Ergonomics

ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

A structural framework for sustainable processes

in ergonomics

Irem Sarbat & Seren Ozmehmet Tasan

To cite this article: Irem Sarbat & Seren Ozmehmet Tasan (2020) A structural
framework for sustainable processes in ergonomics, Ergonomics, 63:3, 346-366, DOI:
10.1080/00140139.2019.1641614

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1641614

Accepted author version posted online: 08

Jul 2019.
Published online: 18 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 611

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20
ERGONOMICS
2020, VOL. 63, NO. 3, 346–366
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1641614

ARTICLE

A structural framework for sustainable processes in ergonomics

Irem Sarbat and Seren Ozmehmet Tasan
Department of Industrial Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Considering today’s globalised world, new concepts that assist ergonomics are needed to pro- Received 22 October 2018
vide human well-being. Accordingly, the sustainability concept is used in this study to satisfy Accepted 27 June 2019
the needs of stakeholders, put environmentally-friendly and cost-effective interventions into
KEYWORDS
practice and provide ergonomically well-designed and easily managed processes that are more
Sustainability indicators;
flexible, adaptable and human-sensitive. To achieve this, a practical and easily adaptable frame- ergonomic indicators;
work, which integrates ergonomics and sustainability by presenting the relations between fun- integration;
damental elements of ergonomics and sustainability dimensions (SDs), is proposed. Within this relation; framework
base framework, ergonomic indicators (EIs) and sub-dimensions proposed for the classification
of EIs are structured for ergonomics under a sustainability point-of-view. The sub-dimensions
proposed in this study, which have direct or indirect relations to humans, are ‘Loss’,
‘Investment’, ‘Conditions’, ‘Contribution’, ‘Self-Development’, and ‘Satisfaction’. This structural
framework, which can be easily used by ergonomists or managers, ensures a good starting
point for providing sustainable processes in ergonomics.

Practitioner summary: This study proposes a structural framework to present the relations
between ergonomics and sustainability. In the context of ergonomics, fundamental elements of
ergonomics are chosen, while three dimensions of sustainability and proposed sub-dimensions
are used in the context of sustainability. The adapted ergonomic indicators are also classified
within these sub-dimensions.
Abbreviations: SDs: sustainability dimensions; SIs: sustainability indicators; EIs: ergo-
nomic indicators

1. Introduction standards, giving importance to ecology and preserv-

In today’s rapidly changing world, it is getting harder
to provide better living conditions for people. One of
the main reasons why it is difficult to overcome this
situation is the changes taking place in every part of
life such as income level, purchasing power and tech-
nology. Increased responsibilities and efforts against
the challenges of time management are other import-
ant factors in conducting lives by considering all these
factors. From a global point of view, Zink (2011),
Siemieniuch, Sinclair, and Henshaw (2015), and
Reiman and V€ayrynen (2018) state that megatrends
(i.e. globalisation, food and energy security, digitalisa-
tion, demographic development, community security
and safety, market dynamics, change of values and
technological progress) affect society, organisations
and individuals broadly.
From an organisation’s point of view, Krykun (2016)
indicates that enhancing quality of life and living
ing profitability are the aims of the organisations.
Under today’s complicated circumstances, however, it
can be denoted that money is one of the most
prominent output that is tried to be gained, and, unfor-
tunately, working conditions may be ignored during
production and consumption conversions.
Furthermore, during this profit-making process, compa-
nies generally are not attentive enough to their
employees’ needs. These insufficient attitudes can be
seen clearly in health and safety issues. About this,
Haslam et al. (2016) denote that the deserved priority
of health and safety is not given by many organisations
although there is an explicit need for the management
of them. It is not difficult to say that giving importance
to people’s lives has been decreased in today’s global-
ising world by considering all these profit-oriented
organisations. Actually, providing for human well-being
becomes more challenging today.

CONTACT Irem Sarbat irem.sarbat@deu.edu.tr Faculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering, Tinaztepe Campus, Dokuz Eylul
University, 35397, Buca, Izmir, Turkey
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Ergonomics is a discipline that works for providing
human well-being both physically and mentally. Wilson
(2000) denotes that the well-being of individuals,
organisations and national economies are provided by
ergonomics, and, this aim can be achieved with the
help of theory as well as practice, models and methods.
Nevertheless, the physical, cognitive, social, organisa-
tional and environmental aspects of the work and its
positive or negative potential impacts on the employ-
ees should be regarded for a successful application of
ergonomics (Scott, Kogi, and McPhee 2010). In other
words, ergonomics tries to propose solutions for pro-
viding human well-being under challenging living con-
ditions. Unfortunately, handling these conditions and
trying to prevent them with only ergonomics may not
provide sufficient and sustainable solutions.
Nevertheless, ergonomics has not reached its
potential for associating with tasks, products, jobs,
technology, organisations and environment interacting
with human’s abilities, needs, and limitations (Dirkse
van Schalkwyk and Steenkamp 2017). By starting from
this, it can be stated that proposing more permanent
solutions against ergonomically improperly designed
processes can be possible with the help of concepts
such as sustainability.
Bolis, Brunoro, and Sznelwar (2014b) consider that
the aims of ergonomics are somehow related to sus-
tainability. Zink (2014) remarks on the necessity of sus-
tainability for developing assessments and designs
related to work systems, because, it is dangerous for
sustainability to become only a vogue term. Miller et al.
(2014) state that sustainability searches for the answer
to the question about how various communities at dif-
ferent scales envision and maintain social and natural
well-being. In addition to these studies, Johnston et al.
(2007) suggest that defining sustainability to be more
associated with the human environment is essential.
Recently, the necessity of considering sustainability
for the processes, which human is one of the main
drivers, has been occurred. Siemieniuch, Sinclair, and
Henshaw (2015) denote that manufacturing processes
may be fundamental to sustainability. Moreover, ergo-
nomics has an essential role in sustainability due to
the increasing roles of people in manufacturing proc-
esses such as design, knowledge, control, strategy,
and resilience (Siemieniuch, Sinclair, and Henshaw
2015). Brown and Legg (2011) also suggest that many
systems should be redesigned to achieve sustainabil-
ity, and ergonomics may help for this redesign. Hence,
it can be stated that considering ergonomics within a
sustainability point-of-view can give a chance to the
stakeholders (e.g. ergonomists and managers) to
ERGONOMICS 347
design more flexible, traceable, controllable, and man-
ageable processes. Moreover, sustainability can help
ergonomics for indicating the processes in an eco-
nomic, ecological, and social way.
To accomplish all these, firstly, the relations
between ergonomics and sustainability should be pre-
sented suitably. In this regard, key dimensions, sub-
dimensions, and indicators to present the relations
between ergonomics and sustainability should be
defined precisely. Later, all of them should be
arranged within a framework to be easily understood
and performed by the whole stakeholders in the
related processes. Although there exist many frame-
works and their adaptations to the various areas in
the literature to measure sustainability, it has been
noticed that there is a lack of research addressing
ergonomics and sustainability together within a struc-
tural framework, where new dimensions, sub-dimen-
sions, and indicators are proposed for ergonomics
under a sustainability point-of-view. This research gap,
which is the development of such a structural frame-
work to assist in providing sustainable processes in
ergonomics, is the starting point of this study.
In this study, a structural framework for the integra-
tion of ergonomics and sustainability is proposed to fill
this research gap. The proposed framework comprises
dimensions, sub-dimensions, and indicators, which are
proposed and gathered to present the relations
between ergonomics and sustainability. The fundamen-
tal aim of this study is to propose a practical and easily
adaptable framework for the organisations to facilitate
for having processes that satisfy the needs of the stake-
holders and put environmentally friendly as well as
cost-effective interventions into practice. To achieve
this aim, firstly, more flexible, traceable, and measurable
processes should be provided. It is proposed in this
study that this base framework, which is composed of
ergonomics, sustainability, and the potential integration
of these two, can accomplish this aim by assisting to
the periodic control and management of the processes.
The paper is organised as follows. The motivation
and scope are discussed in Section 2. Immediately
after, sustainability is introduced in Section 3.
Sustainability indicators (SIs) and the review of the
relevant literature are also summarised in this section.
The proposed framework is presented in Section 4
with the research on new sub-dimensions for EIs.
Additionally, the selection of SIs, the adaptation of SIs
to ergonomics, and classifications of EIs by using the
proposed sub-dimensions are also presented in this
section. After all, the proposed framework is presented
in this section with the relations presented between
348 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
ergonomics and sustainability. Finally, the paper ends
with discussions and conclusions in Section 5.
2. Motivation and scope
Designing a well-operated process is a challenging
issue nearly in all areas. Defining key elements, deter-
mining the potential relations between them, and pre-
senting all in a developed framework can be hard
work when complicated conditions are considered.
According to many disciplines’ point-of-view, regula-
tion and periodic evaluation of the process is as
important as its design. These issues are also remark-
able in ergonomics.
In today’s conditions, the management of the bet-
ter perpetual process in ergonomics to provide human
well-being has been challenging given many internal
and external influences. These influences constitute
ergonomic risk factors such as awkward postures,
heavy loads, repetitive movements, physical workload,
monotonous work, time pressure, job stress, lack of
management’s support, and job dissatisfaction. It is
likely that these risk factors give some physical and
mental harm to people in the long term. On the other
hand, these potential harms can cause economic and
ecological effects directly or indirectly. Therefore, a
structural framework to be developed should have a
holistic point-of-view to prevent potential ergonomic
risk factors as well as to enable ergonomically well-
designed processes.
According to the existing efforts in ergonomics, it
can be stated that a kind of structural framework is
needed. This framework should meet the needs of the
employee, who is located in the intersection of job/
task, workplace & equipment, and work organisation,
while outside economic and social influences are also
considered. Scott, Kogi, and McPhee (2010) define this
relation by presenting fundamental elements of ergo-
nomics (i.e. job/task, workplace & equipment, work
organisation, and employee) and their interactions
each other. It should be noted that an ergonomically
well-designed process should be within an employee’s
individual capabilities and limitations as well as the
satisfaction of social needs and aspirations.
The main point is whether these efforts, that is,
consideration of only fundamental elements of ergo-
nomics, are sufficient or not to develop an ergonomic-
ally well-designed process. Furthermore, the relations
between fundamental elements of ergonomics and
the economic and social influences outside require a
more structural framework. To develop such a
framework at the base level, a concept to support
ergonomics is needed.
Sustainability can be a useful concept to address
this issue. Hansmann, Mieg, and Frischknecht (2012)
state that economic, ecological, and social aspects are
considered as three fundamental dimensions of sus-
tainability, which is defined as an integrative concept.
There are many models in the relevant literature to
express sustainability and its dimensions. Thatcher
(2014) presents the main models in this area as three
pillars model (also called the three circles model or
the Triple Bottom Line), prism model (sometimes
called the four pillars model), nested circles of sustain-
ability (also egg of well-being model or concentric
circles model), and two-tiered sustainability equilibria
model of sustainable development. These models
acknowledge that the coordination of a complex set
of interrelating factors is needed for the achievement
of sustainable development (Thatcher 2014).
Considering ergonomics and its fundamental ele-
ments, a kind of model, which represents the intersec-
tions between SDs, is needed for the framework
proposed in this study. The reason for selecting the
three dimensions of sustainability, which is based on
the three circles model (i.e., overlapping circles), is the
ability to represent these intersections basically and
practically. Consequently, the most important decision
should be how and on which way sustainability can
contribute to ergonomically well-designed processes.
As Zink, Steimle, and Fischer (2008) underline, sus-
tainable development has an anthropocentric view,
and, it considers not only the environment but also
human needs. Brown and Legg (2011) also denote the
intersection of ergonomics and sustainable develop-
ment by pointing out the aims for each: Sustainable
development aims to optimise the relationship
between the ecosystem, economic system, and social
system while ergonomics aims to optimise the rela-
tionship between humans and other elements of the
system. It can be stated that human is located in the
intersection of ergonomics and sustainability.
Accordingly, considering models that centre human
can be a good starting point to develop the frame-
work. To do this, firstly, the interactions between
humans and other elements of the system should be
defined and classified properly. The design of a pro-
cess to provide human well-being can be easier and
effective in this way.
According to Carayon et al. (2015), ‘human perform-
ance within these complex work systems can only be
properly understood as human interactions within the
broader context of work’. These human interactions

within the broader work context consist of elements
and environments, which are both tangible (technol-
ogy, physical environment) and intangible (psycho-
social culture, work practices and procedures)
(Carayon et al. 2015). Hence, it can be stated that
there are many ergonomics models, which examine
the role of the human in work systems, considering
the related tangible and intangible elements. Carayon
(2006) and Carayon et al. (2015) compile these models,
and, some of these models are summarised as follows.
Psychodynamics of work (Dejours 1980, 2009) focuses
on the relationship between work organisation and
mental health of an employee. This model aims to
improve working conditions for a better relation
between employees and their work. Activity-related
ergonomics or ergonomic work analysis (EWA)
(Montmollin 1981, 1988; Wisner 1995; Daniellou 2004,
2006) is related to real work to improve the ways to
work while problems are solved and health, quality,
and productivity are supported. This model considers
human capacities and limits in terms of physiology
and anthropology, and, it aims to transform the work
based on employee activities. Model of Work System
(Smith and Sainfort 1989; Carayon and Smith 2000;
Carayon 2009) has a systemic approach to provide
employee’s well-being and safety. This model aims a
balanced work system by considering its elements
(task, organisation, tools and technologies, physical
environment, and individual). Moray (2000) aims a sys-
tems approach to ergonomics by considering different
systems levels that include individual, team, group,
organisation, and management behaviours, legal and
regulatory rules, and, cultural and societal pressures.
Hendrick and Kleiner’s macro-ergonomics approach
(Hendrick and Kleiner 2001; Kleiner 2008) deals with
work design in terms of macro-ergonomics by consid-
ering personnel and technological sub-systems, task
and organisational design, and, internal and external
environments. Human-Systems Integration (Booher
2003) looks at ergonomics from the view of a user-
centred approach to design and deploy complex sys-
tems. In this model, human-system performance is the
most important design criterion that includes technical
and organisational system design by using ergonom-
ics, training, manpower, survivability, personnel, health
hazards, and safety as main elements. Wilson (2000)
discusses the role of ergonomics, which provides a
holistic approach for understanding complex interact-
ing systems including humans. Consequently, Wilson
(2000) proposes an interacting systems model for
ergonomics, in which the interaction elements are div-
ided into eight classes namely organisation, logistics,
ERGONOMICS 349
setting, task, interface, contextual, temporal and spa-
tial, and co-operation. In this model, the human is at
the centre of all these interaction elements proposed.
Wilson (2000) points out that, logistics interactions
consider the supply chain, and setting interactions
consider the environment, while contextual interac-
tions are related to society, finance, politics, and inter-
face interactions are related to hardware and software.
From this point of view, it can be denoted that logis-
tics and setting interactions can be associated with
the ecological dimension of sustainability. Additionally,
contextual and interface interactions can be counted
within the scope of the economic dimension of sus-
tainability. By considering its interaction elements pre-
sented, it can be stated that Wilson (2000)’s
interacting systems model for ergonomics can be
given as an example of a potential relation between
ergonomics and sustainability.
As it is well-known, work systems can be stated as
sociotechnical systems because of their human-centric
structure (Carayon 2009; Reiman and V€ayrynen 2018).
Carayon et al. (2015) define the sociotechnical system
as ‘synergistic combination of humans, machines, envi-
ronments, work activities and organisational structures
and processes that comprise a given enterprise’. By
considering these definitions, it can be stated that
human has the centre position in ergonomics proc-
esses. Thus, the relations between fundamental ele-
ments of ergonomics under the sustainability domain
can be used to develop a structural framework by
using many other potential elements and their poten-
tial interactions. It can be stated that this framework
should be sensitive to the needs of human, environ-
ment, and economy. Through this viewpoint, all the
required descriptions should be made step-by-step,
while the relations and interactions should be pre-
sented within a framework.
3. Key concept for well-designed processes in
ergonomics: Sustainability
The modern history of ergonomics arises from World
War II (Wilson 2000). Based on associations, scientific
journals, and thousands of studies, it can be stated
that more than seventy years of history mentioned
may cause ergonomics to reach maturity. However,
technologies, advanced information systems, and
quick transformation processes of today’s global world
cause various challenges also for ergonomics. One of
these challenges is providing and preserving the con-
tinuity of the processes for better jobs, workplaces,
and even living conditions. Fundamentally, defining
350 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
ergonomic risks by using ergonomic risk assessment
methods can be an effective way to overcome
this challenge.
Today, there are many ergonomic risk assessment
methods and their applications. Dempsey, McGorry,
and Maynard (2005) highlight that ergonomic risk
assessment methods have been developed to analyse
tasks, equipment, and environment, and method
selection is a key step in ergonomics assessment proc-
esses. To select one of these methods, Takala et al.
(2010) propose four criteria, that is, the aims of the
method’s usage, the characteristics of the work that is
assessed, the person who uses the method, and the
resources that are ready to collect and analyse data.
Ergonomic risk assessment methods are usually
classified into three categories as subjective judge-
ments (e.g. questionnaires and self-reports), systematic
observation and direct measurement (van der Beek
and Frings-Dresen 1998; Burdorf and van der Beek
1999; Li and Buckle 1999; David 2005; Dempsey,
McGorry, and Maynard 2005; Chiasson et al. 2012).
Some of the prominent studies that propose an ergo-
nomic risk assessment method are stated as follows
by considering these three categories; Nordic
Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (Kuorinka
et al. 1987), Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort
Questionnaire (Hedge, Morimoto, and Mccrobie 1999),
Dutch Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire
(Hildebrandt et al. 2001), Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (Kristensen et al. 2005) in the
category of subjective judgements; Ovako Working
Posture Analysing System (OWAS) (Karhu, Kansi, and
Kuorinka 1977), Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)
(McAtamney and Corlett 1993), NIOSH Lifting Equation
(Waters et al. 1993), Plan fo €r Identifiering av
Belastningsfaktorer (PLIBEL) (Kemmlert 1995), Rapid
Entire Body Assessment (REBA) (McAtamney and
Hignett 1995; Hignett and McAtamney 2000), The
Strain Index (Moore and Garg 1995), Occupational
Repetitive Actions (OCRA) (Occhipinti and Colombini
1996; Colombini 1998; Occhipinti 1998), Quick
Exposure Checklist (QEC) (Li and Buckle 1998; David
et al. 2008), Task Recording and Analysis on Computer
(TRAC) (van der Beek, van Gaalen, and Frings-Dresen
1992), Portable Ergonomic Observation (PEO)
(Fransson-Hall et al. 1995), Posture, Activity, Tools and
Handling (PATH) (Buchholz et al. 1996) in the category
of systematic observation; and Electromyography
(EMG) (Wells et al. 1997), Lumbar Motion Monitor
(LMM) (Marras et al. 1992) in the category of direct
measurement.
Besides assessing ergonomics risks by using these
methods, following a structural framework defined
clearly can be another effective way to overcome the
challenges that emerge in providing and preserving
the continuity of the processes. Although there are
several ergonomic risk assessment methods, studies
that discuss developing a structural framework to
manage all processes of a work organisation within a
holistic point of view is needed. It can be stated that
when such structural frameworks are developed and
implemented properly, the ergonomic risks in the rele-
vant processes can be identified easily.
3.1. A brief look to sustainability for an
ergonomically well-designed process
In the modern sense, Lange-Morales, Thatcher, and
Garcıa-Acosta (2014) define sustainability as the man-
agement of scarce resources that are for the current
and future generations’ usage. Since sustainability was
firstly mentioned in the Middle Ages, it has been
spread on the international scale, and this spread has
occurred through the concept of sustainable develop-
ment mainly in the last four decades (Bolis, Brunoro,
and Sznelwar 2014a). As it is widely known, World
Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) defines sustainable development as
‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987). With
clarification by this definition, it can be stated that
when economic, ecological, and social well-being is
simultaneously achieved, providing a truly sustainable
form of progress is possible (WCED 1987; Johnston
et al. 2007).
Johnston et al. (2007) state that sustainability pro-
vides all people of the world to live and work healthy,
fulfilling, and economically ensured in the absence of
jeopardising the planet and the future welfare and
destroying the environment. In parallel, Thatcher
(2012) underlines that sustainable development is
interested in the continuation of the economic viabil-
ity, environment, and social networks of people as a
whole (i.e. the entire system) rather than refer to the
continued use of a product over a long period of
time. From this point of view, sustainability can be
presented as one of the prominent concepts for the
development of a structural framework also
in ergonomics.
According to Martin, Legg, and Brown (2013), an
effective design should accomplish all standards,
which are related to ergonomics, environment,

