Bulgaria: Trend of improved working conditions

The results of this survey clearly show that working conditions in many sectors, and in the Bulgarian economy as a whole, have improved. Despite some areas of continuing concern, there has been a positive change in the attitude of both management and employees. Action taken to improve working conditions has, in some cases, exceeded the minimum legislative requirements. This trend developed in the years of sustained economic growth before 2008, and should be sustained during the present economic downturn.

Download report [pdf, size 260 kb]


Background

High quality and low risk working conditions are not only a legal requirement, but can also serve as a powerful catalyst for innovation and higher productivity. In recent decades there has been much empirical evidence to show that investment in quality of labour inevitably leads to economic prosperity for those businesses and countries that have had the strategic foresight to recognise such investment as a priority.

Recent decades have also produced empirical evidence of the link between quality of work and economic prosperity in Bulgaria. Against this background, the Executive Agency General Labour Inspectorate opened a tender procedure for the assignment of the performance of a National Working Conditions Survey in Bulgaria in 2010–2011, financed by EU funds.

The survey was carried out by a consortium, the National Working Conditions Survey, consisting of BAD Gesundheitsvorsorge und Sicherheitstechnik GmbH (‘Health Prevention and Safety Technology’), Germany, the Scientific Research Sector of Sofia’s St. Kliment Ohridski University and the Balkan Institute for Labour and Social Policy, Sofia.



Survey methodology

The survey – the largest of all the surveys carried out in recent decades – is a significant step towards the enforcement of better working conditions as part of the organisational development strategies of private and public entities. The survey included collection of data on the working conditions of enterprises from all economic sectors in Bulgaria based on the Classification of Economic Activities (CEA) 2008, analysis of these data, proposal for the rating of the most risky economic sectors, and recommendations for policies in the field of working conditions.

An important feature of the survey was the attempt to single out the most risky sectors of the economy. This exercise called for the identification and analysis of a broad range of aspects and indicators of working conditions that influence the health and lives of employees. This survey attempts to assess the risks inherent in various sectors, covering simultaneously nine main aspects of working conditions: the nature of the work; its organisation; working time; work and health; payment; information and consultation; discrimination and violence; and work-life balance. This analysis was an enormous challenge, since the current national practice offered risk evaluation and rating by sectors, studying and analysing only individual aspects and indicators of working conditions.

The national survey is based on data collected in the period July–October 2010. The respondents were workers and employees, company health and safety experts and employers. The survey tools used were standardised face-to-face interviews, online questionnaires, mail questionnaires and focus groups. The questions included both open-ended and survey questions. The standardised face-to-face interviews and the questionnaires are representative for the entire aggregate of all employees in Bulgaria, in all sectors, corrected with weights. The sample of companies is based on the rules for representative samples. More than 2,250 standardised interviews were carried out among employees by economic sectors; and almost 16,200 online questionnaires and about 2,500 mail questionnaires were completed by employers, employees and health and safety officers. Data from measurements of the factors of the work environment were obtained for more than 200 enterprises, and five focus groups were composed of professionals with specific roles in the relevant fields such as those working in occupational medicine services, trade unions, laboratories measuring the influences of the work environment, and employers. For the purposes of the comparative analysis, we also used administrative data from the National Social Security Institute related to occupational diseases and accidents at work, and some European sources.

This report first presents some descriptive results about working conditions in Bulgaria. The second part investigates working conditions in the different sectors of economic activity and gives some insight into particularly high-risk sectors. The full survey report (nearly 400 pages) was released on 2 November 2011 by the assignor – the Executive Agency General Labour Inspectorate and officially published on its website, at www.gli.government.bg. The report will also be translated into English.



Aspects of working conditions

The 2010 National Working Conditions Survey (NWCS) in Bulgaria shows apparently optimistic results in terms of the subjective opinions of employers and employees about working conditions. Some 87% of the respondents answered that they are satisfied or very satisfied with working conditions in their enterprises. This result is supported by the response of 40% of employees that during the past 12 months their working conditions have improved, while only 6% think conditions have worsened. These results reflect the fact that during the past decade of stable economic growth, many enterprises and sectors invested significant amounts in modern equipment and new buildings, and this has created a perception of better working condition.

