Around 130 million workers across Europe face heat stress on the job each year. The injuries number 277,000 annually. The deaths reach 230. These are not figures from a future scenario — they describe conditions that exist right now, in warehouses, on construction sites, in kitchens, in fields, and increasingly in offices across the continent. Europe built its labour law for industrial-era temperatures. It is now trying to rewrite those laws for a climate that has already moved on.
A Hazard That Became Routine
Around 9 in 10 cases of worker heat exposure, and 8 in 10 heat-related injuries, occur on ordinary hot working days — not during officially declared heatwaves. That distinction matters. The policy response to extreme weather events has developed relatively well. It includes emergency declarations, public health messaging, and temporary closures. What the data reveals is that heat as an occupational hazard is not primarily an emergency phenomenon. It is a daily feature of working life across a growing portion of the continent.
Europe is warming twice as fast as the global average. The implications are uneven by sector and geography, but the direction is consistent. One in five workers across the EU faces exposure to extreme heat. In countries such as Cyprus and Greece, that figure rises to one in three workers. And critically, the danger is not limited to the south. The centre and the north are catching up very fast — the south is already hot, and it is a problem, but central and northern Europe is recording the highest increases in accidents. Workplaces in Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands were not designed for prolonged summer heat. Neither were the labour laws governing them.
What the Law Currently Does and Does Not Say
There is currently no European-wide regulation on protection against workplace heat exposure — just a patchwork of mere recommendations. That is the assessment of Maria Ohisalo, a Finnish Green MEP and the parliamentary rapporteur on extreme temperatures at work. The existing EU occupational safety and health framework contains general provisions about workplace safety, but heat exposure indicators and worker acclimatisation are not addressed at all, while hydration strategies and rest breaks are addressed only partially.
The result is a patchwork. Some member states have national provisions. Others rely on sector-level collective agreements. Others have nothing enforceable at all. A construction worker in Spain operates under different legal protections from a counterpart in Poland doing the same job in the same temperatures. That inconsistency is what the current legislative push aims to eliminate.
The Model Directive and What It Proposes
Three major union federations — EFFAT, EPSU, and EFBWW, representing 15 million workers — are urging the European Commission to bring forward binding EU legislation on heat at work as part of the upcoming Quality Jobs Act. Their proposal, developed with analytical support from the European Trade Union Institute, sets out what a directive would require.
The plan proposes maximum workplace Wet Bulb Globe Temperature limits on a scale between 30°C and 32.5°C for work varying from very high to low intensity. Beyond these thresholds, work would be suspended. Employers who breach the rules would face effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. The framework also requires employers to identify heat risks in advance, implement technical solutions or schedule adjustments, provide adequate hydration and rest breaks, and establish acclimatisation protocols for workers returning after absence.
The proposal is not yet law. All three interest groups — employers, workers, and governments — acknowledge that heat at work is a serious issue. Nevertheless, no consensus has been reached on how to move forward, with workers and governments leaning towards legal instruments while employers prefer non-binding technical guidance. The Employers’ Interest Group argues existing legislation is sufficient. The union position is that if existing guidance were adequate, the injury and death figures would not be rising.
Companies Are Flying Blind
The regulatory gap creates a specific operational problem for employers: without legally defined thresholds, companies have no clear standard against which to measure compliance or risk. Many firms have no systematic protocol for heat response at all. The absence of enforceable standards means that heat management becomes discretionary — applied unevenly, documented inconsistently, and often only addressed after an incident.
This is not primarily a story about bad employers. It is a story about a regulatory framework that has not kept pace with climatic reality. The European Union built its industrial health and safety architecture for environmental conditions that no longer apply uniformly. Updating it is not a progressive ambition — it is a basic maintenance requirement for a functioning labour market.
As explored in Europe Is Increasingly Defined by What Has Disappeared, the absences in European systems often accumulate quietly until they become acute. Workplace heat protection is a version of that pattern: a gap in the regulatory architecture that has been visible for years, documented extensively, and addressed only partially — while the climate it was designed to handle has moved substantially further than the law anticipated.
What Redesigning Work for Heat Actually Means
The legislative debate is framed as a worker protection issue. The economic dimension is equally significant. Heat stress slows productivity, increases the need for breaks, and raises the risk of errors and accidents, endangering lives. The construction sector, agriculture, logistics, hospitality, and healthcare face direct operational costs from rising temperatures. These sectors cannot conduct their work remotely, and those costs will continue to increase over time.
A directive that sets enforceable temperature thresholds would create legal certainty, level the competitive playing field across member states, and establish a baseline that enables further adaptation. It would also, for the first time, formally recognise that climate change is an occupational safety issue — not just an environmental or energy policy question. That recognition matters for resource allocation, risk assessment, and economic planning. It helps Europe prepare for a future that it is already experiencing.
We designed work for industrial Europe. We now need to redesign it for a warmer one.
Key Sources
- EFFAT / ETUI, “#TooHotToWork: Trade Unions Demand Binding EU Rules on Workplace Heat Protection”: https://effat.org/in-the-spotlight/toohottowork-trade-unions-demand-binding-eu-rules-on-workplace-heat-protection/
- Euronews, “Heat stress threatens 130 million European workers”: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/06/25/heat-stress-threatens-130-million-european-workers-trade-union-body-warns
- AOL / The Guardian, “Unions in Europe press for new worker protections to counter heat stress”: https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/unions-europe-press-worker-protections-110052000.html
- ETUI, “Will the European Union protect workers from deadly heat?”: https://www.etui.org/news/will-european-union-protect-workers-deadly-heat
- Social Europe, “As Temperatures Rise, European Workers Face a Looming Threat”: https://www.socialeurope.eu/as-temperatures-rise-european-workers-face-a-looming-threat
- FEPS, “Workers are inadequately protected against deadly heat at work”: https://feps-europe.eu/workers-are-inadequately-protected-against-deadly-heat-at-work/
Subscribe to EuroLuminant for independent European journalism.
