Supporting Sustainable Futures in Retail: An Exploratory Study on Worker Health, Safety and Wellbeing in Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the study that provides a holistic approach on the situation of Australia's retail workers' HSW. I have only couple of minor remarks on it.

I was not able to find a clear reason why quantitative and qualitative approach was applied in the same survey. What value do the quantitative and qualitative questions bring to the study?

How would you suggest improving the questionnaire to address HSW of employees with the data gathered from qualitative questionnaire? Even though proposing a questionnaire for a survey to address HSW was not one the aims of the paper, it was very clearly stated that the retail industry lacks such a tool. I would expect to find the authors' dedication to provide this instrument in future research or propose this as a future research possibility in section 4.3.

Other than that, I very much thank the authors for a superbly structured and easy to read study on such an important part on retail employees' HSW. This might as well contribute to other industries, improving everyday work-life of employees.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to read the study that provides a holistic approach on the situation of Australia's retail workers' HSW. I have only couple of minor remarks on it.

Response: We appreciate your efforts in reviewing the paper and your comments to improve the manuscript. We have highlighted with yellow the main/major changes in response to the comments of all reviewers. Additional editorial changes we made to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript are shown in the version with tracked changes (supplementary files).

I was not able to find a clear reason why quantitative and qualitative approach was applied in the same survey. What value do the quantitative and qualitative questions bring to the study?

Response: We added more information and sources in section 2.1, Lines 139-145 as follows “Considering best practice in similar exploratory studies [54] and the strengths of using both quantitative and qualitative approaches [55-57], we collected quantitative and qualitative data. This provided a descriptive and a holistic snapshot of the HSW status by (a) exploring patterns and variations though quantitative data based on predetermined scales, and (b) acquiring emerging insights through free text to allow participants to express their observations [58]”.

How would you suggest improving the questionnaire to address HSW of employees with the data gathered from qualitative questionnaire? Even though proposing a questionnaire for a survey to address HSW was not one the aims of the paper, it was very clearly stated that the retail industry lacks such a tool. I would expect to find the authors' dedication to provide this instrument in future research or propose this as a future research possibility in section 4.3.

Response: We added to 4.3, Lines 709-715 “Moreover, the survey we used, and which we provide in the supplementary file, can be directly used in other countries and regions with amendments (e.g., residency/citizenship status, regions, business size classifications). Although the qualitative data provided deep insights into some concepts that could not be examined within a quantitative survey, we acknowledge that participants were restricted to answer pre-determined questions within word limits. Future research using qualitative methods to gain in-depth understanding of positive and negative aspects and factors related to HSW would be beneficial”.

Other than that, I very much thank the authors for a superbly structured and easy to read study on such an important part on retail employees' HSW. This might as well contribute to other industries, improving everyday work-life of employees.

Response: We highly appreciate your encouragement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for entrusting me with the review of the manuscript titled "Supporting sustainable futures in retail: an exploratory study on worker health, safety and wellbeing in Australia" that explores Health and Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) in the Australian retail sector, targeting both workers and managers/owners. The submission is timely, relevant, and seeks to bridge an apparent gap in the literature by focusing on a sector that has traditionally been less studied in the context of HSW. After meticulous scrutiny, my assessment suggests that the paper requires major revisions prior to consideration for publication in Sustainability. My specific concerns and recommendations are detailed below:

 

1. Research Design and Methodology:

The paper would benefit significantly from providing clearer details about the design and distribution of the online survey, including the platform used, duration of data collection, and method of sample selection.

The division of the 21-item quantitative and 3-item qualitative survey should be elaborated upon. The specific items, their scales, and constructs they are intended to measure need to be presented, perhaps in an appendix or table format.

2. Literature Review:

A more comprehensive literature review is essential. While the manuscript emphasizes the novelty of its focus on the retail sector, it could better situate its discussion within the broader discourse on HSW across industries.

The paper should engage more deeply with prior research to delineate why other sectors have been more studied and what unique challenges and circumstances make the retail sector different.

3. Data Analysis and Findings:

The analysis, particularly for the qualitative items, appears to be superficial. The paper would gain from a deeper qualitative exploration, perhaps utilizing thematic analysis, to further uncover the nuances of participants' responses.

