For the complete report go to:
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europe-must-place-sustainable-well-being-for-all-at-its-heart
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europe-must-place-sustainable-well-being-for-all-at-its-heart
Showing posts with label Sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sustainability. Show all posts
12/16/16
Europe’s Slow-Burning Issue – Making Work Sustainable - by Greet Vermeyle
Making work sustainable is not simply a challenge for politicians and policymakers in the European Union: it is a fundamental issue that underpins the future of the world of work in Europe. It goes beyond the mantra of raising employment rates and deals with productivity and innovation – and the everyday lives of workers throughout the EU.
Sustainable work involves two main elements: first, ensuring that people in employment are able and willing to continue to work, and second, that throughout life, the situation and circumstances of workers are taken into account to enable them to enter, return, or stay part of working life – this involves having the time to engage in, say, private care activities and take care of health and employability issues throughout the course of one’s life.
The findings of the sixth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) help to map the situation of workers in Europe and uncover some truths which could enhance the sustainability of work for men and women.
The survey reveals stark differences between workers in Europe: more than one in four say they do not think they will be able to do their job or a similar one until 60, while one in five would like to continue to work as long as possible. This varies between countries: in Germany, Portugal, Denmark, and Finland more than four in five workers say that their work is sustainable, but fewer than three in five feel the same in France and Slovenia. Work and working conditions can play a positive role in keeping and building up health and well-being, skills and capacities. A preventative and proactive approach towards healthier and longer working lives and, where needed, ensuring that private needs (health issues, time issues, care responsibilities, employability) are taken care of, are therefore vital.
Working life can have an impact on health (whether immediate or delayed), as well as skills, motivation, and overall employability. Workers are, clearly, less likely to find work sustainable if they are exposed to physical risks, have high work intensity, do shift work or night work, fear losing their job; if they are subject to unfair treatment, or if they are exposed to bullying and harassment. Factors which make it more likely to respond positively to work being sustainable are being able to take an hour off to take care of private issues when needed, getting support from colleagues, having the perception of doing useful work, and getting recognition when doing a good job.
A key element to making work sustainable is being able to reconcile working life and private life. Throughout working life needs vary and different solutions can enhance work-life balance. For example, the care needs for small children are different than those for older children, or for other dependants such as sick partner and elderly parents. The sixth EWCS indicates that one worker in five feels that there is a bad fit between work and private commitments. This is more true of men than women, since women are more likely to adapt their work commitments to meet the demands they face in their private lives. This issue is most prevalent when there are children in the household. However, if we look at work done in the household sphere, so-called ‘unpaid work’, women continue to engage more in work here than men: both men and women increase their unpaid working hours when there are children but for women the number of unpaid working hours goes from 12 hours per week (without children) to 39 (with the youngest child under 7) and for men from 5 to 20 hours per week.
Read more:Europe’s Slow-Burning Issue – Making Work Sustainable
Sustainable work involves two main elements: first, ensuring that people in employment are able and willing to continue to work, and second, that throughout life, the situation and circumstances of workers are taken into account to enable them to enter, return, or stay part of working life – this involves having the time to engage in, say, private care activities and take care of health and employability issues throughout the course of one’s life.
The findings of the sixth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) help to map the situation of workers in Europe and uncover some truths which could enhance the sustainability of work for men and women.
The survey reveals stark differences between workers in Europe: more than one in four say they do not think they will be able to do their job or a similar one until 60, while one in five would like to continue to work as long as possible. This varies between countries: in Germany, Portugal, Denmark, and Finland more than four in five workers say that their work is sustainable, but fewer than three in five feel the same in France and Slovenia. Work and working conditions can play a positive role in keeping and building up health and well-being, skills and capacities. A preventative and proactive approach towards healthier and longer working lives and, where needed, ensuring that private needs (health issues, time issues, care responsibilities, employability) are taken care of, are therefore vital.
