Human Factors for Sustainability: Theoretical Perspectives and Global Applications [1 ed.] 9781138576575 (hardback) | 9781351269681 (ebook)

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
Half Title......Page 2
Title Page......Page 4
Copyright Page......Page 5
Table of Contents......Page 6
Preface......Page 10
Editors......Page 12
Contributors......Page 14
Global Sustainability Requirements......Page 22
Changing World of Work......Page 23
Theoretical Approaches Within HFE to Address Sustainability......Page 27
Human Factors and Sustainable Development......Page 30
Sustainable Work Systems Concepts......Page 31
Contributions From HFE to Design and Work Issues......Page 32
Community Sustainability......Page 33
Sustainable Organizations......Page 34
Design of Tasks and Jobs......Page 36
The Built Environment......Page 37
Design of Products, Interfaces, and Systems......Page 38
Organization of This Book......Page 42
References......Page 43
Section I: Theoretical Basis for Human Factors and Ergonomics: Sustainability and Sustainable Development......Page 54
Introduction and Scope......Page 56
Quality of Life/Human Well-Being......Page 57
Whose Quality of Life?......Page 62
Historical Perspectives on QoL......Page 64
Summary and Conclusion......Page 67
References......Page 69
Introduction......Page 72
Values, Ethics, and Morality: Toward a Provisional Imperative......Page 74
Capitalist-Based Economic Model......Page 76
Quality of Life......Page 77
Human-Centered HFE......Page 78
An Emergent Need for an Ethical Stance......Page 79
Values Supporting Sustainability in HFE......Page 80
Toward an Ethical Stance in HFE for Sustainability: The Way Forward......Page 85
Provisionality of HFE Systems......Page 86
Challenges to the Definition of HFE......Page 88
Ethics in Educational Programs......Page 89
References......Page 90
The Sustainable Development Goals and Their Context......Page 96
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development......Page 98
The Goals’ Centrality and Conflict Hiding......Page 99
Implementation of the Agenda of Sustainable Development......Page 100
Some Reflections about Actions in HFE in
Consonance with the SDGs......Page 102
Rationalities in the Decision-Making Process......Page 104
The Centrality of Work......Page 106
Goal 3 – Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for All at All Ages: The Subjectivity and the Construction of Health......Page 107
Goal 4 – Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All: The Professional Development......Page 109
Goal 8 – Promote Sustained, Inclusive, and Sustainable Economic Growth, Full and Productive Employment, and Decent Work for All: Pursuing Interesting Work......Page 110
Final Reflection......Page 111
Conclusion......Page 113
References......Page 114
Section II: Methods and Application Areas for Sustainable Work Systems......Page 118
Introduction......Page 120
Crowd Work and Work-on-Demand via Apps as New Forms of Work in the “Gig-Economy”......Page 121
Types of Crowd Work......Page 122
Crowd Work Platforms......Page 124
Opportunities of Crowd Work......Page 125
Risks of Crowd Work......Page 126
Traditional Ways of Outsourcing and Some Problems in a Globalized World......Page 128
Crowdsourcing – The New Form of Outsourcing......Page 129
Crowd Work and Sustainable Work Systems......Page 130
Crowd Work as Sustainable Work......Page 131
Challenges for Governmental Institutions......Page 132
Improving Working Conditions......Page 134
Work-Based Learning, Development, and Well-Being......Page 135
What Are the Needs for Action? Consider: What Are the Different Needs for the Stakeholders of the World of Crowd Work?......Page 136
Conclusion......Page 138
References......Page 139
Gabriel García-Acosta and Karen Lange-Morales......Page 144
Origin of, and Problem Associated with, the Life Cycle Concept for PDD......Page 145
PLC in Marketing......Page 146
PLC in Engineering......Page 147
The Problem of Adopting Qualities of “Living Things” to “Nonliving Things”......Page 148
Conceptual References for the Development of PstC Notion......Page 149
Relationship between Sociotechnical (Anthropic) and Natural (Biothropic) Cycles......Page 150
Why There Are Existence Cycles......Page 153
Product Sociotechnical Cycles: Eco-Efficiency, Socioefficiency, Eco-Effectiveness, Socioeffectiveness, and Eco-Productivity......Page 155
First Category: Traditional Approach in PDD or “Money Is What Matters”......Page 156
Second Category: Transitional Approach in PDD or “a Kind of Greenwashing”......Page 157
Third Category: Comprehensive Approach or “Values Are the Key”......Page 158
HFE Perspectives Within PstCs for Sustainability-Oriented PDDs......Page 161
References......Page 162
Marina Jentsch......Page 166
Introduction......Page 167
Definitions......Page 168
The Coverage of Social Impacts: Stakeholders and Subcategories......Page 169
Phase 1 – Goal and Scope......Page 170
Phase 2 – Life Cycle Inventory......Page 171
Phase 3 – Life Cycle Impact Assessment......Page 173
Phase 4 – Life Cycle Interpretation......Page 174
Limitations of S-LCA......Page 175
Methodology......Page 176
Challenges of S-LCA in Practice......Page 177
Data Availability and Quality......Page 181
Data Aggregation Challenges......Page 182
Standardization of Processes, Impact Categories, or Databases......Page 183
Simplification to Improve Feasibility......Page 184
Methodology Refinement to Improve Validity......Page 185
Conclusion......Page 187
References......Page 188
Margaret Hanson and Andrew Thatcher......Page 192
Definition of “Green Jobs”......Page 193
Wind Energy......Page 197
Design, Manufacture, Transport, and Installation......Page 198
Maintenance......Page 199
Solar Power......Page 200
Design, Manufacture, Transport, and Installation......Page 201
Design, Manufacture, Transport, Installation, and Maintenance......Page 202
Recycling Collection......Page 203
Sustainable Agriculture......Page 204
Cross-Cutting Issues: The Impact of Climate Change on All Workers......Page 206
Increased Ambient Temperatures......Page 207
Conclusions......Page 208
References......Page 209
Introduction: Sustainability as a Systems Concept......Page 214
Sustainability and Organizational Reality......Page 215
Sustainability in Open Systems......Page 216
Human Factors and Ergonomics Perspective......Page 219
Design Driven......Page 220
Macroergonomics and Human Systems Integration......Page 221
Proximal Antecedents to Sustainability Performance......Page 222
Individual Factors......Page 224
Organizational Factors......Page 225
The Case of Sierra Nevada Brewing Company......Page 226
Sustainability at Sierra Nevada Brewing Company......Page 227
Sustainability Initiatives and Outcomes......Page 228
Key Learning Points to Achieving Sustainability......Page 230
Conclusions......Page 233
References......Page 235
Introduction......Page 238
The Sustainable System-of-Systems Model for HFE......Page 239
Point 1: Identifying the Relevant Target, Sibling, Child, and Parent Systems......Page 243
Point 2: Placing Systems in the SSoS Hierarchy......Page 246
Point 3: Factors to Consider in Collecting Data......Page 247
Point 4: Identifying Intervention Points for
the HFE Practitioner......Page 249
Point 5: Iteration......Page 251
Conclusions......Page 252
References......Page 254
Introduction......Page 258
The Global Value Chains Concept......Page 259
Global Value Chains in the Context of the Agenda 2030......Page 260
High Diversity and Complexity in Global Value Creation “Chains”......Page 263
Unequal Global Allocation of Value and Damage......Page 264
Macro-Level: Cost Competition between Developing Countries and the “Race to the Bottom”......Page 265
Meso-Level: Cost Competition in GVC between Global Suppliers and the Question of Corporate Responsibility of Multinational Enterprises......Page 267
The Role of HFE to Improve Sustainability in GVC......Page 268
HFE Contributions in Different Development Stages......Page 269
Basic Economic Development Stages......Page 270
Upgrading Stage......Page 271
Actors and Target Groups......Page 272
Conclusion......Page 273
Acknowledgment......Page 274
References......Page 275
Introduction......Page 280
Ergoecology......Page 282
Eco-Spherical Approach......Page 284
Integral Ecology......Page 285
Orientation toward Transition......Page 286
The Seven Ergoecological Criteria......Page 287
Self-Regulation (Micro-Level)......Page 288
Exchange of Energy, Material, and Information between the Company and the Environment (Micro- and Macro-Levels)......Page 290
Recognition of Interdependence (Macro-Level)......Page 293
Reaching a Dynamic Balance between Companies and Resources (Macro-Level)......Page 294
Co-Create and Cooperate to Coexist (Macro- and Supra-Levels)......Page 296
Consciousness of Dependence on Natural Capital (Supra-Level)......Page 298
Favor Diversity with Equity (Supra-Level)......Page 300
Conclusions and Recommendations......Page 302
References......Page 304
Section III: Case Studies from around the World on Sustainability and Sustainable Work Systems......Page 310
Maryam Tabibzadeh and Najmedin Meshkati......Page 312
Introduction......Page 313
A Brief Overview of Primary Human Factors’ Root Causes of the BP Deepwater Horizon and the Fukushima Disasters......Page 315
The Vital Role of Seawater Desalination in the Persian Gulf......Page 316
Nuclear Power in the Persian Gulf......Page 319
Added Challenges of Climate Change......Page 321
The Adverse Effect of “Tyranny of Small Decisions” on the Ecosystem of the Persian Gulf......Page 324
Human Factors Evolutionary Process: From Human-Machine System and Human Systems Integration to Meta-Ergonomics......Page 325
The Quest for System-Oriented Integration That Started in the 1980s Continues......Page 326
A Proposed Four-Layer Framework for Interoperability Analysis of Key Players in the Persian Gulf......Page 328
Ensuring Resilience in the Persian Gulf System......Page 331
Sample of Specific Recommendations to Initiate the Process of HFE Integration......Page 332
Framework Generalizability and Application to Other Ecosystems......Page 333
Acknowledgments......Page 334
References......Page 336
Introduction: Background and Driving Forces......Page 340
The Past of the Forestry Sector and Its Relationship with Ergonomics: The First Steps......Page 341
The Present of the Chilean Forestry Workforce......Page 346
Development and Regeneration of People Resource......Page 349
Better Integration between FCs and FCCs......Page 350
The Future of the Workforce......Page 351
Conclusions......Page 352
References......Page 353
Julien Guibourdenche, Céline Poret,
Germain Poizat, Florence Motté, Yvon Haradji, Pascal Salembier, and Mariane Galbat......Page 356
Introduction......Page 357
Time and Organization in Human Factors and Ergonomics for Sustainable Development: New Complexity Issues......Page 358
Francophone Activity-Centered Approaches......Page 360
An Extensive Research Program within the Electricity
Market and Service Sector......Page 361
Design Objectives and Challenges......Page 363
Extending Our Analyses while Sticking to the Theoretical Basis......Page 364
Main Methods and Tools for Data Gathering, Analysis, and Modeling......Page 365
Understanding Long-Term UX and Designing the Appropriability of Energy-Efficient HEMS Over Years......Page 369
Designing the Service and Enabling the Interorganizational Coordination That Supports It......Page 372
Designing More Energy-Efficient Sociotechnical Electricity Grids with SMACH......Page 375
Toward an Enactive Research Program on Activity, Technology, and Sustainable Development......Page 378
References......Page 381
Characteristics of IDCs......Page 386
Sustainability in IDCs......Page 387
Transport Systems in Africa......Page 392
The Current Situation......Page 393
Example of South Africa’s Railway Challenges......Page 394
Challenges Impacting on Sustainability......Page 397
Sustainable System-of-Systems Example......Page 399
The Role of HFE in Transport Sustainability......Page 402
References......Page 407
Introduction......Page 410
Methodology......Page 412
Procedure......Page 413
STPNF as a Microergonomics and Macroergonomics Construct......Page 414
Stakeholder Perspectives on the Training......Page 416
Considerations of Organizational Level Influences......Page 420
Considerations on Influences at the Societal Level......Page 421
References......Page 423
Dave Moore, Clare Tedestedt George, and
Jas Qadir......Page 426
Definitions......Page 427
Introduction to Sustainable Development in a Contemporary New Zealand Context......Page 429
Cultural Capital......Page 430
Translational Research......Page 433
Whole of Population Benefit?......Page 434
Everyone – Everything – Early......Page 435
The Creative Use of Archival Data Collected for Other Purposes......Page 436
Design of the Built Environment......Page 437
Meat Industry and Nursing Manual Handling......Page 438
Vested Interests......Page 439
Relationships as Capital......Page 441
No Magic Bullets......Page 442
Transport Sector......Page 444
Acknowledgments......Page 446
References......Page 447
Section IV: Reflections......Page 450
What Was Covered in This Book?......Page 452
What Is Needed Moving Forward?......Page 454
Discussing the Future of Work......Page 456
References......Page 458
Index......Page 460

Citation preview

Human Factors for Sustainability

Theoretical Perspectives and Global Applications

Human Factors for Sustainability

Theoretical Perspectives and Global Applications

Edited by

Andrew Thatcher, Klaus J. Zink, and Klaus Fischer

CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 © 2020 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S. Government works Printed on acid-free paper International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-138-57657-5 (Hardback) This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged, please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Thatcher, Andrew, editor. | Zink, Klaus J., 1947- editor. | Fischer, Klaus (Lecturer on sustainable development), editor. Title: Human factors for sustainability : theoretical perspectives and global applications / edited by Andrew Thatcher, Klaus J. Zink, Klaus Fischer. Description: Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book deals with the central question of how human factors and ergonomics (HFE) might contribute to solutions for the more sustainable development of our world. The contents of the book are highly compatible with the recent political agenda for sustainable development as well as with sustainability research from other disciplines.The book aims to summarize and profile the various empirical and theoretical work arising from the field of “Human Factors and Sustainable Development” in the last decade. The book gives a systematic overview of relevant theoretical concepts, their underlying philosophies, as well as global application fields and case studies”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019024680 (print) | LCCN 2019024681 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138576575 (hardback) | ISBN 9781351269681 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Human engineering. | Sustainable engineering. | Sustainable development. Classification: LCC T59.7 .H84535 2019 (print) | LCC T59.7 (ebook) | DDC 620.8/2--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019024680 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019024681 Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com

Contents Preface.......................................................................................................................ix Editors........................................................................................................................xi Contributors............................................................................................................ xiii Chapter 1 How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?.......................................................................................1 Andrew Thatcher, Klaus J. Zink, and Klaus Fischer

SECTION I  T  heoretical Basis for Human Factors and Ergonomics: Sustainability and Sustainable Development Chapter 2 For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?..................... 35 Colin G. Drury and Peter A. Hancock Chapter 3 A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability..................... 51 Andrew Thatcher, Karen Lange-Morales, and Gabriel García-Acosta Chapter 4 HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals........................ 75 Claudio Marcelo Brunoro, Ivan Bolis, Bruno César Kawasaki, Ruri Giannini, and Laerte Idal Sznelwar

SECTION II  M  ethods and Application Areas for Sustainable Work Systems Chapter 5 Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems...............99 Klaus J. Zink Chapter 6 Beyond Product Life Cycles: An Introduction to Product Sociotechnical Cycles (PstC) as an Alternative for HFE toward Sustainability in Product Design and Development.......................... 123 Gabriel García-Acosta and Karen Lange-Morales v

vi

Contents

Chapter 7 Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice: Getting Through Initial Difficulties of the New Approach............................ 145 Marina Jentsch Chapter 8 Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs: Facilitating Sustainable Green Jobs......................................... 171 Margaret Hanson and Andrew Thatcher Chapter 9 Achieving Sustainability through HFE and Organizational Behavior and Change........................................................................ 193 Andrew S. Imada and Samantha K. Imada Chapter 10 Factors to Consider in the Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model for Human Factors and Ergonomics Interventions...................................................................................... 217 Andrew Thatcher and Paul H. P. Yeow Chapter 11 Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains............ 237 Klaus Fischer Chapter 12 Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability........... 259 Martha Helena Saravia-Pinilla, Carolina Daza-Beltrán, and Lucas Rafael Ivorra‑Peñafort

SECTION III  C  ase Studies from around the World on Sustainability and Sustainable Work Systems Chapter 13 Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and the Potential Role of Human Factors and Ergonomics in the Persian Gulf: Improving Safety and Preparing for Climate Change Challenges.......291 Maryam Tabibzadeh and Najmedin Meshkati Chapter 14 Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector from a Social and Ergonomics Perspective............. 319 Felipe Meyer, Elias Apud, Gabriel Eweje, and David Tappin

vii

Contents

Chapter 15 Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design: Issues and Perspectives from a Francophone Activity-Centered Approach............................................................. 335 Julien Guibourdenche, Céline Poret, Germain Poizat, Florence Motté, Yvon Haradji, Pascal Salembier, and Mariane Galbat Chapter 16 Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries (IDCs) – The Role of Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) ........ 365 Jessica Hutchings Chapter 17 Safety Training Park in Northern Finland – A Multistakeholder Approach to Improve Occupational Safety and Health.................... 389 Arto Reiman, Tuula Räsänen, Louise Møller Pedersen, and Seppo Väyrynen Chapter 18 HFE Practice within Complex Teams: What We Bring...................405 Dave Moore, Clare Tedestedt George, and Jas Qadir

SECTION IV  Reflections Chapter 19 Concluding Remarks, the Outlook, and Future Research................. 431 Klaus J. Zink, Andrew Thatcher, and Klaus Fischer Index....................................................................................................................... 439

Preface More than 25 years ago (in 1992), the first “Earth Summit” placed the issue of sustainable development on the global political agenda. As this famous UN Conference in Rio de Janeiro was held at the time of the end of Cold War, it was driven by a spirit of multilateralism and the hope that a certain dividend would help to solve global sustainability problems and inequality through international cooperation. In recent times, the rise of nationalism and military buildups has meant that the enthusiastic global spirit seems to be a rather remote prospect. However, remarkable progress has been achieved in the last few decades in important fields such as the alleviation of poverty and hunger, child mortality reductions, access to primary education and – when looking at environmental sustainability – with regard to protecting the ozone layer. These achievements are encouraging, even though many sustainability challenges have become even more pressing in the last few years. Since 2015, the world has agreed on its third global framework for addressing sustainability and sustainable development objectives. The recent Agenda 2030 is an improvement in respecting the interdependencies between environmental, economic, and social aspects as well as the shared responsibility of the Global “North” and “South” and is thus delivering a comprehensive framework for designing the future of a globalized world. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals have consequently been taken up in strategies and action plans at the country, community, and organizational levels worldwide. When looking at the role of human factors and ergonomics (HFE) in this context, our discipline recognized early on the importance of global sustainability entrenched in human well-being. At the International Ergonomics Association Congress (1994) succeeding Rio’s Earth Summit, Moray outlined the global challenges of sustainable development to the HFE community in Toronto, Canada. Although the response of the HFE community was initially quite slow, a multitude of initiatives and research fields were launched. These initiatives led to new concepts such as ergoecology, green ergonomics, supply chain ergonomics, and sustainable work systems design, which help focus our attention on pressing and highly complex issues required for future development. These concepts and their related instruments are – among others – presented in this book. In 2008, the International Ergonomics Association’s Technical Committee on Human Factors for Sustainable Development (HFSD TC) was launched, offering an overall umbrella body for the sustainability discourse in HFE. In its first decade, this TC has become a platform of exchange and cooperation across the borders of continents, disciplines, and research topics and has thus contributed to an emerging new subdiscipline of HFE. This book picks up on this development and provides a collection of theoretical approaches in sustainability research from the HFE domain, its various existing and new areas for HFE application, and case study examples of where HFE methods have made a significant difference. The discourse is thereby not limited to supposed “classical” sustainability issues: recent technological and social developments such as digitization and demographic changes are inseparably linked ix

x

Preface

with ecological soundness and global welfare. In particular with regard to the role of HFE, megatrends and transformation paths should thus not be dealt with separately from one another. As multilateralism efforts have been challenged in recent years, this international book collaboration project brings together experts from around the globe to deal with questions of future development and should be seen as providing a certain inherent value in itself. We cordially thank all who contributed to this one-and-a-half-year project through their commitment to writing, reviewing, revising, and editing this work. We are convinced that the result shows us that it was worth it.

Editors Prof. Andrew Thatcher earned a PhD in cognitive ergonomics and is the chair of the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. He is currently the chair of the International Ergonomics Association’s Technical Committee on Human Factors and Sustainable Development. Broadly, his research looks at understanding sustainable work systems with a particular focus on ecological systems. His research focuses on the psychological factors in the adoption of sustainable technologies, health and well-being in “green” buildings, and applying theoretical ecological models to complex human systems. He was the ergonomics expert on the World Green Building Council’s working group, which looked at health, well-being, and effectiveness in green office buildings. He also sits on the editorial board of several ergonomics journals and is currently an editor for the journal Ergonomics. Previously he was an associate editor of the journal Behaviour & Information Technology. From 2014 to 2017, he was President of the Ergonomics Society of South Africa. Prof. Klaus J. Zink is the scientific director of the Institute for Technology and Work (German acronym: ITA) at the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. In a number of books, essays, and articles, he discussed concepts for the development of work and organizations and impacts on the quality of work. He is a member of numerous national and international committees and on the editorial board of several journals. From 1994 to 2001, he was on the board of the German Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (GfA), 1997–1999 as President and 1999–2001 as Past-President. From 1995 to 2000 and 2004 to 2009, he was a member of the Council, 2000–2003 a member of the Executive Committee, and 2009–2012 Vice President of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA). He received the IEA Fellow Award in 2000, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) 2006 Distinguished International Colleague Award, and in 2009 the IEA Ergonomics Development Award. From 2009 to 2015, he was chair of the International Ergonomics Association’s Technical Committee on Human Factors and Sustainable Development. Prof. Klaus Fischer is a lecturer for business administration, in particular sustainability and strategic management, at the FOM University of Applied Science in Mannheim, Germany. Since his studies in industrial engineering and management, he has worked on publicly funded and industrial research projects in the fields of sustainable supply chain management, corporate sustainability, and sustainable development at the community level. He earned a PhD in economics, dealing with corporate sustainability governance, and researches the topic of legitimacy and effectiveness of sustainability management approaches and governance processes. He has supported the formation and development of the IEA Technical Committee Human Factors and Sustainable Development since its foundation in 2008. xi

Contributors Elias Apud is a professor and director of the ergonomics department, at the University of Concepcion, Chile. In addition, he is the director of the master in ergonomics program. During his career, he has been devoted to applied research in ergonomics, in particular to the study of human adaptation to heavy physical work. As a requirement to perform applied ergonomic research, he has conducted a series of studies to define the physical and anthropometric characteristics of Chilean workers. He has also ventured into the field of nutrition for heavy work and in general on the subject of living conditions and camps. Ivan Bolis is a visiting professor in the social psychology department of the Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Brazil. His postdoctoral, PhD, and master’s degrees were completed in production engineering at the Polytechnic University of São Paulo, Brazil, and from the Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy. He is a researcher and consultant in ergonomics (focused on activity and in organizational level), sustainability, health and safety, organizational values, and corporate decision-making process. Claudio Brunoro earned a PhD in production engineering from the Polytechnic University of São Paulo, Brazil. He is a researcher and consultant in ergonomics (focused on activity at the organizational level), corporate sustainability, health and safety, and complexity. He is the founder of the Instituto Trabalhar – Centro de Estudos da Psicodinâmica do Trabalho e da Ergonomia da Atividade. He is cochair of the technical subcommittee Theoretical Perspectives on Human Factors and Sustainable Development of the Technical Committee Human Factors and Sustainable Development of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA). Carolina Daza-Beltrán is an industrial designer with a master’s degree in marketing. She is an assistant professor and researcher at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. She is a member of the Colombian Ergonomics Society (SCE) and is currently studying toward a PhD in engineering – ergonomics. Colin Drury is a distinguished professor emeritus of industrial engineering at the University of Buffalo, New York, and President of the Applied Ergonomics Group. He received the FAA 2005 Excellence in Aviation Research Award for his contributions in aviation maintenance and inspection research. He is a fellow of the Institute of Industrial Engineers, the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors, and the Human Factors Ergonomics Society, and received the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society’s A. R. Lauer Safety Award, the Bartlett medal of the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors, and the Fitts Award of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

xiii

xiv

Contributors

Gabriel Eweje is an associate professor of business and sustainability within the School of Management (Albany campus), Massey Business School, Massey University, New Zealand. He is also director of the CSR and Sustainability Research Group – a multidisciplinary team of researchers from Massey Business School. He is the editor-in-chief of Corporate Governance – An International Journal of Business in Society, and associate editor for Business Ethics: A European Review. His PhD from the University of London focused on CSR and activities of multinational oil and mining companies in developing countries. Mariane Galbat has been a consultant in ergonomics since 1990 and holds the title of European Ergonomist®. In 2008, she cofounded the Ersya company where she currently works as a consultant and a partner. From an activity-centered approach, she contributes to the design of computerized situations and simulation tools within service or industry domains. She is also a member of the French association ARTEE for the recognition of the title of European Ergonomist®. Gabriel García-Acosta is a full-time professor at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. He is an industrial designer, earned a master’s degree in ergonomics, and a PhD in project engineering and innovation. He leads the design observatory water and energy and his current research interests are oriented toward ergonomics and sustainability, sociotechnical systems, and ethics. He has also worked as a senior consultant in ergonomics for several production sectors (e.g., banking, farming, oil industry, health, manufacturing, among others). He is cofounder of an 18-year-old private company dedicated to design and ergonomics (Ergofactos SAS), cofounder and leader of MIMAPRO Research Group, and cofounder and member of the Colombian Ergonomics Society. Some of his contributions include several books, papers, and patents. Ruri Giannini is a management consultant and a PhD student, currently involved in the ergonomics and work psychodynamics research group at Escola Politécnica/ USP. She earned a bachelor’s and a master’s degrees in Production Engineering from the same university. She is interested in corporate strategy, performance management, work evaluation, sustainability, and psychodynamics of work. Julien Guibourdenche earned a PhD in social and occupational psychology and is a European Ergonomist®. He currently works at Ersya as a consultant in ergonomics. His research stands at the intersection of ergonomics, user experience, cognitive anthropology, and ecology, seeking to advance the articulation between multiple levels of analysis around a core-situated approach to human activity. He has been working on issues of energy efficiency since 2009. In 2015, he founded the commission Concevoir pour le Développement Durable of the French association ARPEGE. Peter Hancock is a pegasus professor and a provost distinguished research professor in the department of psychology and the institute for simulation and training, as well as at the department of civil and environmental engineering and the department of industrial engineering and management systems at the University of Central Florida

Contributors

xv

(UCF). He is the author of more than 700 refereed scientific articles and publications as well as writing and editing more than 20 books including Human Performance and Ergonomics, Stress, Workload, and Fatigue; Performance under Stress; Essays on the Future of Human-Machine Systems; and Mind, Machine and Morality. He has won numerous awards around the world for his various contributions to human factors and ergonomics. Margaret Hanson has more than 25 years’ experience in ergonomics research and consultancy, with a particular focus on workplace health. She is a chartered fellow of the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors and managing director of WorksOut, a CIEHF registered consultancy based in Edinburgh, UK. She has a strong interest in the contribution that ergonomics/human factors can make to supporting sustainable development and addressing the challenges brought about by climate change. Yvon Haradji is a senior scientist at EDF R&D (Labs Paris-Saclay). His research focuses on human‑computer interaction. He leads a project on a platform simulation with multiagent systems (SMACH). The goal of this research project is to simulate human activity to anticipate realistic load curves in new situations. He is the editorial director of the scientific electronic journal Activités. Jessica Hutchings earned a PhD in systems engineering from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. She has worked in the railway industry in South Africa applying human factors and ergonomics specifically assisting with railway accident investigations. Dr. Hutchings has experience in state-owned enterprises, consulting, and academia. She is currently employed as the Human Factors and Safety Science Competency Leader in the Transnet Centre of Systems Engineering (TCSE). Dr. Hutchings is the president of the Ergonomics Society of South Africa (ESSA). Andrew S. Imada is a macroergonomics consultant specializing in human and organizational change. He works with people and organizations to change their cultures, respond to scalability demands, implement disruptive technologies, and survive generational transitions. He helps them meet these challenges by balancing organizational, safety, quality, and human needs. Samantha K. Imada researches how speaking up and workplace safety impact the work environment and drive organizational performance. She currently works with big data and analytics in a large healthcare organization. She earned a PhD in organizational behavior psychology from Claremont Graduate University, California. Lucas Rafael Ivorra-Peñafort is an industrial designer with a master’s degree in environmental management and is a professional in project management (PMP). He is currently studying toward a PhD and a graduate certificate of research and innovation management. He is a member of the Colombian branch of the Learning Network on Sustainability International – LeNS I – and a member of the Network of Sustainability Professionals. He is an undergraduate and graduate professor in sustainable business development and innovation. Ivorra-Peñafort is an expert in

xvi

Contributors

innovation in production systems and sustainable consumption (PyCS). He leads upcycling and circular economy projects within the private sector. Marina Jentsch is a research associate at the Institute for Technology and Work (Institut für Technologie und Arbeit, ITA e.V.) at the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. Her research interests include sustainable development and corporate social responsibility in general as well as governance of environmental and social issues in global supply chains in particular. Since 2011, she has been working on these topics in fundamental and applied research and development projects in cooperation with German companies and institutions. Karen Lange-Morales is a full-time professor at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. She studied industrial design and earned a PhD in Public Health, focusing on the complexity of the use of medical devices in healthcare institutions. Her teaching and research areas include organizational ergonomics, systems thinking, design projects, ergonomics quality in design, and sociomaterial practices. She has also worked as a consultant in ergonomics and design in the public and private sectors, including farming, oil, manufacturing, education, banking, and food areas, among others. Dr. Lange-Morales is member of the MIMAPRO Research Group and has several publications in renowned journals and books. Currently she is also editor-in-chief of ACTIO – Journal of Technology in Design, Film Arts, and Visual Communication. Bruno César Kawasaki is a PhD candidate in the industrial engineering program at the University of São Paulo, Brazil. His research interests are performance evaluation and management, academic work, sustainability, ergonomics, and psychodynamics of work. Najmedin (Najm) Meshkati is a professor of civil/environmental engineering, industrial and systems engineering, and international relations at the University of Southern California (USC), as well as a fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Between 2009 and 2010, he was a Jefferson science fellow and a senior science and engineering advisor to the office of the science and technology adviser of the U.S. Secretary of State. He is a fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and a member of the Board on Human Systems Integration (BOHSI) of the U.S. National Academies (Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). Felipe Meyer is an assistant professor and director of the ergonomics diploma, at the University of Concepcion, Chile. During his career, he has conducted research in areas such as mining, forestry, and industry in general. Among his important publications is the coauthorship of the books Ergonomics in the Fight of Forest Fires and Ergonomics for the Mining Industry. Dave Moore is a director of the Auckland University of Technology Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Research, New Zealand. A certified member of the

Contributors

xvii

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of New Zealand, he works mainly in the primary industries and built environment. Louise Møller Pedersen is a postdoctoral researcher in accident prevention from a combined employee and (middle-) manager-perspective and evaluation respectively. Based on Pawson and Tilleys’ realistic evaluation model, Louise has contributed to a stronger focus on context and mechanisms as essential for understanding the implementation and results of safety interventions. Dr. Pedersen has participated in Danish and international safety projects and is a part of the International Network of Sustainable Organizational Interventions. Since 2013, Dr. Pedersen’s research interests have also included the psychological working environment and employees’ mental health and she teaches young students and senior students in these topics. Florence Motté is an expert researcher in cognitive ergonomics and human‑machine interaction at EDF R&D (Labs Paris-Saclay). Her research focuses on the service relationship in the commercial field, transversality, and continuity within and between organizations. Her approach posits that taking human activity into account contributes to improved performance while maintaining service quality, and that in order for an appropriate service to be designed, it is necessary to take an interest in the customer’s activity as well as that of all the actors involved in the service. Germain Poizat is a professor in the faculty of psychology and educational sciences, department of adult education, University of Geneva, Switzerland. His work focuses on (a) the analysis of human activity in various social practices (work, art, leisure, everyday life) and (b) the design of innovative learning environments (according to the outcomes of activity analysis). His research is mainly conducted in reference to the theoretical and methodological framework of the course of action and to the enactive approach and is at the intersection of educational sciences, cognitive anthropology, and ergonomics. Céline Poret earned a PhD in ergonomics from University of Paris 8, France, in 2015. She is interested in the way cross-functional collective activities structures perform (safety, quality, etc.). She studied these activities within the central and decentralized services of the French state and at EDF R&D. Since 2017, she has been working at IRSN’s Social and Human Sciences Laboratory, where her research mainly focuses on safety improvement and risk management within the mesh of the supply chain (integrating suppliers, subcontractors, etc.). Jas Qadir has a background in engineering and project management, mainly in the construction industry of New Zealand. He is currently pursuing his doctoral study in regenerative design approaches and practices in the NZ built environment, mainly drawing from global and local best practices along with his practitioner experience of interacting with complex teams as the client’s representative on projects. He is a member of New Zealand Green Building Council (NZGBC) and International Living Future Institute (ILFI).

xviii

Contributors

Tuula Räsänen is a senior specialist in the Solutions for Safety group of the finnish institute of occupational health. She completed her PhD at Tampere University of Technology, Finland, with a doctoral thesis entitled “Management of Occupational Safety and Health Information in Finnish Production Companies.” She is involved in occupational health, safety, and well-being training for graduates. Arto Reiman is working as a research team leader at the University of Oulu, Finland. Reiman is also an adjunct professor (docent) at Tampere University, Finland. His research team focuses on the theme of well-being at work and productivity under the industrial engineering and management discipline. His doctoral thesis in 2013 focused on work system design and management. His current research interests include health and safety, ergonomics, and human factors and how they can be included in design and development processes in order to improve well-being at work and productivity. In addition to an academic career, Reiman has worked as an occupational health and safety manager at a large city organization, as a senior expert at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, and as a consultant in the private sector. Pascal Salembier is a professor of cognitive ergonomics and interaction design at the Troyes University of Technology, France. He is a member of the GIS UTSH board and one of the founding members of the EUSSET networked organizational forum. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing and an associate editor of Le Travail Humain. His research interests lie primarily in the area of cognitive engineering, computer-supported cooperative work, and interaction design. He is also a partner and scientific advisor at Ersya. Martha Helena Saravia-Pinilla is an industrial designer with a master’s degree in industrial design-ergonomics. Currently, she is an assistant professor and researcher at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. She is president of the Colombian Ergonomics Society (SCE) and a member of the Human Factors and Sustainable Development Technical Committee of International Ergonomics Association (IEA). She is the author of the book Ergonomía de Concepción: Su Aplicación al Diseño y Otros Procesos Proyectuales. Laerte Idal Sznelwar is a professor in the department of production engineering at the Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo, Brazil. He is a member of the team of the Laboratoire de Psychologie du Travail et de l’ Action at CNAM. Maryam Tabibzadeh is an assistant professor in the department of manufacturing systems engineering and management at the California State University, Northridge. She earned a PhD in industrial and systems engineering from the University of Southern California. Risk analysis in complex safety-critical and technology-intensive industries is one of her main research areas. She has mainly focused on analyzing the critical role of human and organizational factors in contributing to the safety of operations in those industries. She has presented and published several papers in the areas of risk assessment and safety management, safety

Contributors

xix

culture, accident investigation, and interoperability analysis of multiple emergency response agencies in different peer-reviewed conferences and journals. As part of her accomplishments, she received the best paper award at the 2018 Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference. She was also among the three finalists for the Human Factors Prize in 2015. In addition, she was named the Student Merit Award Competition Winner at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis. David Tappin is an associate professor in the school of management at Massey University, Albany, and a member of the Healthy Work Group – a Massey research team interested in preventing stress and psychosocial risk in the workplace and in creating healthy work. His background is in industry-based research and consultancy, with government- and industry-funded research in primary processing, manufacturing, health, and residential construction. He has worked as an ergonomist for organizations and as a consultant and an academic researcher since 2011 with Massey University. His current research interests include psychosocial risk, social sustainability, and work systems design. Clare Tedestedt George has recently completed her PhD examining the contextual factors impacting the occupational health, safety, and well-being of New Zealand truck drivers. Her research has drawn together factors from the fields of employment and industrial relations, psychology, sociology, and public health, among others, embracing human factors and ergonomics as a home. Dr. Tedestedt-George is a member of the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Research at the Auckland University of Technology. Seppo Väyrynen began his career as a professor of work science at the University of Oulu, Finland, in 1989. He also worked at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health for 12 years and the Academy of Finland. He earned master’s and doctoral degrees in engineering, the theses for which addressed innovative working environments and ergonomics development, being linked to engineering design and management. As part of his role as a professor within a group of researchers and teachers connected with industrial engineering and management, he has supervised doctoral students and taught various courses of ergonomics, human factors, usability, and safety at the faculty of technology. His main research interests include well-being at work, user-centered design, participatory approaches to design and management, organizational development, safety-conscious design, safety management, integrated management systems (HSEQ), sustainability, social responsibility, and quality of working life in general. He has published approximately 400 scientific and professional articles and book chapters. Paul H. P. Yeow is an associate professor at Monash University, Malaysia, and has 20 years’ experience in the fields of human factors, information systems, and marketing. He has completed 14 research-funded projects in these fields and published more than 50 journal articles. He has held major posts such as head of the Ergonomics Research Centre and head of marketing discipline. He is a member of the editorial board of Applied Ergonomics.

1

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability? Andrew Thatcher, Klaus J. Zink, and Klaus Fischer

CONTENTS Introduction.................................................................................................................1 Global Sustainability Requirements.......................................................................1 Changing World of Work.......................................................................................2 Historical Progress from HFE................................................................................6 Theoretical Approaches Within HFE to Address Sustainability................................. 6 Human Factors and Sustainable Development....................................................... 9 Green Ergonomics................................................................................................ 10 Ergoecology......................................................................................................... 10 Sustainable Work Systems Concepts................................................................... 10 Contributions From HFE to Design and Work Issues............................................... 11 Community Sustainability.................................................................................... 12 Sustainable Organizations.................................................................................... 13 Design of Tasks and Jobs..................................................................................... 15 The Built Environment......................................................................................... 16 Design of Products, Interfaces, and Systems....................................................... 17 Organization of This Book........................................................................................ 21 References................................................................................................................. 22

INTRODUCTION Global Sustainability Requirements Fundamental ecological, social, and economic transformations are influencing our health and well-being and are changing the way we work worldwide. The overall issue at stake is that of sustainability or the sustainable development of human welfare and prosperity that is inseparable from the state of our global ecosphere. As commonly known, the term “sustainable development” is attributed to the World Commission on Economic Development (WCED, 1987), which defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” From this perspective, sustainable development is primarily a social justice project focusing on equitable development to meet human needs while still recognizing that the 1

2

Human Factors for Sustainability

preservation of natural resources is necessary to fulfill these needs. A similar view emerges from the “traditional” objectives of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), which is by definition concerned with optimizing human well-being and overall system performance. However, bearing in mind that we have entered the Anthropocene age (Crutzen, 2002; Steffen et al., 2011) – the geological period where human activity has had a measurable impact on geophysical and climate systems – it becomes evident that a separate focus on either ecological, social, or economic aspects does not fit with the complexity of our real world. The Anthropocene poses great challenges to human existence, including climate change (Rosenzweig et al., 2008; Sobel et al., 2016; Steffen et al., 2018); pollution of our air (Landrigan et al., 2017; Montzka et al., 2018), freshwater (Lebreton et al., 2018), and oceans (Paerl, 1997; Vitousek et al., 1997); and unprecedented species extinction (Ceballos, Ehrlich, & Dirzo, 2017). These are threats not just to our environment but to human health and welfare at all levels. Climate change will result in rising sea levels that threaten coastal and island communities, droughts that will exacerbate food shortages (Hecht et al., 2012), and mass migration (Rigaud et al., 2018). These changes have also already had a significant impact on our health (Andersen, 2017; Landrigan et al., 2017; Lelieveld et al., 2015; Patz et al., 2014; World Health Organization, 2017) and well-being (Pimentel et al., 2007; Steentjes et al., 2017). These inseparable links between environmental soundness, human well-being, and economic prosperity are also reflected in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the heart of our current Agenda 2030 that was submitted by the global community of states in 2015. Besides its multidimensional target-frame – which may also lead to dilemmas and conflicts in the course of implementation – the SDGs are also draw on an integrated perspective between the Global North and Global South without neglecting specific requirements and responsibilities on the way to (more) sustainability. Under the SDGs’ umbrella, issues of “traditional” HFE concern (e.g., human health, education and lifelong learning, decent work, and economic prosperity) are as well represented as those introducing the newer discussion about HFE in the context of ecological sustainability. The role of HFE with regards to these SDGs is addressed in Chapter 4 of this book. Johnston et al. (2007), however, have noted that the emphasis on sustainable development has meant that the focus has been on human development and not on the resource limitations and misuses that lead to inequalities in development opportunities. Johnston et al. (2007) argue that this has led to a proliferation of definitions and modifications to the original sustainable development definition. Similarly, Thatcher (2012) noted that similar definitional problems had plagued the early work in the HFE discipline.

Changing World of Work Taking an international perspective and referring to the sustainability challenges mentioned above, the analyses of the International Labour Organization (ILO) are a valuable resource for identifying recent developments and megatrends that are changing our world of work (ILO, 2017).

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

3

First, there has been significant progress achieved with regards to several aspects, including (ILO, 2017, p. 1ff): • Job creation has been positive, albeit slightly below the rate of population growth. • There has been increased female labor market participation. • Working poverty has declined. • There have been gains in social protection. • There have been improvements in occupational health and safety. • Countries have improved their ratification of ILO conventions. • Progress in fundamental principles and rights at work has occurred. However, the ILO has also noted several negative aspects (ILO, 2017, p. 4ff): • Unemployment levels remain high. • Poor quality employment remains a key concern. • There is a diversification in different forms of employment (increasing nonstandard forms of employment). • Income inequality remains elevated in most countries. Setting aside the international perspective for a moment and looking specifically at developments in advanced economies (i.e., developed labor markets), one realizes that there is a growing polarization of labor market opportunities between high- and low-skill jobs, unemployment and underemployment (especially among young people), stagnating incomes for a large proportion of households, and significant income inequality (Manyika, 2017). If we look at the megatrends and the implications for the future of work, then “globalization” remains one of these trends (ILO, 2017, p. 8). In the past, the internalization of production work was foregrounded using specified framing conditions (e.g., tax reductions or disregarding national legislation) to create Export Processing Zones in the Global South, especially in areas with labor-intensive production processes (Zink, 2009). Since then, new communication and information technologies, particularly the internet, have combined with the idea of “hyper-specialization” (Malone et al., 2011) (i.e., dividing [knowledge] work into very small “chunks”). This has led to the digitization of knowledge work and emergent types of supply chains because an (unknown) global crowd has become the new partner for crowdsourcing (see Zink’s Chapter 5 in this book). In the past, the problem of creating “decent work” was mainly related to manual labor work, but it has now also become a problem for highly skilled knowledge work. As mentioned above, globalization is now also related to technology. While technology, or technological change, is a major driver of growth and development, it is equally associated with a range of other labor market changes such as big data, 3-D printing, artificial intelligence, and robotics, which will significantly change the nature of work (ILO, 2017, p. 9f). There is an intensive but inconclusive discussion about the influences on the labor market. One group argues that more newer jobs will be created than older ones that will disappear. Others believe that the increase

4

Human Factors for Sustainability

of intelligent technology will displace more jobs than newer ones that will be needed (Daheim & Wintermann, 2016). Policy makers will not only have to handle labor market problems but also the unequal distribution of productivity gains and potential disproportional impacts by gender, sector, and skill level (ILO, 2017, p. 10). The second megatrend described by the ILO is related to demography. Taking an international perspective, there are two trends; in emerging and developing countries, the young population entering the labor market is growing, while in developed countries, the global old-age dependency ratio (i.e., people aged 65 and above compared to those aged 15–64) is growing and will grow further (ILO, 2017). This may lead to two scenarios. Either youth unemployment might grow as the elderly stay in employment and therefore the youth might try to seek employment in other developed countries, or the shrinking workforce in developed countries could reduce the problems of unemployment caused by new technologies. What is left behind is a large “informal” economy. A feature of informality is its huge diversity where the different types of informal work frequently occur outside the framework of existing labor and social security laws. Therefore, informal workers are deprived of the benefits of economic development. These deficits for both workers and enterprises demonstrate the importance of including informal work within the scope of labor and social security laws, as well as establishing and promoting an enabling environment for sustainable enterprises (ILO, 2017). A third megatrend is the stress caused by “climate change” since some of the progress in the world of work has been achieved at the expense of environmental sustainability (ILO, 2017). Climate disasters are likely to reduce the productivity of the agricultural sector. Continued environmental degradation is therefore likely to destroy jobs and livelihoods through, for example, creating harsh climatic conditions or shifting where work can feasibly be carried out. In the medium and long term, decent work and environmental sustainability will need to be considered hand in hand (as envisaged by the 2013 SDGs). On a more positive note, there may be some employment growth in renewable energy (see Chapter 8 of this book for a discussion on the HFE concerns for these “green jobs”), and existing jobs will need to adapt to the requirements of a greening economy (ILO, 2017, p. 13). Analyzing these megatrends and bringing them together based on results of the International Social Survey Programme, it is not surprising that the majority of people around the world believe that job security is under growing pressure (ILO, 2016). This is combined with the fact that nonstandard forms of employment (NSEs) have become a contemporary feature of labor markets around the world. The ILO sees four different employment arrangements as NSEs (ILO, 2016, p. 1): • Temporary employment: Fixed-term contracts, including project- or task-based contracts, seasonal work, casual work, and daily work • Part-time and on-call work: Normal working hours but less than full-time equivalents, marginal part-time employment such as on-call work and zero-hours contracts • Multiparty employment relationships: These are also known as “dispatch,” “brokerage” and “labor hire,” temporary agency work, and subcontracted labor

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

5

• Disguised employment/dependent self-employment: Disguised employment, sham, or misclassified employment While most of the forms of NSEs have existed in the past, “on-call work” or “work on demand via apps” and “dependent self-employment” or crowd work are now also driven by technology (de Stefano, 2016), and work of this type may continue to expand over the coming years. For some, working in NSEs is an explicit choice and has certain benefits. However, for most workers, employment in NSEs is associated with insecurity (ILO, 2016). Insecurity relates to uncertainty about employment status, earnings, control over working hours, social security, and occupational health and safety. Occupational health and safety in particular, especially as it refers more broadly to well-being, has overlaps with the work of HFE. Summing up the arguments of the ILO study shows a danger of losing decent work in developed countries by new forms of nonstandard employment (driven by technology), the necessity of a transition to a greener economy, but also the necessity to keep the economy competitive. Decent work, environmental sustainability, and economic competitiveness might be seen as the three pillars of a sustainable work system as defined by Docherty et al. (2009). Aging populations, especially in developed countries, are also something that needs to be carefully considered. Eurofound’s (2015) working definition of “sustainable work over the life course” (p. 2) means that working and living conditions need to be such so that they support people in engaging and remaining in work throughout an extended working life. The main political goal is that people work and stay in work for longer over their lifetime. These goals will be achieved only if workers are in good health, qualified, and employable (i.e., have the necessary skills) and are motivated to stay in work for longer. This means taking a range of different HFE considerations into account, including the job quality (i.e., job design, job organization, the physical environment, the social environment, work intensity exposure limits, etc.), career progression opportunities, and fair remuneration (Eurofound, 2015). There is a growing interest in the HFE community to try and understand the HFE implications of the changing nature of work. There is a great deal that HFE has already accomplished in supporting work that is fair and that reduces the psychological and physical damage. However, as work patterns change and new types of work emerge, further HFE work is required. Hanson (2013) considered the HFE implications of jobs in the emerging green economy such as renewable energy jobs, organic farming jobs, jobs in the recycling industry, and jobs in the low-energy public transport system. Zink (2014) defined the parameters under which a job and a work system might be considered sustainable, incorporating psychological, social, economic, and environmental considerations. Fosterveld et al. (2018) tackled the intractable problem of defining what is meant by “decent” work to create sustainable jobs. More recently, the IEA has been working on a white paper defining what is meant by decent work for the HFE community. The white paper is being finalized at the time of writing this book chapter. In this book, Zink (Chapter 5) looks at the HFE issues of crowd work and outsourcing while Hanson and Thatcher (Chapter 8) expand on Hanson’s (2013) earlier work to examine the HFE challenges of the emerging green job market. Work also cannot be considered sustainable unless it provides meaning

6

Human Factors for Sustainability

to the person performing the work. This philosophical issue is covered by Drury and Hancock (Chapter 2) in this book.

Historical Progress from HFE Over the last two decades, a number of prominent HFE researchers have emphasized the need for HFE to tackle the complex systemic social and environmental problems facing humanity such as global climate change, social inequalities, and poverty (Moray, 1995; Vicente, 2008; Wisner, 1997). Writing a few years ago, Martin et al. (2013) noted that the HFE response to these challenges had been quite limited. In this introductory chapter, we show that much has changed since these observations, although there is still much that needs to be achieved before we can truly say that HFE has made a coordinated and concerted effort to address sustainability issues. The earliest practical response from HFE came in the form of the term “eco-ergonomics,” first used as the theme to the Fourth Ergonomics Congress of Latin America. However, only a handful of papers at this Congress actually addressed issues related to global humanitarian and environmental crises. The term “eco-ergonomics” has been used sporadically over the last 15 years, emphasizing the need for ergonomics to consider the well-being of the natural environment (Brown, 2007; Charytonowicz, 1998), although without suggesting any definitions or models of sustainability or sustainable development. More recently, HFE approaches have been proposed that have been more firmly embedded in theoretical frameworks by introducing “green ergonomics,” “ergoecology,” the “sustainable system-of-systems model,” and “human factors and sustainable development” to the HFE literature. The timeline of these developments is summarized in Table 1.1. This timeline should be compared to the major international agreements found in Table 1.2. First, this chapter considers the theoretical approaches that address HFE and sustainability issues: human factors and sustainable development, green ergonomics, ergoecology, and the sustainable system-of-systems model. Each of these approaches is introduced and their primary underlying theoretical basis is presented. Second, this chapter provides an overview of the different HFE studies and interventions within the broad domain of sustainability. This section covers examples from the HFE literature on topics as diverse as organizational sustainability, social sustainability, task analysis and job design, design of the physical environment, and the design of products and interfaces to support sustainable behaviors and practices. Third, this chapter concludes with an outline of how the rest of this book is organized.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES WITHIN HFE TO ADDRESS SUSTAINABILITY We cover four of the main theoretical approaches that have appeared in the HFE literature. We emphasize that there is still plenty of space for new theoretical approaches. In particular, these theoretical approaches are not competing with one another. Rather, the theoretical approaches are complementary or even combinatory.

7

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

TABLE 1.1 Timeline of HFE’s Responses to Sustainability Challenges Year

Where

Relevant Milestones

1992

Nickerson (1992) at HFES Annual Meeting

Role of HFE for environmental management

1995

Moray (1995) in Ergonomics

1996 1997

García-Acosta (1996), master’s thesis 4th Ergonomics Congress of Latin America Charytonowicz (1998), ODAM conference paper Vicente (1998) in Systems Engineering

Role of HFE in dealing with impending world crises, especially environmental concerns Defining ergoecology (in Spanish) Conference theme was eco-ergonomics (eco-ergonomia in Spanish) The term “eco-ergonomics” is first used in English Proposed a systems approach for HFE to solve global problems, especially environmental problems Definition of human factors and sustainable development Proposed a systemic, holistic, interdisciplinary and participatory (SHIP) approach to sustainability First use of “green ergonomics” Klaus Zink announces the formation of the Human Factors and Sustainable Development Technical Committee (HFSD TC) of the IEA Book features several prominent HFE researchers (e.g., Pascale Carayon, Colin Drury, Andrew Imada, Kazutaka Kogi, Patricia Scott, Peter Vink, and Klaus Zink) Uses the term “green ergonomics”

1998

2006

Steimle & Zink (2006) book chapter

2007

Manuaba (2007) in Journal of Human Ergology

2008

Hedge (2008) in HFES Bulletin Zink (2008a) in HFES Bulletin

Zink (2008b) book entitled Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management 2010 2013

2014

2016

Hanson (2010) in her IEHF keynote address Haslam & Waterson (2013) in Ergonomics Thatcher (2013) in Ergonomics Zink & Fischer (2013) in Ergonomics

Nemire (2014a, 2014b) in Ergonomics in Design Dorsey et al. (2014) in Work García-Acosta et al. (2014) in Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science Lange-Morales et al. (2014) in Ergonomics Thatcher & Yeow (2016a) in Ergonomics

Special issue on ergonomics and sustainability Green ergonomics defined Sustainable development and human factors explained Margaret Hanson forms the Green Ergonomics SIG of the CIEHF Two special issues on human factors and climate change Special issue on green ergonomics Ergoecology defined for English-speaking countries Green ergonomics and ergoecology compared and values for the future of HFE introduced Sustainable system-of-systems approach introduced (Continued)

8

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 1.1 (CONTINUED) Timeline of HFE’s Responses to Sustainability Challenges Year

Where

Relevant Milestones Special issue on ergonomics and sustainability

2017

Thatcher & Yeow (2016b) in Applied Ergonomics Beguin & Duarte (2017) in Work Concevoir pour le Développement Durable launched in Paris

2018

Thatcher & Yeow (2018) book entitled Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities

Special issue on work and sustainable development Design for Sustainable Development subcommittee of the French Association for Research in Ergonomics Psychology and Ergonomics Chapters on a range of different HFE and sustainability and sustainable development topics

TABLE 1.2 Major International Milestones toward Sustainability and Sustainable Development Year

Where

Relevant Milestones

1968

Accademia dei Lincei in Rome, Italy

Club of Rome established by former heads of state to establish a common future for humanity

1972

Limits to Growth by Meadows and Meadows Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, publishes the Earth Charter Millennium Summit, New York, USA

Establishes the first modern use of the term “sustainable” Brundtland Report, formally establishing the term “sustainable development”

1987

1992

2000 2002

2012

2015

World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) Summit, Johannesburg, South Africa World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) Summit, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Sustainable Development Summit, New York, USA

The Earth Charter issues Agenda 21, which is a non‑binding commitment to sustainable development Ratified the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015 Affirmed the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals Launch of the participatory process for developing a Post-2015 Agenda, merging the UN sustainable development and sustainability policy Formal launch of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and formal commitment to these goals with country-level plans

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

9

Human Factors and Sustainable Development The term “human factors and sustainable development” was first used by Steimle and Zink (2006) in the International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors to define how HFE might feasibly address the global challenges of sustainability and sustainable development. Two years later, Klaus Zink (2008a) formally established the Human Factors and Sustainable Development Technical Committee of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), thus giving the area formal recognition at major IEA events. The theoretical underpinnings of the term “human factors and sustainable development” are based on the WCED (1987) definition, the triple bottom line (TBL) approach toward sustainable organizations adapted from Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), and Docherty et al.’s (2002) “sustainable work systems.” As such, human factors and sustainable development is about establishing a balance between different types of capital (i.e., economic capital, social capital, and natural capital) to ensure sustainable work for all across geographical regions and across time. Extending on Dyllick and Hockerts’s (2002) criteria for corporate sustainability, Zink et al. (2008a) demonstrated the synergy between HFE concepts and interventions for a sustainable use of natural, economic, and social capital (see Figure 1.1). Steimle and Zink’s (2006) original conceptualization encouraged HFE to contribute by designing sustainable work systems, complementing the design process of sustainability-oriented products, ensuring the safe operation of complex systems to mitigate ecological and economic disasters, and community ergonomics to help resolve social problems. Later, Zink and Fischer (2013) added understanding HFE issues across global value chains, life cycle approaches to product design, and Economic Capital Eco-Efficiency

Socioefficiency Continuous improvement/ TQM

Energy efficiency Efficient resource use

Economic livelihood

Occupational Health &Safety

Traditional HFE

Employee wellbeing Sociotechnical work systems design

Eco-Effectiveness

Usability

Socioeffectiveness Natural Capital Green ergonomics

Sufficiency

Ecological Equity Ecological change management e.g., participatory approaches

Social Capital

Macroergonomics

Human Factors and Sustainable Development

Ergoecology

FIGURE 1.1  HFE concepts and interventions contributing to TBL objectives. (Adapted from: Zink et al., 2008.)

10

Human Factors for Sustainability

change management as possible HFE contributions. Chapter 11 of this book looks at the role of HFE in global value chains. Zink (2014) later added a time dimension component to the TBL approach. Chapters 6 and 7 of this book look at product life cycles and social life cycles, respectively.

Green Ergonomics Hedge (2008) and Hanson (2010) preferred the term “green ergonomics,” which was specifically avoided by Zink and Fischer (2013) because of its implied emphasis on environmental issues and the perceived exclusion of social and economic components. Hedge (2008) and Hanson (2010) both made practical suggestions for the application of green ergonomics but neither specified any theoretical underpinnings. The theoretical underpinnings of green ergonomics were developed by Thatcher (2013), who defined green ergonomics as a subcomponent of human factors and sustainable development. Green ergonomics therefore also has the same TBL theoretical underpinnings, but the emphasis is on HFE interventions with a pro-nature focus (Thatcher, 2013). Green ergonomics therefore looks at research and interventions that leverage off how humans can preserve, conserve, and restore natural systems and where humans can benefit from natural systems. Chapter 8 of this book looks at the application of green ergonomics to the emerging green job industries.

Ergoecology The ergoecological approach (García-Acosta et al., 2014) also primarily draws on ecological sustainability as a precondition for the TBL approach but considers additional forms of capital such as cultural, technological, and political factors. Ergoecology is conceptualized as the product of the interaction between an HFE system and this system’s surroundings. The system’s surroundings comprise political-legal, economic-financial, social-cultural, technological-scientific, and ecological-geographical components, abbreviated as the PESTE factors. Ergoecology also draws on thermodynamic theories (García-Acosta et al., 2012) that look at two types of energy: exergy and anergy. Exergy refers to the energy that is required by the system to maintain optimal performance. The ergoecology approach attempts to optimize exergy through eco-productivity and eco-efficiency. Anergy refers to any residual energy such as waste products. Ergoecology calls for the maximum eco-productive and eco-efficient exergy and the minimum resultant anergy. Ergoecology applied to corporate sustainability is addressed in more detail in Chapter 12 of this book.

Sustainable Work Systems Concepts With the beginning of the new century, different concepts of “sustainable work system design” emerged, starting with van Eijnatten (2000) and Docherty et al. (2002, 2009). Referring to these early definitions the general concepts of sustainable work systems can be delineated by the following requirements. Sustainable work systems need:

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

11

• to reproduce (at least) the resources they use; • not to build one kind of capital (e.g., economic capital) at the expense of another (e.g., social or ecological stocks); • and (to a certain extent) they also aim at investing in overall system viability (van Eijnatten, 2000, p. 9; Docherty et al., 2009, p. 3). Furthermore, van Eijnatten (2000) proposed a multilevel approach, emphasizing different “sustainability purposes” at individual, organization, and society levels. Thus, “the quality of work (i.e. employee’s health, well-being, and personal development), the quality of the organisation (i.e. productivity, efficiency, the ability to meet the challenges of tomorrow’s business), and the quality of connections with the environment (both nature and society) are constantly kept at the same high levels” (van Eijnatten, 2000, p. 53). Fischer and Zink (2012) further concretized these requirements by analyzing and addressing the shortcomings of the common linear HFE work system model and the macroergonomic sociotechnical system model from a sustainability perspective. Besides traditional HFE objectives, their model thus integrates aspects, considering the origin of all resources needed (i.e., investing in different resource bases), their characteristics of (re)generation, and what needs to be done to avoid negative impacts on surrounding systems. In 2016, Thatcher and Yeow (2016a and 2016b) introduced their “sustainable system-of-systems (SSoS) model” for HFE (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a) that further anchors the sustainable work system concepts in systemic sustainability theory. Technically, the SSoS model is not actually a model but rather is a framework for understanding how systems are interconnected in ways that can support sustainability. The SSoS model has four components: (a) a nested hierarchy of systems; (b) the focus on achieving multiple, simultaneous goals; (c) evolution of systems over time; and (d) complex adaptive cycles of interrelated systems. The SSoS model draws its theoretical inspiration from ecological system models and applies this thinking to sociotechnical systems to derive an eco-sociotechnical system thinking approach. The theoretical inspiration for the SSoS model is drawn from Wilson’s (2014) system-of-systems idea, Mauerhofer’s (2008) balance theory of multiple goals, and Gunderson and Holling’s (2002) adaptive cycle and panarchy concepts. The practical application of the SSoS model is discussed in more depth in Chapter 10 of this book.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM HFE TO DESIGN AND WORK ISSUES Over the last two decades, the empirical and theoretical work linking HFE to sustainability and sustainable development issues has steadily been growing, seeing a significant acceleration in the last decade. We must acknowledge two limitations in the examples given in the sections that follow: (1) This review is not exhaustive but is illustrative. (2) We have concentrated on giving examples from the mainstream HFE literature. We acknowledge that a great deal of work with an HFE focus also

12

Human Factors for Sustainability

appears outside of the mainstream HFE literature (e.g., in the psychology, engineering, and design literature) and by HFE practitioners that is not always publicly accessible. In this section, the examples look predominantly at empirical and theoretical work published within the HFE literature. This section is organized from the broadest type of possible HFE interventions down to the most specific HFE interventions.

Community Sustainability It is well beyond the scope of this chapter to review the now extensive network and previous work looking at the challenges of HFE in industrially developing countries (IDCs). However, the primary goal of this work is to provide fundamental access to resources and knowledge that helps to: • mitigate extreme poverty • improve working conditions and productivity • and raise global competitiveness through capacity building and technology development in IDCs and emerging countries (Scott, 2009; Scott, 2006; O’Neill, 2000; Shahnavaz, 2000; Kogi, 2006) Although these studies mainly focus on a certain “catch-up growth,” primarily fostering economic and social development, HFE researchers such as Scott (2009) have long emphasized the interconnections between social sustainability (i.e., the lack of resources to live a dignified, healthy, and productive life) and environmental sustainability (i.e., the degradation of essential natural resources such as air, water, and land). Looking at a small excerpt of the array of studies dealing with HFE contributions in industrially developing and emerging countries helps to gain valuable insights about the relevance of a culturally sensitive and holistic understanding of working and nonworking conditions as well as between the relationships of micro- and macroergonomic interventions up to community level: • Kogi in his many publications repeatedly shows that effective ergonomic interventions in IDCs need to be “grassroot” in a double sense: participatory and bottom-up as well as drawing on locally available resources leading to easily implementable solutions (see Kogi et al., 2003, 2006, 2008). • Guimaraes (2012) borrowed extensively from the macroergonomics approach to understand the sustainability needs of a medium-size town in southern Brazil to reduce the town’s ecological footprint (i.e., energy, food, clothing, waste, sanitation, composting, and transportation) and human capital needs (i.e., employment, education, and health). • Meyer et al. (2017) looked at social sustainability aspects to facilitate workforce sustainability. These aspects include attracting and retaining talent, appropriate skill provision, work-life balance, health and safety at work, and dealing with an aging workforce. An extension of this work is included

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

13

as a case study of workforce sustainability in the Chilean forestry industry by Meyer et al. as Chapter 14 of this book. • Poon et al.’s (2016) study looked at using HFE methods to investigate the impact on human well-being of communities along an entire riverine system. The accumulation of heavy metals further down the riverine system pointed to the need for greater collaboration between different stakeholders, including community leaders, farmworker unions, and local government. In another area of investigation, researchers have begun to look at how HFE contributes to ensuring sustainability across the entire value chain (Fischer et al., 2009). Hasle and Jensen (2012), for example, looked at how HFE applies to global supply chains improving the sustainability of communities of workers across the globe. They argued that there are complex moral and logistical challenges that HFE will face in addressing sustainable workforces across multinational borders. The issue of globalized supply chains is discussed further by Fischer (Chapter 11 in this book), dealing with the question of how HFE could contribute to increase the benefits for IDCs participating in global value creation in different stages of their development.

Sustainable Organizations Zink’s (2008b) book on corporate sustainability includes several chapters that deal with the issue of corporate sustainability and sustainable organizations. Much of this work draws from the principles and ideas of macroergonomics. Up front, it should be emphasized that when we refer to sustainable organizations, we are not only suggesting that an organization should be perpetually maintained. Survivability of an organization, in the context of a chaotic external environment, is only one aspect of sustainability (if an organization fails, this may be good for the ecosystem of organizations even if it is individually bad news for the people who work there). More relevant for this discussion is whether the organization can provide the appropriate working environment to support human development while also nurturing the external environment. Thus, organizational viability needs to be seen in the context of overall systems viability and a nested hierarchy of systems (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). There are numerous different views about what constitutes organizational sustainability in HFE. These views include ensuring the long-term survival of an organization, supporting sustainable workplace practices and improvements, and enabling an organization to meet a TBL perspective. In Zink’s (2008b) book, the chapters by Dahlgaard-Park and Dahlgaard (2008), Dervitsiotis (2008), and Kanji (2008) deal specifically with the continued survival of the organization. The chapters by Cesarotti and Spada (2008), Hermel (2008), and Zink (2008c) have a much stronger emphasis on the TBL perspective to enhance the organization’s success. These views recognize that organizations, as complex systems, have a duty to sustain their raw resource base, including the human resources that form part of the organization’s system. The chapters by Kogi (2008), Tort-Martorell et al. (2008), and Vink (2008) each look at different ways that HFE can assist in supporting sustainable improvements in organizations.

14

Human Factors for Sustainability

A number of other studies on sustainable organizations have followed Zink’s (2008b) book in the HFE literature. HFE studies have looked at sustaining organizations in the service industry (Karwowski & Ahram, 2012), the minerals industry (Horberry et al., 2013), and the tourism industry (Talsma & Molenbroek, 2012), although the emphasis was either on organizational success or organizational longevity. Other studies on organizational sustainability take a broader, systemic view in defining the sustainability issues at stake. Some of these examples include: • Saravia and Rincón (2006) used analysis tools derived from the ergoecological approach to optimize the functioning of two Colombian organizations. The approach emphasizes environmental and social sustainability in the respective organizations. • Brown and Legg (2011) reviewed several case studies of how HFE could contribute to corporate sustainability from an economic, social, and environmental perspective. Case studies given by Brown and Legg (2011) include waste management design, building design, and lifestyle design. • Dias-Angelo et al. (2014) used HFE tools to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental management training in the hospitality industry. Environmental management was only successfully implemented where organization-wide training was available. • Pilczuk and Barefield (2014) looked at an organizational intervention called Green Ergo, which encouraged employees to identify solutions to enhance work efficiency and to recycle waste. Green Ergo was certainly a success and “generated over 35 new HFE solutions, reduced waste production, and solved over 700 HFE problems” (Pilczuk & Barefield, 2014, p. 357). • Bolis et al.’s (2014) bibliographic analysis identified multiple different ways in which HFE could contribute to corporate sustainability initiatives. Possible interventions ranged from well-being and effectiveness programs to work organization and support for environmental training programs. • Christina et al. (2015) looked at the effectiveness of a sociotechnical systems design of a retail organization to reduce energy consumption. Their findings pointed to the importance of managerial goal setting, feedback on progress toward the goals, and the necessity of incentive schemes. • Bolis et al. (2016) looked at whether focusing on sustainable work can be considered as one of the long-term approaches to support strategic corporate sustainability policies. They concluded that corporate sustainability policies seldom include the sustainability of work or the worker. • Brunoro et al. (2018) looked at applying activity-centered ergonomics and psychodynamic theories to build sustainable organizations. They were primarily concerned with showing the links between HFE and organizational sustainability. The activity-centered ergonomics and psychodynamic approaches are revisited by Sznelwar et al. in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, several studies in the HFE literature have emphasized a lean manufacturing approach (Dul & Neumann, 2009; Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003; Paez et al., 2004). Lean manufacturing emphasizes efficiency of resource use and the

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

15

minimization of waste and therefore aligns with the principles of a sustainable organization. The issues of corporate sustainability are also addressed by Sznelwar et al. (Chapter 4 in this book), Imada and Imada (Chapter 9 in this book), and a case study by Reiman et al. (Chapter 17 in this book), who look at training parks to facilitate organizational change.

Design of Tasks and Jobs Arguably, a significant proportion of HFE work has been concerned with designing work that doesn’t physically or psychologically damage the worker over the long term (i.e., to create sustainable work). Steimle and Zink’s (2006) initial conceptualization of human factors and sustainable development builds from Docherty et al.’s (2002) sustainable work systems. It is not the purpose of this chapter to review all the work in HFE that supports health, safety, and well-being of workers. These are important aspects of a fair and just workplace, but they do not necessarily connect to the concerns of sustainability and the recognized definitions of sustainable development. A sustainability and sustainable development perspective involves reflecting not only the changing nature of work in the near past but also trying to anticipate the emergent influences on the future of work. A considerable amount of work is performed in the HFE field on the evaluation of human work (task analysis in particular) and using these evaluations to recommend and implement remedial action (Wilson & Corlett, 1999), which often has work efficiency and effectiveness outcomes. Studies with a focus on the sustainability considerations of task and job design are a subset of this work. Hanson’s (2013) proposals (and also Chapter 8 in this book) are specifically focused on the design of sustainable tasks and jobs. There are now several empirical HFE studies looking at whether jobs and tasks can be designed to be more sustainable. Some of these examples include: • af Wåhlberg (2006, 2007) looked at the efficacy of long-term and short-term training in fuel-efficient driving behavior of bus drivers. af Wåhlberg (2007) found that fuel efficiencies were only obtained when additional feedback equipment was installed. • Adams and David (2007) conducted a task analysis of the refueling of passenger vehicles and identified multiple opportunities for HFE interventions to reduce fuel wastage, including the redesign of fueling equipment and the layout of the fuel station workspace. • Torres et al. (2009) considered the task design of mussel farmers in a Brazilian coastal town that would facilitate more sustainable farming practices. • Celestino et al. (2012) looked at the task design of artisanal raft fishermen to better integrate with the tourism community and to reduce pollution on the beaches of another Brazilian coastal town. • Oliveira et al.’s (2012) task analysis of a domestic cooking task identified several HFE recommendations for cooking procedures and the design of electrical appliances to reduce energy use.

16

Human Factors for Sustainability

• Alli et al.’s (2013) task analysis of public bathroom taps revealed design suggestions that would encourage water saving. • Hanson and Vangeel (2014) looked at the redesign of cleaning processes in a pharmaceutical company to reduce wastage as well as health and safety hazards. • Engkvist et al. (2016) looked at how an HFE approach was applied to the tasks associated with recycling centers. They were able to make numerous design suggestions about the organization of work, task ordering, and workspace layout. • Seppänen (2017) discussed tools and methods of analysis that were used to understand the change management requirements of organic farming in Finland. • Lima and de Oliviera (2017) investigated the work design and social interaction of informal waste pickers in Brazil. Their investigations provided several suggestions for the organization of work to reduce interpersonal conflicts in this important recycling role. To realize more significant social change necessary to meet sustainability challenges, HFE will need to play a bigger role in facilitating behavior change at a larger, systemic level. To date, there is very little work that has looked at behavior change beyond specific tasks. At a theoretical level, Sanquist et al. (2010) gave several suggestions where HFE might contribute to reducing energy consumption. These include helping people manage the necessary behavior changes for a sustainable world and helping present energy use information that is meaningful to users. In another theoretical example, Béguin et al. (2012) considered how HFE methods can be used to integrate sustainability into the design of production systems. Probably the most consistent applications have been on the design of the interfaces of specific products (such as energy‑monitoring and energy management systems) to facilitate behavior change. Stanton et al. (2013) applied Cognitive Work Analysis tools from HFE to try and understand the cognitive and practical constraints faced by commuters preventing them from moving to less energy-consumptive mass-transport systems. This study was also largely a theoretical exercise without actually gathering data from any real commuters. In one study that did use empirical data, Cocron et al. (2013) examined whether purchasers of electric vehicles changed their driving behavior to maximize the use of regenerative braking systems. While most drivers successfully adapted their driving styles, Cocron et al. (2013) provided design suggestions to make it easier for drivers of electric vehicles to make the necessary changes.

The Built Environment The importance of a healthy physical environment on employee productivity and psychological well-being is well established. In HFE, there has already been a great deal of work on the design of the workplace, including workspace layout and environmental conditions. HFE studies have already found that aspects such as daylight, air quality, noise reduction, and moderate temperatures can have a significant positive effect on worker well-being and effectiveness (e.g., Hedge, 2000). Similarly,

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

17

the interaction between workplace environmental conditions and appropriate workspace designs has also been shown to have similar positive outcomes (e.g., Davis et al., 2011). Putting the environmental conditions and workplace layout issues together, a range of studies in the HFE literature have examined whether green buildings provide positive sustainable work outcomes for their occupants (Hedge & Dorsey, 2013; Hedge et al., 2014; Thatcher & Milner, 2012, 2014). This work has inspired a worldwide trend to include HFE aspects as available credits in green building rating tools. Attaianese (2018) summarized the role of HFE in designing and evaluating green buildings but also suggested that there were HFE and sustainability issues to be considered across the building construction life cycle (see Attaianese, 2012) and in building maintenance (see Charytonowicz, 2007), not only the building occupancy phase. It has also been suggested that HFE can be used to design appropriate green neighborhoods (Attaianese & Acierno, 2018), sustainable cities (de Assis & Silva, 2012; Steffan, 2012) and even interregional cooperation (Meshkati et al., 2016). Another aspect of the built environment that can be related to sustainability is how to incorporate access to nature. Lumber et al. (2018) and Richardson et al. (2017) expounded on the well-being and effectiveness benefits from access to nature. They identified a number of different ways that HFE could contribute, including incorporating nature in green building designs, contact with nature through biophilic design (e.g., access to plants in the workplace, views of nature, daylight in offices, artworks that depict nature, and sounds of nature). However, the connection of these proposals with the HFE literature is largely conceptual, and there are very few empirical studies that have explored the human-nature connections (Richardson et al., 2017). Two conference papers in the HFE literature illustrate how HFE might contribute: • Thatcher and Kalantzis (2017) looked at whether plants in a call center had a significant impact on well-being and perceived effectiveness. Although the plants significantly improved the indoor environmental quality, Thatcher and Kalantzis (2017) did not find any significant improvements in perceived well-being. • In an experimental study, Adamson and Thatcher (2018) found that plants in a simulated office environment significantly improved work performance. This performance effect was significantly better than a condition with only pictures of plants.

Design of Products, Interfaces, and Systems The largest amount of work on HFE and sustainability has undoubtedly been in the design of products, interfaces, and systems to reduce or eliminate unnecessary resource use or to enhance the use of products and systems that are already considered more sustainable. Tosi (2012) suggested calling this area of HFE work “Design for Sustainability.” The earliest concerted efforts were a series of papers by Sauer and colleagues (Sauer & Rüttinger, 2004; Sauer et al., 2002, 2003, 2004; Wiese et al., 2004) investigating simple design changes to regular consumer products (e.g., household kettles, vacuum cleaners, and a central heating system) to optimize their

18

Human Factors for Sustainability

eco-efficiency. Design changes in their studies included the placement of controls, labeling and instruction design, and changing the size and shape of the products. There have been a fair number of HFE studies that have investigated the design and efficacy of energy-saving and energy-monitoring systems of various different devices and systems. Some examples include: • Sauer et al. (2007) looked at designing a central heating system interface to provide feedback on weather information, daily usage data (i.e., energy consumption, energy wastage, energy cost, and level of comfort), and monthly usage data. Their results revealed that feedback significantly reduced energy consumption. • Flemming and Jamieson (2009) found that an ecological interface design of an energy and water feedback device did not reduce energy use (or water wastage) compared to conventional feedback interfaces. • Katzeff et al. (2012) developed an energy use feedback device called EnergyCoach. While EnergyCoach significantly improved attitudes toward energy-saving behaviors, there was a great deal of variability in the use of the device. • Fréjus and Guibourdenche (2012) evaluated whether a real-time energy consumption display led to changes in energy-saving behavior (in a domestic household). The display improved awareness of energy consumption but not energy-saving behaviors. • Kobus et al.’s (2013) study investigated the factors that would support the design of an energy management system to influence users’ energy consumption behavior. Design suggestions included interfaces that could distinguish between novice and expert users, the provision of feedback and projections, user control, and emotional rewards to encourage better behavior. • Peffer et al. (2013) examined the usability of a programmable thermostat interface. Important design qualities to reduce energy consumption included the provision of feedback, consistency in responses to user actions, and the clarity of displayed information. • Stedmon et al.’s (2013) review of energy-saving interventions across a number of different disciplines provided the following HFE design recommendations: the design of user-friendly interfaces and understanding how these systems influence broader attitudes toward the environment. • Revell and Stanton’s (2014, 2016) work examined how users conceptualized the interface of their home heating system in order to identify the gaps that could be filled by design. In particular, they identified the need for the interface to allow ad hoc, remote adjustments that would facilitate greater energy reductions. • Hilliard and Jamieson (2017) evaluated the effectiveness of using Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) tools to design the electricity monitoring interface of an electrical power grid. The CWA was used to design two diagnostic tools for the grid operators that would reduce energy wastage on the electricity grid.

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

19

• Revell and Stanton (2018) reviewed the research on the role of HFE in the design of home heating appliances. They made several suggestions for interface design considerations, many of which are well-known HFE design recommendations. To date, most of the work on various devices in the HFE literature has focused on reductions in energy consumption. Alli et al.’s (2013) work on the design of water-saving taps is one of the few exceptions. Most of these investigations were also conducted in domestic settings rather than in an office setting. A domestic setting is different from an office setting because at least one member of the household will be directly responsible for paying the costs of using the resource. In an office or in a public environment, the payment for resources is more indirect (e.g., through paying taxes). Different types of design interventions may be necessary for the different contexts. There is an urgent need to look at interventions that reduce other forms of resource use, as well as to design products in a life cycle-oriented manner, which allows one to avoid negative impacts throughout all phases from “cradle to grave” – or even from “cradle to cradle” when keeping the end of the life cycle in mind (see Zink & Eberhard, 2014; Kubek, Fischer, & Zink, 2015). Another area that has received significant attention has been in the area of energy-saving vehicles and eco-driving behavior. The following studies will give the reader some sense of the range of different studies that have been conducted on energy-saving vehicles and eco-driving: • Hilliard and Jamieson (2008) looked at the design of cognitive support tools for a solar-powered vehicle. Solar-powered vehicles do not carry their energy source on board but must draw their “fuel” from their environment. Interface design means incorporating information about the vehicle’s functioning (e.g., solar array efficiencies, tire pressure, and speed), traffic conditions (e.g., traffic regulations, speed limits, and traffic reports), and the environmental conditions (e.g., cloud cover, storms, and topographical details). • Harvey et al.’s (2013) investigation of drivers found that they seldom made the connection between their driving behaviors and fuel efficiency. Harvey et al. (2013) found that the provision of feedback on eco-driving behavior in regular vehicles was therefore not effective. • McIlroy and Stanton’s (2015) explored the feedback requirements of drivers to facilitate eco-driving behavior. Design recommendations included expert and novice modes, feedback to stimulate eco-driving behaviors, route-planning technology, and advance warning systems to facilitate predictive behavior. These issues are discussed further in McIlroy and Stanton’s (2018) book. • Neumann and Krems (2016) evaluated the efficacy of the driver interface of battery-electric vehicles and found that users gradually experienced these interfaces as less helpful for eco-driving. Neumann and Krems (2016) identified several instances where basic HFE design criteria (e.g., design for

20

Human Factors for Sustainability

consistency, proximity compatibility, and the minimization of information access cost) had been violated. • Franke et al. (2016) interviewed experienced eco-drivers of hybrid electric vehicles to determine the behaviors that characterize fuel efficiency to see if support can be designed into future vehicles to facilitate these eco-driving behaviors. Franke et al. (2016) were surprised by the large number of incorrect beliefs that drivers had about how these vehicles operated. • Arend and Franke (2017) looked at drivers’ interactions with the eco-features (i.e., electric propulsion, regenerative braking, and the neutral mode) of hybrid electric vehicles. They determined that fuel efficiency was more a factor of the motivation of the driver than the use of the eco-features. • Franke et al. (2018) summarized the HFE considerations for the adoption and use of the different forms of electric vehicles. The issues included how to deal with range stress and range anxiety, recharging behaviors, and interface design. Various other HFE investigations have looked at other components of energy reduction. Oi et al. (2011) found that heated seats and foot heaters in motor vehicles saved approximately 10% in energy compared to conventional air-based heating systems. Anjos et al. (2012) demonstrated that the usability of software had a direct relationship with energy consumption. Tasks took longer to perform and the hardware had to work harder to deal with user requests when the software was less usable and therefore consumed more energy. In a completely different application of HFE to the design of sustainable products, Nadadur and Parkinson (2013) used anthropometric population change dynamics to assist designers in developing clothing products that had greater longevity. This would result in fewer raw materials being consumed because consumers could use their clothing for a longer period of time. There is a great deal of scope for this type of thinking to use HFE and digital human modeling to (a) design products that can be used for longer periods of time and (b) identify materials that are more environmentally sustainable or have greater durability depending on anthropometric characteristics (e.g., which parts of the product are used most frequently). In an example of applying HFE to design for greater sustainability, Mandavilli et al. (2008) investigated how the design of traffic circles could reduce motor vehicle emissions and the fuel consumption of vehicles. Mandavilli et al. (2008) replaced stop-controlled intersections with single-lane traffic circles. This resulted in smoother traffic flow that thereby reduced fuel consumption as well as the waste products (i.e., carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide). In addition to eco-efficiencies, psychological well-being increased as commuters arrived at their destinations sooner and with less time spent navigating traffic congestion. In a final example, Thatcher et al. (2018) showed how HFE knowledge could be applied to the design of climate change information to improve understanding and to motivate people to change. Thatcher et al. (2018) found that the efficacy of the data format was dependent more on the application of HFE principles than on the type of data presentation format. As long as HFE principles are applied, each data format could be equally effective in accurately conveying climate prediction data and

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

21

therefore motivate people to make behavior changes. This study demonstrates that an HFE could have far-reaching impacts on many different types of sustainability communication.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK As mentioned before, this chapter did not provide an exhaustive review of all the literature in the HFE discipline that has addressed sustainability and sustainable development issues. Instead, we have tried to give the reader a solid overview and small taste of what has been completed in previous works so far. Referring to this array of studies and concepts builds a foundation for the subsequent chapters in this book. Where possible, we have directed the reader to reviews in other books or journal articles as well as the specific chapters in this book. This book is divided into four sections, the first three examine new ways of thinking about HFE in the context of sustainability and sustainable development (Section I); appropriate methods and new application areas within HFE that emerge from this thinking (Section II); and case studies and practice considerations (Section III). In the first section, Drury and Hancock (Chapter 2) consider the purpose of HFE and whether our underlying philosophy facilitates quality of life for all and not just those people who are the focus of HFE interventions. Thatcher et al. (Chapter 3) consider the underlying philosophy of HFE through the lens of what HFE values. They propose a revised set of values and ethics for HFE that embraces a common future for all who occupy this planet. In the last chapter in this section, Brunoro et al. (Chapter 4) examine the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and HFE’s relationship with these goals. In Section II, Zink (Chapter 5) takes a closer look at emerging types of work systems such as crowd work, outsourcing, and decent work (one of the Sustainable Development Goals) and the role that HFE can play in understanding and designing more appropriate sustainable work systems within this context. García-Acosta and Lange-Morales (Chapter 6) look at product sociotechnical cycles and how the design thinking in HFE needs to move beyond focusing primarily on the product use phase. Jentsch (Chapter 7) considers HFE’s role in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). Building from product sociotechnical cycles, S-LCA examines the social impacts on the different stakeholders along the life cycle. Hanson and Thatcher (Chapter 8) expand on HFE considerations in green jobs. Imada and Imada (Chapter 9) expand on the relevance of using participatory approaches for dealing with sustainability problems. Thatcher and Yeow (Chapter 10) explain how their sustainable system-of-systems model might be applied to unpack sustainability problems from an HFE perspective in order to design appropriate and sustainable interventions. Fischer (Chapter 11) explores the HFE implications and challenges for global value chains and how HFE can intervene across wide geographical regions. In the last chapter in this section, Saravia-Pinilla et al. (Chapter 12) explain the ergoecological approach to HFE and apply the thinking to organizational sustainability. Section III presents various case study applications to different parts of the world. Tabibzadeh and Meshkati (Chapter 13) examine how HFE can help prepare the Persian Gulf for the impending climate change challenges. Meyer et al. (Chapter 14)

22

Human Factors for Sustainability

look at the social sustainability challenges of forestry workers in Chile and the role of HFE. Guibourdenche et al. (Chapter 15) apply French activity-centered ergonomics approaches to design various different types of energy systems (from energy grids to household energy systems). Hutchings (Chapter 16) looks at applying HFE systems-thinking to transport networks across Africa. Reiman et al. (Chapter 17) look at the efficacy of a new safety training concept called Safety Training Parks (STP) to construction workers in Finland. In the last chapter in this section, Moore et al. (Chapter 18) share their lessons learned from HFE contributions to various sustainable development projects undertaken in New Zealand. In Section IV, we conclude this book with a short chapter on our reflections of lessons learned from this book and directions forward for HFE.

REFERENCES Adams, P., & David, G. C. (2007). Light vehicle fuelling errors in the UK: The nature of the problem, its consequences and prevention. Applied Ergonomics, 38(5), 499–511. Adamson, K., & Thatcher, A. (2018). Do indoor plants improve performance outcomes? Using the Attention Restoration Theory (pp. 591–604). In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 825. Cham: Springer Nature. af Wåhlberg, A. E. (2006). Short-term effects of training in economical driving: Passenger comfort and driver acceleration behavior. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(2), 151–163. af Wåhlberg, A. E. (2007). Long-term effects of training in economical driving: Fuel consumption, accidents, driver acceleration behavior and technical feedback. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(4), 333–343. Alli, A., Maluleke, M., Bhana, S., Solomon, T., Klipp, Y., & Thatcher, A. (2013). Sustainability and usability of public bathroom taps (pp. 329–336). In: M. Anderson (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors. London: Taylor & Francis. Andersen, M. S. (2017). Co-benefits of climate mitigation: Counting statistical lives or life-years? Ecological Indicators, 79, 11–18. Anjos, T. P., Matias, M., & Gontijo, L. A. (2012). The usability of a product can be an ally of sustainability. Work, 41, 2117–2121. Arend, M. G., & Franke, T. (2017). The role of interaction patterns with hybrid electric vehicle eco-features for drivers’ eco-driving performance. Human Factors, 59(2), 314–327. Attaianese, E. (2012). A broader consideration of human factor to enhance sustainable building design. Work, 41, 2155–2159. Attaianese, E. (2018). Green buildings: The role of HFE (pp. 211–242). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Attaianese, E., & Acierno, A. (2018, August). HF/E in protocols for green neighborhood and communities (pp. 879–886). In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 825. Cham: Springer. Béguin, P., & Duarte, F. (2017). Work and sustainable development. Work, 57(3), 311–313. Bolis, I., Brunoro, C. M. & Sznelwar, L. I. (2014). Mapping the relationships between work and sustainability and the opportunities for ergonomic action. Applied Ergonomics, 45(4), 1225–1239.

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

23

Bolis, I., Brunoro, C. M., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2016). Work for sustainability: Case studies of Brazilian companies. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 72–79. Brown, C. (2007). Eco-ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand Ergonomics Society Conference, Waiheke Island, November 7–9, 2007. Brunoro, C. M., Bolis, I., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2018). Building sustainable organisations: Contributions of activity-centred ergonomics and the psychodynamics of work. In: A. Thatcher & P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future (pp. 191–210). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Dirzo, R. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(30), E6089–E6096. Celestino, J. E. M., Bispo, C. D. S., Saldanha, M. C. W., & Mattos, K. M. M. D. C. (2012). Ergonomics and environmental sustainability: A case study of raft fisherman at Ponta Negra Beach, Natal-RN. Work, 41, 648–655. Cesarotti, V., & Spada, C. (2008). The impact of cultural issues and interpersonal behavior on sustainable excellence and competitiveness: An analysis of the Italian context (pp. 95– 113). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Charytonowicz, J. (1998). Ergonomics in architecture. In: P. Vink, E. A. P. Konigsveld, & S. Dhondt (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design & Management VI. Oxford: Elsevier. Charytonowicz, J. (2007). Reconsumption and recycling in the ergonomic design of architecture (pp. 313–322). In: C. Stephanidis (Ed.), International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Heidelberg and Berlin: Springer. Christina, S., Waterson, P., Dainty, A., & Daniels, K. (2015). A socio-technical approach to improving retail energy efficiency behaviours. Applied Ergonomics, 47, 324–335. Cocron, P., Bühler, F., Franke, T., Neumann, I., Dielmann, B., & Krems, J. F. (2013). Energy recapture through deceleration – Regenerative braking in electric vehicles from a user perspective. Ergonomics, 56(8), 1203–1215. Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), 23. Daheim, C., & Wintermann, O. (2016). 2050: The future of work. Findings of an International Delphi Study of the Millennium Project. Retrieved from: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/BST_Delphi_E_03lay. pdf [Accessed January 30, 2018]. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2008). A strategy for building sustainable innovation excellence – A Danish study (pp. 77–94). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 193–237. de Assis, U. W., & Silva, G. W. (2012). VLT: A sustainable solution to urban mobility, in João Pessoa-PB. Work, 41, 2169–2174. Dervitsiotis, K. N. (2008). Developing sustainable competitive advantage through operational excellence and adaptation excellence with value-innovations (pp. 37–55). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. de Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the “just-in-time workforce”: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labour protection in the “gig-economy.” In: ILO (Ed.), Conditions of Work and Employment Series, No. 71. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_443267.pdf [Accessed January 31, 2018].

24

Human Factors for Sustainability

Dias-Angelo, F., Jabbour, C. J., & Calderaro, J. A. (2014). Greening the work force in Brazilian hotels: The role of environmental training. Work, 49(3), 347–356. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A. B. (Eds.) (2002). Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Emerging Perspectives and Practice. London: Routledge. Docherty, P., Kira, M. & Shani, A. B. (2009). Organizational development for social sustainability in work systems (pp. 77–144). In: R. W. Woodman, W. A. Pasmore, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development. Bingley, UK:Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Dorsey, J., Hedge, A., & Miller, L. (2014). Green ergonomics. Work, 49(3), 345–346. Dul, J., & Neumann, W. P. (2009). Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4), 745–752. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. Engkvist, I. L., Eklund, J., Krook, J., Björkman, M., & Sundin, E. (2016). Perspectives on recycling centres and future developments. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 17–27. Eurofound. (2015). Sustainable work over the life course: Concept paper. Retrieved from: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ ef1519en.pdf [Accessed January 31, 2018]. Fischer, K., & Zink, K. J. (2012). Defining elements of sustainable work systems – A systemoriented approach. Work, 41, 3900–3905. Fischer, K., Hobelsberger, C., & Zink, K. J. (2009). Human factors and sustainable development in global value creation. In: IEA (Ed.), Changes, Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of the 17th World Congress on Ergonomics, August 14–19, Beijing, China. Santa Monica: IEA Press. Flemming, S. A. C., & Jamieson, G. A. (2009). Display design and energy conservation performance: a microworld study. International Ergonomics Association 17th Triennial Congress, August 9–14, 2009, Beijing, China. Fostervold, K. I., Koren, P. C., & Nilsen, O. V. (2018). Defining sustainable and “decent” work for human factors and ergonomics (pp. 47–76). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Singapore: Springer Nature. Franke, T., Arend, M. G., McIlroy, R. C., & Stanton, N. A. (2016). Ecodriving in hybrid electric vehicles – Exploring challenges for user-energy interaction. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 33–45. Franke, T., Schmalfuß, F., & Rauh, N. (2018). Human factors and ergonomics in the individual adoption and use of electric vehicles (pp. 135–160). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Singapore: Springer Nature. Fréjus, M., & Guibourdenche, J. (2012). Analysing domestic activity to reduce household energy consumption. Work, 41, 539–548. García-Acosta, G. (1996). Modelos de explicación sistémica de la ergonomía [Models of systemic explanation of ergonomics]. Master’s thesis. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. García-Acosta, G., Saravia Pinilla, M. H., & Riba i Romeva, C. (2012). Ergoecology: Evolution and challenges. Work, 41, 2133–2140. García-Acosta, G., Pinilla, M. H. S., Larrahondo, P. A. R., & Morales, K. L. (2014). Ergoecology: Fundamentals of a new multidisciplinary field. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(2), 111–133. Genaidy, A. M., & Karwowski, W. (2003). Human performance in lean production environment: Critical assessment and research framework. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13(4), 317–330.

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

25

Guimarães, L. B. M. (2012). Sustainability and cities: A proposal for implementation of a sustainable town. Work, 41, 2160–2168. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hanson, M. A. (2010). Green ergonomics: Embracing the challenges of climate change. The Ergonomist, 480, 12–13. Hanson, M. A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics, 56(3), 399–408. Hanson, M., & Vangeel, M. (2014). Chemical cleaning re-invented: Clean, lean and green. Work, 49(3), 411–416. Harvey, J., Thorpe, N., & Fairchild, R. (2013). Attitudes towards and perceptions of eco-driving and the role of feedback systems. Ergonomics, 56(3), 507–521. Haslam, R., & Waterson, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability. Ergonomics, 56(3), 343–347. Hasle, P., & Jensen, P. L. (2012). Ergonomics and sustainability – challenges from global supply chains. Work, 41, 3906–3913. Hecht, A. D., Fiksel, J., Fulton, S. C., Yosie, T. F., Hawkins, N. C., Leuenberger, H., …, Lovejoy, T. E. (2012). Creating the future we want. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 8(2), 62–75. Hedge, A. (2000). Where are we in understanding the effects of where we are? Ergonomics, 43(7), 1019–1029. Hedge, A. (2008). The sprouting of “green” ergonomics. HFES Bulletin, 51(12), 1–3. Hedge, A., & Dorsey, J. A. (2013). Green buildings need good ergonomics. Ergonomics, 56(3), 492–506. Hedge, A., Miller, L., & Dorsey, J. A. (2014). Occupant comfort and health in green and conventional university buildings. Work, 49(3), 363–372. Hermel, P. (2008). Social responsibility, strategic management and comprehensive corporate development: Old roots, new issues? (pp. 217–229). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Hilliard, A., & Jamieson, G. A. (2008). Winning solar races with interface design. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 16(2), 6–11. Hilliard, A., & Jamieson, G. A. (2017). Representing energy efficiency diagnosis strategies in cognitive work analysis. Applied Ergonomics, 59(B), 602–611. Horberry, T., Burgess-Limerick, R., & Fuller, R. (2013). The contributions of human factors and ergonomics to a sustainable minerals industry. Ergonomics, 56(3), 556–564. International Labour Organization. (2016). Non-standard employment around the world: Understanding challenges, shaping prospects (Main Findings and Policy Recommendations). Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_534497.pdf [Accessed January 18, 2018]. International Labour Organization. (2017). Inception report for the Global Commission on the Future of Work (Preprint edition). Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/ future-of-work/publications/WCMS_591502/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed January 24, 2018]. Johnston, P., Everard, M., Santillo, D., & Robèrt, K. H. (2007). Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 14(1), 60–66. Kanji, G. K. (2008). Performance excellence: Path to integrated management and sustainable success (pp. 21–36). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.

26

Human Factors for Sustainability

Karwowski, W., & Ahram, T. Z. (2012). Innovation in user-centered skills and performance improvement for sustainable complex service systems. Work, 41, 3923–3929. Katzeff, C., Nyblom, Å, Tunheden, S., & Torstensson, C. (2012). User-centred design and evaluation of EnergyCoach – An interactive energy service for households. Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(3), 305–324. Kobus, C. B. A., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2013). Washing when the sun is shining! How users interact with a household energy management system. Ergonomics, 56(3), 451–462. Kogi, K. (2006). Participatory methods effective for ergonomic workplace improvement. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 547–554. Kogi, K. (2008). Participation as precondition for sustainable success: Effective workplace improvement procedures in small-scale sectors in developing countries (pp. 183–198). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Kogi, K., Kawakami, T., Itani, T., & Batino, J. M. (2003). Low-cost work improvements that can reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(3), 179–184. Kubek, V., Fischer, K. & Zink, K. J. (2015). Sustainable work systems: A challenge for macroergonomics? IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 3(1), 72–80. Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N. J., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Baldé, A. B., …, Chiles, T. (2017). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet, 391(10119), 462–512. Lange-Morales, K., Thatcher, A., & García-Acosta, G. (2014). Towards a sustainable world through human factors and ergonomics: It is all about values. Ergonomics, 57(11), 1603–1615. Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., … & Noble, K. (2018). Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 4666. Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., & Pozzer, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature, 525(7569), 367–371. Lima, F. P. A., & de Oliveira, F. G. (2017). Recycling and social technologies for sustainability: The Brazilian experience of waste pickers’ inclusion in selective collection programs. Work, 57(3), 363–377. Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Albertsen, J. A. (2018). HFE in biophilic design: Human connections with nature (pp. 161–190). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Johns, T. (2011). The big idea: The age of hyperspecialisation. Harvard Business Review, 7/8, 56–65. Mandavilli, S., Rys, M. J., & Russell, E. R. (2008). Environmental impact of modern roundabouts. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(2), 135–142. Manuaba, A. (2007). A total approach in ergonomics is a must to attain humane, competitive and sustainable work systems and products. Journal of Human Ergology, 36(2), 23–30. Manyika, J. (2017). Technology, jobs, and the future of work. In: McKinsey Global Institute (Ed.). Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-amdgrowth/technology-jobs-and-the-future-of-work [Accessed January 25, 2018]. Martin, K., Legg, S., & Brown, C. (2013). Designing for sustainability: ergonomics – Carpe diem. Ergonomics, 56(3), 365–388.

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

27

Mauerhofer, V. (2008). 3-D Sustainability: An approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 496–506. McIlroy, R. C., & Stanton, N. A. (2015). A decision ladder analysis of eco-driving: The first step towards fuel-efficient driving behaviour. Ergonomics, 58(6), 866–882. McIlroy, R. C., & Stanton, N. A. (2018). Eco-Driving: From Strategies to Interfaces. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Meshkati, N., Tabibzadeh, M., Farshid, A., Rahimi, M., & Alhanaee, G. (2016). Peopletechnology-ecosystem integration: A framework to ensure regional interoperability for safety, sustainability, and resilience of interdependent energy, water, and seafood sources in the (Persian) Gulf. Human Factors, 58(1), 43–57. Meyer, F., Eweje, G., & Tappin, D. (2017). Ergonomics as a tool to improve the sustainability of the workforce. Work, 57(3), 339–350. Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G. S., Yu, P., Ray, E., Portmann, R. W., Daniel, J. S., … , Nance, J. D. (2018). An unexpected and persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11. Nature, 557(7705), 413–417. Moray, N. (1995). Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-first century. Ergonomics, 38(8), 1691–1707. Nadadur, G., & Parkinson, M. B. (2013). The role of anthropometry in designing for sustainability. Ergonomics, 56(3), 422–439. Nemire, K. (2014a). Combating climate change: The role of human factors/ergonomics, Part 1 – Special Issue. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 22(2), 3–4. Nemire, K. (2014b). Introduction to the Special Issue on combating climate change: The role of human factors/ergonomics, Part 2. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 22(4), 3. Neumann, I., & Krems, J. F. (2016). Battery electric vehicles–implications for the driver interface. Ergonomics, 59(3), 331–343. Nickerson, R. S. (1992). What does human factors research have to do with environmental management? In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 36(9), 636–639. Oi, H., Yanagi, K., Tabata, K., & Tochihara, Y. (2011). Effects of heated seat and foot heater on thermal comfort and heater energy consumption in vehicle. Ergonomics, 54(8), 690–699. Oliveira, L., Mitchell, V., & Badni, K. (2012). Cooking behaviours: A user observation study to understand energy use and motivate savings. Work, 41, 2122–2128. O’Neill, D. H. (2000). Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Does its application differ from that in industrially advanced countries? Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 631–640. Paerl, H. W. (1997). Coastal eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: Importance of atmospheric deposition and groundwater as “new” nitrogen and other nutrient sources. Limnology and Oceanography, 42(5 part 2), 1154–1165. Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W., & Zurada, J. (2004). The lean manufacturing enterprise: An emerging sociotechnological system integration. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 14(3), 285–306. Patz, J. A., Frumkin, H., Holloway, T., Vimont, D. J., & Haines, A. (2014). Climate change: Challenges and opportunities for global health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312(15), 1565–1580. Peffer, T., Perry, D., Pritoni, M., Aragon, C., & Meier, A. (2013). Facilitating energy savings with programmable thermostats: Evaluation and guidelines for the thermostat user interface. Ergonomics, 56(3), 463–479.

28

Human Factors for Sustainability

Pilczuk, D., & Barefield, K. (2014). Green ergonomics: Combining sustainability and ergonomics. Work, 49(3), 357–361. Pimentel, D., Cooperstein, S., Randell, H., Filiberto, D., Sorrentino, S., Kaye, B., …, Weinstein, C. (2007). Ecology of increasing diseases: Population growth and environmental degradation. Human Ecology, 35(6), 653–668. Poon, W. C., Herath, G., Sarker, A., Masuda, T., & Kada, R. (2016). River and fish pollution in Malaysia: A green ergonomics perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 80–93. Revell, K. M., & Stanton, N. A. (2014). Case studies of mental models in home heat control: Searching for feedback, valve, timer and switch theories. Applied Ergonomics, 45(3), 363–378. Revell, K. M., & Stanton, N. A. (2016). Mind the gap – Deriving a compatible user mental model of the home heating system to encourage sustainable behaviour. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 48–61. Revell, K. M., & Stanton, N. A. (2018). Human factors and ergonomics in interactions with sustainable appliances and devices (pp. 111–133). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Richardson, M., Maspero, M., Golightly, D., Sheffield, D., Staples, V., & Lumber, R. (2017). Nature: A new paradigm for well-being and ergonomics. Ergonomics, 60(2), 292–305. Rigaud, K. K., de Sherbinin, A., Jones, B., Bergmann, J., Clement, V., Ober, K., …, Midgley, A. (2018). Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. Washington, DC: World Bank. Rosenzweig, C., Karoly, D., Vicarelli, M., Neofotis, P., Wu, Q., Casassa, G., … Tryjanowski, P. (2008). Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 453(7193), 353–357. Sanquist, T., Moezzi, M., Vine, E., Meier, A., Diamond, R., & Sheridan, T. (2010). Transforming the energy economy – The role of behavioral and social science (pp. 763–765). In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: HFES. Saravia, M. H., & Rincón, O. (2006). Ergoecology: Innovation alternative at companies’ intervention, promoting integrated performance of productive processes. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEA World Congress on Ergonomics, Maastricht [CD-ROM]. Sauer, J., & Rüttinger, B. (2004). Environmental conservation in the domestic domain: The influence of technical design features and person-based factors. Ergonomics, 47(10), 1053–1072. Sauer, J., Wiese, B. S., & Rüttinger, B. (2002). Improving ecological performance of electrical consumer products: The role of design-based measures and user variables. Applied Ergonomics, 33(4), 297–307. Sauer, J., Wiese, B. S., & Rüttinger, B. (2003). Designing low-complexity electrical consumer products for ecological use. Applied Ergonomics, 34(6), 521–531. Sauer, J., Wiese, B. S., & Rüttinger, B. (2004). Ecological performance of electrical consumer products: The influence of automation and information-based measures. Applied Ergonomics, 35(1), 37–47. Sauer, J., Schmeink, C., & Wastell, D. G. (2007). Feedback quality and environmentally friendly use of domestic central heating systems. Ergonomics, 50(6), 795–813. Scott, P. A. (2006). Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Past developments and future directions (pp. 10–14). In: R. N. Pikaar, E. A. P. Koningsveld & P. J. M. Settels (Eds.), Proceedings “Meeting Diversity in Ergonomics” of the XVIth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association [CD-ROM]. Scott, P. A. (2009). Ergonomics in Developing Countries: Needs and Applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

29

Seppänen, L. (2017). Learning challenges and sustainable development: A methodological perspective. Work, 57(3), 315–324. Shahnavaz, H. (2000). The role of ergonomics in the transfer of technology to industrially developing countries. Ergonomics, 43(7), 903–907. Sobel, A. H., Camargo, S. J., Hall, T. M., Lee, C. Y., Tippett, M. K., & Wing, A. A. (2016). Human influence on tropical cyclone intensity. Science, 353(6296), 242–246. Stanton, N. A., McIlroy, R. C., Harvey, C., Blainey, S., Hickford, A., Preston, J. M., & Ryan, B. (2013). Following the cognitive work analysis train of thought: Exploring the constraints of modal shift to rail transport. Ergonomics, 56(3), 522–540. Stedmon, A. W., Winslow, R., & Langley, A. (2013). Micro-generation schemes: User behaviours and attitudes towards energy consumption. Ergonomics, 56(3), 440–450. Steentjes, K., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Corner, A., Arnold, A., Böhm, G., …, Tvinnereim, E. (2017). European Perceptions of Climate Change: Topline Findings of a Survey Conducted in Four European Countries in 2016. Cardiff: Cardiff University. Steffan, I. (2012). Sustainability and accessibility: The design for all approach. Work, 41, 3888–3891. Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 842–867. Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., … & Donges, J. F. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. Steimle, U., & Zink, K. J. (2006). Sustainable development and human factors. In: W. Karwowski (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors (2nd edition). London: Taylor & Francis. Talsma, L., & Molenbroek, J. F. M. (2012). User-centered ecotourism development. Work, 41, 2147–2154. Thatcher, A. (2012). Early variability in the conceptualisation of sustainable development and human factors. Work, 41, 3892–3899. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398. Thatcher, A., & Kalantzis, A. (2017). Do plants in an office improve perceptions of wellbeing and work effectiveness? The case of a call centre (pp. 192–199). In: R. Charles & J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2017. Loughborough: Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors. Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2012). The impact of a ‘green’ building on employees’ physical and psychological wellbeing. Work, 41, 3816–3823. Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2014). Changes in productivity, psychological wellbeing and physical wellbeing from working in a ‘green’ building. Work, 49(3), 381–393. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016a). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016b). Human factors for a sustainable future. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 1–104. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (Eds.). (2018). Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Singapore: Springer Nature. Thatcher, A., Laughton, K., Adamson, K., & Vogel, C. (2018). Communicating climate change data: What is the right format to change people’s behaviour? In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 825 (pp. 707–716). Cham: Springer Nature.

30

Human Factors for Sustainability

Torres, M. K. L., Teixeira, C. S., & Merino, E. A. D. (2009). Ergonomics and sustainable development in mussel cultivation. In: International Ergonomics Association 17th Triennial Congress, August 9–14, 2009, Beijing, China. Tort-Martorell, X., Grima, P., & Marco, L. (2008). Sustainable improvement: Six sigma – Lessons learned after five years of training and consulting (pp. 57–76). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Tosi, F. (2012). Ergonomics and sustainability in the design of everyday use products. Work, 41, 3878–3882. van Eijnatten, F. M. (2000). From intensive to sustainable work systems. Institute for Business Engineering and Technology Application (pp. 47–66). In: TUTB-SALTSA Conference, Brussels, September 25–27, 2000. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.112.2715&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed January 27, 2019]. Vicente, K. J. (1998). Human factors and global problems: A systems approach. Systems Engineering, 1(1), 57–69. Vicente, K. J. (2008). Human factors engineering that makes a difference: Leveraging a science of societal change. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(1), 1–24. Vink, P. (2008). The influence of project duration and focus on involvement in participatory processes (pp. 153–169). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Vitousek, P. M., Aber, J. D., Howarth, R. W., Likens, G. E., Matson, P. A., Schindler, D. W., …, Tilman, D. G. (1997). Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Sources and consequences. Ecological Applications, 7(3), 737–750. Wiese, B. S., Sauer, J., & Rüttinger, B. (2004). Consumers’ use of written product information. Ergonomics, 47(11), 1180–1194. Wilson, J. R. (2014). Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 5–13. Wilson, J. R., & Corlett, E. N. (1999). Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology (2nd edition). London: Taylor & Francis. Wisner, A. (1997). Anthropotechnologie: vers un monde industriel pluricentrique. Toulouse: Octarès Éditions. World Commission on Environmental Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Health Organization. (2017). Inheriting a Sustainable World? Atlas on Children’s Health and the Environment. Geneva: World Health Organization. Zink, K. J. (2008a). New IEA Human Factors and Sustainable Development Technical Committee. HFES Bulletin, 51(10), 3–4. Zink, K. J. (Ed.). (2008b). Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Zink, K. J. (2008c). Human factors and comprehensive management concepts: A need for integration based on corporate sustainability (pp. 231–253). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Zink, K. J. (2009). Human factors and ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Necessity and contribution (pp. 15–27). In: P. A. Scott (Ed.), Ergonomics in Developing Regions: Needs and Applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132.

How Has HFE Responded to the Global Challenges of Sustainability?

31

Zink, K. J., & Eberhard, D. (2006). Lifecycle oriented product management and integration of human factors. In: ISSA (Ed.), Facteurs Humains et Conception des Systèmes de Travail: optimiser les performances de l’entreprise. Colloque International, March 1–3, Nice. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356. Zink, K. J., Steimle, U., & Fischer, K. (2008). Human factors, business excellence and corporate sustainability: Differing perspectives, joint objectives (pp. 3–18). In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.

Section I Theoretical Basis for Human Factors and Ergonomics: Sustainability and Sustainable Development

2

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize? Colin G. Drury and Peter A. Hancock

CONTENTS Introduction and Scope............................................................................................. 35 Quality of Life/Human Well-Being.......................................................................... 36 Whose Quality of Life?............................................................................................. 41 Historical Perspectives on QoL................................................................................. 43 Summary and Conclusion.........................................................................................46 References................................................................................................................. 48

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE When we consider the relationship between human factors and ergonomics (HFE) and sustainability, we rather naturally see an important role for our science in ensuring “developments that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). But what specifically are the respective needs of the present and future generations? How does HFE go about defining such needs in terms of factors that our science can potentially affect (see Thatcher & Yeow, 2016)? Given that human-caused global climate change, population increase, and the apparent insatiable urge for continuing growth are the leading existential threats to ourselves and our planet (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004), then consideration of HFE’s role in sustainability is really about the future role of HFE as a whole (see Bartlett, 1962; Hancock, 2008). Just what are the objectives of HFE? One easy approach to an answer, and perhaps a useful point of departure for the present chapter, is to consider the various definitions and missions of HFE, as given by our various scientific and professional organizations. For example, the overarching international body, the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), identifies its fundamental objectives as follows: “[IEA’s] mission is to elaborate and advance ergonomics science and practice, and to expand its scope of application and contribution to society to improve the quality of life” (emphasis added). Their overall definition of HFE includes such objectives as “in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.” Thus we, as scientists and professionals, are tasked with improving how well a system works specifically in order to foster the well-being of those involved in the proximal 35

36

Human Factors for Sustainability

system and then, perhaps more nebulously, all those in greater society. That is, for all human beings on our planet. It is this latter extension and inherent tension that concerns us here. It is clear that the people working within a system (e.g., a factory, a transportation system, the military, the home, etc.) must be perhaps the principal theme of HFE. We could not be HFE practitioners if we did not consider the person in the system. But beyond this one discrete focus, we surely also need to consider the effects of any such system on those not employed by but still affected by that system. Surely the redesign of a consumer product for improved ease of manufacturing (i.e., less cost/time, more quality, better workforce well-being) must also take into account those who subsequently use this product. The extension beyond these direct consumers leads eventually to a consideration of all who interact with the system, its inputs (e.g., providers of raw materials and information), and its explicit and more diverse outputs (e.g., users of products or reports, even to victims of its inadvertent or unintended, harmful consequences). Any target system lies between its various progenitors and its subsequent offspring systems (Wilson, 2014). The burgeoning list of precursors and sequel effects encompasses whole nations, and this expands to our whole planet. In the rather stark terms of set theory, no system is sufficiently bounded so as not to exert an effect upon the whole. Actions are always contingent upon motivation. So, for most researchers, and especially HFE professionals, HFE system-relevant boundaries are typically defined according to the reimbursed requirements of the moment. After all, to some extent we all have to live within this putative “real world.” This latter impetus serves to focus our attention on the proximal system and then bounds our efforts to design and fabricate a successful product in a manageable way. Here, we exercise the right and obligation to go beyond these momentary, pragmatic limits to consider the wider implications of HFE and its responsibilities to the “system of all systems.”

QUALITY OF LIFE/HUMAN WELL-BEING If we are to concern ourselves with quality of life on a global scale, we need to understand the construct and exactly what we mean by it. This is no simple task. Quality of life (QoL) has been studied extensively by the likes of Ghylin et al. (2008) (see also, e.g., Nussbaum & Sen, 1993). Ghylin and colleagues identified four principal aspects of the general notion of QoL: (1) general quality, (2) product quality, (3) service quality, and (4) overall QoL. They then looked to identify words most closely associated with these interrelating faces of QoL. This line of inquiry was primarily oriented toward the HFE considerations involved in QoL, and the terms associated with the first three of the four identified aspects aligned well, although the latter more general category proved, interestingly, to be somewhat differentiated (see Table 2.1). Well-being is a concept strongly associated with effective, efficient, and protective workplaces, but it also forms a key pillar in discussions of health professionals, epidemiologists, etc. who also deal in this dimension of QoL. Positive affect, anticipation of exciting and pleasant future circumstances, and sustained sociality in terms of friends, colleagues, and family all have a positive impact, yet they are, in part, counteracted by fear of failure, loss, and so on that attend the prospective uncertainties of the future. While we, in HFE, have traditionally dealt with physical

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?

37

TABLE 2.1 QoL Definition Components and Examples Concept Direction

Concept Name

Typical Words

Positive

Positive Affect

Fun, being able to do what I like

Positive Future Social Affect Well-Being

Good future, living life to its fullest Socializing, friends Physical well-being, general well-being

Negative Affect

Inferior, failure

Negative

Source: After Ghylin et al. (2008).

work, cognitive work, systems design, and so on, we have yet to fully embrace and integrate these overarching affective dimensions. For example, in the major subjective methods of assessing cognitive workload such as the NASA-TLX (Hart & Staveland, 1988), where does the dimension of enjoyable and positive task demand enter into the assessment process? QoL has been used extensively in a variety of medical contexts. Its centrality drives from the impetus given by the underlying principle that any medical procedure should, in theory, exert some degree of positive impact on QoL. Hence, baseline QoL needs to be measured and established, in order to know if any subsequent improvements have been achieved. For example, Bazazan and colleagues (2018) have used the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) WHO-QOL scale (Harper, 1998), which has four major components: (1) physical QoL, (2) psychological QoL, (3) social relationships, and (4) environmental influences. Positive and negative affects are then categorized as subfactors of each component. In a demonstration of converging validity, the results from these latter investigators showed considerable similarity to the QoL components of Ghylin et al. (2008). In essence, we in HFE are by no means the first or the only constituency to be centrally concerned with QoL. As we ourselves grow and expand, we will need to reach out to these allied communities to pool our collective knowledge. Beyond any specific, discipline-based approaches, the linked concepts of QoL and well-being have been defined and measured on national and even international scales. Across these broad geographical regions, there seem to be three closely related and consistent threads to all of these measurements (i.e., QoL, subjective well-being, and happiness). All of these have been measured and recorded for different population segments, often over intervals of decades. In his recent text, Pinker (2018) has devoted chapters to the first and third of these threads while integrating corresponding concerns about well-being under QoL considerations. His text is devoted to the historical trends in these (and other) variables in order to support an optimistic interpretation for our collective future. Founded on these metrics, Pinker argues for the success of the Enlightenment and the manifest value of science in improving people’s lives across the centuries. It is an argument that requires us to look beyond the doomsday headlines of the moment to consider the global trends that have been enabled by science and technology (see Hancock, 2009).

38

Human Factors for Sustainability

QoL and well-being are obviously closely related concepts. The overall area of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) has been reviewed by Diener and his colleagues (2009) who identify the differing dimensions of the concept as follows: (1) pleasant affect, (2) unpleasant affect, (3) life satisfaction, and (4) domain satisfaction. Evidently, such identifications are very closely aligned with both HFE concepts of QoL and the WHO scale dimensions. It indicates a common, emerging consensus about these various component parts of life’s experiences. Diener et al. (1985) also created a facile Satisfaction With Life Scale, presented in Table 2.2. They established a number of intriguing results, for example, the relative independence of SWB and chronological age. More importantly, there appears to be a fairly weak relationship between SWB and income, presumably after income has met some minimum threshold for the securement of basic needs (see Diener et al., 1999). SWB is also positively influenced by social compacts such as marriage, as well as by individual characteristics and attributes such as extraversion. Happiness measures often appeal to the use of the Cantril Ladder Scale (see, e.g., Cantril, 1965). Here, the individual is presented with the following statement: “Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?” This facile, ten-point scale has been used in more than 160 countries across the globe and has been translated and used in more than 140 languages. It produces geographical descriptions of the country-specific, global distribution of happiness across the planet (see Figure 2.1). As a general rule of thumb, these representations show unimodal distributions around the central, five-point value. Although there is a reasonable correspondence between average income and Cantril score, the relationship is far more complex than any simple correlation can distill. The World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2018) shows detailed contemporary and historical data for more than 150 countries. The empirical question that we have to pose is whether “happiness” is the criterion upon which HFE should be optimizing. If so, the questions that follow are what aspects of happiness HFE can affect and how. TABLE 2.2 Satisfaction with Life Scale: 7-Point Scale for Each Listed Item from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” Scale Number

Statement

1

In most ways my life is close to my ideal.

2 3 4

The conditions of my life are excellent. I am satisfied with life. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life.

5

If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

Source: Diener et al. (1985).

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?

39

FIGURE 2.1  Global distribution of happiness ratings by country using the Cantril 10-point scale. Larger numbers indicate a greater degree of national happiness. (From: World Happiness Report, 2018.)

One dimension of life that relates directly to QoL but is also intimately bound up in the origins of HFE is the question of work intensity (see Jastrzębowski, 1857). Intensity can be measured by a combination of the duration of any work period by the demands (physical, cognitive, combined physical and cognitive) that are placed on the individual during such epochs. Such considerations also appear in the International Labour Organization’s (ILO, 2018) assessment of “decent work.” Especially in the early 1970s, but persisting into our own time (e.g., Wooden et al., 2009), it was expected that the ascendency of automation would reduce at least the number of working hours for most humans during the workweek. Over the larger swath of history, the trend toward a reduced number of working hours can be supported. For example, Roser (2017) showed that mean weekly working hours in several European countries decreased from around 65 hours per week in the 1880s to around 40 hours per week in 2000. But such general trends hide important variability, especially in the more modern, postwar era. Thus, Schor (1991) documented an actual increase in the mean number of working hours per year for the United States. Data suggest that this trend apparently persists, but such fluctuations vary both regionally and nationally (Gamtso, 2010). If we examine the question in more detail, what seems to have changed most profoundly, in both the developed and developing world, is the variability in workweek length. This is expressed by the range of hours composing a workweek. Individuals at the extremes of the range would prefer a more standard schedule, but the exigencies of production and service demands have created these extended or foreshortened work schedules. The desire for work standardization in the face of varying demands has been termed the Goldilocks Hypothesis by Goldenhar et al. (2003). But the happy medium in terms of regulated work intensity seems

40

Human Factors for Sustainability

somehow beyond us. Evans et al. (2004) demonstrated that this was occurring in the United States. Here, some consensus is emerging that identifies that those in lower paid work experience difficulty in securing jobs in the first place. In somewhat of a contrast, those on higher incomes are apparently working more hours than ever before. In the never-ending search for greater “efficiency” in the untrammeled headlong pursuit of chimerical “profit,” there has been a progressive emphasis on job removal, downsizing, and other management “initiatives” in the search for more for less. This, ultimately self-defeating strategy has served to impose progressively greater numbers of work hours on progressively smaller numbers of workers (Green, 2004; Watson et al., 2003). The problem here is that excessive demand, or even the uncertainty of the opportunity to work, has both performance and health sequelae. With such circumstances, we see an increased propensity for error and well as problems with illness, stress, and absenteeism (see Bearden, 2003; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Wooden and colleagues (2009) confirmed that it was not simply the number of working hours that affected SWB. Rather, it was the mismatch between hours worked and hours of work desired. HFE practitioners are well acquainted with the principle of mismatch between desired and actual levels of differing variables. Such forms of dissonance have been found to mediate worker well-being since at least the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studies of the 1970s (e.g., French et al., 1974). The notion that stress derives from the mismatch between imposed demand and response capacity is also deeply embedded in HFE (Hancock & Warm, 1989; Hockey, 1997). It is these extrinsic demands of the work system, which are often internalized in the worker, that drive the working conditions. This form of demand-based work organization often stands in contrast to alternative work systems that emphasize the importance of the human beings involved. These latter forms of organization are derived from HFE and emphasize human-centered design (Billings, 1991; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004) and put the corporeal human before the incorporeal corporation. Two other interesting observations on working hours come from the data compilations on https://ourworldindata.org/. First, incidence of child labor has been decreasing rapidly since the 1850s, especially in Europe, although there was still a worldwide incidence of 17% in 2012. Even this has decreased from about 23% in 2000. Progress has indeed been made, but HFE has had little impact here beyond that of certain broader but ancillary societal impacts. Second, at least in the United States, there has, since 1900, been a convergence of the hours spent by women and men in “home production.” At the start of this period, women averaged more than 40 hours per week in such activity, while men averaged an order of magnitude less, at 4. In 2005, women’s work time had decreased to about 27 hours while men’s work time had climbed to 16 hours. The total hours remained remarkably steady over this time period, despite work aids. Clearly, roles have increasingly converged, although there is still a considerable disparity. Such sexual dimorphism in actual demand hours, regardless of the particular nature of the work, leads us naturally to ask about such individual variation. The underlying question that looms ever larger for HFE is: whose quality of life are we concerned with?

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?

