Epidemiological restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have raised legal and practical questions related to the provision of workplace risk assessment in home offices of teleworkers. The objective of this qualitative study was to analyze practical experience of employers and occupational safety and health experts performing workplace risk assessment in Latvia during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest that employers have not sufficiently implemented their legal obligations related to workplace risk assessment which can result in an increased number of physical and mental health problems of teleworkers in the short term and in the future. Work from home has shown how different working conditions can be for the same type of work (office work); therefore, the promotion of personalized workplace risk assessment should be encouraged. Even if virtual workplace visits using photos and videos are not the traditional way the workplace risk assessment should be done, it is effective; workers who report that their employers assessed their working conditions report fewer health effects. The experience of workers in participation in workplace risk assessment for telework might change the level and role of worker participation in the management of health and safety hazards at work in general.

Exposure to different chemicals is an inevitable part of our everyday lives. Within HBM4EU, focus group discussions were conducted to gather data on citizens’ perceptions of chemical exposure and human biomonitoring. These discussions were hosted in Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, the Netherlands, and North Macedonia following a protocol developed in the first round of discussions. Results indicate the very high concern of European citizens regarding food safety and the environment. Focus group participants were well aware of potential uptake of chemicals through food consumption (e.g., preservatives, flavor enhancers, coloring agents, pesticides, fertilizers, metals), drinking water, or from polluted air and water. One of the positive aspects identified here, is the high interest of citizens in awareness and education on personal measures to control exposure. The promotion of personal behavioral changes requires active involvement of society (e.g., commuting habits, energy choices, waste disposal, dietary habits). Activities should focus on raising awareness of the general public, implementation of policy measures, and mainstreaming of related topics into the education system. Raising awareness of the general public may promote engagement of citizens, which in turn may empower them to put pressure on politicians to take effective actions. There is also a need for further research which might focus on the impact of country-specific situations and of the COVID-19 pandemic on the exposure of citizens to chemicals.

Sickness absence is one of the most important working population health indicators. It is a complex phenomenon that is investigated by health care and occupational health specialists, economists, and work psychologists. Sickness absence is used as a predictor for morbidity and mortality, but besides the health status of an individual, sickness absence is influenced by demographic, socio-economic factors, and work environment factors. Conflicts at work are a common psychosocial risk factor that can affect sickness absence. The aim of the study was to investigate the association between different types of workplace conflict and self-reported medically certified sickness absence using cross-sectional survey data pooled from four periodic national surveys—Work conditions and risks in Latvia (2006–2018). The sample is representative of the working population of Latvia, as respondents were randomly drawn from different regions and industries. In total, the study sample (n = 8557) consisted of employees between 16 and 80 years old (average 42.8 +/− 12.6) of which 46.2% were males and 53.8% were females. Researchers used the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method for collecting data. The association between workplace conflicts and sickness absence was analysed by using binomial logistic regression and calculated as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with adjustment for gender, age, education and survey year. The risk of sickness absence was higher among women (OR = 1.24, CI 1.13–1.35), employees aged 25–44 years old and employees with higher income. Controlling for socio-demographic factors and survey year, the odds of sickness absence increased significantly for all types of workplace conflict analysed. The strongest association with sickness absence was related to conflicts between managers and employees (OR = 1.51, CI 1.37–1.66) and conflicts between groups of employees (OR = 1.45, CI 1.31–1.61). Conflicts between employees and with customers also increased the odds of sickness absence (OR = 1.39, CI 1.27–1.52 and OR = 1.11, CI 1.01–1.23, respectively). Our findings suggest that tailored interventions at a company level for reducing workplace conflicts as risk factors of sickness absence are required. Those should focus on the improvement of managers’ leadership and human resource management skills.

Several individual factors like older age and chronic diseases have been linked with more severe symptoms often leading to hospitalization and higher mortality from COVID-19. Part of adults with such factors is still active in the workforce. The objective of the study was to identify measures taken by the employer to protect them and to investigate reasons for low protection of vulnerable workers during the 1st wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Answers from 1000 workers collected via web-survey and results from 10 focus group discussions were analyzed. Only 31.5% of respondents mentioned that their employer had identified existing vulnerable groups and offered specific measures to protect them. Moving vulnerable workers away from the workplace was the most frequent measure (e.g., transfer to the back-office without contact with clients, telework, paid vacations, paid downtime). Most employers do not see elderly workers and workers with chronic diseases as risk groups, thus are not specifically protecting them. Instead, several employers have included workers critical for business continuity in their risk group. Others had not taken measures because of the lack of information due to general data protection regulation. Poor communication and lack of interest of employers to ask their workers if they need special protection is the topic to be addressed at the national level.