Working life can have an impact on health (whether immediate or delayed), as well as skills, motivation, and overall employability. Workers are, clearly, less likely to find work sustainable if they are exposed to physical risks, have high work intensity, do shift work or night work, fear losing their job; if they are subject to unfair treatment, or if they are exposed to bullying and harassment. Factors which make it more likely to respond positively to work being sustainable are being able to take an hour off to take care of private issues when needed, getting support from colleagues, having the perception of doing useful work, and getting recognition when doing a good job.
A key element to making work sustainable is being able to reconcile working life and private life. Throughout working life needs vary and different solutions can enhance work-life balance. For example, the care needs for small children are different than those for older children, or for other dependants such as sick partner and elderly parents. The sixth EWCS indicates that one worker in five feels that there is a bad fit between work and private commitments. This is more true of men than women, since women are more likely to adapt their work commitments to meet the demands they face in their private lives. This issue is most prevalent when there are children in the household. However, if we look at work done in the household sphere, so-called ‘unpaid work’, women continue to engage more in work here than men: both men and women increase their unpaid working hours when there are children but for women the number of unpaid working hours goes from 12 hours per week (without children) to 39 (with the youngest child under 7) and for men from 5 to 20 hours per week.
Read more:Europe’s Slow-Burning Issue – Making Work Sustainable
6/7/15
Germany: Scrap the G7 and its summit - it is hopeless, divided and outdated - by Larry Elliott
Angela Merkel
and her guests will pose for the group photo and say all the right
things at their press conferences. The richest nations in the world,
they will say, have never been closer, never more united in their
commitment to solving the pressing problems of today. Yes, it’s that
time of year again: the annual G7 summit.
The get-togethers started after the first oil shock in the 1970s but have long since mattered. The G7 is a moribund institution and has been for the past decade. As an instrument of the internationalism it was set up to pursue, it is hopeless. It should be scrapped.
It takes a number of ingredients to make an international body work. There have to be problems that need solving. There has to be some degree of unanimity about how those problems should be solved. And there has to be leadership to ensure that unanimity when it is not immediately forthcoming.
Only the first of those ingredients currently exists. The G7 has plenty to talk about: Greece; Ukraine; the next set of development goals and how to finance them; climate change; trade; the weakness of the global recovery; how to engineer the exit from the zero interest rate environment of the past six years; combating systematic tax evasion; and tackling inequality. David Cameron wants the Fifa scandal to prompt a wider discussion about corruption.
What it does not have, and has not had since 2010, is a common view about how to go about achieving any of these aims. When the global financial crisis was raging, ideological differences did not matter. The G7 all cut interest rates and they all ran bigger budget deficits in an attempt to stimulate growth. But the consensus did not last, and divisions opened up. The Americans said growth should take priority over deficit reduction; the Germans, backed by the British, said that without a rapid return to fiscal rectitude there could be no sustainable growth.
Nor has a dominant figure emerged who is prepared to take charge, someone prepared to chivvy the reluctant into agreeing to be ambitious in those areas where there is a degree of consensus, such as the repeated promises to support development in the world’s poorest countries.
The one G7 leader who could do this is Barack Obama, and the expectation was that he would take up the mantle of leadership when Gordon Brown lost power in 2010. The US president has proved unwilling or unable to do so, with the result that the G7 leaders meet, issue a vapid communiqué, and hotfoot it back to the airport as fast they can.
Read more: Scrap the G7 and its summit - it is hopeless, divided and outdated | Larry Elliott | Business | The Guardian
The get-togethers started after the first oil shock in the 1970s but have long since mattered. The G7 is a moribund institution and has been for the past decade. As an instrument of the internationalism it was set up to pursue, it is hopeless. It should be scrapped.
It takes a number of ingredients to make an international body work. There have to be problems that need solving. There has to be some degree of unanimity about how those problems should be solved. And there has to be leadership to ensure that unanimity when it is not immediately forthcoming.
Only the first of those ingredients currently exists. The G7 has plenty to talk about: Greece; Ukraine; the next set of development goals and how to finance them; climate change; trade; the weakness of the global recovery; how to engineer the exit from the zero interest rate environment of the past six years; combating systematic tax evasion; and tackling inequality. David Cameron wants the Fifa scandal to prompt a wider discussion about corruption.
What it does not have, and has not had since 2010, is a common view about how to go about achieving any of these aims. When the global financial crisis was raging, ideological differences did not matter. The G7 all cut interest rates and they all ran bigger budget deficits in an attempt to stimulate growth. But the consensus did not last, and divisions opened up. The Americans said growth should take priority over deficit reduction; the Germans, backed by the British, said that without a rapid return to fiscal rectitude there could be no sustainable growth.
Nor has a dominant figure emerged who is prepared to take charge, someone prepared to chivvy the reluctant into agreeing to be ambitious in those areas where there is a degree of consensus, such as the repeated promises to support development in the world’s poorest countries.
The one G7 leader who could do this is Barack Obama, and the expectation was that he would take up the mantle of leadership when Gordon Brown lost power in 2010. The US president has proved unwilling or unable to do so, with the result that the G7 leaders meet, issue a vapid communiqué, and hotfoot it back to the airport as fast they can.
Read more: Scrap the G7 and its summit - it is hopeless, divided and outdated | Larry Elliott | Business | The Guardian
5/2/14
Benefits of EU Membership: Czech economy would be in the tank without EU membership
If the Czech Republic was not a member of the European Union, its
gross domestic product (GDP) for 2013 would be 12 percent lower than it
was, the Czech state secretary for European affairs, Tomáš Prouza, said
at a business forum during the visit of European Council President
Herman Van Rompuy to Prague.
Prouza presented the results of an economic study that several important economists have prepared for the Government Office.
"If we were not an EU member, could not take advantage of the single
market and had no revenues from the Cohesion Policy, Czech GDP for the
past year would be some 12 percent lower than it was," Prouza said.
"If we were not in the EU, there would have been almost no change in the level of incomes of Czech citizens vis-à-vis Western Europe in the 18 years since 1995," he added.
If the Czech Republic was a eurozone member, the revenue of the Czech economy would increase 25 billion Kč to 60 billion Kč annually, and domestic GDP would be between 0.6 percent and 1.2 percent higher.
"If we became a eurozone member in 2007 like Slovakia did, the contribution would be some 270 billion Kč," Prouza said.
The study puts the direct cost of eurozone membership, that is the potential contribution to the European Stability Mechanism, at 35 billion Kč.
The study shows that during EU membership, the Czech economy has gained 770 billion Kč. Without the internal market, its GDP would be 2.5 percent lower and unemployment 1.5 percent higher.
"If it were not for the internal market, if the barriers that were here before our entry to the EU stayed in place, the higher costs, lower trade volume, smaller exports and lack of foreign investments would have deprived us of some 100 billion Kč annually and another 75,000 people would be jobless," Prouza said at the business forum.
Since 2004, EU membership has brought 3.1 trillion Kč to the Czech Republic. The membership thus brought more than the Czech economy produced in 2004: some 300,000 Kč per person.
Read more: Czech economy would be in the tank without EU membership - PRAGUE POST | The Voice of Prague
Prouza presented the results of an economic study that several important economists have prepared for the Government Office.
"If we were not in the EU, there would have been almost no change in the level of incomes of Czech citizens vis-à-vis Western Europe in the 18 years since 1995," he added.
If the Czech Republic was a eurozone member, the revenue of the Czech economy would increase 25 billion Kč to 60 billion Kč annually, and domestic GDP would be between 0.6 percent and 1.2 percent higher.
"If we became a eurozone member in 2007 like Slovakia did, the contribution would be some 270 billion Kč," Prouza said.
The study puts the direct cost of eurozone membership, that is the potential contribution to the European Stability Mechanism, at 35 billion Kč.
The study shows that during EU membership, the Czech economy has gained 770 billion Kč. Without the internal market, its GDP would be 2.5 percent lower and unemployment 1.5 percent higher.
"If it were not for the internal market, if the barriers that were here before our entry to the EU stayed in place, the higher costs, lower trade volume, smaller exports and lack of foreign investments would have deprived us of some 100 billion Kč annually and another 75,000 people would be jobless," Prouza said at the business forum.
Since 2004, EU membership has brought 3.1 trillion Kč to the Czech Republic. The membership thus brought more than the Czech economy produced in 2004: some 300,000 Kč per person.
Read more: Czech economy would be in the tank without EU membership - PRAGUE POST | The Voice of Prague
4/22/14
The Netherlands:- Environment: Most of us know we should live in a sustainable way. But it doesn't happen because we don't feel involved.
Most of us know we should live in a more environmentally sustainable
way. But it does not happen because we do not really feel involved.
How can policymakers change the way people think? This is what the InContext project, funded by the EU, hopes to answer. Leading European research institutions in the fields of transition, behaviour and sustainable development are trying to create a manual for change.
This manual should ultimately be developed into a so-called ‘Transition Theory’ that is, as yet, unproven. And this theory, in its turn, should make it possible to change people’s mindset. For example, towards living in a more environmental sustainable way.
A number of pilot projects have been initiated in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The idea was to put this theory to the test, to refine it and hopefully to prove it right. For example, in the Dutch city of Rotterdam a community centre in the neighbourhood of Carnisse was facing cutbacks. It was due to be closed down in January 2012. Drift, the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions, which is a project partner, took it upon itself to help the people of Carnisse save it.
Project leader Julia Whittmayer, researcher and consultant, and other colleagues of Drift invited residents to come up with ideas, and to present them in brain storming sessions. This resulted in a plan of action. This also gave people an opportunity to decide themselves how they could help.
It was expected that this process would provide inspiring examples from amongst the residents of Carnisse to motivate others to spring into action. Thus they would ultimately make a ‘bigger noise’ and save the community center. But to Whittmayer’s dismay, many preferred “to be told what to do!” instead.
It might be true that inspiring examples can help change. But it is just as true that some people rather want to be told what to do, according to behavioural psychologist Max Mulder, who is a market researcher at the Dutch consultancy called Beautiful Lives, based in Hilversum.
Read more: Most of us know we should live in a sustainable way. But it doesn't happen because we don't feel involved.
How can policymakers change the way people think? This is what the InContext project, funded by the EU, hopes to answer. Leading European research institutions in the fields of transition, behaviour and sustainable development are trying to create a manual for change.
This manual should ultimately be developed into a so-called ‘Transition Theory’ that is, as yet, unproven. And this theory, in its turn, should make it possible to change people’s mindset. For example, towards living in a more environmental sustainable way.
A number of pilot projects have been initiated in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The idea was to put this theory to the test, to refine it and hopefully to prove it right. For example, in the Dutch city of Rotterdam a community centre in the neighbourhood of Carnisse was facing cutbacks. It was due to be closed down in January 2012. Drift, the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions, which is a project partner, took it upon itself to help the people of Carnisse save it.
Project leader Julia Whittmayer, researcher and consultant, and other colleagues of Drift invited residents to come up with ideas, and to present them in brain storming sessions. This resulted in a plan of action. This also gave people an opportunity to decide themselves how they could help.
It was expected that this process would provide inspiring examples from amongst the residents of Carnisse to motivate others to spring into action. Thus they would ultimately make a ‘bigger noise’ and save the community center. But to Whittmayer’s dismay, many preferred “to be told what to do!” instead.
It might be true that inspiring examples can help change. But it is just as true that some people rather want to be told what to do, according to behavioural psychologist Max Mulder, who is a market researcher at the Dutch consultancy called Beautiful Lives, based in Hilversum.
Read more: Most of us know we should live in a sustainable way. But it doesn't happen because we don't feel involved.
2/19/14
European Sustainability: “If the EU’s sustainability model succeeds, it will be the role model for globalisation” - by Franz Fischler
"It’s fascinating but risky to speculate on the state of Europe 25
years from now. Fascinating because we will see some very dynamic
developments in Europe, but risky because there’s so little evidence as
to what may or may not happen."
"So I’m going to limit myself to two central aspects: the future of the European economic and social model, and my hopes for how the “European house” might develop. Sustainability has become an increasingly negative buzzword in public debate, yet it has to be at the centre of the European economic and social concept. Article 3 of the Lisbon treaty outlines exactly what we need: a robust balance between the economy, the environment and our social responsibilities. There’s no valid alternative to this, and it will be more relevant than ever in 25 years’ time."
"Europe has few mineral and fossil resources and high labour costs, yet it accounts for half of all social spending around the world. We need to take advantage of the most innovative thinking available now by investing in new technologies and in energy efficiency. We also have to come to terms with the question of what a sustainable lifestyle really means, and how we can replace GDP with a meaningful measure of well-being so as to assess our economic and social progress".
"The consequences of climate change along with ageing will present us with enormous challenges of adaptation, so Europeans will need to become more resilient. Youth unemployment won’t be the challenge to the EU it is today, because it’s a burning problem that will either have been solved or the European Union will have collapsed. If, on the other hand, the European Union is able to put its economic and social model of sustainability into practice, then it will have become the role model for successful globalisation."
Looking 25 years ahead means speculating on a successor to the Europe 2020 strategy. Will we have been able to stimulate smart, inclusive and green growth, or will we instead be struggling with the consequences of a lost decade? If we assume a middle path, what would be the next steps for a European sustainability model? How will we balance economic growth with the ecological and social dimensions?
Read more: “If the EU’s sustainability model succeeds, it will be the role model for globalisation” | Europe’s World
"So I’m going to limit myself to two central aspects: the future of the European economic and social model, and my hopes for how the “European house” might develop. Sustainability has become an increasingly negative buzzword in public debate, yet it has to be at the centre of the European economic and social concept. Article 3 of the Lisbon treaty outlines exactly what we need: a robust balance between the economy, the environment and our social responsibilities. There’s no valid alternative to this, and it will be more relevant than ever in 25 years’ time."
"Europe has few mineral and fossil resources and high labour costs, yet it accounts for half of all social spending around the world. We need to take advantage of the most innovative thinking available now by investing in new technologies and in energy efficiency. We also have to come to terms with the question of what a sustainable lifestyle really means, and how we can replace GDP with a meaningful measure of well-being so as to assess our economic and social progress".
"The consequences of climate change along with ageing will present us with enormous challenges of adaptation, so Europeans will need to become more resilient. Youth unemployment won’t be the challenge to the EU it is today, because it’s a burning problem that will either have been solved or the European Union will have collapsed. If, on the other hand, the European Union is able to put its economic and social model of sustainability into practice, then it will have become the role model for successful globalisation."
Looking 25 years ahead means speculating on a successor to the Europe 2020 strategy. Will we have been able to stimulate smart, inclusive and green growth, or will we instead be struggling with the consequences of a lost decade? If we assume a middle path, what would be the next steps for a European sustainability model? How will we balance economic growth with the ecological and social dimensions?
Read more: “If the EU’s sustainability model succeeds, it will be the role model for globalisation” | Europe’s World
12/26/13
Development cooperation in 2013: A year in review - Development Buzz - by Rolf Rosenkranz
For the international development community, 2013 was a year to
restructure, diversify funding streams, “go local.” Everyone seemed to
pursue local solutions, strengthen country systems and improve
governance.
There was promising news on a variety of global health indicators — on malaria-related deaths among children or the availability of antiretrovirals. But maternal health gains remain slow, polio is making a resurgence and the nexus of animal and human health remains underfunded, despite a few promising pilot projects.
The global response to climate change has been a mixed bag: A high-level panel appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recommended inclusive, sustainable development goals to succeed the anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals, which expire in two years. The U.N. Environmental Program is consolidating power, but the outcome is uncertain. Climate negotiations fizzled.