More rigorous statistical tests and methodologies could be employed to validate the findings and strengthen the reliability and validity of results.

4. Discussion on Fatalistic Perspective:

The assertion that both workers and managers possess a "commonly shared fatalistic perspective" is a significant claim. This warrants deeper exploration and validation. What are the cultural, economic, or organizational antecedents of this perspective? How does it compare to other industries or international contexts?

5. Practical Implications:

While the paper identifies opportunities for workplaces and policymakers, it stops short of providing concrete recommendations. A section dedicated to actionable strategies for improving HSW in the retail sector would greatly amplify the paper's relevance and impact.

6. Conclusion and Future Research:

The conclusion could be bolstered by summarizing the core findings more emphatically and suggesting pathways for future research.

Given the exploratory nature of the study, the manuscript would be enriched by delineating potential longitudinal or experimental designs that can build on this foundation.

7. Terminology and Language Consistency:

It is crucial to ensure that terms like "Health and Safety and Wellbeing (HSW)" are consistently utilized throughout the manuscript. Additionally, refining the paper for clarity and coherence would enhance its readability and academic rigor.

To conclude, while the manuscript tackles a pertinent topic and strives to fill an important research gap, it necessitates substantial revisions in terms of depth, methodological clarity, and practical implications to align with the high standards of Sustainability. I am optimistic that with rigorous refinement, this paper can make a meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

 

I trust my feedback will be constructive for the authors and will guide them in enhancing their work. Should you require further input or clarification on any of the points raised, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Warm regards,

Author Response

Thank you for entrusting me with the review of the manuscript titled "Supporting sustainable futures in retail: an exploratory study on worker health, safety and wellbeing in Australia" that explores Health and Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) in the Australian retail sector, targeting both workers and managers/owners. The submission is timely, relevant, and seeks to bridge an apparent gap in the literature by focusing on a sector that has traditionally been less studied in the context of HSW. After meticulous scrutiny, my assessment suggests that the paper requires major revisions prior to consideration for publication in Sustainability.

Response: We appreciate your efforts in reviewing the paper and your comments to improve the manuscript. We have highlighted with yellow the main/major changes in response to the comments of all reviewers. Additional editorial changes we made to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript are shown in the version with tracked changes (supplementary files).

My specific concerns and recommendations are detailed below:

1. Research Design and Methodology: The paper would benefit significantly from providing clearer details about the design and distribution of the online survey, including the platform used, duration of data collection, and method of sample selection.

Response: The platform used was Qualtrics (Line 150). We added in section 2.2, Lines 221-222 that “The survey remained open for data collection between 7 October -17 December 2022”. In the same paragraph, we have also made it clearer that a purposive sampling strategy (Line 215), including snowball sampling (Line 219) and recruitment through a research panel was conducted (Lines220-221).

The division of the 21-item quantitative and 3-item qualitative survey should be elaborated upon. The specific items, their scales, and constructs they are intended to measure need to be presented, perhaps in an appendix or table format.

Response: Please see the supplementary file with both surveys to workers and managers/owners.

2. Literature Review: A more comprehensive literature review is essential. While the manuscript emphasizes the novelty of its focus on the retail sector, it could better situate its discussion within the broader discourse on HSW across industries. The paper should engage more deeply with prior research to delineate why other sectors have been more studied and what unique challenges and circumstances make the retail sector different.

Response: We agree with the comment, but we think the article is already quite long and additional information can distract the reader from the main focus. Nonetheless, we adopted the recommendation to refer to other industries and commented about the lack of similarly focus on HSW research in retail in section 1, Lines 67-77 “Despite the picture presented above, HSW research in retail has not attracted the same attention as other sectors that are deemed as safety-critical, like healthcare, aviation, maritime and process, energy and resources industries [20]. In those sectors, optimising human performance, including physical and psychosocial aspects and overall work de-sign [21], is paramount to ensuring safe operations that deliver services and goods of expected quality while minimizing negative impacts on workers and society [22]. On the other hand, human performance challenges in retail, underpinned by poor HSW environments, are perhaps not seen as a research priority because they do not directly con-tribute to catastrophic harm and consequences. Perhaps this is the reason modern approaches to safety, such as System-Theoretic Accident and Model and Processes [23] and Resilience Engineering [24], have not been used in retail”.

3. Data Analysis and Findings: The analysis, particularly for the qualitative items, appears to be superficial. The paper would gain from a deeper qualitative exploration, perhaps utilizing thematic analysis, to further uncover the nuances of participants' responses. More rigorous statistical tests and methodologies could be employed to validate the findings and strengthen the reliability and validity of results.

Response: We acknowledge that the study was not purely qualitative in nature and future research could benefit from deeper qualitative exploration these concepts. Nevertheless, For the qualitative data analysis, where we employed thematic analysis, we added more details in section 2.3, Lines 244-252 “The qualitative responses in the survey were analysed by two authors (AS and LPM) through thematic analysis, which is a widely adopted ‘‘method for identifying, analyzing and reporting [themes] within data” [67].  Each response was free-coded into first order codes, which were then collated to form themes within each of the HSW areas targeted: most important aspects contributing to positive HSW, biggest issues related to negative HSW and respective improvement plans/actions within the retail businesses. According to previous research practice [68,69], the third author (NK) checked the text-code and code-theme correspondences provided, and any disagreements were re-solved by referring to the data collected and the codes generated”.

Regarding the statistical tests, we believe that the ones we employed do meet the objectives of our descriptive and exploratory research as we did not aim to test any statistical hypothesis, theoretical models or constructs (Lines 147-148).

4. Discussion on Fatalistic Perspective: The assertion that both workers and managers possess a "commonly shared fatalistic perspective" is a significant claim. This warrants deeper exploration and validation. What are the cultural, economic, or organizational antecedents of this perspective? How does it compare to other industries or international contexts?

Response: Fatalism and learned helplessness are the authors’ viewpoints while discussing the results and not results from the study. Our study design did not allow to investigate those constructs. We added in section 4.2.1, Lines 606-622 “The findings discussed above are also corroborated by the qualitative responses, revealing a low focus and interest in HSW, and perhaps implying a fatalistic perspective or learned helplessness for some. The latter can originate from an inability to cope with an adverse work environment, within which workers gradually accept that any efforts to change their situation are fruitless, while management might repeat HSW-related practices irrespective of their effectiveness [93]. For instance, a study in the higher education sector identified learned helplessness as an explanation of reluctance to report workplace bullying [94], while research in a manufacturing firm, through the lens of learned helplessness theory, found that staff involved in accidents demonstrated higher withdrawal and maladaptive behaviours [95].

We could not locate literature about HSW-relevant fatalism in workplaces apart from a study in a hospital where fatalism was negatively related to occupational health and safety practices [96]. Fatalism has been widely researched in the road safety context, with studies, mainly in developing countries, suggest fatalistic beliefs are associated with traffic safety attitudes [97-99] and risk perceptions [99,100]. Nonetheless, further investigation of learned helplessness and fatalism is warranted for the retail sector, and possibly other industries”.

5. Practical Implications: While the paper identifies opportunities for workplaces and policymakers, it stops short of providing concrete recommendations. A section dedicated to actionable strategies for improving HSW in the retail sector would greatly amplify the paper's relevance and impact.

Response: We added a dedicated section 4.2.4 with recommendations (Lines 666-692), as follows:

“The findings of our study lend to some general recommendations which must be properly contextualised into each retail business. First, retailers must identify and maintain the positive elements of their technical environments (e.g., procedures and equipment), social environments (e.g., good communication) and organisational environments (e.g., available time vs work demands, distribution of workload). Then, they should ensure that work is not excessively stressful and challenging, which can be accomplished by focusing on factors, such as workload levels and distribution under varying demands, manual handling requirements, access to areas/storage places, body postures/movements required to perform duties, etc. Social interactions that can produce negative feelings, and job requirements that can lead to work-life imbalance, should also be considered.

Retail businesses must also focus holistically on gradually improving all work-related aspects (e.g., human resources and management styles) and consider that by these influence each other and collectively shape the workplace technical, social, and organisational environments. They should also recognise that these are also affected by the changing nature of work (e.g., gig economy, automation) that can introduce new and changed HSW risks. To achieve these recommendations, managers should invite workers to share continually their perspectives, needs and understanding to enable collective and honest efforts to improve HSW by capitalising on the diverse ideas and skills of staff.

