Social Sustainability in Practice: Bridging the Gap from Declarations to Real-World Scenarios on Sustainability Driven by Ergonomics

Abstract

In the paper, the role of ergonomics in promoting social sustainability within the workplace has been investigated and supported by evidence from the literature. Empirical research was conducted among 147 assembly line workers to gain insights into work-related discomfort and fatigue. This study used an ergonomic risk assessment (ERA) method to evaluate the ergonomic quality of workstations and correlated these findings with employees’ subjective experiences. The results showed a relationship between objective ergonomic assessments and subjective perceptions of work itself and company organizational factors, which were orally stated to the assessors, emphasizing the critical role of ergonomics in advancing social sustainability goals. The proposed DMAIC model was implemented to integrate ergonomic innovations into business processes to achieve social sustainability goals. Further research is needed to operationalize ergonomics in sustainability efforts.

1. Introduction

Companies are increasingly pointing to additional objectives for their business, i.e., not just profit orientation but also a range of benefits for their employees, such as social sustainability. Many researchers look for correlations in these issues to describe both sides of the equation, where one side is the benefit to the employer and the other is the value received by the employee. Ergonomics, the science of adapting the work environment to the worker, can play a significant role in this, along with the ergonomic axiom that the best adaptation is when the human–technical object system is provided with the optimum level of efficiency over a long period, ensuring the worker’s ability to do the job and finding satisfaction with it [1]. When considering aggregates that can simultaneously improve work efficiency and workload, the concept of social sustainability becomes intertwined with other aspects of sustainability and business objectives. Tietz, Abdelgawad, and Pasquini [2] delve into social innovation and investigate the intersection of commercial success and social progress. Missimer and Mesquita [3] propose a research agenda for systemic change toward social sustainability in business. Palakshappa, Dodds, and Grant [4] explore the ethical paradoxes within women-focused sustainable organizations, exploring the tensions between business strategies and personal values. Carmer [5] provides insights into corporate strategy that balance profitability with environmental responsibility. Finally, Harsanto and colleagues [6] systematically review innovation in social enterprises, highlighting sustainable impacts on society and the environment. Thus, many authors advance the understanding of how businesses can integrate social sustainability into their core operations, providing valuable models and strategies for future research and practice. This article aims to investigate how sustainability in the area of employee social responsibility, as declared and researched by best practice in a manufacturing company, is perceived by manufacturing employees and independent observers. Thus, the research problem is to determine the extent to which the practice of sustainable employee development is perceived as socially sustainable.

2. Social Sustainability and Ergonomic Sustainability within Companies

Social sustainability within a production company refers to considering and implementing social aspects, such as equity, health, and empowerment, alongside economic and environmental factors. It involves ensuring the well-being and safety of employees, promoting gender balance, and addressing social issues throughout the production planning and product development processes. However, the literature shows that social sustainability has received less attention than economic and environmental aspects [7]. Companies face barriers in implementing social sustainability, but some solutions have been identified, including strengthening communication transparency, promoting awareness, and using technology to document and promote social sustainability. Protecting worker well-being is crucial for social sustainability, and methods such as IoT systems and questionnaires can be used to assess various factors related to worker well-being [8]. Implementing corporate social responsibility programs can also contribute to social sustainability and help companies achieve sustainability and legitimacy within their communities [9].