It could also be reasonable to interpret the data on satisfaction with working conditions in the light of several facts. Firstly, the most important factor influencing employees’ satisfaction with working conditions is good pay. Secondly, the survey was carried out during an economic crisis, and job security has become the priority in the value systems of employees. About half of the respondents could not be absolutely sure that they would still have their job within the next six months after the interview, and about quarter of respondents thought they would lose their jobs. Thirdly, at all focus group meetings, the opinions was that working conditions in most of Bulgaria’s enterprises were not as good as they should be, and could be significantly improved in many ways.

Below are outlined some of the more important conclusions reached during the survey process, listed by aspects of working conditions, although the order in which they are listed is not significant.

The nature of work

One of the main challenges in the modern economy is the wider use of information technologies in the daily work process. This phenomenon has become a reality in Bulgaria as well. About half of employees use computers, the internet and e-mail on a daily basis. For the other half, the use of information technology takes up a very small portion of their working hours.

Almost 60% of women use information technologies regularly in their daily work tasks compared to less than 39% of men. If this trend persists, it is probable that the acquisition of these skills would lead, in the long term, to women overcoming the gender pay gap and improving their access to better paid and more prestigious jobs and tasks. The effect of the use of IT and its educational influence can be observed in employees’ level of awareness of the influence their work has on their health, and of health and safety risks at work.

The survey shows that very few employees perform their jobs under employment contracts outside their workplaces, working at home or from ‘remote’ workplaces. Telework is widely spread in the education, transport, administrative and support services sectors. Working at home or other forms of telework are not used at all in seven of the sectors (represented by a third of all respondents). These include extraction industries, accommodation and food service activities, real estate activities, and financial and insurance activities. A positive impact could be had on some of these sectors if efforts were focused on informing employers and employees about the advantages of modern homework and telework jobs.

The prevailing types of training are ‘on the job’ by colleagues and independent self-training by the employee him/herself. Most employers want to use highly qualified labour. However, the survey shows that the employers have no targeted policy for the retraining of employees and expect a more highly qualified workforce to be the result of employees’ efforts.

The level of an employee’s education has a major influence on their level of exposure to physical risks at work. The survey data show that the higher the educational level, the lower the share of employees exposed to all types of physical risk. Employees with higher education, college education and post-graduate degrees are rarely exposed to physical risk, while employees with secondary and lower education are much more frequently exposed to such risks. It can be concluded that the lower the educational attainment of workers and employees, the higher the risk of injuries at work.

Work environment and work organisation

The intensity and pace of work are factors strongly influencing the physical and mental health of employees. Some 20% of employees work at high speed all the time or almost all the time. About 30% of employees work to tight deadlines all the time or almost all the time. The high intensity of work is one of the major factors causing work related stress. Moreover, employees working at a high speed and whose pace of work depends on machines are more exposed to physical risks.

Functional flexibility and teamwork are widespread. This is the main indicator for the successful introduction of the new models of work organisation. Most of the respondents have declared that their work involves rotating tasks – 73.2%. This shows a significant level of functional flexibility in the Bulgarian economy. A very impressive indicator of the widespread ability of Bulgarian workers to co-operate is the fact that more than 90% of the employees surveyed confirm that, if necessary, they can get help from their colleagues or their employer. Nearly 51% of the respondents state that team members allocate work tasks among themselves. Cases where the team members alone elect their team leader are relatively few (24%).

Asked about autonomy at work, almost half of the employees said they never, almost never or seldom have the opportunity to choose the order of tasks, or method, pace and amount of work. Here we should note that the level of autonomy in the distribution of tasks is not very high – in 76% of cases the employer assigns the tasks. An important feature of this factor is that the higher the level of work autonomy, the higher educational level of the employee.

Working time

Working time is a key element in the assessment of working conditions and is very important for the creation of suitable conditions for the recovery and rest of workers and employees, and for the economic development of companies/organisations. The main feature of this indicator is the persistently conservative attitude of employers towards the various models and forms of working time organisation permitted by the national legislation.

The legal duration of working hours in Bulgaria is up to 40 hours a week and up to five workdays in a week. Bulgarian legislation permits employees to have more than one paid job. In such cases the total hours of paid jobs must not exceed 48 working hours a week unless the employee gives written consent. Other arrangements of working time organisation are allowed by law, although the employers may define them unilaterally in the internal rules of the company or through negotiations in a collective labour agreement.

