Exploring work-related issues on corporate sustainability

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In a research project about work-related issues and corporate sustainability conducted in Brazil, the goal was to better understand how work-related issues were addressed in the corporate context. Particularly, there are some specific initiatives that serve as guides to organizational decisions, which make their performance indicators for the context of corporate sustainability.

OBJECTIVE:

1) To explore the presence of work-related issues and their origins in corporate sustainability approach, analyzing a) corporate disclosures; b) sustainability guidelines that are identified as relevant in corporate disclosures; c) documents that are related to sustainable development and also identified as key-documents for these guidelines and initiatives. 2) To present the activity-centered ergonomics and psychodynamics of work contributions to work-related issues in a corporate sustainability approach.

METHODS:

An exploratory study based on multiple sources of evidence that were performed from 2012 to 2013, including interviews with companies that engaged in corporate sustainability and document analysis using the content analysis approach.

RESULTS:

Work-related issues have been presented since the earliest sustainable development documents. It is feasible to construct an empirical framework for work-related issues and corporate sustainability approaches.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) Although some authors argue that corporate sustainability has its roots based only on the environmental dimension, there is strong empirical evidence showing that social dimension aspects such as work-related issues have been present since the beginning. 2) Some indicators should be redesigned to more precisely translate the reality of some workplaces, particularly those indicators related to organizational design and mental health.

Keywords

Sustainable development corporate sustainability activity-centered ergonomics psychodynamics of work labor practices working conditions

1 Introduction

Companies aligned with corporate sustainability (CS) that consider environmental-, economic- and social-dimension-related aspects in their practices [1 –5] will use sustainable production systems and have a healthy working environment [6]. To demonstrate this engagement, many companies voluntarily disclose their corporate practices based on the guidelines (e.g., Global Reporting Initiative - GRI) and assign international initiatives (e.g., United Nations Global Compact) that are directly related to CS. For example, GRI indicators have been widely used to disclose information on both corporate websites and sustainability reports [7 –10]. At the same time, these indicators and similar indicators have become increasingly more strategic tools to evaluate the performance of companies under the corporate sustainability perspective [11 –14], although it is questionable whether these indicators lead to sustainable development (SD) in organizations [15].

Although they are addressed by some of the current practices and disclosed information in these guidelines and initiatives (see Appendix A), work-related issues are not adequately measured by these indicators [16]. For example, current subjects discussed by the World Health Organization about healthy workplace (e.g., psychosocial work environment) are not explicitly disclosed; hence, because they are not even qualitatively measured, they can be ignored.

The relevant element to be considered in this context is the status provided by these indicators to these organizations. The fact that an organization is considered an “adequate” front of these indicators can give the interpretation that this organization is also fully aligned with the concepts of CS and consequently with the foundations of SD. However, Bolis et al. [17] state that “workers are considered important stakeholders by the corporations in their sustainability and social responsibility policies. However, there is still a lot to be done to clarify what the corporations are effectively doing, and to improve these policies”. Thus, it is necessary to identify the concepts that underlie corporate sustainability indicators to analyze these indicators according to these concepts. In addition, it is also necessary to identify the partially covered (or nonexistent) work-related issues that should be improved (or formalized as indicators) according to these grounds.

Thus, our purpose is to answer the following questions: Are work-related issues considered in corporate sustainability approach? What has been their evolution over time?

2 Theoretical reference

2.1 Corporate sustainability

Many authors consider the Brundtland Report (also known as Our Common Future Report) [18] a milestone for both Sustainable Development and the concepts of the corporate sustainability approach [19 –21]. According to Dyllick and Hockerts [1], based on the sustainable development definition, CS can be defined as “meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities etc.), without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders as well” (p. 131). In particular, in the late 1990s, Rondinelli and Berry [22] and others [23 –27] more consistently identified the social and environmental dimensions in multinational organizations as a result of thecompanies’ engagement with this approach. For example, Montiel [20] stated that “many researchers base their work [about corporate sustainability] on the WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development] definition, even though CS did not reach star status in business journals until the 1990s. Since then, both academics and practitioners have argued that for development to remain sustainable, it must simultaneously satisfy environmental, social, and economic standards” (p. 254). In the same direction, Steurer et al. [2] claimed that “this application of SD at the corporate level, which obviously builds on the Brundtland Report [18], is often referred to as CS. While SD is commonly perceived as a societal guiding model, which addresses a broad range of quality of life issues in the long term, CS is a corporate guiding model, addressing the short- and long-term economic, social and environmental performance of corporations” (p. 274).

However, Savitz and Weber [3] mentioned that not a single company that was worth highlighting for its sustainability actions had performed well in the three (social, environmental and economic) responsibility areas. Although sustainable-development-related concepts, which define an approach at the macro level, have been increasingly applied to individual entities such as organizations (e.g., companies) [28, 29], Salzman et al. identified that there was “clearly insufficient understanding of the manager’s key arguments or business logic for adopting corporate sustainability strategies“ [30]. The main focus of the organizations regarding Corporate Sustainability remains unclear, which appears to indicate more of a coincidence of facts than a clear strategy and often restricts empty speech [31] such as “green-washing” practices [32 –34]. Furthermore, to evaluate the companies’ actions from a corporate sustainability perspective and translate strategic definitions based on corporate sustainability principles into action becomes a real challenge [28, 35], mainly because different names are directly or indirectly related to CS (e.g., eco-efficiency, corporate social responsibility, sustainable value chain management, etc.). As Hart and Milstein [36] state, “beyond this broad consensus on terminology, however, there remains disagreement among managers regarding the specific meaning of and motivation for enterprise-level sustainability.” (p. 56, 57). Similarly, Van Marrewijk [21] notes that “an intensive debate has been taking place among academics, consultants and corporate executives resulting in many definitions of a more humane, more ethical and a more transparent way of doing business. They have created, supported or criticized related concepts such as SD, corporate citizenship, sustainable entrepreneurship, Triple Bottom Line, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility” (p. 96).

