information, please download IOSH's consultation response references.
Response to the European Commission Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan
About this consultation
Every year, 3.5 million people in the EU are diagnosed with cancer, and 1.3 million die from it. Over 40% of cancer cases are preventable. Without reversing current trends, it could become the leading cause of death in the EU. On 7 February 2020, The European Commission under the stewardship of the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety launched a public consultation on Europe’s beating cancer plan. This initiative aims to reduce the cancer burden for patients, their families and health systems. It will address cancer related inequalities between and within Member States with actions to support, coordinate and complement Member States’ efforts.
Background
The Commission intends to design the plan to cover the entire cycle of the disease. Actions should span all steps of the disease, including prevention, early diagnosis, treatment, and the social dimension of cancer (encompassing life after cancer, return to work after cancer…)
Proposed changes
The Commission would like to hear views on laws and policies currently in development in this area, for that purpose they published a roadmap describing their approach to the issue.
Drawing on the input provided, the Commission will go on to complement this initial public consultation with further targeted interactions with specific stakeholder groups.
In the responses that are attached to this consultation, IOSH focuses on the need to reduce exposures to work-related carcinogens and prevent occupational cancers.
Consultation questions
There are 7 consultation questions from the European Commission, as follows:
- What do you think citizens can do to help beat cancer?
- What do you think health professionals can do to help beat cancer?
- What do you think public authorities / national governments can do to help beat cancer?
- Do you support the idea that the EU should do more to address cancer?
- Do you know or have experience of any particularly good practice in supporting cancer survivors, or so you have any suggestions as to how this could be done?
- How can your organisation contribute to the EU plan on cancer?
- Is there anything else that you would like to add that has not been covered in this consultation?
IOSH has been pleased to respond, based on the advocacy work through its No Time to Lose campaign at www.notimetolose.org.uk , which highlights the need for action to reduce the estimated 742,000 global annual deaths due to work-related cancers and focuses on raising awareness of practical steps to reduce exposures to four major occupational carcinogens: diesel engine exhaust emissions, solar radiation, silica dust and asbestos.