Human Factors and Ergonomics: Contribution to Sustainability and Decent Work in Global Supply Chains

  • Klaus J. Zink
  • Klaus Fischer


Globalisation and digitisation of value creation pose new challenges regarding sustainability and decent work. This chapter discusses possible contributions Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) can provide with regard to these challenges. It is our aim to show that although HFE already offers results of extensive research, it is also important to further its development in order to be prepared for dealing with the challenges and opportunities in this field. These range from updating the normative mindset of HFE to broadening its modelling approaches and to developing curricula and cooperation with key actors.


Global supply chains Decent work (Out-)sourcing Digitisation of work Crowdsourcing Social Life-Cycle Analysis 


  1. Alter, S. (2009). Service system fundamentals: Work system, value chain, and life cycle. IBM Systems Journal, 47, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Better Work. (2016). Retrieved June 30, 2016, from
  3. Brandl, K.-H. (2015). Gefordert: Faire Mindeststandards [Demanded: Fair minimum standards]. In Arbeitsrecht Im Betrieb, Sonderausgabe, September 2015: Crowdworking – Gute Arbeit für die Crowd (pp. 40–42). Frankfurt a.M.: Bund Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Costanza, R., & Patten, B. C. (1995). Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological Economics, 15, 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Docherty, P., Forslin, J., Shani, A. B., & Kira, M. (2002). Emerging work systems. In P. Docherty, J. Forslin, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems (pp. 3–14). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. 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 (2nd ed., pp. 1–21). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., et al. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lense for theorizing sustainable HRM: Mapping and coping with paradoxes and tensions. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 247–271). Heidelberg, Germany/New York/Dordrecht, The Netherlands/London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eijnatten, F. M. V. (2000). From intensive to sustainable work systems: The quest for a new paradigm of work. In M. Sapir (Ed.), Working without limits? Re-organizing work and reconsidering workers’ health (pp. 47–66). Brussels, Belgium: TUTB-SALTSA.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM(2011) 681 final. Brussels, Belgium: Author.Google Scholar
  11. European Council. (2016). Trade in conflict minerals: Presidency agreement with the European Parliament. Press release 677/16 (22/11/2016) of the Council of the European Union. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from
  12. European Parliament. (2014a). 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
  13. European Parliament. (2014b). 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
  14. European Parliament. (2014c). 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,
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, K., & Zink, K. J. (2012). Defining elements of sustainable work systems—A system-oriented approach. A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41(1), 3900–3905.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hendrick, H. W., & Kleiner, B. M. (2002). Macroergonomics: Theory, methods, and application. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrmann, C., Bergmann, L., Thiede, S., & Halubek, P. (2007, August 27–29). Total life cycle management – An integrated approach towards sustainability. Paper presented at the “Third International Conference on Life Cycle Management”, University of Zurich, Irchel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  21. Hiß, S. (2006). Warum übernehmen Unternehmen gesellschaftliche Verantwortung? [Why do companies take on social responsibility?]. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. IEA (International Ergonomics Association). (2000). Ergonomics international news and information – August 2000. London: Marshall Associates.Google Scholar
  23. ILO (International Labour Office). (1998). Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
  24. ILO (International Labour Organization). (Ed.) (2008). Measurement of decent work. Discussion paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work, ILO, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  25. ILO (International Labour Organization). (Ed.) (2016). Decent work and the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved July 5, 2016, from
  26. Imada. (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, Germany: PhysicaVerlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). (2004). Behind the brand names. Working conditions and labour rights in export processing zones. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
  28. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2010). Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Google Scholar
  29. Jentsch, M., & Fischer, K. (2017). 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, Germany: Springer. (in print).Google Scholar
  30. Jentsch, M., & Zink, K. (2016). Strategische Bedeutung eines nachhaltigen Lieferkettenmanagements. In T. Wunder (Ed.), CSR und strategisches Management [CSR and strategic management] (pp. 199–215). Berlin, Germany/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Kawakami, T., Kogi, K., Toyama, N., & Yoshikawa, T. (2004). Participatory approaches to improving safety and health under trade union initiative – Experiences of POSITIVE training program Asia. Industrial Health, 42, 196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kittur, A., Nickerson, J. V., Bernstein, M. S., Gerber, E. M., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J., et al. (2013, February 23–27). The future of crowd work. In CSCW Conference Proceedings. San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from
  33. Kleiner, B. M. (2006). Macro-ergonomics: Analysis and design of work systems. Ergonomics, 37, 81–89.Google Scholar
  34. Knolle, M. (2012). Influence of participatory organisation structures on the implementation of social standards: An empirical study of Chinese garment factories. Luneburg: Leuphana University.Google Scholar
  35. Kogi, K. (2008). Participation as precondition for sustainable success: Effective workplace improvement procedures in small-scale sectors in developing countries. In K. J. Zink (Ed.), Corporate sustainability as a challenge for comprehensive management (pp. 183–198). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. LaPlante, R. & Silberman, S. (2015). Design notes for a future crowd work market. Retrieved June 15, 2016, from
  38. Leimeister, J. M., Zogaj, S., & Blohm, I. (2015). Crowdwork – digitale Wertschöpfung in der Wolke [Crowdwork – Digital value creation in the cloud]. In C. Benner (Ed.), Crowdwork – zurück in die Zukunft? Perspektiven digitaler Arbeit (pp. 9–41). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Bund Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Locke, R. (2013). The promise and limits of private power: Promoting labor standards in a global economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Locke, R., Amagual, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Locke, R., & Romis, M. (2007). Improving working conditions in a global supply chain. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 54–62.Google Scholar
  42. Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Johns, T. (2011). The big idea: The age of hyperspecialization. Harvard Business Review, 89(7/8), 56–65.Google Scholar
  43. MBO Partners. (2015). MBO Partners State of Independence in America 2015. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
  44. Nagrale, P. (2012). What is Turkopticon Toolbar? How to Use This in Turk. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from
  45. OECD. (2013). OECD due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Ramboll. (2010). Impact assessment of the public private partnership of GTZ and Tchibo – WE Project. Berlin: Ramboll. Retrieved February 22, 2017, from
  47. Schlick, C. M., Bruder, R., & Luczak, H. (2010). Arbeitswissenschaften [Ergonomics]. Munich, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, P. A. (2008a). Global inequality, and the challenge for ergonomics to take a more dynamic role to redress the situation. Applied Ergonomics, 39, 495–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott, P. A. (2008b). 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, Germany: Physica-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Silberman, S., Irani, L., & Ross, J. (2010). Ethics and tactics of professional crowdwork. XRDS, 17(2), 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  52. Testbirds GmbH. (Ed.) (2015). Code of conduct: Paid crowdsourcing for the better, guideline for a prosperous and fair cooperation between companies, clients & crowd workers. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from
  53. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59(2), 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long wall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. UNCED. (1992a). Agenda 21 – The United Nations program of action from Rio. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New York.Google Scholar
  57. UNCED. (1992b). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Annex I: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). Retrieved August 5, 2016, from
  58. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.Google Scholar
  59. United Nations. (2000). United Nations millennium declaration. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from
  60. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from
  61. United Nations Global Compact Office. (2014). Corporate sustainability in the world economy. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
  62. 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 (pp. 35–38). Berlin, Germany: ver.di.Google Scholar
  63. Zamagni, A., Amerighi, O., & Buttol, P. (2011). Strengths or bias in social LCA? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16, 596–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zink, K. J. (2003). Corporate social responsibility promoting ergonomics. In H. Luczak & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management – VII: Re-designing work and macroergonomics – Future perspectives and challenges (pp. 63–72). Santa Monica, CA: IEA Press.Google Scholar
  65. Zink, K. J. (2009). Human factors and ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Necessity and contribution. In P. A. Scott (Ed.), Ergonomics in developing regions: Needs and applications (pp. 15–27). Boca Raton, FL/London/New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  66. Zink, K. J. (2013). Designing sustainable work systems in a globalized world: A new challenge for ergonomics? In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 57th annual meeting (pp. 1075–1079). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.Google Scholar
  67. Zink, K. J. (2014). Designing sustainable work systems: The need for a systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zink, K. J. (2015). Digitalisierung der Arbeit als arbeitswissenschaftliche Herausforderung: ein Zwischenruf [Digitisation of labour as a challenge to work science: A break-in]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 69(4), 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zink, K. J., & Eberhard, D. (2006). Product and production ergonomics as part of a newly defined product management. In R. N. Pikaar, E. A. P. Koningsveld, & P. J. M. Settels (Eds.), Proceedings of the IEA 2006, 16th world congress on ergonomics. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V. (CD Rom).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus J. Zink
    • 1
  • Klaus Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Technologie und Arbeit e.V., Center for Human FactorsUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations