Human Factors and Ergonomics in Sustainable Manufacturing Systems: A Pathway to Enhanced Performance and Wellbeing

Abstract

Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E) play an essential role in the development of sustainable manufacturing systems. By prioritizing worker wellbeing through the mitigation of occupational hazards and the enhancement of workplace health, HF/E contributes significantly to improved system performance. In accordance with the principles of Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0, which emphasize human-centered design and wellbeing, organizations that effectively integrate HF/E principles can achieve a competitive advantage on the market. Based on a globally recognized ranking system utilized by investors in making informed decisions, the study focuses on manufacturing companies ranked by their occupational health and safety (OHS) scores, a key criterion for assessing the social dimension of company performance. This research aims to identify and analyze top-ranked companies that explicitly highlight HF/E-related benefits within their public documents and sustainability reports. The paper investigates aspects related to the integration of AI and digital technologies to enhance safety and health in manufacturing systems, with a specific focus on human presence detection in hazardous zones, improvements in machines and equipment design, occupational risk assessments, and initiatives for enhancing worker wellbeing. The findings are expected to provide compelling evidence for companies to prioritize HF/E consideration during the design and redesign phases of sustainable manufacturing systems. The paper provides significant value to non-indexed companies by offering a dual approach for improving OHS performance, based on an empirical evaluation assessment method and practical strategies for effective OHS implementation in different manufacturing industries and countries.

1. Introduction

The booming development of new technologies and their integration across diverse sectors, ranging from our day-to-day lives to complex organizational contexts, creates opportunities [1,2] for accelerated advancement of artificial intelligence and the evolution of industrial paradigms [3] like transitioning from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 and potentially beyond to Industry 6.0 [4,5], as Figure 1 shows. Focusing on automation, data exchange, and connected technologies, both Industry 5.0 and Industry 6.0 concepts build upon the foundation of Industry 4.0. While Industry 5.0 emphasizes human–machine collaboration [6,7] in a safety occupational environment [8,9], flexibility [10] and sustainability [11], it is expected that Industry 6.0 will create fully autonomous and intelligent systems with minimal human intervention, as

Table 1. Key differentiating features across industrial revolutions (based on [12,13,14,15]).

Feature	Industry 4.0/ Industry 4.1 Phase	Industry 5.0/ Industry 4.2 Phase	Industry 6.0/ Industry 4.3 Phase
Focus	Automation and connectivity	Human–machine collaboration and sustainability	Collective intelligence, complete autonomy and hyper-personalization
The role of technology	IoT, big data, robotization, artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing	AI and human collaboration, augmented reality, digital ethics	Artificial general intelligence (AGI), quantum computing
Human–machine relationship	Machines replace humans	Humans collaborate with machines	Symbiotic human–technology integration
Key objectives	Efficiency, productivity, low costs	Wellbeing, personalization, sustainability	Anticipation, autonomy, total adaptability
Organizational culture	Technology-centered	Centered on people and sustainability	Centered on community, lifelong learning and collective consciousness
Sustainability	Optional, not a top priority	Integral part of the strategy	Fully integrated, regenerative and circular economy
Key technologies	Automation, sensors, cloud computing, basic AI	Collaborative AI, digital twins, edge computing	AGI, quantum computing, biotechnologies, neurotechnology
Production	Fully automated, smart factories	Human-centric and adaptable factory	Autonomous, self-evolving factory
Human resources	Re-training for working with machines	Focus on employee’s wellbeing and human development	Creativity, autonomy, human–technology hybridization
Impact on society	Economic growth, with social challenges	Inclusion, social and environment responsibility	Planetary balance, digital ethics and global interconnectedness

shows.