Basically, as Montiel presents [20], there are two corporate sustainability main strands (p. 257). Because of the current environmental management, one strand considers CS as exclusively responsible for environmental issues such as the proposed use of analysis tools, which were mentioned in Robert [37] and Lozano [23, 38](e.g., life cycle analysis, factor X, ecological footprint, the natural step, eco-efficiency, clean production). In this case, CS remains an ecological sustainability approach [20 , 40]. The other strand addresses the environmental, social and economic dimension, i.e., the triple bottom line approach [4 , 29].

2.2 Corporate sustainability disclosure and work-related issues

In general, the corporate report analysis is based on identifying general trends that focus on whether the indicators are included in the report [10] and generally uses content analyses as a research method (e.g., [7 , 14,41–50]). However, as Adams and Frost state, few studies have explored the specific indicators that are used in the reports [51], such as work-related issues (e.g., [35 , 53]). For example, in a review by Skouloudis and Evangelinos on the corporate sustainability reports that were disclosed by Greek companies, it was highlighted that the reports commonly included information on the following issues: Workplace health and safety policies and measures, employee education and skill management, and the benefits that employees receive from the organization beyond the legally mandated ones [54]. In another study conducted in Spanish companies, Gallego found that the most frequently reported social indicators were related to labor practices and decent work [42]. Epstein and Roy [55] analyzed corporate reports (corporate citizenship reports, sustainability reports, triple bottom line reports and environment, health and safety reports) and concluded that most organizations did not treat health- and safety-related actions (and social performance) as a business case. From a 1 to 4 scale, the companies had not reached level 4 (measures of benefits in addition to measures of costs, which are fully linked to the financial performance), and few reached level 3 (monetized information on expenditure, which is partially linked to financial performance) for the analyzed work-related issues (e.g., health and safety); most data remain as quantified information that are not linked to financial performance (levels 1 and 2). Meanwhile, some companies maintain most environmental-related issues at level 3 or 4 (p. 84). Kleine and von Hauff [16] also question the social indicators in another study and state that “the interpretation of social-related indicators is much more difficult. For example, how do we define the value ‘Absence due to illness?’ Do declining numbers mean that employees are healthier and safer than before? Or, do low numbers indicate a rising fear for job loss where employees go to work even when they are ill? There is no general answer to diverse interpretations.” (p. 527).

3 Methods and methodology

This study is an exploratory review that mainly examines content analysis [56] to uncover the links between CS and work-related issues.

To answer the first question, semi-structured interviews (open-ended questions) were carried out with 10 international companies who claim to consider CS seriously and have their activities (6 of 10 companies) or headquarters in Brazil (4 of 10 companies).

The preliminary findings suggested that there are some specific guidelines and initiatives that are relevant guides to organizational decisions, which makes them even corporate sustainability performance indicators. To validate this evidence, the 2012 corporate reports from 20 companies were analyzed to identify the relevant guidelines (and initiatives) and whether they matched the initial findings.

To answer the question of how work-related issues evolve over time, it has been assumed that CS has the same root as SD [2 , 29]. In other words, it was initially based on the Conference on Human Environment (1972) and the Brundtland Report (1987) [57, 58]. In this sense, some historical documents that were related to such corporate sustainability theoretical line, which were published between 1972 and 2012, were identified as the relevant references for these indicators and guidelines and will be presented in theresults.

Therefore, three sources were established: 1) 2012 corporate annual reports, 2) corporate sustainability guidelines (or initiatives) identified and 3) selected historical documents (between 1972 and 2012) that were related to SD (and, accordingly, corporate sustainability) and work-related issues and supported these guidelines and initiatives.

Thus, to elaborate on the main questions more precisely, secondary questions were designed (see Table 1). Each analysis was performed by two researchers.

It is worth highlighting that because Brazil has a relevant NGO that developed corporate sustainability indicators (Ethos Institute), the first question is particularly addressed for this environment (i.e., Brazilian companies). In addition, as some authors argue, Corporate Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) currently have similar approaches (e.g., [2 , 21]). Thus, the document analysis treated both CS and CSR documents (i.e., corporate reports andguidelines).

To answer each secondary question, four questions were formed as follows:

What are the main corporate sustainability guidelines (and initiatives) used by Brazilian companies? Evidence was collected from semi-structured interviews with 10 companies and 2012 corporate report document analyses. The most mentioned guidelines and initiatives include the following: ISO 26000 –Social Responsibility International Guidelines; United Nations Global Compact; Global Reporting Initiative –GRI; Ethos Institute - Ethos indicators of CSR; Social Accountability International (SAI) –SA8000.

Which work-related issues are approached in the corporate sustainability guidelines (and initiatives)? Once it was possible to identify the relevant guidelines and initiative, the second secondary research question (and also the 2nd stage of the study) was answered by conducting a content analysis on both guidelines (and initiatives) and corporate disclosures (2012 corporate report and CS or similar webpage from the official corporate web site). The set of units of analysis was only established after analyzing both semi-structured interviews and corporate disclosures.

On which corporate sustainability historical documents are these corporate sustainability guidelines and initiatives based? The 3rd stage was dedicated to identifying the citations that referred to other guidelines and initiatives and the historical documents inside these guidelines and initiatives that were related to SD and work-related issues. Because it was necessary to clarify the evidence that allowed identifying the documents on which the guideline was based, it was necessary to conduct a two-step analysis process: A content analysis to identify the possible cited documents and a subsequent manual analysis to identify the positive interconnections with the cited document, particularly regarding work-related issues. Throughout this process, the initiatives were found to be directly or indirectly based on the same set of United Nations documents.

How are work-related issues approached in these corporate sustainability historical documents? The 4th stage encompassed an analysis of relevant documents on CS that actually represent sustainable development documents. The Content Analysis approach [56 , 60] was used to identify the following: (a) contents related to work and/or labor practices; (b) citations of documents on work and human rights and their respective contents; (c) contents that address the social aspects of sustainability that are indirectly related to work and/or working conditions; and (d) citations referring to other corporate sustainability documents. The most relevant corporate-sustainability-related documents that were analyzed are shown in Table 2.

Because the texts of the United Nations declarations and reports are sequentially numbered by paragraph or by the items of each subject, it is easier to record the location of a particular subject or word. Thus, the paragraphs were analyzed by locating keywords such as labor, work(s), worker(s), employee(s), employ(ment), job(s), and their combinations (e.g., labor practice(s), work condition(s)). The documents were classified at every paragraph, and the presence or absence of the subject of Work was indicated. With this initial screening, the paragraphs of documents that mentioned the social aspects of sustainability were also identified, as were the documents cited therein. These passages (see Appendix B) were selected and analyzed. Thus, it was possible to identify how work and its related aspects were included in these documents. In a second screening, a refined classification enabled the construction of categories for approaching the subject of work in CS. It was possible to study the links between corporate sustainability initiatives and official documents on sustainability. Moreover, a set of documents that were not particularly related to CS was also identified when work-related issues were found in these corporate sustainability historical documents. Thus, the analysis also identified the 5 most relevant work-related documents(see Table 3).

Which other indirect work-related aspects are present in these corporate sustainability historical documents? The subject of work, which is understood as a human action, is connected to the social dimension of CS. Accordingly, it is considered relevant to identify the aspects of this dimension that are explicitly mentioned in the analyzed documents (see Appendix C).

Afterward, these analyses enabled the construction of a network of relevant linkages among these initiatives by support organizations and these corporate sustainability documents (both work and human rights documents as well), which explicitly shows the documents (and/or initiatives) that are positively cited by other documents (and/or initiatives). Because there are little consensus regarding corporate sustainability concepts and their relation with work issues, the intention here was to provide an initial (and not stressed) framework that comes from ground data, i.e., starting from corporate sustainability disclosures and interviews in this case.

Finally, as authors such as Zink and Fischer [61] and others [17,62–64 , 17,62–64] have shown, for the convergence of SD and ergonomics, some considerations on work-related issues identified in the indicators will be performed using ergonomics approaches such as the activity and psychodynamics of work.

Regarding the limitations of this study, we highlight the necessity to conduct a study with a sample of only 10 companies. In addition, the analysis of work-related issues focused on the theoretical framework of ergonomics and the psychodynamics of work, which consequently made this study not exhaustive. The only available information was publicly available information on the corporate websites of companies and information from a few semi-structured interviews. However, these interviews were mostly limited to a single meeting, which did not allow further deepening. Another relevant point is related to the interpretation and location that the company provides to the sustainability-related workforce, which can be either the corporate area of sustainability, human resources, international relations or continuing education, which probably promotes different interpretations of the subject.

4 Results

4.1 Which work-related issues are most frequently mentioned in corporate sustainability guidelines and initiatives?

The content analyses enabled the identification of 15 relevant items that were related to work issues in corporate sustainability guidelines and initiatives (see Table 4), and only four items are included in all initiatives: a) freedom of association and collective bargaining; b) elimination of forced labor; c) abolition of child labor; and d) elimination of discrimination in the workplace. In addition, it is worth noting that the work conditions, labor relations and human development were also mentioned in most initiatives.

4.2 On which corporate sustainability historical documents are these corporate sustainability guidelines and initiatives based?

As previously described, the most relevant corporate sustainability guidelines and initiatives mention a set of historical documents related to CS (or SD). Although they are not the only historical documents that were positively mentioned by the guidelines and initiatives, they are the most recurrent ones.

Fig. 1 shows the network of these positive citations (the arrows begin with the cited document and end with the initiative that makes the citation). The left side includes the corporate sustainability historical documents, and the right side includes other historical documents, which are mainly related to both work- and human-rights-related issues. In addition, although some documents are apparently hardly ever directly cited, it was found that they were indirectly cited by other documents or initiatives. Guidelines and initiatives always cite at least the same group of historical documents, although theses citations are not always directly made. Frequently, the citation of an item in a given document already contains a citation to another previously prepared document. Therefore, the work-related issues (and corporate sustainability concepts) included and considered from a corporate sustainability perspective and guidelines (directly or indirectly) derive from five base-documents: Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment - 1972; Our Common Future - 1987; Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 1948; The ILO Constitution - 1944; and The ILO Conventions.

These base-documents are the oldest analyzed texts, and no systematic or relevant citations to other documents about the analyzed subjects here were identified in them.

4.3 How are work-related issues approached in these corporate sustainability historical documents?

Four different main groups of work-related issues in corporate sustainability historical documents were identified: Job assurance and stability; occupational safety and health: Safe, clean and healthy environments; consideration of the contents of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; and decent work.

Chronologically, the earliest mentions of work involved employment assurance and job stability. Next, without foregoing the first issues, occupational safety and health aspects began to appear, and the contents of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work subsequently appeared. More recently, in the latest documents and most guidelines and initiatives, decent work appears as an important issue. According to the International Labor Organization, decent work is related to the following concepts [65]: Creating jobs for both men and women; extending social protection; promoting a social dialogue; and The Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

The decent work concept encompasses various clusters of work-related issues. Consequently, it is possible to assure that decent work is the most current and comprehensive cluster of word-related issues from the analysis of historical documents and initiatives.

5 5. Discussion

According to the analysis of the connections among such documents, we noted that in general, the most recent documents seek to contemplate most if not all of the previously prepared documents. The United Nations Declaration of the Conference on Human Development document is positively mentioned in most of the documents that followed it.

As previously mentioned, CS has two different perspectives. Some argue that CS has the same root as SD, i.e., it is initially based on the Conference on Human Environment and Our Common Future Report [57, 58].

Hvid and Lund (2002) argue (cited by 60, p.43, 44) that “work plays a central role in terms of welfare and poverty, integration and exclusion, sickness and well-being. It is also the source of most technological innovation. Work is where both environmentally friendly and unfriendly products and processes are developed. The social orientation of work has great importance to the degree of consumerism, for the well-being of the family, and for the time and resources allocated to participating in political and social activities. Work is also a creative process and an important part of an individual’s identity formation. […] Despite all this, the existing literature on sustainability and corporate development often misses the point that work is essential for sustainable development due to its active, creative and rhythmic nature. The lack of focus on work is the Achilles’ heel of current movements which promote sustainable development”.

Littig and Grießler [67] (p. 70) introduced a model of interaction between society and nature (Fig. 2), in which work plays a central role in this approach. They stated that “work - in the broadest sense (paid and unpaid labor, care work) - plays a central role in sustainability, since the satisfaction of needs-and thus the exchange between society and nature-involves mainly some sort of work.”

In other words, corporate sustainability issues must also consider the well-being and health of the workers. Westgaard and Winkel [68] consider the effects on workers’ physical and mental health to be based on 3 levels: Societal, organizational and individual. Thus, they consider that a corporate-strategy-associated decision also affects the individual level.

5.1 Other aspects indirectly related to workare included in these corporate sustainability historical documents

The corporate sustainability historical documents contain some aspects related to the social dimension in various sections. Without intending to be exhaustive, we can highlight the most mentioned and relevant aspects: The centrality of human beings; interdependence; cooperation, dialogue, preservation and maintenance; human development; quality of life and standard of living; consumption and sustainable production systems; human rights; freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature; a fair, humane and solidary global society; a healthy and productive life. These aspects are not necessarily directly related to work issues. However, considering that work is a dimension of human action, it is relevant to highlight them.

Furthermore, although some production, manufacturing or service systems provide working conditions that are considered decent, they can also negatively affect the workers from both the physical- and mental-health viewpoint as well as the quality of life and well-being viewpoint.

Accordingly, the establishment of a production system (not to mention an economic system) that is also considered “sustainable” presupposes a vision of the social dimension, which has prevented workers from becoming physically and mentally ill. Despite proactive work practices and improved working conditions, particularly when addressing the physical aspects, mental illness is increasingly present in organizations, as evidenced by the organization’s invisible pressure toward reaching goals and individual performance evaluations. However, connecting these issues to a group’s internal organizational issues becomes a challenge, as observed from the efforts to break the causal chain of work-related illnesses [69].

5.2 Contributions of the ergonomics of activity to work-related issues in corporate sustainability

In the context of organizations, the evaluation of the sustainability of a process usually occurs according to environmental and economic dimensions, regardless of whether that process produces goods or services. When the inputs and outputs of a production process are analyzed, viable solutions according to these aspects are prioritized with the rational use of natural resources, and positive economic results are logically predominant.

However, it should be noted that the accomplishment of a process or at least its idealization (planning) requires active participation by individuals, i.e., there is a necessity for work. Hence, processes presuppose work; consequently, it can be stated that a sustainable process requires work. The analysis of a process according to its environmental dimension evaluates sustainability considering the use of natural resources, i.e., an action that is linked to the work results. The analysis resides in the results of work instead of the execution of work and consequently in what must be mobilized to ensure that the process is accomplished. Because work is invariably there for sustainability, the tasks are modified to propose new production methods. However, as Béguin et al. (p. 89) stated, “the work, understood as a productive act, is deeply lacking in the current researches” [70].

Nevertheless, is people’s work sustainable? In other words, does it allow individuals to develop professionally, and does it allow people to become accomplished and enhance their health? Similarly, we can analyze another aspect of the sustainability process: The necessity to do a job and its respective contents. In this case, it can be understood as a process analysis according to the social dimension, considering work per se, the action of working, doing the job itself, and its effects on those who develop it. Then, the consideration of the context of doing the work per se, i.e., the implications and difficulties of doing it, becomes relevant.

However, little is said about work from a sustainable perspective for those who work because work is in fact the social dimension that is directly related to the production process. Mostly, the definitions on this particular subject in the core of the discussion on sustainability are not convergent, or they provide a partial and often fragmented view of the addressed reality. As Sznelwar emphasized [71], the issue of work with a focus on its contents is frequently separated and considered less important perhaps because the act of working would have a lesser effect from the production viewpoint. Some contributions to a sustainable viewpoint on work can be highlighted in ergonomics. As Thatcher [72] highlighted, “sustainable development and human factors [ergonomics] is not yet bound by the constraints of restrictive definitions” (p. 3897). For example, Fischer and Zink [73] affirmed that a work system design that strives for a sustainable use of human, social and natural capital is mandatory. Simultaneously, Hasle and Jensen identified “five major challenges from global supply chains especially related to the social aspects of sustainability: (1) criteria for social sustainability, (2) the role of key performance indicators in the management of supply chains, (3) the constant changes in supply chains, (4) the challenge in establishing participation, and (5) the development of agency and regulatory mechanisms” (p. 3906).

The ability to act according to production requirements and each individual’s capabilities, which constantly vary over one’s lifetime, is a key mooring point. How can work conditions be evolved to become suitable to individuals throughout their lives? Moreover, this possibility of acting is also linked to professional development and competency. Therefore, it is possible to adopt the proposals of Falzon [74] and Montmollin [75] when they discussed the cognitive aspects in connection with health. In this sense, with a sustainable view, references are also made to the possibilities that work will provide people so that they can acquire new knowledge and know-how to become more competent.

To the ergonomics of activity, the health issue is understood as a dynamic process [76]. Because physiology and psychology are its founding disciplines, the search for the adaptation of work to humans considers various aspects of the dynamics of life. Variability is addressed both among and within individuals considering the issue of workers’ evolution over time and thereby includes the issue of ageing.

In the case of the psychodynamics of work, the possibility of acting is also linked to satisfying the desires of individuals to do well and feel useful to develop a personal work that will help them develop their identification process and become more intelligent. In this case, work as a fundamental pillar of self-accomplishment [77] will play a central role in the lives of individuals.

Accordingly, the main issue resides in the development of another rationale. Human work would not be something that is used and consumed. In fact, it would be the only “recourse” that can be developed and expanded [78], if we consider the possibilities of learning by accumulating professional and life experiences. Thus, the key issue would be broaching the subject of how sustainable the process is to individuals. The development of such an approach can assess sustainable work according to the social dimension, when work is analyzed from a long-term perspective regarding one’s (professional) development, quality (of life), ageing, and physical and mental health.

With a sustainable view, we can envision the concepts and modalities of action in ergonomics that significantly contribute if they are incorporated to projects and management in a wide range of economic sectors. Thus, to transform the more traditional actions of engineering and administration, human work activity would be considered a fundamental pillar of any project instead of the adjustment that is variable to be addressed when almost everything else has been defined, and the only lacking aspect is to fit suitable workers into the process [79 –82].

6 Conclusion

This exploratory study found that the social dimension aspects of sustainability are present as from the earliest sustainability documents. In particular, the subject of work is frequently mentioned despite the evolution of its approaches. Accordingly, broaching sustainability-related issues presupposes, at least according to the studied documents, the presence of work-related issues.

According to the sustainable development documents and corporate sustainability guidelines, work is connected to both concepts. From a sustainable perspective, work must also be supported by characteristics that satisfy the concepts of sustainability.

The proposed analysis in this study is grounded in relevant sustainability documents. Consequently, the result is strongly connected to a discourse on intentions and guidelines. As a consequence of this study, examining the case studies that verify the connections of discourse with practice through field research is considered relevant.

Meanwhile, even if we only maintain the discourse in the analyzed documents and initiatives, there remains an evident requirement for a more in-depth understanding of the role of the work and its importance because it is a fundamental element at societal, organizational and undoubtedly individual levels.

Appendix A

Corporate sustainability and guidelines that address word-related issues according to ISO26000 [91]: UNCTAD - International Standards of Accounting and Reporting; UNEP Life Cycle Initiative; United Nations Global Compact; UNIDO - Responsible Entrepreneurs Achievement Programme; AccountAbility - AA1000 Series; Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI); CSR360 Global Partner Network; EFQM Framework for CSR and Excellence Model; Ethical Trading Initiative; International Business Leadership - A Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment; Danish Institute for Human Rights - Human Rights Compliance Assessment; Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) - Sustainability Reporting Guidelines; Forética SGE 21 Ethical and CSR Management System; European Business Ethics Network (EBEN); Fair Labour Association (FLA); International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL); Joint Article Management Promotion Consortium (JAMP); International Framework Agreement; Project Sigma - Sigma guidelines; Responsabilidad Social Empresarial Caja de Herramientas para America Latina; SA8000 - Social Accountability International (SAI); Caux Round Table Principles for Business; CSR Europe Toolbox; Ethos Institute - Ethos indicators of CSR; The Global Sullivan Principles of Social Responsibility; International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Appendix B

Some passages of the corporate sustainability historical documents are cited below to illustrate how the subject of our work is mentioned.

Our Common Future

Chapter 2 - Towards Sustainable Development

“43. The principal development challenge is to meet the needs and aspirations of an expanding developing world population. The most basic of all needs is for a livelihood: That is, employment. […] The pace and pattern of economic development have to generate sustainable work opportunities on this scale and at a level of productivity that would enable poor households to meet minimum consumption standards”.

Chapter 5 - Food Security: Sustaining the Potential

“79. Blends of traditional and modern technologies offer possibilities for improving nutrition and increasing rural employment on a sustainable basis”.

Chapter 7 - Energy: Choices for Environment- and Development

“84. Most renewable energy systems operate best at small to medium scales, ideally suited for rural and suburban applications. They are also generally labour-intensive, which should be an added benefit where there if surplus labour. They are less susceptible than fossil fuels to wild price fluctuations and foreign exchange costs”.

Chapter 8 - Industry: Producing More with Less

“27. Growing populations and high proportions of young people in the Third World are leading to large increases in the labour force. Agriculture cannot absorb them. Industry must provide these expanding societies not only with employment but with products and services. […] 61. […] Towards this end, all industrial enterprises, trade associations, and labour unions should establish company-wide or industry-wide policies concerning resource and environmental management, including compliance with the laws and requirements of the country in which they operate.“

Agenda 21 - United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

Chapter 29 Strengthening the Role of Workers & their Trade Unions

29.2. The overall objective is poverty alleviation and full and sustainable employment, which contribute to safe, clean and healthy environments - the working environment, the community and the physical environment. […] 29.3. To that end the following objectives are proposed for accomplishment by the year 2000: (a) To promote ratification of relevant conventions of ILO and the enactment of legislation in support of those conventions; (b) To establish bipartite and tripartite mechanisms on safety, health and sustainable development; […] (d) To reduce occupa- tional accidents, injuries and diseases according to recognized statistical reporting procedures; (e) To increase the provision of workers’ education, training and retraining, particularly in the area of occupational health and safety and environment. 29.4. For workers and their trade unions to play a full and informed role in support of sustainable development, Governments and employers should promote the rights of individual workers to freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize as laid down in ILO conventions. […] 29.6. Trade unions, employers and Governments should cooperate to ensure that the concept of sustainable development is equitably implemented.

