Safety,health and comfort in the workplace: An innovative framework to support implementation of ergonomic interventions

Abstract

Background

In the current post-pandemic context, the main characteristics of workplaces have changed radically. Among the most prominent aspects of the post-pandemic workplace are hybrid arrangements, wide-spread remote work as the main work arrangement and increasing automation and robotization. These changes pose major concerns in terms of workplace wellness and occupational health and safety, primarily due to emerging or insufficiently analyzed risks in the workplace.

Objective

Especially in the post-pandemic world, where emerging risks in the workplace add to the pre-existing organizational challenges, the key to preventive and proactive organizational behavior is integration of ergonomics in current work environments, irrespective of the type of work arrangement (remote, in office, manufacturing plants, etc.). Starting from this idea, the authors aimed to create an intervention model and to support the decision-making process to ensure successful implementation of ergonomic interventions.

Methods

The article presents a new perspective on workplace risk management and enhancement of workplace wellbeing based on a framework that encompasses workplace risk assessment, proposal of ergonomic interventions, and the managerial and financial evaluation of the proposed interventions.

Results

A key contribution to the literature in the field is represented by case studies on two companies, where cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was performed to assess validity of the proposed framework.

Conclusions

The paper is a valuable contribution to the literature in the field of ergonomic interventions due to the innovative approach proposed by the authors. Innovation through combination is the key to a framework that addresses the real need of practitioners aiming to improve working conditions and ensure work-life balance across industries.

Keywords

Workplace wellbeing cost-benefit analysis ergonomics ergonomic intervention substantiation of management decisions

1. Introduction

The Covid-19 pandemic has created an unexpected context: the need for a sudden transfer of many jobs from the traditional context (work performed through physical presence at work) into remote work for reasons of health protection. Many workers and employers were not prepared to create or adapt to ergonomic conditions in remote work, resulting in the emergence of ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors [1]. However, the lack of knowledge and training has been increasingly addressed through training sessions and informative materials in various languages to minimize the negative consequences of poor ergonomics.

The intensified interest in remote work conditions took away the public attention from a more vulnerable category of employers: SMEs. Due to limited resources, SMEs are recognized to face major challenges in addressing occupational health and safety (OHS) risks and ergonomics-related faults. Although ergonomics as a science and practice is common worldwide, the lack of awareness on the benefits of implementing it in all types and sizes of enterprises leads to the need of promoting ergonomics and of researching on conception of frameworks to enhance implementation of ergonomics. The financial and technical efforts of an ergonomic intervention become visible once the ergonomists provide consulting services. Oftentimes, what is missing is the list of benefits generated by the proposed intervention, especially because most of these benefits are intangible and very difficult to transform into monetary units. Therefore, creating a framework that would complement the ergonomic intervention itself with a cost-benefit analysis, investment opportunity analysis and decisional support would provide managers with satisfactory information to approve and effectively implement the proposed ergonomic intervention.

This article aims to present a framework for the conception of ergonomic interventions and the substantiation of the managerial decision-making process based on cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and additional other relevant methods. The framework is applied in the case of two companies to demonstrate the relevance and usefulness of the proposed framework.

The structure of the paper is as follows: introduction, a literature review on the importance of ergonomic interventions (in Section 2), cost-benefit analysis for ergonomic interventions –a theoretical perspective and implications in managerial decision substantiation (in Section 3), an applicative application of the presented framework in the case of two companies (in Section 4), discussion (in Section 5) and conclusions (in Section 6).

2. The cost-benefit analysis for ergonomic interventions: Literature review

Ergonomics as a science is not novel. The literature in the field has demonstrated in numerous instances that ergonomics is a vital part of workplace wellness. The wide variety of issues, flaws, and OHS risks in the workplace generates as many situations as possible where the sole method for improvement is through ergonomic interventions [2]. When discussing manufacturing systems, numerous interventions studied in the literature refer to technological improvements, software/hardware acquisitions, and other related investments [3]. In their case, CBA can be performed with ease, as the benefits are tangible and with immediate results. Furthermore, ergonomic interventions should not be limited to existing working conditions: When introducing new technologies in the workplace, CBA for ergonomic implications of the respective technology should also be performed [4–8].

The financial and management rationale for improving workplaces and implementing ergonomic interventions must be adequately substantiated [9, 10]. Relevance of ergonomic interventions should be considered from various perspectives, since ergonomics creates benefits in terms of efficiency, productivity, improved financial performance, higher employee retention, improved employee satisfaction, improved OHS, and improved work-life balance [11]. From this perspective, ergonomic interventions are a significant category of investments. Oftentimes, these represent major financial efforts for companies, becoming a real challenge for managers in the decision-making processes. The key challenge is related to the fact that ergonomic interventions have multiple intangible benefits (i.e., benefits that cannot be translated into monetary correspondents) [11].

Therefore, depending on the perspective of different authors, CBA is considered a valuable instrument for demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of ergonomics [9], and for determining the financial rationale of ergonomic interventions [11]. Even more interesting findings are offered by Guimaraes et al. [12], who highlight the additional benefit of improved quality of life as a compensation for the psychological disturbance perceived because of the changes generated by the ergonomic intervention.

Investments are a cardinal vehicle of social and economic development, with a particular focus on the business environment. However, for many ergonomic interventions, the added value is indirect and intangible, creating a context where the conventional approach to investment is difficult to implement [13]. Although ergonomic interventions are likely to have a long-term positive impact, they are more difficult to justify than investments that have more obvious and immediate rewards [13]. Implementing the best ergonomic intervention at the lowest cost is one of the main goals of a decision to invest in an ergonomic intervention [14].

Most companies are willing to implement interventions with costs below a certain threshold, so a complex analysis is not necessary for small-value investments [11]. The benefits obtained may be significantly greater the more complex the ergonomic intervention is. As a result, ergonomic interventions can call for investments that are more expensive and/or complex in work systems where the minimum legal OSH requirements are met and at least some of the ergonomic principles are respected [15]. In their situation, a thorough examination of the available options is necessary to decide on the best course of action and to justify that choice from a technical, economic and financial standpoint. Numerous proposals for strategies in this direction are found in the literature, all of which focus on the idea of CBA.

The main differences in various approaches to CBA arise from the cost categories included, while monetization of benefits is typically adapted to the specifics of the intervention. The study of Abad et al. [16] proceeded to a simple approach for CBA, where the only cost considered was the ‘pain cost’, defined as the cost of the interventions aimed at pain reduction and calculated as a one-time cost. On the other hand, numerous studies focused on the social and economic implications of a specific intervention [4, 7, 10, 14, 17, 18]. Another approach is to use renowned software instruments, such as the Washington State CBA tool [19]. What all these approaches lack is the focus on the organization where the interventions should be implemented. When leaving aside the costs supported by individuals or society, there is little information to be analyzed in terms of the costs incurred and the actual benefits solely at company level [11]. The relevance of this approach can be observed only in the context of substantiating the management decision, as the financial implications for the company (regarded as an investment and not a cost) can be compensated or complemented by intangible benefits such as avoidance of fines by complying with national OHS legislation or improved work-life balance of employees leading to increased employee retention rate [11].

3. Materials and methods: Managerial decision substantiation of ergonomic interventions

3.1. General considerations regarding ergonomics intervention model

The framework presented in this section relies on the Ergonomics Intervention Model (EIM) described by Boatca [11] and Boatca et al. [2]. Starting with the identification of occupational health and ergonomics issues in the workplace and finalizing with the final decision to implement the ergonomic intervention(s), the authors conceived a methodological framework described in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Ergonomic Intervention Model - Proposed Methodological Framework (source: adapted after [11]).

The methodological framework considers OHS legislation, national and international standards as input and general guide for performing the risk assessment and conception of ergonomic interventions. At the same time, internal ergonomic standards (where they exist) and other guidelines represent input to the conception of ergonomic interventions and influence the decision-making process in relation to the implementation of the proposed interventions. Thus, the guidelines and internal standards lead to customization of otherwise general ergonomic interventions.

The framework consists of three major steps: workplace risk assessment, conception of ergonomic interventions, and economic and management substantiation of ergonomic interventions. The first step, the workplace risk assessment, should be performed according to the objectives of the ergonomists and managers; therefore, it can include a general workplace risk assessment, or it can involve a detailed analysis of specific issues at a certain workplace. It should be underlined that this step is always customized to the needs and requirements of the company, and therefore it can include risk assessment methods that serve the objectives set by the company and are aligned with the expertise of the ergonomists.

The second step is derived from the former and consists of the proposal of specific actions with various time spans for implementation. Risks of high severity or frequency must be prioritized; also, all identified risks must be addressed with feasible solutions, defined as ergonomic interventions.

In the following subsection, the authors will provide a detailed perspective on the last step of the ergonomic intervention model, respectively, for economic and management substantiation of ergonomic interventions.

3.2. Proposal for the conceptual framework for economic and management substantiation for implementation of ergonomic interventions

The International Social Security Association (ISSA) has created a model to assess the return on investment (ROI) of OHS prevention activities [20]. Both a quantitative approach (values expressed on a cardinal scale) and a qualitative approach (values measured on an ordinary scale) approach can be taken to prevent the condition. The ISSA approach states that the effectiveness of prevention is reflected in the balance between the advantages and drawbacks of prevention efforts [20]. Given that both quantitative and qualitative criteria are needed for the evaluation of ergonomic interventions, the ISSA approach can be modified to develop a generalized methodological framework for estimating investments to improve workers’ well-being at work. Based on this methodology, the establishment of a focus group proves crucial to defining the analysis criteria for the overall utility method, as well as to identifying the costs and benefits of ergonomic interventions. Hodor et al. [21] highlight that the maximum global utility method is a renowned instrument for substantiation of managerial decisions for several decades. This was the rationale for including this method in the proposed framework, with the aim of a more comprehensive approach in the decision-making process.

The advantages of enhanced working conditions are not necessarily in direct connection with economic efficiency because, in some cases, the costs do not outweigh the costs [22]. Promoting only investments that are deemed profitable from an economic point of view is, in fact, erroneous. Thus, Dascalescu [23] emphasizes that a relevant approach from the point of view of ergonomics involves the calculation of the net economic cost of investments in health and safety, which can be calculated as follows:

C_{NE} = C_{INV} - C_{OSH} - C_{B}

(1)

where:

C_NE is the net economic cost of investments in health and safety;

C_INV – the investment cost calculated as the sum of the direct and indirect costs of the investment;

C_OHS – costs of OHS risks avoided (economic costs of accidents at work and occupational diseases eliminated by investment);

C_B – collateral benefits seen as side effects of the investment (e.g., improving product quality, increasing productivity, improving employment relationships).

Considering this assumption, the entire justification for choosing ergonomic interventions refers to the classification and rationing of the applicability of each suggested intervention. Since both the maximum global utility method and the CBA are used as tools for ranking ergonomic interventions, it is in no way intended to eliminate any of the corrective measures aimed at preventing and improving work conditions.

To ensure a comprehensive approach to the implementation of ergonomic interventions, Fig. 2 details the methods used for analysis and classification of the interventions. The conceptual framework of the proposed methodology includes the following steps:

Fig. 2.

Methodological framework for substantiation of ergonomic interventions from economic and management perspectives.

Organizing a focus group with experts in the fields of ergonomics and organizational management to validate the analysis criteria for CBA.

Compiling a ranking of ergonomic intervention options using the maximum global utility method.

Analysis of ergonomic intervention options at the top of the ranking using cost-benefit analysis.

Selecting the best decisions based on the analyses from the previous steps.

The entire rationale for investment decisions in ergonomic interventions takes into consideration OSH legislation and applicable national and international standards, as the entire process of optimizing the work system must take these into account. Noncompliance with the legislative rules in force leads to contravention sanctions for noncompliance with certain OHS laws [11].

4. Case studies for validation of proposed framework

The Ergonomics Intervention Model was applied in two companies operating in West Romania. The first company is a waste management services provider, while the second is a furniture manufacturer. For both companies, the risk assessment process consisted of general risk assessment, ergonomic risk assessment, and physical environment assessment. For each company, the risk assessments were performed in two workplaces characterised by intensive manual operations. The study was carried out in the COVID-19 pandemic period, in compliance with the sanitary restrictions imposed at the time.

For each workplace, the authors proposed multiple ergonomic interventions and provided the economic cost of each solution, as a starting point for the analysis. In the case of the waste management company, two categories of workplaces were under analysis: recyclable waste sorting (six employees/shift) and operation of the PET bottle compressor (two workers/shift). Thus, nine ergonomic interventions were proposed, focussing on the main identified issues, namely ergonomic risks, organising flaws, and poor air quality. For the furniture manufacturer, the analysed workplaces were assembly of furniture and special operations (i.e., cladding wood boards with curved edges, grinding and other finishes applied to wooden pieces with irregular shapes or textile material additions). In the case of these workplaces, two employees/shift was the regular work arrangement. Therefore, ten ergonomic interventions were proposed to reduce the following identified risks: awkward postures, repetitive hand movements and heavy lifting, poor lighting, exposure to high noise, high levels of dust emissions, and thermal discomfort. So, the input data for the proposed model consisted of a set of solutions addressing specific issues for each of the workplaces under analysis, correlated with the costs incurred by each of the solutions (which are ergonomic interventions, proposed by the authors under their role as consultants in the field of ergonomics).

An important note is imposed here: considering the idea highlighted in section 2, that ergonomic interventions are at peril of not being implemented due to the lack of awareness and to limited understanding of the major positive effects generated by these interventions, the information further presented in this section is aimed at addressing this limitation.

The initiating hypothesis is that the proposed approach involves the perception of ergonomic interventions as investments; thus, the authors considered it mandatory to provide estimations of economic costs for all categories of interventions, irrespective of the time necessary for implementation. Following this, the analysis continued with the third step of the framework, the economic and management substantiation of ergonomic interventions.

Based on the conceptual framework presented in Section 3, the first activity of the third step was to organize an online focus group using the Zoom platform; the discussion was attended by OSH practitioners, specialists in risk assessment and OHS training, as well as academic staff with extensive experience in ergonomics. The result of the focus group was the establishment of criteria to prioritize ergonomic interventions. The same criteria were used for the maximum global utility method:

The degree of extension of the proposed solution, distinguishing global solutions and solutions for a particular job/risk identified.

The severity of the identified risk –urgent, requiring immediate interventions; medium-term interventions (1–5 years) and long-term interventions (5–10 years).

Purpose of the intervention: interventions for job setup, occupational safety interventions, interventions in the physical work environment, interventions for reduction of ergonomic risks.

The second activity was the analysis of the proposed interventions using the maximum global utility method, based on the criteria presented above. Table 1 summarises the results of this activity for each workplace in the two companies. For each ergonomic intervention, regarded as investment options, the utility function was calculated.

Table 1.

Summary of the analysis of proposed ergonomic interventions using maximum global utility method.

Company	Ergonomic intervention	Utility function result
Furniture manufacturer	Personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to noise and eliminate the risk of eye damage	1.00
	Placement of local lighting sources to compensate for improper general lighting	0.857579656
	Installation of a mobile dust suction (exhaust) system	0.856028562
	Arrangement of sit-stand workspaces to allow alternating jobs during work	0.841892673
	Use adjustable height tables to reduce the number of bends	0.776119532
	Installation of air ventilation/conditioning systems	0.645979255
	Ventilation and air conditioning system design to include all workplaces, in addition to exhaust systems installed	0.597241848
	Reduce the number of operators required to handle large chipboards by installing an adjustable 360-inch trolley, from which the milling can be performed directly	0.471492034
	Construction of a rest and dining space to ensure good rest conditions during work breaks	0.349405404
	Informative sessions, additional to the regular training of employees, regarding the importance of using personal protective equipment without exception, to limit the negative impact of exposure to noise	0.153153153
Waste management	Regular check of metal containers and replacement of damaged ones	0.99544516
services provider	Location and maintenance of a metal scrap collection system to eliminate noise shocks caused by the fall of waste directly on the pavement	0.875
	Placement of an acoustic screen around the glass chopper (in the waste sorting strip area) to reduce the noise produced	0.84876985
	Placing a tipper container, which would allow the automatic discharge of PET containers into the press, eliminating the need for container handling	0.84870471
	Filling of floor bumps and leveling off the floor throughout the hall (self-levelling screed casting)	0.73733289
	Modification of working hours with a view to introducing breaks to recover the working capacity of operators in an area without exposure to noise, in addition to lunch breaks	0.72406809
	Introduction of high seats in the waste sorting area	0.69546355
	Installation of an air ventilation/conditioning system	0.32703174
	Implementation of a fully automatic waste sorting system	0.15315315

Based on the results obtained, the interventions were ranked, to highlight the managerial perspective of the decision-making process. The utility method provided interesting information, as some of the ergonomic interventions that were easy to implement in the short term or were urgently required due to the severity of the consequences were not placed at the top of the ranking by applying the utility function. This underscores the importance of not excluding ergonomic interventions based on limited criteria, demonstrating the need for a comprehensive approach to the decision process. Moreover, unilateral approaches to ergonomic interventions and management decisions should not be considered as appropriate, proving the necessity of combining interdisciplinary approaches to managerial decision-making processes (similar to the interdisciplinary approach that stands at the heart of ergonomics).

The third activity was the CBA, which was focused on the implications of the ergonomic interventions at company level. Analyses at society level are not novel when discussing about workplace risks and workplace wellbeing. However, the literature on CBA performed at company level in the area of workplace risks and ergonomics is scarce, leaving an unaddressed space that reflects an actual pain point of many companies that consider the option of implementing ergonomic interventions. To limit the benefits to those quantifiable at company level, costs such as hospitalization or compensation for temporary or permanent incapacity for work have been excluded, as these are covered by the National Health Insurance Fund and the National Pension Fund, respectively, while costs incurred by the human operator for own-initiative health investigations, or the cost of loss of human life, cannot be considered, given that these costs cannot be assessed at company level. Table 2 presents the overall net economic cost and ROI of the ergonomic interventions for both companies. Depending on the type of risk or fault addressed, specific equivalent benefits were identified (e.g., the cost of a specific risk or fault can be the economic value of the intervention that solves the problem or the production loss, while the benefit can be avoidance of the cost incurred by payment of a specific number of sick leave days for the injured employee(s)).

Table 2.

Cost-benefit analysis of the proposed ergonomic interventions for the analyzed companies.

Company	Ergonomic intervention	Net economic	Return on
		cost	investment
Furniture manufacturer	Arrangement of sit-stand workspaces to allow alternating jobs during work	20,427.79	4.68
	Using adjustable height tables to reduce the number of bends	–19,179.92	0.58
	Personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to noise and eliminate the risk of eye damage	40,542.52	40.46
	Placement of local lighting sources to compensate for improper general lighting	74.25	1.02
	Installation of a mobile dust suction (exhaust) system	43,251.36	9.14
	Installation of air ventilation/conditioning systems	4,141.36	1.09
	Reduce the number of operators required to handle large chipboards by installing an adjustable 360-inch trolley, from which the milling can be performed directly	143,806.93	59.20
	Informative sessions, additional to the regular training of employees, regarding the importance of using personal protective equipment without exception, to limit the negative impact of exposure to noise	53,560.81	2.00
	Construction of a rest and dining space to ensure good rest conditions during work breaks	192,364.77	1.59
	Ventilation and air conditioning system designed to include all workplaces, in addition to exhaust systems installed	–394,731.94	0.27
Waste management services provider	Location and maintenance of a metal scrap collection system to eliminate noise shocks caused by the fall of waste directly on the pavement	18,930.00	14.82
	Regular check of containers and replacement of damaged containers	9,045.90	2.56
	Filling of floor bumps and leveling off the floor throughout the hall (self-levelling screed casting)	–14,882.08	0.45
	Modification of working hours with a view to introducing breaks to recover the working capacity of operators in an area without exposure to noise, in addition to lunch breaks	28,108.96	25.44
	Placing a tipper container, which would allow the automatic discharge of PET containers into the press, eliminating the need for container handling	–77,738.79	0.47
	Placement of an acoustic screen around the glass chopper (in the waste sorting strip area) to reduce the noise produced	14,677.00	3.61
	Introduction of high seats in the waste sorting area	19,024.22	3.40
	Implementation of a fully automatic waste sorting system	–4,160,244.62	0.08
	Installation of an air ventilation/conditioning system	–347,133.94	0.29

The CBA significantly changed the perspective created by the maximum global utility method. The net economic cost was calculated as the difference between costs and benefits translated into monetary values. The lowest ROI was identified in the case of an ergonomic intervention involving a high financial effort. Typically, this category of interventions is long-term investments, with complex implications on the work system. However, all proposed interventions had positive ROI, demonstrating the sanity and relevance of the proposed measures. From the financial perspective, the CBA allowed ergonomists to fully support their proposals to the management teams of the two companies. Also, CBA quantifies in monetary values benefits that are not necessarily easily visible to managers. Thus, this type of analysis has twofold benefits: on the one hand, it provides sufficient data for managers that are responsible for making the decisions regarding the interventions to be selected. On the other hand, it raises awareness on the importance, usefulness, and positive long-term impact of each intervention on the overall organisational performance. The most important takeaway is that managers are more prone to accept and opt for at least one intervention when they understand the whole set of implications and benefits generated, as compared to the traditional approach where ergonomists only present several technical solutions, leaving the rest of the decisional process in the responsibility of the managers (who typically lack awareness on the long-term positive implications of these solutions).

Finally, the last activity consisted of a discussion with managers, OHS specialists, and employees in the analysed companies to collect feedback from them and to decide the route for the proposed interventions. As mentioned above, none of the ergonomic interventions was excluded, as all represented solutions to specific risks identified in the studied workplaces.

5. Discussion

Consistent with the findings of Heidarimoghadam et al. [24], ergonomic interventions have been shown to be quite ineffective if implemented as singular solutions to multifactorial problems at work. Thus, the framework proposed in this paper represents a valid solution to this drawback, as it involves a complex combination of solutions, with different implementation implications: time, costs, benefits, reduction of risk severity or frequency, and implementation complexity.

