Towards a sustainable world through human factors and ergonomics: it is all about values

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse two approaches that attempt to address how a human factors and ergonomics (HFE) perspective can contribute to the sustainability of the human race. We outline the principles, purposes and fields of application of ergoecology and green ergonomics, and thereafter deal with their context of emergence, and the overlaps in purpose, and principles. Shared values are deduced and related to socio-technical principles for systems' design. Social responsibility and environmental/ecospheric responsibility are the leading threads of ergoecology and green ergonomics, giving rise to the values of: respect for human rights, respect for the Earth, respect for ethical decision-making, appreciation of complexity, respect for transparency and openness, and respect for diversity. We discuss the consequences of considering these values in HFE theory and practice.

An ergonomic approach to sustainable development: The role of information environment and social‐psychological variables in the adoption of agri‐environmental innovations

“…Sustainability is mainly an issue of resource scarcity or damage, either at present or at some time in the future (Dekker, Hancock, & Wilkin, ). Sustainable development has been defined by Brundtland's World Commission on Environment and Development (World Commission on Environment and Development, ) as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 41), and it is often operationalized as a triple bottom line, maintaining the balance among the three pillars of economic, environmental, and social capital, to achieve development that is sustainable over a significant period of time (Lange‐Morales, Thatcher, & García‐Acosta, ).…”

Investigation of the Brazilian academic production in Ergonomics, from 1987 to 2017

“…In some cases, even when a cost-benefit analysis shows the positive impacts of the ergonomic intervention, the company may be reluctant to implement non-conservative proposals (e.g., Guimarães et al, 2012). The international literature shows how difficult it is to promote changes (e.g., Vink et al, 2008;Scott, 2009), although the contemporary Ergonomics is claiming for the integration between ergonomics and production (Westgaard & Winkel, 2011;Zink, 2014) and emphasizing the need for multidisciplinary teamwork to perform interventions with positive social, economic and natural impact, i.e., focusing on sustainability and decent work (e.g., Bolis et al, 2014;Lange-Morales et al, 2014;Thatcher & Yeow, 2016, 2018Bonfatti et al, 2017;Thatcher, 2017;Fostervold et al, 2018).…”

Being Bold: How HFES Can Encourage Responsible, Timely and Participative Ergonomics to Address Societal Issues

“…In his opinion, using HF /E to address societal problems can be focused if we (as an HF/E community) share a common set of values. He has written about the issue of values before with two colleagues from Colombia (another society which has recently had to examine how it faces up to significant social injustices) and have established a preliminary set of values for HF/E that we believe can guide this process (Lange-Morales et al, 2014;Thatcher et al, 2020).…”