41

WHOSE QUALITY OF LIFE? HFE in practice is concerned with a target system, the one we choose to, or are paid to, study and improve. The immediate concerns for system performance and human well-being naturally refer to those inside the target system: workforce, management, and even users of the goods produced as noted earlier. Our typical feeling, beyond collecting and interpreting valid data, is: “Would I feel better in the HFE-modified system?” The data quoted above from whole nations or the whole world population provide a different perspective, and one often left undiscussed, or even unconsidered. Pinker (2018) quotes Spinoza’s comment that “those who are governed by reason desire nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the rest of humankind.” This directly impacts the question of whose QoL we are supposed to be improving. “The rest of humankind” is a fine goal, but in practice, the system boundaries may be such that our efforts only diffuse out from those in the target system to others more remote in space and/or time. This emphasis on the individual, as opposed to the societal view, is a recurrent theme in HFE. Discussion of the tensions involved and potential avenues for resolution promises to be a very important future dimension for us (Hancock, 2009; Nickerson, 1992). Within the target system, our clear concern is with the workforce, particularly their well-being. However, our objectives are typically system performance and human well-being, and often the person paying us for the work is more concerned with one than the other. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot optimize both simultaneously, or at least improve the one at a constant level of the other. At the very least, we need measures of both aspects to ensure that we know a more complete outcome, which is often not too difficult unless performance is hard to measure (e.g., for more managerial positions). Given measurement, we need to ensure that we do not indulge in trade-offs between performance and well-being. When an employer or client asks us to cost-justify a change designed to improve well-being, we need to know that we are on firm ethical ground. What if it is cheaper to cause the injury or stress? As a case in point, one of the authors (Drury et al., 1983) in a study of a palletizing aid, showed that this reduced spinal compressive forces and mean heart rate during a palletizing task. The study then went on to show, using data on both back injuries and work-rest scheduling, that the palletizing aid would reduce overall costs by decreased compression forces (therefore less injury probability) and decreased required rest breaks (therefore more production). Would reducing rest breaks really improve QoL for those within the target system? As this study was a simulation using workforce participants away from their normal work, the point was moot, but a slippery slope had been embarked upon where HFEs contributed to (a) even asking for cost-effectiveness calculation where human safety is concerned and (b) concluding that the palletizing aid could indeed be cost-justified in safety terms. At least one author has learned not to repeat this mistake. In fact, the Hancock and Drury (2011) paper noted, “We must ourselves avoid the appearance or actuality of hypocrisy in that one of us (PAH) has had extensive research funding from military agencies over the past decades.” We need also to note that the objectives set by an employer or client are the basis for negotiation rather than immediate acceptance. Thus, in studies of safety in

42

Human Factors for Sustainability

manual materials handling, one author (CGD) has been able to insert performance measures at almost no extra cost. In system performance studies, the same author has developed over time a comprehensive model of human performance in complex inspection tasks by running industrial studies that answered the clients’ questions while contributing to comprehensive modeling. The cumulative outcome of many studies in manufacturing industry led to valid models of inspection in the seemingly different domain of security screening of passengers and their luggage (Drury, Ghylin, & Schwaninger, 2007). Beyond the target system, we ask, “Who is our neighbor?” An empirical finding is that we care more about people closer to us, in distance and connections. In journalism studies, this first emerged as McLurg’s law, named after a legendary British news editor, who postulated the newsworthiness of an event in terms of how many people of different nationalities were killed. In less tribal terms, the modern concept is “proximity,” with Chandler and Munday (2016) noting that there is a general bias in favor of things “closer to home.” If newsworthy is a gauge of concern, then proximity does matter to people, including HFE practitioners. However, just because we are concerned about those closer to us in various ways does not mean that those are the neighbors that we should be concerned with. Knowledge, as the product of science, for example, is a communal “good,” so that as scientists rather than just as practitioners, we are indeed concerned with the whole of humankind. That said, there are distinct differences between subpopulations in every aspect of HFE: physical, behavioral, social. Studies in a convenience sample from “close to home” may not apply to our more distant neighbors or may actively mislead us into solutions that are inappropriate. HFE was primarily a Western activity in its early days and still bears signs of this heritage. Despite the almost 50 federated national societies of the IEA, most papers and materials are still in European languages, often in English. The IEA, its federated societies, and many Western practitioners have long been concerned with applying HFE in less-developed countries (e.g., the special issue of Human Factors; Lippert, 1968). Indeed, an early paper in the journal Ergonomics (Kerkhoven, 1962) raised the issue of whether factory workers’ wages in Nigeria were even sufficient to allow them to provide the calories for them to work at their full potential. A current example of how HFE practitioners are helping those located remotely is the work of Australian and Scandinavian researchers to help local professionals alleviate an outbreak of kidney disease in sugar cane workers in El Salvador (Bodin et al., 2016; Wegman et al., 2018). The problem for the workforce was high physical workload under very hot and humid conditions. The origin of the problem was suspected as dehydration, because it was not possible to consume enough water in the day to replenish water loss through sweating. The interventions were water supplies in backpacks, shaded rest areas, scheduled rest periods, and a more ergonomic machete for processing the sugar cane. The results were generally positive (Bodin et al., 2016), but there were some issues in communicating through the supervisors and implementing the interventions on a wide scale. Also (Wegman et al., 2018), there was some conflict between the piecework pay and the rest breaks, and also a reported need for more frequent sharpening of the new machetes, both of which were perceived as potentially reducing earnings. As in most HFE intervention studies,

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?

43

making changes to a complex and long-established work system may require considerable background knowledge and empathy with all participants. The notion of individual and/or communal “good,” however, is less easily expressed. This is especially so if the social “good” (e.g., access to mobility) is literally an intangible quality. In such contexts, individual good can be quite distinct from communal good, as has been argued by philosophers throughout the ages. Communal good (e.g., Mill, 1859) means that benefit is maximized over the whole population, while the focus on the good of each person should at least ensure that no single individual comes to harm as a result of the collective’s actions (e.g., Hobbes, 1651). A cogent meditation on one manifestation of the balance between communal good and lack of individual harm comes from the well-known short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (Le Guin, 1973). Here a utopian society can only exist if one small child is kept in misery. The individual versus the collective is a persistent issue for all who connote a society. However, it is one that we in HFE have rarely had any real discussions about or impact on. As the conduit of modern power is technology, it seems a natural issue for us to pursue.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON QOL Following our conclusion above that our improvements in QoL need to reach the widest possible range of humankind, then we need to ask how well humankind is doing, with us or without us. We also need to remain cognizant of the need to ensure that doing the most good for the most people minimizes at the same time any harm to the few. In statistical terms, these imply respectively measures of central tendency and dispersion, such as the mean/median and standard deviation across populations. The book by Pinker (2018) has links to much relevant statistical data. These range from measures such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or poverty rates per capita that help define human well-being as well as understanding its unequal distribution across a population. There are also much more direct measures such as perceived happiness and life expectancy. Some, such as GDP or life expectancy, cover much longer time spans than other, more recently introduced ones. In this section, we present examples, but the reader is encouraged to explore the data (e.g., at https:// ourworldindata.org) to see what is available for specific applications and arguments. If we are to go beyond the total of a good (happiness, QoL, GDP, etc.) and examine its equality of distribution, a useful concept is the Gini coefficient. This comes from the cumulative distribution of a measure and is usually plotted as the cumulative fractional share in the measure versus the cumulative fraction of the population. The Gini value ranges from 0.0 (there is perfect equality across the population) to 1.0 (just one person has everything). In terms familiar in HFE, this description is actually closely related to the area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC). In fact, the area under an ROC curve is simply (G + 1)/2, where G is the Gini coefficient. This curve compares the good (i.e., both goods as physical possession alongside good as intangible benefits) of individuals with the comparable good of the whole society. The Gini coefficient is usually illustrated by earned income where it began its life. However, in both theory and in practice, the concept can be extended to all forms of possession both tangible and intangible.

44

Human Factors for Sustainability

Perhaps it is well to start with national economics, as this is one driver of most of the QoL and happiness statistics (OECD, 2008; Pinker, 2018). Both income and accumulated wealth start off very unequal in most countries. The Gini coefficient then decreases quite rapidly with economic development, then levels out in the most developed countries, with a tendency in recent years to actually increase. For example, Figure 2.1 plots the Gini coefficient for income over the past 50 years for the United States. The first conclusion from Figure 2.1 is that the Gini coefficient is around 0.3 to 0.5 for income. We shall see later that this is much smaller than for accumulated wealth. The second conclusion is that the Gini coefficient has seen a steady rise over the past half century. Income is quite unequal but much less unequal than accumulated wealth where the equivalent Gini is around 0.8. Figure 2.2 shows a different, and probably more accessible, way to present inequality, using the fraction of accumulated wealth owned by different upper percentiles. The time scale is also longer, showing the decrease in wealth inequality to about 1980, then the steady rise comparable to income inequality. What we learn from these economic data is that over the long term, both income and wealth become more equal, but, at least among developed counties, this trend has recently reversed. The other point of note is that accumulated wealth shows much greater inequality than income. However, economics is not our only or even main concern. What about historical trends in QoL or happiness? There are now many sources of data that inform our knowledge of the amount and distribution of income, wealth, and measures of well-being, e.g., (Helliwell et al., 2018). (Interestingly, we cannot locate Gini coefficients for most of these QoL, happiness, or well-being measures, although calculation from the raw data should be a straightforward task.) The data in Figures 2.2 and 2.3 came from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2016), who provide detailed data from the United States. Shorrocks, Daves, and Lluberas (2017) provide detailed distributional 0.5

Income Gini

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

1960

1970

1980

1990 Year

2000

2010

2020

FIGURE 2.2  Gini coefficient for incomes in the United States from 1965 to the present.

45

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?

data on many indices (e.g., population, net worth, type of assets) across essentially every country by year. Pinker’s (2018) book references and presents sources for well-being measures going back many years, to bolster his argument that the world has become (and is still becoming) a better place for the majority of the population (Figure 2.1). The Fitoussi Report (Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009) details even more measures, such as social capital and the U-index of negative feelings, all relevant to HFE outcomes. Freedom House (2018) covers data on democracy versus authoritarianism, topics that HFE does not often consider explicitly but are required for HFE to flourish. For example, this report has the quote “After years of major gains, the share of Free countries has declined over the past decade, while the share of Not Free countries has risen” with data to back this conclusion. Currently, the report finds 45% of countries free, 30% partly free, and 25% not free. IDEA (2017) provides even more measures of democracy, and their Technical Procedures Guide (https://www.idea. int/gsod/files/IDEA-GSOD-2017-TECHNICAL-GUIDE.pdf) shows that many of their methods for determining freedom are familiar to HFE practitioners (e.g., factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha). Understanding of the larger landscape of well-being in the world should be well within the HFE practitioner’s expertise. The general tone of optimism (despite some recent back-sliding) of many of these sources comes as a shock to many people, ourselves included, because most of our daily information concerns crises, threats, disasters, and political/business malfeasance. For example, the comment by former U.S. President Obama in 2016 that “if you had to choose a moment in history to be born, and you did not know ahead of time who you would be—you didn’t know whether you were going to be born into a wealthy family or a poor family, what country you’d be born in, whether you were going to be a man or a woman—if you had to choose blindly what moment you’d want to be born, you’d choose now” is hardly how most people, particularly those who

Percentage of Population

100.0% Variable Top 10% Top 5% Top 1%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Year

FIGURE 2.3  Percentiles of accumulated wealth in the United States since 1910.

2020

46

Human Factors for Sustainability

consider themselves comfortably “enlightened,” perceive the world. It is worth stating this because in much of our work, we look for (and of course find) problems that need HFE solutions. The origins of our misperceptions should also be well known to HFE practitioners: the availability heuristic and negativity bias, first noted by Tversky and Kahneman (1974). We estimate event probabilities by the ease with which examples come to mind, and we are more worried by loss than we are cheered by the same magnitude of gain. Additionally, Pinker (2018) points out (p. 41) that adverse events (crises) happen quite suddenly, but good events (growth of well-being) are much slower phenomena and thus less newsworthy. Thus, the news provided for our consumption tends to concentrate on the adverse events rather than beneficial events. We should be more realistic than the typical pessimism found in both reporting and conversations.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In the present chapter, we have pointed out the need for HFE to look beyond its traditional practitioner/client model of optimizing local system performance and operator well-being for the good of the client. This perspective is too constraining. It courts the specter of local optimization at the expense of global dysfunctionality (Hancock, 2018). In his famous observation, a past-president of both HFES and IEA, Hal Hendrick, proposed that “good ergonomics is good economics.” What we in HFE now have to struggle with is not only the “ergonomic” facet of this assertion but more pointedly whether good “economics” actually renders “good” and to whom. For it is very evident in our own times that the present incarnation of economics is very good for the few but equally that the same economic system provides only very limited “good” for the vast majority of humankind. Thus, we have to set HFE in the wider context of how our actions benefit the broader society in which we all live. To set such issues in context, and particularly those contexts that directly relate to HFE, let us briefly revisit the example of length of workweek. It was one of the fundamental assumptions of automation, and partly the way in which it was sold to a supporting populous, that technology would even drastically reduce the number of hours that people would have to work. The advent and penetration of robots, especially into the manufacturing realms, was publicized to reduce the need for human work, especially that which was dirty, drab, and repetitive. In some sense, a chimerical vision of utopia was implicitly dangled before workers. However, the demonstrable benefits that did accrue from innovations in automated systems did not go to the many but the few. The workweek did not reduce to 20 hours and the rate of pay per hour did not double. The vision had been a cruel mirage. Rather, work itself changed somewhat, but the driving imperative for profit pushed all before it. Now, odd hours, at low wages became ever more feasible as automation did accomplish what it was advertised to do in terms of production. As we noted in a previous work (Hancock & Drury, 2011): Automation supported work task may have reduced the necessary human work hours from 120 to 90 (Sheridan 2002) but instead of reducing the 40-h work week for three individuals to a 30-h work week for each person, the profit-only driven economy has tossed one of those individuals into unemployment and massively increased the work

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?

47

of the remaining individuals by 50%, i.e. two 45-h weeks. In some countries (e.g. USA) it is also cheaper to employ part-time personnel so that benefits do not have to be paid, so that six part-timers could be employed, none on a living wage.

If HFE is solely a handmaid of whatever proximal client there is to hand, then we should be content to remain in our local optimization “box” and search for ways to improve process efficiency and, if we are lucky and it clams our moral qualms, provide a marginally improved work environment for whatever humans remain in the lonely and deserted production facilities. However, measuring QoL for those few who remain suffers fatally from a survivor bias. Thus, we may not even be able to check the “moral” box in any meaningful form. If we are to have the practical impact to which HFE, in our opinion, should aspire to, we have to now consider our effects on the ultimate “system of all systems,” our planetary home. The world in which we live can, most probably, continue a general upward trajectory of QoL, regardless of the existence of any formal discipline of HFE. In reality, the hard fact we have to face is that the world has been progressing quite well with only very minimal input from those involved with formal HFE. Salutary as such a statement must seem, it is not the formal practitioners of HFE or the associated academic community that is necessarily responsible for such a shortfall. Rather, HFE is practiced informally every day, almost everywhere that people seek to improve the circumstances of their lives. It is the connection between the formal study and informal practice that yet remains weak. Neither the upward path of our science nor indeed the upward path of the human species can be ensured. Information ubiquity means that we all now see the incipient and existential threats played out, rehearsed, and commented upon daily. Thus, neither perceived progress nor actual progress can be assured. For, as Pinker (2018) notes, “Progress cannot always be monotonic because solutions to problems create new problems” (p. 44). It is quite possible, thus, that we are trading current QoL for future QoL. Many nations in the developing world (although not all) desire the fruits of the developed world for themselves. But the developed world has been built on the largely vacuous and even invalid assumption of never-ceasing growth and universal abundance. As Wackernagle and colleagues (2002) pointed out, we passed the stable carrying capacity of the earth in about 1980. We have now overshot the earth’s resources. So, following the theme of this book, HFE practitioners need to understand the worldwide resource implications of any of the proximal solutions they recommend, even to the most harmless seeming change. Our times present a radical change from the relatively isolated nation-states of the immediate preceding centuries. The world is now intimately and inextricably interconnected. The forms of collective, global organization that are now emerging will be fundamentally different from anything previously experienced. Unlike Fukayama (1992), we do not see an end to history but the beginning of a very new sort of history. Within new, emergent social structures, technology exerts an overwhelming influence (Hancock, 2009). The greatest challenge will remain how humans conceive of, design, fabricate, maintain, and operate these ever more sophisticated and potentially “brittle” forms of technology and to what end. If the darker side of the Malthusian (1798) vision is to be avoided, some emergent form of social stability must derive. At one time, the micro-methods of

48

Human Factors for Sustainability

HFE would have sufficed to address the immediate problems of how the “knobs and dials” of such enabling technologies would have worked, either for good or bad. But we, in our science, cannot carry on in this isolated and compartmentalized way. The challenge before us, individually and together collectively in our professional organizations, is to debate and seek to resolve the issues raised here. But most especially, QoL for whom? The objective functions we attempt to maximize must go beyond our traditional target system boundaries. It is time for us to blossom forth to attack all of the central questions of human existence. These are questions that will define us not simply as HFE professionals but as a very species.

REFERENCES Bartlett, F. C. (1962). The future for ergonomics. Ergonomics, 5(4), 505–511. Bazazan, A., Dianat, I., Mombeini, Z., Aynehchi, A., & Jafarabadi, M. A. (2019). Fatigue as a mediator of the relationship between quality of life and mental health problems in hospital nurses. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 126, 31–36. Bearden, D. A. (2003). A complexity-based risk assessment of low-cost planetary missions: When is a mission too fast and too cheap? Acta Astronautica, 52(2–6), 371–379. Billings, C. E. (1991). Human-Centered Aircraft Automation Philosophy. NASA TM-103885. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. Bodin, T., García-Trabanino, R., Weiss, I., Jarquín, E., Glaser, J., Jakobsson, K., Lucas, R. A., Wesseling, C., Hogstedt, C., Wegman, D. H., & WE Program Working Group. (2016). Intervention to reduce heat stress and improve efficiency among sugarcane workers in El Salvador: Phase 1. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 73(6), 409–416. Cantril, H. (1965). Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2016). A Dictionary of Media and Communication (2nd ed.)Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diener, E., et al., (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (2009). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. In: E. Diener (Ed.), Culture and well-being: the collected works of Ed Diener, Social Indicators Research Series (Vol. 38, pp. 43–70). London: Springer. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Drury, C. G., Roberts, D. P., Hansgen, R., & Bayman, J. R. (1983). Evaluation of a palletizing aid. Applied Ergonomics, 14(4), 242–246. Drury, C. G., Ghylin, K. M., & Schwaninger, A. (2007). Large-scale validation of a security inspection model. In: P. D. Bust (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 209–215). London: Taylor & Francis. Evans, J. A., Kunder, G., & Barley, S. R., (2004). Beach time, bridge time, and billable hours: The temporal structure of technical contracting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2004), 1–38. Freedom House. (2018). Freedom in the World 2018. Washington, DC: Freedom House. French, J. R. P., Jr., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In: G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams, (Eds.), Coping and Adaptation (pp. 316–333). New York: Basic Books. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press. Gamtso, C. (2010). Taking care of self and community can alternative therapies help college students improve their health? In: Taking Care of Community: A University Dialogue on Health (pp. 20–22). Durham: University of New Hampshire.

For a Sustainable World, What Should HFE Optimize?

49

Ghylin, K. M., Green, B. D., Drury, C. G., Chen, J., Schultz, J. L., Uggirala, A., Abraham, J. K., & Lawson, T. A. (2008). Clarifying the dimensions of four concepts of quality. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(1), 73–94. Goldenhar, L. M., Hecker, S., Moir, S., & Rosecrance, J. (2003). The “Goldilocks model” of overtime in construction: Not too much, not too little, but just right. Journal of Safety Research, 34(2), 215–226. Green, F. (2004). Why has work effort become more intense? Industrial Relations, 43(4), 709–741. Hancock, P. A. (2008). Frederic Bartlett: Through the lens of prediction. Ergonomics, 51(1), 30–34. Hancock, P. A. (2009). Mind, Machine, and Morality. Chichester: Ashgate Publishing. Hancock, P. A. (2018). The humane use of human beings? Applied Ergonomics (in press). Hancock, P. A., & Drury, C. G. (2011). Does human factors/ergonomics contribute to the quality of life? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12(5), 416–426. Hancock, P. A., & Warm, J. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31(5), 519–537. Harper, A. (1998). Development of the world health organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28(3), 551–558. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (2018). World Happiness Report 2018. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1–3), 73–93. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2017). The Global State of Democracy: Exploring Democracy’s Resilience. Stockholm: IDEA. International Labor Organization. (2018). Decent work. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/ decent-work/lang--en/index.htm. Jacobs, J.A., & Gerson, K. (2004). The Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jastrzębowski, W. (1857). Rys ergonomji czyli nauki o pracy, opartej na prawdach poczerpniętych z Nauki Przyrody [The outline of ergonomics, i.e. science of work, based on the truths taken from the natural science]. Republished in English in San Diego: International Ergonomics Association. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books. Kerkhoven, C. L. M. (1962).The cost price of food calories for heavy work. Ergonomics, 5(1), 53–65. LeGuin, U. K. (1973). The ones who walk away from omelas. In: R. Silverberg (Ed.), New Dimensions 3. Doubleday Books. Lippert, S. (1968). Preface to special issue. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 10(6), 557–558. Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, Chelsea Green, VT. Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. Oxford, London: Clarendon Press. Nickerson, R. S. (1992). Looking Ahead: Human Factors Challenges in a Changing World. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (1993). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OECD. (2008). Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing.

50

Human Factors for Sustainability

Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States, Data Appendix Table E1, WID. World Working Paper Series NO. 2016/4. Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress. New York: Viking/Penguin Random House. Roser, M. (2017). Working Hours. https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours. Schor, J. B. (1991). The Overworked American. New York: Basic Books. Sheridan, T. B. (2002). Humans and Automation: System Design and Research Issues. New York: Wiley. Shorrocks, A., Davies, J., & LLuberas, R. (2017). Global Wealth Databook 2017. Credit Suisse Research Institute. Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ documents/118025/118123/Fitoussi+Commission+report. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P.H. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N., Norgaard, R., & Randers, J. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(14), 9266–9271. Watson, I., Buchanan, J., Campbell, I., & Briggs, C. (2003). Fragmented Futures: New Challenges in Working Life. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press. Wegman, D. H., Apelqvist, J., Bottai, M., Ekström, U., García-Trabanino, R., Glaser, J., Hogstedt, C., Jakobsson, K., Jarquín, E., Lucas, R. A. I., Weiss, I., Wesseling, C., Bodin, T., & WE Program Working Group. (2018). Intervention to diminish dehydration and kidney damage among sugarcane workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 44(1), 16–24. Wilson, J. R. (2014). Fundamentals of Systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics, 45.1, 5–13. Wooden, M., Warren, D., & Drago, R. (2009). Working time mismatch and subjective wellbeing. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(1), 147–179. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. http://www.undocuments.net/our-common-future.pdf.

3

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability Andrew Thatcher, Karen Lange-Morales, and Gabriel García-Acosta

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................... 51 Values, Ethics, and Morality: Toward a Provisional Imperative............................... 53 What Is the Existing Mainstream Ethical Stance of HFE?....................................... 55 HFE as a Value-Free Science?............................................................................. 55 Capitalist-Based Economic Model....................................................................... 55 Social Values: Human Well-Being....................................................................... 56 Quality of Life...................................................................................................... 56 Human-Centered HFE.......................................................................................... 57 An Emergent Need for an Ethical Stance............................................................ 58 Values Supporting Sustainability in HFE................................................................. 59 Toward an Ethical Stance in HFE for Sustainability: The Way Forward..................64 Provisionality of HFE Systems............................................................................ 65 Challenges to the Definition of HFE.................................................................... 67 Ethics in Educational Programs........................................................................... 68 References................................................................................................................. 69

INTRODUCTION A rapidly increasing population and poor behavioral choices have led (and are continuing to lead) to a number of interconnected crises (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). These crises include climate change (Foster et al., 2017), biodiversity loss (Ceballos et al., 2017), biogeochemical disruptions, land transformations, exploitation of nonrenewable energy resources (Beddoe et al., 2009), challenges to infrastructure development and maintenance, health issues (Landrigan et al., 2017), forced migration (Kelley et al., 2015), and pollution (Lilieveld et al., 2015). These issues have not gone unnoticed by the human factors and ergonomics (HFE) discipline with multiple authors outlining how they think the HFE discipline could make a difference (Drury, 2014; Hanson, 2013; Moray, 1995; Nickerson, 1992; Steimle & Zink, 2006; Thatcher, 2013; Thatcher & Yeow, 2016; Thatcher et al., 2018; Vicente, 1998; Zink, 2014; Lange-Morales et al., 2014). 51

52

Human Factors for Sustainability

The interconnectedness and complexity of these crises has led to the introduction of the term “wicked problems” (Murphy, 2012). A wicked problem is characterized as being difficult to define, where the leading cause (usually humans) of the problem is also expected to find the solutions to the problem, where there are no obvious right or wrong answers, and where there are rapidly approaching deadlines (Levin et al., 2012; Rittell & Webber, 1973). The scientific consensus is that the problems that humanity faces are undeniably anthropogenic (Cook et al., 2016; Rosenzweig et al., 2008). In fact, Steffen et al. (2011) have noted that we have now entered the Anthropocene age, meaning that human impacts are so great that they have had a noticeable and profound effect on the planet’s geochemical systems. If this anthropogenic consensus is correct, this means that we, as humans, will be expected to find solutions to the very problems that we have created. The fact that these issues have anthropogenic causes presents both as a wicked problem and as an opportunity for the HFE discipline. After all, HFE is a discipline with humans as our primary focus. However, the HFE community will also have to tackle this task in a context where there are no clear-cut right or wrong answers. As a consequence of this ambiguity, finding sustainable solutions clearly requires the establishment and application of appropriate values and ethical principles. Several authors have argued that addressing sustainability challenges will involve a change in our values (Berzonsky & Moser, 2017; Corner et al., 2014; Kasser, 2009). Meadows (1999) referred to a change in values as one of the deepest levers for change on our current unsustainable trajectory. Berzonsky and Moser (2017) identified several predominant human values that are problematic for sustainability. These include anthropocentrism, dominion over nature, detached scientism, dualism (i.e., separation of humans from nature), individualism (i.e., egocentric, individual rights), perpetual growth, and freedom to choose any path regardless of consequences. Kasser’s (2016) idea of materialism (i.e., concentrating on the accumulation of wealth, possessions, and status) could be added to this list. While behavior relevant for HFE may be predictable in a laboratory, HFE outcomes are far more difficult to reliably predict in the field where uncontrollable systemic influences occur. Hancock (2018) further notes that while localized solutions (i.e., individualized transport systems like motor vehicles that provide people with agency) might have positive individual and local outcomes, when this is viewed at a global level, the outcomes may be negative (i.e., greater carbon emissions). An example of how well-intentioned interventions have unintended consequences occurs when one considers the case of alternative vehicle fuels. One of the options as an alternative energy source to fossil fuels is biofuels. Biofueled vehicles emit fewer greenhouse gases than fossil-fueled vehicles (Pacala & Socolow, 2004). At face value, then, there may be important local health and well-being benefits for urban populations where these vehicles operate. However, a value-laden approach encourages the HFE community to consider the values of the entire system, not just the scientific benefits of biofuels over fossil fuels in a local context. There are now numerous studies that suggest that there may be significant overall negative effects for human health and well-being from changing land use (Fargione et al., 2008) as a result of moving to biofuels. In particular, land that was previously being used to plant crops to feed people is now being used to plant crops that are harvested for

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

53

biofuels, causing food availability crises in some regions and rising food prices globally. Even more concerning is the clearing of additional land (usually forested) to reap the benefits of additional income from biofuels. Clearing efforts have significantly increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere through burning and by removing the carbon sinks that such forests provided (Fargione et al., 2008). In addition, Melillo et al. (2009) have noted that biofuel production results in increased greenhouse gas emissions from nitrous oxide due to increased fertilizer used to stimulate biofuel crop growth. The net effect across the whole system of moving to biofuels is therefore likely to be reduced human health and well-being over a far greater scale. As seen in the previous paragraph, an action thought to contribute to reduce pollution, such as the use of biofuels, can generate bigger environmental problems. There are two different reasons why this happens. First, there is seldom an interrelated, systemic, and scaled view of the problem. A solution is conceived by just one or a few disciplines. This approach greatly limits not only understanding a problem but also finding possible solutions to a problem. Second, the specific values that individuals and communities share orient their actions and practices. In the case of biofuels, financial gain and energy independence outweigh food security. Therefore, if the HFE community wishes to contribute to sustainability, it is important to first understand its guiding practices. In order to do so, in the next section, the differences between values, ethics, and morality are introduced.

VALUES, ETHICS, AND MORALITY: TOWARD A PROVISIONAL IMPERATIVE In order to establish a basic analytical framework, this section introduces the main characteristics and differences between values, ethics, and morality. Rokeach (1973) defines a value as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence” (p. 5). As such, values refer to a set of personal or social beliefs that are long-lasting and that help a person demonstrate instrumental (i.e., the way we do something) or terminal (i.e., the outcomes) preferences. Values are deep convictions that therefore set the internal standards for our behaviors and motivate our actions. According to Rokeach (1973), values therefore act as guides for behavioral preferences. Frondizi (1972) distinguishes between “being” and “be worth,” proposing a value as a structural quality that is deposited on a thing. Values do not exist by themselves, but they need a holder. As such, values are neither things, experiences, nor essences; values are concepts in their own right (Frondizi, 1972). When a value is given to a thing, the thing becomes “a good.” Goods are therefore things with externally assigned values. As with Rokeach (1973), Frondizi (1972) considers that values are hierarchical and operate as polarities (i.e., good – bad; beautiful – ugly; fair – unfair). Ethics, on the other hand, refers to the philosophical study of what is moral. Ethics is concerned with the theoretical level (as opposed to practices or actions) and refers to the set of rules that govern or determine behaviors or actions. Ethics influence behavior at the level of the conscience and will of people. On one hand, Shipley (1998) considers that ethics provides a framework for determining what is right and what is wrong within a particular community or society. On the other

54

Human Factors for Sustainability

hand, Woermann and Cilliers (2012) proposed that ethics “should be conceived of as constitutive of knowledge and identity, rather than as a normative system that dictates right action” (p. 447). In linking ethics to values, Churchill (1999) wrote that “ethics, [can be] understood as the capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values” (p. 259). It is important to highlight that “the notion of living according to ethical standards is tied up with the notion of defending the way one is living, of giving a reason for it, of justifying it” (Singer, 1993, p. 10). The fundamentals of ethical rules are values, which are discovered internally by the subject. However, it is important to clarify that ethical principles are not entirely individual but are also somehow universal (Singer, 1993), as they are typically shared by a community or society. Finally, morality refers to the application of ethics (Singer, 1993) (i.e., it is the practical level of ethics). Morality is based on a group of social standards that influence, through external social practices, the behavior of the individuals. Morality can be seen and understood in sociomaterial practices that people carry out in everyday living (i.e., working, acting, etc.). As morality is based on ethics and ethics is based on values, an ethical stance can be understood as the conjunction of values, ethics, and morality of a specific community, in this case, the community that works within the discipline and profession of HFE (what is referred to as the HFE community in this chapter). Since sustainability is a set of complex, wicked problems, it is also necessary to consider the complexity of ethical thinking. Woermann and Cilliers (2012) proposed a way of dealing with the ethics of complexity and the complexity of ethics by adopting what they call the “provisional imperative.” Although the provisional imperative cannot be used for generating universal ethical principles, this approach offers a way of dealing with ethical decision making, a process that is supported by what the authors call provisionality, transgressivity, irony, and imagination. Provisionality is the result of the contingent nature of claims on our knowledge, dealing with the spatial and temporary dimensions of meaning. On the one hand, the meaning of our knowledge claims depends on the context where these claims are made. On the other hand, the meaning is contingent because within a given context, we cannot fix a meaning, as each context is open to new descriptions and interpretations. Transgressivity refers to actions toward the violation of accepted or imposed boundaries, recognizing the limitations of one’s conceptual schema and showing a willingness to overcome these limitations (Woermann & Cilliers, 2012). Irony is another important aspect proposed by Woermann and Cilliers (2012) that refers to being able to improvise when one comes to the limits of a binary logic. Irony allows one to see values beyond a binary logic of extremes, accepting (with irony and humor) that our knowledge is limited. It implies a kind of flexibility, taking risks and leaving a comfort zone and the safety of “what has been already done or what has already been said.” The fourth dimension proposed by Woermann and Cilliers (2012) is imagination, which is understood as “the ability to generate variety and options” (p. 457). These four dimensions (i.e., provisionality, transgressivity, irony, and imagination) can help us toward a provisional imperative: a future ethical stance for HFE with regards to sustainability. Provisionality reminds us that any proposed ethical stance is temporarily valid, subject to change, and open to new descriptions or interpretations. Transgressivity helps us to acknowledge the limits of our current or

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

55

traditional ethical stance, while assuming a responsible way to transform systems that include humans. Irony helps us to cope with the limits of the current ethical stance, and imagination allows us to assume a more creative position that we believe is necessary to deal with a future we cannot comprehend or predict. Indeed, irony and imagination are not just other ways of understanding something but also other ways of creating something. We therefore expect to be able to overcome the mainstream (or the current dominant) ethical stance of HFE.

WHAT IS THE EXISTING MAINSTREAM ETHICAL STANCE OF HFE? HFE as a Value-Free Science? Before making any claims about what is needed from the HFE community, it is first necessary to understand the current, mainstream ethical stance of the discipline. The official definition of HFE, adopted by the International Ergonomics Association at its triennial congress in 2000, is as follows (IEA, 2000): Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of 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. [The italics and underlining emphasis are that of authors of this chapter]

This definition promotes HFE as an objective science and highlights two primary outcomes: human well-being and system performance. Based on this definition, Wilkin (2010) argued that the HFE discipline considers itself to be an objective science (Dul et al., 2012) that is therefore value free. In this value-free conceptualization, HFE sees itself as a discipline where “reliable knowledge is based on facts about the world that can be measured and verified through observation” (Wilkin, 2010, p. 234). Based on Wilkin’s (2010) argument, the HFE discipline therefore already values itself as empiricist and positivist. Wilson (2000) and Moray (1994), on the other hand, argue that HFE is more of an art than a basic science, or to use Wilson’s (2000) words: “on the cusp of the sciences and humanities” (p. 562). Several authors have already begun to question this “value-free” conceptualization (or at least the empiricist and positivist values embedded in HFE) implied by the IEA’s definition (Dekker et al., 2013; Lange-Morales et al., 2014; Hancock & Drury, 2011; Thatcher et al., 2018). Hancock and Drury (2011) called for HFE to return to a consideration of our quality of life but also cautioned that the HFE community needs to debate and resolve whose quality of life it is referring to. Lange-Morales et al. (2014) suggested that the HFE community needed to go further and consider how to value the biosphere in relation to humanity’s own needs.

Capitalist-Based Economic Model According to Wilkin (2010), the mainstream HFE discipline, despite its broader official definition, has actually predominantly promoted itself on a capitalist-based economic model whose underlying values are productivity and profitability through

56

Human Factors for Sustainability

optimal system performance, sometimes even above other values. Hendrick (1996, 2003), for example, promoted the idea that good ergonomics was synonymous with good economics, playing with the linguistic similarity between the terms “economics” and “ergonomics.” Of course, this does not mean that the only values within HFE interventions are productivity and profitability. The HFE discipline clearly values other aspects of human health and well-being such as human safety, the quality of (work) life, job satisfaction, and work engagement. Nevertheless, Moray (1995) observed that the majority of published work in the HFE discipline reflects the “world of western liberal capitalism” (p. 1691). This Western-centric nature of modern HFE emphasizes that the ergonomist/HFE practitioner needs to “sell” HFE to the “buyer” by emphasizing the performance, productivity, efficiency, and profitability benefits of HFE (Dul et al., 2012). This view sees buyers investing in HFE because they will realize a return on their investment in HFE through increased profitability and performance and reduced costs from healthier and more effective workers.

Social Values: Human Well-Being Dul et al. (2012) noted that the HFE discipline emphasizes not only performance but also human well-being. According to Dul and Neumann (2009), the HFE discipline “has a long tradition in assuring working conditions for human well-being” (p. 748), where human safety might arguably be seen as a subcomponent of well-being (Dana & Griffin, 1999). This is typically achieved through the collection of empirical data and the careful design of the physical, cognitive, and psychosocial environment. The implicit understanding in the HFE discipline is that human well-being includes concepts such as comfort, physical health, psychological well-being, and safety. Dul and Neumann (2009) refer to these aspects as the social goals of HFE. However, Dul et al. (2012) noted that there was sometimes a trade-off between the performance/ profitability value of the discipline and the human well-being value of the discipline. In their paper outlining the future strategy of HFE, Dul et al. (2012) noted that the more powerful stakeholders in design decision making were usually more interested in the efficiency/performance/profitability values. They therefore argued that HFE should place more emphasis on selling the human well-being benefits of HFE to these stakeholders. The HFE discipline often sees system performance and human well-being as mutually inclusive. However, it is also clear that some of HFE’s primary stakeholders (i.e., businesses, research organizations, and even some individuals) frequently see the profitability and well-being outcomes as mutually exclusive and sometimes even as antagonistic.

Quality of Life There are also several authors who have argued that HFE should be about more than profitability, productivity, and well-being (Dekker et al., 2013; Hancock & Drury, 2011; Hancock et al., 2005; Lange-Morales et al., 2014; Liu, 2003; Moray, 1993; 1995 and Chapter 2 in this book). Dekker et al. (2013) and Hancock and Drury (2011) have argued for an HFE approach that is focused on securing quality of life for all. As Dekker et al. (2013) have noted, good economic practices are not necessarily good

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

57

for the quality of life of the worker. For example, increasing the number of working hours may improve economic returns for the workers but may be detrimental to their general quality of life. Further, the well-being of the worker might not necessarily be good for the quality of life of the worker. For example, increased mechanization may mean the worker does less manual labor in a safer environment, but the work may be less meaningful. Hancock et al. (2005) emphasized the individual pleasurable components of quality of life with HFE by introducing the term “hedonomics.” For Hancock et al. (2005), the aim of hedonomics is to facilitate the achievement of the full, unique potential of individuals. However, it is quite possible to envisage situations where the different unique potentials of individuals are in serious conflict with one another, and this is particularly problematic where there are scarce or shared resources. Hancock and Drury (2011) raise the pertinent question of whose quality of life should receive prominence. In particular, there is the problem of deciding between the good of the individual compared to communal good. Of course, this will also be dependent on the context. In highly trusting, socialistic communities, the individual good and communal good may be more closely aligned, but in individualistic communities, the individual good may outweigh the communal good (Ostrom, 1990). Even where individual good and communal good are closely aligned, there are still issues associated with which individuals and which communities to consider. Assuming consensus could be reached on which individuals/communities are the most important to consider, how does HFE consider the needs of minority groups? Hancock and Drury (2011) have noted that previous HFE approaches to quality of life have addressed the quality of life for the people who were the specified subject of HFE investigations. While these approaches may have benefited the quality of life for the “few” who have been lucky enough to have been the focus of HFE investigations, they do not necessarily benefit the quality of life of the many other people that have not been the focus of the HFE investigations. For example, Hancock and Drury (2011) noted that the primary benefiters of HFE work in the United States were the military and large corporations and it is debatable whether any benefits in this context would be transferable to smaller corporations, entrepreneurial businesses, and the general public.

Human-Centered HFE Multiple authors (Corlett, 2000; Hancock & Diaz, 2002; Liu, 2003; Moray, 1993; Neumann & Dul, 2010; Shipley, 1998) have shared similar concerns about the lack of effort from the HFE discipline to establish appropriate general ethical principles. Moray (1993) put the ethical issues at stake most succinctly by noting that HFE should be more concerned with improving “the human condition than with improving the efficiency of systems used for killing people” (p. 34). Shipley (1998), in her address to the Ergonomics Society, noted that there was a recent turn (writing in the 1990s) toward ethics within organizational settings. However, Shipley’s (1998) conclusion was that HFE needed to adopt a more human-centered approach to HFE practices and did not mention anything about the ethical concerns for the broader society or for our interactions with the natural environment. Corlett (2000) noted

58

Human Factors for Sustainability

that the codes of ethics for HFE professionals focused almost exclusively on the rights of the direct recipients of HFE practices rather than on general practices and the implications of those practices for broader society. Corlett (2000) argued that an ethical framework for HFE was necessary “because what we do has an influence on what happens to our world. Our business is with people, helping to make their world one in which they can operate effectively” (p. 679). Hancock and Diaz (2010) warned, however, that it is extremely difficult to take an ethical position (i.e., what is right and what is wrong) if there is significant disagreement over what sort of society or future the HFE community is trying to create.

An Emergent Need for an Ethical Stance Liu (2003) recommended that HFE needed to look at what is ethical (i.e., good/ right to bad/wrong) along with what is aesthetic and scientific. As a consequence, Liu (2003) noted that very few HFE interventions (at the time) had looked at how humans might reduce wasteful actions such as pollution control, prevent deplorable behaviors such as child prostitution, or support altruistic and humanitarian workers such as firefighters or prison guards. In contrast, more recently, Neumann and Dul (2010) noted that organizations were showing higher disinterest in ethical responsibility issues such as resource constraints and the demand for profitability became more prevalent. Multiple authors have now emphasized the need for HFE to consider the ethics and values of the discipline (Corlett, 2000; Dekker et al., 2013; Hancock & Drury, 2011; Lange-Morales et al., 2014; Liu, 2003; Moray, 1993, 1995; Shipley, 1998), especially in the context of the global challenges facing humanity. As has been described in this section, the HFE discipline already has a set of unstated values (Wilkin, 2010), and these values tend to benefit a select few. Moray (1995) argued that the HFE discipline needed to work on a clearly articulated set of values to help guide questions such as: • which problems or projects the discipline should address • which people should be attended to • what sets of solutions the discipline should seek Lange-Morales et al. (2014) have argued that the values should address not only the extant economic models and social ethics but also the values associated with the ecological systems that support human life. Considering the outcomes of this review, the mainstream values behind the work of the HFE community (as a discipline and as a profession) have been objectivism, empiricism, anthropocentrism, performance-oriented social-liberal capitalism (i.e., productivity, efficiency, and profitability), human well-being (i.e., physical and psychological health, human safety, etc.), and more recently aesthetics and hedonomics. The only explicit statements of ethics are those included in professional codes of conduct (see the ethical codes of conduct from the International Ergonomics Association [IEA 2007], the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, the German Ergonomics Society, and the Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors – accessible from the websites of these national societies). However, there is a tacit ethics-oriented

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

59

approach, although mostly to the benefit of a select few, that emphasizes performance-related values in order to “sell more” HFE practices (see Dul et al., 2012). Consequently, the mainstream morality in HFE (i.e., its sociomaterial practices) have been centered on the needs of its primary stakeholders (and especially those stakeholders that have the financial resources to pay for the services), including the rights of direct recipients of HFE practices (i.e., to be treated fairly and to “do no willful harm”).

VALUES SUPPORTING SUSTAINABILITY IN HFE As seen in the previous section, HFE has embraced values like profitability, efficiency, safety, and well-being. All these values are human or financially centered. Herein lies the main problem. HFE, like the mainstream economic model it currently occupies, assumes an anthropocentric perspective, where all other living and non‑living entities are exploited for achieving the goals of the human species. This has now led to the depletion and pollution of the Earth’s resources in opposition to the more holistic concept of sustainability. In line with this, it has been argued that if HFE really wishes to contribute to sustainability, it has to move from a narrow, individual anthropocentric standpoint to a community-based ecospheric standpoint in relation to the world (García-Acosta & Riba i Romeva, 2010; Saravia-Pinilla, Daza-Beltrán & García-Acosta, 2017). Based on the proposal of Lange-Morales et al. (2014), this section summarizes the values that will lead the discipline toward the construction of an emergent HFE ethics. These values have not been properly debated in the HFE community or integrated into HFE practice. In particular, there is yet to be robust debate as to whether these are appropriate values for the HFE discipline. In order to contribute to this discussion, this section relates the existing, mainstream values to the proposed values, including initiatives that have yet to be established within the HFE community that share these values. In this way, this chapter hopes to support a transition toward practices that could contribute toward building an ethical stance toward a holistic HFE for sustainability. This synopsis is based on the only study that has explicitly set out to define values for the HFE discipline. Lange-Morales et al. (2014) developed a set of six values for HFE in the context of sustainability challenges. These values are (1) respect for the Earth, (2) respect for human rights, (3) appreciation of complexity, (4) respect for diversity, (5) respect for transparency and openness, and (6) respect for ethical decision making. These values must not be seen in isolation and Lange-Morales et al. (2014) argued that they are clearly interrelated. For example, respect for human rights and respect for the Earth jointly introduce a level of complexity that is currently not fully appreciated by mainstream HFE practice. Transparency and openness are required to unmask the complexity and to acknowledge the unintended consequences of emergent properties in complexity. The ecosphere provides the natural resources necessary to enable and sustain life (Mosquin & Rowe, 2004). The ecosphere provides and cleans the air needed to breathe, water and food that provides sustenance, and the materials needed to provide shelter and the means for survival. Any lasting damage to the ecosphere is therefore

60

Human Factors for Sustainability

clearly detrimental to human well-being and, furthermore, does not support the mainstream HFE approach. Respect for the Earth, as proposed by Lange-Morales et al. (2014), acknowledges this ecospheric reality and extends the classic bioethics principle of “do no harm” (Smith, 2005) to include the ecosphere and “do no harm to people or the ecosphere” (see Table 3.1). The HFE discipline is primarily concerned with human well-being, and therefore it is quite appropriate that respect for human rights is a central ethical stance. However, two important differences should be noted from the existing ethical stance. First, while human rights and human well-being are central to the HFE discipline, these rights cannot be seen in isolation. The existing ethical stance promotes anthropocentrism such that human rights supersede the rights of other biological and nonbiological entities. Chan et al. (2016) emphasized that valuing human rights must be viewed in the context of humankind’s relationship with nature. In the ethical stance taken by Lange-Morales et al. (2014), human rights must be seen in the context of respect for the Earth. Second, respect for human rights calls for a balance between individual and collective rights. In particular, Lange-Morales et al. (2014) emphasized a need for social responsibility, which might include social redress and equitable access to essential resources, especially where access for local/indigenous populations has been systematically denied or exploited by external groups (see Table 3.2). Respect for ethical decision making builds on the fundamental principles embodied in respect for the Earth and respect for human rights. HFE research and practice call for numerous decisions to be made, especially which target groups to consider and the various possible intervention choices. Lange-Morales et al. (2014) argued that ethical decision making calls for considerations of equity both in the present as well as for future generations. The ethical stance should include considerations of the ecosphere as well as human rights. Dekker, Hancock, and Wilkin (2013) have already drawn the attention of the HFE community to various examples of unjust distribution of resources and social relations (see Table 3.3). All the authors working on theoretical models linking HFE to issues of sustainability and sustainable development emphasize the complex nature of such problems and the need for complexity‑thinking (Dekker, Hancock, & Wilkin, 2013; GarcíaAcosta et al., 2014; Lange-Morales et al., 2014; Thatcher, 2013; Thatcher & Yeow, 2016; Zink & Fischer, 2013). The problems of sustainability are not just interrelated, but they also display all the characteristics of complexity such as temporality, interconnectedness, nonlinear relationships, adaptation, self-organization, and emergent properties. Sustainability requires the HFE community to embrace this complexity and include complexity-thinking in modeling and intervention strategies. The need for complexity-thinking from the HFE community is not unique to dealing with sustainability problems but is part of an expanding suite of approaches (see Guastello, 2017; Karwowski, 2012; Pavard & Dugdale, 2006; Walker, Salmon, Bedinger, & Stanton, 2017) available for understanding and intervening in complex sociotechnical systems (see Table 3.4). As a result of the properties of complexity-thinking, especially emergence and unpredictability, it is not possible to know all of the consequences of an HFE design or intervention beforehand. Lange-Morales et al. (2014) therefore propose that

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

61

TABLE 3.1 Differences between the Mainstream Ethical Stance and an Emerging New Ethical Stance for HFE Regarding the Value “Respect for the Earth” Mainstream Ethical Stance from HFE Hendrick (2002) recognizes a “humanenvironment interface” characterized as environmental ergonomics. Others such as Kleiner (2006) recognize different “environmental” aspects such as the internal and external environment. However, the way these authors approach the “environment” means that it is seen as a context that adds unnecessary complications and needs to be controlled, rather than as a central element of the system. In essence, these approaches share the same value that has guided Western attitudes to nature, namely, the Judaic-Christian and Greek traditions that “made human beings the centre of the moral universe – indeed not merely the centre, but very often, the entirety of the morally significant features of this world” (Singer, 1993, p. 265). The systemic approach encapsulated by macroergonomics recognizes the importance of relationships between work systems and the environment (e.g., lean manufacturing). However, even the lean manufacturing approach is more concerned with efficiency from a profitability perspective and not because it reduces the strain on the natural environment. Currently, the macroergonomics approaches are predominantly anthropocentric. The tools used in macroergonomics must be adapted and used for developing interventions that also respect the Earth and acknowledge the bidirectional relationships with nature (i.e., humans use limited resources from the Earth and need to find ways to allow natural stocks to replenish).

Emerging HFE Ethical Stance The first person that used the term “ergonomics,” more than 150 years ago, emphasized the responsibility of avoiding applying “our four vital forces in an inappropriate manner, contrary to the nature of the land and the crops which are to grow on it.” (Jastrzebowski, 1857; 2000, p. 14). Jastrzebowski’s foresight highlighted the importance of interacting appropriately with nature even though, at that time, industrialization and mechanization was reaching its zenith and the new forms of production were seen as the panacea for the human condition. Jastrzebowski’s (1857; 2000) emphasis on human-nature connections needs to be recovered. Ergoecology (García-Acosta, 1996; GarcíaAcosta et al., 2012) offers a theoretical approach that could encourage the development of analysis and interventions with an ecospheric consciousness. For example, ergoecology emphasizes systemic eco-efficiency and eco-productivity as concepts that can serve the development of concrete indicators for assessing the limits of Earth’s natural capital. Thatcher (2013) introduced “green ergonomics,” which proposes that there are reciprocal relationships between humans and the natural environment. Further, Thatcher, García-Acosta, and Lange Morales (2013) introduced four principles of green ergonomics that include acknowledging how natural systems value design, understanding ecological resilience, and incorporating eco-efficiency, eco-effectiveness, and eco-productivity.

respect for transparency and openness is an essential value in this context. The HFE approach should be to make the system purpose and system mechanics transparent so that unintended consequences can be identified, acknowledged, and ameliorated if possible (see Table 3.5). Finally, Lange-Morales et al. (2014) suggest that respect for diversity is an important value. In the context of HFE, diversity refers to embracing different approaches

62

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 3.2 Differences between the Mainstream Ethical Stance and an Emerging New Ethical Stance for HFE Regarding the Value “Respect for Human Rights” Mainstream Ethical Stance from HFE

Emerging HFE Ethical Stance

The profession of “human factors and ergonomics” incorporates the word “human” prominently in the title and definition and it is therefore unsurprising that the ethical stance of HFE is anthropocentric. The emphasis in the International Ergonomics Association’s official definition of HFE is on human well-being, human safety, human quality of life, and human effectiveness for the benefit of other humans.

The green ergonomics and ergoecology approaches both recognize that humans are a part of nature and not apart from nature. Respect for human rights is therefore a form of anthropocentrism but within a context where nature is a part of anthropocentrism. Looking after nature is therefore a way of respecting the rights of the society.

However, aside from the efforts of participatory (Imada, 1991) and community ergonomics (Smith et al., 2002), the emphasis is usually only on working with principal stakeholders such as the commissioning stakeholder/s and the recipients of an HFE intervention. There are concerns that HFE does not consider the needs of the broader community or the needs of general society. In particular, there are concerns that HFE does little for marginalized groups.

Zink et al. (2008) considered that HFE has already been working toward socioefficiency (e.g., occupational health and safety, design of work systems, business excellence, and usability), but that it was also necessary for HFE to make efforts toward ensuring socioeffectiveness (e.g., corporate social responsibility, society orientation, and the needs of industrially developing countries). Zink et al.’s (2008) work emphasizes the consideration of a broad range of marginalized groups to promote social equity. Lange-Morales et al. (2014) noted that one socially responsible approach was to recognize the contributions of older, indigenous cultures (the concept of “Minga” from some indigenous groups in the Amazon, or the concept of “Ubuntu” in Southern African cultures). These cultures emphasize the importance of communalism and the rights of all community members. Smith et al. (2002) suggested promoting community ergonomics. Community ergonomics “focuses on distressed community settings characterised by poverty, social isolation, dependency, and low levels of selfregulation” (Smith et al., 2002, p. 289). Community ergonomics seeks to enable self-control and self-governance, community learning, continuous improvement and innovation, an emphasis on the external social and cultural environment, and reducing the impact of bureaucratic institutions. Suri (2001), in her keynote address at the Ergonomics Society conference, suggested that HFE needed to adopt a more empathetic stance for three reasons. First, to broaden HFE’s understanding of why people behave in particular ways. Second, to identify the emotional (and not only intellectual) needs of clients and sponsors. Third, to use empathy to appeal to wider markets and to explain the benefits of HFE.

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

63

TABLE 3.3 Differences between the Mainstream Ethical Stance and an Emerging New Ethical Stance for HFE Regarding the Value “Respect for Ethical Decision-Making” Mainstream Ethical Stance from HFE The current emphasis of HFE is oriented toward being able to “sell more” (i.e., more HFE products, more HFE services, and produce more economic value). The mainstream ethical stance of HFE is clearly aligned with economic models such as capitalism. This ethical stance does not entirely support the ethical stance required for sustainability. The economic stance emphasizes continual growth, materialism, and the freedom to choose any path regardless of the consequences. The existing professional codes of conduct and ethical codes for HFE emphasize open declarations of expertise, integrity, fairness, objectivity, privacy, and harm reduction (although only harm toward human elements in the system, not to other, ecological elements in the system).

Emerging HFE Ethical Stance Lange-Morales et al. (2014) argued that the system in its entirety (i.e., humans, nature, and technology) should be considered in decision making and not only the human and technology (human-made) aspects of the system. Furthermore, Lange-Morales et al. (2014) argued that ethical decision making should include a temporal dimension in order to consider the equitable distribution of resources and the nondepletion of natural resources over time and across generations. Community ergonomics emphasizes that the community leads the decision-making process, so that the community learns through self-regulation. From the seven principles of community ergonomics proposed by Smith et al. (2002), two are of special importance for this discussion: the action-oriented approach and the participatory approach by everyone (p. 296). Participatory ergonomics and community ergonomics are arguably already contributing to this value, in the sense that they encourage the opinions not just of the primary stakeholders, but also of the subsidiary workers and other stakeholders. Participatory ergonomics works more at the enterprise level while community ergonomics works more at the social level.

to problem solving and interventions, and involving multiple and new stakeholders in the identification, solution finding, and interventions. Practically, diversity for HFE means allowing for multiple product configurations, encouraging a diverse workforce, facilitating ethnic and cultural diversity, and enabling biodiversity. There are a few reasons why respect for diversity is an important consideration. First, diversity encourages local or indigenous approaches and solutions. Such approaches/solutions have the advantage of using available resources and therefore potentially reduce resource use (e.g., by reducing the traveling distance for raw materials). Second, diversity encourages the development of local expertise and the use of local knowledge. This means that interventions will be tailored to the unique context and will be more likely to be accepted at the source. Third, diversity is an important quality of resilient systems (Fiksel, 2003). Diversity provides increased connection and therefore increases adaptive potential. Adaptive potential provides options when inevitably the external environment changes (see Table 3.6).

64

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 3.4 Differences between the Mainstream Ethical Stance and an Emerging New Ethical Stance for HFE Regarding the Value “Appreciation of Complexity” Mainstream Ethical Stance from HFE Macroergonomic approaches recognize complexity as a structural dimension (particularly hierarchical structuring) of a work system (Hendrick, 2002), although macroergonomics takes a limited view of complexity. The Activity Theory approaches have also contributed to the understanding of complexity within HFE. Activity Theory approaches have recognized that emergent properties are natural when studying HFE systems. Additionally, Activity Theory approaches acknowledge that it is difficult to extrapolate outcomes (e.g., behaviors, outcomes, etc.) from the individual to the group situation (Daniellou & Rabardel, 2005). The complex sociotechnical system approaches to accident investigation have also been growing in influence within the HFE domain over the last two decades. Techniques such as Rasmussen’s (1997) Risk Management Framework, Vicente’s (1999) Cognitive Work Analysis, Walker et al.’s (2006) Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork, and Hollnagel’s (2012) Functional Resonance Analysis Method are all based on the notion that the systems requiring investigation are complex sociotechnical systems. These systems models are yet to incorporate ecological systems.

Emerging HFE Ethical Stance Dekker, Hancock, and Wilkin (2013) emphasize that embracing complexity is the most important component when adopting a sustainability perspective for HFE. Thatcher and Yeow (2016) have proposed a system-of-systems model for HFE for sustainability, which builds on ecological system models such as complex adaptive systems. The system-of-systems model for HFE also pays close attention to the time dimension of sustainability. In Thatcher and Yeow’s (2016) model, the speed of change and resistance to change are important components of their sustainable system-of-systems model. The ergoecological perspective proposed by García-Acosta et al. (2012) also acknowledges complex systems behavior. Zink (2014) has included a time dimension in a Triple Bottom Line (People, Profits, and Planet) understanding of sustainable development.

In order to avoid a binary interpretation of the following tables, it is important to highlight that the proposed stances (“mainstream” and “emergent”) should be read as the extremes along a continuum between both stances, recognizing that in daily sociomaterial practice in HFE, there are many “shades” of practice and theory development.

TOWARD AN ETHICAL STANCE IN HFE FOR SUSTAINABILITY: THE WAY FORWARD Currently, there are a relatively small number of people in the HFE community that have begun to explore the values concerning the role of HFE toward sustainability issues. Arguably, a shift in ethical behavior with regards to sustainability and sustainable development has already started. However, this shift can hardly be described as universal. This chapter concludes with introductory discussions on the provisionality

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

65

TABLE 3.5 Differences between the Mainstream Ethical Stance and an Emerging New Ethical Stance for HFE Regarding the Value “Respect for Transparency and Openness” Mainstream Ethical Stance from HFE

Emerging HFE Ethical Stance

Many HFE products, interventions, and services deliberately obfuscate to protect intellectual property and ownership requirements.

Dekker et al. (2013) acknowledge that complex systems often have unintended consequences and that it is the role of HFE to incorporate thinking about emergence into the decision making of HFE practitioners.

Dekker et al. (2013) argue that it is the ethical responsibility of HFE to make unjust relationships and outcomes known to system users. This is a noble aim, but it is difficult to define what is meant by the term “unjust.”

Lange-Morales et al. (2014) suggested that system design should incorporate greater transparency so that problems can be more readily identified and addressed where appropriate.

A number of HFE programs, particularly those from a participatory ergonomics approach, and those linked to quality, health and safety, and corporate social responsibility programs, are more likely to portray qualities of transparency and openness, since these kinds of initiatives and systems include the duty of being transparent and open in their formulation for self-promotion or for legal and corporate ethics reasons. One might argue that one of the unstated goals of HFE is to make system functioning transparent to the user so that they can efficiently and effectively use that system.

Supply chains “hide” atrocities through geographical and temporal separation. Zink and Fischer (2018) argue that one of the goals of HFE with regards to global supply chains is to make sure that decent work is ensured across the entire value chain. This requires a greater degree of interrogation to make unacceptable work practices more transparent and visible. Ultimately, HFE can contribute to high-quality global supply chain systems, through ensuring the traceability of work practices and the appropriateness of products and services for the end‑user (e.g., Fairtrade). Thatcher (2013) proposed adopting a precautionary principle for green ergonomics. The precautionary principle requires that the HFE community should err on the side of caution in terms of potential harm to individuals or the environment. In ergoecology, García-Acosta et al. (2012) also emphasize the need for an uninterrupted flow of information between systems and within the system. This flow should make decision-making processes transparent to all stakeholders.

of HFE systems (specifically in the context of sustainability), the need to integrate sustainability into a new definition for HFE, and the importance of including ethics in HFE educational programs.

Provisionality of HFE Systems First of all, it must be acknowledged that an ethical stance toward sustainability implies embracing an ethics of complexity and the complexity of ethics. Adopting the ethics of complexity implies recognizing the impossibility of a complete understanding of a system and its surroundings. Therefore, any constructed model of a specific

66

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 3.6 Differences between the Mainstream Ethical Stance and an Emerging New Ethical Stance for HFE Regarding the Value “Respect for Diversity” Mainstream Ethical Stance from HFE When incorporating human and cultural diversity into HFE, there are definitive trends in consumer product design (García-Acosta et al., 2011) toward embracing concepts such as user-centered design, usability, experience-based design, emotional design, and particularly universal design (e.g., design for all, inclusive design), which share and apply valuing diversity, at least when conceiving and developing new products. With regard to HFE applied to production and working processes, participatory ergonomics (Imada, 1991) also values diversity as the participatory approach seeks the expression and participation of the variety of workers involved, listening and considering their opinions, and, above all, valuing their knowledge and experience. All initiatives that facilitate work for aging populations (e.g., Fisk & Rogers, 1997) promote the value of diversity as they are taking into account the diversity of abilities and limitations of human beings. However, respect for diversity does not go beyond human diversity. No concepts with the dominant HFE ethical stance include other species such as plants, animals, and bacteria.

Emerging HFE Ethical Stance The shift from an anthropocentric approach to an ecospheric approach (García-Acosta & Riba i Romeva, 2010) is the basis for broadening the ethical stance regarding diversity. This does not mean abandoning the importance and focus on diversity in humans but rather extends the understanding to diversity to include other species and recognizing that there is currently an imbalance. If diversity in other species is not valued, this ultimately threatens human well-being and survival as human destiny is bound to the destiny of all other species. All existing initiatives that currently recognize and encourage diversity, such as participatory ergonomics, community ergonomics, design for all, and the constructivist approaches (e.g., Activity Theory), should be supported and integrated into more examples of HFE community practices. In particular, there needs to be greater support for situated and local solutions instead of encouraging universal solutions. The second principle of green ergonomics deals specifically with valuing diversity by highlighting the need to address human, technological, and natural diversity (Thatcher et al., 2013).

system must be recognized as provisional, subject to modification and improvement. That does not mean that a constructed model is superficial or relative, but that it is subject to changes according to the understanding of other variables in the system when these relationships are recognized. If HFE wants to contribute to sustainability, the first ethical condition is to recognize the provisionality of constructed models, including that they only provide limited knowledge. As stated by Preiser and Cilliers (2010), knowledge and a system do not exist independently; they are co‑determined and in constant change. In the context of complex adaptive systems, trying to develop predictive models is most likely to be a futile exercise. Rather, system intervention from the HFE perspective should concentrate on enabling adaptability and resilience. Where this is not possible, system interventions will need to be iterative.

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

67

As an initial approach, three imperatives of provisionality can be distinguished in HFE with regards to the values of respect for the Earth and respect for human rights. The first imperative is related to the idea of development, based on the mainstream economic model in which the HFE discipline has been operating and where human health and safety depend on economic profitability. This stance assumes that there are unlimited resources available to be transformed by and for human work. HFE is then oriented toward avoiding accident rates and occupational illness, instead of favoring personnel rotation when people come to a specific age or because of physical or cognitive fatigue. The acknowledgment that natural resources are finite and that their overexploitation has negative effects on the environment emerges as a second condition of provisionality where the above imperative is changed by what is called sustainable development. Social capital (i.e., human well-being) depends simultaneously on a balance between financial capital and natural capital. This stance leads to HFE initiatives related to corporative social responsibility that assume that it is possible to maintain the mainstream economic model in parallel to the improvement of social capital and the reduction of environmental impact. A third provisional imperative would be sustainability, understood as the need for recognizing the limits and scarcity of natural resources, therefore subsuming the economic dimension of profitability and replacing it with the capacity of restitution and the recovery of renewable resources through temporal fluctuations. In this provisional imperative, HFE must be oriented toward the quality of life of all human beings as well as the rest of Earth’s species, looking to reestablish a balance with Earth.

Challenges to the Definition of HFE Second, a new definition (or model) of HFE that explicitly includes sustainability should be discussed in a participatory, democratic, and inclusive manner, recognizing at the same time the reductionist limits of all definitions or models (Woemann & Cilliers, 2013). The role of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), as the custodian of the HFE definition, must be leveraged to help enact change. A similar strategy would be to embody the values in professional codes of ethics (Friedman & Kahn, 2003), preferably a general code of ethics for the whole HFE community. Ethical codes serve the same function as social modeling in that they demonstrate acceptable practices, but codes of conduct extend further to the general public and help establish trust in the profession. Once again, the IEA might serve as a central repository for the professional codes of conduct, so that different national societies might learn from one another. Lilley and Wilson (2013) raise an interesting set of questions that practitioners (they were looking at design practitioners in general, but their points are applicable to HFE specifically) should try and answer before and during the design process. These questions include (paraphrased from Lilley & Wilson, 2013, p. 294): • What does it mean to be ethical? • Have the values of the stakeholders been evaluated against an ethical framework? • Is the designer’s original intent for the design of the intervention/behavior ethical?

68

Human Factors for Sustainability

• Is the designer’s original motivation for the design of the intervention/ behavior ethical? • Are the intervention methods themselves ethical? • Are the intended outcomes of the design intervention ethical? • Have unintended interactions of the design intervention been predicted and are they ethical? • Have unintended contexts of use been predicted and are they ethical? While this is certainly not a complete set of questions, the questions provide a framework on which to base an ethics of HFE design. It is also recognized that in addressing these questions that the definition of HFE might need to evolve. However, it must be emphasized that this chapter does not suggest that a new definition is a foregone conclusion, but rather that the ethics and principles underpinning the definition must recognize issues of sustainability.

Ethics in Educational Programs Lastly, it is necessary to work on education programs that teach about these values, the goals of HFE, the meaning of the definition of HFE, and the responsibilities of HFE, so that convictions of HFE practitioners can be changed into practice and behavior. Kasser (2016) makes the rather obvious point that one needs to activate the “desired” values and reduce exposure to “undesired” values in order to make the required change. The question then becomes how do you activate desired values and reduce exposure to undesired values? While values are extremely difficult to change, Kasser (2009) argued that social modeling (such as educators and influential community members demonstrating how the values should be lived) is one of the more effective ways to shift values. However, this chapter has argued that it is necessary to change the ethical stance of the whole HFE community so that interventions leading to sustainability are not just performed by those who have developed the respective ethics by internal conviction. To date, there has been very little acknowledgment of these values or any debate about their completeness, significance, or relevance in the published HFE literature. ErgoAfrica, the network of African HFE societies, recently adopted these principles as their guiding values in the official bylaws of this network, and they are in the process of being incorporated into the bylaws of BRICSPLUS (the network of HFE societies from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Based on empirical studies, Kasser (2016) argues that exposure to the desired value outcomes is sufficient to stimulate the change process. But, how do we achieve this exposure? An obvious place to start the relevant exposure is through educational programs and professional examinations. For many, entry into the profession of HFE is through meeting formal educational requirements. Understanding the ethical basis for the profession is therefore of paramount importance. However, without genuine convictions, there will be no attitude for change. It is therefore necessary to change the values that underpin the attitudes, so that behaviors have a chance to change. This does not mean that changing attitudes automatically leads to behavior change (there are many intervening variables), but rather that attitudes serve as precursors for

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

69

sustained behavior change (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The introduction of ethics into education programs is therefore vitally important. In an interesting footnote to education programs, Kasser (2016), for example, reported that evidence shows that simply writing a short essay or assignment about the underlying values increased the likelihood that the values would be accepted. This effect was enhanced if people were consistently required to personally reflect on their values. As a final note, it is important to emphasize that achieving consensus on what underlying values to adopt will not be an easy task (in itself, this may explain why few authors have attempted to debate these issues). Furthermore, Norton (2017) notes that the problem is compounded because values are dynamic. Norton (2017) suggests that we guard against having a monistic view of values. Not all values will be applicable in all situations. Instead, Norton (2017) proposes a more contextualized approach within an interdisciplinary discourse. Values will then be contingent on context, but the important point to note is that they will need to be interrogated, probed, and evaluated.

REFERENCES Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I., Martinez, L., McCowen, T., Murphy, K., Myers, N., Ogden, Z., Stapleton, K., & Woodward, J. (2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(8), 2483–2489. Berzonsky, C. L., & Moser, S. C. (2017). Becoming homo sapiens sapiens: Mapping the psycho-cultural transformation in the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 20, 15–23. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Dirzo, R. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(30), E6089–E6096. Chan, K. M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(6), 1462–1465. Churchill, L. R. (1999). Are we professionals? A critical look at the social role of bioethicists. Daedalus, 128(4), 253–274. Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G., Green, S. A., Nuccitelli, D., Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., & Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. Corlett, E. N. (2000). Ergonomics and ethics in a changing society. Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 679–683. Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2014). Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 411–422. Daniellou, F., & Rabardel, P. (2005). Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: Some traditions and communities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 353–357.

70

Human Factors for Sustainability

Danna, K., & Griffin, R.W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384. Dekker, S. W., Hancock, P. A., & Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability: Towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56(3), 357–364. Drury, C. G. (2014). Can HF/E professionals contribute to global climate change solutions? Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 22(4), 30–33. Dul, J., & Neumann, W. P. (2009). Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4), 745–752. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., … & van der Doelen, B. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., … & van der Doelen, B. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867), 1235–1238. Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (1997). Handbook of Human Factors and the Older Adult. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Foster, G. L., Royer, D. L., & Lunt, D. J. (2017). Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years. Nature Communications, 8, 14845. Frondizi, R. (1972). Qué son los valores. Fondo de la Cultura Económica, México, D.F. Fulton Suri, J. F. (2001). The Ergonomics Society – the Society Lectures 1999: The next 50 years: Future challenges and opportunities for empathy in our science. Ergonomics, 44(14), 1278–1289. García-Acosta, G. (1996). Modelos de explicación sistémica de la ergonomía. Master’s thesis. Universidad Autónoma de México, México. García-Acosta, G., & Riba i Romeva, C. (2010). From anthropocentric design to ecospheric design: Questioning design epicentre. International Design Conference – Design 2010, Dubrovnik, May 2010. García-Acosta, G., Lange Morales, K., Puentes Lagos, D. E., & Ruiz Ortiz, M. R. (2011). Addressing human factors and ergonomics in design process, product life cycle, and innovation: Trends in consumer product design. In: W. Karwowski, M. Soares, & N. A. Stanton (Eds.), Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Product Design: Methods and Techniques. CRC Press, Boca Raton. García-Acosta, G., Pinilla, M. H. S., Larrahondo, P. A. R., & Morales, K. L. (2014). Ergoecology: Fundamentals of a new multidisciplinary field. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(2), 111–133. Guastello, S. J. (2017). Nonlinear dynamical systems for theory and research in ergonomics. Ergonomics, 60(2), 167–193. Hancock, P. A. (2018). The humane use of human beings? Applied Ergonomics (in press). doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.009. Hancock, P. A., & Drury, C. G. (2011). Does human factors/ergonomics contribute to the quality of life? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12(5), 416–426. Hancock, P. A., Pepe, A. A., & Murphy, L. L. (2005). Hedonomics: The power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 13(1), 8–14. Hanson, M. A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics, 56(3), 399–408. Hendrick, H. W. (1996, October). The ergonomics of economics is the economics of ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1–10). Sage Publications, Los Angeles.

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

71

Hendrick, H. W. (2002). An overview of macroergonomics. In: H. W. Hendrick & B. M. Kleiner (Eds.), Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications (pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Hendrick, H. W. (2003). Determining the cost–benefits of ergonomics projects and factors that lead to their success. Applied Ergonomics, 34(5), 419–427. Hollnagel, E. (2012). FRAM, the Functional Resonance Analysis Method: Modelling Complex Socio-Technical Systems. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham. IEA. (2000). The definition of ergonomics. International Ergonomics Association. Available from: www.iea.cc [Accessed July 26, 2018]. Imada, A. S. (1991). The rationale of participatory ergonomics. In: K. Noro & A. S. Imada (Eds.), Participatory Ergonomics (pp. 30–49). Taylor & Francis, London. Jastrzebowski, W. (1857:2000). An Outline of Ergonomics or the Science of Work Based upon the Truths Drawn From the Science of Nature. Central Institute for Labour Protection, Warsaw. Karwowski, W. (2012). A review of human factors challenges of complex adaptive systems: Discovering and understanding chaos in human performance. Human Factors, 54(6), 983–995. Kasser, T. (2009). Values and ecological sustainability: Recent research and policy possibilities. In: S. R. Kellert & J. G. Speth (Eds.), The Coming Transformation: Values to Sustain Human and Natural Communities (pp. 180–204). Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT. Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 489–514. Kelley, C. P., Mohtadi, S., Cane, M. A., Seager, R., & Kushnir, Y. (2015). Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(11), 3241–3246. Kleiner, B. M. (2006). Macroergonomics: Analysis and design of work systems. Applied Ergonomics, 37(1), 81–89. Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N. J., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Baldé, A. B., Baldé, A. B., Bertollini, R., Bose-O’Reilly, S., Boufford, J. I., Breysse, P. N., Chiles, T., Mahidol, C., Coll-Seck, A. M., Cropper, M. L., Fobil, J., Fuster, V., Greenstone, M., Haines, A., Hanrahan, D., Hunter, D., Khare, M., Krupnick, A., Lanphear, B., Lohani, B., Martin, K., Mathiasen, K. V., McTeer, M. A., Murray, C. J. L., Ndahimananjara, J. D., Perera, F., Potočnik, J., Preker, A. S., Ramesh, J., Rockström, J., Salinas, C., Samson, L. D., Sandilya, K., Sly, P. D., Smith, K. R., Steiner, A., Stewart, R. B., Suk, W. A., van Schayck, O. C. P., Yadama, G. N., Yumkella, K., & Zhang, M. (2017). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet, 391, 462–512. Lange-Morales, K., Thatcher, A., & García-Acosta, G. (2014). Towards a sustainable world through human factors and ergonomics: It is all about values. Ergonomics, 57(11), 1603–1615. Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., & Pozzer, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature, 525(7569), 367–371. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. Lilley, D., & Wilson, G. T. (2013). Integrating ethics into design for sustainable behaviour. Journal of Design Research, 11(3), 278–299. Liu, Y. (2003). The aesthetic and the ethic dimensions of human factors and design. Ergonomics, 46(13–14), 1293–1305. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, VT.

72

Human Factors for Sustainability

Melillo, J.M., Reilly, J.M., Kicklighter, D.W., Gurgel, A.C., Cronin, T.W., Paltsev, S., Felzer, B.S., Wang, X., Sokolov, A.P., & Schlosser, C.A. (2009). Indirect emissions from biofuels: How important? Science, 326(5958), 1397–1399. Moray, N. (1993). Technosophy and humane factors: A personal view. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 1(4), 33–39. Moray, N. (1994, October). “De maximis non curat lex” or how context reduces science to art in the practice of human factors. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 38, No. 9, pp. 526–530). SAGE Publications, Los Angeles. Moray, N. (1995). Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-first century. Ergonomics, 38(8), 1691–1707. Murphy, R. (2012). Sustainability: A wicked problem. Sociologica, 6(2), 1–23. Nickerson, R. S. (1992). What does human factors research have to do with environmental management? Proceedings of the 36th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting October, 1992 (pp. 636–639). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA. Norton, B. G. (2017). A situational understanding of environmental values and evaluation. Ecological Economics, 138, 242–248. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305(5686), 968–972. Pavard, B., & Dugdale, J. (2006). The contribution of complexity theory to the study of sociotechnical cooperative systems. In: A. Minai & Y. Bar-Yam (Eds.), Unifying Themes in Complex Systems (pp. 39–48). Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27(2–3), 183–213. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. The Free Press, New York. Rosenzweig, C., Karoly, D., Vicarelli, M., Neofotis, P., Wu, Q., Casassa, G., Menzel, A., Root, T. L., Estrella, N., Seguin, B., Tryjanowski, P., Liu, C., Rawlins, S., & Imeson, A. (2008). Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 453(7193), 353–357. Saravia-Pinilla, M., Daza-Beltrán, C., & García-Acosta, G. (2017). Corporate sustainability: from anthropocentric to ecospheric approach. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, June 14–16, 2017, Bogotá (pp. 366–380). Shipley, P. (1998). The Ergonomics Society. The Society’s Lecture 1997: The ethical turn and the workplace. Ergonomics, 41(1), 1–19. Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smith, C. M. (2005). Origin and uses of primum non nocere—above all, do no harm! The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 45(4), 371–377. Smith, J. H., Cohen, W. J., Conway, F. T., Carayon, P., Derjani-Bayeh, A., & Smith, M. J. (2002). Community ergonomics. In: H. W. Hendrick & B. M. Kleiner (Eds.), Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications (pp. 289–310). Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, London. Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 842–867.

A Future Ethical Stance for HFE toward Sustainability

73

Steimle, U., & Zink, K. J. (2006). Sustainable development and human factors. In: W. Karwowski (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis, London. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. (2016). Human factors for a sustainable future. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 1–7. Thatcher, A., García-Acosta, G., & Morales, K.L. (2013). Design principles for green ergonomics. In: M. Anderson (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors (pp. 329–336). Taylor & Francis, London. Thatcher, A., Waterson, P., Todd, A., & Moray, N. (2018). State of Science: Ergonomics and global issues. Ergonomics, 61(2), 197–213. Vicente, K. J. (1998). Human factors and global problems: A systems approach. Systems Engineering, 1(1), 57–69. Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Walker, G. H., Gibson, H., Stanton, N. A., Baber, C., Salmon, P. M., & Green, D. (2006). Event analysis of systemic teamwork (EAST): A novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i activity. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1345–1369. Walker, G. H., Salmon, P. M., Bedinger, M., & Stanton, N. A. (2017). Quantum ergonomics: Shifting the paradigm of the systems agenda. Ergonomics, 60(2), 157–166. Wilkin, P. (2010). The ideology of ergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(3), 230–244. Wilson, J. R. (2000). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 557–567. Wisner, A. (1985). Ergonomics in industrially developing countries. Ergonomics, 28(8), 1213–1224. Woermann, M., & Cilliers, P. (2012). The ethics of complexity and the complexity of ethics. South African Journal of Philosophy, 31(2), 447–463. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2018). Human factors and ergonomics: Contribution to sustainability and decent work in global supply chains. In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Palgrave-MacMillan, Singapore. Zink, K. J., Steimle, U., & Fischer, K. (2008). Human factors, business excellence and corporate sustainability: Differing perspectives, joint objectives. In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management (pp. 3–18). Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.

4

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals Claudio Marcelo Brunoro, Ivan Bolis, Bruno César Kawasaki, Ruri Giannini, and Laerte Idal Sznelwar

CONTENTS The Sustainable Development Goals and Their Context.......................................... 75 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development....................................................... 77 The Goals’ Centrality and Conflict Hiding.......................................................... 78 Implementation of the Agenda of Sustainable Development............................... 79 Dialogue between the Agenda of the Sustainable Development and HFE............... 81 Some Reflections about Actions in HFE in Consonance with the SDGs ................ 81 Rationalities in the Decision-Making Process..................................................... 83 The Centrality of Work........................................................................................ 85 Goal 3 – Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for All at All Ages: The Subjectivity and the Construction of Health....................................... 86 Goal 4 – Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All: The Professional Development........... 88 Goal 8 – Promote Sustained, Inclusive, and Sustainable Economic Growth, Full and Productive Employment, and Decent Work for All: Pursuing Interesting Work .................................................................................................. 89 Goal 16 – Promote Peaceful and Inclusive Societies for Sustainable Development, Provide Access to Justice for All, and Build Effective, Accountable, and Inclusive Institutions at All Levels: Work and the Development of Culture.......................................................................................90 Final Reflection.........................................................................................................90 Conclusion................................................................................................................92 References................................................................................................................. 93

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND THEIR CONTEXT In order to understand the United Nations’ (UN’s) 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we will examine not only the goals themselves but also the context in which they were formulated. This will enable us to identify the strategy of action implied in the SDGs and, therefore, we shall have better conditions to think on how human factors and ergonomics (HFE) can contribute to the SDGs. The 2030 Agenda for 75

76

Human Factors for Sustainability

Sustainable Development was defined at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in 2015. This international initiative is documented in the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015, and its 17 SDGs are as follows (United Nations, 2015b, p. 14) (Table 4.1). By analyzing the resolution, we can verify that actions for sustainable development are proposed in straight relation with these goals; in other words, the 17 SDGs play a vital role in the agenda. In fact, a similar goal-centered strategy was adopted in the UN’s previous project, the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2018a). This helps to explain why current discussions about sustainable development are frequently reduced and limited to goal achievement (e.g., Griggs et al., 2013; Sachs, 2012), a kind of discussion we want to avoid in this chapter. Therefore, we propose to investigate the main characteristics of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as the means to reach the 17 SDGs. These define not only the ends, or what is to be achieved, but also how they should be achieved. What does the agenda state regarding the path toward sustainable development? TABLE 4.1 The 17 Sustainable Development Goals Number

Goal

1

End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

2

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment; and decent work for all. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation. Reduce inequality within and between countries. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems; sustainably manage forests; combat desertification; and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

77

Furthermore, we present a dialogue between HFE and sustainable development and propose some reflections about the actions in HFE in accordance with these SDGs. In particular, the SDGs listed below have strong connections to an HFE approach and have been considered as the main issues in the proposals of this chapter. Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment; and decent work for all. Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

It is possible to correlate with HFE proposals, since the questions are related to human work, to how work is possible for everybody, including the great majority of populations. In those terms, it’s important to put in evidence the differences not only related to gender and age, but also related to human variability. Inclusive institutions must provide conditions for handicapped persons. Decent work means also that people are doing things that have meaning for them and for society, and learning also means the possibility to improve skills during working life., Finally HFE has contributions to make to this agenda.

THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT We highlight the following characteristics of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, established on the 17 SDGs: • Considering the international magnitude of the agenda, the 17 goals and its 169 targets seem to establish very specific tasks. • The various social actors (governments, private organizations, civil society, etc.) are called upon to peacefully collaborate to achieve the SDGs. Although there may be violent conflicts involving some goals (e.g., land and water access, indigenous rights, democracy), the document does not mention any conflicts – neither violent nor nonviolent ones, which may emerge in the path toward sustainable development. Goals (United Nations, 2018c) and the Sustainable Development Agenda (United Nations, 2018b) include where information is more concise compared with the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015. Thus, we draw attention to a tendency of reducing the sustainable development agenda to a behavioral and teleological dimension, as the resolution summons us all to collaborate to achieve the SDGs. Collaboration, however, is subject not only to common interests but to conflicting interests as well, and in this case, protests can be expected and the elaboration of agreements is necessary. How can agreements be promoted when interests collide? How can society foster this process? We point out that the resolution has no proposals on this issue, and this gap can hinder the progress of the agenda.

78

Human Factors for Sustainability

The Goals’ Centrality and Conflict Hiding Considering the existence of multiple and heterogeneous social actors, which may contribute to set back a global collaboration process as demanded by the sustainable development agenda, we suppose that the goal-oriented strategy has at least three reasons:

1. It makes communication easier: once goals are defined, we know exactly what we are talking about and what should be achieved. 2. It helps to avoid time-consuming, weary, and unproductive discussions. 3. It helps focus on action and therefore reaching effective results.

Some may criticize the 17 SDGs for being an excessively broad set of goals, but we should recognize the institutional effort to reduce an enormous discussion about sustainable development to a limited and clear set of goals. We can also figure out that such a strategy was possible since UN resolutions are a product of common understanding between various nations; hence, bringing conflicting interests to the foreground of debates would be unfeasible. On the other hand, it has disadvantages and limitations as any other strategy. We question whether the goal-centered strategy is indeed suitable, as there is little discussion about the difficulties, obstacles, and conflicts that are expected to emerge while working to achieve the goals. This is what we mean by “conflict hiding” in the sustainable development agenda. We are not suggesting that goals should be neglected; instead, we argue that hiding conflicts may jeopardize the progress of the agenda. For instance, the agenda omits protests around the world that ultimately stand for human rights and environmental protection. As they are often ignored and even violently repressed, they are representative of how social actors have different interests, and for some of them, sustainable development is not a real priority. Hence, the following question is left unanswered: how should we act when some individuals or organizations do not want to collaborate with sustainable development or when violent conflicts emerge due to the disrespect of the most fundamental human rights? The UN’s webpage “Take action! The lazy person’s guide to saving the world” (United Nations, 2018d) contains suggestions for people engaged in sustainable development. These are essentially individual initiatives, such as saving energy and paper, and demanding government and private organizations to embrace the agenda. Some suggestions indeed require cooperation (e.g., talking to your colleagues about work practices in other countries and companies, raising your voice against any kind of discrimination in the workplace, etc.); however, the webpage does not encourage a collective organization in defense of sustainable development. In this way, the agenda and the UN’s webpage both omit the existence of conflicts. Part of these conflicts occurs in the scope of work that relates to HFE: for instance, legislative changes that threaten labor rights; the advance of conservative ideologies that boost racial, gender, and nationality discrimination; and economic policies that do not consider high unemployment rates and extreme social inequality as urgent problems to be tackled. These elements are linked to the SDGs and can hinder the potential of work to promote dignity, well-being, and individual and social development.

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

79

Since conflicts are innumerable and varied in nature, it would be impossible to predetermine specific solutions for each case. However, people interested in sustainable development could be provided key facts and arguments from the different points of view involved in these conflicts, so as to enable a more accurate understanding of the problems to be solved. We suggest that such a strategy of action in which conflicting interests are put in evidence and openly debated is a more realistic and effective one, although it also does not guarantee cooperation. Considering divergences is a prerequisite for the elaboration of commitments and agreements, which is the ultimate goal.

Implementation of the Agenda of Sustainable Development While identifying the sustainable development goals is a relatively easy task, it is not so clear how they should be achieved. Three documents by the United Nations cover this topic: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the “SDG Compass: The Guide for Business Action on the SDGs,” and the website “Sustainable development goals – Take action.” The resolution of the United Nations (2015b) provides two sections on how to implement the agenda of sustainable development. They specify how the involved actors (countries, international institutions, public and private sectors, etc.) should cooperate so that everybody could implement the agenda of the sustainable development. Special attention is directed to the poorer countries and individuals. There are also sections on the follow-up of the sustainable development agenda (Follow-up and Review). They establish the creation of a system of national and regional indicators to monitor the progress of countries in the implementation of the agenda. To achieve this objective, it would be necessary to strengthen the national statistical offices; to use information based on evidence; to elaborate periodic reports evaluating the progress of the agenda at subnational, national, regional, and global levels; and to develop face-to-face meetings every four years (United Nations, 2015b). This probably needs deeper discussion about latent conflicts in the agenda of sustainable development. It would demand a higher frequency of face-to-face meetings at various levels (subnational, national, and international) in relation to what is suggested in the document (four years). In addition to face-to-face meetings, the main tools for the implementation of the agenda are monitoring the progress of countries through indicators and using an open online platform. The objective of this platform is sharing information and learning from the implementation of the agenda (United Nations, 2015b). The document “SDG Compass: The Guide for Business Action on the SDGs” (United Nations, 2015a) presents recommendations for companies regarding their role in sustainable development. The following steps are advised: • Understanding the SDGs • Defining priorities based on an assessment of their positive and negative, current and potential impact on the SDGs across their value chains • Setting goals

80

Human Factors for Sustainability

• Integrating sustainability into the core business and governance, and embedding sustainable development targets across all functions within the company • Reporting and communicating Source: https://sdgcompass.org/ The website “Sustainable development goals – Take action” (United Nations, 2018d) provides a list of actions that can be taken during working time (“Things you can do at work”). Some examples include: • “Does everyone at work have access to healthcare? Find out what your rights are to work. Fight against inequality.” • “Mentor young people. It’s a thoughtful, inspiring and a powerful way to guide someone towards a better future.” • “Women earn 10 to 30 per cent less than men for the same work. Pay inequality persists everywhere. Voice your support for equal pay for equal work.” • “4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation services. Lend your voice to talk about the lack of toilets in many communities around the world!” • “Stay informed. Read about workers in other countries and business practices. Talk to your colleagues about these issues.” • “Raise your voice against any type of discrimination in your office. Everyone is equal regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, social background and physical abilities.” • “Speak up! Ask your company and Government to engage in initiatives that will not harm people or the planet. Voice your support for the Paris Agreement!” • “Know your rights at work. In order to access justice, knowing what you are entitled to will go a long way.” • “Corporate social responsibility counts! Encourage your company to work with civil society and find ways to help local communities achieve the goals.” Source: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/takeaction/ Regarding the implementation of the agenda, a divergence can be noted: while the website “Sustainable development goals – Take action” (United Nations, 2018d) has a tone of questioning and confrontation, the resolution (2015b) encourages mutual understanding and pacific cooperation. A cooperative tone also prevails in the “SDG Compass” (United Nations, 2015a), which stresses integrating sustainability into the core business, embedding sustainability across all functions, and engaging in partnerships to promote sustainability. All three mentioned documents do not point toward the need to discuss conflicts among actors involved in sustainable development or how to overcome them. Overcoming conflicts may result from understanding what to do and elucidating the costs and benefits of each alternative. Expecting conflicts will be automatically solved is illusory. However, establishing agreements is possible; even if they are not global, they may be regional and progressive. To sum up, there is an appeal for win-win cooperation, where all actors involved would gain from the implementation of the sustainable development agenda. But

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

81

would it be possible to implement such an agenda only through win-win cooperation? We argue that it is also necessary to carefully deal with win-lose relations. In this way, we emphasize that the main point is how to reach those objectives through cooperation, which we believe to be essential for changing society. The agenda of sustainable development advocates for the participation of developing countries in the international decision-making processes. The United Nations website also suggests that individuals should demand companies to implement actions of the agenda. We believe this is the starting point for the interlocution with HFE.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE AGENDA OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND HFE Regarding issues linked to HFE, the following elements of the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda should obviously be explored: • • • •

“Nobody should be left behind” – the agenda is inclusive Focus on the poorest and most vulnerable Decent work Diagnosis of the contemporary world includes: raising inequality, gender inequality, unemployment

Together with the objective of promoting social inclusion of most the vulnerable people, we could argue that it is up to companies to include the workers (including those who suffer more from the consequences of outsourcing and precariousness) in the decision-making processes, which involves strategy and business organization – what workers have the right to do. However, this is not a recommendation of the agenda. Anyway, this is not a unilateral action that depends exclusively on the will of one of the parts involved in such processes. Work relations always consider the action of different social actors, especially companies, workers, and government. Those are not institutions with defined character, since there are significant influences linked to the history and the economic and social development of each locality. The responsibility of companies regarding the risk of sickness and safety of workers is more evident, mainly when we focus on laws of each country or city. However, when we consider the division and organization of work, which in a certain way could define whether work is interesting and conducive to the construction of quality work, of professional development, and of the construction and realization of a person, there is little mention in law and in the traditional practice of social actors. We present below elements that may enrich that discussion about HFE and the SDGs.

SOME REFLECTIONS ABOUT ACTIONS IN HFE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SDGS There is no literature that specifically emphasizes that the relations between HFE and the SDGs are explicit. Some articles consider specific situations, implicitly involving the SDGs, but with no intention to discuss the relation with HFE purposes (e.g., Thatcher, 2013; Zink & Fischer, 2013). With no intention to be exhaustive, our

82

Human Factors for Sustainability

proposal is to discuss the goals in a general way, especially goal 17 – Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. In a certain way, this goal may be seen as a provocation for sustainable development to move beyond the achievement of goals, by establishing means of implementation that could guarantee integrated and interdependent actions. In this sense, it is essential to rethink the means to enable the rebuilding of society with a focus on work, including the conditions for every worker to develop professionally. We understand that part of the path to sustainable development is made by the integrated comprehension of issues regarding the goals and how they could be thought of in the scope of transformation (Hopwood, Mellor, & O’Brien, 2005). The evident risk is that a vision of sustainable development based on the SDGs could be laid out on reductionist thoughts. This could be a critical issue, since the integration of multiple questions is not possible through fragmented and disconnected thoughts (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). The paradigm of complexity (see Morin, 1992) might be useful to building integrated actions, since the idea of relations of variables that could be distinguished but not separated allows a significant enrichment of the comprehension of work (Wisner, Daniellou, & Dejours, 1986). Abandoning ideas that see work as something simple and based on the perspective of repetition of movements and strict compliance of procedures is a very interesting way to highlight the importance of the HFE and its principles of integration of variables (Dekker, Hancock, & Wilkin, 2013; Fischer & Zink, 2012; Zink & Fischer, 2013). Any work activity demands from workers the integration of many aspects related to their task, to their body, and to their interpersonal relations. Establishing such a perspective, which also considers the development of professions and people, encourages us to abandon the traditional paradigms of production that lead to the dissemination of impoverished jobs in terms of content and personal and professional development. As we will see below, we argue that sustainable development depends on decision-making processes based on a value-based rationality associated with an integrative communicative approach that seeks to deal with complexities despite the boundaries in terms of uncertainties and human cognitive capacities (Bolis, Morioka, & Sznelwar, 2017; Mele & Rawling, 2004). However, fostering this kind of logic in the process of decision making is a task that demands deep changes in our society (Hopwood et al., 2005). Systematic changes should happen in all the spheres of society, rethinking the market based on the values of what is sustainable. The concepts of the Triple Bottom Line (i.e., accounting framework with three parts: social, environmental, and financial to evaluate organizational performance in a broader perspective to create greater business value) and Sweet Spot (i.e., the pursuit of profit blends seamlessly with the pursuit of the common good) have been a very good beginning, and a second stage to be thought through is how to transform current win (socioenvironmental)–lose (economic) solutions into win-win solutions (Elkington, 1997). By pointing out probable causes of a nonsustainable rationality of decision-making processes, we bring arguments and concepts that are tools to future debates regarding sustainability (Hicks, Burgman, Marewski, Fidler, & Gigerenzer, 2012). This kind of discussion complements more technical research of solutions for sustainability as technologies of clean production, sustainable business processes, design for

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

83

sustainability, etc. Moreover, it is necessary to consider solutions to promote decisions that are aligned to sustainable development: the introduction of values related to sustainability in education, engagement of people who respond to the consequences of their decisions, and the need for a systematic change coordinated and dependent on the engagement of the various affected parties. This is possible by considering the centrality of work to the construction of society and culture. The effective changes need to undergo deep transformation in the way in which they consider the work and the construction of professional activities that are rich and challenging enough to enable personal and collective development (Dashtipour & Vidaillet, 2017). One reflection that we seek regarding building a rationality that might integrate different points of view of the social actors involves overcoming the epistemological limitations of the classical approaches from historical positivism. This rationality could be inspired by the communicative approach (Habermas, 1984). Such change is possible and necessary when the construction of knowledge based on separated disciplines is fragmented because of difficulties of an interdisciplinary dialogue and based on direct and linear cause-and-effect relationships that don’t correspond with contemporary questions, especially because it is no longer possible to deal with the nonlinearity of phenomena. Basically, this is the purpose of the contemporary approaches, which allow the comprehension of the dynamics of systems, the inclusion of different types of integration of variables, the relation between order and disorder, and the importance of real work based on strategies to face the reality of work. In this way, different actors support such reflection. Christophe Dejours (2009) suggests the adoption of deliberative mechanisms in the production and work world to make it possible to put together questions about suffering and pleasure at work – work that is considered to occupy a central role in the construction of life, civility, and living-together (Arendt, 1959). The approaches of both Activity-Centered Ergonomics (ACE) (Daniellou, 2004, 2005; Daniellou & Rabardel, 2005; Guérin, Laville, Daniellou, Duraffourg, & Kerguelen, 2006; Wisner, 1995a) and the Psychodynamics of Work (Dejours, 2009) provide two main elements: (1) the rationalities involved in the decision-making processes and (2) the centrality of work for both the individual and the society. In this way, we can be assured that the inclusion of those new values is based on the comprehension of the importance of the centrality of work, not only for obtaining tangible results and better work systems but also for its central role for individuals (especially for their subjectivity and their intersubjective relationships) and for the building of a society that is more aligned with the concepts of sustainable development (Bolis, Brunoro, & Sznelwar, 2014; Béguin & Duarte, 2017). As we highlight before, these are specific theories within HFE.

Rationalities in the Decision-Making Process As the SDGs mention, reaffirming Our Common Future (WCED, 1987), the creation of a balanced society where every human being has the opportunity to develop himself/herself in freedom and where the equity among people is ensured, is desired. Sustainable development promotes the introduction of societal values focused on the improvement of the well-being for everyone (Bolis, Marioka, & Sznelwar, 2014).

84

Human Factors for Sustainability

Therefore, it is necessary to include those values in the decision-making processes at every level, which requires the consideration of rationalities different from the dominant one with its focus on the economic-financial goals, based on means-end relations (strategic-instrumental, teleological). The issue that arises, therefore, is on what values need to be included in decision making that enable the development and implementation of sustainability objectives. What we understand by rationality is that the rational process we follow to make a decision through which we expect benefits to be maximized involves choosing the option with greater value (Hicks et al., 2012). However, which benefits and values should be considered? Many authors explore rationalities by pointing out their diverse types. With no intention to have a deep discussion, but still wanting to add value to this chapter, we present below four important contributions. Instrumental rationality: With a focus on quantifiable results by production indicators and by financial results, instrumental rationality is based on means-end relations (eliminating the plurality of the thinking) and on the generation of profits. It has an advantage of being easily accepted and understood by people as it is reductionist and utilitarian (Kalberg, 1980). Axiological/substantive rationality: Substantive rationality is related to the importance of values, to the choices of the human being (ethical-moral, aesthetic, and spiritual issues), so it is related to culture and human conditions (Kalberg, 1980). Communicational rationality: Communicational rationality is related to social context with the objective of mutual understanding and being able to “put oneself in someone else’s shoes.” It is based on a free rational critical communication, substantiated in principles of what is true (Habermas, 1984, 1989). Subjective rationality: Subjective rationality is based on the subjectivity of the individual and on the psychoanalytic anthropology. It considers the human being as someone endowed with consciousness, where the relation with the psychic unconscious is primordial. In other words, it represents those endowed with ambiguity regarding their survival and their existence as a relational being, belonging to a certain society. It is a rationality, which considers not only the individual by himself/ herself but also the relational being. Therefore, intersubjectivity emerges as critical issue in the question of human activities, especially at work. Many authors criticize the instrumental rationality used by individuals or by groups to reach their own goals to the detriment of well-being of the society. The other rationalities might be useful for more sustainable decision making, complementing the approach of the instrumental rationality. Implicit criticism of individualism is also present. The coordination and cooperation of several individual views thus enable us to make shared decisions that consider all parties involved (Bolis et al., 2017). The themes presented in the SDGs, such as equity and equality (which connect aspects from sustainable development – such as welfare services, poverty alleviation, and people’s empowerment – among people from the same generation or diverse generations), ethics (including justice and morality), and altruism and community feeling (fairness or reciprocity, trust in each other, cooperation, goodwill, openness, emotional solidarity, collaboration, sharing, inclusiveness, and responsibility), need to be introduced with other rationalities than the instrumental one to be valuable for the decision-making process. This is not explicitly presented (named) in the agenda.

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

85

Work systems hold diverse rationalities, not only the instrumental one. What happens when we effectively seek the creation of ambitious production scenarios for the construction of health and for an effective contribution with efficient and effective production that we also consider the axiological, communicational, and subjective rationalities? The consideration of the different rationalities in a balanced way is critical to building work systems coherent with a sustainable vision, especially regarding work and the development of people, of society, and of culture. Therefore, people must be treated as resources to be developed instead of being treated as things or resources to be explored (Hubault & Tertre, 2008).

The Centrality of Work As we will present in the upcoming sections, work activity is central in the life of people, as it is the main means by which people develop personally and professionally, building their health and contributing to the development of collective actions, organizations, society, and culture (Dejours & Deranty, 2010). At the same time, work is central to the success and to the development of organizations, as it is the means to define the objectives, to constitute the production process, to effectively produce, to correct any deviations, and to overcome any emerging phenomena. Defining work activity is always challenging since there are several ways to analyze it. ACE approaches contribute to knowledge and comprehension about work, by exposing that the “real” part of work isn’t defined in the prescribed work and that every worker deals with several emerging phenomena to reach his/her objective and acts in a unique way from what is determined in the procedures of tasks (Wisner, 1994, 1995b). That means that every worker who is engaged in a work system puts his/her body, intelligence, and psyche to reach certain ends. For Psychodynamics of Work (PDW), which is based on the centrality of the subjectivity and intersubjectivity, we may add the engagement of oneself to handle what is part of the act of producing, which means the ways workers modify the machines and systems to reach the objectives (Dejours, 2006; Deranty, 2009). Therefore, a work system depends on “living work” (Dejours’s concept, inspired in the sense of living labor, Marx’s concept) of many workers, and it’s important to consider their roles and decision rights. “Living work” regards the act of working in the sense of the human action, in other words, what is not handled by machines. Reinforcing the idea of “living work” is a position, which agrees that there is still a strong tendency to mix up human beings and machines and to quantify the work through the goals and objectives of the production. Treating human beings as things at work (reification process) is a consequence of the project and the organization of work systems where people are seen as a resource, a mere part of a broad system that could be replaced by a more productive, younger, healthier, cheaper part or by a robot. Considering the work as a cost, as something that should be reduced to the minimum level or completely eliminated as impoverished knowledge within organizations, creates interpersonal noncooperative (and noncollaborative) relationships and builds important scenarios for the emergence of several psychic defensive mechanisms so that workers would handle the psychopathogenic suffering. As it occupies a

86

Human Factors for Sustainability

central role in the life of people, work isn’t neutral: it promotes the personal and collective development, or it promotes the appearance of disorders and pathologies, and the disintegration of social tissues and of living together. Therefore, creating room for organizations and society to build or rebuild the meaning of work activity is such a major step for companies, governments, and citizenship. Though this is a valuable vision, reality (e.g., in industry) is different and it is not seen as central. The point of view sustained in this chapter is that the responsibility of all social actors engaged in any work system. Treating different pillars as economic, social, and environmental results is crucial in the pursuit of a balanced relationship with work. Assuming the centrality of work means that sustainable development requires a focus on “living work,” which is a directly human action result. The question we propose is: according to the perspective of sustainable development, how should we guarantee that work promotes favorable conditions for both organizations and workers? The approaches of ACE and PDW consider that there are immaterial elements that are crucial not only for individuals but also for the society, such as trust and cooperation. These are values that could not be quantified because they allow the building of human systems, which promote living together. Therefore, those immaterial values are critical to think of a sustainable perspective, because they benefit the civilizing process and the development of culture and society by establishing better conditions for work, professional development, and the construction of health. As stated before, the proposal of this chapter is based on our reflections on some of the SDGs, chosen because of the relation with ACE and PDW approaches and to the discussion of some key issues related to these particular SDGs (i.e., health, professional development geared toward inclusive aging, and cultural development).

Goal 3 – Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for All at All Ages: The Subjectivity and the Construction of Health Contrary to traditional views of the world of production, we don’t see the workers as an executor of the procedures because they build and live the work. Our focus is on the construction of health through work and on how work changes the world and the workers. In this way, we believe in the construction of a professional path that promotes the emancipation for both individuals and collectives (Molinier, 2006). So, the discussion about the relationship between suffering and pleasure at work is crucial because when we undervalue the organization of work, as well as the recognition and the creative ability of the worker, and treat workers as mere parts of the productive process, we potentialize the pathogenic suffering. We must thus organize work and define coordination and cooperation processes and performance evaluation systems in a way that workers could work considering what is useful and unique (in the sense of creativity) in their action no matter their hierarchical level. There are organizational choices that are the result of the decision-making processes and that are essentially based on limited rationalities (as the instrumental rationality), which in turn can promote sickness, absenteeism, turnover, disengagement, and demotivation – work conditions that induce health degradation and jeopardize professional development. Certainly, since it is also based on the life history

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

87

of each person, each individual lives those realities in a particular way. However, it is evident that poor work conditions would affect every worker systematically. Motivation, according to the centrality of work, should appear through work and not beyond work, which means it depends on the content and meaning of work to the workers and to the collective. On the other hand, there are organizational choices, which promote the construction of health and professional development, through which working conditions promote the mobilization of the subjectivity and the engagement of intelligence – elements that are inherently motivating. We assume that all human beings are protagonists of their own life and that they are inherently motivated to develop different activities, such as work. Somehow this is related to surviving necessities but is also related to the development of intelligence, modulated by curiosity. The main challenge is always creating conditions for workers to be creative and not to handle impoverished tasks in terms of content and meaning. It’s important to put in evidence that is not only a question of being fed, to have appropriate clothes and shelter, but it’s also a question of identity and meaning related to the social role of each one and the conditions to achieve recognition by the others and to contribute to the development of the society and culture. Part of that is related to someone’s own professional experience. On a daily basis, a worker constantly faces many challenges and enigmas and that experience means failure from the point of view of PDW. But, as with learning to ride a bicycle, it is necessary to face the challenges, to handle them, because we overcome challenges by developing skills through experience. In other words, the suffering brought about by the experience of a failure will promote the engagement of intelligence and mobilization of the subjectivity to overcome challenges. When this happens, the suffering turns to pleasure (Dejours, 2003). However, there are some organizational contexts where this situation is inescapable, so the suffering is impassable. The impossibility of overcoming those organizational barriers, such as completing nonsense tasks or not being recognized by the work, may lead to pathogenic suffering and induce defenses such as cynicism and even sickness. Most parts of this discussion about the construction of health are related to the meaning of work and how to endorse that identity. These all involve recognition, which is related to something symbolic, to well-done work, to a useful work (Dejours, 2012). Within organizations, the dynamics of the recognition includes the performance evaluation systems, which usually evaluate the results by establishing goals and a prescribed work. The work itself can’t be evaluated by systems, which consider only quantifiable indicators, without regard for “living work.” Every kind of work, even work that is not considered as having a value recognized by different social actors, can be meaningful for the subjects. This is the case of housework, for example; this activity is very important for society and there is a challenge related to its recognition modulated by different cultures. Other activities considered as nonaggregating value, such as cleaning toilets, collecting and sorting garbage, among many other activities, can be considered of value by the society and by the workers. Those jobs can be meaningful, as they also depend on their recognition as well as the working conditions and how they are organized. There is not a determinism related to what

88

Human Factors for Sustainability

can be considered as meaningful by the workers and by societies; this depends on the evolution of culture and how different social values are built. In order to evaluate performance, we should judge it. But, instead of evaluating only the individual, we should judge the act of doing, that is, their work activity (and its content). By judging the work activity through what it promotes to others, we are considering its utility and how the work activity contributes to achieve the goals of the production, including companies and public services, and to meet the needs of consumers and citizens. Therefore, through the judgment of utility, the workers may feel useful, which empowers their own psychic identity. Although evaluating results is possible and necessary, it is very difficult to evaluate the effort that results in a well-done performance according to professional values. The alternative of this is the judgment of aesthetics, which is related to how creative, unique, and genuine the work was. This kind of judgment may be done among professional peers, because only they would experience the same rules of the profession and a similar work reality to deeply understand what was done. The judgment of aesthetics regards not only the workers’ engagement and effort but also their skills and know-how. Therefore, through the judgment of aesthetics, the workers may feel unique, which also contributes to empower their own psychic identity.

Goal 4 – Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All: The Professional Development Through the perspective presented in this chapter, a work system should also be considered as a way so that each person, individually and collectively, may learn a profession by experiencing the “living work.” We are not regarding a simple occupation, where all that can be expected from workers is performing simple repetitive and/or noncontent (superficial) tasks. On the contrary, we regard a professional universe full of challenges, learning possibilities, and recognition. “Living work” is the activity each person does by himself/herself to overcome his/her own limitations. It is how each person engages himself/herself in any situation, throughout the mobilization of his/her own body, of his/her intelligence and psyche in order to produce something or achieve some goal. “Living work” doesn’t mean only producing something, but it is especially related to opportunities for a worker’s internal transformation. It is also a social relation, because workers completely engage to build trust and cooperation and to contribute to civility and culture. To reinforce the point of view that nothing is neutral in the world of production and that work is central in the life of everyone, we believe work activity promotes the development of the subjectivity of each worker, his or her professional growth and self-realization. Therefore, the objective of work activity (and every work system) should be to promote both individuals and collective emancipation. Otherwise, if human beings are treated as only “numbers and things,” this situation creates room for the appearance of pathogenic suffering and, as a consequence, absenteeism, turnover, illness, accidents, and a place where surviving would depend on defensive mechanisms, which allows the emergence of cynicism. Treading paths, which promote the professional realization and the construction of health, also promote the development of individual subjectivity.

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

89

Goal 8 – Promote Sustained, Inclusive, and Sustainable Economic Growth, Full and Productive Employment, and Decent Work for All: Pursuing Interesting Work One of the premises that underlie the centrality of work involves the content of the work. An important challenge is the need to develop systems that provide interesting work for all. If on the one hand this becomes a challenge, on the other hand, it is necessary to understand the consequences related to a work devoid of content (i.e., the ones considered as simply the execution of procedures). In other words, are the work systems (developed according to prevailing rationality) promoting human development, both individually and in terms of society, or do they promote its degradation (see Murphy, 1993)? The main statement is that work activity is considered the most prominent human activity in the lives of most adults. Consequently, work plays a key role in the reinforcement of the individual’s identity. It is through work systems that moral values are developed, through collective reflections about what is being done as work activities, their meaning, and, consequently, the contributions to reinforce subjectivity and their contributions to the development of society. All kinds of human activities appeal to the engagement of the body, the mobilization of intelligence, and subjectivity; the negative consequences are related to the fact that there are still too many kinds of jobs that are based on tasks that in their conception are considered as merely the repetition of what was defined before by who was in charge of the project and the management. Those are work systems that are developed according to a rationality in which people’s tasks are empty of content and meaning for those who are in charge of them, providing situations considered as an occupation, something temporary, rather than a veritable profession. For example, in Taylor’s approach, reductionist principles were used to transform connected production and working processes into simple and repetitive tasks. There are still many working situations where people are considered and treated as simple instruments, as a resource with a detriment of the recognition of their actual contribution to provide results compatible with the goals, as shown in many circumstances where the discrepancy between tasks and activities is revealed and also the nonrecognition of aspects related to subjectivity, mainly those related to an axiological perspective. The principal idea is that work should have an interesting and challenging content, providing an opportunity to learn new skills, to exercise initiatives, to exercise judgment for everybody. This is contrary to simply “performing” a task. Just performing, as mentioned, would negatively affect the health of workers. Jobs devoid of content (or depleted content) can be a risk to the intelligence of workers. In this sense, work activity should be a unity between conception and execution; that is, the worker first conceives in thought what he/she personifies in matter. In this way, through the dialectic between conception and execution, there is not merely and execution; this should be considered nonsense. Every project of production should consider work activity and the correlated task in a professional perspective (i.e., where everybody would have an opportunity to build paths in the direction of self-achievement, the development of cooperation, and finally the direction of emancipation). Alternative

90

Human Factors for Sustainability

patterns of social division of work are not only a necessity of our moral values as related to human well-being but should be compatible with our economic interests in order to have patterns of production considering a sustainable perspective.

Goal 16 – Promote Peaceful and Inclusive Societies for Sustainable Development, Provide Access to Justice for All, and Build Effective, Accountable, and Inclusive Institutions at All Levels: Work and the Development of Culture Finally, a reflection is worthwhile; what do the results to be achieved by SDGs mean? How do they happen? What are the means to achieve them? In our view, it should be considered that they are primarily contemplated in work systems and include other factors, such as both positive and negative externalities. For example, when the results are achieved, does this happen by any means, regardless of consequences? What are the consequences for the environment, for people, and for society? Organizations are, first and foremost, the result of people who work together for common goals. They are the living part of companies, and their work is what enables the changes through decision-making processes and consequent actions. According to a complex point of view, an organization where the stakeholders intend to evolve from a sustainable development perspective must address, in an integrated and interdependent manner, all levels of their governance: the values and principles of sustainable development – that is, temporality (short, medium, long term or present and future generations), the scales of analysis (local, regional, and global or individual, organization, and society), and the economic, environmental, and social dimensions. It is always important to remember that every institution, every company, is a human organization, even if machinery is part of production. Thus, at a strategic level, purpose, mission, vision, and values should be established in convergence with these premises. Those elements must be deployed in the organization in an including perspective, ensuring organizational alignment. In the end, considering the scales and dimensions, it must be ensured that not only at the level of the institution but also in its subsystems (teams or processes) and, at its limits, the individual, these conditions are satisfied. The question of working systems cannot be summed up to a simple relation of means and ends (teleological rationality), where what should be sought is precisely to use the resources in the best possible way to achieve certain objectives. It is also about issues related to values, the development of relationships based on what is truthful, the cooperation between different actors, the recognition of subjectivity, and the construction of working processes that in the long run will serve to enrich the culture.

FINAL REFLECTION The proposal of this chapter was to bring to the sustainability debate a contribution of HFE, especially those that are based on the perspective of people’s activity, and adopt a vision of possibility of development both for the worker, for the collective

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

91

of workers, for the professions, and for the companies and institutions. We do not propose that this should be the only approach in HFE that should be included in the debate, but it is the one with which we work more specifically. In the field of macroergonomics, it is also possible to find interesting debates related to the subject. We also adopt another field of knowledge, the psychodynamics of work, whose concepts are a base to enrich our arguments. For some years, a dialogue between HFE and PDW has been built, with regard to the psychic aspects of work. We believe that the results have contributed to enriching the debate, especially since the issues related to mental health are increasing in many parts of the world; nowadays, in Brazil, sick-leave related to mental disturbances is very important in many working situations (Brazil, 2018). We believe that it is not possible to think about sustainable work without considering this issue, even because there is increasing evidence of the relationship between work and the emergence of psychic disorders, including cases of suicide. We then propose a debate that contains the following questions: • How can HFE update its theories and/or practices with a view to achieving the sustainable development goals? • Based on knowledge of HFE that can contribute to sustainable development, how can management theories and practices be criticized and updated? • Based on our knowledge of HFE, what criticisms or comments can we develop regarding the objectives of sustainable development? Regarding the rationalities, even if there is no consensus regarding the predominance of a teleological view in decision-making processes in companies, it still has a great influence. How do we (HFE) take into account the increasing demands on the part of shareholders and owners, as well as public demands, and by managers in order to be able to show how results are obtained and how resources are used in the production processes? Even if this is important and mandatory, it is part of business management responsibilities to invest intensively in other rationalities. This includes giving lectures; creating institutional videos, slogans, phrases, manuals, games, and campaigns; and sending messages. They also create a series of explicit and implicit discourses that explain to workers what values are, what is allowed and what is forbidden, how to act and how not to act, and how they should feel and behave. They are all speeches that contain consciously or unconsciously messages and are reproduced by all hierarchical levels. Their content is full of ambiguities: some people remain motivated to be more productive and creative (positive effects); others react with indifference, cynicism, distrust, or demotivation; and others fall ill (negative effects). If a significant number of the workers become ill, their creative and cognitive capacities are impaired, and they are dismissed or transferred (generating the need to hire other workers that will take considerable time to learn how to work); we can assume that this leads to rework, accidents, turnover, and inefficiency, as well as wasted time, money, and skills. Therefore, depending on how the management is carried out, it can end up harming the company’s productivity and innovation capacity, thus generating opposite effects to the intended ones. One of the great challenges is related to the predominance and how the rationalities combine, – that is, what each of these rationalities means in practice and how they influence companies’ strategies.

92

Human Factors for Sustainability

It’s important to consider that from the point of view of ACE and the psychodynamics of work that the question of work organization and work content (tasks) can be transformed in order to provide conditions for all to develop themselves as professionals and as human beings. The main proposal is that the task should be fit for the human with all the variability inherent in people. This is a big challenge for all companies and for managers in order to propose tasks that are sufficiently broad to provide different scenarios to favor the insertion of different workers into the production system that they are managing. The suggestions made here need to be deepened, aiming at a better understanding of what we consider as the influence and importance of the different rationalities for the constitution of decision-making processes in the world of production and work. The same holds true for the question of complexity. The contributions of the theories of complexity are not only theoretical; in practice, it is already possible to demonstrate how decisions and actions are interconnected and can be modulated by much richer points of view than those proposed by simplifying visions of reality. It is mainly about how one sees the world and a clear example of how we can adopt the point of view of complexity that may be what we do when we propose an understanding of life, production, working systems, companies, society, etc. It is mainly about how one sees the world and a clear example of how we can adopt the point of view of complexity, perhaps what we do when we propose an ergonomic analysis of work, since what is sought is just to understand, from the interweaving of different variables, which workers effectively do in order to meet the requirements of production.

CONCLUSION The attempted contribution of this chapter was to enrich the debate as it relates to the relationship between HFE and UN proposals for sustainable development. It is a question of what must be done in the long run that must be introduced from the present perspective, and therefore what has been proposed here is always the fruit of choices of people involved in the decision-making processes. In the field of HFE and its contributions, we focus our point of view on what is proposed by an activity-centered approach, as a comprehensive approach that could be central to actually understanding work and to build better production scenarios. However, it is clear that no approach or discipline, even if it brings together knowledge from different fields, such as ACE, is sufficient to address the set of issues dealt with in the perspective of work from a sustainable development perspective. Therefore, we proposed the inclusion of concepts derived from the field of psychodynamics of work, since what is proposed by this discipline concerns both an understanding of the centrality of work for the subjects and also proposals for action, the importance of the praxis. The contributions to understand people at work, to the debate within HFE, with organizational and management sciences, and also to what is proposed in terms of sustainability, includes a theory about the subject (i.e., the human being), a theory about work, and a theory about action in the world. Finally, in order to try to continually enrich the debate, we have brought up questions related to epistemology, with a view to include the complexity theory’s approach into the debate with other fields of knowledge, such as those already

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

93

mentioned, including industrial engineering. When we draw the attention to the different rationalities that constitute the world of production and work, we raise an issue of philosophy. Linking work issues to sustainability goals requires highlighting what is in the basis of human actions that affect decisions made by different actors in companies, public institutions, and governments and within the framework of international institutions. Individuals build decisions, individually and collectively; they are the fruit of the intersection of different rationalities that compose them. Even though all decision-making processes are governed by different rationalities, there is still a predominance of what is considered a strategic-instrumental (teleological) approach. Enriching this process, involves making it more equitable to adopt other perspectives such as those related to the values of the professions (axiological), the wishes of the subjects and the collective, the search for truthfulness and sincerity (communicative), which can be a great challenge, and attentiveness to the possibility of manipulation of expectations, aspirations, and desires. This is a big challenge!

REFERENCES Arendt, H. (1959). The Human Condition: A Study of the Central Dilemmas Facing Modern Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Béguin, P., & Duarte, F. (2017). Work and sustainable development. Work, 57(3), 311–313. Bolis, I., Brunoro, C. M., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2014). Mapping the relationships between work and sustainability and the opportunities for ergonomic action. Applied Ergonomics, 45(4), 1225–1239. Bolis, I., Morioka, S. N., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2014). When sustainable development risks losing its meaning: Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83, 7–20. Bolis, I., Morioka, S. N., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2017). Are we making decisions in a sustainable way? A comprehensive literature review about rationalities for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 310–322. Brazil. (2018). Anuário Estatístico da Previdência Social/Ministério da Fazenda, Secretaria de Previdência, Empresa de Tecnologia e Informações da Previdência. Brasília: MF/ DATAPREV. Available at: http://sa.previdencia.gov.br/site/2018/12/AEPS-2017_04.12.18.pdf. Daniellou, F. (2004). Introdução. Questões epistemológicas acerca da ergonomia. In: F. Daniellou (Ed.), A ergonomia em busca de seus princípios: Debates epistemológicos (pp. 1–18). São Paulo: Edgard Blücher. Daniellou, F. (2005). The French-speaking ergonomists’ approach to work activity: Cross-influences of field intervention and conceptual models French. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 409–427. Daniellou, F., & Rabardel, P. (2005). Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: Some traditions and communities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 353–357. Dashtipour, P., & Vidaillet, B. (2017). Work as affective experience: The contribution of Christophe Dejours’ “psychodynamics of work.” Organization, 24(1), 18–35. Dejours, C. (2003). L’évaluation du travail à l’épreuve du réel: Critique des fondements de l’évaluation. Editions Quae. Dejours, C. (2006). Subjectivity, work, and action. Critical Horizons, 7(1), 45–62. Dejours, C. (2009). Travail vivant, Tome 2: Travail et émancipation. Paris: Payot. Dejours, C. (2012). From psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work. In: N. H. Smith & J.-P. Deranty (Eds.), New Philosophies of Labour: Work and the Social Bond (pp. 209–250). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

94

Human Factors for Sustainability

Dejours, C., & Deranty, J.-P. (2010). The centrality of work. Critical Horizons, 11(2), 167–180. Dekker, S. W., Hancock, P. A., & Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability: Towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56(3), 357–364. Deranty, J. P. (2009). What is work? Key insights from the psychodynamics of work. Thesis Eleven, 98(1), 69–87. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: New Society Publishers. Fischer, K., & Zink, K. J. (2012). Defining elements of sustainable work systems: A systemoriented approach. Work, 41(Suppl. 1), 3900–3905. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., & Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. Guérin, F., Laville, A., Daniellou, F., Duraffourg, J., & Kerguelen, A. (2006). Understanding and Transforming Work the Practice of Ergonomics and Transforming. Lyon: ANACT. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1989). The Theory of Communicative Action. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon Press. Hicks, J. S., Burgman, M. A., Marewski, J. N., Fidler, F., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Decision making in a human population living sustainably. Conservation Biology: Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 26(5), 760–768. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52. Hubault, F., & Tertre, C. du (2008). Le travail d’évaluation. In: F. Hubault (Ed.), Évaluation du travail, travail d’évaluation (pp. 95–114). Toulouse: Octarès. Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization process in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145–1179. Mele, A. R., & Rawling, P. (Eds.). (2004). The Oxford Handbook of Rationality. New York: Oxford University Press. Molinier, P. (2006). Les Enjeux psychiques du travail. Paris: Payot. Morin, E. (1992). From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 15(4), 371–385. Murphy, J. B. (1993). The Moral Economy of Labor: Aristotelian Themes in Economic Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet, 379(9832), 2206–2211. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. United Nations. (2015a). The guide for business action on the SDGs. Retrieved from: http:// sdgcompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/019104_SDG_Compass_Guide_2015. pdf%5Cnpapers3://publication/uuid/F2A2CA47-3E5B-45A8-AE9C-976E62E55DE7. United Nations. (2015b). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015, 16301(October), pp. 1–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2. United Nations. (2018a). Millennium development goals. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/. United Nations (2018b). Sustainable development agenda. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/. United Nations. (2018c). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.

HFE and the Global Sustainable Development Goals

95

United Nations. (2018d). Take action! The lazy person’s guide to saving the world. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/takeaction/. WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wisner, A. (1994). A inteligência no trabalho. São Paulo: Fundacentro/Unesp. Wisner, A. (1995a). The Etienne Grandjean Memorial Lecture Situated cognition and action: Implications for ergonomic work analysis and anthropotechnology. Ergonomics, 38(8), 1542–1557. Wisner, A. (1995b). Understanding problem-building: Ergonomics work analysis. Ergonomics, 38(3), 595–605. Wisner, A., Daniellou, F., & Dejours, C. (1986). Uncertainty and anxiety in continuous process industries. In: K. Nora (Ed.), Occupational Health in Automated Factory (pp. 35–51). London: Taylor and Frances. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356.

Section II Methods and Application Areas for Sustainable Work Systems

5

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems Klaus J. Zink

CONTENTS Introduction...............................................................................................................99 Crowd Work and Work-on-Demand via Apps as New Forms of Work in the “Gig-Economy”...................................................................................................... 100 Types of Crowd Work........................................................................................ 101 Crowd Work Platforms....................................................................................... 103 Opportunities of Crowd Work............................................................................ 104 Risks of Crowd Work......................................................................................... 105 Crowd Work and Outsourcing................................................................................ 107 Traditional Ways of Outsourcing and Some Problems in a Globalized World....... 107 Crowdsourcing – The New Form of Outsourcing.............................................. 108 Crowd Work and Sustainable Work Systems.......................................................... 109 Definition of Sustainable Work Systems............................................................ 110 Crowd Work as Sustainable Work...................................................................... 110 A Human Factors and Ergonomics Perspective...................................................... 111 Challenges for Governmental Institutions......................................................... 111 Improving Working Conditions.......................................................................... 113 Crowdsourcing Complex Work.......................................................................... 114 Combination of Complex and Simple Work................................................. 114 Work-Based Learning, Development, and Well-Being................................. 114 Reputation..................................................................................................... 115 Social Security............................................................................................... 115 What Are the Needs for Action? Consider: What Are the Different Needs for the Stakeholders of the World of Crowd Work?........................................... 115 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 117 References............................................................................................................... 118

INTRODUCTION “The transformation of human work is one of the defining features of the current digital transition” (Cherry & Poster, 2016, p. 1). Past discussions within human factors and ergonomics (HFE) have mainly focused on changes in the work processes of one organization. But globalization urges us to look at whole supply chains, that 99

100

Human Factors for Sustainability

is, the work in several organizations along a supply chain. This work refers to the blue-collar work in industrially developing zones (like the textile or computer industries) or the white-collar or knowledge work (like software development in India). The partners in these supply chains are usually companies located in a country with low wages and little systematic surveillance of labor regulations – quite often, in Industrially Developing Countries (IDCs). Combined with the idea of “hyperspecialization” (Malone et al., 2011), the digitalization of knowledge work based on internet technologies and platforms like Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and others are creating new types of supply chains. Individuals instead of companies, the (unknown) global crowd, have become the new partners (crowdsourcing). As this form of globalization of work is not yet subject to regulation, there may be a risk of abuse. A discussion of the opportunities and risks for various stakeholders from an HFE point of view is required for various types of crowd work (or new forms of work-on-demand) because research in this field has been mainly in the field of computer science (cf.Graham, 2017; Kittur et al., 2013; Leimeister, Durward, et al., 2016). This chapter examines the basic concepts of platforms and algorithms that disaggregate complex tasks (to be performed by individuals) and reassemble these subtasks back to a whole problem solution. For a better understanding of this new way of outsourcing, a comparison is made with the traditional concept of outsourcing. Furthermore, these new concepts are evaluated using the definition of sustainable work (systems), including basic, ethical labor practices (like the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work [ILO, 2011] and its follow-up concept for decent work [ILO, 2017a]). An answer to the question of how specific forms of crowd work have to be redesigned to fulfill the criteria of sustainable work is provided and, finally, a case for expanding the current definition of sustainable work with respect for the “new world” of work is made.

CROWD WORK AND WORK-ON-DEMAND VIA APPS AS NEW FORMS OF WORK IN THE “GIG-ECONOMY” Modern information and communication technologies (ICTs), especially, those pertaining to the internet domain, are changing the way work is organized. In the so-called gig-economy (“a way of working that is based on people having temporary jobs or doing separate work tasks, each paid separately, rather than working for an employer” [Cambridge Dictionary, 2017]), two new forms of work are emerging: crowd work and work-on-demand via apps (ILO, 2016). Work-on-demand is not really new when remembering the capacity-oriented, variable work time systems where employees are called to work when there is a demand for work, for example, because of increased customer demand. What is different today about the new form of work-on-demand via apps is that it is not offered to an employee (having an employment relationship defined by law) but to everybody. Using a specific app, jobs like transport, cleaning, and even clerical work are offered and assigned through mobile apps managed by firms that select and manage the workforce and may set minimum quality standards of service. This is essentially the same approach that matches supply and demand for the “traditional” activities on a more local basis (de Stefano, 2016). In fact, though there are several similarities in working conditions

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

101

or remuneration, the following sections focus mainly on crowd work. Whereas work-on-demand via apps is more “local,” crowd work is actually executed online, which enables platforms, clients, and workers to perform the work anywhere in the world (de Stefano, 2016, p. 3). This not only depends on technology but also on the idea of “hyper-specialization.” As Malone writes, “We will now see knowledge worker jobs – salesperson, secretary, engineer – atomize into complex networks of people all over the world performing highly specialized tasks” (Malone et al., 2011). Because of the technological developments – or enabled by them – there has been a great increase in the number of so-called freelancers or independent contractors. For example, 16.9 million people in the United States are full-time independents (MBO Partners, 2016). The number in Europe is considerably smaller, but “for a small but important minority (approx. 5%–9% of the ‘online population’), it constitutes the major part of their income” (Huws, Spencer, & Joyce, 2016). Graham estimates that worldwide, 48 million people are registered on such platforms (Graham et al., 2017). The tasks that often employ crowd workers are listed below (Eurofound, 2015): • • • • • • • • •

Web content and software development Database building and cleaning Classifying webpages Transcribing scanned documents and audio clips Classifying and tagging images Reviewing documents Checking websites for specific content Validating search results Designing logos and drafting slogans for advertising

Crowd work, in principle, can also be internal (i.e., includes all employees in problem-solving processes), but this chapter examines only external crowd work. The reason for this is that internal crowd work is part of a regular employment relationship and might be under the purview of a worker council (as in Germany), which reduces the risk of misuse. A negative consequence of internal crowd work is that the premiums awarded for good ideas normally associated in the former corporate proposal system are now no longer given. Initial studies in Germany have shown it to be much more practical to not use general terms about crowd work but rather differentiate the various types of platforms (and tasks) (Leimeister, Durward, & Zogaj, 2016). The next section describes the types of crowd work.

Types of Crowd Work It is helpful to differentiate between the tasks offered on crowd work platforms since there are different methods for assigning tasks and for paying the remuneration. The nature and complexity of the tasks may also vary significantly (de Stefano, 2016). Regarding complexity, we can find micro-tasks as well as the more complex creative tasks. The latter ones are sometimes described as “online freelancing work” and are offered on specific platforms. Corporaal and Lehdonvirta (2017) from the Oxford

102

Human Factors for Sustainability

Internet Institute provide an outline of the criteria to show the difference between these two categories (see Table 5.1). The comparison shows that not all types of crowd work are per se negative, but micro-work (as a single source of income), in particular from an HFE point of view, could cause problems that will be addressed at a later point in this chapter. Another notable aspect of crowd work is that it can be organized based either on collaboration and/or on competition. In the case of collaboration, crowd workers deliver one part of a common solution – though they do not have to know each other. It relies on a significant division of labor, which leads to micro-tasks (not restricted to micro-task platforms). In this case, remuneration is based on piece work. Crowd work as competition is usually result oriented: only the best solution will be paid (premiums and requirements are defined in advance). If the approach is time based, the remuneration is regulated as first-come-first-served, but a premium could also be paid for all solutions that fulfill the predefined quality standards (Leimeister, Zogaj, & Blohm, 2015, p. 28). In some cases, no direct relationship exists between the platform client (the “sourcer” or “requester”) and the crowd worker: the platform acts as an intermediary that pays the worker and delivers the results to the client. In other cases, the platform acts as a facilitator between the client and the crowd workers (Risak & Water, 2015). The job of a facilitator can also be fulfilled by a specific service provider called a “crowd aggregator” (Leimeister et al., 2016, p. 76). Regarding payment, sometimes a minimum amount is agreed for certain tasks and sometimes the client defines the amount he or she is willing to pay (Eurofund, 2015). The general problem is that no rules and regulations have been defined by law. More and more political institutions are now beginning to discuss this topic such as the House of Commons Work and Pension Committee in the United Kingdom (House of Commons, 2017). TABLE 5.1 Comparison of Micro-Work and Online Freelancing Platforms Dimensions

Micro-Work

Online Freelancing

Size

Projects and tasks are broken down into smaller micro-tasks

Tends to involve larger projects and tasks

Complexity Duration

Low task complexity Task/project completion takes minutes or hours Low/few specialized skills or expertise required Automated (algorithmic) management by platform Workers paid by piece-rate

High task complexity Task/project completion takes days or months

Amazon Mechanical Turk, CloudFactory, Crowdflower

Freelancer, Upwork, PeoplePerHour

Entry barriers Coordination Compensation Examples

Highly specialized skills and expertise required Manual (human) coordination by client Workers paid on an hourly or milestone basis

Adapted from: Corporaal and Lehdonvirta (2017), p. 6, in table 5.1.

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

103

Crowd Work Platforms A detailed description of the freelancing platforms was prepared by Leimeister et al. (2016) using a market analysis of about 100 platforms. Based on a cluster analysis, they identified five basic types: • • • • •

Micro-task platforms Marketplace platforms Design platforms Testing platforms Innovation platforms

The study shows that the framework conditions among these types are quite similar and, therefore, provide a good basis for comparison. The following text is based on Leimeister et al. (2016): As the name micro-task platform implies, the offers are for relatively small tasks with low complexity that are mainly competition based and time oriented. A well-known example for such a platform is Amazon Mechanical Turk (www.mturk. com). Marketplace platforms offer highly complex tasks and therefore need (highly) specialized crowd workers who are preselected based on the quality of their experience. The interaction between platform client (sourcer or requester) is more intensive than on the other kinds of platforms. One of these platforms is called Freelancer.com (www.freelancer.com). Design platforms offer design tasks for logos, websites, or business cards. Crowd workers are selected on the basis of their qualifications, their competencies, and preliminary design concepts. A well-known platform of this type is 99designs (http://99design.de). Testing platforms coordinate product and service testing, whereas a large part of the work is focused on software applications. The payment is result based or defined in advance. Testbirds is one of most successful test platforms in Germany (www.testbirds.de). Innovation platforms focus on the development of innovations with varying levels of complexity. In contrast to other platforms, a collaborative approach dominates without any preselection. The compensation might be fix or a percentage of a premium. The best-known German innovation platform is jovoto (www.jovoto.com). In general, the contribution of these platforms can be described in five phases and its criteria (Leimeister et al., 2016):

1. Definition of the task (content, granularity, and complexity) 2. Selection of crowd workers (unlimited, limited, qualification based, context based) 3. Task completion (competition oriented, collaboration oriented) 4. Aggregation and selection of results (evaluation and modification, integrative or selective) 5. Remuneration (fixed, success based, percentage of a premium, remuneration for one person or for all crowd workers)

104

Human Factors for Sustainability

Opportunities of Crowd Work A discussion of crowd work opportunities makes it necessary to distinguish between the different stakeholders: companies as sourcer/requester, platform entrepreneurs (sometimes in combination with crowd work aggregators), crowd worker unions, and society. The focus of this chapter, however, is on the company as requester and the crowd worker because of their dependence on one another. Companies use crowdsourcing platforms (Corporaal & Lehdonvirta, 2017) to expand their workforce for projects and for the chance of gaining faster solutions or better quality at lower costs, all generated by having many more ideas contributed than is possible in a traditional organizational structure. Therefore, it is not surprising that many service providers on the internet now offer advice describing the benefits of independent contractors compared to hiring permanent employees (Miller, 2015): • Flexibility (no need to fire someone when workloads change) • Access to specialized skill sets (not available within the organization) • Reduced lag times between hiring and full productivity (more work accomplished faster) • Easier payroll administration (employer not responsible for withholding payroll taxes) • Significant cost savings (no employer contribution for benefits like health insurance or retirement, no costs associated with workers’ compensation insurance or unemployment insurance, lower recruiting costs, minimal or nonexisting training expenses, no paid holidays, no expenses for office space and equipment) • Reduced legal risks (no risk of unlawful terminations, hourly wages, and antidiscrimination laws) This underscores the value of the “independent contractor” to the company in gaining these cost advantages. However, there are some doubts regarding this status: a growing number of lawsuits adopted in different countries are expected to clarify this status, for example, the case of the Uber drivers (see http://uberlawsuit.com/). Platform entrepreneurs offer services based on computer algorithms and cloud computing. The platform technology is available for users to rent resources rather than having to own or build entire computing systems. Computing power and the applications and platforms are now available at an operating expense rather than as a capital expense. This provides an attractive, low cost of entry for newcomers. Crowd aggregators represent new services to help platform clients (sourcer) improve their offers of work to the crowd workers when the platform itself does not offer this service. This may include breaking down complex tasks or projects into simpler and smaller subtasks for execution and the reassembly of these parts into a whole problem solution at the end. The available literature lists the following advantages for crowd workers (e.g., Leimeister et al., 2015, p. 34): • Options to select different types of tasks • Higher self-determination regarding tasks, workplace, and work times

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

105

• Better work‑life balance • New employment possibilities for target groups who cannot leave their homes (e.g., people with disabilities) or those living in remote or less-developed areas or regions of the world • Higher flexibility regarding the decision to accept or reject a task • Possibility of high payment with proof of highly specialized skills Two critical remarks must be inserted at this point: The higher flexibility in accepting or rejecting tasks is not a given if the platform is working with ratings and reputation scores generated by decisions that influence the likelihood for an offer of new tasks (Graham et al., 2017). A study of the Oxford Internet Institute together with the Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria found that there may also be discriminating algorithms that exclude potential crowd workers, for example, from developing countries (Graham et al., 2017). Another study dealt with the accessibility of survey tasks posted on the platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) for handicapped people and found that only 2% are actually fully accessible (Swaminathan, Hara, & Bigham, 2017). As the status of “independent contractor” in this context has not been defined for the changing work world, unions see a chance to find new (or keep old) members (see Frankfurt Paper discussed in a later section). The positive aspects for society in general and local communities in particular are in the area of inclusion, providing work opportunities for new target groups that were previously excluded (e.g., because of handicaps or the fact that suitable work is not offered at their location). Communities can also expect a reduction in traffic and pollution when people work at home. However, there is a trade-off in terms of reduced traffic and pollution versus individual work at home, but with increased heating, cooling, and lighting, expenses tend to be less efficient than the cost of these utilities at large office buildings.

Risks of Crowd Work Starting again with companies that use crowdsourcing, we find from their perspective that the definition of “independent contractors” may be viewed unfavorably, which then prohibits their use of some of these new options to organize work. The same is obviously true for platform entrepreneurs. Besides the courts, these topics have been taken up by governmental institutions (the “Self-Employment and the Gig Economy” study from the Work and Pension Committee of the UK House of Commons). Unions are also demanding a new definition of “firm” and “employee” (Wedde & Spoo, 2015, p. 35). Ultimately, there could be a new regulation for “dependent” contractors. Crowd aggregators face the risk that platform entrepreneurs will perform the job directly, which some platforms are already doing, for example, some testing platforms (Leimeister et al., 2016a, p. 76). The list of potential risks for crowd workers is much longer and more dangerous than the advantages (e.g., Leimeister et al., 2015): • Low pay without social security (“digital exploitation”) • Monotonous tasks based on a high standardization and a decomposition in very small pieces (“digital Taylorism”)

106

Human Factors for Sustainability

• Possibility of continuous electronic monitoring by crowd sourcers or crowdsourcing platforms can be perceived as harassment • Risk of participating in global competition for people with different aspiration levels in different parts of the world • Danger of “self-exploitation” resulting from the inability to establish a reasonable work-life balance • Legal uncertainty with regard to continuity and predictability of engagement with clients, null participation in corporate decision making, lack of vacation policies, right to pension and other benefits normally included in collective agreements, etc. This list, however, may differ for different forms of crowd work (and different platforms). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is discussing a wide range of health and safety risks (especially for work-on-demand) because of the extensive variety of tasks included. Some physical risks for the crowd worker are related to the work with laptops or other computing devices and an appropriate design of the workplace in use. Such physical risks, well known to human factors and ergonomics specialists, may be exacerbated by a number of other factors like lack of training, lack of knowledge or understanding of the relevant regulations, lack of clarity in work specification, not being able to predict what tasks are required, pressure to complete tight deadlines without any breaks, and exhaustion caused by long working hours. The combination of these factors may lead to musculoskeletal disorders and work-related stress. In addition, a variety of working conditions typical for crowd work might result in some psychosocial risk. Examples of these conditions are: the precariousness of much of the work, the ratings from employers or clients, intensity of work, interruptions, and distractions making concentration difficult, for example, when working at home (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2015). The challenge for HFE is to provide solutions to guarantee the quality of work, especially related to micro-tasking platforms. The unions face the risk that crowd workers are simply not interested in having an affiliation; consequently, in such support, they do not know that they have the right to create a new union. A German study shows that support is mainly attractive to crowd workers who use design platforms in the competitive approach (Leimeister, Durward, et al., 2016). The greatest risk for society is that a growing number of crowd workers will not be eligible for social security benefits, which presents a serious potential hardship and reliance on the welfare state in later life. This is not merely a hypothetical problem: a German study has shown that 34% of those working “full-time” as crowd workers do not have health insurance and another 47% do not make any provisions for their retirement. This will pose a substantial burden if no new ways of securing the welfare system are found. Platform entrepreneurs pose an additional risk in believing that if they possess a first-mover advantage, they can modify existing laws by establishing new work practices, essentially establishing new norms of social behavior on their platforms (Kenny & Zysman, 2016).

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

107

These risks clearly show how some crowd working practices left without state control could widen the gap to securing decent work for all – especially in countries where decent work practices have been long established.

CROWD WORK AND OUTSOURCING The attraction of outsourcing practice for companies is mainly cost related in a globalized world where there are often different legal demands in different countries or specific zones within these countries.

Traditional Ways of Outsourcing and Some Problems in a Globalized World In the past, outsourcing focused on expanding or changing the supply chain by including low-wage countries able to deliver similar product or service quality. As a consequence of globalization, a worldwide division of labor has occurred. The difference in the costs of work between the developed and the industrially developing countries, and even between industrially developing countries, resulted in real competition. In many of the developing countries, specific economic zones, including export processing zones (see, e.g., Pakdeenurit et al., 2014), have been created “with specific incentives set up to attract foreign investment” (ILO, 1998). In industries such as textiles, garments, and electronics that are exposed to short life cycles and strong competition, it seemed that business success was often achieved by the exploitation of cheap and compliant workers in violation of labor and social laws (ICFTU, 2004; Schipper & de Haan, 2005). This is the situation that still exists according to a recent report of the Business & Human Rights Center commissioned by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) about “Modern Slavery in Company Operation and Supply Chains” (ITUC CSI IGB, 2017). The 2017 global estimate of forced labor in the private economy (excluding domestic work) was approximately 12 million victims, included in corporate supply chains in all regions of the world. One sample study by the Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights, based in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, shows the problem exists on all websites dealing with supply chains (see Brown, G. 2017, and http://www.globallabourrights.org/). The reason that progress is limited in improving the working conditions in global supply chains has been identified in a recent ILO study in collaboration with the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI): The purchasing policies of multinational companies focus mainly on the price (73%) and product quality (78%), speed of delivery (59%), and previous relationships (58%), whereas working conditions are named by only 36% of the 1,454 suppliers from 87 countries – though 93% have a code of conduct for social standards (ILO, 2017b). The study confirmed that low wages and increased overtime are the result of insufficient lead times and inaccurate technical specification provided by the buyers. No money is made available to pay for better working conditions. To solve these problems, some companies turn to outsourcing where they can pay even lower wages, with working conditions further deteriorating along the extended supply chain of subcontractors (ILO, 2017b).

108

Human Factors for Sustainability

As the ILO study documents, most of the buyers have codes of conduct, but very few implement them – and, at the same time, purchasing conditions lead to the opposite (ILO, 2017b). As reported by Locke et al. (2009), “voluntary compliance programs, promoted by global corporations and non-governmental agencies have produced only modest improvements in working conditions and labor rights in global supply chains.” They also showed by example that only the programs that improve competitiveness and working conditions at the same time are successful (Locke et al., 2007). In addition, Locke argued that in the absence of government regulations and a legal framework, success will only be modest (Locke, 2013).

Crowdsourcing – The New Form of Outsourcing Crowdsourcing – an artificial combination of terms used for the first time by Howe (2006) – is defined as “an undefined mass of people ready to complete crowd work” and outsourcing as a well-known strategy to place orders with suppliers that deliver for a lower price. As described above, these orders can contain different forms of work (physical work) based on work-on-demand by apps or knowledge work (crowd work) offered on an internet platform. It has been also mentioned that nearly no legal framework for this new form of work exists, and the misuse of this situation in some cases is obvious (see lawsuits regarding the Uber case). The main difference between crowdsourcing and outsourcing is that, in most cases, the work is outsourced to an individual (not to a company). In practice, this could sometimes be a pseudo self-employment. The definition of an “independent contractor” remains crucial, but as described in the section on risks, there are also other problems. Comparing the situation with “traditional” outsourcing, it comes as no surprise that the first codes of conduct have already been initiated by three platform companies and are supported by the German Crowdsourcing Association (see http.//crowdsourcing-code.com/). Under the name “Paid Crowdsourcing for the Better,” guidelines have been formulated for a profitable and fair cooperation between companies, clients, and crowd workers. The following principles are proposed in these guidelines (German Crowdworking Association, 2015): • • • • • • • • • •

Respectable tasks only (only reasonable tasks) Clarification of the legal situation (freelance working laws!) Fair payment (fair and appropriate, clearly communicated in advance) Reward management (including intrinsic motivational factors) Clear tasks and reasonable timing (detailed description of the criteria that need to be met) Freedom and flexibility (refusal of tasks should not lead to negative consequences) Support and feedback (crowdsourcing company available for questions and feedback on how the task has been carried out) Open and transparent communication (every party with the same relevance or importance) Best working environment (user-friendly and easy-to-access platforms) Privacy (respect for and protection of crowd workers’ privacy)

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

109

In practice, this code of conduct is just a piece of paper unless supported by extensive global dissemination, and it is not surprising that international unions have taken up this challenge. Workers’ organizations from Asia, Europe, and North America came together in Germany in 2016 to formulate the “Frankfurt Paper on Platform-Based Work.” The major points in this chapter summarize the discussions of proposals for platform operators, clients, policy makers, workers, and worker organizations. These points are listed below (Austrian Chamber of Labor et al., 2016, p. 3 ff): • • • • • • • • •

Compliance with national laws and international principles Clarification of employment status (independent contractor versus employee) Right to organize Wages (at least a minimum wage, after expenses and before taxes) Social protection (access to social security protection [public and/or private], contributions shared between workers, platforms, clients, and the state [as appropriate by national context]) Dispute resolution (transparent and accountable methods for resolving disputes between clients and worker [e.g., refusal of payment]) Transparent processes for assigning tasks, computing worker reputation, evaluating work or account closure based on client ratings Continuous improvement of the governance of platform-based work Cooperative labor management relations (to improve platform work)

Of course, there are some overlaps between the above two documents. The solution will require a three-party approach that includes a government review of existing laws for their applicability to new forms of work. But, as de Stefano concluded in his ILO-paper, “the challenges the gig-economy poses to the world of work are enormous; simplistic and hastened responses aimed at deregulation and shrinking workers’ protection must be avoided if opportunities stemming from the gig-economy and future technology-enabled developments in the economy are to be seized for everyone” (de Stefano, 2016, p. 24). Bearing in mind what has been said up to this point, we are left with the following question: What proposals can HFE could put forward for having a positive vision of the future of platform work? The answer presumes a general vision of the future of work, a vision that can be described by sustainable work systems.

CROWD WORK AND SUSTAINABLE WORK SYSTEMS The concept of sustainable work systems (SWS) was introduced by different authors at the beginning of the new millennium (Eijnatten, 2000; Docherty et al., 2002, 2009). In the context of HFE, a more intensive discussion started when the IEA founded a Technical Committee on Human Factors and Sustainable Development in 2009 (IEA, 2017). The following chapter describes the understanding of SWS focused on work in the organization (i.e., the “traditional view”). The challenges associated with crowd work are then compared with this understanding, and the question of whether we might need a revision of the current understanding of sustainable work will be examined.

110

Human Factors for Sustainability

Definition of Sustainable Work Systems Based on the publications of Docherty and others, a sustainable work system can be characterized as follows (Docherty et al., 2009, p. 3ff): • Concurrent development of economic, environmental, human, and social resources engaged in work processes • Ability to function and achieve economic or operational goals in its environment, while also developing various human and social resources • Work-based learning, development, and well-being as a basis for managing economic challenges • Growth of social resources secured through equal and open interaction among various stakeholders, leading to better mutual understanding and greater capacity for collaboration • No simple satisfaction of specific needs of certain stakeholders, but considering the needs of all stakeholders • Focus not only on short-term, static efficiencies, like productivity and profitability, but also on long-term, dynamic efficiencies like learning and innovation; no simple trade-offs between short-term and long-term goals, or between different stakeholders, but a fair balance among them all • A sustainable work system does not strive to secure its existence by exploiting external resources (including externalization of costs) • The requirements of competitiveness aligned with those representing sustainability This description of sustainable work systems is not simple or without conflict between its characteristics. The essential concern is about balancing different interests in a fair way.

Crowd Work as Sustainable Work It is not necessary to compare all elements included in the definition. Selecting just a few is adequate to illustrate the point. A comparison based on the risks of crowd work mentioned in the section “Risk of crowd work” will focus on micro-tasks but also includes other platforms that support a high division of labor that causes similar problems (see Leimeister, Zogaj, et al., 2016, p. 76) (see Table 5.2). Clearly, not all forms of crowd work and crowdsourcing platforms fulfill the stated preconditions of sustainable work systems. Taking into account the changes in the world of work brought about by the platform or gig-economy, the definition of sustainable work systems in the section “Definition of sustainable work systems” may need to be revised by addressing sustainable work with reference to the (old) definition of decent work. The ILO defined decent work by summarizing the aspirations of people in their working lives (ILO, 2017a): • Opportunity for work that is productive and provides a fair income • Security in the workplace and social protection for families • Better prospects for personal development and social integration

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

111

TABLE 5.2 Comparison of Pairs of Selected Elements of Sustainable Work Systems and Crowd Work Sustainable Work

Crowd Work

□  Concurrent development of economic, environmental, and human resources

□  Primary development of economic resources

□  Work-based learning, development, and well-being to deal with challenges □  Interaction among various stakeholders

□  Learning, development, and well-being in general not “organized” □  Interaction only with an IT platform, i.e., through social resources secured through equal and open interaction with customers □  No balance between stakeholders

□  A fair balance between all stakeholders □  No exploitation of external resources

□  Exploitation possible

• Freedom for people to express their concerns, organize, and participate in the decisions that affect their life • Equal opportunity and treatment for all In the past, decent work has mainly been a topic for the developing industrial regions. In fact, it is Goal 8 of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015). We now have to realize that the platform economy is creating new forms of work in the (so-called) developed countries that, in some cases, do not fulfill the criteria of decent work. This illustrates a need to reconcile the new concepts with some older concepts (like work (re)design) in response to this situation. This idea is discussed in the next section.

A HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS PERSPECTIVE If we view crowdsourcing as a newer form of supply chain management, past experience with mainly blue-collar work may be applicable. One study among many showed that codes of conduct do not significantly improve working conditions (Locke & Romis, 2007). It compared two Nike suppliers as well as a detailed study of a major global apparel company and its suppliers (Locke, Amangual, & Mangla, 2009). Another one, also prepared by Locke, came to the result that single approaches have their limitations (Locke, 2013). We can now assume that the interests of all stakeholders – governmental institutions, clients (sourcer/requester), platform entrepreneurs, crowd aggregators and crowd workers, and also social scientists – all have to be addressed.

Challenges for Governmental Institutions Regarding the state or governmental institutions, all existing instruments (like the definition of a self-employed contractor) have to be used to clarify whether a crowd worker in a specific case is an independent contractor or an employee. The Work

112

Human Factors for Sustainability

and Pension Committee of the UK House of Commons report on “Self-Employment and the Gig Economy” describes some helpful points of interest to this discussion (House of Commons, 2017): • • • •

Control by contracting companies over work behavior patterns Workers working regular hours for long periods for only one platform Inability of crowd workers to negotiate or set pay Workers experience difficulties (e.g., unable to work their scheduled shifts)

Clearly, governments have an interest in collecting taxes from the person with the tax liability, and the regulating criteria are provided, for example, on the homepage of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS): “In determining whether the person providing service is an employee or an independent contractor, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and independence must be considered” (IRS, 2017). In the Labor Commissioner’s Office of the Department of Industrial Relations for the State of California, a publication describes the complexity of this definition as different laws may apply to a particular situation: “it is possible that the same individual may be considered an employee for purpose of one law and an independent contractor under another law” (Labor Commissioner’s Office, 2017). In this case, the California Supreme Court is applying an economic reality test, which states that “the most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom the service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work to be done and the manner and means in which it is performed” (Labor Commissioner’s Office, 2017). Similar criteria also exist in other states and countries (see the website of the Fair Work Ombudsman of the Australian Government). Finally, whether these “traditional” criteria are enough to solve the problems remains to be seen. In the United States, a third legal category has been proposed for regulation by Harris and Krueger (2015): the status of independent worker as a new category between employee and independent contractor. Whether they work on an online platform or offline, they would still qualify for many but not all of the benefits and protections that all employees receive (Harris & Krueger, 2015). As shown above, the status of the crowd worker is a critical factor for social security benefits. Another governmental approach for organizations to improve (at least) the transparency of supply chains (in this case, for knowledge work) is to use the UN “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” (United Nations, 2011). Also, in Europe, the European Union (EU) activities regarding nonfinancial reporting could be applicable. While the UN released its principles in 2011, the European directive was released in 2014 (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2014). The activities mentioned include the disclosure of nonfinancial information about social and employer aspects and respect for human rights. The UN Guiding Principles also focus on information about supply chains and provide the first global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impact on human rights linked to business activity. These guidelines and the EU Directive have to be legislatively introduced in National Action Plans (or

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

113

laws). Although they pertain to all companies, the larger companies are the first required to report compliance. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SD) emphasizes that the business sector is a key partner in achieving the SD goals (UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, 2017). This includes protecting labor rights and environmental and health standards in accordance with international standards like the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, 2017). The clients are (also) responsible for the working conditions and the remuneration practices of the crowd work platform selected for use. The improved transparency mentioned above should be helpful for this purpose.

Improving Working Conditions Regarding working conditions, however, the main responsibility rests with the platform entrepreneurs and crowd aggregators, especially platforms subject to the above-mentioned risks for the crowd worker. The focus of this chapter is on full-time crowd work using all of the above types of platforms. The question of how crowd work could be designed to fulfill the preconditions of sustainable work or sustainable work systems is the focus of the remainder of this section. Remember the above-described elements of a sustainable work system starting with the concurrent development of the economic, environmental, human, and social resources engaged in the work process. The analysis of a specific case will determine whether the actual economic, environmental, human, and social capital of an individual can (at least) be maintained and possibly increased. The economic capital could be maintained (or increased) on the basis of “fair” pay, to be defined depending on the type of task. This might also relate to organizational and quality questions to be discussed. Environmental capital, for example, depends on the crowd worker using “green” IT. Human capital refers to all social, professional, and methodical skills offered by the individual in an organization or crowdsourcing network (see Osranek & Zink, 2014, p. 107f). An expansion of professional and methodical skills is heavily dependent on the design of the platform with respect to the complexity of the offered task. The prerequisites for expanding this aspect of human capital are provided from earlier research results, for example, the model of Hackman and Oldham (1980), which describes intrinsic work motivation, specifically, diverse skills, task identification, task significance, and timely and task-specific feedback. Many test or marketplace platforms and micro-tasking platforms do not always fulfill these preconditions. Micro-task workflows, as the dominant crowdsourcing structure today, lead to simple goals that are entirely predefined (Valentine et al., 2017). In this context, one might argue that the negative aspects of simple, repetitive, low autonomy work significance of these tasks are offset by the increased control, flexibility, and better work-life balance – and, therefore, there is no need to improve the design this work. The freedom to chose or deny a job is not really given when a denial leads to a worse ranking for the next task and it does not reflect the amount of time it takes to find a task (as described earlier). It is like in former times when bad working conditions were “compensated” by a higher pay. This should not be our vision of the future of work!

114

Human Factors for Sustainability

Crowdsourcing Complex Work By structuring crowd workers in systems with roles, teams, and hierarchies (like organizations), the Stanford Crowdsourcing Group developed a model for crowdsourcing complex work. These digitally networked organizations that flexibly assemble and reassemble themselves online from a globally distributed workforce to accomplish complex work are called “Flash Organizations” (Valentine et al., 2017). Kittur and others have proposed the further development of crowd workflows toward more general tasks and difficult problems that have no clearly defined solution (Kittur et al., 2013). These approaches concentrate on complex tasks like product design, software development, and game production (Valentine et al 2017), leaving the need open for another solution for micro-tasks. Combination of Complex and Simple Work If we assume a crowd worker might prefer simple tasks in the beginning, perhaps to find an entry to crowdsourcing work, then according to a group of researchers, another approach – a further step – is required to make micro-work more interesting by subcontracting. The value proposition would be improved for all stakeholders: The one who subcontracts (the so-called primary worker) could have additional responsibilities and learn new skills for career growth and acquire the basis for better pay. The secondary worker, for example, a platform newcomer, could find a path to skills development and enhanced reputation by teaming with a trusted primary worker. Requesters and platform owners can reduce costs by optimizing decomposition and achieve better results through the optimal match of tasks to workers. The additional support like real-time assistance, task management, and task improvement can be rendered by the primary worker (Morris et al., 2017). This idea is quite similar to the crowd aggregator described earlier by Leimeister et al. (Leimeister, Zogaj, et al., 2016). To enhance social skills and social capital by increasing social resources, the equal and open interaction among various stakeholders is needed. This would lead to a better mutual understanding and greater capacity for collaboration. In the above example, this could be achieved through the interactions between a primary and a secondary worker or between secondary workers. In the absence of a “crowd aggregator,” the interaction has to take place with requesters/clients and platform entrepreneurs. These are also points in the German Crowd Work Code of Conduct (German Crowdworking Association, 2015) or in the Frankfurt Paper (Austrian Chamber of Labor et al., 2016) or as proposed by researchers like Kittur (Kittur et al., 2013). Work-Based Learning, Development, and Well-Being Work-based learning, development, and well-being as a basis for the ability to deal with economic challenges are used in the definition of sustainable work systems. Work-based learning and development have already been discussed in the concept of subcontracting micro-work, but in addition, platforms could also facilitate learning by using online tutoring systems in combination with human tutoring (Kittur et al., 2013). Videos showing how to complete a task or discussion platforms with experienced crowd workers are also of value (Leimeister, Zogaj, et al., 2016, p. 78). This

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

115

leaves the question of how well-being can be a result of crowd working. This question has no simple answer. Three topics are useful here as examples in the context of HFE: (1) improvement of working conditions (on the basis of risks described by OSHA Europe), (2) extrinsic motivation, and (3) social security. As crowd work can be performed anywhere, it is hardly possible to give advice for “workplace design” that applies everywhere. If working at home, the recommendations given for home office work can be used (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2015). Reputation An important extrinsic motivation (besides payment) is reputation. Most crowdsourcing platforms depend on reputation scores, but these scores are often based on acceptance rates, which actually say nothing about the quality delivered by a crowd worker. Consequently, the reputation rates appear inflated and make it difficult for requesters to find qualified workers and for workers to be fairly compensated for the quality they deliver (Horton & Golden, 2015). In response, the Stanford Crowd Research collective has proposed centralized groups of crowd workers to collectively certify each other’s quality through worker-led feedback and reputation assessments based on crowd guilds as with the double-blind peer assessments. Crowd guilds could manage their members’ reputations by assigning public guild levels to each member (Whiting et al., 2017). Social Security Social security has traditionally been administered within the sphere of governmental institutions. Another proposal builds on the assumption that crowd work is independent contracting and the so-called artist social insurance (an insurance model for artists and workers in the media in Germany) could be used. In this case, the artist (or the crowd worker) can choose his or her contribution for a retirement pension, and the state contributes an equal amount (Wobbe, 2016). In summary, Kittur et al. (2013) have formulated some initial ideas to improve working conditions for crowd workers. These include: development of tools to support not only the work itself but also those performing the work; designing the job descriptions as well as the opportunity for self-assessments to help workers to learn, perform, and deliver better work; create a broad set of motivations, including fair pay and also reputation and credentials (like certification); create career ladders; improve task design through better communication; and facilitate learning (Kittur et al., 2013).

What Are the Needs for Action? Consider: What Are the Different Needs for the Stakeholders of the World of Crowd Work? Regarding state or governmental institutions, the initial activities in some countries have been discussed or implemented with different results (see de Stefano, 2016, or House of Commons, 2017). The European Parliament is calling for guidelines for digital platforms and has adopted with a strong majority a text proposing regulation of the “collaborative economy,” including labor platforms. The Parliament argues in the text that the rights and social protections of self-employed

116

Human Factors for Sustainability

persons are important, including the right to negotiate collective agreements and the right to strike. They call further for workers on digital labor platforms to be allowed to transfer their ratings and reviews between different platforms (European Parliament, 2017). The key question is the status of so-called independent contractors. Analyzing the webpages of service providers promoting “independent contractors” over hiring permanent employees (Miller, 2015) gives rise to the suspicion that a legal definition of independent contractor might still be required. The status of an “independent worker” as proposed by Harris and Krueger (2011) is not a good solution if the rights and social protections differ from those of “regular” employees (de Stefano, 2016). Another discussion in Germany regarding national solutions focuses on the so-called orderer principle, which defines the rights and social protection for the crowd worker as those of the country of the company ordering the crowd work (Jürgens et al., 2017). As crowd work is a global form of work, (better) solutions should be based on an international consensus organized by the International Labour Organization (ILO), which still has some authority regarding international supply chains (ILO, 2016, 2017b) and also for the architecture of digital labor platforms to include policy recommendations on platform design for worker well-being (Choudary, 2018). What should crowd workers do now? They should look for interest groups like Turkopticon (https://www.turkopticon.info) or form guilds (see Whiting et al., 2017) or work together with union support. The German Metal Workers Union (IG Metall) has initiated the platform “fair crowd work” (http://faircrowd.work) together with Austrian and Swedish worker organizations to exchange experiences, offer legal advice, and evaluate platforms. Unions and worker organizations are defending the rights of crowd and platform workers and taking actions to improve working conditions (fair crowd work, 2018) in other countries too. To overcome the problem of national perspectives in a globalized world of work, “representatives” should have a global vision, similar to what some unions are doing with the Frankfurt Paper (Austrian Chamber of Labor et al., 2016). The main obstacle in this context is activating the people who normally work alone in isolation and unaware of their rights. The role of scientists should be to develop better platforms for better working conditions. This requires an interdisciplinary approach including, as a minimum, computer scientists and human factors and ergonomics specialists. Although computer science solutions for working conditions are discussed (see Graham, 2017; Kittur et al., 2013; or Leimeister, Durward, et al., 2016), this topic is nearly not existent in human factors and ergonomics. For this reason, the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) and its affiliated societies should take on this problem as an important issue for human factors and ergonomics and propose new lines of research, promote the development of tools and methods, and facilitate intervention approaches. This would fit nicely into the decision of the IEA to become involved in the ILO project on the future of work. The planned IEA activities include a “White Paper on the Future of Work” and an “Observatory” to provide periodic information on situations, trends, and work cases. It would report on designs that establish or modify various aspects of the quality of working life of workers and support or encourage

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

117

study and research (FEES, 2018). Both activities should include the topics of crowd work and work-on-demand via apps. A lot of the effort and the papers that result from this work have already been published (cf. the ILO publications on the future of work [ILO, 2018a] as well as issue briefs, for example, Number 5: “Job Quality in the Platform Economy” [ILO, 2018b]). To better organize this research, a “Technical Committee” should be founded. An international state of the art regarding the working conditions of crowd workers has yet to be researched. The research questions include whether this form of work is done to earn one’s living, a survey of this work completed by the crowd workers, the improvement of work-life balance, the impact of psychological stress, etc. These data hardly exist because HFE has not involved itself in this topic until now. The broader list of potential research topics is huge. The initial research could be based, for example, on existing definitions of platforms and their current HFE characteristics.

CONCLUSION We are witnessing an increasing number of nonstandard forms of employment. One of these forms is crowd work. At least two totally different images of crowd work have become established: one is the argument of economists (e.g., Malone et al., 2011) and consultants (e.g., Miller, 2015) who envision new and more economic welfare based on hyper-specialization. The other view comes from critical scientists and unions mostly based on a specific crowdsourcing model like Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (e.g., Zink, 2017, or Benner, 2015), which identifies and draws attention to a more precarious work situation for millions of workers in the near future. As in real life, several quite different approaches can be taken to crowd work and crowdsourcing. There is no doubt that some of them include positive aspects for crowd workers. Nevertheless, some forms of work depend on a high division of labor, low pay, and dependent “independent contractors,” and these forms do not fulfill the criteria for decent or sustainable work at all – especially for those trying to earn their living today with this type of work. Like other supply chains, this involves several stakeholders: state or governmental institutions, client/requester, platform entrepreneur, and the crowd workers (including third parties like unions fighting for their interests) – and scientists developing better crowd work platforms and better work contents (like the Stanford Crowd Research Collective or the Oxford Internet Institute). Crowdsourcing is already changing as well as affecting the world of work and, until now, most papers that address working conditions are coming from a computer science perspective and not from HFE. The human factors and ergonomics discipline should be much more engaged with this topic. The future of ergonomics is interlinked with the future of work, in particular, with crowd work and crowd working approaches. Therefore, new (but also well-known) ergonomic methods should be applied to assess workloads derived from crowd work. Also, concepts to evaluate personal growth related to this type of work should be developed and HFE specialists should be trained for its application.

118

Human Factors for Sustainability

REFERENCES Austrian Chamber of Labor (Arbeiterkammer), Austrian Trade Union (ÖGB), Danish Union of Commercial and Clerical Workers (HK), German Metalworkers’ Union (IG Metall), International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 117, Service Employees International Union, Unionen. (Eds.). (2016). Frankfurt paper on platform-based work: Proposals for platform operators, clients, policy makers, workers, and workers organizations. Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Seattle, Stockholm, Vienna, & Washington. Retrieved from: https://www.igmetall.de/docs_20161214_Frankfurt_Paper_on_Platform_Based_ Work_EN_b939ef89f7e5f3a639cd6a1a930feffd8f55cecb.pdf [Accessed April 19, 2017]. Benner, Ch. (2015). Crowdwork–zurückin die Zukunft? Perspektiven digitaler Arbeit [Crowd Work Back to the Future? Perspectives of Digital Work]. Frankfurt am Main: Bund-Verlag. Brown, G. (2017). Latest data on working conditions in global supply chains, September 2017 edition. Retrieved from: http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2017/09/21/ latest-data-on-working-conditions-in-global-supply-chains-september-2017-edition/ [Accessed October 12, 2017]. Cambridge Dictionary. Gig economy. Retrieved from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ deworterbuch/englisch/gig-economy [Accessed October 24, 2017]. Cherry, M. A. & Poster, W. M. (2016). Crowdwork, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Fair Labor Practices. Saint Louis University School of Law. Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2016-8. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2777201 [Accessed September 29, 2017]. Choudary, S. P. (2018). The architecture of digital labour platforms: Policy recommendations on platform design for well-being. ILO Future of Work Research Paper Series No. 3. Retrieved from: http://.ilo.org/global/topics/future-of-work/publications/researchpapers/WCMS_630603/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed August 14, 2018]. Corporaal, G. F., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2017). Platform Sourcing: How Fortune 500 Firms Are Adopting Online Freelancing Platforms. Oxford Internet Institute. University of Oxford. Retrieved from: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/publications/platform-sourcing.pdf [Accessed September 29, 2017]. De Stefano, V. (2016). The Rise of the “Just-in-Time Workforce”: On-Demand Work, Crowdwork and Labour in the “Gig-Economy.” Geneva: ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 71. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_443267.pdf [Accessed February 7, 2017]. 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 (2nd ed.). London: Routledge, pp. 3–14. 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 (2nd ed.). London: Routledge, pp. 1–21. Eijnatten, F. M. (2000). From intensive to sustainable work systems: The quest for a new paradigm of work. In: Sapir, M. (Ed.), Working Without Limits? Re-organizing Work and Reconsidering Workers’ Health. Brussels/Belgium: TUTB-SALTSA, pp. 247–271. Eurofound. (Ed.). (2015). Crowd employment. Retrieved from: https://www.eurofound. europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/industrial-relations-dictionary/crowd-employment [Accessed September 27, 2017]. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2015). A review on the future of work: Online labour exchanges, or ‘crowdsourcing’: Implications for occupational safety and health. Discussion Paper. Retrieved from: https://osha.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/ documents/EN-Crowdsourcing_discussion_paper.pdf [Accessed October 18, 2017].

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

119

European Parliament. (2017). European Agenda for the collaborative economy. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8TA-2017-0271+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN [Accessed August 14, 2018]. FEES Federation of European Ergonomics Societies. (2018). FEES proposal on “Future of Work.” Retrieved from: https://www.ergonomics-fees.eu/node/233 [Accessed August 14, 2018]. German Crowdsourcing Association. (2015). Code of Conduct – Paid Crowdsourcing for the Better. Retrieved from: http://crowdsourcing-code.com/ [Accessed October 12, 2017]. Global Human and Labour Rights. (2017). Global Labour Rights. Pittsburg, PA. Retrieved from: http://www.globallabourrights.org [Accessed October 12, 2017]. Graham, M. (2017). A Fair Work Foundation. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/publications/fairwork.pdf [Accessed March 16, 2017]. Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., Wood, A., Barnard, H., Hjorth, I., & Simon, D. P. (2017). The risks and rewards of online gig work at the global margins. Retrieved from: https://www. oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/gigwork.pdf [Accessed March 27, 2017]. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harris, S. D. & Krueger, A. B. (2015). A proposal for modernizing labor laws for twenty-first century work: The independent worker. Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution. Retrieved from: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/modernizing_labor_ laws-_for_twenty_first_century_work_krueger_harris.pdf [Accessed October 24, 2017]. Horton, J. J., & Golden, J. M. (2015). Reputation inflation: Evidence from an online market. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/59d6/e24bf80c01384d5ce8a64e1582208b8b7072.pdf [Accessed 24 October 2017]. House of Commons: Work and Pensions Committee. (2017). Self-employment and the gig economy. Thirteenth Report of Session 2016–17. HC 847. Retrieved from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmworpen/847/847.pdf [Accessed 18 October 2017]. Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Retrieved from: https://www.wired.com/2006/06/ crowds/ [Accessed April 21, 2017]. Huws, U., Spencer, N. H. & Joyce, S. (2016). Crowd work in Europe: Preliminary results from a survey in the UK, Sweden, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. Retrieved from: http://www.uni-europa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-Crowd-workin-Europe.pdf [Accessed October 9, 2017]. ICFTU. (2004). Behind the brand names: Working conditions and labour rights in export processing zones. Retrieved from: http://wwwicftu.org/www/PDF/EPZreportE.pdf [Accessed October 24, 2017]. ILO International Labour Organization. (1998). Labour and Social Issues Relating to Export Processing Zones. Geneva. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---ed_dialogue/---actrav/documents/publication/wcms_114918.pdf [Accessed October 24, 2017]. ILO International Labour Organization. (2011). ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work and its follow-up. Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/declaration/ info/publications/WCMS_467653/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed August 14, 2018]. ILO International Labour Organization. (Ed.). (2015). Decent Work and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/sdg-2030/ lang-en/index.htm [Accessed April 18, 2017]. ILO International Labour Organization. (2016). ILO: Non-Standard forms of Employment, a Feature of the Contemporary World of Work. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/ Global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news(WCMS_534122/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed October 24, 2017].

120

Human Factors for Sustainability

ILO International Labour Organization. (2017a). Decent work. Retrieved from: http://www. ilo.org/global/topics/decent-work/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed October 24, 2017]. ILO International Labour Organization. (2017b). Purchasing practices and working conditions in global supply chains: Global survey results. Policy Brief No. 10. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/ publication/wcms_556336.pdf [Accessed October 12, 2017]. ILO International Labour Organization. (2018a). Publications on the Future of Work. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/future-of-work/publications/lang-en/index.htm [Accessed August 14, 2018]. ILO International Labour Organization. (2018b). Job quality in the platform economy. Global Commission on the future of work. Issue Brief No. 5. Retrieved from: http:// www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/ wcms_618167.pdf [Accessed August 14, 2018]. International Ergonomics Association (IEA). (2017). IEA technical committees. Retrieved from: http://www.iea.cc/about/technical.php [Accessed October 24, 2017]. IRS (Internal Revenue Service USA). (2017). Independent contractor (self-employed) or employee? Retrieved from: https://irs.gov/business/smal-business-self-employed/independent-contractors-self-employed-or-employee [Accessed October 24, 2017]. ITUC CSI IGB. (2017). Modern slavery in company operation and supply chains. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Retrieved from: https://www.ituc-csi.org/modernslavery-in-company?lang=en [Accessed September 29, 2017]. Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and Technology 32(3) (Spring 2016). Retrieved from: http://issues.org/32-3/the-rise-of-theplatform-economy/ [Accessed September 27, 2017]. Kittur, A., Nickerson, J. V., Bernstein, M. S., Gerber, E. M., Shaw, A., Zimmermann, J., Lease, M. & Horton, J. J. (2013). The future of crowd work. CSCW Conference Proceedings. San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved from: https://www.Iri.fr/~mbl/ENS/CSCW/2012/ papers/Kittur-CSCW13.pdf [Accessed April 19, 2017]. Labor Commissioner’s Office. (2017). Independent Contractor Versus Employee. State of California: Department of Industrial Relations. Retrieved from: http://www.dir.ca.gov/ dIse/FAQ_IndependentContractor.htm [Accessed February 7, 2017]. Leimeister, J. M., Zogaj, S. & Blohm, I. (2015). Crowdwork – digitale Wertschöpfung in der Wolke. [Crowdwork – digital value creation in the cloud]. In: Benner, C. (Ed.), Crowdwork – zurück in die Zukunft? PerspektivendigitalerArbeit [Crowdwork – Back to the Future? Perspectives of Digital Work]. Frankfurt a. M.: Bund Verlag, pp. 9–41. Leimeister, J. M., Durward, D., & Zogaj, S. (2016). Crowd worker in Deutschland. Eine empirische Studie zum Arbeitsumfeld auf externen Crowdsourcing-Plattformen. [Crowd worker in Germany. An empirical study of working conditions of external crowdsourcing platforms]. Study Nr. 323. Düsseldorf: Hans Böckler Stiftung. Retrieved from: http:// www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_study_hbs_323.pdf [Accessed September 29, 2017]. Leimeister, J. M., Zogaj, S., Durward, D. & Blohm, I. (2016). Systematisierung und analyse von crowd-sourcing-anbietern und crowd-work-projekten. [Systematization and analysis of crowd-sourcing-platforms and crowd-work projects]. Study Nr. 324. Düsseldorf: Hans Böckler Stiftung. Retrieved from: http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_study_hbs_324. pdf [Accessed September 27, 2017]. Locke, R. (2013). The Promise and Limits of Private Power: Promoting Labour Standards in a Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Locke, R. & Romis, M. (2007). Improving working conditions in a global supply chain. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 54–62. Locke, R., Amengual, M. & Mangla, A. (2009). Virtue out of necessity? Compliance, commitment and the improvement of labour conditions in global supply chains. Politics & Society, 37(3), 319–351.

Crowd Work, Outsourcing, and Sustainable Work Systems

121

Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Johns, T. (2011). The big idea: The age of hyperspecialisation. Harvard Business Review, 7/8, 56–65. MBO Partners. (2016). MBO Partners State of Independence in America 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.mbopartners.com/uploads/files/state-of-independence-reports/2016_ MBO_Partners_State_of_independence_Report.pdf [Accessed February 7, 2017]. Miller, B. (2015). Benefits of hiring independent contractors. HR Daily Advisor, October 7, 2015. Retrieved from: http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2015/10/07/benefits-of-hiringindependnet-contractors/ [Accessed April 19, 2017]. Morris, M. R., Bigham, J. P., Brewer, R., Bragg, J., Kulkarni, A., Li, J., & Savage, S. (2017). Subcontracting micro-work. CHI 2017. May 6–11. Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/subcontracting_crowdwork.pdf [Accessed October 12, 2017]. Osranek, R., & Zink, K. J. (2014). Corporate human capital and social sustainability of human resources: Toward an integrative measurement framework. In: Ehnert, I., Harry, W. & Zink, K. J. (Eds.), Sustainability and Human Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business Organizations. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 105–126. Pakdeenurit, N., Suthikarnnarunai, N., & Rattanawong, W. (2014). Special economic zone: Facts, roles, and opportunities of investment. Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2014 Vol II. IMECS 2014. March 12–14. Hong Kong. Retrieved from: http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2014/ IMECS2014_pp1047-1051.pdf [Accessed October 24, 2017]. Risak, M., & Warter, J. (2015). Decent crowdwork: Legal strategies towards fair employment conditions in the virtual sweatshop. Paper presented at the Regulation for Decent Work 2015 Conference. Geneva, July 8–10, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.rdw2015.org/ uploads/submission/full_paper/373/crowdwork_law:RisakWarter.pdf [Accessed 24 October 2017]. Schipper, I., & de Haan, E. (2005). CSR issues in the ICT hardware manufacturing sector. SOMO ICT Sector Report. Retrieved from: http://www.somo.nl/html/paginas/pdf/ ICT_Sector_Report_2005_NL.pdf [Accessed October 24, 2017]. Swaminathan, S., Hara, K., & Bigham, J. P. (2017). The crowd work accessibility problem. W4A 2017. April 2–4, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jbigham/pubs/ pdfs/2017/crowdwork-accessibility.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2017]. The European Parliament and the European Council. (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU (disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups). Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CE LEX:32014LOO95&from=DE [Accessed March 28, 2017]. Uber Lawsuits. (2017). Retrieved from: http://uberlawsuit.com [Accessed September 27, 2017]. UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. (2017). Ten Key Recommendations to Governments and Business from the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Information Note. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office of the Commissioner. Retrieved from: https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/ UNWG-SDG-recommendations-30-Jun-2017.pdf [Accessed October 12, 2017]. United Nations. (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the Commissioner. Retrieved from: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf [Accessed October 24, 2017]. United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: http://www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/ transformingourworld [Accessed August 10, 2018]. Valentine, M. A., Retelny, D., To, A., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2017). Flash organizations: Crowdsourcing complex work by structuring crowds as organizations. CHI 2017. May 6–11. Denver, CO. Retrieved from: http://hci.stanford.edu/ publications/2017flashorgsflash-orgs-chi-2017.pdf [Accessed October 12, 2017].

122

Human Factors for Sustainability

Wedde, P., & Spoo, S. (2015). Mitbestimmung in der digitalen Arbeitswelt. [Co-determination in a digitized world of work]. In: ver.di – Bereich Innovation und gute Arbeit (Ed.), Gute Arbeit und Digitalisierung: Prozessanalysen und Gestaltungsperspektiven für eine humane digitale Arbeitswelt. Berlin: ver.di, pp. 31–39. Whiting, M. E., Gamage, D., Gaikward, S. S., Gilbee, A., Goyal, S., Ballay, A., Majeti, D., Chibber, N., Richmond-Fuller, A., Vargus, F., Sarma, T. S., Chandrakanthan, V., Moura, T., Salih, M. H., Kalejaiye, G. B. T., Ginzberg, A., Mullings, C. A., Dayan, Y., Milland, K., Orefice, H., Regino, J., Parsi, S., Mainali, K., Sehgal, V., Matin, S., Sinha, A., Vaish, R., & Bernstein, M. S. (2017). CrowdGuilds: Worker-led reputation and feedback on crowdsourcing platforms. CSCW ’17. February 25–March 1, Portland, OR. Retrieved from: http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/2017/crowdguilds/guilds.pdf [Accessed December 19, 2017]. Wobbe, W. (2016). Conclusions on digital employment. In: Wobbe, W., Bova, E., & Dragomirescu-Gaina, C. (Eds.), The Digital Economy and the Single Market: Employment Prospects and Working Conditions in Europe. FEPS – Foundation for European Progressive Studies, pp. 211–218. Retrieved from: http://www.feps-europe. eu/assets/4200c007-f19f-4aec-be49-1789d5804674/book-feps-hd-okpdf.pdf [Accessed October 12, 2017]. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132. Zink, K. J. (2017). Nachhaltige Arbeitssysteme in (Internationalen) Wertschöpfungsketten und die Rolle der Arbeitswissenschaft. [Sustainable work systems in (international) value creating chains and the role of HFE]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 71(2/2017), 92–100. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2018). Human factors and ergonomics: Contribution to sustainability and decent work in global supply chains. In: Thatcher, A. & Yeow, P. H. P. (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future. Singapore: Palgrave McMillan.

6

Beyond Product Life Cycles An Introduction to Product Sociotechnical Cycles (PstC) as an Alternative for HFE toward Sustainability in Product Design and Development Gabriel García-Acosta and Karen Lange-Morales

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 124 Origin of, and Problem Associated with, the Life Cycle Concept for PDD........... 124 PLC in Marketing............................................................................................... 125 PLC in Engineering............................................................................................ 126 The Problem of Adopting Qualities of “Living Things” to “Nonliving Things”............................................................................................ 127 The Product Sociotechnical Cycle (PstC) Alternative............................................ 128 Conceptual References for the Development of PstC Notion ........................... 128 Relationship between Sociotechnical (Anthropic) and Natural (Biothropic) Cycles ........................................................................................... 129 Why There Are Existence Cycles...................................................................... 132 Product Sociotechnical Cycles: Eco-Efficiency, Socioefficiency, Eco-Effectiveness, Socioeffectiveness, and Eco-Productivity........................... 134 First Category: Traditional Approach in PDD or “Money Is What Matters”............................................................................................... 135 Second Category: Transitional Approach in PDD or “a Kind of Greenwashing”.............................................................................................. 136 Third Category: Comprehensive Approach or “Values Are the Key”........... 137 HFE Perspectives Within PstCs for Sustainability-Oriented PDDs........................ 140 References............................................................................................................... 141 123

124

Human Factors for Sustainability

INTRODUCTION To talk of sustainability in product design and development (PDD) necessarily involves talking of cycles, where the product life cycle (PLC) concept and terms associated with this are among the most common and most widespread in scientific and professional communities. However, using the expression “life cycle” to refer to cycles of products made by human beings is not without controversy, and these controversies cannot be viewed simply as superfluous or a question of form, especially when the aim is to contribute to sustainability through human factors and ergonomics (HFE), a scientific discipline that has concerned itself from the start with social sustainability, economic sustainability, and, most recently, ecological sustainability. Concepts like eco-efficiency, socioefficiency, eco-effectiveness, socioeffectiveness (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; Zink, Steimle, & Fischer, 2008), and eco-productivity (García-Acosta et al., 2014) take on a different meaning when approached from a biological analogy perspective (life cycles) rather than from a phenomenological one (existence cycles). This chapter traces the origin of, and the problem associated with, the life cycle concept, as a biological analogy, when applied to PDD, and it goes on to introduce the concept of product sociotechnical cycles (PstCs) (García-Acosta, 2016). After outlining these models, the possible approaches to these cycles are presented, namely, PstC without efficiency, toward eco-efficiency, socioefficiency, toward eco-effectiveness and socioeffectiveness, or toward eco-productivity. Finally, based on this new model, opportunities are outlined where HFE can contribute to sustainability-focused product design and development.

ORIGIN OF, AND PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH, THE LIFE CYCLE CONCEPT FOR PDD A “cycle” is a series of states, processes, steps, phases, or stages that are followed, through which and during which something is transformed. It is a sequence of linked stages that an event, phenomenon, or body passes through and which occurs in a given time-space, and these are liable to repeat themselves in the same order (Real Academia Española, 2017). “Cycles” are referred to in various spheres of knowledge as a series of linked qualities and properties that occur periodically, such as the Carnot cycle, the circadian cycle, the water cycle, the oxygen cycle, and the carbon cycle, among others. Now, a “life cycle” is a concept that is used in the biological sciences to refer to the alternation and succession of generations or species in time. In general terms, a “life cycle” consists of the appearance (birth), development, maturity, and finalization (death) of entities, organisms, or living systems (Bonner, 1993). “Life cycles” can therefore be viewed as dynamics in time for remaining alive, based on the characteristics and qualities of each living being or system. PLC can be categorized under two major taxonomies, each of which takes its inspiration from the biological analogy of how living beings follow cycles where individuals go through a series of phases, as a function of time, with characteristics that can be generalized for various species that inhabit the Earth’s ecosystems.

Beyond Product Life Cycles

125

In very broad terms, the following phases can be identified in this life cycle: conception, birth, development, growth, maturity, and death.

PLC in Marketing The background to the first taxonomy, PLC-M (Product Life Cycle – Marketing), is to be found in the work of Dean (1950), who stated that products end up being replaced by new ones in a “cycle of competitive degeneration.” Based on these preliminary ideas about how products behave on the market, a start was made on developing the PLC-M concept from the economic (business theory) perspective, until it was consolidated in the 1960s and early 1970s, more precisely, in post-Keynesian business and marketing schools in Germany and the United States. These schools were concerned with the theory of how innovations were disseminated and adopted, as a useful model for representing and theorizing about what happens to products that are launched on the market – in other words, product behavior as a function of market validity. In business and marketing, the emphasis in PLC models lies in understanding and evaluating product behavior (as a collective) with respect to markets and consumers. One of the earliest authors to describe how a product goes through a series of recognizable market phases was Heuss (1965). According to Greiner and Hanusch (1993), although Heuss did not talk explicitly in his work about the product life cycle notion, he did mention the fact that merchandise goes through such phases as development, expansion, maturity, stagnation, and decline, and this was thus the seed for the concept. PLC-M systematically dates back to the 1960s and authors like Patton (1959), Levitt (1965), Buzzell (1966), Polli and Cook (1969), Vernon (1966, 1979), Wells and Gubar (1966), Cox (1967), and Wells Jr. (1968). Wells Jr. drew a comparison between PLC and the “Heckscher-Ohlin” model, envisaging a greater dynamic explanation capacity in market behavior. Predictive models were developed in the sixties that were useful for predicting growth or a fall in the demand for a product. One example is the Nielson-Cox function, for obtaining a series of characteristic graphs based on sales behavior (Polli & Cook, 1969). In the seventies, models were aimed at growth in product sales and a prolongation of the maturity phase, since there was less pressure from competition for short-term innovations. An example of this was the proposal by Michael (1971) for a new, prolonged maturity PLC-M phase, which he called petrification. In the eighties, studies concentrated on developing models and algorithms with multidimensional variables, such as the Dowling and Cooper model (1989), which enabled sales behavior patterns to be simulated for planning product maintenance or replacement on the market in good time. In the last 25 years, in other words from the 1990s to midway through the second decade of the 21st century, the PLC-M hypothesis put forward by Levitt (1965), Vernon (1966), and successors has become an important instrument not only in the field of business and marketing but also in the economic sciences field. This is shown by the work of Segerstrom et al. (1990), who developed a model for viewing trade as a dynamic equilibrium between developed and developing countries. The authors combined the PLC-M hypothesis with the Schumpeterian product innovation description under a mathematic modeling with integral functions.

126

Human Factors for Sustainability

PLC in Engineering The second taxonomy, PLC-E (Product Life Cycle – Engineering), has been more diverse and heterogeneous in conceptual terms. It attempted to consolidate around the late 1980s to early 1990s a perspective of product engineering, design, and development, related to concurrent engineering and also referred to as simultaneous engineering or total design (Pugh, 1991). Concurrent engineering required an integrating product development and production process development model. Adopting and conceptualizing PLC-E was therefore an adequate strategy for the 1990s, especially in view of the development of CAD and CAM systems and other computer applications oriented toward product specifications and supply chain management, which required product data management and product life cycle management convergence (Ameri & Dutta, 2005). Emphasis in PLC models today is placed on collaborative design, which is stimulated, in turn, by the growth in information and computer technology (García-Acosta, Lange-Morales, Puentes-Lagos, & Ruiz-Ortíz, 2011). Wells Jr. (1968) and Enis et al. (1977) established the first connections between PLC-M and what would gradually emerge as a product design and engineering (PLC-E) life cycle model. Almost 50 years ago, Wells Jr. (1968) argued that the success of a product in a commercial cycle depended on a combination of having a good marketing strategy and being able to quickly make adjustments to the product design during the manufacturing process or in the earliest stages of the product’s life cycle, in order to meet consumer needs. Indirectly, Wells Jr. (1968) paved the way for contemporary trends like including users from an early stage in defining requirements and specifications and strategically identifying new product values. Cao and Folan (2012) proposed, in their historical-systematic review, that the origins of PLC-E can be found in three different approaches, namely, (a) in adaptations of PLC-M subordinated to other research fields outside of marketing, (b) in life cycle analysis or life cycle assessment (LCA), and (c) in life cycle costing (LCC). Krasowski (2002) included both LCA and LCC in PLC-E, together with a structural product assessment (ProSa). The rise of LCA and LCC was therefore fundamental, but so too were all the information tools (CAD, CAM, CAE) and all the “design for X” methods. The PLC-E concept has been developed and applied in design and engineering for around 30 years, mostly centered on LCA methodology, which has tended to monopolize publications, applications, and versions. A few publications, such as Alting and Legarth (1995), make the distinction, in terms of concept and scope, between the more global “life cycle management” models, “life cycle engineering” models, and “life cycle assessment.” It is important to recognize that in each taxonomy, product behavior (as an entity) is observed as a function of time but for different purposes. From the business and marketing perspective, a cycle is the product’s life span during the demand/consumption relationship on the market, when the sales performance of the product is identified, whereas from the engineering and design perspective, a cycle is the period that commences when the product is first conceived and continues for as long as it is able to function and to be useful and usable, when its validity or obsolescence is recognized.

Beyond Product Life Cycles

127

The Problem of Adopting Qualities of “Living Things” to “Nonliving Things” Product design and development engineering adopted the life cycle (LC) concept but overlooked its semantic and epistemological difficulties, especially if it is remembered that living beings have a very different phenomenology (different modes of existence because of their qualities) from that of products. Ayres (2004) discusses the LC metaphor as adopted by industrial ecology, in order to stress certain divergences between economic systems and ecological systems. Ayres is of the opinion that the LC analogy taken from nature and used in industry has looked for similarities between natural and industrial functions. In nature, for example, living beings have ingestion and digestion of foodstuffs and organic waste, in order to obtain both energy and work: in other words, a biological metabolism. Companies, meanwhile, following the analogy of organisms, consume resources, materials, and energy and transform them into products and industrial waste, which could be comparable, in production systems, to an “industrial metabolism.” It is nevertheless clear that industrial waste, unlike natural waste, does not enter natural cycles and systems directly as either food or nutrients. Whether because of its physical, chemical, or biological properties or its volume and scale, it should first pass through a collection, dismantlement, and transportation process, among others, in order to ensure that it does not contaminate a particular ecosystem and then, in the best of cases, join a beneficial cycle once more, as the circular economy proposes (Pearce & Turner, 1990; Andersen, 2017). In nature, on the other hand, organisms are reintegrated into the Earth and nourish it when they die without any need for intervention. A natural balance occurs between producers, consumers, and decomposers. Ayres (2004) points to at least four differences between the biosphere and the technosphere (human production systems). The first difference is that, in the technosphere, there is no primary production derived from the sun, such as photosynthesis and the consequent generation of biomass. The second difference is that there are no products, as such, in the biosphere. Growth is equivalent to the accumulation of solar exergy that is incorporated in the form of cellulose, sugars, lipids, and proteins, and its “waste,” or “dead” matter, is recycled and biodegraded in order to nourish other cycles without contamination. A third difference is that there are no markets in the biosphere, meaning that supply and demand are therefore not applicable, and even less is there any exchange based on money. Nor is there anything comparable to paid work, and beyond subsistence, exchanges are in the form of cooperation and interdependencies. Finally, the fourth difference lies in the fact that in nature (biosphere), evolution functions as a subsistence strategy and is made dynamic by specific contexts in which species live, whereas in the economy (technosphere), innovation and invention are boosted by competitiveness and global growth. In view of this, Ayres (2004) insists that the unjustified use of the ecology (biosphere) analogy when referring to the economy (technosphere) is inconvenient. Three arguments that reinforce the problems entailed in using the biological analogy in the PDD can be added to the above. The first emphasizes a further difference between “natural products” and industrial products. “Products,” in nature, “are not manufactured and then used,” and they are not created and then function, since this

128

Human Factors for Sustainability

process occurs simultaneously. A plant does not grow and then begin to function; rather, it is already functioning as it grows (Lange-Morales, 1997). This makes a significant ontological difference in the qualities of both “products.” The second argument reinforces the third and fourth differences stated by Ayres (2004) and relates to the role played by profitability, a quality that is nonexistent in natural systems. A company, by definition, sets out to be profitable. In major economic models, company survival depends not on equilibrium with the environment but on profitability. The more profitable a company is, the greater the chances of it subsisting. This is the complete opposite to what occurs in nature, where the closer it is to equilibrium, the greater the possibilities of it subsisting. Finally, the third argument reinforces the fourth difference referred to by Ayres (2004) and relates to subsistence strategies in nature and in economics, which are directly related to their purpose as a system (Rosnay, 1977). Since the biosphere is oriented toward equilibrium, its “sphere of action” is local. It balances itself in its specific context, which is much more efficient, in energy terms. This is not the case with the technosphere, whose purpose is to grow, and it therefore tends to transcend the local and move into the global sphere. Moving to a global sphere of action increases energy costs and modifies use and consumption practices, which makes it difficult to understand the consequences and the involvement of the respective cycles. It cannot be denied that engineering life cycle models have had a positive impact on three fronts. (1) The integration of production processes and design has supported the concurrent engineering and design approach as a way of viewing links and stakeholders in PDD processes. (2) Collaborative design, based on documentary administration on computer platforms, has favored interdisciplinary and ubiquitous work. (3) The development of methods like LCA, which aim to measure negative impacts, has led to reduction and mitigation strategies (eco-efficiency) for those impacts. However, together with the problems indicated in the previous paragraph, the most dangerous aspect of the PLC concept is that it relieves stakeholders of responsibility for what occurs when the cycle they themselves have referred to as “end of life” actually ends, because on many occasions, the product continues to exist, and what happens is that it joins a new cycle where responsibility for its effects on the environment is out of the hands of any stakeholder.

THE PRODUCT SOCIOTECHNICAL CYCLE (PSTC) ALTERNATIVE As an alternative to the PLC concept, and with a view to overcoming the epistemological difficulties that this approach entails, García-Acosta (2016) proposed the product sociotechnical cycle (PstC) concept. PstC is defined as a series of steps or phases that sociotechnical entities – namely, human beings and products or artifacts – pass through in a given time/space. This is important and is not just a minor change, especially when the aim is to work toward both social and environmental sustainability.

Conceptual References for the Development of PstC Notion The conceptual foundations for developing the proposed model are aimed at integrating social, technical, and environmental aspects. Concurrent environment-focused

Beyond Product Life Cycles

129

engineering (Riba i Romeva, 2002), as well as thinkers with a techno-phenomenological approach (Vinck, 2012; Riis, 2008) such as Heidegger (1927: 1967) and Latour (1993), provide concepts for the integrated social and technical vision. Meanwhile, ergoecology (García-Acosta, 2002; García-Acosta et al, 2014) contributes elements that connect sociotechnical and environmental aspects. The PstC concept can be considered part of concurrent environment-oriented engineering (Riba i Romeva, 2002), which renders relevance to the social and cultural dimension in product design and development. Based on the cycles concept, this permits the convergence of technical, social, and cultural approaches in line with the context in which a product is designed and developed but also in the context in which the product is used and subsequently not used. The PstC concept maintains the notion that a cycle is a group of space-time stages that a product passes through. Unlike the PLC, however, it eliminates the life cycle analogy because living entities boast a series of characteristics, which means that they can be considered to be “living” bodies that are not comparable with products. As Ayres (2004) points out, and to mention just a couple of them, self-replication and self-generation (autopoiesis) are not found in products. Living and nonliving entities that share certain characteristics but are different in others converge in the various stages of PstC. The characteristics that living and nonliving entities share include existence, deemed as referring to the concrete reality of any entity that manifests itself as “being in the world,” Heidegger’s concept of “dasein” (1927: 1967). Heidegger maintains that existence is a reality that is not merely biological but rather “a being with others,” being together with others in terms of both space and affection. Putting it simply, the important thing is existing and relating with others, irrespective of whether it is living or not. This is why the PstC proposal retains the cycle concept but replaces the life concept with the existence concept, which is applicable to both living and nonliving entities. This idea is reinforced by the symmetrical vision of technology proposed by Latour (1993), which maintains that agency, whether derived or direct, is established not only by human beings but also by everything nonhuman, such as artifacts, etc. Heidegger’s and Latour’s basic principles thus add a nondivision between subject/object to the PstC concept, which is consistent with concurrent environment-oriented engineering. Finally, ergoecology systematically studies human beings and their relationships with the environment by analyzing their activities and establishing the impacts (positive or negative) of this relationship (García-Acosta et al., 2014). This scientific and technological multidiscipline adds to the PstC concept the sense of understanding, systemically and in a scalable manner, the relationships between human (anthropic) systems and natural (biothropic) systems. This symmetrical, social, and environmental vision makes it possible for the proposed concept not only to maintain a systemic vision of processes but also to visualize both the relationships between anthropic and biothropic cycles and their impacts.

Relationship between Sociotechnical (Anthropic) and Natural (Biothropic) Cycles The first distinction that needs to be made is the difference between sociotechnical (anthropic) and natural (biothropic) cycles, and the relationship between them.

130

Human Factors for Sustainability

Sociotechnical cycles are anthropic because they occur in systems that are created by human beings; in other words, where there is a human purpose or intervention. In short, they are any cycle where there is human causation, transformation, and intentionality. Natural cycles, on the other hand, are biothropic and refer to cycles that are derived from nature. These two categories of systems can be given different names and represented in different ways: ecosystems that interact with sociocultural systems, natural systems that are related to sociotechnical systems, Earth systems that exchange with human-technological systems, biothropic systems/cycles that are affected by anthropic systems/cycles, and ecological/geographical factors that condition ergonomic systems. Because all social and cultural cycles occur within the broader system of Earth’s biosphere, they have common qualities, such as synergy and interdependence, symbiotic relationships, and, above all, dynamic balances/ imbalances. This is supported by the concept of systems-of-systems (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). The possibilities of modeling the aforementioned systems or cycles will depend on the interests of the researchers involved, and there could therefore be other combinations or designations. Figure 6.1 illustrates some of them, but the important thing is to remember the two categories mentioned by Ayres (2004): those related to the biosphere and shown in black (biothropic) and those associated with the technosphere and shown in gray (anthropic). Cycles can interact with each other at different times and mutually affect their respective dynamics, behavior, characteristics, and equilibria. For example, a PstC that is considered to be an anthropic cycle can interact with other anthropic cycles (i.e., agricultural cycles) or with biothropic cycles (i.e., biogeochemical cycles). The various interactions between cycles produce complex effects in both human life and other expressions of natural life. In fact, there could be a large number of cycles that are interacting synchronically and diachronically, which implies understanding

FIGURE 6.1  Representations of some systems/cycles that can be modeled. Taken and translated from García-Acosta (2016) with permission.

Beyond Product Life Cycles

131

systems with complex behavior patterns (close to or distant from an equilibrium). Figure 6.2 illustrates, schematically, the possible ways a PstC can interact with various cycles. It should be pointed out that with PstCs, a “product” will be deemed to refer to the existence of any set of organized actions, systems, things, services, or objects that has been designed or produced by individuals or organizations and has tangible or intangible conditions resulting from a configuration or “intentional transformation” of energy, matter, and information (knowledge). Unlike something insubstantial or an “entity” with no “intentional transformation,” a product is viewed socially as something generated for a purpose. It is nevertheless important to stress that “intentional transformation” is irrespective of whether the product does not serve the purpose for which it was conceived. It is these types of product that are of interest in HFE, because both technology and persons, either individually or collectively, are involved. In a sociotechnical context, the purpose is what gives meaning to intentional transformation. For example, the purpose of sharpening a stone to form the tip of a lance, one of the first stone tools used in prehistoric hunting, was to produce a cutting tool to hunt with, get food, and, ultimately, survive. Thus, in the case of products, the purpose is the social and individual dimension that cannot be separated from the artifact as a technology component. The social element here is not a context, but rather something that is interwoven with, and incorporated into, all actors involved in the cycle and includes knowledge management for inventions, innovations, patent registrations, models, designs, and trademarks. Therefore, as human beings extend

FIGURE 6.2  Various types of cycles interacting with a PstC. Taken and translated from García-Acosta (2016) with permission.

132

Human Factors for Sustainability

their sociotechnical actions more and more, so anthropic cycles have a greater influence on natural or biothropic cycles. Now, it is not when a product loses its purpose that it ceases to be a product, but when it loses all its “intentional transformation” qualities. This is clear in products that, although they might function at the time, have lost their useful purpose, from a sociotechnical perspective. Many things exist as products but are no longer used, because their supporting technology has become obsolete. Cameras based on developing film and printing it chemically on paper, or recording and audio systems that use magnetic tapes, are but a couple of examples.

Why There Are Existence Cycles As far as the “existence cycles” concept is concerned, an important point needs to be made. A product exists – in other words, it has a concrete reality – irrespective of whether or not it retains its capacity to serve its purpose and it accordingly has both spatial and temporal dimensions. A product’s existence is therefore recognized beyond its purpose, because it is an entity (with intentional transformation) that occupies a space and flows in time. This state can be represented as a flow on an axis, henceforth referred to as a “space-time axis,” and is depicted on figures by means of an arrow that runs along the cycle. A product can basically be in two situations during its existence, namely, (a) when it serves a purpose – that is, when it is considered to be a “useful product” and hence beneficial – or (b) when for some reason it no longer serves a purpose and becomes a “useless product” that is not in any way beneficial and hence is disposable. A product can accordingly follow a chain of events or a succession of cycles that are referred to here as “existence cycles.” As illustrated in Figure 6.3, these cycles can have at least two categories: (1) a “beneficial cycle” (useful), where beneficial means the benefit or satisfaction that people get from something, and (2) a “nonbeneficial cycle” (useless),

FIGURE 6.3  Representation of existence cycles (beneficial or nonbeneficial). Taken and translated from García-Acosta (2016) with permission.

Beyond Product Life Cycles

133

where people or societies consider that the product is no longer any use whatsoever. Taken together, cycles represent the full existence of a product and are noted for having a sequence of phases or stages (these words are henceforth treated as synonyms) that a given product passes through, shown in Figure 6.3 by the spaces that are formed between the vertical gray lines. Both “beneficial cycles” and “nonbeneficial cycles” are sociotechnical cycles, because product existence qualities are indissolubly determined, both technically and socially. For example, from the time it is conceived as a product until it is degraded as an entity and loses its intentional transformation, a mobile phone has an existence time that is both useful and useless, since during this time period, it can occupy various geographical spaces. The existence cycle can be extended by means of a postbeneficial stage (recycling, reuse, reassembly, remanufacture, etc.), irrespective of whether or not this has been considered a target in the original PDD. The product will accordingly acquire a new or partial use, based on a purpose reassigned by any interested party. This extended existence will postpone the end of usefulness and will therefore reduce impacts on other cycles. Now, a question that arises is when the existence of a product commences. The “start of existence” for a product coincides with the beginning of the beneficial cycle, namely from the moment when the vision and intention of conceiving and configuring a product commences (i.e., when the intentional transformation begins). Consequently, the next question is how far the existence of a product extends or, in other words, when the existence of a product comes to an end. It has already been mentioned that a product remains in existence beyond the existence of its purpose – in other words, for as long as it retains its configuration resulting from the intentional transformation of energy, matter, and information. A product will therefore exist until such time as it is intentionally disintegrated, such as when it biodegrades (is reincorporated into the Earth), recycled (converted into new raw materials), reused (designated and transformed into a new product), confined, placed in a sanitary fill, or incinerated. In other words, a product reaches its “end of existence” when matter, energy, and information can potentially begin to be part of a new cycle. A high percentage of a product can be in a beneficial cycle and a minimal or zero percentage in a nonbeneficial one. Examples include foods with an expiry date, where beyond that date their healthy usefulness has come to an end (expired), or packaging made from natural fibers (banana leaves, corn cobs, etc.) to protect and transport eggs, cheese, or all kinds of delicatessen and confectionery products. But the reverse can also be true, with a high percentage of a product in a nonbeneficial cycle and a minimal percentage in a beneficial one, such as containers and packaging material made from expanded polystyrene. In the beneficial cycle, a product will be in a usefulness situation, provided that it serves a purpose. Total usefulness time, as a sociotechnical condition, will be the time during which the product is in the beneficial cycle, and this may be relatively long or short, depending on its characteristics and, especially, on its relationships to the whole sociotechnical system. For example, just as there are products with a lengthy usefulness, such as production equipment, refrigerators, and domestic furniture, so there are products with short periods of

134

Human Factors for Sustainability

usefulness, such as disposable packaging, perishable processed foods, and clothing and footwear. In a nonbeneficial cycle, a product will be useless because it will be considered to no longer serve or have any purpose. Total uselessness time will be the time during which the product is in a nonbeneficial cycle while retaining its intentional transformation qualities. And this is where the big difference lies with the PLC concept. When a product reaches the end of its “life” under the traditional PLC concept, it does not cease to exist and to interact with other systems. This means that the idea that the responsibility of whoever transformed the product ends when it is no longer used, because its life ended, is false, because in reality it goes on existing and, very often, continues to have a negative impact on other systems. How long this nonbeneficial cycle lasts will depend on the type and characteristics of the product, and it can therefore be long or short. Long nonbeneficial cycles can become continuous or tend toward being permanent. For example, there are products with extremely prolonged periods of uselessness, such as radioactive rods from nuclear reactors (which need to be kept in confinement), batteries where it is hard to separate materials, compact microelectronic devices (e.g., mobile phones), MP3/ MP4 reproduction equipment or objects made from nonbiodegradable compound materials, and thermo-stable plastics. Short nonbeneficial cycles can, however, be transitory, because it is recognized that products or components can potentially be transformed into recyclable, renewable, or remanufacturable products. Nonbeneficial cycles can continue as anthropic cycles and finally be transformed into new, beneficial cycles. Another possibility is for them to enter natural cycles, provided that they can decompose or biodegrade and be integrated into biogeochemical cycles. In line with all this, there are products that have short periods of uselessness, because they are generally made from easily recyclable and/or biodegradable materials, such as packaging and containers made of paper, fiber, leather, and wood, or are returnable and reusable and hence quickly become part of a new beneficial cycle or natural cycles without contaminating, or even be beneficial as bionutrients. The nonbeneficial cycle can prove to be a product’s final existence cycle, due to the constituent parts, components, or materials that formed the product either being reincorporated into the Earth’s ecosystems by means of intentional disintegration – biodegradation, incineration, or destruction – or being available to commence another existence cycle after being dismantled, recycled, or reused. Proposals like cradle-to-cradle recognize this condition and provide elements for managing a product’s nonbeneficial cycle better (Braungart, McDonough, & Bollinger, 2007).

Product Sociotechnical Cycles: Eco-Efficiency, Socioefficiency, Eco-Effectiveness, Socioeffectiveness, and Eco-Productivity Every PstC is related to other cycles throughout any of its constituent phases, but we can establish at least three categories of relationship with other cycles, with respect to the environmental and social responsibility that is taken on, that are today a sociotechnical condition of the PDD. These three categories are linked to the concepts of eco-efficiency, socioefficiency, eco-effectiveness, socioeffectiveness, and eco-productivity. The references taken for presenting these concepts are the

Beyond Product Life Cycles

135

systematic reviews conducted by Saravia-Pinilla, Daza-Beltrán, and García-Acosta (2016) and Segura-Duque (2018), and the ergoecology proposal by García-Acosta et al. (2014). Eco-efficiency is about “doing more with less,” or providing products or services with more value while using fewer resources and producing less waste or toxicity. In other words, it seeks a minimal extraction of natural resources, lower energy consumption, and a reduction in negative impacts on nature. Socioefficiency aims to reduce or minimize negative impacts on the stakeholders involved, whether physically, cognitively, or emotionally, while maintaining the health and safety of the respective people and communities. As far as eco-effectiveness is concerned, this relates to two complementary issues: the nonexistence of negative impacts and the generation of positive ones, in efforts to emulate nature. McDonough and Braungart (2001) state that eco-effectiveness is directed beyond zero emissions (not only not polluting but also nourishing) and focuses on maintaining or increasing material quality and productivity throughout its cycles. Socioeffectiveness, meanwhile, can be summarized as generating zero negative effects on stakeholders and “nourishing” social systems, which means increasing the well-being and quality of life of people and communities. Finally, eco-productivity is “the system capacity to transform energy, material, resources, and information (without squander or waste), in a product or service, without generating negative impacts in other systems they interact with” (García-Acosta et al., 2012, p. 2136). This concept “also refers to production capability, but the time dimension is viewed in the long term, the aim being to achieve a balance between human work and the available natural resource” (García-Acosta et al., 2014, p. 124). The ability to transform is one thing, but the degree of social or ecological effectiveness in the different systems or subsystems for achieving that transformation is a different matter entirely. To some extent, therefore, eco-productivity can be viewed as a result in time of the combination of eco-effectiveness and socioeffectiveness. The first of these categories of PstC relationship with other cycles refers to the traditional approach, which does not consider either social or environmental responsibility, or the respective consequences. The second category includes a relative environmental and social responsibility, which is concerned with reducing negative impacts on both the environment and people. The third category assumes that there should be comprehensive environmental and social responsibility, focusing on generating positive impacts on both the environment and communities. First Category: Traditional Approach in PDD or “Money Is What Matters” In the case of the first category, where the approach considers neither environmental nor social responsibility, the product will have an existence time that relates both to serving a purpose and to having a recognized beginning and end to its usefulness (obsolescence), and it will thus be a beneficial cycle. Now, if the product is considered to be socially obsolescent and the PDD included as a goal neither eco-efficiency nor socioefficiency, eco-effectivity, socioeffectivity, or eco-productivity, it will have a certain negative impact, such as environmental degradation or contamination, on other cycles (anthropic or biothropic), as seen in Figure 6.4. It should be remembered that this was the common denominator from the time of the industrial revolution until virtually the early 1990s, when the concept of sustainable development was

136

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 6.4  Relationship between a beneficial cycle and other cycles when eco-efficiency, socioefficiency, eco-effectiveness, socioeffectiveness, and eco-productivity are not considered. Adapted and translated from García-Acosta (2016) with permission.

established, on the one hand, and the first legislation was enacted on environmental matters, on the other. In social terms, negative impacts translate into diseases that affect people and accidents that occur during product design, production, use, and disuse, and this has led to safety, hygiene, and ergonomics regulations being drawn up that apply equally in production processes and when products are being used or are in a state of disuse. Other negative impacts arise from the abuse of information technologies, applications, and social media that identify people’s consumption trends and thus exacerbate and violate intimacy by sending e-commerce publicity deduced from each person’s consultations and their frequency. In this first category, therefore, the negative impacts on other cycles are a matter of environmental and social responsibility for companies or production sectors that fail to adhere to increasingly more frequent and more demanding international environmental and social regulations and recommendations. Second Category: Transitional Approach in PDD or “a Kind of Greenwashing” This approach, to some extent, represents eco-modernism. Eco-modernism “adds an environmental dimension to the development path but does not allow that dimension to radically change the path” (Welford, 1997, p. 28). The example taken for the second relationship category is the one that exists between a beneficial cycle and a postbeneficial cycle, such as an extended existence. The product will have an existence

Beyond Product Life Cycles

137

time, during which it serves a purpose and is useful, and at the end of its beneficial cycle, people (any interested party or parties) will socially decide that, instead of declaring it obsolete and throwing it away, it can be put to a new use. At this point, the postbeneficial stage becomes the prolonged existence (extended product) cycle, even if it has not been considered as a goal in the original PDD. It therefore acquires a new usefulness (as a whole or just one or more of its components), based on a purpose that has been assigned by any interested party, so that the product or parts thereof can have a relative eco-efficiency; in other words, a reduction in its negative environmental impacts is achieved. Unlike the first case, taking into account the idea that sustainable development has led to a boon since the late 1980s and early 1990s, the development of PDDs has been oriented toward reducing energy consumption and materials used, which leads to a reduction in environmental impacts by initiating an environmental sustainability process. While this approach is still far from effective, it has contributed to a social change and awareness process relating to values associated with use and consumption. Although it has not provided a definitive solution to environmental problems, it can be seen as a necessary transition toward sustainability. In social terms, ergonomics has made a significant contribution to reducing negative impacts during the PDD by making products and services initially safer and ensuring that there is less risk of them causing sickness while in use. This contribution has extended to aspects like usability and emotionality, thereby making products easier to use and helping to improve their performance, cognitively and emotionally. This same contribution has been made in both production ergonomics and design ergonomics, thereby helping to achieve socioefficiency. However, it is usually limited to beneficial stages (the first part of the extended existence cycle), in line with financial economics and a limited concept of sustainable development. This approach does not necessarily include postbeneficial stages, given that company responsibility tends to end with the existence cycle planned originally using the traditional, generalized PLC concept. In this second relationship category, therefore, reducing both environmental and social impacts is linked to certain environmental and social responsibility principles, such as the efficient use of materials and energy, certificates of origin, respect for interested parties, and ethical behavior. Figure 6.5 schematizes these relationships. Third Category: Comprehensive Approach or “Values Are the Key” With respect to the final category, where a comprehensive environmental and social responsibility is assumed, Figure 6.6 schematizes a balanced, synergistic relationship between a beneficial cycle and other, natural or biothropic, cycles. As in the previous cases, there is a lapse both in the product’s existence with a specific purpose and in its period of usefulness – in other words, its beneficial cycle. But in this case, product eco-effectiveness, eco-productivity, and socioeffectiveness are proposed as initial sociotechnical targets by the companies and all “interested parties” in the PDD. As a result, at the end of the product’s projected life, all its components enter other cycles (anthropic or biothropic) with neutral or positive impacts on the environment and society. Unlike the two previous categories, even fewer products are oriented toward eco-effectiveness, eco-productivity, and socioeffectiveness, but we

138

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 6.5  Relationship between a beneficial cycle and a postbeneficial one, as an extended existence cycle where eco-efficiency and socioefficiency occur. Adapted and translated from García-Acosta (2016) with permission.

FIGURE 6.6  Relationship between a beneficial cycle and other biothropic or anthropic cycles, oriented toward eco-effectiveness, socioeffectiveness, and eco-productivity. Adapted and translated from García-Acosta (2016) with permission.

Beyond Product Life Cycles

139

must remember that it was not until the early years of the present century – in other words, 17 years ago – that these concepts were first proposed. Additionally, the concepts of eco-effectiveness, eco-productivity, and socioeffectiveness are not compatible with the current economic model, based as it is on the idea that human well-being depends directly on financial economic development, without taking into consideration the depletion of resources or people’s living conditions and their satisfaction with the life they lead, over and above the economic aspect. This is why it continues to be a sociotechnical challenge to consider eco-effectiveness, eco-productivity, and socioeffectiveness in the nonhegemonic context of ecological economics, not as a utopia but rather as an unavoidable characteristic of a less anthropocentric and more holistic sustainability concept. A widespread adoption of the comprehensive approach to PstC could influence economic thought and practice, accepting the economic de-growth model as a necessary scenario toward a full accounting for environmental and social costs. A PDD designed from its initial stages on the basis of total environmental responsibility implies the generation of neutral or, better still, positive impacts. To achieve this, eco-effectiveness proposes that materials be used that have zero waste and even that, at the end of a product’s existence, its raw materials or components should be integrated into other anthropic cycles in two ways: (1) as technological metabolism processes, where 100% of their qualities and properties are exploited as materials or energy, and (2) as biological metabolism processes, where anthropic components or materials are converted into nutrients that preserve and restore ecosystems. Following this line of thought, eco-productivity, a concept that has been studied very little in literature to date, aims for technology to be innovative and friendly, in the sense that it produces no negative impacts, in the development of processes, products, and services that are truly sustainable (with technological and biological metabolism as the target). Eco-productivity insists on the long-term rational and responsible use of renewable resources and energy, which will, on the one hand, lead to the continued availability of natural resources, and, on the other hand, maintain human well-being when using products and services by means of a dynamic equilibrium between systems, in the broadest sense. Eco-productivity therefore is concerned with maintaining a balance that is sustained over time between the use of materials, energy, and information. Generally, anthropic systems take materials, energy, and information from biothropic systems indiscriminately, producing imbalances. In order to avoid imbalance, it is necessary to define limits that guarantee natural regenerative cycles (i.e., their ability to renew themselves). Similarly, a PDD that is conceived from its initial stages with full social responsibility implies doing more than preventing workers involved in making products from falling sick or suffering accidents as a result of their work activities, or ensuring that products and services do not have negative impacts on users, either individually or collectively. If socioeffectiveness is to be achieved, there is a need to promote an improvement in people’s and communities’ quality of life that goes beyond the purely economic dimension. It implies promoting aspects like welfare, dignity, and people realizing themselves as social subjects, all of which are related to a scale of values that moves from a purely anthropocentric focus to an ecospheric one that extends beyond hegemonic, economic values (see Figure 6.6).

140

Human Factors for Sustainability

HFE PERSPECTIVES WITHIN PSTCS FOR SUSTAINABILITY-ORIENTED PDDS The previous sections have conceptualized why it is important to go beyond the product life cycle concept if the aim is to truly contribute to sustainability. The product sociotechnical cycle concept has been proposed as an alternative, and three scenarios for relationships between PDD cycles and other (anthropic and biothropic) cycles have been outlined. Under the proposed PstC model, HFE, with all its different facets and aspects as stated by the International Ergonomics Association (2018), can contribute to achieving production systems and products that can promote sustainable development or sustainability, depending on such things as the development stage where intervention takes place and the scope of the intervention. When HFE intervenes in a part of the PstC (as usually happens), it helps to partially improve product efficiency and effectiveness. But unless the whole existence cycle is viewed and considered systematically, the result is a very limited contribution with minimal responsibility. For HFE to really contribute to eco-efficiency, socioefficiency, eco-effectiveness, socioeffectiveness, and eco-productivity, it is necessary to go beyond silo thinking, and one way of doing this is to adopt the proposed PstC model. In the extended product cycle scenario, namely where developments are oriented toward eco-efficiency and socioefficiency, HFE should continue to work alongside traditional, human-oriented design lines, such as user-centered design, usability, and universal design (García-Acosta et al., 2011; Puentes-Lagos et al., 2013), since these are approaches that are clearly oriented toward system socioefficiency. However, there is a need for HFE to approach not only social factors but also environmental ones. One alternative is to apply the principles of ergoecology (García-Acosta et al., 2014) and green ergonomics (Thatcher, 2013), so that the result can contribute symmetrically to eco-efficiency and socioefficiency. If the aim is to assume environmental and social responsibility, fully and in parallel – in other words, to adopt an approach that is oriented toward eco-effectiveness, socioeffectiveness, and eco-productivity – HFE needs to go beyond the hegemonic paradigm. This paradigm has been guided by concepts and values like productivity, economic profitability, and efficiency (Wilkin, 2010). HFE has to work not only toward worker health and safety in production processes or product usability but also toward quality of life, as some authors have already mentioned (Hancock & Drury, 2011; Dekker et al., 2013). An HFE approach to socioeffectiveness implies promoting personal growth, in terms of emotional and spiritual well-being, toward happiness and leading a dignified life where satisfaction is not simply something physical based on personal possessions. A movement toward eco-productivity and eco-effectiveness implies that HFE, based on its systemic approach, should be capable of modeling, from systems-of‑systems (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016), the different scales of positive impacts, interdependencies, and synergic points, so that anthropic and biothropic systems can maintain symbiotic relationships, dynamic equilibrium, and interchange balances over time.

Beyond Product Life Cycles

141

REFERENCES Alting, L., & Legarth, J. B. (1995). Life cycle engineering and design. CIRP AnnalsManufacturing Technology, 44(2), 569–580. Ameri, F., & Dutta, D. (2005). Product lifecycle management: Closing the knowledge loops. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 2(5), 577–590. Andersen, M. S. (2017). An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular economy. Global Journal of Human-Social Science (B), 17(4), 6–14. Ayres, R. U. (2004). On the life cycle metaphor: Where ecology and economics diverge. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 425–438. Bonner, J. T. (1993). Life Cycles: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Braungart, M., McDonough, W., & Bollinger, A. (2007). Cradle-to-cradle design: Creating healthy emissions – A strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13–14), 1337–1348. Buzzell, R. D. (1966). Competitive behavior and product life cycles. In: J. S. Wright & J. L. Goldstucker (Eds.), New Ideas for Successful Marketing (pp. 46–68). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Cao, H., & Folan, P. (2012). Product life cycle: The evolution of a paradigm and literature review from 1950–2009. Production Planning and Control, 23(8), 641–662. Cox, W. E. (1967). Product life cycles as marketing models. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 375–384. Dean, J. (1950). Pricing Policies for New Products. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dekker, S. W., Hancock, P. A., & Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability: Towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56(3), 357–364. Dowling, G. R., & Cooper, J. A. (1989). Simulating the life cycles of products and services. Behavioral Science, 34(4), 291–304. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. Enis, B. M., La Garce, R., & Prell, A. E. (1977). Extending the product life cycle. Business Horizons, 20(3), 46–56. García-Acosta, G. (2002). La ergonomía desde la visión sistémica. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. García-Acosta, G. (2016). Modelo de ciclos socio-tecnológicos para productos social y ambientalmente responsables. Caso: Corte intensivo de rosas con energía humana. (Tesis doctoral). Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. García-Acosta, G., Lange-Morales, K., Puentes-Lagos, D., & Ruiz-Ortiz, M. (2011). Addressing human factors and ergonomics in design process, product life cycle, and innovation: Trends in consumer product design. In: W. Karwowski, M. M. Soares, & N. A. Stanton (Eds.), Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Product Design: Methods and Techniques (pp. 133–154). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group. García-Acosta, G., Saravia Pinilla, M. H., & Riba i Romeva, C. (2012). Ergoecology: Evolution and challenges. Work, 41, 2133–2140. García-Acosta, G., Saravia-Pinilla, M. H., Romero Larrahondo, P. A., & Lange Morales, K. (2014). Ergoecology: Fundamentals of a new multidisciplinary field. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(2), 111–133. Greiner, A., & Hanusch, H. (1993). Cyclic Product Innovations or: A Simple Model of the Product Life Cycle. Inst. für Volkswirtschaftlehre, Univ. Augsburg. Hancock, P. A., & Drury, C. G. (2011). Does human factors/ergonomics contribute to the quality of life? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12(5), 416–426.

142

Human Factors for Sustainability

Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Elfte Auflage 1967. Heuss, E. (1965). Allgemeine Markttheorie. Tübingen: Mohr. International Ergonomics Association. (2018). Definition and Domains of Ergonomics. Retrieved from: https://www.iea.cc/whats/. Krasowski, H. (2002). Life Cycle Engineering Environmental Management Accounting: Informational and Institutional Developments (pp. 153–157). Springer. Lange Morales, K. (1997). ¿Hacia el diseño de objetos más humanos? Productos únicos fabricados en serie (Tesis de grado). Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landívar. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 18, 81–94. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2001). The next industrial revolution. In: Charter, M. & Tischner, U. (Eds.) Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future (Vol. 139, pp. 139–150). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing in association with GSE Research. Michael, G. C. (1971). Product petrification: A new stage in the life cycle theory. California Management Review, 14(1), 88–91. Patton, A. (1959). Stretch your product’s earning years: Top management’s stake in the product life cycle. Management Review, 48(6), 9–14. Pearce, D., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. London: Harvester Wheat Sheaf. Polli, R., & Cook, V. (1969). Validity of the product life cycle. The Journal of Business, 42(4), 385–400. Puentes Lagos, D. E., García‑Acosta, G., & Lange Morales, K. (2013). Tendencias en diseño y desarrollo de productos desde el factor humano: Una aproximación a la responsabilidad social. Iconofacto, 9(12), 71–97. Pugh, S. (1991). Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley. Retrieved from: https://76p9hn9jdn112.storage.googleapis.com/ EgdmghohT8nbnuU3b812.pdf [Accessed January 27, 2019]. Real Academia Española. (2017). In RAE – Diccionario de la lengua española (21st ed.). Retrieved from: http://dle.rae.es/?id=99n6fhR [Accessed January 27, 2018]. Riba Romeva, C. (2002). Diseño Concurrente (Vol. 126). Barcelona: Edicions UPC. Riis, S. (2008). The symmetry between Bruno Latour and Martin Heidegger: The technique of turning a police officer into a speed bump. Social Studies of Science, 38(2), 285–301. Rosnay, J. (1977). El macroscopio: Hacia una visión global. Madrid: A.C., D.L. Saravia-Pinilla, M. H., Daza-Beltrán, C., & García-Acosta, G. (2016). A comprehensive approach to environmental and human factors into product/service design and development: A review from an ergoecological perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 62–71. Segerstrom, P. S., Anant, T. C., & Dinopoulos, E. (1990). A Schumpeterian model of the product life cycle. The American Economic Review, 80(5), 1077–1091. Segura-Duque, V. (2018). La asimetría social-ambiental en el diseño y desarrollo de productos. Un abordaje teórico-práctico (Tesis maestría). Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207. Vernon, R. (1979). The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41(4), 255–267. Vinck, D. (2012). Pensar la técnica. Universitas Philosophica, 58(29), 17–37.

Beyond Product Life Cycles

143

Welford, R. (1997). Hijacking Environmentalism: Corporate Responses to Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Wells, L. T., Jr. (1968). A product life cycle for international trade? Journal of Marketing, 32(3), 1–6. Wells, W. D., & Gubar, G. (1966). Life cycle concept in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(4), 355–363. Wilkin, P. (2010). The ideology of ergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(3), 230–244. 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 (pp. 3–18). Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.

7

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice Getting Through Initial Difficulties of the New Approach Marina Jentsch

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 146 The UNEP-SETAC Guidelines for S-LCA............................................................. 147 Definitions.......................................................................................................... 147 The Coverage of Social Impacts: Stakeholders and Subcategories................... 148 The Four Phases of the Assessment Process ..................................................... 149 Phase 1 – Goal and Scope............................................................................. 149 Phase 2 – Life Cycle Inventory .................................................................... 150 Phase 3 – Life Cycle Impact Assessment...................................................... 152 Phase 4 – Life Cycle Interpretation............................................................... 153 Limitations of S-LCA........................................................................................ 154 S-LCA in Practice: A Multiple Case Study............................................................ 155 Methodology...................................................................................................... 155 Challenges of S-LCA in Practice....................................................................... 156 Data Availability and Quality........................................................................ 160 Data Aggregation Challenges........................................................................ 161 Discussion of Areas of Improvement and the Need for Further Research......... 162 Standardization of Processes, Impact Categories, or Databases................... 162 Simplification to Improve Feasibility............................................................ 163 Methodology Refinement to Improve Validity.............................................. 164 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 166 References............................................................................................................... 167

145

146

Human Factors for Sustainability

INTRODUCTION Ever since the concept of corporate sustainability emerged in the last decades, the challenge to measure its economic, environmental, and social dimensions has been keeping practitioners and researchers busy. Being able to estimate sustainability impacts of their products and processes, companies can integrate this knowledge into risk management systems and implement appropriate due diligence mechanisms. They can also differentiate between more or less urgent issues and, thus, focus their sustainability strategies toward significant improvements and meaningful change. In addition, awareness of own social and environmental impacts can serve as a foundation for a stakeholder dialogue and sustainability accounting or support marketing by providing ethical consumers with sufficient information for their product choices. Furthermore, it is easier to justify investments in sustainability initiatives to company’s shareholders if the “return on investment” for these initiatives, which has often been questioned, can actually be measured. These arguments explain the development of numerous tools to measure sustainability impacts and performance. One of them is the life cycle assessment (LCA); its distinctive feature is a broad view on products and services over their complete life cycles – from the extraction of raw materials, through production, use, and maintenance, to the disposal of products. The focus on the entire life cycle corresponds to the current expectation of stakeholders who hold companies responsible for social and environmental issues in their supply chains and for the path of products after they leave the production site. Thus, ensuring sustainability standards for processes within the company is considered to be not enough. This is understandable as violations of social and environmental standards are known to take place mostly in low-income countries where the governments are not willing or capable to enforce laws on responsible production. It is no secret that supply chains of Western multinational enterprises are often situated exactly in such countries. Besides, recycling processes bearing the risks of health damage and environmental pollution are sometimes also outsourced to low-income countries, for example, in the case of electronics (Kron & Fischer, 2012). For these reasons, LCA is increasingly getting attention in sustainability research and practice. In line with the three pillars of sustainability, different instruments were developed: environmental LCA (E-LCA) to assess impacts of products on climate and environment, life cycle costing (LCC) to calculate product costs, and social LCA (S-LCA) to measure social impacts. Furthermore, different holistic approaches were proposed to combine the three tools and demonstrate the overall life cycle impact of products, e.g., product sustainability assessment (Grießhammer et al., 2007) or life cycle sustainability assessment (UNEP-SETAC, 2011). Whereas E-LCA and LCC evolved to well-established management tools, the development of S-LCA as the youngest instrument turns out to be a challenging process. A number of assessment tools have been created up to now, using different methodologies, covering various social aspects, and having unequal levels of rigor. With the “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products”* having been published by the Life Cycle Initiative of the United Nations Environment * The document is referred to as “the Guidelines” further in this chapter.

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

147

Programme (UNEP) and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in 2009 (UNEP-SETAC, 2009), the first step was taken to create a systematic rule-guided framework for S-LCA. The Guidelines explicitly called for and actually inspired numerous publications of case studies, specific frameworks, methodology discussions, and literature reviews, promoting S-LCA to a new popular field of study in sustainability research. Despite these intensive research activities of the last years, S-LCA is still considered to be in a “prescientific stage” (Iofrida, de Luca, Strano, & Gulisano, 2016). Researchers and practitioners still face a number of challenges while trying to develop and implement S-LCA tools for single products or whole industries, for manufacturing processes or organizations. This chapter aims to present the UNEP-SETAC (2009) framework and practical experience from 25 case studies in the manufacturing industry, including the difficulties faced by S-LCA practitioners as well as proposed solutions and the need for further research.

THE UNEP-SETAC GUIDELINES FOR S-LCA The first effort to bring together social impact assessment and life cycle thinking is ascribed to the German Öko-Institut that developed its initial methodology of the product-line analysis in the 1980s (Öko-Institut, 1987). Another initiative was started in 1993 with a SETAC workshop on LCA, which was followed by the formation of an international working group on the topic (Benoît Norris, 2012, p. 433; UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 17–18). Since then, social and natural scientists have been doing interdisciplinary research on appropriate social criteria, aspects of operationalization, system boundaries, and interdependencies between social, environmental, and economic impacts. Ten years later, a task force on S-LCA was founded within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative in order to cope with the hampering progress of the tool. The first feasibility study (Grießhammer et al., 2006) could not state fundamental problems that would make S-LCA impossible. The then developed framework was made a subject of a multistakeholder consultation, resulting in the publication of the Guidelines, which are now considered a major milestone in S-LCA research and development (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 17–18).

Definitions The Guidelines define S-LCA as “a social impact (and potential impact) assessment technique that aims to assess the social and socio-economic aspects of products and their positive and negative impacts along their life cycle encompassing extraction and processing of raw materials; manufacturing; distribution; use; re-use; maintenance; recycling; and final disposal” (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 37). This comprehensive view at the life cycle corresponds to the understanding of the environmental life cycle as a “cradle-to-grave” (see Figure 7.1) path of a product, which was expressed in two environmental management standards published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006a) and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b). Additionally, ISO 14040 accepts the application of LCA to parts of the life cycle (e.g., cradle-to-gate instead of the complete cradle-to-grave assessment) (ISO, 2006a, p. 19).

148

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 7.1  Life cycle as a cradle-to-grave path of a product.

Social impacts are understood in the Guidelines as consequences of pressures on social endpoints. Endpoints and midpoints are well-established terms for impact categories in E-LCA, the former standing for environmental damages caused to an Area of Protection (e.g., the biotic natural environment) and the latter for environmental problems that lead to such final damages (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 70). For S-LCA, the Guidelines provided three examples of endpoint categories: human capital, cultural heritage, and human well-being. Possible midpoints for the category of human well-being would be health, safety, equal opportunities, participation and influence, etc. (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 71). The Area of Protection in S-LCA is a cluster of category endpoints of recognizable value to society (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 98). Social impacts are consequences of social interactions linked to the context of an activity (e.g., production, consumption, or disposal). They can originate from behaviors or decisions (e.g., prohibition of trade unions), socioeconomic processes (e.g., investment in infrastructure), or capital (human, social, or cultural) (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 43). The S-LCA methodology proposed by the Guidelines was developed in accordance with the well-established framework for E-LCA as described in ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006a) and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b). It is a systematic approach with clearly defined contents and process phases.

The Coverage of Social Impacts: Stakeholders and Subcategories The UNEP-SETAC (2009, p. 49) framework proposed to assess social impacts grouped into 31 subcategories, which can be classified by stakeholders affected by these impacts (worker, local community, society, consumers, and value chain actors; see Figure 7.2). The authors acknowledged the risk of personal, cultural, and political subjectivity while choosing and evaluating social impacts. To avoid this, they suggested categories and subcategories based on international standards and instruments negotiated by a number of countries, such as fundamental conventions on workers’ rights as published by the International Labour Organization (ILO) (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 48; ILO, 1998). To support practitioners in designing S-LCA approaches, methodological sheets on each of the proposed subcategories were developed and

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

149

FIGURE 7.2  Impact subcategories mapped to affected stakeholders. (Adapted from: UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 49).

published by UNEP-SETAC (2013). These include information on relevant international conventions and agreements, sources for generic and site-specific data, and examples of possible indicators.

The Four Phases of the Assessment Process The technical framework for S-LCA comprises four phases in accordance with the standard process for E-LCA: the goal and scope definition, the life cycle inventory, the life cycle impact assessment, and the life cycle interpretation (Figure 7.3). Phase 1 – Goal and Scope To start the process, the purpose of the study and its intended use are to be determined so that the study itself can then be designed for these particular goals. The overall aim of S-LCA is to enable improvement of social and socioeconomic performance of a product for all its stakeholders. But the objectives of specific studies can differ. They can be used to identify social hotspots, to improve particular social aspects of products, to qualify a product for labeling, or to support marketing (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 50). Next, the study’s scope and the limits of the product’s life cycle under analysis should be defined in line with the determined goals. Similar to E-LCA, the Guidelines

150

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 7.3  The process of S-LCA.

proposed to depict the product system in form of a process flowchart including all the processes along the supply chain (also energy and materials that support the production). An important step while depicting the product system is the definition of the product functions, the functional unit, and the reference flows. Product functions refer both to technical utility (e.g., functionality, design) and social utility of the product (e.g., image). A functional unit is a quantified performance of a product system that is based on the function and includes obligatory product properties. A quantified amount of products and parts necessary for a product system to deliver this performance is called a reference flow. Such flows build the basis for modeling the product system as they provide a reference for weighing the share of companies involved in the supply chain. So, reference flows allow determining inputs of different organizations necessary to deliver the function. In order to define such shares, an activity variable needs to be expressed and measured for each company (e.g., added monetary value or working hours) (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 51–54). Once the product system is clear, the case- and context-specific decisions on which data to collect for each process are to be made: the choice of relevant impact categories and subcategories as well as an appropriate kind of data (generic or site specific). For this purpose, it’s important to involve relevant stakeholders along the life cycle stages. In general, the dialogue between stakeholders, decision makers, and commissioners of the study should become an important part of the S-LCA process (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 50, 57). Phase 2 – Life Cycle Inventory The aim of the second phase in the S-LCA process is to gather life cycle inventory information on all the unit processes linked by product flows. The objectives are to collect and validate the data, model the system, and refine its boundaries. The Guidelines conceded that on-the-spot assessments in all the companies involved in the life cycle would make the S-LCA too expensive and time-consuming and suggested developing a cost-efficient system that would only include a limited number of company visits and complement the data basis with hotspot assessments and desktop screenings (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 58–59).

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

151

The process of data collection includes several steps: Definition of the Data That Need to Be Collected and That Can Be Collected In this step, the location of unit processes and organizations involved should be determined as far as possible. Prioritization is an important part of this analysis, as it is not always possible to achieve the same depth of information for all the product processes. Applying an activity variable (e.g., work hours, added value) to calculate the relative significance of unit processes along the life cycle stages can be helpful here. Processes with the most workload or added value are considered to be the most relevant for on-site data collections (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 59). Identification of Hotspots A generic analysis can be conducted to identify significant social issues in the area where important parts of the life cycle are located. This regional information can also be coupled with industry data to obtain a more specific picture of social issues relevant for certain processes in a certain area. Unit processes associated with problems, risks, or opportunities of social impacts due to their location are named social hotspots. Similar to activity variables, information on hotspots can be used to select companies for on-spot assessments. Databases for generic inventory information available for the time being are the Social Hotspot Database (SHDB) developed as a follow-up project to the Guidelines (http://socialhotspot.org/; Benoît Norris, Aulisio, & Norris, 2012) and PSILCA developed by the German sustainability consulting company GreenDelta (https:// psilca.net/). The databases collect information from various data sources such as the World Bank, the ILO, or the World Health Organization (WHO) and match it with global input-output databases of world economy flows. Main Data and Reference Data Collection The next step is the process of data collection on the previously selected subcategories. To obtain the most precise evidence, inventory indicators are to be developed. Thereby, the study commissioners can use the previously mentioned methodological sheets as a basis (Benoît Norris et al., 2011; UNEP-SETAC, 2013). Instruments of main data collection include desktop research (e.g., literature review, web search) and on-site social audits (e.g., documentation of companies, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and authorities, interviews, focus groups, questionnaires). For the latter, it is important to identify and consult relevant stakeholders (e.g., employees, trade unions). The in-depth screening and monitoring should reveal problems but also positive impacts in the production chain. The result can differ from the generic hotspot analysis: on the one hand, some companies in a social hotspot area could have implemented effective management tools to avoid problems widespread in the region; on the other hand, not all the companies comply with regulations common in the region (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 61–62). An important part of the process is the collection of background information to support the main data evaluation. For example, to estimate the appropriateness of

152

Human Factors for Sustainability

wages in a company, S-LCA practitioners need to find reference data on living wages in the region and average wages in the industry (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 62). Validation of Data As there are no ready-to-use lists of inventory indicators for each subcategory, different indicators and survey methods can be used in S-LCA on one and the same product, which could lead to different results. Therefore, the Guidelines emphasized the importance of data validation as required by the ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b) and proposed several criteria of rigor: validity, relevance, and completeness of data; appropriateness of measurement methods; accessibility and documentation; and (un)certainty of the results. These criteria are briefly outlined (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 65–66) without providing detailed guidance. Allocation of Data to Unit Processes, System Boundaries Refinement, and Data Aggregation The allocation of flows to unit processes, which is also demanded by the ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b), is not always possible for S-LCA especially when qualitative indicators are used (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 62). If more than one product emerges from the system under analysis, it’s important to modify the system and separate the impacts related to the evaluated product. The S-LCA process can have an iterative character that could also mean the modification of system boundaries. In this case, a sensitivity analysis should be conducted. The Guidelines recommended practitioners to “attempt to characterise the sensitivity of their data” (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 63), which should also be applicable for qualitative data. Finally, the data collected in the course of the life cycle inventory phase are to be aggregated. During this process, it is important not to separate the results from the location, which should be taken into account in further assessment stages. Phase 3 – Life Cycle Impact Assessment The objective of the third phase is to evaluate the significance of the identified impacts. After aggregating the inventory data within categories and subcategories, the results should be related to reference information (e.g., international minimum standards), which would help to understand and interpret the study. Whereas environmental mechanisms used in E-LCA enable a cause-effect modeling linking inventory flows to potential impacts, a more general interpretation is used for social and socioeconomic mechanisms in S-LCA to deduce impacts from the inventory data (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 69). This process includes three obligatory steps in accordance with the ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b):

1. Selection of impact categories, subcategories, and characterization methods and models 2. Classification: linkage of inventory data to subcategories and impact categories 3. Characterization: determination and/or calculation of subcategory indicator results

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

153

Further optional steps such as normalization, grouping, and weighing can be included in the process (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 69–73). The Guidelines differentiate between two types of impact categories that can be derived from the inventory indicators. In type 1 impact categories, the subcategory results are aggregated in the form of social issues of interest to a stakeholder (e.g., human well-being) using performance reference points. Type 2 impact categories outline social impact pathways (causal models) translating inventory indicators into mid- and endpoints (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 71). Another method used to aggregate the findings is the Life Cycle Attribute Assessment that aims at summarizing the impacts for the whole life cycle (e.g., percentage of child labor‑free worker hours). Along with this vivid depiction, it is important to keep disaggregated results for unit processes (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 71). Subcategories as socially relevant attributes represent an intermediate stage between inventory indicators and impact categories in the aggregation process (see Figure 7.4). In the process of classification, the identified inventory results are aggregated to impact categories and can also be assigned to stakeholder groups (see Table 7.1). Characterization is the calculation of category indicator results. In E-LCA, they can be objectively based on clear factors derived from environmental sciences. In contrast, a rather formalized operationalization is used in S-LCA to characterize the impacts. Scoring systems based on reference information can be helpful here (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 72). Phase 4 – Life Cycle Interpretation The last phase aims at analyzing the results and drawing important conclusions. The process comprises several steps. First, the most significant findings are to be documented for generic (e.g., hotspots) and site-specific results (e.g., beneficial social impacts or violations of international standards). Next, the results are to be evaluated with the help of qualitative and (semi-) quantitative methods. What is important for both steps is to transparently communicate the research process, including choices on the level of detail and system boundaries as well as actions taken to ensure rigor and transparency. After these steps are completed, it should be possible to draw

FIGURE 7.4  Aggregation steps from inventory indicators up to impact categories. (Adapted from: UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 70–71).

154

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 7.1 Number of Publications in the Literature Review Arranged by Type of Research Type of Research

No.

1. Analytical papers and literature reviews

61

2. Case studies

74

• Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

13

• Mining and quarrying

3

• Manufacturing

23

• Electricity, gas, steam

22

• Water supply, sewerage, waste management

4

• Construction

6

• Accommodation and food service activities

1

• Real estate activities Total

2 135

conclusions and recommendations corresponding to the goal and scope of the study. The results can be structured and communicated in different ways depending on the target audience. The level of engagement with stakeholders should be an integral part of documentation (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 74–75).

Limitations of S-LCA The authors of the Guidelines named a range of limitations of their framework, which they explained with the novelty of the technique. Thus, the current boundaries of the assessment instrument are caused by the lack of tools (e.g., software, generic and reference databases), knowledge and experience (e.g., concerning causal chains or data aggregation), resources (e.g., to involve stakeholders), and skilled practitioners (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 76–77). Furthermore, methodological challenges could emerge from the number and nature of social impacts as described in the Guidelines (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 37, 44), which make assessment and aggregation processes very complex: • The life cycle perspective encompasses the entire supply chain including the use phase and disposal and making numerous impacts on a variety of stakeholders throughout the world possible. • Impacts on stakeholders can be extremely diverse: They can be actual (effects) or potential (risks or opportunities), direct or indirect, and they can affect stakeholders in a positive and negative way. • Social impacts could be viewed and evaluated from different angles: politics, economy, ethics, psychology, legal issues, or culture.

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

155

• Social impacts on different stakeholders can affect each other or even ecological issues and costs. Such interdependencies mostly remain disregarded in S-LCA. • Assessments combine generic and site-specific data, which can be a challenge for a transparent evaluation and communication of the results. Social effects are often not quantifiable and not easy to assign to a certain unit process. Similar limitations were also discussed in more recent publications such as literature reviews and theoretical research papers (Arcese, Lucchetti, Massa, & Valente, 2016; Grubert, 2016; Iofrieda et al., 2016; Sala, Vasta, Mancini, Dewulf, & Rosenbaum, 2016; Subramanian, Chau, & Yung, 2018). To deal with such difficulties, the Guidelines recommended each assessment study to find “the balance between comprehensiveness, usability and reliable results” (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, p. 77) and encouraged future research and case studies to test and further develop the framework (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, pp. 82–84). For the time being, the complexity of social impacts, combined with a lack of supportive tools and a limited pool of experience that needs to be accumulated, makes the S-LCA process time-consuming and expensive.

S-LCA IN PRACTICE: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY Case studies represent a valuable source of information for building theory with a strong linkage to empirical evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989). The multiple case study presented in this chapter examines whether S-LCA practitioners face the limitations of the tool outlined in the Guidelines or even further problems and how they cope with them. The results can help to improve theoretical frameworks for S-LCA.

Methodology The 25 case studies under analysis were identified with the help of the systematic literature review conducted in December 2017. After screening the databases Scopus and Web of Science, a total of 135 publications on the topic of research were found, which appeared after the release of the Guidelines – from 2009 to 2017. More than half of these publications are case studies conducted in various economic sectors (Table 7.1). The number of case studies testing S-LCA on various products has been constantly growing (Table 7.2). For the analysis presented in this chapter, the scope was limited to case studies on the manufacturing industry because of the complexity of its products’ life cycles and supply chains. Hence, it is especially interesting to observe how researchers cope with S-LCA for manufacturing products. The scope of the study included 26 documents (23 papers and 3 additional gray literature sources) covering in total 25 different case studies (one of the case studies was published in two papers; see Table 7.3).

156

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 7.2 Number of Case Studies Published Since 2009 Arranged by Year of Publication Publication Year

No.

2009

0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2 4 2 14 7 9 12 24

Total

74

Challenges of S-LCA in Practice In the analyzed case studies, various challenges and limitations were observed. First of all, S-LCA as a tool was interpreted in different ways. Even authors working with the framework proposed by the Guidelines had to deal with a lot of room for interpretation. As a result, case studies’ authors used different approaches while defining the life cycle and conducting the analysis. Further challenges were experiences in regard to data availability and quality as well in the process of data aggregation. Such difficulties led to additional adjustments of the methodology and as a consequence of the lack of comparability of results from different studies. There is room for interpretation of the S-LCA approach. The 25 case studies under analysis were found to be extremely diverse with regard to their concepts and implementations. As shown in Table 7.4, even if the majority was based on the Guidelines, the studies covered a different number of life cycle stages or process phases and handled the functional unit or the choice of data sources in various ways. As stated in the second section of this chapter, the guidelines emphasized the necessity to clearly state and quantify the functional unit that would support the estimation of impacts and comparability of results. However, only 15 of 25 case studies explicitly defined it while others only named or briefly described the analyzed product. As for the coverage of categories, only seven case studies included all five stakeholders proposed by the Guidelines (see Table 7.5). Others reduced the number of categories or added case-specific stakeholders like the “Government” (Bork et al., 2015) or “Citizens collecting organic fraction of the municipal solid waste” (Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014). The most considered category was the stakeholder group “Workers,” which was addressed in all the case studies but one. Two explanations are possible here: On the one hand, the worker-related data are easier

157

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

TABLE 7.3 List of Analyzed Case Studies No.