World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg

Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development

“28. We also agree to provide assistance to increase income-generating employment opportunities, taking into account the Declaration on Fundamen- tal Principles and Rights at Work of the Interna- tional Labour Organization.“

Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development

“10. Strengthen the contribution of industrial development to poverty eradication and sustainable natural resource management. This would include actions at all levels to: […] (b) Provide assistance to increase income-generating employment opportunities, taking into account the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of the International Labour Organization; […] 12. Take immediate and effective measures to eliminate the worst forms of child labour as def-ined in International Labour Organization Convention No. 182, and elaborate and implement strategies for the elimination of child labour that is contrary to accepted international standards. […] This would include actions at all levels to: […] (m) Strengthen and promote programs of the International Labour Organization and World He- alth Organization to reduce occupational deaths, injuries and illnesses…”

2005 World Summit Outcome

“47. We strongly support fair globalization and resolve to make the goals of full and productive employment and decent work for all, […] including poverty reduction strategies, as part of our efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. These measures should also encompass the elimina-tion of the worst forms of child labour, as defined in International Labour Organization Con- vention No. 182, and forced labour. We also res- olve to ensure full respect for the fundamental principles and rights at work.”

Appendix C

Some passages of sustainable development documents are cited below to illustrate the social aspects mentioned in those texts (highlighted by the authors).

Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

“1. Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth…. Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights the right to life itself. […] 5. Of all things in the world, people are the most precious."

Our common future

Chairman’s Foreword

“…to recommend ways concern for the environment may be translated into greater co-operation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of economical and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually supportive objectives that take account of the interrelationships between people, resources, environment, and development.”

Chapter 2 - Towards Sustainable Development

“76. Sustainability requires the enforcement of wider responsibilities for the impacts of decisions. […] Some necessary changes in the legal framework start from the proposition that an environment adequate for health and well-being is essential for all human beings including future generations.“

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

“Reaffirming the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, […] Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home, […] Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. […]Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. […]Principle 8: To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate un-sustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.”

United Nations Millennium Declaration

“6. We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international relations in the twenty-first century. These include: […] Freedom. Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice. […] Equality. No individual and no nation must be denied the opportunity to benefit from development. […] Solidarity. Global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic principles of equity and social justice. […] Tolerance. Human beings must respect one other, in all their diversity of belief, culture and language.”

World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg

Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development

“2. We commit ourselves to building a humane, equitable and caring global society, cognizant of the need for human dignity for all. […] 5. Accordingly, we assume a collective responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development - economic develop- ment, social development and environmental protection - at the local, national, regional and global levels. […] 8. Thirty years ago, in Stockholm [on the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment], we agreed on the urgent need to respond to the problem of environmental deterioration. Ten years ago, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, we agreed that the protection of the environment and social and economic development are fundamental to sus- tainable development, based on the Rio Princi- ples. […] 17. Recognizing the importance of building human solidarity, we urge the promotion of dialogue and cooperation among the world’s civilizations and peoples, irrespective of race, disabilities, religion, language, culture or tradition. […] 35. We commit ourselves to act together, united by a common determination to save our planet, promote human development and achieve universal prosperity and peace.”

Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development

“2. The present plan of implementation will further build on the achievements made since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and expedite the realization of the remaining goals. To this end, we commit ourselves to undertaking concrete actions and measures at all levels and to enhancing international cooperation, taking into account the Rio principles […] These efforts will also promote the integration of the three components of sustainable development - economic development, social development and environmental protection - as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars.”

2005 World Summit Outcome

“4. We reaffirm that our common fundamental values, including freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for all human rights, respect for nature and shared responsibility, are essential to international relations. […] 6. We reaffirm the vital importance of an effective multilateral system, in accordance with international law, in order to better address the multifaceted and interconnected challenges and threats confronting our world and to achieve progress in the areas of peace and security, development and human rights […] 7. We believe that today, more than ever before, we live in a global and interdependent world. No State can stand wholly alone. We acknowledge that collective security depends on effective cooperation, in accordance with international law, against transnational threat. […] 9. We acknowledge that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being. We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. 10. We reaffirm that development is a central goal by itself and that sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental aspects con- stitutes a key element of the overarching framework of United Nations activities. […] 13. We reaffirm the universality, indivisi- bility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. […] 48.We reaffirm our commit- ment to achieve the goal of sustainable develop- ment, including through the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Imple- mentation. To this end, we commit ourselves to undertaking concrete actions and measures at all levels and to enhancing international cooperation, taking into account the Rio principles. These efforts will also promote the integration of the three components of sustainable development — economic development, social development and environmental protection — as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars. […] 49. We will promote sustainable consumption and production patterns […] 119. We recommit ourselves to actively protecting and promoting all human rights, the rule of law and democracy and recognize that they are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and that they belong to the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations […].”

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Fundação de Amparo á Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for its financial and administrative support for this research project (2011/13909-1) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes) for its financial support.

References

Dyllick

, Hockerts

. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 2002;11:130–141. 10.1002/bse.323.

Steurer

, Langer

, Konrad

, Martinuzzi

. Corporations, Stakeholders and Sustainable Development I: A Theoretical Exploration of Business–Society Relations. J Bus Ethics 2005;61:263–281. 10.1007/s10551-005-7054-0.

Savitz

, Weber

. The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success - and How You Can Too. San Francisco: Jossey-bass; 2006.

Elkington

. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. Calif Manage Rev 1994;36:90–100.

Elkington

. Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: New Society Publishers; 1997.

Docherty

, Kira

, Shami

(Rami) . Creating sustainable work systems - developing social sustainability. 2a ed. London: Routledge; 2009.

Jose

, Lee

S-M

. Environmental Reporting of Global Corporations: A Content Analysis based on Website Disclosures. J Bus Ethics 2006;72:307–321. 10.1007/s10551-006-9172-8.

Kolk

. Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Bus Strateg Environ 2003;12:279–91.

Morhardt

, Baird

, Freeman

. Environmental and sustainability reports and other criteria 2002;233:215–33.

10.

Roca

, Searcy

. An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. J Clean Prod 2012;20:103–118. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.002.

11.

Guthrie

, Abeysekera

. Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: What is new? J Hum Resour Costing Account 2006;10:114–12610.1108/14013380610703120.

12.

Isaksson

, Steimle

. What does GRI-Reporting tell us about Corporate Sustainability?. Definitions for sustainable development and sustainability n.d..

13.

Kolk

. A decade of sustainability reporting: Developments and significance. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 2004;3:51. 10.1504/IJESD.2004.004688.

14.

Toppinen

, Li

, Tuppura

, Xiong

. Corporate Responsibility and Strategic Groups in the Forest-based Industry: Exploratory Analysis based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Framework. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 2012;19:191–205. 10.1002/csr.256.

15.

Merlin

, Pereira

VLDV

, Pacheco

. Sustainable development induction in organizations: A convergence analysis of ISO standards management tools’ parameters. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 2012;41(Suppl 1):2736–2743. 10.3233/WOR-2012-0518-2736.

16.

Kleine

, von Hauff

. Sustainability-Driven Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of the Integrative Sustainability Triangle. J Bus Ethics 2009;85:517–533. 10.1007/s10551-009-0212-z.

17.

Bolis

, Brunoro

, Sznelwar

. Work in corporate sustainability policies: The contribution of ergonomics. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 2014; (in press).

18.

WCED. Report of theWorld Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.

19.

Bansal

. Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strateg Manag J 2005;26:197–218. 10.1002/smj.441.

20.

Montiel

. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability: Separate Pasts, Common Futures. Organ Environ 2008;21:245–269. 10.1177/1086026608321329.

21.

Van Marrewijk

. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 2003;44:95–105.

22.

Rondinelli

, Berry

. Environmental citizenship in multinational corporations: Social responsibility and sustainable development. Eur Manag J 2000;18:70–84.

23.

Lozano

. Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcame it. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 2012. (in press)10.1002/csr.

24.

Cannon

. Corporate Responsibility. A Textbook on Business Ethics, Governance, Environment: Roles and Responsibilities. London: Pitman Publishing; 1994.

25.

Elkington

. Cannibals with Forks. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Limited; 2002.

26.

Elkington

. The Triple Bottom Line. Does It All Add Up? London: Earthscan Publications; 2005.

27.

Hart

. Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World. Harv Bus Rev 1997;65–76.

28.

Figge

, Hahn

. Sustainable Value Added— measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol Econ 2004;48:173–187. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.005.

29.

Gladwin

, Kennelly

, Krause

T-S

. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev 1995;20:874–907.

30.

Salzmann

, Ionescu-somers

, Steger

. The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability: Literature Review and Research Options. Eur Manag J 2005;23:27–36. 10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007.

31.

Baumgartner

, Ebner

. Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain Dev 2010;18:76–89. 10.1002/sd.

32.

Laufer

. Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. J Bus Ethics 2003;3:253–261.

33.

Ramus

, Montiel

. When Are Corporate Environmental Policies a Form of Greenwashing? Bus Soc 2005;44:377–414. 10.1177/0007650305278120.

34.

Eccles

, Ioannou

, Serafeim

. The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance (working paper) 2011):1–56. 10.2139/ssrn.1964011.

35.

Epstein

, Roy

M-J

. Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers. Long Range Plann 2001;34:585–604. 10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00084-X.

36.

Hart

, Milstein

. Criando valor sustentável. RAE Exec 2004;3:65–79.

37.

Robèrt

K-H

. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other? J Clean Prod 2000;8:243–254. 10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00011-1.

38.

Lozano

. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: An analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J Clean Prod 2012;25:14–26. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.060.

39.

Sharma

, Henriques

. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J 2005;26:159–180.

40.

Shrivastava

. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Acad Manag Rev 1995;20:936–60.

41.

Davis

, Searcy

. A review of Canadian corporate sustainable development reports. J Glob Responsib 2010;1:316–29. 10.1108/20412561011079425.

42.

Gallego

. Environmental Indicators as a Measure of Sustainable Development in Spain 2006;97:78–97.

43.

Hackston

, Milne

. Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting, Audit Account … 1996;9:77–108.

44.

Milne

, Adler

. Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Audit Account J 1999;12:237–256. 10.1108/09513579910270138.

45.

Gray

, Kouhy

, Lavers

. Methodological themes Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies 1995;8:78–101.

46.

Gray

. Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour?: Wrong question? Right time? Account Bus Res 2006;36:65–88. 10.1080/00014788.2006.9730048.

47.

Deegan

. Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures –a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Audit Account J 2002;15:282–311. 10.1108/09513570210435852.

48.

Islam

, Deegan

. Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social responsibility information: Evidence from Bangladesh. Accounting, Audit Account J 2008;21:850–874. 10.1108/09513570810893272.

49.

Dahlsrud

. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 2008;15:1–13. 10.1002/csr.132.

50.

Chen

, Bouvain

. Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. J Bus Ethics 2008;87:299–317. 10.1007/s10551-008-9794-0.

51.

Adams

C A

, Frost

.Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Account Forum 2008;32:288–302. 10.1016/j.accfor.2008.05.002.

52.

Skouloudis

, Evangelinos

, Kourmousis

. Assessing non-financial reports according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: Evidence from Greece. J Clean Prod 2010;18:426–438. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.015.

53.

Skouloudis

, Evangelinos

, Kourmousis

. Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environ Manage 2009;44:298–311. 10.1007/s00267-009-9305-9.

54.

Skouloudis

, Evangelinos

. Sustainability Reporting in Greece: Are We There Yet? Environ Qual Manag 2009;19:43–60. 10.1002/tqem.

55.

Epstein

, Roy

M-J

. Making the Business Case for Sustainability. J Corp Citizsh 2003:79–96. 10.1007/978-3-642-55709-5.

56.

Krippendorif

. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2004.

57.

UNCHE. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Stockholm: United Nations Conference on the Human Environment; 1972.

58.

WECD. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Estocolmo: 1987.

59.

Neuendorf

. Content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.

60.

Berelson

. Content analysis in communication research. Illinois: Free Press; 1952.

61.

Zink

, Fischer

. Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics 2013;56:348–356. 10.1080/00140139.2012.751456.

62.

Haslam

, Waterson

. Ergonomics and Sustainability. Ergonomics 2013;56:343–347. 10.1080/00140139.2013.786555.

63.

Thatcher

. Green ergonomics: Definition and scope Green ergonomics: Definition and scope 2013:37–41. 10.1080/00140139.2012.718371.

64.

Thatcher

. Ergonomics for sustainable development and hedonomics: Incompatible or mutually compatible ? Proc Int Ergon Assoc 2009.

65.

Ghai

. Decent work: Concept and indicators. Int Labour Rev 2003;142:113–145. 10.1111/j.1564-913X.2003.tb00256.x.

66.

Lund

. Strategies for Sustainable Business and the Handling of Workers’ Interests: Integrated Management Systems and Worker Participation. Econ Ind Democr 2004;25:41–74. 10.1177/0143831X04040100.

67.

Littig

, Grießler

. Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int J Sustain Dev 2005;8:65–79.

68.

Westgaard

, Winkel

. Occupational musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of rationalization and opportunities to create sustainable production systems - A systematic review. Appl Ergon 2011;42:261–296. 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.07.002.

69.

Maeno

. LER e transtornos psíquicos relacionados ao trabalho: Faces de uma mesma moeda. In: Sznelwar

, editor. Saúde dos bancários 1o edição, São Paulo: Publisher Brasil & Editora Gráfica Atitude; 2011, pp. 207–230.

70.

Béguin

, Duarte

, Lima

, Pueyo

. Activity at work, innovation and sustainable development. Work A J Prev … 2012;41:89–94. 10.3233/WOR-2012-0140.

71.

Sznelwar

. O trabalho sob um olhar sustentável –desafios para os serviços de saúde pública: Estudo de caso do Programa Saúde da Família em São Paulo, Brasil. Laboreal 2009;V38–52.

72.

Thatcher

. Early variability in the conceptualisation of “sustainable development and human factors”. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 2012;41(Suppl 1):3892–3899. 10.3233/WOR-2012-0058-3892.

73.

Fischer

, Zink

. Defining elements of sustainable work systems-a system-oriented approach. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 2012;41(Suppl 1):3900–3905. 10.3233/WOR-2012-0059-3900.

74.

Falzon

. Ergonomie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 2004.

75.

Montmollin

. A ergonomia. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget; 1990.

76.

Falzon

. Ergonomie, conception et développement. Actes du 40ème Congrès la SELF, Saint Denis de La Réunion: Éditions de l’ANACT. 2005; pp. 30–39.

77.

Dejours

. A metodologia em psicodinâmica do trabalho. In: Lancman

, Sznelwar

, editors. Christophe Dejours da Psicopatol. á Psicodin. do Trab Brasília: Paralelo 15; 2004; pp. 105–126.

78.

Hubault

. Le travail dans la gestion: Tensions et contradictions. In: Beaujolin-Bellet

, Louart

, Parlier

, editors. Le Trav. un défi pour la GRHLyon: ANACT; 2008; pp. 22–41.

79.

Guérin

, Laville

, Daniellou

, Duraffourg

, Kerguelen

. Understanding and transforming work The pratice of ergonomics and transforming. Lyon: ANACT; 2006.

80.

Noulin

. Ergonomie. Paris: Techniplus; 1992.

81.

Hubault

. Choisir un modèle du risque qui permet d’y répondre, durablement. In: Douillet

, Schweitzer

J-M

, editors. Les Cond. d ’ une prévention durable des TMS, ANACT; 2005.

82.

Terssac

, Maggi

. Le travail et l’approche ergonomique. L’ergonomie en quête ses principes.. Débats Épistémologiques, Toulouse: Editions Octares 1996;77–102.

83.

UNCED. 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I) / 31 ILM 874. Rio de Janeiro: United Nation Declaration on Environment and Development; 1992.

84.

UN (United Nations). 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Geneva: United Nations 2000.

85.

UN (United Nations). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg: United Nations; 2002.

86.

UN (United Nations). 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome. Geneva: United Nations; 2005.

87.

ILO. Constitution of the International Labour Organisation. Geneva: 2010.

88.

UN (United Nations). Universal declaration of human rights - General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Geneva: 1948. 10.4135/9781412952446.n605.

89.

ILO. The International Labour Organization’s fundamental conventions. Geneva: International Labor Organization; 2002.

90.

ILO. Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: 1998.

91.

ISO. Guidance on Social Responsibility: Draft. International Standard ISO/DIS26000. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2010.