Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses a classical approach to risk assessment. Methodology and fild work is good. I identified some issues that could be improved:

1/ reference of the REACH EU initiative that was introduced to improve chemical risk prevention should be added

2/ authors assess the important role of management in workers' behaviour, but this is not used in risk assessment. Authors should correct that or explain why.

3/ authors don't use so much training practices, briefings and accident analysis as factors of risk assessment (usually described as "safety climate").

As a general comment, this interesting method could be improved by adding a component assessing management investment in workers' health and safety (items 2 & 3 above)

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

Many thanks for the chance to review your manuscript. To help improve its quality and appeal to target audience consider; 

i. Abstract: this section should should aim to standalone and convey the content of the paper. Consider improving the section further and provide succinct information regards how data was collected and where possible key outcome of the study 

ii. Authors should provide rationale to how each SME across the 3 sectors where selected.

iii. In addition, there were three methods applied in the study but no mention how each data was analysed. 

iv. Line 163-170 seems to discuss observation approach and wondered if these could be revised  to present outcomes based on the actions or moved elsewhere.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx