Past, present, and future of E/HF for sustainability: A perspective from the HFSD Technical Committee

3.1Emerging issues from the IEA 2021 Sustainable Development sessions

Practical application papers focused on systems- and complexity-based approaches, such as complex system theory and the sustainable system-of-systems framework. Other papers presented studies on the use of E/HF related to two main issues: energy (e.g., energy use management, eco-automation, carbon footprint) and waste (e.g., urban solid waste collection, recycling). The integrated analysis of the papers presented in the following subsections generates important ideas and reflections to consolidate E/HF and sustainability as a research field, to develop more systemic approaches within E/HF to frame sustainability issues, and to transform theory into practice.

3.2Joint symposium on “Developing ergonomics practices to address sustainability issues: From companies to territories”

The impetus for the joint symposium stemmed largely from the identified need for E/HF approaches to adopt a much broader scale of analysis when considering sustainability issues. For example, both Thatcher, Nayak and Waterson [50] and Salmon et al. [51] have emphasized the need for taking a broader systems approach when addressing global problems, such as sustainability, from an E/HF perspective. The papers presented in this symposium were therefore closely aligned to Thatcher, Guibourdenche, and Cahour’s [41] call for the activity theories used in E/HF to adopt a more macro-systems approach in order to address sustainability issues. One of the critiques of previous ATWAD research on sustainability issues was that the research and application tended to focus on the micro- (i.e., detailed work analysis of a single person or a dyadic work situation) or meso- (i.e., a narrowly defined work systems such as a team or a small organization) rather than macro-work systems situations that encapsulate large organizations or even the broader geographical region. This joint symposium showcased this emergent way of thinking.

Apart from three papers which were predominantly methodological or theoretical in nature, the other papers in the symposium were each empirical examples of activity theory and work analysis applied to interpret and understand macro-systems. Already this is a significant advancement from previous studies in HFSD that have discussed larger systemic issues. Previous research has almost exclusively been theoretical in nature [34] or has only re-analysed existing data [46, 47]. The studies in this symposium covered an interesting range of application areas including optimizing the design of an organic farm without pesticides [52], the revival of ancestral agriculture methods [53], the design of an efficient packaging distribution system, the design of a public transport system [54], the design of organic waste management systems [55, 56], the design of informal trading systems in a slum [57], the design of an eco-tourism site [58], and Guimaraes’ presentation of a co-creation website for the design of a sustainable city. Four common issues emerged from the symposium which have a bearing on directions for future work in HFSD: co-design, “boundary objects,” defining a territory, and competing sustainability goals.

4.1Ideas for moving from the present to the future based on studies at the IEA 2021

Many of the research and applications that address the concept of “sustainable development”, even in the context of E/HF, are based on the notion of eco-efficiency, but this leads to the Jevons paradox [62]; increases in efficiency leads to decreases in costs and therefore greater use of the product or service with the net effect being that total consumption levels stay the same or even increase with an population growth. A debate on the paradigm of “sustainable development” is therefore required by theorists in the E/HF community to move to a broader notion of “sustainability” beyond eco-efficiency to concepts such as eco-effectiveness and eco-productivity in the dynamics between human systems and other systems. Epistemological consolidation is required to explicitly establish the paradigmatic aspects of E/HF oriented towards sustainability. This should be supported by a review of the theoretical bases and conceptual principles that have been raised within E/HF such as corporate social responsibility, green ergonomics, and ergoecology.

Based on the above, it is necessary to promote the development of methods and tools in each of these approaches. In particular, empirical studies, field studies and practical applications are needed to validate key concepts and theoretical approaches (e.g., ergoecology, sustainable work, and SSoS). Systems- and complexity-based approaches have been used to frame sustainability problems [35, 37, 40] and future efforts need to be directed towards the operationalization of knowledge (i.e., transforming theoretical approaches into concrete strategies and tools and empirical field studies). Researchers and practitioners need to focus on the complexity of the systems and behaviors that are involved in sustainability and should apply these new principles and approaches to discover, adapt and develop new methodologies and tools aimed at sustainability. Some of this work has already started [41, 54, 57, 58], but needs to be tackled more consistently and systematically if E/HF is to play a more significant role.