Product

Paper

Publication Source

1

textile product

Lenzo et al. (2017)

Sustainability (journal)

2 3 4 5

textile products textile products kitchen sink kitchen sink

van der Velden & Vogtländer (2017) Zamani et al. (2016) Peruzzini et al. (2017) Germani et al. (2016)

6 7 8 9 10 11

automotive industry run-on-flat tire airbag system catalytic converter IC packaging/semiconductor laptop computer

12 13 14

wood-based products wood-based products furniture

Karlewski (2016) Traverso et al. (2016) Baumann et al. (2013) Islam (2015) Wang et al. (2017) Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden, (2013); Ekener-Petersen & Moberg (2013) Siebert et al. (2017) Siebert et al. (2016) Bork et al. (2015)

J Clean Prod Int J Life Cycle Assess J Ind Inf Interg Conference proceedings PhD thesis Int J Life Cycle Assess J Ind Ecol Master’s thesis Int J Life Cycle Assess Int J Life Cycle Assess

15 16 17 18

bamboo bicycle frames cocoa soap sanitary pad shampoo

Agyekum et al. (2017) Ramirez et al. (2016) Musaazi et al. (2015) Benoît Norris et al. (2012)

19 20

Parsmo (2015) Hannouf & Assefa (2017) Foolmaun & Ramjeeawon (2013)

Int J Life Cycle Assess

22 23 24

gold jewelery high-density polyethylene production used polyethylene terephthalate bottles fertilizers food and drink sector metallurgy

J Clean Prod Int J Life Cycle Assess Conference proceedings J Clean Prod Int J Life Cycle Assess J Clean Prod Conference proceedings Master’s thesis Int J Life Cycle Assess

Martínez-Blanco et al. (2014) Smith & Barling (2014) Vavra & Bednarikova (2013)

J Clean Prod Int J Life Cycle Assess Conference proceedings

25

welding technologies

Chang et al. (2015b)

Conference proceedings

21

In further tables the numbering from Table 7.3 is used without repeating the paper.

to acquire than, for example, information on the impacts on local communities or customers. Company-level secondary data such as personnel statistics can be used for the category “Workers,” whereas other impact categories may demand thorough primary data collections. On the other hand, worker-related social issues like inhumane working conditions, occupational health and safety, or human rights violations are especially prominent in the overall sustainability debate. This underlines the

158

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 7.4 Frameworks of the Analyzed Case Studies Reference Framework

Phases Includeda

Functional Unit Named

1

UNEP-SETAC

up to Phase 4

Yes

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC own approach own approach own approach own approach UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC own approach own approach UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC own approach UNEP-SETAC own approach UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC UNEP-SETAC own approach UNEP-SETAC

up to Phase 3 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 2 up to Phase 3 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 2 Phase 1 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 Phase 2 part up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 4 up to Phase 2 up to Phase 4

Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No

25

UNEP-SETAC

up to Phase 4

No.

a

b c

Yes

Generic Datab

Company Datab

cradle-to-gate

Yes

Yes

cradle-to-gate cradle-to-gate cradle-to-grave cradle-to-grave cradle-to-grave cradle-to-gate cradle-to-consumer cradle-to-grave gate-to-gate cradle-to-grave cradle-to-gate cradle-to-gate cradle-to-grave cradle-to-gate cradle-to-gate cradle-to-consumer cradle-to-gate cradle-to-grave cradle-to-gate disposal only cradle-to-grave cradle-to-gate cradle-to-grave

Yes Yes Noc Noc Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Not clear

No No Noc Noc Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Not clear

technology

Yes

Noc

Scopea

When not explicitly named in case studies, the scope and the phase were deduced from process descriptions (especially when other frameworks than UNEP-SETAC were used). In cases where the study was conducted up to Phase 2, proposed data collection sources were marked. Other data origin: consumer survey in case studies no. 4 and 5; calculation of potential health risks of emissions in no. 25.

importance of ergonomics for value chain sustainability in general and for S-LCA in particular (cf. Chang, Nguyen, Finkbeiner, & Krüger, 2016; Wohland & Zink, 2014). Furthermore, even studies working with the same stakeholder groups often covered different subcategories. Some studies applied only one or two of the 31 subcategories named in the Guidelines (Table 7.1). Others tried to cover all of them (though missing data on some of the value chain stages) or proposed their own additional subcategories (e.g., Germani, Gregori, Luzi, & Mengarelli [2016] suggested including the subcategories “Professional training,” “Professional growth,” and “Employment scenario” for the stakeholder “Workers”).

159

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

TABLE 7.5 Stakeholders Included in S-LCA

No.

Worker

1

x

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xa xa x x x x x

25

x

a

Consumer

Society

Value Chain Actors

x x x

x x x

x

x

x

x x x x x x

x x x

x

xa xa x x x x x

xa

Local Community

Others

x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

Stakeholder categories were not explicitly stated in the paper and were deduced from the named social impacts in this study.

Though the life cycle perspective should encompass the entire supply chain, the use phase, and disposal, only nine cases actually followed the cradle-to-grave approach, and even these studies mostly excluded the use phase. Several reasons were named for omitting certain life cycle stages or production processes: e.g., an assumption of their negligibility for the overall impact (Islam, 2015, p. 33; Parsmo, 2015, p. 10) or a wish to improve the feasibility constrained by the lack of resources for a thorough analysis or the lack of adequate data (Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden, 2013, p. 139; Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 38; Smith & Barling, 2014, p. 946; Traverso, Bell, Saling, & Fontes, 2016, p. 3). The use phase presented a particular challenge for S-LCA practitioners that can be explained with the need for additional time-consuming data collection methods.

160

Human Factors for Sustainability

While other life cycle stages can be evaluated on the basis of country-, industry-, or company-level data, access to buyers and insights into their behavior are required to evaluate this phase. Data Availability and Quality Another challenge already mentioned in the Guidelines and observed in case studies was the limited availability and quality of data. The studies applied generic and site-specific data in different ways: 11 case studies combined both kinds of data; 7 studies worked with generic data, only identifying social hotspots based on country- and industry-level information; and 4 studies did not use generic country- or industry-specific databases and collected data only on site or conducted a consumer survey (Table 7.4). Difficulties in acquiring both generic and site-specific data were reported in case studies. Some authors openly stated that they failed to collect the data on a part of indicators considered essential by researchers or stakeholders (e.g., Ekener-Petersen & Moberg, 2013, p. 148; Hannouf & Assefa, 2017, p. 120; Lenzo, Traverso, Salomone, & Ioppolo, 2017, p. 17; Traverso et al., 2016, p. 4). Concerning generic data necessary for the identification of social hotspots and comparison of on-site results with the reference data, the lack and incompleteness of hotspot databases were regarded as the main obstacles. The databases named in the previous section of this chapter are in constant development, but at the time of the studies, practitioners criticized the following drawbacks: the low granularity of the Global Trade Analysis Project’s (GTAP) input-output model used as a basis for SHDB and covering 57 sectors and 113 countries and regions (Benoît Norris et al., 2012, p. 586); the lack of information, especially at the level of small business (Agyekum, Fortuin, & van der Harst, 2017, p. 1073; Lenzo et al., 2017); and the limited coverage of indicators – those proposed in the Guidelines and additional new ones considered important by the stakeholders (Hannouf & Assefa, 2017, p. 129; Zamani, Sandin, Svanström, & Peters, 2016, p. 10). Instead of using hotspot databases, generic information could also be acquired from other sources (e.g., evidence in literature or statistics published by ILO, WHO, etc.), though the experience with this way of data collection also showed various difficulties. So, information on social issues in literature was partly found to be inconsistent, not valid, or from unknown sources (Benoît Norris et al., 2012, p. 586). Besides, statistic data were not available for some indicators under analysis (e.g., van der Velden & Vogtländer, 2017, p. 325). Even some sources proposed in the methodological sheets from 2013 turned out to be not accessible at the time of the survey (Ekener-Petersen & Moberg, 2013, p. 148). The data partly appeared to be old or not comparable between countries because of different census year, different size of the population, or data availability on different scales – region, country, or continent (Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden, 2013, p. 131; Ekener-Petersen & Moberg, 2013, p. 148). Some country-level data were found to be not relevant for all the regions within a country or some of the industries (Baumann, Arvidsson, Tong, & Wang, 2013, p. 524; Ekener-Petersen & Moberg, 2013, p. 150). Further on, the absence of guidelines to correlate generic data to certain risk levels was considered problematic as decisions on which values to consider high risk or hotspot were left to the discretion of S-LCA practitioners (Zamani et al., 2016, p. 8).

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

161

As for the site-specific data collection, several problems with regard to data availability were observed in the case studies. First of all, the lack of supply chain transparency (Traverso et al., 2016, p. 9) challenged the depiction of the product system. Not only single companies along the supply chain but also their geographical locations were sometimes unknown. But even where the chains were transparent, getting information on a company level often remained a problem as S-LCA practitioners experienced a limited influence upon suppliers and ordering companies while trying to involve them in the study (Karlewski, 2016, p. 216; Lenzo et al., 2017, p. 17; Traverso et al., 2016, p. 9). In general, company-level data collection on sustainability issues is known for having methodological challenges, which have already been extensively discussed in the sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) literature (cf. Jentsch & Zink, 2017, p. 2004). Self-assessments completed by suppliers themselves, but also third-party on-site audits, often presented an incomplete picture of social standards or even got manipulated by suppliers, e.g., by providing false information or schooling employees on what to say to outsiders and what not (cf. Hoang & Jones, 2012). The analyzed case studies also observed similar challenges: e.g., the impossibility to check the entire supply chain including all the companies involved (Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 45; Traverso et al., 2016, p. 4), a positive self-presentation of companies (Karlewski, 2016, p. 216), privacy concerns (Agyekum et al., 2017, p. 1078), and feasibility constraints concerning employee surveys such as the need for shorter questionnaires and simpler language or unwillingness of employees to answer some of the questions (Bork, Barba Junior, & Gomes, 2015, p. 154; Agyekum et al., 2017, p. 1078). In the current S-LCA practice, the limited availability of data represents an influencing factor on the definition of the scope or the choice of data sources. This is problematic because such decisions can further reduce the studies’ validity as well as the results’ completeness and comparability. Data Aggregation Challenges Further limitations observed in the case studies emerged during the aggregation process and originated from the complexity and heterogeneity of social impacts: • mixing risks and true impacts while aggregating generic and on-site results (Lenzo et al., 2017, p. 17); • mixing commitment and evidence while aggregating company-level data (Hannouf & Assefa, 2017, p. 120); • possibility to assess one and the same indicator in different ways, such as in case of the indicator “Number of injuries”: some companies assessed all the accidents, and others excluded temporary staff or included only injuries resulting in a long absence from work (Karlewski, 2016, p. 216); • the necessity to combine information from three different geographical scales – country, sector, and company – caused by the limited data availability (Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 38). The guidelines suggested allocating the data to unit processes, for example, with the help of an activity variable (e.g., work hours). In doing this, some S-LCA practitioners

162

Human Factors for Sustainability

experienced difficulties in obtaining data (Ekener-Petersen & Moberg, 2013, p. 151). Others named the possibility to use the LCA database GaBi for this purpose, though, criticizing that its data were based on the U.S. economy and could be transmitted to geographical locations with dissimilar economic and socioeconomic conditions (Karlewski, 2016, p. 218; Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 46). Besides, using work hours as an activity variable for stakeholders other than the “Workers” was perceived problematic (e.g., Traverso et al., 2016, p. 8). The challenges faced by practitioners were categorized in this section in three groups: room for interpretation, availability and quality of data, and challenges of data aggregation. All in all, they led to adjustments in methodology and an emergence of diverse S-LCA tools. The consequences of such interpretations can be the lack of validity and comparability of results from various studies. If different practitioners would conduct S-LCA on one and the same product, they would adapt the framework to available resources, databases, time, etc.; therefore, they would most probably come to different results. The difficulties experienced by practitioners can be traced back to the fact that S-LCA is still in its early stage of development. Thus, if the assessment framework is expected to deliver information on socially viable materials, production methods, or locations and to provide the basis for managerial decisions or consumer choices, it still needs to mature and enhance the results’ validity and comparability.

Discussion of Areas of Improvement and the Need for Further Research In this section, possible solutions and proposals for future research named in the case studies are summarized and complemented with the observations of the author. Practitioners applied or pointed at the necessity of diverse approaches to the problems experienced while conducting S-LCA case studies. In this section, they are grouped into three fields of improvement: standardization of processes, impact categories, and databases; simplification to improve feasibility; and methodology refinement to improve validity. Standardization of Processes, Impact Categories, or Databases In reaction to the limited comparability of results from different surveys, a call for standardization (of processes, impact categories, or databases) was expressed in several case studies (e.g., Karlewski, 2016, p. 216; Lenzo et al., 2017, p. 18; Peruzzini, Gregori, Luzi, Mengarelli, & Germani, 2017, p. 31; Traverso et al., 2016, p. 9). To begin with, a consistent quantified definition of the functional unit as a unit of analysis is needed to support the comparability of results from different studies. As for the coverage of categories or subcategories, the standardization is difficult to achieve as the analysis is expected to be case and context specific. Stakeholders should be involved to identify the most important social issues in each particular S-LCA process. Hence, different lists of relevant subcategories can hardly be avoided. At the same time, stakeholder interviews on different locations along the global value chain would certainly provide a comprehensive set of impacts for a certain product. Ekener-Petersen and Moberg (2013, p. 153) underlined the importance of stakeholder identification along the life cycle to support the definition of relevant

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

163

impact categories and subcategories. To facilitate this, a standardized process of stakeholder detection and involvement would be an important task in the further development of the S-LCA framework. In contrast, reducing or even omitting stakeholder consultation for the sake of feasibility would be counterproductive as it would further hamper not only the comparability but also the validity of results. However, it should be noted that different views on which stakeholders to involve are possible. As noticed in the previous section, some case studies included other stakeholders than the five categories proposed by the Guidelines. In addition, other recommendations were found in S-LCA literature. For example, Chang, Schneider, and Finkbeiner (2015a, p. 4974) proposed to assess the impacts on children and even replace the other five stakeholder groups in LCA with this, in their eyes, most relevant category. The stakeholder “Children” was considered to be a critical one for the intergenerational equity as representing the link between current and future generations. Another example is the proposal by Ekvall (2011, p. 1–2) to include the social performance of governments and countries into S-LCA. The idea was grounded on known consumer boycotts of products to punish their countries of origin for unethical policies (e.g., military actions, apartheid, unsocial reforms). S-LCA taking into account the origin of products and raw materials would help consumers and organizations to consider perceived oppression on a national level while making purchase decisions. At the same time, the author admitted that it could be difficult to find an agreement on appropriate indicators as “no global consensus can be expected even on what is socially good or bad” (Ekvall, 2011, p. 2). As examples, he named the boycotts of goods from Israel through Muslim consumers because of the Israeli– Palestinian conflict and from Denmark because the government did not punish the press for publishing satirical Muhammad cartoons in 2006. These examples demonstrate that it could be difficult to find a generic agreement in the S-LCA research community as to which stakeholders or subcategories should be included in the standardized process and to what extent. Including experience of other relevant disciplines like human and social sciences or management tools could enrich S-LCA research. For example, discussion of life cycle impacts from the perspective of sociology or human anthropology could help to refine the set of impact categories and subcategories. Insights from stakeholder management and sustainability governance are certainly useful for the definition of important stakeholder groups and ways to approach them. As stakeholder involvement is required at different assessment stages and, for the time being, finding standardized procedures for this matter is an important area of improvement. Simplification to Improve Feasibility Most of the case studies had to apply simplification methods addressing challenges like the lack of resources or methodological limitations: • involving less stakeholders (e.g., Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 38); • omitting subcategories or indicators within a subcategory (e.g., Agyekum et al., 2017, p. 1078; Baumann et al., 2013, p. 524; Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 38; Smith & Barling, 2014, p. 946; van der Velden & Vogtländer, 2017, p. 325);

164

Human Factors for Sustainability

• restricting the number of life cycle stages or production processes (e.g., Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden, 2013, p. 129; Islam, 2015, p. 33; Parsmo, 2015, p. 10); • including a shortened list of materials while assessing complex products (e.g., Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden, 2013, p. 129); • using only one key social performance indicator, e.g., proposed as a method for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) lacking opportunities for a thorough assessment by Smith and Barling (2014, p. 949); • using generic data when site-specific information is not available (e.g., Hannouf & Assefa, 2017, p. 129; Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 38; Traverso et al., 2016, p. 4); • using approximations, i.e., transferring data from other geographical locations (Baumann et al., 2013, p. 524) or other materials (Islam, 2015, p. 33). Further adjustments were applied to deal with the lack of transparency along the life cycle, when actual countries of origin for analyzed products were unknown: • using statistically representative supply chains for consumption in a given country (Zamani et al., 2016, p. 3); • using data on global market flows to define countries of origin (EkenerPetersen & Finnveden, 2013, p. 129); • making assumptions as to the countries of production and developing alternative scenarios (Lenzo et al., 2017, p. 17; Islam, 2015, pp. 29–30). Such simplifications undeniably contribute to the improvement of the S-LCA feasibility and, as a consequence, could help to mainstream the approach. On the other hand, decisions to omit certain elements of the assessment process add to the lack of comparability. Moreover, as observed by Hannouf and Assefa (2017, p. 131), these adjustments could contradict the life cycle thinking, which aims to improve the social sustainability throughout the whole life cycle without shifting negative impacts from one part of it to another. A conscious decision to omit certain stakeholders (e.g., suppliers or local communities) or parts of the life cycle (e.g., the use phase and disposal) can ensure positive S-LCA results while fading out negative impacts in some critical areas ignored by the study design. Thus, simplifications should only be considered as a measure of last resort. And also in this case, it would be crucial to define clear cutoff rules and conduct the sensitivity analysis (cf., e.g., Zamani et al., 2016, p. 11). Methodology Refinement to Improve Validity In the current S-LCA practice as analyzed in this chapter, researchers were forced to adjust or simplify methodology in order to make feasible studies possible. As a result, case studies exhibited a range of limitations, which made the results less valid or sufficient enough to justify managerial decisions. Therefore, the need for future test and refinement of the framework was expressed in some case studies. Concerning the inclusion of omitted life cycle stages into the analysis, some authors simply proposed to replicate their approach with a wider scope (e.g.,

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

165

Traverso et al., 2016, p. 3; Wang, Hsu, & Hu, 2017, p. 796). Others called for the development of tools for these stages within S-LCA research and for the integration of results from other available tools into S-LCA. This was specially requested for the use phase assessment, which was problematic in many case studies. Furthermore, S-LCA could make use of findings and tools from other disciplines such as SSCM research. Insights from SSCM could help to create preconditions for effective supply chain assessments named in case studies: transparency in regard to all the physical locations along the life cycle (Traverso et al., 2016, p. 4) and improvement of cooperation and control of decisions along the supply chain (Lenzo et al., 2017, p. 18). As site-specific data were considered to be very important because of the cultural and economic differences between countries (Agyekum et al., 2017, p. 1079) and, thus, the limited applicability of generic information, it is necessary to integrate SSCM knowledge and practice in S-LCA in order to increase the share of company-level evidence along the life cycle. It could also be possible to set mutual standards for company assessments to reach the integrity of results. Of course, this will also be challenging as supply chain assessment methods used in different companies are diverse and certainly not completely overlapping. But as proposed by Hannouf and Assefa (2017, p. 119), new indicators could be created for available data. Another claim expressed in the case studies was the call for the improvement of generic databases (e.g., Hannouf & Assefa, 2017, p. 131). In a long-term perspective, an S-LCA database should be developed similar to the one for E-LCA or a water footprint. In this database, product-related data and the results from S-LCA case studies could be collected (cf. Karlewski, 2016, p. 221; Traverso et al., 2016, p. 8; Wang et al., 2017, p. 796). Alternatively or additionally, E-LCA databases could be complemented with social inventory indicators (Ekener-Petersen & Moberg, 2013, pp. 148–149). To improve the methodology, some authors repeated the urge to further develop and test S-LCA frameworks (Martínez-Blanco et al., 2014, p. 47; Vavra & Bednarikova, 2013, p. 5) as clearly stated in the Guidelines. Uncertainties and methodological shortcomings of the current S-LCA practice should be identified and described in future studies (Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden, 2013, pp. 141–142). Further research should also pay attention to the challenging allocation of data to the product and the unit processes as well as the aggregation and weighing of results (Ekener-Petersen & Moberg, 2013, p. 153; Hannouf & Assefa, 2017, p. 131; Siebert, Bezama, O’Keeffe, & Thrän, 2016, p. 5). Reliable weighting systems for the integration of assessments on all three pillars of sustainability – S-LCA, E-LCA, and LCC – should also be developed (Lenzo et al., 2017, p. 18). Refinement was further required for the presentation and communication of results. To be accepted as a basis for managerial decisions along the whole supply chain or to help to advocate for investments in sustainability initiatives within the company, they should be understandable and sufficient. Summaries and visualization (e.g., in the form of color scales) were found to be relevant for companies and, thus, very helpful for the dissemination of S-LCA in practice (Benoît Norris et al., 2012, pp. 586–587; Traverso et al., 2016, p. 9).

166

Human Factors for Sustainability

CONCLUSION As already assured by Grießhammer et al. (2006) in their feasibility study, S-LCA is not an impossible undertaking. After analyzing 25 case studies that tested this relatively new approach on various products of manufacturing industry, it can yet be stated that this undertaking is extremely challenging for the time being. Practitioners experience a range of limitations of a methodological and conceptual character. In this chapter, the challenges are categorized in three groups: room for interpretation of the S-LCA approach, data availability and quality, and the difficulties of data aggregation. For such a relatively early stage of development, these limitations are understandable. At the same time, they provoke doubts as to the accuracy and validity of the process and the reliability of the results. Thus, this “prescientific” character of S-LCA (Iofrida et al., 2016) hampers the acceptance and dissemination of the tool in the managerial practice. Still, S-LCA has great potential to provide companies with valuable information for the improvement of social standards along their production chains. For consumers, the tool can create a basis for well-founded product choices and, thus, support sustainable consumption. The results could also be used in the field of sustainable investment providing data for company rankings. For these reasons, the further development of S-LCA is certainly worth the effort. The possibilities of improvement were also discussed in this chapter. The authors of the analyzed case studies developed various strategies to cope with the numerous challenges of the S-LCA implementation. Mostly, they had to simplify the study design for the sake of feasibility. This is understandable as feasibility of assessment tools is a necessary precondition for their mainstreaming. Therefore, this aspect certainly rewards to be in focus of further research. However, it cannot be attained to the detriment of the reliability of results. Therefore, future studies should concentrate on the other two fields of improvement discussed in this chapter: the standardization of processes, impact categories, and databases and the methodology refinement to improve validity. Taking into consideration the variety of production processes and supply chains in different industries, it is hardly possible to derive a unified S-LCA framework that would be applicable to all the products. Still, it would be necessary to construct a standardized guideline including clearly defined rules within S-LCA processes, as for example on the choice of stakeholders and the intensity of their involvement. Furthermore, standardized frameworks could be developed at the product or product group level to enable a better comparability of results on similar products in different studies (e.g., when produced and assessed in different parts of the world). Valuable insights from the long-term research in related disciplines (e.g., ergonomics, sociology) and implementation experience with other management tools (e.g., as part of SSCM, stakeholder management) can help to cope with the complexity of S-LCA and benefit the professionalization of this important tool in future.

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

167

REFERENCES Agyekum, E. O., Fortuin, K. P. J., & van der Harst, E. (2017). Environmental and social life cycle assessment of bamboo bicycle frames made in Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 1069–1080. Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., Massa, I., & Valente, C. (2016). State of the art in S-LCA. Integrating literature review and automatic text analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 394–405. Baumann, H., Arvidsson, R., Tong, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? Opting for an empirically based approach to social life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(4), 517–527. Benoît Norris, C. (2012). Social life cycle assessment: A technique providing a new wealth of information to inform sustainability-related decision making. In: M. A. Curran (Ed.), Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products (pp. 433–452). Beverly, MA: Scrivener Publisher LLC. Benoît-Norris, C., Vickery-Niederman, G., Valdivia, S., Franze, J., Traverso, M., Ciroth, A., & Mazijn, B. (2011). Introducing the UNEP-SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(7), 682–690. Benoît Norris, C., Aulisio, D., & Norris, G. A. (2012). Working with the social hotspots database – Methodology and findings from 7 social scoping assessments. In: D. Dornfeld & B. Linke (Eds.), Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World (pp. 581–586). Berlin: Springer-Verlag GmbH. Bork, C. A. S., Barba Junior, D. J., & Gomes, O. J. (2015). Social life cycle assessment of three companies of the furniture sector. Procedia CIRP, 29, 150–155. Chang, Y.-J., Schneider, L., & Finkbeiner, M. (2015a). Assessing child development: A critical review and the sustainable child development index (SCDI). Sustainability, 7(5), 4973–4996. Chang, Y.-J., Sproesser, G., Neugebauer, S., Wolf, K., Scheumann, R., Pittner, A., Rethmeier, M., & Finkbeiner, M. (2015b). Environmental and social life cycle assessment of welding technologies. Procedia CIRP, 26, 293–298. Chang, Y.-J., Nguyen, T. D., Finkbeiner, M., & Krüger, J. (2016). Adapting ergonomic assessments to social life cycle assessment. Procedia CIRP, 40, 91–96. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Ekener-Petersen, E., & Finnveden, G. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA— Part 1: A case study of a laptop computer. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 127–143. Ekener-Petersen, E., & Moberg, Å. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2. Reflections on a study of a complex product. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 144–154. Ekvall, T. (2011). Nations in social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(1), 1–2. Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 155–171. Germani, M., Gregori, F., Luzi, A., & Mengarelli, M. (2016). Assessing social sustainability of products: An improved S-LCA method. In: A. Bouras, B. Eynard, S. Foufou, & K.-D. Thoben (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management in the Era of Internet of Things (pp. 529–540). 12th IFIP WG 5.1 International Conference, PLM 2015, Doha, Qatar, October 19–21, 2015, Revised Selected Papers. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.

168

Human Factors for Sustainability

Grießhammer, R., Benoît, C., Dreyer, L.C., Flysjö, A., Manhart, A., Mazijn, B., Methot, A.-L., & Weidema, B.P. (2006). Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects Into LCA. Retrieved from: http://www.saiplatform.org/uploads/Library/UNEP-SETACLifeCycle InitiativeTFonSocialIssues-FeasibilityStudy.pdf [Accessed January 20, 2018]. Grießhammer, R., Buchert, M., Gensch, C.-O., Hochfeld, C., Manhart, A., & Rüdenauer, I. (2007). PROSA – Product sustainability assessment. Retrieved from: http://www. prosa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/PROSA-gesamt_Finalversion_0407_red.pdf [Accessed January 20, 2018]. Grubert, E. (2016). Rigor in social life cycle assessment: Improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 481–491. Hannouf, M., & Assefa, G. (2017). Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment: A case study of high-density polyethylene production in Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 68(1), 116–132. Hoang, D., & Jones, B. (2012). Why do corporate codes of conduct fail? Women workers and clothing supply chains in Vietnam. Global Social Policy: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Policy and Social Development, 12(1), 67–85. International Labour Organization. (1998). ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Eighty-Sixth Session, Geneva, June 18, 1998. Iofrida, N., de Luca, A.I., Strano, A., & Gulisano, G. (2016). Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 464–480. Islam, K. M. N. (2015). Does a Catalytic Converter Cause More Loss of Lives Than It Saves? A Human Health Life Cycle Assessment Study (Master’s thesis). Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology. ISO. (2006a). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework (ISO Standard No. 14040:2006), International Organization of Standardization. ISO. (2006b). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines (ISO Standard No. 14044:2006), International Organization of Standardization. Jentsch, M., & Zink, K. J. (2017). Strategische Bedeutung eines nachhaltigen Lieferkettenmanagements. In: T. Wunder (Ed.), CSR und Strategisches Management, Management-Reihe Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 199–215). Berlin: SpringerVerlag GmbH. Karlewski, H. (2016). Social Life Cycle Assessment in der Automobilindustrie (PhD thesis). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin. Kron, M., & Fischer, K. (2012). Illegales Elektronikschrottrecycling: Beyond any governance? In: K. J. Zink, K. Fischer, & C. Hobelsberger (Eds.), Nachhaltige Gestaltung internationaler Wertschöpfungsketten (pp. 225–246). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Lenzo, P., Traverso, M., Salomone, R., & Ioppolo, G. (2017). Social life cycle assessment in the textile sector: An Italian case study. Sustainability, 9(11), 1–21. Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2014). Application challenges for the social life cycle assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 34–48. Musaazi, M. K., Mechtenberg, A. R., Nakibuule, J., Sensenig, R., Miyingo, E., Makanda, J. V., Hakimian, A., & Eckelman, M. J. (2015). Quantification of social equity in life cycle assessment for increased sustainable production of sanitary products in Uganda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 569–579. Öko-institut. (1987). Produktlinienanalyse – Bedürfnisse, Produkte und ihre Folgen Köln: Kölner Volksblatt Verlag. Parsmo, R. (2015). The Blood Wedding Ring: Assessing the Life Cycle Lives Lost in Gold Jewellery Production (Master’s thesis). Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.

Current Social Life Cycle Assessment Practice

169

Peruzzini, M., Gregori, F., Luzi, A., Mengarelli, M., & Germani, M. (2017). A social life cycle assessment methodology for smart manufacturing: The case of study of a kitchen sink. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 7, 24–32. Ramirez, P. K. S., Petti, L., Brones, F. & Ugaya, C. M. L. (2016). Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 2: Application in Natura’s cocoa soap. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(1), 106–117. Sala, S., Vasta, Al, Mancini, L., Dewulf, J., & Rosenbaum, E. (2016). Social Life Cycle Assessment: State of the Art and Challenges for Supporting Product Policies. JRC Technical Reports. Retrieved from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ d17ea14c-c4c0-11e5-a4b5-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [Accessed January 20, 2018]. Siebert, A., Bezama, A., O’Keeffe, S. & Thrän, D. (2016). Social life cycle assessment: In pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2), 1–12. Siebert, A., Bezama, A., O’Keeffe, S., & Thrän, D. (2017). Social life cycle assessment indices and indicators to monitor the social implications of wood-based products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4074–4084. Smith, J., & Barling, D. (2014). Social impacts and life cycle assessment: Proposals for methodological development for SMEs in the European food and drink sector. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(4), 944–949. Subramanian, K., Chau, C. K., & Yung, W. K. C. (2018). Relevance and feasibility of the existing social LCA methods and case studies from a decision-making perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 690–703. Traverso, M., Bell, L., Saling, P. & Fontes, J. (2016). Towards social life cycle assessment: A quantitative product social impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(7), 1–10. UNEP-SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Retrieved from: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/dtix1164xpa-guidelines_slca.pdf [Accessed January 20, 2018]. UNEP-SETAC. (2011). Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making Informed Choices on Products. Retrieved from: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/12/2011%20-%20Towards%20LCSA.pdf [Accessed January 20, 2018]. UNEP-SETAC. (2013). The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf [Accessed January 20, 2018]. van der Velden, N. M., & Vogtländer, J. G. (2017). Monetisation of external socio-economic costs of industrial production: A social-LCA-based case of clothing production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 320–330. Vavra, J. & Bednarikova, M. (2013). Application of social life cycle assessment in metallurgy. In: Conference Proceedings, the Metal 2013 – 22nd International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials. Brno, Czech Republic: University of Pardubice. Wang, S.-W., Hsu, C.-W., & Hu, A. H. (2017). An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—Part 2: Case study of labor impacts in an IC packaging company. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(5), 784–797. Wohland, J., & Zink, K. J. (2014). Social-life-cycle assessment (S-LCA): An instrument for macro-ergonomics in a globalized world? In: O. Broberg, N. Fallentin, P. Hasle, P. L. Jensen, A. Kabel, M. E. Larsen, & T. Weller (Eds.), Ergonomic Challenges in the New Economy. Proceedings 11th International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management & 46th Annual Nordic Ergonomics Society Conference (pp. 183–188). Santa Monica, CA: IEA Press. Zamani, B., Sandin, G., Svanström, M., & Peters, G. M. (2016). Hotspot identification in the clothing industry using social life cycle assessment—Opportunities and challenges of input-output modelling. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(5), 1–11.

8

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs Facilitating Sustainable Green Jobs Margaret Hanson and Andrew Thatcher

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 172 Definition of “Green Jobs”...................................................................................... 172 HFE Issues in Green Jobs....................................................................................... 176 Renewable Energy Production........................................................................... 176 Wind Energy...................................................................................................... 176 Design, Manufacture, Transport, and Installation......................................... 177 Maintenance.................................................................................................. 178 Solar Power........................................................................................................ 179 Design, Manufacture, Transport, and Installation......................................... 180 Maintenance.................................................................................................. 181 Biomass Power................................................................................................... 181 Design, Manufacture, Transport, Installation, and Maintenance.................. 181 Recycling and Waste Management.................................................................... 182 Recycling Collection..................................................................................... 182 Recycling Waste Sorting............................................................................... 183 Sustainable Agriculture...................................................................................... 183 Other Major Green Industries Not Already Covered......................................... 185 Cross-Cutting Issues: The Impact of Climate Change on All Workers................... 185 Increased Ambient Temperatures....................................................................... 186 Extreme Weather................................................................................................ 187 Priorities for Action Concerning the Impact of Climate Change on Workers......................................................................................................... 187 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 187 References............................................................................................................... 188

171

172

Human Factors for Sustainability

INTRODUCTION Climate change is arguably one of the biggest and most complex challenges currently facing global society. The impacts of climate change, and the efforts to mitigate them, will have an impact on the ways we work, travel, consume, and communicate as well as on many other aspects of our lives. While the negative impacts of climate change and other aspects of sustainability are already being felt (Landrigan et al., 2017; Rigaud et al., 2018), there are also numerous measures toward more sustainable living that are being undertaken. Many new jobs have emerged in areas that seek to directly address or ameliorate the serious negative impacts on our climate, energy systems, water systems, food systems, waste systems, and health services. It is anticipated that work in this area will only increase significantly in the coming decades. However, the new work opportunities that have emerged from trying to meet these emerging sustainability concerns come with their own challenges. Most notably, the anticipated changes in the climate are likely to make many previously comfortable jobs seriously uncomfortable and even dangerous. Changing the way in which we access energy, food, water, health care, education, transport, and construction requires jobs where work may need to be conducted under different and sometimes even hazardous conditions. However, we cannot say that we are creating a sustainable future unless we also consider the sustainability of these jobs themselves and what we can do as human factors and ergonomics (HFE) professionals to facilitate this sustainability. For example, some jobs are going to be hazardous from the start (e.g., the construction and erection of offshore windfarms or solar farms in deserts), while other jobs are likely to become more hazardous as the climate becomes more stochastic and inhospitable. The HFE profession urgently needs to investigate these issues to enable the design of “green jobs” that are themselves sustainable. This chapter focuses on the impact of the changing climate on work and workers from an HFE perspective. In it we describe what is meant by “green jobs” and, with reference to particular industries, discuss how HFE professionals may be able to contribute to ensuring that these jobs are safe, sustainable, without health risks, and best designed to suit workers’ needs, capabilities, and limitations.

DEFINITION OF “GREEN JOBS” Green jobs cover a wide range of different jobs in many different sectors and involve a diverse workforce with a wide array of skills, educational backgrounds, and occupational profiles. There are currently many different definitions of “green jobs,” as shown in Table 8.1. While there are some differences in these definitions, generally the common thread is that green jobs contribute, in some way, to the preservation or restoration of the environment. As such, green jobs are those that are concerned with the systemic relationships between humans and their environment where the focus is on ensuring that human needs are met while limiting the impact on the life-sustaining environment. This clearly fits within the domain of green ergonomics as outlined by Hanson (2013) and Thatcher (2013). They can include jobs that help to protect ecosystems

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

173

TABLE 8.1 Example Definitions of “Green Jobs” United Nations Environment Programme: “We define green jobs as work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity; reduce energy, materials, and water consumption through high efficiency strategies; de-carbonize the economy; and minimize or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution” (UNEP/ILO/IOE/ITUC, 2008). The European Commission: “covering all jobs that depend on the environment or are created, substituted or redefined (in terms of skills sets, work methods, profiles greened, etc.) in the transition process towards a greener economy” (European Commission, 2012). The International Labour Organisation (ILO): “Jobs are green when they help reduce negative environmental impact ultimately leading to environmentally, economically and socially sustainable enterprises and economies. More precisely green jobs are decent jobs that: reduce consumption of energy and raw materials; limit greenhouse gas emissions; minimize waste and pollution; protect and restore ecosystems” (ILO, 2011).

and biodiversity, that help reduce consumption of energy and raw materials, and that reduce waste and pollution. As the economy moves toward greater sustainability, employment is likely to be affected in a number of ways, including: (i) through the creation of new jobs in new industries (e.g., in renewable energy and pollution control), (ii) substitution of some forms of work with another (e.g., workers moving from work in fossil fuel energy systems to renewable energy systems; from landfill waste accumulation to reducing waste or recycling waste), and (iii) existing jobs are likely to be transformed through different work methods and materials that are more sustainable (e.g., greater use of robotics and artificial intelligence systems, which are designed to be more resource efficient). Of particular concern for many workers is the perceived loss of jobs and the need to reskill. For many jobs, this perceived threat is real (e.g., coal-workers), but it is estimated that the number of new green jobs will easily outnumber the existing jobs lost from a coal-based economy (ILO, 2008). What is needed is a just transition to a greener economy. In addition, green jobs should also be decent jobs that offer a fair income, opportunities for development, and equitable treatment (ILO, 2011). While the focus of work in these sectors is on protecting or restoring the environment, for these jobs to be considered truly sustainable, they should also ensure good occupational safety and health for the workers. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work website states that “green jobs need to provide safe, healthy and decent working conditions in order to contribute to a truly smart, sustainable,

174

Human Factors for Sustainability

and inclusive growth and meet the objectives of the European Commission’s Europe 2020 strategy.” Within the European Union (EU), green jobs fall within the Environmental Goods and Services sector; this is known as the Low Carbon and Environmental Goods and Services (LCEGS) sector in the United Kingdom. These sectors span the entire environmental supply chain, from research and development, through manufacturing into distribution, retail, installation, and maintenance services. Within the EU, the Environmental Goods and Services sector’s contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) had grown from 1.4% in 2000 to 2.1% in 2013, and its contribution to total employment in the EU had grown from 2.8 million full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 4.2 million over the same period (European Environment Agency, 2016). From 2014 to 2015, green jobs grew by 2.8%, with some countries (e.g., Denmark and Estonia) growing by more than 15%, while for other countries (e.g., coal-dependent Poland), the number of green jobs actually shrank (European Environment Agency, 2016). The European Environment Agency (2016) also predicts long-term growth in jobs in the green jobs sector. The OECD (2017) estimates that this could run into the tens of millions of net new jobs created in the renewable energy industry by 2030 alone. By way of example, Figure 8.1 shows the scope of green jobs in the United Kingdom and the total global sales for 2010/11 for activities in these sectors

Total Global Sales £milllion

6,00,000 5,00,000 4,00,000 3,00,000 2,00,000 1,00,000

Environmental

Low carbon

Hydro

Wave and tidal

Biomass

Renewable consulting

Photovoltaic

Wind

Geothermal

Carbon finance

Carbon capture & storage

Additional energy sources

Nuclear power

Energy management

Alternative fuel vehicle

Alternative fuels

Building technologies

Marine pollution control

Environmental monitoring

Noise and vibration control

Environmental consultancy

Air pollution

Contaminated land reclamation

Waste management

Recovery and recycling

Water supply & wastewater treatment

0

Renewable energy

FIGURE 8.1  Total global sales in the LCEGS sector (2010/11). Total global sales = £3 314 983 million.

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

175

(UK Government, 2011). Of course, this would be different for each country and region depending on the available technologies and potential renewable energy sources. Much of the growth is happening in developing countries. REN21 (2017) reports that “a paradigm shift is under way in the developing world, where billions of people still live without access to electricity (around 1.2 billion) and/or clean cooking facilities (around 2.7 billion).” In these countries, there are great opportunities for “leapfrog” technologies such as mini-grids, stand-alone systems, solar photovoltaic power, and wind-power-based mini-grid systems to be installed. According to REN21 (2017), renewable energy installations are growing fastest in developing countries such as China and India. With unreliable national energy grids and installed energy capacity lagging far behind the national demand, renewable energy is the most viable and most cost-effective way for many citizens in developing countries to meet their energy security needs. The recent rapid growth of jobs in these industries can be anticipated to continue over the coming decades, specifically in the renewable energy sector, green buildings, and transportation, recycling, agriculture, and jobs in the manufacture of green products, and all the organizations that supply these sectors (EU-OSHA, 2013). Many of the jobs in these industries present HFE risks that are well understood and for which significant knowledge exists for their management, for example, those in the construction industry, electricity power transfer, and office-based work. Many jobs in the supply chain for newer industries such as renewables are in traditional industries; for example, steel is required for the manufacture of wind turbine towers. Where newer industries are developing, many of the HFE hazards are familiar due to work in comparable industries; however, there may also be new and unforeseen HFE risks. In addition to the renewable energy industries, some traditional industries, such as construction, will see even greater moves toward “green activities,” such as using more environmentally sustainable materials and retrofitting buildings for energy conservation (Schulte et al., 2016). Furthermore, many jobs in traditional industries are likely to reduce their environmental impact, whether by design or default, for example, by using technology to help reduce travel. The OECD (2017) lists six green job industries that are likely to have the biggest impact over the next 20 years. These industries are renewable energy, recycling and waste management, green agriculture (e.g., organic farming), sustainable construction, sustainable forestry, and green transport. Due to the numerous issues at stake and the space constraints of this chapter, only the green jobs associated with renewable energy, recycling and waste management, and green agriculture will be presented here. These three areas were chosen because they are likely to generate significant numbers of new jobs in the next decade. The primary HFE issues in each of these industries are discussed. This analysis is based partly on an extension of Hanson’s (2013) previous reflections on the HFE issues in green jobs. However, it should be noted that because green jobs are still emerging, many of the hazards and risks may be unknown. It is for this reason that we recommend that further dedicated research is conducted.

176

Human Factors for Sustainability

HFE ISSUES IN GREEN JOBS Renewable Energy Production Global demands for renewable energy have resulted in the significant development and expansion of these technologies on an industrial scale. Currently viable renewable energy production methods include wind, solar, tidal, biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric. According to the OECD (2017), wind energy, solar energy, and biomass energy are likely to be the three biggest new job creators by 2030. In this chapter, it is not possible to cover the HFE issues in all these renewable energy production methods. This review will therefore concentrate on the HFE issues from the three biggest sources of renewable energy production over the next decade. There are essentially two different components that need to be considered: the design and installation of energy production units (which typically create temporary local jobs and permanent jobs, which are distally located) and the maintenance of energy production units (which typically create permanent local jobs). In their 2017 annual global status report, REN21 (2017) identified that there were 9.8 million jobs in the renewable energy industry worldwide, with 3.95 million of these being in solar energy, 2.8 million in bioenergy, 1.5 million in large-scale hydropower, and 1.15 million in wind power. This could grow to 20 million new jobs worldwide by 2030, with the largest increases being in biomass power (12 million new jobs), solar energy (6.3 million), and wind power (2.1 million) (OECD, 2017). The growth in renewable energy in the past decade has been particularly strong in wind and solar power. Solar PV global capacity has increased rapidly from 6 GW in 2006 to 303 GW in 2016, with almost a quarter of that growth being since 2015.

Wind Energy Data from REN21 (2017) show that wind power global capacity has grown from 74 GW in 2006 to 487 GW in 2016. The World Wind Energy Association (2018) determined that installed wind capacity was 536 GW at the end of 2017. There are two primary sources of wind power, both with their own challenges and hazards: onshore windfarms and offshore windfarms. China, the United States, Germany, and Brazil lead the way in installed wind power generation capacity. Within the United Kingdom – one of the top ten producers of electricity through wind – wind power is currently the most commercially viable renewable energy source (Renewable UK, 2011). Both onshore and offshore fields have been developed, although land and planning restrictions mean that offshore windfarms offer greater potential for large-scale installations. In the early days of the offshore wind sector, test sites and then windfarms were developed, usually relatively close to shore; as the technology has been proven, developments have moved further offshore into deeper water. The newer developments are likely to present additional engineering and HFE challenges such as longer travel times, hazardous weather conditions, unusual working hours, and complex decision making without managerial support. Offshore windfarms will continue to grow in the coming years and may include increasingly larger windfarms and turbine blades to maximize energy production. Clearly, this presents both

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

177

technical and human challenges, comparable to those faced by the oil and gas industry (Flin et al., 1996; Gordon, 1998). Design, Manufacture, Transport, and Installation Tveiten et al. (2011) identified HFE issues related to the installation and commissioning of offshore wind power. These factors included the physiological effects due to heavy lifting, repeated movements, and uncomfortable working positions; the hazards of working at height; slippery surfaces due to environmental conditions; and the psychological effects due to poor working and living conditions. Modern wind turbines typically have blades between 40 m and 88 m long, and a tower that is typically 65 m to 125 m high, depending on the blade length. The nacelle, at the top of the tower, houses the generator, rotor shaft, gear box, and braking mechanism. The hub onto which the blades are attached is itself attached to the nacelle. The installation of wind turbines therefore requires operating at height, sometimes under hazardous weather conditions (especially wind – that’s why the wind turbines are there after all). Tveiten et al. (2011) recommended that further research was necessary to develop international HFE standards or guidelines for operating under these conditions. First, there are HFE considerations in the manufacturing of turbine blades. Blades are made in two halves with a fiberglass shell impregnated with a resin. Although manufacturing processes may vary, operators are likely to be involved with several stages of manufacturing such as manually placing layers of fiberglass sheets within the blade mold, smoothing the layers to remove air bubbles and creases, and grinding and sanding the seal between the two halves of the blade. All of these tasks may require awkward postures, repetitive movements, and exposure to harmful fibers (Li & Buckle, 1999). The large pin bolts that will eventually attach the blade to the hub are manually inserted and tightened using a handheld torque wrench, again potentially posing musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risks (Cacha, 1999; Kadefors et al., 1993). Some manufacturing plants use robots to spray coatings on the blades, but in others, this may be done by operators, who obviously have to wear air-fed chemical protective suits while holding the spray equipment and stretching/reaching to ensure all surfaces are covered. The physiological and physical risks associated with wearing these suits and performing these types of tasks are well known and include the risk of heat strain, fatigue, and restricted vision and communication (Havenith & Heus, 2004; Kaywhite et al., 1991). Second, transport of the structures to the windfarm locations will require highly trained and skilled crane operators, drivers, and other personnel. Blades may need to be transported significant distances on public roads and negotiate existing road and roadside infrastructure (e.g., roundabouts, bridges, telegraph poles and trees, etc.). With their extreme length, this presents HFE challenges around communication, lines of sight, and locus of control. Although there is a great deal of work published on the HFE considerations of truck drivers in general (Massaccesi et al., 2003) and mining trucks in particular (Kumar, 2004), there has been little work conducted on the specific challenges of very heavy hauler trucks on public roads. Third are the HFE risks around preparing and installing the wind turbines. This involves preparing concrete foundations for turbine towers, positioning the tower in

178

Human Factors for Sustainability

relation to the concrete base, and installing the nacelle and the blades themselves. The positioning of the tower sections, nacelle, and blades require highly trained and skilled crane operators, with associated HFE issues such as communication, lines of sight, and environmental issues. Once again, there are MSD risks due to manual handling, repetitive movements, and awkward postures. In addition to these MSD risks, the work is also performed at height (with the associated safety attachment requirements) and could be undertaken in adverse weather conditions such as wind and rain. This places additional risks on the worker (Tveiten et al., 2011) as has been shown in other contexts such as the construction industry (Haslam et al., 2005), although wind is likely to be an additional hazard. Maintenance Typically, turbines require regular maintenance, with operators and equipment requiring access to the tower (Tveiten et al., 2011). Tveiten et al. (2011) identified that operation and maintenance of turbines are likely to result in HFE risks such as work at height, slippery surfaces, human error, lone working, and psychosocial effects (e.g., mental overload, mental underload, stress, etc.). Manual handling risks in moving materials and operators (especially for offshore windfarms) for performing maintenance tasks can be reduced through the position of stores/warehouses close to pontoons and the design of pontoons that facilitate the loading of supply vessels (e.g., provision of suitable winches). The design of vessels for transporting operators and equipment to wind turbines can also reduce manual handling risks. For example, the position of winching equipment at the prow of the boat can reduce the amount of manual handling required, but not all boats have suitable equipment, located appropriately. Packing materials and tools into containers that can be mechanically handled rather than manually handled would also reduce the musculoskeletal risks. Access to the turbines will present HFE issues, depending on their height, design, and location. Newer masts typically have internal lifts within the tower. However, the first generation of onshore masts, which are typically 60 m to 80 m, were built with an internal ladder. Access to the nacelle clearly poses a risk of a significant physiological strain on operators, who will be wearing a harness, hard hat, gloves, other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE), and their maintenance tools. Although intermediate rest platforms have been provided within some masts, there is clearly a risk of fatigue, with the associated risks of musculoskeletal discomfort and ultimately errors. Even with lifts within masts, the last 10 m up to the nacelle typically have to be climbed via a ladder, and fall restraint systems need to be used. Physiological fatigue may result from climbing and wearing PPE while carrying tools. Access to offshore masts is a particular challenge; normal access is from a boat onto an external ladder to a door 20 m above a calm sea level to allow for sea swell. Design of structures and equipment to ensure safe boat-to-mast transfers of operators and equipment in sea conditions presents a significant HFE challenge, even in calm weather conditions let alone adverse weather conditions (Tveiten et al., 2011). Albrechtsen (2012) argues that what is needed is better remote monitoring and surveillance systems to determine appropriate maintenance cycle windows and whether maintenance is actually necessary or not. The alternative would be to design robotic maintenance systems.

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

179

Limited space available within the turbine housing and blades may require working in awkward postures with associated musculoskeletal risks, although larger turbines have larger nacelles. Again, operators will be wearing PPE, which may further constrain postures and movements or the speed with which a task may be done. The nacelle that houses the turbine can become hot and humid, which, along with the wearing of PPE, could contribute to fatigue. With nacelles it is usually possible to open a hatch or the nacelle cover to improve the environment and to allow access to the top of the nacelle or the blades. The design of turbines and blades taking HFE into account could help facilitate maintenance and reduce HFE risks to worker. For example, in some turbines, the design of greasing points for the rotor has been altered from multiple points requiring repeated movements to a single entry point, which allows better postures and mechanical delivery. Another aspect to consider is mast sway – which is more significant on very tall masts. This can result in nausea or movement-induced illness for operators, with associated reduction in performance or risk of errors. Other environmental risks such as extreme temperatures and humidity could have an effect on operators’ performance (Pilcher et al., 2002), and HFE professionals can help with understanding the effect of these and reducing these risks through appropriate design of nacelles, work/rest scheduling, and provision of suitable clothing and PPE. Screening operators to identify those at increased risk of these problems may be required. There are a number of other aspects of this complex system, where HFE knowledge can help to reduce risks to operators. Those working on windfarms far offshore may stay in accommodation platforms or accommodation ships; the HFE issues associated with this are likely to be similar to those in the offshore oil and gas industry. Establishing appropriate scheduling, shift patterns, and durations and providing suitable facilities for recovery can help to reduce operator fatigue. HFE knowledge can also contribute to the planning of emergency access to high, potentially swaying masts; communications issues and control centers; and skills and training (Albrechtsen, 2012). Developing and embedding an appropriate safety culture will be particularly important as operators typically work in pairs on the turbines and direct oversight supervision by superiors is difficult. Embedding an appropriate safety culture may be a particular challenge due to the rapid growth of the industry, different training and requirements in different countries, and the movement of workers to different countries/offshore territories (Albrechtsen, 2012). Although there are some novel challenges in the production of wind energy, many are familiar from experience both in the offshore oil and gas industry, and from human factors integration (HFI) in large systems and engineering projects. The HFE profession has significant expertise to contribute to safety and efficiency in these areas.

Solar Power In terms of current generation capacity, there are two dominant types of solar power: solar heating and solar photovoltaic energy (PV). Solar heating involves using radiant heat from the sun to heat a liquid (usually water), which is then used for heating (e.g., bathing or cleaning) or cooling. Solar photovoltaic power, on the other hand,

180

Human Factors for Sustainability

converts light energy from the sun to produce electrical current directly that can then be used for other purposes. According to the International Energy Agency (2017), there was 401 GW of installed PV worldwide by the end of 2016, which is expected to grow to more than 1000 GW by as soon as 2023. Most of the installed PV is in China, the United States, Japan, and Germany. Worldwide there was an estimated installed capacity of 472 GW of solar heating at the end of 2017, although growth has been slowing. The occupational health risks of solar power are mainly related to the materials used in their production, which are known to be harmful to health and to the environment (e.g., Anam et al., 2015), and the musculoskeletal risks associated with their installation. Design, Manufacture, Transport, and Installation Many of the materials used in the manufacture of solar PV panels are known to be harmful to health (e.g., cadmium compounds, silicon tetrachloride, hexafluoroethane, and lead), and protecting the health of those involved in their manufacture and decommissioning can be supported by HFE professionals through the design of appropriate PPE and safe systems of work. The HFE issues would be similar to those raised when considering the manufacture of wind turbines except that the HFE issues would be related more to chemical PPE (Laitinen et al., 1998). The risks associated with the installation of solar power are typically lower and easier to manage in solar farms, which are usually land based, compared to windfarms (although floating solar farms also exist). Construction of the supports that hold solar panels is likely to pose MSD risks familiar to the construction industry (e.g., repeated movements and awkward postures) (Schneider & Susi, 1994). Similarly, the installation of solar panels requires significant manual handling, repeated movements, and awkward postures. Installation of solar panels on buildings (which are typically roof-mounted but can also be mounted on walls and in courtyards) presents greater manual handling risks, particularly where the existing building infrastructure has to be negotiated. Not all existing building infrastructure was initially designed for solar panels, and retrofitting solar panels requires working around existing infrastructure that is ill-suited for this type of work. The manual handling risks are likely to be high due to the size and weight of the panels, their awkwardness to handle, and the potential for damage to them while handling. Often work is carried out on a sloping surface to maximize the angle to the sun, work is often performed at height, and environmental factors (i.e., wind, rain, and extremes of temperature) could all increase the risk of injury. MSD and manual handling risks involved in their installation need to be recognized. Solar panels, which are typically 1 m by 1.6 m to 2 m (or larger if designed for commercial buildings or windfarms), typically weigh approximately 15 kg to 20 kg. Selection of appropriate PPE, tools, and panels based on HFE criteria, as well as consideration of handling aids, would help to reduce these risks. Another factor to consider, especially for solar farms, is the extreme weather conditions expected during installation (especially heat, sun exposure, and wind, as solar farms are typically installed in geographical locations that favor these conditions). Once again, previous HFE studies on work under hot conditions would be appropriate to consider here (Mairiaux, & Malchaire, 1985; Pilcher et al., 2002),

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

181

including PPE, work scheduling, and the provision of appropriate rest stations and replacement fluids. Maintenance The required maintenance tasks will be similar to those of the final installation tasks. Work will often be required to be performed manually, at height, exposed to the sun, under hot conditions, and in awkward postures. Similar HFE recommendations would also apply here. In order to ensure the efficiency of solar panels, they also require regular cleaning, especially from dust accumulation but also from other waste streams such as foliage and bird excrement. In addition, regular maintenance may be required to ensure that the solar panels are free from obstructions to sunlight. This could mean regular trimming of growing vegetation (and the HFE risks that would be similar to those experienced by forestry workers) and possible further retrofitting if developments to surrounding buildings encroach on sunlight capturing.

Biomass Power Biomass power generation typically takes place through the combustion of biological material (e.g., wood, agricultural by-products, or domestic waste) to produce heat energy that can then be converted into electrical energy. While biomass power generation can also take place through collecting biogases or generating heat through decomposition, this form of generation capacity is currently relatively small. Traditional biomass power (e.g., burning wood for heating and cooking needs) makes up approximately half of all renewable energy use especially in developing countries, but this proportion is decreasing due to increased modern renewable energy production and a reduction in traditional biomass use from shrinking supplies. For the environment, this is generally good, as while firewood is an efficient source of power, cutting down forests for biomass power (as is increasingly happening) has the net effect of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. According to REN21 (2018), there was 122 GW of installed modern biomass power by the end of 2017. Design, Manufacture, Transport, Installation, and Maintenance The HFE issues in the design, manufacture, transport, and installation of biomass energy plants will be very similar to those used for traditional fossil fuel energy plants. This includes the engineering requirements for installing and maintaining the physical components as well as the HFE issues of power plant control rooms (see Mumaw et al., 2000; O’Connor et al., 2008). However, there are also systemic risks that need to be considered. Thatcher and Yeow (2016), for example, drew attention to the risk that some farmers may convert arable land from food production to biomass production, thus jeopardizing global food security. While this concern doesn’t fall neatly into the traditional HFE focus, it does demonstrate that we need to think more broadly when considering renewable alternatives. Biomass power generation is most sustainable when situated close to a renewable (and systemically sustainable) biomass fuel source. Careful planning is therefore required in deciding where to place generation capacity and how this might change over the

182

Human Factors for Sustainability

lifetime of the generation facility. Applying the systems thinking from HFE would be quite important for this task. There are also HFE risks associated with the collection and sorting of appropriate biomass resources. Some of these risks (i.e., those related to the tasks of producing and harvesting biomass) are similar to those familiar to HFE in the agriculture sector (Rainbird & O’Neill, 1995). Other risks (i.e., those related to the tasks of sorting out appropriate biomass) are similar to those associated with recycling and waste management (see next section).

Recycling and Waste Management Recycling and waste management are not new tasks. However, in the last 15 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of domestic and commercial waste that is recycled, particularly in developed countries. It has been estimated that recycling creates approximately nine times more jobs than sending waste to a landfill in what has been termed the “circular economy” (National Resources Defense Council, 2011). In the United States alone, the National Resources Defense Council (2011) estimates that 2.1 million new jobs could be created by 2030 from the recycling industry. According to the World Bank (2018), between 1% and 33% (depending on the country) of the 2.12 billion tons of waste produced worldwide is recycled. Most of the recycling happens in richer countries, which also produce the most waste. A number of research studies in HFE have looked at the tasks involved in recycling operations. Recycling Collection In developed countries, wheeled bins that can be mechanically emptied into a collection truck have largely reduced the manual handling risks that had previously been present in domestic waste disposal (where bags were manually loaded into trucks). However, some domestic recyclable waste is collected from boxes placed beside the road (i.e., box collections) and manually sorted into different cages on a collection truck or sorting facility; this reintroduces a manual handling element to waste collection that wheeled bins had largely eliminated. Each box may not be excessively heavy, but the frequency of lifting and the awkward postures that arise when tipping the boxes into the collection vans pose a risk of musculoskeletal injury. HFE researchers have provided advice on the design of boxes and bins, collection vans, and the organization of work (Engkvist et al., 2010; Engkvist, 2010; Eklund et al., 2010; Krook & Eklund, 2010; Hemphälä et al., 2010; Oxley et al., 2006). In Sweden, recycling workers at collection centers have more than three to five times as many accidents compared to the total workforce, largely due to awkward lifting postures of heavy objects (Engkvist et al., 2011). The work in HFE has also looked at the design of recycling collection centers where end-users personally deposit waste for recycling (Engkvist et al., 2016). Musculoskeletal disorders account for approximately one-third of all reported work-related ill health in the sector, the majority of these being associated with collection activities (HSE, 2018a). Stress, anxiety, and depression account for over 40% of work-related ill health in the waste sector

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

183

(HSE, 2018b). In many developing countries, the situation may be even worse (and as yet, not fully documented). Waste collection often happens at landfill sites (and the associated hazards and health concerns) and must then be transported long distances to recycling plants (Souza et al., 2019). There is a significant amount of work that still needs to be conducted on waste collection under these conditions. Recycling Waste Sorting Following collection, hand sorting of recyclable waste typically involves repetitive movements and awkward postures. Once again, previous HFE work on manual handling (Ayoub & Mital, 1989), particularly manual handling of hazardous waste, would be relevant (Bensel, 1993). A number of recyclable materials pose hazards to the handlers. Broken glass, for example, has the potential to cut hands and fingers (as does broken plastic and metals) and the risk to the worker may be exacerbated by the presence of organic pathogens. A group of recyclable materials known as e-waste may contain several harmful substances such as lead, cadmium, beryllium, and brominated flame retardants. Sorting of recyclable materials is also conducted under unhygienic conditions where different waste streams need to be separated and recyclable materials need to be separated from nonrecyclable materials. The United Kingdom’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has undertaken considerable work in this area, with the aim of reducing musculoskeletal injury; this has included producing guidance for councils on the design of conveyor belts for manual sorting of recycled materials (HSE, 2012) and designing and operating material recycling facilities safely (WASTE-13, 2015). Around 4.8% of workers in the waste sector in Great Britain were suffering from an illness that they believe was caused or made worse by their work. This rate is statistically significantly higher than the rate for workers across all industries (3.2%) (HSE, 2018b). Because of the manual handling difficulties of sorting at a later stage in the recycling process, there are attempts to encourage consumers to sort-at-source. Durugbo (2013) investigated the use of recycling “chimneys” to aid the process of sorting-at-source. Boudra et al. (2018) have also proposed a study investigating the social relations associated with sorting-at-source. Despite a growing amount of work in this area, we would argue that there is still great scope for further HFE involvement.

Sustainable Agriculture This section focuses on farming methods for the production of food. The demand for organic food has significantly increased in the last two decades, with sales revenue increasing more than 16-fold from 1993 to 2015 and sales in the United Kingdom topping £2 billion in 2016 (Soil Association, 2016). At the end of 2016, an estimated 57.82 million hectares of farming area were being used for organic farming worldwide, up from 17.16 million hectares in 2000 (IFOAM – Organics International, 2018). There are currently 2.7 million organic farmers worldwide, increasing at a rate of approximately 12% per annum (IFOAM – Organics International, 2018). Organic farming attempts to be less harmful to the environment by using natural methods

184

Human Factors for Sustainability

of soil fertility, maintaining biodiversity through techniques such as crop rotation, using natural composts rather than artificial fertilizers, using renewable techniques of crop handling and avoiding the use of fossil fuel technology, and using natural pest control rather than chemically manufactured pesticides. Although organic farming may be less environmentally harmful, it is more labor intensive, which may give rise to physiological and MSD risks for workers involved in planting, weeding, and harvesting. In fact, there are probably lessons to be learned from the types of HFE risks in subsistence farming in developing countries (see O’Neill, 2000; Rainbird & O’Neill, 1995) that may be applied to understand the impact of some organic farming techniques. Instead of using chemicals to suppress weeds, hand weeding may be undertaken, especially when crops are very young. On commercial farms, this sometimes involves operators lying on a bed weeder (an adapted trailer) and being pulled slowly over the crop, weeding as they go. Although this practice may be better than bending or squatting, there are likely to be risks of musculoskeletal discomfort due to the postures adopted and movement of the trailer over uneven ground. Obviously, there are nearly as many methods of planting, growing, harvesting, and replenishing the soil as there are crop types (or breeding, feeding, and harvesting if we are talking about livestock types). What is common to all organic farming methods, though, is the reduced reliance on technological solutions that require large amounts of electrical power and fossil fuel power in favor of more environmentally sustainable methods. In practice, this usually means a return to more manually intensive farming practices favored by organic farmers and organic farming certifiers, although there are also instances of using robotic farming methods as an energy-saving mechanism. Heddad and Biquand (2018) have started an investigation looking at the design of handheld tools for organic farming. They have discovered that organic tool design is actually a complex systems issue in its own right as there are discrepancies between the requirements specified by the managers and those specified by the farmers themselves. There will also need to be HFE investigations that look at the design of the work itself. In particular, organic farming requires greater cooperation between organic farming collectives to ensure the integrity of the organic certification process (e.g., to prevent cross-pollination with nonorganic crops from neighboring farms). The organic farmer needs to pay a lot more attention to the sourcing of seeds, composts, and tools, and to keeping accurate paperwork of these transactions. Certain organic farming methods also involve paying much closer attention to natural weather cycles, solar cycles, and lunar cycles, which will involve developing news skills and scientific knowledge. Finally, as with the installation and maintenance of solar farms, organic farming also requires the farmer to spend longer hours exposed to the sun and heat conditions. Previous studies in HFE that have looked at work under heat conditions (e.g., Mairiaux, & Malchaire, 1985; Pilcher et al., 2002) will have to be augmented with new work looking at PPE for farming, work scheduling (although bearing in mind that there are far more restrictions placed on farmers by external environmental conditions such as the weather, seasons, and daylight hours), as well as the provision of appropriate rest stations and replacement fluids.

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

185

Other Major Green Industries Not Already Covered We are quite aware that given the space constraints of this chapter, we have only covered a very limited number of green jobs. By way of illustration, we would just like to draw the reader’s attention to some of the prominent issues that we have left out. We have not addressed any of the green jobs associated with the farming of renewable resources other than farming for food. This includes sustainable forestry (e.g., for wood resources or bamboo resources to replace wood use), which has been identified as a major growth area by the OECD (2017), and other sustainable products such as cotton, reeds, sisal, hemp, herbs, barks, etc. for clothing, medicines, personal hygiene, and even recreational use. This could also include jobs where more sustainable methods or materials are introduced (see Hanson & Vangeel, 2014). We have also not looked at any of the HFE factors in green jobs associated with the sustainable transport industry. There is a growing body of work looking at the HFE issues in driving electric vehicles and would be relevant to green jobs that would be using these vehicles (e.g., Harvey et al., 2013; Rauh et al., 2015; Young et al. 2011). Of course, the most sustainable and environmentally conscious way of traveling is not to physically travel at all. Research into virtual meetings, teleworking, telecommuting, telehealth, and even virtual organizations has featured prominently in the HFE literature for quite some time (Carayon & Smith, 2000; Ellison, 2012; Harrington & Walker, 2004; Hedge et al., 2011; Jacobs et al., 2012; Robertson et al., 2003; Thatcher et al., 2011). Finally, we have not looked at any of the jobs and the related HFE concerns in the sustainable construction industry. Numerous green building rating systems now exist to incentivize the construction industry to build more sustainably. A number of researchers have begun to consider the unique HFE implications for construction workers in this context (Attaianese & Duca, 2012; Obiozo & Smallwood, 2013). While there are only likely to be a relatively small number of new jobs created by the growing trend toward green buildings, existing workers may need to adapt to new materials and new work methods; some of the challenges that they face will be new and will require the intervention of HFE practitioners.

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON ALL WORKERS The consequence of the changing climate, including higher temperatures, and the increased incidence of floods, droughts, and storms are likely to impact on the physical and mental health of most people. Effects may include illnesses as well as reduced capacity to work across many parts of the globe. Kjellstrom, Holmer, and Lemke (2009) identify that the impact of global climate change on human function and health in work situations has been “neglected.” Climate change, with resultant hotter environmental temperatures and more extreme weather events, is likely to pose substantial potential health risks and reductions in worker productivity. Schulte and Chun (2009) highlighted the need to consider the impact of the changing climate on workers’ health and developed a preliminary framework, based on the scientific literature, for how climate change could affect workers’ health and

186

Human Factors for Sustainability

safety. They identified seven categories of climate-related hazard and discussed how these could impact workers: (1) increased ambient temperature, (2) air pollution, (3) ultraviolet radiation exposure, (4) extreme weather, (5) vector-borne diseases and expanded habitats, (6) industrial transitions and emerging industries, and (7) changes in the built environment. They also proposed some means by which these hazards could be addressed. The authors updated the framework (Schulte et al., 2016) based on literature from 2008 to 2014. The authors suggested that awareness of the potential impact on workers of climate change was still not widely known. They contended that climate change was likely to result in an increasing prevalence, distribution, and severity of known occupational hazards and that new hazards may also emerge. For example, more people are likely to be employed in jobs that are intended to mitigate or respond to the consequences of climate change (e.g., such as disaster management, health care for communicable diseases, constructing sea walls, and dealing with insurance claims). In addition to the industrial transitions and emerging industries that have already been discussed, the areas of particular interest to the HFE practitioner that are likely to affect all jobs are increased ambient temperatures and extreme weather events.

Increased Ambient Temperatures Increased ambient air temperatures, both for outdoor and indoor workers, due to increases in extreme heat events, or shifting or expanding hot seasons, are likely to result in more heat-related ill health (ranging from heat rash and heat cramps to heat stroke and death). Hot and/or humid environments may also increase the risk of accidents, due to sweaty palms, fogged-up safety glasses, dizziness, and heat-related reduced cognitive function. It is also known that exposure to excess heat reduces work capacity and productivity (e.g., Lundgren et al., 2014). On average, working capacity of heat-exposed workers is expected to decrease globally over the rest of this century (Dunne et al., 2013). Those at increased risk of heat-related illness include those who perform heavy labor, outdoor workers, those working in indoor hot environments, older and younger workers, unacclimatized workers, and those with low physical fitness and with particular health conditions such as obesity and high body mass index (Bridger, 2009). There may be organizational factors that increase the risk of heat strain including piecework payment and other incentive schemes that may motivate workers to not take rest or water breaks. Kjellstrom, Holmer, and Lemke (2009) comment that “it is most likely that global climate change is a threat to safe, comfortable and productive thermal working environments for a significant part of the global population. To limit these impacts, urban planning and workplace design should consider the impacts of climate change” (p. 5). HFE professionals can have a role to play in managing this: modifications may be required to clothing (including protective clothing), work rates, and work scheduling to help reduce the risk of climate-affected heat-related ill health. Programs to help manage the risk, such as hydration arrangements (including access to clean water and reusable water bottles) and shelters (from solar heat or cooled environments to allow recovery), are also likely to be required. Health care professionals may see

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

187

greater numbers of health problems that are affected by the changing climate, and this may impact on their workloads and demands on medical services. It will be necessary to ensure that health care professionals are able to work in more extreme environments, through appropriate design of workplaces/medical facilities, scheduling, and workloads.

Extreme Weather Another aspect of climate change that Schulte et al. (2016) identify as having an impact on workers are extreme weather events such as storms, floods, landslides, droughts, and wildfires. These are likely to present hazards to outdoor workers, particularly emergency responders and others involved in response, rescue, clean-up, and remediation measures. Among other risks, extreme weather events may force workers to remain at the worksite and prolong work hours until replacements arrive, triggering physical and mental fatigue that increases the risk of accidents. HFE professionals should be aware of the physiological and psychological consequences for workers in these conditions and can be involved in planning to help manage them, for example, through specifying appropriate clothing, training in how to work in these environments, work organization, and rest and hydration facilities.

Priorities for Action Concerning the Impact of Climate Change on Workers Concluding their review, Schulte et al. (2016) identified key priorities for action. Those that are most relevant to HFE professionals include: • Investigating the effectiveness of mitigating strategies and hazard controls, including the design and use of PPE in high heat and humidity and extreme weather events. The design of work/rest schedules and requirements for rest facilities should also be considered. • Develop guidance for responding to occupational hazards, including those related to green jobs, extreme weather, and increased temperatures, for occupational health professionals, employers, and employees. • Incorporate consideration of worker risks in planning and with public health efforts; occupational health and safety should be considered a core component of any public health climate change plan. Workers may be at increased risk due to working outdoors or responding to climate-related events.

CONCLUSIONS The rapid greening of the world’s economy and measures taken to mitigate the impact of climate change present many challenges, including new ways of working, more extreme environmental challenges, and some emergent risks. HFE professionals have a role to play in ensuring that the many workers in these industries that are affected by these changes can work in a safe, healthy, and sustainable way.

188

Human Factors for Sustainability

Many of the HFE risks present in these industries can be tackled using the knowledge already existent in the profession, in assessing and managing HFE risks such as musculoskeletal disorders, communication, training, safety culture, and behavioral safety. However, as argued by Thatcher et al. (2018), while these microergonomic interventions are beneficial, systems ergonomic and macroergonomic approaches are required to address the interrelated challenges facing workers in green jobs. Furthermore, multidisciplinary working will be required to address the challenges faced by workers as some of these jobs require knowledge from beyond traditional HFE (e.g., agricultural science, biochemistry, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, etc.). This chapter has identified challenges and ways where HFE might find design solutions. What is needed are further detailed task analyses to understand the specific HFE risks for our changing world.

REFERENCES Albrechtsen, E. (2012). Occupational safety management in the offshore wind industry – status and challenges. Energy Procedia, 24, 313–321. Aman, M. M., Solangi, K. H., Hossain, M. S., Badarudin, A., Jasmon, G. B., Mokhlis, H., Bakar, A. H. A., & Kazi, S. N. (2015). A review of Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) issues of solar energy system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 1190–1204. Attaianese, E., & Duca, G. (2012). Human factors and ergonomic principles in building design for life and work activities: An applied methodology. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(2), 187–202. Ayoub, M. M., & Mital, A. (1989). Manual Materials Handling: Design and Injury Control through Ergonomics. CRC Press, London. Bensel, C. K. (1993). The effects of various thicknesses of chemical protective gloves on manual dexterity. Ergonomics, 36(6), 687–696. Boudra, L., Pueyo, V., & Béguin, P. (2018). The territorial anchorage of waste sorting activities and its organization for prevention. In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 825 (pp. 923–931). Springer, Cham. Bridger, R. S. (2009). Introduction to Ergonomics (3rd ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Cacha, C. A. (1999). Ergonomics and Safety in Hand Tool Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Carayon, P., & Smith, M. J. (2000). Work organization and ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 649–662. de Souza, R. L. R., Camarotto, J. A., & Fontes, A. R. M. (2019). Ergonomics and technologies in waste sorting: Usage and appropriation in a recyclable waste collectors’ cooperative. In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 825 (pp. 851–860). Springer, Cham. Dunne, J. P., Stouffer, R. J., & John, J. G. (2013). Reductions in labour capacity from heat stress under climate warming. Nature Climate Change, 3(6), 563–566. Durugbo, C. (2013). Improving information recognition and performance of recycling chimneys. Ergonomics, 56(3), 409–421. Eklund, J., Kihlstedt, A., & Engkvist, I. L. (2010). Sorting and disposing of waste at recycling centres – A user’s perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 355–361. Ellison, J. E. (2012). Ergonomics for telecommuters and other remote workers. Professional Safety, 57(6), 86–90.

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

189

Engkvist, I. L. (2010). Working conditions at recycling centres in Sweden – Physical and psychosocial work environment. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 347–354. Engkvist, I. L., Eklund, J., Krook, J., Björkman, M., Sundin, E., Svensson, R., & Eklund, M. (2010). Joint investigation of working conditions, environmental and system performance at recycling centres – Development of instruments and their usage. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 336–346. Engkvist, I. L., Svensson, R., & Eklund, J. (2011). Reported occupational injuries at Swedish recycling centres – based on official statistics. Ergonomics, 54(4), 357–366. Engkvist, I. L., Eklund, J., Krook, J., Björkman, M., & Sundin, E. (2016). Perspectives on recycling centres and future developments. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 17–27. EU-OSHA. (2013). Green jobs and occupational safety and health: Foresight on new and emerging risks associated with new technologies by 2020 report. Retrieved from: https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/reports/green-jobs-foresight-new-emerging-risks-technologies [Accessed December 1, 2018]. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2018). Workers’ safety and health in green jobs. Retrieved from: https://osha.europa.eu/en/emerging-risks/green-jobs [Accessed December 14, 2018]. European Commission (Commission staff working document). (2012). Exploiting the employment potential of green growth. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2012:0092:FIN:EN:PDF [Accessed March 3, 2018]. European Environment Agency. (2016). Resource efficiency and low carbon economy environmental goods and services sector: Employment and value added. Retrieved from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2016/resource-efficiency-and-low-carbon-economy/ environmental-goods-and-services-sector/action-download-pdf-1 [Accessed February 1, 2018]. Flin, R., Slaven, G., & Stewart, K. (1996). Emergency decision making in the offshore oil and gas industry. Human Factors, 38(2), 262–277. Gordon, R. P. E. (1998). The contribution of human factors to accidents in the offshore oil industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 61(1–2), 95–108. Hanson, M. A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics, 56(3), 399–408. Hanson, M., & Vangeel, M. (2014). Chemical cleaning re-invented: Clean, lean and green. Work, 49(3), 411–416. Harrington, S. S., & Walker, B. L. (2004). The effects of ergonomics training on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of teleworkers. Journal of Safety Research, 35(1), 13–22. Harvey, J., Thorpe, N., & Fairchild, R. (2013). Attitudes towards and perceptions of eco-driving and the role of feedback systems. Ergonomics, 56(3), 507–521. Haslam, R. A., Hide, S. A., Gibb, A. G., Gyi, D. E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S., & Duff, A. R. (2005). Contributing factors in construction accidents. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4), 401–415. Havenith, G., & Heus, R. (2004). A test battery related to ergonomics of protective clothing. Applied Ergonomics, 35(1), 3–20. Heddad, N., & Biquand, S. (2018). Sustainable development policy and impact on activity: The case of gardeners in the suburbs of Paris. In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 825 (pp. 1003–1006). Springer, Cham. Hedge, A., James, T., & Pavlovic-Veselinovic, S. (2011). Ergonomics concerns and the impact of healthcare information technology. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41(4), 345–351. Hemphälä, H., Kihlstedt, A., & Eklund, J. (2010). Vision ergonomics at recycling centres. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 368–375.

190

Human Factors for Sustainability

HSE. (2012). Conveyor belt workstation design. Retrieved from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ pubns/geis4.pdf [Accessed December 14, 2018]. HSE. (2018a). Musculoskeletal disorders in waste management and recycling. Retrieved from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/waste/msd.htm [Accessed December 14, 2018]. HSE. (2018b). Common human factors underlying worker fatalities in the waste and recycling industry. Retrieved from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr1128.pdf [Accessed December 14, 2018]. IFOAM – Organics International. (2018). The world of organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends 2018. Retrieved from: https://shop.fibl.org/CHen/mwdownloads/ download/link/id/1093/?ref=1 [Accessed December 7, 2018]. ILO. (2008). Green jobs: Facts and figures. Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_098484.pdf [Accessed December 1, 2018]. ILO. (2011). Green jobs programme of the ILO. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/empent/ units/green-jobs-programme/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed December 1, 2018]. International Energy Agency. (2017). Snapshot of global photovoltaic markets 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.iea-pvps.org/fileadmin/dam/public/report/statistics/IEA-PVPS_-_A_ Snapshot_of_Global_PV_-_1992-2016__1_.pdf [Accessed December 6, 2018]. Jacobs, K., Blanchard, B., & Baker, N. (2012). Telehealth and ergonomics: A pilot study. Technology and Health Care: Official Journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 20(5), 445–458. Kadefors, R., Areskoug, A., Dahlman, S., Kilbom, A., Sperling, L., Wikström, L., & Öster, J. (1993). An approach to ergonomics evaluation of hand tools. Applied Ergonomics, 24(3), 203–211. Kaywhite, M., Hodous, T. K., & Vercruyssen, M. (1991). Effects of thermal environment and chemical protective clothing on work tolerance, physiological responses, and subjective ratings. Ergonomics, 34(4), 445–457. Kjellstrom, T., Holmer, I., & Lemke, B. (2009). Workplace heat stress, health and productivity–an increasing challenge for low and middle-income countries during climate change. Global Health Action, 2(1), 2047. Krook, J., & Eklund, M. (2010). The strategic role of recycling centres for environmental performance of waste management systems. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 362–367. Kumar, S. (2004). Vibration in operating heavy haul trucks in overburden mining. Applied Ergonomics, 35(6), 509–520. Laitinen, H., Saari, J., Kivistö, M., & Rasa, P. L. (1998). Improving physical and psychosocial working conditions through a participatory ergonomic process a before-after study at an engineering workshop. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 21(1), 35–45. Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N. J., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Baldé, A. B., Baldé, A. B., Bertollini, R., Bose-O’Reilly, S., Boufford, J. I., Breysse, P. N., Chiles, T., Mahidol, C., Coll-Seck, A. M., Cropper, M. L., Fobil, J., Fuster, V., Greenstone, M., Haines, A., Hanrahan, D., Hunter, D., Khare, M., Krupnick, A., Lanphear, B., Lohani, B., Martin, K., Mathiasen, K. V., McTeer, M. A., Murray, C. J. L., Ndahimananjara, J. D., Perera, F., Potočnik, J., Preker, A. S., Ramesh, J., Rockström, J., Salinas, C., Samson, L. D., Sandilya, K., Sly, P. D., Smith, K. R., Steiner, A., Stewart, R. B., Suk, W. A., van Schayck, O. C. P., Yadama, G. N., Yumkella, K., & Chiles, T. (2017). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet, 391(10119), 462–512. Li, G., & Buckle, P. (1999). Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics, 42(5), 674–695. Lundgren, K., Kuklane, K., & Venugopal, V. (2014). Occupational heat stress and associated productivity loss estimation using the PHS model (ISO 7933): A case study from workplaces in Chennai, India. Global Health Action, 7(1), 25283.

Identifying Human Factors and Ergonomics Issues in Green Jobs

191

Mairiaux, P. H., & Malchaire, J. (1985). Workers self-pacing in hot conditions: A case study. Applied Ergonomics, 16(2), 85–90. Massaccesi, M., Pagnotta, A., Soccetti, A., Masali, M., Masiero, C., & Greco, F. (2003). Investigation of work-related disorders in truck drivers using RULA method. Applied Ergonomics, 34(4), 303–307. Mumaw, R. J., Roth, E. M., Vicente, K. J., & Burns, C. M. (2000). There is more to monitoring a nuclear power plant than meets the eye. Human Factors, 42(1), 36–55. National Resources Defense Council. (2011). More jobs, less pollution: Growing the recycling economy in the U.S. Retrieved from: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ glo_11111401a.pdf [Accessed December 7, 2018]. Obiozo, R., & Smallwood, J. (2013). The role of “greening” and an ecosystem approach to enhancing construction ergonomics. In: Proceedings 29th Annual Arcom Conference (pp. 959–968). Reading, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management. O’Connor, P., O’Dea, A., Flin, R., & Belton, S. (2008). Identifying the team skills required by nuclear power plant operations personnel. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(11–12), 1028–1037. OECD. (2017). Employment implications of green growth: Linking jobs, growth, and green policies. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/environment/EmploymentImplications-of-Green-Growth-OECD-Report-G7-Environment-Ministers.pdf [Accessed December 1, 2018]. O’Neill, D. H. (2000). Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Does its application differ from that in industrially advanced countries? Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 631–640. Oxley, L., Pinder, A. D. J., & Cope, M. T. (2006). Manual Handling in Kerbside Collection and Sorting of Recyclables. Health and Safety Laboratory, Report No. HSL/2006/25, Buxton, UK: Health & Safety Laboratory. Pilcher, J. J., Nadler, E., & Busch, C. (2002). Effects of hot and cold temperature exposure on performance: A meta-analytic review. Ergonomics, 45(10), 682–698. Rainbird, G., & O’Neill, D. (1995). Occupational disorders affecting agricultural workers in tropical developing countries: Results of a literature review. Applied Ergonomics, 26(3), 187–193. Rauh, N., Franke, T., & Krems, J. F. (2015). Understanding the impact of electric vehicle driving experience on range anxiety. Human Factors, 57(1), 177–187. REN21 – Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. (2017). Global status report. Retrieved from: http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GSR2017_ Highlights_FINAL.pdf [Accessed December 14, 2018]. REN21 – Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. (2018). Global status report. Retrieved from: http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/17-8652_ GSR2018_FullReport_web_final_.pdf [Accessed December 6, 2018]. Renewable, U. K. (2011). Marine renewable energy. Retrieved from: https://uk.whales.org/ wdc-in-action/marine-renewable-energy-in-uk [Accessed December 14, 2018]. Rigaud, K. K., de Sherbinin, A., Jones, B., Bergmann, J., Clement, V., Ober, K., Schewe, J., Adamo, S., McCusker, B., Heuser, S., & Midgley, A. (2018). Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. World Bank, Washington, DC. Robertson, M. M., Maynard, W. S., & McDevitt, J. R. (2003). Telecommuting: Managing the safety of workers in home office environments. Professional Safety, 48(4), 30–36. Schneider, S., & Susi, P. (1994). Ergonomics and construction: A review of potential hazards in new construction. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 55(7), 635–649. Schulte, P. A., & Chun, H. (2009). Climate change and occupational safety and health: Establishing a preliminary framework. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 6(9), 542–554.

192

Human Factors for Sustainability

Schulte, P. A., Bhattacharya, A., Butler, C. R., Chun, H. K., Jacklitsch, B., Jacobs, T., Kiefer, M., Lincoln, J., Pendergrass, S., Shire, J., Watson, J., & Wagner, G. R. (2016). Advancing the framework for considering the effects of climate change on worker safety and health. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 13(11), 847–865. Soil Association. (2016). Organic market report 2016. Retrieved from: http://pae.gencat.cat/ web/.content/al_alimentacio/al01_pae/05_publicacions_material_referencia/arxius/ organic_market_report.pdf [Accessed December 14, 2018]. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Thatcher, A., Straker, L., & Pollock, C. (2011). Establishing and maintaining an online community of academics: Longitudinal evaluation of a virtual conference series. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 7(1), 116–135. Thatcher, A., Waterson, P., Todd, A., & Moray, N. (2018). State of Science: Ergonomics and global issues. Ergonomics, 61(2), 197–213. Tveiten, C. K., Albrechtsen, E., Heggset, J., Hofmann, M., Jersin, E., Leira, B., & Norddal, P. K. (2011). HSE challenges related to offshore renewable energy: A study of HSE issues related to current and future offshore wind power concepts. SINTEF Technology and Society. A18107 – Unrestricted. Retrieved from: https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/ project/nowitech/publikasjoner/hse-challenges-related-to-offshore-renewable-energy. pdf [Accessed December 6, 2018]. UK Government. (2011). Low carbon and environmental goods and services industry analysis. Retrieved from: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/low-carbon-and-environmental-goodsservices-sector-data [Accessed February 1, 2018]. WASTE-13. (2015). Designing and operating material recycling facilities (MRFs) safely. Retrieved from: https://wishforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/WASTE-13-. pdf [Accessed December 14, 2018]. White, M. K., Hodous, T. K., & Vercruyssen, M. (1991). Effects of thermal environment and chemical protective clothing on work tolerance, physiological responses, and subjective ratings. Ergonomics, 34(4), 445–457. World Bank. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Retrieved from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/30317/9781464813290.pdf [Accessed December 7, 2018]. World Wind Energy Association. (2018). Wind power capacity reaches 593 GW, 52,6 GW added in 2017. Retrieved from: https://wwindea.org/blog/2018/02/12/2017-statistics/ [Accessed December 6, 2018]. Young, M. S., Birrell, S. A., & Stanton, N. A. (2011). Safe driving in a green world: A review of driver performance benchmarks and technologies to support “smart” driving. Applied Ergonomics, 42(4), 533–539.

9

Achieving Sustainability through HFE and Organizational Behavior and Change Andrew S. Imada and Samantha K. Imada

CONTENTS Introduction: Sustainability as a Systems Concept................................................. 193 Sustainability and Organizational Reality.......................................................... 194 Sustainability in Open Systems.......................................................................... 195 Human Factors and Ergonomics Perspective.......................................................... 198 Systems Approach.............................................................................................. 199 Design Driven.................................................................................................... 199 Focus on Performance and Well-Being..............................................................200 Macroergonomics and Human Systems Integration..........................................200 A Proposed Model for Predicting Sustainability.................................................... 201 Proximal Antecedents to Sustainability Performance ....................................... 201 Distal Antecedents to Sustainability Performance.............................................203 Individual Factors.......................................................................................... 203 Organizational Factors...................................................................................204 Interface Design.................................................................................................205 The Case of Sierra Nevada Brewing Company...................................................... 205 Sustainability at Sierra Nevada Brewing Company...........................................206 Sustainability Initiatives and Outcomes........................................................207 Key Learning Points to Achieving Sustainability...................................................209 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 212 References............................................................................................................... 214

INTRODUCTION: SUSTAINABILITY AS A SYSTEMS CONCEPT In principle, few can argue against the concept and goals of sustainability for humans, organizations, or societies. While sustainable development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Bruntdland Commission; see WCED, 1987) may sound utopian and altruistic, it seems a reasonable goal for all of us to pursue. Perhaps more compelling for organizations is the Triple Bottom Line approach (Elkington, 1994). This approach 193

194

Human Factors for Sustainability

brings an organization’s greater business value into a broader focus. Instead of simply accounting for the economic (profit) outcomes, organizations should consider their impact on environmental (planet) and social (people) dimensions as well. Profit for the enterprise is the economic value created after deducting the cost of all inputs, including capital. Beyond its own internal financial outcome, the enterprise also has an impact on the larger economic environment. The host society, community, and its residents also have “profits” associated with revenue and costs that the presence of the enterprise creates. Salaries, capital infusion, taxes, trade, and goodwill are offset by social and environmental costs of having the organization there. Effects on the planet, or natural capital bottom line, involve the cost of disposing of nondegradable or toxic by-products that the organization produces. In the past, these costs have been borne by governmental agencies, communities, and residents rather than by the companies that produced and profited from the production of this waste. Ecological effects also have costs that the causal agents have traditionally avoided. Degrading air quality, contaminating drinking water, and depleting natural resources incur costs to the environment, and in the long run, make the enterprise unsustainable. The effects on people, or human capital bottom line, are the result of an enterprise’s practices toward individuals, labor representatives, and communities that host its presence. Treating these groups as stakeholders can lead to equitable and humane practices that improve the value of people in a renewable way rather than as disposable resources. Giving back to their communities improves lives and reduces the cost to the people who are in and those who surround the organization as part of its environment. This wider perspective has real implications beyond its original accounting framework. Any enterprise that ignores these broader measures of success is itself not sustainable. History is full of examples where people or the environment are ignored, and the long-term costs, albeit indirect, are high. Consider slavery and colonialization as extreme examples of ignoring the costs to humans and the environment. While these practices may have been financially expedient and socially acceptable at the time, the abuses of people and natural resources have high long-term costs. Ehnert, Harry, and Zink (2014) argued that there is sufficient evidence that the long-term maintenance of these three dimensions can predict the long-term viability of an organization. Financial viability depends on a supply of natural and human resources. Moreover, one dimension affects the other two, often in complex ways.

Sustainability and Organizational Reality The reality of organizational life is rarely compatible with the conceptual world. Actors may agree with concepts, but short-term goals, incentives, and survivability often outweigh these larger system concerns. Ehnert, Harry, and Zink (2014) address this challenge of integrating these three dimensions into a coherent whole to an ongoing enterprise. This challenge exists because of the different worldviews that the actors and decision makers must deal with in implementing these ideas. In part, the Triple Bottom Line is difficult because management must balance all three outcomes, which sometimes presents conflicting demands. We make value judgments based on the worth of the “other” bottom lines for which we are not directly responsible. These create different rationalities, perspectives, and priorities that are understandable from a systems perspective (see Checkland, 1981; Luhmann, 1995).

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

195

For a steward of the enterprise’s financial condition, the short-term lagging indicators (e.g., cost, waste, production, schedules) are paramount; environmental impacts are more distant and labor costs are part of the problem. For workers, labor representatives, and people in the community, their immediate concerns may include wages, health, injury, worker rights, and decent work. Total operating expenses, profitability, or environmental impacts on others in the community may be less of a concern. For environmental activists, agencies in charge of restoration, and residents who are directly affected, the environmental impact is clearly most important. Each has a valid rationale. As these realities become more important, we put more focus on them and fail to consider what else is happening in the world. Contextualism suggests that the mere act of looking for particular information eliminates our sensitivity or motivation to observe other information. The more intensely we focus on any information, the less sensitive we become to the interdependence of that information and the environment that creates it (Gribbin, 1984). A good example of this happens while watching a lunar eclipse. The more one focuses on the penumbra, the more one notices the movement of the earth and the moon. However, this insight comes at the expense of other sensory experiences such as color of the sky, temperature, time elapsing, and human interactions. Alternatively, focusing on these other features in the environment, talking to others, for example, will cause one to miss witnessing the eclipse. This is the nature of our observing the systems, and so it is with actors in complex systems with different rationalities. We do not integrate the Triple Bottom Line naturally. Perhaps looking at organizations as open systems may help bridge these different perspectives and organizational realities.

Sustainability in Open Systems We can conceive of the enterprise as having three main components: inputs, throughputs, and outputs. The inputs include materials, energy, information, and people needed to achieve a goal. Throughputs transform these inputs in a meaningful and purposive set of tasks, tools, and process transformations to do the work. Outputs are the result of these efforts and may include transformed materials, energy, information, and people (see Allport, 1954; Parsons, 1951). There is also a semipermeable organizational boundary that allows environmental influences and inputs to enter, even if they are not formal inputs. For example, changes in the physical environment, cultural trends, economic forces, and social events have various effects on this system. Finally, there are feedback loops from the outputs back to the throughput and input processes. These feedback loops are critical for responding to errors, market feedback, processing requirements, and continuous improvement. The feedback loops also become future inputs. Successful products or services create reputation, profits, and more sales, which change future inputs. Conversely, waste and pollution create negative inputs such as higher clean‑up costs, higher material costs, and people who may be less willing to work there. The input-throughput-output model is an example of classic mechanistic systems thinking. The feedback loops from the process and the environment convey the interdependence of the system with its environment (Figure 9.1). The inputs, throughputs, and outputs that produce the Triple Bottom Line metrics are interdependent, even if they are not perceived to be our different realities.

196

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 9.1  General systems model.

For example, without positive economic outputs (profits), it is more difficult to focus on environmental or human dimensions. Conversely, with the luxury of reserves and positive cash flow, it is easier to focus on continuous improvement, eliminating waste, and training people. But if we understand the enterprise as a total system, we can realize the interdependence of the Triple Bottom Line. In the case of sustainability, there is a second-level outcome that is a by-product from the output process that leaves the organization and becomes part of the larger ecology of organizations. These include outcomes for the physical environment, available natural resources, welfare of the community, and economic well-being of the community. These are the extra-organizational outcomes that result from the enterprise existing in that time and space (Figure 9.2). Critically important is that although these are not necessarily accounted for by each enterprise individually, these second-level outcomes become inputs for all the enterprises in that space. In the simplest two-entity case, each organization produces intended or unintended consequences that now affect both organizations. For example, if Organization A contaminates the drinking water or air quality, that becomes an input for itself as well as for Organization B. Organization A may not be as concerned about these environmental outcomes, whereas Organization B may be highly dependent upon these natural environmental qualities for its success. The tightly coupled interdependence makes it critical that each organization be aware of its effect on the larger system. From a human capital perspective, injuring workers and treating them as disposable units will have an effect by reducing the labor pool of people willing and able to work from that community. Finally, we have come to understand the importance of the natural environment in affecting people’s willingness to work in a particular locale. By way of example, in recent years, organizations had difficulties attracting managers to work in the Beijing area because they were unwilling to expose themselves or their families to the air pollution (e.g., CNN Business, 2015). It has caused people to leave their families and return to them each weekend as a solution to this problem. Organizations incur additional costs for financial bonuses to encourage people to

FIGURE 9.2  Systems model with second-level outcomes.

Achieving Sustainability through HFE 197

198

Human Factors for Sustainability

take these jobs. So, while a particular organization may not have negatively contributed to second-level sustainability outcomes, it pays for it just as any other organization would who is in that time and space. Organizations draw their inputs from the environment and are highly dependent on the health of that ecology and its social capital (Figure 9.3).

HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS PERSPECTIVE Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) has much to contribute to sustainability in organizational systems as well as the ecology of organizations that form communities and societies. Technically, ergonomics is “the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and a profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance” (International Ergonomics Association, 2011). A seminal work by Dul et al. (2012) identified three fundamental characteristics of this multidisciplinary field. HFE: • takes a systems approach. • is design driven. • focuses on two related outcomes: performance and well-being. These three qualities are critical for addressing sustainability.

FIGURE 9.3  Organization A and B dependence on environmental inputs.

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

199

Systems Approach As described above, sustainability is the result of interacting components that make up an integrated system. The interdependence of components within a system to achieve an organizational goal or the reliance on one organization to another to preserve shared human or natural resources typifies relationships in systems. Approaching sustainability holistically affords the benefit of addressing changes at different levels. Sustainability can be viewed from a macro-level (e.g., as part of the ecology of organizations, industry, region, or nation), meso-level (e.g., as part of an enterprise, technical process), or even at a micro-level (e.g., individuals performing a task, using a specific piece of equipment). This is particularly useful when dealing with complex open systems because the boundaries can be redefined to capture the relevant features of the problem in the system. Unlike other single disciplines, sustainability can be studied at a much broader level of analysis. To realize sustainable organizations, changes need to occur at the system level, not just in design of a human interface. For example, even the best-designed recycling receptacle will not be used if it is not located consistent with normal workflows, naturally occurring human activities, if its use is not encouraged/rewarded by management, or not consistent with social or cultural norms. The context is important.

Design Driven Ergonomics involves designing or redesigning based on human capabilities and needs. While this can refer to the design of a user interface – such as the co-location of easy-to-use recycling and waste bins – its success also depends on being integrated as part of a system and organizational effectiveness. The systems we design have impacts for our stakeholders. To the extent that the natural environment is impacted, the design should consider the communities with whom we share these resources. Aside from structures and processes, which we will discuss in the next section, two important features to design into the system are feedback loops and connections to an extendable organizational ecology. Feedback loops are useful for helping people and systems adjust and make changes. They help to create an awareness of the impact we have on second-level outcomes that occur because of our intended organizational outputs. Creating these informational responses can help the system adapt to act more sustainably and effectively. Change rarely occurs in the absence of feedback. An example of a second-level outcome is the creation of an ecology of organizations that fosters sustainability among other organizations. Because all enterprises contribute to second-level outcomes that impact the natural and social environment, linking organizations together can improve the common pool of resources that the organizations draw upon for future inputs. Organizations cannot, individually or collectively, deplete resources when they hope to continue drawing from those very resources in the future. It is in their mutual interest to design communities of stakeholders that share a common interest in the resources that they share. Organizations do not exist in isolation.

200

Human Factors for Sustainability

Focus on Performance and Well-Being The joint optimization of overall system performance and human well-being is consistent with the Triple Bottom Line because the enterprise and the humans are part of a larger organizational ecology. We cannot destroy our resources and expect human well-being to improve. Nor can we expect that the enterprise can continuously draw on natural resources that it destroys. Profit dimension is a sign of healthy system performance; people can be protected by the concern for their well-being; the planet will be there for people and their organizations to enjoy in the future. Further concern for both people and systems is consistent with the goals of sustainability. Our present needs include financially sound organizations and competitive products and services. Future generations will need to inherit environments, resources, and work systems that promote their health and well-being. There is a symbiosis between human participation and achieving sustainable organizational performance. The more engaged people become in sustainable activities, the greater the likelihood they will engage in future activities. Therefore, engaging a high-valued, well-trained, and healthy (well-being) workforce is more likely to lead to further participation.

Macroergonomics and Human Systems Integration Many people associate ergonomics with physical and individual human/system interfaces. This was the basis of much of the original work in the field addressing how anatomical, anthropometric, biomechanical, and physiological human characteristics should be considered in designing work systems. Later, as machine systems became more than extensions of physical activity and involved mental processes, the field expanded to include the study of perception, memory reasoning, and psychophysical and motor responses. These human capabilities were considered in designing interactions between humans and machines, and between humans and other humans. Most recently, the concept of systems was expanded to include organizational systems as ergonomic boundaries. This approach builds on the sociotechnical systems theory and examines how organizational processes, structures, policies and practices, communications, and relationships affect human systems integration. Organizational ergonomics, or macroergonomics, has the greatest applicability to sustainability. Hendrick (1984) first proposed the concept of macroergonomics based on sociotechnical systems theory (Emery & Trist, 1965; Trist & Bamforth, 1951) that considers three interacting features; the technology subsystem, the personnel subsystem, and the external environment. Hendrick (2002) later articulated a work system as “two or more persons interacting with some form of (1) job design, (2) hardware and/ or software, (3) internal environment, (4) external environment, and (5) an organisation design” (p. 1). If we reflect on a good idea or design that failed, it is likely the result of failing to match or consider one of these five system dimensions. The relationship between macroergonomics and human systems integration reveals some similarities (Kleiner & Booher, 2003). For example, the approach of extending beyond the immediate interaction and building on the contextual features is also considered in the human systems integration approach (see Boehm-Davis et al., 2015).

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

201

This field has made major contributions in reducing medical errors and improving patient safety (e.g., Carayon et al., 2006; Carayon et al., 2014) and changing industrial safety performance (e.g., Imada, 2002).

A PROPOSED MODEL FOR PREDICTING SUSTAINABILITY We draw upon the wealth of knowledge in the literature from Human Systems Integration and Organizational Behavior to propose an analogous model for sustainability. Neal and Griffin (2004) proposed a model integrating work on psychological climate and performance in organizations. They proposed that performance in general has three proximal determinants – knowledge, skills, and motivation. The distal organizational and individual antecedents – safety climate, organizational factors, attitudes, and personality – influence performance through the proximal factors. The model identifies organizational and individual factors to predict safety motivation to safety performance that lead to safety outcomes. We believe a similar integrated performance model can be applied to predict performance in sustainability. Christian et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis to test the model of Neal and Griffin (2004). This meta-analysis was based upon 90 studies and 1,744 effect sizes, of which 477 were used for the predictor-criterion analyses. In general, the results supported the prediction that proximal factors had stronger effects than distal factors. Both individual and situational factors are important to workplace safety. They concluded that “workers can be selected, trained, and supported through positive safety climate to maximize safety motivation and safety knowledge, which in turn leads to safe behaviours and fewer accidents and injuries” (Christian et al., 2009, p. 1122). Given the predictor‑criterion relationships uncovered in Christian et al., we propose a modified version of their model to predict sustainability outcomes. To achieve the desired sustainability outcomes, which are the lagging indicators, we focus on determinants of the behaviors that will achieve these outcomes – Sustainability Performance. This performance is conceived as having two dimensions: (1) Compliance – the degree to which behaviors follow the prescribed procedures, recycling activities, and using required tools and equipment and (2) Participation – the active engagement in sustainability such as communicating, initiating change, and stewardship. We begin with the proximal antecedents and move to the left of the model to distal antecedents and boundary conditions (Figure 9.4).

Proximal Antecedents to Sustainability Performance Just as in the Neal and Griffin (2004) model, Christian et al. (2009) conceptualized safety performance to be determined by knowledge and motivation. Having knowledge about safety and motivation to act safely predicts safety performance through compliant or participatory behaviors. These safety performance behaviors subsequently predict safety outcomes, such as accidents and injuries. Compliant behaviors such as following procedures and using protective equipment are likely to reduce injuries and accidents. However, the prevention of accidents and injuries also

FIGURE 9.4  A proposed model for sustainability.

202 Human Factors for Sustainability

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

203

depends on participatory and prosocial behaviors, such as speaking up. To prevent accidents and injuries, employees must be willing to speak up and voice their concerns, opinions, and suggestions (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). As demonstrated in the safety model, we believe that knowledge and motivation are also proximal determinants to people practicing sustainability-compliant and participatory behaviors. Similar to the safety model, sustainable performance can be separated into Compliance – behaviors that are required or encouraged by the employer or legislation – and Participation – where actions exceed the simple requirements to meet sustainability needs. Following prescribed procedures or guidelines for energy consumption and practicing “reduce-reuse-recycle” are examples of complying with sustainable practices. Beyond that, participation involves more self-directed behaviors such as volunteering, stewardship, communicating sustainability efforts, or initiating sustainability changes. Griffin and Neal (2000) and Christian et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis found that safety motivation was more strongly related to participation than knowledge. To the extent that sustainability behavior is similar to safety behavior, we would expect this general model to apply. Individual motivation would likely lead to discretionary, self-directed behavior. Knowledge would be more directly related to compliance and following prescribed actions. We conceive that sustainable performance should lead to sustainability outcomes for the organization. This includes reduced costs, waste, consumption, and utilization of resources. These first-level outcomes are part of the systems model depicted in Figures 9.1 and 9.2. There are, however, second-level ecological outcomes that are technically inside the boundary of the organization that become part of the larger environment. These outcomes that are depicted as part of the environment in Figure 9.3 include preservation of the environment, natural resources, human resources/capital, and community enhancements. This broader environment creates feedback loops and becomes part of the input in a cyclical fashion in the future.

Distal Antecedents to Sustainability Performance The Christian et al. (2009) model proposed that there are distal but powerful determinants of performance. We believe that these contextual considerations are important from macroergonomics, human‑system integration, and organizational behavior perspectives. These include individual and organizational factors. Individual Factors Individual differences and personality characteristics that the individuals bring to the organization will influence their motivation and knowledge about sustainability. These include personality traits, history of sustainable practices in the past, rewards and negative reinforcement for previous actions, exposure to these practices in the home and community, and self-efficacy. These individual qualities can be partly altered through selection and training; however, it is important to recognize that people bring these qualities with them into the organization. Some of these characteristics are well established by the time people enter into the system. Therefore, proper selection methodologies can, and should be, used to find good matches between organizational practices and people’s propensities to want to behave in sustainably

204

Human Factors for Sustainability

responsible ways. Because many of these qualities are predetermined, we depict these individual factors as being partially in the organizational boundary. Organizational Factors The organizational context is a strong determinant of how people behave. Critically important are the culture and climate that surround organizational processes. Cultures are based on unspoken values, norms, habits, and assumptions that become clear to organizational residents. Schein (1985) describes the multilevel process of organizational culture that consists of basic assumptions (your assumptions that are preconscious and often taken for granted), values (what you are told is important by the organization), and artifacts (what you observe is important to the organization). Culture provides sense making, social glue to promote similarities and create common bonds, organizational identity, and commitment – all of which are key components to creating a culture of sustainability within an organization. This culture is manifested in climate-related factors such as management commitment, Human Resources Management (HRM) practices, systems, and structures that support sustainability, work processes, and leadership. Climate factors are typically expressed through temporal attitudes and perceptions. Managers have information to make decisions, thereby allowing them a dominant source of authority and decision making as well as a powerful social influence (Burt, 2000). Leaders have the responsibility to set direction, align, motivate, and persuade people. This sometimes means a shift in framework from “doing things right” to “doing the right things.” Given the influencing role leaders have on organizational culture and change, leadership plays a critical role in predicting the proximal individual factors (i.e., sustainability motivation and sustainability knowledge). Leadership also plays a role in employee participation behaviors, particularly prosocial behaviors, such as speaking up. Leaders signal how favorable an organizational context is to employee input (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and the consequences of speaking up (Detert & Trevino, 2010). For example, leadership openness, transformational leadership (Detert & Burris, 2007; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010), and authentic leadership (Hsiung, 2012) have been shown to encourage employee voice. In addition, leader member exchange (LMX) is related to voice in that high-quality relationships between leaders and subordinates enhance voice and reinforce communication (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009). In the context of safety, this is an important relationship, as the participatory behavior of speaking up predicts safety outcomes. As previously mentioned, we predict that the same relationship exists for sustainability. In the case of safety, Christian et al. (2009, pp. 1119, 1121) found that leadership and climate are more strongly related to participation (voluntary behavior) than compliance (required behavior). This is an important finding that we believe would predict acting sustainably. Preserving resources and the environment cannot be achieved by monitoring people’s behavior alone. It must be internalized and become part of the natural ways of behaving. The effects of these distal organizational factors suggest that organizational behavior and design have a role to play in influencing people’s behavior and consequently system outputs. If the safety model can be used as a heuristic for sustainability,

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

205

Christian et al.’s conclusion is encouraging. “The results of this meta-analysis suggest that both the person and the situation are important factors related to workplace safety. Workers can be selected, trained and supported through positive safety climate to maximize safety motivation and safety knowledge, which in turn leads to safe behaviours and fewer accidents and injuries” (p. 1122).

Interface Design Not included in the safety model, but critically important from an ergonomics perspective, is the concept of “compatibility” in designing human interface. “Compatibility refers to the spatial, movement, or conceptual relationships of stimuli and responses, individually or in combination, that are consistent with human expectations” (McCormick & Sanders, 1982, p. 221). People will use and are attracted to designs that are easy to use, easy to understand, and consistent with what people are doing or expect. If these compatibilities are ignored or violated, people are less inclined to use these designs. Simple features such as color or shape coding can signal the desired action. Consistent use of cues such as blue for recycling, green for composting, and red for emergency or medical can make tasks easier and encourage use. Co-location of trash and recycling bins encourages separation of waste and recyclables, and the location encourages the behavior because it allows disposers to do this in one trip. Violating physical conveniences and cognitive stereotypes about how to behave can make the difference between people using or not using the system. We depict this interface as existing partly in the organizational boundary and partly outside of it. While it has an effect on whether or not people use it, it is not inherently a part of the organization. People import these ideas from outside the organization because it is a good idea. It then becomes part of the organization’s natural environment. On the other hand, sometimes these ideas are “home grown” and its genesis is inside the organization through suggestions, innovations, and improvements. Whether it is imported or developed internally, the quality and nature of how humans interact with the system is partly determined by the design of that interface. This should be a serious consideration in encouraging sustainability. It is about doing what is right, but also about doing what is right in the right way for the organization.

THE CASE OF SIERRA NEVADA BREWING COMPANY To illustrate the concepts described in this chapter, we turn to an organization that we believe is on a journey toward sustainability that is built into the organization and resilient enough for the long run. Founded in 1980 by two young beer enthusiasts interested in making the best beer they could drink, the brewery is now a privately held, family-owned business that is the seventh largest brewery and the third largest craft brewery in the United States (Brewers Association, 2017). The company was founded in Chico, California, in the northern end of the Central Valley. In 2014, the company opened an eastern brewery in North Carolina. What began as a four-person company now employs more than a thousand employees

206

Human Factors for Sustainability

at both locations and has consistently produced over one million U.S. beer barrels (i.e., 1,173,478 hl) annually. The company is one of the early and, arguably, most influential companies in the craft beer movement in the United States. Its founder, Ken Grossman, has been called a “pioneer” in the craft brew industries (Calagione, 2010).

Sustainability at Sierra Nevada Brewing Company When the company began its operations in a discarded warehouse, sustainability was a necessity. They did not have enough money to waste anything and had to use the resources they had efficiently. At the same time, a healthy respect for the environment, valuing community, and not squandering resources have always been among the founder’s core values. In a previous engagement with the company in 2005, one of the authors facilitated a values clarification exercise for top management and core leaders in the company. The company had been growing so quickly that they needed to pause and define what their core values were that got them that far and what were the values driving them into the future. The team reached a consensus on five values: Quality, Integrity, People, Community, and Sustainability. This was at a time when sustainability was not at the top of organizational agendas. Perhaps most notable are the definitions for community and sustainability values. Community – We respect and support our local and global communities. We demonstrate our commitment by investing in the social, cultural, and environmental needs of our neighborhood and greater communities. Sustainability – We work safely and efficiently so we can continue to prosper. We utilize both human and natural resources effectively in order to maintain a strong viable company. The continuous investment in our employees, technology, processes, and facilities represents our commitment to sustaining Sierra Nevada Brewing Company into the future. While there was no formal structure at this point, it was clear that there was an intention to behave in ways that protected the environment, community, and people. Although the company had a dedicated sustainability department since 2006, it was always embedded within another department. In 2013, an organizational change was made to have the manager of the unit report directly to the owner. This formalization and reporting relationship was an important step in the enactment of the company’s values. A staff of four across the two plants facilitates the department’s ideas and contributions to sustainability and reducing waste. The formal statement for sustainability reads: At Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., sustainability means recognizing the impacts associated with our operations and making a conscious effort to reduce them. We are committed to leaving the smallest footprint possible without jeopardizing our high standards for quality. We strive to maintain a healthy balance between environmental stewardship, social equity, and economic stability. By engaging in an active sustainability program, we intend to leave a better world for future generations. (Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Biannual Sustainability Report 2015, p. 4)

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

207

Sustainability Initiatives and Outcomes The initiatives described here are primarily related to the original California brewery. For purposes of this chapter, they include only highlights of the program to provide a flavor of the culture of this organization. Zero waste – The brewery adopted an ambitious goal of creating zero waste in energy, materials, and natural resources. Since 2011, efforts have been made to reduce, recover, repurpose, and renew resources that are brought into the facility. This improves the environment by reducing contributions to landfill and greenhouse gases into the air and chemicals into the water and air. This also reduces the cost of energy brought into the company for production and support processes. To date, the company has recovered 99.8% of solid waste. Estate agriculture – Begun in 2002, the company experimented with growing its own hops and barley on the property for beer production. This reduces the carbon footprint by eliminating transportation miles to bring raw materials to the brewery. This effort has expanded from 3 acres of hop bines to 33 acres in 2013. An additional 80 acres have been purchased for barley production. Growing hops and barley, the prime ingredients in beer production, has reduced the company’s costs and carbon footprint. This is significant, since this company is the largest consumer of organic hops in the United States. This estate agriculture has been certified organic and produced the first certified organic beer to win a gold medal at the 2012 Great American Beer Festival. Estate gardens – The brewery restaurant procures fresh and seasonal food from local farmers, and in conjunction with a local university, maintains a herd of cattle that are fed a portion of the spent grain used in the brewing process. The naturally raised cattle and local produce give their restaurant patrons healthy alternative choices and, at the same time, reduces their carbon footprint. The Chico Pub Garden, located on brewery grounds, produces most of the vegetables and herbs for the restaurant using organic and sustainable farming practices. These fruits, vegetables, herbs, and ornamental plants on the brewery grounds are germinated in a greenhouse and grown in the garden. The greenhouse, garden, and hop and barley fields are fertilized with the compost that comes from the restaurant organic materials, grain by-products from the brewing process, and other compostable materials. This composting process is located on the brewery grounds and closes the loop in recycling resources through the brewery. Resource recovery – Organics recycling and composting are drivers that close the loop for the restaurant, estate garden, and agriculture. The 150,000 pounds (68,039 kg) of malted barley and 4,000 pounds (1,14 kg) of hops that are used daily provide feed to local cattle and dairy farms. Organic waste from the restaurant and brewery is sent to a composter, which can transform this potential landfill into compost in 10 to 12 days. Since its installation in 2010, the composter has produced 5,000 tons (4,536 metric tons) of rich compost to the restaurant and estate hop and barley fields. Water usage and processing – Obviously one of the most important natural resources for a brewery is water. Sierra Nevada has worked hard to reduce water consumption throughout its history. The metric for water efficiency is the ratio of

208

Human Factors for Sustainability

incoming water to barrel of beer packaged. From 2007 to 2015, there has been a 25% reduction in the amount of water needed to produce a barrel of beer. In addition to using far less water, as a good citizen in the community, Sierra Nevada is reducing its impact in the community. To reduce the municipality’s costs in treating the water leaving the facility, Sierra Nevada built a water treatment plant in 2001 to treat the effluent brewing process water before reaching the city water treatment plant. First, solids are removed and composted on site. Next, the water is treated in an up-flow anaerobic sludge bed digester. The water is then processed in an aeration basin to break down remaining solids. The biogas generated from the anaerobic treatment process is captured and used as an energy source for boilers in the brewery. Energy – The company has a long history with renewable energy and their portfolio has included a fuel cell system that was recently decommissioned, biogas-fueled micro-turbines, and solar energy. The brewery in California generates two megawatts of DC power from ten micro-turbines. Excess energy can be stored on batteries for use during off-peak hours. There are 10,751 solar panels atop all of the buildings and parking overhangs, which is one of the largest privately owned solar arrays in the United States. The solar energy alone supplies 20% of the company’s energy needs, which is the equivalent of energizing 265 average households for a year. Finally, a small-scale biodiesel processer is used to convert all of the cooking oil from the restaurant to biodiesel, which is used in delivery trucks. It also produces high-grade ethanol fuel from discarded yeast. Transportation – The company built a two-mile rail spur to transport malted barley instead of bringing it to Chico by truck. This is a much more efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable alternative to trucking. In 2014 alone, the rail spur transported 23,916 tons (21,696 metric tons) of malt using this more environmentally friendly transport. Much of the finished product is transported by rail to the eastern United States. Trailer loads of product are delivered to the rail line, avoiding truck travel and emissions across the country. Seventy percent of the long-distance hauls have been performed by rail for many years. Arrangements have been made with hop deliveries from the Northwest United States to backhaul beer, thereby reducing the company’s impact on the environment. Fuel-efficient, company-owned delivery trucks deliver beer to locations throughout Northern California and backhaul glass and other packaging materials on their return trip. Electric vehicles – Emission-free vehicles are encouraged by providing free charging stations at the brewery for customers, vendors, and employees. These charging stations are powered by the solar energy from the collection panels atop the brewery. Company vehicles used in town and by sales staff across the country are electric or biodiesel fuel vehicles exclusively. Education and employee engagement – A critical driver to the success of the sustainability initiative at this company is its investment in educating and engaging employees at work and at personal levels. The education is continuous and takes many forms, including workshops, newsletters, articles, displaying key performance indicators, and department-specific training. Beyond these company-related outreach efforts, there are personalized trainings that consider the whole person. The Sustainable Lifestyle Series, introduced in 2014, builds sustainable practices

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

209

into people’s personal lives. Care for and considering the whole person increases the likelihood that it will carry over to work life. Monthly outreach to employees gets feedback on what people do in their personal lives to promote sustainability. Examples include energy conservation, volunteering, food waste, composting, alternative transportation, farmers markets/gardening, recycling, purchasing habits, and water. These are summarized and become suggestions for others to consider incorporating into their lives. The Healthy Opportunity Program (HOP) focuses on increasing people’s awareness about their health and their families. In 2015, 78% of the employees participated in a free health assessment that included: reduction of health insurance premiums, injury prevention, ergonomics, massage therapy, nutrition, weight loss, fitness, tobacco cessation, substance abuse, and stress. HOP offers opportunities to engage in volunteer efforts in the community and offers a strong emphasis on workplace safety. Recognition – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company has received numerous accolades from within the brewing industry for its beer. The company has also been recognized by external environmental energy groups and the community. Recent recognition includes: 2016 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum, Mills River Brewery (U.S. Green Building Council); 2015 Sustainable Business of the Year (Sacramento Business Environmental Resource Center); 2014 Corporate Energy Management Award (Association of Energy Engineers); 2013 Platinum Zero Waste Business (U.S. Zero Waste Business Council); 2013 Corporate Sustainability Award (NorCal Chapter of the Association of Energy Engineers); 2012 Outstanding Closing the Loop Commitment (California Resource Recovery Association); and 2011 Gold Achievement Award – Organic Materials Reduction (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Beyond the formal recognition, this company has become a beacon for others contemplating a sustainability journey to achieve the same results. There are numerous visits throughout the year by other managers and owners interested in starting a similar program. The Sustainability Manager spends a good portion of her time with community and industry groups sharing information and promoting these goals. The Sustainability Manager is also involved in industry organizations. Sierra Nevada cochairs the Brewers Association’s Sustainability Subcommittee and is involved with an industry group on glass recycling. This affects the ecology of organizations in the industry and in the community. This external engagement is a deliberate organizational design feature that recognizes the organization’s position in an open system. This not only improves the company’s position in the industry and community but also improves the organizational ecology.

KEY LEARNING POINTS TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY While we have not provided hard metrics to demonstrate the Triple Bottom Line effect of this case, much can be learned from observations within the facility. Interviews with the owner, key stakeholders in the sustainability program, managers, reviewing company documents, and inspection of these facilities were all useful in understanding the company’s efforts and their effects. This information coupled with a long-term working relationship with the organization provided a useful context for

210

Human Factors for Sustainability

understanding the efforts to achieve sustainability. Values that emphasize quality, integrity, people, community, and sustainability are observed consistently. These values are evident visually, in interactions with employees, in observing processes, as well as reviewing data. To draw on the key learnings from this case, we relied on prior knowledge about the company, available published resources, and interviews with the owner, Sustainability Manager, and other stakeholders. It is a culture change. Just as we learned about safety, changing human and organizational behavior in sustainability will require changing the culture. Culture change is not a program; it will take time and continuous effort. Firsthand advice from this case, and anyone who has attempted to make a culture change, is that it is constant, is imperfect, and never ends. It begins with articulated values that leadership must own, values that are consistent with its own. Steadfastness on these values is what allows progress when one is challenged by others, and by itself. The expression of these values through actions, decisions, structures, and processes affects the climate within the organization, which over time will cultivate a new culture. These learning points are consistent with the findings in safety and the distal organizational factors in Figure 9.4. The organization’s sustainability climate has an impact on what people are motivated to do and, consequently, if they behave sustainably. Our interviews with ownership and sustainability leadership confirm that the consistency between the existing organizational culture and the change efforts is critical. Leadership – Owners and leaders insisting that sustainability is important make it a priority. Culture change is not possible without strong leadership. This requires constant reinforcement from the key figurehead and “walking the talk” when it comes to key decisions that have consequences on the other two bottom line metrics (profits and people). In some instances, it is appropriate for owners to mandate change, despite what on the surface appears to be a bad business decision. This is consistent with the safety model predicting that leadership has an effect on motivation and people’s willingness to behave differently. In the present case, the owner’s involvement and support for sustainability is highly visible. Efforts to reduce consumption and waste and protect the environment have always been a personal value, emphasizing the need to not only do things right but do the right things. This leader’s willingness to spend and support sustainability efforts is what gives this program success. The Leadership component in the distal organizational factors (Figure 9.4) cannot be overstated. It had a strong influence in this case. Personal characteristics – Some individuals are more likely to change their behaviors more quickly than others. This depends on a host of factors, including: their attitudes about the environment, their own life experiences at home with recycling, history of rewards for behaving sustainably, and personality. This is especially important in a legacy workforce with little turnover. When there are fewer employment options in a community, when a company is attractive enough to retain employees for a long time, or when job skill levels can attract a wide range of workers, people stay. Having the right people who are more inclined to change is critical to culture change. Moreover, making changes in an organization where the culture is well established, as opposed to being under development, creates challenges of inertia – we’ve always done it this way. Proper selection is a key requirement.