More than 80% of employees work eight hours a day, five days a week. Those working under various forms of part-time work are very few (below 5%).

The survey shows a clear correlation between the length of the working week and the health and satisfaction of employees. More than half of those working more than 40 hours a week are not satisfied with their working hours. About one third are dissatisfied with their working conditions, and one fifth assess their work as posing risks to their health and safety.

Work during rest days is a worrisome trend from the point of view of working conditions and legislative requirements. About 44% of the respondents work one or more Saturdays of the month and 30% of the employees are asked regularly or sometimes to work on Sundays.

The analysis of the influence of shift work on the health and safety of employees, and on their general satisfaction with their working conditions, shows that twice as many shift workers think that their working time poses a risk to their health as those not working shifts. There are also more people within the shift workers’ group who are not satisfied with their working conditions and who find their working time inconvenient for their family commitments and other engagements.

Work and health

In general, employees say they have problems with their health which they believe are related to their work. About one third of the respondents have problems with their sight, back pain, headaches and muscle pains, and they attribute this to the nature of their work. 40% have complaints about stress, more than 60% about general fatigue, and between 20–26% report problems with sleep, anxiety and frustration. Employees’ self-assessment of their health status does not depend on gender – both men and women report health problems to the same extent. Survey data show a relatively unfavourable situation of comparatively frequent absenteeism. During the past 12 months almost 30% of employees have been absent from work for health reasons. One explanation is that this reflects the aggravated health status of the workforce. The other is that this data may reflect the inability of the healthcare system to distinguish between absenteeism due to sickness and absenteeism for other reasons not necessarily related to health.

In view of the significant amount of sick leave absenteeism, it is reassuring that the share of absenteeism due to accidents at work and health problems caused by work is insignificant. It should be borne in mind, however, that the systems for registration and recognition of health problems caused by accidents at work and particularly occupational diseases might be imperfect. For example, despite the low level of absenteeism for reasons related to work accidents, it should be noted that a little more than 10% of employees state that during the past 12 months there have been accidents at their place of work, and this figure is much higher than the declared absenteeism due to accidents at work. Among the surveyed sample, the number of employees absent due to accidents at work (below 0.1%) or illness caused by work (about 3%) of the respondents is very insignificant.

An especially positive fact is that many of the companies and organisations have established management systems for health and safety at work – almost 90% of those interviewed state they have such system. An important question to be answered is whether these employers are motivated by the need for formal compliance with the law, or a desire to actively improve working conditions based on the improvement of the established systems?

Payment of labour

The size of income cannot, at least for the purposes of this survey, be used an indicator for the satisfaction with the working conditions. Nevertheless, how employees feel about their own income has a direct relationship with their assessment of risk related to working conditions. Low assessment of income is inversely related to the motivation to work and the employee’s attachment to the workplace. Self-assessment of the level of income affects risk assessment in the various sectors. When asked to assess their situation using the scale poor – wealthy, about two thirds of the employees declared themselves as moderately wealthy (scoring three, using a five-point scale). The distribution, however, prevails in the lower scores – 22.3% of the respondents have given a score of two, while only 4.7% have given a score of four. More than 5% in total for the country have assessed themselves as absolutely poor, choosing a score of one, in determining their level of income.

Information and consultation

Information about safety and security of working conditions in the organisation is part of the information about management of the organisation, but it has a specific importance due to its significant impact on health and safety at work. Survey data show that the information about the safety of work is quite high. 97.1% of the employees declare that they know what to do in case of accidents at work, and 95.7% declare they have undergone safety training. Therefore it is quite surprising that the data shows a low number – less than one third (28.2% of the respondents) who say they have had training organised and/or paid for by the employer. This obvious contradiction may be explained by the fact that employees often do not make a difference between daily and regular training instructions.

Work-life balance

The engagement of employees with work issues outside working hours is one of the main factors that disturbs work-life balance. Almost half of the interviewed employees state that it is not unusual for the management to call them about work issues outside working hours. One in six workers state that it is almost normal practice. The higher the educational level, the worse the score on this indicator. Employees with university, college or higher education are more often called outside working hours about work issues than other educational groups.



