Applied Ergonomics 45 (2014) 126e132

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach

Klaus J. Zink
Institut fr Technologie und Arbeit e.V., University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 28 January 2013
Accepted 21 March 2013

There is a growing discussion concerning sustainability. While this discussion was at rst mainly focused
on a society level e and sometimes regarding especially environmental problems, one can now see that
this topic is of increasing relevance for companies worldwide and even the social dimension of this three
pillar approach is gaining more and more importance. This leads to some questions: Is sustainability
already a part of human factors thinking or do we have to further develop our discipline? How can we
dene sustainable work systems? What are the topics we have to consider? Do we need a new systems
ergonomics perspective regarding whole value creation chains and a life-cycle perspective concerning
products (and work systems)? How can we deal with potential contradictions about social, ecological,
and economic goals?
2013 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
System ergonomics
Sustainability
Sustainable work systems
Work system design

1. Relevance of the topic

Discussing the relevance of sustainability for human factors
means rst of all to discuss the relevance of sustainability. In this
paper sustainability shall be understood as the simultaneous pursuit
of economic, ecological and social objectives with a development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. (WCED, 1987) There are
different reasons for an increasing interest in sustainability:
 The current dramatic ecological changes,
 an increasingly critical discussion about the consequences of
globalization,
 wrongly understood shareholder value concepts and the crisis
of the nancial markets,
 and e as a consequence e a growing demand for corporate
social responsibility, including the need for a stakeholder
orientation.
From an ergonomics point of view aging workforces in Europe
but also e.g. in China and other parts of the world are one reason
among others why sustainability is also an important topic for
human factors. Therefore, it is not surprising that various scientic
societies such as the Italian, Nordic and German Human Factors
Society organized congresses under the headline of sustainability.
Even the 2012 congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) in Recif/Brazil dealt with this topic.

E-mail addresses: kjzink@wiwi.uni-kl.de, klaus.j.zink@ita-kl.de.

On the one hand this may show a growing importance of sustainability also within our discipline. On the other hand there is a
danger that sustainability is becoming a buzzword for all
modernistic activities.
2. Sustainability, sustainable development and corporate
sustainability
Before asking whether sustainability is a strategic option for
human factors we have to clarify the history and denition of
sustainability.
Sustainability (on a society level) is an old economic principle
coming from forestry in the Middle Ages, when timber served as a
main source for several economic processes (e.g. as energy source,
building material etc.). The growth of population led to excessive
overuse and clearings causing an economic and ecological crisis
back then. As a consequence forestry anchored different regulations of felling and systematic afforestation allowing balancing the
regeneration of timber resources and their use (Nutzinger, 1995).
Sustainable forestry shows that sustainability is a primal economic
principle and is nally necessary for the long-term survival of societies. Of course, our modern understanding of sustainability is
much more complex than the example of forestry in the Middle
Ages.
Sustainable development (as a process) relies on three basic
ideas (see Zink et al., 2008):
 The focus on human needs: Human beings are in the centre of
concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a
healthy life in harmony with nature (UNCED, 1992).

0003-6870/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.023

K.J. Zink / Applied Ergonomics 45 (2014) 126e132

 The normative claim for intra- and intergenerational fairness as

it was stated in the well-known denition of sustainable
development by the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) in 1987 (WCED, 1987).
 And the concurrent combination of economic, ecological and
social goals: the so-called three pillars of sustainable development, which should be considered equally (UNCED, 1992).
Transferring this general denition on a corporate level (company level) leads to the concepts of corporate sustainability,
coming along with the following denition elements (cp. Dyllick
and Hockerts, 2002):
 Not only economic but also social and environmental prerequisites and impacts as well as the interdependencies between them have to be taken into account.
 Corporate sustainability requires a long-term business orientation as a basis for satisfying stakeholders needs now and in
the future.
 The rule to live on the income from capital, not the capital itself
has to be applied for all kinds of capital: nancial, natural,
human, and social capital.

3. Sustainability and human factors

The discussion about the relevance of sustainability for human
factors and ergonomics is also inuenced by the denition of our
discipline:
1) If we look at the very early statements of Jastrzebowski (1857),
we can nd the following denitions of work and ergonomics:
The exertion of our vital forces for the common, which is
called work [.] by which we and our fellow creatures attain to
all that is good for ourself and the common welfare. The Science
of Work [.] we shall venture to call Ergonomics.
2) In a denition of the German Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society (Gesellschaft fr Arbeitswissenschaft) (GfA, 1999), we
nd: Ergonomics (or human factors) integrates social, economic, and ecological goals and is obligated to concepts, which
are useful for all stakeholders.
3) And the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) dened in
2000: Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientic discipline concerned with the interactions among humans and
other elements of a system, and the profession that applies
theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to
optimize human well being and overall system performance
(IEA, 2000).
All three denitions have something in common with the idea of
sustainability as they all share the joint focus on satisfying human
needs while taking a systemic perspective that comprehensively
covers the interdependencies and interrelations of human activities
with their surrounding systems (according to the three pillar model
of sustainability).
Referring to the denition of corporate sustainability given by
Dyllik and Hockerts and their understanding of sustainability as an
approach to preserve or enlarge different forms of capital, human
factors and ergonomics is mainly concerned with human and social
capital e but also has to consider the two other dimensions of
sustainability. Summarizing the denition of human capital in
literature (see e.g. Osranek and Zink, 2013) one can nd three main
denition elements: The core refers to all individual social, professional and methodical skills and competencies useful and valuable for the organization, but also the health and motivation of

127

individuals to make a contribution. Social capital is understood as

an ability of actors to gain benets by their membership in social
networks or other social structures (Portes, 1998; Baker, 2000).
Coleman (2000, pp. 27f) has indicated that human capital is also
generated by social capital in the family and community. But social
capital can be inuenced by human capital as well, e.g. social
competences as a part of human capital are necessary to use social
networks and to build up trust in other people (Lewis and Weigert,
1985) respectively human capital can facilitate the effective use of
social capital for task performance (Pil and Leana, 2009). These very
few denitions show the interdependencies between human and
social capital and rst hints for designing sustainable work systems
to preserve these categories of capital.
4. Sustainable work systems and human factors
As human factors is dealing (among others) with work systems
it might be helpful to look at the current discussion about sustainable work systems (Docherty et al., 2009): It is not surprising
that again the concurrent development of economic, ecological,
human, and social resources engaged in work processes is the main
goal. Therefore, sustainable work systems have to be able to function in their environment and to achieve economic or operational
objectives, while there is also a development in various human and
social resources engaged in their operations. Employees capacity to
deal with new demands in this context grows through concepts of
work-based learning, development, and well-being. The growth of
social resources is secured through equal and open interaction
among various stakeholders, leading to better mutual understanding and a greater capacity for collaboration. The diversity and
regeneration of ecological resources is safeguarded as well. There is
no simple satisfaction of certain needs of certain stakeholders, but
the need to satisfy the needs of many stakeholders. Here again the
focus should not only be on short-term, static efciencies, such as
productivity and protability, but also on long-term, dynamic efciencies such as learning and innovation. There are no simple
trade-offs between short-term and long-term goals or between
different stakeholders, but there is a need for a just balance in
development for them all. One important task is to bring the (often
more short-term) requirements of competitiveness and those
representing a long-term sustainability together. Sustainable work
systems aim to regenerate all resources utilized. The development
of one type of resource does not exploit resources of other types.
And a sustainable work system does not build its existence on the
exploitation of external resources. Exploitation of external resources can be seen in different ways: Outsourcing dangerous or
less paid work to another company working under the same roof, or
outsourcing work to other e mostly developing e countries with
less pay and without restrictions of work and environmental laws
(as in some Industrial Developing Zones of Industrially Developing
Countries (IDCs)).
These denition elements are based on the following basic assumptions formulated by Docherty et al. (2009, p. 7):
 The opportunity to develop as a person, a professional and a
member of a society through work experiences is a basic human right.
 The sustainability of human and social resources is one of the
foundations of economic sustainability.
 Sustainability at work is one of the foundations for social
development and sustainability of whole societies.
 Sustainability of human and social resources is needed to secure
ecological sustainability, because only people and groups who
operate sustainably are able to grasp, prioritize, and work toward ecological sustainability. (Docherty et al., 2009)

128

K.J. Zink / Applied Ergonomics 45 (2014) 126e132

If we now ask whether this understanding of sustainability is

already a part of human factors thinking, we can conclude that
theoretically the basic assumptions as well as all three pillars are
included in traditional ergonomics approaches e in one way or
another e as the following examples show:
 The design of work processes is realized under time aspects
(productivity; economic objectives).
 Job satisfaction and personal growth are also objectives for job
design (social objectives), and
 environmental aspects such as noise or pollution are considered in the design of work systems (ecological objectives).
But there are also some questions:
 Does Human Factors call for a concurrent realization of all three
dimensions of sustainability?
 Do we have a broad systems approach and a respective time
dimension? Do we just design for the present or do we also
care about the future working conditions of employees?
 Do we not exploit external resources (e.g. in international value
creation chains)?
 How do we deal with changed basic conditions such as shortterm orientation, work intensication, permanent change?
Some rst ideas shall be described in the following chapter.
5. Designing sustainable work systems
Describing a rst frame work for the design of sustainable work
systems from a human factors perspective one has to regard among
others:
 the human and social capital e.g. skills, knowledge, health,
motivation, participation, trustworthiness, identication,
common mental models, group memory,
 the changed frame conditions in different parts of the world:
e.g. increasing short term orientation and work intensication,
demographic changes, globalization, permanent change as
normal situation,
 a systemic and holistic approach regarding whole value creation chains including all working conditions along the value
creation especially those in IDCs but also precarious work situations in Western countries,
 a life-cycle-perspective regarding products (and work systems)
design starting with the design process to manufacturing, assembly, maintenance and repair, disassembly, reuse and
recycling,
 the inclusion of soft facts like leadership style and corporate
culture (e.g. trust worthiness or the impacts on society e.g.
because people who work in a sustainable environment learn
how to grasp, prioritize, and work toward ecological and
economical sustainability.
 the understanding that social sustainability has to be part of a
three pillar model because social sustainability as stand alone
solution will have the problem of acceptance e if not given as
a legal demand,
 but there are also paradoxes one has to deal with because of
goal conicts (see e.g. Ehnert, 2009) and also knowing-doing
gaps (see e.g. Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999).
To cope with these demands human factors can contribute some
concepts, but also has to develop new ones. Some of the known
concepts have a strong connection to the demographic development in many countries and can be summarized on an individual

level under the headlines of workability and employability (see

Ilmarinen, 1999). These concepts shall be roughly described as
examples for existing approaches.
Using workability in a more narrow understanding (in the sense
of having the health, physical, psychological and social functional
capacity for being able to do ones work) is very much related to the
concept of Corporate Health Management (CHM). CHM is more than
traditional Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) or corporate
health promotion concepts, because it is based on the health denition of the World Health Organization (WHO) and on a systematic
management approach (Zink and Thul, 2006). The WHO health
denition is not only based on the absence of disease or inrmity but
denes health as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing (WHO, 1946). A systematic management approach means e.g.
to have health as part of the corporations mission statement, to have
a respective deployment process including the needed resources, to
have a rewarding system for managers including health aspects, to
have a health organization including participatory approaches such
as health circles and to measure the results as part of a continuous
improvement process (Zink and Thul, 2006).
Taking a broader approach of workability as realized in the
concept of Ilmarinen health (in the sense of functional capacity) is
only the basement of his house of workability which also includes
professional competence, values (attitudes and motivation) and the
demands of work such as work conditions and work content, work
community and organization supervisory work and management
(Ilmarinen, 2006).
This understanding of workability includes the concept of
employability which is also discussed separately in HRM. Employability describes an individuals ability to gain initial employment,
maintain employment, move between roles within the same organization, obtain new employment if required and (ideally) secure
suitable and sufcient fullling work, in other words e their
employability more important than the simple state of being
employed (McGrath, 2009 referring to Hillage and Pollard, 1998).
This denition reveals that employability is much more than professional skills and competences. Taking a narrow approach with a
focus on the individual one has to add interdisciplinary social and
methodological competences as well as respective attitudes (such
as commitment or readiness to learn). In a broader perspective the
interaction of individual and external factors affecting the individuals ability to operate effectively within the labor market
have to be regarded (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005, p. 207). Discussing the issue of social justice in the context of unemployment (in
Europe) Schneider and Otto go beyond employability in using a
capability approach to discuss viable perspectives for overcoming
the fragmented employment biographies which are in the center of
employability and to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity
to live a good life (Schneider and Otto, 2009). But also in a more
narrow understanding of employability e.g. attitudes are inuenced
by external factors like a culture in which work is encouraged and
supported within the family (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005, p. 209).
For the discussion in the context of Human Factors (and HRM) the
narrow denition leads to the question, what are organizations
doing to enlarge the employability of their workers. As discussed in
Beckers denition of human capital one has to differ between
(company-) specic and more general competences which increase
the employability in the labor market and therefore can contribute
to a reduction of the feeling of insecurity, because to be employed is
to be at risk, but to be employable is to be secure. From an economic
perspective it is obvious that employers are not so much interested
in this form of employability. Therefore, this will mainly be the
responsibility of the employees.
Seeing the growing dynamic of environments leading to a more
or less permanent change, organizations should take care of the fact