The search for appropriate workloads and balanced working conditions has been the focus of work organization researchers for some time, particularly those associated with ergonomics. The combinations of research in this area are varied in terms of the titles of the abstracts and the direction of the study of relationships. Many authors present frameworks for evaluating employee well-being and performance within the context of social sustainability, incorporating factors such as autonomous motivation, job engagement, job satisfaction, perceived organizational support, leadership styles (green transformational and transactional), attitudes toward the environment, and environmental commitment [10]. Gajsek, along with her respected colleagues [11], promotes the adoption of ergonomic methods (OWAS and REBA) to enhance social sustainability and advocates for linking assessment results with improvement proposals and indicators to measure social sustainability outcomes. Many authors point to a rather obvious correlation, namely that sustainable, ergonomic programs contribute to corporate social responsibility [12]. In practical terms, however, such a formulation is only declarative because while it is even pointed out that it is necessary to juxtapose the workload needs of an employee by specific activities with the productivity of these activities and the technologies linking them, the authors do not focus on the possible operationalization of these factors. For many studies that declaratively indicate a relationship between ergonomics, ergonomic design of working conditions, and sustainability, only the easily measurable factors relating to ergonomic working conditions are investigated. In contrast, sustainability factors are considered to belong, also, with indicators developed for measuring sustainability and ergonomics, such as the Sustainable Work Index (SWI) [13]; the sustainable factor is only marketing in nature because it identifies the following factors known from an ergonomics point of view: Human Work Factor, Workstation Design Factor, Organizational Environment Factor, and Environmental Conditions Factor [13]. In the

Table 1. Ergonomic context in social sustainability.

Social Sustainability Factor	Description of Its Link to Ergonomic
Quality of Social Relationships—supporting collaborative and supportive workplace relationships.	Social ergonomics aims to optimize the social environment’s beneficial aspects while concurrently mitigating its harmful elements’ detrimental impacts [14].
Community Development and Engagement—engaging employees in community initiatives.	The ergonomic approach, by requiring the participation of users of ergonomic quality services, often results in employees being more willing to report problems at their workstations. More generally, ergonomics supports socio-political actions and sustainability research within participatory design, connecting local actions to broader socio-political and economic landscapes at multiple scales [15,16]. Nonetheless, this connection between ergonomics and employee involvement may be an interesting research gap.
Environmental, Social, and Economic Integration—balancing operations for sustainability across all areas.	Integrating ergonomics into sustainability requires a holistic approach considering the complex interdependencies among environmental, social, and economic factors. Dekker and colleagues [17] emphasized ergonomics’ role in embracing complexity and emergence to ensure the lasting success of sustainability initiatives through a more holistic approach. Scott argues that by designing ergonomically better solutions, organizations can meet the goals of the Rio Declaration for sustainable development [18].
Autonomous Motivation, Job Engagement, and Job Satisfaction—enhancing employee motivation, engagement, and satisfaction.	Participatory ergonomics interventions, carried out by a team or committee, have been shown to lead to improved workplace conditions, increased team communication, and ongoing adaptations [19]. This factor is more broadly known as the Hawthorne effect—the idea that workers are more productive when they know they are being observed and when their social and emotional needs are acknowledged [20].
Green Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership—inspiring sustainable practices through leadership.	Leadership in green ergonomics involves guiding teams to create safe work environments and products that benefit people and the planet [21].
Equity and Justice—ensuring fairness in all workplace practices.	The literature recommends that ergonomics, because of its interest in adapting the work environment to people, should also address the issues of social Equity and Justice, thus encouraging ergonomists to integrate social justice into their practice, suggesting a new dimension to the field that goes beyond physical health to include societal well-being [22]. Besides the ideological aspects of these statements, there is a solid background for this kind of action, especially since ergonomics is crucial for adapting workplaces to the needs of people with disabilities, ensuring they can work effectively and inclusively [23,24].
Education and Awareness—offering training on sustainability and inclusivity.	Ergonomics can make educational processes more effective by matching human capabilities and limitations with the requirements of educational methods and tools [25]. Also, ergonomics can support education and awareness activities in sustainable development by integrating this content into periodic ergonomic or occupational safety training topics. This area seems to be an exciting research gap for the effectiveness of these activities and practical ways of carrying them out.
Health and Well-being—supporting comprehensive health and wellness programs.	Ergonomics directly contributes to the development of health and well-being systems. Improving ergonomics at workstations is often the first step toward building a broader system for managing employees’ working conditions and health in enterprises [26]. More general literature proves that human factors and ergonomics (HFEs) can improve healthcare quality and safety by designing better work systems and processes [27].
Cultural Diversity and Inclusion—cultivating a diverse and inclusive workplace.	Human factors and ergonomics (HFEs) are claimed as necessary for improving fairness and welcoming diversity in society [28].
Economic Sustainability—promoting the company’s long-term financial health.	Using better human resources and reducing losses due to injuries and accidents, ergonomics translates into a company’s economic balance sheet, reducing costs and increasing the bottom line [29]. Therefore, a good ergonomic approach is the key to financial success through the appropriate long-term use of human resources [30].
Environmental Responsibility—implementing eco-friendly workplace practices.	Attention to the well-being of the worker provided by ergonomics is one of the increasing ways of implementing pro-environmental thinking among employees [31]. Another aspect of ergonomics’ impact on environmental responsibility is macroeconomics, which considers the broader impact of these changes to create a balance that is good for both people and the environment [32].
Safety and Security—maintaining a safe and secure work environment.	Ergonomics can be an avenue for implementing safety systems in many industries, mainly where the safety of property and people depends on human performance [33]. Many studies show that ergonomics is a good direction for implementing safety systems because of its human-centric treatment of safety principles [34] and performance better than only in strict command-and-control systems [35].
Governance and Participation—fostering employee involvement in decision-making.	Involvement in decision-making gives workers a sense of control over their jobs, which is essential for their satisfaction and sense of usefulness [36].
Work–Life Balance—supporting a balance between work and personal life.	Ergonomics can help work–life balance by designing jobs that keep people active and healthy [37]. However, the literature lacks research on the relationship between ergonomics and perceived and objective work–life balance; this seems to be an exciting research gap that should be addressed in future research.