Figure 1. Elements of an effective design under sustainability domain (visualized from Martin, Legg, and Brown 2013).
production, quality and occupational health, while this
design satisfies the needs of all stakeholders (Figure
1). It can be denoted that building such a structure
can be possible with a sustainability concept.
Accordingly, the framework to be developed for pro-
viding sustainable processes in ergonomics is desired
to have a holistic point-of-view as in Figure 1.
Pavlovic-Veselinovic (2014) supports this issue by
defining the interest and engagement in sustainability
issues as a real need for a holistic, integrated and sys-
temic approach rather than a desire by ergonomists to
be ‘trendy’. From this viewpoint, it can be stated that
managing the whole complex transformation proc-
esses of a work organisation becomes easier by using
such a framework. The main point is to determine
which main areas the framework should contain.
It should be stated that sustainable processes do not
only work for the environment but also protect and
maintain human well-being. For having such sustain-
able-designed processes and providing their continuity,
besides, the processes should be managed within an
efficiently operated and periodically reviewed manner.
Dul et al. (2012) denote that performance (e.g. product-
ivity, efficiency, effectiveness, quality, innovativeness,
flexibility, (systems) safety and security, reliability, and
sustainability) and well-being (e.g. health and safety,
satisfaction, pleasure, learning, and personal develop-
ment) can be achieved by fitting the environment to
the human and, human factors/ergonomics (HFE) spe-
cialists can balance these two system outcomes and
the other ones. To achieve these aims, WCED summa-
rises the needs for the pursuit of sustainable develop-
ment in their report with regards to political, economic,
social, production, technological, international, and
administrative systems (WCED 1987).
ERGONOMICS 351
3.2. Measuring sustainability: The indicators
from literature
Since the late 1980s, many proposals have been made
on how sustainability should be measured. These pro-
posals consist of several definitions and classifications,
indicating many indicators or indices. Instead of calcu-
lating the values of indicators or indices for once, cal-
culating them for longer periods and comparing them
with previous periods is more effective for understand-
ing and managing the progress of organisations
towards sustainability. Mayer (2008) states that,
although indices generally present a static overview of
a system, if they are calculated periodically, they can
specify whether the system is becoming more or less
sustainable and can find out the most responsible fac-
tors for driving the system. Additionally, Ness et al.
(2007) highlight that the tracking of long-term sustain-
ability trends from a retrospective point of view is
possible by using indicators and indices calculated
continuously, therefore, short-term projections and
decisions for the future can be made by understand-
ing these trends.
Despite the existence of many indicators and stud-
ies about how sustainability can be measured, the
unchanging point is the development of a framework
that is accepted by all. Regarding this issue, Joung
et al. (2012) denote that instead of using individual
indicators, combining them with regards to three
dimensions of sustainability and evaluating them
together bring more practical consequences to meas-
ure sustainability. According to Azapagic and Perdan
(2000), the main goal of SIs is to provide stakeholders
with the required information of a system to use SIs in
strategy devising for more sustainable development,
352 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
Table 1. The publicly available indicator sets compiled by Joung et al. (2012) (summarised in a table from Joung et al. 2012).
Number of Indicators/
No Indicator Set
1 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
2 Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI)
3 2005 Environmental Sustainability Indicators (ESI)
4 Environment Performance Index (EPfI)
5 United Nations-Indicators of Sustainable
Development (UN-CSD)
6 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Core Environmental
Indicators (CEI)
7 Ford Product Sustainability Index (Ford PSI)
8 International Organisation for Standardisation
(ISO) Environment Performance Evaluation (EPE)
Standard (ISO 14031)
9 Environmental Pressure Indicators for European
Union (EPrI)
10 Japan National Institute of Science and
Technology Policy (NISTEP)
11 European Environmental Agency Core Set of
Indicators (EEA-CSI)
considering all dimensions of sustainability. Mori and
Christodoulou (2012) present the following aims of
sustainability. Firstly, economic, ecological, and social
dimensions of sustainability should be considered; sec-
ondly, the equity between current and future genera-
tions and nature should be maintained; and, lastly,
healthy conditions related to these two aims should
be maintained in the long term (Mori and
Christodoulou 2012). Hence, it can be stated that the
efforts made for achieving these aims can also provide
managing and controlling the related processes and
increasing sustainability performance.
Under these circumstances, many companies/organ-
isations prefer using a generalised and useful frame-
work to measure their current state in terms of
sustainability. Using a standardised form of SIs is also
essential to present and benchmark the measurement
results on a general basis. In this regard, Joung et al.
(2012) compile some of the publicly available indicator
sets (Table 1). This table summarises these indicator
sets in terms of the number of indicators/categories
included, the SDs involved, and for whom the indica-
tor sets are developed. Each of the indicator sets is
classified in a framework within itself to measure sus-
tainability in many processes.
On the other hand, there are some prominent stud-
ies that propose a framework to measure sustainability
in various application areas such as production/manu-
facturing (Veleva and Ellenbecker 2001; Krajnc and
Glavic 2003; Labuschagne, Brent, and van Erck 2005;
Tseng, Divinagracia, and Divinagracia 2009; Joung
et al. 2012; Docekalova and Kocmanova 2016; Helleno,
de Moraes, and Simon 2017; Sangwan, Bhakar, and
Digalwar 2018), mining and minerals (Azapagic 2004),
Sustainability Dimensions Developed for
Categories Economic Ecological Social Companies Regions/Countries
70 indicators    
12 categories    
68 indicators  
19 indicators  
96 indicators    
46 indicators    
8 indicators    
3 categories  
60 indicators  
71 indicators  
37 indicators  
energy (Searcy, Karapetrovic, and McCartney 2005; La
Rovere et al. 2010; Bu €yu €zkan and Karabulut 2017),
€ ko
biofuel (Efroymson and Dale 2015), chemical (Krajnc
and Glavic 2005; Jia et al. 2016), steel (Singh et al.
2007; Arena and Azzone 2010; Long et al. 2016), food
(Gerbens-Leenes, Moll, and Schoot Uiterkamp 2003;
Maxime, Marcotte, and Arcand 2006), and retailing
(Erol et al. 2009). Additionally, there are some general-
ised frameworks (Azapagic and Perdan 2000; Veleva
et al. 2001; Ness et al. 2007; Streimikiene, _
Girdzijauskas, and Stoskus 2009; Ahmed and
Sundaram 2012; Roca and Searcy 2012; Chardine-
Baumann and Botta-Genoulaz 2014), which are pro-
posed to be used in the industries for more sustain-
able practices.
Nearly, all these prominent studies classified above
prefer using all three dimensions of sustainability.
However, some studies prefer using other different
dimensions. Joung et al. (2012) propose a framework
with using not only three dimensions of sustainability
but also technological advancement and performance
management as dimensions. La Rovere et al. (2010)
use technological dimension in addition to three
dimensions of sustainability. On the other hand,
Docekalova and Kocmanova (2016) consider corporate
governance as a dimension as well as economic, eco-
logical, and social dimensions of sustainability.
Similarly, Singh et al. (2007) select organisational gov-
ernance and technical aspects as fourth and fifth
dimensions. Contrary to all these studies, Maxime,
Marcotte, and Arcand (2006)’s, and Efroymson and
Dale (2015)’s studies concentrate on only one dimen-
sion of sustainability (i.e., ecological) while Arena and
Azzone (2010) use ecological and social dimensions.

It is summarised from all the studies discussed
above that various SIs can be used for obtaining
proper and efficient results to measure sustainability.
During these efforts, many potential relations between
ergonomics and sustainability can be established.
These relations can be presented through the adapta-
tion of SIs to ergonomics, after the definitions of pro-
posed sub-dimensions and the selection of SIs
are made.
4. Presentation of the relations between
ergonomics and sustainability: The
proposed framework
Since early 1990s, frequently since 2010, many authors
have discussed ergonomics and role of the human in
terms of sustainability and sustainable development.
These studies are divided into three categories under
ergonomics and sustainability point-of-views to
express their contributions and differences: Reviews,
discussions, and foresights (Moray 1995; Martin, Legg,
and Brown 2013; Radjiyev et al. 2015; Siemieniuch,
Sinclair, and Henshaw 2015; Reiman and V€ayrynen
2018; Thatcher et al. 2018), system design and key ele-
ments (Fischer and Zink 2012; Hanson 2013; Thatcher
2013; Zink 2014; Demirel, Zhang, and Duffy 2016;
Thatcher and Yeow 2016), interactions and general
principles (Zink and Fischer 2013; Bolis, Brunoro, and
Sznelwar 2014a; Lange-Morales, Thatcher, and Garcıa-
Acosta 2014). These prominent studies are briefly sum-
marised below by considering the pro-
posed categories.
Moray (1995) discusses the role and future of ergo-
nomics to solve major ecological and social problems
in the 21st century such as water, food, energy, pollu-
tion and waste, urbanisation, violence and terrorism,
health and medicine. According to Moray (1995), to
cope with these problems, human behaviour and
human interactions with other humans and with the
environment must be included in any solving proc-
esses and procedures, and, in fact, this reflects the
purpose of ergonomics. Martin, Legg, and Brown
(2013) present a comprehensive literature review on
ergonomics, sustainability, and design to explore the
contributions of ergonomics to sustainability and sus-
tainable design. In this study, Martin, Legg, and Brown
(2013) find out that despite the congruent aims of
ergonomics and sustainability, there is a limited contri-
bution of ergonomics to sustainability and sustainable
design. Radjiyev et al. (2015) present a systematic sur-
vey that comprises research trends and convergent
areas about the potential roles of ergonomics in
ERGONOMICS 353
sustainable development. Consequently, Radjiyev et al.
(2015) propose an interconnection map that denotes
the relations between sorted categories of ergonomics
and sustainable development. Siemieniuch, Sinclair,
and Henshaw (2015) present the potential effects of
global drivers (i.e., population demographics, transpor-
tation, energy security, food security, community
security and safety, emissions and global climate,
resource depletion, and, globalisation of economic
and social activity) while the role of sustainability
engineering to decrease the potential effects of these
global drivers is discussed. Siemieniuch, Sinclair, and
Henshaw (2015) also examine new manufacturing
paradigms from a systems ergonomics perspective.
Reiman and V€ayrynen (2018) present a comprehensive
review of holistic well-being defined as a combination
of well-being in both work and non-work domains.
Reiman and V€ayrynen (2018) discuss sustainability by
including this to the balanced work systems and bal-
anced organisation theory while new insights and
research challenges are also pointed out. Thatcher
et al. (2018) present a State of Science article, which
evaluates what ergonomics discipline has achieved in
addressing the global challenges urged by Moray’s
International Ergonomics Association (IEA) keynote
address in 1993. Thatcher et al. (2018) also state their
own set of predictions and suggestions for priorities
and practices that are required to facilitate a sustain-
able future for humanity.
Fischer and Zink (2012) discuss sustainability in
terms of system theory, and they propose a concep-
tual model of a sustainable work system that consists
of balanced management of human, social, ecological,
and economic capital. Hanson (2013) focuses on the
design of sustainable systems and presents some of
the challenges and opportunities related to environ-
mental sustainability for the professionals who work in
the ergonomics area. Furthermore, Hanson (2013)
presents some of the areas for these professionals to
contribute such as works in green industries, the
designs of products and systems that are environmen-
tally-friendly, and understanding of behavioural
changes related to environmental choices. Thatcher
(2013) points out the coherent structure of the aims
of ergonomics and the aims of design for environmen-
tal sustainability. In this regard, Thatcher (2013) pro-
poses a conceptualisation of the term ‘green
ergonomics’ to define ergonomics interventions with a
pro-nature emphasis, and, he presents bi-directional
relationships between human systems and nature
within comprehensive research. Zink (2014) defines
some of the key issues by presenting a systems
354 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
approach for the design of sustainable work systems
within an ergonomic point-of-view. Zink (2014) also
remarks about the potential contradictions about the
economic, ecological, and social aims of sustainability
while sustainable work systems are considered.
According to Zink (2014), new concepts have to be
developed while ergonomics can contribute some
existing ones. Demirel, Zhang, and Duffy (2016) use
digital human modelling approach for the integration
of human into sustainability. Accordingly, Demirel,
Zhang, and Duffy (2016) develop two conceptual
digital human modelling toolkits (i.e., Air Quality Index
Assessment and Metabolic Energy Expenditure) to
evaluate health risks and employee’s performance.
Thatcher and Yeow (2016) discuss sustainable systems
in human factors and ergonomics in detail by consid-
ering which system requires sustaining and what
length of time is considered sustainable.
Zink and Fischer (2013) reveal the interactions of
sustainability and ergonomics, and they examine the
necessity of sustainability as a new approach for ergo-
nomics. Zink and Fischer (2013) also present some of
the general principles for the design of work systems
that include sustainability. Bolis, Brunoro, and
Sznelwar (2014a) identify the relationships between
work and the themes of sustainability (i.e., sustainable
development and corporate sustainability) through an
extensive bibliographic analysis. Bolis, Brunoro, and
Sznelwar (2014a) also discuss in which position and
on which way ergonomics can contribute to sustain-
ability at work. Lange-Morales, Thatcher, and Garcıa-
Acosta (2014) present an extensive analysis of ergoe-
cology and green ergonomics by outlining the princi-
ples, purposes, and application areas to address the
contribution of ergonomics perspective to sustainabil-
ity. Lange-Morales, Thatcher, and Garcıa-Acosta (2014)
also suggest a set of sustainability values (i.e. respect
for the Earth, respect for human rights, respect for
ethical decision-making, respect for transparency and
openness, appreciation of complexity, and respect for
diversity) and discuss the results of these values in
terms of both theories and practices of ergonomics.
All of these prominent studies present that sustain-
ability has undeniable importance for ergonomics.
Meyer, Eweje, and Tappin (2017) reinforce this issue in
their review article revealing that ergonomics and sus-
tainability share the same principles, but there is a
lack of empirical information to prove the potential
between ergonomics and sustainability. Nevertheless,
there are ongoing discussions and new framework
proposals on ways in which sustainability is most
beneficial when adapted to ergonomics.
Ryan and Wilson (2013) point out possible opportu-
nities for ergonomic evaluations in the sustainability
concept. According to Ryan and Wilson (2013), these
opportunities may put into practice in various areas
such as information collection, organisational proc-
esses understanding, behaviours and organisational
culture understanding, support for the development
of methodologies, tools and interfaces against differ-
ent kinds of risks. Hence, different new areas, such as
those proposed by Ryan and Wilson (2013), can be
proposed as potential dimensions for the integration
of ergonomics and sustainability. In this direction, the
proposal of the new sub-dimensions for ergonomics
under a sustainability point-of-view as well as EIs
adapted from the selected SIs is given below through
this section as the scientific contribution of this study
to the relevant literature.
4.1. Introduction of the dimensions for
sustainability indicators
It can be easily noticed from the relevant literature
that many studies classify SIs by using various dimen-
sions. Moreover, some studies consider these dimen-
sions at more than one level. On the other hand, it
can be stated that indicators constitute the last level
of these dimensions. Before the relevant literature is
presented, a hierarchical scheme is depicted to pro-
vide clarity in dimensions, sub-dimensions, and indi-
cators (Figure 2).
In this hierarchical scheme, Level 1 comprises three
dimensions of sustainability presented as the main
dimensions in this depiction. Other dimensions that
differ from the three dimensions of sustainability are
also presented at this level. If there any sub-dimen-
sions after Level 1, they can be presented in Level 2,
Level 3, Level 4, … , Level m-1, respectively. The indi-
cators are in the last level of this structure (i.e., Level
m), and they are depicted as I1, I2, … , In. The follow-
ing parts of this paper are presented by considering
these definitions.
4.1.1. The dimensions proposed in the relevant studies
Besides various framework proposals, some studies
have chosen the way of measuring sustainability by
using the frameworks that are presented by different
organisations. For example, Azapagic (2004) proposes
a framework that is compatible with Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) while sector-specific indicators are also
presented in this framework. Additionally, Joung et al.
(2012) use the categorisation of SIs, which is proposed
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Figure 2. A hierarchical representation of sustainability dimensions, sub-dimensions, and indicators.
(NIST). Moreover, there are other studies, such as
Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), which are based on the
framework of Lowell Centre for Sustainable
Production (LCSP).
It can be stated that the prominent studies in this
area use different SDs and sub-dimensions whether
they use such frameworks proposed by these organi-
sations or not. Accordingly, some of these studies use
three dimensions of sustainability in Level 1, while
other ones focus on different dimensions in this level.
Based on this division in Level 1, the prominent stud-
ies are presented in Figure 3 by using the hierarchical
scheme given in Figure 2. Details for these studies
and their proposed sub-dimensions are summarised
respectively after Figure 3.
As shown in Figure 3, it can be stated that some
studies (i.e., the studies presented in ‘Other Dimensions’
in Level 1) propose their framework within a broader
perspective than three dimensions of sustainability.
Roca and Searcy (2012), and Docekalova and
Kocmanova (2016) can be given as examples to these
studies. Roca and Searcy (2012) present an alternative
way to classify the indicators apart from three dimen-
sions of sustainability by dividing the dimensions into
fifteen categories in Level 1 namely ‘Interaction with
community’, ‘Emissions and effluents’, ‘Employees’,
‘Energy’, ‘Financial’, ‘Health and safety’, ‘Management’,
‘Operations’, ‘Purchasing’, ‘Research and development’,
‘Reclamation’, ‘Satisfaction’, ‘Service’, ‘Waste’, and
ERGONOMICS 355
‘Water’. On the other hand, Docekalova and
Kocmanova (2016) propose ‘Corporate governance’ as
an additional dimension to economic, ecological, and
social dimensions in Level 1.
Rather than proposing new SDs, some studies (i.e., the
studies presented in ‘Main Dimensions’ in Level 1) prefer
using a framework based on three dimensions of sustain-
ability. Each dimension is elaborated in Level 2 by defin-
ing sub-dimensions. For example, Chardine-Baumann and
Botta-Genoulaz (2014) propose ‘Reliability’,
‘Responsiveness’, ‘Flexibility’, ‘Financial performance’, and
‘Quality’ as sub-dimensions of economic dimension, while
‘Environmental management’, ‘Use of resources’,
‘Pollution’, ‘Dangerousness’, and ‘Natural environment’
are proposed as sub-dimensions of ecological dimension,
and ‘Work conditions’, ‘Human rights’, ‘Societal commit-
ment’, ‘Customers issues’, and ‘Business practices’ are
proposed as sub-dimensions of the social dimension of
sustainability. As another example, Bu €yu €zkan and
€ko
Karabulut (2017) propose sub-dimensions of ‘Business
continuity’, ‘Costs’, ‘Financial performance’, and ‘Product
performance’ for economic dimension, ‘Pollutants’,
‘Resource efficiency’, ‘Biodiversity and ecological impacts’,
and ‘Environmental management’ for ecological dimen-
sion, and ‘Employment’, ‘Life quality and society’,
‘Product stewardship’, and ‘Social governance’ for social
dimension of sustainability. In addition to these studies,
Helleno et al. (2017) propose ‘Cost management’,
‘Corporative management’, ‘Operational efficiency’,
356 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
Figure 3. The presentation of the dimensions of the relevant studies in literature by using the hierarchical scheme.
‘Products’, ‘Operating results’, ‘Suppliers’, ‘Customers’, and
‘Infrastructure’ as sub-dimensions of economic dimension,
while ‘Environmental management’, ‘Environmental
aspects’, ‘Responsibility’, ‘Consumption’, ‘Product lifecycle’,
and ‘Recycling’ are proposed as sub-dimensions of the
ecological dimension of sustainability. For social dimen-
sions of sustainability, Helleno et al. (2017) propose
‘Economic’, ‘Satisfaction level’, ‘Quality and health’,
‘Human resources’, and ‘Community’ as sub-dimensions.
4.1.2. The dimensions proposed in this study
The studies presented so far propose SIs within a
framework that has various dimensions to measure
sustainability, and generally, these studies focus on a
specific industry/work area. On the other hand, some
new dimensions or sub-dimensions in ergonomics
under a sustainability point-of-view are needed to
classify EIs adapted from SIs.
Due to its practical and easily adaptable structure,
in this study, three dimensions of sustainability are
used in Level 1 (Figure 4). In most publications, indica-
tors are developed considering economic, ecological,
and social dimensions of sustainability (Roca and
Searcy 2012). What distinguishes this study from the
prominent studies in sustainability as well as in ergo-
nomics is the sub-dimensions, which are proposed for
ergonomics under a sustainability point-of-view.
To propose the sub-dimensions in Level 2,
employee, work design, and workplace design are
considered together, referring to the fundamental ele-
ments of ergonomics in Scott, Kogi, and McPhee
(2010)’s study. Fundamentally, this framework consid-
ers the human as the focal point. Hence, the sub-
dimensions proposed in this study should relate to a
human directly or indirectly under a sustainability
point of view. Additionally, in this framework, the sub-
stantial amount of the presented EIs is related to
humans, the needs of humans, the issues that humans

