Just adaptation at work: A framework for analysing occupational health and safety

Technical Summary: "Just adaptation at work: A framework for analysing occupational health and safety"

Problem Statement
Occupational health and safety (OSH) remains marginalized within contemporary debates on "just adaptation" to climate change. While the workplace is a critical arena where climate risks, social inequalities, and power relations intersect, OSH is often framed within broader adaptation discussions without considering the specificities of labour relations. This omission has led to an under-theorization of the challenges involved in implementing adaptation policies at work. Consequently, there is a risk that adaptation measures may result in "maladaptation"—policies that reproduce inequalities, increase vulnerability for exposed communities, or fail to address the structural conflicts between capital and labour. Current approaches often treat adaptation as a technocratic or neutral process, overlooking the inherent power asymmetries and the political nature of negotiating safety measures.

Methodology
The study employs a qualitative, theory-building research design that integrates Labour Process Theory (LPT) with a climate justice approach. The methodology consists of two complementary components:

1. Systematic Literature Review: A review of 124 peer-reviewed articles (published between 2000 and May 2024) was conducted across eight databases (including Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed). The review focused on measures recommended to address climate change risks in OSH. These measures were analyzed using a deductive coding phase followed by an interpretive framework combining climate justice dimensions (distributive, procedural, recognition) and LPT concepts.
2. Qualitative Case Study (Chile): To empirically illustrate the proposed framework, the authors conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in Chile, including worker representatives, employers, state officials, OSH experts, and an ILO representative. The selection of Chile was strategic due to its high exposure to climate risks, active state climate policy agenda, and a highly deregulated, market-oriented labour relations system. The analysis focused on sectors with high climate exposure: mining, agriculture, aquaculture, construction, and industry.

Key Contributions: The Conceptual Framework
The paper's primary contribution is a conceptual framework that synthesizes LPT and climate justice to analyze OSH adaptation. This framework posits that adaptation is not a neutral technical exercise but a contested social process structured by "structured antagonism" between labour and capital. The framework identifies three specific sources of tension that shape adaptation outcomes:

1. Equity vs. Exploitation (Distributive Justice): This tension arises from the conflict between the capitalist drive for surplus value/productivity and the worker's need for health, safety, and fair compensation. Adaptation measures (e.g., rest periods, cooling systems, reskilling) are often viewed by employers as costs that reduce productivity, while workers view them as necessary protections. The "effort bargain" is renegotiated here, creating a dilemma between healthy working conditions and economic output.
2. Inclusivity vs. Control (Procedural Justice): This tension concerns governance and decision-making. While climate justice demands the inclusion of vulnerable groups in decision-making, management often seeks to maintain control over the labour process. The framework highlights the conflict between genuine worker participation (collective bargaining, industrial democracy) and managerial control mechanisms (surveillance, top-down directives, normative control).
3. Recognition vs. Reification (Recognition Justice): This tension addresses the specific vulnerabilities of different social groups (based on gender, race, age, and employment status). "Reification" occurs when these specific vulnerabilities are ignored or devalued, leading to measures that are ill-suited for certain groups (e.g., PPE designed for male bodies, ignoring the specific risks faced by informal or outsourced workers).

Results and Findings
The application of this framework to the literature and the Chilean case study reveals that adaptation policies often risk becoming maladaptive when workplace power asymmetries are ignored:

• Equity-Exploitation: In Chile, employers frequently view adaptation as a cost rather than an investment. Measures such as adjusting working hours to avoid heat or installing cooling systems face resistance due to perceived productivity losses. In some cases, adaptation leads to negative outcomes for workers, such as increased outsourcing (e.g., in construction, where prefabrication reduces on-site heat exposure but shifts jobs to third-party companies with worse conditions) or the requirement for new skills without clear financing for training.
• Inclusivity-Control: The Chilean case demonstrates a "monocentric" governance approach where workers are largely excluded from policy design (e.g., the National Just Transition Strategy). At the firm level, participation is often limited to consultative mechanisms (surveys, suggestion boxes) rather than binding decision-making. Employers sometimes use climate change narratives as a form of normative control or to suppress demands for better contractual conditions, framing job losses as an inevitable consequence of environmental regulations.
• Recognition-Reification: Vulnerable groups, including informal workers, women, older workers, and those in SMEs, face disproportionate risks. In Chile, the prevalence of productivity-based wages discourages workers from taking necessary breaks for hydration or rest. Furthermore, the current system for recognizing occupational diseases hinders the assessment of climate-related health impacts, as companies resist changes that would increase compensation liabilities. Standardized measures (e.g., heavy PPE or ill-fitting protective clothing) often fail to account for gendered or specific physical needs.

Significance and Claims
The paper claims that effective and just adaptation in OSH requires a shift from technocratic solutions to institutional arrangements that address power relations. The authors argue that:

• Adaptation is inherently political, structured by the conflicts between labour and capital, health and productivity, and environmental protection and employment.
• Maladaptation often stems not from a lack of technical knowledge, but from the systematic neglect of workplace power dynamics in policy design.
• A "cultural and institutional shift" is necessary to place workers' health at the center of organizational priorities, moving beyond individual responsibility to address structural inequalities.
• The proposed framework offers a lens to understand why adaptation policies fail to achieve justice, particularly in contexts with deregulated labour markets and high climate vulnerability, such as those found in the Global South.

The study concludes that without addressing these tensions, adaptation policies risk legitimizing health sacrifices in the name of productivity, thereby undermining their own objectives. The authors suggest that future research should apply this framework to contexts with more balanced power relations and explore other transition areas, such as energy and technological transitions.