, social sustainability factors were discussed and their respective links in relation to ergonomic considerations.

Collectively, these studies illustrate the critical contributions of ergonomics to fostering sustainable practices in various industrial and organizational contexts, highlighting its potential to enhance the quality of life, drive innovation, and influence strategic decision-making towards sustainable growth. However, it must be said that besides the juxtaposition of ergonomics with its sustainability categories, there is no model for effectively integrating ergonomic innovations into business processes. In this article, the authors attempt to develop such a model synthetically based on case studies and interviews conducted in companies using management by ergonomics.

3. Material and Method

This research was conducted on a group of assembly line workers in a manufacturing company. This study covered 147 employees. The workstations were subjected to observation, an activity chronometer was carried out for the observed activities, and then they were valued using the ERA method (ergonomic risk assessment) [38]. As this paper aims to compare the ergonomic quality of work with the feelings and opinions of employees as a possible path to social sustainability, employees were interviewed face-to-face, and a questionnaire was carried out about their work-related discomforts and annoyances. The questions posed to the workers came from a fatigue analysis method called the ‘Japanese sheet’, which was supplemented with questions on feelings related to WRMSDs symptoms [39,40]. Workers were asked about the following: (1) general level of fatigue after a work shift, (2) confusion in the head after work, (3) eye fatigue after work, (4) whole body heaviness after work, (5) heaviness of the legs after work, and (6) nervousness level after a typical day of work. Particularly troublesome aspects of work were also asked about without providing a list to choose from. Workers often indicated problems with the work atmosphere and the pay system. They also responded to whether they saw opportunities to improve working conditions and what they thought should be done in this regard. The results were then processed and analyzed. The ERA method is based on the standard EN 1005–4:2005 Safety of machinery—Human physical performance—Part 4 [41]. The technique allows for a point assessment of the position of the torso, head/neck, left shoulder, right shoulder, left elbow, right elbow, left wrist, and right wrist. In these categories, it is also possible to consider the force necessary to perform the movement, the repeatability of activities, and the static load of muscles. The assessment of individual body segments is supplemented by considering the occurrence of vibrations in the work process, the load resulting from contact with hard and sharp edges (e.g., machines), and the load resulting from the impact phenomenon. The total number of points obtained in individual assessment categories allows us to determine the risk associated with performing work at the following levels: negligible, small, medium, large, and very large. Further workplace analysis and implementation of corrective actions are necessary in the case of medium, high, and very high risk. Features of the research subjects are presented in

Table 2. Features of the research subjects.