Figure 4. The sustainability sub-dimensions proposed for ergonomics to construct the structural framework.
affect, or the works that affect humans. Therefore,
these indicators can be classified according to these
sub-dimensions.
Dirkse van Schalkwyk and Steenkamp (2017) define
good ergonomics programmes as cost-effective;
because these ergonomically well-designed processes
help for reducing injuries and incidents, quality and
safety errors, and absenteeism, while they provide job
enrichment and enable increasing motivation, job sat-
isfaction, and productivity. By starting from these
well-summarised benefits of ergonomics, it can be
highlighted that this structural framework has such a
viewpoint during the formation process of its sub-
dimensions. Therefore, presenting the relations
between ergonomics and sustainability can be
achieved basically by using this framework. It can be
stated that the sub-dimensions in Figure 4 are related
to these benefits of ergonomics directly or indirectly
under a sustainability point-of-view while the necessity
of the central position of humans is also kept
into mind.
To expand on the underlying meaning of the view-
point that is considered during the formation of the
ERGONOMICS 357
sub-dimensions of this structural framework in terms
of economic and social dimensions, sick leave can be
given as an example. The factors in the workplace,
which are harmful to human’s health, are defined as
the environmental, task, technological, organisational
and individual factors (Smith and Sainfort 1989). It can
be stated that an ergonomically improperly designed
process has many of these factors, and they can cause
sick leave. In this context, Pavlovic-Veselinovic (2014)
denotes that the impact of an ergonomically designed
process on an employee’s health is an incontestable
fact, and, ergonomics practices can reduce the costs,
which are related to human stress, injury, or low prod-
uctivity. On the other hand, it is inevitable that one of
the main causes of sick leave is musculoskeletal or
mental disorders (Westgaard and Winkel 2011). Sick
leave threatens the welfare of individuals, companies,
and society, while the performance and industrial
competitiveness of the various organisations are also
affected due to the costs related to absenteeism,
labour turnover, reduced productivity, and the quality
of life of the employees (Marras 2000; Westgaard and
Winkel 2011; Meyer, Eweje, and Tappin 2017). In brief,
358 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
it can be stated that the costs related to ergonomic-
ally improperly designed processes has a cumulative
effect from the individual to the social level, therefore
it should not be ignored by the organisations. Some
precautions can be taken by making some invest-
ments for these losses in the ergonomically improperly
designed processes to improve the working condi-
tions. These improvement efforts may also help for
enhancing the satisfaction, motivation, and self-devel-
opment of the employees.
In addition to all these issues related to economic
and social dimensions of sustainability, the interaction
and impression of ecology during the formation of the
sub-dimensions of this structural framework can be
implied in a similar manner. Turker (2009) states that
an organisation is responsible for not only avoiding
environmental harm but also protecting and improv-
ing the natural environment. Pavlovic-Veselinovic
(2014) supports this statement by defining environ-
mental sustainability as the ability of natural capital to
remain intact. Hence, it would be appropriate for the
issues covered by the ecological dimension of sustain-
ability to include the conditions related to working or
living areas and the contributions to environmental
issues in order to preserve the environment within the
scope of sustainability.
In summary, it can be stated that the sustainability
sub-dimensions in Figure 4 are proposed by consider-
ing the main issues such as cost, performance, quality,
safety, and motivation, which are implied so far. It
should be highlighted that the proposed sub-dimen-
sions in this structural framework are also coincident
with the benefits of ergonomics (please see Dirkse van
Schalkwyk and Steenkamp 2017) given before. As
Pavlovic-Veselinovic (2014) stresses, ergonomics and
environmental protection complement each other,
and, they have an enormous impact on the well-
being, health, and welfare of individuals and society
together with occupational health and safety.
Additionally, Pavlovic-Veselinovic (2014) states that
ergonomically designed processes and workplaces
provide producing quality products with minimum
rejection and less use of raw materials, achieving high
productivity, maintaining health and safety at work
with less medical costs and absenteeism, and having
high satisfaction with work. All of these issues affect
the balance between the costs and profits of the com-
panies and also the country’s economy (Pavlovic-
Veselinovic 2014).
As presented in Figure 4, SDs are structured within
two levels. Level 1 represents the three dimensions of
sustainability, while Level 2 consists of the proposed
sub-dimensions for ergonomics under the sustainabil-
ity domain. In Level 2, two sub-dimensions are pro-
posed under each dimension of Level 1 for this base
framework. Short descriptions of these sub-dimensions
are also given in Figure 4. These descriptions should
be considered to select the related SIs, which are used
as theoretical background for the adaptation of EIs.
When Figure 4 is examined, it can be easily noticed
that there are some similarities between ‘Self-
Development’ sub-dimension and ‘Investment’ sub-
dimension. Both of them consider training and personal
development in ergonomics. However, the main differ-
entiation here is the focus points of these sub-dimen-
sions. ‘Investment’ sub-dimension is proposed to
measure sustainability in an economical way while ‘Self-
Development’ does this in a social way. The hierarchical
structure of this framework (i.e., dividing the framework
into levels) comes into prominence in explaining this
differentiation between the sub-dimensions.
4.2. Adaptation of the selected sustainability
indicators to ergonomics
After structuring SDs and sub-dimensions for Level 1
and Level 2, SIs that are classified under each sub-
dimension should be selected from the prominent
studies in the relevant literature to propose EIs. The
main criterion for this selection lies behind similar
issues with the formation of the sub-dimensions in
Level 2: Human, work design, and workplace design. It
should be noted that these selected SIs are the fre-
quently encountered indicators in the prominent stud-
ies in this area. In this regard, the selected SIs and
their references are listed in the following figures
below by considering the sub-dimensions proposed.
The adapted versions of these indicators to ergonom-
ics are also presented in these figures.
The proposed EIs, which are classified within the
economic dimension of sustainability, are presented in
Figure 5. There are four EIs in ‘Loss’ sub-dimension,
while three EIs are proposed in ‘Investment’ sub-
dimension. In here, losses of time, money, and
employee’s health are considered in terms of acci-
dents, injuries, medical treatments, and occupational
diseases for ‘Loss’ sub-dimension. On the other hand,
‘Investment’ sub-dimension considers the investments
for workplaces, training, and personal development in
terms of ergonomics interventions and environment,
health, and safety (EHS) issues.
The proposed EIs, which are classified within the
ecological dimension of sustainability, are presented in
Figure 6. There are three EIs in ‘Conditions’ sub-
 ERGONOMICS 359

Figure 5. The adapted ergonomic indicators for ‘Loss’ and ‘Investment’ sub-dimensions of ‘Economic’ dimension.

Figure 6. The adapted ergonomic indicators for ‘Conditions’ and ‘Contribution’ sub-dimensions of ‘Ecological’ dimension.

dimension, while two EIs are proposed in ‘Contribution’
sub-dimension. In here, ‘Conditions’ sub-dimension
denotes to physical conditions of a workplace in terms
of time and complaints from employees and commu-
nity, while contributions to EHS issues and
ergonomically designed processes in terms of charities,
volunteers, and recycling are considered for
‘Contribution’ sub-dimension.
The proposed EIs, which are classified within the
social dimension of sustainability, are presented in
360 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
Figure 7. The adapted ergonomic indicators for ‘Self-Development’ and ‘Satisfaction’ sub-dimensions of the ‘Social’ dimension.
Figure 7. There are three EIs in ‘Self-Development’
sub-dimension, while two EIs are proposed in
‘Satisfaction’ sub-dimension. In here, ‘Self-
Development’ sub-dimension is related to efforts for
the development of an employee in terms of EHS
trainings, suggested improvements, and time. On the
other hand, the satisfaction of an employee is consid-
ered in terms of working conditions or employee’s
work for ‘Satisfaction’ sub-dimension.
4.3. Integration of ergonomics and sustainability:
The framework
The efforts made so far (i.e. selection of SIs and adap-
tation of EIs) constitute the sustainability part of this
framework. However, potential integration between
ergonomics and sustainability should be presented
more clearly. To present the relations between ergo-
nomics and sustainability, i.e., to constitute this frame-
work, the fundamental elements of ergonomics (i.e.
job/task, workplace & equipment, work organisation
and employee) mentioned in the motivation and
scope of this study are used. In this framework, it is
proposed that the first three of the fundamental ele-
ments of ergonomics are associated with the
economic, ecological, and social dimensions of sustain-
ability in Level 1. Since the fourth one, i.e., employee,
is located in the intersection of the other three ele-
ments, it is not presented in this proposed framework
separately (Figure 8).
The proposed structural framework presented in
Figure 8 consists of four parts, respectively; the funda-
mental elements of ergonomics presented by Scott,
Kogi, and McPhee (2010), the main dimensions of sus-
tainability in Level 1, the proposed sub-dimensions of
sustainability in Level 2, and EIs adapted from the
selected SIs. EIs here are classified according to these
proposed sub-dimensions in Level 2.
In this framework, the relations between ergonom-
ics and sustainability are presented between all funda-
mental elements of ergonomics and all SDs (Figure 8).
The base structure of this framework is the reason of
this holistic presentation of the relations. Nevertheless,
it is thought that it would be more convenient to
identify the strength of these relations (i.e., strong or
weak) according to the type of the processes or
organisations that this framework is implemented. It is
noted that these relations can also be identified and
examined by using multivariate statistical analysis
methods such as Structural Equation Modelling.

