Ergonomics as a tool to improve the sustainability of the workforce

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The sustainability of the workforce is threatened due to working conditions. One of the reasons for this is an imbalance between the working conditions and the capacity of the workers.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of the paper, based on a literature review, is to explore the relationship between two main concepts, beginning with sustainability, and finished with ergonomics. Based on that relationship, determine if ergonomics could be helpful to improve the sustainability of the workforce.

METHODS:

Literature review was based on two keywords: sustainability and ergonomics. The focus was on create a theoretical path between these two concepts. The literature review draws on 100 journal articles, books, conference proceedings, thesis and reports.

RESULTS:

The results of the literature review highlights that an ergonomics approach is helpful and appropriate to determine the mismatch between people capacity and system demand. In that sense, the literature review reveals that both disciplines, ergonomics and sustainability, share the same principles and that the mix of both has significant potential. However, the literature also shows a lack of empirical information that proves that potential.

CONCLUSION:

The review first posits that sustainability principles could be helpful to improve the working conditions, and second, that an ergonomics approach provides information related with working conditions, organizations’ problems and the needs of workers that would be helpful to create a sustainability workforce.

Keywords

Sustainability workforce sustainability occupational health problems working conditions and ergonomics

1 Sustainability, occupational health problems and working conditions

Dyllick et al. [1] define sustainability, from a business perspective, 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). Independently of the meaning of sustainability, there are many different interpretations [2 –4], thus, two important issues must be distinguished. First, sustainability concept is growing rapidly in the strategies of different companies [5 –8]. Second more related to the purpose of this paper is that organisations are trying to achieve the three main aspects of the sustainability principles at the same time, the economic, social, and environmental issues, as against the past when only the economic dimension was the main focus [3 , 9].

Sustainability, therefore, should be assessed on the basis of three dimensions: economic, social, and ecological sustainability [10], as organisations that are focused on economic sustainability only will not reach their sustainability aims in the long term [11]. Accordingly, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in a 2010 report called “The Sustainable Enterprise Programme: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK” explained that for organisations to advance and preserve sustainability outcomes must maintain a respect for workers and environmental sustainability [12]. To support this idea, Labuschagne et al. [13] explain that organisations have countless reasons to endorse the principles of sustainability from environmental, economic and social perspectives. Table 1, below, illustrates some of the reason mentioned by different authors.

Table 1
Reasons for organisations to endorse the principles of sustainability

Economic reasons Environmental reasons Social reasons

Internal business process drivers, like increased productivity and reduction in costs due to increased efficiencies [5, 14]; Strengthened brand positioning [14], New markets opportunities [15, 16], Financial drivers [15, 16]; External and internal reputation benefits, like increased prices due to quality and reputation [14 , 17]; Opportunity to attract ethical investors [17]. Corporate Sustainability (CS) indicators, measures, standards and models [15 , 19]; Government regulations and industry codes of conduct [5 , 20]. Environmental concerns [5] Enhancing wildlife habitat, protecting water-sheds 0.000 [21]. Societal and moral obligations, like increased recreational benefits from cleaning up waterways and enjoyment of greater species diversity [5 , 15]; Improve the relationships with different stakeholders [14, 16]; Lower labour costs and lower OH and safety costs [14 , 22]; Increased ability to attract, recruit, motivate, and retain employees [14 , 23].

Economic reasons	Environmental reasons	Social reasons
Internal business process drivers, like increased productivity and reduction in costs due to increased efficiencies [5, 14]; Strengthened brand positioning [14], New markets opportunities [15, 16], Financial drivers [15, 16]; External and internal reputation benefits, like increased prices due to quality and reputation [14 , 17]; Opportunity to attract ethical investors [17]. Corporate Sustainability (CS) indicators, measures, standards and models [15 , 19]; Government regulations and industry codes of conduct [5 , 20].	Environmental concerns [5] Enhancing wildlife habitat, protecting water-sheds 0.000 [21].	Societal and moral obligations, like increased recreational benefits from cleaning up waterways and enjoyment of greater species diversity [5 , 15]; Improve the relationships with different stakeholders [14, 16]; Lower labour costs and lower OH and safety costs [14 , 22]; Increased ability to attract, recruit, motivate, and retain employees [14 , 23].

Therefore, organisations are under increasing pressure from multiple directions to incorporate the principles of sustainability into policies and activities [7, 13]. However, the inclusion of the social aspect, defined as the impact of products or operations on human rights, labour, health, safety, regional development and other community concerns [24], has been marginal in both the sustainability debate and in practice when compared to the focus on the other two dimensions of sustainable development – economic and environmental performance – especially from a business perspective [23, 25]. That social aspects are rarely considered is probably the reason the social dimension is commonly recognised as the ‘weakest’ pillar of sustainable development and the reason it has been considered a second actor, behind economic and environmental issues [25 –27].

Understanding why the social dimension is the weakest pillar requires that the remaining two pillars be first considered. Economic aspects are the fundamental element which supports our society [4, 12] and which is the basis of organisational decisions [20], making competition with this aspect impossible. Next, it is undeniable that the concept of sustainability is strongly linked with the environmental aspect of sustainability [28]. This concentration on environmental sustainability has not allowed what is happening with other important “resources” such as people, especially in the work environment, to be seen in a similar light [7]. As a simple way of illustrating the previous point, since 2008 Wal-Mart has focused on reducing its energy consumption, but maintains pay rates below its competitors [28] and today the reporting about “human sustainability”, related to employee physical and mental health and wellness, is less common than are ecological and economic reports [28]. In that sense, many organisations have made enormous efforts to reduce the ecological impact of their operation, but not many have attempted to reduce the impact of their operation on their own workers [23].

