A Socio-Technical Perspective on the Application of Green Ergonomics to Open-Plan Offices: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think it is a good Review on green ergonomics in relation to open-plan offices.
In line 141 there is a mistake in name of M. LEWICKA.
I think that Ashkenasy is overrepresented. 9 times appears Ashkenasy in the paper, 4 times Ayoko and 5 times Norton. it should be balanced.
Author Response
I think it is a good Review on green ergonomics in relation to open-plan offices.
In line 141 there is a mistake in name of M. LEWICKA.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this mistake, which we have corrected.
I think that Ashkenasy is overrepresented. 9 times appears Ashkenasy in the paper, 4 times Ayoko and 5 times Norton. it should be balanced.
Response: thank you for this. We have now included 2 more references for Ayoko to balance this. Norton is an early career researcher, so there is no additional work of his that we can cite.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author(s),
This is an interesting and methodologically well put together paper which can make a useful contribution to the journal. However, there are many notes and comments that the author(s) might wish to consider in their revision.
- Identifying the research gap in this study and highlighting the study’s core problem.
- Discussing the results should be more professional.
- Best Regards,
Author Response
This is an interesting and methodologically well put together paper which can make a useful contribution to the journal. However, there are many notes and comments that the author(s) might wish to consider in their revision.
Identifying the research gap in this study and highlighting the study’s core problem.
Discussing the results should be more professional.
Response: We thank Reviewer 2 for this feedback. We have endeavored to make our discussion of results “more professional”. We trust that this version meets this criterion now.
Reviewer 3 Report
In general a well-constructed and interesting paper. Some of the arguments / claims made would benefit from some more sources of information, perhaps some examples of existing application of green ergonomics to office design to substantiate some of the research. Some more detail on the methodology applied would be useful. In places the discussion could be broadened to other strategies for sustainability on design that might play a role on future OPO design. Conclusion on very brief considering the breadth and depth of discussion in the main body of the paper. See the comments below for more detail on this.
Recommendations
line 59 would help to define what is meant by 'third spaces' in the text
Line 61 can you reference the quotes
Maybe some more detail on the methodology for this research. What was the inclusion criteria for the research and how many sources etc. What was the method of analysis to arrive at the agenda for future research?
In general I don’t know how OPO differs from other working environments and it would be good to have some form of comparison in the paper to work from
The conclusion is quite short compared to the main body of the paper. There are lots of different approaches and design strategy touched on in the paper and it feels like the conclusion should go further to summarise these and highlight the opportunities and issues before going on to pose research questions.
Some suggestions but not critical to the quality of the paper
Section three does a great job of digging into the basic principles of how and why green ergonomics is an effective approach to mitigate environmental impact and meet social and economic needs. It would be good to also have some comparison with other strategies to office design other than OPO and some thought on the pros and cons of each. Are there existing examples of OPO design that adopt green ergonomics and other sustainable approaches that can be referenced.
The discussion around office culture and the link between technology and social aspects of office design that promotes sustainable behaviour is interesting. It would be even more interesting to see some discussion around some of the other theories and approaches to sustainability that could play a role in OPO design for the future. For example, beyond just recycling there are circular economy approaches that promote more regenerative practices and symbiotic relationships between technical aspects of an environment. It would be interesting to think about how these approaches could be brought into this discussion from a sustainability perspective and if they could play a role in a future framework.
Generally in the introduction can you reference more sources of information regarding the claims made in the text. Currently many of the claims rely on one source
Author Response
In general a well-constructed and interesting paper. Some of the arguments / claims made would benefit from some more sources of information, perhaps some examples of existing application of green ergonomics to office design to substantiate some of the research. Some more detail on the methodology applied would be useful. In places the discussion could be broadened to other strategies for sustainability on design that might play a role on future OPO design. Conclusion on very brief considering the breadth and depth of discussion in the main body of the paper. See the comments below for more detail on this.
Recommendations
line 59 would help to define what is meant by 'third spaces' in the text
Response: We include two examples of “third places” on line 60-61.
Line 61 can you reference the quotes
Response: We have corrected the presentation of this statement to avoid any perception that this is a quote, rather it is a way of describing a potential distinction in how offices might be perceived in the future versus how they were perceived in the past.
Maybe some more detail on the methodology for this research. What was the inclusion criteria for the research and how many sources etc. What was the method of analysis to arrive at the agenda for future research?
Response: We provide an overview of the literatures we included as part of this exploratory review (line 69) in lieu of an a priori methodology.