K.J. Zink / Applied Ergonomics 45 (2014) 126e132

that their employees learn to learn and develop competencies on

the job. One Human Factors concept to support this process is
generating working conditions which promote learning. Individual learning in a work system is supported by varied and rich work
experiences: by possibilities to have new experiences and to integrate thoughts and feelings from those experiences to what has
been learned before. . More precisely, work that is variable and
complex, transparent and informating, participative and collaborative, challenging yet manageable, and also personally and socially
rewarding has been dened as work supporting learning or individual development (Kira and Frieling, 2005, p. 2; Skule, 2004). In
addition to this individual learning there is also a need for collective
learning with a growing importance referring to the demographic
changes and the danger to lose knowledge. In the frame of a sustainable work system a concurrent learning on the individual and
group level has to be realized in a way, in which the development
of one contributes to the development of all (Kira and Frieling,
2005, p. 4).
Based on the assumption of a more or less permanent change,
a sustainable work organization must be dened as an organization
that is continuously changing and developing (Kira and Van
Eijnatten, 2009, p. 234). Therefore, work systems have to be
designed, which promote employees mental models and comprehension of work to grow more complex, which enable employees
to take actions and learn to manage in various work situations, and
which support employees sense of meaningfulness at work (Kira
and Van Eijnatten, 2009, p. 236). This is not only relevant on an individual level but also in work groups, teams and networks (Kira and
Van Eijnatten, 2009, p. 237). Again this must be realized without
consuming human or social resources. Therefore, respective coping
strategies for stress have to be provided. Within the demographic
changes in addition the relationship between social capital and tacit
knowledge gains importance (see e.g. Wang et al., 2009). This understanding of a sustainable work organization can be compared
with the paradigms of resilience engineering but does not only focus
on safety management, but on the general ability to cope effectively
with complex situations (Woods and Hollnagel, 2006).
Collective learning in an international context e.g. developing
products in a 24-h day using the different time zones around the
globe has additional challenges like cultural differences. Here the
development of common mental models as described in Riemers
denition of social capital is essential for the quality of results
(Riemer, 2005, pp. 129ff).
Continuous change and complexity need e as described above e
growing competencies, but also the design of socially responsible
restructuring processes as e.g. described in the European project
Health in Restructuring (HIRES) (European Expert Group on
Health in Restructuring, 2009).
Transferring workability and employability to less developed
countries e taking e.g. the examples of so called Export Processing
Zones (EPZs) in those countries e leads to the question: How can
we contribute to sustainable working conditions in these zones or
countries? A lot of research has been carried out how to improve
working conditions especially in those companies producing e.g.
sportswear or computer for Western companies (Locke and Romis,
2007). Voluntary self obligations in terms of codes of conduct have
not been successful, even if they have been combined with
traditional auditing processes: Private, voluntary compliance
programs, promoted by global corporations and nongovernment
organizations alike, have produced only modest and uneven improvements in working conditions and labor rights in most global
supply chains (Locke et al., 2009, p. 319). So far research and
experience is showing that real improvements in working conditions can only be gained if at the same time a contribution to the
enhancement of competitiveness can be realized (see e.g. Locke

129

et al., 2009). The responsibility for such approaches lies primarily

not with IDCs but with Western companies, where the economic
results are allocated. As dened before, a sustainable work system
should not build its existence on the exploitation of external resources. If companies are doing so e and this is one of the negative
sides of globalization e they should accept the responsibility for the
working conditions in e.g. EPZs. This would mean not to concentrate on work analysis only for ones own company but to look at
the whole value creation chain. To avoid public pressure companies
should act proactive and then at least they do not lose their image.
This new approach for Ergonomics could be named Supply Chain
Ergonomics.
But working conditions as described for EPZs can also be found
in Western countries e.g. suppliers of huge food retailers being in
an intensive price competition (see e.g. Hertel, 2010). Some of those
companies also do not allow the election of workers representatives which is part of the ILO International Labour Standards (ILO,
2011). Again designing sustainable work systems has to look at
the whole value creation chain.
Designing sustainable work systems also has to include lifecycle-perspectives especially of products (Zink, 2011a; Zink and
Eberhard, 2006). To create possibilities of holistic work contents
and abilities to develop new competencies on the job can depend on
the architecture of a product e e.g. a product build up on modules
delivers more chances for holistic work contents in assembly. But
here again the whole value creating process i.e. the whole life cycle
has to be regarded: Not only the development process itself and
manufacturing and assembly are part of the analyses but also
maintenance and repair, disassembly, reuse and recycling have to be
considered regarding working conditions e as well as (negative)
impacts on the users. As discussed above, the suppliers have to be
included too. This leads to an approach which is called life-cycleimpact-assessment and used e.g. for ecological issues. Until now
only a few papers exist describing a framework for social life cycle
impact assessment (e.g. Dreyer et al., 2006). There is no doubt that
such assessments cost time and money, but as formulated by Pfeffer
when he analyzed the relevance of social sustainability: Why are
polar bears, for instance, or even milk jugs more important than
people [.]? (Pfeffer, 2010, p. 35) Again a new sub-discipline of
Ergonomics could be Life-Cycle Ergonomics.
The necessity for sustainable work systems can also be discussed regarding their impact on society. As people spend most of
their (awaken) lifetime in business, the role of organizations to
promote sustainability in a society might be questioned. If people
are not educated about a sustainable way of handling of resources
yet the world of work is the most appropriate chance to learn
sustainability. Because why should people act sustainably as customers or citizens if they never had a chance to have role models?
But to get a respective attitude depends on the fact whether they
are treated as relevant human resources at work. This includes
not being a production factor like material or capital but being
accepted as a unique human being with the chance of personal
growth at and through work. Experiencing such a situation
including participation will also contribute to play a better role as a
citizen (e.g. in IDCs) (Zink, 2006). But the demographic change is a
societal problem too, and human factors concepts in the frame of
HRM can contribute to the extension of workability. Therefore, such
investments in human capital cannot be understood as only
altruistic. There is in addition a growing research showing that
investing in human resources at least does not reduce positive
nancial results (Zink, 2011b). There are even authors e not coming
from Human Factors but from management like Gary Hamel (2007)
e who believe that investing in human resources is the best (or
only) way to survive in international competition. Similar arguments are coming from OToole and Lawler in analyzing the New

130

K.J. Zink / Applied Ergonomics 45 (2014) 126e132

American Workplace (OToole and Lawler, 2006). Both publications refer to the concept of High Involvement Teams as part of a
High Involvement Organization. These teams are characterized by
(Gephart and Van Buren, 1996; pp. 22f):





participation in decision making

autonomy regarding ones own work and methods
open communication with all relevant stakeholders
incentives to promote partnership

In this sense there is some similarity with the above discussed

conditions for sustainable work systems, if these approaches are
not exploiting human resource but developing them.
Sustainable work is only possible if there is work which contributes to earn ones living and to have a chance of personal
growth. Insofar, sustainable work has been dened earlier as being
competitive e but not competitive in consuming human resources.
Therefore, not only work design but also respective labor laws
based on ILO (2011) or OECD (2011) denitions of decent work have
to be realized. This is not only a topic of IDCs but also a growing
topic in so called developed countries where there are a number of
circumstances that precarious work is growing and one job is no
longer enough to earn ones living. Here, the measures increasing
the Quality of Working Life gain a new importance (Zink, 2011c).
This rst global frame for designing sustainable work systems
from a human factors perspective shows that the development of
new methods or the further development of old methods is
necessary. Two examples may be given: We need a holistic work
system analyses for the whole value creation chain including all
dimensions of sustainability and we need a life cycle assessment
based on human factors criteria. To be successful in this eld we
also have to adopt human resource management concepts like
training programs for sustainable behavior, again including all
three dimensions and participatory problem solving approaches.
We need training concepts for coping strategies dealing with psychological stress in complex working situations e but also for
design approaches for the reduction of complexity. Complexity is
created in workplaces where the boundaries of work vanish,
where we have exible, lateral organizations with reduced rules
and structures, where responsibilities and tasks become impossible
to predene. Therefore, the amount of possibilities is increasing
and the need for personal judgments at work exposes employees
more to social and performance demands (Docherty et al., 2002, p.
8). And last but not least, leadership training based on well known
concepts like Investors in People (Investors in People, 2012) or
Great Places to work (GPTW, 2012).
At the end it has to be re-called that the realization of sustainability is not free of contradictions or paradoxes. Therefore, the
process of introducing such concepts needs the idea of balancing
between different approaches and objectives. Lifvergren et al. have
shown respective concepts for a healthcare project in Sweden
(Lifvergren et al., 2009; pp. 180f):
 Balancing the speed of change: There is a clear trade-off between the speed of change and the quality of change dened as
shared ownership and understanding of decisions and policies.
 Balancing the different interests among key stakeholders (and
system components): Inviting all stakeholders and giving them
the possibility to integrate own ideas makes balancing easier.
 Balancing the short term and the long term: Short term results
are necessary to foster motivation and involvement, but have to
be aligned with long term strategies.
 Balancing static and dynamic efciency: health systems demand a high level of productivity; to reach these results individual and organizational learning are necessary.

