Building Sustainable Organisations: Contributions of Activity-Centred Ergonomics and the Psychodynamics of Work

  • Claudio Marcelo Brunoro
  • Ivan Bolis
  • Laerte Idal Sznelwar


Different actors working on organisations aligned with sustainability take into account aspects pertaining to environmental, economic, and social dimensions. This implies a complex system-of-systems approach that particularly involves social aspects. In this sense, according to both activity-centred ergonomics and the psychodynamics of work point of view, work activity can be interpreted in terms of human action, from the standpoint of sustainability for the individual as well as for collective life inside and outside the companies. This means work activity should be highlighted as vital not only for quality and productivity but also to workers themselves, including, ultimately, the development of society and culture. However, even organisations that claim to regard work activity as something that should be designed to provide meaning and purpose that helps to build both individuals’ mental health and identity, these elements are still poorly developed in practice, at least in Brazilian organisations where it has been deeply studied. Therefore, this chapter discusses how corporate actors perceived and implemented relevant issues related to internal social corporate sustainability (e.g. worker’s health) and also the relationships between work activity and corporate sustainability. Lastly, the proposal aims to understand how ideas and principles of activity-centred ergonomics and the psychodynamics of work can contribute to the development of more sustainable organisations.


Sustainable organisations Activity-centred ergonomics Psychodynamics of work Corporate sustainability Corporate social responsibility Sustainable work systems 


  1. Abrahão, J., Sznelwar, L. I., Silvino, A., Sarmet, M., & Pinho, D. (2009). Introdução À Ergonomia: Da Prática À Teoria. São Paulo, Brazil: Blucher.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1959). The human condition. A study of the central dilemmas facing modern man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, R., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18, 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridger, R. S., Brasher, K., Bennett, A. (2013). Sustaining person-environment fit with a changing workforce. Ergonomics, 56(3), 565–577. Retrieved August 15, 2013, from
  6. 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, 1225–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolis, I., Brunoro, C. M., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2016). Work for sustainability: Case studies of Brazilian companies. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolis, I., Morioka, S. N., Brunoro, C. M., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2013, September). Sustainability policies and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Ergonomics contribution regarding work in companies. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57(1), 1080–1084. Sage, CA/Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Brunoro, C. M., Bolis, I., Sznelwar, L., & Kawasaki, B. (2014). Work in a sustainability perspective: Corporates’ perception and ergonomics. In 11th International Symposium on Human Factors in Organisational Design and Management (ODAM), 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. Ergonomic challenges in the new economy. IEA Press.Google Scholar
  10. Daniellou, F. (2004). Introdução. Questões epistemológicas acerca da ergonomia. In F. Daniellou (Ed.), Aergonomia em busca de seus princípios: debates epistemológicos (pp. 1–18). Edgard Blücher: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniellou, F., & Rabardel, P. (2005). Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: Some traditions and communities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dejours, C. (1986). Por um novo conceito de saúde. Revista brasileira de saúde ocupacional, 14(54), 7–11.Google Scholar
  14. Dejours, C. (2004a). A Metodologia Em Psicodinâmica Do Trabalho. In S. Lancman & L. I. Sznelwar (Eds.), Christophe Dejours: Da Psicopatologia À Psicodinâmica Do Trabalho (pp. 105–126). Brasília, Brazil: Paralelo 15.Google Scholar
  15. Dejours, C. (2004b). Sofrimento E Prazer No Trabalho: A Abordagem Pela Psicopatologia Do Trabalho. In S. Lancman & L. I. Sznelwar (Eds.), Christophe Dejours: Da Psicopatologia À Psicodinâmica Do Trabalho (pp. 141–156). Brasília, Brazil: Paralelo 15.Google Scholar
  16. Dejours, C. (2009). Travail vivant. 2: Travail et émancipation. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  17. Dejours, C., & Gernet, I. (2011). Trabalho, Subjetividade E Confiança. In L. I. Sznelwar (Ed.), Saúde Dos Bancários (1st ed., pp. 33–44). São Paulo, Brazil: Publisher Brasil & Editora Gráfica Atitude.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shami, A. B. (Rami) (2009). Creating sustainable work systems – Developing social sustainability (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Duarte, F., Béguin, P., Pueyo, V., & Lima, F. (2015). Work activities within sustainable development. Production, 25(2), 257–265.Google Scholar
  21. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, F., Marras, W. S., et al. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395.Google Scholar
  22. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2004). Sustainable value added—Measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer, K., & Zink, K. J. (2012). Defining elements of sustainable work Systems-A System-oriented approach. Work (Reading, Mass.), 41(Suppl 1), 3900–3905.Google Scholar
  25. Gladwin, T. N., Krause, T.-S., & Kennelly, J. J. (1995). Beyond eco-efficiency: Towards socially sustainable business. Sustainable Development, 3, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. GRI. (2013). Global Reporting Initiatives – Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G3.1). Retrieved from:
  27. Guérin, F., Laville, A., Daniellou, F., Duraffourg, J., Kerguelen, A., et al. (2001). Compreender O Trabalho Para Transformá-Lo: A Prática Da Ergonomia. São Paulo, Brazil: Blucher.Google Scholar
  28. Hanson, M. (2013). Green ergonomics: Challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics, 53(3), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harnois, G., & Gabriel, P. (2000). Mental health and work: Impact, issues and good practices. Geneva, Switzerland: [S.L.] WHO.Google Scholar
  30. Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2004). Criando Valor Sustentável. Rae Executivo, 3(2), 65–79.Google Scholar
  31. Houtman, I. L. D., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2011). Work and mental health. In J. M. Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of occupational health and safety. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Organization.Google Scholar
  32. Hubault, F., & Du Tertre, C. (2008). Le Travail D’évaluation. In F. Hubault (Ed.), Évaluation Du Travail, Travail D’évaluation (pp. 95–114). Toulouse, France: Octarès.Google Scholar
  33. ISO. (2010). Guidance on social responsibility: Draft. International Standard ISO/Dis26000. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization For Standardization.Google Scholar
  34. Kira, M., & Eijnatten, F. M. Van. (2009). Sustainability by work: Individual and social sustainability in work organizations. In: P. Docherty, M. Kira, A. B. Shami (Rami) (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems (2nd ed., pp. 233–246). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Kleine, A., & Hauff, M. (2009, October 9). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S3), 517–533.Google Scholar
  36. Lukersmith, S., & Burgess-Limerick, R. (2013). The perceived importance and the presence of creative potential in the health professional’s work environment. Ergonomics, 56(6), 922–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Metzner, R. J., & Fischer, F. M. (2010). Fatigue and workability in Brazilian textile companies in different corporate social responsibility score groups. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(3), 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Molinier, P. (2001). Souffrance Et Théorie De L’Action. Travailler, 7, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Molinier, P. (2013). O Trabalho E A Psique – Uma Introdução À Psicodinâmica Do Trabalho. Brasília, Brazil: Paralelo 15.Google Scholar
  40. Morioka, S. N., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2016). A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 134–146.Google Scholar
  41. Ryan, B., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). Ergonomics in the development and implementation of organisational strategy for sustainability. Ergonomics, 56(3), 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Savitz, A. W., & Weber, K. (2007). A Empresa Sustentável (1st ed.). Rio De Janeiro, Brazil: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  44. Sznelwar, L. I. (2015). Quando trabalhar é ser protagonista e o protagonismo do trabalho. São Paulo: Editora Blucher.Google Scholar
  45. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56(3), 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UNGC. (2014). United Nation Global Compact. Retrieved from:
  48. Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wisner, A. (1995a). Situated cognition and action: Implications for ergonomic work analysis and anthropotechnology. Ergonomics, 38, 1542–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wisner, A. (1995b). Understanding problem-building: Ergonomics work analysis. Ergonomics, 38(3), 595–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zadek, S., Pruzan, P., & Evans, R. (1997). Building corporate accountability – Emerging practices in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  53. Zink, K. J. (2006). Human factors, management and society. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(4), 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zink, K. J., & Fischer, K. (2013). Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics, 56(3), 348–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Marcelo Brunoro
    • 1
  • Ivan Bolis
    • 1
  • Laerte Idal Sznelwar
    • 1
  1. 1.Production Engineering Department, Polytechnic SchoolUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations