Last 10 December, the Advisory Committee on Health and Safety at Work (ACSH)—the tripartite body that assists the European Commission in preparing, implementing, and evaluating occupational safety and health (OSH) policy—issued its “Opinion on Climate change – Heat at Work“. ACSH opinions carry significant weight in shaping EU policy on workplace health and safety. This opinion is therefore expected to influence future EU measures to protect workers from occupational heat exposure.
All three interest groups represented in the ACSH—employers, workers, and governments—acknowledge that heat at work is a serious issue. Heat exposure poses significant threats to the safety and health of workers, particularly those engaged in outdoor or physically demanding jobs. The impact extends beyond individual health: heat stress slows productivity, increases the need for breaks, and raises the risk of errors and accidents, endangering lives. Nevertheless, the ACSH did not reach a consensus on how to move forward, with workers and governments leaning towards legal instruments while employers prefer non-binding technical guidance.
The Employers’ Interest Group claims that existing EU OSH legislation is sufficient to protect workers from heat and that only non-binding guidance is needed. Yet, the ACSH’s own analysis identifies clear legislative gaps: heat exposure indicators and worker acclimatisation are not addressed at all, while hydration strategies and rest breaks are only partially covered and lack any explicit link to heat. This starkly contradicts the employers’ position: the law is neither comprehensive nor sufficiently clear and specific. Guidance alone cannot ensure enforceable, effective protection. If guidance were enough, the existing EU-OSHA Heat at Work – Guidance for Workplaces would suffice—but it clearly does not, as rising numbers of heat-related occupational accidents and deaths demonstrate.
By contrast, both the Governments’ and Workers’ Interest Groups explicitly recognise that structural gaps exist in current OSH legislation and must be addressed. Governments see a dedicated directive as one possible solution, to be combined with guidance and other complementary measures for practical implementation. Workers, in contrast, are unequivocal: only a dedicated OSH directive can adequately close these gaps and ensure real, enforceable protection.
Why voluntary guidance will fail
In this context, the pressing question is: what happens next? The Workers’ Interest Group is adamant that a dedicated directive is the only way forward. Echoing this stance, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has adopted a resolution on “The content of a Directive on the prevention of occupational heat risks“, stressing that workers are dying from heat at work and that current protections are failing.
The case for binding legislation is compelling. Heat exposure represents an acute and escalating danger, particularly for outdoor workers and those performing physically demanding labour. Yet, the EU’s current OSH rules do not adequately address these critical issues. Key protections—such as scientifically validated heat exposure indicators and systematic protocols for gradual worker acclimatisation—are entirely absent from existing frameworks. Other essential measures, including hydration requirements and mandatory rest periods, are only partially covered and rarely linked explicitly to heat risk. An EU directive would remedy these deficiencies by establishing legal obligations binding on all employers, ensuring consistent protection across every sector and member state. At present, divergent national and sectoral approaches mean that the level of protection varies widely, leaving some workers far more exposed than others.
Technical guidance, by contrast, remains optional and advisory. While it can inform best practice, it cannot create legal obligations or compel employers to implement protective measures. The European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks illustrates why this distinction matters: 87 per cent of EU-27 companies report that their primary motivation for managing OSH is to meet legal obligations. In this context, relying solely on the Employers’ Interest Group’s preferred approach is unlikely to drive meaningful change—absent legal requirements, behavioural shifts remain improbable.
A binding directive does more than establish rules; it sends a clear political and institutional signal that occupational heat is a serious hazard demanding systematic prevention. It ensures that risk assessments, work organisation, rest periods, hydration strategies, and acclimatisation protocols are not merely recommendations but enforceable requirements. The EU must use legislation to ensure that recognition of the risk translates into real protection, not empty rhetoric.
The OSH Framework Directive establishes that employers are legally obliged to ensure the health and safety of their workers. While this general duty is clear, it does not specifically address all emerging risks—including occupational heat—leaving important gaps in protection. Crucially, the Framework Directive itself provides the legal basis for creating new binding instruments when existing rules no longer adequately address emerging risks or reflect changes in society and the working environment (Article 9, Directive 89/391/EEC).
We are witnessing an increasing frequency and severity of occupational health and safety impacts linked to heat exposure. Heat is a serious and growing occupational risk across Europe, not just in traditionally hot regions. Although workers in Southern Europe still face the highest number of fatal heat-related workplace injuries, the situation is deteriorating rapidly in Central and Northern Europe, where heat-related deaths at work have increased by more than 50 per cent over the past 20 years. Heat exposure at work is no longer a marginal or regional issue; it is an increasingly significant occupational health and safety risk across all parts of Europe, including areas not previously considered high-risk.
In this context, heat at work has reached a scale and significance that clearly justifies adopting a dedicated legal instrument, ensuring that workers are not left to bear the consequences of climate change in the workplace. As the authors of this piece—who have been involved in the debate surrounding the Opinion—have argued throughout, only a binding EU directive can overcome the current fragmented and uneven protection across member states and sectors, providing consistent, preventive, and enforceable protection for all workers.