Figure 8. The proposed structural framework for the integration of ergonomics and sustainability.
Consequently, it is proposed with this structural
framework that various organisations can measure sus-
tainability in ergonomics at the base level.
5. Discussions and conclusion
Thanks to its multi-disciplinary structure, ergonomics
has tried to provide human well-being for decades.
While doing this, the providing of organisations’ well-
being has become another important focus point in
response to today’s rapid changing living conditions
and needs. In fact, well-operated processes can serve
this aim. Nevertheless, reviewing the processes and
providing their continuity are crucial as well as having
well-operated processes. In this regard, it can be
stated that existing advanced approaches work for the
well-being of all stakeholders as well as organisations.
Unfortunately, these efforts are not sufficient anymore
to have well-designed and effectively managed proc-
esses in ergonomics.
It is pointed out that the concept called sustainabil-
ity, which has been frequently encountered in today’s
globalising world, can help ergonomics to achieve this
aim. The latest practices show that organisations can
try to meet society’s needs with a sustainability point
of view. Sustainability uses various indicators to do
this. These indicators, depending on what type of
processes or organisations they are used for, can be
ecological, technological, economic, managerial, social,
etc. It is highlighted that these indicators can facilitate
ERGONOMICS 361
to determine which area is needed to be improved by
considering the results of the periodic measurement
of sustainability.
It can be noticed from the relevant literature that
there are many organisations, which try to adapt SIs
to their processes systematically. By starting from this
easily adaptable structure of SIs, it is stated that SIs
can also be adapted to ergonomics. Additionally, these
indicators can be classified into some new dimensions
or sub-dimensions in ergonomics under a sustainabil-
ity point of view. Therefore, it is thought that better
perpetual conditions are more likely to be provided
with using sustainability in ergonomics.
Under these circumstances, the sustainability con-
cept is discussed in this study to support ergonomics.
It can be stated that identifying relations between
ergonomics and sustainability is not difficult due to
the central position of humans in ergonomics and the
implicit and explicit effects of humans over the three
dimensions of sustainability. These potential relations
can be presented with the help of SIs, their adapted
forms to ergonomics (i.e., EIs), and classifications of
these adapted forms into new sub-dimensions.
Accordingly, the focus point of this study is research
on contribution, effect, and adaptation of the sustain-
ability concept to ergonomics by developing a prac-
tical and easily adaptable framework to provide
sustainable processes in ergonomics.
By considering all these issues, the integration of
ergonomics and sustainability is presented in this
362 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
study through a proposed structural framework that
presents the relations between fundamental elements
of ergonomics and SDs. It is highlighted that this
framework ignores the surrounding systems of
humans by concerning all dimensions of sustainability.
In this regard, three dimensions of sustainability are
used to constitute this framework for Level 1 while
sub-dimensions for ergonomics under a sustainability
point-of-view are proposed for Level 2 and proposed
EIs adapted from the selected SIs are classified in
these sub-dimensions. This framework can be used by
the ergonomists or managers, who are responsible for
having more traceable, manageable and ergonomically
well-designed processes in organisations.
In this base framework, two sub-dimensions are
proposed for each dimension of sustainability. These
sub-dimensions, which are proposed by considering
human, work design and workplace design, are ‘Loss’,
‘Investment’, ‘Conditions’, ‘Contribution’, ‘Self-
Development’ and ‘Satisfaction’. Accordingly, various
EIs are adapted from SIs, which are selected from the
relevant literature. Nevertheless, this framework can
be detailed by proposing new sub-dimensions of sus-
tainability or new adapted EIs at further studies.
On the other hand, this framework is not for exam-
ining the systems in terms of the micro or macro level.
In other words, EIs and sub-dimensions proposed in
this framework are classified in neither micro level nor
macro level due to its base structure. Moreover, the
proposed EIs can be transformed easily to the micro
or macro level indicators during the implementation
of this framework to the related process or organisa-
tion. As another future work for this study, this frame-
work can also be improved by considering the
integration of the different system levels such as work-
place, organisation, inter-organisation, and community
levels in micro and macro-ergonomics.
As a consequence, it can be stated that this struc-
tural framework can be used for examining the proc-
esses of the organisations ergonomically under a
sustainability point of view. It is thought that this
framework helps to ensure the ergonomically favour-
able conditions by measuring sustainability periodic-
ally and analysing the results of this measurement.
Therefore, providing continuity of the processes and
implementing timely and efficient ergonomic interven-
tions may be possible through this base framework.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to thank the support of 2211-A
National Scholarship Programme for Ph.D. Students of the
Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey (TUBITAK).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was funded by the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [2211-A National
Scholarship for Ph.D. Students].
ORCID
Irem Sarbat http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0944-2342
Seren Ozmehmet Tasan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0633-9414
References
Ahmed, M. D., and D. Sundaram. 2012. “Sustainability
Modelling and Reporting: From Roadmap to
Implementation.” Decision Support Systems 53(3): 611–624.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.02.004.
Arena, M., and G. Azzone. 2010. “Process Based Approach to
Select Key Sustainability Indicators for Steel Companies.”
Ironmaking & Steelmaking 37(6): 437–444. doi:10.1179/
030192310X12690127076433.
Azapagic, A. 2004. “Developing a Framework for Sustainable
Development Indicators for the Mining and Minerals
Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 12(6): 639–662.
doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00075-1.
Azapagic, A., and S. Perdan. 2000. “Indicators of Sustainable
Development for Industry: A General Framework.” Process
Safety and Environmental Protection 78(4): 243–261. doi:10.
1205/095758200530763.
Bolis, I., C. M. Brunoro, and L. I. Sznelwar. 2014a. “Mapping
the Relationships between Work and Sustainability and
the Opportunities for Ergonomic Action.” Applied
Ergonomics 45(4): 1225–1239. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.
02.011.
Bolis, I., C. M. Brunoro, and L. I. Sznelwar. 2014b. “Work in
Corporate Sustainability Policies: The Contribution of
Ergonomics.” Work 49(3): 417–431. doi:10.3233/WOR-
141962.
Booher, H. R. 2003. Handbook of Human-Systems Integration.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brown, C., and S. Legg. 2011. “Human Factors and
Ergonomics for Business Sustainability.” In Business and
Sustainability: Concepts, Strategies and Changes (Critical
Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and
Sustainability, Volume 3), edited by G. Eweje and M. Perry,
59–79. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Buchholz, B., V. Paquet, L. Punnett, D. Lee, and S. Moir. 1996.
“PATH: A Work Sampling-Based Approach to Ergonomic
Job Analysis for Construction and Other Non-Repetitive
Work.” Applied Ergonomics 27(3): 177–187. doi:10.1016/
0003-6870(95)00078-X.

