S t r e s s a n d H e a l t hStress and Health 18: 103–104 (2002)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.934

Gue s t Ed i t o r i a l: B r i dg ing th es c i enc e–po l i c y gap

The European Union’s (EU) strategic goal isto become ‘the most competitive and dynamicknowledge-based economy in the world, capable ofsustainable economic growth with more and betterjobs and greater social cohesion’. Enlarging on this,the Stockholm European Council concluded that‘increased efforts should be made to promote agood working environment for all, including equalopportunities for the disabled, gender equality,good and flexible work organization permittingbetter reconciliation of working and personallife, lifelong learning, health and safety at work,employee involvement and diversity in workinglife’.

According to the World Health Organization(2001), ‘mental health problems and stress-relateddisorders are the biggest overall cause of prematuredeath in Europe’. And the European Council ofMinisters (2001) similarly concluded that ‘stressand depression-related problems . . . are of majorimportance . . . and significant contributors to theburden of disease and the loss of quality of lifewithin the European Union’ and underlined thatsuch problems are ‘common, cause human sufferingand disability, increase the risk of social exclusion,increase mortality and have negative implicationsfor national economies’.

Recognizing this, the Council invites the MemberStates to ‘give due attention to the impact of stressand depression-related problems in all age groupsand ensure that these problems are recognized;in this context, give special attention to theincreasing problem of work-related stress anddepression’.

If these formulations really reflect increasedawareness and willingness to act in accordance withthem among decision makers and other stakehold-ers in the 15 EU Member States, the challenge forthe readership of this Journal would be to (a) invitethe social partners in countries outside the EU toconsider these conclusions and their consequences

Ł Correspondence to: Lennart Levi , Professor Emeritusof Psychosocial Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden.† E-mail: lennart.levi@ipm.ki.se

for integrated action plans, and (b) contribute tobridging the present science–policy gap.

One basis for promoting this is provided inthe European Commission’s (2000) ‘Guidanceon work-related stress: Spice of life, or kiss ofdeath?’ It can be downloaded from the Internet athttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employmentsocial/h&s/publicat/pubintro en.htm

Three additional developments may be worthconsidering: (1) the European Standard (2000)on ergonomic principles related to mental work-load; (2) the European Commission’s (2001) GreenPaper on ‘Promoting a European frameworkfor Corporate Social Responsibility, and (3) theEuropean Commission’s (2002) Communication‘Adapting to change in work and society: a newCommunity strategy on health and safety at work2002–2006’.

According to the EU Framework Directive,employers have a ‘duty to ensure the safety andhealth of workers in every aspect related to thework’. The Directive’s principles of preventioninclude ‘avoiding risks’, ‘combating the risks atsource’, and ‘adapting the work to the individual’.In addition, the Directive indicates the employers’duty to develop ‘a coherent overall preventionpolicy’. The European Commission has publishedits Guidance on work-related stress to provide abasis for such endeavours. Its main deliberationscan be summarized as follows.

Based on surveillance at individual workplacesand monitoring at national and regional levels,work-related stress (and its outcomes in terms ofboth cardiovascular and mental morbidity) couldbe prevented or counteracted by job-redesign (e.g.by empowering the employees, and avoiding bothover- and underload), by improving social sup-port, and by providing reasonable reward forthe effort invested by workers, as integral partsof overall management systems; and by adjustingoccupational physical, chemical and psychosocialsettings to the workers’ abilities, needs and rea-sonable expectations—all in line with the require-ments of the EU Framework Directive and Arti-cle 152 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, accord-ing to which ‘a high level of human health

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Guest Editorial

protection shall be ensured in the definition andimplementation of all Community policies andactivities’.

Supporting actions should include research, butalso adjustments of curricula in business schools,schools of technology, medicine and behaviouraland social sciences, and in the training and re-training of labour inspectors, occupational healthofficers, labour union representatives, managersand supervisors. Needless to say, the challenge toscience is to provide evidence-based guidelines forall such endeavours.

An example of an attempt to implement impor-tant parts of such a programme is provided byan ongoing project (the Heart of the Enterprise)conducted by the Swedish Heart–Lung Founda-tion with financial support from AFA Insuranceand in collaboration with the Swedish Workers’Educational Association, the Swedish Federationof Social Insurance Offices, the Karolinska Instituteand others.

Its objective is to disseminate and imple-ment current knowledge, and provide stake-holders with positive examples, by (1) trainingthe trainers (academic courses in PsychosocialOccupational Health); (2) amending the curriculaof care providers, economists, engineers, safetyrepresentatives, and labour inspectors; (3) creatingan evidence-based web site; (4) organizing regionaland local conferences targeting management,unions and local government; (5) increasing mediaawareness and competence through regional sem-inars; (6) publishing state-of-the-art booklets on‘stress and burnout’ and ‘guidelines for compa-nies and organizations’; and (7) networking with

relevant national, European and Internationalorganizations.

These European activities to prevent noxiouswork-related stress and its effects on health andwell-being could serve as a benchmark for othercountries in the world. Why not-just do it?

References

European Commission. (2001). Promoting a EuropeanFramework for Corporate Social Responsibility. GreenPaper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities.

European Commission. (2002). Adapting to Change in Workand Society: A New Community Strategy on Health andSafety at Work 2002–2006. Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities.

European Committee for Standardization. (2000). ErgonomicPrinciples Related to Mental Work-Load Part 1: GeneralTerms and Definitions (EN ISO 10075-1) and Part 2: DesignPrinciples. Brussels: CEN.

European Council of Health Ministers. (2001). CombatingStress and Depression Related Problems. Conclusions.Brussels: European Council.

Levi, I., & Levi, L. (2000). Guidance on work-relatedstress: Spice of life or kiss of death? Luxembourg:European Commission Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities. Available in English,German, French, Italian and Spanish and fromhttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment social/h&s/publicat/pubintro en.htm

World Health Organization. (2001). Mental Health in Europe.Copenhagen: World Health Organization.

LENNART LEVIŁ,†

Professor Emeritus of Psychosocial MedicineKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 103–104 (2002)104