A positive aspect is that today the social side of sustainability, especially as it relates to the sustainability of the worker, is getting more attention from both the academic level and among practitioners and is gaining more significance in organisations’ sustainability model [29].

The elements of social sustainability are those that have an influence on and could ensure a future relationship with the internal and external stakeholders [30]. As a result, different authors have considered it important to develop a way to evaluate the present status of all the matters that this element considers [13, 31]. Many frameworks and standards have been developed to evaluate the actual level of social elements [13 , 31–33]. Most of them are compounds of similar categories and are separated into internal and external social issues [33]. The external issues are related to the impacts of the operational initiative on three different levels of society: the local community, the regional and the national level [30, 34]. On the other hand, internal issues focus on the social responsibility of the company towards its workforce and includes all aspects of employment, like employment stability1, employment practices2, health & safety3 and capacity development4 [19 , 35].

Today, organisations recognise that sustainability, from the point of view of working conditions, is a way to influence those objectives related to the sustainability of the workforce, such as attracting and retaining talent, maintaining employee health and safety, investing in the skills of the workforce, supporting employees’ work-life-balance, and managing aging workforces [23, 29]. Specifically in matters related to health and safety, the main topics in this paper, some companies go beyond basic legal requirements, as it has already been recognised that addressing occupational health (OH) issues is crucial for successful business. Accordingly, organisations could reduce the costs related to this issue, increase the productivity of the workforce and add value to reputation and through consumer loyalty and share value [19 , 28].

1.1 The development of occupational health problems in the industry and their economic impact

Despite the increased attention that organisations today have given to problems related to OH, the statistics show us that OH problems are still present [36]. Rantanen [37], Kira [38] and Docherty [39], mentioned that despite changes related to the workplace that are meant to build better organisations that are more competitive and at the same time generate a better working place, more people are getting sick because of their work [8 , 39–41]. Therefore, despite the huge advances in technology and changes in the labour market, never in history have there been so many reported OH problems as exist in the world currently, and much of this is because of the emerging problems of new jobs and new work methods [42]. This information is consistent with OECD statistics [43], and that organisation states that the figures on work-related health problems may be an underestimation since they estimate that only one in four incidents is reported.

LaDou [44] goes further and states that there is general agreement that if countries continue their current rate of industrial growth, the number of occupational injuries and disease cases will double by the year 2025. This data could be seen as an overstatement, but the “First European Survey on Working Conditions 1990” [45] found that 43% of employees interviewed reported working in painful or tiring positions and 31% reported that they had to handle heavy loads. The “Third European Survey on Working Conditions 2000” (52) found that 47% of employees interviewed reported working in painful or tiring positions and 3% reported that that they had to handle heavy loads. These surveys find that in 10 years, the percentage of workers labouring in painful or tiring positions increased 4% and the percentage of workers handling heavy loads increased 6%. These statistics suggest working conditions are not improving and, in some cases, are deteriorating [38, 46]. At the same time, new types of problems are emerging in changing workplaces, such as burnout and stress, which have emerged in comfortable offices and in jobs with extensive degrees of freedom and variety [38]. Additionally, the third European Survey on working conditions (from 1999 and 2007, showed that more than 41% of the workers reported exposure to factors that affected their physical health. For example, 35% reported working at a very high speed, 50% worked to tight deadlines, more than 34% had no influence on task order, 45% reported having monotonous tasks [46]. The reported OH problems were correspondingly high, with 60% of the respondents reporting musculoskeletal problems, 20% fatigue and 28% stress [46].

The implications of OH problems represent an enormous financial burden for public and private social protection systems [47]. For example, health problems in business are a big issue, since musculoskeletal or mental disorders are the main reason for sick leave, affecting the performance of different organisations, threatening industrial competitiveness due to costs related to labour turnover, absenteeism, reduced productivity and the quality of life of the workers [40, 48]. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW) reports that the economic impact related to working days lost as a result of OH problems is US$550 million every year [22]. The impact that OH problems have on the gross national product (GDP) in countries of the European Community ranges between 0.4% to 4.0% [49]. In countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) the impact of OH problems is on average 4% [43], with the same figure mentioned by the International Labour Organization [12, 50]. Independently of the impact over GDP that OH problems have, the main issue is that the expenditure on disability and sickness programmes has been increasing as a percentage of GDP between 1999–2009 among the OECD countries [43, 51].

However, beyond the economic problem represented by OH, it is often difficult to determine which health problems can be attributed to work, since different reasons are interwoven in a complex interaction that can develop over time [52]. Smith et al. [53] explained that the factor categories that affect the health of the people in the workplace are: 1) technology factors; 2) environmental factors; 3) organisational factors; 4) task factors; and 5) individual factors [53]. Simplifying this further, Marras [48] and Punnett et al. [54] state that health problems related to work are mainly due to a) individual and b) organisational factors, since technology, aspects of the physical environment, task and workplace psychosocial factors are part of organisational factors.

The individual factors that have been identified in different economic sectors related to the health of the employees in the work environment include: a) ageing [48, 55]; gender [55 –58]; lifestyle factors such as being overweight, taking little physical exercise, smoking habits [57, 59]; health conditions [60]; socioeconomic status [54]; previous history [48, 54]; ethnic group/nationality [61]; psychological factors [61] and co-morbidity [54].