Category	Man	Woman	All
All	129	18	147
Age up to 20	2	-	2
Age 20–29	38	3	41
Age 30–39	35	9	44
Age 40–49	40	1	41
Age 50–59	11	3	14
Age 60–65	3	2	5

.

Due to the spread of research over time (time-consuming analysis) Figure 1 shows the steps in the test procedure with the timing of each research activity.

The methods chosen, combining both an objective, ergonomic risk approach in the form of the ERA method and subjective methods and a personal interview, were intended to extend this study beyond purely ergonomic factors to the combined organizational and mm-related aspects of quality of work, which are directly part of social responsibility. The use of the ERA method is due to its more screening nature, where all aspects of functional mobility can be assessed, while at the same time, the assessment can be related to the total load on the whole body, like QEC or REBA [42]. Individual response dimensions relating to body parts typically affected in assembly work, such as the back, neck, shoulders, elbows, and wrists, make it possible to relate this to how workers feel and to organizational aspects directly in the workplace. The ERA method also combines the assessment or resultant strain on individual body parts with the repetition of tasks per unit of time (a reference period of 3 min is assumed). Employees’ responses regarding areas for change were directly translated into aspects of social and corporate social responsibility. This approach is also justified by the fact that employees are not encouraged to invent needs in individual CSR categories but to point out aspects from an ergonomic perspective that can later be directly translated into social sustainability factors. In this way, a system is implemented in which social sustainability is driven by ergonomics.

4. Results

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the carried-out surveys and compared data.

	Mean	Min	Max	SD
1. ERA score	24.50	3	45	10.16
2. Level of fatigue	5.44	1	10	2.54
3. Confusion in the head	2.35	1	10	2.04
4. Eye fatigue	2.48	1	10	2.41
5. Whole body heaviness	4.41	1	10	2.71
6. Heaviness of legs	4.48	1	10	3.01
7. Nervousness	2.76	1	10	2.48
8. Body weight	76.84	45	120	13.84
9. Height	176.03	150	195	9.05
10. Age	36.46	18	63	10.92
11. BMI	24.80	18.03	37.04	4.12
12. Category (automated)	2.35	1	5	1.01

shows descriptive statistics for surveys and compared data for the investigated workstations.

Figure 2 is a quantitative summary of the levels of discomfort felt in the areas of the individual body parts that employees value, divided into three levels: near discomfort, medium discomfort, and severe discomfort. To balance the evaluation of discomfort in particular body parts, the participants were asked how they felt under a typical working shift. In the chart presented, men and women were not separated.

In contrast, in the next question, a question was asked about the level of fatigue after a typical working day; men and women are presented separately in the graph. Due to the smaller number of women working on the two surveyed assembly lines, the comparison of values can only be illustrative (Figure 3).

All data related to the study area were compiled and subjected to statistical analysis. Given the qualitative nature of the collected data, including fatigue levels and employee ratings, an analysis was conducted using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s rho) to examine the relationships between these variables and other data valuing workplaces and employees. The results of this analysis are presented in the

Table 4. Summary of correlations between study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. ERA score	-
2. Level of fatigue	0.07	-
3. Confusion in the head	−0.02	0.31 *	-
4. Eye fatigue	−0.12	0.21 *	0.35 *	-
5. Whole body heaviness	0.04	0.50 *	0.34 *	0.30 *	-
6. Heaviness of legs	0.15	0.48 *	0.26 *	0.21 *	0.52 *	-
7. Nervousness	−0.05	0.37 *	0.46 *	0.44 *	0.39 *	0.38 *	-
8. Body weight	0.08	0.16	0.15	0.09	0.08	0.14	0.11	-
9. Height	0.08	0.03	−0.05	0.05	−0.08	−0.02	0.06	0.42 *	-
10. Age	0.08	0.11	−0.03	0.02	0.19 *	−0.01	−0.09	0.07	−0.20 *	-
11. BMI	0.00	0.15	0.16	0.07	0.16 *	0.19 *	0.07	0.81 *	−0.14	0.20 *	-
12. Category (automated)	0.21 *	0.27 *	−0.04	0.19 *	0.11	0.09	0.07	0.06	0.10	0.10	0.00

*—statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.

.

Apart from the correlation with height, no statistical difference was found between men and women; therefore, this variable was not indicated in the results presented in Table 3. The results of the correlations are discussed in the next section of this article, without a detailed analysis of known relationships between similar measures, such as leg heaviness and general fatigue.

5. Discussion

Interestingly, the relatively objective ERA method’s category did not align with the employees’ responses regarding fatigue assessment, including eye fatigue, nervousness, and the heaviness of legs perception. A very slight but statistically significant correlation was found between the automatically recognized category resulting from the employees’ responses on individual work environment factors. This recognition was made using GPT Chat 4.0. This was conducted in the way that employees’ responses were given about their feelings about work as well as suggestions for improvement. The responses were categorized into five groups, with Group One indicating no comments and Group Five indicating significant comments on the work environment. Interestingly, the correlation between the twelfth category and the first category occurring in a slight coincidence was not reflected by its own in the overall fatigue rating expressed with a value from one to ten. This may indicate the different factors considered in the ergonomic risk assessments by the ERA method and the physical fatigue workers feel after work. It does, however, allow the very methodological conclusion that employees’ qualitative evaluations, expressed in loose terms—with their own words—can be used to assess work and be used with AI elaboration. On the other hand, it points to the need for research into the relationship between the economic burden measured by ergonomic risk methods and the subjective feelings of employees. It is assumed that, according to the principle of triangulation, employee evaluations complement and coincide with ergonomic risk—such provisions are found, for example, in ISO 16710-2 [43].

Based on the case study presented, the ergonomic improvement of work quality can consider the objectives of social sustainability in the DMAIC formula, widely used by today’s increasingly agile industry [44], as shown in Figure 4. From an ergonomic point of view, the criteria analyzed can be objective values such as workload, energy expenditure, and measured values of biomechanical loads, which can be reacted to ergonomic risks. At the same time, however, the ergonomic criteria can be supplemented by the workers’ subjective feelings regarding health, well-being, or job satisfaction. It is also possible to include qualitative and quantitative work results in the ergonomic criteria, i.e., the number of defects and losses of a qualitative and quantitative nature. These criteria are subject to measurement and supported by ergonomic analyses. Therefore, the “Analyse” phase allows the proposed changes to be evaluated before implementation. This is a precious feature of the autonomous approach in the DMAIC sense because, as shown, for example, in Figure 4, different types of simulations can be performed. In addition, the simultaneous implementation of ergonomic measures, together with the implementation of other changes, allows for greater acceptance from workers. In this respect, the use of the experience of the operators is essential, as they should be involved in the decision-making process according to the principle of the Hawthorne effect. It should, therefore, be noted that ergonomic interventions, together with an appropriate system for their implementation, provide an opportunity for a multidimensional improvement of the employee’s working environment and impact on social sustainability.

The application of the DMAIC formula in the presented study covers the Define, Measure, and partial Analyze phases (with some ideas for Improve and Control parts mentioned in the discussion). This scope was intentional for the initial phase of our research due to the limited research group (147 respondents). Future research will extend into the in-depth Analyze, Improve, and Control stages, with a plan to implement and assess specific ergonomic interventions based on current findings. This progression will thoroughly evaluate the DMAIC framework’s value and effectiveness in developing sustainable management strategies within the company. The practical application of the DMAIC model to a process within a company also requires the identification of the individual stakeholders and the responsible units performing the tasks arising from the process. An essential element in this respect is also the determination of the time frame so that the implementation of the evaluation is within an acceptable time frame for the enterprise. Depending on the enterprise, the time from the activities to the completion of the implementation of the job evaluation varies from 30 to 90 days. The conclusions from the analysis of how workers feel about their work processes are incorporated into steps 1 and 2, where the need for ergonomic analysis and its documentation and justification are determined. This can be a screening procedure as part of the first step of deciding to organize workplaces, which can be conducted by stakeholders in the work improvement process. For most enterprises, the solution-finding step is also a challenge, as it requires an appropriate broad view and experience in improving workplaces. Rarely do companies choose to use more advanced design heuristics, but modeling with traditional and more modern means is a common practice in this step. Such an activity could be, for example, simulating how work is performed in a specially arranged production-like space (Figure 5).

As far as examples of improvements are concerned, every company in the automotive industry is constantly improving its workplaces by adjusting the heights of work areas and the places where materials are stored, but also by implementing the idea of automating certain areas, eliminating manual operations wherever possible and profitable. The use of manipulators is very often a company’s strategy. Still, it also has a downside because, in some cases, it means an increase in the duration of the activity, which is unsatisfactory both from a production point of view and a worker’s point of view. Here, of course, we can also mention the program for the re-evaluation of jobs since all the changes implemented should be monitored in terms of their maintenance but also in terms of the level of improvement in the economic quality of work in the position. It is assumed that after an implementation such as the one mentioned above, an evaluation is carried out after 30 days, and it is checked to what extent the implemented changes have contributed to improvements in the workplace. At this point, companies evaluate the implementation and visualize it by producing internal information material with a description of the before and after situation, thus promoting their social sustainability activities for employees.

6. Conclusions

This paper analyzes social and ergonomic interventions for sustainability within a manufacturing company, focusing on the ergonomic quality of employees’ work and considering the company’s broader sustainability and productivity goals. The key conclusion drawn from the literature is the importance of integrating social sustainability, which emphasizes equity, health, and empowerment of employees, with ergonomics. This integration involves the design of work environments and tasks that aim to minimize physical strain and promote the health and safety of employees, as well as using an ergonomics approach to solve problems within the company.

This research also aimed to gain an understanding of how sustainability practices, particularly those related to employee social responsibility, are perceived by manufacturing employees and independent observers. This reflects an interest in bridging the gap between theoretical social sustainability goals and their practical implementation and impact on the quality of work. This study recognizes companies’ challenges in implementing social sustainability and outlines several solutions to overcome these barriers. These solutions include improving communication and transparency, leveraging technology, and implementing corporate social responsibility programs. Observing a convergence between the employees’ statements and the ERA assessment is possible. Still, in many cases, it is felt that the employees are discouraged by the solutions implemented, even though they are considered ergonomic by the employer. Presumably, the employees do not fully understand the changes made to the workstations, or they are convinced that the changes are aimed at production goals rather than sustainability and ergonomics.

It is worth noting that implementing ergonomic interventions based on the DMAIC approach can enhance employers’ perception of social sustainability. By making data-driven ergonomic adjustments, workplaces can improve dynamics and social responsibility. However, it is essential to take a more comprehensive view of ergonomics, which includes employee perceptions and discomfort assessments. This approach recognizes that workplace ergonomics is subjective and requires a nuanced response to individual needs. However, there are significant challenges in obtaining comprehensive ergonomic evaluations, and many companies fail to collect detailed data on ergonomic impacts. This lack of thorough data collection highlights the need for more rigorous scientific analysis and widespread adoption of advanced ergonomic assessment tools to fully understand and maximize the benefits of ergonomic interventions for enhancing social sustainability. There is a need for further research to operationalize the correlation between ergonomics and social sustainability effectively. It also highlights the need to integrate ergonomic innovations into business processes and proposes developing models. Based on workers’ responses, the authors suggest more effective communication and engagement strategies to ensure that sustainability practices are well-perceived and genuinely beneficial to employees. Additionally, it calls for further research to explore the practical integration of ergonomic principles into sustainability initiatives to create work environments that are healthful, productive, and aligned with broader sustainability goals.