General risk assessment by economic sectors

The main goal of the experts carrying out the National Survey was to identify the most risky sectors of the economy. The survey aims to assess the risks in the various sectors by simultaneously combining the effects of nine major aspects of working conditions: the nature of work; work environment; organisation of work; working time; work and health; payment of labour; information and consultations; discrimination and violence; and work-life balance. To arrive at a unified risk indicator for all aspects was a methodologically complex task, and two main models for assessment and ranking were used which had a high degree of correlation. Both models were also tested by comparing them to expert rankings based on generally accepted assessment, opinions and attitudes among health and safety experts, and again significant overlapping between the different rankings was found.

To summarise, the three rankings used as a basis for the assessments are:

  • an average index for all aspects of the working conditions based on the opinions of respondents;
  • the Аnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model, based on combined expert assessment and weighted data of the respondents’ opinion, proportional to the share of employees in each sector;
  • expert assessment, based on generally accepted expert beliefs, opinions and attitudes.

Ranking based on an average index

In this approach, the sectors are ranked by degree of total risk based on an average index, derived from the risk indices of each of the nine aspects of the working conditions that were surveyed. This approach is based on the subjective assessment of the respondents in the nationally representative sociological survey.

The results of assessment of the total risk, by sectors, are shown in Figure 1 and Table 2. Indices with values 0.0 mean there is no significant risk found in the relevant sector.

The survey results outline 12 sectors with highest risk (Figure 1). The sector with the highest total risk is Sector Q, Human health and social work activities. This is the only sector that shows risk indices for all nine aspects of working conditions, and the values of indices are highest for two of the nine aspects – payment, and discrimination and violence. The value of the index for information and consultation for this sector is the lowest of all the sectors, but the combination of significant risks in all aspects of working conditions puts this sector at the top of the total risk ranking. For the other aspects the sector is ranked second, third and fourth.

Figure 1: Total ranking of risk by sectors

Figure 1: Total ranking of risk by sectors

The next three sectors in the ranking – Manufacturing (C), Public administration (O) and Education (P), are in the same group of total risk, which is significantly distant from the first sector. Sector P, Education, has the highest risk index for the aspects of working time and work and health. Public Administration (O) has the highest risk index for the nature of work, the value for this element being twice as high as the following two sectors – Information and communications (J) and Water supply; sewerage; waste management and remediation activities (E). Sector C, Manufacturing sector, has the highest values for the aspects of information and consultation, and work-life balance.

The total risk index for the next group includes the sectors Transport, storage and postal services (H), and Arts, entertainment and recreation (R). For the element of work-life balance, Transport, storage and postal services (H) has the highest risk index compared to all other sectors (including the Manufacturing (C) sector).

The following group comprises Construction (F) and Sector G, Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles. Sector F, Construction, as expected, shows the highest risk index for the work environment element, given the inherent physical risks and ergonomic factors of the sector. It is notable that the sector with the next highest risk index for this element is the Extracting industry (B), with a value 16% lower than the construction sector. Construction does not show a significant risk for the aspects of organisation of work, working time, or discrimination and violence, and has a very low value for information and consultations. These values explain why this sector has a lower place than might be expected in the total ranking.

The last group in the 12 sectors ranked in Figure 1 includes Water supply; sewerage; waste management and remediation activities (E), Agriculture, forestry and fishing (A), Extracting industry (B) and Accommodation and food service activities (I). The Water supply; sewerage; waste management and remediation activities (E), together with Information and communication (J), have the highest value on the risk index for the aspects of work environment, nature of work, work and health, but have no significant risk or a low value risk for the other aspects.

Special attention must be paid to the Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (D) sector. It shows risk for only three of the aspects – work environment, work and health and payment, but its index values for the first two of these aspects are among the highest.