Fig. 1. Sustainability as 3-pillar- and triangle-model.

 Balancing specialization and integration: in healthcare this is

the balancing between standardized pathways and individual
needs of patients.

6. Sustainable work systems and systems ergonomics

So far the above discussion has shown that there are a lot of
interdependencies which need a systems approach. Based on the
denition of sustainability1 we have to cope with economic, social
and ecological goals the same time. To visualize these it is better to
have, instead of the three pillars, a triangle-model as it claries the
interdependencies (and possible conicts) between the three dimensions and it can also include the time dimension (Fig. 1).
If we refer to this time dimension for a life-cycle-perspective of
product- and work-systems-design we get a second example for
interdependencies: The interdependency between the product
design or architecture and the possibilities for designing work
systems and work contents, respectively the user-friendliness of
products not only for users but also for the people producing,
assembling, maintaining, repairing and dismantling these products.
This second example shows that this approach goes beyond the
limits of a socio-technical or socio-technological system (Zink,
2000) understood as one organization. While we generally
discuss macro-, meso- or micro-levels of an organization within
systems ergonomics (Friesdorf et al., 2007) we surely need a
broader perspective when looking at the interdependencies found
in international supply chains. This means to look at systems of
systems analyzing and evaluating the working conditions in the
whole value creation chain.
Using only these two examples of sustainability and human
factors shows that these challenges go far beyond our traditional
understanding of ergonomics or human factors and also systems
ergonomics. Globalization demands a broader perspective which e
if we accept sustainable development as a sense making concept e
should have consequences for the discipline. There are not too
many ergonomists who are able to combine the three dimensions
of sustainability because their training has been focused only on
the social dimension of this concept. Systems Ergonomics dealing
with interdependencies is a valuable basis for this further development when we review our training concepts to have at least
some ergonomists who are able to include the economic and
ecological dimension in their concepts and to look at whole value

1
Besides the basic denition of sustainability referred to in this paper, there is
also a differentiation between a weak and a strong sustainability, which includes the question whether or not natural capital (e.g. natural resources or ecosystems as a whole) can be substituted by man-made capital (e.g. assets, technology
or knowledge) (see Zink et al., 2008, p. 5f).

