Ergonomics indicators: A proposal for sustainable process performance measurement in ergonomics

Measuring sustainable ergonomics: A hybrid multi‐criteria perspective on ergonomics indicators

“…Importantly, sustainability is useful for organizations, whose main focus is improving organizational performance by also considering environmental and social aspects, to set strategies, concerning business policy, as the starting direction for future development (Wichaisri & Sopadang, 2018). By starting from humans being an essential part of business processes (Sarbat & Ozmehmet Tasan, 2022) due to involvement in many phases of operation systems (Sobhani et al, 2016), such a practical business policy including a systematic approach structured in sustainable ergonomics may assist in measuring the performance of various processes in organizations systematically. Accordingly, which functional areas are needed to be improved could be identified, and sufficient solutions could be proposed; hence, favorable working conditions and human well‐being could be provided.…”

“…The indicators, which are prioritized using the responses of the practitioners working in companies in Turkey and specialized in ergonomics and sustainability, are proposed as candidates for such a policy, including the approach through a hybrid multi‐criteria perspective. The essential part of this research is the capabilities of the ergonomics indicators within sustainable ergonomics to measure various functional areas in an organization, as highlighted in Sarbat and Ozmehmet Tasan (2022), working conditions, decent work, innovations, occupational health and safety, recycling, employee empowerment and development, technology, and charities.…”

“…Importantly, all respondents were informed about the meanings of the criteria defined through the consolidation of the subcriteria listed in Appendix A; Table A1; they were kindly expected to consider those meanings. Additionally, arbitrary order for the indicators was considered in the designed survey for achieving randomness in terms of their classifications proposed in Sarbat and Ozmehmet Tasan (2022), and, to obtain a more objective evaluation, no information was given to the respondents about these classifications. This part provides data for prioritizing the indicators by ranking them through PROMETHEE (Section 3.2) to determine the ones that are candidates for the systematic approach.…”

“…Sustainability, both organizational and inter-organizational, is an emerging concept, and, as Turan and Cetinkaya (2022) underline, the connection between the sustainability of organizations and the sustainability of the broader system has been increasingly aware by managers. Since managers are the stakeholders responsible for well-operated processes in organizations by monitoring and evaluating them (Sarbat & Ozmehmet Tasan, 2022), this increased awareness enables managers to impel the management of decision making processes more effectively for giving critical judgments on various functional areas of organizations relating to financial, strategic, quality, operational, managerial, and employment issues, while not overlooking human.…”

“…This invitation phase, comprising various meetings made with executives to explain the aim and scope of the survey, also took several weeks due to the same reason. The scope of this research, including the search on human, work design, and workplace design as underlined in Sarbat and Ozmehmet Tasan (2020, 2022), was another challenging issue for this invitation phase; companies were not willing to participate in the survey due to some confidentiality concerns related to their employees and organization, as the survey is related to sustainable ergonomics considering human well‐being and workplace safety.…”