For organisational factors, Docherty, et al. [38] and Docherty et al. [8] explain that one of the reasons for the high OH figures is that the traditional goods production approach is still present and it influences the high physical and psychological load. In that sense, increased globalisation and its impact on the pressure to be more competitive is affecting the health of workers [38 , 62–64]. Researchers have examined the role of strategies like “downsizing”, “rationalisation”, “lean production” and “business process re-engineering”, which look for improvements in business, in work-related health problems because implementation of these strategies has been linked to OH problems [40, 65]. The organisational factors that have been identified in different economic sectors related to the health of employees in the work environment include, strict deadlines, high-speed pace and the growing volume of information or work to manage [22 , 67]. Other factors include: low task autonomy and job design [38], [68], monotonous tasks/no task rotation/repetitive tasks [38 , 69–71], high pressure and mental workload [68 , 72], long working hours [37 , 69]; working/environmental conditions [61 , 71], working technique/training [61, 69]; payment system [58, 73] and exposure during working life [61 , 74].

Once some of the reasons why workers become ill are exposed, it is clear that part of the responsibility of the health of the workers is a consequence of system design: therefore, it is a consequence of a chain of events which starts with corporate strategic decisions [62, 75], so business strategies are strongly linked with OH problems [40 , 76]. Thus, the organisations’ strategies are focused on productivity and quality performance, rather than on the health of their own workers, which certainly makes sense from the point of view of business. However this weakest link between those elements – productivity/quality and the health of the workers – means that the strategies and solutions to solve the health and safety issue are partial [37, 40] and are not often related to an organisation’s business purposes [65]. Consequently, present measures to reduce risk factors affecting workers are not enough to ensure workforce sustainability, with a focus on OH issues, in the long term [40, 77].

Several studies mention that this lack of attention in system design, whether voluntary or involuntary, causes an imbalance between the capacity of workers and system demand [8 , 78]. This imbalance is the reason why organisations are “consuming the human resource” [8 , 78], as this loss of resources to work occurs when workers that are affected by a disease or illness have less capacity to do his/her job [38]. That loss is the main reason today most systems are not sustainable, at individual, organisational and societal levels [38].

This vision is extremely relevant, because occupational health and safety play an essential role in improving the company’s performance, since it reduces costs of occupational accidents, incidents and diseases, enhances worker motivation, and contributes to workforce sustainability. In that sense, the emphasis must be focused on bridging the gap between the wellbeing of both workers and wellbeing by designing systems that attend to the requirements of both [79]. The idea of promoting the development or, at least, not the consumption of workers’ personal resources, is helpful not only for the workers themselves, but also for the organisations that expect to achieve in an integral way the purpose of the modern view of sustainability [80].

2 Sustainability, occupational health problems and ergonomics

Kira [41] explained that: “Work manifests the fundamental human need for expression through action and, consequently, for using one’s mental and/or physical resources. Thus, a working individual invests her mental and/or physical resources and those resources are transformed in the work process to work results” (p. 64). As a result of the use of personal resources as expressed in Kira’s definition of work, people’s resources could “grow” or people could experience the “loss” of resources to work [41]. The “growth” concept means that workers are prepared for an adaptation process during their working life. Conversely, the “loss” of their resources means that they are losing their capacity to work and to evolve in an adaptation process during their working life. This concept of growth or loss of capacities or resources is considered to take place at psychological, physical and emotional levels [8 , 81].

Kira et al. [81] mention that it is impossible to find one established definition for the concept sustainable work. One conclusion is that the concept scope of sustainable work, could range from being alive at the end of the day [82] to, for example, having a good work-life balance [38]. However, to ensure the sustainability of a working system it is necessary to not diminish the capacity of its components, which in this case are the workers and their physical, cognitive, social, and emotional capacities [38 , 83]. This is consistent with the principles of sustainability made by the United Nations (UN) in Agenda 21: “A sustainable system is one that can continue to operate indefinitely without degrading the biophysical basis of its own existence”.

The fundamental idea that the source of OH problems and therefore the sustainability of the workforce is a problem of imbalance between capacity and demand is based on elementary principles of sustainability. These principles established that the maximum sustainable demand is obtained by ensuring that the rate of demand equals the rate of capacity that this resource has [84]. Further, if the system requires bigger demands than the capacity of the system can produce then the quality and/or quantity of system outputs will be adversely affected, and the resource could be damaged temporarily or permanently [84]. Linking the concept of system balance with the objectives of this research, Maslach et al. and Leiter [85] emphasized that stress in workers is caused by a variety of imbalances between work demands and available resources that, if they persist, may lead to burnout characterized by physical and emotional exhaustion and reserved indifference [85]. In this context, the goal for the human-at-work system is the optimisation of the employee-work environment interface to maximise work productivity, quality and safety. Effective approaches for creating a sustainable workforce need to focus on finding the “mismatches” between work demands and available resources, and from these results to act to reduce the intensity of the work and at the same time develop the personal capacities of the workers [86].

Therefore, sustainability, from the point of view of the workforce, means that the resources of the workers (physical, cognitive and emotional) will not be adversely affected by demands that are higher than their capacity to manage them throughout their working life. To ensure the sustainability of the worker, workforce and system as a whole, the concept of workforce sustainability is based on achieving a balance between people’s capacity and system demands, rather than the unsustainable consumption of workers’ personal resources [40, 64]. Thus, the sustainable work systems’ concept presents a vision for organisations in which human resources are regenerated and allowed to grow. The concept addresses four related fields and basic issues [38]:

The regeneration and development of human resources: The core concept of sustainable work systems is that the resources deployed are regenerated by the system. Human resources to be fostered include skills, knowledge, co-operation and trust, motivation, employability, constructive industrial relations, and broader institutional/societal prerequisites, such as training systems.

The promotion of the quality of working life and competitive performance: Sustainable work systems pay equal attention to improving working conditions and organisational performance and effectiveness. Again, their interdependencies require an integrated approach.

The nature of sustainable change processes for renewal and learning: Sustainable work systems should not produce static conditions. Many processes of reorganisation and reengineering are failing or stalled, sustainability therefore has to include the question of how organisational change can be structured and guided. Put differently, since challenges and organisational environments are increasingly volatile, sustainability means creating ‘liberating structures’ and building up internal capabilities to carry through reorganisations and continuous change successfully and to facilitate learning.

The provision of employment: Sustainable work systems provide a micro-economic context for increasing employment levels, as well as counteracting current tendencies of labour market segregation. Sustainable work systems could serve as paths of integration of unemployed people into the labour market by reversing processes of exclusion on the micro level.

Those ideas are coincident with Enhert [7], who has offered from a management perspective three ways to manage organisations when they engage the sustainability principle: a normative, an innovation-oriented and a rational understanding of sustainability. The normative method means, under a moral and ethical socially responsible point of view, improving the wellbeing and health of the workers in their workplaces. The innovation-oriented method means reducing the impact on the human resource and decreasing utilisation of human resources. The last way is the rational understanding of sustainability, interpreted as the right balance between “consumption” and “reproduction” of human resources by improving the regeneration of human resources but also by investing in the “origin” of human resources [29].

Therefore sustainable work has to be able to function in any environment and at the same time achieve economic and operational objectives, while also developing a worker’s resources engaged in the worker’s operations. In that sense, worker’s capacity should be grown through concepts of work-based learning, development, and well-being [87].

To achieve this concept necessarily encompasses three levels: the individual, the organisational and the societal, and requires a balance to be found between stakeholder’s needs and goals in these different levels simultaneously [38].

As was mentioned in the paragraphs above, the social view of organisations requires a close look at the principles of work systems to determine whether the joint optimisation of the social and technical systems is adequately performed. Therefore, a broad approach is needed to assist company management to create a healthy enterprise that is capable of adapting to the disruptions in the system because of external and internal factors. In that sense, ergonomics is an influential tool to support business strategies [65]. The definition of ergonomics proposed by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) states, “Ergonomics is concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance” [88]. Therefore, linking the ergonomics approach to organisational strategies could be a powerful approach, very useful for organisations that are working under the umbrella of sustainability principles [23, 83].

2.1 Sustainability and ergonomics: Shared principles

In the special issue of the journal Ergonomics called “Ergonomics and Sustainability” (Volume 56, Issue 3, 2013), Haslam and Waterson [89] mentioned that “C onceptions of sustainability have extended beyond concerns over the use and preservation of the planet’s natural and physical resources, to include the sustainability of organisations and the sustainable use of human resources. Again, ergonomics and these aspects of sustainable development might be expected to be natural bedfellows. Although ergonomics is of its very nature frequently concerned with achieving sustainable outcomes there has, until recently, been little direct connection made with the sustainability movement itself” (p.343).

However, beyond the incremental interest in sustainability for the people who work in the ergonomics field, Martin et al. [94], conclude that “Hitherto, the contribution of ergonomics to sustainability has been limited, despite the congruent goals of sustainability and ergonomics”.

2.2 The contributions of ergonomics to sustainability based on shared principles

The definition of ergonomics, mentioned above, could have many interpretations. Ones related with this paper will be taken into consideration, since both ergonomics and sustainability concepts share the same main principles, namely to preserve and improve the resources. Mainly human resources, but without losing sight of the economic and environment element in the case of ergonomics [65, 83] and social, economic and environmental resources in the case of sustainability principles [90].

These ideas are further illustrated in Fig. 1, which was modified by Zink [83] from the model of Dyllick et al. [1]. The model (Fig. 1), show the relationship between ergonomics and sustainability. Ergonomics principles are more related with the theme of work [23], historically and practically speaking, with the ‘economic-social’ side of the sustainability concept, specifically in the “socio-efficiency” topic [83, 90], since the strongest link between ergonomics and sustainability in the business world is in the area related with OH & safety and work system design [83].

Fig.1

Principles, tools and methods of business excellence and human factors in corporate sustainability – modified by Zink (91) from Dyllick et al. [1].

According to Zink [83], “The sustainability of human resources is based on enduring workability and employability which have been dominant elements in human factors ever since. Social sustainability is realized in concepts such as preventive occupational health and safety, human-centred design of work, empowerment, individual and collective learning, employee participation, or work-life-balance. All these concepts aim to preserve or build up human capital and they represent a conscious way to deal with human resources”(p.457).

Therefore the ergonomics approach could be an influential tool to support business strategies [65] and very useful for organisations that are working under the umbrella of sustainability principles [23, 83]. The social view of organisations requires a close look at the principles of work systems to determine whether the joint optimisation of the social and technical systems is adequately performed [91, 92]. Consequently, the ergonomics approach is needed to assist company management in creating a sustainable enterprise that is capable of adapting to the disruptions in the system because of external and internal factors, since the ergonomics approach determining the optimal balance between workers’ capacity and systems demand [80, 93].