In general I don’t know how OPO differs from other working environments and it would be good to have some form of comparison in the paper to work from
Response: We now include a distinction between OPOs and traditional cellular offices (line 52)
The conclusion is quite short compared to the main body of the paper. There are lots of different approaches and design strategy touched on in the paper and it feels like the conclusion should go further to summarize these and highlight the opportunities and issues before going on to pose research questions.
Some suggestions but not critical to the quality of the paper
Section three does a great job of digging into the basic principles of how and why green ergonomics is an effective approach to mitigate environmental impact and meet social and economic needs. It would be good to also have some comparison with other strategies to office design other than OPO and some thought on the pros and cons of each. Are there existing examples of OPO design that adopt green ergonomics and other sustainable approaches that can be referenced.
Response: Thanks again to Reviewer 3. We have now revised the manuscript to include more references (Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin, 2014; Ward, M. K., & Parker, S. K., 2019). Additionally, we have cited Shafaghat and colleagues (2015) on the impact of sustainable approach to OPO design (pros and cons). We have also argued that the impact of green economics on OPO and cell office will differ. Please see lines 406-424.
The discussion around office culture and the link between technology and social aspects of office design that promotes sustainable behavior is interesting. It would be even more interesting to see some discussion around some of the other theories and approaches to sustainability that could play a role in OPO design for the future. For example, beyond just recycling there are circular economy approaches that promote more regenerative practices and symbiotic relationships between technical aspects of an environment. It would be interesting to think about how these approaches could be brought into this discussion from a sustainability perspective and if they could play a role in a future framework.
Response: We agree that ergonomics is one of several avenues towards sustainable development. We now include reference to a green ergonomics intervention that identified circular economy opportunities (line 430)
Generally in the introduction can you reference more sources of information regarding the claims made in the text. Currently many of the claims rely on one source.
Response: We have increased the number of citations. In all, we now cite 172 sources.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I recommend revision related to your paper. Your paper certainly belongs to a review paper (literature review), but the way it is conceived isn’t clear and it is difficult to read. I recommend that you modify the paper in accordance with the recommendations and send it again for the review. The recommendations are as follows:
- Write clearly in the title of the paper that it is a review paper.
- List the papers you cite in the table in accordance with your division: Technical Approach to Green Ergonomics, Social-Culture Approach to Green Ergonomics and their combination.
- You need to explain what is Green Ergonomics? According to your description, this can be related with Green Supply Chain Management-GSCM or, Green Production-GP. Describe in more detail Green Ergonomics and the difference in relation to GSCM and GP.
- In the paper you mention the term wellbeing. I suggest that you describe the term in more detail and define the model or framework so that it can be calculated in accordance with: Technical Approach to Green Ergonomics and Social-Culture Approach to Green Ergonomics. There are probably already similar models in the papers you have cited.
- Related to the proposed future research agenda (table 1). I suggest you do a survey to see the state and trends of Green Ergonomics in the companies. It would be very helpful for defining the model for calculating wellbeing.
Best regards, reviewer
Author Response
I recommend revision related to your paper. Your paper certainly belongs to a review paper (literature review), but the way it is conceived isn’t clear and it is difficult to read. I recommend that you modify the paper in accordance with the recommendations and send it again for the review. The recommendations are as follows:
- Write clearly in the title of the paper that it is a review paper.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we have revised the title to: A socio-technical perspective on the application of green ergonomics to open-plan offices: A review f the literature and recommendations for future research.
- List the papers you cite in the table in accordance with your division: Technical Approach to Green Ergonomics, Social-Culture Approach to Green Ergonomics and their combination.
Response: The citations are now listed in order.
- You need to explain what is Green Ergonomics? According to your description, this can be related with Green Supply Chain Management-GSCM or, Green Production-GP. Describe in more detail Green Ergonomics and the difference in relation to GSCM and GP.
Response: We have expanded our definition to include a focus on the worker as the fundamental unit of analysis, as opposed to the similar areas which you identify in your comment. (line 295)
- In the paper you mention the term wellbeing. I suggest that you describe the term in more detail and define the model or framework so that it can be calculated in accordance with: Technical Approach to Green Ergonomics and Social-Culture Approach to Green Ergonomics. There are probably already similar models in the papers you have cited.
Response: We now include a definition of well-being as we apply it in this context (line 755)
- Related to the proposed future research agenda (Table 1). I suggest you do a survey to see the state and trends of Green Ergonomics in the companies. It would be very helpful for defining the model for calculating wellbeing.
Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion, which we now include in our future research agenda Table.