K.J. Zink / Applied Ergonomics 45 (2014) 126e132

creation chains. At least in Europe, there is a growing interest in

asking about the working conditions of companies but also the
working conditions of their suppliers. Here, Systems Ergonomics in
a further developed understanding could offer assistance which is
only partly available on the market of consulting. This implies
further research in this eld which again demands a broader
qualication.
These few thoughts show that dealing with sustainability may
demand a re-thinking of the denition of systems ergonomics (as it
has been done in the discussion about the future of ergonomics
(Dul et al., 2012)).
7. Summary
As seen in the past, to market Ergonomics as a stand-alonesolution has not always been successful. The topic of sustainability
offers the chance to include the concept of ergonomics or human
factors in a worldwide relevant topic. There are some similarities
which deliver a chance for inclusion as human factors is very much
related to social sustainability e not forgetting the economic and
ecological dimension. As sustainability is in the danger to become
only a vogue term it is necessary to develop respective assessment and design concepts related to work systems. Conicts of
interest exist but they are also a function of the time perspective. A
broader time perspective can change conicts in congruencies. But
there is also a need for a different understanding of the overall
performance of a company which can be seen in following the
discussion about corporate social responsibility. This will generate
new chances for human factors if a systems approach is offered
including the three dimensions of sustainability.
References
Baker, W., 2000. Achieving Success through Social Capital: Tapping the Hidden
Resources in Your Personal and Business Networks. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Coleman, J., 2000. Social capital in the creation of human capital. In: Serageldin, I.,
Dasgupta, P. (Eds.), Social Capital: a Multifaceted Perspective. World Bank,
Washington.
Docherty, P., Forslin, J., Shani, A.B., Kira, M., 2002. Emerging work systems. In:
Docherty, P., Forslin, J., Shani, A.B. (Eds.), Creating Sustainable Work Systems.
Routledge, London and New York, pp. 3e14.
Docherty, P., Kira, M., Shani, A.B., 2009. What the world needs now is sustainable
work systems. In: Docherty, P., Kira, M., Shani, A.B. (Eds.), Creating Sustainable
Work Systems, second ed. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 1e21.
Dreyer, L.C., Hauschild, M.Z., Schierbeck, J., 2006. A framework for social life cycle
impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (2),
88e97.
Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, C., Falzon, P., Marras, W.M., Wilson, J.R., Van
der Doelen, B., 2012. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the
discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55 (4), 377e395.
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment 11, 130e141.
Ehnert, I., 2009. Sustainable Human Resource Management: a Conceptual and
Exploratory Analysis from a Paradox Perspective (Contributions to Management
Science). Physica, Heidelberg.
European Expert Group on Health in Restructuring (Ed.), 2009. Health in Restructuring. Rainer Hampp, Mnchen.
Friesdorf, W., Buss, B., Marsolek, I., 2007. Patient safety by treatment standardization and process navigation e a systems ergonomics management concept.
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 8 (5), 469e479.
Gephart, M.A., Van Buren, M.E., 1996. Building synergy: the power of high performance work systems. Training & Development 50 (10), 21e36.
GfA (Gesellschaft fr Arbeitswissenschaft), 1999. Selbstverstndnis der Gesellschaft
fr Arbeitswissenschaft e.V (Mission of the German Ergonomics and Human
Factors Society). GfA-Press, Dortmund.
GPTW (Great Places to work), 2012. Deutschland GmbH. http://www.
greatplacestowork.com (accessed 25.07.12.).
Hamel, G., 2007. The Future of Management. Harvard Business School Publishing,
Boston.
Hertel, F., 2010. Knochenarbeit e Ein Frontbericht aus der Wohlstandsgesellschaft.
Hanser, Mnchen.
Hillage, J., Pollard, E., 1998. Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy
Analysis. Research Report RR 85. Department for Education and Employment,
London.