In the short term, the goal of E/HF beyond its role of problem identification, must be emphasized. The work of the HFSD Technical Committee has been excellent in diagnosing problems and issues that require addressing but has not been as successful in the implementation and evaluation of design solutions. Of course, there were exceptions presented at the IEA2021 Congress [40, 45, 52]. It is necessary to be more design-driven, so that physical and social transformations within sustainability parameters are promoted and effectively carried out for work design, technology design, and innovative processes, tools, and products.

It is important to establish the same theoretical basis as the sociotechnical and systemic approach (i.e., inputs, transformation, and outputs of sustainable energy and information) as an epistemological framework that allows for the development of more studies on the performance of users or consumers in various activities and roles that are negatively impacting social and environmental sustainability (as well as other dimensions of sustainability that are not usually recognized such as political and cultural sustainability). E/HF and sustainability should be seen as a frontier field, where it is possible (or rather necessary) to work from a multidisciplinary perspective, with solid epistemological bases in theories from multiple disciplines that enable designers to incorporate systemic aspects, to create transdisciplinary knowledge. A new way of approaching E/HF evaluations is required, addressing problems with a more strategic focus.

4.2The future of E/HF and the future of work

The future of the HFSD Technical Committee is also closely related to the future of E/HF and the future of work. It is therefore important to tackle some of the related topics discussed at the IEA 2021 Congress, especially those covered during the sessions “The future of ergonomics: three triennials later” organized by Jan Dul, “HFE values, principles, and approaches for contributing to mold the future of work we want” chaired by Juan Carlos Hiba, and “HFE global strategies and activities for molding the future of work we want” chaired by Klaus Zink.

Regarding the future of E/HF, two main topics were discussed. The first tackled the complexity of work (i.e., sociotechnical systems with a focus on the systems approach, the changing nature of work, and the need for specific E/HF approaches). In this discussion, Industry 5.0 [63] was seen as an excellent opportunity to expand the impact of E/HF, as the concepts involved in this proposal are human-centric and seek a transition to a circular economy to have resource-efficient and sustainable industries. The second theme dealt with approaches to the managerial context. Here the emphasis was put on speaking in the language of powerful stakeholders, by first delivering the benefits of E/HF in performance terms.

The sessions devoted to the future of work dealt with values, principles, approaches, contexts, and strategies oriented to clarify the role and possible contributions of E/HF to dignifying human work. This relates to the issues of values and the need to develop a new ethical instance for E/HF. The ethics and values of E/HF and sustainability has previously received attention from the HFSD community [7, 18, 27, 40, 61] and will have particular relevance for those people in E/HF who are working on understanding the future of work. The question here could be: What is meant by dignified human work? Lange-Morales et al. [59] proposed six values (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) that can be summarized in two main focuses: social and environmental responsibility, emphasizing the need for tackling both in parallel. Dignity is related essentially with respect, and human work is related essentially to using or transforming the environment for human survival and need satisfaction. Since human survival depends directly on the planet as a whole, dignified human work can be understood as working towards all dimensions of sustainability (i.e., cultural, social, economic, technological, and political) and environmental sustainability, as proposed in the ergoecological approach [9, 26, 31, 59].

One of the aspects highlighted in these sessions was the diversity of contexts, recognizing that this diversity did not occur only in different geographical regions but also within the same country/region. On the other hand, all regions share common challenges, and most work, globally speaking, does not happen within the formal structure of an organizational context, but in informal work contexts (i.e., informal marketplaces, subsistence work, recreation, and the home). According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), “more than 60 per cent of the world’s employed population are in the informal economy” [65]. Therefore, by concentrating on the human workers hired in organizations, we are only concentrating on the smallest part of the universe of work. Consequently, E/HF’s impact is limited. This leads to the conclusion that the concept of work typically used in E/HF should be re-considered based on the pressing challenges of sustainable development and the complexity this adds [41, 45, 50, 59, 66]. Another aspect to consider is that there are megatrends relevant for all parts of the world (i.e., the rise of robotic and artificially intelligent systems, the casualization of work, etc.) [20, 21, 34, 37, 64], and within these trends, climate change is especially relevant to the issues tackled by members of HFSD community such as ergoecology [9] and green ergonomics [8].