Following on from these ideas, Genaidy et al. [94] explained that it is necessary to incorporate ergonomic approaches for find the root causes of organization problems that are impacting in people performance and the system’s sustainability [80]. Since if the organizations could ensure ideal working conditions for their workers, the organizations at the same time will ensure sustainable growth for themselves [94]. In that sense, organizations can accrue significant advantages from an ergonomics approach [80] since there exists a natural synergy between sustainability and ergonomics, with the aim of understanding and optimizing the outcomes of human system interactions [92]. Furthermore, Zink [7] added that ergonomics can provide supporting evidence on issues of the internal social dimension of corporate sustainability, identifying the factors that lead to an integrated vision of performance and health from a long-term perspective, which goes beyond legal issues and benefits not only management but also workers, and hence, society [27, 89].

According to Bolis et al. [23], the main contributions of the ergonomics in the context of the sustainability in work, is to boost the organization’s performance based on both having healthier working conditions leading to the promotion of well-being at work, and to look for organizational efficiencies. Moreover, if the ergonomics approach is applied to the whole supply chain this could have an enormous impact on improving living and working conditions in industrially developing countries [95].

However, in the discussion of sustainability, ergonomics can also contribute elements and shape transformations that go beyond the previous topics. However, in the discussion of sustainability, ergonomics can also contribute elements and shape transformations that go beyond the previous topics. Since it is believed to promotes professional development as well as workers’ health broadly and positively and well-being. The idea is the development of intelligence and creativity by performing work that has meaning and significance, understanding the profound importance of physical, cognitive and organizational state issues, and above all, the importance of work to the development of culture [96]. This point is strongly related with the objective of sustainable work.

Therefore, the ergonomics contribution to work sustainability could be summarised in two main points; the preservation and development of human and social capital, and the development of a broad systems approach including whole value creation chains.

2.3 How does the ergonomics approach work?

Ergonomics is a discipline that centred attentions on the understanding of interactions between people and systems, with the objectives of improve worker’s health, safety, comfort, satisfaction, commitment and wellbeing through the improvement of the working conditions. At the same time it has an impact on system performance since it can reduce losses of time, errors, improve reliability, increase productivity and quality, decrease lost work time, reduce sick leave, accidents, injuries, reduce injury costs and labour turnover and increase economy of production [80, 97]. Therefore the ergonomics approach is a good way to understand the problems related with the work environment and second, it is an excellent tool to improve the system performance [23], based on design and manage systems that seek harmony between systems demand and workers capacity and needs [98].

According to Tappin [99] “A systems approach involves considering all elements of the work system, recognising the inter-relationships between system elements, and understanding that these interactions and influences do not occur in isolation from each other”(p.24). In that sense, the ergonomics approach presented in the Fig. 2, could be helpful to showing the elements of a system that are interfering in the different problems related with the work environment, that actually the organization are facing, [99].

Fig.2

Ergonomics approach [99].

For example, Table 2 gives an example between the link of ergonomics and OH issue, since the table shows the root causes for OH problems, interconnected with the elements in the ergonomics approach (see also Fig. 2).

Table 2

Relationship between an ergonomics approach and potential contributory factors for OH problems

Categories included in the ergonomics	Examples of contributory factors for occupational health problems in industry
approach (Fig. 2)
1. People	Ageing; overweight, health conditions; socioeconomic status; previous health history; ethnic group/nationality; and psychological factors
2. Task	High-speed pace, increased work demands; monotonous tasks/no task rotation/repetitive tasks; work pressure and mental workload; working technique/training/skills development
3. Physical environment	Equipment/workspace mismatches; working/environmental conditions
4. Team and group factors	No influences on task order or no influence on work rhythm
5. Organisation and management design	“Downsizing”; “rationalisation”; “lean production” and “business process re-engineering”; payment system; recruitment and retention
6. Legal and regulatory design	Long working hours; statutory minima; sub-optimal industry practices
7. Societal and cultural pressures	Exposure during working life and socioeconomic status; cultural expectations; behavioural norms

Table 3

Keywords used in the literature search

Sustainability	Ergonomics	Occupational health
•sustainability	•ergonomics approach	•OH statistics worldwide
•sustainability strategies/management	•ergonomics and sustainability
•social sustainability
•internal social sustainability
•sustainability and working conditions
•Workforce sustainability
•sustainability and ergonomics

The link between ergonomics and sustainability is based on the systemic view that ergonomics aims to design working methods that do not impose excessive demands on workers, based on their knowledge of capabilities, limitations and needs of people. Taking into account, not only the tasks being performed, but also the effect of the physical environment, and agents such as heat, cold, geographic height, etc., can significantly increase the workload and hinder the fluidity of the production process [100].

Finally, the principles to build a sustainable workforce begin with the basic relations between “human capacities” and “system demands”. Therefore, if we could understand the effects of an actual productive model in any sector, over health of the workers using the ergonomics approach, we could probably achieve a sustainable production system, defined here as the joint consideration of competitive performance and working conditions and adopting a long-term perspective [39]. Consequently, the concepts of ergonomics and sustainability, although created in different contexts, share the same principles of understanding and overall aims to improve the relationship between resources and systems.

3 Conclusion

The concept of sustainability, especially workforce sustainability, is growing; however, the problems related with OH are still present, and organizations need to improve the strategies that are implemented to cope with these problems. Ergonomics and sustainability share many of the same aims, and an ergonomics approach, could contribute to improve the sustainability of the workforce.

4 Literature search and review methods

The initial search of the literature centred on the two keywords on which this paper is based: sustainability and ergonomics. From these words, other key words and combinations were discovered; these are shown in Table 3. The sources used to find the information included electronic databases and catalogue material in the Massey University library, the University of Concepcion library and the researcher’s own library of materials.

The keywords and their combinations presented in Table 3, were used to search the literature in electronic databases. The search included publications in English and Spanish from all dates.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Footnotes

Employment stability is related with impacts on work opportunities, within the company, the stability thereof as well as evaluating the fairness of compensation.

Employment practices include disciplinary and Security Practices, Employee Contracts, Equity Labour Sources, Diversity, Discrimination and flexible Working Arrangements.

Health & safety, as the name said is focused on the health and safety of the workforce and evaluates preventive measures as well as the occurrence and handling of health and/or safety incidents. Guarantee that no health and safety risks occur when working in/for the organization. No negative impact of employees’ physical health at any time.

The development of human capital for sustainability related issues through specific programmes such as permanent education, mentoring or training.

References

Dyllick

, Hockerts

. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment2002;11(2):130–41.

Verma

. Why Indian Companies Indulge in CSR?Journal of Management & Public Policy2011;2(2).

Montiel

. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability Separate Pasts, Common Futures. Organization & Environment2008;21(3):245–269.

Carrol

. A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review1979;4(4):497–505.

Mann

, Kumar

, Mann

. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management. The IUP Journal of Operations Management2010;IX(4):52–63.

Lacy

, Cooper

, Hayward

, Neuberger

. A New Era of Sustainability CEO reflections on progress to date, challenges ahead and the impact of the journey toward a sustainable economy2010.

Enhert

, Harry

, Zink

. Sustainability and HRM: An Introduction to the Field. New York: Springer Heidelberg2014.

Docherty

, Kira

, Shani

. Creating Sustainable Work Systems, 2nd EditionDeveloping Social Sustainability Routledge, 2008.

Keijzers

. The transition to the sustainable enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production2002;10(4):349.

10.

Calker

, Berentsen

, Giesen

, Huirne

. Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and Human Values2005;22(1):53–63.

11.

Gladwin

, Kennelly

, Krause

T-S

. Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research. The Academy of Management Review1995;20(4):874–907.

12.

ILO. The Sustainable Enterprise Programme: Strategic framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 2010, 9789221235491;9789221235507.

13.

Labuschagne

, Brent

, Claasen

. Environmental and social impact considerations for sustainable project life cycle management in the process industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management2005;12(1):38–54.

14.

Esptein

. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts. Edited by Berrett-Koehler2008:288.

15.

Moon

. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustainable Development2007;15:296–306.

16.

Kolk

. Trends in sustainability reporting by the future global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment2003;12:279–91.

17.

Azapagic

. Systems approach to corporate sustainability: A general management framework. Process Safety and Environmental Protection2003;81(5):303–16.

18.

Petereit

. Sustainability Reporting of the Forest and Paper Sector Recommendations for improvements of corporate responsibility reports of forest and paper companies based on quality assessments. Master Thesis no 116 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre. 2008.

19.

Labuschagne

. Sustainable project life cycle management: Development of social criteria for decision making. South Africa: University of Pretoria, 2005.

20.

Steger

, Ionescu-Somers

, Salzmann

. The economic foundations of corporate sustainability. Corporate Governance2007;7(2):162–77.

21.

Panwar

. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Forest Products Industry: An Issues Management Approach. Doctor of Philosophy in Wood Science Oregon State UniversityAvailable at: irlibraryoregonstateedu/dspace/bitstream/1957/8940/1/CSR-Forestindustriespdf. 2008.

22.

Takala

, Urrutia

. Safety and health at work: European perspective. Saúde Ocupacional2009;25:21–30.

23.

Bolis

, Brunoro

, Sznelwar

. Mapping the relationships between work and sustainability and the opportunities for ergonomic action. Applied Ergonomics2014;45(4):1225–39.

24.

Katsoulakos

, Katsoulakos

. Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Management Athens University of Economics and Business. 2006 4CR Working Papers, 4CR Part B 4CR B1.3.

25.

Brent

, Labuschagne

. An appraisal of social aspects in project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Management of Environmental Quality2007;18(4):413–26.

26.

Kira

, Van Eijnatten

. Socially sustainable work organizations: A chaordic systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science2008;25(6):743–56.

27.

Zink

. Social Sustainability and Quality of Working Life A Human Factors Perspective on Sustainable HRM. Ehnert

, Wes

, Zink

, editors. Dordrecht London: Springer Heidelberg New York, 2014.

28.

Pfeffer

. Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives2010;24(1):34–45.

29.

Savaneviciene

, Stankeviciute

. The disclosure of Sustainability and human resource management linkage. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics2014;8:88–104.

30.

Baumgartner

, Ebner

. Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development2010;18(2):76–89.

31.

Von Geibler

, Liedtke

, Wallbaum

, Schaller

. Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: Experiences from the biotechnology industry. Business Strategy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc)2006;15(5):334–46.

32.

Sarkis

, Helms

, Hervani

. Reverse logistics and social sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management2010;17(6):337–54.

33.

Benoit

, Vickery-Niederman

. Social Sustainability Assessment Literature Review. The Sustainability Consortium, Arizona State University, and University of Arkansas2010;102.

34.

Labuschagne

, Brent

, van Erck

. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production2005;13(4):373–85.

35.

Brent

, Labuschagne

. Social Indicators for Sustainable Project and Technology Life Cycle Management in the Process Industry (13 pp + 4). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment2006;11(1):3–15.

36.

F.E.G.F. Forest Europe workshop on green economy and social aspect of SFM (Draft report). 29-30 April, Santander, 2014.

37.

Rantanen

. Occupational Health and Safety in the 21st Century. Paper presented at the Priorities in Occupational Health and Safety, (2002)Wellington, New Zealand. P.12-32. Edit. Pearce, Neil; McLean, Dave Berry, Rochelle. ISBN0-473-09642-0; ISSN 1176-1237

38.

Docherty

, Forslin

, Shani

. Creating sustainable work systems: Emerging perspectives and practice. Psychology Press, 2002.

39.

Kira

, Van Eijnatten

, Balkin

. Crafting sustainable work: Development of personal resources. Journal of Organizational Change Management2010;23(5):616–32.

40.

Westgaard

, Winkel

. Occupational musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of rationalization and opportunities to create sustainable production systems – A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics2011;42(2):261–96.

41.

Kira

. From Good Work to Sustainable Development. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology, 2003.

42.

TUC. Occupational health Dealing with the issues A TUC Education workbook for union reps, 2012.

43.

OECD. SICKNESS, DISABILITY and WORK Addressing Policy Challenges in OECD Countries, 2009.

44.

LaDou

. International occupational health. International Journal of Hygiene and Enviromental Ealth2003;206:303–13.

45.

Paoli

. First European Survey on the work enviroment (1991–1992). Luxembourg: European Communities, 1992.

46.

European Union E. Health and safety at work in Europe (1999–2007). 2010 ISBN 978-92-79-14606-0.

47.

CEC. Improving quality and productivity at work: Community strategy 2007–2012 on health and safety at work. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, 2007.

48.

Marras

. Occupational low back disorder causation and control. Ergonomics2000;43(7):880–902.

49.

EASHT. Economic Impact of Occupational Safety and Health in the Member States of the European Union. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work2009.

50.

ILO. Estimating the Economic Costs of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in Developing Countries: Essential Information for Decision-Makers. Copyright ©International Labour Organization 2012, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012a.

51.

OECD. Sickness, Disability and Work: Keeping on track in the economic downturn background paper. In: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Directorate for Employment LaSA, editor. High-Level Forum; Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. p. 42.

52.

Marklund

, Toomingas

. Chapter 10: Age Differences in Employment, Work Environment and Health Worklife and Health in Sweden, 2000.

53.

Smith

, Carayon

. A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics1989;4(1):67–79.

54.

Punnett

, Wegman

. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: The epidemiologic evidence and the debate. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology2004;14:13–23.

55.

Vasseljen

, Holte

, Westgaard

. Shoulder and neck complaints in customer relations: Individual risk factors and perceived exposures at work. Ergonomics2001;44(4):355–72.

56.

Hagberg. Exposure variables in ergonomic epidemiology. American Journal of Industrial Medicine1992;21(1):91–100.

57.

Johnston

, Souvlis

, Jimmieson

, Jull

. Associations between individual and workplace risk factors for self-reported neck pain and disability among female office workers. Applied Ergonomics2008;39(2):171–82.

58.

Tappin

, Bentley

, Vitalis

. The role of contextual factors for musculoskeletal disorders in the New Zealand meat processing industry. Ergonomics2008;51(10):1576–93.

59.

Hagberg, Vilhemsson

, Wigaeus Tornqvis

, Toomingas

. Incidence of self-reported reduced productivity owing to musculoskeletal symptoms: Association with workplace and individual factors among computer users. Ergonomics2007;50(11):1820–34.

60.

Punnett

, Wegman

. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: The epidemiologic evidence and the debate. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology2004;14:13–23.

61.

Winkel

, Westgaard

. Occupational and individual risk factors for shoulder-neck complaints: Part II — The scientific basis (literature review) for the guide. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics1992;10(1–2):85–104.

62.

Neumann, Kihlberg

, Medbo

, Mathiassen

, Winkel

. A case study evaluating the ergonomic and productivity impacts of partial automation strategies in the electronics industry. International Journal of Production Research2002;40(16):4059–75.

63.

Ehnert

. Sustainability issues in human in human resource management: Linkages, theoretical approaches, and outlines for an emerging field. 2006.

64.

Kira

, Eijnatten

F.M. van

. Human and Social Sustainability in Work Organizations: Proposal International Research Program SUSTAIN. Espoo/ Eindhoven: Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering/ Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Technology Management, 2008.

65.

Dul

, Neumann

. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics2009;40:745–52.

66.

Huang

, Feuerstein

, Kop

, Schor

, Arroyo

. Individual and combined impacts of biomechanical and work organization factors in work-related musculoskeletal symptoms. American Journal of Industrial Medicine2003;43(5):495–506.

67.

Green

. Why has work effort become more intense?Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society2004;43(4):709–41.

68.

Long

, Johnston

, Bogossian

. Work-related upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders in midwives, nurses and physicians: A systematic review of risk factors and functional consequences. Applied Ergonomics2012;43(3):455–67.

