Human Energy Management System (HEMS) for Workforce Sustainability in Industry 5.0

Abstract

The modern workplace grapples with a human energy crisis, characterized by chronic exhaustion, disengagement, and emotional depletion among employees. Traditional well-being initiatives often fail to address this systemic challenge, particularly in industrial contexts. This study introduces the Human Energy Management System (HEMS), a strategic framework to develop, implement, and refine strategies for optimizing workforce energy. Grounded in Industry 5.0’s human-centric, resilient, and sustainable principles, HEMS integrates enterprise risk management (ERM), design thinking, and the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. Employing a qualitative Design Science Research (DSR) methodology, the study reframes human energy depletion as an organizational risk, providing a proactive, empathetic, and iterative approach to mitigate workplace stressors. The HEMS framework is developed and evaluated through theoretical modeling, literature benchmarking, and secondary case studies, rather than empirical testing, aligning with DSR’s focus on conceptual validation. Findings suggest HEMS offers a robust tool to operationalize human energy reinforcement strategies in industrial settings. Consistent with the European Union’s vision for human-centric industrial transformation, HEMS enables organizations to foster a resilient, engaged, and thriving workforce in both stable and challenging times.

1. Introduction

The transition to Industry 5.0 emphasizes a human-centric, resilient, and sustainable work environment, where managing human energy is as critical as achieving productivity [1,2]. The global workforce increasingly faces a “human energy crisis,” characterized by diminished energy, motivation, and mental well-being due to internal and external organizational pressures [3,4,5]. With 60% of adults spending approximately one-third of their lives at work (ILO, 2023), Industry 5.0 offers a pivotal opportunity to address this crisis through systemic workplace transformation [1].

Employees in both administrative and industrial settings experience persistent physical fatigue and mental and emotional exhaustion from poorly managed stressors in the workplace, leading to reduced performance and increased organizational costs [6,7]. Concurrently, 76% of employees seek robust, structured well-being support from employers [8]. This shift in workforce expectations demands leadership approaches that prioritize emotional awareness and organizational adaptability [9,10]. Experts, including Hogan (2023), Deloitte (2022), and Dr. Jarik Conrad (UKG), argue that addressing the human energy crisis requires comprehensive, system-wide reforms beyond temporary incentives to promote sustained employee well-being [11,12].

1.1. Understanding Human Energy

Energy is broadly defined as the capacity to perform work and can take various forms [13]. In workplace contexts, human energy is recognized as a multidimensional construct—comprising physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual components that enable individuals to function effectively and sustainably over time [14,15].

Quinn et al. (2012) argue that human energy is fundamentally physical and expressed through domains such as stamina, emotional regulation, cognitive focus, and purposeful engagement [14,16,17]. Related terms commonly used in academic literature include vitality [18], vigor [15], work engagement [19], thriving, and recovery [20]. Human energy significantly shapes an individual’s capacity for consistent, productive engagement in personal and professional roles [1,21]. Schippers and Hogenes (2011) characterize it as a positive emotional state, ranging from transient responses to sustained moods [22]. Contrary to perceptions of human energy as abstract or “New Age,” Kvelde (2021) underscores its measurable, strategic role in enhancing organizational performance and innovation [23].

Several established theories support the conceptualization of human energy management. The conservation of resources (CORs) theory suggests that individuals strive to acquire, retain, and protect valued resources such as human energy, with stress arising when these are lost or threatened [24]. The job demands–resources (JD-R) model explains that high job demands (e.g., workload, time pressure) deplete energy, while resources (e.g., autonomy, support) help replenish it [19]. Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that meeting psychological needs, such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness, sustains energy [18].

1.2. Human Energy as a Strategic Organizational Resource

In organizational settings, human energy serves as both an individual resource and a collective driver of performance, innovation, and resilience. As such, it is a critical component of sustainable workforce design. Leaders who prioritize and invest in strengthening human energy systems foster more resilient, engaged, and future-ready organizations [17].

1.3. Human Energy Depletion: Causes and Consequences

Human energy depletion is characterized by a persistent decline in physical stamina, mental focus, and emotional stability due to prolonged exposure to workplace or life stressors [1]. It often appears as constant tiredness, loss of interest in tasks, and lack of motivation, all of which reduce job performance and personal well-being. Key causes include constant workplace change, excessive workloads, poor work-life balance, lack of recognition, and negative work environments. Unlike ordinary fatigue, this persistent exhaustion can harm both individuals and organizations, leading to burnout, presenteeism, turnover, reduced creativity, and lower productivity [25].

Stress, a primary driver of employee energy depletion, can be classified as positive (motivational), tolerable (manageable with support), or toxic (damaging when sustained and unsupported). In industrial environments where workers often face constant pressures from within and outside the workplace, toxic stress such as excessive workloads, unsafe conditions, or rigid schedules can overwhelm an individual’s coping capacity, leading to serious mental and physical health consequences [26].

Figure 1 illustrates a continuum of stress types—good, tolerable, toxic, and overload—plotted against two axes: required mitigation resources (horizontal) and potential for adverse effects (vertical). Good (positive) stress enhances focus and motivation with minimal support. Tolerable stress is manageable with adequate resources, posing no significant harm. Toxic stress, comparable in intensity to tolerable stress, causes harm when mitigation resources are insufficient. Overload, an extreme state, results from inadequate recovery, leading to severe health and performance consequences. This figure emphasizes the need to align support resources with stress intensity to sustain employee energy and resilience [26].

While many of these stressors lie beyond an employer’s direct control, leaders and people managers can significantly enhance the employee experience by embedding human energy reinforcement strategies into organizational culture [1,26,27]. Proactive intervention is key to managing stress and building resilience in anticipation of crisis phases. An Accenture report highlights that, similar to how customer experience drives loyalty, a robust employee experience enhances engagement, well-being, and productivity [28,29]. However, many organizations struggle to meet the energy-related needs of today’s workforce [30,31].

1.4. Human Energy Management and Its Organizational Importance

Human energy management is the process of monitoring, controlling, conserving, and enhancing the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual capacities that enable individuals to perform tasks and engage in activities. Employers can mitigate the impact of uncontrollable stressors by adopting proactive strategies, such as upskilling or reskilling employees to ensure their relevance in the evolving future of work. To tackle these challenges, Fisse (2024) argues that resolving the human energy crisis demands a holistic approach, one that redefines human energy sustainability to foster a healthy workplace culture [3].

1.5. The Human Energy Management System (HEMS)

This study introduces the Human Energy Management System (HEMS), a practical framework aimed at supporting employee well-being in industrial settings. Aligned with Industry 5.0’s human-centric goals, HEMS encourages intentional efforts to maintain and improve workers’ physical, mental, and emotional energy, contributing to long-term organizational success. While Industry 5.0 builds on the technologies of Industry 4.0, it emphasizes human-machine collaboration, integrating human judgment and empathy with technological efficiency to drive innovation and align progress with human needs [32,33]. However, within the human-machine synergy, many companies continue to prioritize investments in equipment and automation over workforce well-being. Achieving a balance between technological advancement and support for human capital is essential for long-term sustainability and workforce resilience [32,33]. As the recognition of human energy as a critical organizational resource grows, there is an increasing need for a structured approach to its management [1].

The growing recognition of human energy as a vital organizational resource underscores the need for a structured approach to its management. By integrating HEMS, organizations can optimize workforce vitality, ensuring that employees are energized, engaged, and resilient amidst the evolving demands of Industry 5.0. More broadly, industry has the potential to empower individuals to thrive in the face of emerging challenges, helping to resolve the human energy crisis and positively impacting society.

1.6. Management Systems and Human Energy

A management system provides a structured framework for setting objectives, defining policies, and implementing processes to achieve organizational goals [34,35]. HEMS applies this model to monitor, sustain, and optimize the physical, mental, emotional, and social energy of employees. By framing human energy depletion as an organizational risk, this study proposes integrating enterprise risk management (ERM), the PDCA cycle, and design thinking into HEMS. This approach enables organizations to proactively identify stressors, mitigate risk, and continuously improve workplace well-being and performance. As Green & Miller-Dawkins (2010) argue, employee resilience is shaped by internal structures, leadership, and support systems [36].

This paper presents HEMS as an original and structured framework for managing human energy as a core component of workforce sustainability. Its novelty lies in the integration of systems thinking, organizational psychology, and Industry 5.0 principles—such as human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. The model proposes a multi-level intervention that combines diagnostics, participatory design, and continuous feedback—moving beyond traditional, one-size-fits-all wellness programs. By embedding ERM, design thinking, and PDCA principles, HEMS connects strategic risk management with employee well-being, offering a practical and replicable system for identifying workplace stressors, co-creating solutions, and continuously enhancing human energy across diverse industrial environments.

1.7. Objectives

This study introduces the Human Energy Management System (HEMS), a structured and evidence-based framework aimed at optimizing employee energy, enhancing resilience, and improving performance in industrial environments.

The specific objectives are to:

• Conceptualize HEMS as an integrated framework for managing physical, mental, and emotional energy within industrial workplaces.
• Equip organizations with a structured methodology for developing, implementing, and continuously improving strategies that foster employee well-being and sustainable productivity.
• Operationalize the identification, assessment, and mitigation of workplace stressors that negatively impact employee energy levels and performance outcomes.
• Embed HEMS within organizational systems through practical, scalable strategies that support ongoing energy renewal, resilience, and adaptability.
• The overarching objective is to provide a replicable and adaptable system that supports human-centric industrial transformation in alignment with emerging paradigms such as Industry 5.0. [2,37].

2. Literature Review

Evidence points to a global workplace energy crisis characterized by burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion [3,38]. In 2020, 42% of U.S. adults reported anxiety or depression symptoms, with 28% of those affected receiving no treatment, often due to lack of support [39]. In the UK, the British Safety Council identified stress, depression, and anxiety as the leading causes of long-term employee absence, accounting for 50% of all working days lost and an estimated £57.4 billion in annual productivity losses [40]. A Gallup (2022) survey revealed that fewer than one in four employees felt their employer genuinely cared about their well-being [41].

This ongoing depletion of human energy contributes to a cycle of strain—driving absenteeism, presenteeism, and reduced productivity [3,6]. Traditionally, industries have responded with fragmented solutions, such as physical wellness programs, time management workshops, and stress reduction initiatives [42,43]. For decades, industrial practices emphasized physical productivity and operational efficiency, often overlooking employees’ emotional and cognitive well-being [4,14,19].

Fisse (2024) calls for a more holistic approach to human energy sustainability, emphasizing its importance for building a healthy workplace culture [3]. Emerging strategies now focus on redesigning work to better balance demands and resources, fostering psychological safety, and embedding well-being into leadership practices [11,19,44].

Fisse also advocates for evolving traditional Employee Assistance Programs into more integrated, whole-system well-being models. In line with this shift, agile HR practices are increasingly leveraging feedback loops, digital tools, and emotional intelligence training to support a more systemic, employee-centered approach [9,18,45].

2.1. Existing Frameworks for Energy and Well-Being Management

Several established models offer structured approaches to managing human energy. The job demands–resources (JD-R) model calls for balancing job strain with adequate support [19], while conservation of resources (CORs) theory views energy as a finite resource to protect [24]. Self-determination theory (SDT) emphasizes autonomy, competence, and relatedness as drivers of sustained motivation [18]. The Total Worker Health^® (TWH) program integrates health and safety. Other relevant models include Loehr & Schwartz’s (2003) multidimensional engagement framework [14], ISO 45003’s psychosocial risk guidelines [46], the thriving at work model [47], and real-time tracking tools such as the Workplace Energy Index [12].

2.2. Effectiveness, Challenges, and Case Evidence

While existing frameworks show promise, their effectiveness is often context dependent. For example, the ARM program under the Total Worker Health (TWH) initiative in the U.S. led to improvements in safety and short-term energy but lacked long-term follow-up and sustained outcomes [48]. Similarly, a JD-R-based study of Chinese healthcare workers found that psychological safety helped buffer job demands, though continued support was essential [49].

Common limitations across such programs include poor strategic integration, reactive implementation, lack of measurable key performance indicators (KPIs), and low employee engagement. These gaps highlight the need for human energy systems that are proactive, embedded into organizational structures, and designed with participatory input.

2.3. Situating HEMS Within Human-Centered Standards and Reliability Frameworks

The Human Energy Management System (HEMS) aligns with two key international standards: ISO 45003:2021 and ISO 50001:2018 [50]. It builds primarily on ISO 45003, which focuses on managing psychosocial risks in the workplace, such as stress, burnout, and disengagement. HEMS integrates these principles into broader enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks, using design thinking to create employee-centered solutions that foster well-being and resilience.

While ISO 45003 targets psychosocial hazards specifically, HEMS extends its scope to encompass a wider range of energy-related stressors—mental, physical, emotional, and financial. This expansion enables organizations to embed psychosocial risk management into everyday practices and link it with broader human energy goals. HEMS also draws inspiration from ISO 50001, which focuses on optimizing energy systems such as electricity, fuel, and heat. It adopts ISO 50001’s emphasis on continuous improvement and performance monitoring, applying these principles to human energy. Using the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, HEMS supports the enhancement of physical stamina, cognitive focus, and emotional resilience.