Table 1: Risk indices by aspects and sectors

Sector

1*

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Average

Q

31.7

45.4

17.3

95.2

40.7

57.7

5.9

50.0

32.9

41.9

C

0.0

46.2

45.0

0.0

30.7

19.4

50.5

0.0

33.8

25.1

O

63.5

4.2

42.0

0.0

29.6

50.4

21.6

0.0

0.0

23.5

P

0.0

16.8

9.1

100.0

41.8

22.5

0.0

0.0

17.8

23.1

H

28.6

16.0

8.7

0.0

16.9

43.4

26.0

0.0

33.8

19.3

R

27.0

5.6

0.0

90.5

11.1

5.8

22.2

0.0

9.1

19.0

F

25.4

62.8

0.0

0.0

7.9

23.1

6.2

0.0

16.0

15.7

G

25.4

9.8

25.1

0.0

9.5

12.7

20.1

0.0

33.3

15.1

E

33.3

16.0

9.1

0.0

8.5

41.7

14.5

0.0

8.7

14.6

A

30.2

0.0

9.1

0.0

0.0

28.3

44.3

0.0

17.8

14.4

B

31.7

46.8

0.0

0.0

32.3

0.0

7.7

0.0

9.1

14.2

I

0.0

42.3

17.3

0.0

20.1

3.9

0.0

0.0

25.1

12.1

M

28.6

0.0

16.9

0.0

10.6

23.1

7.7

0.0

9.1

10.7

N

27.0

0.0

8.2

0.0

20.1

12.0

7.7

0.0

17.8

10.3

K

31.7

10.4

17.8

0.0

0.0

3.8

7.7

0.0

0.0

7.9

J

33.3

0.0

9.1

0.0

7.4

1.1

7.7

0.0

8.7

7.5

D

0.0

38.1

0.0

0.0

21.2

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.0

S

0.0

5.3

0.0

0.0

31.7

4.1

7.3

0.0

9.1

6.4

T

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

11.1

10.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

L

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

U

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

* 1 = Nature of work; 2 = Work environment; 3 = Organisation of work; 4 = Working time; 5 = Work and health; 6 = Payment; 7 = Information and consultation; 8 = Discrimination and violence; 9 = Work-life balance;

Ranking based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process model

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (АНР) model – a process of ranking and selecting alternatives – is described in the Appendix Methodology and its results are presented after weighting the data of each sector for its share of the total employment of the economy. Thus we are making an attempt to assess more accurately the social and economic importance of the different sectors in order to determine the scale of risk within the entire economy. The resulting weighted assessment is complementary and should not be used alone, since in recent decades restructuring of the economy has led to an increase in services at the expense of traditional manufacturing industries; some traditionally risky sectors fall behind in the ranking because they have few employees, even though they are still risky in the context of health and safety at work for the employees involved in them.

While comparing the different rankings, the AHP model clearly shows that some sectors, because they have few employees, are ranked lower. This is most obvious with the Extracting industry (B), and a sector such as Financial and insurance activities (K) move from 19th to 12th position (see Figure 2). Nevertheless, some sectors (Construction and Transport ) remain at the top of the list using both approaches, with insignificant changes in their ranking. Of course, the representativeness clause remains valid for this ranking as well.

Figure 2: Rankings based on the АНР model

Figure 2: Rankings based on the АНР model

Ranking based on expert opinions

During the focus group stage of the survey, experts with long experience of various sectors and work-related risk tried to rank the economic sectors in accordance with their established beliefs, taking into account traditional factors such as the existence and weight of known risk factors, objectified occupational risk based on data about accidents at work and occupational diseases by sectors for recent years, the severity of the consequences of such factors (disease, death, disability), and a sector’s share of employees. The results are presented in Table 4, where the highest risk is for a sector is position 1, and the lowest risk at position 21.

Table 2. Ranking of economic sectors by economic sectors depending on risk weight according to expert assessment

Position

Sector

1

C Manufacturing

2

B Extracting industry

3

F Construction

4

H Transport, storage and postal services

5

G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles

6

D Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply

7

A Agriculture, forestry and fishing

8

Q Human health and social work activities

9

E Water supply; sewerage; waste management

10

I Accommodation and food service activities

11

P Education

12

J Information and communication

13

O Public administration

14

N Administrative and support service activities

15

R Arts, entertainment and recreation

16

K Financial and insurance activities

17

M Professional, scientific and technical activities

18

L Real estate activities

19

S Other activities

20

T Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods - and services - producing activities of households for own use

21

U Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies



Summary and conclusions

This survey identifies the economic sectors that are located in the first half of Table 2, based on an assessment of their risk factors. This information, combined with the collected data, the analyses made and the conclusions drawn all emphasise the importance of this survey for the outlining of the current state of the working conditions at national level by economic sectors in Bulgaria.

This is the biggest and most detailed survey of its kind carried out in recent years, and it will be useful for the development and implementation of policies and measures to improve working conditions in Bulgaria. It has also offers a starting point for future research in this field and for assessment of the net impact of various interventions to create better working conditions likely to be made in the short-term and medium-term.