Furthermore, retail businesses must endeavour to accommodate and prioritise the needs and capitalise on the skills of worker populations that could be more affected than others, such as less skilled and less experienced workers, staff with higher job insecurity and longer shifts, workers with more Sunday and public holidays shifts, non-native speakers and staff working mainly alone. Last, retailers must continually improve HSW by encouraging a judgement-free reporting of issues and collection of ideas, providing support to affected workers as soon as possible, actioning those reports effectively and offering transparent feedback to workers who report problems and recommend solutions”.

6. Conclusion and Future Research: The conclusion could be bolstered by summarizing the core findings more emphatically and suggesting pathways for future research. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the manuscript would be enriched by delineating potential longitudinal or experimental designs that can build on this foundation.

Response: Future research recommendations are mentioned in section 4.3 together with the study limitations as we believe these are inter-related. We revised the wording of the conclusions section 5 to render the messages stronger (Lines 724-741):

“In conclusion, our findings suggest that a significant number of retail workers can experience a highly demanding work environment without appropriate HSW support. Furthermore, some of them are likely to under-report health and safety issues and accept that health and safety issues are unavoidable within the retail industry. This could indicate the development of learned helplessness and fatalism across the retail work-force and a misalignment between HSW levels and customer satisfaction. This situation can be particularly concerning and requires further unpacking and research investigation.

Moreover, there is evidence from our research that retailers might not employ holistic approaches to HSW under a systems-thinking lens. Yet, given the shifting work-force composition and staff mobility, depending solely on current staff and employment benefits, and current favourable workplace characteristics to preserve HSW and ensure worker performance, may not be sustainable. Strategic HSW changes may be required to accommodate diverse workers and reduce staff turnover and absenteeism, including adequate and personalised education, training, and awareness of workplace dangers and psychosocial hazards. Such initiatives should be supported by internal or external OHS staff, structures, or functions. As evidenced in this study, these initiatives can play a key role in health and safety improvements and increase employers' understanding of their OHS legal obligations”.

7. Terminology and Language Consistency: It is crucial to ensure that terms like "Health and Safety and Wellbeing (HSW)" are consistently utilized throughout the manuscript. Additionally, refining the paper for clarity and coherence would enhance its readability and academic rigor.

Response: We confirm we checked again the article for consistency, clarity and coherence and made changes where necessary.

To conclude, while the manuscript tackles a pertinent topic and strives to fill an important research gap, it necessitates substantial revisions in terms of depth, methodological clarity, and practical implications to align with the high standards of Sustainability. I am optimistic that with rigorous refinement, this paper can make a meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge. I trust my feedback will be constructive for the authors and will guide them in enhancing their work. Should you require further input or clarification on any of the points raised, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Response: We highly appreciate your encouragement.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the author(s) for embarking on a study addressing sustainable futures in the retail sector of Australia. The subject is pertinent given the recent shift towards sustainability in various industries and the notable gaps in literature pertaining to the retail sector. Here are my detailed observations:

 

1. The purpose of the study is somewhat evident but could benefit from a clearer delineation. The intersection between sustainability, worker health, safety, and wellbeing should be fleshed out in greater detail.

2. The literature review is reasonably comprehensive but seems to heavily lean on global literature. A more thorough exploration of Australian-specific studies would enhance its relevance.

3. The theoretical underpinnings need strengthening. How does this work build upon or deviate from existing theories?

4. More detail on the interview protocol, sampling strategy, and participant recruitment is essential.

5. Consideration of ethics, especially when discussing worker wellbeing, is vital and seems to be underrepresented.

6. Comparisons with existing studies, especially those outside Australia, would position your findings within the global context.

7. The implications for retailers, policymakers, and other stakeholders should be more pronounced.

8. Every study has limitations, and acknowledging them lends credibility. Whether it's the limited geographic scope, potential biases in participant responses, or other factors, these should be acknowledged.

9. Study discussion section is missing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammatical and syntax errors throughout the manuscript which detract from its readability.

Author Response

I commend the author(s) for embarking on a study addressing sustainable futures in the retail sector of Australia. The subject is pertinent given the recent shift towards sustainability in various industries and the notable gaps in literature pertaining to the retail sector.