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

211

The Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) asserts that it is the collective characteristics of people that define an organization, the structures, processes, and culture. This framework consists of attraction of employees (people’s preference for organizations based on an estimate of how well they are aligned with the organization), selection of employees (using formal and informal procedures to choose candidates), and attrition of employees (people will leave an organization if they don’t fit in with the values). Over time, organizations become more homogeneous as the ones who do not align with organizational values lift themselves out. At the core of this model are the founder’s implicit and explicit goals. At Sierra Nevada, they have begun using the company values as criteria for selection. The experiences in this case support the notion that personal characteristics that people bring into the organization and the ones developed once inside the organization are important determinants of their ability to change. Not being able to adapt to the culture change may mean severing relationships and further recruitment and selection. This cyclical change can have positive and negative effects on climate and consistency in culture. Education and engagement – The experience in this organizational case suggests that when confronted with a culture change like sustainability, people may want to do the right thing, but for many, they just don’t know how. Education, training, and engagement are the keys to helping them make a valuable contribution. In addition to the formal programs described in the case study, repeated multiple channel communications reinforce the value. Beyond covering sustainability in new employee orientation, the company uses blogs, newsletters, personal lifestyle training, and mini-tours to show how what you do affects other employees and the environment. The fact that this was cited as a critical success factor aligns with the notion that knowledge about sustainability influences how people behave and whether they will make the culture change. But it goes beyond increasing understanding and facts. It deals with the whole person by considering his or her overall health, well-being, and life outside of work. To the extent that information and engagement can create this work-life consistency, culture change and sustainability may become more likely. The educational efforts in this case highlight the importance of increasing sustainability knowledge (see Proximal Individual Factors in Figure 9.4). As suggested in the general performance model, increased knowledge is a determinant of increased action in the desired arena. The multiple educational, training, and communication efforts in this case were large contributors to this knowledge base. Formalized sustainability structure – Another feature of the organizational climate in Figure 9.4 is organizational structural features that can influence long-term behavior. Establishing a formal organizational entity with a manager and staff is an important step in creating a priority for sustainability, demonstrating management commitment. Although the Sustainability Manager is not at the director level, the position does have a direct reporting relationship to the Owner. This organizational design conveys the priority of sustainability to both those inside and outside the organization. Beyond the structure, sustainability has a defined mission. That mission flows directly from the core values and is a natural extension of things that are part of the larger organizational culture.

212

Human Factors for Sustainability

An important learning point that this department gained is one that we have also gleaned in changing safety culture. Sustainability is not the responsibility of the Sustainability Department. It is each operational unit’s responsibility that needs to be built into their daily practices. Though there is a formal department, its goal is to facilitate, provide resources, and suggest changes that departments can implement in their operations. This involves enabling and facilitating, not doing the work for them. It is about demonstrating management commitment and facilitating internal group processes. The organizational design of a sustainability unit and its relationship with the rest of the organization is an important distal situational factor that will affect success in realizing sustainability. Sustainability performance incentives – Incentives are relatively new to the company and it included a sustainability component for managers and, later, for all employees. This is an evolving process. However, incentivizing company-wide and department performance seemed to have been an effective means of improving sustainability motivation. This is in line with psychological research on motivation. Vansteenkiste, Lens, and Deci (2006) found intrinsic goal framing (relative to extrinsic goal framing and no goal framing) resulted in deeper engagement in learning activities and higher persistence in learning activities. These effects were found in individuals regardless of whether they were intrinsically or extrinsically oriented. Given that the desires to create a sustainable organization are often rooted in intrinsic motivations, incentivizing employees to improve sustainability would be an effective way to motivate employees. These incentives and recognitions are consistent with the Rewards in the Organizational Factors in Figure 9.4. Organizational reinforcement and rewards for these values create the climate for influencing people’s behavior. Co-locating recycling and trash receptacles – The one design feature that was mentioned involved making it easy for people to participate in promoting sustainability. Wherever there is a trash receptacle, there should also be a recycling or composting bin nearby. If people have to decide on whether to recycle or compost and it involves going somewhere else to participate, it will likely end up being comingled in the same container. This avoids the decision of wanting to do the right thing, if only it were not so inconvenient, which leads to the hope that it is all recyclable, or “wishcycling.” Locating receptacles where people are traveling to naturally when they last use the item is also a good interface design feature that affects sustainability performance. This is a common ergonomics practice in designing workstations and production facilities. This practice can also be applied to public spaces.

CONCLUSIONS While the goals of sustainability are certainly laudable and reasonable, its implementation remains elusive. The worldviews and differing incentives and organizational priorities make it difficult for people to focus on the Triple Bottom Line features simultaneously. Sustainability is determined by a complex set of factors that can be best understood using a systems approach to its design and management. The case presented in this chapter illustrates how viewing an organization and its process as interdependent determinants of the Triple Bottom Line can lead to

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

213

successful sustainability performance and outcomes. This case also demonstrates the importance of examining the contextual organizational factors the company operates within. It is management’s intentional focus on its environmental, social, and economic responsibilities that produced these outcomes. Management purposefully communicated, educated, and trained their employees to increase knowledge and motivation about sustainability performance to impact organizational sustainability outcomes. Imitating any of these changes as piecemeal sustainability solutions will probably not yield the same results. Instead, by looking at these inputs, throughputs, and outputs as independent processes to produce economic, environmental, and human gains helps to understand why the company achieved these results. The case also illustrates how committed leadership can make a significant difference. The commitment to sustainability goals (e.g., zero waste, water use, energy recirculation) requires a vision of the organization within its community, industry, and natural ecosystems. On one hand, this may be a special case of a unique organization, situation, or leader. More successful case studies across a variety of industries should be published to document and compare common success factors. The proposed model transfers what we have learned about safety behaviors to sustainability. Future studies should test the efficacy of these proposed transfers. As in the case of safety, sustainability performance should fall under the same principles as a general human performance model. Further testing of specific distal and proximal organizational and individual factors may tease out unique characteristics that apply to sustainability. There may be unique features to these behaviors that can be better predicted by other variables. Ergonomics, particularly macroergonomics and human systems integration, has much to offer in addressing similar system changes. One such learning point comes from a model to predict safety outcomes, including the motivation and knowledge that determine these behaviors and their distal social and personal antecedents. We believe this model can be a heuristic for directing future interventions and design. The organizational case presented here offers the hope that such a reality is possible. Key learnings from this case support the major tenets of the safety model applied to sustainability. The model points to the dual influence of organizational factors and individual factors in predicting sustainable behaviors and outcomes. Our discoveries about this organization suggest that the organizational variables such as rewards, structure, HRM practices, commitment, and leadership are vital to achieving sustainability. The firm’s serious effort to increase individuals’ knowledge and interest is also critical to increasing participation. At the same time, personal factors make a difference in how this information is received. How people are selected, promoted, and retained are important determinants about who will be making the changes. This attention to individual characteristics is important in determining what sustainable behaviors will be carried out. Over time, the organizational factors can influence individual factors as well. For example, people with a longer history of success and rewards will be more likely to follow up on particular behaviors. Successful sustainability change will depend on organizational behavior and change management that are consistent with the human and system needs. We believe that this systems view of organizational, individual, and design factors are necessary considerations. We can continue to learn as more case studies highlight

214

Human Factors for Sustainability

successful implementation of sustainability efforts. Though case studies are not rigorously controlled, they do demonstrate how organizations exist as part of an integrated system, how they balance priorities for the Triple Bottom Line, and how organizations achieve sustainability in reality.

REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1954). The structuring of events: Outline of a general theory with applications to psychology. Psychological Sciences, 61, 281–303. Boehm-Davis, D. A., Durso, F. T., & Lee, J. D. (2015). APA Handbook of Human Systems Integration. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 84–104. Brewers Association. (March 15, 2017). Brewers Association releases top 50 breweries of 2016. https://www.brewersassociation.org/press-releases/brewers-association-releasestop-50-breweries-of-2016/. [Accessed April 8, 2019]. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423. Calagione, S. (March–April 2010). Sierra Nevada turns 30: An interview with Ken Grossman. Brewers Association. [https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/zymurgy/sierranevada-turns-30/. Accessed April 16, 2011]. Carayon, P., Hundt, A. S., Karsh, B. T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Brennan, P. F. (2006). Work system design for patient safety: The SEIPS model. BMJ Quality & Safety, 15, 50–58. Carayon, P., Wetterneck, T. B., Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J., Hundt, A. S., Hoonakker, P., Holden, R., & Gurses, A. P. (2014). Human factors systems approach to healthcare quality and patient safety. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 14–25. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1103–1127. CNN Business. (2015). The cost of pollution in China. https://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/ news/economy/china-pollution-business/index.html. [April 8, 2019]. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behaviour and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884. Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher ups: How supervisor and skip development in a pluralist. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–725. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., Wilson, J. R., & van der Doelen, B. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. Ehnert, I., Harry, W., & Zink, K. J. (2014). Sustainability and HRM: An introduction to the field. In: I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and Human Resource Management. Springer, Heidelberg. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustain corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organisational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32. Gribbin, J. (1984). In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. Bantam, New York.

Achieving Sustainability through HFE

215

Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347–358. Hendrick, H. W. (1984). Wagging the tail with the dog: Organisational design considerations in ergonomics. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting, 28(10), 899–903. Hendrick, H. W. (2002). An overview of macroergonomics. In: H. W. Hendrick & B. M. Kleiner (Eds.), Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1–24. Hsiung, H. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee voice behaviour: A multi-level psychological process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 349–361. Imada, A. S. (2002). A macroergonomics approach to reducing work-related injuries. In: H. W. Hendrick & B. M. Kleiner (Eds.), Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 151–172. International Ergonomics Association. (2011). International Ergonomics Association. What is ergonomics? http://iea.cc/whats/index.html. [Accessed December 12, 2017]. Kleiner, B. M., & Booher, H. R. (2003). Human systems integration education and training. In: H. R. Booher (Ed.), Handbook of Human Systems Integration. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 121–163. Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behaviour, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189–202. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. McCormick, E. J., & Sanders, M. S. (1982). Human Factors in Engineering and Design. McGraw-Hill, New York. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organisational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralist. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–725. Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Safety climate and safety work. In: J. Barling & M. R. Frone (Eds.), The Psychology or Workplace Safety. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 15–34. Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Free Press, New York. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Schneider, B., Goldstiein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773. Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. (2015). Biannual sustainability report 2015. http://sierranevada. com/brewery/about-us/sustainability/energy. [Accessed November 28, 2017]. Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-gathering. Human Relations, 4, 3–38. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19–31. World Commission on the Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

10

Factors to Consider in the Application of the Sustainable Systemof-Systems Model for Human Factors and Ergonomics Interventions Andrew Thatcher and Paul H. P. Yeow

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 217 The Sustainable System-of-Systems Model for HFE............................................. 218 Point 1: Identifying the Relevant Target, Sibling, Child, and Parent Systems........ 222 Point 2: Placing Systems in the SSoS Hierarchy.................................................... 225 Point 3: Factors to Consider in Collecting Data..................................................... 226 Point 4: Identifying Intervention Points for the HFE Practitioner.......................... 228 Point 5: Iteration..................................................................................................... 230 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 231 References............................................................................................................... 233

INTRODUCTION As Thatcher et al. (2018) have noted, the global challenges facing humanity are enormous and growing in significance and complexity. These challenges have been referred to as wicked problems (Incropera, 2016) or even as super-wicked problems (Levin et al., 2012). Wicked and super-wicked challenges are characterized as being difficult to define, where humans are both the leading causes of the problems and also the ones expected to find solutions, where there are no obvious right or wrong answers, and where important deadlines are now rapidly approaching (Levin et al., 2012; Rittell & Webber, 1973). From a human factors and ergonomics (HFE) perspective, Thatcher and Yeow (2018a) have characterized these challenges as a complex, interlinked network of three categories of global asymmetries – waste asymmetries, resource asymmetries, and legislative asymmetries. These asymmetries have resulted in severe, negative human consequences such as ill health (Landrigan et al., 2018), 217

218

Human Factors for Sustainability

psychological disturbances (Roszak, Gomes, & Kanner, 1995), and social disruptions (Lelieveld et al., 2015). In addition, these asymmetries have already had (and will continue to have) an enormous negative effect on the natural systems that support human habitation on this planet (Ceballos et al., 2017; Foster et al., 2017; Kjellstrom et al., 2009). HFE has often been characterized as a systems discipline (Carayon, 2006; Dul et al., 2012; Wilson, 2014; Zink, 2014). However, the challenges facing humanity (e.g., super-wicked problems and global asymmetries) are so great that they can no longer be addressed through simple, linear, systems modeling of relationships between system elements (Siemieniuch et al., 2015). These challenges involve many systems and solving a problem with one system may not effectively address other interacting problems in related systems. For example, one of the solutions to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion engines is to use biofuels. Biofuels are renewable, unlike fossil fuels. However, a large-scale move to biofuels means that valuable agricultural land is converted from food production to fuel production. This has the unintended consequence of creating food shortages and driving up food prices. In addition, biofuels still release significant amounts of harmful by-products, such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides, during the combustion process. Dekker et al. (2013) have suggested that HFE professionals now require a deeper understanding of the qualities of complex systems and particularly the requirements to understand differences between local and distant relationships among related systems, how dynamic interactions operate, the fuzzy boundaries of systems, and the emergent properties in complex systems. In this context, Salmon et al. (2017) have questioned whether the HFE profession has the systems analysis tools to understand and intervene in these types of complex systems. They suggest that the levels of complexity requiring analysis within the HFE profession might already outstrip the methodological approaches available. In particular, Salmon et al. (2017) argue that current HFE systems methods need to move beyond looking only at “abnormal” behavior that can be implicated in accidents to an examination of “normal” behavior from which potential problems might emerge. In addition, our analysis tools need to move beyond examining past events to predicting future events. Salmon et al. (2017) argue that existing and emerging HFE tools that look at understanding complex accident events might be adapted to meet the requirements of this complexity. In this chapter, we show how a new model, the sustainable system-of-systems (SSoS) model for HFE (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a, 2016b), might be used as the framework to understand what adaptations are required to existing HFE tools to achieve sustainable HFE systems.

THE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM-OF-SYSTEMS MODEL FOR HFE We only give a very brief overview here of the SSoS model for HFE, since many of the details have been covered in depth previously (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a, 2016b, 2018b; Thatcher, 2016, 2017). The SSoS model is derived from the general area of green ergonomics (Thatcher, 2013) as it draws inspiration from an understanding of the connections between HFE and ecological systems. The SSoS model has four principal components: (a) a nested hierarchy of related systems; (b) a focus on the

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

219

achievement of multiple, simultaneous goals; (c) a consideration of issues over time; and (d) complex adaptive cycles of systems. First component: Nested hierarchies of systems are frequently identified in nature (Costanza & Patten, 1995; Gunderson & Holling, 2002), with smaller, less complex systems being nested within larger, more complex systems (e.g., a tree system is found within a forest system, and a forest system might be found within a biome system). Thatcher and Yeow (2016a, 2016b) noted that systems in HFE can also be characterized in a nested hierarchy. For example, human-task and human-tool systems are nested within a human-work system, which is nested within a team system, which itself is nested in an organizational system. Thatcher and Yeow (2016a) used Wilson’s (2014) terms to describe the relative relationships between systems in the hierarchy. The system of interest to the HFE practitioner is called the “target” system. Systems with equivalent complexity and spatial influence are called “sibling” systems. Systems of greater complexity and spatial reach that encompass the target system are called “parent” systems, whereas systems that are less complex and have a smaller spatial reach that are encompassed by the target system are called “child” systems. Figure 10.1 illustrates the typical hierarchical ordering of systems within the HFE field. There may be many orders of child and parent systems representing different layers of complexity and spatial reach. Traditionally, the HFE approach has been to identify a target system and then to treat all the other interacting systems as the “environment.” Instead, the SSoS approach is to treat these child, sibling, and parent systems as part of the same “family” of interacting systems. Second component: In order to link with a sustainability agenda, Thatcher and Yeow (2016a) argued that the SSoS model would need to achieve multiple, simultaneous, interlinked sustainability goals. To ensure the sustainability of the SSoS, the goals would also need to be balanced (Mauerhofer, 2008). As a simple example, Thatcher and Yeow (2016a) used Elkington’s (1998) triple bottom line goals where a balance of social, economic, and natural capital is required (see Figure 10.1, which has the triple bottom line goals in the shape of a triangle as an example). A more complex attempt might be to include more ambitious goals such as the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). Third component: The third component is the consideration of time as an important dimension. Costanza and Patten (1995) noted that no system lasts forever. Instead, the “natural life span” of a system should be consistent with its placement within the nested hierarchy of systems. Larger, more complex systems have longer natural life spans than smaller, less complex systems (i.e., an entire work system will naturally last longer than the task-tool interactions that make up that work system, as both the tasks and the tools change regularly). If a system lasts too long past its natural life span, it will become brittle as it fails to adjust appropriately to external changes. These systems risk a collapse of the entire system-of-systems. Similarly, a system that fails to last as long as its natural life span will cause instability in the hierarchy of systems as the parent and child systems struggle to adjust to changes that happen too rapidly. The time dimension is represented graphically in Figure 10.1, moving from left to right, with the small ovals representing the “termination” points of each system.

FIGURE 10.1  The first three principal components of the sustainable system-of-systems (SSoS) model for human factors and ergonomics.

220 Human Factors for Sustainability

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

221

Fourth component: The fourth component is the complex adaptive cycle. Gunderson and Holling (2002) noted that any single ecological system follows an adaptive life cycle (i.e., exploitation, conservation/consolidation, release/creative destruction, and reorganization/destructuring). The cycle essentially follows a pattern of growth in resource elements and increasing connectedness between resource elements until a point of system conservation is reached. At this point, the system is mature and the interaction of components occurs with minimal effort. However, because the connections and interactions are well established, they are also likely to be brittle and so the system is also highly vulnerable to changes from the external environment (i.e., from adaptations in parent, child, and sibling systems) and existing connectedness between resource elements may break down, resulting in the possibility for new arrangements and interconnections to occur between resource elements (and, indeed, for new resource elements to be introduced and old resource elements to be discarded). An example of an adaptive cycle in HFE might be demonstrated with a human interacting with a tool (a typewriter, for example). In the exploration stage, the human must learn the different ways the typewriter can be used, creating connections between the typewriter’s technological components and the various tasks that can be performed. Once these applications are learned, the system enters the conservation stage, where the interaction with the typewriter happens with increasing confidence and reduced effort. The release stage occurs when aspects of the external environment challenge the viability of those specific task-typewriter interactions. This could occur when a new tool, a word processor, for example, becomes available or when the tasks no longer need to be performed, a voice-activated writing becomes available, for example. In the reorganization stage, the old tool (the typewriter) may be abandoned in favor of a new tool – voice-activated writing (or the old tool may be adapted to new work behaviors). In essence, the task-tool system does not “die” but evolves/adapts into a new task-tool system that is suitable to the emergent environmental conditions. Gunderson and Holling’s (2002) adaptive cycles describe the life cycles of each system in the hierarchy. Additionally, they also demonstrated how the adaptive cycles of each system at different levels in the hierarchy might interact across the nested hierarchy of systems. Gunderson and Holling (2002) referred to this nested hierarchy of interacting adaptive cycles as a “panarchy,” which is analogous to a nested hierarchy of systems as found in the SSoS model. The key ideas behind a “panarchy” are the terms “pan,” meaning the God of nature in Greek mythology, and “archy,” signifying a hierarchy. In the context of nature and sustainability, panarchy means that the higher-level systems (the highest is the whole natural system) rule over the lower-level systems. When a faster, smaller, less complex system reaches the reorganization and destructuring stage, the amount of change is constrained by larger, slower, more complex systems. Gunderson and Holling (2002) referred to this stabilizing influence from the parent systems as a “remember” process. Further, when faster, smaller, less complex systems reach the release and creative destruction stage, they also influence slower, larger, more complex systems that are reaching the end of their conservation stage. Gunderson and Holling (2002) referred to the disruption from the child systems as a “revolt” process. To phrase the “revolt” and “remember” processes in terms of the SSoS nomenclature, child systems revitalize

222

Human Factors for Sustainability

the target system and parent systems stabilize the target system. These hierarchical interactions of complex adaptive systems demonstrate how “higher”- and “lower”level systems coevolve together. The revolt and remember processes are illustrated in Figure 10.2. In order to tackle sustainability problems, the nested hierarchy of systems should align their goals for the sustainability of the larger natural system in order to sustain themselves. One of the important questions that remain is how the SSoS concepts might apply to an HFE intervention. This chapter discusses the key application points to consider for HFE interventions. The following points will be considered:

1) Identifying and defining the relevant systems and their relative placement in the hierarchy of systems (points 1 and 2) 2) Collecting inclusive data with many interrelated and interacting systems (point 3) 3) Identifying the relevant points for HFE to intervene to make guided changes (point 4) 4) Ideas on how much change and how much iteration are expected for an HFE intervention to make a difference (point 5)

POINT 1: IDENTIFYING THE RELEVANT TARGET, SIBLING, CHILD, AND PARENT SYSTEMS The issues concerned with the identification of relevant systems to consider within SSoS were the subject of an earlier book chapter (Thatcher & Yeow, 2018b). The primary problem is identifying the boundaries for an HFE intervention in the context of

FIGURE 10.2  The revolt and remember processes of a complex adaptive system. (Adapted from: Gunderson & Holling, 2002).

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

223

potentially limitless systems to consider. In a traditional HFE intervention, one simply identifies the system of interest (i.e., the target system) and treats all other interacting systems as the “environment.” However, the SSoS model teaches us that with complex systems, the HFE practitioner needs to embrace the fact that there are potentially uncountable relevant interactions and feedback mechanisms with various child, sibling, and parent systems that play a role in understanding the target system. In this context, where does the HFE practitioner draw the boundary line? In our previous chapter, we considered a range of network and stakeholder theories that may prove useful in determining which systems to consider and the boundaries between systems of interest. Possible solutions included the Pareto principle, stakeholder salience theory, soft systems methodology, and network theory. Interested readers are referred to Thatcher and Yeow (2018b) for a more detailed consideration of these theories in the context of the SSoS model. In that chapter, we concluded that network theories held the best promise for the identification of relevant systems. It is important to bear in mind that while network theories showed promise, we also noted that social network theories would not provide a complete solution because they often only include human social relationships, whereas the systems we are interested in within HFE often include non‑human technical, financial, and ecological components. Three of the existing complex systems analysis tools in the HFE discipline already have significant network analysis components. These methods show promise for adaptation to the context of sustainability problems: Accimap (Svedung & Rasmussen, 2002), the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST; Walker et al., 2006), and Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA; Vicente, 1999). They have been selected because while they have each emerged from the tradition of accident analysis, and they have also demonstrated flexibility in being adaptable to contexts beyond accidents. An Accimap is Svedung and Rasmussen’s (2002) extension of Rasmussen’s (1997) Risk Management Framework, which is used to identify the contributory factors to an accident and the relationships between these factors. What is interesting about Rasmussen’s Risk Management Framework for identifying relevant systems is that the contributory factors are also ordered hierarchically. Rasmussen’s Risk Management Framework has six hierarchical levels: (1) national government, (2) regulatory bodies, (3) local area government or organizational management, (4) technical and operational management, (5) physical processes and actor activities, and (6) equipment and surroundings. Accimaps use a technique called Actormaps to identify the causal flow of events between “actors” in order to understand an accident. The Actormap network therefore consists of a hierarchically ordered set of actors interconnected and interacting through various relationships such as actions, communication, information flows, policies, and structural influences. An Actormap has also been used as a prospective tool to identify possible future hazards (Stevens et al., 2018) and therefore may be suitable as a tool to identify relevant systems of interest in the context of sustainability. Actormaps use the six hierarchical levels to identify all the key actors at the various levels and the links between the actors. However, in order to apply Actormaps to the sustainability contexts envisaged through the SSoS model to identify relevant systems, they will need to be extended in two ways. First, the number and names of hierarchical levels may require refinement and extension.

224

Human Factors for Sustainability

In particular, sustainability problems may require higher-level systems such as intergovernmental relationships. Second, as already mentioned, Actormaps would require the specification of non‑human actors, including technical and ecological actors. Non‑human actors have already been included in the construction of some Actormaps, with entities such as policies (Svedung & Rasmussen, 2002), regulations (Nascimento et al., 2016), and equipment (Waterson, 2009). Therefore, there is also scope to include ecological actors. EAST is an integrated set of HFE methods for analyzing the performance of a system, particularly systems with multiple human agents (Walker et al., 2006). Central to EAST is that it uses what Stanton et al. (2013) call a “network of networks” (p. 558). Essentially, EAST uses three networks: task networks, social networks, and information networks. The task network is derived from a hierarchical task analysis (HTA) and describes the goals and tasks being performed in each system. The social networks are derived from a social network analysis and describe the various associations (i.e., communications and information links) between the agents in the system. Social network analysis metrics such as centrality (the most important or connected agents in the network), closeness (the degree of connectivity between agents), and betweenness (the degree of relatedness between agents) can be applied to determine the characteristics of the social network. In addition, aspects such as the frequency and direction of communication, the network density, and the sociometric status of an agent can be determined. Stanton et al. (2013) noted that agents could be human or technological artifacts (and for the purposes of the discussion here, presumably this could also be extended to ecological artifacts). Finally, the information network consists of propositional statements that link agents within the network. The network therefore contains all of the information that agents need during task performance. Stanton et al. (2013) noted that information networks also consist of human and technological agents. One of the problems with using the EAST network of networks approach is that it is designed to analyze a single system in a single scenario. As a result, this approach may end up being too detailed to provide meaningful clarity for identifying relevant child, sibling, and parent systems in a complex system-of-systems over an extended period of time. Within the suite of networks provided by EAST, social network analysis probably holds the most promise for identifying systems of interest, although this might mean defining entire systems as agents to unlock the most relevant systems to consider. CWA (Vicente, 1999) is perhaps the most comprehensive framework for developing and analyzing complex sociotechnical systems. The CWA framework is divided into five phases that can be used more or less independently from one another. The five phases are: (1) work domain analysis, (2) control task analysis, (3) strategies analysis, (4) social and organization cooperation analysis, and (5) worker competencies analysis. The phase that shows the greatest promise for identifying the relevant systems to consider is social and organization cooperation analysis (SOCA). SOCA is used to identify the relationships between human and non‑human agents in a system. According to Stanton et al. (2018), the first step in SOCA is to define all the agents and their roles (bearing in mind that an agent might have to change roles). The second step is then to map the roles across the different tasks (this is called a contextual analysis template) to determine redundancies and gaps. Perhaps the best application

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

225

of CWA to determine relevant systems of interest was Baber et al.’s (2018) application of SOCA to conduct a social network analysis. Their findings suggest that if all the “actor” systems were known, applying social network analysis metrics could be used to identify the systems of relevance. However, CWA is concerned more with the organization of a specific system, especially in contexts where the agents and their anticipated roles are already known (Stanton et al., 2013). Nevertheless, we would suggest that a deeper analysis of SOCA is required to determine the applicability of CWA for identifying the relevant sibling, child, and parent systems.

POINT 2: PLACING SYSTEMS IN THE SSOS HIERARCHY As with many complex systems approaches within the HFE field, the number and ordering of hierarchical levels to consider varies considerably. For example, Rasmussen’s (1997) Risk Management Framework identifies several vertical levels of functional abstraction that might be implicated in a particular safety event. Rasmussen (1997) emphasized that this functional abstraction hierarchy was illustrative and not fixed. The number of levels and the actual labels for those levels in the functional abstraction hierarchy was dependent on the system under investigation (the “target” system, to use the nomenclature from the SSoS model). The purpose of Rasmussen’s (1997) functional abstraction hierarchy was not to create a rigid framework (although it is sometimes interpreted this way) but to demonstrate that vertical interactions between the hierarchical levels were also important in understanding safety. A similar principle applies to the SSoS model. The “levels” in the nested hierarchy and the systems to be considered are relative to the target system. Identifying the target system creates context for the other systems that interact with the target system. As explained in the fourth component of the SSoS model above, the parent and child systems have different influences (i.e., “remember” and “revolt”) on the target system. The parent system provides the context for change and the child systems create revolt changes for the target system. It is therefore important to place the target system at the correct level in the nested hierarchy of systems. It is possible for the same system to be a parent system in one context, a child system in another context, a sibling system in another context, and a target system in another context. For example, a particular work system (e.g., an organization) might be a parent system when the target system is understanding team functioning, a child system when the target system is a governmental or political system, or a sibling system when the target system involves inter‑organizational efficiencies. Unlike Accimap, EAST, or CWA, the placement of systems within the SSoS model is not performed on the basis of a predetermined hierarchy such as Rasmussen’s (1997) Risk Management Framework. Instead, the hierarchical placement is determined by three factors: (1) the natural life span of the system, (2) the geographical reach of the system, and (3) the complexity of the system. The natural life span of a system is not necessarily the longest possible life span of the system, but rather the natural rate at which change (and therefore the reorganization of the system) is likely to happen. Often it is not possible to accurately predict the natural life span of a system, particularly if different instances of a system have radically different natural life spans (e.g., life expectancy in Japan, which is 83.7 years, or life expectancy

226

Human Factors for Sustainability

in Sierra Leone, which is 50.1 years; WHO, 2016), or when the natural life span is considerably longer than the natural human life span (e.g., an ecosystem or a biome). It is therefore possible for a specific type of system to fall at a different level in the hierarchy of systems depending on the context and the “family” of related systems. Additionally, it might be determined that the “natural” life span has been “unnaturally” manipulated. For example, a local government might attempt to stay in power through corrupt or violent means, thus unnaturally extending the natural life span of governance. In this context, the analysis team might deem the “natural” life span to have been exceeded because of the instability that this causes in the system-of-systems. Placement in the hierarchy according to the natural life span is therefore dependent on an analysis within a particular context. The geographical reach of a system is deceptively difficult to determine. At face value, it is fairly easy to determine the geographical reach of many physical systems (particularly if they fall within a human’s perceptual capabilities). However, many of the systems that include humans have a geographical reach that extends beyond the apparent physical boundaries. Information and communication technology allows the geographical reach of a system to extend far beyond the immediate environment. For example, using Twitter to send a message can extend that message’s reach far beyond the immediate group of followers (e.g., when that message is retweeted). Once again, a careful analysis of the specific context as well as the reach of any technological intermediaries is required to determine geographical reach. System complexity is determined by examining the extent to which a system displays the characteristics of complexity. In particular, a complex system is characterized by the number and nature of the interconnections between agents (or nodes) within the system. With reference to the nature of the interconnections, the more complex the system, the more likely it is that the interconnections will display nonlinear relationships (Anderson, 1999). Complexity is also often associated with dynamism (Walker et al., 2010). While dynamism is not necessarily a diagnostic characteristic of the complexity of a system, one of the qualities of dynamism that bears mentioning is emergence (Walker et al., 2017). Emergence refers to the unpredictability of end states or behaviors produced by the system (Dekker et al., 2013). It could be argued that due to the number of interconnections and the increasing nonlinear relationships of those interconnections, more complex systems will have greater emergence than less complex systems. As has been mentioned before, the placement of a system within the hierarchy of systems is dependent on the target system and the relative complexity of the identified parent, child, and sibling systems. The exact placement will therefore vary depending on the specific target system and the relative complexity of systems in relation to that target system.

POINT 3: FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN COLLECTING DATA As we have mentioned in previous publications, we believe that participatory approaches to data collection and intervention (Lange-Morales et al., 2014; Thatcher & Yeow, 2018c) should be preferred, primarily because complex systems require multi-voicedness (i.e., input from multiple stakeholders) and multiple solutions.

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

227

Read et al. (2015) have combined the participatory ergonomics approach with CWA in their CWA Design Toolkit. According to Read et al. (2015), this includes the participation of human users and stakeholders in the collection of data, in the verification of analysis outputs, in the identification of insights, in the idea-generation activities, in the selection of design interventions, and in the evaluation and reconceptualization of design interventions. From a sustainability perspective, the involvement of users and stakeholders is critical, as they will be the people who have to live with the consequences of the interventions. From, an intervention design perspective, user and stakeholder involvement is critical to the acceptance and refinement of design interventions. Stanton et al. (2013) identify a host of data collection tools that might be used in the analysis phase of complex systems analysis. These include document reviews, various types of interviews with actors/agents/subject-matter experts, observations or recordings, think-aloud protocols, task analysis questionnaires, and cognitive walkthroughs. However, unlike in typical systems analyses where the relevant system under investigation is clearly defined, in the SSoS model, it is necessary to first identify the relevant stakeholders and stakeholder systems. Identifying users is relatively simple if the target system is well defined but less simple if the target system has fuzzy boundaries (typical of many complex systems) – and therefore might also have ill-defined users, actors, or agents. Even more difficult is determining the relevant stakeholders from the sibling, child, and parent systems. In earlier work (Thatcher & Yeow, 2018b), we considered using stakeholder identification and salience theory (Mitchell et al., 1997). According to Mitchell et al. (1997), stakeholder salience is dependent on power, legitimacy, and urgency. Therefore, those stakeholders that are high on more than one of these factors should be given a higher priority for inclusion. In our earlier review, we raised some concerns with being able to identify these qualities in potential stakeholders. Chief among these concerns is that identification will depend on who you ask. This means that the initial selection of stakeholders may influence which other stakeholders are included in the analysis. This is complicated further by Mitchell et al. (1997), who argued that some stakeholders might have indirect or potential future relationships with the target system. This means that a stakeholder salience analysis at a particular point in time may not identify the relevant stakeholders for future situations within a dynamic environment. Mitchell et al. (1997) acknowledge these limitations by noting that the stakeholder attributes are variable, that they are socially constructed, and that several unconscious and willful processes may influence the determination of stakeholder salience. In a reframing exercise, rather than see these factors as key limitations, Mitchell et al. (1997) actually suggested that recognizing these social constructions can be helpful in determining legitimate stakeholders from illegitimate stakeholders. We would therefore support a process of cautious inclusivity in discussions concerning relevant stakeholders. This is probably best achieved through group discussions rather than through individual interviews. In this way, the legitimacy of “stakeholdership” might be established through cross-referencing and iterative verification. This does not remove the biases identified by Mitchell et al. (1997) but may help to bring these biases to the surface. There is also a high likelihood that there will be disagreements between stakeholders as to the system’s purpose, the system’s goals, which is the relevant target

228

Human Factors for Sustainability

system, where systems should be placed relative to one another (i.e., as sibling, child, or parent systems), and the current stage of systems in the adaptive cycle. It is our contention that it is highly likely that stakeholders naturally choose target systems that are moving from the conservation to the release stage or are already in the release stage. Systems that are displaying characteristics of the release stage (i.e., a loss of internal linkages or structure and a reduced ability to adapt to changes from the external environment) are readily identifiable as systems requiring intervention. From an HFE perspective, these include systems where errors and accidents are more frequent, where people are abandoning the use of the system, or where people find it difficult to adapt to new tasks or new environments. It is a lot more difficult to reach agreement on the relevant systems of interest. It is suggested that these are not only decided by consensus but that other analytical tools (e.g., social network analysis) are used to uncover the most likely candidate systems.

POINT 4: IDENTIFYING INTERVENTION POINTS FOR THE HFE PRACTITIONER There are four points where it is possible to intervene using the SSoS model: target system interventions, bottom-up interventions, top-down interventions, and horizontal interventions. The most obvious place to intervene is with a target system itself. As was mentioned in the previous section, it is natural for stakeholders to identify target systems that are either in the release stage, entering the release stage, or near the end of the conservation stage. As mentioned before, these systems are already demonstrating that existing connections are failing or are in the process of unravelling existing connections. Typical indicators include HFE target systems with increasing amounts of errors, inefficient performance, or a lack of adaptability to changing contexts. In light of sustainability challenges, there are now hundreds if not thousands of examples of “failing” systems such as vehicles that exceed emissions benchmarks or ventilation systems that are not energy efficient. It is therefore highly likely that the HFE practitioner will be intervening in a target system that is ripe for change and reorganization. It is important to note that if the target system is in one of the other stages of the adaptive cycle (particularly late in the exploitation stage or the middle of the conservation stage), the target system may resist additional planned interventions by the HFE practitioner. This is one of the possible reasons why some HFE interventions fail. In the “best-case” scenario, intervening when a target system is late in the conservation stage will move that system into the release stage as the intervention may cause the system to reorganize existing relationships and to lose the existing structure. As will be shown in this section, if the target system is not in or near the release stage, then it will be necessary to look at interventions with the parent (top-down), child (bottom-up), or sibling (horizontal) systems, depending on the stage of the target system. Importantly, the HFE practitioner should be aware that the intervention process itself may result in a change to the state of the target system. As will be discussed in the final section to this chapter, the HFE practitioner should also note that the nature of those changes is not always predictable.

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

229

Using the bottom-up identification method involves a careful investigation of the rates of change of the child systems. Because child systems have an adaptive cycle that is faster than the target system, it may be possible to leverage the natural adaptive changes in child systems to prompt changes in the target system. In other words, SSoS thinking allows us to understand that it is not always necessary for the HFE practitioner to focus on intervening directly with a target system. Making changes to child systems (provided they have been identified correctly) will result in revolt processes that encourage the target system to shift in predictable ways. Even if the HFE practitioner is intervening at the level of the target system, it is still necessary to pay attention to what is happening with the child systems. If the natural adaptive changes to the child systems operate in a way that is counteractive to effective changes in the target system, the child systems may derail the planned intervention and encourage/ enforce changes in a different direction. As has already been shown, when an HFE practitioner intervenes at the target system, this system moves into the release stage (if it wasn’t already in the release stage). This means that the target system is at a stage where it is most vulnerable to revolt processes from the child systems. It is therefore important that the HFE practitioner pays attention to what is happening with the child systems to leverage their adaptive capabilities. For example, if the target system is to improve the energy efficiency of an office-wide ventilation system, one of the tactics available to the HFE practitioner is to address changes in relevant child systems. Examples could include changing the workplace layout so that more effective use is made of the existing ventilation system or to change the office dress code to accommodate for the temperature. For a top-down intervention, the HFE practitioner needs to pay close attention to the life cycle stage of the relevant parent systems. The HFE practitioner should be looking for parent systems that are in their release stage or close to their release stage. Parent systems that are in the conservation or exploitation stages are already developing interconnections and pathways that may be difficult to influence. Attempting a top-down intervention with parent systems in these stages may therefore prove very difficult. Intervening at the point of parent systems is used to manipulate the context for the target system. If the context is modified, replaced, or removed, this could remove barriers to effective change in the target system. In other words, when a parent system is near the end of the conservation stage or at the release stage, interventions can be made to the parent system so that it may provide a better context for change to the targeted child system. For example, if an organization is baulking at the cost of overhauling their energy‑inefficient ventilation system, one way to intervene is to change the policies at one of the parent levels. However, parent systems may often slow down or even prevent the effectiveness of an intervention when the focus of an intervention is only on the target system. This occurs through remember processes that encourage the target system to return to existing connections and relationships. Instead, top-down interventions work by creating adaptive context for the target system. Finally, horizontal interventions are also possible. A horizontal intervention is where the HFE practitioner intervenes with a sibling system, rather than directly with the target system. Since all systems in the SSoS are interconnected in various ways, a horizontal intervention operates by changing some of the interconnections

230

Human Factors for Sustainability

with the target system. Other types of horizontal interventions occur when existing sibling systems are removed entirely, or new sibling systems are introduced. Horizontal interventions are best introduced when the target system is in the exploitation stage. During the exploitation stage, the target system is naturally trying to establish connections and relationships. Modifications to sibling systems during the exploitation stage are therefore more likely to integrate more efficiently with the existing adaptive life cycle processes of the target system. This is done by helping the target system to establish more connections, relationships, and resources, thus helping it to move from the exploitation to the conservation stage while increasing system resilience. For example, instead of trying to make changes to the energy-inefficient ventilation system (i.e., the target system), new sibling systems could be introduced such as light sensors on a window blind system to reduce or increase the amount of radiant energy reaching the working space. Finally, it is important to note that we are not suggesting that these four points are either/or options. It is quite possible to conceptualize interventions where multiple possibilities are considered at two or more points simultaneously. Instead, we provide these different intervention points to demonstrate that from a systems perspective, one doesn’t only have to intervene at the target system. One can also intervene at other points in the system-of-systems to create “revolt” or “remember” processes, or to create a more appropriate context for change to happen.

POINT 5: ITERATION An important implication that arises from the SSoS model is that intervention iterations are inevitable. As we have discussed in previous papers (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a, 2016b, 2018b), sustainability does not mean that a sustainable system lasts indefinitely. Adaptive cycles (Gunderson & Holling, 2002) show us that systems naturally move through a process of growth, consolidation, disorganization, reorganization, and regrowth. There are several studies in the HFE literature that refer to a sustained or sustainable HFE intervention (Caroly et al., 2010; Henning et al., 2009; Scott, 2008; Westgaard & Winkel, 1997; 2011). In the context of a complex adaptive systems understanding, such an aim clearly does not make sense in isolation. In fact, it is the natural adaptive cycle within a nested hierarchy of systems that makes us experience a system as being sustainable. However, the adaptive cycle occurs even without any structured intervention by an HFE practitioner. What the SSoS model can teach us, though, is that the rate of change is dependent on the placement of the system within the hierarchy of systems. Therefore, the rate at which the HFE practitioner would need to iterate (and thereby modulate the types of adaptations) an intervention in order to sustain a guided change is also dependent on the natural rate of change. To put this in terms of an example HFE intervention, more iterations of an intervention are required in the task design system than the work design system. To repeat, the natural rate of change of a parent system is slower than the rate of change of the target system, which is slower than the rate of change of a child system. The SSoS model shows that a “solution” for a target system is never permanent but is rather a continuous adaptation and coevolution together with the other systems in the SSoS.

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

231

HFE practitioners will therefore have to be aware that HFE interventions are always iterative but that the rate of iteration will be dependent on the “natural rate of change” of the target system in the nested hierarchy. If change is inevitable and natural, what is the role of the HFE practitioner and HFE interventions? Each system within the system-of-systems is essentially attempting to sustain a version of itself within the context of its changing child, sibling, and parent systems. In this way, there is a natural push-and-pull relationship that protects the overall integrity of the SSoS. However, we must remember that change and adaptations in natural systems are neutral to the inclusion of humans in the system. It is therefore the role of the HFE practitioner to continuously enable systems that support humans through interventions and, by implication, human well-being, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness. The HFE target system solution is not permanent but rather is a continuous adaptation and coevolution together with multiple other systems in the SSoS so that the integrity (and, by implication, the sustainability) of the overall SSoS (or panarchy) is maintained. Ultimately, though, within the green ergonomics approach, the adaptation and coevolution of systems in the SSoS are co‑dependent on the ecological systems that provide the essential ecological services for human survival.

CONCLUSIONS In drawing this chapter to a close, it is worthwhile to acknowledge a number of cautions with respect to a complex systems understanding of HFE interventions. A complex systems understanding enables practitioners and researchers to see why our interventions sometimes fail and to be better prepared to meet and overcome those challenges. Dekker et al. (2013) have noted that complex systems develop relationships, properties, and functions, and produce outcomes that are not immediately predictable from an understanding of the components of the system. In complexity theory, this concept is referred to as emergence (Cilliers, 2002). Examples of emergence abound in human attempts to create sustainable systems. In one example we have used before (Thatcher & Yeow, 2018b), we can see that an attempt to move away from unsustainable fossil fuel to more sustainable biofuel in Southeast Asia has resulted in a considerable loss of biodiversity as natural forests are cleared (in many instances through burning, which also creates air pollution) to produce mono-culture palm oil plantations. Dekker et al. (2013) use another example where replacing lead with less environmentally damaging cassiterite in tin-plating processes has resulted in complex environmental and humanitarian crises as rival warlords fight over ownership and access to the cassiterite mines in Central Africa. As a consequence, Lange-Morales et al. (2014) called for a precautionary approach to account for the uncertainty and the possibly long time lags for consequences to emerge. However, the very nature of emergence means that the consequences of an HFE intervention are difficult to predict a priori in a complex system. A recently published systems analysis method (Dallat et al., 2018), the NETworked hazard analysis and risk management system (NET-HARMS), shows promise in that it claims to be used to identify emergent risks. Further exploration of NET-HARMS for understanding sustainability problems would be worthwhile.

232

Human Factors for Sustainability

We must emphasize that this doesn’t mean that HFE interventions in complex adaptive systems are futile. The SSoS model, with its understanding of the nested hierarchy of systems, the underpinning sustainability goals, an understanding of rates of change, and knowledge of the cycles of adaptation, gives HFE practitioners a better chance to intervene successfully to maintain human viability in the system-of-systems. If an intervention fails, the SSoS model can help the HFE practitioner to understand whether revolt or remember processes undermined the intervention or whether interconnections with related systems were insufficient to ensure resilience. Instead, HFE practitioners should be prepared to iterate in order to counter consequences that do more harm than good. Moore (2018) has discussed the challenges of shared sustainability goals for HFE and we (Thatcher & Yeow, 2018b) have previously discussed the challenges of establishing common goals within the SSoS model. The SSoS model encourages the identification and engagement with multiple stakeholders. Each of these stakeholders will have their own priorities with respect to system goals, and finding the common sustainability goals may therefore be quite challenging. Conflicts can occur between stakeholders acting within a system and the chances for conflicting goals only increase with greater complexity across hierarchical levels within a system-of-systems. The challenge is to find sufficient balance with the goals between the stakeholder systems to facilitate sustainability and specifically sustainable systems that include humans. Further, the common goals identified earlier when presenting the SSoS model do not represent the only goals of a system. These goals refer to higher-level goals that are common across the hierarchy of systems and not the specific goals of a particular system. We would argue that the highest level goals are environmental sustainability goals because other human goals (such as social capital, human capital, and built capital) are fundamentally not sustainable without life-sustaining ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 2014). Prioritizing environmental goals may be difficult for many stakeholders to accept, especially in our profession, because it entails social (i.e., de-emphasizing human development and well-being) and temporal discounting (i.e., making sacrifices in the present for uncertain gains/opportunities in the future). This will be particularly hard for HFE practitioners working in developing countries where many workers struggle even with basic needs for survival, and setting aside resources to address environmental sustainability goals might seem frivolous, especially in the short term. In this chapter, we have outlined the four components of the SSoS model: (a) a nested hierarchy of related systems; (b) a focus on the achievement of multiple, simultaneous goals; (c) a consideration of issues over time; and (d) the stages in the complex adaptive cycles of systems. The SSoS model is analogous to the concept of a family (identifying a family of related system [in a nested hierarchy] and allowing those systems to grow/co‑evolve together as a family to achieve common goals). This is similar to a family’s survivability/sustainability, recognizing that there is a right time for change and that different “family” members (while co‑existing in a hierarchy) will influence the family in different ways. The SSoS model does not provide a step-by-step approach to HFE interventions and analyses. For step-by-step guides for analyses and interventions, we have recommended other systems analysis tools in the HFE library of complex systems analysis tools. We have, however, made

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

233

recommendations for how these might need to be adapted to cope with the challenges of sustainability. Instead, the SSoS model provides an underlying philosophy for how to deal with sustainability problems. Integral to this philosophy are concepts taken from the ecological sciences and merged with our existing understanding of complex sociotechnical systems. Sustainability challenges show us that a (sociotechnical) system traditionally of interest to HFE cannot be seen in isolation to its surrounding systems. Unlike the static, cross-sectional philosophies of many systems theories in HFE, the SSoS model presents complex systems as naturally adaptable over time. Within this context, the SSoS model is intended to provide a framework for how to understand when, where, and how to intervene to facilitate sustainability. As such, we have not provided heuristics/steps to solve sustainability issues. Not all components may be applicable or available (e.g., there may be an unavailability of accurate data, system boundaries may be fuzzy, and relevant stakeholders may be unclear) as outlined in the five primary points. As a final cautionary note, it must be acknowledged that while this framework has been applied several times in consulting project work, there has not yet been a systematic investigation of the value of applying the SSoS model. This work is ongoing. However, we believe that the SSoS model will help the HFE practitioner to understand the relevant systems better, to understand emergent issues, and therefore to produce a more effective, sustainable intervention.

REFERENCES Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232. Baber, C., Stanton, N. A., & Houghton, R. (2018). Deriving and analysing social networks from SOCA-CAT diagrams (pp. 387–401). In: N. A. Stanton, P. M. Salmon, G. H. Walker, & D. P. Jenkins (Eds.), Cognitive Work Analysis: Applications, Extensions and Future Directions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Carayon, P. (2006). Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 525–535. Caroly, S., Coutarel, F., Landry, A., & Mary-Cheray, I. (2010). Sustainable MSD prevention: Management for continuous improvement between prevention and production. Ergonomic intervention in two assembly line companies. Applied Ergonomics, 41(4), 591–599. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Dirzo, R. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(30), E6089–E6096. Cilliers, P. (2002). Why we cannot know complex things completely. Emergence, 4(1–2), 77–84. Costanza, R., & Patten, B. C. (1995). Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological Economics, 15(3), 193–196. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158. Dallat, C., Salmon, P. M., & Goode, N. (2018). Identifying risks and emergent risks across sociotechnical systems: The NETworked hazard analysis and risk management system (NET-HARMS). Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(4), 456–482.

234

Human Factors for Sustainability

Dekker, S. W., Hancock, P. A., & Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability: Towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56(3), 357–364. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., Wilson, J. R., & van der Doelen, B. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, Oxford. Foster, G. L., Royer, D. L., & Lunt, D. J. (2017). Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years. Nature Communications, 8, article 14845. doi:10.1038/ncomms14845. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC. Henning, R., Warren, N., Robertson, M., Faghri, P., Cherniack, M., & CPH-NEW Research Team. (2009). Workplace health protection and promotion through participatory ergonomics: An integrated approach. Public Health Reports, 124(4), 26–35. Incropera, F. P. (2016). Climate Change: A Wicked Problem. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Kjellstrom, T., Gabrysch, S., Lemke, B., & Dear, K. (2009). The ‘Hothaps’ programme for assessing climate change impacts on occupational health and productivity: An invitation to carry out field studies. Global Health Action, 2(1), 2082. Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N. J. R., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Basu, N. N., Baldé, A. B., Bertollini, R., Bose-O’Reilly, S., Boufford, J. I., Breysse, P. N., Chiles, T., Mahidol, C., Coll-Seck, A. M., Cropper, M. L., Fobil, J., Fuster, V., Greenstone, M., Haines, A., Hanrahan, D., Hunter, D., Khare, M., Krupnick, A., Lanphear, B., Lohani, B., Martin, K., Mathiasen, K. V., McTeer, M. A., Murray, C. J. L., Ndahimananjara, J. D., Perera, F., Potočnik, J., Preker, A. S., Ramesh, J., Rockström, J., Salinas, C., Samson, L. D., Sandilya, K., Sly, P. D., Smith, K. R., Steiner, A., Stewart, R. B., Suk, W. A., van Schayck, O. C. P., Yadama, G. N., Yumkella, K., & Zhong, M. (2018). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. Lancet, 391(10119), 462–512. Lange-Morales, K., Thatcher, A., & García-Acosta, G. (2014). Towards a sustainable world through human factors and ergonomics: It is all about values. Ergonomics, 57(11), 1603–1615. Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., & Pozzer, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature, 525(7569), 367–371. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. Mauerhofer, V. (2008). 3-D sustainability: An approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 496–506. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Moore, D. (2018). Lives we have reason to value (pp. 355–371). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Palgrave-Macmillan. Nascimento, F. A. C., Majumdar, A., Ochieng, W. Y., Schuster, W., & Studic, M. (2016). Fundamentals of safety management: The offshore helicopter transportation system model. Safety Science, 85, 194–204. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27(2–3), 183–213.

Application of the Sustainable System-of-Systems Model

235

Read, G. J., Salmon, P. M., Lenné, M. G., & Jenkins, D. P. (2015). Designing a ticket to ride with the Cognitive Work Analysis Design Toolkit. Ergonomics, 58(8), 1266–1286. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (2005). Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., Read, G. J. M., Goode, N., & Stanton, N. A. (2017). Fitting methods to paradigms: Are ergonomics methods fit for systems thinking? Ergonomics, 60(2), 194–205. Scott, P. A. (2008). Global inequality, and the challenge for ergonomics to take a more dynamic role to redress the situation. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4), 495–499. Siemieniuch, C. E., Sinclair, M. A., Henshaw, M. J. deC. (2015). Global drivers, sustainable manufacturing and systems ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 51, 104–119. Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Rafferty, L. A., Walker, G. H., Baber, C., & Jenkins, D. P. (2013). Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design (2nd ed.). Ashgate, Farnham. Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., & Jenkins, D. P. (Eds.) (2018). Cognitive Work Analysis: Applications, Extensions and Future Directions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Stevens, N. J., Salmon, P. M., & Taylor, N. (2018). Work domain analysis applications in urban planning: Active transport infrastructure and urban corridors (pp. 285–301). In: N. A. Stanton, P. M. Salmon, G. H. Walker, & D. P. Jenkins (Eds.), Cognitive Work Analysis: Applications, Extensions and the Future. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. Svedung, I., & Rasmussen, J. (2002). Graphic representation of accident scenarios: Mapping system structure and the causation of accidents. Safety Science, 40(5), 397–417. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398. Thatcher, A. (2016). Longevity in a sustainable human factors and ergonomics system-ofsystems. In: 22nd Semana de Salud Occupacional in Medellin, Colombia. Thatcher, A. (2017). The role of ergonomics in creating adaptive and resilient complex systems for sustainability. In: Proceedings of Ergonomics and Human Factors Conference 2017, Daventry, UK, Volume: Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2017. Medellin: Sociedad Colombiana de Ergonomía Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016a). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016b). Human factors for a sustainable future. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 1–7. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2018a). Ergonomics and human factors for a sustainable future: Current research and future possibilities (pp. 1–21). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Palgrave-Macmillan. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2018b). A sustainable system-of-systems approach: Identifying the important boundaries for a target system in human factors and ergonomics (pp. 22–45). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Palgrave-Macmillan. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2018c). Ergonomics and human factors for a sustainable future: Suggestions for a way forward (pp. 373–390). In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Palgrave-Macmillan. Thatcher, A., Waterson, P., Todd, A., & Moray, N. (2018). State of science: Ergonomics and global issues. Ergonomics, 61(2), 197–213. United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1, October 21, 2015, United Nations: New York.

236

Human Factors for Sustainability

Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Walker, G. H., Gibson, H., Stanton, N. A., Baber, C., Salmon, P. M., & Green, D. (2006). Event analysis of systemic teamwork (EAST): A novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i activity. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1345–1369. Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Jenkins, D. P., & Rafferty, L. (2010). Translating concepts of complexity to the field of ergonomics. Ergonomics, 53(10), 1175–1186. Walker, G. H., Salmon, P. M., Bedinger, M., & Stanton, N. A. (2017). Quantum ergonomics: Shifting the paradigm of the systems agenda. Ergonomics, 60(2), 157–166. Waterson, P. (2009). A systems ergonomics analysis of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells infection outbreaks. Ergonomics, 52(10), 1196–1205. Westgaard, R. H., & Winkel, J. (1997). Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: A critical review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20(6), 463–500. Westgaard, R. H., & Winkel, J. (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. WHO. (2016). World Health Statistics 2016: Monitoring Health for the SDGs. WHO Press, Geneva. Wilson, J. R. (2014). Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 5–13. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132.

11

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains Klaus Fischer

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 237 Global Value Chains and Their Relevance for Sustainable Development.............. 238 The Global Value Chains Concept..................................................................... 238 Global Value Chains in the Context of the Agenda 2030................................... 239 GVCs and Sustainable Development: Major Characteristics............................ 242 Cost Advantages as Main Driver of Global Labor Division......................... 242 High Diversity and Complexity in Global Value Creation “Chains”............ 242 Unequal Global Allocation of Value and Damage........................................ 243 A Multilevel Model to Identify Starting Points for HFE Interventions..................244 Macro-Level: Cost Competition between Developing Countries and the “Race to the Bottom”.........................................................................................244 Meso-Level: Cost Competition in GVC between Global Suppliers and the Question of Corporate Responsibility of Multinational Enterprises .................246 Micro-Level: The Poverty-Driven Negative Spiral of Poor Working Conditions.......................................................................................................... 247 The Role of HFE to Improve Sustainability in GVC.............................................. 247 Starting Points for the Discussion......................................................................248 HFE Contributions in Different Development Stages........................................248 Basic Economic Development Stages........................................................... 249 Transition Stage............................................................................................. 250 Upgrading Stage............................................................................................ 250 Actors and Target Groups................................................................................... 251 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 252 Acknowledgment.................................................................................................... 253 References............................................................................................................... 254

INTRODUCTION The concept of “global value chains” (GVCs) evolved to a well-established term in the debates referring to globalization, supply chains, and international trade and development (cp. Lee, Gereffi, & Barrientos, 2011; UNCTAD, 2017; World Bank, 2017). Global value chains provide new opportunities for developing countries to increase their involvement in global trade and to diversify their exports from traditionally 237

238

Human Factors for Sustainability

unprocessed raw materials to manufactured goods. This can significantly contribute to improving the income situation in developing countries. Even when wage levels in value creation phases located in developing or emerging countries are low, income from manufacturing jobs is mostly far ahead from rural income in these countries. However, as it will be further discussed, mainly lowest-skilled and less paid work remains located in industrially developing countries (IDCs), meaning that these are benefiting least from total value creation (World Bank, 2017). Value intensive steps as the final branding and marketing of end products as well as the consumption of the goods produced remain at most with Western multinational countries and consumers. Not only the value created but also the damages caused through negative side effects of global value creation are often unequally allocated between industrially developed and developing parts of the world. Examples such as the destructive extraction of conflict minerals for producing “clean” high-tech devices for Western markets and their final disposal at toxic recycling dumps in Africa show that the biggest amount of damage is often burdened to IDCs, perverting the already unequal global distribution of value creation. Consequently, when looking at both, the positive as well as the negative sustainability impacts of GVCs and on the role that human factors and ergonomics (HFE) could play in his context, the question is how developing countries could further benefit from their participation in GVCs and become enabled to “move up the value chain” without depleting their social, human, and environmental resources. Before further discussing these aspects, some significant characteristics of GVCs and their relevance for the global sustainable development agenda shall be carved out in the next section.

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The Global Value Chains Concept GVCs are characterized by value creation activities across several national borders, embodying intermediate trade-flows between the participating supplier and buyer countries (World Bank, 2017). They are a phenomenon of the modern era of globalization with far-reaching implications for the economies and countries involved, leading to increased attention in the scientific and political debate. Thus, in their first Global Value Chain Development Report, the World Bank Group (2017) and other co-publishing partners look back on the development of GVCs since the middle of the 1990s and emphasize their high potential for economic development and poverty eradication worldwide. GVCs hold a significant share of about two thirds of global trade in value-added terms and thus remain an important vehicle for the participation of developing countries in world markets, even though there were first indications for declining or at least consolidating GVC growth rates since the economic recovery after the financial crises (World Bank, 2017). Looking on the processes behind, GVCs can be described as all ranges of value creation activities that firms and workers globally perform to bring a specific product or service from conception through different phases of production to end use

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

239

and beyond (Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, 2011). We should thus keep in mind that GVCs comprise phases of product design, production, sales and marketing, consumption, as well as disposal and recycling, which can all be located in different countries around the globe. Consequently, value creation processes in GVCs are linking together various suppliers and buying companies with their respective employees worldwide, leading to very different kinds of work systems along these chains (Kubek, Fischer, & Zink, 2015), thereunder (e.g., work systems in raw material extraction, agriculture, research and development, manufacturing, up to disposal and recycling; see Figure 11.1). An important role in GVCs is occupied by multinational enterprises acting as “lead firms” that coordinate and drive relevant processes in the chain (Lee & Gereffi, 2015). They can be original equipment manufacturers and brand companies delivering products to final costumers or also powerful and dominant suppliers. For a long time, lead firms were mainly located in Western countries, but in the last decade or so, “rising power firms” or “emerging-market multinationals” are gaining more and more importance (Lee & Gereffi, 2015; Hendriks, 2017). Of course, GVCs are as diverse as the industries and countries they are located in. First of all, differences are resulting from specific production processes and technologies used. Thus, global agricultural supply chains are much less complex than that of high-tech manufacturing goods. GVCs of the textile and apparel sector are rather short and linear, while supply chains of the electronics and automotive industry tend to be further subdivided and complex. But besides technological and procedural variety, there also exist different types of supplier-producer relationships. Among others, these depend on whether the chain is rather buyer-driven (e.g., in the apparel sector) or if it is – often due to decreasing manufacturing depth of original equipment manufacturers – supplier driven (e.g., in electronics industry or the automotive sector) with big and powerful suppliers. From these constellations, different forms of influence and governance emerge in GVCs (Lee & Gereffi, 2015; Gereffi et al., 2005; Fischer, 2017). Without going into details, we can easily imagine that these differences of governance and steering may also foster or hinder standard setting in the chain with regard to sustainability aspects (Jentsch & Fischer, 2018).

Global Value Chains in the Context of the Agenda 2030 As mentioned in the preceding section, GVCs play an important role in economic development in industrially developing countries and for overcoming rural poverty.

FIGURE 11.1  Exemplary value creation chain.

240

Human Factors for Sustainability

But, when looking on sustainable development as a multidimensional concept, negative impacts such as resource and ecosystem depletion, poor working conditions, worker maltreatment, and health hazards as well as nonliving wages need also to be considered. For a more detailed analysis of the possible “sustainability profile” of GVC processes, a closer look at the current international debate on sustainable development is helpful. Here, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015) marks a recent milestone of global sustainability policy, following the cornerstones of the last millennium as the WCED Report 1987 (WCED, 1987), the first Rio Conference 1992 (UNCED, 1992), or the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2000). In September 2015, the international community of states reconfirmed sustainable development as an important global paradigm by adopting the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the core of Agenda 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Much more so than the mentioned preceding policy schemes, this agenda emphasizes the need for a balanced set of worldwide applicable development goals. It thus addresses both industrialized and industrially developing parts of the world and calls for an integrated view on social, ecological, and economic aspects (United Nations, 2015), while previous schemes rather focused on the so-called Third World and considered environmental and social development more separately (Hoiberg et al., 2014). Besides this comprehensive approach, another important shift from preceding policy schemes is that Agenda 2030 explicitly calls for a broad mobilization of nonstate actors as a precondition for successfully implementing the SDGs (Witte & Dilyard, 2017). For the first time, the private sector has been actively involved in the negotiations for a global sustainability agenda and is seen both as an addressee as well as an important partner for their implementation (Schönherr et al., 2017). Consequently, responsibility for SDG achievement no longer remains predominantly at the level of national states and their policy framework. It increasingly lies in the hands of the private economic sector, thereunder in that of multinational firms, which are often embedded in multiactor and cross-sector cooperation networks (Witte & Dilyard, 2017). This new impetus of involving nonstate actors in shaping and realizing the global sustainability agenda could also encourage HFE’s commitment toward actively contributing to realizing the SDG framework. In Table 11.1, the 17 SDGs are presented, each of them underpinned by several subtargets in the Agenda 2030. Thus, the rather vaguely appearing goals are further concretized and made measurable through a recently developed indicator framework (UN Statistical Commission, 2017), mainly referring to a timeline until the year 2030. Of course, it remains questionable whether the ambitious targets can be achieved up to 2030. However, the target system and indicator scheme can further guide the process beyond the 2030 timeline. Additionally, some governing institutions were set up at the UN level for controlling the SDG implementation. As the SDGs are highly interdependent, it is hard to define which of them are most relevant with regard to sustainability of global value creation. Trade activities, foreign direct investments, and the various related production processes in GVCs influence the social, economic, and environmental development of the participating countries in manifold manners. GVC activities can thus have impacts concerning all of the 17 fields that are addressed by the SDGs and one could argue that

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

241

TABLE 11.1 UN Sustainable Development Goals Goal 1

End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment; and decent work for all. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation. Reduce inequality within and among countries. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Goal 9 Goal 10 Goal 11 Goal 12 Goal 13 Goal 14 Goal 15

Goal 16

Goal 17

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.

Source: United Nations (2015).

consequently – at least from corporate social responsibility’s point of view – all SDGs are of relevance for multinational enterprises engaged in global value creation (Schönherr et al., 2017). However, a closer look at the goals and their subtargets allows to identify about seven SDGs, which mostly characterize the sustainability contributions and impacts of GVCs worldwide: • Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere • Goals 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. • Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment; and decent work for all. • Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.

242

Human Factors for Sustainability

• Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries. • Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. • Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.

GVCs and Sustainable Development: Major Characteristics Starting from the sustainability requirements and opportunities of globalized value creation considered above – including, among others, poverty eradication to education, decent work (ILO, 2016), infrastructure development, and sustainable patterns of consumption and production – we can deduce some specific characteristics of GVCs that are of major relevance for further discussion: Cost Advantages as Main Driver of Global Labor Division First of all, we can state that labor division between the world’s North and South is mainly driven by cost differences in global competition. Multinational enterprises systematically invest in or purchase from countries with lower wage levels and production costs in order to exploit cost advantages. Thereby, low costs are often coupled with low social, working, and environmental standards, which can lead to severe sustainability problems in the respective countries and regions. Particularly, the production in industrially developing countries is often burdened with poor working conditions and labor rights abuses as well as with environmental degradation. Human resources are exploited through inhumane working conditions and child labor, positive social capital is damaged by corruption, and local ecosystems get exploited. But why are developing countries mainly participating through low-paid and low-skilled parts of value creation? For looking on the mechanisms behind, it can be helpful to refer to Porter’s distinction of generic strategies (Porter, 1980). Although these strategies focus on competitive advantages of corporations, this model can also be transferred to the context of global competition between countries and firms in GVCs (see Porter, 1990). Porter describes that competitive advantages can be based on one of three so-called generic strategies: differentiation, overall low cost, and focus (focus strategy again refers to differentiation and low cost but for a certain market niche). Because global labor division is mainly driven by the cost gap between industrialized and industrially developing countries, from a strategic point of view, developing countries mostly pursue a strategy of cost leadership to achieve global competitiveness. Following Porter (1980), consequent cost leadership strategies also mean avoidance of being “stuck in the middle” and thus require cutting down all possible cost drivers. When a country is providing low production costs, for example, by installing special economic zones with low tariffs and extra tax incentives (World Bank, 2017) it is thus striving for a cost leadership strategy. Often, this is be done at the expenses of local firms, workers, and the environment (Farole & Akinci, 2011). High Diversity and Complexity in Global Value Creation “Chains” We already considered the various constellations of GVCs. As they are located across borders, global value creation takes place in diverse (national and regional)

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

243

areas, characterized by various cultural, political, and societal systems. Although the terms “supply” or “value creation chain” suggest a linear production process and clear buyer–supplier relationships, GVCs are often rather complex networks: Each supplier has several subsuppliers, and those subsuppliers have their own sub-subsuppliers, often leading to a lack of transparency and governability in GVCs (Fischer, Hobelsberger, & Zink, 2009; Lee & Gereffi, 2015). Thus, it is a quite complex task for buying companies acting as lead firms to ensure compliance with social and environmental standards throughout the supply chain. Common instruments, such as policing “codes of conduct,” are often lacking efficacy (Hoang & Jones, 2012) and they only reach – if ever – the direct suppliers (so-called first tiers) and hardly further subsuppliers in the chain (Fischer, Hobelsberger, & Zink, 2009). Additionally, these instruments of Corporate Social Responsibility often neglect that “one-size-fits-all” measures are hardly fitting with the diverse cultural, societal, and economic situation of supplier sites in different countries (Argandoña & Weltzien, 2009; Schmidtpeter, 2016). Unequal Global Allocation of Value and Damage The third point we can identify as characteristic for global value creation is rather a consequence of the two mentioned above: The focus on cost advantages and the different levels of development lead to an unequal global allocation of positive and negative impacts of value creation. Thus, on the one hand, mainly low-skilled, often physically demanding manual work, such as the extraction of raw materials, simple assembly tasks for manufactured goods, and “dirty” production steps, along with the use of toxic substances, is transferred to industrially developing countries (Poelhekke & van der Ploeg, 2015). On the other hand, know-how, technological skills, and knowledge work (product design, marketing, and sales) are often located in industrialized countries (World Bank, 2017). The allocation of value and damage created in our global economy does thereby often not comply with the principle of “intragenerational equity” as it is posted within the idea of sustainable development. Thus, by far the largest part of the value created remains in industrial nations, either in the form of technological know-how or the “branding” of products, while the developing areas’ resources are consumed by value creation for multinational enterprises (Bird & Smucker, 2007; World Bank, 2017). This unbalanced allocation of value and damage created in global labor division is also a question of intragenerational equity (who is actually achieving which part of value creation under which use of resources?) as well as a question of intergenerational equity (which impacts on developing opportunities but also on safeguarding and developing local capital stocks are generated?). Of course, again it is worth noting that countries and people participating in global value creation chains also profit through the creation of jobs, tax incomes, and foreign direct investments as well as a certain transfer of know-how and capabilities and the access to world markets (Hendriks, 2017). However, these gains are endangered by increasing tendencies toward protectionism since the last global economic crisis after 2008. As Dambisa Moyo pointed out in Time Magazine in a period of an imminent global trade war in 2018, protective policies “will offer quick wins but over the long term will reduce growth, increase poverty and spur more political

244

Human Factors for Sustainability

and social unrest. Rather than address its shortcomings, this will only entrench the inferior form of globalization” (Moyo, 2018, p. 24).

A MULTILEVEL MODEL TO IDENTIFY STARTING POINTS FOR HFE INTERVENTIONS After introducing the GVC concept and its relevance for sustainable development, a multilevel model shall be delineated in the following, which allows to illustrate some relevant cause-and-effect relationships for (non)sustainability of global value creation. This model aims to demonstrate different starting points for sustainability improvements through HFE contributions in GVCs by taking a “systems-of-systems perspective” according to the approaches of Thatcher and Yeow (2016), Zink (2014), and Fischer and Zink (2012). It thereby refers to different discussions in the context of trade, foreign direct investment, global value chains, and sustainability (see Figure 11.2), namely that of • a “race to the bottom” at the country level (e.g., Singh & Zammit, 2004; Olney, 2010; Lee & Gereffi, 2015), • corporate social responsibility and (sustainable) supply chain management (Idowu et al., 2015; Acosta et al., 2014) at the enterprise level, • and the models of a poverty-driven “negative spiral” and an “economic cycle of diseases” as described by Scott (2008a, 2008b) and O’Neill (2000), respectively. The model first of all demonstrates that cost competition as a major driver for global value creation plays an essential role at macro-, meso-, and micro-levels, possibly leading to negative sustainability impacts. Of course, the shown differentiation of three levels is rather accentuating as the relevant cause-and-effect relationships are highly interrelated. However, as O’Neill (2000) discusses, with regard to the cause-and-effect relationships at the micro-level, that different possible starting points for HFE interventions can help to break the shown vicious cycles at different system levels. In the next paragraphs, a closer look at the mechanisms at the different levels will be given:

Macro-Level: Cost Competition between Developing Countries and the “R ace to the Bottom” As already discussed, participation in global trade and attaining foreign direct investments is very attractive for developing countries with regard to poverty mitigation and job creation (World Bank, 2017). Consequently, there is a hard competition between the global low-cost spots. According to Porter’s strategy of cost leadership (Porter, 1980), a lot of developing countries try to attract multinational firms for investment and purchasing through a rigorous cost-saving strategy, not only focusing on lowest wage levels but also on low tariffs and de facto social and environmental

FIGURE 11.2  A multilevel model of cause-and-effect relationships sustainability in GVC.

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains 245

246

Human Factors for Sustainability

standards as realized in special economic zones (Farole & Akinci, 2011). This competition may lead to a “race of the bottom” concerning sustainability standards and further to an “immiserizing growth” (Lee & Gereffi, 2015, p. 320). As shown in Figure 11.2, a single focus on cost competition may also hinder the development of more sophisticated, skill-driven, and technologically advanced industries at country and corporate levels. Thus, positive spillover effects from investments in low-cost industries for the further economic and social upgrading of developing countries are seen as limited (Lee & Gereffi, 2015) and they do not provide for the necessary capacity building and know-how transfer. Although legislation and “official” labor and environmental standards are not necessarily low in the respective countries, low-cost policy is often accompanied by a lack of law enforcement or an unequal treatment by setting up special economic zones, thus leading to low de facto sustainability standards (World Bank, 2017; Farole & Akinci, 2011).

Meso-Level: Cost Competition in GVC between Global Suppliers and the Question of Corporate Responsibility of Multinational Enterprises In the last years, there has been an intensifying debate on sustainable procurement and corporate responsibility of multinationally acting companies, even leading to a first international standard for sustainable procurement (ISO, 2017). Standards and principles for corporate social responsibility call, among others, for decent working conditions in globalized supply chains (ILO, 1998, 2010; United Nations Global Compact Office, 2014). Besides nonbinding soft law, the number of legal regulations is also growing, e.g., concerning the use of so-called conflict minerals (OECD, 2013) from African mines that are coupled with violations of human rights (U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2010; European Council, 2016) or concerning the requirements for sustainability reporting and public procurement through EU regulations (European Parliament, 2014a and 2014b). Additionally, highly publicized tragic issues, such as fatal accidents due to fires and collapses of buildings in the Bangladeshi ready garment industry (Foxvog et al., 2013) or worker suicides in Foxconn’s factories in China 2010, led to increasing public interest in working conditions in global supply chains. However, price is still one major criterion for supplier selection (ILO, 2017) and will remain dominant for suppliers that cannot differentiate through others as quality or know-how. Although it is a fundamental economic principle that minimizing input while aiming at a maximum of output cannot be successfully pursued at the same time, cost requirements and claiming sustainability standards (e.g., through codes of conduct in purchase conditions) are often leading to rather contradictory demands for suppliers in GVCs (Locke et al., 2009). Demanding decent social and environmental standards on the one hand while benefiting from shortcomings through cost competition is ambivalent, in particular when buyers’ own purchasing and supply chain management practices, such as cost-cutting, shortening lead times, and last-minute changes, are often making the suppliers unable to observe their labor codes (Barrientos, 2013). Consequently, the “compliance-based model” (Locke et al., 2009) of governing global value creation through private standards that aim to improve social and

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

247

environmental outcomes in GVC has proven to be inadequate (Lee & Gereffi, 2015; Jentsch & Fischer, 2018). As long as global suppliers remain in their role of “standard-takers” and “low-cost performers,” knowledge transfer and upgrading strategies in GVC will stay hardly possible. And of course, low-skilled suppliers are much more easily replaceable than those with specific knowledge and competencies.

Micro-Level: The Poverty-Driven Negative Spiral of Poor Working Conditions At the workers’ level, the implications of global cost competition have the most significant impacts. Thus, one major sustainability problem field of GVCs are the working and living conditions of those people who are negatively affected by their jobs and paid insufficiently to ensure their own and their families’ livelihood. In industrially developing countries, workability is often a precondition (but not a guarantee) for nutrition and health and working days are physically exhausting and not limited to eight hours (Scott, 2008b). Consequently, O’Neill (2000) and Scott (2008a, 2008b) describe the effects of low-paid work and poverty in industrially developing countries more drastically when talking about an “economic cycle of diseases” or a poverty-driven “negative spiral” into which workers are locked. Insufficient labor rights, physically demanding and hazardous work, deficiencies of occupational health and safety, and excessive overtime hours coupled with low wage levels are unfortunately often still the reality in GVC workplaces located in developing countries. Scott (2008a) emphasizes the close interrelations between working and living conditions in developing countries and diagnoses a “devastating incompatibility between mal-resourced workers and the taxing physical jobs they are required to do on a daily basis” (Scott, 2008a, p. 174). Of course, this lowers productivity and snaps all endeavors toward upgrading competencies and skills. The workers remain trapped in a circle of poverty, undersupply, and economic dependency and are additionally more vulnerable to maltreatment than better skilled workers (Locke, 2001). Unfortunately, their workforce is rather abundantly available in industrially developing countries and may often be regarded as expendable (O’Neill, 2000). Looking at the above explanations, it can be summarized that as long as countries, enterprises, and workers are stuck in a strategic position of cheap and at large arbitrarily exchangeable participants in GVC, their situation will not substantially improve. All efforts that aim at raising standards in host countries will remain rather symptomatic until those can take more sophisticated roles in global value creation.

THE ROLE OF HFE TO IMPROVE SUSTAINABILITY IN GVC In the preceding sections, the GVC phenomenon was introduced and its impacts as well as relevance for sustainable development at different system levels were deduced. Building on that, a closer look at the contribution of HFE approaches for more sustainability in GVCs will be given in this section.

248

Human Factors for Sustainability

Starting Points for the Discussion When looking at the self-concept of the HFE discipline, defined by the IEA as “the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of 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), we can see that the “HFE toolbox” needs to be rather differentiated for addressing sustainability problems in GVC at different levels: The needs and starting points for improving human well-being and systems performance strongly vary along the various steps of different GVCs and their work systems located in several countries (see discussion about the complexity of GVCs above). In general, HFE can thereby contribute in a twofold manner:

1) helping to mitigate the worst impacts of bad working conditions and thus to overcome basic root causes for low productivity and undersupply, on the one hand, as well as 2) strengthening the competitive position of “low-cost” producers through spreading and deepening their competitiveness beyond cost advantages and thus helping them to upgrade their positions in GVC. This leads to the following core questions concerning the role of HFE in GVCs: a) How can HFE knowledge and practice contribute to enhancing positive impacts of global value creation (e.g., poverty alleviation, livelihoods, health, and education)? b) What can HFE contribute to reduce negative effects of global value creation (e.g., resource consumption, pollution, human rights violations)? c) Which HFE approaches are supporting a long-term upgrading of industrially developing countries in order to have more equitable shared value creation between all global actors in GVCs?

As the above delineated multilevel model shows, there are different starting points for improvements and for breaking through negative cycles of low-cost competition, lack of capacities, impeded development perspectives, and bad social and environmental outcomes of global value creation activities.

HFE Contributions in Different Development Stages Thereby, which HFE interventions are most effective depends on the development stage at which a country or industry is. Grassroots instruments can be very effective for fundamental improvements at the beginning of industrialization and participation in global supply chains to address worst problems first. Afterward, more sophisticated tools are necessary to foster efficiency gains and innovation potential, aiming to come from mere cost competition to widespread and real “sustainable competitive advantages” – in the double sense of the word: from a strategic management perspective (cf. Porter 1990) as well as in the sense of sustainable development.

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

249

For a better accentuation, we can differentiate between three major phases of economic development and transformation of GVC activities toward sustainable development: • Basic economic development stages: supporting to mitigate worst poverty and unemployment (as, e.g., in the early stages of the textile and garment industry of Bangladesh) • Transition stages: efficiency gains through increasing productivity, quality, and learning effects; leaving the terrain of lowest wage levels while securing cost leadership through competitive unit labor costs (World Bank, 2017) • Upgrading stages: promoting better income perspectives and higher education, thus “moving up the value chain” In the next paragraphs, these stages and the respective role that HFE could play are further considered. Basic Economic Development Stages As considered above, GVC can play an important role for job creation and poverty mitigation in developing and emerging countries. However, particularly in the least developed countries that are providing raw materials, agricultural products, or simple manufacturing products, negative effects of industrialization and economic development can be massive and lead to the above shown poverty-driven negative spiral for the workers (Figure 11.2). A couple of initiatives and publications show on the one hand the urgent need for ergonomic interventions in industrially developing countries and, on the other hand, how effective rather low-cost and grassroots ergonomic approaches can be there (Scott 2008a, 2008b; Caple, 2006; Kawakami & Kogi, 2004; O’Neill, 2000; Scott & Shahnavaz, 1997; ILO, 1996). Thereby, the authors are claiming for holistic approaches, considering both, the daily and the working life in a comprehensive manner: “working and non-working conditions in IDCs are so interrelated that they may be considered as an undivided totality” (Caple, 2006, pp. 51–56). Consequently, respective HFE initiatives are characterized by a comprehensive macro- and microergonomic view on working and living conditions combined with participatory, multilevel approaches that mainly use locally available resources to achieve long-lasting effects (see Scott, 2008a, 2008b; Kawakami & Kogi, 2004; Kogi, 2008). Scott (2008a, p. 173) emphasizes that the adequate HFE approaches are fundamental and all the more important: “What they need is basic, practical input to improve horrendous, unacceptable working conditions, which their workers put up with because they know no better, and because they cannot afford not to work, as they need every last cent of their menial earnings just to survive.” This shows that rather low-level HFE interventions can lead to fundamental improvements in the working and daily life situation of people participating in GVC in a basic development stage. Although HFE contributions are quite simple here, they can be seen as indispensable preconditions for further development: Without fundamental efficiency gains as well as health and safety improvements, higher-skilled and more valuable steps of value creation can be hardly achieved.

250

Human Factors for Sustainability

Looking at the sustainability paradigm, it is absolutely right to give the highest priority to the world’s poorest (WCED, 1987) and to firstly earn “low-hanging fruits” with big impacts before further steps are realized. However, from a global competitiveness point of view, it is not sufficient to do “dirty work” better. This is in particular true in times of increasing digitization leading to further substitution of low-skilled manual work through robots, which may even be followed by a reshoring of GVC activities to high-cost developed countries (UNCTAD, 2017). For the future mission of HFE, this would mean to overcome fighting against major grievances through “only” improving the situation in the stage of basic development as soon as possible. Beyond basic development, HFE knowledge and measures shall furthermore contribute to let a bigger slice of the pie in developing countries. This would mean supporting them to reach the transition and upgrading stage. Transition Stage The transition stage is mainly characterized by further improving efficiency and productivity gains in value creation. Contrary to basic development, the focus no more lies only on mitigating worse effects and breaking through the above shown negative spiral of poverty, low working capacity, low productivity, and low income. The transition aims at further significant improvements, which allow to increase and to stabilize wage levels while still producing at competitive costs (unit labor costs; World Bank, 2017). Thus, the competitive model of low-cost production remains in this phase, but the participating workers earn more benefits from value creation. Relevant HFE interventions in that phase could be rather microergonomic work process and work system design as well as macroergonomic aspects such as a participatory feedback culture that allows identifying and mitigating causes for inefficiencies and failures (Imada, 2008). As Locke and Romis (2006) showed, a combination of microergonomic interventions such as workplace and work content design combined with corresponding macroergonomic interventions like work organization and work process design as well as new bonus systems and inhouse communication can help to address problems of poor working conditions and productivity in a comprehensive manner. Such interventions are highly linked with basic approaches of Total Quality Management and Business Excellence (see Zink, 2008) that may already be well established in some less upstream parts of the GVC. Of course, global procuring companies could benefit from these interventions, too, as they might support product and process quality. As Locke and Romis (2010) show, such approaches can additionally contribute to prevent workers from maltreatment: When management understands that workers are important experts for continuous process improvements at their workplaces and thus the main “enablers” for efficiency and quality gains, they will no longer be seen as an “expendable workforce” even when they provide rather low-skilled work. Upgrading Stage As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, a real and long-term upgrading in GVCs can only be based on strategies, which are going beyond the cheap workbench. With

251

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

regards to sustainability requirements and the limits of our global ecosystems (see Rockström et al., 2009), we need to emphasize that such an upgrading strategy should not mean in the long run to merely copy the nonsustainable Western models of industrialization. However, “catch-up growth” is necessary for mitigating poverty (cp. SDGs) and opening further developing potentials, but it needs to be replaced through sustainable growth in all parts of the world. Coming back to the role of HFE, ergonomic interventions would have the task to contribute to a differentiation strategy of countries and suppliers in GVCs, which would allow them to offer unique (or at least sufficiently differentiated) products and services that are of high value for their customers. As Porter (1990) pointed out in his seminal work “The Competitiveness of Nations,” innovation capabilities are of major importance to gain competitive advantages. HFE tools could take the role of a catalyzer for capacity building, know-how development, and change management in this stage. By using adequate instruments of micro- and macroergonomic systems design, HFE could assist in the necessary “emancipation” of host countries and suppliers in GVC at all levels: workers, supplier organizations, and communities. Table 11.2 gives an overview of the proposed development phases and the respective contribution of HFE.

Actors and Target Groups Going hand in hand with the different levels and starting points of intervention illustrated in Figure 11.2 and the above-discussed development stages, diverse kinds of stakeholders are relevant to be addressed by HFE for improving sustainability in GVC. TABLE 11.2 GVC Developing and the Role of HFE Development Phase Basic Economic of Global Value Development Stage Creation

Transition Stage

Upgrading Stage

Competitive advantages

Cost leadership

Cost leadership

Role of HFE

Mitigating negative effects of low-cost production, helping to break through the poverty-driven negative spiral of bad working conditions

Increasing efficiency and labor productivity through micro- and macroergonomic interventions; TQM based approaches for capacity building and participation

Differentiation and unique value proposition Coming to sociotechnological innovations; increasing overall system performance; Know-how development and capacity building for strengthening unique innovation capabilities

→ Transformation toward sustainable development in GVC →

252

Human Factors for Sustainability

We can state the following different stakeholder groups as relevant for HFE interventions in GVCs: • Deciders: buyer firms, procurement managers, management at supplier sites, country representatives • Affected: local workers and community members, but also consumers • Enablers: trainers and scholars, occupational health practitioners, and ergonomists • Agenda setters: media, critical as well as supporting nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) • Regulators and standard setters: governments and nongovernmental standard setting agencies, comprising multistakeholder and cross-sector initiatives HFE actors can directly as well as indirectly address the mentioned target groups through information, capacity building, and “lobbying” for decent work standards and HFE instruments for improving system performance at the respective levels. Therefore, it is essential to further develop cooperation with leading actors such as the United Nations, WHO, World Bank, and ILO as well as to establish relationships between IEA federated ergonomic societies and members, local ergonomic communities, NGOs, and government agencies. For systematically addressing these different stakeholder groups, it would also be necessary to further develop the capabilities and capacities of the HFE discipline and its organizations worldwide (Zink & Fischer, 2018). We need to integrate knowledge about sustainable development and its requirements and opportunities for HFE in the education programs of ergonomists and enable them – even when they are highly specialized in their respective fields – to think about “work systems” as being embedded in complex, widely spread value creation networks as it is the case in our globalized economy’s reality (Zink & Fischer, 2013). Beyond improving know-how and capabilities, the institutional capacities of HFE and its organizations should also be strengthened in that field. Without international research and competence centers dealing with HFE and its role for sustainability in global value creation, HFE scientists and practitioners would hardly be able to set up an internationally visible state of the art in this field.

CONCLUSION As we have seen, GVCs are playing a vital role in the implementation of the UN SDGs and the actors involved are addressees as well as contributors to more sustainability at the same time. GVCs are linking together economic activities from the world’s North and South and can be both a blessing and a curse for social, economic, and environmental sustainability in the host companies. From an HFE point of view, GVC mechanisms such as global offshoring and purchasing have enormous leverage on the design of billions of work systems worldwide. However, only a few HFE publications are explicitly dealing with the role of our discipline in global supply chains or in industrially developing countries by now. But as shown, the necessity for combined and comprehensive micro- and macroergonomic interventions is high

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

253

in GVCs and the economic, environmental, and social performances of companies, industries, and societies are closely interrelated. This could lead to an important global impetus of HFE theory, principles, and methods. Thereby, we can state that HFE already provides a lot of know-how, methods, and instruments, which would be directly applicable for contributing to more adequate working conditions, environmental soundness, and more sustainable works systems in GVCs. However, these need to be applied systematically and in a differentiated manner, depending on the development stages and problem levels (country, organization, or employee level) we are looking at and the respective stakeholder group that should be addressed. By engaging more systematically and investing in relevant capabilities and capacities, the HFE discipline could further develop and profile its approaches and become more visible as a competent partner in the global discussion on sustainable development, decent work, and global value creation. Therefore, we need to consider the newly installed Sustainable Development Goals as a door opener for HFE: These goals are currently deployed to a countless number of corporate, national, and community sustainability strategies, policy programs, and indicator frameworks worldwide and HFE should thus actively participate and contribute to shaping their implementation. When talking about GVC, we need again to keep in mind how diverse these “chains” are and that they require focusing not only on work systems at lead firms or first-tier supplier sites but also on those of all formal and informal workplaces along the whole value creation chain of a product or service. Consequently, HFE much more needs to attain thinking in whole product life cycles as well as in transnationally dispersed value creation processes in various countries with different levels of development, governance systems, and cultures. Calling for decent work and sustainability in GVC thus does not only mean to focus on single work systems at a specific phase of value creation (e.g., design or production). In fact, we need an integrated view on design, production, use, and (for physical products) recycling/disposal in the sense of life cycle ergonomics (Zink & Fischer, 2018). As the impact for sustainable development is biggest in the least developed and industrially developing countries, this chapter mainly focused on the stages of value creation located in the developing parts of the world. Of course, that would not mean that there are no sustainability problems of value creation in Western countries. When looking at the development of precarious employment conditions and the degradation of the ecosystems and environmental resources, we have to state that unfortunately the opposite is true. But as HFE principles are rather already well established in Western countries and as the effectiveness of HFE measures is biggest in poorer regions, this chapter addressed the potentials of our discipline in those parts of GVC that are located in developing regions of the world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This article was written in a project funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – 417752672.

254

Human Factors for Sustainability

REFERENCES Acosta, P., Acquier, A., & Delbard, O. (2014). Just do it? The adoption of sustainable supply chain management programs from a supplier perspective. Supply Chain Forum, 15(1), 76–91. Argandoña, A., & von Weltzien Hoivik, H. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. One size does not fit all. Collecting evidence from Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(S3), 221–234. Barrientos, S. (2013). Corporate purchasing practices in global production networks: A socially contested terrain. Geoforum, 44, 44–51. Bird, F., & Smucker, J. (2007). The social responsibilities of international business firms in developing areas. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(1), 1–9. Caple, D. (2006). Introducing ergonomics to developing countries. In: W. S. Marras & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Interventions, Controls, and Applications in Occupational Ergonomics: The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook (Cp.51). Boca Raton, FL: CRC, Taylor & Francis. European Council. (2016). Trade in conflict minerals: Presidency agreement with the European Parliament. Press Release 677/16 (November 22, 2016) of the Council of the European Union. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ press-releases-pdf/2016/11/47244650625_en.pdf. European Parliament. (2014a). Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/ ?uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=EN. European Parliament. (2014b). Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/ EC. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024&from=de. Farole, T. & Akinci, G. (2011). Introduction. In: T. Farole & G. Akinci (Eds.), Special Economic Zones: Progress, Emerging Challenges, and Future Directions (pp. 1–5). Washington, DC: World Bank. Fischer, K. (2017). Corporate Sustainability Governance: Nachhaltigkeitsbezogene Steuerung von Unternehmen in einer globalisierten Welt. Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum. Fischer, K. & Zink, K. J. (2012). Defining elements of sustainable work systems: A systemoriented approach. Work, 41, 3900–3905. Fischer, K., Hobelsberger, C., & Zink, K. J. (2009). Human factors and sustainable development in global value creation. In: International Ergonomics Association (Ed.), 17th World Congress on Ergonomics of the IEA 2009. Beijing, China: IEA Press (CD-ROM). Foxvog, L., Gearhart, J., Maher, S., Parker, L., Vanpeperstraete, B., & Zeldenrust, I. (2013). Still waiting: Six months after history’s deadliest apparel industry disaster, workers continue to fight for compensation. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from http://www. cleanclothes.org/resources/publications/still-waiting. Gereffi, G., & Fernandez-Stark, K. (2011). Global Value Chain Analysis: A Primer. Durham, NC: Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104. Hendriks, G. (2017). The sustainable development effects of investment by emerging-market multinationals: Shaping beneficial outcomes for home and host country. Transnational Corporations, 24(3), 73–88. Hoang, D., & Jones, B. (2012). Why do corporate codes of conduct fail? Women workers and clothing supply chains in Vietnam. Global Social Policy: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Policy & Social Development, 12(1), 67–85.

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

255

Hoiberg Olsen, S., Zusman, E., Miyazawa, I., Cadman, T., Yoshida, T., & Bengtsson, M. (2014). Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): An Assessment of the Means of Implementation (MOI). ISAP Conference Paper 24 July, 2014. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Idowu, S. O., Frederiksen, C. S., Mermod, A. Y., & Nielsen, M. E. J. (Eds.). (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and Governance. Cham: Springer. IEA (International Ergonomics Association). (2000). Ergonomics International News and Information – August 2000. London: Marshall Associates. ILO (International Labour Office). (1996). Ergonomics Checkpoints. Geneva: ILO. ILO (International Labour Office). (1998). Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Retrieved December 11, 2017, from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---ed_norm/---declaration/documents/publication/wcms_467653.pdf. ILO (International Labour Organization). (Ed.). (2016). Decent work and the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved January 6, 2018, from http://www.ilo.org/global/ topics/sdg-2030/lang--en/index.htm. ILO (International Labour Office). (2017). Purchasing practices and working conditions in global supply chains: Global survey results. Policy Brief No. 10. Retrieved January 17, 2018, from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_556336.pdf. Imada, A. S. (2008). Achieving sustainability through macroergonomic change management and participation. In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management (pp. 129–138). Heidelberg: PhysicaVerlag. ILO (International Labour Office). (2010). Guidance on Social Responsibility. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2017). Sustainable Procurement – Guidance. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. Jentsch, M., & Fischer, K. (2018). Sustainability governance of global supply chains. In: P. Schukat, M. Schmidt, D. Giovannucci, B. Hansmann, & D. Palekhov (Eds.), Towards Sustainable Global Value Chains: Concepts, Instruments and Approaches. Natural Resource Management in Transition. Heidelberg: Springer. Kubek, V., Fischer, K., & Zink, K. J. (2015). Sustainable work systems: A challenge for macroergonomics? IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics & Human Factors, 3(1), 72–80. Lee, J. & Gereffi, G. (2015). Global value chains, rising power firms and economic and social upgrading. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 11(3/4), 319–339. Lee, J., Gereffi, G., & Barrientos, S. (2011). Global value chains, upgrading and poverty reduction. Capturing the gains. Briefing Note No. 3. Retrieved January 17, 2018, from www.capturingthegains.org/pdf/ctg_briefing_note_3.pdf. Locke, R. M., & Romis, M. (2010). The promise and perils of private voluntary regulation: Labor standards and work organization in two Mexican garment factories. Review of International Political Economy, 17(1), 45–74. 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), 319–351. Moyo, D. (2018). Protectionism’s false promise. TIME Magazine, 191(21), 23–24. OECD. (2013). OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals From Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. Paris: OECD Publishing. Olney, W. W. (2010). A race to the bottom? Employment protection and foreign direct investment. Working Paper no. 2011-02. Retrieved January 17, 2018, from http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/OlneyEmploymentProtectionAndFDI.pdf. O’Neill, D. H. (2000). Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Does its application differ from that in industrially advanced countries? Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 631–640.

256

Human Factors for Sustainability

Poelhekke, S., & van der Ploeg, F. (2015). Green havens and pollution havens. The World Economy, 38(7), 1159–1178. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press, MacMillan. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., & Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., & Folke, M. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. Schmidpeter, R. (2016). Foreword. In: S. O. Idowu, A. S. Kasum, & A. Y. Mermod (Eds.), People, Planet and Profit: Socio-Economic Perspectives of CSR (p. XXI). London: Routledge. Schönherr, N., Findler, F., & Martinuzzi, A. (2017). Exploring the interface of CSR and the sustainable development goals. Transnational Corporations, 24(3), 33–47. Scott, P. A. (2008a). The role of ergonomics in securing sustainability in developing countries. In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management (pp. 171–181). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Scott, P. A. (2008b). Global inequality, and the challenge for ergonomics to take a more dynamic role to redress the situation. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4), 495–499. Scott, P. A., & Shahnavaz, H. (1997). Ergonomics training in the industrially  developing countries. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Design of computing systems: cognitive considerations.  Proceedings of the Seventh  International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, (pp. 139–144)August 24–28, Amsterdam:  Elsevier. Singh, A., & Zammit, A. (2004). Labour Standards and the “Race to the Bottom”: Rethinking Globalisation and Worker Rights From Developmental and Solidaristic Perspectives. Working Paper No. 279. Cambridge: ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21 – The United Nations Program of Action From Rio. New York: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. UNCTAD. (2017). Beyond Austerity: Towards a New Deal. Trade and Development Report 2017. New York: United Nations. United Nations. (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view:doc. asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1. United Nations Global Compact Office. (2014). Corporate sustainability in the world economy. Retrieved January 2, 2018, from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_ events/8.1/GC_brochure_FINAL.pdf. UN Statistical Commission. (2017). Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/71/313. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from http://ggim.un.org/meetings/2017-4th_Mtg_IAEG-SDG-NY/documents/A_ RES_71_313.pdf. U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2010). Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Public Law 111-203—July 21, 2010. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf. WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Witte, C., & Dilyard, J. (2017). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue: The contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals. Transnational Corporations, 24(3), 1–8.

Sustainability of Global Value Creation and Supply Chains

257

World Bank. (2017). Measuring and Analyzing the Impact of GVCs on Economic Development. Global value chains Development Report 2017. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Zink, K. J. (Ed.). (2008). Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2018). Human factors and ergonomics: Contribution to sustainability and decent work in global supply chains. In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities (pp. 243–269). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

12

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability Martha Helena Saravia-Pinilla, Carolina Daza-Beltrán, and Lucas Rafael Ivorra‑Peñafort

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 259 Fundamental Conceptual Bases ............................................................................. 261 Ergoecology....................................................................................................... 261 Corporate Sustainability..................................................................................... 263 Eco-Spherical Approach.................................................................................... 263 Integral Ecology ................................................................................................264 Orientation toward Transition................................................................................. 265 The Seven Ergoecological Criteria.........................................................................266 Self-Regulation (Micro-Level)........................................................................... 267 Exchange of Energy, Material, and Information between the Company and the Environment (Micro- and Macro-Levels)............................................. 269 Recognition of Interdependence (Macro-Level)................................................ 272 Reaching a Dynamic Balance between Companies and Resources (Macro-Level).................................................................................................... 273 Co-Create and Cooperate to Coexist (Macro- and Supra-Levels)..................... 275 Consciousness of Dependence on Natural Capital (Supra-Level)..................... 277 Favor Diversity with Equity (Supra-Level)........................................................ 279 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................... 281 References............................................................................................................... 283

INTRODUCTION Throughout 20 years of the development of ergoecology (García-Acosta, Romero, & Saravia, 1997), as researchers, we have recorded its evolution, as well as the opportunities and challenges it still faces. In the same way, we have had the opportunity to follow up and participate in academic debates of a global nature, generating a critical stance. Also, to interact with other authors discussing perspectives and concepts on topics of common interest or generating collaboration and mutual growth scenarios (i.e., green ergonomics). Within this dynamic, the “corporate sustainability” approach proposed by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) appears as a space in which we 259

260

Human Factors for Sustainability

identify very valuable contributions that are threatened by some problems at the time of its implementation. At the last research developed together by Saravia-Pinilla, Daza-Beltrán, and García-Acosta, they concluded that there is a clear opportunity to contribute to sustainability, as well as to participate in the consolidation of “corporate sustainability” from the ergoecology approach (Saravia-Pinilla, Daza-Beltrán, & García-Acosta, 2016). For this reason, this chapter summarizes the general concepts and the proposal that, from ergoecology, we believe can contribute to this purpose. To make corporate sustainability operational, first, those aspects that can make it more robust and coherent at the time of its application are presented. In a brief manner, the conceptual proposals of ergoecology, corporate sustainability itself, eco-spherical approach, and integral ecology are addressed. Then, the direction proposed to follow to achieve sustainability is established and, finally, we present what have been called “ergoecological criteria.” The criteria are seven, organized in three levels of complexity: micro, macro, and supra scales. For each criterion, examples are built from real organization cases that illustrate the different ways in which an organization could take the ergoecological criteria to achieve sustainability with an ergoecological approach. Before the tour through the seven ergoecological criteria, we want to highlight the nature of the examples presented. To generate a classification of the organizations according to the productive sector to which they belong, we identified four sectors that are sufficiently representative given that they cover a broad spectrum of contemporary socioeconomic and productive activities. These sectors are agriculture, manufacturing, food, and educational services. Then, we proceeded to look for organizations for each sector that could be presented as a case and that could exemplify at least three criteria of the seven that make up the ergoecological criteria. From a list with several options, we chose an organization for each sector of those defined above. The four companies selected as examples to be used throughout the chapter are characterized by the self-reporting of their corporate sustainability strategies. They permanently communicate (on their webpages) different aspects of their own daily search to achieve sustainability. They also have executed specific actions that we consider fit into the ergoecological criteria to illustrate well the concepts presented in them. With this, we expect that anyone who is interested in taking the ergoecological path toward sustainability may find a way to do it, having understood each of the objectives of the ergoecological criteria. To present the selected organizations, we will also say that they all assume coresponsibility with the planet and recognize their role as part of a larger system in which sustainability is directly related to social capital and natural capital, and therefore, irreversibility, nonlinearity, and nonsubstitutability are not negotiable. Likewise, from its own scope and within its possibilities, each of the four organizations selected strives permanently to make decisions and actions day by day to achieve true sustainability. In other words, we consider that they have gained eco-spherical consciousness. The four selected organizations are: • Eco-farm “La Cosmopolitana” (sustainable agribusiness – Colombia) • Patagonia (product manufacturing/special apparel – United States)

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

261

• Lao Kao S.A. (services/food and restaurants – Colombia) • Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Bogotá (educational services – Colombia)

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTUAL BASES To have the reader make the correct appropriation of this chapter, we must introduce some concepts that will be used later as a reference framework of our proposal and that has been used for several years in the field of ergonomics related to environmental aspects toward sustainability.

Ergoecology We present ergoecology (García-Acosta et al., 1997) in the first instance since it is this approach that inspires us and allows us to make the general proposal of the seven ergoecological criteria. In addition, from a chronological perspective, ergoecology has been developed much earlier than the other conceptual approaches that we present as a conceptual basis, theoretical framework, and reference. Ergoecology is defined as a “scientific and technological multidiscipline systematically studying human beings and their relationships with the environment by analysing their activities to establish the impact (positive or negative) of such a relationship. This field of study should develop its own methods, techniques and instruments or use those that have already been developed by disciplines participating in this new area of research” (García-Acosta, Saravia-Pinilla, Romero, & Lange, 2014). Ergoecology, which seeks to achieve a “dynamic equilibrium” by setting the interdependence between human interests and environmental aspects, is based on three principles (García-Acosta, Saravia, & Riba, 2012). First is the “systemic approach,” which allows relating the natural systems – such as services providers into an ecosystemic behavior – with human systems – legitimized by their sustainable performance as sociotechnical systems – and favoring the system improvement from the analysis and construction of indicators of specific situations, considering the inputs and outputs of energy, matter, and information (knowledge). The second principle is the “anthropocentric approach with an eco-spherical consciousness,” from which we study the interactions between systems, whose purpose is related to human needs and actions, considering the effects of these on human beings and their built environments, as in other species and its ecosystems – that is, to promote equity on access to resources and services for all living beings on the planet. In addition, the third principle that ergoecology proposes is the “sustainable approach,” which basically is holistic ecological sustainability established on relationships of interdependence among social, cultural, economic, technological, and political sustainability, as it seeks to balance all these dimensions. In its foundations, ergoecology is proposed to link “eco-productivity” and “systemic eco-efficiency,” to achieve eco-effectiveness and therefore sustainability. However, it is important to first clarify that each of these concepts can operate at different levels. Eco-productivity was defined as the capacity of the human productive systems to transform flows of energy, of matter, and of information (knowledge) in a product/service system, without generating waste or producing negative impacts in other systems.

262

Human Factors for Sustainability

It is achieved only if the productive system remains in dynamic equilibrium for several periods and allows the recovery of natural resources (García-Acosta et al., 2012). Eco-productivity operates at the micro‑level, within the productive activities of the company, to find the dynamic balance between inputs and outputs of the transformation processes, and seeks through the change of technologies to achieve “zero impacts” to generate products and eco-friendly services while ensuring the welfare of employees (Daza-Beltrán, Saravia-Pinilla, & García-Acosta, 2017). Systemic eco-efficiency, on the other hand, is defined as the balanced performance between sociotechnical systems and terrestrial-natural systems, which can only be achieved if there are no negative impacts on human beings or the ecosystem (García-Acosta et al., 2012). This “systemic eco-efficiency” differs widely from the definition of traditional eco-efficiency, established from sustainable development (Brundtland, 1987). Systemic eco-efficiency operates at a macro‑level and seeks the balanced management of natural, social, and economic resources, not only internally in the company but also in relation to its context and surroundings (Daza-Beltrán, Saravia-Pinilla, & García-Acosta, 2017). It implies that a collaborative and interdependent relationship between different systems, organizations, and other stakeholders involved understanding, taking advantage of, and making responsible use of all resources, within limits that favor long-term sustainability. It can involve actions that favor co-creation and cooperation, such as the formation of clusters or alliances between organizations, the search for integration or support for nearby communities, and all those decisions that allow coexistence with other species. The eco-effectiveness acts at the supra‑level, where the balanced relationship between the sociotechnical system and the natural system goes beyond the anthropocentric vision, toward equity and the ecosphere perspective (Daza-Beltrán, SaraviaPinilla, & García-Acosta, 2017). In this way, the regenerative cycles are respected and ecosystem services of nature, advocating the discontinuous use of resources or their replacement, seek the use of clean energies and renewable resources, depending on their availability and their possibilities for renewal, as well as the well-being of human beings and other species. It can involve actions such as the development of new materials and products, which act in a similar way to nature (e.g., from biomimicry), becoming nutrients to follow the principles of the “cradle to the cradle” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). This involves the study of options for diversification of products or services that favor the respect of regenerative cycles, the search for clean production certifications, dignified working conditions, designations of origin, promotion of alternative economic systems, circular economy, among others. One way to achieve these aims is to accept and understand initiatives such as those proposed in “ergoecology” (García-Acosta et al., 1997; García-Acosta, Saravia, Romero, & Lange, 2014) and in “green ergonomics” (Thatcher, 2013; Thatcher, García-Acosta, & Lange Morales, 2013). Both proposals, in which their initial point of view is the macro-systemic approach of ergonomics to venture toward the ecological aspects, work to find out the awareness of the interdependence between natural systems and human systems, seeking a dynamic balance to promote sustainability. Thus, we may see why ergoecology focuses on studying human activities and their immediate technological environment, both in the transformations of the productive system (García-Acosta et al., 2014) and in the transformations of ecosystems

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

263

regarding the eco-spherical consciousness (Saravia-Pinilla et al., 2016). In this sense, we can show the relevance of the ergoecology with the objectives set out in “corporate sustainability.” However, in this chapter, we will not concentrate on establishing the relations between ergoecology and corporate sustainability but to understand ways to articulate together with everyday business practice (Saravia-Pinilla, DazaBeltrán, & García-Acosta, 2017).

Corporate Sustainability According to Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), corporate sustainability pursues three main goals: (1) integrate economic, ecological, and social aspects in a “triple balance” (triple bottom line) to recognize that economic sustainability by itself is not a sufficient condition for the global sustainability of a corporation; (2) integrate aspects of the short and long term, avoiding the obsession for short-term gains, which is contrary to the spirit of sustainability; and (3) consumption income and not capital basis to achieve long-term sustainability. As companies seek to maintain the stability of financial capital, they must also take care of natural capital and social capital. Ergoecology (Saravia-Pinilla et al., 2017) outlines the participation of ergonomics in “corporate sustainability,” starting from the proposal of Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), who conceive their own corporative sustainability concept as “the satisfaction of the direct or indirect business stakeholders without compromising the capability to satisfy future stakeholders.” In favor of this goal, companies should keep and build their economic, social, and environmental progress as their capital baseline, while they actively contribute to politics sustainability. In addition, this idea is reinforced by what was proposed by Mauerhofer in his “3-D sustainability” (2008), who unfolds a three-dimensional cone-shaped representation. It shows how, contrary to traditional models suggested (triangle shape), the “carrying capacity” of natural capital – understood as the population size that a species or an ecosystem can withstand indefinitely or sustainably – is what must truly condition the growth and development of economic and social capitals. From this perspective, we can understand that an environmentally sustainable company only uses natural resources under its regeneration rate or alternative energies or materials under its development rate; it does not allow emissions above the natural absorption capacity rate of the natural system and does not participate in activities that imply ecosystem services degradation. Finally, a socially sustainable company adds value to communities where it operates, increasing human capital of individuals and social capital of those communities. Besides that, we also believe that the evolution of the concept of social and environmental “responsibility” can be enriched with the perspective of ergonomics characteristics: to adopt systemic approach, to be practice oriented by design, and to focus on human well-being and the systems global performance (Dul et al., 2012).

Eco-Spherical Approach Despite these findings of the theoretical approach, the work around corporate sustainability in practice fails to internalize, in a concrete way, how to assume

264

Human Factors for Sustainability

the limit of natural capital expressed, for example, in the loss of nonrenewable resources. From this perspective, our literature review confirmed the urgent need for the transition from the anthropocentric principle to an eco-spherical approach. We also consider it necessary to assume the unavoidable responsibility of adopting an eco-spherical approach to address the challenges posed by the environmental crisis with a balanced and truly sustainable commitment to humanity and the planet (García‑Acosta & Riba I Romeva, 2010). From the eco-spherical approach, it is understood as a complete and indivisible system to all those life forms and the systems that support them. By extension, the ecosphere can contemplate all those spaces that could allow the development of life, whether these spaces are natural or artificial (Huggett, 1999). Then, from the approach that we mentioned, the so-called environmental aspects cannot be separated from social issues, since they are part of the same system. In terms of corporate sustainability, this demands a holistic approach to development, contextualized in the material limits of the ecosphere (Fernández, 2000). Thus, other criteria need to be developed to address issues such as ecological equity with a view to achieving social sustainability.

Integral Ecology As we have said before, it is known that in parallel and even before – from the perspective of economists – other approaches have been developed seeking to turn the page of sustainable development (Robinson, 2004). These are structured from the classical view of the financial economy (Solow, 1991), to the holistic proposals such as the “ecological economy” (Costanza, 1989; Daily & Ellison, 2012; GeorgescuRoegen, 1975) and “economic degrowth” (Latouche, 2009; Martínez-Alier, Pascual, Vivien, & Zaccai, 2010), among others. Even more recently, we can refer to the surprising but well-structured proposal of the “integral ecology” of Pope Francis, divulged globally through his Laudato-sí (Francis, 2015). In this framework, and along the same line as the ecospheric approach, it is not possible to understand the existence of society (and its institutions) without understanding the existence of what we call “environment” or everything that surrounds us that serves as a support of life. On the other hand, the integral ecology approach invites organizations to question the current models of development that, although they have generated wealth and jobs, have also favored the accumulation of environmental liabilities (Simms, 2001) that has been assumed by society. As it will be mentioned later in this chapter, it is necessary to discuss concepts that have favored a decontextualized development of the reality of our environment, such as the definition of renewable natural resources (nowadays the definition of “renewable” resource is relative). To organizations, this is relevant, considering, for example, the externalities (Liu, 2012) that can be derived from their daily operation, to increase efficiency in the strategic decisions made by them. In this case, efficiency also contemplates the maximization of the benefit not only for the organization but also for the environment that surrounds it and on which it depends to continue operating.

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

265

ORIENTATION TOWARD TRANSITION Then – based on the eco-spherical vision – (see Table 12.1) and noting that the environmental responsibility conditions the social responsibility, ergoecology recognizes that at present, for an organization that is already established and in operation – is ready to achieve sustainability. It must begin a process and to travel a path that allows it to modify its traditional practices into sustainable actions. Now, to achieve corporate sustainability, there are two preliminary conditions that must be considered: First, organizations must recognize that they cannot only grow but must “fluctuate” to keep operating, and second, they must build strategies that allow them to achieve “dynamic balance” over time. Therefore, with the aim of favoring this process, from the ergoecology perspective and based on its principles of sustainability and a systemic approach, we have structured a criteria series that, without being hierarchical, consecutive, or mutually exclusive, constitutes a road map for organizations that seek and are interested in achieving “corporate sustainability” (Saravia-Pinilla et al., 2017). Despite proposing seven well-defined criteria, we found that when organizations are looking for sustainability, they can hardly opt for only one criteria. In fact, the organizations that now are seeking sustainability developed at least two or more aspects related to that aim. From this perspective, instead of setting an example for each stage, we decided to approach and explain selected cases of organizations that exemplify more than two of the seven criteria. Pursuing this transition – from the ergoecology approach – it demands building concepts and strategies that allow identifying actions that organizations should make to achieve true corporate sustainability with an eco-spherical approach (Saravia-Pinilla et al., 2017). For this chapter, we chose four organizations that have information declared on their websites, in public documents, or through interviews and that represent different economic sectors looking to make the analysis as broad as possible regarding the different possible applications of the seven criteria to achieve corporate TABLE 12.1 Orientation Toward a Transition for an Ecospheric Approach Orientation Toward Transition From Anthropocentric Approach Concepts    Sustainable development (conventional economy)   Continued growth Actions   Exploitation   Depletion   Crisis   Keep growing

To Ecospheric Approach Sustainability (ecological economy) Sustainable over time Recovery Conservation Balance (dynamic) Fluctuate

Source: Adapted with permission from Saravia-Pinilla, Daza-Beltrán, and García-Acosta (2017).

266

Human Factors for Sustainability

sustainability. With this perspective, the organizations that we present as examples are the following ones: • La Cosmopolitana (Agribusiness sector): Within the primary economic sector, this eco-farm, founded in 1990, offers the opportunity for visitors to harvest different sort of plants and the opportunity to raise different animals, so that people learn the way of doing this in the most natural possible way. They offer different services such as agritourism and pedagogical activities. • Lao Kao S.A. (Services sector): In the service industry, Lao Kao S.A. is a growing private organization founded in 1998, with more than 15 restaurants of Asian food in Colombia. As part of its value proposition, the food service is complemented by the communication of key messages to their customers promoting responsible consumption. Besides, they go beyond their business, sharing different ideas to different stakeholders, in different ways such as “Charlas Wok” (or Wok Talks in English), which, according to the organization, “are small presentations of visionaries, storytellers, experts, scholars and narrators, who seek to generate a space for learning, exchanging and culture promotion around environmental issues” (Wok, 2018). • Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Bogotá (Educational Services sector): By the time this chapter is written, the authors of this text are currently working at this university. This university is one of the most important in Colombia and Latin America. It holds almost 1,300 professors and around 24,000 active students. Since Jesuits oversee this and many other universities around the world, the protection of the environment and social justice are two key concerns across every process within the university. This can be seen in the classrooms, the different research projects, the online courses, and volunteer groups and the sustainable campus project, among other initiatives. • Patagonia (Manufacturing sector): This North American company, from the manufacturing economic sector, is famous for its “sustainable products” and other initiatives that help protect the environment and human rights while offering trendy clothing for outdoor activities. Founded in 1973, with around 1,000 employees right now, continuous innovation leads the way in every activity of this organization. Now, we will present the seven proposed criteria to achieve corporate sustainability and, in each one of them, will identify how each organization assumes from its perspective actions corresponding to every criterion.

THE SEVEN ERGOECOLOGICAL CRITERIA Seven criteria are proposed, from the ergoecological perspective, based on elements of the general theory of systems such as:

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

267

• Recursion, assuming that companies are components of subsystems of a higher system • Synergy, understanding that companies function as elements of machinery that, when coordinated, could achieve a higher objective • Homeostasis, defined as the ability to adapt to achieve a dynamic balance between systems • Teleology, understanding the welfare of the planet as a higher purpose to maintain a system that contains and supports our activities The seven ergoecological criteria are associated with the postulates of ergoecology, and like these, they are proposed to operate at the three different levels of systemic complexity (micro, macro, and supra). Consequently, the relationship between the first criterion and eco-productivity is evident. This operates at the micro-level, focusing on self-regulation and balance between productive activities and their impacts on the environment as well on suppliers, clients, and workers. The second criterion operates both at the micro‑ and the macro‑levels, so it is related to eco-productivity as well as with systemic eco-efficiency. As the use and transformation of energy, matter, and information impact on the well-being of workers and the productivity of organization, a similarly output occurs from the transformation affecting the nearby community and surroundings. Criteria three and four are related to systemic eco-efficiency because they seek the recognition of interdependence. These criteria operate at the macro-level and they favor cooperation to achieve a balanced management of resources, but not only internally in the organization but also in relation to its context and surroundings nearby. In the same way, criteria six and seven are associated with eco-effectiveness, and they operate at a supra-level. There is greater ecospheric awareness, and actions seek to promote equity and diversity to respect regenerative cycles and ecosystem services. In the case of criterion five, it operates on both macro- and supra-levels, understanding that cooperation and co-creation can occur between organizations and between sociotechnical systems and natural systems, pursuing respect and equity among living beings belonging to both sociotechnical and natural systems. In general, it is expected that while the appropriate actions are accomplished, the companies gradually will acquire ecospheric awareness and will make a positive impact on their environment. We believe that these criteria can be developed without a specific order and, depending on the sector to which the company belongs, could start with one or another and gradually reach the others. From the way they are presented, it will be seen that there are similar aspects between them, but since they are not achieved in a specific order or simultaneously, this is not an inconvenience. However, it is important that organizations achieve corporate sustainability in a balanced way in the economic, social, and environmental aspects to maintain the business in the long term (Figure 12.1).

Self-Regulation (Micro-Level) Companies have systems similar to natural systems, which must include the capacity for self-regulation. In this sense, they must be prepared to model the dynamics of

268

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 12.1  Levels at which the ergoecological criteria operate.

their ecosystem and identify the limits of their growth, as well as defining the transitions necessary for its long-term integral sustainability. The companies that have been projected with permanent growth must reorient their vision to maintain or even decrease to remain on time, especially those companies that depend on nonrenewable resources. We need to discourage inappropriate activities to ensure that systems continue to function well. With a greater understanding of how positive and negative feedbacks work in nature, we can design systems that regulate themselves naturally. Positive feedback can be interpreted as an accelerator that pushes the system toward freely available energy, while negative feedback acts as a brake that prevents the system from falling into traps of scarcity or instability due to waste or excessive use of energy (Holmgren, 2002). In the case of La Cosmopolitana, with the experimental center of diversified production, self-regulation has been encouraged with agricultural rotations that promote the change of the host plant against pests, pathogenic microorganisms, and weeds that are installed in the lot, reducing its proliferation through the interruption of their biological cycles. The increase in the biodiversity of plants and/or habitats generates negative feedback, modifying the behavior of agricultural pests with less impact of the phytophagous species on the crop while generating positive feedback by serving as a refuge for different bird species and other minor species such as curies and rabbits. La Cosmopolitana is today a Natural Reserve of Civil Society (RNSC), where there are more than a hundred plant species, including palms and fruit trees. Initially, Lao Kao S.A. supplied its demand for fish with frozen fish bought in international markets. However, in 2009, aware of the environmental impact of industrialized fishing, they decided to expand their supply policies, already applied with small artisanal farming communities, toward the fish supply. In this way, they could guarantee the location, as well as how and when the fish used would be

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

269

captured. The Lao Kao S.A. also launched an educational and awareness campaign to let customers know the consequences of indiscriminate fishing. Also, the reason for introducing artisanal fishing into their production chain was a positive impact on the fisheries communities of the Colombian Atlantic and Pacific coasts. This initiative as well contributes to the environment and the quality of the final product. It has been evidenced that educated and sensitized consumers can contribute to achieving efficiencies in the reduction of costs in the sushi value chain and in the increase of the gross margin of the business (Lobo Romero, Reficco, & Rueda, 2014). Patagonia encourages its employees to support sustainable mobility strategies through changes in their lifestyles and habits, based on their Drive-Less Program. It has been possible thanks to monetary incentives for those who are willing to try different initiatives such as carpooling, riding a bike, and using more public transportation, among other ideas. According to what Patagonia reports, “U.S. and Canadian employees are paid $2 per trip, up to two trips per day. Each employee can earn up to $500 (pre-tax) per year.” This led to the reduction of approximately 690,000 miles compared to what was driven by their employees (collectively) before this initiative began (with the corresponding benefits for the environment related to “reducing CO2 emissions by 500,000 pounds and saving 25,700 gallons of fuel”) (Patagonia, n.d.-d). In the case of the employees of an organization, it has been shown that promoting self-regulated behavior in them can be beneficial for their development, for example, through the stimulation of their creativity (De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011).