Using the results from both models, 14 subsectors were identified as most risky: Agriculture, forestry and fishing (A), Extracting industry (B), Manufacturing (C), Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (D), Water supply; sewerage; waste management (E), Construction (F), Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (G), Transport, storage and postal services (H), Information and communication (J), Accommodation and food service activities (I), Public administration (O), Education (P), Human health and social work activities (Q), Arts, entertainment and recreation (R).



Annex: Risk assessment methodology by economic sectors

1. Assessment based on an average index for all aspects of working conditions

The first approach is based on ranking the sectors by level of total risk using an average index, derived from the risk indices for all nine aspects of working conditions. It reflects the purely subjective assessments of the respondents of the national representative sociological survey. Expertise has been used only at the stage of selection of indicators used for the risk assessment of every individual element of the working conditions. We would like to emphasise once again that the results obtained are based solely on the opinions, attitudes and assessments of the respondents.

2. Assessment based on Analytical Hierarchy Process

The second approach is based on the existing process of ranking and choice of alternatives, developed by Thomas Saaty, called Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The process is based on a model of preliminary established hierarchical structure, showing links between goals (criteria), sub goals (sub criteria) and alternatives to choose from, or which can be ranked by their significance for the established goals and tasks. АНР unites several concepts of hierarchical structuring of complex tasks, couples comparison, eigenvector method for weighting, compensatory preferences and checks for logical inconsistencies. For the practical implementation of the process we used a specialised software Expert choice 11.5 to perform the mathematical operations underlying the model.

In brief, the АНР is a process of choice or ranking of alternatives towards specific goals or criteria.

3. Sectors ranking by risk based on expert assessment

The third approach in ranking the sectors according to their risk is entirely expert based. It used the results of a focus group consisting of experts in field such as occupational diseases, labour law, human resources management, each with more than 20 years of experience in the field of health and safety at work, attempting to rank the most risky economic sectors. This method has no independent role in determining the risky economic sectors. It only has a comparative function and provides an opportunity to review the obtained objective results in the context of the generally accepted expert opinion and public attitudes.

Finally, the three approaches were used to calculate ranking correlation coefficients of Spearman in order to account for the levels of overlapping of the three types of ranking. The closer these coefficients are to 1, the higher the coincidence between the rankings and vice versa – the closer these coefficients are to -1, the higher the difference between the results of the various rankings.

Table 3. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient

Spearman's rho

Ranking based on the AHP model using weighted data

Ranking based on the AHP model using non-weighted data

Ranking based on expert assessment

Ranking based on the level of risk based on an average index derived from the risk indices by aspects

Ranking based on the AHP model using weighted data

1.000

0.686

0.673

0.747

Ranking based on the AHP model using non-weighted data

0.686

1.000

0.866

0.652

Ranking based on expert assessment

0.673

0.866

1.000

0.636

Ranking based on the level of risk based on an average index derived from the risk indices by aspects

0.747

0.652

0.636

1.000



Representative surveys in Bulgaria

National representative survey ‘Quality of life and work’ in Bulgaria – MLSP, June 2005.

‘Times and working and employment conditions in Bulgaria under restructuring’, CES with BAS, Sofia, 2005.

Survey ‘Women in the informal economy in Bulgaria’, carried out in 2004 and 2005 by ASA and WAD Foundation ‘.

‘Budget of times’, NSI, С., 2005; Survey ‘Women, Labour, Globalisation’, ASA, Sofia, 2003.

Representative national survey ‘Working time, working conditions, demographic behavior’, CES with BAS, Employment Agency with MLSP, 14 May - 14 June 2003.

Survey of women entrepreneurship and the role of women in the economic transformation in Bulgaria, ILO, Foundation for Entrepreneurship Development, UNDP, Sofia, 2000.

Survey of the autonomy of work in Bulgaria, within the framework of the European Working Condition Surveys, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2001.

Expert forecast on the emerging physical risks, related to occupational safety and health. Luxemburg, 2005, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.

Expert forecast on the emerging psychosocial risks, related to occupational safety and health, Luxemburg, 2007, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Ivan Neykov, BILSP

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Eurofound welcomes feedback and updates on this regulation

Komentuoti