69.

Muggleton

, Allen

, Chappell

. Hand and arm injuries associated with repetitive manual work in industry: A review of disorders, risk factors and preventive measures. Ergonomics1999;42(5):714–39.

70.

Bao

, Spielholz

, Howard

, Silverstein

. Quantifying repetitive hand activityfor epidemiological research on musculoskeletal disorders – part I: Individual exposure assessment. Ergonomics2006;49(4):361–80.

71.

Malchaire

, Cock

, Vergracht

. Review of the factors associated with musculoskeletal problems in epidemiological studies. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health2001;74(2):79–90.

72.

Hughes

, Babski-Reeves

, Smith-Jackson

. Effects of psychosocial and individual factors on physiological risk factors for upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders while typing. Ergonomics2007;50(2):261–74.

73.

Patterson

. Attributions of danger and responses to risk among logging contractors in british columbia’s southern interior: Implications for accident prevention in the forest industry. Research in Economic Anthropology2008;26:103–25.

74.

Westgaard

, Aarås

. Postural muscle strain as a causal factor in the development of musculo-skeletal illnesses. Applied Ergonomics1984;15(3):162–74.

75.

Neumann, Ekman

, Winkel

. Integrating ergonomics into production system development — The Volvo Powertrain case. Applied Ergonomics2009;40(3):527–37.

76.

Zoer

, Ruitenburg

, Botje

, Frings-Dresen

MHW

, Sluiter

. The associations between psychosocial workload and mental health complaints in different age groups. Ergonomics2011;54(10):943–52.

77.

Westgaard

, Winkel

. Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: A critical review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics1997;20(6):463–500.

78.

Genaidy

, Rinderb

, Sequeiraa

, A-Rehimb

. The role of human-at-work systems in business sustainability: Perspectives based on expert and qualified production workers in a manufacturing enterprise. Ergonomics2010;53(4):559–85.

79.

Guimarães

LBdM

, Ribeiro

JLD

, Renner

. Cost–benefit analysis of a socio-technical intervention in a Brazilian footwear company. Applied Ergonomics2012;43(5):948–57.

80.

Genaidy

, Sequeiraa

, Rinderb

, A-Rehimb

. Determinants of business sustainability: An ergonomics perspective. Ergonomics2009;52(3):273–301.

81.

Kira

. Moving from consuming to regenerative work. In: Forslin

, Docherty

, Shani

, editors. Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Developing Social Sustainability, 2002.

82.

UNIONS ICOFT. Making sustainability work. ITRADE UNION WORLD Briefing, 2006:2–8.

83.

Zink

. Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management, 2008.

84.

Brown

, Hanson

, Liverman

, Merideth

. Global sustainability: Toward definition. Environmental Management1987;11(6):713–9.

85.

Maslach

, Leiter

. The truth about burnout. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1997.

86.

Brödner

. Chapter 4 “Sustainability in knowledge-based companies”. Creating Sustainable Work Systems, 2nd EditionDeveloping Social Sustainability, 2009; Edited by Mari Kira, A.B. (Rami) Shani and Peter Docherty. Routledge, 2002.

87.

Zink

. Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics2014;45(1):126–32.

88.

IEA. 2000. Available from: http://www.iea.cc/01_what/What%20is%20Ergonomics.html

89.

Haslam

, Waterson

. Ergonomics and sustainability. Ergonomics2013;56(3):343–7.

90.

Thatcher

. Early variability in the conceptualisation of “sustainable development and human factors”. 2012;41(Suppl 1):3892–9.

91.

Zink

, Steimle

, Fischer

. Human Factors, Business Excellence and Corporate Sustainability: Differing Perspectives, Joint Objectives. In: Zink

, editor. Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Contributions to Management Science: Physica-Verlag HD, 2008. p. 3–18.

92.

Apud

, Meyer

. Ergonomia para la Industria Minera. Concepcion, Chile: Codelco, 2009.

93.

Martin

, Legg

, Brown

. Designing for sustainability: Ergonomics – carpe diem. Ergonomics2012;56(3):365–88.

94.

Genaidy

, Karwowski

, Shell

, Khalil

, Tuncel

, Cronin

, et al. Work compatibility: An integrated diagnostic tool for evaluating musculoskeletal responses to work and stress outcomes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics2005;35(12):1109–31.

95.

Scott

. Global inequality, and the challenge for ergonomics to take a more dynamic role to redress the situation. Applied Ergonomics2008;39(4):495–9.

96.

Bolis

, Brunoro

, Sznelwar

. Work in corporate sustainability policies: The contribution of ergonomics. Work2014;49(3):417–31.

97.

Dul

, de Vriesa

, Verschoofb

, Eveleensc

, Feilzera

. Combining economic and social goals in the design of production systems by using ergonomics standard. Computers & Industrial Engineering2004;47:207–22.

98.

Hendrick

. Applying ergonomics to systems: Some documented “lessons learned”. Applied Ergonomics2008;39(4):418–26.

99.

Tappin

. Investigating musculoskeletal disorders in New Zealand meat processing using an industry-level participative ergonomics approach. New Zealand: Massey University, 2008.

100.

Apud

, Meyer

. Criterios ergonómicos constructivos para un desarrollo sustentable orientado a mejorar la calidad de vida laboral. [Ergonomics criteria for a sustainable development to improve the quality of life at work]. Laborereal2009;5(1):17–26.