On 24 September 2026, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) announced the release of an updated ESENER survey visualisation. Available in 25 languages, the tool compares findings from 2014, 2019 and 2024 in occupational safety and health management, worker participation and digitalisation.
The first findings from the fourth ESENER wave, conducted by EU-OSHA among more than 41,000 establishments in 30 countries, were published on 7 February 2025. What is new is the ability to compare all three waves in a single data visualisation tool.
For the management of a small company, the visualisation itself matters less than the question it raises: can people influence measures relating to their work, or are they merely informed about a procedure that has already been finalised?
What the ESENER 2024 findings actually say
EU-OSHA highlights three simultaneous trends in its report (the report does not provide specific percentages; these are available directly in the tool):
- worker involvement in measures addressing psychosocial risks is declining,
- labour inspection visits are becoming less frequent,
- the effects of digitalisation on workers’ health and safety are being discussed more often.
A Czech summary was also published by the BOZPinfo.cz portal. EU-OSHA also states that compliance with legislation remains the main reason for managing occupational safety and health.
ESENER is a survey, not new legislation, an assessment of a particular company or an announcement of an inspection campaign by the Czech labour inspectorate. It can, however, reveal a gap between paperwork prepared at a desk and actual workplace conditions.
When an internal review is not enough and how we can help
A checklist alone may not be sufficient, particularly when:
- after new technology is introduced, workers bypass the prescribed procedure, near misses occur or it is unclear who makes decisions during a malfunction;
- an automated production line, collaborative robot or new method of allocating work has changed the pace, interruptions or interaction between people and machines;
- the documentation describes the previous operation, while different shifts, temporary workers or external contractors handle the change differently.
At SOHE, we follow three steps:
- We define the change and identify the relevant information. We determine which workplaces, job roles and technologies are affected and which documents should cover the change.
- We examine actual operations. We compare the documented procedure with work as performed on site and with the experience of the people who use the equipment or system.
- We recommend corrective action. The outcome may include specific measures or updates to the risk assessment, documentation or training content. We agree on the scope and expected deliverables in advance.
If you cannot assess the change independently using your own resources, we can carry out an occupational safety audit and update for your company.
Which changes should be included in the self-assessment
This is not limited to robotic manufacturing. Work may also be affected by:
- a new ERP, WMS or time and attendance system;
- digital task allocation and performance tracking;
- handheld scanners, terminals, cameras or telematics;
- an automated production line or collaborative robot;
- a tool using artificial intelligence;
- moving fault reporting, approvals or work instructions into an app.
Technology can make operations easier to understand, but it can also change the pace of work, frequency of interruptions, responsibility for errors, degree of supervision or procedures during an outage. These effects are best described by the people who work with the system every day.
A quick test of worker participation
Answer yes, partly, or no to each question.
| Review question | Evidence to look for |
|---|---|
| Did we speak to the workers affected before the change? | A dated record listing participants and specific comments |
| Did we assess the effect on pace, concentration, interruptions and workload? | An updated risk assessment or change assessment record |
| Did we describe a safe procedure for errors or system outages? | A working procedure, fallback arrangements and allocation of responsibilities |
| Were people from all affected shifts and job roles given an opportunity to contribute? | A record of the roles involved, not merely a list of managers |
| Were the comments reflected in the measures adopted? | The decision, its rationale, the responsible person and the deadline |
| Did we also examine the effects after the technology went live? | A follow-up review, a record of findings and the status of measures |
A negative answer is not a legal verdict, but it indicates where the risk assessment may be disconnected from actual operations.
What to examine in one specific change
Do not start with the entire company. Select the most recent significant change in technology or working procedures.
-
Describe the situation before and after the change. Record differences in work pace, the number of alerts, manual interventions, supervision and the procedure for dealing with malfunctions.
-
Consult the affected job roles. A manager knows the intended process, while an operator will often identify workarounds, time pressure or unclear transfers of responsibility.
-
Distinguish feedback from being informed. The statement “employees were informed” does not show what concerns they raised or how the company responded.
-
Record the outcome of every suggestion. A suggestion may be accepted, rejected or referred for further review. For each decision, add the reason, responsible person and deadline.
-
Compare the outcome with the documentation and training. If the risks or safe working procedure have changed, check whether the materials in use and the training content reflect this.
Training that covers only how to operate an app may not address the safety implications of the change. Workers also need to know what to do when data is incorrect, a system fails or equipment behaves unusually.
How to record consultation and measures adopted
An attendance sheet proves participation or that information was provided. It does not show whether employees were able to describe risks or whether the company acted on their comments.
A useful record may include:
- the date and subject of the consultation;
- the job roles and shifts represented;
- a brief description of the change being introduced;
- specific comments from workers;
- the decision on each comment and the reason for it;
- the measures adopted, deadlines and responsible persons;
- the date of the subsequent on-site verification.
The extent of the record should reflect the complexity of the change and the risks identified. Its purpose is to create a traceable link between each suggestion, decision and measure.
Short answer
The ESENER 2024 findings point to weaker worker involvement in measures addressing psychosocial risks and more frequent discussions about the effects of digitalisation. They do not constitute new legislation or an assessment of a specific employer.
For companies, this is a reason to review the most recent change in work: who had an opportunity to comment, which effects were assessed, what changed in the measures adopted and whether the documentation reflects actual operations.
Frequently asked questions
Is ESENER 2024 a new piece of legislation?
No. ESENER is the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks. The updated visualisation compares findings from 2014, 2019 and 2024, but does not itself introduce any new obligations.
Does the decline in participation mean that our company is breaking the law?
No. This is an overall trend, not an assessment of a specific company. Your own approach must be evaluated according to the actual organisation of work, the risks and the available documentation.
Does signing a training attendance sheet count as worker participation?
A signature primarily proves attendance or that information was provided. Participation is better documented by recording specific comments and explaining how the company dealt with them.
Should the introduction of software or AI be included in an occupational safety assessment?
It should be included if it changes working procedures, workload, pace, supervision or responsibility. What matters is the actual effect on work, not the name of the technology.
Does the publication of ESENER 2024 mean that documentation must be revised?
Not automatically. First check whether the work or risks have changed and whether the documentation in use reflects actual operations. An update makes sense where you identify a specific discrepancy.
Sources for this article
- Occupational safety for companies – a SOHE service.
- Occupational safety risk assessment in a company – a practical process from describing the work to adopting measures.
- OiRA Office: a new tool for office risks – using the tool for a structured assessment of office risks.
- Occupational safety documentation for a small company – an overview of documents that should reflect actual operations.
- EU-OSHA: Worker participation and digitalisation – report dated 24 September 2026 comparing ESENER findings.
- BOZPinfo.cz: From worker participation to digitalisation – a Czech summary of the survey trends.
This article is for informational purposes and does not replace legal advice. The specific approach to worker participation and documentation updates must be tailored to actual operations, the manufacturer’s documentation, the operating environment and the risk assessment.
Need to compare your documentation with actual operations? We can provide occupational safety services for your company, including a risk review and recommendations for specific measures. Send us a no-obligation enquiry or email info@sohe.cz.