While the main goal is to better protect workers’ health, behind the technical details lie political compromises, economic interests, and serious questions about how effectively these rules can be enforced in real life.
Safety vs. compromise? The EU sets new workplace chemical exposure limits
What’s changing and why it matters
Driven by the European Pillar of Social Rights and the EU’s Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2021–2027, this is already the sixth update of the CMRD. But it’s more than a bureaucratic tweak — the Commission claims the proposed changes could prevent around 1,700 lung cancer cases and nearly 19,000 other serious illnesses over the next 40 years.
In terms of healthcare savings, that’s a potential €1.16 billion. Sounds impressive — but how realistic are these figures, especially considering the transition periods and how tricky it might be to enforce these rules at the national level?
Three chemicals, thousands at risk
The update proposes binding exposure limits for three groups of substances:
- Cobalt and its inorganic compounds, used in things like batteries for electric vehicles;
- Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), common in the metals industry and welding fumes;
- 1,4-Dioxane, found in the chemical and textile sectors.
For cobalt, two limits are proposed:
- 0.01 mg/m³ for particles inhaled through the nose and mouth,
- 0.0025 mg/m³ for finer particles that reach deeper into the lungs.
But here’s the catch — a six-year transition period allows higher limits (0.02 and 0.0042 mg/m³), giving industries time to adjust. While this buys time for companies, it also means many workers will remain exposed to higher risks in the meantime.
The limit for PAHs is even stricter: just 0.00007 mg/m³. But again, a six-year temporary limit — twice as high — will apply.
As for 1,4-Dioxane, the general limit is set at 7.3 mg/m³, with a short-term (peak) limit ten times higher. There’s also talk of introducing a biological limit, meaning workplace monitoring could eventually extend to checking how much of the substance ends up inside workers’ bodies.
To increase awareness, the Commission also proposes “notations” — alerts to employers and workers that exposure may also occur through the skin or other routes, signalling a need for extra protection.
Welding fumes — added, but not solved?
The inclusion of welding fumes in the directive is long overdue. These fumes can contain nickel, cadmium and chromium — all proven carcinogens. Until now, the lack of EU-wide standards meant patchy national rules and inadequate protections.
Now, the Commission is making it clearer: employers must provide proper safeguards. But here’s the problem — the directive doesn’t set specific exposure limits for welding fumes, only acknowledges them under the broader CMRD umbrella.
So, is this a step forward for worker safety, or just a legal clarification without meaningful change?
Consultation, compromise, and caution
The proposal didn’t come out of nowhere. It was shaped by talks with social partners — governments, employers, and workers — and risk assessments from the European Chemicals Agency.
Still, the final text shows a strong tilt toward economic compromise. The long transition periods for all three substances raise concerns about where lawmakers’ priorities really lie.
If worker health is the top concern, why delay protective measures by several years? Are current exposure levels considered acceptable — even though science says they’re harmful?
From law to reality — can Member States deliver?
Once the European Parliament and Council approve the law, EU countries will have two years to turn it into national rules. But turning words into action is often the hard part.
Previous updates to the CMRD have covered over 40 chemicals and are estimated to have saved more than 100,000 lives. But not every country implemented the rules with equal commitment. Delays, weak enforcement, and under-resourced labour inspections remain big challenges.
Will national labour inspectorates be able to keep up with monitoring and enforcing these new rules?
Balancing worker protection and industrial reality
The Commission’s proposal is clearly a step in the right direction when it comes to workplace health. But whether it actually makes a difference depends on several factors: how quickly and thoroughly countries implement it, how strictly they enforce it, and whether industries invest in safer technologies.
The long transition periods, the absence of concrete limits for welding fumes, and the use of “notations” instead of hard requirements all raise legitimate doubts.
So, has the Commission really struck the right balance between public health and industry needs? Or will further changes be needed to ensure that EU laws are more than just well-meaning declarations — and become real tools for improving working conditions across Europe?
Written by
Shape the conversation
Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.
©2025 PulseZ. Design & developed by Matrix Internet Opens in a new tab