Both standards emphasize strategic alignment and ongoing evaluation. However, HEMS distinguishes itself by reframing human vitality as a renewable organizational resource—central to sustainable productivity and well-being in the context of Industry 5.0.

2.4. Contribution of the Study

This study contributes both theoretically and practically to the evolving field of workforce sustainability and human-centered industrial management. It introduces the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) as a novel, structured framework that reframes human energy as a strategic organizational resource and risk factor—rather than merely a wellness or HR concern. While existing models such as the job demands–resources (JD-R) model, conservation of resources (CORs) theory, and Total Worker Health (TWH) provide important conceptual foundations, they are often implemented in a fragmented or reactive manner.

HEMS contributes to the field in several keyways:

• Strategic Risk Framing: by integrating ERM aligned with ISO 31000 [51], HEMS positions energy depletion as an organizational risk, enabling proactive stressor management.
• Systemic Design: combining the PDCA cycle with design thinking, HEMS offers a structured yet empathetic approach that is adaptable, scalable, and industry-agnostic.
• Contextual Responsiveness: it addresses both internal and external stressors—economic, cultural, and regulatory—extending energy management beyond the workplace.
• Stressor Mitigation Appetite: introduces a new concept that helps organizations assess their readiness to invest in energy-enhancing interventions, aligning well-being with strategic goals.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Strategy

This study employs a qualitative, conceptual approach using Design Science Research (DSR) to develop the Human Energy Management System (HEMS), a framework designed to enhance workforce sustainability in Industry 5.0. DSR, rooted in Simon’s (1969) sciences of the artificial, focuses on creating and evaluating artifacts to address practical organizational challenges rather than empirically testing hypotheses [52]. This study deliberately adopts a non-empirical, theoretical methodology to design a novel framework, prioritizing conceptual development and theoretical integration over empirical validation at this stage. The choice of a conceptual approach is justified by the need to establish a foundational framework for HEMS, which can guide future empirical research and practical implementation. This aligns with DSR’s emphasis on problem identification, artifact design, and demonstration of utility through logical reasoning, theory synthesis, and design principles rather than solely relying on empirical data [53,54,55,56,57,58]. The methodology follows the six-stage DSR framework proposed by Peffers et al. (2007), tailored to integrate enterprise risk management (ERM), design thinking, and the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, ensuring a structured yet human-centered approach [55]. The absence of empirical data collection in this study reflects its focus on theoretical modeling and conceptual validation, leveraging existing literature, standards (e.g., ISO 31000, ISO 45003), and secondary case studies to inform and evaluate the HEMS framework. This approach enables the development of a generalizable, industry-agnostic system that can be empirically tested in future research across diverse organizational contexts.

• Stage 1: Problem Identification and Motivation

The study identifies human energy depletion as a critical organizational risk in industrial workplaces, driven by internal stressors (e.g., excessive workloads, poor work-life balance) and external stressors (e.g., economic pressures, socio-political factors). This stage draws on literature and industry reports to establish the urgency of addressing the human energy crisis within the Industry 5.0 paradigm [1,3,26].

• Stage 2: Define Objectives

The objective is to design a structured HEMS framework to enhance workforce sustainability by optimizing human energy. Objectives include defining organizational energy goals based on stressor mitigation appetite (the willingness and capacity to invest in stress reduction) and aligning interventions with stakeholder needs and Industry 5.0’s human-centric principles [59].

• Stage 3: Design and Develop Artifact

The HEMS artifact is constructed by integrating three methodologies:

• Enterprise risk management (ERM), based on ISO 31000, to identify and mitigate energy-related risks [51,60].
• PDCA Cycle, for iterative improvement of energy management strategies [50].
• Design thinking, to ensure empathetic, employee-centered solutions through stages of empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test [61,62].

The framework is developed through theoretical synthesis, combining insights from organizational psychology, risk management, and Industry 5.0 principles. It incorporates tools such as stressor audits, risk matrices, and employee engagement processes to address energy depletion systematically.

• Stage 4: Demonstration

The HEMS framework is demonstrated through conceptual simulations and secondary case studies, such as the EnergyPod pilot in a UK hospital [63]. These scenarios illustrate step-by-step implementation, showing how HEMS can be applied to real-world contexts without requiring primary data collection at this stage. The use of secondary data ensures practical relevance while maintaining the study’s theoretical focus.

• Stage 5: Evaluation

The HEMS artifact is evaluated qualitatively through:

• Theoretical Modeling: ensuring alignment with established frameworks (e.g., JD-R, COR, ISO 31000, ISO 45003).
• Process Integration: verifying compatibility with management system standards (e.g., ISO 45003, ISO 50001).
• Expert-Informed Synthesis: benchmarking against literature and standards, supported by secondary case vignettes (e.g., EnergyPod case, inflation-related stress intervention).
• Evaluation focuses on internal validity, theoretical coherence, and contextual applicability, rather than empirical generalization, as the study aims to establish a robust conceptual foundation for future testing.

• Stage 6: Communication

The study communicates HEMS’s utility, novelty, and conceptual rigor to academic and practitioner audiences, emphasizing its potential for practical application and empirical validation in diverse industrial settings. Enterprise risk management (ERM) is a proactive approach for identifying and managing risks that may hinder strategic objectives [51,60]. In HEMS, ERM provides a company-wide approach to address human energy depletion by assessing stressors affecting workforce well-being and implementing mitigation policies [64,65]. The PDCA cycle ensures continuous improvement by refining strategies to mitigate energy loss. Design thinking is a human-centered, iterative process that fosters innovation by empathizing with users, redefining problems, and co-creating solutions through the stages of empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test [61,62]. It begins by understanding employees’ needs, behaviors, and expectations to develop solutions from their perspective.

3.2. Research Design-Theoretical Integration

The effectiveness of the HEMS framework derives from its integration of risk management, continuous improvement, and human-centered design. By synthesizing the PDCA cycle, design thinking, and enterprise risk management (ERM), organizations can build a dynamic system to identify, address, and continuously improve responses to human energy depletion in the workplace. Figure 2 below illustrates this integration, with PDCA at the core to drive improvement, ERM to identify and mitigate risks, and design thinking to enable empathetic, co-created solutions.

Figure 3 presents a phase-based overview illustrating how three core methodologies are synthesized within the HEMS framework. It maps the sequential flow of processes across each phase, highlighting the interplay between design thinking, PDCA cycles, and enterprise risk management to support human energy optimization.

This framework begins with context establishment and flows through the PDCA cycle. In the Plan phase, it incorporates empathy and problem definition from design thinking, alongside risk identification, analysis, and evaluation. The Do phase focuses on prototyping solutions and implementing risk controls. Check involves monitoring and reviewing outcomes, while Act emphasizes scaling or refining the solution through continuous improvement. Feedback loops connect each phase, reinforcing adaptive learning and system resilience. This model bridges structured risk assessment with iterative human-centered innovation for sustainable workplace human energy management. This process enables leadership to define clear objectives, determine system boundaries, assign responsibilities, and allocate resources to support effective implementation [66].

Table 1. Mapping of PDCA Cycle, Design Thinking, and ERP Functions to HEMS applications.

PDCA Cycle	Design Thinking	Enterprise Risk Management	Application in HEMS
Plan	Empathize and Define	Stressor Identification and Assessment	Conduct stress audits, surveys, and risk assessments to identify causes of energy depletion, such as heavy workloads or poor work-life balance, highlighting key challenges and guiding interventions.
Do	Ideate and Prototype	Risk Mitigation and Controls	Brainstorm strategies, controls, and tools to mitigate identified stressors. Pilot solutions such as flexible work policies, energy tracking tools, or wellness programs within a select group or department to test effectiveness.
Check	Risk Monitoring and Review	Continuous Risk Improvement	Collect employee feedback using quantitative data (e.g., absenteeism, productivity) and qualitative insights (e.g., interviews, stress reports). Analyze to assess if interventions effectively address energy depletion.
Act	Test	Refine and Implement	Scale successful solutions across the organization, refining ineffective ones and inserting improvements into the HEMS framework.

Below shows theoretical integration of methodologies with applications in HEMS in tabulated format.

3.3. Risk Assessment Scale

Stressor risk evaluation is a systematic process within the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) framework that assesses identified stressors against predefined risk criteria to determine their significance and prioritize actions. This process, aligned with ISO 31000 principles [51], employs a risk matrix (Appendix A.1) to evaluate stressors based on their likelihood of occurrence and the severity of their impact on employee energy, well-being, and organizational performance [66]. The stress risk level is calculated as the product of likelihood and impact severity (Risk Level = Likelihood × Impact), providing a quantifiable measure to guide decision-making [40]. This approach enables organizations to categorize stressors—such as excessive workloads or poor work-life balance—as high, medium, or low risk, ensuring targeted interventions that optimize resource allocation and mitigate energy depletion effectively. See Appendix A for an illustration of the application of the stress risk matrix in HEMS.

4. Design of the Human Energy Management System (HEM)

4.1. Context of the Organization

4.1.1. Understanding the Organization’s Context in Relation to Stressor Impacts

Establishing context is a critical first step in strategic planning for Human Energy Management Systems (HEMSs). It allows organizations to define their objectives, operational boundaries, and available resources in relation to mitigating employee energy depletion. This process requires a thorough assessment of both internal and external factors that influence workforce well-being.

The internal context includes elements within the organization’s control, such as workplace culture, leadership commitment, organizational structure, communication practices, and existing resources. Key areas to evaluate include the organization’s capacity to manage stressors, the effectiveness of internal communication, and the degree of employee involvement in energy-related initiatives and decision-making. Reviewing current policies, wellness programs, and levels of engagement can help identify strengths and gaps.

The external context encompasses factors beyond an organization’s control, such as industry standards, legal and regulatory requirements, technological advancements, and socioeconomic conditions. These external forces significantly influence employee energy levels and overall organizational resilience. Understanding the needs of key stakeholders, including employees, regulators, and customers, helps define the scope of the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) and prioritize actions for maximum impact [66].

By assessing both internal and external contexts, organizations can focus their efforts on the most significant drivers of energy depletion. This step forms the foundation of the planning phase of HEMS and integrates principles from the PDCA (Plan–Do–Check–Act) cycle, design thinking, and enterprise risk management (ERM).

In the PDCA model, the “Plan” phase emphasizes the identification of energy-draining factors to inform plans for targeted improvements.

Design thinking enhances this phase by promoting empathy and a clearer understanding of employee needs. Together, these approaches support ERM’s call for comprehensive risk assessment by identifying workplace stressors that may otherwise go unnoticed.

Common internal stressors—such as poor communication, lack of recognition, limited career development, excessive workloads, and inadequate work environments—can result in fatigue, disengagement, and burnout. Externally, rising inflation, digital skill gaps, public health crises, regulatory pressures, and environmental instability can trigger financial stress, mental overload, and job insecurity [1].

By examining both internal and external influences, organizations can design HEMS interventions that address the most urgent and relevant sources of employee energy strain, ensuring that strategies are well-aligned, practical, and impactful [1].

4.1.2. Understanding the Needs and Expectations of Stakeholders

Gaining insight into employee and stakeholder needs in designing a Human Energy Management System (HEMS) necessitates a holistic, data-driven, and empathetic approach. Evaluate employees’ physical, emotional, and cognitive energy levels using surveys, interviews, and performance metrics. Foster a culture that prioritizes empathy, ensuring employee concerns are acknowledged and addressed constructively. Form teams with members from various departments (e.g., HR, operations, health and safety) to ensure comprehensive prospects. Engage these teams in designing and implementing HEMS initiatives, promoting shared ownership. Encourage employees to share experiences and suggestions regarding workplace stressors and potential remedies. Implement regular channels, such as focus groups or suggestion boxes, to capture continuous employee input. Recognize internal and external factors impacting employee energy levels, such as workload demands or economic inflation. To effectively understand employee needs sensitive to the specific geographic location, organizations should employ culturally sensitive, evidence-based strategies that consider local socio-economic and workplace dynamics. Integrating internal insights with external societal and market factors ensures that the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) remains human-centered, risk-aware, and resilient. Document findings. A comprehensive understanding of internal and external drivers of human energy enables proactive risk mitigation and the creation of well-being-driven opportunities [67,68].

Key contributors to human energy depletion include chronic stress, poor sleep, poor nutrition, and toxic work environments. These lead to fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and long-term health risks such as cardiovascular issues or mental health decline.

Table 2. Identified Issues, Impacts, and Risks.

Issue	Impact on Human Energy	Associated Risks
Chronic Stress	Burnout, reduced focus, fatigue	Increased absenteeism, cardiovascular disease, mental health decline
Poor Nutrition	Physical/cognitive fatigue, weakened immunity	Diabetes, obesity, impaired decision-making
Sleep Deprivation	Impaired memory, mood swings, low stamina	Accidents, chronic illness (e.g., heart disease), reduced productivity
Mental Health Issues	Low motivation, social withdrawal	High turnover, suicidal ideation, reduced quality of life
Toxic Work Environment	Mental exhaustion, disengagement	High turnover, conflict, reputational damage
Digital Overload	Attention fragmentation, decision fatigue	Burnout, reduced creativity, strained relationships

summarizes common issues, their impact on energy, and associated organizational risks.