The aid community is rushing to engage the private sector now — a trend that would have seemed unthinkable ten, perhaps even five years ago. The U.S. Agency for International Development — which survived bruising budget battles and a government shutdown largely unscathed — led the way, and Administrator Rajiv Shah is getting ready to enshrine the agency’s renewed spirit in a merged “institute” for science, technology and innovation.
Throughout the year, Devex has covered these developments and many others — from marbled board rooms to dusty African villages. We’ve reported from Tacloban, in the Philippine province of Leyte, where relief efforts continue after typhoon Haiyan. We chatted with movers and shakers at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York and the European Development Days in Brussels, where Devex served as the official media partner. We traveled to Panama City for the annual meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank, and convened our own first-ever Devex International Development Partnerships Forum & Career Fair in Nairobi, Kenya.
Read more: Development cooperation in 2013: A year in review - Development Buzz | Devex
There was promising news on a variety of global health indicators — on malaria-related deaths among children or the availability of antiretrovirals. But maternal health gains remain slow, polio is making a resurgence and the nexus of animal and human health remains underfunded, despite a few promising pilot projects.
The global response to climate change has been a mixed bag: A high-level panel appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recommended inclusive, sustainable development goals to succeed the anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals, which expire in two years. The U.N. Environmental Program is consolidating power, but the outcome is uncertain. Climate negotiations fizzled.
The aid community is rushing to engage the private sector now — a trend that would have seemed unthinkable ten, perhaps even five years ago. The U.S. Agency for International Development — which survived bruising budget battles and a government shutdown largely unscathed — led the way, and Administrator Rajiv Shah is getting ready to enshrine the agency’s renewed spirit in a merged “institute” for science, technology and innovation.
Throughout the year, Devex has covered these developments and many others — from marbled board rooms to dusty African villages. We’ve reported from Tacloban, in the Philippine province of Leyte, where relief efforts continue after typhoon Haiyan. We chatted with movers and shakers at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York and the European Development Days in Brussels, where Devex served as the official media partner. We traveled to Panama City for the annual meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank, and convened our own first-ever Devex International Development Partnerships Forum & Career Fair in Nairobi, Kenya.
Read more: Development cooperation in 2013: A year in review - Development Buzz | Devex
4/29/12
Alternative Energy: U.S. and China clash in trade dispute over alternative energy technologies - by Stephen Vagus
The U.S. and China have been locked in a trade dispute over clean energy projects for some time. The U.S. government recently launched an investigation into wind turbine towers that are being exported from China. The investigation is meant to find any purposeful deficiencies present in the turbines and whether they are being sold at unfair discounts, a fact that the Chinese government has taken issue with. China claims that the investigation is worsening the trade dispute and could put a halt to any progress toward reducing carbon emissions and cooperation toward sustainability.
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce notes that the dispute and the investigations that are becoming increasingly common from the U.S. could damage the interest of American companies looking to do business in the country. Government officials assert that they will continue to adhere to the commitments that they made at the recent G20 summit in Cannes, France, and hopes that the U.S. will show respect for these commitments by allowing the country to operate within its own laws and regulations.
China has been earnest in its pursuit of alternative energy thus far, hoping to significantly reduce its carbon emissions by 2020. Though the country is largely self-reliant, cooperation is key to attaining this goal. If relations between the two countries do not improve, it could put the sustainability goals of both nations in jeopardy.
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce notes that the dispute and the investigations that are becoming increasingly common from the U.S. could damage the interest of American companies looking to do business in the country. Government officials assert that they will continue to adhere to the commitments that they made at the recent G20 summit in Cannes, France, and hopes that the U.S. will show respect for these commitments by allowing the country to operate within its own laws and regulations.
China has been earnest in its pursuit of alternative energy thus far, hoping to significantly reduce its carbon emissions by 2020. Though the country is largely self-reliant, cooperation is key to attaining this goal. If relations between the two countries do not improve, it could put the sustainability goals of both nations in jeopardy.
For more: U.S. and China clash in trade dispute over alternative energy technologies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)