It should also be noted that the concept of sustainability is ambiguous within the E/HF field [20, 37, 67] and even within the HFSD community. Sustainability is often seen as a synonym for work under good conditions throughout the work life (i.e., related to workability, employability, and work longevity). Another, broader, understanding views sustainability as the concurrent development of economic, environmental, human, and social resources engaged in work processes. However, even this second view is limited, especially when it is expressed as sustainable development, which links tacitly to the dominant economic model [27, 29].

In short, these themes can be categorized as representing the complexity of work and relationships with stakeholders. Not only do the concepts of work and sustainability need a deeper discussion within the E/HF community, but also the relationships with stakeholders must be strengthened. While emphasizing the benefits of E/HF for performance has already been recognized as a strategic way to convince powerful stakeholders [47, 68], this is insufficient when thinking about all the dimensions of sustainability. This suggests that there is a need to redefine E/HF and work. Some authors [e.g. 59] have even proposed redefining the whole concept of E/HF. This may also be an opportunity to rename this committee from the HFSD Technical Committee to the “Ergonomics and Human Factors towards Sustainability” Technical Committee.

4.3Practical agenda: Consolidating the work of the HFSD Technical Committee through its sub-committees

Considering how much has been written so far, there is still a lot of work to be done by the HFSD Technical Committee to extend the knowledge that connects E/HF to sustainability. From a practical point of view, the HFSD Technical Committee involves its network of participants through sub-committees. We therefore make some suggestions to guide future actions of the sub-committees although the final decisions rest with the relevant sub-committee leadership and membership. The six sub-committees are: “Theoretical Perspectives on Human Factors and Sustainable Development”; “Human Factors and Sustainable Development in Global Value Creation”; “E/HF and Design for Sustainability”; “Energy and Mobility”; “Sustainability in the Built Environment”; and “Smart/Intelligent Systems.”

The work of the “Theoretical Perspectives on HFSD” sub-committee is now fairly mature. There is a much clearer (and shared) understanding about sustainability and sustainable development within the HFSD community and this is clear in the work at the IEA2021 Congress and beyond. However, misunderstandings and misuse of these terms still prevail beyond the HFSD community and therefore the work of this sub-committee could be to look at how to make these definitions more widely known. Further, despite the theoretical development being relatively mature there are still many avenues for elaboration, clarification, and expansion. In this paper we have mentioned the work on ergoecology [26], the SSoS framework [40], and the design of sustainable work [27], demonstrating fertile ground for further growth. Given that the ATWAD symposium papers were tackling similar theoretical issues such as defining relevant systems, the interplay between relevant systems, and how to deal with multiple competing goals, it is possible that theoretical advancements could come from outside this sub-committee. Theoretical advancements of this nature will still need to be integrated with existing thinking in the HFSD community. While the theoretical construction of the relationship between E/HF and sustainability is relatively mature, the application of these concepts is not. Practical application of these theoretical concepts needs to be included in this sub-committee. This could mean changing the name of this sub-committee to “Practical Perspectives on HFSD.”

No work of the “Human Factors and Sustainable Development in Global Value Creation” sub-committee was presented at the IEA2021 Congress. However, equitable and sustainable treatment across the entire value chain is still relevant. Both in our review of the IEA2021 Technical Committee program and in the ATWAD joint symposium, it was evident that the need to understand and model complex systems to resolve sustainability issues was required. Given that global value chains are an example of a complex, global system, it is possible that this work might be combined to form a sub-committee with a broader scope, looking at how E/HF might tackle larger, systemic issues [34].

Regarding the “E/HF and Design for Sustainability” sub-committee, there is a huge opportunity for contributing to sustainability inside and outside the formal work arena, especially considering the design-driven orientation of E/HF. As shown in some of the papers presented at IEA2021, it is necessary to make consumption patterns transparent for the users, so that they have information for making better decisions in daily life to support sustainability. However, based on previous contributions, this sub-committee needs to expand its role for a broader view of design for sustainability. Considering stakeholder theory [4], this sub-committee needs to explore stakeholder impacts on the three pillars of sustainability when designing artifacts, tasks, and built environments. These stakeholders could be consumers of an artifact, as we see in the IEA2021 contributions, but also users of a constructed environment, workers within work processes, etc.

In this broader view, the other three sub-committees can be considered as specific applications within the context of “Design for Sustainability.” “Sustainability in the built environment” specifically focuses on designing for sustainability in the homes, offices, neighborhoods, cities, and other infrastructure. “Energy and Mobility” is currently focused on changing user behavior towards the use of mobility products, but it is evident that there are a multitude of other contexts where design for sustainability with energy products and services are relevant including home and office energy systems, entire energy grids, public transport systems, and energy storage systems. For “Smart / Intelligent Systems” there are numerous relevant applications including systems that improve the tracking of consumption (e.g., energy, water, waste, etc.) to make consumption trends transparent for users, and supporting behavior change towards sustainability. Work on understanding sustainability in the context of smart grids, smart homes, and smart cities will be important.

In reviewing the ATWAD joint symposium it is also evident that sustainability and sustainable development are not issues that should only be tackled by a single Technical Committee. The HFSD and ATWAD Technical Committees have held joint symposia at both the IEA2018 and IEA2021 Congresses, demonstrating the value of working cooperatively. We believe that there are opportunities for collaboration with other Technical Committees. For example, the Sustainability and the Built Environment sub-committee could have cooperative arrangements with the Building and Construction Technical Committee (e.g., on advancements in E/HF in green buildings, green cities, and green infrastructure). Other IEA Technical Committees such as “Affective Design,” “Ergonomics in Design for All,” “Ergonomics in Manufacturing,” “Organizational Design & Management,” and “Transport Ergonomics and Human Factors,” each have natural affinities with the HFSD Technical Committee and cooperative relationships should be established.

4.4Conceptual agenda: The importance of having a common orientation regarding the relation between E/HF and sustainability

The previous sections show the variety and complexity that the E/HF must tackle to contribute to sustainability. A deep reflection must be built from the studies and practices promoted so far by the HFSD Technical Committee and the emerging discussion about the future of E/HF and the future of work. From a conceptual point of view, it is possible to observe that the relationship between E/HF and sustainability is approached from multiple perspectives, sometimes from contradictory points of view. We believe this plurality of views currently present in the HFSD community is important, allowing the creation of an inclusive space that allows for many inputs for the advancement of this knowledge. On the other hand, the presence of multiple views can lead to confusion. Considering the importance of having a common orientation that allows a joint and more robust construction of knowledge, we think it is necessary for the HFSD Technical Committee to promote a conceptual discussion in order to propose a broad and inclusive definition of the relationship between E/HF and sustainability.

Without intending to avoid the broader discussion or to unify concepts, we point out some elements that can be included in this conceptual discussion. First, we can point out that people and their decisions are central to sustainability. This could be a worker (at all organizational levels), a consumer (user of a product or a service), a politician or a leader, etc. All people make decisions that end with actions, and depending on these decisions, it is possible to promote greater or lesser sustainability (in all its aspects). In this context, E/HF when discussing work (even in a broader sense, as discussed in the “future of work"), places people centrally in the systems in which they operate, further optimizing human well-being and overall system performance, by including sustainability concerns [25, 47]. To do this, we think it is important that E/HF promotes decisions based on substantive rationality, guided by ethical values related to sustainability. Using different approaches, two separate groups of researchers [59, 69, 70] came to almost the same conclusions with regards to underpinning values towards sustainability: respect for human rights, respect for ethical decision-making, appreciation of complexity, respect for transparency and openness, respect for diversity, respect for the Earth and the natural environment (including all living beings), economic values as a mean and not as an end, quality of life (including cultural preservation) and altruism and sense of community (including ethics, justice, morality, equity, equality, democracy and citizenship). These values should be pursued by the E/HF community and promoted in their actions, taking into account time (especially the long term) and space. In this second dimension, there is another element to be included in this conceptual discussion, namely the consideration of the presence of several systems where E/HF can act, needing to consider their intercorrelation and complexity.