4.1.3. Defining the Scope of a Human Energy Management System (HEMS)

Defining the scope of a Human Energy Management System (HEMS) is a critical step in its development and successful implementation [69]. This task should be led by top management to ensure strategic alignment, organizational commitment, and clarity throughout the HEMS lifecycle [70]. The scope must reflect the organization’s internal and external context, available resources, and stakeholder expectations. It should clearly outline the system’s boundaries, applicability, exclusions, and objectives to guide planning, execution, and evaluation [69]. In defining the scope, organizations should consider

• The alignment of HEMS with existing culture, processes, and infrastructure.
• The degree to which human energy reinforcement strategies can be embedded in current operations.
• External influences such as market trends, regulatory requirements, and societal expectations.
• The needs and concerns of internal and external stakeholders.
• The organization’s capacity and willingness to invest in human energy initiatives.

A well-defined scope helps ensure HEMS is both focused and feasible, balancing strategic ambition with practical limitations. It should be documented in a concise statement, reviewed and approved by top leadership, and periodically updated to reflect organizational changes or shifting stakeholder priorities.

4.1.4. Leadership Commitment Requirements

The effectiveness of a Human Energy Management System (HEMS) relies significantly on the active involvement and sustained commitment of senior leadership [66,67,68,69,70,71]. After reviewing the results of the organizational context analysis [66], leadership plays a central role in shaping the system’s scope, defining its implementation criteria, and ensuring alignment with existing organizational policies and frameworks [70]. Leaders are responsible for integrating HEMS principles into the organization’s strategic objectives, embedding energy-supportive practices into core operational processes [69]. Their role includes positioning HEMS as a long-term organizational priority rather than a temporary initiative and securing the necessary resources—financial, technological, and human—to support its implementation. In doing so, leadership helps cultivate a culture that values employee well-being, encourages work-life balance, and supports sustainable energy use in the workplace. By actively endorsing and modeling the principles of HEMS, leaders can help overcome resistance to change and reinforce alignment with the organization’s strategic direction [71]. More than formal approval, successful implementation requires leaders to champion HEMS across all levels, support the roles assigned within the system, and provide ongoing oversight to ensure its effectiveness and long-term viability [72,73,74].

4.1.5. Policy

Top management should develop and formalize Human Energy Management System (HEMS) policies that are aligned with the organization’s overarching purpose and informed by both internal and external factors influencing employee energy levels [75]. These policies should foster a workplace culture that prioritizes rest, recovery, mental health, work-life balance, flexible work arrangements, and reasonable workloads [76,77]. To ensure coherence and strategic alignment, HEMS requirements should be integrated into broader business, health, and sustainability policies, incorporating specific strategies for mitigating energy-depleting stressors [78,79,80]. All HEMS-related policies should be clearly documented, effectively communicated across the organization, and made accessible to relevant stakeholders [66].

4.1.6. Organizational Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities

To ensure effective implementation and continuous improvement of the Human Energy Management System (HEMS), leadership must clearly define and communicate roles and responsibilities across the organization. This includes appointing a Human Energy Reinforcement Champion and establishing a dedicated team responsible for overseeing related processes and policies. These efforts help ensure that expectations around energy management are well understood and consistently applied at all organizational levels.

Once the organizational context regarding human energy is established and leadership commitment is secured, the next step involves defining the system’s objectives and scope. Implementation then proceeds through the structured phases of HEMS grounded in the integration of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, the empathy principles of design thinking, and the risk management framework outlined in ISO 31000. Through this process, sources and causes of human energy depletion can be systematically identified, assessed, and addressed. Mitigation strategies may include avoiding, transferring, or reducing identified risks while also preparing employees to manage anticipated stressors. This proactive approach enhances workforce resilience and supports sustained productivity, even in the face of challenging conditions.

4.2. Plan

This phase of HEMS follows the initial establishment of context and leadership commitment. At this stage, we engage with employees and observe to identify, analyze, and evaluate stress-related issues, aiming to define the key challenges they face.

4.2.1. Stressor Identification

Stressor identification represents the initial step in the enterprise risk management (ERM) process as outlined in ISO 31000 [51]. This involves engaging with employees to better understand and define the factors that diminish physical, mental, and emotional energy [81,82]. Both internal and external influences—such as workload, interpersonal conflict, leadership style, organizational culture, and economic pressures—should be considered. Stress audits using surveys, focus groups, HR data, and health reports can help uncover root causes such as excessive workload or poor work-life balance [83]. Within the HEMS framework, which integrates ISO 31000-based ERM principles, organizations are also encouraged to assess energy-related risks stemming from factors such as managerial practices, commuting challenges, caregiving responsibilities, and prevailing cultural norms. The outcome of this process is a structured stressor register—an organized list of identified risks that may impact employee energy levels and require targeted intervention.

4.2.2. Stressor Risk Analysis

The purpose of this step is to understand the nature and characteristics of identified stressors, estimate their likelihood and impact, and perform root cause analysis. By analyzing and synthesizing data, organizations can develop clear problem statements that accurately reflect employee challenges. A risk matrix should be used to assess each stressor’s probability and potential consequences (e.g., burnout, high turnover) [84].

This process helps prioritize stressors based on their severity, ensuring that resources are directed toward the most critical issues. It enables informed decision-making to manage and mitigate energy-depleting stressors, ultimately safeguarding employee well-being.

4.2.3. Stressor Risk Evaluation

Purpose: to decide if stressors or their effect on employees require action or are tolerable. Establish risk criteria for major identified stress triggers or impacts, define thresholds, and determine appropriate actions.

Establish criteria: set standards or thresholds for stress triggers based on the organization’s context and resources. For instance, define a 30% absenteeism rate as a trigger for intervention. Assess analyzed stressors against established risk criteria to determine appropriate actions. Determine action type, for example, change or eliminate the factors that trigger stress or its effect to avoid it. Shift the stressor’s impact to a third party, to transfer it. Apply controls to reduce the likelihood or impact, to mitigate it, and acknowledge and tolerate the unavoidable risk, to accept it. Link stressor sources (e.g., heavy workload) to deeper systemic causes (e.g., poor leadership, lack of training) [85]. Identify and document the causes, sources, and consequences of each stressor [86,87]. You can estimate likelihood by providing probability estimates (e.g., 40% chance) for stressor occurrence or impact severity. Output: A stressor risk register. A prioritized list of stressors for action (e.g., mitigation, acceptance, transfer), and a clear decision on which risks need immediate treatment vs. monitoring.

4.3. Do

4.3.1. Ideate and Prototype Stressor Mitigation and Control Strategies

Ideation focuses on identifying protective factors—strategies, interventions, or controls—to mitigate, transfer, accept, or avoid human energy depletion risks [68,88].