Exchange of Energy, Material, and Information between the Company and the Environment (Micro- and Macro-Levels) The functioning of all ecosystems is similar. Everyone needs a source of energy (e.g., the sun) that, by flowing through the different components of the ecosystem, sustains life and mobilizes water, minerals, and other physical components of the ecosystem. There is also a continuous movement of different chemical elements that pass from soil, water, or air to organisms and from living beings to others until they return – closing the cycle – to the ground or to water or air. Therefore, in the ecosystem, the matter is recycled – in a closed cycle – and the energy passes – flows – generating organization in the system. An organization, understood as an open system, operates and maintains its operations by taking advantage of the matter, energy, and information of the ecosystem to which it belongs; this use implies a consumption, a transformation, and a transfer/feedback to the same ecosystem from which it takes the resources and other human systems with which it operates. For this reason, companies should ensure that the use of these resources does not lead to waste, or overexploitation, while positively affecting the community. In the case of the matter, for example, some organizations in different business lines may require the same raw materials to manufacture the products they sell (e.g., a toilet paper factory and a news agency that sells newspapers can use recycled paper as a material premium) (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, 2017). In other scenarios, some companies take advantage of the residual wood that sawmills generate to manufacture agglomerated wood. Finally, nature also reacts to the exchange of matter from anthropogenic activities: For example, the increase in the

270

Human Factors for Sustainability

solid waste can lead to an increase in species that can act as vectors of diseases (insects, rodents, etc.) and contamination of soils by leachates, resulting in water pollution. In the case of energy, inputs are used for several activities, from the operation of lighting and heating systems, using equipment and machines, to the operation of the services offered by the infrastructure of an organization. For example, a company that offers telephone services requires electric power to support the operation of the communications network; in this sense, the transformation activities of this energy result in energy outputs such as waste heat, sound, and vibrations, among other forms of energy that end up being available in the environment to be used. Two examples of this are: (1) the lamps used to illuminate the spaces of the infrastructure of an organization can generate a significant thermal load for the design of air-conditioning installations (some more than others), so using more efficient light sources also helps to reduce the expenditure of energy (Omer, 2008). Moreover, (2) people who inhabit a space within the company also generate heat when developing their activities; hence, similar spaces with more people can perceive warmer environments. To achieve greater efficiency in the use of energy, there needs to be a system for collecting, collating, storing, and analyzing these data. In addition, the relevant variables related to significant energy use need to be identified, measured, and stored. In the same way, the organization constantly makes decisions to ensure the continuity of its mission, adapting and taking advantage of the changes that take place in its internal context and its external context (Rojas Santoyo & Melgarejo, 2015). In other words, the organization depends on the quality of the information that is collected from the environment and the way it is interpreted and used, determining how resilient it is (Moberg & Simonsen, 2011). The internal and external contexts of the organization are affected by the information generated by the organization from its daily operation. As an example, a new company comes into operation by capturing water from a river, because it uses the river flow for its activities, and this sends a signal to the territory where it will operate so that the biodiversity present, the neighbors, and the authorities are attentive to the behavior of the company. In this way, its operation can be harmonized with the quality of the river water and the well-being of the inhabitants of the territory (human and nonhuman). Companies should seek that their productive actions benefit the interactions and exchanges that are established with the environment to ensure the sustainable use of matter and energy and to avoid waste, as well as ensure that the exchange of information, internally and externally, favors the maximization of the benefit of all the stakeholders involved in the life cycle of the goods and services that the organization delivers. For this, organizations can be organized in clusters where companies can agree to connect with others that can take advantage of the waste generated. Alternatively, companies with high-energy demand can provide their dissipated or residual energy to others of medium or low‑energy demand, and other companies can exchange information between different interest groups where it allows the cost of transactions to be reduced. Lao Kao S.A. has used different strategies to avoid wasting food from the perspective of the triple bottom line of sustainability as Taborda (2017) states it. In the first axis of development of suppliers, they have shortened the routes between the

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

271

plant processes and the table of the consumers, reducing imported products from 80% to 45%, yielding the rest of ingredients to local producers and mitigating the loss of food due to inefficiencies within the value chain. In the second axis of cleaner production with staff training, the cooks reinvented the use of some leftover ingredients such as “Stir Fry de Bok Choy,” a dish sautéed with the heart of these vegetables that was previously donated to foundations that support vulnerable communities in the south of Bogotá and is now a successful dish in the market. In the same way, in the third axis of awareness, different campaigns have been developed for the final consumers, among which stand out the “Do you want wasabi or ginger?” campaign. This reduced by 30% the organic waste of each location (Taborda, 2017) and the suggestion to the customers to see the leftovers as “an oriental calentao” (a traditional Colombian meal) or an alternative for “Thai breakfast” the next day. It must be remembered that in Colombia, according to data from the National Planning Department, the equivalent of 9.76 million tons of food that could feed an estimated 8 million people a year is wasted in the country (Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 2016). There is a connection between work well-being, corporate social responsibility, and the value that the organization can obtain by being more sustainable (Edmans, 2012), and it has been proven that companies that treat their employees better tend to do better in their performance (Great Place to Work, 2014). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Bogotá is aware that it should contribute to reducing the environmental impact made available to the entire university community 19 water troughs, to encourage the consumption of water from the city’s aqueduct and to prevent bottles from contaminating the environment. With this, it has been possible to democratize the access to water, guaranteeing the quality of the water with periodic controls and avoiding that around 4,500,000 PET bottles have contaminated the environment since the implementation of the measure in 2013 (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, n.d.). Considering that the water quality of the city of Bogotá is potable (Coy Jimenez, 2018), this initiative of the PUJ supports local development, reduces the consumption of plastic bottles, supports the natural consumption of water (and the consequent protection of local water sources), and helps reduce the water expense to employees, students, and other stakeholders of the university. La Cosmopolitana (La Cosmopolitana, n.d.) has implemented practices aimed at sustainable development with the purpose of conserving, preventing, and mitigating negative environmental impacts, educating the population, and raising awareness about a systemic “whole” (i.e., plants, animals, and humans) we need from each other to be in balance. It became a living classroom, with its self-sustainable model where the use of solar energy, the rotation of biodiverse crops, the raising of minor species, the use of waste for gas generation, and other actions have been able to demonstrate how, in that small closed system, the different biotic systems can contribute to each other for the maintenance of life and diversity. In the design of workspaces, the relationship between the incorporation of sustainability and the improvement of employee welfare from the ergonomic point of view has also been demonstrated (Martin, Legg, & Brown, 2012). In Patagonia, within the framework of its objective of reducing their environmental impact along their supply chain, during 2015, they generated around 200,000 kWh

272

Human Factors for Sustainability

of on-site renewable energy and paid for more than 900,000 kWh of green power for some of their offices. This has also helped their effort of measuring and reducing their carbon footprint (Patagonia, n.d.-c). In addition, Patagonia has been concerned about reducing light pollution by using low-luminance luminaires that focus light within the design area; it has already been proven that a better lighting design in workspaces helps to improve employee performance and well-being (Silvester & Konstantinou, 2010). They also have installed full cutoff exterior lamps that reduce high-angle brightness in such a way that no light from their buildings crosses the property boundary (Patagonia, 2006).

Recognition of Interdependence (Macro-Level) Companies can stimulate the use of ecosystem services, where the eco-dependence and interdependence that humans have with other species is palpable. Therefore, it is important to reevaluate other types of interspecies relationships such as symbiotic and mutualistic relationships. In this sense, industries can take the path of the organic, the natural, and the self-sustainable in such a way that the use of pesticides and so-called monovarieties is avoided, favoring the balanced use of resources and making evident the eco-dependence. Some options in this line are healthy (organic) food, natural medicine (herbal and medicinal plants), and self-sustainable farms (agroecology). One way to approach this stage may be through acknowledging the traditional and local knowledge found in each territory. The benefit perceived by the organization that operates there may be maximized, as well as the benefits perceived by the other stakeholders (including the environment). For this, it is necessary that the organization in its activity management system also establishes initiatives aimed at capitalizing on the information flows that are given between the different interest groups. Some communities have learned to balance their hunting rates with the population growth of the species they consume as food (fish, mammals, birds, etc.) in such way that they can ensure their source of food while ensuring the survival of the species from which they feed. In this scenario, a fishing company, which has the participation of the local population and proposes initiatives beyond the minimum legal requirements, could take advantage of that traditional knowledge to balance its operation with the existing biodiversity in the territory in which it operates. Another possibility takes place in the understanding of the dynamics that occur between different species in the environment and that may be beneficial for industrial systems without human intervention. Some plants, such as “tobacco” or the “azadirachta” tree – commonly known as neem – can serve as natural pesticides by driving away some invasive species such as flies and some crop worms. In this same line, combining the benefits of the agricultural and livestock systems can allow the maximization of the benefit for the farmers and entrepreneurs of the agribusiness sector, starting from the knowledge of the biodiversity present in a territory (Daniel, 1997). This, at the same time, also allows the communities to have opportunities to increase their food sovereignty, understanding the territory, identifying its vocation, and proposing development strategies that articulate the interests of the local population, biodiversity, and natural resources. According to Pachón-Ariza (2013), food

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

273

sovereignty is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture systems, to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production, and to trade and achieve sustainable development objectives. This increases local production by stimulating diversified production by local families; it also helps to recover, validating and disseminating traditional production models in an environmentally, socially, and culturally sustainable way, while food security policies result in hunger, poverty, and environmental damage. Lao Kao S.A. has managed to establish direct relationships with most of their food suppliers, so that they have achieved the following benefits: (1) reduce food imports (with its corresponding environmental benefit in the emission of greenhouse gases), (2) improve the traceability of the food they offer to their consumers, and (3) reduce intermediation, which allows offering better conditions to local producers. La Cosmopolitana, as an agribusiness center, uses a Successive Agroforestry System, where agricultural and forestry species are established in the same land. This system makes the roots, plant materials, and seedlings interact, providing nutrients to the plants, such as legumes, which fix nitrogen to the soil, and the dead plant material left over from the succession of pioneers and secondary organisms. At the end of their vegetative period, they are allowed to turn into nutrients for the soil and be assimilated by the plants, helping to maintain productivity for long periods, using more efficiently environmental resources such as light, water and nutrients. This, together with the use of organic fertilizers produced in the same farm, such as compost, liquid humus, and biofertilizers, prevents soil contamination and wear (Parrado Martínez, 2014). In general, it is evident that contact with nature helps stress levels and health problems of employees decrease (Largo-Wight, Chen, Dodd, & Weiler, 2011). At Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Bogotá, through its “Green History” program, research has been promoted around the flora and fauna that exist on campus, in such a way that the educational community can also benefit from it (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, n.d.-b). In addition, the campus is mainly open to everybody who wants to visit it (e.g., the San Ignacio University Hospital is on campus), which allows the outputs of biodiversity research at the university to benefit the neighbors and all visitors. Within this program, native arboreal vegetation of the Andean Forest has been planted, contributing to the ecological rehabilitation of this ecosystem. On the other hand, the project has contributed to the conservation of vulnerable species of flora and fauna which are highly vulnerable: e.g., bees, birds, and native plants such as the Wax Palm (Ceroxylon quindiuense), Comino Crespo (Aniva perutilis), Black Oak (Colombobalanus excelsa), Walnut (Junglans neotropica), Molinillo (Magnolia hernandezii), Almanegra (Magnolia polyhypsophylla), Colombian Pine (Podocarpus olefolius), and Cedar (Quercus humboldtii). Also, orchids (Masdevallia coccinea) and the flower of Bogotá (Odontoglossum luteopurpureum).

Reaching a Dynamic Balance between Companies and Resources (Macro-Level) To achieve a dynamic balance between companies and the resources available as natural capital, organizations must know the changes, fluctuations, and recovery times of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and its reserve limits to get adapted

274

Human Factors for Sustainability

(Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, 2012). Considering this situation, in Colombia, the Research Institute of Biological Resources Alexander von Humboldt in its National Policy for the Integral Management of Biodiversity and its Ecosystem Services (PNGIBSE in Spanish) establishes guidelines to strategically manage the biodiversity of the country (including conservation and the sustainable use of it). To do this, they must model their dynamics within the system to foresee the changes or transitions necessary for said adaptation. Thus, companies that use resources must consider their resilience (Serrat, 2017) in the way they consume them and must plan transition strategies to avoid depletion. From the natural environment aspects, there are examples such as the initiative of Greenpeace (Greenpeace International, 2008) to manage fishing depending on the season of the year, or proposals like the code of conduct for responsible fisheries by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO (FAO, 2011). This includes certification of maritime products that come from sustainably managed sources and whose chain of custody is protected and gastronomic products in the private sector to adjust the variable menus offered to their clients based on the supply of biodiversity in a season. On the other hand, from the industrial aspects, similar situations can be seen when companies must consider the exhaustion of resources produced by humans. This was the case a few years ago when it was more common to find wheel tubes inside the tires of the vehicles, and some companies took advantage of this situation to manufacture products from those that were discarded (such as handbags and purses, among others). However, as automotive technology has progressed, vehicles mostly only have tires with no wheel tubes, “putting at risk” those companies that failed to anticipate the shortage of this material and were forced to disappear or reinvent with products that use different raw materials. The interesting thing is that this type of initiative is increasingly valued by some segments of the market that are more aware of the impact of their purchasing and consumption decisions on the environment and on the people, who are in the production chain of products and services they acquire (Nielsen, 2015, 2017). In this sense, the decisions of an organization on the raw materials that are used in the products that sell, considering sustainable aspects, can also result in a good business opportunity if the appropriate communication strategies are articulated to the value proposition in the target market. In addition, these changes in the demand for sustainable products and services result in an opportunity to encourage changes in the productive chains that increase the welfare of the different stakeholders. The Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Bogotá has promoted strategies to reduce paper consumption, printing, and photocopying in general, promoting the review of documents on screens, encouraging the use of electronic documents, scanning and using double-sided printing from the configuration of equipment, and printing and photocopying on both sides of the paper. It has also required its printing services provider to properly dispose of consumable waste and equipment (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, n.d.). Through the strategy of gradually reducing the consumption of paper in offices, organizations can achieve benefits for their employees, such as the increase in collaboration through digital work platforms, the standardization in

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

275

processes and in assets of the organization, and increased efficiency at work, among others benefits (Hattingh, 2001). Lao Kao S.A. practices responsible fishing based on the information provided by the “MarViva Foundation” (Melo, Fahrenberger, & Rojas, 2012). The MarViva Foundation is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that emerged in 2002 due to the concern about the irresponsible exploitation of marine and coastal resources in Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and Costa Rica. Since 2006, it has operated in Colombia and its main interest is studying the marine ecosystems of the Colombian Pacific and guaranteeing the sustainable use and conservation of marine coastal resources. For its part, the network “Red de Frío” (Cold Network) signs agreements with Lao Kao S.A. where its minimum quantities of fish that will be purchased are defined, according to many factors such as the climate in Bogotá. The network “Red de Frío” is part of the “Pescadofresco.co” organization, which brings together fisheries with processors of fish in Bahía Solano – Choco, Colombia. They have emerged thanks to the “Fisheries Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture” that in 2006 it sought to support fishermen by providing them the “chain of cold” service, which makes it possible to maintain optimal levels of fish quality. This network comprises four associations of fishermen. Since Lao Kao S.A. aims to supporting responsible fishing, it offers a premium price if the quality criteria stipulated in the commercial agreement are fulfilled. However, this decision to offer only the species available through artisanal, responsible fishing involved some important changes for its operational dynamics and the reduction of the most demanded sushi products (by reducing or eliminating some of the most demanded products by seasons). Lao Kao S.A. changed the design of their napkins and bought some that were manufactured with recovered materials (100% of the total material of the napkin) and that required less amount of material for their manufacture. In another initiative, they managed to reduce the consumption of straws by 90%. In this sense, it is key to consider the importance that employees have as key stakeholders in sustainability strategies that allow money savings for organizations, because of the direct dependence between the value generated by an organization and the people who work in it (UKGBC, 2018).

Co-Create and Cooperate to Coexist (Macro- and Supra-Levels) The corporate strategy must focus its creative and innovative efforts on finding productive solutions in harmony with the environment, cooperating with other companies and other organizations, as well as being aware of the capabilities and rights of its employees. This means that companies can recognize that all their interest groups are valuable and have the potential to contribute creatively to the solutions of their own problems and those of the company through co-creation. Recognizing that competition is not the only way to survive in the corporate world but also through cooperation (Congreso de Colombia, 1998) is a valid strategy to coexist, which can even increase the resilience of the organization in the face of constant changes in markets. On the other hand, and considering the current Colombian context through which the country passes now in which this book is written, the strategies that aim to collaborate and cooperate among the different stakeholders involved in production

276

Human Factors for Sustainability

and consumption systems also help to achieve strategic objectives such as consolidating a peace scenario for the development of new business initiatives (Unidad Administrativa Especial de Organizaciones, 2017). In the Colombian context, and considering the recent peace agreements, the solidarity economy offers the possibility of strengthening the offer of small products in the regions of the country, decentralizing development and rebuilding the zones affected by the conflict, and increasing the possibilities of creating jobs. Just looking to collaborate rather than compete in the traditional way in the free market has resulted in different initiatives that have reduced the transaction costs for those stakeholders involved while maximizing their benefit, and it has even increased positive environmental impacts (Dervojeda, 2013). Collaborating has allowed organizations and other stakeholders in a productive chain of a product/service to maximize their benefit while achieving more reasonable transaction costs. Examples of these are found in all those apps that connect owners of products such as vehicles and other transport systems, tools for different activities, and printing equipment, among others, with those who need them. For example, if a person has a drill and he/she does not use it permanently and another person needs that drill for a specific and sporadic activity, they can be connected through an app so that the first person can rent it to the second one. This collaborative relationship increases the economic benefit for the first person because he/she gets an additional income, while reducing the cost of buying a new drill to the second person, and it also reduces the pressure on nature by reducing the need to buy/manufacture more drills. Organizations have been discovering the benefits of inviting other stakeholders (including their employees) to participate actively and at earlier stages in the design of new products and services and, from these processes, methodologies such as design thinking (Rowe, 1991), empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Other agile project methodologies, methodologies for creating business models (such as Lean start-up), and more have been created. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Bogotá had its corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy approved in 2009 (Consejo Directivo, 2009). Within this framework, from the CSR Directorate, countless initiatives are being taken to support the communities surrounding the university: For example, with the support from the Javeriano Volunteer, the facades of some homes in the Mariscal Sucre neighborhood were embellished (Rojas, 2016). There are studies that show that there may be a correlation between the existence of corporate volunteering programs and the motivation and commitment of employees toward the organization, at least in some groups of employees (Peterson, 2004). Patagonia goes beyond their specific actions in their business to support activities carried out by other organizations, which share similar principles related to the protection of the environment and the welfare of people. Through their membership in “1% For The Planet®,” they have given more than “$89 million in cash to thousands of community-based groups working to create positive change for the planet in their own backyards” and helped “taking down dams, restoring forests and rivers, finding solutions to and mitigate climate change, among others” (Patagonia, n.d.-a). It has been shown that the impact investment or social investment can result in benefits for the same donor organization. For example, this could be related to

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

277

the Sustainable Development Goals and other strategic objectives that the organization may have (including those that may be associated with the work environment) (Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, 2013), whereas employees are currently considered as another group of stakeholders of any organization (Lydenberg, 2002). La Cosmopolitana has contributed to training and monitoring different indigenous and peasant communities in different regions who have implemented home gardens. They do this using organic waste, recovering creole seeds, establishing agroforestry systems, having a bank of proteins for animals, and also favoring the protection of morichales and water sources, replicating the case of 14 hectares in more than 2,000 hectares of the region (La Cosmopolitana, n.d.). The morichales are representative ecosystems of the Colombo-Venezuelan region of the Orinoco and Amazon watersheds and correspond to plant communities dominated by the moriche palm (Mauritia flexuosa). It has a high ecological value because it protects the sources of water and it is a source of food and shelter for wildlife.

Consciousness of Dependence on Natural Capital (Supra-Level) “We depend entirely on nature to conserve the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the climate stability, the food and the materials that we use, the economy that sustains us and, not least, to preserve our health, inspire us and be happy” (WWF, 2016). We humans lose more and more the connection with nature. Our concept of anthropocentric development has led us to believe that we are at the top of the natural pyramid when in reality, we break the balance that makes our very existence possible. For their part, companies and organizations must understand that their productive actions affect not only the ecosystem to which they belong, with possibly irreversible consequences, but that by breaking the balance of the system and the other subsystems that compose it, they affect its own permanence and that of all human beings on the planet. Each of the biotic factors (organisms that have life) and abiotic factors (lifeless factors that make up the ecosystem, such as water, temperature, light, pH, soil, humidity, oxygen and nutrients), beyond being resources to be exploited, provides different essential ecosystem services that may be affected by overexploitation. Then, a way to achieve dynamic equilibrium is to identify the elements of natural capital that they use, as well as to know their capacity to recover to foresee the necessary actions to avoid their damage and exhaustion (Rinco ́n Ruiz et al., 2014). For this, it must be considered that the concept of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources (MinAmbiente, 2014) becomes relative since it depends on different variables. Even though the regulatory framework in the educational field is still considered different (SENA, 2015; Smith & Deeter, n.d), in the opinion of the authors, this differentiation is obsolete, according to what has been found in the literature review of all-natural resources “variables of renewability”: Availability of biodiversity and eco-systemic services. It is established from the characterization of the variety of ecosystems and living organisms of any type that are available and to which ecosystem services these ecosystems and living organisms provide.

278

Human Factors for Sustainability

The rate of consumption of the resource. It refers to the amount of biotic and abiotic elements of the ecosystem that the organization and the surrounding communities and institutions consume in relation to a unit of time. With this measure, we can estimate the useful life of these elements as resources. The rate of resource contamination. It gives an account of the quantification of the polluting load that the human activities of the communities and organizations generate and affect either the elements of the ecosystem or the possibility of other people using those elements. The rate of recovery of resources. This variable is estimated from two perspectives: at what rate the ecosystems recover by themselves – whether regenerating the biotic or abiotic elements or restoring the damage caused by pollution or overexploitation – and how quickly the society recovers and restores the biotic or abiotic elements of the ecosystem with the application of technology. It is important to bear in mind that in this last perspective, there is no guarantee of achieving balance or recovering all ecosystem services. Aggregate demand for the resource. The organization may not be the only one that demands a resource (paper, water, electric power, among others), and therefore, we must consider the consumption rate of all those instances (organizations, groups, or individuals) that are exercising pressure on the same resources, given that the availability of these varies depending on consumption habits.

There are examples of how what was previously considered a renewable natural resource, such as biodiversity in general (e.g., water and wood, among other natural resources). Today it has been shown that they are not really renewable: For example, the plant cover of the basin of the Amazon River in South America has been decreasing due to the annual rate of deforestation (Fearnside, 2005), which exceeds the territory recovery rate, despite the reforestation programs that currently exist. Patagonia, in its mission statement, says, “Build the best product, not because unnecessary damage, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis Patagonia has stayed focused on specific aspects that, as an organisation, it can do to reduce, neutralize or even reverse the causes of climate change” (Patagonia, n.d.-b). The strategy of developing new materials from the recovery of more than two million plastic bottles, instead of using new raw material, shows how the consumption rate of virgin materials can be reduced by reducing the demand of the resource and, by so much, the pressure on the environment (as it is stated in the second variable of renewability). Measuring the carbon footprint, using renewable energy and natural fibers, reveals Patagonia’s awareness of its impact on the environment and its commitment to innovate to avoid an environmental crisis (Patagonia, n.d.-c). Organizations that incorporate innovations in the framework of sustainability can see these efforts reflected in the motivation of their employees from the satisfaction of the public good that is generated to the social interactions that arise from these initiatives. The Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Bogotá, according to the “Historia Verde” (Green History) project in 2016, obtained the following achievements regarding its initiatives toward a sustainable campus: With a floating population on the campus of +/– 5,000 daily people, in 2016 it went from producing 794 tons of residues every two months to only 130 tons, which corresponds

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

279

to a decrease of 83.57%, both in expenses for handling as in volume of waste (as it is stated in the third variable of renewability). (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, n.d.)

On the other hand, regarding the university’s food systems (stores, cafeterias, and restaurants), 90% of the food packages are recyclable and/or biodegradable and 30% of waste from cafeterias is composted. In a single semester of 2016, more than 300 liters of cooking oil were recycled for the manufacture of soaps and industrial fuels. In relation to the mobility aspects of the university community, considering that in Colombia, the universities do not have dormitories on the campus and their community lives in the city or in the suburbs, in 2011, 161 bike-users were registered. From the campaigns carried out and the installation of 248 safe parking lots for bicycles, in 2016, the registered growth was 1,743%, that is, 1,358 bike-users. Employees often describe healthier lifestyles when they incorporate into their daily habits the use of bicycles (either their own or through a shared bicycle system) to replace other conventional transportation systems (Page & Nilsson, 2017). In the year 2000 on the first day of the “Day without a Car” held in Bogotá – a yearly government initiative – the university received 661 people who traveled from their homes to the campus by bicycle. In 2016, there were 930, achieving a growth of 41% (as it is stated in the fifth variable of renewability, considering the aggregate impact of individual actions in the city). La Cosmopolitana is aware that just as it happens in nature where the seed cannot develop without the living soil, water, sun, oxygen, and other elements that allow it to grow, multiply, and produce food, each element has its own vitality but needs the other parts to form an interdependent system of joint life. For this reason, they have worked for more than 20 years trying to reforest their lands and have sought to invigorate each of the natural, productive, and human resources, articulated with each other (as it is stated in the fourth variable of renewability). They have given importance to ancestral knowledge, valued native seeds, used organic material for fertilization that returns life to the soil, conserved and venerated the water, and understood the value of ecosystem services of forests, which have led them to become a natural reserve of civil society whose productive forests avoid some 5,600 tons of carbon dioxide and other amounts of methane gas to be released into the atmosphere. At the same time, its protected soils retain 90,000 tons of water and have increased their natural productive capacity by 25 times compared to the environment (Rodríguez García, 2015). One of the motivations to see the changes in organizations toward more sustainable ways of operating can be the pressures of employees to obtain safer, more motivating, and more enriching working conditions (Wales, 2013).

Favor Diversity with Equity (Supra-Level) Companies have internal and external clients with diverse lifestyles; therefore, they must be able to offer flexible and differentiated product-service systems, which are oriented to the ecological equity, quality, and well-being of individuals (human and nonhuman) and of the communities in general, favoring the local demand and not

280

Human Factors for Sustainability

the consumption itself (hedonist) that drives some current trends of globalization. In the same way, they must privilege the demand of local inputs that prevents the loss of native varieties and species. Companies can identify native varieties and propose business models to first cover local markets guaranteeing equity (Robinson & LaMore, 2010). In this sense, strategies aimed at promoting lifestyles and sustainable consumption habits in internal collaborators (Ivorra-Peñafort, 2016) should aim to connect emotionally with real human motivations and needs. In an organization, internal clients are as important as the external clients when strategies of equity and environmental protection are proposed. There are initiatives that aim precisely at education for sustainable consumption and production. For example, in Colombia, there is the Academy of Innovation for Sustainability (AISO), and in Chile, there is the Association of Sustainable Consumers (ADC Circular). Not only consumers’ needs of what an organization offers need to be considered but also the needs of the other people participating in the life cycle of the products and services sold by the company. Likewise, the well-being and needs of other nonhuman stakeholders are equally relevant, since our society is part of the natural system where the organizations operate, and their development depends on the environmental quality of the environment. In the New Triple Baseline of sustainability, it is proposed that basic needs be met at the same level for human beings as for other forms of biodiversity, considering our dependence on the well-being of the environment that surrounds us (Ivorra-Peñafort, 2017). The discussion on sustainable consumption is wide, deep, and continuous, and one of the key questions to approach this topic is “When is enough of what is consumed (and, therefore, what is produced)?” There are companies that offer products with lifetime guarantees, others invite their customers to consume more rationally (meaning they recommend consuming less or “enough”), some offer discounts if the customer returns the product to change it for a new one, and there are others that invite you to share what you buy with another person. One of the causes of environmental and social problems lies in the imbalance of consumption globally, with local repercussions. Guides have been established to determine how much economic income can be fair or enough to meet basic human needs, but there is still much to be done in determining guidelines that allow consumers to know when the amount of goods and services may be “sufficient.” Finally, we must not forget that sustainability also means considering the impacts in the context in which an organization operates (it can be the local, regional, and international context). This means that the organization must consider the impact of its decisions on biodiversity (i.e., local and traditional knowledge), as well as the impact in all those places where the life cycle of the products and services offered has some impact. This allows, for example, opening the door to initiatives to take care of biodiversity and ecosystem services in all those places where clients of an organization pay for a tourism service. In addition, whether it is an airline or a hotel is important because the environmental and welfare quality depends upon whether customers feel that their tourist experience is worth the price they pay and, therefore, they are willing to repeat it and recommend it.

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

281

In Patagonia, the commitment to being sustainable is not only aimed to protect biodiversity in the traditional way (plants, animal, natural resources, etc.) but also aimed to make sure people are and feel good. Through fair trade practices (under the umbrella of the Fair-Trade Certification, in Better Sweater® and Men’s and Women’s Synchilla® Snap-T® styles), this is translated into monetary benefits that employees get and that they might use them in different ways. In this line, Patagonia “began by offering 10 Fair Trade clothing styles made in a single factory. By spring 2017, (they) offered 287 styles made in ten factories—including the world’s first full line of Fair-Trade Certified board shorts and bikinis—and this keeps growing” (Patagonia, n.d.-b). In the Cosmopolitana, they consider that human food security and sovereignty are achieved by making appropriate, diversified, and rotational use of both crops and animals. Similarly, the recovery of the local breeds often forgotten and in danger of extinction is as important as the rescue, valuation, consumption, and defense of native species that are often more resistant to drought conditions and soil poverty (Rodríguez García, 2015). Lao Kao S.A. is one of the most successful organizations in the communication of messages that promote the protection of the local environment, articulating its local consumers and bringing benefits to their local producers. For example, Lao Kao S.A. supported an initiative from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) with a month-long campaign to replace hooks to more respectful ones with marine species; as a result, more than 9,000 sustainable hooks could be secured for fishermen from Nariño and Chocó (Wok, 2015).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Following the latter critics of the triple bottom line of sustainability (TBLS; Environment, Society, and Economy) and also because its interpretation has led to poorly integrated strategies of corporate responsibility and sustainability, from our seven-criteria approach, we consider: a. Being aware of the flows of matter, energy, and information that occur between different life forms (including human beings) and the environment allows us to design strategies to increase environmental, social, and economic well-being. b. In each of the seven criteria, relevant aspects of the environment, society, and economy can be evidenced, depending on which variables are chosen to perform the analyses in the criteria. c. As with the TBLS, the seven criteria for corporate sustainability cannot be assumed as a “magic formula,” but rather as a way that is continuously covered and permanently renewed, considering that sustainability challenges are dynamic and evolve over time. In the same way that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are addressed in an integrated but differentiated way depending on the context, our proposal of seven criteria must be worked in a progressive and systematic way to achieve corporate

282

Human Factors for Sustainability

sustainability. In this sense, the seven criteria must be considered in an articulated and differentiated manner in their application, according to different variables: for example, the application context and the most relevant needs regarding corporate sustainability, the strategic priorities of the organization, and the conditions of each territory where an organization operates (legal frameworks, availability of natural resources, and market conditions, among other aspects). Likewise, just as the SDGs are framed within the 2030 Agenda as the continuation of the effort with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and will surely be reviewed to continue working toward global sustainability, the seven criteria presented in this chapter are a proposal that should continue to be reviewed considering new variables that may continue to affect corporate sustainability of organizations. In other words, these seven criteria are not considered a finished work but in constant evolution. In this chapter, seven criteria are proposed for an organization to approach corporate sustainability, offering a way that helps to achieve the strategic goals related to environmental, social, and economic performance. However, the possibility is open for the organizations to do the following: • Organizations need to adapt the criteria to their own context; this means that there is no better way to address this purpose, and this also means that each criterion is as important as the other six ones. In this sense, a short-term sustainability strategy could include specific activities in some of the criteria, and a long-term sustainability strategy could include activities for the rest of them. • Organizations must choose to synthesize these criteria into fewer ones, or even expand them to have more than seven. Sustainability is not understood in this context as a result but as a permanent strategy of continuous improvement, e.g., there is the possibility to be more specific in terms of technical matters related to technology transference and organizational change management. • In this sense and considering the welfare of human beings depends on the environmental conditions that surround them (whether inside or outside an organization), ergoecology is consolidated as a strategy that favors the creation of joint well-being for the environment in general and for people. In this sense, ergoecology helps an organization to identify the stakeholders, and the flows of matter, energy, and information, to understand the relations with the environment, not only going beyond physical ergonomics but also including it. • Sustainability must transcend the traditional TLBS and incorporate new ways of understanding the relationship of the organization with its internal and external context. In this sense, when it says “environmental,” it should consider the internal and the external surroundings (considering that the employees are another stakeholder, like the rest of the external ones); when it says “social,” it means working for the welfare of people along the value chain as within the organization. • Similarly, these seven criteria should not be taken in a linear way since each organization can see them applied in different order according to their

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

•

•

•

• •

283

context and strategic direction. You also must consider that there are no better criteria than there are others. Nowadays, the concept of corporate social responsibility has evolved toward corporate sustainability, extending the horizon of what each organization can incorporate in its daily operation and in its strategic direction, to increase the benefit of its stakeholders, including the environment, while increasing their market value. In this framework, ergonomics has allowed organizations to increase the well-being of their employees as well of the systems’ performance and incorporate new design requirements in the products and services they offer, to increase the well-being of their other stakeholders. In line with the above, there are already tools for an organization to know what to prioritize within the possible initiatives to increase the sustainability of the organization. Aspects of the legal framework, the market, and the available capitals to work with and invest in, among others, will help the organization to make decisions on how to approach these criteria in its strategy. It is key for an organization to rely on its internal collaborators and the stakeholders involved in its value ecosystem, to increase collaboration, improve synergies, and reduce transaction costs and increase benefits for all. Our proposal for the three levels of criteria (micro, macro, and supra) highlights the relevance of the impacts any action taken in the micro- and macro-levels might have in the supra-level. Having said this, any that organization wants to endure and make its business sustainable in the future should consider developing projects (including new products/services development projects), thinking both in the short and in the long term and thinking not only about what happens inside the organization with its suppliers and customers but also reviewing the impact of its actions on society, on the natural environment, and the economy.

REFERENCES Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future. In: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (pp. 45–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Congreso de Colombia. (1998). Ley 454 de 1998 Marco conceptual de la Economía Solidaria. Colombia Diario Oficial No. 43.357, 6 de agosto de 1998. Retrieved from http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0454_1998.html. [Accessed January 28, 2019]. Consejo Directivo, U. (2009). Acuerdo 524 del 2 de diciembre de 2009 – Antecedentes de la Política de RS en la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (pp. 1–7). Bogotá, D. C. Colombia: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Costanza, R. (1989). What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics, 1(1), 1–7. Coy Jimenez, E. (07 de marzo de 2018). Certificación sanitaria de la calidad del agua para consumo. [Carta de la subdirección de vigilancia en salud pública a la Empresa De Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo de Bogotá]. Nombre de la compilación (Radicación E-2018-027563). Copia en la Empresa De Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo de Bogotá. Retrieved from https://www.acueducto.com.co/wps/html/resources/2018ag/ certificacion_agua/E-2018-027563_CERTIFICACION_SANITARIA_EAB-ESP_ BOGOTA_2017.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019].

284

Human Factors for Sustainability

Daily, G., & Ellison, K. (2012). The New Economy of Nature: The Quest to Make Conservation Profitable. Island Press. Daniel, O. (1997). Una visión general de sistemas silvopastoriles y agrosilvopastoriles con Eucalipto en Brasil. In: Sánchez M.D. y Rosales Méndez M. (Eds), Agroforestería para la producción animal en América Latina (pp. 337–354). Roma, Italia. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. ISBN 92-5-304257 5. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agap/frg/agrofor1/Sanchez1.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Daza-Beltrán, C., Saravia-Pinilla, M. H., & García-Acosta, G. (2017). Eco-productivity as an indicator for sustainability. In: 23th International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference on Proceedings (p. 54). Bogotá: SDRS. ISBN: 978-958-774-607-5. De Stobbeleir, K. E., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811–831. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.javeriana. edu.co/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870144. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. (2016). Pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos en Colombia: Estudio de la Dirección de Seguimiento y Evaluación de Políticas Públicas Retrieved from https://mrv.dnp.gov.co/Documentos%20de%20Interes/Perdida_y_ Desperdicio_de_Alimentos_en_colombia.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Dervojeda, K. (2013). The Sharing Economy: Accessibility Based Business Models for Peerto-Peer Markets. European Commission. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., … van der Doelen, B. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. Edmans, A. (2012). The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with implications for corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 1–19. FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO. Fearnside, P. M. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 680–688. Fernández, R. (2000). Gestión ambiental de ciudades. Teoría crítica y aportes metodológicos. México DF: Tipos Futura. Francis, P. (2015). Encyclical Letter. Laudato Si’. On Care for Our Common Home. Ed. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (Vatican Press). García-Acosta, G., & Riba i Romeva, C. (2010). From anthropocentric design to ecospheric design, questioning design epicentre. Paper presented at the International Design Conference – Design 2010, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 17–20, 2010. García-Acosta, G., Romero, P. A., & Saravia, M. H. (1997). Ergoecology: Fundamental of a new interdisciplinary field. Paper presented at the 4 Congreso Latinoamericano de Ergonomía – Asocacón Brasileña de Ergonomía. October, 1997. Florianópolis, Brazil. Garcia-Acosta, G., Saravia, M. H., & Riba, C. (2012). Ergoecology: Evolution and challenges. Work, 41, 2133–2140. DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1017-2133. García-Acosta, G., Saravia, M. H., Romero, P. A., & Lange, K. (2014). Ergoecology: Fundamentals of a new multidisciplinary field. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(2), 111–133. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energy and economic myths. Southern Economic Journal, 41(3), 347–381. Great Place to Work. (2014). “Cuáles son los beneficios.” Retrieved from http://www.greatplacetowork.com.co/nuestro-enfoque/icuales-son-los-beneficios. [Accessed January 28, 2019].

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

285

Greenpeace International. (2008). Greenpeace criteria for sustainable fisheries. Retrieved from https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/publications/reports/citeria-sustainable-fisheries/. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Hattingh, M. (2001). The features and impact of the paperless office, with specific reference to the City of Johannesburg. SA Journal of Information Management, 3(3/4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v3i3/4.147. Holmgren, D. (2002). Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Hepburn: Holmgren Design Services. Huggett, R. J. (1999). Ecosphere, biosphere, or Gaia? What to call the global ecosystem. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 8(6), 425–431. Ivorra-Peñafort, L. R. (2016). Enfoque de Ciclo de Vida para Gestionar Organizaciones. En Rojas Santoyo, F. & Melgarejo, M. (Comp.) Memorias del Primer Congreso Nacional e Internacional de Innovación en la Gestión de Organizaciones (233–243), Bogotá, D. C. Colombia. ISSN: 2500-9214 Retrieved from https://www.ucentral.edu.co/sites/ default/files/inline-files/2016_Memorias_Primer_Congreso_Adm_001.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Ivorra-Peñafort, L. R. (2017). Nueva “Triple Línea Base de la Sostenibilidad” Sostenibilidad Redefinida. En Rodas Montoya J.C. (Ed) Encuentro Internacional: Experiencias Investigativas en Arquitectura y Diseño Volumen 01, número 01. Abril de 2017. Medellín – Colombia: Editorial Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Retrieved from https://repository.upb.edu.co/bitstream/handle/20.500.11912/3827/Encuentro%20 internacional.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. La Cosmopolitana. (n.d.). La Cosmopolitana Nuestra Historia. Retrieved from https://www. lacosmopolitana.com/nosotros.html. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Largo-Wight, E., Chen, W. W., Dodd, V., & Weiler, R. (2011). Healthy workplaces: The effects of nature contact at work on employee stress and health. Public Health Reports, 126, 124–130. Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to Growth. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ISBN: 978-0-74564616-9 Apellido, A., Apellido, A. & Apellido, A. (año). Título del capítulo. En Apellido, A., Apellido, A. & Apellido, A., Título del Libro (p.p.), Lugar: Editorial Referencia 37 (Liu): Corregir: Liu, Q. (2012). The environment quality and economics growth in China-A literature review and discussion (Dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-92185. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Liu, Q. (2012). The environment quality and economics growth in China – A literature review and discussion.Unpublished Masters Thesis, KTH University, Sweden. Lobo Romero, I. D., Reficco, E., & Rueda, A. (2014). Caso Wok: ¿una cadena de restaurantes sostenible?, (1–21). ISSN: 2322-9330 Caso # CP-02-01 Versión 31.5.2012. Retrieved from https://semilleropacifico.uniandes.edu.co/images/document/emprendimientos/ Caso-WOK-CADENA-SOSTENIBLE-Lobo-Reficco--Rueda.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Lydenberg, S. D. (2002). Envisioning socially responsible investing. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 7, 57–77. Martin, K., Legg, S., & Brown, C. (2012). Designing for sustainability: Ergonomics – carpe diem. Ergonomics, 56, 365–388. Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F.-D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1741–1747. Mauerhofer, V. (2008). 3-D sustainability: An approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 496–506. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. North point press. ISBN 0-86547-587-3.

286

Human Factors for Sustainability

Melo, G., Fahrenberger, A. D., & Rojas, D. (2012). Guía de pesca y consumo responsable, lo que debe saber de los pescados que llegan del pacífico colombiano a Wok, Red de Frio de Bahía Solano, Fundación Mar Viva. Noviembre de 2012. Bogotá, D.C. Colombia. ISBN: 978-958-99094-4-7. Retrieved from http://marviva.net/sites/default/files/documentos/guia_pesca_y_consumo_final_dic12_alta.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. (2012). Política nacional para la gestión integral de la biodiversidad y sus servicios ecosistémicos (PNGIBSE). Retrieved from http://www.humboldt.org.co/images/pdf/PNGIBSE_espa%C3%B1ol_web.pdf. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. (2017). Plan de Acción Nacional de Compras Públicas Sostenibles 2016–2020. Bogotá: Colombia Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Retrieved from http://www.minambiente.gov.co/index. php/component/content/article/155-plantilla-asuntos-%20ambientales-y-sectorial-yurbana-8. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Moberg, F., & Simonsen, S. H. (2011). What is resilience? An introduction to social-ecological research. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/(S(czeh2tfqyw2orz553k1w0r45))/ reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=2240169. [Accessed January 30, 2019]. Nielsen. (2015). Millenials la generación sensible a la RSE. The Nielsen Company. December 7, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/co/es/insights/news/20151/generaciones-sensibles-sostenibilidad.html. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Nielsen. (2017). 6  de cada 10 colombianos están dispuestos a pagar más por productos premium con altos estándares de calidad FMCG & RETAIL. The Nielsen Company. February 8, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/co/es/insights/news/2017/6de-cada-10-colombianos-estan-dispuestos-a-pagar-mas-por-productos-premium-conaltos-estandares-de-calidad.html. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Omer, A. M. (2008). Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(9), 2265–2300. Pachón-Ariza, F. A. (2013). Food sovereignty and rural development: Beyond food security Soberanía alimentaria y desarrollo rural: más allá de la seguridad alimentaria. Agronomia Colombiana, 31(3), 362–377. Page, N. C., & Nilsson, V. O. (2017). Active Commuting: Workplace Health Promotion for Improved Employee Well-Being and Organizational Behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 7 (1994). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01994. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC5222872/. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Parrado Martínez, D. F. (2014). Instalación de un sistema agroforestal sucesional en el centro agroecológicola cosmopolitana. Retrieved from http://repository.unad.edu.co/bitstream/10596/2725/1/40331952.pdf. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Patagonia. (2006). Reno Building Materials information (p 2.). Retrieved from https://www. patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/ dwe61123d3/PDF-US/reno_building.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Patagonia. (n.d.-a). Environmental grants and support. Retrieved from http://www.patagonia. com/environmental-grants.html. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Patagonia. (n.d.-b). Fair trade certified. Retrieved from http://www.patagonia.com/fair-tradecertified.html. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Patagonia. (n.d.-c). Supply chain: The footprint chronicles, impact and adoption. Retrieved from http://www.patagonia.com/impact-and-adoption.html. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Patagonia. (n.d.-d). Supply chain: The footprint chronicles, our business and climate change. Retrieved from http://www.patagonia.ca/climate-change.html. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Peterson, D. (2004). Benefits of participation in corporate volunteer programs: Employees’ perceptions. Personnel Review, 33, 615–627.

Ergoecological Criteria to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

287

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, J. (n.d.). Tu Impresión Inteligente, Responsabilidad con el Medio Ambiente. Retrieved from http://www.javeriana.edu.co/dir-tecnologias-deinformacion/tuimpresionInteligente. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, P. (n.d.). La Javeriana avanza para tener un campus sostenible. Retrieved from http://www.javeriana.edu.co/medio-universitario/historiaverde. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Rinco ́n Ruiz, A., Echeverry Duque, M. A., Ana, M., Tapia, C., Carlos, David Drews, A., Zuluaga Guerra, P. A. (2014). Valoración integral de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos: aspectos conceptuales y metodológicos. Bogotá, D. C. Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt. Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384. Robinson, N., & LaMore, R. L. (2010). Why buy local? An assessment of the economic advantages of shopping at locally owned businesses. Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. (2013). Impact Investing: An Introduction. Philanthropy Roadmap series. Retrieved from https://rockpa.org/document.doc. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Rodríguez García, R. (2015). La Cosmopolitana Centro de Vida.ISBN: 978-958-98144-1-3 Retrieved from http://www.lacosmopolitana.com/media/attachments/cosmopolitana. pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Rojas, T. (2016). El mural que une a dos barrios de diferentes clases sociales. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/bogota/mural-en-los-barrios-mariscal-sucrey-chapinero-alto-51147. [Accessed 29 January 2019]. Rojas Santoyo, F., & Melgarejo, M. (Comp.) (2015). Memorias del Primer Congreso Nacional e Internacional de Innovación en la Gestión de Organizaciones (233–243), Bogotá, D. C. Colombia. ISSN: 2500-9214 Retrieved from https://www.ucentral.edu. co/sites/default/files/inline-files/2016_Memorias_Primer_Congreso_Adm_001.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Rowe, P. G. (1991). Design Thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press. Saravia-Pinilla, M. H., Daza-Beltrán, C., & García-Acosta, G. (2016). Retos de la ergonomía para la sostenibilidad corporativa: de la visión antropocéntrica a la eco-esférica. Paper presented at the 22 Semana de la Salud Ocupacional, Nov 03, 2016, Medellín, Colombia. Saravia-Pinilla, M. H., Daza-Beltrán, C., & García-Acosta, G. (2017). Corporate sustainability: From anthropocentric to ecospheric approach. Paper presented at the 23rd International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, Jun 15, 2015, Bogotá, Colombia. Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje - SENA. (2015). Recursos renovables y no renovables (pp. 245–250).Retrieved from https://senaintro.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/institution/ semillas/228106_2_VIRTUAL-2015/contenido/oaaps/oaap3/aa2/oa2_recursosrenovables_aa2/oc.pdf. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Serrat, O. (2017). On Resilient Organizations. Springer, pp. 245–250. Silvester, J., & Konstantinou, E. (2010). Lighting, Well-Being and Performance at Work. London: City University. Simms, A. (2001). Ecological debt: Balancing the environmental budget and compensating developing countries. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). London. Retrieved from http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8232/-Ecological%20Debt%20-%20Balancing%20the%20Environmental%20Budget%20and%20 Compensating%20Developing-20012252.pdf?sequence=2. [Accessed May 1, 2019]. Smith, S. S., & Deeter, B. R. (n.d). Renewable and nonrenewable resources. Retrieved from http:// extension.psu.edu/renewable-and-nonrenewable-resources. [Accessed January 29, 2019].

288

Human Factors for Sustainability

Solow, R. M. (1991). Sustainability: An economist’s perspective. Economics of the Environment Selected Readings, 3, 179–187. Taborda, C. (2017). La lección del limón en Wok. El Espectador. Retrieved from https:// www.elespectador.com/noticias/medio-ambiente/la-leccion-del-limon-en-wok-articulo-692112. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398. Thatcher, A., García-Acosta, G., & Lange Morales, K. (2013). Design principles for green ergonomics. Paper presented at the International Conference on Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2013, April 15–18, 2013, Cambridge, United Kingdom. UKGBC. (2018). Capturing the value of sustainability: Identifying the links between sustainability and business value. Retrieved from https://bregroup.com/brebreeam/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2018/01/Capturing-the-Value-of-Sustainability.pdf. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Unidad Administrativa Especial de Organizaciones. (2017). Plan Nacional de Fomento a la Economía Solidaria y Cooperativa Rural – PLANFES 2017 – 2032. Retrieved from http://sitios.orgsolidarias.gov.co/PAZ/doc/PLANFESVersión26-20171211.pdf. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Wales, T. (2013). Organizational sustainability: What is it, and why does it matter? Review of Enterprise and Management Studies, 1(1), 38–49. Wok. (2015). Intercambio de anzuelos: Un pequeño cambio que genera grandes beneficios. Retrieved from http://www.wok.com.co/wps/portal/wok/mundowok/detalle/ Intercambio. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. Wok. (2018). Charlas Wok. Documental Planeta Océano. Retrieved from http://www.wok. com.co/wps/portal/wok/mundowok/detalle/Charlas%20Wok.%20Documental%20 Planeta%20Oceano. [Accessed January 29, 2019]. WWF. (2016). Informe planeta vivo: riesgo y resiliencia en una nueva era. Retrieved from http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/informe_planeta_vivo_2016.pdf. [Accessed January 29, 2019].

Section III Case Studies from around the World on Sustainability and Sustainable Work Systems

13

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and the Potential Role of Human Factors and Ergonomics in the Persian Gulf Improving Safety and Preparing for Climate Change Challenges Maryam Tabibzadeh and Najmedin Meshkati

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 292 A Brief Overview of Primary Human Factors’ Root Causes of the BP Deepwater Horizon and the Fukushima Disasters.................................................. 294 A Snapshot of the State of Nuclear Energy, Seawater Desalination, and Seafood in the Ecosystem of the Persian Gulf and the Effect of Climate Change....................................................................................................... 295 The Vital Role of Seawater Desalination in the Persian Gulf............................ 295 The Vital Role of Seafood Sources in the Persian Gulf..................................... 298 Nuclear Power in the Persian Gulf..................................................................... 298 Added Challenges of Climate Change...............................................................300 The Need for a System-Oriented Approach toward Safe Interoperability of the Persian Gulf Countries and Their Actors Operating Seawater Desalination and Nuclear Power Plants....................................................................................... 303 The Adverse Effect of “Tyranny of Small Decisions” on the Ecosystem of the Persian Gulf.................................................................................................. 303 Human Factors Evolutionary Process: From Human-Machine System and Human Systems Integration to Meta-Ergonomics.............................................304 291

292

Human Factors for Sustainability

The Quest for System-Oriented Integration That Started in the 1980s Continues........................................................................................................... 305 A Proposed Four-Layer Framework for Interoperability Analysis of Key Players in the Persian Gulf ................................................................................307 Ensuring Resilience in the Persian Gulf System................................................ 310 Sample of Specific Recommendations to Initiate the Process of HFE Integration.......................................................................................................... 311 Framework Generalizability and Application to Other Ecosystems.................. 312 Concluding Remarks............................................................................................... 313 Acknowledgments................................................................................................... 313 References............................................................................................................... 315 “Many of the challenges and opportunities for human factors research for the future are global, or at least international, in scope. … How fitting an expansion of the connotation of human factors it would be to have the human factors community around the world to take a leadership role in this regard, working toward the improvement of international communication and actively promoting collaborative efforts toward shared goals.” (Nickerson, 1992, p. 373, emphasis in the original)

INTRODUCTION Human ingenuity has resulted in complex technological systems whose accidents rival in their effects the greatest of natural disasters, sometimes with even higher death tolls and greater environmental damage. A common characteristic of these systems, such as nuclear power plants, is that sizable amounts of potentially hazardous materials are concentrated in sites under the centralized control of human operators. The effects of catastrophic breakdowns of these complex systems, created by anthropogenic or natural causes, pose serious threats and long-lasting health and environmental consequences for workers in the facility, for the local public, and possibly for the whole country and the neighboring regions. One of the most populous and environmentally sensitive regions in the world, the Persian Gulf, is on the confluence of an exponentially growing number of two new complex, large-scale technological systems – nuclear power and seawater desalination plants – that is changing its land- and seascape. There is an increasing reliance on seawater desalination in the Persian Gulf. Desalination along the Persian Gulf has exploded in recent decades in efforts to secure reliable water supplies. The largest number of desalination plants in the world can be found in the Persian Gulf with the total capacity of 11 million cubic meters per day, which is equivalent to 45% of global daily water production (Lattemann & Höpner, 2008). There is also considerable growth of nuclear power generation in the Persian Gulf. It is expected that there will be up to five large nuclear power reactors becoming operational by 2020 (and many more planned for the next 20 years). This emerging trend is in addition to ongoing offshore oil and gas productions and their combined effects on the sea life and fragile ecosystem. All these operations,

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

293

FIGURE 13.1  An overview of nuclear, oil, and desalination industries in the Persian Gulf. (From: Al Hanaee, Sanders, & Meshkati, 2017)

in light of routine heavy maritime traffic of different naval and commercial vessels, pose a serious and continuously increasing risk on the livelihood of millions of people who will be living on the coastal area in the near future. Figure 13.1 provides an overview of the three aforementioned industries in the Persian Gulf area and its littoral countries. The Persian Gulf countries ought to think about the unthinkable, which should not be that difficult to do, especially after witnessing two major low-probability, high-consequence technological calamities with long-lasting environmental effects and regional aftermaths in just the last five years: the BP Deepwater Horizon offshore oil drilling platform explosion in 2010, which killed 11 workers and spilled million gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf of Mexico, and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan in 2011 that released radiation to the atmosphere and spilled (which is still seeping) thousands of gallons of contaminated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean and affecting sea life (Buesseler, 2014). The underlying rationale and the major objective of this chapter is, by learning lessons from the past and building upon the underlying premise of the human factors, to provide a systematic framework to understand the complex, interrelated sustainability issues in the Persian Gulf. This is achieved through (1) a brief overview of primary human and organizational factors’ root causes of major technological

294

Human Factors for Sustainability

disasters with severe environmental impacts, (2) a brief analysis of the state and role of seawater desalination and nuclear energy in the Persian Gulf and their impacts as well as the climate change effects on the Gulf’s ecosystem, and (3) a proposed systematic framework for the analysis and design of interoperability of major actors whose actions can affect safety and sustainability of the Persian Gulf during routine and nonroutine (emergency) operations. This framework is a primary building block for the systematic integration of human factors and ergonomics (HFE) considerations at micro, macro, and meta levels in safety-sensitive industries of the Persian Gulf (Meshkati et al., 2016).

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY HUMAN FACTORS’ ROOT CAUSES OF THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON AND THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTERS The BP Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, which exploded on April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, killed 11 workers and injured 17 others, and initiated one of the worst environmental disasters in American history. Over the course of 87 days, until the flow finally stopped on July 15, 2010, an estimated 171 million gallons of oil had leaked into the Gulf of Mexico (NRDC, 2015), and its financial and monetary damages may run up to $68.2 billion (Eaton, 2015). The important contribution of human performance in this accident has been extensively discussed and reported by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB, 2016). The critical role of communication and interactions of key players, as well as the safety culture of the involved companies, have also been addressed in multiple sections of different official accident investigation bodies, such as the National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council (NAE/NRC, 2011) and the Presidential National Commission report (2011). It may come as a surprise to some people that the Fukushima Daiichi accident, which was caused by a natural disaster, the March 11, 2011, Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, was an anthropogenic accident. All investigations have concluded that Fukushima Daiichi was mostly preventable (Acton & Hibbs, 2012) and that the natural hazards acted only as a triggering mechanism for the ensuing disaster. And, a recent study goes even further by asserting that “the Fukushima accident was preventable” (Synolakis & Kanoglu, 2015). In the words of Dr. Kiyoshi Kurokawa, chairman of the National Diet (Parliament) of Japan Fukushima Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC), Fukushima was “a man-made disaster” and “made in Japan.” Because Japan’s nuclear industry failed to absorb the lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents, “it was this mindset that led to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster” (NAIIC, 2012). Other official reports, such as the one by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2014), have also acknowledged and extensively discussed the instrumental role of safety culture in this accident. Furthermore, according to the most recent voluminous report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (September 2015), the regulation guidelines and procedures were not adequate concerning safety culture, and it stated that “it is necessary to take an integrated approach that takes account for complex interactions between people, organisations and technology” (IAEA, 2015, p. 67).

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

295

The human factors’ root causes of these accidents follow previous major, complex systems accidents, such as Three Mile Island, Bhopal, and Chernobyl, where problems from display and control designs all the way to supervisory and organizational factors contributed to those accidents. (Meshkati, 1990, 1991a).

A SNAPSHOT OF THE STATE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SEAWATER DESALINATION, AND SEAFOOD IN THE ECOSYSTEM OF THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE The Persian Gulf is a marine environment that is surrounded by eight countries (Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq, and Bahrain). According to the Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME) and the State of the Marine Environment Report (SOMER, 2013), the total population of these countries was around 150 million in 2010 and is expected to reach 200 million in 2030. Given the land shortage in Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE, most populations are living in urban settlements situated on the coast (see Figure 13.2) and are heavily dependent on marine ecosystems. There are approximately “800 offshore oil and gas platforms and 25 major oil terminals situated in the region” (Happkylai et al., 2007). Some 25,000 tankers pass through the Strait of Hormoz annually and transport approximately 60% of all the oil shipped globally. Oil exploration, production, transport, and discharges of mainly drilling wastes, operational sludge, and oily fluids from unused fracturing fluids or acids are major contributors to pollution levels in the Persian Gulf (Madany et al., 1998; SOMER, 2013). The Persian Gulf, which is a semiclosed, shallow body, water system, has an average water depth of 36 m and a maximum internal depth of 94 m, with very high salinity (Sale et al., 2011). The dominant path of flow is counterclockwise (Figure 13.3), where ocean water with normal salinity enters the Persian Gulf from the Strait of Hormuz, flows westward along Iran’s side, and turns southeast to exit the Persian Gulf, saltier than it started, after passing the south Arab countries (Reynolds, 1993). The residency of water in the Persian Gulf is estimated to be between two and five years. In other words, a molecule of water that enters into the Persian Gulf through its only opening to the “open” sea from the Strait of Hormuz will circle and eventually leave this body of water more than two years later.

The Vital Role of Seawater Desalination in the Persian Gulf According to Lattemann and Höpner (2008), the largest number of desalination plants in the world can be found in the Persian Gulf with the total capacity of 11 million cubic meters per day, which is equivalent to 45% of global daily water production through desalination. This capacity is based on the International Desalination Association’s (IDA’s) 2006 database (Lattemann & Höpner, 2008). According to Saif (2012), this capacity has increased to approximately 24 million cubic meters per day in 2012. Arab countries in the Persian Gulf are widely dependent on this water body for their drinking water needs. It has been projected that water demand will increase by 50% by 2050 (Saif, 2012). Almost all of these countries will have no other options than the Persian Gulf for water.

FIGURE 13.2  Major cities in the Persian Gulf. (From: SOMER, 2013, p. 6)

296 Human Factors for Sustainability

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

297

FIGURE 13.3  Schematic of surface currents and circulation processes in the Persian Gulf. (From: Reynolds, 1993)

Based on reviewing a recent published report by the Gulf Research Center (Bachellerie, 2012) and other sources, the contribution of seawater desalination in producing potable water for the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf includes: • The United Arab Emirates (UAE) “above 90%” [Dubai city 98.8%, Sharjah City 80%] (with approximately three days of water supply in reserve) • Qatar 99% (with approximately two days of water supply in reserve) • Kuwait 95% • Oman 80% • Bahrain “over 80%” • Saudi Arabia “more than 70%” A noteworthy fact in this context is the vulnerability and risk exposure of the Persian Gulf desalination plants to oil spills and other seawater contamination, which could easily force their closure. Exhibit A: The Seki oil tanker incident in 1994, in the UAE, according to Elshorbagy and Elhakeem (2008), would have turned into a major disaster if the spilled oil had reached the intakes of the desalination plant in Fujaira of UAE. Also, in July 1997, diesel fuel spilled from a grounded barge in Sharjah, UAE, entered the intake of a desalination plant and led to a major contamination of the water supply of an estimated half million people. This event left the city without water for a day (Mardini, 1997). Iran is now facing a severe drought condition. Most recently, a former Iranian Minister of Agriculture has warned about the possibility of “[a]pproximately

298

Human Factors for Sustainability

50 million people, 70% of Iranians will have no choice but to leave the country in the coming years because of water scarcity” (Kalantari, 2015). Iran’s share of water demand met by desalination grew from around 0.2% in 2004 [Food and Agriculture Organization (of the UN), FAO, 2009] to around 1% in 2010 (World Bank, 2012). Although this fractional amount is small in comparison to the above-mentioned level for the Arab states, officials in Tehran are strategically considering the Persian Gulf as the primary water resource for not only the southern parts of the country but also for the central parts as well in the future. Projections suggest that in ten years, approximately 9 million people, who will account for almost 10% of the country’s population, will depend on desalinated water in the southern areas of Iran (Mivehchi, 2015). Figure 13.4 depicts locations of major seawater desalination plants in the Persian Gulf. This figure, however, does not represent the number of those plants.

The Vital Role of Seafood Sources in the Persian Gulf In 2010, the average per capita consumption of seafood in Arab countries of the Persian Gulf was calculated to be 14.4 kg per year. The UAE and Oman have one of the highest seafood consumption rates worldwide, at 28.6 kg per year (FAO, 2011). Figure 13.5 presents the 2011 per capita consumption of seafood in the Middle East. For example, for one of the largest per capita consumption countries, Oman, we calculated that approximately 70% of the consumed stock originates from the Gulf water. Regardless of the type of the seawater desalination technology (thermal or reverse osmosis), each produces brine (a mixture of concentrated minerals, cleaning chemicals, and heavy metal due to corrosion) (Lattemann & Höpner, 2008), which needs to be disposed of safely. For instance, the addition of cleaning chemicals in the reverse osmosis technology may include alkaline (pH 11–12) or acidic (pH 2–3) solutions with additives such as detergents (e.g., dodecylsulfate), complexing agents (e.g., EDTA), oxidants (e.g., sodium perborate), and biocides (e.g., formaldehyde). The brine almost always is discharged back to the source sea that could significantly affect the ecosystem and seafood resources.

Nuclear Power in the Persian Gulf It seems that the Persian Gulf region is destined to be dotted with nuclear power plants in the next few decades and is becoming the world’s main bazaar for nuclear reactor vendors in the near future. Iran’s one Russian-built VVER 1000 operating nuclear reactor on the Persian Gulf coastal city of Bushehr had been commissioned in September 2013. There are four more new reactors planned for the same site, and according to reports, construction work on Units II and III had officially begun; Iran is also in final negotiations with China for building two more nuclear reactors, one at Darkhovian and one at Makran on its Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman coasts, respectively (Naser & Ahmad, 2019). The UAE’s four Korean built nuclear reactors at Barakah site are expected to become operational, starting with Unit I in early 2020, with the rest expected to go sequentially online on a yearly basis. Saudi Arabia’s

FIGURE 13.4  Location of major seawater desalination plants in the Persian Gulf. (Adapted from: World Bank, 2012)

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf 299

300

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 13.5  Per capita consumption of seafood in the Middle East. (From: FAO, 2011)

latest announcement indicates its definitive plan to build two large reactors on the Persian Gulf coast of its Eastern Provinces and two small modular reactors. Other Persian Gulf states such as Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar have also expressed interest in nuclear power for electricity generation and seawater desalination purposes (World Nuclear Association, 2015). Figure 13.6 depicts the current and future status of nuclear power plants and the locations in the Persian Gulf. The primary concern of nuclear power plants in the Persian Gulf is a Chernobyl-type of a nuclear accident with massive radiation fallout. However, accidental release of radioactive contaminated discharged water from these plants, in light of aforementioned water residency in the Persian Gulf, is another major concern.

Added Challenges of Climate Change There are several credible studies that forecast a dire future for the Persian Gulf because of climate change and rising air and water temperatures. The impact of a climate change phenomenon will exasperate many issues that we discussed in the above sections, which further emphasizes the need for urgent considerations and strategic decisions. According to a study by the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (2016), a “climate-exodus” is expected in the Middle East and North Africa. This study discusses that even the goal of limiting global warming to less than 2°C, which has been agreed at the recent UN climate summit in Paris, will not be sufficient to prevent this outcome. Even if Earth’s temperature only increases by 2°C, the temperature in summer in the above-stated regions (Middle East and North Africa) will increase more than twofold (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2016). Based on that, by midcentury, during the warmest periods, daytime temperatures could rise to 46°C (approximately 114°F) and they will not fall below 30°C during nighttime. This situation will worsen by the end of the century, when midday temperatures on hot days could even climb to 50°C (approximately 122°F). The described climate change can contribute to the occurrence of heat waves ten times more often than now (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2016). This can increase the

FIGURE 13.6  Locations and numbers of nuclear power plants in the Persian Gulf. (Adapted from: SOMER, 2013)

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf 301

302

Human Factors for Sustainability

number of very hot days to approximately 80 days per year by midcentury, compared to 16 days per year between 1986 and 2005 (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2016). According to Panos Hadjinicolaou, associate professor at the Cyprus Institute and climate change expert, “If mankind continues to release carbon dioxide as it does now, people living in the Middle East and North Africa will have to expect about 200 unusually hot days, according to the model projections” (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2016). There are two assumed anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) concentration scenarios based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) trajectories: RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. RCP8.5 represents a business-as-usual scenario, whereas RCP4.5 considers mitigation (Pal & Eltahir, 2016). Figure 13.7 indicates that if global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase according to the business-as-usual scenario (RCP8.5), the average temperature in the Middle East and North Africa will rise by around 2.5°C in winter (left figure) and by around 5°C in summer (right figure) by the middle of the century (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2016). The prediction of the impact of future climate change toward the end of the century (2071–2100) indicates that under RCP8.5, the area characterized by TWmax (maximum daily value of wet-bulb temperature over a six-hour window) exceeding 31°C expands to include most of the southwest Asian coastal regions adjacent to the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea (Figure 13.8). Furthermore, several regions over the Persian Gulf and surrounding coasts exceed the 35°C threshold (Pal & Eltahir, 2016). The described temperature rise will impact the functionality and operations of discussed vital industries in the Persian Gulf. One of the main impacts of such a rise will be on nuclear power plants operations. Access to large volumes of sufficiently cool water is critical for the operations and safety of nuclear power plants. As a technical specification requirement, if the water temperature goes above 38.5°C, reactors may need to be shut down for safety concerns (Kim & Jeong, 2013). Expected increase in water and air temperature in the Persian Gulf heightens concerns regarding power plant safety, as insufficient cooling water temperatures have caused reactors to be temporarily pulled offline (Alhanaee et al., 2017). During the 2003 European heat wave, for example, 30 nuclear power plants had to reduce and limit their production (Alhanaee et al., 2017).

FIGURE 13.7  Rising of temperature in winter and summer in the Middle East and North Africa under the business-as-usual scenario (RCP8.5) by midcentury [DJF: December, January, February & JJA: June, July, August]. (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2016)

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

303

FIGURE 13.8  Distributions of extreme wet-bulb temperature (TW) and dry-bulb temperature (T). TWmax and Tmax are the maximum daily values averaged over a six-hour window. (a,d) illustrates TWmax and Tmax for the historical scenario, (b,f) for RCP4.5 and (c,f) for RCP8.5. Averages for the domain excluding the buffer zone (DOM), land excluding the buffer zone (LND) and the Arabian Peninsula (AP) are indicated in each plot. (Pal & Eltahir, 2016)

THE NEED FOR A SYSTEM-ORIENTED APPROACH TOWARD SAFE INTEROPERABILITY OF THE PERSIAN GULF COUNTRIES AND THEIR ACTORS OPERATING SEAWATER DESALINATION AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Despite (surmountable) political wrangling and cultural differences in the Persian Gulf, a critically important and perhaps unique feature of this region is the acute interdependency of the littoral states on each other’s actions (or inactions) and the tight-coupling of their livelihood and future together. As attested by the above section, the umbilical cords of the southern states of the Persian Gulf are attached to this large reservoir; it is their primary source of water and seafood, and the source of water for energy production and refining, both fossil and fissile (future nuclear power). An energy disaster with spillover effect, therefore, would have dire consequences on safe water, food, and energy production.

The Adverse Effect of “Tyranny of Small Decisions” on the Ecosystem of the Persian Gulf In order to avoid what the late influential economist, Alfred E. Khan (1966), has referred to as the “tyranny of small decisions” in his timeless analysis, we have to

304

Human Factors for Sustainability

develop and utilize an encompassing system-oriented framework. As also stated by E. P. Odum (1989), piecemeal approaches to ecosystem would primarily result in partial enhancement and suboptimization of environment life support. Piecemeal decisions of building desalination and nuclear power plants by individual countries in the Persian Gulf, in their own territories, in the context of the Gulf’s ecosystem, represent a textbook example of series of “small decisions” that should be avoided. According to Khan (1966) and W. E. Odum (1982), who believed Khan’s concept “has great applicability to environmental problems” and has extensively studied several major environmental issues (e.g., coastal wetlands on the East Coast of the United States, ecological integrity of the Florida Everglades), these piecemeal decisions will certainly and eventually lead to environmental degradation. Odum’s recommendation was that planners and decision makers should develop a “holistic perspective” and “must have a large-scale perspective encompassing the effects of all their little decisions” (p. 729). The Persian Gulf and its resources as Hardin (1968) suggested can also be considered as “the commons,” from which each country alone seeks to “maximize its gain.” If this uncontrolled “freedom in a commons” process continues, it will eventually lead to the “tragedy of commons” and its demise. As an example, any unilateral overusage of water resources or significant disposal of waste (brine from desalination) contributes to this eventual tragedy.

Human Factors Evolutionary Process: From Human-Machine System and Human Systems Integration to Meta-Ergonomics As we know, human factors and ergonomics is a scientific field concerned with improving the productivity, health, safety, and comfort of people, as well as the effective interaction between people, the technology they are using, and the environment in which both must operate. A cursory review of the brief history of this interdisciplinary field demonstrates that concept of system has always been central and an integral part of human factors endeavors (Stuster, 2006). The title of Chapanis’s seminal book, Man-Machine Engineering (1965), is a fitting example in which he also presented a simplified, nevertheless elegant model of a “man-machine system.” And he suggested, “we need new concepts and new methods to deal with the many large systems that are becoming part of our everyday life. We also need engineering generalists who can maintain a very good broad outlook – men who can see the forest as well as the trees. Such men are the systems engineers and their method of tackling problems is that of systems engineering” (p. 15). Singelton (1974) further elaborated on man-machine systems in a book with the same title. Hendrick (1986) and Hendrick and Kleiner (2002) formulated “macroergonomics” (and “work system analysis and design”). Human factors have further evolved to address more system-related issues, and nowadays many refer to it as “human systems integration” (HSI) (Pew & Mavor, 2007), which is also recognized by its own designated Board On HSI (BOHSI) within the National Research Council (NRC) and the U.S. National Academies (Marras et al., 2011), and many organizations, such as the U.S. Air Force, have published guidelines and a handbook for its planning and execution.

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

305

The Quest for System-Oriented Integration That Started in the 1980s Continues The traditional human factors (i.e., microergonomics) approach to complex humanmachine systems was primarily concerned with improving the workstation (user interface) design. This approach, by ignoring the importance of the integration of the user interface with job and organizational design, results in systems that lead, at best, only to suboptimization and are therefore inherently error- and failure-prone. Such systems, when eventually faced with the concatenation of certain fault events, will suffer from this “resident pathogen” and, as such, are doomed to failure. Also, when complex technological systems, such as nuclear power plants, move from routine to nonroutine (normal to emergency) operation, the controlling operators need to dynamically match the system’s new requirements. This mandates integrated and harmonious changes in information presentation (display), changes in (job) performance requirements in part because of operators’ inevitable involuntary transition to different levels of cognitive control, and reconfigurations of the operators’ team (organizational) structure and communication. Thus, the above continuous process needs: (1) a cohesive and integrated framework for information gathering from the interfaces (at the workstation site), (2) analysis according to the operators’ stipulated job descriptions (at the job level), and (3) passage through organizational communication networks (according to the organizational structure) to the appropriate team members responsible for decision making. Therefore, there is a need to approach human factors in a more global and systematic manner, which includes integration of teamwork and interface design. The need for integration has also been echoed by the findings of the National Research Council’s Panel on Human Factors Needs in Nuclear Reactor Regulatory Research (Moray & Huey, 1988). The final report recommended that research topics include integration of human-system interface design, management and organization, and operators’ performance in nuclear power plants (Moray & Huey, 1988). Meshkati (1991b) proposed and demonstrated that the skill, rule, and knowledge (SRK) model, developed by Rasmussen (1983), is a high-potential and powerful conceptual framework that could be utilized for the integration of workstation, job, and team (organizational) design in the complex human-machine systems. The SRK model is a powerful framework for holistic analyses of different aspects of complex human-machine systems. In Moray’s (1988) judgment, the SRK model is “nothing less than a paradigm shift in the study of complex human-machine interactions” (p. 12). Also, according to Reason (1990), “the SRK framework is a market standard for the human reliability community the world over” (p. xiii). Within the SRK model, cognitive performance is divided into three, qualitatively different levels of processing – skill-based, rule-based, and knowledge-based behavior – which utilize three different types of information, referred to as signals, signs, and symbols, respectively. According to Rasmussen (1986), skill-based behavior “represents sensorimotor performance during acts or activities that, after a statement of an intention, take place without conscious control as smooth, automated and highly integrated patterns of behavior.” The information that guides this type of behavior is in the

306

Human Factors for Sustainability

form of signals that “have no ‘meaning’ or significance except as direct physical time-space data.” Rule-based behavior is defined as the composition of a sequence of skill-based subroutines that are “typically consciously controlled by a stored rule or procedure that may have been derived empirically during previous occasions, communicated from other persons’ know-how as an instruction or cookbook recipe, or it may be prepared on occasion by conscious problem solving and planning.” Rule-based behavior is goal directed, but “very often, the goal is not even explicitly formulated, but is found implicitly in the situation releasing the stored rules.” The information that is utilized during this type of behavior is in the form of signs, which “refer to situations or proper behavior by convention or prior experience; they do not refer to concepts or represent functional properties of the environment.” “Signs can only be used to select or modify the rules controlling the sequencing of skilled subroutines; they cannot be used for functional reasoning, to generate new rules, or to predict the response of an environment to unfamiliar disturbances.” Knowledge-based behavior occurs in situations in which a goal is “explicitly formulated, based on an analysis of the environment and the overall aims of the person. Then, a useful plan is developed by selection, such that different plans are considered and their effect tested against the goal; physically by trial and error; or conceptually by means of understanding of the functional properties of the environment and prediction of the effects of the plan considered.” Because reasoning at this level is based upon the individual’s mental model of the system, this type of processing can also be referred to as “model-based” reasoning. “To be useful for causal functional reasoning in order to predict or explain unfamiliar behavior of the environment, information must be perceived as symbols. Whereas signs refer to precepts and rules for action, symbols refer to concepts tied to functional properties and can be used for reasoning and computation by means of a suitable representation of such properties.” Symbols “are defined by and refer to the internal, conceptual representation that is the basis for reasoning and planning.” The determination of whether skill- or rule-based processing will occur is based primarily upon the level of experience of the individual. As one is learning a new process, performance is dominated by rule-based behavior. As these rules become internalized, however, the sequence of actions required begin to be integrated into smooth patterns, which no longer need to be consciously attended to in order to be performed correctly. The distinction between rule- and knowledge-based behavior, on the other hand, is generally determined by the familiarity of the current situation. In unfamiliar situations, an appropriate set of rules for action may either be unavailable or not immediately obvious. In this situation, reasoning about the state of the system will be necessary in order to determine a course of action. Once this goal is selected, processing may shift back to rule-based or even skill-based reasoning as the required steps are performed. Skill-based behavior and rule-based behavior are both considered to be primarily perceptual in nature while knowledge-based behavior is considered to be analytical in nature. Vicente and Rasmussen (1992) report that results from a variety of studies indicate that perceptual processing tends to be faster and, although not as exact in its result, can lead to performance, which has lower variability than does analytical processing, which can lead to more extreme errors. This

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

307

type of processing is seen as more appropriate for the often time-critical type of performance that is required of the operators of complex processes. Also, it has been observed that that there is some evidence that individuals attempt to utilize simple perceptual strategies in favor of analytical processing even while performing complex tasks and that this indicates that perceptual processing is preferred to analytical processing. Finally, Vicente and Rasmussen (1992) note that the control of complex processes will require analytical or knowledge-based reasoning, particularly when reacting to an unfamiliar fault condition. The overall goal of ecological interface design that flows from these findings is to allow the operator to perform control tasks at as low a level of processing as possible while providing appropriate support for all three processing levels. The SRK-based framework for the integration of workstation, job, and team structure design was later experimentally tested and empirically validated at the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR) II in Idaho Falls (Meshkati et al., 1994; Meshkati et al., 1999). The to-be later proposed framework in this paper, which is based on the above-mentioned research, builds upon Rasmussen’s other related model (Rasmussen et al., 1994) of analyzing top-down coordination of actors and bottom-up interactions of team members and workers. As can be seen, our proposed integrative framework in this study, which is inspired by Hendrick’s pioneering work in macroergonomics and based on Rasmussen’s multifaceted model for risk management, can be considered as part of the evolutionary process of the HFE. It can be considered as the meta-ergonomics paradigm, to be utilized for systematic analysis of interaction, design of interoperability, and integration of decisions of major actors. These actions can affect safety and sustainability of the focused industries during routine and nonroutine (emergency) operations. This multilayered framework, which has been applied to the Persian Gulf, offers a viable and vital approach to design and operation of large-scale complex systems wherever the nexus of water, energy, and food sources is concerned, such as the Black Sea. This framework can also be used to identify and address potential roles and contributions of human factors to the U.S. National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenges for Engineering, which is “the first engineering vision for the planet that mandates global perspective,” as well as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

A Proposed Four-Layer Framework for Interoperability Analysis of Key Players in the Persian Gulf Based on the stated analysis in previous sections, there is an urgent need to develop a system-oriented framework for the interoperability analysis of involved key players’ instrumental role in sustainability and resilience of the Persian Gulf ecosystem, with the main focus on the two areas of nuclear power and seawater desalination activities. This framework can be a proactive approach to consider and analyze all involved key players and their interactions and influences on and from each other in an integrated way. This system-oriented framework is our proposed solution to avoid the above-mentioned “tyranny of small decisions.” This framework is a primary

308

Human Factors for Sustainability

building block for the systematic integration of the HFE and safety culture considerations in safety-sensitive industries of the Persian Gulf. The introduced framework in this chapter was proposed by Tabibzadeh and Meshkati (2015), of which its theoretical foundation is originated from a three-layered model that was proposed by Rasmussen in his book in 1994 (Rasmussen et al., 1994) and further elaborated in Rasmussen and Svedung (2000). Rasmussen’s original model relies on the propagation of interactions between work domain “bottom-up” requirements and “top-down” social practice and management style (Figure 13.9). In this model, which analyzes internal interactions within each key player’s organization, bottom-up propagation relates to functional constraints, which determine the structure and content of communication between work activities and decision makers, while top-down stream influences the form of communication. The introduced framework, which includes four layers, enables systematic analysis of interactions among multiple organizations (Figure 13.10), whereas Rasmussen’s framework (Rasmussen et al., 1994) only focuses on capturing interactions within one single organization. In Figure 13.10, level I (equivalent to or same as layer I) represents meta-system interactions as an integrated system (i.e., a system-of-systems), which models and manages the interactions of all existing organizations at a social level. In the context of our study, this level comprises an organized community of the Persian Gulf countries and possibly their designated entity that monitors the interactions of involved key players in the Persian Gulf region and enforces needed rules and regulations for effective interactions of those key players and the safety of that region. This formation can also include other national and international actors and agencies, especially in the two main areas of nuclear and desalination activities. An example of such formation can be the Regional Organization for the Protection of Marine Environment

FIGURE 13.9  A multilayer interaction model for top-down and bottom-up coordination. (From: Rasmussen & Svedung, 2000)

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

309

FIGURE 13.10  Four-layer framework for the interoperability analysis of multiple organizations/key players in the Persian Gulf.

(ROPME), which is an existing regional intergovernmental and multilateral organization in the Persian Gulf that includes all the eight littoral states. Level II illustrates the bilateral interactions of involved key players in the Persian Gulf region. In Figure 13.10, we considered a sample of the three main involved Persian Gulf countries of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE for the purpose of illustration simplicity. Interactions in this layer are top level or organizational. Level III is work related and captures key players’ bilateral interactions at the operations level. In the context of our study, level II of modeled interactions focuses on top-level management and organizational components of each of the involved countries of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. In level III, the bilateral operational-related interactions of these three countries are captured and analyzed.

310

Human Factors for Sustainability

In addition to the bilateral interactions of these three countries, as well as other key involved players that are not illustrated in Figure 13.10, each country has its own embedded multilayered framework for the analysis of internal cooperation and collaborations of various stakeholders within that country. We have developed another framework (Meshkati & Tabibzadeh, 2016) to further elaborate and address these crucial levels of interactions and interoperability of related organizations within each country (e.g., nuclear power industry and desalination industry) in this domain. Finally, level IV models worksite operations interactions, which take place among operators of related organizations in the stated countries. This level captures the lowest level of work activities. As much as there is a need for organizational compatibility and harmony in other three levels of the framework, operators of different involved organizations need to be able to effectively interact with each other in handling both regular and emergency response activities. In this introduced framework, higher levels project onto lower levels. For instance, the top‑level projects onto the second layer as a decomposition of an integrated control structure into separate bilateral organizational and countries interactions. One example of this projection in the context of the Persian Gulf can be the fact that the bilateral interactions of countries in the region have to be based on the defined unifying rules, regulations, and best practices by the intergovernmental community or formation (e.g., ROPME, which is shown in level I). Similarly, the intersection of two key players in the second layer is projected as a separate component onto the third level to capture the bilateral work interactions of those two key players. For instance, the interactions between the two countries of Iran and UAE in the country level, as shown in layer II of the framework, have to be broken down into interactions in operations and work level in different industries of the two countries, which is captured in layer III. Finally, third layer components project onto the fourth level as interactions among operators within the identified key players. The introduced four-layer framework provides the basis for needed interoperability of responsible actors in different Persian Gulf countries. This new integrative approach, which covers activities from worksite all the way to country level in a systemic fashion, can be considered as a unique, unprecedented, and encompassing “meta-ergonomics” paradigm. To complement this framework and to operationalize it at the country level, Meshkati et al. (2016) and Meshkati and Tabibzadeh (2016) have developed a public policy-based model to capture needed coordination and collaborations of related organizations within each country, mainly in the area of desalination and nuclear activities in the Persian Gulf region, both in routine and nonroutine (emergency) situations.

Ensuring Resilience in the Persian Gulf System In the context of safety-sensitive complex technological systems, we utilize definitions and applications relevant to ecological resilience described in Rahimi and Madni (2014). They define resilience as the underlying capacity of a system to maintain desired services in the face of a fluctuating environment and significant changes in human use. Resilience-related issues affecting the Persian Gulf ecosystem include disruptions caused by human agents in a social hierarchy, automated

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

311

system disruptions propagating through the technological components, disruptions at the intersections of the social and technical systems, and unpredictable system changes, whereas the proposed framework in this chapter possesses many required features of “resilience,” as delineated by Sheridan (2008). He, by referring to the work of Hollnagel et al. (2006), suggests that management responsibility to maintain resilience in complex sociotechnical systems should, among others, emphasize on anticipating future possible incidents and monitoring cautious measurement of system’s health and state variables, and recourse preparedness. In designing our framework, we also considered the essential element for resilience by Meadows (2008), who asserted that “resilience arises from a rich structure of many feedback loops that can work in different ways to restore a system even after a large perturbation” (p. 76). The proposed framework is capable of continuously monitoring system’s health and its key performance indicators and displaying early warning of the impending disaster (either from the nuclear or from the desalination subsystems). It also enables a rapid multilayered team building and employs many lateral and vertical feedback loops to the organization level to sustain system performance, which, according to Meshkati and Khashe (2015), is a requirement for system resilience. It also proactively monitors impending transitions to instability and the trade-off between resilience and other ecosystem properties (such as the amount of electricity production versus degree of water salinity prior to a major system failure). Furthermore, resilient systems can detect, contain, and rebound from unexpected events. A resilient system does not become disabled by errors; rather, it absorbs or adapts to disruptions without fundamental breakdowns (Meshkati & Khashe, 2015). Through fast, real-time communication, feedback, and improvisation, the system can restructure or reconfigure in response to external (or internal) changes or pressures (Meshkati & Khashe, 2015). From this perspective, we expect that when this framework becomes operational, it could greatly contribute to the improvement of the resilience in the Persian Gulf (or any other region that it is generalized and applied to) as it addresses and promotes the improvement of the interoperability among involved key players not only in routine situations but also in emergency response scenarios.

Sample of Specific Recommendations to Initiate the Process of HFE Integration The ROPME, in its latest State of the Marine Environment Report (SOMER, 2013), concluded that governance and management of ecosystem “is fragmented at both the Regional and the National levels” (p. 28) and that “there is a dire need for closer cooperation among the ROPME Member States sharing the Sea Area” (emphasis added, p. 28). ROPME has contended in this report that “the environment is not compartmentalized and nor should environmental policies be” (p. 27) and considered regional cooperation between and among as “vital for sustainable management of the RSA [ROPME Sea Area] ecosystem” (p. 26). It has then recommended: “The countries of the Region, therefore, are to adapt a long-term integrated strategic planning approach and a Road Map for the sustainable development of RSA, to achieve a healthier environment for a superior quality of life for all the people” (emphasis added, p. 29).

312

Human Factors for Sustainability

It is noteworthy that expanding roles and responsibilities of the existing ROPME based on the explained needs should not be toward the creation of bureaucracy. Our purpose is to expand the scope of ROPME’s roles and responsibilities to oversee needed research and the coordination of research in supporting the implementation of what we recommended for initiating the process of integrating the HFE and safety culture considerations in safety-sensitive industries. There should be a tight integration between desalination and nuclear power industries within and between countries of the Persian Gulf, as it was extensively discussed and depicted in Figure 13.9 and Figure 13.10 of Meshkati and Tabibzadeh (2016). More comprehensive data on the desalination, nuclear, offshore energy production, and fishing activities in each country are needed, as well as the environmental regulations governing each activity, so that models can be developed to understand the current and future impact that these entities as a whole have on the Persian Gulf under normal and catastrophic scenarios. The proposed-related methodologies by Sanders and Webber (2012) and King et al. (2013) can be utilized in this context.

Framework Generalizability and Application to Other Ecosystems It is noteworthy that the discussed problems affecting the Persian Gulf are not unique to that region. These problems are being felt in other parts of the world with similar sociotechnical dimensions. For example, the need for a system-oriented approach toward integration of the HFE and safety culture considerations in intended safety-sensitive industries is equally significant to the Black Sea, which is also a semiclosed sea, facing similar safety and sustainability challenges. The Black Sea and its straits have traditionally been the main route of transporting oil from the Caucasus area to Europe. However, “today the traffic intensity of the Turkish straits has reached the limit, while liquid bulk terminal capacity is growing” (Osheyko, 2013, p. 76). Also according to reliable sources, there is an estimate of 7 billion barrels of recoverable resources under the deep-water areas of the Black Sea (International Energy Agency, 2011). These reservoirs, which are starting to be explored by Turkey, are typically located in depths of more than 2,000 m, requiring “ultra-deep-water” drilling to dig to a depth of over 5,000 meters, which are “of the highest complexity… [that] usually involves high risks and several associated problems” (Wilson, 2012, p. 92; Meshkati, Calis, & Celebi, 2012). The Black Sea will also be the site for Turkey’s second and third planned nuclear power plants, respectively, in the coastal cities of Sinop (which could have up to four nuclear reactors) and Igneada (World Nuclear News, April 15, 2015; Hurriyet Daily News, April 6, 2011). The Baltic Sea, which is surrounded by some of the most developed industrialized countries in the world, is also facing similar issues concerning its ecosystem (Mitsch & Jorgensen, 1989; Folke et al., 1991). The proposed recommendations in the previous section for the Persian Gulf region can be generalized to other ecosystems and regions of the world, some of which were stated in this section. The existence of a regional intergovernmental

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

313

and multilateral organization, similar to the ROPME in the Persian Gulf, can play a critical role in integrating and unifying the efforts of involved countries in each region. This organization can initiate the process of applying what was proposed in our four-layer framework for interoperability analysis above in order to create a unified region and environment. This unification exists in several levels, from work processes of involved industries in the region, to management and organizational levels of those industries, to regulatory bodies and associations, to governments.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The Persian Gulf states should be concerned with the vulnerability of their whole ecosystem to a manmade or natural disaster in light of the large number and proximity of desalination plants and nuclear power stations (not to mention oil and gas operations and maritime shipping) as figuratively presented in Figure 13.11. These states should recognize the fact and devise an agreement that there is an urgent need to balance their domestic sovereignty with regional responsibility and to enshrine it in a regional all-inclusive center for cooperation on safety, security, and sustainability of energy, water, and food resources in an already stretched and fragile ecosystem of the Persian Gulf (Meshkati & Tabibzadeh, 2016). Science and engineering, as an ultimate human intellectual endeavor, have always been “rising above political and diplomatic affairs.” In addition to safety and sustainability, one important by-product and unintended (positive) consequence of the proposed integration of the HFE and safety culture considerations, engineering diplomacy and confidence building effort could be better relations among the Persian Gulf countries (Meshkati, 2012). Without recognizing the impact of a growing number of complex, large-scale technological systems, the interdependencies of water, energy, and food in the ecosystem of the Persian Gulf, the interactions of regional actors’ cognizant entities and the need for interoperability of various subsystems with each other, both in routine and nonroutine situations, and their integration into a cohesive and all-encompassing system, sustainability will only be a short-lived dream and prosperity will be a disappearing mirage for millions of people in the Persian Gulf.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge discussions with many University of Southern California (USC) students, faculty, and distinguished international experts whose inputs contributed to the formation of concepts that are synthesized in this article, chiefly Professors Sami F. Masri and Kelly T. Sanders; Dr. Hans Blix, former Director General of the IAEA (1981–1997); Ms. Ghena Alhanaee, PhD candidate at USC; and Mr. Ali Farshid, a PhD student at the Utah State University. We would also like to express our gratitude to Dr. Ali Abdulla, Administrative Officer of ROPME, and Ms. Anneli Bodin, Communication Section, MSB/Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, for helping us with copyright permissions. This work, however, should not necessarily be construed as their representative position(s).

FIGURE 13.11  Locations of major seawater desalination and nuclear power plants in the Persian Gulf. (Adapted from: SOMER, 2013)

314 Human Factors for Sustainability

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

315

REFERENCES Acton, J., & Hibbs, M. (2012). Why Fukushima was preventable. Retrieved from http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable. [Accessed June 23, 2018]. Alhanaee, G., Sanders, K., & Meshkati, N. (2017). Rising temperatures, rising risks: The food-energy-water nexus in the Persian Gulf. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(8), 4117–4118. Bachellerie, I. J. (2012). Renewable energy in the GCC countries. Gulf Research Center. Retrieved from http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/amman/09008.pdf. [Accessed June 20, 2018]. Buesseler, K. (2014). Fukushima and ocean radioactivity. Oceanography, 27(1), 92–105. Chapanis, A. (1965). Man-Machine Engineering. Wadsworth, Oxford. CSB Report. (2016). Drilling Rig Explosion and Fire at the Macondo Well: Deepwater Horizon Rig Investigating Report. Volume III. Report No. 2010-10-I-OS. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Eaton, C. (2015). Spill debt could hit BP for several years, ratings agency says. Retrieved from http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Spill-debt-could-hit-BP-forseveral-years-6343084.php. [Accessed June 20, 2018]. Elshorbagy, W. & Elhakeem, A. (2008). Risk assessment of maps of oil spill for major desalination plants in the United Arab Emirates. Desalination, 228(1–3), 200–216. FAO. (2009). Iran (Islamic Republic of); water. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/ aquastat/countries_regions/irn/index.stm. [Accessed June 23, 2018]. FAO, (2011). Markets in the Middle East: Market, trade and consumption. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ in-action/globefish/market-reports/resource-detail/en/c/338542/. [Accessed January 20, 2019]. Folke, C., Hammer, M. & Jansson, A.-M. (1991). Life-support value of ecosystems: A case study of the Baltic Sea Region. Ecological Economics, 3(2), 123–137. Haapkylai, J., Ramade, F., & Salvat, B. (2007). Oil pollution on coral reefs: A review of the state of knowledge and management needs. Vie et Milieu – Life and Environment, 57(1/2), 91–108. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. Hendrick, H. W. (1986). Macroergonomics: A concept whose time has come. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(2), 1–3. Hendrick, H. W., & Kleiner, B. (Eds.). (2002). Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications. CRC Press. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D. & Leveson, N. (2006). Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate, Burlington, VT. Hurriyet Daily News. (2011). Town near Bulgaria may host Turkey’s third nuclear plant. April 6. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default. aspx?pageid=438&n=town-near-bulgaria-border-may-host-turkeys-third-nuclearplant-2011-04-06. [Accessed June 20, 2018]. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Report by the Director General. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2011). World Energy Outlook. OECD (Organization for Economic Development and Development)/IEA, Paris, France. Kahn, A. E. (1966). The tyranny of small decisions: Market failures, imperfections, and the limits of economics. Kyklos (Basel), 19(1), 23–47. Kalantari, I. (2015). Forced migration in the fate of millions of Iranians (an interview in Persian). Retrieved from http://shahrvand-newspaper.ir/Default.aspx?NPN_Id=224. [Accessed June 23, 2018].

316

Human Factors for Sustainability

Kim, B. K., & Jeong, Y. H. (2013). High cooling water temperature effects on design and operational safety of NPPs in the Gulf Region. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 45(7), 961–968. King, C. W., Stillwell, A. S., Twomey, K. M., & Webber, M. (2013). Coherence between water and energy policies. Natural Resource Journal, 53, 117–215. Lattemann, S., & Höpner, T. (2008). Environmental impact and impact assessment of seawater desalination. Desalination, 220(1–3), 1–15. Madany, I. M., Jaffar, A., & Al-Shirbini, E. S. (1998). Variations in the concentrations of aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons in Bahraini coastal waters during the period October 1993 to December 1995. Environment International, 24(1–2), 61–66. Mardini, A. (1997). GULF: Diesel spill on the UAE coast affects water supply. Inter Press Service, Abu Dhabi, July 19. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/1997/07/gulf-diesel-spill-on-uae-coast-affects-water-supply/. [Accessed May 11, 2018]. Marras, W. S., Wanchisen, B., Czaja, S. J., Gibbons, C., Mathews, J., & Story, M. (2011, September). National Research Council Board on Human-Systems Integration Special Panel Session: Human Factors and Home Health Care. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 614–614). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. (2016). Climate-exodus expected in the Middle East and North Africa: Part of the Middle East and North Africa may become uninhabitable due to climate change. Retrieved from https://www.mpg.de/10481936/climate-change-middleeast-north-africa. [Accessed May 20, 2018]. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT. Meshkati, N. (1990). Preventing accidents at oil and chemical plants. Professional Safety, 35(11), 15–18. Meshkati, N. (1991a). Human factors in large-scale technological systems’ accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 5(2), 133–154. Meshkati, N. (1991b). Integration of workstation, job, and team structure design in complex human-machine systems: A framework. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 7(2), 111–122. Meshkati, N. (2012). Engineering diplomacy; an underutilized tool in foreign policy. Science and Diplomacy, 1(2), 20–30. Meshkati, N., & Khashe, Y. (2015). Operators’ improvisation in complex technological systems: Successfully tackling ambiguity, enhancing resiliency and the last resort to averting disaster. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(2), 90–96. Meshkati, N., & Tabibzadeh, M. (2016). An integrated system-oriented model for the interoperability of multiple emergency response agencies in large-scale disasters: Implications for the Persian Gulf. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(3), 227–244. Meshkati, N., Buller, B. J., & Azadeh, M. A. (1994). Integration of Workstation, Job, and Team Structure Design in the Control Rooms of Nuclear Power Plants: Experimental and Simulation Studies of Operators’ Decision Styles and Crew Composition While Using Ecological and Traditional User Interfaces. Volume I: Tech. Rep. (Grant Rep. prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Grant No. USNRC-04–91–102). University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Meshkati, N., Buller, B. J., Tan, W. M. & Lesjak, B. (1999, June). Research Validating a Model of the Effect of Operator Information Processing Behavior on Performance While Using a Traditional and Ecological User Interface for a Nuclear Power Plant. Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Contract No. NRC 04–91–102. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Meshkati, N., Calis, G.& Celebi, A. (2012). Perils of Turkey’s newfound Black gold in the Black Sea. Hurriyet Daily News. June 11. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ perils-of-turkeys-newfound-black-gold-in-the-black-sea-.aspx?pageID=449& nID=22816&NewsCatID=396. [Accessed June 20, 2018].

Complex, Interdependent Sustainability Issues and HFE in the Persian Gulf

317

Meshkati, N., Tabibzadeh, M., Farshid, A., Rahimi, M., & Alhanaee, G. (2016). PeopleTechnology-Ecosystem integration: A framework to ensure regional interoperability for safety, sustainability and resilience of interdependent energy, water and seafood sources in the (Persian) Gulf. Human Factors, 58(1), 43–57. Michael Reynolds, R. M. (1993). Physical oceanography of the Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman—Results from the Mt Mitchell expedition. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 27, 35–59. Mitsch, W. J., & Jorgensen, S.-E. (Eds.). (1989). Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to Ecotechnology. Wiley, New York. Mivehchi, M. (2015). Iran plans to supply drinking water via desalination for 9 million people (an interview in Persian). Retrieved from http://www.dolat.ir/NSite/FullStory/ News/?Serv=0&Id=208902. Moray, N. (1988). Prologue, ex Riso semper aliquid antiquum: Sources of a new paradigm for engineering psychology. In: L. P. Goodstein, H. B. Andersen, & S. E. Olsen (Eds.), Tasks, Errors and Mental Models (pp. 116–127). Taylor & Francis, London. Moray, N., & Huey, B. M. (Eds.). (1988). Human Factors Research and Nuclear Safety. Panel on Human Factors Research Needs in Nuclear Regulatory Research, Committee on Human Factors, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. NAE/NRC Report. (2011). Macondo Well Deepwater Horizon Blowout: Lessons for Offshore Drilling Safety. National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council, National Academies Press. Naser, J., & Ahmad, A. (2019, January). Middle East nuclear energy monitor: Country perspectives 2018. Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, the American University of Beirut (AUB). Retrieved from http://website.aub.edu.lb/ifi/publications/Documents/research_reports/20190103_middle_east_nuclear_energy_monitor_country_perspectives_2018.pdf. [Accessed January 22, 2019]. Nickerson, R. S. (1992). Looking Ahead: Human Factors Challenges in a Changing World. CRC Press. NRDC. (2015). Summary of information concerning the ecological and economic impacts of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/ energy/gulfspill/files/gulfspill-impacts-summary-IP.pdf. [Accessed 20 May, 2018]. Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC). (2012). The Official Report of Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. The National Diet of Japan. Odum, E. P. (1989). Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems Sinauer Associates (2nd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc. Odum, W. E. (1982). Environmental degradation and the tyranny of small decisions. BioScience, 32(9), 728–729. Osheyko, S. (2013). Russia-EU upcoming energy projects: Sustainable development issues. In: E. Lyutskanov, L. Alieva, & M. Seragimova (Eds.), Energy Security in the Wider Black Sea Area – National and Allied Approaches. IOS Press, Amsterdam. Pal, J. S., & Eltahir, E. A. B. (2016). Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 197–200. Pew, R. W., & Mavor, A. S. (2007). Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look. National Academies Press. Presidential National Commission Report. (2011). Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Rahimi, M., & Madni, A. M. (2014). Toward a resilience framework for sustainable engineered systems. Procedia Computer Science, 28, 809–817. Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13, 257–266.

318

Human Factors for Sustainability

Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction. North Holland, New York. Rasmussen, J., & Svedung, I. (2000). Proactive Risk Management in a Dynamic Society. Raddningsverket, Risk and Environmental Department, Swedish Rescue Services Agency, Karlstad, Sweden. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive Systems Engineering. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Saif, O. (2012). The Future Outlook of Desalination in the Gulf: Challenges & opportunities faced by Qatar & the UAE. United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, December, 18. Sale, P. F., Feary, D. A., Burt, J. A., Bauman, A. G., Cavalcante, G. H., Drouillard, K. G., Kjerfve, B., Marquis, E., Trick, C. G., Usseglio, P., & Van Lavieren, H. (2011). The growing need for sustainable ecological management of marine communities of the Persian Gulf. Ambio, 40(1), 4–17. Sanders, K. T., & Webber, M. E. (2012). Evaluating the energy consumed for water use in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 034034. Sheridan, T. B. (2008). Risk, human error, and system resilience: Fundamental ideas. Human Factors, 50(3), 418–426. Singleton, W. T. (1974). Man-Machine Systems. Penguin Books. SOMER. (2013). Summary state of the marine environment report (by ROPME). Retrieved from http://www.ropme.org/Uploads/SOMER/SOMER-2013SummaryWeb.pdf. [Accessed June 20, 2018]. Stuster, J. (2006). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Stories From the First 50 Years. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Synolakis, C., & Kânoğlu, U. (2015). The Fukushima accident was preventable. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373(2053), 20140379. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0379. Tabibzadeh, M., & Meshkati, N. (2015). Safety culture in oil and gas operations: A risk analysis framework to address communication and interoperation of multiple interacting organizations. Paper presented at SPE-173508-MS, SPE E& P Health, Safety, Security and Environmental Conference – Americas, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado, March 16–18. Vicente, K. J. & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22(4), 589–606. Wilson, A. (2012). Overcoming Black Sea ultra deepwater drilling challenges. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 64(5), 88–92. World Bank. (2012). Renewable energy desalination; an emerging solution to close the water gap in the Middle East and North Africa. Retrieved from http://water.worldbank.org/ sites/water.worldbank.org/files/publication/water-wpp-Sun-Powered-Desal-GatewayMeeting-MENAs-Water-Needs_2.pdf. [Accessed June 20, 2018]. World Nuclear Association. (2015). Emerging nuclear energy countries. June 20. Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Emerging-NuclearEnergy-Countries/. [Accessed June 20, 2018]. World Nuclear News. (2015). Ground broken for Turkey’s first nuclear plant. April 15. Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Ground-broken-for-Turkeysfirst-nuclear-power-plant-1541501.html. [Accessed June 23, 2018].

14

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector from a Social and Ergonomics Perspective Felipe Meyer, Elias Apud, Gabriel Eweje, and David Tappin

CONTENTS Introduction: Background and Driving Forces ...................................................... 319 The Past of the Forestry Sector and Its Relationship with Ergonomics: The First Steps........................................................................................................ 320 The Present of the Chilean Forestry Workforce...................................................... 325 Development and Regeneration of People Resource......................................... 328 Better Integration between FCs and FCCs ........................................................ 329 The Future of the Workforce................................................................................... 330 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 331 References............................................................................................................... 332

INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND AND DRIVING FORCES A sustainable system could be defined as “one that can continue to operate indefinitely without degrading the biophysical basis of its own existence” (Rees, 2009, p. 306). Therefore, to ensure a sustainable system, it is necessary to not diminish the capacity of the system’s components, which, in this case, include the workers and their physical, cognitive, social, and emotional capacities (Docherty, Forslin, & Shani, 2002; Genaidy, Rinderb, Sequeiraa, & A-Rehimb, 2010; Zink, Steimle, & Fischer, 2008). The creation of a sustainable workforce must be based on the right balance between people’s capacity and working conditions; therefore, the goal of this approach is the optimization of the employee-work systems to maximize work productivity, quality, safety and well-being (Zink, 2008). The Chilean forestry sector is a good example of a work system that has gone through a path of sustainability. It first began during the 1970s as a sector that provided a wide labor supply that welcomed a group of people, most of them relocated 319

320

Human Factors for Sustainability

from an agricultural sector that was in decline in terms of work. However, the demands and nature of the work were bad due to the severity of work-related accidents, along with poor living and working conditions. Subsequently, in the 1980s, as part of a second stage, great emphasis was placed on issues of safety and quality of life and work improvement, which gave positive results and even allowed the forestry sector to be certified. However, from 2000 onwards, working conditions and expectations of workers throughout the country have changed and the forestry sector has not improved at the same pace, which puts the sustainability of workers at risk. Therefore, radical changes are needed. In this sense, ergonomics in the past, with vicissitudes, was a useful tool to improve working conditions and can still be used to make important contributions to ensure or improve the sustainability of the Chilean forestry sector. In terms of importance for the economy, the Chilean forestry sector, including the whole economic forestry cycle, silviculture, logging, and industrial activities like wood elaboration, cellulose, and paper production, is the second-largest exporting industry in Chile, behind large-scale mining. In 2017, forestry-related exports reached USD $5.271 million, 8.7% of the total goods exported by Chile. In the last eight years, the average number of people employed in the sector was 300,000, both directly and indirectly employed in forestry-related sectors (Corma, 2018). The Chilean forestry sector has become very concentrated populated and completely private, and it is controlled by three large organizations, which are among the 50 largest forestry companies in the world. At the same time, the sector is vertically integrated with pulp plants, sawmills, and paper markets (ILO, 2011). The production model of the forestry industry, especially in silviculture and logging activities, is a model where the main companies deal with contractors, who undertake most of the forestry work. These main companies control and supervise the work of the contractors (Raga, 2009). In the first part of the next section, a summary of different examples that allowed advances in the Chilean forestry sector associated with the development and improvement of the working conditions will be presented. In the second part, the present conditions of the workforce in the forestry sector are discussed. Finally, a discussion about the future of the Chilean forestry workforce is proposed.

THE PAST OF THE FORESTRY SECTOR AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ERGONOMICS: THE FIRST STEPS When discussing employment in the forestry sector in Chile, it is important to point out that the growth of the sector during the 1970s gave rise to a number of large forest companies. Before the late 1970s, workers were hired directly by the main forestry companies (FCs) (Clapp, 1995). However, the need to increase productivity without exaggerated growth caused the large enterprises to make use of contract labor (Apud & Valdes, 1995). The forestry contractors companies (FCCs) that provide workers have grown since then (Poschen, 2011). Subcontracted workers were (and still are) used in each part of the forestry production system, especially in transport, silviculture, and logging activities (ILO, 2012). Today, 69% of the workforce are contracted workers (ILO, 2011).

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector

321

Unfortunately, the concept of contracted workers was distorted and the outcome was not as expected. Especially in the 1980s and 1990s, the FCs were the object of severe criticism because of the poor working and living conditions of their laborers (Silva, 1999). Apud and Valdes (1995) also reported on the poor camp conditions, adverse safety issues, and precarious employment conditions during this period. The FCCs were also characterized by poor market integration, limited access to financial services, poor infrastructure, and managerial and organizational weakness. At the same time, low probability of long-term employment was an issue. Basic salaries and working conditions were often worse than in the FC sector. Workers had limited power to influence wages or the conditions under which they worked and thus were vulnerable to exploitation. Finally, FCCs’ contractors usually worked under short-term periods and discontinuous arrangements, earned inadequate incomes despite working long hours, had no access to social security such as health insurance and pensions, and were more exposed to hazards than workers employed directly by large companies (FAO, 1997). With the increase of forestry activity by the late 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, the relationship between forestry and ergonomics began. The forestry sector was studied because silvicultural treatments and productive activities were progressively increasing. Furthermore, forest work, which had traditionally been performed using labor-intensive methods, was slowly evolving to capital-intensive methods and it was possible to think that both forms of work were going to coexist in the near future. In that respect, it was necessary to improve manual work and at the same time orientations had to be given for a mechanization process that proved to be ergonomically sound. In those days, many problems had to be faced, as was mentioned before (Apud & Valdes, 1995). The first studies were devoted to the understanding of the physical characteristics of forest workers, their social and working environment, and the quantification of food intake and eating habits in relation to the energy expenditure of forest activities. In that sense, one of the initial studies was an anthropometric study of Chilean forest workers. The results showed that Chilean forest workers were smaller than workers in other sectors of Chilean society and significantly smaller than forestry workers in northern Europe, North America, or other industrialized countries that produced forest machinery (Apud et al., 2014; Apud & Valdes, 1995). An effort was also made to improve simple manual methods with the aim to reduce workload and to increase efficiency. That was achieved because tools were cheap and frequently replaced due to their short lifetime. However, these were not the only aspects influencing manual work. There were a number of organizational factors that had to be considered such as housing, nutrition, hygiene, and recreation in forest camps, as well as safety, organization of teamwork, training, etc. In other words, it was necessary to face the problems of heavy manual labor trying to integrate all the factors that helped improve workers’ well-being. In those days, it was clear that, in order for proposals of improvement to be successful, they had to be, ideally, associated with an increment of labor efficiency (Apud et al., 1999; Apud & Valdes, 1995). Although the ergonomic approach to face manual and mechanized work should lead to activities ergonomically sound, the implementation of changes was difficult.

322

Human Factors for Sustainability

Planners, managers, and engineers were not convinced. Their aim was to keep production at the highest possible rate, with the lowest cost and with the means they had available (Apud et al., 2014). Normally, in developing countries, labor is cheaper and easily available, and since human beings are flexible and accept conditions for what they are, these countries do not pay much attention to the workers. Having to face this fact, the first step was to promote knowledge of the aims of ergonomics, because managers found ergonomics excessively socially oriented, while the workers pointed out that they did not see fast and easy solutions to their most important problems. Feedback with forest companies was promoted, and the initial difficulties to reach the managers of said companies were progressively reduced through different activities related to education, training, and scientific transfer programs where the results of ergonomic studies carried out in the country were shared with the stakeholders (Apud & Valdes, 1995). Related to the living environment, the geographical characteristics of Chile make forestry work an isolated job, carried out far away from urban areas. Most forestry workers were housed in camps, which constituted a home away from home. In ergonomics, the usual concept is to apply ergonomic criteria to the job itself (Apud et al., 1999). However, it is unreasonable to expect a forestry worker to be motivated, no matter how well organized his or her work, if his or her living conditions are poor. Answers were primarily looked for in terms of the camp infrastructure and camp food (Apud, 2011; Apud & Valdes, 1995). Living conditions in forestry camps were extremely poor. For example, forestry camps that were evaluated failed to meet the minimum standards of hygiene and comfort. The camps in question belonged to contractors servicing larger enterprises. Since then, a serious effort was made to improve camp infrastructure and maintenance. Some of the larger enterprises funded studies for the design of prototypes of camps, and contractors were requested to ensure good maintenance. Although many problems persist, it is fair to acknowledge that progress is being made and that camps are progressively being replaced by better facilities (Apud et al., 2014). Another concern was the study of body composition, an important indicator of energy balance. A large number of workers were examined to estimate the proportion of body fat and fat-free mass. An interesting finding was that the workers’ fat mass revealed sufficient dietary energy intake and muscular-skeletal development, and the capacity to respond to the effort was good in comparison with Chilean workers from the industrial sector. In contrast, the output of forest workers was lower than expected considering their good physical fitness. One obvious hypothesis was that low salaries discouraged workers. Although this was clearly an important factor, field observations indicated that this was not the only determinant (Apud & Valdes, 1995). Related to that, it was found that the diet varied significantly from one contracting firm to the other, ranging from a daily average of 2,800 to 3,500 kcal. The studies of energy balance indicated that Chilean forestry workers maintained adequate weight and body fat levels. While their energy intake was insufficient, rather than calling on energy reserves, forest workers tended to reduce the amount of time devoted to work to the detriment of output and even their own income since they were usually paid on a piecework basis (Apud et al., 2014).

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector

323

Further studies led to the conclusion that most manual forestry activities would require a daily supply of at least 4,000 kcal. However, this is only a very general figure as the environmental setting, the actual workload, and specific individual traits produce a wide range of requirements. Evaluations carried out in 2001 did show a net improvement in the diet of forest camps. Around 80% of the contractors adopted diets similar to those originally proposed (Apud et al., 2014). In those days, concepts like living conditions in camps, food quality, as well as training and safety aspects were established as a “baseline” to start ergonomic studies aiming to improve the well-being at work and productivity. Consequently, ergonomic studies of labor-intensive methods were carried out. It is important to mention that in order to define a reasonable level of workload and productivity, the standard performance criteria of the International Labour Organization were used (ILO, 1998). This is defined as the output that skilled workers can produce without excessive work in an average working day and based on the assumption that they know and accept the working method and are motivated to apply it. Another concern – and this also has to do with the ILO’s definition of standard output – was the criteria for determining excessive workloads. Traditionally, except in a few isolated instances, labor studies in those days did not incorporate objective evaluations of the physical workload imposed by specific tasks (Apud, Bostrand, Mobbs, & Strehlke, 1989). Therefore, techniques were implemented to evaluate energy expenditure and quantify cardiovascular load. In general, studies have focused on forestry production and silvicultural treatments. The studies were carried out using study crews who operated just like any other group of workers but who had everything they needed to do the job correctly (Apud et al., 1989; Apud & Valdes, 1995). During the working periods, they lived in comfortable, clean camps and had adequate supplies of food prepared by a carefully trained cook. The camp also had basic recreational facilities such as television, playing cards, and so forth. The crews were well trained for their specific tasks and basic work safety standards were met. Following are some brief summaries of field studies examples. The traditional high pruning method in Chile was carried out using a saw with a 6-meter handle. The worker standing on the ground cut the branches at quite a distance from the pruning area. This technique tends to produce imprecise cuts and damages the tree. Moreover, the job requires the neck to be held in a very awkward position and the shoulders and arms to be exposed to a heavy static load. One alternative is to use pruning ladders, bringing the worker closer to the job so that he can cut with a proper saw. This aids and improves cutting while reducing work posture problems. A study crew of ten tree trimmers was used to make a comparative evaluation of the two systems of work. The two stands were very similar, as were climate and terrain. The physical load for each worker was estimated by measuring the cardiac frequency. The findings showed that tree trimmers using a ladder to prune could trim 25% more trees than workers using the saw with a 6-meter handle. In both instances, the average heart rate throughout the day was a highly comparable 100 heartbeats per minute, quite acceptable for an eight-hour working day; therefore, the cardiovascular effort figure was no higher with the more productive method, even though tree trimmers had to climb up and down the ladder. This was

324

Human Factors for Sustainability

because pruning from the ground required constant movement to maneuver into a position where the branches could be seen. Working with a tool held over the head was another factor. Pruning from a ladder also produced a much better quality cut. The workers mentioned that they did not experience arm or leg fatigue, while neck and shoulder complaints were fewer. In conclusion, the ladder method was recommended because of these advantages and many forest enterprises adopted it as their method of choice until present days. Traditionally, harvesting in Chile was done by a crew in which a power saw operator felled the trees and a group of debranchers removed the branches. In the next operation, a choker setter attached a choker (a wire rope with a noose) to the tree stem so that it could be skidded by tractor to the landing. At the landing, another worker removed the choker. The stems were then cross-cut by other power saw workers and the logs placed in piles. There were many variations, including the level of mechanization, but the crews were usually organized as described. On the basis of an evaluation of a traditional, clear-cut harvesting operation, Apud and Valdes (1995) concluded that felling, debranching, and winching in the forest were much heavier than those done in the log yard. They recommended rotating the jobs among the workers and examined the possibility of mechanized debranching with power saws. A three-stage rotation system was implemented: Each of the three power saw operators fells and debranches for two-thirds of the day and cross-cuts for the remaining third. A comparison was made with workers felling and debranching all day long. Rotating the work raised a worker’s daily output as well as the hourly output of the tractor, which is the most costly item in the process. At the same time, the average heart rate was reduced and output raised by 10%, revealing that the forests, terrain, and climate where these evaluations were made were similar. Since the workers were paid on a piecework basis, they initially rejected job rotation because they thought it would result in more “down” time. Once they got used to the system, however, they became enthusiastic, as they were able to earn more money with less effort (Apud & Valdes, 1995). These apparently simple but very laborious studies were part of an important volume of research carried out for the search of appropriate technologies between 1970 and 2000 (Apud et al., 1999; Apud & Valdes, 1995). Examples like those presented in this work were used to show forest companies and contractors that it was possible to innovate successfully without making big investments. However, the emphasis was put on the fact that in order to keep the positive changes in the long run, salaries had to be improved. When these problems are not properly solved, the workers will not keep the pace because they lack motivation and they will delay the entire process. From the early ergonomic studies in Chilean forestry, it was clear that in order to achieve increases in productivity, work needed to be safe and attractive. Better salaries were also primordial. One concern was to consolidate a research effort designed to achieve standard output based on ILO criteria (ILO, 1998). However, the relationship between the forestry sector and ergonomics in Chile has weakened in the last 15 years for different reasons, including the lack of funding to going further with this kind of research. The findings that will be discussed in the next section reaffirm the idea that ergonomics is an essential discipline, which is needed to help the forestry sector to develop a sustainable workforce.

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector

325

THE PRESENT OF THE CHILEAN FORESTRY WORKFORCE In summary, what was presented in the previous section shows that there was a concern about the workers’ quality of life and progress was made in said area. These standards and concerns for the aforementioned issues continue to be present in the Chilean forestry sector. However, this sector is going through a crisis from the point of view of the workforce as analyzed by Meyer and Tappin (2014) and Meyer (2017). This crisis is reflected in a population that has been increasing in age and, simultaneously, in a lack of interest of young people over this line of work. On the other hand, there are still risks that affect the health and well-being of workers, in addition to a lack of opportunities for the professional development of these workers. This is mainly due to mistaken strategies assumed by forest companies, which have only focused their attention on safety, leaving in second place the ergonomic aspects associated with health, well-being, and development of people. This section is based on a cross-sectional investigation that was undertaken in the Chilean forestry sector between 2011 and 2015. The sample was 350 workers. The objective was to identify elements in the work environment that potentially could affect the sustainability of the workforce (Meyer, 2017). In Table 14.1, columns show reported positive and negative aspects of workers’ perceptions of the Chilean forestry sector, with a special focus on topics related to the purpose of this chapter. Based on the workers’ opinion, these elements not only could affect the health of the workers but also the perceived attractiveness of working in this sector, for example, matters like long working hours and travel time required, the exposure to the weather, the dangerous nature of the work, and the job being physically demanding. In addition, lack of feedback on performance, lack of promotion opportunities, physical fatigue and discomfort, and inadequate pay are linked with the capacity of the sector to attract, recruit, motivate, and retain its employees (Lobb & McNeill, 2002). One-step toward achieving a sustainable workforce is reducing the impact on workers and improving human resources. The loss of the resources of the workforce means workers are losing their capacity to work and to develop and adapt in their working life (Kira, 2003). Therefore, the design of a workforce-sustainable system needs to incorporate these two key elements. Consequently, this section discusses, based on results showed in Table 3.1, the need to reduce or eliminate the damage to people and to develop and regenerate the resource of workers in the Chilean forestry sector. The first aspect of reducing and eliminating damage to the workers’ resource is associated with the physical demands of the work and the strategies FCs and FCCs have implemented. From an OH point of view, the physical demands of forestry work are still the main negative impact on workers (Pontén, 2011). Workers in this study explained that this was because of the risk of accidents and the physicality of the work that affected their health. They also said they wanted to pursue comfort and well-being in their work. These findings coincide with Mylek and Schirmer’s (2015) study on the forestry sector in Australia, which concluded that forestry organizations need to go beyond physical health and safety to also support the well-being of their workers (Mylek & Schirmer, 2015). The aspect associated with comfort and

326

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 14.1 Summary of Workers’ Positive and Negative Perceptions of the Chilean Forestry Sector and the Reasons Attributed to Previous Studies for Occupational Health (OH) Problems in the Forestry Sector, With a Focus on Logging Activities Positive

Negative

Organizational and economic issues

Task variety, good supervision for job performance, freedom to coordinate their own work with that of others, ability to positively influence the quality of own work and adequacy of technical procedures for job performance

Working longer hours per week; bad system of days of work and rest; high pressure; inadequate rest allowances; low importance of the task; inadequacy of departmental structure for job performance; low influence within the organization; low chance to determine their own work schedule or procedures; inadequacy of tools, equipment, machinery, and technical support for job performance; inadequacy of work flow input for job performance; and low work pay, benefits, and job security

Individual growth and skill development

The positive development of professional, interpersonal, and management skills

Low advancement opportunities

Physical environment

Communication aspects

The negative impact of environmental issues, like noise, vibrations, high and low temperature, and dust; very dangerous work to life and health, inadequate personal protective equipment, and low maintenance in elements related to the comfort of the machinery operator Low conflict with coworker, supervisor, or management; good support from subordinate and coworker; good level of praise from a coworker; low management support; low praise from management; good level of satisfaction with work tasks and social environment conditions, for example, coworker support

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector

327

well-being of workers was not even considered as a topic by the FCs and FCCs. The reason why the physical demands of the forestry sector are still a problem – beyond the nature of the work itself – is linked to the focus that FCs and FCCs have, which is centered on compliance both with Chilean law and the principles of certification the FCs have followed. Both Chilean law and the certification process focus on safety aspects, and although the law declares the safety of the workers is a key element, from a theoretical and practical point of view, the elements in the law are not enough to prevent OH problems (Apud & Meyer, 2009). The certification process with which Chilean FCs have been involved has had a positive effect on the forestry sector in areas related to the aims of this chapter. These include certain employment conditions, for example, salary, job stability, and control over working hours, which were critical aspects in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, according to Clapp (1995). They also include improvement of safety aspects, such as the provision of safety equipment, accident monitoring for staff and contractors, and improvement in all these areas is confirmed by findings reported by Meyer (2017). However, the same research shows a minimal reduction in OH aspects related to the physical demands of the work and the comfort and well-being of workers. It is necessary to change the approach to health and safety programs and incorporate more elements related to the health and comfort of workers without losing focus on safety. McLean and Rickards (1998) and Apud et al. (1999) confirm that elements associated with the health and comfort of workers could reduce or eliminate damage to the workers. This would also have a positive effect on the system’s productivity. Another aspect that could reduce and help eliminate damage to the workers’ resource is to collect and disseminate OH data on the forestry workforce. This issue was mentioned in the Rovaniemi Action plan (RAP) (UNECE/FAO, 2014) as one of the pillars on which to build a sustainable workforce in the forestry sector in Europe and was also raised by Alamgir et al. (2014). Information about OH problems in the Chilean forestry sector is both deficient and scarce (Ackerknecht, 2010). The lack of reliable and comprehensive data has been a key barrier to identifying the OH problems of forestry workers. For this reason, OH problems are hard to prevent since it is difficult to develop and prioritize effective interventions if organizations do not understand the risk factors, causes, nature, and outcomes of injuries and health problems (Alamgir et al., 2014). The fact that some working conditions are still creating OH problems in the forestry sector signals the need for action. It is necessary, therefore, to improve the monitoring of occupational safety and health in the forestry workforce and to modify and enforce national legislation. Investment in technology needs to be improved to reduce or eliminate excessive system demands. Problems in this area continue because methods and tools associated with the work have not changed in recent years, especially with regards to manual and semimechanized activities (Bayne & Parker, 2012). Finally, FCs and FCCs need to reorganize their strategies and rethink their focus on productivity. Analysis of performance levels must respect the capacities of people as excessive demands could mean fatigue or future health problems for workers (Apud & Meyer, 2004; Milne, Chen, Hann, & Parker, 2013), an aspect even more critical when the aging of the Chilean forestry workforce is also taken

328

Human Factors for Sustainability

into account. The aging of the population implies a natural reduction of workers’ physical capacities to cope with work demands and needs to be factored into the design of any new system.

Development and Regeneration of People Resource The lack of formal training, the inadequate development of the people resource, and the limited opportunity to develop a career in the Chilean forestry sector are associated with OH issues and poor market attractiveness. These findings are also strongly associated with the second step to build a sustainable workforce, that is, the need to develop and regenerate the people’s resource. Docherty et al. (2002) and later Kira (2003) explain that the concept of the development of the workers’ resource means workers are prepared to adapt during their working life; this aspect is critical and needs to be improved. The need to develop the people resource is an aspect that the forestry organizations have not considered today. It is clear that the forestry sector, not only in Chile but also worldwide, does not demand a high level of education or special skills for workers. As such, the sector provides an excellent opportunity for unemployed people, people looking for their first job, or people lacking skills to enter the workforce. This information is supported by Brizay (2014), as well as studies developed in Canada, where in 2007, 60% of workers in the national forest sector listed high school as their highest level of educational attainment, compared to an average of 47% across all industries (Huq, 2007). Also, studies in Canada, specifically developed both in British Columbia and in the Alberta region, conclude that the forestry sector is an attractive market for unskilled workers (B.C.C.F.I, 2013, 2014). The idea that it is possible to work in the forest sector without any kind of formal education or training is something that must change, since it affects OH, the safety of the people, and the productivity of the system (Klun & Medved, 2007). Consequently, the modernization of the forestry sector means workers now require better, more expensive, and more time-consuming training (DeVries, 2014). An aspect confirmed in the findings of this study is the lack of development of human resources in the Chilean forestry sector, which has a negative impact on the three main issues that threaten the sustainability of its workforce: the aging of the workforce, market attractiveness, and OH and safety. Recent research has shown, however, that the development of a formal training system is essential in logging activities (Ackerknecht, 2002; Brizay, 2014; Estruch & Rapone, 2013). Furthermore, training needs to incorporate elements that allow the reconversion of the workers, which will have a positive impact on market attractiveness for new workers, because, as discussed in the first part of this chapter, the development of a career is one of the main interests for workers. Today, the opportunity for a worker employed in logging activities to have a better job position is practically nonexistent or at best it is very limited. This has been recognized by workers, experts, the FCs, and the FCCs. Members of the younger generation coming into the workforce with better educational levels do not want to begin as manual laborers. Moreover, young people perceive the forestry sector as a dead-end career (DeVries, 2014). This is recognized also by existing Chilean forestry workers, who were the

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector

329

main and traditional resource to attract new forest workers. Today they have higher expectations for their relatives, related to their professional lives, than to work in the forestry sector. Therefore, training workers on their current position is a way to improve their capacity, but today, it is even more important to focus on preparing workers in new resources and skills to improve their professional path. This also would have a positive effect on those workers, who cannot continue working in their current positions, due to their age or OH problems. In addition, it could help to improve the retirement age in the forestry sector, since less than 3% of the forestry workers reach the jubilation age (Blombäck & Poschen, 2003). Liberating structures and building up internal capabilities to carry through reorganization helps to ensure the sustainability of the workforce (Docherty, Kira, & Shani, 2008). This vision needs to be permanent, since in order to develop a resource, it is necessary to keep up continuous change (Eklund, Halvarsson, Kock, Lindskog, & Svensson, 2014).