Response: We appreciate your efforts in reviewing the paper and your comments to improve the manuscript. We have highlighted with yellow the main/major changes in response to the comments of all reviewers. Additional editorial changes we made to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript are shown in the version with tracked changes (supplementary files).

Here are my detailed observations:

1. The purpose of the study is somewhat evident but could benefit from a clearer delineation. The intersection between sustainability, worker health, safety, and wellbeing should be fleshed out in greater detail.

Response: We believe the added text in Lines 67-82, in response to the respective comment No 2 of Reviewer 2 delineates the study better. We expanded the relationships between sustainability and HSW by referring with more detail in the studies cited in section 1 and placing them in the beginning of the article, (Lines 32-47) “I In modern workplaces, there is a consistent consideration of the connections be-tween sustainability and worker health, safety, and wellbeing (HSW). For example, a study in Israel identified that social sustainability and employee well-being are linked through the extent and quality of workspace integration, where the latter symbolises the organisation and can foster social interactions [1]. In the Japanese business context, research showed that managers endorse moral and strategic reasons for prioritising employee wellbeing and human sustainability, aligning with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) principles and corporate sustainability goals [2]. A study in Australia revealed the combined negative impact of health vulnerability, job tension, and scarce organisational support on employee well-being within the human sustainability space [3]. Also, a recent systematic literature review about sustainable human resource management [4] found that HSW in the workplace is not only a moral and legal obligation but also a critical element of a sustainable and responsible business model. Adequate HSW ensures that the workforce remains healthy and capable of contributing to the well-being of society while minimising negative social and environmental impacts, all of which are essential aspects of sustainable development [4]”.

2. The literature review is reasonably comprehensive but seems to heavily lean on global literature. A more thorough exploration of Australian-specific studies would enhance its relevance.

Response: In section 1, Lines 82-93, we added more details about the few studies in Australia “Australia has only limited research on the HSW in retail. In 2013, research using 30 interviews with frontline workers and managers in a single organisation with several retail outlets, revealed that workplace bullying, and harassment behaviours were often ignored or neglected, unless they escalated into confrontation or threatened business outcomes, like productivity and profitability [32].

Also, Walker and Hutton [33] observed 131 employees attending safety training sessions in retail and manufacturing organisations, finding direct evidence of reciprocity between employer and employee safety obligations. Another study investigated whether the effect of job demands on retail workers’ HSW and job performance varied depending on whether workers perceived them as threats, or challenges offering opportunities for mastery [34]. Although retail workers in Australia faced multiple threats, they did not have access to resources to promote their growth and HSW [34]”.

3. The theoretical underpinnings need strengthening. How does this work build upon or deviate from existing theories?

Response: As we explain in the Methods section 2.1, we do not test or apply specific theories. Our study is a descriptive, exploratory research in retail based on principal HSW parameters.

4. More detail on the interview protocol, sampling strategy, and participant recruitment is essential.

Response: Our qualitative data were collected during the online survey. We added more details in the Methods section, also in response to the comments by the other two reviewers (Lines 215-222 for sampling and recruitment; Lines 244-252 for qualitative data analysis).

5. Consideration of ethics, especially when discussing worker wellbeing, is vital and seems to be underrepresented.

Response: We added the details of the ethics approval “The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Queensland University of Technology (Approval Number: 6299)” in Lines 154-155.

6. Comparisons with existing studies, especially those outside Australia, would position your findings within the global context.

Response: In sections 4.1 and 4.2 we refer to studies within and outside Australia, including references to findings from other sectors because of the limited research in retail.

7. The implications for retailers, policymakers, and other stakeholders should be more pronounced.

Response: We added a new section 4.2.4 to render this part more impactful, also in response to the Reviewer’s 2 comment No 5 (Lines 666-692).

8. Every study has limitations, and acknowledging them lends credibility. Whether it's the limited geographic scope, potential biases in participant responses, or other factors, these should be acknowledged.

Response: Please see section 4.3 of the paper.

9. Study discussion section is missing.

Response: Please see sections 4.1 & 4.2 of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

 I appreciate your great efforts to reflect my suggestions and revise your manuscript. I think that my suggestions are adequately reflected.