Begin by listing internal (work-related, emotional, and mental) and external (PESTLES) stressors, highlighting those assessed as high risk (high impact, frequent, and low control). Clear objectives guide whether stressors should be eliminated, reduced, or managed, based on organizational capacity.

Through brainstorming sessions, focus groups, or expert consultations, targeted actions are developed to address prioritized stressors. Open communication helps design innovative reinforcement strategies aligned with objectives and stakeholder expectations [1,89,90,91]. Controls may include policies, processes, technologies, or wellness programs to mitigate impacts or reinforce energy [92,93].

HEMS decisions are integrated into daily operations, with continuous monitoring and adjustments. Examples include recharge spaces, healthy food access, fitness facilities, and programs promoting social connectedness such as employee groups and volunteer opportunities [94].

4.3.2. Training

From established employee human energy needs, create training workshops and awareness programs that promote physical and psychological reinforcements. Utilize digital platforms for training delivery and tracking progress. Include workshops on emotional intelligence to help employees engage with those experiencing energy depletion, identify stress signs, reduce mental health stigma, and foster psychological safety. Key training areas to reinforce human energy include raising awareness against mental health stigmatization and promoting organizational agility and employee autonomy [95]. Encourage open communication about human energy management and recognize efforts to improve well-being.

4.3.3. Resources

Identify human energy needs and allocate resources according to the organization’s human energy mitigation objectives, within their capacity and budget. A foundational resource for supporting high-level functioning, based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, is meeting physiological essentials. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, meeting basic physiological requirements, such as food, water, shelter, and healthcare, is essential, especially during times of economic instability when external stressors can severely impact well-being [96].

Energy depletion becomes more severe when foundational needs are unmet. In general, stressors are more manageable when adequate support is in place [26]. Resource planning should address both short-term needs (e.g., nutrition, hygiene, and health access) and long-term needs (e.g., skill development, relationship building, and career progression) [97].

Prioritize basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter as the foundation, followed by secondary needs such as achievement, relationships, and accomplishment, and then the tertiary ones, such as sponsoring vacations abroad.

These resources should enhance employees’ energy capacities, including mental focus, emotional regulation, cognitive clarity, psychological resilience, and positive relational dynamics. Conduct pilots with allocated resources and co-created interventions.

4.4. Check

To ensure HEMS remains effective and aligned with organizational objectives, continuous monitoring, review, and feedback are essential.

Conduct regular assessments—including stressor audits and employee feedback, such as pulse surveys—to evaluate the impact of interventions. Establish key performance indicators (KPIs) such as:

• Absenteeism Rate: percentage of days missed due to stress or illness.
• Presenteeism Rate: percentage of work performed while unwell.
• Flexible Work Uptake: usage of remote or flexible schedules.
• Turnover Rate: exits linked to burnout or low engagement.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that persistent presenteeism is a strong indicator of employee exhaustion and reduced well-being. Longitudinal data show that sustained presenteeism correlates with lower job satisfaction and heightened psychological distress over time [98]. Additionally, longitudinal data show that high PSC can reduce sick leave by up to 43% and presenteeism by 72% [84].

Ongoing monitoring and the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) enable early detection of employee energy depletion, allowing organizations to implement timely interventions that prevent productivity decline and avoid associated financial losses. Monitoring can include quarterly and annual reviews, benchmarking against industry standards, and SWOT analyses to evaluate internal strengths and external risks. Feedback should be gathered via digital platforms, surveys, suggestion boxes, focus groups, and interviews. Implement real-time feedback loops and managerial oversight through regular check-ins and early warning systems (e.g., stress-level alerts) to identify and address emerging risks proactively.

4.5. Act

4.5.1. Scaling and Refining HEMS Interventions

In the ACT phase of Human Energy Management, organizations focus on scaling successful practices and improving or replacing those that fall short. Guided by design thinking, enterprise risk management (ERM), and the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, this phase transforms feedback into action. Ongoing monitoring ensures that HEMS remains aligned with organizational goals and workforce needs. Applying Kaizen principles supports incremental changes that enhance energy, performance, and system adaptability.

4.5.2. Scaling Effective Solutions

Once specific strategies—such as flexible scheduling or energy zones—prove effective, they should be standardized and expanded across departments or regions. These can be embedded in standard operating procedures (SOPs) or toolkits. Leadership training is essential to promote and sustain energy-positive behaviors. Data on outcomes such as reduced absenteeism or improved morale can help secure leadership buy-in. Digital platforms can also support wider adoption by delivering wellness modules, energy-tracking apps, and real-time feedback tools.

4.5.3. Refining Ineffective Interventions

Not all well-being programs deliver consistent results. A core strength of HEMS lies in its flexibility to adapt and refine interventions. Use A/B testing to compare variations across teams or formats—for instance, adjusting session timing, delivery methods, or duration. Apply Root Cause Analysis (RCA) to uncover barriers such as poor communication or lack of management support. Redesign underperforming initiatives by modifying frequency, enhancing accessibility, or expanding mental health offerings [99,100].

Through repeated PDCA cycles and design thinking, teams can reframe problems, co-create solutions, and prototype improvements in response to emerging workplace stressors.

4.5.4. Inserting Improvements into the HEMS Framework

1.

Implement: put new solutions into action.

2.

Update the HEMS Stressor Risk Register: add newly identified human energy risks or stressors to the HEMS risk management plan, in line with ISO 31000 [89,90].

3.

Revise Organizational Policies: institutionalize effective strategies by embedding them into policies, training guides, and job roles (e.g., scheduled breaks, remote work guidelines).

4.

Align with HR Systems: integrate updated energy-supportive practices into performance reviews, onboarding, and employee engagement processes.

4.5.5. Embedded Case Study: Validating HEMS Through a Real-World Pilot

Case: EnergyPod Pilot in a UK District General Hospital

To assess the feasibility of the Human Energy Management System (HEMS), this study analyzes a secondary case involving the deployment of an EnergyPod in a 304-bed District General Hospital in Birmingham, UK. Aligned with HEMS principles, the intervention targeted night-shift fatigue and cognitive exhaustion among acute care staff [63].

• Plan—Identifying the Problem:

Baseline assessments revealed that 80% of workers reported stress and fatigue impacting their physical and psychological health. Chronic fatigue and cognitive exhaustion were prevalent among night workers.

Extended night shifts pose physiological strains that undermine healthcare workers’ health and performance, elevating the risk of serious conditions, including cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, with potential consequences for patient safety [101].

• Do—Prototyping the Solution:

The hospital introduced a rest pod (EnergyPod) and sleep hygiene workshops—low-cost, high-impact prototypes reflective of HEMS’s design thinking and ERM-guided approach.

• Check—Measuring Impact:

Three months post-implementation:

• Break compliance rose to 69%
• End-of-shift alertness reached 66%
• 74% reported improved well-being
• 94% would recommend the EnergyPod

• Act—Institutionalizing Success:

Following positive empirical results, scheduled rest periods and breaks have now been formally recognized by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), Royal College of Nursing, and BMA as essential for patient safety. The EnergyPod was integrated into hospital policy, with continued training and inclusion of rest spaces in future planning—exemplifying the HEMS “Act” phase.

• Relevance to HEMS:

This physical intervention (instituting Energypods), coupled with senior management’s active endorsement of rest breaks, signaled a cultural shift that valued rests, sending a strong message to the workers on the floor that the management cared about their well-being. Top-down leadership’s effective modeling and mandating restorative behaviours catalyze a systemic shift towards psychological safety, resilience, and performance culture aligned with the Human Energy Management principle.

This embedded case demonstrates how empathetic, iterative interventions based on real energy stressors can be operationalized within the HEMS framework. It validates HEMS’s potential to drive measurable improvements in well-being and system-wide change using secondary data.

5. Discussion

HEMS introduces a strategic, human-centered approach to workforce sustainability by treating human energy as a critical organizational asset. Grounded in Industrial Engineering and Management (IEM), HEMS integrates Kaizen’s Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle for continuous improvement, ISO 31000’s enterprise risk management (ERM) for risk mitigation, and design thinking for empathetic, employee-focused solutions [51,61,62]. Unlike traditional wellness programs, HEMS targets both internal (e.g., workload, leadership practices) and external (e.g., economic inflation, commuting challenges) stressors through a systematic, iterative process. The framework’s applicability is demonstrated through case vignettes, such as the EnergyPod pilot in a UK hospital and the inflation-related stress intervention in a manufacturing firm [63]. However, to further elucidate its practical implementation, this section expands on both a high-level and detailed implementation roadmap.

• Addressing Economic Inflation (External Stressor) Through HEMS Implementation

This section illustrates the practical application of the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) through a case vignette involving a mid-sized manufacturing firm that used the framework to manage inflation-related financial stress.

• Plan Phase: Contextualizing and Defining the Stressor

Amid rising inflation, the organization conducted staff surveys and interviews, revealing widespread financial stress. Employees reported skipped meals, delayed healthcare, and increased absences, which demonstrated clear signs of declining well-being and energy. The issue was classified as high-impact and likely to continue, prompting its inclusion in the HEMS risk register to inform targeted interventions.

• Do Phase: Designing and Piloting Interventions

In collaboration with employee representatives, the human energy team co-created three interventions: (1) monthly food vouchers, (2) financial education sessions, and (3) a commuting stipend based on travel distance.

These actions targeted energy loss linked to financial stress [14]. A three-month pilot was launched in departments most affected by inflation-related absenteeism.

• Check Phase: Monitoring Impact

The pilot was monitored using surveys, HR data, and staff discussions. Results included an 11% drop in absenteeism, a 1.2-point increase in self-rated energy (on a 5-point scale), and improved morale and concentration. These outcomes align with research showing the benefits of financial well-being programs [102,103].

• Act Phase: Refinement and Institutionalization

Following the pilot’s success, food vouchers and financial training were expanded company-wide. The transport allowance was adjusted to reflect commuting distance and mode. Inflation was added to the organizational risk register, and financial resilience was incorporated into well-being performance indicators.

This case illustrates how HEMS supports ISO 31000’s principles of continuous improvement and risk-based decision-making [51], demonstrating the framework’s adaptability in managing external, non-workplace stressors through structured and sustainable practices.

Figure 4 provides a high-level roadmap for HEMS implementation, summarizing key actions across the PDCA cycle. To enhance practical applicability,

Table 3. Detailed HEMS implementation roadmap.

Phase	Key Actions	Timeline	Stakeholder Roles	Resources	Potential Challenges
Plan	Conduct stressor audits (surveys, focus groups); assess internal/external context; define energy goals and stressor mitigation appetite.	1–2 months	HR, leadership, employee representatives	Surveys, data analytics tools, consultant expertise	Resistance to data collection, cultural barriers
Do	Ideate and pilot interventions (e.g., flexible schedules); train managers on emotional intelligence.	3–6 months	HR, department heads, wellness teams	Budget for pilots, training platforms, wellness tools	Limited budget, employee skepticism
Check	Monitor KPIs (e.g., absenteeism); gather feedback via pulse surveys and interviews; benchmark against industry standards.	Ongoing (quarterly reviews)	HR, data analysts, leadership	Digital feedback platforms, KPI dashboards	Inconsistent data collection, low response rates
Act	Scale successful interventions (e.g., integrate into SOPs); refine ineffective ones via A/B testing; update risk register and policies.	6–12 months	Leadership, HR, cross-departmental teams	Policy revision resources, training budgets	Resistance to change, scaling costs

outlines a detailed implementation guide, specifying steps, timelines, stakeholder roles, and resources for each phase. This roadmap ensures organizations can operationalize HEMS effectively across diverse industrial contexts.

• Pro-human energy management principles

In addition to adhering to stipulated guidelines, certain principles and values are essential for the effective implementation of a Human Energy Management System (HEMS).

5.1. Positive Work Culture

A positive work culture and the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) are mutually reinforcing. Rooted in positive psychology, supportive cultures foster trust, psychological safety, and engagement—key conditions for sustaining human energy [3]. Open communication, autonomy, and resilience help employees raise concerns, improving energy awareness [47,104]. In such environments, HEMS strengthens energy resilience; in less supportive settings, it can drive cultural change when leadership and staff are aligned. By framing energy depletion as a strategic risk, HEMS helps organizations identify and reduce workplace stressors.

5.2. Psychological Safety

Effective communication is critical to the successful implementation of a Human Energy Management System (HEMS) [92]. It reflects how safe employees feel when sharing concerns, feedback, or ideas without fear of judgment or consequences [92,93]. This sense of safety, known as psychological safety, thrives in cultures built on trust and openness [105,106,107].

Psychological safety is critical for HEMS, as it encourages employees to speak openly about energy-related stressors [11,85]. Without it, important insights may be withheld, limiting the accuracy of risk assessments. Promoting open dialogue and inclusive participation helps reduce stigma and ensures that HEMS practices are both effective and sustainable.

5.3. Emotional Intelligence

A major control initiative is to equip people managers with basic emotional intelligence (EI) training. This enhances their ability to recognize, understand, and manage their own emotions, empathize with others, and respond appropriately, skills essential for effective communication, collaboration, and leadership.

Core EI competencies include:

• Self-awareness—recognizing one’s emotions.
• Self-regulation—managing emotions to adapt to changing situations.
• Motivation—using emotions to pursue goals.
• Empathy—understanding and sharing others’ feelings.
• Social skills—managing relationships and building networks.

These skills are particularly important when supporting energy-depleted employees, as they shape how managers respond and engage in emotionally charged or sensitive situations [108].

5.4. Empathetic Design in HEMS

Empathetic design is a human-centered approach that prioritizes understanding employees’ emotional, physical, and cognitive needs when shaping workplace policies, tools, and environments. Integrating design thinking into the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) ensures that interventions addressing stress and promoting well-being are rooted in real employee experiences.

This approach involves observing and listening to employees to identify everyday challenges, building emotional awareness of how stressors impact energy, and engaging stakeholders in co-creating practical solutions. Ongoing feedback and iteration allow strategies to be refined over time, while personalization ensures interventions are tailored to diverse roles and demographics.

By applying these principles, organizations can develop HEMS initiatives that are not only effective but also responsive to the unique needs of their workforce, fostering a more supportive and sustainable work environment.

5.5. Agile Working and Workplace Energy

Embracing agility in the workplace helps organizations navigate today’s fast-changing environments with greater adaptability and resilience [109]. Agile working is a flexible, employee-centered approach that allows individuals to choose how, when, and where they work, emphasizing outcomes over rigid schedules [110,111]. This shift supports well-being, collaboration, and productivity.

By leveraging technology and open communication, agile working empowers employees to respond to change, manage tasks effectively, and align work with personal needs [72]. It enables individuals to match their schedules with their peak energy levels and cognitive capacity—such as choosing flexible start times or remote work options—to support emotional and mental well-being [111,112,113].

Autonomy is central to this model. Employees gain more control over their time, allowing them to balance professional and personal responsibilities more effectively. Decentralized decision-making and process flexibility further enhance responsiveness to workplace energy challenges [114].

Implementing agile practices has been associated with improved engagement, reduced absenteeism, and lower healthcare costs—contributing to a healthier, more resilient workforce [112,115].

5.6. Flow

A key factor in sustaining human energy and well-being at work is achieving a flow state—a concept introduced by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990). Flow describes a mental state of deep focus, enjoyment, and complete immersion in a task, often linked to optimal performance and engagement [61,105].

Within the HEMS, flow represents an ideal state of energy use, where individuals experience high engagement, peak performance, and well-being. Flow is most likely when a person’s skills are well-matched to the task at hand—avoiding both overload and underload. This alignment can be supported through effective job crafting. HEMS can be structured to promote flow-conducive environments by aligning tasks with individual capabilities, fostering autonomy. Key elements also include setting clear goals, providing timely feedback, ensuring access to necessary resources, and nurturing a positive, supportive work culture.

Table 4. Human energy experience model.

Stress/Anxiety	High Challenge + Low Skill	Energy Depletion
Boredom	Low challenge + high skill	Underutilization
Recovery	Intentional energy renewal	Human energy reinforcement
Flow	Right challenge + adequate skill	The ideal state is where human energy investment results in both fulfillment and effectiveness

presents a Flow Experience Model, illustrating how the balance between challenge and skill influences engagement. It highlights the importance of aligning task demands with employee abilities to maintain energy and optimize performance.

5.7. Job Crafting

Job crafting refers to proactive changes employees make to their tasks, relationships, and perceptions to enhance job satisfaction, engagement, and well-being [116]. When managers apply emotional intelligence and focus on strengths-based evaluations, they can better align roles with employees’ unique traits [117].

This includes task crafting: adjusting job responsibilities to optimize human energy levels [118]; relational crafting: fostering supportive workplace relationships to enhance emotional energy and resilience [119]; and cognitive crafting, which involves intentionally reframing how employees perceive the purpose and significance of their roles, enabling them to find deeper meaning in their work [120,121]. By embedding job crafting into HEMS, organizations can create human-centered, agile, and sustainable work environments, ensuring employees maintain optimal energy levels while contributing effectively to organizational success.

5.8. Technology

Technology plays a critical role in enabling and enhancing the HEMS by offering data-driven tools and solutions to support employee well-being, productivity, and resilience. Digital technologies facilitate real-time monitoring, feedback, and intervention—key components of effective energy management.

Wearable devices, mobile apps, and IoT sensors can track indicators such as physical activity, stress levels, and mental health status, providing immediate insights into employee energy patterns [122,123]. Platforms such as 15Five, TINYpulse, and Culture Amp enable continuous feedback and engagement monitoring, helping organizations identify trends and respond proactively [124].

Workflow automation technologies, such as Robotic Process Automation (RPA), reduce repetitive tasks and cognitive overload, supporting energy conservation. Virtual collaboration tools such as Slack, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom offer flexibility and reduce commute-related fatigue, which enhances autonomy and work–life balance. Additional technologies applicable to HEMS include biometric sensors and wearables, digital pulse surveys, AI-powered analytics, mindfulness and recovery applications, predictive task allocation tools, energy-aware dashboards, and anonymous feedback channels [125]. By integrating these tools, HEMS can create adaptive and personalized environments that support sustainable performance and employee well-being.

6. Conclusions

This study introduces the Human Energy Management System (HEMS) as a strategic framework to address the growing challenge of workforce energy depletion. By integrating enterprise risk management (ERM), the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, and design thinking, HEMS reframes human energy—across physical, mental, and emotional dimensions—as a critical organizational resource that can be proactively managed. It shifts the perception of employee well-being from a peripheral initiative to a central priority.

Unaddressed energy depletion can lead to burnout, disengagement, and reduced productivity. HEMS provides a structured approach to mitigate these risks by enabling organizations to identify internal and external stressors, co-create targeted interventions, and implement continuous improvement cycles. This supports employee resilience and promotes more sustainable, high-performing work environments.

The framework offers a repeatable process that embeds well-being into operational planning and decision-making, moving beyond fragmented wellness programs toward a systemic model of workforce sustainability.

While the framework is conceptually grounded and supported by secondary data, the study is limited by its qualitative scope. Future studies should test its applicability across various sectors and cultural contexts. Challenges such as cost, data privacy, and organizational resistance should also be explored.

In practice, HEMS equips managers with tools to diagnose stressors, define energy-related key performance indicators (KPIs), and institutionalize practices such as flexible work, recovery spaces, and emotionally intelligent leadership. For policymakers, the study recommends integrating human energy metrics into labor standards, addressing psychosocial risks, promoting real-time monitoring tools, and aligning workplace well-being with Industry 5.0 principles.

By reframing human energy as a strategic asset, HEMS offers a scalable pathway to workforce sustainability, resilience, and improved organizational performance.