Effect of Work Values on Miners’ Safety Behavior: The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and the Moderating Role of Safety Climate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper comments ID: sustainability-1789189
1- The paper is presented well and efficiently. The theme of the paper is scientifically interesting. However, the first paragraph of the introduction section presents interesting topics in the overall the factors that were covered in the study (work values, psychological empowerment, …), it sounds quite long and the risk is to lose the attention and make confusing to the reader, also the paragraphs “Work values and Psychological Empowerment” may be summarized.
2- “Previous research has (what is this study?) confirmed that safety climate … (line 79).

3- “Previous empirical studies have (what are these studies?) validated that psychological empowerment is …(line 238).

4- The study considered the “front-line miners” as mentioned in section 3.1 (line 337) but they need to justify why they didn’t consider the safety officers/supervisor employees since the safety climate measure was assessed but this measure is considered as an organizational/management level factor therefore, may be the impact of it as moderating factor was not significant.
5- The limitations of the study should include also type of tasks (high risky tasks) and safety leadership in coal mines sector can impacted on the results of the model in particularly in term of safety climate factor, which may explain possible of that the moderating role of safety climate was not significant.
6- In section of Practical Implications, the authors can propose and illustrate which preventive strategies could be improved by these findings? The author should provide some suggestion son the measures that may enhance the safety approach in the coal mine sector. These may include also information plans to reduce accidents that results from these factors (work values, psychological empowerment, etc.).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
My main concerns begin with the opening statement in the paper. The major weakness with psychological approaches to occupational health and safety is that the blame for injuries is placed on workers rather than employers and managers where the primary power and responsibility lies. This kind of research individualizes the production of risk and risk outcomes without recognizing or acknowledging the critical role that power and employer interests play in shaping and encouraging worker behaviour and in setting up and sustaining dangerous conditions and practices. This paper represents the worst of this tendency when it begins by stating that 'miners are the major causes of mine safety accidents.' This is demonstrably untrue in as much as the most serious mining injuries and fatalities are caused by management decisions, technological failures and engineering and design flaws. The major improvement in chinese fatality and injury rates in recent years are also demonstrative in as much as they can be tied directly to technological changes and improved legal constraints on employers (e.g. Kong et al, 2022). This does not mean that individual worker difference are unimportant and, in that sense, work on the psychology of risk taking is important. This paper contributes to this literature but it is also always important to deconstruct the ways in which organizational, technological. corporate cultural, and management characteristics have shaped or encouraged those behaviours rather than reducing them to individual characteristics which workers bring into the workplace (which is definitely the framing in this paper). While the paper's effort to introduce safety climate is at least some attempt to recognize that the organizational environment is relevant, without an attempt at ensuring adequate variations in those environments the authors got the predictable negative result leaving us with the conclusion that it is the workers' individual values that determine their behaviour and risk taking. The reduction of empowerment to a psychological state is also unfortunate and this is also an area where some acknowledgement could have been made about the impact of social or organizational structure on what workers do in a given work situation.
While the variables, the design and the data are largely fixed in this psychological framing, I think it is essential that the authors acknowledge and demonstrate an understanding of the larger OHS arguments and literature which caution against blaming workers for their injuries and which recognize that employers and managers structure working conditions by their decisions and employ tactics, strategies and power to shape and influence worker behaviour. It is also extremely unrealistic to think as this paper seems to imply in its conclusion, that "mine leaders leaders" will use these kind of findings for the better good. Some may but it is just as likely, if not moreso, that these findings as currently presented will help to further justify behavioural safety programs that deflect from management and lay responsibility on workers.
I would also avoid using the word "accident" as more and more scholars in the area argue that the latter reinforces the construction of workplace injuries as random uncontrolled individual events.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although some of the changes in the conclusion acknowledge the need for more research on organizational factors, I remain concerned that the opening sentences of the article offer a very distorted and narrow view on the causation of mining injuries, especially critical in the context of the Chinese coal mine industry which has a less than admirable history. The authors need to keep in mind that they are not demonstrating that workers cause most accidents but rather that there is a relationship between self reported values and self-reported behaviours. The statements I was hoping to see at the beginning would express a much more complex view of the causation of injuries while could still feed nicely into an explanation of the study focus and design since it looks at values, empowerment (if acknowledged as a product of management actions), and safety climate. As stated in my initial review, much of the problem stems from the authors' assumptions and approach which makes it difficult to think in terms that don't blame the workers but those first three sentences make things so much worse especially by making the highly problematic statement that 90% of injuries are caused by workers' unsafe behaviours. I would also add that the section on practical implications which was problematic in the original is in many ways worse as many of the recommended changes place direct responsibility on workers. Instructions like "workers should take effective measures to improve their work values" on p. 15 sound like the kind of thing we might expect from an employer or state agency! It is good to acknowledge the need for management changes but they are still framed entirely in terms of shaping values. The much greater focus on worker change (all the worker should statements) reinforces worker responsibility without ever really acknowledging that the workplace is not designed or structured principally by them. There is promise in some of what is stated in this section (attention to management actually empowering workers) but it will take considerable reframing to avoid the dominant theme in the introduction and conclusion/implications that workers are responsible and need to change (or that what management mainly needs to do is reinforce certain worker values rather than making the workplace safer for workers).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The changes made in the opening paragraph of the paper and the last paragraph in the practical implications subsection in p. 14 help to reframe the paper away from the claim that workers cause most of their own injuries and goes some of the way in acknowledging that managers and management actions play critical (and often negative) roles in shaping both worker values/psychological empowerment and (unsafe) behaviours. But acknowledging this point does not then mean, as the authors seem to be saying in other parts of the 'practical implications' section, that the fix is mainly a question of getting managers to guide workers toward 'good' values. This just expands the "blame the worker" argument with a neutral management paternalism that assumes that the problems of coal mine safety can be fixed by beneficient managers who, now armed with these research findings, will dutifully guide workers to adopt good values through screening, training, safety incentive manipulations and other means (which in the end still blames workers since solving the problem requires that they change at management's insistence). Since the authors have no data on the ways in which management and organizational culture and structure have shaped in the past and continue to shape worker values and behaviours, the authors have no meaningful way of understanding what can be done or what needs to be done to change management and the interactions of management and workers lying at the foundation of injuries. The study is what it is in terms of scope but I would like to see more acknowledgement that with the lack of any finding on safety climate, more research needs to be done before much can be said about how and whether worker values can be supported or encouraged. What the authors have is a confirmation that self reported safety behaviours are statistically related to self reported values mediated by self reported psychological empowerment. They argue this confirms their theory but I could just as readily argue that the same theory (or alternatively cognitive dissonance theory) would predict that workers would be more likely to report behaviours consistent with their self image without it necessarily meaning that they engage in those behaviours in actual work contexts since there are several other influences that would play a role in actual social contexts. The authors do note this to some extent in the last section on 'limitations' but given the limitations of the research, isn't it a little premature to suggest that managers should develop a screening mechanism to route out people with bad values or engage in behaviourist manipulations like differential rewards? At minimum, any advice to this effect should be tentative and cautious. It is less than clear why any of these change tactics and strategies like giving rewards would lead to the claimed outcomes - they are simply asserted. It is worth noting for example that reward programs have come under enormous criticism in North America and Europe and there is evidence suggesting their effects are negative or temporary (Brandhorst and Kluge, 2021; Ganguar and Goodman, 2004). And finally, why is it assumed that the state, employers and managers will use these kinds of psychological recommendations in the best interests of workers, rather than what people with power usually do, use them to exert political and ideological control over workers for reasons often unrelated or only tangentially/partially related to safety (Dorman, 2006; Gray, 2002; 2009; Hall, 1993; 2021; MacEachen, 2005; McIntyre, 2005; Russell, 1999; Shannon, 2000; Storey and Tucker, 2006; Walters and Nichols, 2007). In this respect, the authors could perhaps acknowledge that changes in management and employer behaviour may require action from the state regulator (as was very clear in China over last twenty years) or perhaps a worker organization or worker safety reps. that might act as a power to push change in management and employer practices. I appreciate the efforts of the authors to meet my concerns. I understand that it is challenging for them to respond because, in the final analysis, we clearly understand the workplace and the causes of workplace health and safety problems in radically different ways; but, in my view, even if one's orientation is largely individual and psychological in focus, it is still important to be conscious of the larger social, political, and economic context, shaping both the psychology of safety and the way research findings on safety psychology are deployed and used. I have one specific recommendation but I'll leave it to you to decide whether to make the change.
p. 13 Suggest Delete ( Managers of coal mines should guide miners to establish good work values) Delete also First, in the process of recruitment and position promotion, the coal mine should establish a scientific screening mechanism to select personnel with correct work values in a targeted manner.Delete First, in the process of recruitment and position promotion, the coal mine should establish a scientific screening mechanism to select personnel with correct work values in a targeted manner.
recommend replace with something like
The findings suggest that firms should seek to support safety related values and worker empowerment as much as possible, but more research is needed to better understand how organizations and management behaviours shape and influence both worker actions and values. Since safety climate was not found to be broadly linked in this study, more research is also needed to understand how safety management systems and actions contribute to worker values and behaviours. This may require experimenting with different management tactics and strategies while also recognizing that different workers may respond differently to different management approaches or tactics. It may be as basic as ensuring that managers and supervisors lead by complying with the various safety systems, delegate authority appropriately, and take responsibility for decisions, conditions, close calls and injuries. A review of incentive mechanisms may also be valuable to ensure that miners are not being encouraged or pushed to engage in unsafe work and are at the same time recognized and rewarded for safety contributions at work. Managers can support to miners by affirming their abilities, encouraging them to participate in safety management, and supporting autonomous development. Paying attention to and respecting miners’ personal pursuits and career growth, being good at discovering the strengths of miners, and giving the right guidance to transform their personal pursuits into positive work values may also help to support worker safety. (Note if you can find any references to support these as being likely to lead to safety values and behaviour it would help)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