MacLeod [25] proposed a similar approach, demonstrating the need for a framework for decision making, with benefits that include participation of nontechnical personnel, a qualitative approach to problem solving, extensive use of ergonomics with the purpose of continuous improvement [25]. Despite the focus on simplicity and participatory ergonomics, the framework proposed by MacLeod lacks the CBA. Thus, the framework proposed in this paper represents a more comprehensive and detailed approach to supporting managers in making decisions about investments in ergonomic interventions.

The efficiency of the proposed model is further supported by the positive feedback received from the two companies, which admitted to benefiting from a set of valid solutions to key issues in the analyzed workplaces, highlighting the fact that the CBA and decisional support provided along with the ergonomic interventions significantly increased confidence in approving the investments necessary for implementation of the interventions. An important observation is the fact that ergonomic interventions should not be excluded from the decision-making process based on the analysis performed using the proposed framework, as all interventions should be implemented. Therefore, the outcome of such an analysis is the prioritization of ergonomic interventions based on valid criteria, supporting a long-term proactive approach to ergonomics and OHS in companies.

However, the proposed framework should be revised every 6-12 months to ensure continuous improvement of the work system until the best possible working conditions are achieved. Garcia et al. [26] led an ergonomic intervention process that included CBA and a continuous improvement process, obtaining positive results for the workplace analyzed (in the service industry). Prevention through ergonomics is the optimal approach for avoiding undesired costs, errors, and productivity failures [27].

Baber and Young [28] bring to light evidence on how an ergonomics method can and should be validated. Unlike other sciences, ergonomics has a peculiar particularity: oftentimes, methods are validated through experiments or interventions, leading to the fact that if the initial hypotheses are met/validated it is very likely that the methodology itself serves the proposed purpose [28]. Therefore, the authors consider that the proposed framework is a valid method for ergonomic interventions and managerial and financial substantiation for implementation in companies, as the model was successfully implemented in two companies operating in different industries.

6. Conclusions

In the post-pandemic world, characterized by a slow economic recovery, companies became even more reluctant regarding expenses [29]. Despite its significant contribution to workplace wellbeing and increased organizational performance, ergonomics remains a secondary preoccupation in the eyes of managers worldwide. The proposed framework, part of a larger ergonomic intervention model, aims to minimize the odds of managers rejecting ergonomic interventions because they are regarded as additional costs incurred by the company. Furthermore, this framework helps managers understand that ergonomic interventions are investments with long-term benefits for the company, increasing the chances of a positive attitude towards ergonomics.

The article demonstrates the utility and validity of a novel framework for the conception and implementation of ergonomic interventions. The economic and management perspectives bring to light one of the most frequent pain points in ergonomics: the actual implementation of ergonomic interventions, due to the high costs of such proposals, while the benefits are mostly intangible and visible in the medium and long term.

The implementation of the proposed framework in two companies operating in different industries and with different business sizes (the waste management services provider is a large public company, while the furniture manufacturer is a medium private company), further supports the validity of the framework. Based on the positive feedback received from company managers and OHS specialists, the authors concluded that the model serves its purpose. Therefore, the proposed framework should be implemented in other companies, to further analyze the results obtained.

A proposed improvement of the presented study is connected to the necessity of expanding the application of the proposed framework in various industries and across countries, so that more data on the effectiveness of the approach could be collected. After such an ambitious attempt, the framework can generally be accepted as a reliable instrument for substantiating the management decision-making process for the implementation of ergonomic interventions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors have no acknowledgments.

Author contributions

CONCEPTION: Maria –Elena Boatca, Anca Draghici, Sabin Ioan Irimie and Brigita Gajsek

METHODOLOGY: Maria –Elena Boatca, Anca Draghici

DATA COLLECTION: Maria –Elena Boatca, Sabin Ioan Irimie, Brigita Gajsek, Anca Draghici

INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: Maria –Elena Boatca, Anca Draghici

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Maria –Elena Boatca, Sabin Ioan Irimie, Anca Draghici and Brigita Gajsek

REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL CONTENT: Anca Draghici, Brigita Gajsek

SUPERVISION: Anca Draghici

Author Biographies

Maria - Elena Boatca is Teaching and Research Assistant at Politehnica University of Timisoara, Romania, Faculty of Management in Production and Transportation. She is a PhD graduate in the field of Engineering and Management. Maria Elena Boatca specializes in the fields of ergonomics and human factors, occupational health and safety, as well as economic sciences (economics, financial analysis, energy market dynamics). She is one of the founding members of the Society for Ergonomics and Work Environment Management in Romania (ErgoWork, https://ergoworksociety.com/), and the secretary of the Safety and Health Technical Committee of the International Ergonomics Association.

Anca Draghici is full professor (and PhD supervisor) at Politehnica University Timisoara, Romania, Faculty of Management in Production and Transportation. She specializes in the fields of Industrial Ergonomics, Human Resources Management, Occupational Health and Safety, Investments Management and Knowledge Management. Her research interests are linked with the impact of sustainability on organizational dynamics and business models. Anca Draghici is president of the Society for Ergonomics and Work Environment Management in Romania (ErgoWork, https://ergoworksociety.com/), member of the Member of Academic Management Society of Romania (SAMRO, https://samro.ro) and member of the European Certification and Qualification Association (ECQA, www.ecqa.org).

Sabin Ioan Irimie is a PhD from University of Timisoara in the field of engineering and management with the PhD thesis on the field of operationalizing sustainable development. He is also a graduate from University of Petrosani with management and energetic specializations. He teaches Sustainable Development courses; Ergonomics and Human Resources Management. Dr. Irimie is a member of the General Association of Engineers in Romania and the Association Romanian National Committee of the World Energy Council. He has over five years’ experience in project management and business consulting.

Brigita Gajsek, PhD, is associate professor at the Faculty of Logistics, University of Maribor (Slovenia). Her specialization is in the fields of Logistics, Operations and Production Management, Lean Manufacturing, Supply Chain Management, Transport Economics, Quality Management, Internet of Things and smart processes, SCM, and Linear Programming, among others. Prior to her academic career, she worked for eight years as a production planner, e-business coordinator and business process organizer.

References

Boatca

ME,

Draghici

A, and

Gaureanu

. Home ergonomics–lessons learned, MATEC Web of Conferences (EDP Sciences). 2021;343:11012. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/202134311012.

Boatca

ME,

Draghici

Suteu

C, and

Farcas

. Proposal of a prevention program for mitigation of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, Acta Technica Napocensis-Series: Applied Mathematics, Mechanics, and Engineering. 2023;65(3S)ISSN 2393–2988. Available at: https://atnamam.utcluj.ro/index.php/Acta/article/view/1938.

Krause

Bosch

Wilschut

E, and

van Rhijn

Cognitive Operator Support in the Manufacturing Industry – Three Tools to Help SMEs Select, Test and Evaluate Operator Support Technology. In: Röcker, C., Büttner, S. (eds) Human-Technology Interaction; 2023. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-99235-43.

Gumasing

MJJ,

Prasetyo

YT,

Ong

AKS,

Carcellar

MRIM,

Aliado

JBJ,

Nadlifatin

R, and

Persada

. Ergonomic Design of Apron Bus with Consideration for Passengers with Mobility Constraints. Safety. 2022;8:33. DOI: 10.3390/safety8020033.

Mondellini

Colombo

Arlati

Lawson

G, and

Cobb

. Human Factors and Ergonomics. In:Roadmapping Extended Reality: Fundamentals and Applications, M. Alcaniz, M. Sacco, J.G. Tromp (eds); 2022;229–256. Scrivener Publishing LLC. DOI: 10.1002/9781119865810.ch10.

Pedram

Ogie

Palmisano

Farrelly

M, and

Perez

. Cost–benefit analysis of virtual reality-based training for emergency rescue workers: a socio-technical systems approach. Virtual Reality. 2021;1–16. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-021-00514-5.

Gumasing

MJJ,

Antonio

KKMC, and

Mata

JLC

. An Ergonomic Approach on Design of Daycare Centers in the Philippines. 2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA) (IEEE). 2021; 60–67. DOI: 10.1109/ICIEA52957.2021.9436696.

Ahmed

S and

Demirel

. A conceptual prototyping framework for integrating human factors early in product design, ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 2020;84539:V006T06A023. DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2020-23858.

Tamayo

GR,

Rodríguez

SB, and

Rodríguez

YC.

Methodology for cost-benefit analysis of ergonomic risk management. RILCO DS Sustainable Development, Business, Entrepreneurship and Education Magazine. 2020;11. ISSN 2695-6098.

10.

Visser

van der Molen

HF,

Sluiter

JK, and

Frings-Dresen

. Evaluation of the effects of two alternative participatory ergonomics intervention strategies for construction companies. Ergonomics. 2019;62(1);42–51. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2018.1516806.

11.