Burdorf, A., and A. van der Beek. 1999. “Exposure
Assessment Strategies for Work-Related Risk Factors for
Musculoskeletal Disorders.” Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health 25(Supp. 4): 25–30.
B€
uy€ €zkan, G., and Y. Karabulut. 2017. “Energy Project
uko
Performance Evaluation with Sustainability Perspective.”
Energy 119: 549–560. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.087.
Callens, I., and D. Tyteca. 1999. “Towards Indicators of
Sustainable Development for Firms: A Productive
Efficiency Perspective.” Ecological Economics 28(1): 41–53.
doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00035-4.
Carayon, P. 2006. “Human Factors of Complex Sociotechnical
Systems.” Applied Ergonomics 37(4): 525–535. doi:10.1016/
j.apergo.2006.04.011.
Carayon, P. 2009. “The Balance Theory and the Work System
Model … Twenty Years Later.” International Journal of
Human–Computer Interaction 25(5): 313–327. doi:10.1080/
10447310902864928.
Carayon, P., P. Hancock, N. Leveson, I. Noy, L. Sznelwar, and
G. van Hootegem. 2015. “Advancing a Sociotechnical
Systems Approach to Workplace Safety - Developing the
Conceptual Framework.” Ergonomics 58(4): 548–564. doi:
10.1080/00140139.2015.1015623.
Carayon, P., and M. J. Smith. 2000. “Work Organization and
Ergonomics.” Applied Ergonomics 31(6): 649–662. doi:
10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00040-5.
Chardine-Baumann, E., and V. Botta-Genoulaz. 2014. “A
Framework for Sustainable Performance Assessment of
Supply Chain Management Practices.” Computers &
Industrial Engineering 76: 138–147. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2014.
07.029.
Chiasson, M. E., D. Imbeau, K. Aubry, and A. Delisle. 2012.
“Comparing the Results of Eight Methods Used to
Evaluate Risk Factors Associated with Musculoskeletal
Disorders.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
42(5):478–488. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2012.07.003.
Colombini, D. 1998. “An Observational Method for
Classifying Exposure to Repetitive Movements of the
Upper Limbs.” Ergonomics 41(9):1261–1289. doi:10.1080/
001401398186306.
Daniellou, F. 2004. “Introduç~ao – questo~es epistemologicas
em ergonomia e em analise do trabalho.” In A Ergonomia
em Busca de Seus Princıpios: Debates Epsitemolo gicos,
edited by F. Daniellou, 1–17. S~ao Paulo: Editora Edgard
Blucher.
Daniellou, F. 2006. “Simulating Future Work Activity Is Not
Only a Way of Improving Workstation Design.” In Meeting
Diversity in Ergonomics - Proceedings of the IEA’2006
Congress, edited by R. N. Pikaar and E. A. Koningsveld.
Maastricht: IEA.
David, G. C. 2005. “Ergonomic Methods for Assessing
Exposure to Risk Factors for Work-Related Musculoskeletal
Disorders.” Occupational Medicine 55(3): 190–199. doi:10.
1093/occmed/kqi082.
David, G., V. Woods, G. Li, and P. Buckle. 2008. “The
Development of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) for
Assessing Exposure to Risk Factors for Work-Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders.” Applied Ergonomics 39(1):
57–69. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2007.03.002.
Dejours, C. 1980. Travail: Usure Mentale. Paris: Editions du
Centurion.
ERGONOMICS 363
Dejours, C. 2009. Travail Vivant: Sexualite et Travail. Paris:
Payot.
Demirel, H. O., L. Zhang, and V. G. Duffy. 2016.
“Opportunities for Meeting Sustainability Objectives.”
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 51: 73–81.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2014.09.009.
Dempsey, P. G., R. W. McGorry, and W. S. Maynard. 2005. “A
Survey of Tools and Methods Used by Certified
Professional Ergonomists.” Applied Ergonomics 36(4):
489–503. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.01.007.
Dirkse van Schalkwyk, R., and R. J. Steenkamp. 2017. “A
Review and Exploration of Sociotechnical Ergonomics.”
International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics 23(3): 297–306. doi:10.1080/10803548.2016.
1216356.
Docekalova, M. P., and A. Kocmanova. 2016. “Composite
Indicator for Measuring Corporate Sustainability.”
Ecological Indicators 61(2): 612–623. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.
2015.10.012.
Dul, J., R. Bruder, P. Buckle, P. Carayon, P. Falzon, W. S.
Marras, J. R. Wilson, and B. van der Doelen. 2012. “A
Strategy for Human Factors/Ergonomics: Developing the
Discipline and Profession.” Ergonomics 55(4): 377–395. doi:
10.1080/00140139.2012.661087.
Efroymson, R. A., and V. H. Dale. 2015. “Environmental
Indicators for Sustainable Production of Algal Biofuels.”
Ecological Indicators 49: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.
09.028.
Erol, I., N. Cakar, D. Erel, and R. Sari. 2009. “Sustainability in
the Turkish Retailing Industry.” Sustainable Development
17(1): 49–67. doi:10.1002/sd.369.
Fischer, K., and K. J. Zink. 2012. “Defining Elements of
Sustainable Work Systems–A System-Oriented Approach.”
Work 41: 3900–3905. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-0059-3900.
Fransson-Hall, C., R. Gloria, Å. Kilbom, J. Winkel, L. Karlqvist,
and C. Wiktorin. 1995. “A Portable Ergonomic Observation
Method (PEO) for Computerized on-Line Recording of
Postures and Manual Handling.” Applied Ergonomics 26
(2): 93–100. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(95)00003-U.
Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., H. C. Moll, and A. J. M. Schoot
Uiterkamp. 2003. “Design and Development of a
Measuring Method for Environmental Sustainability in
Food Production Systems.” Ecological Economics 46(2):
231–248. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00140-X.
Hansmann, R., H. A. Mieg, and P. Frischknecht. 2012.
“Principal Sustainability Components: Empirical Analysis of
Synergies between the Three Pillars of Sustainability.”
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology 19(5): 451–459. doi:10.1080/13504509.2012.
696220.
Hanson, M. A. 2013. “Green Ergonomics: Challenges and
Opportunities.” Ergonomics 56(3): 399–408. doi:10.1080/
00140139.2012.751457.
Haslam, C., J. O’Hara, A. Kazi, R. Twumasi, and R. Haslam.
2016. “Proactive Occupational Safety and Health
Management: Promoting Good Health and Good
Business.” Safety Science 81: 99–108. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.
2015.06.010.
Hedge, A., S. Morimoto, and D. Mccrobie. 1999. “Effects of
Keyboard Tray Geometry on Upper Body Posture and
Comfort.” Ergonomics 42(10): 1333–1349. doi:10.1080/
001401399184983.
364 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
Helleno, A. L., A. J. I. de Moraes, and A. T. Simon. 2017.
“Integrating Sustainability Indicators and Lean
Manufacturing to Assess Manufacturing Processes:
Application Case Studies in Brazilian Industry.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 153: 405–416. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.12.072.
Hendrick, H. W., and B. M. Kleiner. 2001. Macroergonomics –
An Introduction to Work System Design. Santa Monica, CA:
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Hignett, S., and L. McAtamney. 2000. “Rapid Entire Body
Assessment (REBA).” Applied Ergonomics 31(2): 201–205.
doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3.
Hildebrandt, V. H., P. M. Bongers, F. J. H. van Dijk, H. C. G.
Kemper, and J. Dul. 2001. “Dutch Musculoskeletal
Questionnaire: Description and Basic Qualities.” Ergonomics
44(12): 1038–1055. doi:10.1080/00140130110087437.
Jia, X., Z. Li, F. Wang, and Y. Qian. 2016. “Integrated
Sustainability Assessment for Chemical Processes.” Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy 18(5): 1295–1306.
doi:10.1007/s10098-015-1075-x.
Johnston, P., M. Everard, D. Santillo, and K. Robert. 2007.
“Reclaiming the Definition of Sustainability.” Environmental
Science and Pollution Research - International 14(1): 60–66.
doi:10.1065/espr2007.01.375.
Joung, C. B., J. Carrell, P. Sarkar, and S. C. Feng. 2012.
“Categorization of Indicators for Sustainable
Manufacturing.” Ecological Indicators 24: 148–157. doi:10.
1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.030.
Karhu, O., P. Kansi, and I. Kuorinka. 1977. “Correcting
Working Postures in Industry: A Practical Method for
Analysis.” Applied Ergonomics 8(4): 199–201. doi:10.1016/
0003-6870(77)90164-8.
Kemmlert, K. 1995. “A Method Assigned for the Identification
of Ergonomic Hazards-PLIBEL.” Applied Ergonomics 26(3):
199–211. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(95)00022-5.
Kleiner, B. M. 2008. “Macroergonomics: Work System Analysis
and Design.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 50(3): 461–467. doi:10.
1518/001872008X288501.
Krajnc, D., and P. Glavic. 2003. “Indicators of Sustainable
Production.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
5(3–4): 279–288. doi:10.1007/s10098-003-0221-z.
Krajnc, D., and P. Glavic. 2005. “A Model for Integrated
Assessment of Sustainable Development.” Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 43(2): 189–208. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2004.06.002.
Kristensen, T. S., H. Hannerz, A. Høgh, and V. Borg. 2005.
“The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ).
A Tool for the Assessment and Improvement of the
Psychosocial Work Environment.” Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment & Health 31(6): 438–449. doi:10.5271/
sjweh.948.
Krykun, V. 2016. “Sustainable Development and Ecological
Responsibility of Business.” Baltic Journal of Economic
Studies 2(1): 65–71. doi:10.30525/2256-0742/2016-2-1-65-
71.
Kuorinka, I., B. Jonsson, A. Kilbom, H. Vinterberg, F. Biering-
Sørensen, G. Andersson, and K. Jørgensen. 1987.
“Standardised Nordic Questionnaires for the Analysis of
Musculoskeletal Symptoms.” Applied Ergonomics 18(3):
233–237. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-X.
La Rovere, E. L., J. B. Soares, L. B. Oliveira, and T. Lauria.
2010. “Sustainable Expansion of Electricity Sector:
Sustainability Indicators as an Instrument to Support
Decision-Making.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 14(1): 422–429. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.033.
Labuschagne, C., A. C. Brent, and R. P. G. van Erck. 2005.
“Assessing the Sustainability Performances of Industries.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 13(4): 373–385. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2003.10.007.
Lange-Morales, K., A. Thatcher, and G. Garcıa-Acosta. 2014.
“Towards a Sustainable World through Human Factors
and Ergonomics: It Is All about Values.” Ergonomics
57 (11): 1603–1615. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.945495.
Li, G., and P. Buckle. 1998. The Development of a Practical
Method for the Exposure Assessment of Risks to Work-
Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. General Report to the
HSE (Contract No. R3408), Robens Centre for Health
Ergonomics, European Institute of Health and Medical
Sciences, University of Surrey.
Li, G., and P. Buckle. 1999. “Current Techniques for Assessing
Physical Exposure to Work-Related Musculoskeletal Risks,
with Emphasis on Posture-Based Methods.” Ergonomics
42 (5): 674–695. doi:10.1080/001401399185388.
Long, Y., J. Pan, S. Farooq, and H. Boer. 2016. “A
Sustainability Assessment System for Chinese Iron and
Steel Firms.” Journal of Cleaner Production 125: 133–144.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.030.
Marras, W. S. 2000. “Occupational Low Back Disorder
Causation and Control.” Ergonomics 43(7): 880–902. doi:10.
1080/001401300409080.
Marras, W. S., F. A. Fathallah, R. J. Miller, S. W. Davis, and G. A.
Mirka. 1992. “Accuracy of a Three-Dimensional Lumbar
Motion Monitor for Recording Dynamic Trunk Motion
Characteristics.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
9(1): 75–87. doi:10.1016/0169-8141(92)90078-E.
Martin, K., S. Legg, and C. Brown. 2013. “Designing for
Sustainability: Ergonomics – Carpe Diem.” Ergonomics 56
(3): 365–388. doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.718368.
Maxime, D., M. Marcotte, and Y. Arcand. 2006. “Development
of Eco-Efficiency Indicators for the Canadian Food and
Beverage Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14(6–7):
636–648. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.015.
Mayer, A. L. 2008. “Strengths and Weaknesses of Common
Sustainability Indices for Multidimensional Systems.”
Environment International 34(2): 277–291. doi:10.1016/j.
envint.2007.09.004.
McAtamney, L., and E. N. Corlett. 1993. “RULA: A Survey
Method for the Investigation of Work-Related Upper Limb
Disorders.” Applied Ergonomics 24(2): 91–99. doi:10.1016/
0003-6870(93)90080-S.
McAtamney, L., and S. Hignett. 1995. “REBA: A Rapid Entire
Body Assessment Method for Investigating Work Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders.” In Proceedings of the 31st
Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia,
edited by V. Blewett, 45–51. Adelaide, Australia:
Ergonomics Society of Australia.
Meyer, F., G. Eweje, and D. Tappin. 2017. “Ergonomics as a
Tool to Improve the Sustainability of the Workforce.” Work
57(3): 339–350. doi:10.3233/WOR-172563.
Miller, T. R., A. Wiek, D. Sarewitz, J. Robinson, L. Olsson, D.
Kriebel, and D. Loorbach. 2014. “The Future of
Sustainability Science: A Solutions-Oriented Research