131

IEA (International Ergonomics Association), 2000. Ergonomics International News

and Information e August 2000. Marshall Associates, London.
Ilmarinen, J., 1999. Ageing Workers in the European Union and Promotion of Work
Ability, Employability and Employment. Finnish Institute of Occupational
Health (FIOH), Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki.
Ilmarinen, J., 2006. Towards a Longer Work Life: Aging and the Quality of Work
Life in the European Union. National Institute for Occupational Health,
Helsinki.
ILO (International Labour Organization), 2011. Introduction to International Labour
Standards. ILO, Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-tointernational-labour-standards/lang-en/index.htm (accessed 25.07.12.).
Investors in People, 2012. http://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk. (accessed 25.07.12.).
Jastrzebowski, W., 1857. An Outline of Ergonomics or the Science of Work Based on
the Truths Drawn from the Science of Nature. In: Przyroda i Przwmsyl [Nature
and Industry]. No 29 (reprinted by the Central Institute for Labour Protection,
Warsaw, Poland 2000).
Kira, M., Frieling, E., 2005. Collective learning: building on individual learning,
Discussion paper, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Kassel. http://
www.chaosforum.com/docs/nieuws/Collective.pdf. (accessed 25.07.12.).
Kira, M., Van Eijnatten, F.M., 2009. Sustained by work: individual and social sustainability in work organizations. In: Docherty, P., Kira, M., Shani, A.B. (Eds.),
Creating Sustainable Work Systems. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 233e246.
Lewis, J., Weigert, A., 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63 (4), 967e986.
Lifvergren, S., Huzzard, T., Docherty, P., 2009. A development coalition for sustainability in healthcare. In: Docherty, P., Kira, M., Shani, A.B. (Eds.), Creating
Sustainable Work Systems, second ed. Routledge, London and New York,
pp. 167e185.
Locke, R., Amengual, M., Mangla, A., 2009. Virtue out of necessity?: compliance,
commitment and the improvement of labor conditions in global supply chains.
Politics & Society 37 (3), 319e351.
Locke, R., Romis, M., 2007. Improving working conditions in a Global Supply Chain.
MIT Sloan Management Review 48 (2), 54e62.
McGrath, S., 2009. What Is Employability. UNESCO Centre for Comparative Education Research, School of Education, University of Nottingham. http://www.
nottingham.ac.uk/shared/shared_uccer/epa_docs/what_is_employability.pdf
(accessed 25.07.12).
McQuaid, R.W., Lindsay, C., 2005. The concept of employability. Urban Studies 42
(2), 197e219.
Nutzinger, H.G., 1995. Von der Durchuwirtschaft zur Nachhaltigkeit e Zur Nutzung endlicher Ressourcen in der Zeit. In: Bievert, B., Held, M. (Eds.), Zeit in der
konomik: Perspektiven fr die Theorienbildung. Springer, Frankfurt/Main,
pp. 207e237.
OToole, J., Lawler III, E.E., 2006. The New American Workplace. Palgrave Macmillan,
New York.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2011. OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/36/
1922428.pdf (accessed 25.07.12.).
Osranek, R., Zink, K.J., 2013. Corporate human capital and social sustainability of
human resources: towards an integrative measurement framework. In:
Ehnert, I., Harry, W., Zink, K.J. (Eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management.
Springer, Heidelberg. submitted for publication.
Pfeffer, J., 2010. Building sustainable organizations: the human factor. Academy of
Management Perspectives 24 (1), 34e45.
Pfeffer, J., Sutton, R.I., 1999. The Knowing Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn
Knowledge into Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Pil, F., Leana, C., 2009. Applying organizational research to public school reform: the
effects of teacher human and social capital on student performance. Academy of
Management Journal 52 (6), 1101e1124.
Portes, A., 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1), 1e24.
Riemer, K., 2005. Sozialkapital und Kooperation: Zur Rolle von Sozialkapital im
Management. Mohr Siebeck, Tbingen.
Schneider, K., Otto, H.-U., 2009. From Employability Towards Capability. Inter-Actions, Thionville. (Forward Series).
Skule, S., 2004. Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess
informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and
Development 8 (1), 8e20.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), 1992. Rio
de Janeiro. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA),
New York.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our Common
Future. University Press, Oxford.
Wang, K.Y., Jie, F., Huang, K.-P., 2009. The relationship between social capital and
tacit knowledge. In: The 2009 International Conference in Management Science
and Decision Making. Taipei, Taiwan, Tamkang University. http://ro.uow.edu.au/
gsbpapers/16. (accessed 25.07.12.).
WHO (World Health Organization), 1946. WHO Denition of Health. New York.
http://www.who.int/about/denition/en/print.html (accessed 25.07.12.).
Woods, D.D., Hollnagel, E., 2006. Prologue: resilience engineering concepts. In:
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Leveson, N. (Eds.), Resilience Engineering: Concepts
and Precepts. Ashgate, Farnham/Surrey, pp. 1e6. reprinted 2012.
Zink, K.J., Steimle, U., Fischer, K., 2008. Human factors, business excellence and
corporate sustainability: differing perspectives, joint objectives. In: Zink, K.J.
(Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management.
Physica, Heidelberg. p. 5 (pp. 3e18).

132

K.J. Zink / Applied Ergonomics 45 (2014) 126e132

Zink, K.J., Eberhard, D., 2006. Product and production ergonomics as part of a newly
dened product management. In: Pikaar, R.N., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Settels, P.J.M.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the IEA 2006, 16th World Congress on Ergonomics.
Elsevier Science. Maastricht (CD Rom).
Zink, K.J., Thul, M.J., 2006. Corporate health management: designing and evaluating
health in organizations. In: Marras, W.S., Karwowski, W. (Eds.), Interventions,
Controls, and Applications in Occupational Ergonomics e the Occupational Ergonomics Handbook, second ed. CRS, Boca Raton, London, New York, pp. 7-1e7-39.
Zink, K.J., 2011a. Do we need a new discussion about the quality of working life?. In:
Gbel, M., Christie, C.J., Zschernack, S., Todd, A.I., Mattison, M. (Eds.), 2011a.
Human Factors and Organisational Design and Management, X, vol. 1 IEA Press,
Santa Monica, pp. I-17eI-22.

Zink, K.J., 2011b. Produktentwicklung und Nachhaltigkeit: Notwendigkeit

eines Paradigmenwechsels aus arbeitswissenschaftlicher Sicht. In: GfA
(Ed.), Mensch, Technik, Organisation e Vernetzung im Produktentstehungs- und Herstellungsprozess. 57. Kongress der Gesellschaft fr
Arbeitswissenschaft vom 23. bis 25. Mrz 2011. GfA-Press, Dortmund, S,
pp. 181e185.
Zink, K.J., 2011c. The contribution of quality of working life to organizational
excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 22 (5), 567e585.
Zink, K.J., 2006. Human factors, management and society. Theoretical Issues in
Ergonomics Science 7 (4), 437e445.
Zink, K.J., 2000. Ergonomics in the past and in the future: from a German
perspective to an international one. Ergonomics 43 (7), 920e930.