Boatca

ME.

Evaluarea interventiei ergonomiei in sisteme de productie. 2023; Timisoara: Politehnica Publishing House. ISBN 978-606-35-0519-5.

12.

Guimaraes

LB de M,

Ribeiro

JLD, and

Renner

. Cost–benefit analysis of a socio-technical intervention in a Brazilian footwear company, Applied Ergonomics. 2012;43(5):948–957. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.01.003.

13.

Rouse

WB and

Boff

. Cost/benefit analysis for human systems investments. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, G. Salvendy (ed.) 2012;1122–1138. John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9781119636113.ch34.

14.

Godilano

EC,

Baldovino

EM,

Cahende

JAD, and

Terrible

. Risk Reduction Among Adult Walker Users: An Ergonomic Innovation. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (IEEE). 2018;1046–1050. DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2018.8607496.

15.

Mazzoni

CF,

Campos

MVG,

Sirqueira

CAG,

Krause

de Kraker

Könemann

R, and

Douwes

. Developing a methodology for a participatory ergonomics evaluation process: Human performance and productivity cycle. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VII: Ergonomics in Design, Design for All, Activity Theories for Work Analysis and Design, Affective Design 20. 2019:1829–1838. Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_190.

16.

Abad

JE,

Galarido

MM,

Tiu

AF, and

Tangsoc

JC.

An ergonomic workstation analysis on call center agents. Conference Proceeding APIEMS Taipei, Taiwan. 2020;15.

17.

Gumasing

MJJ,

Arreza

CJR,

Guzman

CJP, and

Da Costa

. An Ergonomic Approach on Physical Assessment of Public Hospitals in the Philippines. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Management Science and Industrial Engineering (ACM Digital Library). 2020; 266–272. DOI: 10.1145/3396743.3396747.

18.

Godilano

EC,

Galang

MKG,

Ramilo

HEO, and

Velayo

KRF

. Design of an ergonomie classroom chair and desk for preschool students of selected public schools in Cabuyao City, Laguna. 2018 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA) (IEEE). 2018;420–423. DOI: 10.1109/IEA.2018.8387137.

19.

Hsiao

Workstation Design Contribution to Musculoskeletal Disorders: An Office Ergonomic Assessment. Doctoral dissertation. 2021. University of Wisconsin-Stout.

20.

International Social Security Association (2013). Calculating the international return on prevention for companies: costs and benefits of investments in occupational safety and health [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gesundheitsmanagement24.de/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/return-on-invest-occupationalhealth-study2013.pdf [Accessed: August 1^st, 2023].

21.

Hodor

Csiminga

D, and

Ghicajanu

. Management. 2011. Petrosani:Atelierul de Tipografie al Universităţţii din Petroşani.

22.

Mohd Roshdi

FR,

Saharuddin

Mohamed Yusof

NF, and

Mohd Noor

SNA

. Assessing factors in considering ergonomics at construction project–an overview, Virtual Go-Green: Conference and Publication (V-GoGreen 2020). 2021;127–130.

23.

Dascalescu

Modele de calcul al costului accidentelor de muncăşi bolilor profesionale. 2010. Bucureşti: OEDIINCDPM Publishing House, ISBN 978-606-92116-5-6.

24.

Heidarimoghadam

Mohammadfam

Babamiri

Soltanian

AR,

Khotanlou

H, and

Sohrabi

. What do the different ergonomic interventions accomplish in the workplace? A systematic review, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2022;28(1):600–624. DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1811521.

25.

MacLeod D . The Default is Simplicity–A Model for the Workplace Ergonomics Problem-Solving Process. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. 2022; 10(3):135–141. DOI: 10.1080/24725838.2022.2109077.

26.

García

Sánchez

Domingo

R, and

Sebastián

. Acost-benefit ergonomics methodology applied to service industry withdigital human modelling, European Journal of Industrial Engineering. 2014;8(4):533–553. DOI: 10.1504/EJIE.2014.064757.

27.

Lyon

BK and

Popov

. Prevention Through Ergonomics: Integrating Human Factors into a Prevention Through Design Approach, Professional Safety. 2023;68(06):24–33.

28.

Baber

C and

Young

. Making ergonomics accountable: reliability, validity and utility in ergonomics methods, Applied Ergonomics. 2022;98:103583. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103583.

29.

United Nations. Fragile economic recovery from COVID-19 pandemic upended by war in Ukraine [Internet]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/desa/fragile-economic-recovery-covid-19-pandemic-upended-war-ukraine. [Accessed: July 20th, 2023]