Agenda.” Sustainability Science 9(2): 239–246. doi:10.1007/
s11625-013-0224-6.
Montmollin, M. 1981. Le Taylorisme a Visage Humain. Paris:
Puf.
Montmollin, M. 1988. L’intelligence de la Tache. Bern,
Switzerland: Peter Lang AG.
Moore, J. S., and A. Garg. 1995. “The Strain Index: A Proposed
Method to Analyze Jobs for Risk of Distal Upper Extremity
Disorders.” American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal
56(5): 443–458. doi:10.1080/15428119591016863.
Moray, N. 1995. “Ergonomics and the Global Problems in the
21st Century.” Ergonomics 38(8): 1691–1707. doi:10.1080/
00140139508925220.
Moray, N. 2000. “Culture, Politics and Ergonomics.” Ergonomics
43(7): 858–868. doi:10.1080/001401300409062.
Mori, K., and A. Christodoulou. 2012. “Review of Sustainability
Indices and Indicators: Towards a New City Sustainability
Index (CSI).” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32(1):
94–106. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.06.001.
Ness, B., E. Urbel-Piirsalu, S. Anderberg, and L. Olsson. 2007.
“Categorising Tools for Sustainability Assessment.”
Ecological Economics 60(3): 498–508. doi:10.1016/j.ecole-
con.2006.07.023.
Occhipinti, E. 1998. “OCRA: A Concise Index for the
Assessment of Exposure to Repetitive Movements of the
Upper Limbs.” Ergonomics 41(9): 1290–1311. doi:10.1080/
001401398186315.
Occhipinti, E., and D. Colombini. 1996. “Proposta di un
Indice Sintetico per la Valutazione Dell’esposizione a
Movimenti Ripetitive Degli Arti Superiori (OCRA Index)
[Proposal of a Concise Index for the Evaluation of the
Exposure to Repetitive Movements of the Upper Extremity
(OCRA Index)].” La Medicina Del Lavoro 87(6): 526–548.
Pavlovic-Veselinovic, S. 2014. “Ergonomics as a Missing Part
of Sustainability.” Work 49(3): 395–399. doi:10.3233/WOR-
141875.
Radjiyev, A., H. Qiu, S. Xiong, and K. Nam. 2015. “Ergonomics
and Sustainable Development in the Past Two Decades
(1992–2011): Research Trends and How Ergonomics Can
Contribute to Sustainable Development.” Applied
Ergonomics 46: 67–75. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.07.006.
Reiman, A., and S. V€ayrynen. 2018. “Holistic Well-Being and
Sustainable Organisations - A Review and Argumentative
Propositions.” International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering 11(5): 321–329. doi:10.1080/19397038.2018.
1474397.
Roca, L. C., and C. Searcy. 2012. “An Analysis of Indicators
Disclosed in Corporate Sustainability Reports.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 20(1): 103–118. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2011.08.002.
Ryan, B., and J. R. Wilson. 2013. “Ergonomics in the
Development and Implementation of Organisational
Strategy for Sustainability.” Ergonomics 56(3): 541–555.
doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.718372.
Sangwan, K. S., V. Bhakar, and A. K. Digalwar. 2018.
“Sustainability Assessment in Manufacturing Organizations:
Development of Assessment Models.” Benchmarking: An
International Journal 25(3): 994–1027. doi:10.1108/BIJ-08-
2017-0227.
Scott, P., K. Kogi, and B. McPhee. 2010. Ergonomics
Guidelines for Occupational Health Practice in Industrially
Developing Countries. Institute for Ergonomics, University
ERGONOMICS 365
of Darmstadt, Germany: International Ergonomics
Association and International Commission on
Occupational Health.
Searcy, C., S. Karapetrovic, and D. McCartney. 2005.
“Designing Sustainable Development Indicators: Analysis
for a Case Utility.” Measuring Business Excellence 9(2):
33–41. doi:10.1108/13683040510602867.
Siemieniuch, C. E., M. A. Sinclair, and M. J. Henshaw. 2015.
“Global Drivers, Sustainable Manufacturing and Systems
Ergonomics.” Applied Ergonomics 51: 104–119. doi:10.
1016/j.apergo.2015.04.018.
Singh, R. K., H. R. Murty, S. K. Gupta, and A. K. Dikshit. 2007.
“Development of Composite Sustainability Performance
Index for Steel Industry.” Ecological Indicators 7(3):
565–588. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06.004.
Smith, M. J., and P. Sainfort. 1989. “A Balance Theory of Job
Design for Stress Reduction.” International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 4(1): 67–79. doi:10.1016/0169-
8141(89)90051-6.
Streimikiene,_ D., S. Girdzijauskas, and L. Stoskus. 2009.
“Sustainability Assessment Methods and Their Application
to Harmonization of Policies and Sustainability
Monitoring.” Environmental Research, Engineering and
Management 48(2): 51–62.
Takala, E. P., I. Pehkonen, M. Forsman, G. Å. Hansson, S. E.
Mathiassen, W. P. Neumann, G. Sjøgaard, K. B. Veiersted,
R. H. Westgaard, and J. Winkel. 2010. “Systematic
Evaluation of Observational Methods Assessing
Biomechanical Exposures at Work.” Scandinavian Journal
of Work, Environment & Health 36(1): 3–24. doi:10.5271/
sjweh.2876.
Thatcher, A. 2012. “Affect in Designing for Sustainability in
Human Factors and Ergonomics.” International Journal of
Human Factors and Ergonomics 1(2): 127–147. doi:10.1504/
IJHFE.2012.048034.
Thatcher, A. 2013. “Green Ergonomics: Definition and
Scope.” Ergonomics 56(3): 389–398. doi:10.1080/00140139.
2012.718371.
Thatcher, A. 2014. “Theoretical Definitions and Models of
Sustainable Development that Apply to Human Factors
and Ergonomics.” In Proceedings of the 11th International
Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design
and Management and the 46th Annual Nordic Ergonomics
Society Conference, edited by O. Broberg, N. Fallentin, P.
Hasle, P. L. Jensen, A. Kabel, M. E. Larsen, and T. Weller,
747–752. Santa Monica, CA: IEA Press.
Thatcher, A., P. Waterson, A. Todd, and N. Moray. 2018.
“State of Science: Ergonomics and Global Issues.”
Ergonomics 61(2): 197–213. doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.
1398845.
Thatcher, A., and P. H. P. Yeow. 2016. “Human Factors for a
Sustainable Future.” Applied Ergonomics 57: 1–7. doi:10.
1016/j.apergo.2016.05.007.
Tseng, M. L., L. Divinagracia, and R. Divinagracia. 2009.
“Evaluating Firm’s Sustainable Production Indicators in
Uncertainty.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 57(4):
1393–1403. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2009.07.009.
Turker, D. 2009. “Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility:
A Scale Development Study.” Journal of Business Ethics
85(4): 411–427. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6.
van der Beek, A. J., and M. H. W. Frings-Dresen. 1998.
“Assessment of Mechanical Exposure in Ergonomic
366 I. SARBAT AND S. OZMEHMET TASAN
Epidemiology.” Occupational & Environmental Medicine
55(5): 291–299. doi:10.1136/oem.55.5.291.
van der Beek, A. J., L. C. van Gaalen, and M. H. W. Frings-
Dresen. 1992. “Working Postures and Activities of Lorry
Drivers: A Reliability Study of on-Site Observation and
Recording on a Pocket Computer.” Applied Ergonomics
23(5): 331–336. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(92)90294-6.
Veleva, V., and M. Ellenbecker. 2001. “Indicators of
Sustainable Production: Framework and Methodology.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 9(6): 519–549. doi:10.1016/
S0959-6526(01)00010-5.
Veleva, V., M. Hart, T. Greiner, and C. Crumbley. 2001.
“Indicators of Sustainable Production.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 9(5): 447–452. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00004-
X.
Waters, T. R., V. Putz-Anderson, A. Garg, and L. J. Fine. 1993.
“Revised NIOSH Equation for the Design and Evaluation of
Manual Lifting Tasks.” Ergonomics 36(7): 749–776. doi:10.
1080/00140139308967940.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and
Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wells, R., R. Norman, P. Neumann, D. Andrews, J. Frank, H.
Shannon, and M. Kerr. 1997. “Assessment of Physical Work
Load in Epidemiologic Studies: Common Measurement
Metrics for Exposure Assessment.” Ergonomics 40(1):
51–61. doi:10.1080/001401397188369.
Westgaard, R. H., and J. Winkel. 2011. “Occupational
Musculoskeletal and Mental Health: Significance of
Rationalization and Opportunities to Create Sustainable
Production Systems – A Systematic Review.” Applied
Ergonomics 42(2): 261–296. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.07.
002.
Wilson, J. R. 2000. “Fundamentals of Ergonomics in Theory
and Practice.” Applied Ergonomics 31(6): 557–567. doi:10.
1016/S0003-6870(00)00034-X.
Wisner, A. 1995. “The Etienne Grandjean Memorial Lecture
Situated Cognition and Action: Implications for Ergonomic
Work Analysis and Anthropotechnology.” Ergonomics
38(8): 1542–1557. doi:10.1080/00140139508925209.
Zink, K. J. 2011. “The Contribution of Quality of Work to
Organisational Excellence.” Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 22(5): 567–585. doi:10.1080/14783363.
2011.568260.
Zink, K. J. 2014. “Designing Sustainable Work Systems: The
Need for a Systems Approach.” Applied Ergonomics 45(1):
126–132. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.023.
Zink, K. J., and K. Fischer. 2013. “Do We Need Sustainability
as a New Approach in Human Factors and Ergonomics?”
Ergonomics 56(3): 348–356. doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.
751456.
Zink, K., U. Steimle, and K. Fischer. 2008. “Human Factors,
Business Excellence and Corporate Sustainability: Differing
Perspectives, Joint Objectives.” In Corporate Sustainability
as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management, edited by
K. J. Zink, 3–18. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD.