Introducing the Occupational Health and Safety Potential Midpoint Impact Indicator in Social Life Cycle Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author presents an approach to develop a quantitative social impact assessment model by exploring the opportunities associated with SLCA implementation and social indicators. In doing so, it employs the Type III approach, where social impact assessment is linked to socio-economic pathways with macro-economic social impacts.  In this paper the focus is on Occupational Safety and Health.
The proposal is very interesting, but  there is a fundamental aspect of the research that weighs it down in a very negative way. The main problem is that the three parameters proposed: Accidents per lost hours, Hours actually worked by employees per year and Turnover.  They do not provide sufficient quantitative and qualitative information to express occupational safety and health in a reliable way.  In other words, very important aspects are being overlooked which prevent relevant conclusions from being drawn, at least the proposal should have macro data on some of these aspects:
.- Safe working conditions: workers are exposed to hazardous conditions (handling toxic materials, dangerous machinery, or physically strenuous working environments).
.- Occupational health: exposure to pollutants, physical and mental stress, and ergonomic risks of the sector.
.- Occupational accidents: Include statistics and analysis of the frequency and severity of occupational accidents and incidents.
.- Etc.

The document presents a lack of quality and consistency in the proposal, I think it is advisable not to accept the document presented.

The document presents a lack of quality and consistency in the proposal, I think it is advisable not to accept the document presented.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Please find my rebuttal letter attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

no

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Please find my rebuttal letter attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, thank you for sending a justification of the methodology used.

I continue to stress that the analysed variable "Occupational Health and Safety" needs multiple attributes in order to be rigorously evaluated.  For example, a survey that analyses attributes:
- Working machines and tools present safety risks.
- Temperature extremes.
- Light intensity in the work area.
- Noise in the work area.
- The work area is ergonomic.
- Protective equipment for health and safety.
- Etc.

The analysis of multiple attributes allows for a rigorous S-LCA study.

Your proposal does not meet these criteria, given that the attributes analysed do not allow the degree of compliance with the "Occupational Health and Safety" variable to be determined.

The research proposal developed by the author does not meet the minimum criteria of rigorousness.  The variable analysed (Occupational Health and Safety) does not include the minimum attributes that allow the degree of compliance to be assessed.  I believe that its publication should not be taken into account.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment and interesting discussion.

First, the approach you suggest makes sense when one studies the occupational health and safety (OHS) of a particular process. For generic assessments (on sector level) it is not possible to aggregate all the parameters mentioned above.

One of the main benefits of the developed characterization model is the lack of structural modeling which would increase the complexity of calculations, and therefore, the difficulty in applying this approach from companies perspective. The parameters that are mentioned in your comment are important (and typical) to understand occupational risks and select actions to minimize occupational risk. However, for biological (such as viruses), physical (temperature, light, etc.), and chemical agents in the working environment, one would need to calculate exposure and effect of those agents when they come in contact with the human skin or are inhaled. While all these information and risk quantification is important for occupational health and safety (OHS), and for minimization (with the use of equipment, ergonomic work area, etc.), they are not a suitable solution to quantify and develop a characterization model for an OHS indicator for the Social-LCA field. 

That said, the author believes that the indicator that it is suggested is one indicator that can be used to quantify OHS of processes and sectors, and agrees with the reviewer that the developed characterization model (suggested indicator) should not replace the totality of OHS aspects.

The literature of S-LCA have either used social databases or site-specific assessments to assess the OHS. The limitations of social databases is mentioned in the manuscript; their main limitation derives from the fact that monetary flows (costs) are used, and costs can increase more than annual inflation due to geopolitical conditions.

In contrast, if a S-LCA practitioner will follow the S-LCA Guidelines [1] and Methodological Sheets [2] describe the Aim and approach of indicator assessment for OHS as: “This subcategory aims to assess both the rate of incidents and the status of prevention measures and management practices. An incident is defined as a work-related event in which an injury or ill health (regardless of severity) or fatality occurred or could have occurred.” (Page 39). In addition, the Methodological Sheets suggest a few OHS indicators: 1) Number/percentage of injuries or fatal accidents in the organization by job qualification inside the company, 2) Hours of injuries per level of employees, 3) Presence of a formal policy concerning health and safety, 4) Adequate general occupational safety measures, 5) Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries, 6) Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding pesticide and chemical exposure, 7) Appropriate protective gear required in all applicable situations, 8) Number of (serious/non-serious) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations reported within the past 3 years and status of violations, and 9) Education, training, counselling, prevention, and risk control programs in place to assist workforce members, their families, or community members regarding serious diseases. Among these 9 OHS indicators, 6 indicators are qualitative and regard corporate policies, safety procedures, and workers training to minimize accidents. On the other hand, 3 indicators are quantitative and regard (gross) number of accidents, working hours, and number of OHSA violations.

Thus, the present study aimed to combine two of the suggested quantitative indicators to normalize lost hours due to accidents with working time, and develop an OHS indicators. As mentioned above, I agree with you that this indicator cannot replace all OHS indicators, but it can provide added value through a quantitative analysis when two products (with the same function) are compared with S-LCA. Therefore, text was added in the Limitations section to address this limitation of the characterize model, Page 9, Lines 26-29: “Additionally, OHS is more complicated than calculated ‘Accidents at work by hours lost’, normalized with ‘Hours actually worked by employees per year’. Biological, physical and chemical agents can deteriorate the OHS of workers. Furthermore, the type of work, the equipment used, corporate policies and emergency protocols affect OHS”.

Finally, the aim of this study is a good fit with the Sustainability journal Section of Development Goals towards Sustainability, because the developed indicator can support advancement of corporate and national reporting of Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 8, and aim of this study also complements the Editorial of the Development Goals towards Sustainability section.

References

1. UNEP Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2020; p. 138;.
2. Traverso, M.; Valdivia, S.; Luthin, A.; Roche, L.; Arcese, G.; Neugebauer, S.; Petti, L.; D’Eusanio, M.; Tragnone, B.M.; Mankaa, R.; et al. Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA ) 2021; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2021;

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is not well-cited, ensuring that all references are up-to-date would strengthen the manuscript's position within current research trends. And these recommended literatures must be cited before publication：

doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1267518

doi: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2054202

doi:10.3390/ijerph17249272

Author Response

Thank you for your comments !

Your comments have been addressed.