|
| Solveig Osborg Ose, senior scientist in the Department of Health Service Research at SINTEF Technology and Society, led the evaluation project that SINTEF carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Labour and Inclusion. Photo: SINTEF/Svein Tønseth |
SINTEF’s evaluation project, which covered the years 2001 – 2009, has shown that many organisations have done a good job of meeting the company-level goals of the IA.
According to the evaluation report, it would therefore be a mistake to conclude that the Agreement has not worked.
Two main guidelines
The report set out two general guidelines that have been incorporated in the prolongation of the IA Agreement:
- Prevention recommended
The evaluation documented first that it does not pay in social-economic terms to postpone inclusion efforts until after a worker has been forced out of working life. It concludes that preventing such departures should be given priority.
- Differentiation and customisation
SINTEF’s second conclusion was that in its original form, the Agreement had been formulated in excessively general terms, and that it was necessary to differentiate better between individual sectors and industries in order to make it work.
As a result, the parties who signed the prolongation of the Agreement committed themselves to target their efforts by tailoring them to individual sectors and branches of industry, according to their particular needs. This was to be done at national, regional and/or county level.