Better Integration between FCs and FCCs An integral view that incorporates all the elements mentioned above is required to achieve sustainability of the workforce (Westgaard & Winkel, 2011). According to Docherty et al. (2002), sustainability requires a balance between the stakeholder’s needs and goals. This achievement allows any organization to reach its economic and operational objectives (Zink, 2014). Regrettably, this important integration was not observed in the study of Meyer (2017), as the relationship between FCs and FCCs is more about control over the work activities of the FCCs rather than working conditions. Therefore, one of the core reasons for the workforce problems is the lack of integration between FCs and FCCs to address these issues. Consequently, improving the sustainability of the workforce relies on better integration between FCs and FCCs. This is consistent with the results of reports prepared by the British Columbia Coastal Forest Industry Labour Market Partnership Project Steering Group (DeVries, 2014), which states that the forestry industry’s ability to recruit and train new workers requires a collaborative effort, and lack of coordination and a comprehensive strategy has delayed this achievement. The report emphasizes that the forestry sector needs to look at the current work structure and should be willing to challenge past norms to attract suitable people. In the area of OH and safety, the RAP report (UNECE/FAO, 2014) emphasizes the same point – the need to develop a common strategy to achieve a reduction in OH problems. Therefore, clearly, Chilean FCs must establish a different relationship with Chilean FCCs to solve OH issues, one that is based on a supportive network instead of simply controlling FCC activity. Overall, the quality of working conditions in FCCs has improved in recent years, especially in FCCs that provide services to the main FCs, and in that sense, there is an enormous difference in the image and features of FCCs between 1980 and the early 2000s (ILO, 2011). However, FCCs in general terms still do not have the organizational structure to deal with OH issues, in spite of their efforts to have specialists in the area of health and safety and even beyond, for example, by employing professional personnel, such as psychologists

330

Human Factors for Sustainability

and social workers, to improve psychosocial elements in working conditions. The situation is no better concerning improvements of people resource, based on training, as FCCs do not have the structure to deal with this aspect. The support, which FCs could give to FCCs in this area, is important since if an organization wants to improve workforce sustainability, an organizational culture is required with high commitment from stakeholders, utilizing multiple interventions to reduce risk factors with a strong link to the company’s strategies (Neumann, Ekman, & Winkel, 2009; Raditya, 2009).

THE FUTURE OF THE WORKFORCE This chapter provides practical information to back up the theory that, first, there exists an association between working conditions and the sustainability of the workforce and, second, it is necessary to make changes to the strategies that organizations have implemented to manage workforce sustainability, as the current model does not adequately address these issues. Therefore, the findings and knowledge provided in this chapter could be taken as the basis of a new model that forestry organizations could develop and adapt to their current reality. That model requires working with a broader understanding of the complex mutual relationships between the different levels of the system (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). For example, the idea of the improvement of working conditions for logging activities, taking each activity as a basic element of the system, would not be enough to ensure the sustainability of the workforce since, for example, young and potential new workers demand that the forestry sector offers them the chance to develop a professional career where they can develop their professional resources. That situation, based on the findings discussed in this chapter, is not yet happening. Therefore, the new model needs to present a continuum from the individual to an interorganizational system, as suggested by Thatcher and Yeow (2016). Taking into consideration the idea discussed above, the private Chilean forestry sector has an advantage over the current reality of other countries facing the same problem with their workforce. Since the business model of Chilean FCs includes participation in each part of the forestry cycle, from the seed nurseries to the pulp mills, they have the chance to create a professional path to offer to the new and current generation of workers. Accordingly, one related idea that the new model needs to consider is the parent–sibling–child system (Wilson, 2014), where it is recognized that each succeeding broader scope of consideration encapsulates the smaller scopes, which in this case is each activity developed by logging. Consequently, the input that the ergonomics approach could make to this new model has to be taken into consideration. It is necessary to consider the following basic steps to make the forestry sector sustainable from the workforce point of view. The initial interventions, based on the findings discussed here, should consider changes to single tasks or simple human-machine interactions, for example, interventions aimed at designing better technologies or task analysis aimed at designing more efficient working practices. However, it is also necessary to study whether, at an individual level, the activity needs to be redesigned and, for example, make transformations from manual activities to semi- or fully mechanized activities, based on

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector

331

an analysis of the demands of the task and the capacity of the current population of workers to carry on the activities. A converse approach should also be considered: For example, the existing way in which each task developed in logging activities could be adapted or changed, depending on the evolution of either the workforce or the technology. Another aspect still considered at the individual level are interventions to facilitate a work-life balance. This is coinciding with what Thatcher and Yeow (2016) mentioned, which was also stated in Meyer (2017) to be an issue for workers. For example, the shift system demands workers to be away from home for long periods of time, which has a negative impact on the lives of the laborers. Also at this level, and probably one of the key aspects of this model, are all the aspects related to building capacity for tasks that have currently been developed, recognizing also the need to build capacity in activities outside of logging but inside the forestry sector. For example, young workers could initiate their career in those tasks that have a higher physical demand, like silviculture or logging activities; then, with the proper training, they could move to another area, with different demands. The next level is related to the improvement of organizational aspects of work, like teamwork, where it is necessary to consider interventions that facilitate team or organizational functioning. However, the next key level, along with training for the present and future, is what Thatcher and Yeow (2016) call the interorganizational level. To offer a professional path necessitates a real organization of interorganizations, strongly related to the idea of the supply chain. Consider that different organizations develop different tasks in the forestry supply chain throughout the forestry economics cycle. If the model of an organization of interrelated organizations could be created, workers could move from one stage of the forestry cycle to another stage, from one FCC related to logging to another related FCC, for example, to transport, seed nurseries, or sawmills. The steps mentioned above are considered basic steps to begin creating a sustainable workforce that, based on the findings analyzed in this section, could help improve the market attraction of the sector. It would also help to prevent current problems with OH and improve the aging of the forestry workforce. This is an excellent opportunity as the concept of workforce sustainability in organizations is relatively new and still under development, and the measuring methods are still evolving. Thus, this section provides information to generate other indicators that could be useful for organizations in attaining sustainability of the workforce.

CONCLUSIONS As mentioned before, large improvements have been made in working conditions in the Chilean forestry sector in the last 40 years; however, occupational health problems remain and efforts made in this area have not worked properly, starting, for example, from clarifying the real origin of the problems and understanding the actual situation. The progress made to date has, however, not been enough to achieve sustainability of the workforce. For this to occur, the forestry sector needs to be capable of attracting and retaining workers, ensuring the health and safety of workers, investing in improving the skills necessary to cope with the demands of the work

332

Human Factors for Sustainability

system, and preparing workers for future work opportunities. In order to improve sustainability, efforts must be focused on two main areas. The first area must aim to reduce or eliminate damage to workers and focus on improving the current approach with regards to the forestry sector health and safety programs. This needs to start considering the comfort of the workers, which is likely to have a positive effect on the productivity of the system as well. The second area is the development and regeneration of the people resource. The development of a formal training system is needed in forestry activities. Workers’ training is a way to improve capacity, but it needs an emphasis on training to prepare workers to develop and generate new resources. The training needs to consider elements for the reconversion of the workers, which will have a positive impact on market attractiveness for new workers. Finally, understanding the relationship between workers’ capacity and system demands makes it possible to understand the elements affecting the OH of workers and other topics related to the sustainability of the workforce. Any organization that wants to achieve workforce sustainability requires an integral view of that relationship. Organizations have powerful social reasons to endorse the principles of sustainability, and this has received constant attention from different organizations. Workforce sustainability includes improvements in activities to attract, recruit, motivate, and retain employees. Moreover, better working conditions are often associated with reduced costs in OH and safety and improvements in productivity.

REFERENCES Ackerknecht, C. (2002). I. Experiencias de salud y Seguridad Ocupacional en el Trabajo Forestal: Caso Chileno [Experiences of occupational health and safety in forestry work: Case of Chile]. Jornadas forestales de Entre Ríos (Argentina). 25–26 Oct 2001. Ackerknecht, C. (2010). El trabajo en el sector forestal: Cuestiones que se plantean para una fuerza de trabajo cambiante [Work in the forestry sector: Issues arising for a changing workforce]. Unasylva, 61(234/235), 60–65. Alamgir, H., Martínez-Pachon, G., Cooper, S. P., & Levin, J. (2014). The critical need for improved enumeration and surveillance of the logging workforce. Journal of Agromedicine, 19(2), 74–77. Apud, E. (2011). Living conditions. In: ILO (Ed.), Encyclopaedia on Occupational Health and Safety. Ginebra, Suecia. Apud, E., Bostrand, L., Mobbs, I., & Strehlke, B. (1989). Guide-lines on Ergonomic Study in Forestry. Prepared for research workers in developing countries. ILO. Apud, E., Gutierrez, M., Lagos, S., Maureira, F., Meyer, F., & Espinoza, J. (1999). Manual de Ergonomia Forestal [Manual of Ergonomics in Forestry]. Proyecto FONDEF D96I1108 “Desarrollo y Transferencia de Tecnologías Ergonómicamente Adaptadas para el Aumento de la Productividad del Trabajo Forestal.” Chile [D96I1108 FONDEF Project “Development and Technology Transfer Ergonomically Adapted for Increased Productivity of Forest Work.” Chile]. Apud, E., & Meyer, F. (2004). Ergonomics. In: J. Burley (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences (pp. 639–645). London: Elsevier. Apud, E., & Meyer, F. (2009). Criterios ergonómicos constructivos para un desarrollo sustentable orientado a mejorar la calidad de vida laboral [Ergonomics criteria for a sustainable development to improve the quality of life at work]. Laborereal, 5(1), 17–26.

Past, Present, and Future of the Workforce at the Chilean Forestry Sector

333

Apud, E., Meyer, F., Espinoza, J., Oñate, E., Freire, J., & Maureira, F. (2014). Ergonomics and labor in forestry. In: M. Köhl & L. Pance (Eds.), Tropical Forestry Handbook (pp. 1–81). Springer: Berlin Heidelberg. Apud, E., & Valdes, S. (1995). Ergonomics in Forestry: The Chilean Case. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO. Bayne, K. M., & Parker, R. J. (2012). The introduction of robotics for New Zealand forestry operations: Forest sector employee perceptions and implications. Technology in Society, 34(2), 138–148. B.C.C.F.I. (2013). Labour Market & Training Needs Analysis. Canada: BC Coastal Forestry Industry. B.C.C.F.I. (2014). British Columbia Coastal Forestry Industry Human Resource Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.tla.ca/sites/default/files/news_policy/cfiwi_hr_strategy_ april_2014_final_v3_postedonline.pdf. [Accessed 7 May, 2019]. Blombäck, P., & Poschen, P. (2003). Employment Trends and Prospects in the European Forest Sector: A Study Prepared for the European Forest Sector Outlook Study (EFSOS). United Nations Publications. Brizay, A. (2014). The Rovanieni action plan for the forest sector in a green economy. Paper presented at the Forest Europe Workshop on Green Economy and Social Aspects of SFM, Santander, Spain. Clapp, R. A. (1995). Creating competitive advantage: Forest policy as industrial policy in Chile. Economic Geography, 71(3), 273–296. Corma (2018). Exportaciones. Retrieved from http://www.corma.cl/perfil-del-sector/aportesa-la-economia. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. DeVries, P. (2014). Wanted: Skilled Employees to Work in B.C.’s Woods. British Columbia, Canada: Business Vancouver. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A. (2002). Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Emerging Perspectives and Practice. Psychology Press. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A. B. (Eds.) (2002). Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Emerging Perspectives and Practice. London: Routledge. Eklund, J., Halvarsson, A., Kock, H., Lindskog, P., & Svensson, L. (2014). Sustainability and development of lean implementations. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management – xi Nordic Ergonomics Society annual conference. Estruch, E., & Rapone, C. (2013). Promoting decent employment in forestry for improved nutrition and food security. Background Paper for the International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome, 13–15 May. FAO (1997). People, Forests and Sustainability. Geneva, Switzerland: FAO/ILO. Genaidy, A., Rinderb, M., Sequeiraa, R., & A-Rehimb, A. D. (2010). The role of humanat-work systems in business sustainability: Perspectives based on expert and qualified production workers in a manufacturing enterprise. Ergonomics, 53(4), 559–585. Huq, F. (2007). Skills shortages in Canada’s forest sector Ottawa, Canada: Industry and trade division policy, economics and industry branch Canadian Forest Service. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from http://www.goforestry.ca/images/docs/ LabourMarketStudy_January22007.pdf. ILO. (1998). Introduction to Work Study. Geneva, Switzerland. ILO. (2011). Industria forestal. [Forestry industrie]. In: International Labor Organization (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety (Vol. 68). Geneva, Switzerland. ILO (2012). El Trabajo Decente en la Industria Forestal en Chile [Decent Work in Forest Industry in Chile]. Santiago, Chile: ILO. Kira, M. (2003). From Good Work to Sustainable Development. PhD diss., Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

334

Human Factors for Sustainability

Klun, J., & Medved, M. (2007). Fatal accidents in forestry in some European countries. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 28(1), 55–62. Lobb, B., & McNeill, R. (2002). Measurement of Stress in the New Zealand Forestry Harvesting Workforce. Psychology Department, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. McLean, L., & Rickards, J. (1998). Ergonomics Codes of Practice: The Challenge of Implementation in Canadian Workplaces.Journal of Forest Engineering, 9(1), 5–64. Meyer, F. (2017). Evaluation of workforce sustainability in the Chilean logging sector using an ergonomics approach. PhD diss., Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand. Meyer, F., & Tappin, D. (2014). Social sustainability in the Chilean logging sector. In: G. Eweje (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: Emerging Trends in Developing Economies (pp. 269–294). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Milne, B., Chen, X., Hann, C., & Parker, R. (12–14 June 2013). Robotisation of forestry harvesting in New Zealand – An overview. Paper presented at the 10th IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA). Hangzhou, China. Mylek, M. R., & Schirmer, J. (2015). Beyond physical health and safety: Supporting the wellbeing of workers employed in the forest industry. Forestry, 88(4), 391–406. Neumann, W. P., Ekman, M., & Winkel, J. (2009). Integrating ergonomics into production system development – The Volvo Powertrain case. Applied Ergonomics, 40(3), 527–537. Pontén, B. (2011). Physical safety hazards. In: J. Mager Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety (p. 68). Geneva: International Labor Organization. Poschen, P. (2011). General profile. In: J. Mager Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety (p. 68). Geneva: International Labor Organization. Raditya, D. A. (2009). Case studies of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in forest products companies-and customer’s perspectives. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. Raga, F. (2009). The Chilean forestry sector and associated risks. Trebol, 51, 10–19. Rees, W. E. (2009). The ecological crisis and self-delusion: Implications for the building sector. Building Research & Information, 37(3), 300–311. Silva, E. (1999). Forests, livelihood, and grassroots polities: Chile and Costa Rica compared Eduardo Silva. European Review of Latin American & Caribbean Studies, 66, 39–73. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. UNECE/FAO. (2014). Rovaniemi Action Plan for the Forest Sector in a Green Economy. Geneva, Sweden: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.unece.org:8080/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/SP-35-Rovaniemi.pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Westgaard, R. H., & Winkel, J. (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. Wilson, J. R. (2014). Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 5–13. Zink, K. J. (Ed.) (2008). Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive ManagementHeidelberg, Germany.: Physica-Verlag. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132. Zink, K. J., Steimle, U., & Fischer, K. (2008). Human factors, business excellence and corporate sustainability: Differing perspectives, joint objectives. In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management (pp. 3–18). Physica-Verlag HD.

15

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design Issues and Perspectives from a Francophone Activity-Centered Approach Julien Guibourdenche, Céline Poret, Germain Poizat, Florence Motté, Yvon Haradji, Pascal Salembier, and Mariane Galbat

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 336 Background........................................................................................................ 337 Time and Organization in Human Factors and Ergonomics for Sustainable Development: New Complexity Issues...................................... 337 Francophone Activity-Centered Approaches................................................. 339 An Extensive Research Program within the Electricity Market and Service Sector................................................................................................340 A Concern for the Situated/Extended Ecology of Action and Cognition of Human and Nonhuman Agents.......................................................................... 342 Design Objectives and Challenges................................................................ 342 Enaction and Agent-Based Simulation as the TheoreticalMethodological Frame.................................................................................. 343 Extending Our Analyses while Sticking to the Theoretical Basis................. 343 Main Methods and Tools for Data Gathering, Analysis, and Modeling........344 Illustrations of Empirical and Techno-Organizational Results.......................... 348 Understanding Long-Term UX and Designing the Appropriability of Energy-Efficient HEMS Over Years.............................................................. 348 Designing the Service and Enabling the Interorganizational Coordination That Supports It.................................................................................................. 351

335

336

Human Factors for Sustainability

Designing More Energy-Efficient Sociotechnical Electricity Grids with SMACH......................................................................................................... 354 Toward an Enactive Research Program on Activity, Technology, and Sustainable Development................................................................................... 357 Acknowledgments...................................................................................................360 References...............................................................................................................360

INTRODUCTION Thanks to several publications these last decades, sustainable development is now an official and legitimate object of intervention and research in human factors and ergonomics. Sustainable development challenges the theoretical and methodological foundations of the discipline (Dekker, Hancock, & Wilkin, 2013), as well as our ability to explain how we contribute to it. Different theoretical perspectives have emerged or reemerged over the last decade, such as ergoecology (García-Acosta, Saravia‑Pinilla, Romero Larrahondo, & Lange Morales, 2014), human factors and sustainable development (Zink & Fischer, 2013), and the sustainable system of systems (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016), for example. These perspectives raise many issues and set challenges to human factors and ergonomics concerning our ability to integrate (a) ecological-geological factors (García-Acosta et al., 2014) and/or natural resources and systems (Thatcher, 2013), (b) multidisciplinarity (García-Acosta et al., 2014; Thatcher & Yeow, 2016), or (c) complexity, to name but a few. There is now a need for more empirical validation and refinement (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). This chapter proposes a discussion with these approaches based on recent results from a francophone activity-centered ergonomics (FACE) approach in the energy domain and considers the following questions: What would the application of these approaches of sustainability (SSoS, etc.) involve for human factors and ergonomics within the domain of energy? How could our approach contribute or adapt? What could be learned from this meeting of approaches? After a review of time and organization issues in sustainability and FACE approaches, the next section presents the evolution of our research program since the 1980s. The chapter then presents an enactive and situated perspective on the lived experience of activity as the core of our approach and how it articulates with systemic and complex systems approaches. We move on to expose the main results of two recent projects: Smart Electric Lyon and SMACH (a Multi-Agent Simulation of Human ACtivity and electricity load curves). The results demonstrate that if we are to design a more sustainable and efficient energy grid, there is a necessity to focus our research effort and interventions on (a) year-long evolution of user experience; (b) on team, organizational, and interorganizational processes; (c) on the development of methods and tools for multiple stakeholders; and finally (d) on the articulation of enactive approaches to lived experience, human activity, and complex systems. From there we discuss further perspectives: for our own research program, enlarging our approach to the ecological level (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016); for human factors and ergonomics in the energy domain, focusing more on the multiple levels of organization and issues that sustainability approaches pointed to; and for sustainability

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

337

approaches, taking account of the local conditions of emergence of human activity and experience.

Background Work on sustainable development and energy systems in human factors and ergonomics is introduced here as a background, as well as the main history of our approach and extensive research program. Time and Organization in Human Factors and Ergonomics for Sustainable Development: New Complexity Issues Time and organizational issues are mutually constitutive. As sustainable development and sustainability are becoming more and more important, many ergonomists integrate larger time frames and organizational units into their framework, for example, life cycle, life expectancy, intergenerational issues, interorganizational coordination within well-bounded territory or throughout worldwide supply chains, etc. According to Thatcher (2016), sustainability issues require a unit of analysis that is at least intergenerational. However, choosing interorganizational coordination as an object of intervention already implies the need to extend our units of analysis to weeks or month-long processes, which are far longer units of time than the ones used for traditional studies of individual tasks (i.e., at the basic scale of minutes or seconds). In some cases, the time frame of the data collection process needs an extension (e.g., longitudinal studies), as we shall see. This means that one can choose low-level units such as individuals but study them in a way that extends the basic unit of analysis. The SSoS approach (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016) relies on an appreciation of the expected longevity of the different subsystems: individual, teamwork, organization, interorganization, and ecology. The hierarchy of these subsystems goes from “simple” HFE systems (e.g., individual tasks) toward increasing layers of complexity (e.g., teams, organizations, society, and natural habitats). So a sustainable system of systems is made up of interconnected “child” (lower level), “sibling” (same level), and “parent” (upper level) systems. They are considered as a spatial hierarchy: A parent system spatially encompasses the space of child subsystems. This is also true for time: Leveraging on the ecological model of time, SSoS (Thatcher, 2016) proposes guidance in this regard with a normative model of life expectancy/longevity for each subsystem. In a sustainable world, the respective longevities of these subsystems should find an equilibrium: A given system should not live too long or die too soon with regards to the other child and parent system longevity. But the absence of equilibrium in real life also explains the dynamic evolution of the systems. Another issue has to do with selecting the relevant set of subsystems. These may vary in substance depending on the kind of study and domain we focus on (e.g., energy, buildings, or transport). Whole supply chains and product life cycles are to be addressed according to human factors and sustainable development (Zink & Fischer, 2013). Long-term effects of green buildings on the health of occupants become of great importance nowadays (Thatcher & Milner, 2016). Reflecting upon problems and perspectives at the scale of larger territories than local workspaces

338

Human Factors for Sustainability

becomes mandatory within an ergoecological perspective (García-Acosta et al., 2014) and it must be done by considering the entire set of interactions between the different PESTE factors (e.g., political, financial, scientific, ecological, or geographical, etc.). In practice, this might imply the involvement of many stakeholders (new to the ergonomist’s focus interventions) such as politicians, decision makers, or top managers, for example. It might require new methodological developments. For example, Saravia-Pinilla et al. (2016) call for “more holistic methods that approach human and environmental problems associated with product design and development jointly, with continuity and ontological inseparability” (p. 71). These methods seem to involve more collaboration with ecological science according to ergoecology. Macroergonomics has also been mentioned as an inspiration in this context where larger and numerous organizations are to be integrated within sustainability approaches. With these extensions, the overall issue of complexity is reemerging in a specific manner. In this context, human cognitive systems cannot “make accurate predictions even to think holistically” (Thatcher, 2016, p. 17) because of the uncertainty and complexity involved with this scope. What would it mean for research programs in human factors and ergonomics? Would we need to draw decades-long research programs? Would simulations and empirical studies need to take a new turn? On the one hand, and as always with complexity, one cannot take all the subsystems of the entire system into account, since it would lead the ergonomist to a nonmanageable study. On the other hand, we need to develop our method and model toward more complex, dynamic, and multiactor systems. However, the question of how to apply these principles remains largely open. In this chapter, we want to focus on the mutual validation between these previous approaches and the domain of energy management in the residential sector from a francophone activity-centered perspective. This latter perspective focuses on real work activity and local emergence of practices and organization first. This means that, while acknowledging the necessity of a systemic approach at some point in the research program, the core center resides in the fine-grained empirical understanding of the human activity in situ and in interaction with technology and the environment. By “mutual validation,” we mean looking at the results of our research and seeing if: (a) they would validate the previous approaches of sustainability and/ or if (b) they would be challenged. To date, the approaches mentioned above (e.g., SSoS) have not been applied or discussed with regards to the energy domain. Most of ergonomic research in the past and to date still targets what SSoS would refer to as individual- or teamwork-level changes: effects of different energy displays (Fréjus & Guibourdenche, 2012; Peacock et al., 2017; Sauer, Wastell, & Schmeink, 2009), household mental models of central heating systems (Kempton, 1986; Revell & Stanton, 2014, 2016a), patterns of behavior (Revell & Stanton, 2016b), and individual and collective activity at home (Fréjus & Guibourdenche, 2012; Guibourdenche, 2013). These studies address their issues on partly smaller timescales and organizational units than that required with SSoS (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016), for example, and/ or without using longitudinal and dynamic approaches of change and activity. This can already contribute to sustainability. However, following the approaches mentioned above, a broader scope should be involved: interorganizational levels should

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

339

be addressed in research frameworks and multiple stakeholder other than users should be implied, etc. This is why we want to discuss our work on the year-long appropriation of home energy management systems (HEMS), interorganizational issues between inhabitants, energy suppliers, installers of HEMS solutions, and also activity-based multiagent simulation of electricity load curves. And this is also why we need to evoke francophone activity-centered approaches first. Francophone Activity-Centered Approaches Our work falls into the category of francophone activity-centered ergonomics (see, e.g., Daniellou, 2005, or Daniellou & Rabardel, 2005, for an introduction). In this context, exploring the properties of complex systems and systems thinking (as Thatcher, 2016, proposes for answering the problems of complexity) must be achieved by considering real work activity and practices first. Since Ombredane and Faverge (1955), FACE has always been (and always will be) centered on real work activity, on work as an activity, and on activity as a holistic approach/concept rather than as a set of separable tasks. So, within a francophone activity-centered perspective, we may begin by situating the explorations of complexity within real work and activities. Then, we continue by extending it within the complex systems approach and by building more systemic abstractions of the process at stake (e.g., in section 4, long-term effects of electricity consumption, or multiple year-long appropriation processes). FACE has always been open to articulations with other approaches, methods, and models, especially complexity theories (e.g., Theureau, 2002) as in the case of cooperative activity and systems (Pavard & Dugdale, 2006; Salembier & Pavard, 2004). FACE also has a specific history with the study of large time frames and work organizations. While we cannot do justice to all contributors here, we can briefly depict some contributions as a general background to our research in France. An important part of these works is summed up in five themes by Cazamian, Hubault, and Noulin (1996): time multiplicity, temporal conflicts in industrialization, rhythms and work pace, night work, chrono-ergonomics, and human chrono-ecology. Between 1960 and 1966, Pierre Cazamian and other ergonomists worked on a major study of the steel and coal community called “Recherche Communautaire sur la Sécurité.” This research formed the future bases of francophone ergonomics (Cazamian, n.d.). It was oriented toward health and safety in coal and steel industries (made mandatory by the coal and steel community, excluding laboratory studies), lasted six years, was concerned with multiple European countries, focused on collective work rather than on individual performances only, and notably addressed issues of the unusual organization of time in relation to workers’ health. After this research, several other threads of work emerged during the 1970s and 1980s. They considered topics such as nonusual work schedules and night work (Carpentier & Cazamian, 1977), the effects of various determinants on biological rhythms and workers’ health (Teiger, Laville, Lortjoe, Binder, & Boutin, 1981), workers’ constraints in adapting to different times (e.g., work, rest, leisure, family life) of everyday life (Molinie & Volkoff, 1980), and/or autonomy (Van Devyver, 1977) of the workers, or aging, to name but a few. An important work for our own research program was proposed by Theureau (1981) concerning the time organization of nurses’ work as self-constructed while

340

Human Factors for Sustainability

in action. Some studies also looked at the interregulations between “work” and “nonwork” activity systems after Leplat and Cuny (1977, pp. 55–58) and Carpentier and Cazamian (1977). In these studies, and still today, activity analysis is a means for addressing organizational and time issues. The concentration on time in action by Theureau (1981) is one example. This work showed the limits of the methods used by managers of hospitals for calculating the human resources needed and proposed new perspectives. The studies of night work and shift work are other examples (see, e.g., Carpentier & Cazamian, 1977; Barthe, Quéinnec, & Verdier, 2004) that mainly contributed to health and safety. More recently, work involving time and organization became more explicitly oriented toward ecology, broadly speaking. Pierre Cazamian proposed the notion of human chrono-ecology (e.g., Cazamian, 1987). Haué (2003) worked within a situated action and cognition perspective to study long-term dynamics of appropriation of home energy management systems (HEMS). Pierre Falzon developed his interpretation of Amartya Sen’s works on capabilities (Falzon, 2005). In 2005, the congress of the Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française (SELF, 2005) took a social perspective on sustainable development by positioning human work as the factor of sustainable development and social cohesion. Since then, the first set of works from the 1960s to 1990s have encountered both continuity and new developments, reclaiming work activity analysis and its time-space extension as two main cores of FACE. Recently, traditional issues such as workers’ health are still under focus (e.g., Creapt-CEE, 2014). New objectives and issues have been introduced: the development of a career over an entire life, the development of capabilities, and energy efficiency, which will be covered in the next subsection. Duarte, Béguin, Pueyo, and Lima (2015) recently demonstrated how work activity could still be a central focus when intervening on sustainable development issues through the durability of work activity and the development of work activities for sustainable development as an example. Many FACE studies have tried to extend the interventions and research to managers and/or decision makers, and the extension of the units of analysis and interventions to even larger space and time frames. What follows is partly in relation to this extensive history but has its own autonomy since it has leveraged on specific approaches of human activity and technology: enaction and situated action/cognition. An Extensive Research Program within the Electricity Market and Service Sector Since the late 1980s, our research network2 has been driven by the necessity to model the dynamic coupling of human activity and technology for design purposes. Now it is more strongly and explicitly concerned with sustainable development issues. Hence, the modeling of activity and technology for more sustainable development designs requires further clarification and grounding. Part of our issues and thoughts have evolved with the transformation of the electricity industry, energy landscape, and culture in France over the last 30 years. The evolution of the electrical industry concerned transitions from the public to the private sector, from central to local and mixed production units, concerns from

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

341

production to consumption and mundane energy practices, from techno-centered to more human-centered design, from a technology industry to service relationships, from less to more flexible and dynamic systems, and last but not least, from objectives of a 20th-century consumerist society to objectives of a still-to-come eco-compatible society. Concerning our own scientific and technological issues, they went from user-centered design at the end of the 1980s (Haradji & Faveaux, 2006), to issues of modeling human activity (especially lived experience of activity) more explicitly and largely in order to contribute to different design and technological objectives in the 1990s and 2000s (e.g., individual/collective dynamics, different time scales, enlarged settings, from intrinsic and extrinsic approaches). This evolution can be traced back by reading works (mostly in French) from Haué (2003, 2004); Haradji and Faveaux (2006); Fréjus (2007); Motté and Haradji (2007, 2010); Haradji, Poizat, and Sempé (2012); Guibourdenche (2013); Amouroux et al. (2014); Poret, Folcher, Motté, and Haradji (2016); or Guibourdenche, Bossard, and Cardin (2017), for example. One might well say that we are close to a kind of user experience or experiencecentered design approach, in that we seek to encompass “all aspects of the end-user’s interaction with the company, its services, and its products” (Nielsen & Norman Group, 2017). This is quite true. However, our approach to lived experience, activity, and design is based on principles of French-speaking ergonomics, enaction, and phenomenology (see section 3 and subsection 2.2). Within this history, the emergence of our contributions to sustainable development is not easy to trace. It depends on what aspects of the notion we focus on. If we follow Zink, Steimle, and Fischer’s (2008) application of triple bottom line to HFE interventions, then Haué’s (2003) contribution to the long-term appropriation of home heating thermostats can be seen as part of a usability study contributing to socioeffectiveness, still on the social aspects of sustainable development. But it was not the explicit goal of Haué (2003) to design for sustainable development. A second thread has been Fréjus’s (2007) paper at the SELF3 congress, concerning approaches of activity in French-speaking ergonomics as an alternative to behavioral approaches such as Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, and Rothengatter (2005), for example. It was the first time that one of us was explicitly oriented toward environmental issues, in a manner more in line with green ergonomics (Thatcher, 2013). Since 2009, several of our publications have emerged on the topic of design for appropriation of more eco-efficient home energy management systems (e.g., Fréjus & Guibourdenche, 2012; Guibourdenche, 2013; Poizat, Fréjus, & Haradji, 2012; Salembier, Dugdale, Fréjus, & Haradji, 2009). Fréjus and Guibourdenche (2012) introduced the notion of a sustainable situation in order to account for a kind of situation that would encompass different design criteria from classical human factors and ergonomics and also from more eco-efficient energy domains, such as eco-effectiveness. To date, however, this last concept has not yet been related to ergoecology (García-Acosta et al., 2014; SaraviaPinilla et al., 2016). From another angle, the works of Motté and Haradji (2010) or Poret et al. (2016) on service relationships (e.g., energy furnishers) and organizational coordination within energy business units and services may also be seen as echoing corporate sustainability and sustainable work system design perspectives

342

Human Factors for Sustainability

(e.g., Zink & Fischer, 2013) or the notion of interorganizational levels in SSoS (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). Thus, they would provide a third possibility of appreciating sustainable development issues from our research program. Finally, a fourth angle of discussion is based on digital simulation of realistic human activity for the anticipation of electricity consumption peaks (Amouroux et al., 2014; Haradji et al., 2012). This work may offer direct and explicit lines of discussion concerning complexity models in human factors and ergonomics in the age of sustainability, especially concerning time and organizational issues.

A Concern for the Situated/Extended Ecology of Action and Cognition of Human and Nonhuman Agents To advance these reflections in this chapter, we present and discuss the results of two recent projects: Smart Electric Lyon (SEL) and SMACH (for Simulation MultiAgent de l’ACtivité Humaine, Multi-Agent Simulation of Human Activity). This section briefly presents their main theoretical and methodological bases, specifying our approach within FACE. Design Objectives and Challenges Since 2010, the goal of SMACH is to develop a multiagent simulation tool of electricity consumption for energy-efficient grids, the design of new tariff offerings, and pedagogical goals. The challenge has been to provide realistic accounts of electricity consumption on large scales (cities, etc.) and realistic accounts of human activity, considering knowledge and theories on human activity in domestic settings acquired with previous activity-centered research (e.g., Guibourdenche, 2013; Salembier et al., 2009). In SEL, two studies were carried out in order to develop (a) a model of situation and vectors of appropriation of eco-efficient HEMS over multiple years (Guibourdenche, Galbat, Salembier, Poizat, & Haradji, 2017) and (b) a model of intra- and interorganizational coordination in order to achieve a better performance of customer services (Motté & Poret, 2017). In the first study, the goal was to enable the appropriation of HEMS by inhabitants over year-long periods. In the second study, the goal was to enhance the quality of the customer experience with services and a number of relevant stakeholders (electrician, installers, energy providers, etc.). In order to reach these goals, our approach considered modeling human activity and complex systems in order for the ergonomist team to entertain a scientific study but also for engaging each project/organization’s stakeholders on a clear basis during the study (e.g., design workshops or project meetings). The challenge of modeling and engaging in activity-centered approaches is greater than for studies applying a preexisting framework as it is. This is because the relevant categories to be modeled are not given prior to the field study and because our elementary time units concern the level of seconds, not days, months, or years. If one adds long-term processes into the loop of the field study, then one experiences what complexity is about when practicing FACE and particularly our own approach. To deal with this complexity, the issues are always thought of along two timeframes that are beneficial to the project (e.g., SEL or SMACH): the one of the study and the one of the research program. The previous studies of Haué (2003) within our extensive research program helped

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

343

frame the problem and build methods within our study on long-term appropriation of HEMS, for example. In return, the SEL and SMACH project advanced our research program. Enaction and Agent-Based Simulation as the Theoretical-Methodological Frame Enaction (Varela, 1979) is the main basis of the work presented here and a central basis of our research program in general. Its conception of autonomy in living and nonliving systems opens the way to (a) a singular approach of human lived experience of activity that is compatible with (b) an artificial modeling of human activity and its coupling within agent-based simulation principles, while (c) maintaining a clear distinction between living systems (e.g., human beings) versus artificial systems (e.g., computer agent). Every actor and agent are considered autonomous: “a system is autonomous if it can specify its own laws, what is proper to it” (Maturana & Varela, 1992, p. 48). Only living systems are autopoietic, in that they produce the material of the relationship network that maintains the safety of their own organization over time, until the system loses its organization (i.e., dies). This autonomy creates an asymmetry in the coupling between actor and environmental structures: The actor/ agent creates his own interpretations, his own “world” from within, on the basis of his own equipment and past history and in relation to the perturbations offered by the environment at time “t.” The behavior of autonomous units cannot be instructed/ understood from the outside. This is why enaction offers a way to theorize complexity and emergent properties of systems, and this complexity starts from within the actor/agent. Most of the principles of enaction are compatible with agent-based computer simulation, since the latter is also based on the principle of autonomy. The objective of multiagent systems (Ferber, 1995) is (1) an analysis of the self-organizing mechanisms of complex systems (living, social, and artificial) emerging during the interaction between several autonomous entities (e.g., agents of a society) and (2) the design of artificial systems with interaction and cooperation capabilities to accomplish a task. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, FACE has always been open to articulations with complexity theories (e.g., Theureau, 2002) as in the case of cooperative activity and systems (Pavard & Dugdale, 2006; Salembier & Pavard, 2004). The latter researchers tried to face the fact that cooperation in working situations is mostly unpredictable (due to their distributed and contextualized nature). To do so, they relied on contributions of complexity approaches to understand and model self-organization in cooperative sociotechnical systems with multiagent systems (Pavard & Dugdale, 2006). The main idea is that a local interaction between agents and their environment, based on simple rules of communication, can generate dynamic and complex emerging behaviors. Extending Our Analyses while Sticking to the Theoretical Basis Back on the human side, enaction is also compatible with – and indeed strongly advocates for – the phenomenological study of lived experience from within (Varela & Shear, 1999), or from the point of view of the actor. In what follows, we refer to the definition of lived experience of activity of one actor in a specific situation as “all the

344

Human Factors for Sustainability

thoughts, emotions, movements, perceptions, sensations, etc. which occurred at that moment, of which (s)he was aware or which (s)he could subsequently recall” (Cahour, Salembier, & Zouinar, 2016, p. 261). The study of lived experience of activity requires a specific method of data gathering that Cahour et al. (2016) coined resituating interviews, whose goal is to enable the most vivid account of lived experience in a particular moment (for other publications on this topic, see, e.g., Light, 2006, or Petitmengin, Remilleux, Cahour, & Carter-Thomas, 2013). Within our situated approach of activity, this is articulated with methods providing data on external, visible behavior and work practices or other sources of data: direct observation, semidirective interviews, etc. But it is the core approach that is adapted depending on the field constraints and the study’s objectives. The previous point specifies FACE’s idea of studying work activity first. It sets the scene for the extension of SEL to long-term User eXperience and customer service, and for the extension of SMACH to artificial agents. The main issue of this extension is, in many ways always the same: how do we deal with the theoretical compatibility of extended frames, their resulting methods and models with the theoretical roots briefly described above? For example, the long-term investigation of UX (multiple years) within our framework echoes the problem of multiscale analysis of time and user experience: The more abstract, synthetic, and generic one gets, the less situated within original lived experience and ecology of action and the more theoretically incoherent the analysis becomes within an ecology of action and the idea of experience. So how do we deal with this issue in practice and what are the results between in situ emergence of a local activity and extended time and organizational frames? Main Methods and Tools for Data Gathering, Analysis, and Modeling Far from proposing definitive answers, our work within SEL and SMACH offers ways to advance these issues, from data gathering to formative modeling and largescale simulations in design projects and organizations. SEL – HEMS Appropriation Sustaining Energy Practices and Efficiency The first study presented in the next section was based on a longitudinal data-gathering process conducted within SEL from June 2013 to April 2016 with 13 households from upper-middle- to upper-class households in the Lyon area (France). The households were composed of one to five occupants with adults from 31 to 85 years old in 2015. This study meets the principles of a longitudinal study of change as defined by Singer and Willett (2003) and of a lived experience approach, while it integrates a final “synthetic evaluation” at the end of the data-gathering process (April 2016) in order to synthesize data on long-term UX involved in HEMS appropriation (Guibourdenche et al., 2017). During the first data-gathering sessions, we used classic methods such as resituating interviews or simultaneous verbalizations. Then, the CHRONOVEC methodology was developed in order to combine these traditional data with new quantitative and synthetic ones. This method enables the gathering of resituating interviews verbatim, accompanied with situated ratings of past lived experience on different vectors of appropriation. But as it is synthetic by nature, one cannot expect detailed access to lived experience as with classic resituating interviews such as self-confrontation

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

345

or explicitation. CHRONOVEC provides “resituated quantified lived experience.” It provides sufficient support for rating each moment and vector coherently with in situ lived experience, but this activity of rating remains an artificial one with regards to actual past experience. On average, 39 moments per participant were captured during a time period of one and a half years. Our “sensible metric for time” (Singer & Willett, 2003) is based on the point of view of the actor and his/her own construction of meaning during meaningful moments (e.g., moment of installation, breakdown, holidays, etc.) rather than on chronology (e.g., first day, first week, first month). Through the different sessions of data gathering and the CHRONOVEC method, the team of ergonomists confronted their views with the users’ in order to (in)validate and refine the first raw characterizations. Then, the team debated the refined characterizations in order to build the final qualitative and quantitative characterizations for each participant (see Figure 15.1). Finally, the most meaningful and impactful results were presented to a larger audience within the project (i.e., project managers, HEMS designers, participants) where people could explore the different moments of appropriation through the use of a dynamic mock-up of radial charts created on a tablet (see Figure 15.2). SEL – Customer Relationships The second study within SEL focused on the quality of service provided through the collective activity of multiple stakeholders belonging to different organizations:

FIGURE 15.1  Illustration of an analytic-synthetic model of lived experience. Black circle: average score on all vectors; Square: score on Ease of Use and Learning (EUL); Cross: score on Trust, Faith, and Confidence (TFC); Triangle: score on Accompaniment (AC); Bold line: regression line for average scores on all vectors; Bold dashed line: regression line for the score on EUL; Dot line: regression line for the score on TFC; Dot and dashed line: regression line for the score on AC.

346

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 15.2  Illustration of a radial chart slide of the UX explorer mock-up. By pushing on the oblong icons at the bottom (e.g., Oct. 2014), the stakeholders and designers can quickly access a rich synthesis of the user experience in these moments, thus exploring the main dynamics over long periods of time while still referring to actual experience in situ.

occupants, electrician, installer, system providers, energy providers, etc. We were asking the question: how does their collective activity between several organizations impact customer satisfaction and service quality? The data gathered come from our participation in seven previsits at the clients’ homes, one interview with the head of the company in charge of previsits to clients’ homes, seven interviews with clients during the previsit, eight interviews with the electrician in charge of previsits to clients’ homes, and three interviews with stakeholders of the SEL service (a project team leader, a company manager marketing an HEMS, and a customer relationship manager of the same company). We also directly observed five installations of five different HEMS at the customers’ homes and one installation from the backstage of customer services of one HEMS furnisher. Fourteen additional interviews for these installations (customers, electricians, partner technicians) were carried out, along with one customer service observation and one service follow-up from a partner’s premises. We reconstructed the preinstallation routine based on postinstallation interviews with each of the protagonists (e.g., Figure 15.3). Based on these results, we created a proposal for an anthropocentric approach to the management of the service relationship, beginning by explaining the service offered in SEL and defining the service to be achieved from the client’s initial project. As an illustration, we proposed perspectives for going beyond installing an HEMS on the basis of technical feasibility by considering the understanding of the client’s project and needs during previsit stages. We also collaborated within the project in order to design tools easing the collaboration over time between the multiple stakeholders.

FIGURE 15.3  History of the exchanges between the different stakeholders during the period between the previsit stage and the installation stage (field 2).

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design 347

348

Human Factors for Sustainability

SMACH Project – Multiagent Simulation of Human Activity and Electricity Consumption SMACH is built on a multilevel understanding of the relationships between individuals, households, and their environments (Figure 15.6). The method for building the SMACH simulation tool is multidisciplinary. Computer scientists, engineers, energy experts, and ergonomists collaborated since the early 2010s under the responsibility of one ergonomist. The realism of SMACH was designed by articulating three principles related to the modeling of human activity (Haradji et al., 2018). The first principle consisted of framing the design within the epistemological hypotheses of enaction and course of action (Theureau, 2003). The second principle was to apply these hypotheses based on our empirical knowledge of real-world domestic activity, by confronting the artificial model with empirical studies (e.g., Guibourdenche, 2013; Salembier et al., 2009). The third principle consisted of limiting the realism of artificial models when the simplifications we defined did not compromise: (a) the activity and its induced effects on consumption and (b) the objective of calculating energy efficiency. This latter point means that the realism of the activity is partly subordinated to our design objective. For this reason, we did not seek realism in all its dimensions (cultural, emotional, cognitive, etc.) but rather realism sufficient for the calculation objective. Figure 15.7 shows that the current version of SMACH is realistic when compared to actual electricity load curves.

Illustrations of Empirical and Techno-Organizational Results Our works within the SEL and SMACH projects contributed to energy efficiency and service design through the investigation of longer time scales and larger organizations. Understanding Long-Term UX and Designing the Appropriability of Energy-Efficient HEMS Over Years Sustainable appropriation of HEMS and new energy practices address the issue of complexity in long-term user experience. The work on HEMS appropriation provided: (a) concepts and methodologies for the investigation of long-term user experience dynamics (from data collection to synthetic models such as Figure 15.1), and (b) tools for reflecting upon design for appropriation at different stages of the SEL project (from meetings with the project’s stakeholders and system designers). Current HEMS on the market cannot sustain the complex variations of user experience over months and years if the goals are to sustainably appropriate and transform energy practices for the better. As a result, the vast majority of the study participants (10 out of 12) did not fully appropriate the system installed in their home. Only two households fully appropriated their HEMS. Five households did so partially and remained reluctant in keeping the system at home after the study, and finally five households showed either strong disinterest or rejection. These failures concern all of the three types of systems studied (centralized, semidistributed, and distributed), however to varying degrees and for different reasons.

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

349

The results of our study suggest that an appropriate HEMS should perform well over time at least for the following eight vectors: 1. Be easy to understand/use/explore (Ease of Use and Learning – EUL) 2. Be informative and effectively enable energy savings (useful and meet expected functionality) (Effectiveness of Economies – EE) 3. Respect a thermal comfort zone (Comfort – C) 4. Provide a high-quality accompaniment, in particular through the design of a high-quality service relationship and organization (Accompaniment – AC) 5. Place the customer/citizen in confidence with regard to himself/herself, the technical system, and other stakeholders (supplier, installer, etc.) (Trust, Faith, and Confidence – TFC) 6. Be adaptable over long time periods (multiple seasons or years) and within the habitat’s infrastructure (Modularity and Flexibility – MF) 7. Be functionally rich at any time with regards to the user’s (evolving) expectancies and needs (Functional Richness – FR) 8. Be compatible with the aesthetic tastes of the household (Aesthetics – A) Based on our empirical results, 101 design perspectives for HEMS appropriation and more sustainable energy efficiency were provided to the project’s stakeholders. A general recommendation regarding the vector Economies Effectiveness (#2) was that all systems should respect at least four principles:

a. Informing the customer about his/her consumption using tools that comply with at least the ISO 9241 standards, with a possible span of several years (three to four years) available, including every day, every month, and variations in rates and temperature b. Giving new means of action and management, easy to explore and use c. Providing new, easy to explore and use means of programming/adapting d. Be flexible concerning the scale of centralization/distribution of means in houses according to the expectations and needs of the inhabitants There were three types of HEMS: (1) residential energy feedback systems (providing good quality information about energy consumption and no new piloting/programming functionalities), (2) centralized control systems (providing basic piloting/ programming functionalities and basic information about consumption on a single nonmobile device), and (3) distributed control systems (providing central and local piloting/programming functionalities and basic information on energy consumptions). None of the systems articulated these four principles acceptably enough for a long-lasting appropriation. Figure 15.1 presents Mrs. Saiz’s case, going from early disinterest after the first moments of negative experiences of use (from moments 6 to 8, the moments before are first contacts, installation, etc.), to partial appropriation at the end of the study due to the accompaniment we provided during two sessions (moments 11 and 25). Our results suggest that experience dynamics displays shared properties with complex systems dynamics such as:

350

Human Factors for Sustainability

a. The unpredictability of the exact system considering past states and history b. The interaction between some components (such as the perceived gain in self-confidence when accompaniment experience is high) c. The structuration of the dynamics around main “attractors”: EUL, TFC, and AC for Mrs. Saiz This latter property implies two consequences. Firstly, a particularly positive experience (or negative) at a specific moment on a key vector can generate the bifurcation toward disinterest or higher levels of appropriation. In Figure 15.1, we see that two moments of accompaniment (#11 and #25) helped Mrs. Saiz a lot in feeling more self-confident in using the HEMS, progressively perceiving it as being easier to use. Secondly, the overall dynamics over a long period of time can be summed up by picking up just one to three vectors (e.g., Figure 15.1). Mrs. Saiz’s state of partial appropriation and mitigated experience is best described by the slow progression from negative to positive poles of experience over two years (on all vectors on average, especially for EUL and TFC, while AC stays within the negative pole and tends toward the more negative values). While these shared properties are helpful in summing up a complex process, user experience cannot be reduced to a synthetic and unsituated whole. It is impossible to make sense of these dynamics and quantitative data without verbalizations on very specific moments and situations of experience, as with moments 11 and 25, for example. One needs to understand meaningful units of lived experience in situ, along with more abstract, extrinsic, and/or quantitative descriptions of user experience over a long period of time. This is true, we think, for human factors and ergonomics studies as well as for design projects. In this latter case, ergonomists need to design tools for enabling other project stakeholders, unfamiliar with the study, to explore by themselves and understand why it is important to consider long-term dynamics of user experience and design for long-term appropriation of HEMS. Otherwise, the complexity of the user experience is too difficult to grasp. This is why we designed a mock-up of the long-term UX explorer (Figure 15.2). It helped us present our most advanced results to project managers and designers during meetings and workshops. All eight pages of the mock-up display verbatim data on user experience, quantitative results, our local analyses, and a synthesis of what happened in this moment. In this way, we offered ways to visualize the main aspects of user experience as well as details and long-term dynamics. However, this is not only a question of human-computer-environment interaction, but also one of accompaniment and service relationships, as seen with the example of Mrs. Saiz. In our study (e.g., Figure 15.1), many participants needed accompaniment and an efficient service relationship to advance their appropriation of their HEMS, sustain the first period of discovery, and transform new parts of their daily energy practices over longer periods. Indeed, we helped some participants at the end of the second data collection session in order for them to discover their HEMS (because it was not morally acceptable for us to just confront the user with his/her difficulties with the system “for scientific purposes”). We can see the effect of this accompaniment on the appropriation dynamics as a benefit. Nevertheless, out of an experimental setting, the vector “Accompaniment” could only be fulfilled if larger

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

351

and new interorganizational landscapes emerge, along with new hybridizations of technical-social skills, in order to perform a high-quality and continuous service relationship.

Designing the Service and Enabling the Interorganizational Coordination That Supports It The work on the design of service relationships demonstrated two main points. Firstly, early stages of the process of appropriation have to be strongly anthropocentric rather than technocentric (demonstrated also with the previous axis on HEMS appropriation). We then developed the notion of co-designing the project of the customer with other stakeholders. Secondly, this axis demonstrated the challenges of coordination between the various stakeholders to design an efficient service relationship over time. This section places an emphasis on this latter point. The performance of the organization for service relationships addresses the issue of coordination between multiple actors scattered over time and space (installer, project manager, system provider, customer, etc.). This transversal collective (Motté, 2012; Motté & Haradji, 2010; Poret, 2015) and cross-functional collective activity (Poret et al., 2016) goes well beyond the lines of traditional “groups” at work. It is based on preexisting crafts and local teamwork, but not reduced to it. It relies on several organizations (with different rules and objectives) and builds these organizations in return. However, the collective is scattered through several teams, departments, or even enterprises. In most cases, this type of collective is not equipped and organized sufficiently to perform well in the long term for the customer, although cross-functional collective activity (Poret et al., 2016) is key to the treatment of customer demands over a long period of time. The period between the preinstallation visit (where technicians defined what HEMS could be installed in the house of the participant/customer, technically speaking) and the installation phases illustrates this issue. This period is critical for the customer if they are not involved in the process. It is essential to make the continuation of the progress of this process visible to him/her even if his/ her contribution is not required. It is also important to make it visible to all stakeholders (installer, project manager, and HEMS/service provider) even though they do not belong to the same enterprise and are not located within the same territory. At the beginning of SEL, there was no tool to support this coordination efficiently enough for enabling a lasting appropriation of the HEMS by the customer and energy practice modifications, although the project was really committed to involve every stakeholder. The need for continuity and visibility of the actions constituting the service arose from the complexity of interorganizational connections and loose connections. Figure 15.3 illustrates this fact by formalizing a case where ten exchanges between four types of actors over three and a half months were needed to progress from the previsit stage to the installation of the HEMS. Moreover, these exchanges, mostly via e-mails (a distant and asynchronous communication), did not always include the customer and the installer. The customer was considered by the project as being there for testing solutions, not as an actor who needed to follow and understand

352

Human Factors for Sustainability

the whole (or key parts of the) process. As a result, many customers felt lost in the meandering steps and interlocutors, expecting answers but not receiving them at the right time (from their point of view), feeling like nothing was done by the other stakeholders (whereas this was not true). The results of this study and the former (on long-term UX) revealed how negative these problems are on HEMS appropriation and sustainable transformation of energy practices: After a period of use and a commitment to change energy practices, participants experienced a loss of trust in the other stakeholders, whereas these other stakeholders were trying to advance the project and their service. This is where we encounter issues of cross-functional and transactional collective activity in service organizations. In this case, they impacted energy and sustainability issues indirectly. Energy transition has to do with the development of a Power to Act Together (Poret et al., 2016) that would cross the usual organizational boundaries and enhance our experience of continuity in time as users, customers, and also maybe as citizens. The achievement of such perspectives would take decades, however. Within SEL, the team worked on the design of tools that helped the actors in re-creating a sense of time in specific situations. To summarize, these tools should help in “presentifying” the past and the future (Poret, 2015). The actor needs to see/ understand the history of exchanges between other actors, to understand what others have done in the past and what they intended to do next, in order to (re)create (presentify) a sense of the past here and now for him/herself. This is needed in order to project what should come next and what should be done. For a nonfrancophone audience, it could be compared with sensemaking in organizations (e.g., Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005), but only to a limited extent, though. A cartography of the customer path within SEL was designed in collaboration with the project manager and designer (Figure 15.4). The customer path described each stage and each stakeholder, offering the possibility to annotate and follow the main information, to see what was done in the past and what should come next. This map has two goals. Firstly, it allows the customer to better visualize his/her route/trajectory within SEL and then, as (s)he progresses, to situate himself/herself along this route, avoiding the blur between stages and interlocutors. Secondly, it was intended to be a support for the interactions between the different stakeholders (e.g., between electrician and customer during a preinstallation visit at home), enabling them to present the service and the various constituent stages that would be involved later on. This cartography was given to customers during the preinstallation stage. Sometime the partner (e.g., the HEMS provider) filled in their own coordinates as well as those of the installer at the locations provided on the map. Our results show that it appears as a reference document for the customer. For example, when we asked a customer who would he call this winter in case of a malfunction of his system, the document he immediately looked at was the map of the customer path. This map reaches our first objective, aimed at the customer. The map was also appropriated as a business card integrating all the stakeholders’ contact details. Customers appreciated the fact that all phases and interlocutors are made visible according to a progression logic because “it’s good to know where we are,” as one participant said. Some customers drew parallels with certain functionalities of some companies and/or certain public services that display this kind of map on their website when a

FIGURE 15.4  Illustration of the mapping of the customer’s path designed to help actors present past and future/potential events within SEL.

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design 353

354

Human Factors for Sustainability

process is at stake. However, this object must evolve in order to satisfy the second objective. For the stakeholders involved in SEL, the mapping of the customer journey is currently only intended for the customer. It was not used as a means of interaction and exchange with the customer to help with the relational and pedagogical dimension of the preinstallation visit or installation stages, which are characterized by a face-to-face relationship. More generally, there are three requirements for the design of a service aimed at the energy transition that we have identified: (1) leading the service relationship in an anthropocentric manner, (2) enabling and displaying the continuity of the service relationship between all stakeholders, and finally, (3) helping with the relational and pedagogical dimensions that are essential at each stage of the meeting between the customer and a service actor. The map of the customer journey alone is not sufficient for a complete energy transition, of course. To support a service that aims at energy transition, the electricity industry must also continue to evolve in terms of organization, culture (anthropocentric design and service), and skills/crafts (e.g., the pedagogical aspects to be performed by actors whose job has been “technical” for decades, such as the installer; no operators’ craft articulates technical and service skills well enough to date). Designing More Energy-Efficient Sociotechnical Electricity Grids with SMACH Activity analysis within large projects such as SEL provides rich empirical content on the local fields where energy transitions should be deployed. However, it encounters difficulties such as (for example): limited technical and human possibilities to extend the analysis to larger systems in time and space (e.g., the same territory in 20 years, other territories with different features), and limited generalization of the results for entire populations of a region or a country. As a result, it is sometimes difficult for decision makers and designers to project themselves into the future on the basis of such field studies. This largely echoes issues of complexity found in human factors and ergonomics concerning sustainability. The work carried out since early 2010s around the SMACH platform enables us to propose a methodological model consistent with the hypotheses of enaction and our approach to human activity in this context. This work has been coordinated by an ergonomist from our network from the beginning. The SMACH simulation platform consists of three parts (see Figure 15.5): the scenario, the engine of human activity, and the generation of population/scenarios. The scenario incorporates different household characteristics (number of people in the household, age, gender, possible actions, comfort preference, equipment, etc.) and has the role of generally framing of the simulation. The scenario defines the potential actions of each agent (an agent represents a person who has the possibility of washing, eating, sleeping, etc.). The engine of human activity creates the dynamics between agents. At each time step (every minute), the agents act and interact with the other agents in the situation (the members of the household) or with the environment (housing, heating systems, etc.). Thus, a scenario opens up a set of possible actions while the engine of human activity determines what will actually be done in the simulated situation. For example, an agent wants to take a walk (possible action in the scenario) but another agent

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

355

FIGURE 15.5  SMACH is composed of the activity scenario (point 1) of the engine of human activity (benchmark 2) and a generation of population/scenarios (benchmark 3).

refuses because he is already engaged in an action. In this way, we distinguish in the simulation the order of the simulation framework (the scenario) and the order of the dynamics of the agents (the motor of human activity). Until now, the goal of the SMACH team has been to conceive the realism of this simulation by respecting a certain complexity of human activity (Haradji et al., 2018) organized around a multilevel model of activity (Figure 15.6). A SMACH simulation is the result of an individual and collective activity of computer (autonomous) agents, who organize their daily life in a digital home, generating electricity consumption through their daily actions with electrical appliances, their perception of comfort and a more or less marked concern for energy efficiency. This work on consumption has been carried out by comparing actual consumption curves with simulated curves as shown in Figure 15.7. Comparisons of consumption curves has made it possible to validate the realism of electricity consumption simulations. Experts from different crafts and domains (building heating systems, economics, electric vehicles, self-consumption/autoproduction, energy efficiency, etc.) now rely on the consumption data produced by SMACH and carry out studies for future situations of electricity use. SMACH also produces activity diagrams that are used to identify times when a new offer or service can be implemented. The SMACH team is currently developing a higher level of organization, by automatizing the generation of scenarios (on the left of Figure 15.5). This could

356

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 15.6  SMACH multiple levels. (From: Huraux, Sabouret, & Haradji, 2015)

FIGURE 15.7  An example of comparison (Delenne, 2017) between a simulated consumption curve with SMACH (in blue) and an actual consumption curve for 1,000 households (in green) from year 2014, week 3, base rate.

support the simulation of millions of electricity curves in the future but would require more conceptual and technical work. The current perspective is to work around a new articulation between the engine of human activity and advanced statistical methods. The reflections of SMACH in the context of macrosystemization of human factors and ergonomics in the era of sustainability are threefold. First of all, in order to conceive a realistic and fecund “imitation of the activity” in a habitat, there is a need for reflection upon the articulation of levels of decision making relating to the modeling of human activity. In SMACH, these levels are (1) framing the design with the epistemological hypotheses of enaction and course of action, (2) applying the hypotheses based on our empirical knowledge of real

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

357

(nonartificial and nonsynthetic) human activity at home, and (3) limiting the realism of computer activity modeling when the simplifications we define do not call into question the activity and its induced effects on consumption and the objective of calculating energy efficiency. Secondly, computer simulation is not new to human factors and ergonomics and complex systems. Multiagent-based simulations must and can be a tool in the era of sustainability. With SMACH, we have not addressed all the dimensions of sustainability. But a multiagent simulation can be a powerful tool to address issues of complexity, multilevel organizations, and multiple year-long evolutions of complex systems. It nevertheless requires multidisciplinarity. The core of SMACH is the articulation between ergonomists and computer scientists. But without the contributions of experts in building thermodynamics and in equipment consumption models, we would not be able to measure the effects of the agents’ actions on the consumption environment. Thirdly, it also requires that human factors and ergonomics and other disciplines acknowledge the importance of knowledge coming from local qualitative in situ studies. The basis of the computerized models cannot be other than a strong and specific understanding of the local ecology of human action and cognition in situ, especially in the era of sustainability. Many reductions made with SMACH at a basic level were constructed on the basis of a comparison with empirical models of real activity from studies concerning household activity (Guibourdenche, 2013; Haué, 2003; Salembier et al., 2009): empirically detailed local individual activity, collective activity, and constraints/resources of interaction within a large environment such as a home. For example, Guibourdenche (2013) globally characterized human activity in a home as a multiconcern context: sequencing or conjunction of actions, anticipation or historicity of actions, interruption in activity, etc. Modeling for simulation is limited to this sequential description of the action in order to avoid too great a multiplication of possible actions and their states. This simplification, which aims to prevent the system from becoming unmanageable, is the result of a compromise considered acceptable in terms of simulating electricity consumption. Not having a richer model of in situ activity in real life would compromise our ability to specify exactly what dimension is reduced, how, to what extent, etc. Commonsense knowledge or systemic/synthetic descriptions of everyday activity are not enough if we are to respect the local ecology of our everyday actions as workers, inhabitants, and citizens. As a consequence, we may still need fine-grained models and knowledge as well as macro-models.

Toward an Enactive Research Program on Activity, Technology, and Sustainable Development The idea of this chapter was to discuss recent results on the time dimension and at the organizational level from one FACE approach within the electricity and service sector in order to understand how it would relate to recent theoretical proposals on sustainable development: ergoecology (García-Acosta et al., 2014), corporate sustainability and sustainable work systems (Zink, Steimle, & Fischer, 2008; Zink & Fischer, 2013), and sustainable systems of systems (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016).

358

Human Factors for Sustainability

Our results confirm the necessity of using the kind of multilevel approach recommended by SSoS and other frameworks such as ergoecology or human factors for sustainable development, when addressing sustainability issues in human factors and ergonomics. Within the energy domain, it means that, while studies concerning individual behavior change, mental models, or user experience can be useful, we now need to address issues of complexity at a larger scale: within the individual level over very long time spans (at least multiple years); between individuals, teams, and organizations; and toward entire ecologies. Our approach would also contest the notion that the individual is just a low level of complexity. While generally speaking, it “is” less complex than the entire earth system (to simplify), the complexity of individual human experience and activity dynamics over multiple years must not be oversimplified; neither are the interactions between actors belonging to multiple organizations simple as they engage in cross-functional collective activity. Our FACE approach proposes several theoretical and methodological advances in the direction of approaching experience, activity, and complexity at the different levels required by sustainability in human factors and ergonomics: • Understanding/intervening with individual experience in situ and over longer time scales (articulating phenomenological and systemic approaches, qualitative and quantitative methods, creating rich UX explorers for the entire projects, etc.) • Understanding/intervening with teamwork, organizational and interorganizational coordination (depicting the local dynamics of coordination, creating tools for enhancing the Power to Act Together in cross-functional collective activity) • Understanding/intervening with larger scale sociotechnical systems, larger spatiotemporal frames with SMACH (projecting onto millions of load curves, intervening with cities, proposing decades-long scenarios to project stakeholders, etc.) Complementarily, the tools/formative models developed are good “places” for interdisciplinary exchanges. The UX explorer tool (Figure 15.2), the mapping of the customer’s path (Figure 15.4), and the SMACH platform all offer important bases for deepening and also clarifying the complex issues of sustainability (here it is energy efficiency). These issues require advanced tools and methods. In turn, as these tools require further research on complexity, we agree with Thatcher (2016) that sustainability makes it mandatory to progress toward systems theory and systems thinking. A good example is the systemic nature of user experience dynamics. We plan to reinvestigate complex systems theories. Another good example is SMACH. However, to us, phenomenology and qualitative approaches with humans remain as mandatory as systemic approaches. Conversely, ergoecology (García-Acosta et al., 2014), human factors and sustainable development (Zink & Ficher, 2013), and sustainable systems of systems (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016) address issues that our research program did not treat

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

359

directly yet, but could be integrated in the future; such as issues coming from the higher level of ecology in SSoS, or those required by the PESTE factors and convergence toward the ecological-geographical factor in ergoecology. The goal of reducing energy consumption was implicitly oriented toward the level of ecology, but as such it remains insufficient. As a consequence, we are wondering to what extent could the most complex level of ecology in SSoS benefit from a multiagent simulation such as SMACH (for example)? How could it be integrated into such a simulation model covering both human activity and natural environmental phenomena? If we are to address that higher-order level of complexity, simulation may become a mandatory tool. As we have demonstrated, the compatibility of our research program with complex systems theory and sustainability issues, we see that this task is not impossible. However, a strong requirement is to base the work on an enactive epistemology and to put this in practice within our models, tools, and interventions. This would represent a highly stimulating intellectual challenge in the future, as enaction also comes from theoretical biology and a deep reflection on the evolution of living systems, societies, and artificial systems. This chapter demonstrates how FACE approaches could address interorganizational issues in the future. Another question would be: how could a situated perspective on human activity contribute to the development of a more complex level as theorized by SSoS, ergoecology or corporate sustainability, and sustainable work systems? Maybe one perspective is, beyond involving new crafts and actors within our interventions, studying their activities in order to transform a broader set of levels. Politicians and decision makers’ activities impact more directly on the higher levels of complexity (e.g., a national political choice). Maybe human factors and ergonomics could also reflect upon how their situations of work impact entire ecosystems and what tools we could build to transform their activity to ensure a better future. The relevance of this perspective must be thought through at the scale of an entire research program (over decades), not just on a single study. There would have been many other ways of addressing sustainability issues through FACE approaches and through our research program. We do not pretend that our research program represents the whole variety of FACE approaches or that this chapter presents the whole capacity of our research program. Nevertheless, this chapter demonstrates the necessity of pursuing the dialogue between sustainability approaches in human factors and ergonomics and FACE approaches in the future (e.g., Thatcher, Guibourdenche, & Cahour, accepted). This would also be a way to address issues of complexity, emergence, and relationships with social sciences approaches called for by Dekker et al. (2013), especially since FACE has a longstanding tradition of dialogue with social sciences and has already integrated some phenomenological/postpositivist approaches. This turn toward postpositivist approaches of human activity and intervention began during the 1960s for FACE. So, human factors and ergonomics might find ways of developing toward sustainability not only by looking outside of our discipline but also by pursuing a dialogue between evolving human factors and evolving FACE approaches. This chapter is a small step in this direction.

360

Human Factors for Sustainability

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Smart Electric Lyon project was supported by ADEME (The French Environment and Energy Management Agency). We thank all our participants for their engagement in the field study as well as the Smart Electric Lyon project’s members.

REFERENCES Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. Amouroux, E., Huraux, T., Sempé, F., Sabouret, N., & Haradji, Y. (2014). SMACH: Agentbased simulation investigation on human activities and household electrical consumption. In: J. Filipe & A. Fred (Eds.), ICAART-CCIS (pp. 194–210). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Barthe, B., Quéinnec, Y., & Verdier, F. (2004). L’analyse de l’activite de travail en postes de nuit: Bilan de 25 ans de recherches et perspectives. Le Travail Humain, 67(1), 41–61. Cahour, B., Salembier, P., & Zouinar, M. (2016). Analyzing lived experience of activity. Le Travail Humain, 79(3), 259–284. Carpentier, J., & Cazamian, P. (1977). Night Work: Its Effects on the Health and Welfare of the Worker. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization. Cazamian, P. (1987). La chrono-ergonomie. In: P. Cazamian, F. Hubault, & M. Noulin (Eds.), Traité d’ergonomie (pp. 465–486). Toulouse, France: Octarès. Cazamian, P. (n.d.) Préhistoire d’une Ergonomie de langue française. Retrieved from  https:// streaming-canal-u.fmsh.fr/vod/media/canalu/documents/universite_paul_verlaine_ metz_sam/histoire.s.de.l.ergonomie.1.7.l.mergence.la.constitution.de.l.ergonomie. comme.nouvelle.science.et.technologie_11579/135.cazamian.prehist_ergo.pdf. [Accessed 2 January 2018]. Creapt, C. E. E. (2014). Travail passé, activité et santé d’aujourd’hui: quels impacts des situations de travail? (No. 88). Paris Centre d’Études de l’emploi. Retrieved from http://www. cee-recherche.fr/publications/rapport-de-recherche/travail-passe-activite-et-santedaujourdhui-quels-impacts-des-situations-de-travail. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Daniellou, F. (2005). The French-speaking ergonomists’ approach to work activity: Cross-influences of field intervention and conceptual models. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 409–427. Daniellou, F., & Rabardel, P. (2005). Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: Some traditions and communities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 353–357. Dekker, S. W. A., Hancock, P. A., & Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability: Towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56(3), 357–364. Delenne, B. (2017). Analyses des 1000 simulations SMACH. Document interne. EDF R&D. Mémo E74/17/012/A. Duarte, F., Béguin, P., Pueyo, V., & Lima, F. (2015). Work activities within sustainable development. Production, 25(2), 257–265. Falzon, P. (2005). Ergonomie, conception et développement. In: Actes du 40ème congrès de la Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française.Ergonomie et développement durable. Le travail humain comme facteur de développement durable et de cohésion sociale. SaintDenis de la Réunion, 21–23 septembre (pp. 30–39). Lyon, France: ANACT. Ferber, J. (1995). Les systèmes Multi-agents: vers une intelligence collective. InterEditions. Fréjus, M. (2007). Les questions de société comme nouveau territoire pour l’ergonomie: Apports aux problématiques environnementales et à la conception de services associés. In: Actes deu 42ème congrés de la SELF-Ergonomie des produits et des services (pp. 33–41). Toulouse: Octarès Editions. Retrieved from http://www.ergonomie-self.org/ media/media41277.pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019].

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

361

Fréjus, M., & Guibourdenche, J. (2012). Analysing domestic activity to reduce household’s energy consumption. Work, 41, 539–548. García-Acosta, G., Pinilla, M. H. S., Larrahondo, P. A. R., & Morales, K. L. (2014). Ergoecology: Fundamentals of a new multidisciplinary field. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(2), 111–133. Guibourdenche, J. (2013). Préoccupations et agencements dans les contextes d’activité domestique. Contribution à la conception de situations informatiques diffuses, appropriables et énergétiquement efficaces. PhD thesis, Université Lumière – Lyon II, France. Retrieved from http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01068697. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Guibourdenche, J., Bossard, C., & Cardin, Y. (2017). Situating the “music of” households and firemen in semi-open spaces: Contribution to the analysis of collective activity’s spatiotemporal dynamics. Cognition, Technology & Work, 19(1), 191–206. Guibourdenche, J., Galbat, M., Salembier, P., Poizat, G., & Haradji, Y. (2017). Ergonomie pour le client du résidentiel (Rapport final) (pp. 1–60). Paris, France: ADEME. Haradji, Y., & Faveaux, L. (2006). Évolution de notre pratique de conception (1985–2005): Modéliser pour mieux coopérer à partir des critères d’utilité, d’utilisabilité…. @ctivités, 3(1), 67–97. Haradji, Y., Guibourdenche, J., Reynaud, Q., Poizat, G., Sabouret, N., Sempé, F., Huraux, T., & Galbat, M. (2018). De la modélisation de l’activité humaine à la modélisation pour la simulation sociale: Entre réalisme et fécondité technologique. Activités, 15(1). https:// doi.org/10.4000/activites.3106. Haradji, Y., Poizat, G., & Sempé, F. (2012). Human activity and social simulation. In: V. G. Duffy (Ed.), Advances in Applied Human Modeling and Simulation (pp. 416–425). San Francisco, CA: CRC Press. Haué, J.-B. (2003). Conception d’interfaces grand public en terme de situations d’utilisation. Le cas du “Multi-Accès.” PhD thesis, Université Technologique de Compiègne, France. Huraux, T., Sabouret, N., & Haradji, Y. (2015). Study of human activity related to residential energy consumption using multi-level simulations. In: ICAART 2015 – Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 133– 140). Lisbon, Portugal, 10–12 January, 2015. SciTePress: Setubal, Portugal. Kempton, W. (1986). Two theories of home heat control. Cognitive Science, 10(1), 75–90. Leplat, J., & Cuny, X. (1977). Introduction à la psychologie du travail. Paris: PUF. Light, A. (2006). Adding method to meaning: A technique for exploring people’s experience with technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 175–187. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. (1992). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala. Molinie, A.-F., & Volkoff, S. (1980). Quelques données chiffrées sur l’assujettissement temporel dans le travail. Le Travail Humain, 43(2), 373–389. Motté, F., & Haradji, Y. (2007). Le vendeur en ligne dans la relation de service. In: M. Zouinar, G. Valléry, & M.-C. Le Port (Eds.), Ergonomie des produits et des services – XXXXIIe congrès annuel de la SELF (pp. 257–265). Toulouse, France: Octarès. Motté, F., & Haradji, Y. (2010). Construire la relation de service en considérant l’activité humaine dans ses dimensions individuelles et collectives. In: Ergonomie, conception de produits et services médiatisés (pp. 11–35). Presses Universitaires de France. Retrieved from https://www.cairn.info/ergonomie-conception-de-produits-et-servicesmedia--9782130585527-p-11.htm. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Motté, F., & Poret, C. (2017). Ergonomie pour le service dans le résidentiel – Bilan final (Rapport final) (pp. 1–45). Paris, France: ADEME. Nielsen & Norman Group. (2017). The definition of user experience (UX). Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/definition-user-experience/. [Accessed 15 January 2017].

362

Human Factors for Sustainability

Ombredane, A., & Faverge, J.-M. (1955). L’analyse du travail : Facteur d’économie humaine et de productivité. Paris: PUF. Pavard, B., & Dugdale, J. (2006). The contribution of complexity theory to the study of sociotechnical cooperative systems. In: A. A. Minai, & Y. Bar-Yam (Eds.), Unifying Themes in Complex Systems (pp. 39–48). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Peacock, A. D., Chaney, J., Goldbach, K., Walker, G., Tuohy, P., Santonja, S., Todoli, D., & Owens, E. H. (2017). Co-designing the next generation of home energy management systems with lead-users. Applied Ergonomics, 60, 194–206. Petitmengin, C., Remillieux, A., Cahour, B., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2013). A gap in Nisbett and Wilson’s findings? A first-person access to our cognitive processes. Consciousness & Cognition, 22(2), 654–669. Poizat, G., Fréjus, M., & Haradji, Y. (2012). Ergonomics at home: Contribution to the design of a smart home lighting service. In: L. E. Freund (Ed.), Advances in the Human Side of Service Engineering (pp. 84–93). San Francisco, CA: CRC Press. Poret, C. (2015). Concevoir pour le pouvoir d’agir ensemble d’un collectif transverse : Le cas de la relation de service dans le domaine commercial. Thèse de doctorat d’ergonomie, Université Paris 8, Saint-Denis, France. Poret, C., Folcher, V., Motté, F., & Haradji, Y. (2016). Designing for the power to act together in organisations: The case of a business process. Activités, 13(2), 13–12. Revell, K. M. A., & Stanton, N. A. (2014). Case studies of mental models in home heat control: Searching for feedback, valve, timer and switch theories. Applied Ergonomics, 45(3), 363–378. Revell, K. M. A., & Stanton, N. A. (2016a). Mind the gap – Deriving a compatible user mental model of the home heating system to encourage sustainable behaviour. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 48–61. Revell, K. M. A., & Stanton, N. A. (2016b). The Quick Association Check (QuACk): A resource-light, ‘bias robust’ method for exploring the relationship between mental models and behaviour patterns with home heating systems. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 17(5–6), 554–587. Salembier, P., Dugdale, J., Fréjus, M., & Haradji, Y. (2009). A descriptive model of contextual activities for the design of domestic situations. In: L. Norros, H. Koskinen, L. Salo, & P. Savioja (Eds.), European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 131–137). Helsinki, Finland: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1690508.1690526. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Salembier, P., & Pavard, B. (2004). Analyse et modélisation des activités coopératives situées. Evolutions d’un questionnement et apports à la conception. @ctivités, 1(1), 87–99. Saravia-Pinilla, M. H., Daza-Beltrán, C., & García-Acosta, G. (2016). A comprehensive approach to environmental and human factors into product/service design and development. A review from an ergoecological perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 62–71. Sauer, J., Wastell, D. G., & Schmeink, C. (2009). Designing for the home: A comparative study of support aids for central heating systems. Applied Ergonomics, 40(2), 165–174. S.E.L.F. (2005). Ergonomie et développement durable. Le travail humain comme facteur de développement durable et de cohésion sociale. Actes du 40ème congrès de la Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française. Lyon, France: ANACT. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Teiger, C., Laville, A., Lortjoe, M., Binder, E., & Boutin, J. (1981). Travailleurs de nuit permanents rythmes circadiens et mortalité. Le Travail Humain, 44(1), 71–92. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398.

Sustainable Development and Energy Systems Design

363

Thatcher, A. (2016). Longevity in a sustainable human factors and ergonomics system-ofsystems. In: 22a semana de la salud ocupacional. Medellín, Colombia. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309606212_Longevity_in_a_sustainable_ human_factors_and_ergonomics_system-of-systems. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Thatcher, A., Guibourdenche, J., & Cahour, B. (Accepted). Sustainable system-of-systems and francophone activity-centered approaches in ergonomics: Converging and diverging lines of dialogue. Psychologie Française. Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2016). Is a green building really better for building occupants? A longitudinal evaluation. Building & Environment, 108, 194–206. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Theureau, J. (1981). Éléments d’analyse temporelle du travail infirmier. L’infirmière de l’équipe de jour en orthopédie. Le Travail Humain, 44(1), 93–107. Theureau, J. (2002). Dynamic, living, social and cultural complex systems: Principles of design-oriented analysis. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 16(4–5), 485–516. Theureau, J. (2003). Course-of-action analysis and course-of-action-centered design. In: E. Hollnagel (Ed.), Cognitive Task Design (pp. 55–81). London: Erlbaum. Van Devyver, B. (1977). Une méthode de calcul du temps d’autonomie. Le Travail Humain, 40(1), 141–160. Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of Biological Autonomy. Prentice Hall. Varela, F. J., & Shear, J. (Eds.) (1999). The View From Within: First-Person Approaches to the Study of Consciousness. Thoverton: Imprint Academic. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356. Zink, K. J., Steimle, U., & Fischer, K. (2008). Human factors, business excellence and corporate sustainability: Differing perspectives, joint objectives. In: K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive Management (pp. 3–18). Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.

16

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries (IDCs) – The Role of Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) Jessica Hutchings

CONTENTS Characteristics of IDCs........................................................................................... 365 Sustainability in IDCs............................................................................................. 366 Transport Systems in Africa.................................................................................... 371 The Current Situation......................................................................................... 372 Example of South Africa’s Railway Challenges ............................................... 373 Challenges Impacting on Sustainability ............................................................ 376 Sustainable System-of-Systems Example............................................................... 378 The Role of HFE in Transport Sustainability......................................................... 381 References............................................................................................................... 386

CHARACTERISTICS OF IDCS This chapter highlights how the sustainability of transport systems, as a safe mode of transport for freight and passengers is critical to the survival of many economies, in particular those in Industrially Developing Countries (IDCs). IDCs already face a number of challenges such as water scarcity, healthcare provision, and poor working conditions. With an increase in urbanisation in IDCs, one of the biggest challenges for IDCs is the need for reliable, efficient, and safe transport systems and infrastructure. Transport systems in IDCs are a key factor for effective and sustainable development in emerging economies. This is because transport enables trade, commerce, employment, and social interaction, bringing people together out of their immediate communities in a national and increasingly global life (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). Industrially Developing Countries (IDCs) comprise approximately 140 out of 188 countries in the United Nations (UN) and include over three-quarters of the world’s working population. These countries strive for the betterment of quality of life through economic growth (Shahnavaz, 2000). O’Neill (2000) defines IDCs as a heterogeneous array of cultures, availability of resources, and levels of infrastructure. IDCs are 365

366

Human Factors for Sustainability

characterized by high population growth, overburdening the inadequate infrastructure and exacerbating unemployment problems (O’Neill, 2000). With an increasing trend in urban migration in IDCs, this has contributed to the need to develop transport systems and infrastructure to allow for increased mobility, but also for access to healthcare, education, and work systems (World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). Despite the increase in urbanization (primarily driven by economic needs), IDCs are the most vulnerable to sustainability problems. This is because IDCs are characterized by aging and poor infrastructure, poor education systems, poverty, and poor hygiene (African Development Bank, 2015; O’Neill, 2000; Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). In terms of HFE problems in IDCs, O’Neill (2000) suggests these are attributed to the prevalence of agriculture as the primary industry, with the informal sector lacking contact with technology and where work is primarily for subsistence. Sustainable Energy Africa (2017) state that in countries such as South Africa, an example of an emerging country, the large transportation projects undertaken have generally not been primarily motivated by aspirations for sustainability but rather have been a response to the growing congestion and the persistent problem of access to transport in cities and towns. This is largely attributed to historical segregation and economic policies where many of the poor communities are located on the urban periphery. The WHO (2018) further suggests that health, environmental factors, and urbanization are additional problems for IDCs. Rapid, unsustainable, and unplanned cities are now the focal points for emerging health and environmental hazards. The quality of the urban environment is comparable to the growth in urban populations exacerbated by the increased need for sanitary and water provision (WHO, 2018). Transport has also changed, with the increase in urbanization contributing to higher noise and air pollution. It is estimated that air pollution will kill 1.2 million people annually in developing countries – higher than the developed world counterparts (WHO, 2018). Furthermore, road traffic accidents contribute a further 1.3 million deaths annually with 90% of the deaths in low- and middle-income countries. Most of these fatalities are cyclists and pedestrians and this is attributed to a degradation of the urban environment as a result of underinvestment and ailing economies failing to provide sustainable infrastructure (WHO, 2018). As O’Neill (2000, p. 634) aptly states, many IDCs are characterized by constrained economic development as a result of the combination of circumstances resulting in the “economic cycle of diseases.” Figure 16.1 illustrates this.

SUSTAINABILITY IN IDCS Transport globally is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions that pose a high risk of negative and potentially catastrophic climate change (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). In IDCs, the current transport systems and the urban environment that it serves arose in response to providing people with their basic needs. Over time, this has had an impact on transport systems, resulting in high rates of air pollution and accidents. Sustainable Energy Africa (2017) states that wealthier countries have partially mitigated some of these impacts through regulation and enforcement, for example, low carbon emission technologies. Shahnavaz (2000) states that due to complex technological, cultural, and socioeconomic factors, this hasn’t always been possible in IDCs. The rapid growth of cities in developing countries has also seen serious traffic congestion and marginalization of the poor due to constrained

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

367

Low productivity

Low working capacity

Poor health

Low income

Poor food, housing, education

FIGURE 16.1  The economic cycle of diseases. (Adapted from: O’Neill, 2000, p. 634)

mobility that threatens the transition of these societies into a more prosperous and equitable level (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). Moray (1995) argued for the discipline of HFE to turn its attention to mitigating the problems facing the 21st century. These included the shortage of water, pollution, urbanization, overcrowding, an aging population, and climate change. Moray (1995) stated that these problems will not only threaten overdeveloped countries but will prevent the less‑developed countries from improving the lives of their citizens, or as O’Neill (2000) states, allowing them to rise from the economic cycle of disease. O’Neill (2000) supports Moray (1995) by stating that human factors and ergonomics (HFE) should play a distinct role in reducing world poverty and improving the quality of life of the most disadvantaged. Today, this could be phrased as part of sustainable development. Sustainable development and sustainability have been used interchangeably (Johnston, Everard, Santillo, & Robert, 2007) with sustainability referring to “capable of being upheld” or “staying viable.” With the sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and ergonomic problems that plague IDCs, this makes sustainability more difficult to achieve in IDCs (O’Neill, 2000). However, sustainability is essential in order to meet the growing needs of the people in these countries. For this reason, Sustainable Energy Africa (2017) has noted that countries like South Africa have seen renewed pressure and new thinking directed at changing the transport system and the urban form which it serves. To do this, there are a number of hurdles to overcome, which will be highlighted in this chapter. A further concern for sustainable development in IDCs is the issue of climate change, the adaption strategies, and the ability of countries to recognize the effects of this and be able to act upon these effects. Transport systems play a role in climate change in that they can contribute through gaseous and other pollutants. Sustainability in transport systems also needs to focus on having more energy-efficient modes of transport that are also safe, reliable, and readily accessible. In looking at the vulnerability of countries to extreme climate events (droughts, super-storms, natural disasters, etc.) and their readiness to successfully implement adaptation solutions (e.g., improved economies, access to resources, political stability), the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) team of researchers highlights how

368

Human Factors for Sustainability

many countries in Africa and Asia exhibit the dangerous combination of being highly vulnerable and having low readiness levels to adapt to the effects of climate change (ND-GAIN, 2017; Sieff, 2017). ND-GAIN (2017) also calculated that people living in the least developed countries have 10 times more chance of being affected by a climate disaster than those in wealthy countries each year. ND-GAIN (2017) data show that it will take over 100 years for lower-income countries to reach the resilience levels of richer countries. This worrisome finding further emphasizes that IDCs may be the worst hit by events such as climate change and will rarely have the systems in place, if at all, to be able to handle the impacts (ND-GAIN, 2017). In IDCs, the countries least able to cope (socially and economically), and by implication likely to become sustainable, are those that will be hardest hit. Becoming sustainable in this context refers to the mere provision of the most basic of needs such as water, sanitation, healthcare, and transport. Countries that have displayed improvements in preparing for climate change (Ghana, Solomon Islands, Cape Verde, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar) showed how governance was identified as a major factor for countries improving their preparedness for climate change (ND-GAIN, 2017). Countries showing the least amount of improvement included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Macedonia, Burundi, and Brazil (ND-GAIN, 2017). Despite those countries that demonstrated improvements in preparing for climate change, Thatcher and Yeow (2016a) state that sustainability issues have no geographical boundaries as our world is interconnected. Examples of these issues include natural resource depletion, pollution, and poor working conditions (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a). Therefore, what happens in one country, the impacts or the effects may be felt by another country, suggesting that all countries have a role to play in ensuring global sustainability. Countries that do not manage their carbon footprint will negatively impact not only the environment but also existing and planned transport systems. IDCs cannot afford this as the economies of such countries rely greatly on natural resources to fuel their economies. Furthermore, there is a reliance on transport systems to move such resources and commodities. Climate change can result in damage to transport infrastructure as these are built on existing climatic conditions (e.g., bridges that are built to withstand storms that may occur once or twice every 100 years) (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). As a result of climate change, the reliability of historical climate is no longer a predictor of future risks. Transport engineers now have to consider the extreme climates and how this could impact delays, disruptions, damage, and failure in land, air, and marine transportation systems (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). The effect of climate change must be considered especially in IDCs with an emerging economy as this will affect the transportation investments, which are not only necessary to improve transportation but also the spinoff of these investments such as job creation, housing, income, etc. This would be an opportunity for citizens in IDCs to rise out of O’Neill’s (2000) economic cycle of disease. Furthermore, accidents and fatalities could increase as a result of climate change and the impact this would have on transportation systems such as railways (increased risk of derailments as high temperatures affect rail expansion), roads (storms could contribute to wash away of roads, disrupt traffic, and weaken road support structures), and air transportation (increased flight delays and closure of airports). Developing countries are traditionally perceived as backward, poverty stricken, technologically underdeveloped, and faced with health issues, socioeconomic

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

369

discrepancies, and political instability (Global Policy Forum, 2018). While this may be true in general, many of these countries have pockets of excellence where, for example, transport infrastructure is comparable to some of the best in the world (African Development Bank, 2015). An example of a group of countries characterized by a combination of high technological and infrastructure development together with low worker skill levels and high unemployment (Guimarães & Soares, 2008) are those referred to as BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). BRICS countries are characterized as being recently industrialized with a relatively high level of technological advancement and significant local geographical influence (Hutchings & Thatcher, 2017). Goldman Sachs (2007) predicted that the production and income of BRICS countries would outstrip the G8 countries by 2030. However, there is also a negative side to the BRICS situation. BRICS countries are characterized by a dichotomy between a small “elite” who have access to resources, skills, education, and services and large populations who have few skills, very basic income, and access only to basic services that are often poorly resourced (Hutchings & Thatcher, 2017). This is a conundrum for IDCs that need to build sustainable work systems that would encourage developing nations to transcend existing imbalances in current work systems. Wadongo (2014) describes some of the difficulties associated with development on the African continent. Many of the economies across the African continent are showing rapid economic growth. However, much of this growth has happened in the absence of significant policies to improve the livelihoods of the majority of people whose living conditions still remain difficult (Wadongo, 2014). Resources in Africa are abundant but are extracted and exported with little value added. While this fuels short-term economic growth, most of these “growth” benefits are not experienced by the average citizen. Instead, Wadongo (2014) argues, small pockets of investors, shareholders, and government officials reap the benefits. Much work is needed in developing countries to lift millions out of poverty and create jobs for the unemployed. As HFE professionals, our job is to assist in doing this. HFE as a profession must act to create and maintain systems to be sustainable (Moray, 1995; O’Neill, 2000; Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a). In IDCs, this may prove to be a mammoth task and requires teamwork between multicountries. A further constraint for emerging countries is the rate of accidents, fatalities, and injuries in the transport sector. If one looks at road transport, another system of systems within the transport system, the WHO states that injuries sustained in road accidents list in the top 10 major causes of death and disablement worldwide, with 1.2 million people dying and a further 20 to 50 million people suffering from nonfatal injuries per annum (Moonaghi, Ranjbar, Heydari, & Scurlock, 2016; WHO, 2017). Africa has been found to have the highest fatality from transport-related incidents rate in relation to the population, with approximately 28.2 deaths per 100,000 people, which is strikingly greater than higher income countries such as the United States, which has a fatality rate of 9.2 deaths per 100,000 people (WHO, 2017). Within South Africa, approximately 40 deaths and a further 20 people are disabled due to road accidents daily (Businesstech, 2017). Of concern is that it has recently been estimated that in one of the provinces in South Africa (Mpumalanga), this rate is said to be as high as 38 deaths per 100,000 (Arrive Alive, 2017). Besides the serious safety issues, road accidents also cost countries economically. In 2005, the financial costs of road accidents were estimated to be in the region of R38 billion,

370

Human Factors for Sustainability

and in 2016, it was estimated at a high of R142.95 billion, which was roughly equivalent to 3.4% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) at the time (Arrive Alive, n.d.). In the rail system, accidents, fatalities, and injuries are also associated with significant financial costs, added to the social, moral, and legal costs of such events. In the South African railway industry, railway operational and security incidents cost the South African economy close to R900 million during the 2015 to 2016 financial reporting period (RSR, 2016). Therefore, the costs of just road and rail accidents have a significant impact on the economy of a country, but also perpetuate the cycle of poverty or negative spiral as reported by Scott (2008) where many of the lives lost further strain low- to medium-income groups and their ability to provide for their families. Furthermore, such high costs to the South African economy, whose economy is already fragile (Faku, 2017), are not favorable as it lessens resources for other needs such as healthcare, education, housing, job creation initiatives, water, and electricity production and other state expenses that are vital in the South African government’s attempt to lessen the high inequality gap between the rich and poor. Road accidents overwhelmingly involve and impact vulnerable road users the most. Statisticians have estimated that vulnerable road users account for almost half of all road traffic deaths around the world, with estimations being higher in low-income countries, such as African countries (WHO, 2017; Chen, 2009). Vulnerable road users in the South African context typically include pedestrians, school children, cyclists, and passengers in public transportation such as taxis, trains, and busses. Transport accidents in South Africa not only impact the sustainability of the transport system, but also are a health, economic, and social issue that contributes in widening the already large inequality gap as it is mostly a burden to the most vulnerable road users who tend to be the poor or the working class (SA Yearbook Traffic Annual Report, 2016). The great concern within transportation safety literature is that the frequency of road traffic and rail accidents is continually on the rise regardless of the current safety measures in place (Larsson, Dekker, & Tingvall, 2010). Within the African context, this is greatly alarming as it was found that about 93% of road accident deaths occur in low- and middleincome countries where these countries only have 54% of the world’s registered vehicles (WHO, 2017). Given the dire state of many IDCs, there is a need for sustainable work systems. Sustainable work systems are systems that, according to Docherty, Forslin, and Shani (2002), encourage work-life balance and that meet acceptable standards for decent work. Transport systems are only one example of many “systems of systems” that need to be developed in IDCs where transport infrastructure is rudimentary and revitalized in other IDCs where the existing systems are old, unreliable, and underutilized. Transport systems are needed in order to provide citizens with access to basic amenities, the opportunities for earning an income, and connecting groups of people. Transport systems have an important role to play in sustainable development and creating sustainable work systems. They are able to provide the link for people to access cities, which are the hubs for ideas, commerce, culture, science, productivity, and social development (UN, 2018). The need for sustainable and resilient

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

371

transport systems in IDCs will enable people to advance socially and economically. However, to achieve these, IDCs need to overcome urban challenges including: the lack of funds to provide basic services and investments to overcome the declining infrastructure. Creating cities that offer opportunities for all includes transportation along with energy, housing, and access to basic amenities (UN, 2018) The UN (2018) acknowledges that to create sustainable cities for least developed countries requires support including financial and technical assistance. This is also needed to help IDCs build sustainable and resilient transportation systems. The following section highlights, though, the many challenges that IDCs still need to overcome to achieve sustainability.

TRANSPORT SYSTEMS IN AFRICA In the transport sector, a sustainable transport system is one that is cost-effective, efficient (in terms of time and service), safe (minimal accidents), secure (access controlled and provision of security against vandalism, theft, and trespasses), reliable (on time), and where emissions are reduced to have minimal impact on global climate change and health (Rajak, Parthiban, & Dhanalakshmi, 2016). Furthermore, it also needs to be resilient in variable circumstances in order to continue to provide a service whether that is for passengers or freight users (Wilson et al., 2007). This section will explore the challenges faced by developing countries by focusing on transport systems. The overall success of the transport system, an integrated network of systems, is of concern particularly in Africa given inherent and emerging conditions that face the continent’s countries (African Development Bank, 2015). Figure 16.2 illustrates the mixed transport systems evident in many IDCs. The infrastructure is mainly old with many of the vehicles retrofitted for reuse. There are multiple modes of transport, for example, trucks, taxis, motor cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, all sharing the same space with no designated lanes for different modes of transport as is more typical in developed countries. This, together with the lack of any formal infrastructure, portrays an impression of chaos, but in reality, this system functions and is well understood by the users of the system.

FIGURE 16.2  Transportation systems in developing countries (Europa.eu, 2017).

372

Human Factors for Sustainability

The Current Situation Transport systems provide the ability to move huge volumes of freight and passengers in an already energy-efficient and environmentally friendly way. In cities where public transport systems are minimal, or where there is an overreliance on using private vehicles due to a lack of a reliable transport system, this results in greater air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Older vehicles and diesel vehicles in particular are major drivers of urban air pollution (WHO, 2018). Not only is air pollution a concern, but also the lack of safe walking and cycling networks poses a risk to physical health, and transport congestion results in noise stress and traffic injuries burdening an already constrained healthcare system, especially in IDCs (WHO, 2018). One mode of transport, rail, has made a comeback in developed countries after a period of decline. In the developed world, railway transport is a mature industry (African Development Bank, 2015). In many IDCs, railways struggle to transform themselves given the poor economic, technological, and institutional conditions that constrain and pose challenges for such countries. This has resulted in outdated infrastructure, sometimes approaching a point of no return (African Development Bank, 2015). Another mode of transport, road, is also problematic in IDCs. In Cameroon’s largest city, Douala, road congestion is a major problem (Europa.eu, 2017). Cameroon has a population of more than 3 million, which is growing by more than 3% a year. In 2015, there were 100,000 new dwellers in Douala alone. The problem is that the city is concentrated on a single center that many people need to reach for work (Europa.eu, 2017). This results in streets congested with cars. Added to this is that much of the city’s economy is informal and takes place on any available public space, as it is the passers-by that the informal sector relies on for income (Europa.eu, 2017). With no more space on the roads or pavements, this poses challenges for the development of transport systems as physical space is limited. Many IDCs rely on international subsidies to finance major transport projects, but in Africa, there is not much investment in railways compared to investments in infrastructure such as roads and energy (African Development Bank, 2015). Conversely, some countries in IDCs have seen the opposite; given the rich resources that Africa has, they have seen railways as an indispensable tool to foster new development, thereby taking advantage of Africa’s natural wealth (African Development Bank, 2015). Despite receiving financial backing, many countries in IDCs still lack critical railway skills, which hinder the process of developing transport infrastructure. Rail transport has an important role to play in the growth and sustainable development of the African continent over the next few decades; however, this is dependent on greater funding to bring the infrastructure to acceptable and safe standards (African Development Bank, 2015). In comparison with the different modes of transport, rail transport is particularly favored as a result of its energy efficiency, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and lower cost per ton kilometer (African Development Bank, 2015). Cars cause congestion in cities because they take up a lot of space per person. Motorcycles or bicycles take up less, but there are safety risks unless there are dedicated lanes for the latter, which in many IDCs are not evident. Busses are safer and take up far less road

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

373

space per person but also pose safety risks when they are not adequately maintained (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). The choice of transport mode in IDCs is generally based on income, with the poor dependent on walking and public transport (where available). The rich have access to private vehicles, and in only a few countries, access to air transport and high-end transportation systems such as high-speed passenger trains (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). In terms of the conveyance of freight transportation over long distances, rail is expected to play an increasingly important role in African countries (African Development Bank, 2015). Despite the advantages of rail, the current condition of existing railway infrastructure and rolling stock is poor in many African countries (African Development Bank, 2015). Furthermore, safety concerns associated with trains and busses in the metropolitan areas, the perception that these modes are slower and are an inconvenience as there are few feeder systems into the informal settlements, and the unreliability of these services are further reasons why rail is underutilized despite being the most energy‑efficient form of public transport (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). As a result, the potential of the rail systems to play a strong contributing role in economic development has been undermined. Two of the major reasons for this are: the lack of investment in infrastructure and the absence of a supporting institutional framework (African Development Bank, 2015). Rail transport is inevitably critical to supporting economic development and, unless this mode of transport is developed, Africa may not realize its full potential in exploiting its abundant natural resources and wealth (African Development Bank, 2015). Sustainable Energy Africa (2017) adds that there is also a need for investment in operational infrastructure systems that work alongside transport systems in terms of security, fare systems, and responsive operational management. This would improve the formal public transport system. According to Eupora (2017), it is suggested that public transportation systems could remedy many of the problems faced by major cities in developing countries. Numerous cities in developing countries are jammed with cars, which pollute the air, add to global warming, and cause accidents (Europa.eu, 2017). The time that is spent stuck in traffic could be better suited to generating economic growth. In trying to overcome this, countries such as Morocco and South Africa have implemented new transport systems, “pockets of excellence,” to connect capital/metro areas. The Rabat in Morocco is a tram service that opened in 2011, but the cost of tickets was a concern, raising the question of whether it would put people off (Figure 16.3). In South Africa, the Gautrain, a high-speed passenger train connecting the two primary cities in the province of Gauteng, was operational in 2010 but only affordable for the wealthy. The success of both these solutions to transport congestion issues in IDCs has resulted in the solutions being victims of their own success (Europa.eu, 2017). Their popularity has resulted in there now being too many users and the system not meeting the increasing demands.

Example of South Africa’s Railway Challenges Using South Africa as an example of an emerging or developing country, and in particular a system within the greater transport system, the rail sociotechnical system

374

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 16.3  The Rabat, Morocco’s tram service (Europa.eu, 2017).

(Wilson, 2014), many problems associated with developing countries are evident. Challenges that the transport system faces extend as far back as the historical context of the country where the effects of colonialism and Apartheid are still evident today (Department of Transport, 2015). Rail in South Africa was pushed into acute decline in the 1980s, with this also impacting the economy of the country (Department of Transport, 2015). Apartheid contributed to socioeconomic challenges that are still in existence today; arguably, the effects of this have reduced slightly, but still the country remains stricken by disparaging gaps between the rich and poor. Today, however, there is a goal to strive for a rail renaissance to play a more pivotal role in South Africa’s macroeconomy, a fragile economy in today’s economic climate (African Development Bank, 2015; Department of Transport, 2015). In South Africa, the Department of Transport’s vision is that transport is the heartbeat of South Africa’s economic growth (Department of Transport, 2012; Bosman & Slabbert, 2016). In reality, this hasn’t been achieved as the transport system is faced with many challenges (Department of Transport, 2015; Bosman & Slabbert, 2016). As mentioned earlier, the effects of Apartheid are still a reality today. Segregation during Apartheid forced many South Africans to live far away from the cities (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017) in designated racial townships. As the wounds of Apartheid begin to heal, the increase in urbanization has resulted in those who were previously segregated now having access to the cities for work and financial gain. Commuters rely on trains, busses, and minibus taxis to get to and from work on time and safely. However, factors such as aging infrastructure, crime, vandalism, and security issues impact rail passenger safety and being on time (Railway Safety Regulator [RSR], 2016). Many passenger commuters in South Africa are often delayed by hours as their transport is delayed due to poor infrastructure and maintenance, and especially cable theft. The consequence of this is that employees arrive many hours late for work, despite having left home in the early hours of the morning. Employers do not always tolerate this and are less empathetic when this impacts their bottom line. As a result of the unreliable transport services, long

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

375

distances to get to work, and the conditions of the transport system, many commuters are at risk of losing their jobs, further exacerbating the socioeconomic balance of the country. As a result, commuters turn to violence to try to overcome these challenges, threatening drivers of trains to move irrespective of whether they can or not (and in some instances even resorting to burning rolling stock if their demands are not met), just to be able to reach their destination. The socioeconomic and historical context of many emerging countries results in an overreliance on the state to subsidize transport costs, costs that governments in such countries can ill afford. This is in conjunction with costs also required for competing demands from systems such as healthcare, education, and social welfare (African Development Bank, 2015). For these systems to meet their demands, compromises need to be made, as resources to meet the demands are limited and systems are already constrained, resulting in compromises at the expense of citizens’ mobility, safety, and security. Despite some countries having “pockets of excellence” like South Africa’s Gautrain, and its bus rapid transit systems and airports, there is still no coherent, integrated plan for a sustainable national (or even an urban) transport system (Bosman & Slabbert, 2016). Bosman and Slabbert (2016, p. 358) state that this is due to policies and strategies that are partially, if at all implemented, in addition to the country suffering from a “damaged DNA.” The DNA is analogous to the human DNA but in transportation terms. Bosman and Slabbert (2016) use the term to refer to the culture, vision, strategy, and purpose of transportation. South Africa’s “damaged DNA” is explained by the disabilities of the South African transportation system where issues relating to its culture, vision, strategy, and purpose have affected creating a sustainable transport system. The disabilities of the current transportation system in South Africa are most likely to be similar for other IDCs and can be summarized as: • The Socioeconomic factors describe where many people live in rural areas with little transport infrastructure, services, and means provided to access places of work; • Urbanization has resulted in more people moving to the cities and or needing to find work in the cities resulting in increased demands on the available (limited) transport infrastructure of cities; • The Sociopolitical factors include, for example, the aftermath and effects of Apartheid in South Africa impacting on poverty and access to transport infrastructure based on the historical racial divides; • Safety and security – underinvestment in transport infrastructure as a result of historical, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical factors has resulted in transport infrastructure, including trains and stations in poor conditions, beyond the maintenance lifecycle and therefore unsafe for passengers, especially daily commuters, contributing to an increased number of accidents and incidents; • Limited availability of specialized technical and skilled professionals – as a result of an underinvestment in transport infrastructure in general, this has also resulted in an underinvestment in developing skilled professionals to equip emerging countries from advancing transport systems;

376

Human Factors for Sustainability

• Reduced government funding – in order to address the capital investment backlog and underdevelopment in transport infrastructure, many emerging countries require government and external funding to develop, advance, and maintain transport systems. However, funding for transport is limited due to shrinking tax bases and the need for more critical social spending such as healthcare, sanitation, energy, and social services; and • Bureaucracy and limited independence – most of the infrastructure is owned by the state, and with the inherent problems discussed above, this has contributed to the inefficiencies displayed in the transport system.

Challenges Impacting on Sustainability Railway development and managing its sustainability provides a number of opportunities for IDCs and can be seen as a way of minimizing the effects of O’Neill’s (2000) cycle of economic diseases. Rail is able to handle the growing urbanization and industrialization transportation challenges. Furthermore, given the rich natural resources in Africa, rail is a suitable transport means to move large volumes of goods (African Development Bank, 2015). These goods need to be moved to ports for distribution in the supply chain, providing many landlocked countries in Africa with the need to build high-capacity and efficient transport corridors. In contrast to private motor use, rail offers a reduction in noise, pollution, and congestion. For transport systems to be sustainable, African countries and other IDCs like Argentina and India need to overcome poor institutional environments and bureaucracy. Much needed investments and funding to sustain transport systems in the above countries have rather been spent by private operators involved with regulators and politicians in corrupt activities rather than in really trying to improve safety and service standards for the majority of users (African Development Bank, 2015). The challenges facing emerging countries and sustainable transport systems highlight the important need for the HFE profession to ensure not only the sustainability of systems within these countries but also global sustainability. One cannot ignore the sustainability of systems in emerging countries as this will have an emergent impact on systems in developed countries. The world today exists within a network of globally connected systems (Walker, Salmon, Bedinger, & Stanton, 2017). So, for example, a poor transport infrastructure in one part of the world has implications for the supply of raw materials and products in another part of the world. An example of how the sustainability of a transport system is a challenge for developing countries is particularly evident in South Africa. Bosman and Slabbert (2016) argue that on the surface, the transport authorities function properly. However, the statistics portray a different picture: • Freight logistics costs 12.8% of GDP. This is approximately 50% higher than in the United States and 20% higher than in Brazil. • Thirty percent of the national and provincial road network is in a very poor condition.

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

377

• Road traffic deaths in South Africa are the 37th highest in the world (this is despite having fewer road vehicles than most of the countries higher on the list). • South Africans spend on average 10 working days per year stuck in traffic. A passenger train company in South Africa is as an example used to explain the difficulties of creating a sustainable transport system in IDCs as the company is faced with many inherent and emerging challenges. Their primary goal is to provide commuters with safe and reliable transport. In being able to do this, they require, among many other resources, rolling stock, a rail network, train drivers, along with many other system components. Due to the historical context of South Africa, as discussed earlier, this contributed to an underinvestment in rail, where rolling stock and the rail network have to some extent reached their end of the life cycle maintenance window with infrastructure older than 30 to 40 years and therefore no longer reliable (Department of Transport, 2015). The unsustainability of a transport system has a direct impact on the economy of the country. Sustainable transport goals such as meeting the present transport and mobility needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own transport needs is important in IDCs (Bosman & Slabbert, 2016; Rajak et al., 2016). Bosman and Slabbert (2016, p. 363) state that for South Africa to achieve a sustainable transport system, it needs to move from its existing “disabled” situation. The sustainability of the transport system is further hampered by the economic climate and economic challenges that developing countries are faced with. This has meant that the rate of procurement, development, and replacement of the aging infrastructure is slower than the increase in the user population, urbanization, and the socioeconomic needs of the country. Furthermore, the system is constrained by a shortage of train drivers who have either retired (and with this a loss in skill and experience) and where moratoria of recruiting staff as a result of the economic climate have further exacerbated an already constrained system. The demands by the commuters to use the system (due to the ability to urbanize and opportunities for work) have increased, but the system is unable to meet this capacity (Sustainable Energy Africa, 2017). Therefore, with an already depleted number of rolling stock and number of train drivers, the system cannot achieve its objectives – that is, to be sustainable. The negative consequence of this has been an increase in accidents, fatalities, and injuries (RSR, 2015) as well as an increase in commuter pressure to the extent that commuters burn trains, vandalize railway infrastructure, and threaten train drivers because they feel they are not safely transported from A to B. In less than one month, four trains were burned, costing the passenger rail company R19 million (Hlati, 2018). In response to this, the organization stated that commuters should find alternative transport as the company did not have busses to offer commuters during peak times. This in itself illustrates how the poor, who rely on subsidized transport from the government, struggle where the transport system and many other systems of interest are unsustainable. These arson attacks were attributed to service delivery protests and highlight the behavior that citizens adopt when their basic needs (transport, water, and sanitation) are not met (Hlati, 2018).

378

Human Factors for Sustainability

The conundrum that organizations such as this are faced with on a daily basis has become bigger than what the organization is equipped to deal with. This type of behavior has to be escalated to the highest levels within the country, the government, and its parliament to be able to address these fundamental issues to ensure that rail is a sustainable system of systems. Culturally, the behavior that is displayed in developing countries when services are not provided, or systems do not work as they are intended to, is to destroy the very resources that are required (i.e., citizens feel that they are only listened to when they resort to extreme forms of violent protest). This is a way of vocalizing citizens’ demands for basic needs as a result of economic and political frustration. These behaviors stem from frustration within the system where citizens are not provided with basic resources in order to fulfil a particular function. Furthermore, a lack of integration between the different system of systems and a very top-down flow of information contributes to the frustrations and conflicts experienced by average citizens. These citizens already live in countries that are characterized by a dichotomy between a small “elite” who have access to resources, skills, education, and services and large populations who have few skills, very basic (if any) income, and access only to basic services that are often poorly resourced (Hutchings & Thatcher, 2017). Therefore, the only way to be heard is to destroy the very resources that they are fighting for, further exacerbating an already constrained system. System principles such as feedback, flow of information, and integration are important for the success of the system (Shorrock et al., 2014), but in many IDCs, these would appear to be broken given the statistics and characteristics highlighted in this chapter. As HFE professionals, this is an example of a challenge that we need to assist with by applying our knowledge of systems thinking. Systems thinking views the world as a set of interrelated elements (Walker et al., 2017) that is important for ensuring global sustainability.

SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM-OF-SYSTEMS EXAMPLE Since HFE is concerned with the sociotechnical systems, of which rail is an example, the problems highlighted in this chapter can be illustrated using the sustainable system-of-systems (SSoS) model for HFE (Figure 16.4) developed by Thatcher and Yeow (2016b). The SSoS model for HFE has three major components: (1) a nested hierarchy of complexity; (2) a focus on multiple, simultaneous goals; and (3) consideration of issues over time. In HFE, the system of interest (or the starting system of interest) is called the target system. In this case, this could be the rail sociotechnical system. Systems at the same level of complexity and size that interact with the target system are called sibling systems. Systems that are smaller and less complex are called child systems (there may be several orders of size and complexity). Systems that are larger and more complex are called parent systems (once again, there could be several orders of size and complexity). These are not eternally fixed but should be seen as relative to the target system. A specific system may be a target system in one context, a sibling system in another context, a child system in another context, or a parent system in another context.

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

379

FIGURE 16.4  Sustainable system-of-systems model (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016b).

Figure 16.5 explains the SSoS model (from Figure 16.4) but is used to illustrate the rail sociotechnical system in South Africa and potentially other IDCs. In South Africa, the greater transport system of which the rail sociotechnical system forms part of would be the first-order parent system. The rail sociotechnical system can be defined as the target system and the sibling system. A child system may be railway infrastructure, or commuters/users of the system. The rail sociotechnical system or target system cannot be viewed in isolation but rather the co-relationships with the sibling system and the parent and child systems, which are the larger and smaller systems, respectively (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016b). With time, the child systems’ life spans, for example, the infrastructure, has aged, reaching its natural life span before being decommissioned. In the meantime, the number of users has increased with time given urbanization and the need to work

FIGURE 16.5  SSoS model for the rail sociotechnical system.

380

Human Factors for Sustainability

closer to the cities. This system is therefore imbalanced as the resources to meet the demands are not matched, threatening to destabilize the child systems and even the sibling and parent system(s). The rail sociotechnical system (i.e., the sibling system), as a result of this imbalance, becomes unsafe, inefficient, and incapable of meeting the demands of the users. This will therefore also destabilize the first-order parent and second-order parent systems where government subsidies reach their limits and the economy of the country suffers as people cannot get to work, or spend most of their time waiting in traffic with delays in the public transport systems impacting on work efficiency and productivity. Therefore, the rail sociotechnical system, and the bigger public transportation system cannot be sustainable if the system of systems is not sustainable (i.e., safe, efficient, reliable, and affordable). HFE researchers and practitioners can learn from the systems approach, particularly those involved in the transport sector and in the safety of these systems. By focusing on a systems approach, this allows both groups to look beyond traditional approaches that have generally focused on the micro‑level. This does not imply that microergonomic studies are outdated, or no longer necessary, but rather a wider, more sociotechnical systems approach should be adopted to address the fundamental challenges highlighted in this chapter for IDCs. Safety is an emergent property of a system and is a result of the interactions, goals, and information flow in the system. This may be workplace safety, safety related to accidents and incidents, and worker safety. Safety needs to be considered from a systems perspective rather than at an individual or worker level. Researchers and practitioners can no longer just focus on physical, cognitive, and psychosocial HFE methodologies to improve work systems and workplace safety (Carayon, Hancock, Leveson, Noy, Sznelwar, & van Hootegem, 2015). Instead, HFE researchers and practitioners can now look at other systemic factors and how they can impact safety. For example, the effects of regulations (over/underregulations), the regulator’s role and competence to execute, statutory consistency and clarity, economic climates, and governmental barriers are only some examples that can be investigated in transport systems and how these affect the safety of such systems. These may be seen to be wider scale issues, but these are important considerations that the profession must address. As Reason (1990) initially identified, when accidents occur, the human being may be at the sharp end, but there are factors outside of the human system that led to, and contributed to, the decisions or actions made by the human at the time that must be investigated. He highlighted factors within the organizational system while today many of the sociotechnical system models include bigger system levels such as the role of government, regulators, and even society. HFE researchers and practitioners need to acknowledge that this is because everything in a system is connected to something and nothing is completely independent. Bearing this in mind will enable HFE researchers and practitioners to broaden their scope, become more dynamic in their thinking and application, and allow for innovative solutions to address the challenges faced by IDCs. Therefore, going beyond the individual and considering the systemic factors that arise from sociotechnical systems functions and interactions must be the future way forward for HFE work in IDCs.

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

381

THE ROLE OF HFE IN TRANSPORT SUSTAINABILITY This chapter provides a synopsis of the status of sustainability in transport systems in IDCs, using African countries as an example. The findings highlight that much work is needed in sustainable development in IDCs. The role of HFE, both the discipline and as professionals, can make a contribution to this development and in particular in transport sustainability. It is evident that transport provides the network to connect many systems of interest together. The impact that transport systems, or the lack thereof, have on other systems such as healthcare and education emphasizes the fragility that IDCs have to contend with and try and overcome. What is needed of HFE professionals in emerging countries is the application of systems thinking in order to address these unique challenges. Consideration of the bigger picture – i.e., the global system and the interconnected world that we live in as a result of improved technology connecting everything and everyone (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a) – is required. HFE professionals can help countries with “disabilities” by applying in practice what is researched and written in many of our publications. The focus cannot only be at a micro‑level but rather on the “mega system” and its demands and expectations on emerging countries. Emerging countries will be able to rise to benefit from the global system, but this will take time and considerable effort from all fields. Transport systems need to provide safer and more efficient access for people to get to jobs, services, and social opportunities (WHO, 2018). According to the WHO (2018), there are strategies for healthy and sustainable transport systems. While much focus is given to climate change and reducing the health effects, sustainable transport systems need to be healthy to reduce traffic-related health risks from air and noise pollution and injuries (WHO, 2018). WHO (2018) states that strategies should include well-designed transport policies and infrastructure investment priorities that can lead to reductions in traffic-related health risks from air and noise pollution and injuries. HFE professionals, through their knowledge and understanding of design principles and system optimization, should play a more active role in designing safer and accessible transportation systems. In the railway industry, this could be for both passengers and train drivers, and may include secure station design, ergonomics of the train driver’s cabin, and the implementation of communication systems both auditory and visual that can ease commuter frustration and improve train services. While these may be well implemented in IACs, there is a fundamental need for HFE professionals to be more vocal and active in infrastructure upgrade projects in IDCs. In 2015, the UN adopted a resolution dealing with Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where it was announced in this resolution the plan for people, the planet, and prosperity (Bosman & Slabbert, 2016). The UN adopted 17 goals to transform our world, referred to as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although these do not specifically list sustainable transport as a unique goal, they do include sustainable transport under “Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable for all” (UN, 2018). Specifically, mention is made of “providing access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable

382

Human Factors for Sustainability

situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons” (UN, 2018). Again, the role of HFE is fundamental as the recognition of the capabilities, needs, and limitations of people (the essence of HFE) in developing countries must be a part of the process from the onset, rather than retrofitting First World countries’ adoptions, practices, and requirements and expecting these to suffice. Factors such as literacy levels, educational differences, and social-economic challenges must be incorporated by local HFE professionals in IDCs who have an appreciation of their own circumstances when designing or implementing transportation systems, and the subset of the “systems of systems.” HFE professionals need to make themselves known to organizations such as the WHO and the UN and actively participate in the development of these policies. Perhaps this may already be the case in developed countries, but in IDCs, because of the shortage of HFE professionals and because the application of HFE is not widespread in most IDCs (Shahnavaz, 2000), this may be a possible reason for the difficulty in implementing the SDGs. HFE professionals and the discipline play an active role in achieving organizational safety and efficiency. A criterion for sustainability, in particular in transport sustainability, is a safe system that meets the basic needs of the users. Therefore, why is it that HFE professionals are not actively involved in this area and working more closely with national policy makers and imparting their knowledge to ensuring that these systems meet the demands of the users? Transport provides access to jobs, education, services, and recreational activities (WHO, 2018). Low-income and vulnerable groups of populations, for example, woman, children, the elderly, and disabled, have less access to personal vehicles and rely on walking and public transport. Transport systems must not only be environmentally friendly (less air and noise pollution) but they also need to ensure the health and safety of the users of the system and the surrounding communities. Accessibility for the poorest and most vulnerable in society also needs to be at the forefront of designing sustainable transport systems. The WHO (2018) states that in many cities in developing countries, public transport remains unsafe, inefficient, inaccessible, and unaffordable to many of the poor. For example, in Manila (Philippines), on average 14% of the income of poor households is spent on transport-related expenses versus on average only 7% of the income of the nonpoor (WHO, 2018). As the HFE discipline, what role are professionals playing in working with governments, communities, cities, policy makers, and nongovernmental organizations in designing transport systems that are safe for pedestrians, public network users, and disadvantaged groups? Our domains of specialization (physical, cognitive, and organizational HFE) are fundamental in the design of sustainable systems. The International Ergonomics Association (IEA, 2018) states that “ergonomics promotes a holistic approach in which considerations of physical, cognitive, social, organisational, environmental, and other relevant factors are taken into account. Ergonomists often work in particular economic sectors or application domains.” This definition of what HFE professionals do suggests that we are more involved in the sustainability of systems than practice suggests. O’Neill (2000) supports the need for the HFE approach to be integrated into all national development plans that are aimed at combatting poverty. Again, in IDCs, this may be attributed to the relatively low status of HFE (O’Neill, 2000) but also due to political,

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

383

institutional, and financial characteristics of IDCs already highlighted in this chapter that inhibit the work of HFE professionals. Thatcher and Yeow (2016b) talk of a sustainable system-of-systems model; therefore, other system elements that form part of a transport system need also to be considered. Barriers to accessible transport further exacerbate other sustainability issues, especially for low-income and vulnerable groups. Therefore, without adequate mobility, access to jobs, social and recreational networks, schools, and health services are also impacted (WHO, 2018). As HFE professionals, we really need to be focused on adopting a systems approach. O’Neill (2000) questions whether there is the international will to assemble the necessary resources to help countries as stated by Moray (1995) that require the help to grow in the face of the challenges of rising populations and falling natural and economic resources. As HFE professionals, we need to practice what we preach when we talk about a systems approach and together look at reducing the severity of global problems. Therefore, HFE professionals within the global transport systems should collaborate more closely and closer with transportation engineers. Multicountry, together with multidisciplinary, teams need to be developed to ensure consistency in terms of HFE practice across the value chain. In this way, learning, sharing, and closer collaboration can be achieved with the benefits of our discipline being obtained for all. O’Neill (2000) states that IDCs have a uniqueness and provide challenges for HFE professionals that are not at odds with developed countries. O’Neill (2000) advocates for a more integrated approach. Therefore, HFE must play a leading role in all the different levels in the system of systems, including international plans, standards, policies, and also national development plans relating to transportation investment to combat the problems highlighted in this chapter. While this is a mammoth task for HFE professionals, it is needed for global sustainable development. In terms of transport sustainability, HFE can play an important role. As IDCs develop to build new transport systems and integrated networks, the understanding of “user needs” (i.e., citizens) is fundamental. After all, HFE is about being “human centric.” Therefore, an understanding of how people use a city, how people move from a train to the bus system, and who the other interest groups may be are roles in multidisciplinary teams that HFE professionals should be fulfilling. Technical expertise is required in developing transport systems (Europa.eu, 2017), but with challenges in IDCs such as strategies changing after every election and political interference, this makes the continuity of a vision difficult. Urban planning, which includes transport systems, requires technical competencies and not only politicians, where this may be difficult in developing countries (Europa.eu, 2007). These facts further emphasize the difficulty for HFE professionals in IDCs playing a leading role in the design of sustainable transport systems. Obtaining buy-in from national institutions in IDCs and convincing them of the benefits of the profession is required in order to gain support and financial capital. For example, in South Africa, rail is a national asset whose effectiveness impacts the whole economy and society. Recent developments have been made with the rail regulatory body acknowledging the importance of the discipline of HFE in achieving safer railways (RSR, 2015). This is a positive step in the right direction that other IDCs can follow.

384

Human Factors for Sustainability

HFE professionals strongly need to implement what happens in policy, research, standards, and guidelines developed by ourselves as subject matter experts. The issues highlighted in this chapter are indeed HFE problems that need an HFE solution to truly ensure that transport systems are sustainable. In Zink’s (2014) article on supply chain ergonomics, HFE professionals need to be involved throughout the value chain in a world that is very much interconnected. HFE professionals need to participate, get involved, fix, heal, and mend the wounds that currently are still evident in developing countries. As the supply chain network highlights, the value chain or life cycle extends far beyond where the resources are accessed from, distributed to by transport systems, and manufactured somewhere else to be sold in another part of the globe (Zink, 2014; Thatcher & Yeow, 2016a and b). The question that arises is, where are all the HFE professionals working together in these value chains or supply chain networks to truly ensure an integrated, safe transport system? For example, the procurement of locomotives from China to Africa cannot just be done without the consideration of HFE professionals’ input. In particular, the anthropometry of the Chinese population differs from that of the African populations. A subsequent result of failing to apply HFE principles can further exacerbate the risk for injuries and accidents, and contribute to wasteful expenditure relating to redesign, training, and retrofitting. HFE is important in the design of transport systems and must be considered from the beginning of the design life cycle. This is a complex problem for us as HFE professionals, but as Dekker, Hancock, and Wilkin (2013) argue, sustainability needs to embrace complexity and emergence in resolving HFE problems. Thatcher and Yeow (2016a) affirm that problems associated with sustainability are not limited to the local context but extend to a variety of distributed contexts. Are HFE professionals in IACs more focused on their local context rather than looking at the entire supply chain? In IDCs, given the limited number of HFE professionals and institutions that offer this competency area, the question that arises is, how well entrenched is HFE in transport systems in IDCs? For example, HFE professionals play an important role in transport accident investigations, but as identified in research conducted in South Africa in the railway industry, little to no HFE professionals are involved in railway investigations (Hutchings, 2017). This can negatively impact accident and incident rates, as the failure to include HFE and a systems approach can negatively impact the validity of the findings and therefore the reliability of the recommendations. This silo approach may be a contributing factor to the disparate development between IDCs and developing countries, or as highlighted by Thatcher and Yeow (2016b), the asymmetries that exist in our world. Participatory HFE should be extended to encompass the work of HFE professionals from all parts of the world and not only the problems of the affluent, technologically advanced world (Moray, 2000; Scott, 2008). HFE professionals in such countries need to impart their knowledge, get involved in international or foreign projects, and share their skills with IDCs to further advance the profession and application of HFE. Furthermore, these authors suggested that there is considerable opportunity for HFE to make more of a difference in the problems found in IDCs. Thatcher, Waterson, Todd, and Moray (2018) argue that today very little work has been published on addressing the complex and dynamic systems

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

385

that underpin global HFE problems that were highlighted by Moray (1995, 2000). These authors affirm that the discipline of HFE requires development to truly tackle global issues with system HFE and macro HFE approaches that are greater in scale. It could be further indicated that the system’s principles such as integration, feedback, and flow of information also need to be practiced within and between the developing and developed world to address global HFE problems and sustainable development. HFE is about establishing sustainable work systems (Hutchings & Thatcher, 2017) – our job is to address the problems of safe workplaces, healthy working conditions, and the opportunity for decent work. In transport systems, train, truck, road, crane operators, etc. all require work environments that are decent, safe, and healthy. Health and safety legislation no matter how perfect on paper is only effective if it is implemented and managed. In IDCs, this type of legislation may exist (possibly due to international labor legislation, e.g., the ILO and less so to do with the moral, social, and economic imperatives) but whether it is enforced is debatable given the large number of fatalities, injuries, and accidents reported earlier. This leads to the question as to why human life is so cheap in the developing world and valued in the developed world. In the developed world, countries tend to focus on enhancing the quality of life while in developing countries, the focus is trying just to provide the most basic of needs (Kapoor, 2015). Furthermore, is this because population sizes in IDCs are much greater than IACs; therefore, if lives are lost, for example through transport accidents, the numbers are immaterial relative to the population size. Many may not agree with this, given the ethical logic, but the argument has merit when little is done to improve the health and safety of working conditions in IDCs as is evident in the reported statistics in this chapter. As citizens, we must not ignore that we are also accountable for own actions and therefore reckless behavior on roads makes us equally responsible as the failings of governments in creating a safe and secure society (Kapoor, 2015). HFE professionals can contribute to creating a just and humane society, with our knowledge of just culture and how this can be applied to, for example, transport accident investigations. Safe workplaces, healthy working conditions, and the opportunity for decent work are much needed in IDCs where countries are plagued by poverty, political instability, fragile economies, and poor infrastructure. It was acknowledged that while “pockets of excellence” do exist and are exemplary examples, there are still too few countries in IDCs that do not have access to the most basic of human needs. For HFE as a discipline to play a fundamental role in the sustainability of systems in IDCs, HFE professionals cannot succeed without the right type of supportive environments (Hutchings & Thatcher, 2017). HFE professionals need to collaborate more with experts from occupational health, political, and economic sciences to understand the complexity of global sustainability. While IDCs can learn much from the developed world, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sustainable public transportation systems can remedy many of the problems discussed in this chapter facing IDCs. However, the success of this will be in the balancing of the appreciation of the uniqueness of developing countries, and the characters and identities of its people, with the needs for safer, cleaner, and more efficient transport.

386

Human Factors for Sustainability

REFERENCES African Development Bank (2015). Rail infrastructure in Africa: Financing policy options. Cote d’Ivoire. Retrieved from https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/ Documents/Events/ATFforum/Rail_Infrastructure_in_Africa_-_Financing_Policy_ Options_-_AfDB.pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Arrive alive. (n.d.). Arrive Alive. Retrieved from 2003 traffic offence survey: comprehensive Report on fatal crash statistics on road traffic information. Retrieved from https://www. arrivealive.co.za/2003-traffic-offence-survey-comprehensive-report-on-fatal-crashstatistics-and-road-traffic-information. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Arrive Alive. (2017, March 26). Arrive Alive. Retrieved from https://www.arrivealive.co.za/ decade-of-action-for-road-safety-2011-2020. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Bosman, J., & Slabbert, G. F. B. (2016). A route towards sustainable transport in South Africa. In: Proceedings of the 35th Southern African Transport Conference (SATC 2016)CSIR: Pretoria. Businesstech. (2017, June 9). South Africa’s shocking road death numbers at highest level in 10 years. Retrieved from https://businesstech.co.za/news/motoring/178275/south-africas-shocking-road-death-numbers-at-highest-level-in-10-years/. [Accessed 27 January 2018]. Carayon, P., Hancock, P., Leveson, N., Noy, I., Sznelwar, L., & Van Hootegem, G. (2015). Advancing a sociotechnical systems approach to workplace safety – developing the conceptual framework. Ergonomics, 58(4), 548–564. Chen, G. (2009). Road Traffic Safety in African Countries – Status, Trend, Contributing Factors, Counter Measures and Challenges. New York: Baruch College. de Guimarães, L. B. M., & Soares, M. M. (2008). A future with less of a gap between rich and poor. Ergonomics, 51(1), 59–64. Dekker, S. W., Hancock, P. A., & Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability: Towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56(3), 357–364. Department of Transport. (2012). Welcome to Department of Transport South Africa-online. Retrieved from http://www.transport.gov.za/. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Department of Transport. (2015, August). National Rail Policy: Green Paper. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Transport. Retrieved from http://www.transport.gov.za/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0MTIGeNPZ8s%3D&tabid=334&mid=1800. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A. B. (2002). Sustainable work systems. In: P. Docherty, J. Forslin, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating Sustainable Work Systems (Vol. 213, No. 225, pp. 213–25). Routledge. Europa.eu. (2017). How to get cities moving: Public transport challenges in developing countries. Europa.eu. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/articles/how-get-citiesmoving-public-transport-challenges-developing-countries. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Faku, D. (2017, July 12). SA’s fragile economic climate highlighted. Business Report. Retrieved from https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/sas-fragile-economicclimate-highlighted-10248800. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Global Policy forum. (2018). Policy and development in Africa. Retrieved from https://www. globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/poverty-and-development/poverty-anddevelopment-in-africa.html. [April 8, 2019] Goldman Sachs. (2007). BRICS and Beyond. London: The Goldman Sachs Group/Global Economics Department. Hlati, O. (2018, June 26). Metrorail services between Philippi and Chris Hani still suspended. Independent Online. Retrieved from https://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/news/metrorailservices-between-philippi-and-chris-hani-still-suspended-15689178. [Accessed 27 January 2019].

Transport Systems in Industrially Developing Countries

387

Hutchings, J. (2017). Systemic Factors in the Investigation of South African Railway Occurrences (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/23846. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Hutchings, J., & Thatcher, A. (2017). Systemic challenges in supply chain ergonomics. (pp. 193–199) In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Conference of the Association of Canadian Ergonomists and 12th International Symposium on Human Factors in  Organisational Design and Management Association of Canadian Ergonomists, Banff, Canada. International Ergonomics Association. (2018). What Is Ergonomics? Retrieved from https:// www.iea.cc/whats/index.html. Johnston, P., Everard, M., Santillo, D., & Robèrt, K. H. (2007). Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 14(1), 60–66. Kapoor, A. (2015). Why is human life so cheap in the developing world and valued in the developed world? Business Insider India. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider. in/why-is-human-life-so-cheap-in-the-developing-world-and-valued-in-the-developedworld/articleshow/47386148.cms. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Larsson, P., Dekker, S. W. A., & Tingvall, C. (2010). The need for a systems theory approach to road safety. Safety Science, 48(9), 1167–1174. Moonaghi, H. K., Ranjbar, H., Heydari, A., & Scurlock, L. (2016). Truck drivers experiences and perspectives regarding factors influencing traffic accidents: A qualitative study. Workplace Health and Safety, 63(8), 342–349. Moray, N. (1995). Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-first century. Ergonomics, 38(8), 1691–1707. Moray, N. (2000). Culture, politics and ergonomics. Ergonomics, 43(7), 858–868. Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative. (2017). About Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative University of Notre Dame. Retrieved from https://gain.nd.edu/about/. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. O’Neill, D. H. (2000). Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Does its application differ from that in industrially advanced countries? Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 631–640. Railway Safety Regulator. (2015). State of Safety Report 2014/2015. Retrieved from http://rsr. org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/RSR-State-of-Safety-Report-2015-web-Part-A.pdf and http://rsr.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/RSR-State-of-Safety-Report-2015web-Part-B.pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Railway Safety Regulator. (2016). State of Safety Report 2015/2016. Retrieved from http:// rsr.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/RSR_SafetyReport_PART-1.pdf and http://rsr. org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/RSR_SafetyReport_PART-2.pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Rajak, S., Parthiban, P., & Dhanalakshmi, R. (2016). Sustainable transportation systems performance evaluation using fuzzy logic. Ecological Indicators, 71, 503–513. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, P. A. (2008). Global inequality, and the challenge for ergonomics to take a more dynamic role to redress the situation. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4), 495–499. Shahnavaz, H. (2000). Role of ergonomics in the transfer of technology to industrially developing countries. Ergonomics, 43(7), 903–907. Shorrock, S., Leonhardt, J., Licu, T., & Peters, C. (2014). Systems Thinking for Safety: A White Paper. European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol). Retrieved from http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2882.pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Sieff, J. (2017, April 4). Annual index reveals biggest movers in climate change adaption. Notre Dame Global Adaptation Imitative University of Notre Dame. Retrieved from https://gain.nd.edu/news/annual-index-reveals-biggest-movers-in-climate-changeadaptation/. [Accessed 27 January 2019].

388

Human Factors for Sustainability

South Africa Yearbook. (2016). Transport. Retrieved from https://www.gcis.gov.za/sites/default/ files/docs/resourcecentre/yearbook/Transport2017.pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Sustainable Energy Africa. (2017). Sustainable Energy Solutions for South African Local Government: A Practical Guide. Cape Town: Sustainable Energy Africa. Retrieved from https://www.sustainable.org.za/userfiles/transport(1).pdf. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Thatcher, A., Waterson, P., Todd, A., & Moray, N. (2018). State of science: Ergonomics and global issues. Ergonomics, 61(2), 197–213. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. (2016a). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. (2016b). Human factors for a sustainable future. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 1–7. United Nations. (2018, July 6). Sustainable Development Goals. 17 Goals to transform our world. United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Climate impacts on transportation. Retrieved from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climateimpacts-transportation_.html. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Wadongo, E. (2014). Africa rising? Let’s be Afro-realistic. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/nov/07/ africa-rising-lets-be-afro-realistic. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Walker, G. H., Salmon, P. M., Bedinger, M., & Stanton, N. A. (2017). Quantum ergonomics: Shifting the paradigm of the systems agenda. Ergonomics, 60(2), 157–166. Wilson, J. R. (2014). Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 5–13. Wilson, J. R., Farrington-Darby, T., Cox, G., Bye, R., & Hockey, G. R. J. (2007). The railway as a socio-technical system: Human factors at the heart of successful rail engineering. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 221(1), 101–115. World Health Organization (WHO). (2017). WHO. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/roadsafety/en/. [Accessed 27 July 2017]. World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Transport and health. Retrieved from http://www. who.int/sustainable-development/transport/en/. [Accessed 27 January 2019]. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132.

17

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland – A Multistakeholder Approach to Improve Occupational Safety and Health Arto Reiman, Tuula Räsänen, Louise Møller Pedersen, and Seppo Väyrynen

CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 389 Methodology........................................................................................................... 391 Case Description................................................................................................ 392 Procedure........................................................................................................... 392 Results .................................................................................................................... 393 STPNF as a Microergonomics and Macroergonomics Construct ..................... 393 Stakeholder Perspectives on the Training.......................................................... 395 Discussion............................................................................................................... 399 Considerations of Organizational Level Influences........................................... 399 Considerations on Influences at the Societal Level............................................400 Conclusion .............................................................................................................402 Acknowledgments...................................................................................................402 References...............................................................................................................402

INTRODUCTION The construction industry is among the most challenging industries worldwide regarding occupational safety and health (OSH). Accident figures are high, and no significant signs of OSH development have been identified (Lander, Nielsen, & Lauritsen, 2016; Ringen, Duivenbooden, & Melius, 2010). In addition to risks for different types of accidents, construction work contains several other factors that have been identified as causing adverse health effects to personnel at construction sites. Construction 389

390

Human Factors for Sustainability

work is associated with various psychosocial discomfort and stress factors related to job characteristics and organizational and social aspects (Sobeih, Salem, Daraiseh, Genaidy, & Shell, 2006; Sobeih, Salem, Genaidy, Abdelhamid, & Shell, 2009). Work tasks at construction sites also include physical discomforts and hazards such as difficult and repetitive working positions and manual lifting and transfers. In addition, changing weather conditions and exposure to industrial hygiene risk factors such as chemical substances, whole-body and hand-arm vibration, noise, and dust are common in the construction industry (Boschman, van der Molen, Sluiter, & FringsDresen, 2012; Guo, Yiu, & Gonzalez, 2016; Rwamamara, Lagerqvist, Olofsson, Johansson, & Kaminskas, 2010). From an organizational perspective, construction sites are highly complex. Construction sites and work environments are in a constant change due to the nature of construction work. Almost all construction sites, and certainly large sites, can be considered shared workplaces because employees from several different employers are working on their specific area of expertise (Häkkinen & Niemelä, 2015; Ismail, Doostdar, & Harun, 2012). Such multiemployer worksites are most often run by a principal employer (or principal contractor) while a variety of different tasks may be outsourced to other service providers. Electrical installation, heating, plumbing, ventilation, and sanitation engineering work can be considered as typical examples of such tasks. Employers working at a shared workplace all have their own perspectives and interests at hand. Further, they might value OSH differently (Loushine, Hoonakker, Carayon, & Smith, 2006). OSH at a shared workplace is, however, ultimately dependent on the principal employer’s OSH management practices and processes. Managing this kind of a multiorganizational complexity is a challenge. When this complexity is inadequately managed, different kinds of problems and risks occur at the construction site level. Typically, these are realized in practice as ineffective processes, such as quality errors, schedule delays, litigation costs, and nonproductive time, but they also represent an increased level of different types of risks and hazards. The employees that comprise the workforce at construction sites are often lesseducated males representing different nationalities (Demirkesen & Arditi, 2015; Wilkins, 2011). On the front lines, these employees face these complex challenges in practice at sites (Loushine et al., 2006). Based on above references highlighting the complexity of a construction site as a work environment, we point out that OSH management is often forced to rely on employees having adequate skills, knowledge, and competence to cope with these challenges. OSH trainings, in their various forms, are commonly used to improve the OSH skills, knowledge, and capability of personnel (Demirkesen & Arditi, 2015; Ricci, Chiesi, Bisio, Panari, & Pelosi, 2016). Traditionally, the common culture at construction sites has at least indirectly acknowledged accidents as a “natural part of the work” (Loushine et al., 2006). However, some signs of a cultural change have been recognized, and a vision of zero accidents (e.g., Zwetsloot et al., 2013) has taken root in the Finnish construction industry. Larger construction companies in Finland can be considered forerunners and signposts as they have publicly shared their visions on zero accidents (e.g., Zwetsloot et al., 2013). Within the OSH literature, this cultural change is paralleled

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland

391

by newer approaches to OSH management that focus on quality, corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate sustainability (CS), business ethics, and providing and securing safe operations and safe processes in all kinds of circumstances, instead of accepting the occurrence of risks for accidents and injuries at sites (Loushine et al., 2006; Zwetsloot et al., 2017). Recent OSH literature calls for increasing the knowledge on these OSH training approaches and their effects at different levels (Ricci et al., 2016; van der Molen et al., 2018). A novel approach to OSH trainings has been created in Finland by introducing the Safety Training Park (STP) concept (Reiman et al., 2019). The STP concept has risen from the Finnish construction industry’s need to improve OSH performance at construction sites. STPs are based on an underlying assumption that OSH performance is improved when OSH skills and knowledge are increased at the personal level and, ultimately, at the team, worksite, and organizational levels. The STP concept has sparked interest outside Finland as well; for instance, in Sweden and Denmark, different stakeholder groups representing construction have shared their visions on creating STPs for their purposes. We see STPs as a part of a historical development toward a more proactive and humancentered approach to OSH in the Finnish construction industry. Further, as STPs have been developed, designed, constructed, and financed largely by commercial stakeholders representing mainly construction industry, we see that as a concrete sign of both CSR and CS (see van Marrewijk, 2003; Zink & Fischer, 2013). We see STPs as constructs that foster stakeholder dialogue between the construction companies but also between construction industry and other stakeholders. Further, as OSH can be associated to value creation at various levels and human capital development and management at large, we see STPs have the potential to influence CS more broadly. Based on the references above, we conclude that the focus of OSH should be aimed toward organizational and proactive actions, instead of focusing merely on the occurrence of accidents and injuries. One such proactive action is safety training (Vredenburgh, 2002). In this chapter, we focus on the STP in northern Finland (hereafter, STPNF). Objectives of this qualitative and interpretative chapter are twofold. In the first phase, the STPNF concept is presented and discussed as an ergonomic construct with channels for influence by both microergonomics and macroergonomics. In the second phase, to facilitate more in-depth discussion, empirical interview material reaching from the trainee group level to top management is analyzed to highlight the effects that the STPNF trainings can have at the personal and organizational levels.

METHODOLOGY This study is based on case study premises. Case studies can be used to develop new understandings of social phenomena in different contexts through analytical generalizations from empirical and theoretical material (Yin, 1994). Multiple methods can be used in case studies, but often qualitative methods are given preference. Hence, the goal of a case study is detailed descriptions and explanations of social phenomena in its context and not statistical generalization.

392

Human Factors for Sustainability

Case Description STPNF can be considered a complex interorganizational construct with the potential to affect various levels. From the macroergonomics perspective, the emphasis in this study is on describing the STPNF as an output of multiorganizational collaboration. From the microergonomics perspective, the emphasis is on individual learning potential, that is, determining the most effective kinds of training in STPNF and the changes the trainings have initiated. Thus, in this article, we discuss STPNF both as a microergonomics and macroergonomics construct. The STP concept and STPNF, in particular, are presented in detail by Reiman, Airaksinen, Väyrynen, and Aaltonen (2015) and Reiman et al. (2019). Here we just provide a short description of STPNF to facilitate and deepen our case study analysis. The STP concept is a unique Finnish-born safety training innovation. STPs are physical learning environments. The trainings in STPs are based on training points that include simulated work environments mainly from the construction industry. All three Finnish STPs share a similar structure with several different training points all representing typical work environments in the construction industry. The major differences between the three STPs in Finland are based on their ownership and consortium arrangements. The first STP, Rudus STP, is owned by a single company, whereas STPNF was designed, constructed, and financed in a multistakeholder cooperation of more than 80 organizations and is managed by the STPNF Association. The structure of the third STP, located in eastern Finland (STPEF), is close to the STPNF. However, STPEF is operated by and located inside the national Emergency Services College. The coverage of the Finnish STP network can be considered somewhat exhaustive, as all major cities in Finland are located within a maximum of 200 kilometers from the nearest STP. The 21 STPNF training points are described in detail by Reiman et al. (2015, 2019). In the STPNF design phase, each one of the training points was nominated by a master organization (or organizations) from the consortium members. In fact, the master organizations led the design and construction process of each training point; however, the STPNF Association controlled the overall process as an entity. Master organizations covered the expenses related to the design and construction of the training points. Expenses related to the STPNF training environment as a whole, including infrastructure and surface construction, electricity works, and cleaning and maintenance, are covered by the STPNF Association. A description of the expenses is provided by Reiman et al. (2019).

Procedure The first phase of our case study is based on the STPNF document analysis and interviews. The documents analyzed cover written training point descriptions and a trainer’s training material. The second phase analyzes stakeholders’ perspectives on STPNF in general and on the effects of the trainings. This part of the analysis is based on interview material. Both individual and focus group interviews are used in this study. The focus group interviews focus on one trainee group from a local unit (~400 employees) in a large

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland

393

multinational service company providing services to the construction industry and other branches. The company’s main services concerning the construction industry are related to construction site cleaning and sanitation. Thus, the work tasks their personnel provide at construction sites can be considered physically demanding. The company has had all of its regional personnel trained in the STPNF. The trainee group visited the STPNF in June 2015. The first focus group interview was arranged one month after the training session, and the second interview occurred one year after the training. Seven interviewees (three females and four males representing four employees and three foremen) participated in the first session, and four interviewees (one female and three males representing two employees and two foremen) took part in the second session. In addition, the regional director and the managing director were interviewed separately after the focus group sessions. Along with the company-specific interviews, a focus group interview was arranged for three experts (all male) representing the STPNF Association. The interviews lasted from 48 to 92 minutes, and all interviews were recorded and transcribed. To enliven the analyses, direct quotations from the interviews (translated from Finnish to English and proof checked by a native English-speaking professional) are used in this chapter. In addition to the interviews, annual loss-time injury frequency rates (LTA1: injuries leading to one or more days of absence from work per million working hours) concerning the local unit were collected.

RESULTS STPNF as a Microergonomics and Macroergonomics Construct In the first phase of our analysis, we discuss STPNF as a construct, resulting from stakeholder collaboration. The approach to using STPNF may vary from one organization to another. However, from the construction company point of view, the main objective for STPNF is to serve as an environment in which the company can train its own personnel. The trainings can cover all the training points, or they can be tailored to fit the needs of the trainee group. This adaptability was recognized as one cornerstone of the trainings toward larger, long-lasting improvements in OSH performance. A top management representative pointed out that when planning STPNF trainings, the organization must have settled goals for how they deal with the visit to STPNF: “We are willing to have a push forward and that you must take each employee into consideration and start leading them towards the common targets.” Besides organization-specific objectives to train their own personnel, STPNF was also seen as a forum through which the STPNF consortium members can publicly share their willingness to affect society at large. STPNF membership can even be seen as part of the CSR as emphasized by a top management representative: “This [STPNF] is some kind of a sign of social responsibility to participate on safety development action. If you invent something, you will give it to me, and if I invent something, I’ll give it reciprocally to you. . . . We will compete [with] each other with something else, quality for instance.” The STPNF creation process as a whole can be discussed as a multistakeholder collaboration phenomenon starting from the early design phases. As a means to

394

Human Factors for Sustainability

engage organizations in the STPNF process, organizations voluntarily selected the topics that they were willing to have training on in the STPNF. To avoid overlapping topics, the STPNF Association coordinated the topic selection process, nominated master organizations, and steered those with similar interests to collaborate. The importance of this collaboration steered by the Association is emphasized by an expert interview quotation: “It was like when the common topic was found, it simultaneously created commitment to construct the training point. A common understanding was found that this kind of ´voluntary work´ is not such a kind that you will be doing something that someone else has planned. Instead, you are actively thinking what are the issues that you are willing to have trained in that training point.” A vast majority of the training points were designed and constructed in such collaboration processes between the stakeholder organizations. The participatory design and construction process just described aimed to have the most important aspects related to OSH at construction sites covered at the STPNF training points. Figure 17.1 shows an aerial photograph of STPNF training points related to construction site logistics, road construction work, and excavation protection. In addition, dummies representing good and bad solutions are shown. The master organizations provided written descriptions of the training points, which included intended training approaches and expected learning outcomes. Our analysis of the training point documents revealed both microergonomics and macroergonomics aspects. To contribute to holistic OSH management, macroergonomics at the organization level and interorganizational practices were identified in the documents. A majority of these organizational training aspects were related to construction design and planning processes aiming to work safely at shared workplaces. Thus, a majority of the training points include training aspects in which

FIGURE 17.1  Training points X, XI, XIII, XIV, and XX. See Table 17.1 for further information on the training points.

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland

395

construction site planning and collaboration are discussed. Depending on the trainee group, the training point discussions may cover different stakeholders’ duties and responsibilities, as well as good practices related to early phase design processes at construction projects. However, the trainee group may also deepen their discussion into concrete microergonomics aspects. For example, the training point discussions may contain hazard identification exercises followed by discussions on good risk management practices reaching all the way to the selection of proper personal protective equipment (PPE) at certain work phases. Table 17.1 presents the analysis results concerning the intended training point contents from microergonomics and macroergonomics aspects. The major idea for learning in the STPNF is that while OSH information is shared via different channels (visual, auditory, texts, videos, kinesthetic learning) simultaneously, the trainers aim to provoke discussion on experiences and beliefs among the members of the trainee group. Thus, the trainings include an important peer learning element. To enliven the information sharing and the learning experience, simulated work environments are used that represent real-life working situations. Figures 17.2a and 17.2b illustrate the arrangements at training points IV (Construction work for house technology) and XIII (Reconstruction work). In Figure 17.2a, the dummy and the simulated work environment represent good practices related to asbestos removal processes. From the microergonomics perspective, the training includes aspects related to asbestos as an exposure and the selection of proper PPEs, for instance. As a macroergonomics aspect, the training point discussion may be extended to asbestos legislation, permissions to work with asbestos, and the isolation of the work environment where asbestos work is performed. Figure 17.2b represents macroergonomics problems related to bad planning, that is, overlapping with different tasks. However, the discussion may be – once again – reaching to various microergonomics aspects, such as identifying different risks, discussion of risk management practices and communication skills.

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Training As mentioned, the employees within the construction industry vary greatly regarding their OSH interests, skills, and knowledge. Good OSH performance is highly dependent on the compliance of the workers to the common laws, rules, and practices. A positive attitude toward OSH is a prerequisite. STPNF training aims to provide a positive learning experience that has long-term effects and facilitates changes in individual behavior. Long-term effects include not only safe performance at construction sites but also increased understanding of the broad consequences of bad OSH reaching from the individual level to the family level and beyond. Understanding the variety of different consequences of their own actions is an important first step toward employees making changes in their behaviors. One employee emphasized this point: “From that you figure out, that if a severe occupational accident occurs, it touches not only the injured person and his or her fellow workers, but that there are mothers, fathers, wives and children back at home waiting. It makes you think about your actions.” Demonstrated bad working environments stirred thoughts on possible consequences. One interviewee raised the following issue: “It [Excavation protection

396

Human Factors for Sustainability

TABLE 17.1 Training Points and Their Intended Microergonomics and Macroergonomics Training Aspects Training Point

Macroergonomics Training Aspects

Microergonomics Training Aspects

I. Safety management, responsibilities, and safety planning

• Different stakeholders’ duties and responsibilities • Structure of the safety organization

• Personal OSH responsibilities at work • Accident consequences

II. Access control and gray economy III. Construction work for foundations and framework

• Contractor’s obligations and liability • Orientation to work at shared workplaces • Concrete element storage arrangements • Construction site fencing • Timetable planning

• Personal requirements and permissions • Fall arrest systems, routes, and scaffoldings at high-rise buildings • Concrete pumping • Vault molding • Workplace cleanliness • Lifting ergonomics • Floor casting and chipping • Grinding of walls and ceilings • Construction site lighting • Assisting devices and tools • Signs and signals • Using handheld tools • Working at levels and hoists

IV. Construction work for house technology V. Construction work inside houses

• Dust control at construction sites

VI. Lifting and hoisting safety VII. Tools, working levels, and personal passenger hoists VIII. Reconstruction work

• Planning of lifting and hoisting at construction sites • Arrangements for working at heights

IX. Property maintenance

• Chemical safety arrangements • Arrangements for situations while working alone • Construction site logistics arrangements

X. Transits and transportation at sites

• Exposure management at sites • Development of damp housing

• • • • • • • •

XI. Dangers in excavation work XII. Dangers of overhead lines XIII. Traffic control in roadwork

• Excavation protection planning

XIV. Asphalt work

• Planning of asphalt construction sites

• Planning of working with overhead lines • Traffic control planning at roadwork sites

• • • • • • • •

Weather guards for roof work Scaffolding solutions Roof work practices Occupational exposures Ventilation installation maintenance Electricity works Ascending and descending the cab Shadow areas of heavy machinery Pressurization of tires at site Excavation protection solutions Typical hazards Working with overhead lines Commonly used control systems Typical hazards Commonly used machinery Typical hazards (Continued)

397

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland

TABLE 17.1 (CONTINUED) Training Points and Their Intended Microergonomics and Macroergonomics Training Aspects Training Point XV. Construction within industrial processes XVI. Single-family house construction work XVII. PPE exhibition

XVIII. Industrial services XIX. Fire safety training

Macroergonomics Training Aspects • OSH requirements and permission to work at industrial sites • OSH requirements and duties related to constructing single-family houses • Guidance on PPE selection • Chemical safety and storage at sites • Risk management planning for employees working alone • Fire safety planning

XX. Excavation protection

• Excavation protection planning

XXI. Slips and falls

• Expenses related to slipping accidents • Slip safety campaigns

Microergonomics Training Aspects • Zero-energy state for the machinery • Welding OSH and ergonomics • Fall arrest protection systems at single-family house construction sites • Commonly used PPEs

• Typical hazards related to working at industrial sites • Fire safety training • Commonly used hand extinguishers • Protection solutions • Different pipes and cables • Sand spreader solutions • Slip-resistance solutions

FIGURE 17.2  (a) A visualized example of a training point representing good practices related to asbestos work and related to (b) bad timetable planning.

398

Human Factors for Sustainability

training point] was a frightening demonstration. Really . . . very thought-provoking to consider that such excavation pits can be seen everywhere. You don’t think, when you are digging that the ground may fall over you.” Another emphasized how it was a surprise “how the visibility from a big bucket loader can be such a bad, that you actually can run over a car without even noticing it.” STP was seen as a forum through which participants could show their willingness to cause change at various different levels. Concerning the training experiences, both the interviewed trainee group and the top management interviewees identified the most effective elements from the STPNF trainings as demonstrations of good and bad working environments and solutions complemented with group discussions. Discussion of examples of good solutions was strongly concentrated on working at heights and the use of PPE and other tools and devices. A top management representative put it this way: “those concrete examples on fall arrest systems and PPEs, so that you see what kinds of solutions are available . . . the discussions on good practices and perceived hazards. It can be seen as preventative measure.” When discussing PPEs and other devices, the training brought an understanding of the variety of existing choices. This was emphasized by a foreman: “there were a variety of different PPEs that you were able to touch and test.” This started a discussion related to procurement, as emphasized by another interviewee: “That there are [a] variety of alternatives available. Now you know where to ask.” Some of the interviewees were also able to identify practical changes on some working practices after the trainings. One interviewee pointed out that “It was a new thing to me, that you should – every time you pick up a personal hoist – have a written permission where the users are named,” and another emphasized behavioral changes at a personal level by saying how important it is “to act as an example when communicating OSH to your employees.” The above-mentioned examples illustrate the level and quality of the experiences one month after the training. The interview was repeated one year later for the same interviewee group in order to facilitate discussion on more permanent changes. Similar to the earlier interview, demonstrations of good and bad examples were emphasized. The interviewees interlinked some of the good practices to certain changes at their workplaces. For example, one interviewee emphasized how he has begun to think about safety when using ladders: “that you consider how high you can go, how many footsteps there can be and what kinds of equipment you should have.” Another participant had noticed a change in the safety observation level but also noted the difficulties related to having long-lasting effects: “right after the training, there was a bit more safety observations than normally it would have been.” However, the interviewees also pointed out that “maybe one month later, the situation concerning the safety observations was normal and that the trainees were enthusiastic about that for about one month, but now it seems to be left behind. Thus, you should have such (trainings) more constantly.” This statement highlights well that the singular trainings, regardless of the training environment and approach, are not enough but must be tailored to organization’s continuous development processes. Table 17.2 summarizes the above-mentioned elements of the STPNF trainings that supported long-term learning at a personal level and provides possibilities and initiatives to the larger work community level. In addition, the table lists the identified concrete changes in behavior.

399

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland

TABLE 17.2 Training Elements Supporting Learning and Identified Concrete Outputs One Month After the Training Training Element

Concrete Outputs

Demonstrated good solutions, especially on • Working at heights • Fall protection • PPE

Led to concrete discussion regarding whether good solutions are available and possible to put into use Some identified changes at personal/team level: • On how to use personal hoists • On using PPE • On communicating OSH to others

Demonstrated bad working environments and videos demonstrating different hazards at construction sites

Thought-provoking examples that led to the following: • Considering the consequences of bad OSH by the demonstrated accidents • Considering that similar kinds of bad working environments can be identified also at home and leisure time, for instance, when performing normal maintenance and repair issues at home or when walking by excavation areas on public streets

Group discussions and sharing of experiences

Concretize discussion on accident consequences: • Accidents affect many people other than the injured person • Thought-provoking discussion that has lived on still after one month of the training

DISCUSSION Considerations of Organizational Level Influences Based on a comprehensive review, Hale et al. (2010) emphasize the importance of organizational procedures and commitment to OSH as well as constructive dialogue between the employees and management. Modern vision zero thinking supplements and deepens that by steering and encouraging OSH processes and interventions to go deep into the personal level. That requires understanding of human factors and their management. The variation of human activities in uncertain and changing situations is emphasized in construction work. Traditionally, much of the OSH responsibilities have in practice been placed at the construction sites and/or the individual employee. Thus, OSH is strongly dependent on personnel skills, knowledge, and competence. However, very little scientific proof has been shown on the effectiveness of the current OSH training practices (see, e.g., van der Molen et al., 2018). This study provides a descriptive analysis of the Finnish STP concept. STPs aim to increase OSH at the personal level by providing new kinds of OSH trainings. An assumption is that increased OSH skills and knowledge at a personal level lead to increased OSH performance at the construction site and organization levels. However, measuring and analyzing such progress is very complicated because various other aspects and actions may affect this complex OSH entity. Therefore, it is important to learn to understand factors that are connected to individual and organizational learning. New training solutions and activities should strengthen and

400

Human Factors for Sustainability

support long-lasting learning. In addition, organizations’ processes should provide adequate support for their personnel to apply new skills and knowledge in practice. This may require organization and construction site-level development processes. Our analysis highlights that simulated work environments – containing both good and bad work practices and supplemented with peer discussions – are the most effective training elements in STPNF. The changes in behavior that were identified in the interview one year after the training indicate long-term learning potential for the STPNF trainings. However, the material is very limited, preventing any generalization of these findings. Further, it must be noted that our interview material was not punctual from individuals representing the construction industry, as personnel from a service company were interviewed. However, interviewees worked at continuously changing worksites (including construction sites), and their work contained similarities with construction work (e.g., physical work and working at heights), so the STPNF training environment fit well with their training purposes. As supplementary material complementing our analysis, we collected accident statistics from the observation unit – the service company’s northern Finnish personnel (n ~ 400). Loss-time injury frequency decreased from 40.1 in 2014 to 14.9 in 2015. As the company had all of its regional employees trained in the STPNF in 2015, there is a temporal connection between the performance improvement and STPNF trainings. However, due to various changes in organizational structures, there are no comparable data before 2014, and from 2016 and later. Before 2014, the company was divided in branch-specific sectors. Since 2014, the company has had an organizational structure that is based on regional sectors. However, in 2016, the division of the regional sectors changed. From a strict scientific standpoint, such changes are problematic and unwanted, as they interfere with interpreting causality (Pedersen et al., 2012). On the other hand, these changes are very common in dynamic real-world organizational interventions – especially in the construction sector. Based on the unofficial estimations concerning the observation unit by the top management interviews, the LTA1 frequency level has remained at a lower level, thus indicating that long-term OSH improvements, human capital development, and value creation have been achieved. Even though this quantitative examination of the OSH figures was limited and speculative, we see this as an initiative for future research.

Considerations on Influences at the Societal Level STPNF is an innovative OSH training approach that is based on participatory ergonomics premises. A broad collaboration of 80 stakeholder organizations enabled the learning environment, which would not have been possible for any of the organizations to do alone. In addition to having expectations at the individual and organizational levels, the STPNF is also focused on broader societal-level effects. For example, the STPNF has made a decision contributing to social sustainability that all schools and universities get access to a free membership to use the STPNF learning environment. With expectations for having a long-term influence, this has also been identified as a sustainable solution supporting CSR and CS to increase the OSH skills and knowledge of the future workforce. Groups from preschool children to university students have been trained in the STPNF (see Reiman et al., 2018), and

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland

401

STPNF trainings have been included in the curriculums of local educational organizations for construction employees and engineers. The question arises regarding how effectively STPs in their current form reach young people. Out of the microergonomic view, expectations have been stated that STPs should be developed to include even more activating training. Kinesthetic learning, virtual reality (VR), and other digital learning platforms and games could also be tested and utilized in the STP environment. In addition, the STPs could take a stronger stand on holistic safety, covering not only OSH at working hours but also reaching outside that by influencing safety behavior at home and during leisure time. Consequently, for one’s part, this would be a small step toward promoting understanding about holistic well-being (see, e.g., Fostervold et al., 2018; Reiman & Väyrynen, 2018). The present learning approach in STPs is based on provoking individual thinking. This idea of affecting personal behavior could extend to holistic safety thinking and health and well-being in general by having training points that discuss home and leisure time as well as urging trainers to steer discussions at the training points to cover issues that occur outside of working hours. For example, while training on roof work safety, the discussion could easily be steered to more general information about safe actions at heights. Similarly, instance ergonomics and PPEs could be discussed outside work environments with minor changes in the training points. As another future research initiative beyond the STPs and concerning the STPNF stakeholder consortium, we propose to continue future collaboration approaches. As mentioned, STPNF contributes to individuals, organizations, and beyond. We see that the STPNF consortium has proven its capability to collaborate, which is essential for sustainable changes in the construction sector. We call for new initiatives to continue and deepen that collaboration. We raise the question as a future research and development challenge whether and how the STPNF consortium could contribute to stakeholder management at construction sites. As an example, we bring out how Finnish process industry collaboration has led to common procedures and tools related to supply chain management, focusing especially on identifying problems and deviation sources related to supplying companies’ health, safety, environment, and quality performance at industrial sites. For instance, Väyrynen et al. (2016) have discussed this long-term collaboration more in depth. We propose to the STPNF consortium as a future research and development action to seek and develop similar approaches for construction site management. The consortium should seek OSH approaches that reach from the principal employer to all subcontractors inside the value chain. This could mean, for instance, common OSH trainings and following development discussions in the STPNF. For its part, to raise more interest in the top management level, STPNF could expand and serve as a forum in which not only OSH but also the typical environmental and quality errors and problems faced at construction sites are concretized and supplemented with conclusive information on existing solutions. As the adaptability of the trainings already is a basic characteristic, these issues could be supplemented within reasonable development resources. Even though OSH is recognized as a keen element of CSR (see European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2004), such a development process would increase further the possibilities to discuss STPNF as a concrete proof of multistakeholder collaboration on CSR.

402

Human Factors for Sustainability

In this chapter, we have highlighted the potential that STPs have in improving OSH and well-being in the construction sector. While STPs have gained large interest in Finland, we see that the concept has also international potential. The STP concept as a training environment itself is rather simple. However, the complexity comes from the collaboration aspects. We see that this kind of a broad collaboration requires commonly shared vision and goals. Further, we highlight the participatory design and development aspects of STPNF. As a future research challenge, we raise up a question whether the concept would be accepted outside Finland as it is or whether the concept would evolve to something else.

CONCLUSION This chapter introduces a unique OSH training approach, namely Safety Training Park, by the Finnish construction industry and identifies key learning aspects related to the STP trainings. STP trainings aim to provoke positive changes of behavior at the individual level, leading further to improved OSH performance at the construction site and organization levels. Special attention is paid to the STP in northern Finland (STPNF), which is an output of a multiorganizational collaboration. STPNF is discussed as an ergonomics construct that has expectations for a broad influence all the way to the societal level, but especially at the individual level. As a joint construct by the construction industry stakeholders, STPNF can be considered a concrete sign of CSR and CS aiming to foster stakeholder dialogue and promote not only current employees’ OSH and well-being but also affecting future workforces’ skills, competences, and knowledge. This study documents the STPNF as a macroergonomics construct and discusses the effects at the microergonomics level by highlighting the simulated work environments and representing good and bad solutions as the training elements with the most potential for long-term learning. The STP concept has gained broad interest in Finland inside the construction industry but also from the stakeholders representing other industries. STPs are concrete learning environments and thus not removable. However, the STP concept could be adopted into use outside Finland. Concrete actions toward STPs have been made in other Nordic countries. Future research and development actions should be aimed at deepening the collaboration processes inside the consortium in Finland and on studying the transferability of the concept outside Finland.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund (project grant number 114368).

REFERENCES Boschman, J. S., van der Molen, H. F., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2012). Musculoskeletal disorders among construction workers: A one-year follow-up study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 13(196). DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-196. Demirkesen, S., & Arditi, D. (2015). Construction safety personnel’s perceptions of safety training practices. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1160–1169.

Safety Training Park in Northern Finland

403

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Safety and Health at Work. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Fostervold, K. I., Koren, P. C., & Nilsen, O. V. (2018). Defining sustainable and “decent” work for human factors and ergonomics. In: A. Thatcher & H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities (pp. 47–76). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Guo, B. H. W., Yiu, T. W., & González, V. A. (2016). Predicting safety behavior in the construction industry: Development and test of an integrative model. Safety Science, 84, 1–11. Häkkinen, K., & Niemelä, V. (2015). Accident sources and prevention in the construction industry – Some recent developments in Finland. In: S. Väyrynen K. Häkkinen, & T. Niskanen (Eds.), Integrated Occupational Safety and Health Management – Solutions and Industrial Cases (pp. 17–24). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Hale, A. R., Guldenmund, F. W., van Loenhout, P. L. C. H., & Oh, J. I. H. (2010). Evaluating safety management and culture interventions to improve safety: Effective intervention strategies. Safety Science, 48(8), 1026–1035. Ismail, Z., Doostdar, S., & Harun, Z. (2012). Factors influencing the implementation of a safety management system for construction sites. Safety Science, 50(3), 418–423. Lander, F., Nielsen, K. J., & Lauritsen, J. (2016). Work injury trends during the last three decades in the construction industry. Safety Science, 85, 60–66. Loushine, T. W., Hoonakker, P. L. T., Carayon, P., & Smith, M. J. (2006). Quality and safety management in construction. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17(9), 1171–1212. Pedersen, L. M., Nielsen, K. J., & Kines, P. (2012). Realistic evaluation as a new way to design and evaluate occupational safety interventions. Safety Science, 50(1), 48–54. Reiman, A., Airaksinen, O., & Fischer, K. (2019). Safety training parks – Cooperative initiatives to improve future workforce safety skills and knowledge. In: S. Bagnara, Tartaglia, S. Albolino Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol 825 (pp. 669–678). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Reiman, A., Airaksinen, O., Väyrynen, S., & Aaltonen, M. (2015). HSEQ Training park in northern Finland – A novel innovation and forum for cooperation in the construction industry. In: S. Väyrynen, K. Häkkinen, & T. Niskanen (Eds.), Integrated Occupational Safety and Health Management – Solutions and Industrial Cases (pp. 145–153). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Reiman, A., Möller Pedersen, L., Väyrynen, S., Sormunen, E., Airaksinen, O., Haapasalo, H., & Räsänen, T. (2019). Safety training parks – Cooperative contribution to safety and health trainings. International Journal of Construction Education and Research.15(1), 19–41 DOI: 10.1080/15578771.2017.1325793. Reiman, A., & Väyrynen, S. (2018). Holistic well-being and sustainable organizations – A review and propositions. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 11(5), 321–329. Ricci, F., Chiesi, A., Bisio, C., Panari, C., & Pelosi, A. (2016). Effectiveness of occupational health and safety training: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(6), 355–377. Ringen, K., van Duivenbooden, J. C., & Melius, J. (2010). Construction safety and health – Foreword. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53(6), 551. Rwamamara, R. A., Lagerqvist, O., Olofsson, T., Johansson, B. M., & Kaminskas, K. A. (2010). Evidence-based prevention of work-related musculoskeletal injuries in construction industry. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(4), 499–509. Sobeih, T. M., Salem, O., Daraiseh, N., Genaidy, A., & Shell, R. (2006). Psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal disorders in the construction industry: A systematic review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(3), 329–344.

404

Human Factors for Sustainability

Sobeih, T. M., Salem, O., Genaidy, A., Abdelhamid, T., & Shell, R. (2009). Psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal disorders in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(4), 267–277. van der Molen, H. F., Basnet, P., Hoonakker, P. L. T., Lehtola, M. M., Lappalainen, J., FringsDresen, M. H. W., Haslam, R., & Verbeek, J. H. (2018). Interventions to prevent injuries in construction workers. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006251.pub4. van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105. Väyrynen, S., Jounila, H., Latva-Ranta, J., Pikkarainen, S., & von Weissenberg, K. (2016). HSEQ Assessment Procedure for supplying network: A tool for promoting sustainability and safety culture in SMEs. In: P. Arezes & P. V. Rodrigues de Carvalho (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors in Safety Management (pp. 83–108). Boca Raton, FL: CRC, Taylor & Francis Group. Vredenburgh, A. G. (2002). Organizational safety: Which management practices are most effective in reducing employee injury rates? Journal of Safety Research, 33(2), 259–276. Wilkins, J. R. (2011). Construction workers’ perceptions of health and safety training programmes. Construction Management and Economics, 29(10), 1017–1026. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London, UK: Sage. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356. Zwetsloot, G. I. J. M., Aaltonen, M., Wybo, J.-L., Saari, J., Kines, P., & de Beeck, R. O. D. (2013). The case for research into the zero accident vision. Safety Science, 58, 41–48. Zwetsloot, G. I. J. M., Kines, P., Wybo, J.-L., Ruotsala, R., Drupsteen, L., & Bezemer, R. A. (2017). Zero Accident Vision based strategies in organisations: Innovative perspectives. Safety Science, 91, 260–268.

18

HFE Practice within Complex Teams What We Bring Dave Moore, Clare Tedestedt George, and Jas Qadir

CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................406 Definitions .........................................................................................................406 Introduction to Sustainable Development in a Contemporary New Zealand Context.........................................................................................408 Cultural Capital..................................................................................................409 What We Bring........................................................................................................ 412 A Systems Approach.......................................................................................... 412 Analyze-Design-Evaluate.............................................................................. 412 Translational Research.................................................................................. 412 Whole of Population Benefit?....................................................................... 413 Everyone – Everything – Early .................................................................... 414 The Creative Use of Archival Data Collected for Other Purposes................ 415 Deftness in Working with Individuality and Social Diversity: People Are Complex Individuals First – Rational Users Second......................................... 416 Design of the Built Environment................................................................... 416 Meat Industry and Nursing Manual Handling............................................... 417 Vested Interests ............................................................................................. 418 Relationships as Capital ............................................................................... 420 The Different Faces of Iterative Development................................................... 421 No Magic Bullets.......................................................................................... 421 The Importance of Level Playing Fields, per Sector, per Country..................... 423 Edge Protection in Residential Falls............................................................. 423 Transport Sector............................................................................................ 423 Concluding Points................................................................................................... 425 Acknowledgments................................................................................................... 425 References............................................................................................................... 426

405

406

Human Factors for Sustainability

INTRODUCTION This chapter is about the nature of working as a human factors and ergonomics (HFE) practitioner in complex teams. The teams are complex because the nature of the problem necessitates solutions that extend more widely across the system, well beyond the familiar HFE-twinned reference points of human well-being and system optimization. In such settings we can be entangled by potentially conflicting project goals relating to economic, environmental, cultural, and social (including individual) forms of capital. There can also be the unusual experience of being called upon to apply theory that sits not only outside HFE, but even beyond our regular sister disciplines, including psychology, anatomy, physiology, organizational design, management, and engineering design. Being asked to be in such a team – or having the realization one day at a project meeting that you are now in one – can raise doubts. Such as: • Does this project actually need anything I have to offer? • Should I feel guilty about finding this unfamiliarity exciting? And most commonly: • How do I introduce myself, when we go around the table and each in turn says a few words about who we are and what we bring? In this chapter, we attempt to suggest who we are and, more specifically, what we might commonly bring to such exercises. Three main contributions to sustainable development are discussed: our experience with using a systems approach, the ability to work with individual traits and socially diverse populations, and a longitudinal understanding of iterative development. By way of balance, it is important to remember that we are not immune from bringing ill-informed and negative influences to complex teams – as well as positive insights and tools. HFE professionals make assumptions about our world too and duly get things wrong. The quarterly newsletter of the International Ergonomics Association was in its third decade of publication, before it was pointed out (by upside-down readers) in the 1990s that naming editions by the seasons – summer, winter, etc. – only worked for one hemisphere. As a framework for the piece, we set the discussion within a simple translational research (TR) model (Khoury, Gwinn, & Ioannidis. 2010). TR is generally represented as a five-stage practical process of developing, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based interventions. It reflects the necessity of getting fundamental research actually into work, benefiting society, the importance of evidence-based design, and the need to evaluate so that we can refine interventions.

Definitions We have used the term “complex teams” in the title for three reasons, one of which is simple, the other two less so. The first is that even between the three of us authors,

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

407

there is no shared understanding of the practical differences between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary endeavors. Nor have we seen any greater clarity in the teams in question. The multi-inter-trans terms often get used interchangeably in the field by those involved. Confusion is both normal and unhelpful. For the purposes of developing this chapter, we have, however, deferred to definitions cited in the health literature (Choi & Pak, 2006). According to Choi and Pak (2006), each of the three terms refers to the involvement of multiple disciplines to a varying degree but along the same continuum. Multidisciplinary teamwork draws on information and knowledge from different disciplines, but they remain within their boundaries, each an additive to the other. Interdisciplinary teamwork synthesizes the links between disciplines in a coordinated and interactive fashion. Transdisciplinary teamwork further integrates disciplines, transcending their traditional boundaries and taking a more holistic perspective of the issue at hand. They go on to suggest that if the nature of the interaction is unknown or not classified, the general term “multiple disciplinary teamwork” (Choi & Pak, 2006, p. 351) should be used. The second reason is that within such teams, we invariably find crucial people who don’t identify with a discipline in the way that academics or members of professional bodies would. An experienced farm worker recruited as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) to a team studying land use may identify as one of a discrete community of experts. O’Neill and Moore (2016, p. 341) identified 17 such different worker categories, or expert communities, commonly found on any individual farm, including family members, contractors, and undocumented seasonal workers. We need people in these teams who don’t identify with a discipline. Thirdly, large projects with multiple aims, shifting energies, and evolving team membership defy any single snapshot description of discipline makeup. If the project seeks to address a messy, complex problem in society, then a problem-centered response will invariably require a complex team too, and one that continues to be reshaped as detailed understanding of the problem and potential interventions builds. Given these three considerations, postdisciplinary is probably the closest title that mentions disciplines. Jessop and Sum (2001) expressed common frustration with being pushed to approach cultural and political phenomena through single or even multiples of single disciplines. “We are not alone in refusing disciplinary boundaries and decrying some of their effects” (p. 89). Naomi Pocock, a tourism researcher from the University of Waikato in New Zealand, explains the postdisciplinary approach and rationale as it applies to her work as follows. Disciplinary structures (may) barely reflect the reality they attempt to represent. Despite the interdisciplinary nature of the tourism phenomenon, many scholars produce knowledge rooted within their own base discipline, for example economics, anthropology or geography, and borrow the tourism context to solidify their particular disciplinary scholarship. In contrast, a post-disciplinary approach to research would re-address the fundamental understanding of tourism as a social, economic, geographic, experiential etc. phenomenon by re-examining the ontology and epistemology of these phenomena. The post-disciplinary worldview is centred within the reality of the phenomenon, rather than the conjectured reality decreed by the discipline. (Pocock, 2019)

408

Human Factors for Sustainability

Introduction to Sustainable Development in a Contemporary New Zealand Context New Zealand is a sovereign island country that operates a parliamentary democracy. It lacks a codified constitution but the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori chiefs (rangatira) from the North Island of New Zealand, is widely regarded as the founding document. There were two versions of the treaty document, one in English and the translation into Māori. Disagreements continue about the accuracy of the translation and hence the understanding by all parties of what they were signing. But it is broadly understood that “the Treaty embodied a partnership in which the Crown, chiefs and tribes would all have a place” (Manatū Taonga – Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2019). With the formal adoption of Māori as a second language in 1987, New Zealand effectively ended the acceptance of a mono-culture that had persisted from the late nineteenth century. Debate carries on as to whether the country should describe itself as bicultural or multicultural, but for the purposes of this chapter, we suggest New Zealand functions as a multicultural society under bicultural governance. Linked to this is the heightened recognition of cultural capital. The triple bottom line of Environment-Economic-Social capitals is referenced widely in the development literature, but in New Zealand, culture is almost universally included as a fourth. A quadruple bottom line has been consistently adopted and has appeared in key pieces of legislation over the last two decades, such as the Local Government Act 2002 (Department of Internal Affairs, 2019). It recognizes that the purposes of local government include making “significant contribution(s) to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being.” Pursuant to the act, sustainable development aligns with the work of Sen and others, which is instrumental in the conceptualization of the Human Development Index. “Technically, ecological economists define sustainable development as choices and actions regarding all kinds of “stocks” and resources that attain non-declining welfare [well-being] over time” (Sen & Anand 1996, cited in Loomis, 2002, p. 7).

The Department of Internal Affairs discussion document (Loomis, 2002), which informed and supported the Local Government Act 2002, included Figure 18.1, providing useful detail on what the policy team considered core attributes of each “petal.” The separation of human and social factors suggests the origins of this thinking lie in the more sophisticated models of capital dynamics such as the Sustainable Living Framework, as discussed in Majale (2002, p. 3). The quadruple bottom line has been reinforced most recently through the development and introduction by the New Zealand Treasury (Treasury, 2019). The new Living Standard Framework requires formal utilization of a Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) within the public sector from 2019. The potential implications of this are considerable and, so far, untested at a whole-of-nation level here or anywhere else. To do this, the formal audit systems are being planned to extend their units of interest further to include indicators across the four forms of capital.

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

409

FIGURE 18.1  Extract from: A framework for developing sustainable communities – discussion paper. Appendix A (Loomis, 2002).

Cultural Capital For practitioners, from any discipline, who are unfamiliar with cross-cultural exercises, an obvious and immediate difference is process. Processes adopted can differ in multiple ways. How participants communicate, the protocols required, and, crucially, how long needs to be allowed when establishing relationships are just a few examples. Recent work in New Zealand by Hailey Feilo (2017) on communication problems in construction projects highlighted how the assumptions of a dominant culture in safety-critical situations can create risk where “every voice needs to be heard” (Bateman, 2018). In Polynesian cultures, the process of building interpersonal trust and connection, before agreeing on actions or giving/accepting orders, is generally slower and more complex than in a Western business environment. Feilo, a researcher born in Samoa but working in New Zealand, used the traditional process

410

Human Factors for Sustainability

of Talanoa to discuss common communication failures between site staff and management. Most importantly, the process switches the primary aim of the interaction. The key difference is that Talanoa is centrally focused on the relationships between participants; gaining knowledge is a secondary outcome. … The researcher must demonstrate humility and respect to build trust and to create a setting where conversation can flourish, ideas can be exchanged, and the real stories about work can emerge in a way which is respectful. (Bateman, 2018)

Talanoa is both an artifact and a source of growth within our store of cultural capital in Oceania (Vaioleti, 2006). The English language lacks a directly comparable term, or at least not one in common usage. The specific identification and exploration of culture as capital builds recognition that cultural groupings operate no less valid, but alternative, worldviews. Language and the underlying concepts shed light on how they get things done. Conflict is almost inevitable, however, when, during the course of a working day, one cultural group takes longer than the other to do or decide things. Taking a longer view, it is easy to argue that the relationship and trust built through Talanoa speeds up decisions and actions in the longer term. And that over a series of projects, it enhances end results. But that doesn’t solve immediate problems that will emerge if not planned for. Assuming Western corporate norms as the default for new work exacerbates this. In practice, the defaults have to shift so that project planning incorporates the reality of the context – not only the geology, the weather, the language, and corruption, but also how solid decisions are reached. There is a Māori saying, “when the cloud reaches the mountain, it will rain.” There is no direct translation for the word “management” in the Māori language. But there is also no comparable word in English for the word “Mana” [prestige, standing, integrity, recognition; maintaining one’s own mana and that of the group and recognizing and respecting the mana of others]. Both are used extensively by New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity, because they are useful in the context of a society that functions, consciously or otherwise, from these foundations. And so development in this country that will sustain, has to both work with, and enrichen our store of cultural capital. Examples of this relate to the concept of Mauri in Māori culture and its use in quadruple bottom line impact assessments. “Mauri is the life supporting capacity of an ecosystem, inclusive of people who are an inseparable part of it” (Morgan, 2014, p. 3). The relationship between a family (whanau) and the land will also be different, as increasingly is reflected in popular culture. A series of major infrastructure and industrial projects starting in the 1950s around New Zealand had a significant impact on the environment. The legal requirements regarding resource management would today require substantial community consultation, but projects such as the large Kawerau paper mill were not controlled in this way, and so effluent led to a serious impact on the receiving environment. The (2016) Helen McNeil novel A Place to Stand was written about life in and around the mill for both indigenous families and imported migrant workers. It includes a scene where Sandra, the main

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

411

protagonist from a newly arrived Scottish family, has visited a girl her age who lives with her new baby directly downstream from the outflow. Sandra asks a young Māori friend why they would be living somewhere so heavily contaminated. [Koro means an elderly man – usually a grandfather to the speaker.] “So why doesn’t she move into town?” asked Sandra. “My koro says you can’t leave the land. It’s like your whole family the land, you can’t leave it.” “But the river stinks down there.” “Yeah, hard eh? But like my koro says, you can’t just leave your whanau when it’s sick Sandra.” (p. 140) The following report extracts are from a 2008 example by Morgan, which describes twinned worldviews and bodies of knowledge, used in combination in this area subsequently. Again, the processes by which understanding is built, and future actions agreed in the 2008 Te Kete Poutama wetlands recovery work near Kawerau, are markedly different to Western norms and to practices previously practiced in relation to this site. The objective of this project was to provide the trustees with a pathway for restoring the mauri to Te Kete Poutama. In order to do this, they needed to follow a methodology that adhered to kaitiakitanga (guardianship) principles, was inclusive of mātauranga [knowledge, wisdom, understanding, skill – sometimes used in the plural], and could translate the scientific terminology of the reports into a language understood by the trustees. Once the latter had been achieved, the trustees could then consider it in a mātauranga context. Therefore, Dan and his team took a kaupapa [topic, policy, matter for discussion, plan, purpose, scheme, proposal, agenda, subject, program, theme, issue, initiative]. Māori methodology approach which included presenting a summary of the environmental reports in a series of wananga [seminar, conference, forum, educational seminar] to the trustees and undertaking a Mauri Model assessment of the site. The model is a decision-making framework based around kaitiakitanga principles and assesses the impact on four well-beings: environmental, social, economic, and cultural. This project is an example that other communities can follow: it successfully implemented mātauranga Māori in a scientific paradigm and the combined contributions of two knowledge systems provided integrated decision making that can enhance sustainability practices for future generations and reach solutions that neither of the bodies of knowledge could reach in isolation. (Extracts: Morgan, 2008)

HFE practitioners involved in projects in New Zealand, where sustainable development is a stated or indirect requirement, have a quadruple bottom line to report to – not a triple. Cultural capital has also to be not only respected but enhanced. From 2019, this implicit demand becomes increasingly explicit as treasury-directed indicators mentioned earlier, and others become incorporated into project performance measures. This chapter is about the reality of working as an HFE practitioner in complex teams. Those where not only are the aims beyond our familiar well-being and system

412

Human Factors for Sustainability

optimization goals, but where a novel or a cyclically failing situation may require us to take up postdisciplinary perspectives and responsibilities. In such circumstances, we have to go back to basics and understand “what we as HFE bring.”

WHAT WE BRING A Systems Approach Analyze-Design-Evaluate The idea that we make things better by working out what worked – or didn’t – last time and then building from there is ingrained in anyone that has come through design or management training. There are lots of variations on the cycle depending on your discipline, but the principle is universal, and included in all of them is the step of evaluation. “If you don’t measure it you can’t manage it” is covered in Management 101, but within the world of professional research funders and providers, the “research as done” reality is that we spend far more of our resources in describing the problems than we do in any other stage of the cycle. There is an irony that HFE research practice buys into this too, given our systems approach commitment. In New Zealand and elsewhere, the motivational sets constructed by many funders and facilitators in industry drive those researching for a living toward seeing success and the end of the job as having peer-reviewed journal articles – not population-level improvements. This is predominantly a university and Crown Research Institute problem, but larger corporate research units can also be susceptible. Describing how bad the situation was two years ago is inherently less threatening to the power balance or existing commercial market share holdings. It is also by far the easiest research to do and to get published. Funders serving populations that, quite reasonably, want a living return on their investment should be looking to structure such investments so that cycles get completed. Historically, impact at the population level has gone largely unevaluated. Translational Research The concept of translational research (TR) reflects a simple recognition that our discovery of new truths about how the world works does not lead inexorably to a commensurate harvest of benefits. TR is the study of how we move from basic science breakthroughs to whole of population benefits being realized (Khoury, Gwinn, & Ioannidis, 2010). The TR steps are described slightly differently in most papers on the subject following a breakdown of the five levels from T0-T4 as a modified version of the list (Lucas, Kincl, Bovberg, & Lincoln, 2014). T0

Research.

Understanding the nature and scale of system problems.

T1 T2 T3

Research. Research. Research.

Intervention design and limited testing. Evidence of intervention efficacy tests in the limited samples. Facilitators and barriers to widespread implementation.

T4

Research.

Evidence of outcomes at whole of (target) population level.

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

413

It makes sense that all sectors should be structuring their research and development efforts in this way. But commonly, HFE practitioners in complex teams find this to not be the case. An example follows. Whole of Population Benefit? In 2009, a study was commissioned in New Zealand as part of the Future Forest initiative to assess the success of HFE research in improving working conditions and system performance in the domestic logging sector. The analysis work for this report (Hide, Parker, & Moore, 2009) used archival sources to compile a table with three columns:

1 HFE research generating practical interventions 2 Interventions carried out 3 Interventions evaluated for effectiveness

When drafted on A4 sheets, the first column (T0 is translational research terms) stretched over 30 pages. The second column (T1) made it halfway down page 2. The third column (T2, T3, T4) – evaluating effectiveness in limited trialing, implementation design, and success at the population level – was 29 and a half pages of white space. The reasons for the all-too-common anomaly were not formally investigated. Obvious questions that circulated within the sector following the report, though, included: • Do management commissioning or supporting research genuinely want independent feedback on the success or otherwise of their previous decisions – if they know that that feedback is to be made more widely available? • Is research principally being used as an evidence source from which to cherry-pick data that support business decisions already made? This would make it a taxpayer- or levy-funded corporate business research subsidy. • Why are successive rounds of research funding awarded without reliable evidence of population-level benefits from (any of) the previous ones? The first thought of the researchers was to change the document design to avoid the wasted space, but on reflection, the HFE team submitted the report with the original 30-page three-column table intact, complete with pages of largely white space. The intention was to drive the point home to both sector and funders that assumptions about continual improvement in the sector from research and development were just that – assumptions. Subsequent discussion provided a number of answers to the third bullet point question regarding the lack of evaluations. These included: firstly, the cost of such work is significant – quite possibly more expensive than the original studies; secondly, and related to this, is that different researchers would need to be employed, for independence, and so certain contractual overheads would be duplicated; and finally, the expertise for doing specialist work (e.g., involving human and environmental health) is limited in a small country, which generally adds further delays and premiums.

414

Human Factors for Sustainability

Everyone – Everything – Early Another HFE irony arguably is that the triennial IEA event is run by, and for, HFE people (Figure 18.2). It doesn’t embrace the systems we work in. If we go to conferences to learn how to do our jobs better and promote the discipline, then there is a case for breaking the sector-specific streams into separate HFE-hosted events. An advantage is that we would have the time and space to bring the whole system into the room. To use the forestry example above, a discussion session could be held involving all parties on TR and focusing on the economic and social/health consequences of the 29 pages of white space. A recent example of useful HFE input to a complex team process design was a bus trip run in the North Island of New Zealand (Moore, 2018). The overall project was reported in more detail at the 2018 IEA triennial in Florence (Hirsch et al., 2018) and elsewhere. The project aim was broadly to enhance the motorcycling experience in this popular riding area. The wider aims therefore included reduction of incidents resulting in injury while also promoting it as a tourist destination and increasing tourist spend per visit. The project team and advisors therefore included transport engineers, maintenance staff, national insurance body staff, motorcycle trainers, local riders, police, national roading bodies, and local council, among others. Intervention design in such settings can be hampered by the lack of opportunity to discuss potential intervention ideas as they emerge. A team needs to be able to identify in detail the nature and scale of possible benefits, to talk through drawbacks or unwanted consequences, and to agree how the interventions might be refined. In design circles, the concept of Integrated Design Processes (IDP) is well established (Reed, 2009). The EEE (Everyone talking Early about Everything) has overlaps with Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987), in that we are inviting the whole system into the room to find out not only what needs to be fixed but, more importantly, what already works and why. Appreciative Inquiry exercises build from a social constructivist position in that they seek to: identify collectively processes that perform well in the system, visualize others that could similarly excel, and to

FIGURE 18.2  Coromandel Northern Loop motorcycle study team 2017. Photograph by Professor Alex Stedmon.

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

415

then practically plan in detail how to implement these. As the desired processes already stem from the things the people really care about, the need for additional motivators and ploys should be avoided. The cost of getting representatives into such a session has to be justifiable, as with any process step for a complex team with many parties in different locations. A benefit of having HFE staff advocating for this within a large multidisciplinary team is that generally we have direct experience to relate as to the efficacy. For example, in the case of this bus trip, it was identified by the riders early in the day on a twisty coastal section that debris falling from the cliffs onto the surface of the road was especially dangerous when they rode – which was predominantly at the weekend. The council representative confirmed that they were actually swept once a week, a fact not known by the riders. A maintenance engineer confirmed that yes it was swept – and on a Monday. It was then (jokingly) asked by the riders if the schedule could change to sweeping the high-risk stretches on a Friday instead. It was discussed by all concerned and it transpired that no one could see a reason why not, and so an intervention was agreed to sweep when the highest risk user group would benefit most. This was achieved within half a mile of bus travel, an efficient way to move from T0 to late stage T3. Participants often fear conflict will arise, and managers can see resources being wasted through expensive meetings. But HFE practitioners are more comfortable than most with getting the whole system in the room, or bus. As a result, they bring leadership as they are naturally placed to facilitate such sessions. Sustainable development goals within projects, by definition, throw up challenges that have to be met early, and openly, drawing on the full body of knowledge held by the system. The Creative Use of Archival Data Collected for Other Purposes HFE practitioners are well experienced in stepping back and asking whether the client or commissioning body is actually asking the right questions. Even in straightforward commercial projects where the ultimate measure of success is greater profit, there are often premature assumptions made about the best way to achieve these gains and therefore the questions to be answered. The first step – of understanding the business model in question (unit of interest) – can be overlooked if a systems approach isn’t enforced. A common feature of building this in HFE practice is the necessity to understand Work-as-Done (Hollnagel, 2017; Dekker, 2006) as opposed to Work-as-Envisaged or even Work-as-Reported. Given the inevitable limitations of our time on site – to get beyond the snapshot available on the day – it is common practice to draw upon archival data that give direct or indirect shape to the patterns in question. Beyond that, and to return briefly to the theme of “what you measure is what you manage,” the use of old data already on the shelf allows us to see what the population routinely measures across the system (for whatever reason). From this we can hopefully understand better not only what they do, but also what they already value and seek most to improve – what they count as measures of success. A study in the hotel sector by Auckland University of Technology and Be.Accessible was conducted in 2017 (Moore, Qadir, & Holmes, 2017) in the North Island of New Zealand to look at the benefits of building or modifying hotels to be more usable by people with physical or sensory impairments. The starting assumption from the

416

Human Factors for Sustainability

initiator was that the success metric would ultimately be annual occupancy rate – the proportion of all available rooms that generated revenue per night. Being able to say that more people stayed for more nights, therefore generating bigger profits, would then enable them to lobby other companies in the sector to increase spending on such features. It became clear as soon as the subject matter experts engaged that there were no existing data links established and monitored between occupancy rates and building features (e.g., rooms with level access showers) or service details (e.g., braille menus in the restaurant). However, it is a highly measured industry. Well-run hotels know how much each guest spent in the bar per visit, what tourist sites they visited on the in-room TV, and what visits they booked online from the lobby. On the cost side, they also knew exactly how long it took two staff to service each kind of room, replacement cycles for linen, washing costs per towel set, and repair bills for damage and scuffing per room per year. Allowance for travel time across a large hotel complex for those with heavy or bulky loads to transport was also understood. Anecdotally, the hotels reported they had noticed a preference in bookings for the “access” rooms. These always went first among returning guests as they said they preferred the extra space in the room and ease of horizontal and vertical circulation to other parts of the hotel. The conclusion for the hotels was that in fact they already had data sources on the cost side that could inform them about savings related to faster room turnarounds, reduced damage, and easier manual handling – all byproducts of making the place more accessible for guests (and staff). They realized they could also do more to link enhancements to the services – such as tailoring the default settings for guest TVs to fit capabilities and interests – and that their measurement systems could capture gains here too. The starting question of “does a hotel, if more accessible, get more guests?” evolved to “how can we help you to do better, and what you already do – including being welcoming to everyone?” With this approach, it is clear that actually they have a rolling program of continual improvement, with multiple strands of activity, each at different stages from T0 to T4. These include environmentally linked exercises including waste minimization and water conservation. This is a powerful system for HFE practitioners to work with and, as a proven tool, has far more chance of sustaining and working in the long term.

Deftness in Working with Individuality and Social Diversity: People Are Complex Individuals First – Rational Users Second Design of the Built Environment Equality of opportunity is a tenet of social justice and hence sustainable development. Freedom of all to move and access services is a fundamental objective in most societies and so 100% percentile solutions are required. The step up from “reasonable provision” can be an exponential one. It is common now to see tactile surfaces incorporated in the streets and in other public places to assist those with low vision. But the moral imperatives regarding social inclusivity and underlying concepts of universal design only became sufficiently prominent internationally during the 1970s, and much of the experimental work relating to the practical design guidelines came even later, in the 1980s and 1990s. An example is the work by the multidisciplinary

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

417

Access Steering Committee of the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind (RNZFB, 1995) that fed into national standards of design (NZTA, 2015). There were surprising challenges for the HFE practitioners involved in such work. Trialing by HFE practitioners in New Zealand was complicated by the small numbers of potential participants and the danger therefore of unrepresentative findings. Pedestrian crossings underwent particularly comprehensive redesign in order that everyone could safely use them. But the user group included not only those with low vision, which includes many older people, but also a number of travelers with less common forms, or combinations of disabilities – for example, wheelchair users who were functionally deaf as well as blind. New Zealand is roughly the same size but has 1/16th the population density of the United Kingdom, and so sections of the sample frames were inevitably hard to fill. Old arguments between disability groups threatened the process. Politically, recommendations were urgently needed to shape the emerging national guidelines. But without a solid evidence base, the multidisciplinary team decision making was subject to skewing in favor of the loudest or best connected lobby group. For example: for those with sight – but using mobility aids, any edge at all at the curb, even 10 to 20 mm, represents a trip or tip hazard. But for those without useful vision using a white cane, the curb had been used for generations. It marked both the safe road edge and provided a straight edge to align themselves with, so that they could square off before setting off and not veer into the oncoming traffic. The two arguments about having any curb or lip were well entrenched enough to represent an irreconcilable (in their view) difference. The final design solution developed by the group reverted to establishing first principles of need. As is common HFE practice in industry, where opposing factions can see no solution acceptable to both, needs analysis was conducted and holistic solutions developed that were applied to street design at a national level (NZTA, 2015). Tactile Ground Surface Indicators were used not just as a simple alert, but in blocks to provide edges for navigation, alignment, and to indicate thresholds between pedestrian, shared, and vehicle lanes. More complex in this field is the apparently irrational refusal to use such facilities when provided. In the United Kingdom at this time, a teenager with severe vision impairment was tragically struck by a vehicle while crossing a four-lane city link road in his home area. The student was within two hundred meters of a redesigned traffic light-controlled crossing that he had been trained to use. However, the confounding factors were that: it was dark, rush hour, and he was dressed all in black and wearing sunglasses. He was a teen on his way to a date … and as with many situations encountered by HFE practitioners, the human desire to be cool ultimately took priority and guided his actions. There have been recent positive steps in recognizing that Work‑as‑Done is our starting point as HFE practitioners – not Work‑as‑Envisaged or Assumed, because it’s rational to us. The reasons people have for diverting from the rules or rational make sense to them at the time. Meat Industry and Nursing Manual Handling Unacceptable levels of compensation and medical claims by meat industry workers in the mid-1990s in New Zealand led to the funding by ACC (Accident Compensation

418

Human Factors for Sustainability

Corporation) of a three-year multidisciplinary response (Slappendel, Moore, & Tappin, 1996). Led by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), the team comprised specialists in law, employment relations, evaluation, public health, meat processing, plant engineering, health and safety, and HFE. One point that stood out in the data was the very high turnover of staff working for the first time with a knife. Through discussions with shed staff, the team came to understand that those workers in areas using knives intensively (boning room and slaughter floor) had time at the start of the day to get the blades sharp and straight, but generally failed to maintain “the edge.” As a result, the work got progressively harder for them as the day went on. The opportunities for the essential micropauses between carcasses coming past on the rail also disappeared, as each task took them longer – increased forces, applied for longer, without recovery time. Not surprisingly, many new staff experienced pain that didn’t resolve and resigned. Ultimately, the findings of the three-year exercise resulted in a number of interventions, including: • A knife sharpening machine installed in boning rooms – not perfect, but better than the new staff could do unaided (Dowd et al., 1999) • A slower-paced induction line at one side of the room, allowing new staff to develop necessary skills before speed • A rollback of the practice of time “compression,” whereby new staff already needing more recovery time were required to also work through essential breaks in order for everyone to go home earlier (Slappendel, Moore, & Tappin, 1996, Case Study 2) The reason for including this example is that the major barrier was not technical but social. Specifically, it had to do with the sense of pride in their role that the senior meat workers held. What set them apart was their ability to “fight through the pain barrier,” when they started, and in time become someone who could “keep a good edge.” There was much discussion in the multidisciplinary group about this and whether as a phenomenon it was something to pay any attention to in developing our interventions and implementation planning. Was this a strange male thing? No, the HFE practitioners had seen similar in nursing among all-female staff, where the more senior nurses resisted the introduction of hoists and other manual handling aids. The conclusion was that personal and collective pride matters, and that should be respected, but that the well-being of newcomers matters too, legally as well as morally. Change in both cases has occurred, but intergenerationally. Vested Interests There can be a costly naïivety in large multidisciplinary projects where vested commercial interest and political position are underestimated as shaping and limiting factors, particularly at implementation stages. Historically, the strength of vested positions in most countries is particularly evident with the traditional land-owning powerbase, who wins concessions at a high government level for agriculture that other sectors don’t achieve. In New Zealand, this is almost taken as a given and was

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

419

most recently highlighted by last-minute ministerial-level changes to the incoming Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. The major players in agriculture, notably dairy and beef farming, were inexplicably taken out of the list of 50 or so high-risk sectors. This was significant as employers classed as high risk are not be allowed to apply for class or individual exemptions under the act, even if they employ fewer than 20 people. Forestry, fishing, and meat processing and all others with such figures remained, quite fairly, in the high-risk group. The fatality data, by industry for 2011 to 2018 (see Figure 18.3) tells a clear story – indicating the influence that the agriculture lobby group has in New Zealand, a country perceived to be alongside Denmark as the least corrupt in the world. The uptake of research and development is rarely a simple flow-through based on scientific merit either. The move to biofuels and electric vehicles in New Zealand, for example, is less to do with the science and more to do with distribution. We know how to make the alternatives to petrol, but those owning the pumps shouldn’t be expected to change their business model willingly until there are opportunities to make as much, or more, from the sale of other fuel types. That is simple business, but often even large research teams have no one from these crucial parts of the system to point out the facts. Increasingly, in large-scale transdisciplinary work, the funders are, quite rightly, asking for emphasis on the later stages of Translational Research so that programs come up not only with the new widget but also how this is most likely to find its way into use in a competitive market.

FIGURE 18.3  Worksafe data – fatalities. (Accessed 2019).

420

Human Factors for Sustainability

Relationships as Capital A study was conducted in the New Zealand Crown Research Institutes in 2011 (Moore, Barnard, & Bayne, 2012) with the objective of understanding and improving knowledge of the technology transfer mechanisms between researchers and the end‑users of science. Previous audit work of these predominantly central-funded organizations had highlighted the low hit rate of tech transfer, even in well-funded projects staffed by cross-disciplinary teams. The conclusions pointed most significantly to failures in understanding and investing in participatively iterative development and also the long-term relationships necessary for transfer. The 15 cases used as demonstrations were plotted (see Figure 18.4) using an organizational information processing theory model (Stock & Tatikonda, 2000). Figure 18.5 shows a plot from one of the most successful exercises investigated for the New Zealand study, in this case involving soil science innovation uptake. Note how the track sits outside the recommended track and within a “commercially ineffective” zone – as defined by predominating European/North American standards. The conclusion of the researchers (Moore, Barnard, & Bayne, 2012) was that in a New Zealand context involving indigenous communities, the optimal “ratio of interaction to uncertainty” will be higher than that graphed by Stock and Tatikonda (2000). Certainly this would be true in the initial project, where relationships and trust are still forming, as discussed earlier. Where our sustainable development exercise involves populations with differing worldviews, values, and approaches to our own, this work suggests that our underlying assumptions should be thoroughly questioned.

FIGURE 18.4  Appropriate matches of technology uncertainty and organizational interaction in effective technology transfer. (From: Moore, Barnard, & Bayne, 2012).

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

421

FIGURE 18.5  Example of a plot showing the very high interaction levels required for technological knowledge transfer where prior relationship building is a prerequisite. (From: Moore, Barnard, & Bayne, 2012).

The Different Faces of Iterative Development HFE practitioners are very familiar with the iterative approaches in design where, through stages of concept exploration, simulation, trialing, and phased operational testing, a new product or system is “knocked into shape.” The final version incorporates refinements based on co-design and learnings from end-users. The changes needed are discovered, and made, at the earliest and cheapest point possible. Interventions emerging in complex projects, encompassing regions, or whole industry sectors and their international supply chains similarly need to be knocked into shape. The scale of the intervention doesn’t diminish the value of the process; it just makes iterative refinement harder to do. So generally, the well-proven design principles that have delivered us interactive social media technology with no need for manuals, don’t get applied with large complex teams with sustainable development aims. Firstly, the time scales can be prohibitive. Measuring the impact on childhood experiences of new urban reforestation programs is a job for the next generation – not the team proposing the scheme. Secondly, such initiatives are invariably political and impartial assessment of the work of earlier administrations is not something often seen. The cost of independent evaluations is also a factor, as outlined earlier in the chapter. The following are short accounts of projects where longer term, iterative, and sustainable development was sought. No Magic Bullets The NOW Home was built in West Auckland, New Zealand, in 2004 to 2005 on land owned by Waitakere CC (Beacon Pathway, 2019). The members of the private/ public consortium were Scion (Forest Research Ltd), Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ), Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), Waitakere City Council, EcoMatters Environment Trust, Earthsong Econeighbourhood, Fletcher Building, and Housing New Zealand (Figure 18.6).

422

Human Factors for Sustainability

FIGURE 18.6  NOW Home opening day (Moore, 2007).

From the start, a systems approach was adopted and the philosophy of Everybody – Everything – Early was embraced. The first design meeting for the modest family house, to be built using only off-the-shelf materials, was attended by over 30 professionals. This included independent media, invited to make a “film of the film.” A secondary intention of the consortium leadership was to develop an expert system for sustainable housing design that would have value as intellectual property in its own right, as a tool that could be sold to other projects. Despite the considerable base of technical expertise available, the expert system “product” didn’t eventuate. In large part, this was due to the enduring need for iterative development in exploratory exercises such as this. One-off buildings are prototypes requiring multiple revisions and compromises as the design, and then sometimes the actual structure, takes form. For example, an enforced change in roofing material due to supply failure had multiple implications throughout the house below (including the structural timber sizings, façade shading, and rainwater management). Prime Minister Helen Clark opened the three-bed 146-m2 house in August 2005. It was built using off-the-shelf materials by nonspecialist builders. One aim was to show that basic, but effective, green-build was achievable by anyone in the community and that the end result didn’t need to look radical. The house blended into the district. Build cost was NZ$214,000 – also in line with “standard” designs in Auckland. But monitoring by BRANZ demonstrated significant savings in ongoing costs though against benchmark “standard” specification houses (Beacon Pathway Ltd, 2010). In total, 350 visitors went through the house on Ecoday 2008 (March 4), and the specific savings highlighted included: • Reduced waste during building by 1.5 tons. • No space heating installed as passive solar planning removed almost all demand. Occupants reported just infrequent portable heater use in specific rooms for comfort.

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

423

• Reticulated water use per capita was 40% less than Waitakere City average and 66% less than Auckland Region average. • Solar hot water delivering 50% of hot water needs – saving NZ$425 (2006–2007 prices) on the annual power bill. A key input from the HFE team was the development of a performance specification system that prioritized needs and wants within the Core Design Team. This allowed a hierarchy to be established that could guide decision making whenever trade-offs became inevitable. The wider team didn’t appreciate at the outset that decisions may need to be made more than once as circumstances – such as material availability – shifted. The prioritized performance specification method provided consistency of direction in the iterative process and was later recorded and made publicly available as part of a full protocols report (Bayne et al., 2005).

The Importance of Level Playing Fields, per Sector, per Country Sector-wide change can be delayed indefinitely if those first to make the desired change pay a disproportionate cost – potentially even losing their companies and livelihoods. Many interventions related to sustainable development are impacted by this, notably where legislative changes are policed inconsistently; some get away with doing things the old way, and others don’t. For fair initial uptake and sustained success, a level playing field for all must be maintained. An HFE systems approach is helpful in identifying where resistance to change is actually justifiable recognition that the regulatory agencies are not capable of providing that equanimity. The following are two examples from the construction and trucking sectors in New Zealand. Edge Protection in Residential Falls ACC-funded studies reported by Bentley et al. (2006) on slips, trips, and falls in the dairy farming and residential construction sectors highlighted fundamental system-level failures. The cost of doing minor work on house roofs did not warrant the cost of hiring scaffolding and so small contractors carrying out repairs to tiles or solar installations, fixing satellite dishes, etc. did so without this edge protection. Customers would understandably shy away from paying the NZ$2,000 or so that would be added to the bill of just hundreds. The contractors themselves were well aware of the risks, and would have preferred not to take them, but accepted that without the rules for working at height (which required edge protection of fall arrest equipment) being policed in full, they would have to continue to not employ scaffolders. The final HFE reports recommended investigations into cheaper solutions for providing edge protection, as the costs of increased policing would remain prohibitive and ultimately less effective anyway. Multiple low-cost systems that clip onto the eaves and can be erected from the ground have now been made available in New Zealand. Any search for “edge protection” will show the variety and affordability. Transport Sector It is well documented that the transport sector plays host to dangerous practices that compromise the health, safety, and well-being (OHSW) of not only truck drivers

424

Human Factors for Sustainability

but others right throughout the system (Tedestedt George, 2018). The transport sector in New Zealand is infiltrating, powerful, and complex, and its boundaries are difficult to define. As such, it generates system-wide issues that demand postdisciplinary approaches by complex teams. It is a struggle to employ Appreciative Inquiry techniques mentioned earlier, as historical conflicts mean there continues to be an unwillingness of members from throughout the system to come into the same room. Given the bitingly tight margins and lack of goodwill, those might struggle to identify much that is already “going well.” The media feast on the rivalry only furthers the divide. It all contributes to limited potential for open and constructive conversation among the very parties that stand to benefit most from OHSW improvement. Single-discipline sorties into the fray have historically had little or no impact, and there remains a shortage of agreement on who the problems actually “belong to.” Initial conversations with informants in the industry suggested that it was primarily an employment relations issue; an increasing use of contractors over employees, it was said, meant companies were shifting the risk and therefore the responsibility onto the individual drivers. This was leading to increasingly risky decisions made out on the road, it was suggested. However, once the data began to be collected, it was quickly realized that the employment issues stemmed from much wider, systemic problems. Just considering the issues around contracting ignored wider contributing factors – most of which were very poorly understood or measured. Intervention design would arguably have been easier if narrowed into one discipline, but by then, the team knew too much and couldn’t ignore what had been uncovered. So after the data blizzard and a period of discipline-homelessness, the study team expanded and moved to an HFE-style systems approach. This was the only theoretical framework identified that provided a home for all the disparate pieces of the puzzle. It ensured the study remained phenomenon focused in a full sense. It also allowed incorporation of the voices of those making daily decisions out on the road and all those connected to that decision making. Of the studies reported in this chapter, it is the one that generates the most compelling support for a postdisciplinary approach. New Zealand regulators are still struggling to understand how to equitably, and effectively, treat a vehicle as a workplace. The stories emerging from drivers and their families of indirect costs, injustices, and contradictions slide from occupational health, to public health, to road transport, to contract law, to child development, to logistics … and so on. And it is a dynamic game, with the highly pressured players each day finding new ways to get more from less, leaving regulators and researchers further behind. A recurring image we have of this, to use a sporting comparison, is a team employing a slow and rigid zone defense to try and keep out a fast and elusive set of strikers. The problems shimmy between the disciplines, leaving the goal keeper to pick the ball endlessly out of the net, while the defenders stand in their defined places pointing and blaming each other. A tactical rethink is well overdue. The major interventions still needed in the sector at the point of writing this chapter related to: the number of hours driven each week, the effectiveness of recovery

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

425

time, and the pressures (financial and contractual) under which they drive and live. No change in any of these can occur without a level playing field being maintained by the regulators for all companies and owner-operators. Margins are far too tight, and so unilateral commitment to any change that reduces short-term productivity is commercial suicide. The findings of the study made it clear that changing the legal requirements alone isn’t enough. Policing these new requirements ruthlessly would be just as crucial. Ultimately, the vast majority of people/groups within the system want to be part of an industry that provides more quadruple bottom line capital built, but when a sector is so finely balanced, the steps must be small and well-chosen ones.

CONCLUDING POINTS Being asked to be in such a team can raise doubts about our potential contribution – to the point that HFE practitioners might pass up the opportunity. In this chapter, we attempted to suggest what we might commonly bring to such exercises. Our commitment and experience employing a systems approach should not be underestimated, nor should the depth of understanding gained by practitioners regarding human diversity and how to work with it. The concept of iterative development is often seen in a short-cycle scenario – as with rapid prototyping – but it also applies to business model evolution and even intergenerational change, and some things just take that long. Inevitably, we bring our fair share of undesirable and unhelpful contributions to complex teams. Like every other professional group, we have an inflated sense of our discipline and its centrality in the universe. A speaker at an Occupational Health Nursing conference a few years ago united the room with the observation that, to paraphrase him: “any discipline you can name is, really – when you think about it, a subset of OHN.” You know we do it too. More seriously, we can also come across as unwilling to make the first mark on a blank sheet. HFE practitioners to a degree, and HFE researchers almost inevitably, can be prone to hiding behind the iterative process and standing back while others make the first design decisions, after which we happily step in and critique. HFE advertises itself as being part of the design community, and yet too often in practice, we are reactive in the way medical doctors wait for patients – and our tools and methods currently reflect that. We need to be involved at the beginning because some critical strategic decisions in sustainable development projects are made then: such as the favored physical location of a new plant, or even more importantly, the list of people to be invited to the first community meeting. And these things often matter deeply. You can’t iteratively rewind and include someone from the outset who actually wasn’t.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our gratitude to all those who helped in the projects mentioned here, in whatever capacity.

426

Human Factors for Sustainability

REFERENCES Bateman, P. (Ed.). (2018). Talanoa tales. Featured in the ‘its academic’ column. Safeguard Magazine, Issue 172, 56. Bayne, K., Jacques, R., Lane, A., Lietz, K. & Allison, R. (2005). NOW Home Protocols: A toolkit documenting the Beacon approach to sustainable residential design. Report NO103 for Beacon Pathway Ltd. Prepared by Scion, Rotorua. New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.beaconpathway.co.nz/images/uploads/Final_Report_NO103_NOW_ Home_Protocols.pdf. [Accessed 23 January 2019]. Beacon Pathway Ltd. (2008). Waitakere NOW Home Project. Retrieved from http://www. beaconpathway.co.nz/new-homes/article/what_is_the_waitakere_now:home_project. [Accessed 28 January 2019]. Beacon Pathway Ltd. (2010). The environmental impact of the Waitakere NOW Home®: A Life Cycle Assessment case study Project. Retrieved from http://www.beaconpathway. co.nz/images/uploads/Environmental_Impacts_of_the_Waitakere_NOW_Home_ LCA_case_study.pdf. [Accessed 16 January 2019]. Bentley, T. A., Hide, S., Tappin, D., Moore, D., Legg, S., Ashby, L., & Parker, R. (2006). Investigating risk factors for slips, trips and falls in New Zealand residential construction using incident-centred and incident-independent techniques. Ergonomics, 49, 62–77. Choi, B. C., & Pak, A. W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364. Dekker, S. W. A. (2006). Resilience engineering: Chronicling the emergence of confused consensus. In: E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, & N. G. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Farnham, Surrey, UK. Department of Internal Affairs. (2019). Webpage for the Local Governments Act 2002. Retrieved from http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/lgip.nsf/wpg_url/Policy-LocalGovernment-Legislation-Local-Government-Act-2002. [Accessed 14 January 2019]. Dowd, P., Moore, D., Tappin, D., Donaghey, D., Turner, M., & Van Mellaerts, M. (1999). Worker Performance and Safety. MIRINZ Report 98MZ/13 (WPS). Meat Industry Research Institute of New Zealand (MIRINZ). Hamilton, Waikato, NZ. Feilo, H. (2017). Talanoa: A contribution to the occupational health and safety management of Pacific peoples in the construction industry? Unpublished MBus thesis. Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Hide, S., Parker, R., & Moore, D. (2009). The Uptake of Human Factors & Ergonomics Research-Generated Initiatives in the Forest Harvesting Industry: A Review of the Literature. Contract Task # F200.02 FFR-COHFE. Final Report July 2009. Future Forests Research Ltd, Rotorua, New Zealand. Hirsch, L., Moore, D., Stedmon, A., Mackie, H., Davison, M., & Gardener, R. (2018). Live to ride, ride to live: The use of Event Charts to capture and investigate loss of control motorcycle events in New Zealand. Paper presented at the International Ergonomics Association Triennial Congress, Florence, Italy, August 2018. Hollnagel, E. (2017). Prologue: Why do our expectations of how work should be done never correspond exactly to how work is done? In: J. Braithwaite, R. L. Wears, & E. Hollnagel (Eds.), Resilient Healthcare Volume 3: Reconciling Work-as-Imagined and Work-asDone. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL. Jessop, B. & Sum, N.-L. (2001). Pre-disciplinary and post-disciplinary perspectives (Forum contribution). New Political Economy, 6(1), 89–101. Khoury, M. J., Gwinn, M., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2010). The emergence of translational epidemiology: From scientific discovery to population health impact. American Journal of Epidemiology, 172, 517–524.

HFE Practice within Complex Teams

427

Loomis, T. (2002). A framework for developing sustainable communities – discussion paper. Department of Internal Affairs. New Zealand Government. Retrieved from http:// www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/SCDframework.pdf/$file/SCDframework.pdf. [Accessed 14 January 2019]. Lucas, D. L., Kincl, L. D., Bovbjerg, V. E., & Lincoln, J. M. (2014). Application of a translational research model to assess the progress of occupational safety research in the international commercial fishing industry. Safety Science, 64, 71–81. Majale, M. (2002). Towards pro-poor regulatory guidelines for urban upgrading: A review of papers presented at the International Workshop on Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading, Bourton-on-Dunsmore, May 17–18, 2001. Manatū Taonga – Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (2019). Read the Treaty Page 3 – Differences between the Texts. Retrieved https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/readthe-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts. [Accessed 28 January 2019]. McNeil, H. (2016). A Place to Stand. Cloud Ink Press Ltd, Auckland, NZ. Moore, D. (2007). The ergonomist and the eco house: The use of an experimental Collective Design Process in sustainable residential construction. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand Ergonomics Society Conference. Waiheke Island, October 2007. Moore, D. (2018). All aboard the van. Safeguard Magazine. Auckland, New Zealand. Moore, D., Barnard, T., & Bayne, K. (2012). Science as service. Work, 41, 642–647. Moore, D., Bentley, T., Tappin, D., Vitalis, A., & Parker, R. (2007). Development of a field investigation method for use on farms and identifies multi-level risk factors and their interactions. In: Proceedings of the Agricultural Ergonomics Development Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 2007. Moore, D., Qadir, J., & Holmes, A. (2017). What’s in It for Us? Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Practicing Universal Design in NZ Hotels. Report by AUT and Be.Accessible with Sudima Hotels and CQ Hotels. Morgan, K. (2008). Restoring the Mauri to Rotoitipaku (industrial waste site). Retrieved from http://www.maramatanga.ac.nz/project/restoring-mauri-rotoitipaku-industrial-wastesite. Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga | New Zealand’s Māori Centre of Research Excellence. [Accessed 11 January 2019]. Morgan, K. (2014). Contract. 12RF01 Final report: How can Mātauranga Māori contribute to the Rena disaster response? Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.maramatanga. ac.nz/sites/default/files/Contract%20Report%2012RF01%20Morgan%20FINAL.pdf. [Accessed 11 January 2019]. New Zealand Transport Agency. (2015). RTS 14 – Guidelines for Facilities for Blind and Vision Impaired Pedestrians. 3rd ed. Road and Traffic Standard Series. NZTA Wellington, New Zealand. O’Neill, D., & Moore, D. (2016). The evolving realities of HF/E practice in agriculture. In: S. Shorrock & C. Williams (Eds.), Human Factors and Ergonomics in Practice: Improving System Performance & Human Wellbeing in the Real World. Ashgate Publishing. Pocock, N. (2019). Proposing a Post-Disciplinary Approach to Research through Ontological and Epistemological Reflection. University of Waikato. Retrieved from the http://www. lincoln.ac.nz/PageFiles/7235/Pocock.pdf. [Accessed 23 January 2019]. Reed, B., & 7Group (2009). The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building. Wiley, New York. Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. (1995). Access Working Party Report. Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, Auckland. Sen, A., & Anand, S. (1996). Sustainable human development: Concepts and priorities. In: UNDP Office of Development Studies, Discussion Paper Series. UNDP: New York, 16. Slappendel, C., Moore, D., & Tappin, D. (1996). Ergonomics in the meat processing industry. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the NZ Ergonomics Society, Wellington, NZ.

428

Human Factors for Sustainability

Stock, G. N., & Tatikonda, M. V. (2000). A typology of project-level technology transfer processes. Journal of Operations Management, 18(6), 719–737. Tedestedt George, C. (2018). An inquiry into contextual factors impacting the occupational health, safety, and well-being of New Zealand truck drivers: An ecological systems approach. PhD dissertation. Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Treasury. (2019). Living Standards Framework. Retrieved from https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/living-standards/our-living-standards-framework. [Accessed 11 January 2019]. Vaioleti, T. M. (2006). Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific research. Waikato Journal of Education, 12, 21–33. Worksafe. (2019). Retrieved from https://worksafe.govt.nz/data-and-research/ws-data/fatalities/by-focus-area/. [Accessed 23 January 2019]. Young, A. (2015). Most types of farming can claim exemption under health and safety reforms, says minister. New Zealand Herald. Business. Retrieved from https://www. nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11499759. [Accessed 19 August 2015].

Section IV Reflections

19

Concluding Remarks, the Outlook, and Future Research Klaus J. Zink, Andrew Thatcher, and Klaus Fischer

CONTENTS What Was Covered in This Book?.......................................................................... 431 What Is Needed Moving Forward?......................................................................... 433 Discussing the Future of Work................................................................................ 435 References............................................................................................................... 437

WHAT WAS COVERED IN THIS BOOK? In the introduction chapter, we tried to show the main emerging research tendencies in the context of human factors and ergonomics (HFE) and sustainable development. Therefore, it should not be surprising at all that this book reflects an extension of this work. In Chapter 2, Drury and Hancock remind us that the discussion of HFE and sustainable development has to reflect principal questions for HFE: Are we contributing to the global quality of life, and whose well-being are we targeting? They state that there has been an insufficient focus by HFE theory and practice since the very beginning, and HFE has to start with this discussion. Also, Thatcher, Lange-Morales, and García-Acosta (Chapter 3) refer to the necessity to explicitly clarify our values if we are to move toward more sustainable approaches and therefore recommend that ethics is included in HFE curricula. Though Brunoro et al. (Chapter 4) deal with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), they discuss these goals using the lens of Activity-Centered Ergonomics (ACE) and the Psychodynamics of Work (PDW), which again brings normative aspects to the foreground. Chapter 5 (Zink) discusses the changes in supply chains referring to knowledge work (based on new technologies) and the question of whether these new types of work could be classified as sustainable and (again) what role can be played by HFE in the development of concepts to make this work sustainable. The focus of Fischer (Chapter 11) is also global value creation in supply chains, and he discusses HFE approaches in the supply chain to create (more) sustainable work systems and global competitiveness in different stages of economic development. This approach is very much related to a (product) life cycle perspective as described by García-Acosta and Lange-Morales (Chapter 6) in their “sociotechnical product cycle” model. Jentsch (Chapter 7) deals with a similar problem in describing the Social Life Cycle 431

432

Human Factors for Sustainability

Assessment (S-LCA) published by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). The S-LCA is a concept enabling the measurement of social impacts of products along their life cycle (i.e., a cradle-to-grave approach). Looking for a theoretical basis for these concepts leads to Chapter 10 (Thatcher and Yeow), which describes the practical implementation of a systems-of-systems (SSoS) model for HFE and sustainable development. Taking the headline of “green ergonomics” as part of HFE and sustainable development, Chapter 8 (Hanson and Thatcher) explores and highlights the HFE issues of green jobs described by three examples but also including the impact of climate change on jobs. The ecological pillar of sustainability is also present in Chapter 12 (Saravia-Pinilla, Daza-Beltrán, and Penafort) looking at corporate sustainability from an ergoecological approach. Mainly ecological aspects are also included in the case study from the Persian Gulf (Chapter 13 by Tabibzadeh and Meshkati), which identifies interdependencies of human and organizational subsystems of multiple complex, safety-sensitive technological systems (e.g., nuclear power plants) in the context of sustainability of an ecosystem and climate change. Three case studies focus on specific industries: Meyer et al. (Chapter 14) deal with social sustainability in the Chilean forestry sector; Reiman et al. (Chapter 17) focus on safety training parks in the construction industry; and Hutchinson (Chapter 16) looks at the sustainability of transport systems, particularly in industrially developing countries (IDCs). A fourth case study from the brewing industry (Imada and Imada, Chapter 9) is based on a theoretical concept presenting sustainability through a systems lens with concepts drawn from macroergonomics, human systems integration, and organizational behavior, compared with a model predicting safety behavior. This chapter deals with the question of generating sustainable behavior and therefore could be understood as a transference concept similar to Chapter 18 (Moore, Tedestedt George, and Quadir), which looks at the lessons learned from HFE’s role in sustainable development projects in New Zealand. If we look at the thematic clusters in this book, we can see that there is still a discussion about the normative basis of HFE and sustainable development, which is not helped by the fact that this discussion has not systematically been led in HFE. It is still an open question as to whether this discussion will be thrust on us by clients and further external stakeholders who demand such services from HFE (as was evident in Moore et al.’s Chapter 18) or whether the normative basis of our discipline can be discussed in the HFE community led by the IEA itself (as suggested by Thatcher et al.’s Chapter 3). We can also acknowledge that complex systems thinking, such as the system-ofsystems approach from Thatcher and Yeow (2016), is the only feasible way to discuss HFE and sustainability from a global perspective while also taking a necessary holistic point of view. HFE and ecology is one of the newer fields of our discipline explicitly referring to the sustainability debate and needs to be consequently discussed within a multidimensional framework as the Triple Bottom Line approach. Some of the case studies in this book remind us that – at least in the past – we had quite different needs in IDCs to achieve sustainable work systems than what has been discussed in Westernized countries. Besides the general need for HFE to

Concluding Remarks, the Outlook, and Future Research

433

deliver culturally sensitive solutions, these differences are not carved in stone and HFE should take a much more proactive and supporting role in the transition of countries from the so-called economically “developing” to the “developed world” (see Fischer, Chapter 11). Dividing our planet into a global north and global south does not respect the development of IDCs and emerging countries in the last decades or the principles of sustainable development aiming at global equity and a common, but specific, responsibility for saving our global ecosphere. As we strive for “real sustainability” in practice, which is often a much harder job than describing solutions in theory, one needs the respective transfer of concepts as described by Imada and Imada (Chapter 9) and Moore et al. (Chapter 18), showing the potential of HFE interventions to address inertia of human and social systems.

WHAT IS NEEDED MOVING FORWARD? Thatcher and Yeow (2018) outlined five components of change required by HFE to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world in a way that could facilitate sustainability and sustainable development: • A move away from disciplinary specialization toward transdisciplinarity • Greater emphasis on systems, complexity, and complex adaptive systems in HFE as compared to an earlier focus on microergonomics • The emergence of values and ethics as central concerns for the discipline • Moving beyond mitigation (i.e., trying to make things less bad) and toward adaptation (i.e., also being resilient to changing conditions that can’t easily be predicted) in our efforts to tackle global issues and sustainability • The importance of local, tailored, and devolved solutions to problems rather than a reliance on global solutions that assume they work under an infinite variety of contexts To outline what is required for future research, one first has to look at deficits in the past but also attempt to predict the megatrends influencing the future of (sustainable) work. Of course, it is virtually impossible to predict the specific aspects of the future with any degree of certainty. The past is a demonstration of what could happen in the future, but it does not provide certainty. This is expressed clearly in Thatcher et al.’s (2018) state of the science paper on how HFE has addressed global problems. Bearing in mind that HFE is about the interaction of humans and other elements of a system (according to the International Ergonomics Association’s official definition) and sustainability is (at least) about a Triple Bottom Line approach with the responsible use of economic, social, and environmental resources, there are such a lot of different “other elements of a system” necessary to consider that we should design HFE concepts and instruments due to sustainability requirements (Zink & Fischer, 2013, p. 351; Kubek, Fischer, & Zink, 2015): • We need to include the entire life cycle of products and services, not just the phases where they are perceived to be “in use” (e.g., including phases as raw material extraction, maintenance, and recycling/disposal).

434

Human Factors for Sustainability

• Designing work systems needs to address the whole value chain up- and downstream, ideally comprising all sub‑tier suppliers and forwarding customers. • We need to overcome a pure microergonomic perspective in all cases where it is too reductionist and need to look at the organization of systems from a macroergonomic perspective. • We need to look at “whole” industries and whole ecosystems, respecting complex systemic interrelations and impacts on external systems. This book includes all these aspects in more or less detail with examples and some emerging research results. However, there still remains a lot to do and the following are just some examples. As ecological aspects have not been at the core of HFE, there is a great deal more work that can be done to design work systems that are eco-efficient (i.e., doing less bad), eco-productive (i.e., give back to the environment), and eco-effective (i.e., respecting absolute planetary boundaries and ecological limitations). Therefore, we have chosen this topic as and example for all three sustainability dimensions, and its principles can also be transferred to the sustainable use of human, social, and economic capital. Looking at ecological aspects, HFE work could range from introducing technology that is more eco-efficient, to understanding the interactions between technology and workers that ensure that they are used more eco-efficiently, to the design of work environments that leverage eco-efficiency. In particular, there is a great deal of work that needs to take place to understand the interactions between human users and biomimetic designs (i.e., designs that are based on, or mimic, natural systems). Such designs promise to be eco-productive rather than just being more efficient and – when they are deduced in the right way from nature – they are also consistent with ecosystems (e.g., by using biodegradable raw materials) and thus improving eco-effectiveness. Quite a number of attempts to improve eco-efficiency in organizations involve some type of sociotechnical system intervention (e.g., a “green” building, an electricity monitoring device, or eco-efficient appliances) and yet we understand very little about whether these technologies actual result in a significant eco-efficient behavior change or whether the human operators simply adapt and carry on with their normal behaviors. Future work therefore needs to continue to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of technological interventions. It should also look at how work design can be used to promote ecological behaviors, both in the workplace and beyond the workplace (e.g., the choice of how to travel to work, in socially responsible work, and in the general community). There are opportunities for HFE to explore work designs that incorporate the recreational and regenerative powers of natural systems. When looking at the sustainability of human (and social) capital, work-life balance is an increasingly important component of modern workplaces and new forms of work. Further work needs to be undertaken to understand how to design appropriate work-life balance schedules, fitting with different stages of family and professional life as well as with individual and companies/organizations’ needs. Disappearing boundaries between work and leisure due to remote work have already been discussed since the debates around telework in the 1970s, but technological conditions

Concluding Remarks, the Outlook, and Future Research

435

now force a requirement for availability “all the time and everywhere” and the implications for designing sustainable work systems have changed fundamentally. We also have to look further at the interrelationship between product design and work system design (Zink, 2011), leading to an integrated perspective on product and production HFE along supply chains and life cycle stages (Kubek et al., 2015): • How does product design influence the design of a sustainable work system including not only HFE demands but also ecological and economic demands? • How do we design products for economically, socially, and ecologically sound dis-assembly and remanufacturing or recycling processes? • How can we improve life cycle analyses to be usable, economical, and therefore acceptable and how can we communicate the obtained sustainability information for effective behavioral changes? • Which HFE strategies help to realize economic, ergonomic, and ecological supply chains and how can we in particular use available low-cost strategies to improve working conditions in IDCs? If we focus on organizations, we can use macroergonomic approaches but we also need to look at concepts such as sustainable human resource management (e.g., Ehnert, Harry, & Zink, 2014), which have to be developed further. Change management in the direction of more sustainable behavior based on relevant strategies but also the design of supporting organizational structures and processes that use fewer resources in a “lean” way and based on a sociotechnical approach is another challenge. Moving to the level of industries and ecosystems, we could use some of the experiences from the community ergonomics (Smith et al., 2002) proposal, but this concept needs further development and will require a more multidisciplinary perspective. Building on the initial summary, to date, papers in the field of HFE and sustainable development have been in a wide array of areas from macroergonomic responses at the community and organizational level to microergonomic responses at the level of individual tasks and products. The conceptualizations of what constitutes sustainability have, however, been rather varied. The theoretical approaches are fairly consistent in their portrayal of sustainability as multidimensional and complex, but the practical implementations are still dogged by misconceptions and narrow and naïve interpretations. Despite these problems, there are some wonderful examples of multidisciplinary HFE work that address sustainability issues in complex and innovative ways. As stated earlier, there is a great deal of scope for HFE methods and interventions to synergize with parallel work taking place in more traditional areas of other disciplines. Surviving the significant and complex problems facing our ecosystem and work systems will definitely require a multidisciplinary perspective.

DISCUSSING THE FUTURE OF WORK After looking back from a more general point of view, it might also be helpful to look at papers regarding the future of work. A literature review of papers discussing the

436

Human Factors for Sustainability

future of work during the last few years shows that four megatrends find a consensus: technology, climate change, globalization, and demography (Balliester & Elsheikhi, 2018, p. 1). Using these topics as a checklist shows that technology, climate change, and globalization have found their way into the discussion of HFE and sustainable development. Demographic factors have not really been a specific topic but have been dealt with within “traditional” HFE with no explicit focus on sustainability (e.g., Stedmon et al., 2012). Therefore, we can state that these mega-trends have already been included in the HFE literature, although there are different demands in different parts of the world. If we look at recent studies regarding the future of work, it might be that technology could become a growing challenge not only from a national perspective but also from a global perspective – which will need to be included in research agendas for the future. Digital technologies are blurring the boundaries of organizations and challenging traditional production patterns and expanding global value chains (World Bank Group, 2019, pp. 3, 25). Nonstandard forms of employment are growing and there is a need for a new definition of the organization. Platform marketplaces (e.g., online shops) allow the effects of technology to reach more people than ever before. Local start-ups evolve into global behemoths often with few employees or tangible assets (World Bank Group, 2019, p. 3). Therefore, IDCs will need to take rapid action to ensure they can compete in the economy of the future. IDCs (but not only IDCs) have to invest in their people, especially in health and education. If this investment is not done urgently, the World Bank analysts calculate that the workforce of the future will only be one-third to one-half as productive as it could be (World Bank Group, 2019, p. vii). The sudden burst in the application of artificial intelligence (but also advances in robotics and social robotics) creates the feeling of vastly accelerating technological change disrupting labor markets and deteriorating working conditions (Ernst et al., 2018, pp. 3, 8). Therefore again, the investment in new skills like technological know-how, problem solving, and critical thinking, as well as soft skills, is necessary in order to be prepared for new working conditions (World Bank Group, 2019, p. vii). Since about two-thirds of the labor force in IDCs are working in the informal sector with no social protection, creating formal jobs is the first, best policy (World Bank Group, 2019, pp. 4, 7). But because of recent technological developments, the divide between formal and informal work is blurring, which leads to a convergence in the nature of work between advanced and emerging economies. The challenges of short-term or temporary workers (such as crowd workers) in advanced economies are the same as those faced by workers in the informal sector (World Bank Group, 2019, p. 26f). Therefore, innovative approaches for ensuring universal social protection for the future of work have to be discussed (ILO, 2018). Taking the global perspective again, one has to realize that the mechanization of agriculture in emerging countries represents the largest global shift in work (World Bank Group, 2019, p. 29). The International Labour Organization (ILO) published, as part of its 100th birthday celebrations, the results of the report on the “Global Commission on the Future of Work” on January 22, 2019, entitled “Work for a Brighter Future” (ILO 2019). The report calls for a human-centered agenda for the future of work, which consists of three pillars:

Concluding Remarks, the Outlook, and Future Research

437

1. Increased investment in people (e.g., lifelong learning for all, supporting people in the transitions, a transformative agenda for gender equality, and strengthening social protection) 2. Increased investment in the institutions of work (e.g., establishing a universal labor guarantee, expanding time sovereignty, revitalizing collective representation, and technology for decent work) 3. Increasing investment in decent and sustainable work (e.g., transforming economies and developing a human-centered business and economic model) (ILO, 2019) Based on the tripartite concept of the ILO, this report is primarily addressed to governments, employers, and workers’ organizations. We argue that it should also be relevant for employers and employees and for the whole of HFE, but especially HFE and sustainable development. Taking these developments together raises the question of whether or not we need a new definition of sustainability in the context of HFE that includes aspects of the gig‑economy. If we can accept that an important focus of HFE and sustainable development is on sustainable working systems (including supply chains), the scope of definitions like the one from Docherty et al. (2009, p. 3), which focus mainly on aspects of how classical work is organized, might no longer be sufficient and need at least to be extended, particularly with regards to work in a digital era. Such a definition doesn’t include aspects like data privacy and protection, and important employment aspects such as a fair income are only implicitly addressed. Do we as a consequence have to talk (also) about “sustainable employment”? As a final point, it is worth mentioning that the problems that are addressed in this book are not per se HFE specific. They involve all humans at a quality of life and existential level. Our approaches therefore need to not only be multidisciplinary but actually affect all disciplines simultaneously. They require nondisciplinary approaches that draw on all disciplines.

REFERENCES Balliester, T., & Elsheikhi, A. (2018). The Future of Work: A Literature Review. ILO Research Department, Working Paper No. 29. Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---dgreports/---inst/documents/publication/wcms_625866.pdf. [Accessed January 21, 2019]. Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani, A. B. (2009). What the world needs now is sustainable work systems. In: P. Docherty, M. Kira & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Developing Social Sustainability. London: Routledge, 1–21. Ehnert, I., Harry, W., & Zink, K. J. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainability and Human Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business Organizations. Berlin: Springer. Ernst, E., Merola, R. & Ernst, E. (2018). The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: Implications for the Future of Work. ILO Future of Work Research Paper Series 5. Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_647306.pdf. [Accessed January 18, 2019]. ILO. (Ed.). (2018). Innovative Approaches for Ensuring Universal Social Protection for the Future of Work. Geneva: ILO. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_618176.pdf. [Accessed January 18, 2019].

438

Human Factors for Sustainability

ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work. (Ed.). (2019). Work for a Brighter Future. Executive Summary. Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_662539.pdf. [Accessed January 22, 2019]. Kubek, V., Fischer, K., & Zink, K. J. (2015). Sustainable work systems: A challenge for macroergonomics? IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 3(1), 72–80. Smith, J. H., Cohen, W. J., Conway, F. T., Carayon, P., Derjani Bayeh, A., & Smith, M. J. (2002). Community ergonomics. In: H. W. Hendrick & B. M. Kleiner (Eds.), Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications Association. Mahwah (NJ): L. Erlbaum. Stedmon, A. W., Howells, H., Wilson, J. R., & Dianat, I. (2012). Ergonomics/human factors needs of an ageing workforce in the manufacturing sector. Health Promotion Perspectives, 2(2), 112–125. Thatcher, A., Waterson, P., Todd, A., & Moray, N. (2018). State of science: Ergonomics and global issues. Ergonomics, 61(2), 197–213. Thatcher, A. & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178. Thatcher, A. & Yeow, P. H. P. (2018). Ergonomics and human factors for a sustainable future: Suggestions for a way forward. In: A. Thatcher & P. H. P. Yeow (Eds.), Ergonomics and Human Factors for a Sustainable Future: Current Research and Future Possibilities. Singapore: Palgrave-MacMillan, 373–390. World Bank Group. (Ed.) (2019). World Development Report 2019: The changing nature of work. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/816281518818814423/pdf/2019WDR-Report.pdf. [Accessed January 19, 2019]. Zink, K. J. (2011). Produktentwicklung und Nachhaltigkeit: Notwendigkeit eines Paradigmenwechsels aus arbeitswissenschaftlicher Sicht [Product development and sustainability: Call for a paradigm change from HFE perspective]. In: GfA (Eds.), Mensch & Technik, Organisation – Vernetzung im Produktentstehungs- und herstellungsprozess [Humans, Technology, Organization – Interlinking the Process of Product Development and Production]. Dortmund, Germany: GfA-Press, 181–185. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356.

Index Activity-centred ergonomics (ACE), 83, 85, 86, 336, 338, 339–340, 343, 358, 359 Adaptation, 60, 230–232, 367, 433 Agenda 2030, 2, 239–242; see also Sustainable development, millennium development goals Air quality, 16, 194, 196 Anthropocentric, 52, 60, 62, 261–262, 277, 346, 351, 354 Biodiversity, 51, 63, 76, 173, 184, 231, 268, 270, 272, 274, 277, 280–281 Biomimicry, 262 Built environment, 16–17, 186, 261 Capital cultural capital, 409–417 economic capital, 9, 11, 113, 434 natural/ecological capital, 9, 61, 67, 194, 219, 260, 263, 273, 277 social capital/human capital, 9, 12, 45, 67, 113, 148, 194, 198, 232, 242, 260, 263, 391, 400, 434 Climate change, 2, 4, 76, 172, 185–187, 278, 300–303, 367–368 Complex adaptive systems, 64, 222, 230, 433 Complexity, 50, 60, 64, 65, 92, 102, 218–219, 226, 260, 337, 339, 343, 358, 378, 390 Complex systems, 13, 64, 218, 219, 221–223, 227, 307, 336, 339, 349–350 Complex teams, 406–407, 413, 424 Construction (construction work), 16–17, 180, 185, 389–392, 395–396, 423 Corporate social responsibility (CSR), 62, 65, 246, 271, 276, 283, 391, 401 Crowd work, 5, 100–111, 114–117 CSR, see Corporate social responsibility Decent work, 4, 5, 39, 65, 76, 77, 100, 110, 241, 252, 385 Eco-driving, 19–20 Eco-effectiveness, 61, 124, 134–140, 262, 341, 434 Eco-efficiency, 61, 124, 135–138, 140, 261–262, 434 Eco-productivity, 61, 124, 134–140, 261, 267 Ecosystem, 76, 130, 134, 139, 173, 226, 241, 251, 253, 261–263, 269, 277–278, 307, 311, 434 Ergoecology, 7, 10, 61, 65, 129, 260, 261–263, 282, 359 Ethics, 53–54, 58, 65, 67, 84, 391, 433

Fair trade, 281 Gig economy, 100, 109 Gini coefficient, 43–44 Globalization, 3, 99, 107, 237 Global South, 2, 3 Global value chains (GVC), 237–239, 244, 245, 247, 251 Green ergonomics, 6, 7, 10, 61, 65, 262 Green jobs, 172–175, 185 GVC, see Global value chains Healthcare, 372, 376, 381 Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) definition, 2, 35, 62, 198, 304 Human factors and sustainable development definition, 7, 9, 15, 109 Human systems integration, 200, 213, 304 Industrially developing countries (IDCs), 12, 62, 100, 107, 247, 249, 253, 365; see also the Global South International Labour Organization, 2, 3, 116, 147, 173, 323, 436 Iteration, 230–231 Leadership, 204, 210 Lean organizations, 14, 61, 435 Life-cycles product life-cycles, 40, 124–127, 147, 253, 280, 433 social life-cycles (S-LCA), 147–148, 155–158, 164 Macroergonomics, 13, 61, 64, 200, 213, 304, 307, 392, 396, 397 Maintenance, 146, 178, 181, 374, 396, 433 Manual handling, 178, 180, 182, 183, 417 Mitigation, 433 Occupational health (OH/OHS/OSH), 3, 5, 62, 180, 187, 247, 252, 326, 327, 329, 389–391, 395, 397, 399, 424 Open systems, 195, 199, 269 Participatory ergonomics, 9, 12, 63, 65, 66, 227, 384, 394, 400 PDD, see Product design and development PDW, see Psychodynamics of work Product design and development (PDD), 124, 134–140, 129, 338 Psychodynamics of work (PDW), 83, 85

439

440 Quality of life, 36, 41, 140, 325, 385 Recycling, 16, 133, 182–183, 199, 205, 212, 239, 435 Renewable/s, 4, 173, 175, 176, 181, 208, 262, 264, 272, 278 Resilience, 61, 310–311 Safety/health and safety, 16, 41, 56, 65, 81, 106, 135, 140, 179, 183, 201, 205, 212, 294, 302, 312, 321, 327, 370, 374, 375, 380, 392, 396, 397, 401 Self-employment, 5, 105 Self-regulation, 267–268 SSoS, see Sustainable system-of-systems Stakeholder/s, 56, 62, 63, 110, 11, 115, 163, 223, 227, 252, 395, 401 Supply chain/s, 65, 99–100, 112, 146, 239, 384, 435 Sustainability community sustainability, 12–13, 198, 206 corporate sustainability, 7, 13–14, 146, 259–260, 263, 265, 281 definition, 67, 124, 172, 196, 206, 219, 313, 337, 367, 435 environmental/ecological sustainability, 10, 12, 124, 128, 232 organizational sustainability/sustainable organizations, 13–14, 204 social sustainability, 12, 124, 319 transport sustainability, 366, 377, 381–385 Sustainable development definition, 1, 8, 35, 193, 408, 411 millennium development goals (MDGs), 8, 282 sustainable development goals (SDGs), 2, 8, 75–77, 79, 111, 240–241, 277, 281, 307, 381

Index Sustainable system-of-systems (SSoS), 31, 217–233, 359, 378–381 Sustainable work systems, 9, 10–11, 109–111, 370, 435 System performance, 42, 252 Total Quality Management (TQM), 251 Training, 15, 68, 208, 211, 277, 322, 328–329, 332, 391–402 Training Parks, 397–402 Translational research interdisciplinary, 69, 83, 116, 128, 147, 304, 358, 407 multidisciplinary, 188, 383, 407, 415, 417–418, 435 post-disciplinary, 407 transdisciplinary, 407, 419, 433 Triple bottom line, 9, 64, 82, 194, 196, 200, 209, 212, 219, 263, 270, 281, 408, 433 Urbanization, 366–367, 375 Values, 7, 53–56, 58–59, 68–69, 82, 83–84, 89, 90, 137, 204, 206, 210–211, 420, 433 Waste/waste management, 12, 14, 16, 127, 156, 173, 175, 182–183, 205, 207, 270, 271, 279, 411 Well-being physical well-being, 37 psychological well-being, 20, 56 Wicked problem/super-wicked problem, 52, 217 Work-as-Done, 415 Work–life balance, 12, 106, 113, 117, 211, 331, 370, 434 Work-on-demand, 100–101, 106, 117 Worldviews, 194, 212, 410, 420