Industry 6.0 is a futuristic vision of industry, where factories become not only smart, but also ethical, regenerative, and conscious, in deep collaboration with people, the environment, and society. This concept is in development, used especially by some researchers [14,15]. Occasionally, researchers use different terms to refer to the next industrial evolutions, using terms like Industry 5.0 phase-I or Industry 5.0 phase-II [5] or, in other cases terms Industry 4.1 phase and Industry 4.2 phase [13] to refer to Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 concepts.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, the accelerated development of new technologies will continue and, from a positive perspective, the future of work within industrial systems can be shaped into working environments in which advanced technologies collaborate with the workers to proactively prevent risks, optimize wellbeing, and adapt the work in real time to the physical and mental needs of the employee. Furthermore, it is expected that the use of new technologies in organizations will lead to zero preventable accidents, decreasing professional burnout, increased employee satisfaction and loyalty, and the full integration of physical, mental, and ethical health within the industrial processes [14].

In the present context, defined by rapid and substantial technological progress, manufacturing companies have vast opportunities but also may face challenges in integrating digital technologies and AI in different organizational processes.

1.1. Ergonomics Contribution to Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

This paper focuses on the opportunities brought by new digital technologies (AI, digitalization, robotic technologies, and other digital tools) in designing and redesigning sustainable manufacturing systems, defined as system components (humans: talents sub-system; machines: technological sub-system; environment: internal and external organizational sub-system) organized into different sub-systems levels and capable of large-scale production [16,17].

Sustainable manufacturing within Industry 5.0 context involves activities, processes and strategies to produce manufactured goods in a human-centered, resilient, and sustainable production system [4] that places the wellbeing of systems users (workers) as a crucial aspect of the manufacturing process along with green manufacturing [10,18]. Sustainable manufacturing systems can use human-centered and cost-effective machines and digital technologies as opportunities for adapting to business environment and processes changes [6], being sustainable, and for using collective intelligence for fast responding and recovery in case of damage and crisis situations, being resilient [4].

As a discipline and profession oriented to efficient human integration within work systems, Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E) offers design and redesign opportunities that facilitate the implementation of Industry 5.0 concept. To be effective and efficient, the implementation of advanced technologies in organizations requires employees’ engagement, satisfaction, and wellbeing [19]—a positive user experience, as ISO 9241-210:2019 mentions [20]. Besides aspects related to human-centered design, the successful implementation of digital technologies in organizations requires leadership support and successful strategies in health and safety management, project management, human resources, and talent management [21].

To be competitive, manufacturing companies that operate in a global market must constantly improve their performance. Advance technologies along with the continuous ergonomics improvements of the work within the manufacturing system can be opportunities to influence wellbeing and productivity, as the conclusions of a five-year study on assembly lines and welding units of a manufacturing company suggest [22]. More specifically, if the work is designed using ergonomic principles and human-centered design, it is likely to maintain a high level of productivity without compromising users’ needs. In contrast, designing work without considering manufacturing system users’ needs can negatively impact both employees’ wellbeing and company performance [22].

Current research in ergonomics focuses on finding solutions for improving human–machine interaction within manufacturing systems, using activity-centered ergonomics [23,24,25], digital ergonomics [26,27], and macro-ergonomic approaches [1,28,29,30,31]. Different studies, conducted both in research and industry field of use, show the potential of using digital technology like wearable sensors and devices [32,33,34], exoskeletons [35,36,37], collaborative robotics [6,36,38,39,40,41,42], artificial intelligence [2,6], augmented and virtual reality [43], and different monitoring systems, ergonomic applications, and software [10,34,44,45,46].

The boarder context of the present paper is represented by the need to pay attention to human integration within modern manufacturing systems which combines humans’ characteristics, needs, and restrictions with automated machines used in a changing and complex environment. In this context, some of the main challenges are represented by key factors like safety, trust, flexibility, and collaboration, understanding by this the way in which human and technology are working together [43]. An efficient collaboration involves efficient communication between user and technology, based on user-centered implementation and human-centered design of machines, work planning, and instructions. For example, the use of sensors devices for designing machines is well known and digital technologies are used more and more to provide immediate warning signals on potential risks and hazard prevention [43]. Also, wearable inertial sensors are used to quantify the exposure of manufacturing workers (manufacturing system users) to physical risks factors related to musculoskeletal disorders and to test if discomfort, distraction, and burden associated with wearing the devices appears during work. Laboratory and industry field testing results showed that these devices may be considered comfortable to wear and can be used by occupational health and safety (OHS) specialists to monitor manufacturing workers health, safety, and wellbeing [7].

Despite some promising results related to the use of digital technologies to support productivity, quality, safety, health, and wellbeing, some challenges remain and are related to digital technologies cost, privacy, and human-oriented integration in the design or redesign of manufacturing systems.

1.2. Research Gaps and Justification

As mentioned before, the literature on Industry 5.0 emphasizes the shift from “automation for efficiency” to “human-centric technology” and the need for a sustainable transformation. In this context, as far as the authors of this paper know, there is a gap in empirical research related to concrete pathways and solutions for transforming the manufacturing systems considering HF/E and sustainability in a digitalized context [1].

Under the circumstances described, this article aims to generate robust evidence demonstrating the critical business value of strategically implementing HF/E when redesigning complex existing systems, to respond to the main scientific gap represented by the lack of a systematic synthesis of how manufacturing companies can integrate digital practices into their sustainability-oriented strategies to support HF/E.

Many companies define and implement sustainability-oriented strategies, also called ESG (environmental, social, and governance) strategies, to demonstrate the company’s performance and impact on various sustainability and ethical factors. These successful strategies are crucial for companies to proactively identify risks and opportunities and for stakeholders to understand a company’s broader impact. Also, investors looking to integrate sustainability into their decisions use this information and different ESG assessment models and frameworks, like GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board), or S&P Global (Corporate Sustainability Assessment/CSA based on Dow Jones Sustainability Indices/DJSI). Furthermore, there are also many cases in which companies implement sustainability-oriented strategies without engaging rating agencies to get a comprehensive view of their ESG performance based on existing ESG assessment tools and frameworks. For these cases of non-indexed ESG companies, estimating and evaluating company social performance, especially OHS performance, can become a critical success factor for their competitiveness.

Through three operational objectives, the research focuses on identifying the best practices of incorporating new digital technologies and proactively integrating HF/E principles into the design of Industry 5.0 manufacturing systems in companies that are leaders in S&P Global ranking.

Using a case study-based methodology, the research highlights the contribution of digital technologies to support HF/E in sustainable manufacturing systems, identifying and discussing six pathways’ categories for enhancing performance and wellbeing in performant organizations. The findings can be used as good practices and recommendations for other manufacturing companies oriented towards sustainability and resilience. The empirical method proposed by this paper can be used especially by non-indexed ESG companies to evaluate the degree of maturity in relation to current digital practices to support HF/E and to identify strategies for improving OHS performance.

2. Materials and Methods

This section presents aspects related to the research methodological approach and it is structured into two sub-sections, presenting the research framework and the qualitative research methodology.

2.1. Qualitative Research Objectives

The qualitative research was designed and implemented to achieve the following research objectives:

• Identifying digital practices to support HF/E in Industry 5.0, especially in companies with recognized market performance;
• Formulating recommendations to fill the theoretical gap and guide organizations to enhance their sustainability-oriented strategies by leveraging digital tools to improve HF/E.

For selecting the companies included in the qualitative study, the S&P Global ranking system [47] was used due to its data availability and its global recognition in supporting investors in making informed decisions. The S&P Global ranking system includes a total of 60 different industries and allows company selection by different categories (Top 1%—the company leader in the industry, Top 5%, Top 10%, Yearbook members, etc.). The research was performed using The Sustainability Yearbook—2024 Rankings [48], which included companies selected based on S&P Global methodology for the year 2024.

2.2. Research Methodology

In the next sub-sections, the methodological approach for companies’ selection, research design, and qualitative analysis methodology are presented. The framework of the qualitative research is presented in Figure 2.

2.2.1. Step 1—Defining the Theoretical Framework

The first methodological step aimed to identify the status of laboratory and industry field research is related to the use of digital technologies in sustainable manufacturing systems. The bibliographic study focused on the connection of human-centered design, activity-centered ergonomics, digital ergonomics, and macro-ergonomics with the resilience and sustainability of manufacturing systems. The role of completing a bibliographic study was to identify empirical research in organizations, especially HF/E-related initiatives tested and implemented by companies. The term initiative refers to the ability of a company to assess and initiate actions independently, as well as the power or opportunity to act before other companies do. The bibliographic study results were used for decisions and analyses of collected data in the next steps of the methodological approach.

2.2.2. Step 2—Defining the Criteria for Companies’ Selection

The implementation of applied research, particularly the selection of companies investigated, was guided by the following critical criteria:

• C1: Accuracy—This criterion quantifies the degree to which the obtained information would correctly represent the observed reality.
• C2: Availability—This criterion assesses the feasibility and ease with which the information could be procured.

To quantify the value of information derived from qualitative research, a decision tree methodology was utilized. This approach enabled the construction of two distinct decision-making pathways:

• D1: The investigated industries and services. This decision criterion, established at moment M1, involves two variants of decision: D1-1 (industries and services ranked by S&P Global based on OHS score) or D1-2 (industries and services not ranked by OHS score)
• D2: The companies investigated. This decision criterion, established at moment M2, involves two variants of decision: D2-1 (leaders in manufacturing industry) or D2-2 (leaders in all industries and services).

The corresponding states of nature for both decision-making processes, including the assigned probabilities, were defined based on the bibliographic study results, as follows:

• SN1: The probability of obtaining data from representative categories of industries and services ranked by S&P Global based on the OHS score, subject to external factors that operate independently of the M1 decision-making process and introduce a 0.8 probability of influencing the obtained data.
• SN2: The inability to obtain data from a representative category, subject to external factors that operate independently of the M1 decision-making process and introduce a 0.2 probability of influencing the obtained data.
• sn1: The ability to achieve information related to manufacturing industry, subject to external factors that operate independently of the M1 decision-making process and introduce an 0.7 probability of influencing the obtained data.
• sn2: The inability to achieve information related to manufacturing industry, subject to external factors that operate independently of the M1 decision-making process and introduce an 0.3 probability of influencing the obtained data.

To facilitate the comparison of decision alternatives, both criterion C1 (accuracy) and C2 (availability) were assigned an equal weighting factor of 0.5. The estimated consequences associated with the evolution of the states of nature are presented in

Table 2. Estimated consequences of evolution states of nature in research’ decisions.

Decision Criteria	States of Nature in Research’ Decisions	Estimated Consequences
C1: Accuracy (Degree of information accuracy)		D1: investigated industries and services
		D1-1: industries and services ranked by OHS score	D1-2: industries and services not ranked by OHS score
	SN1: the probability of obtaining data from representative categories	100	70
	SN2: the inability to obtain data from a representative category	50	10
		D2: companies investigated
		D2-1: leaders in manufacturing industry	D2-2: leaders in all industries and services
	sn1: the ability to achieve information related to manufacturing industry	100	80
	sn2: the inability to achieve information related to manufacturing	50	10
C2: Availability (Degree of information availability)		D1: investigated industries and services
		D1-1: industries and services ranked by OHS score	D1-2: industries and services not ranked by OHS score
	SN1: the probability of obtaining data from representative categories	80	70
	SN2: the inability to obtain data from a representative category	100	90
		D2: companies investigated
		D2-1: leaders in manufacturing industry	D2-2: leaders in all industries and services
	sn1: the ability to achieve information related to manufacturing industry	10	100
	sn2: the inability to achieve information related to manufacturing	50	80

.

The decision to implement the applied research was addressed by constructing the decision tree presented in Figure 3. For choosing the optimum alternative for research decisions and selecting the most favorable alternative, the following sequential steps were executed using several computations in Microsoft Excel, as Figure 3 presents:

• Determining the consequences for the corresponding variants (cC1, respectively cC2 in Figure 3) by summing consequences for the natural states of evolution for each possible option of decision.
• Normalization of the consequences for the previously calculated corresponding variants, as utilities (uC1, respectively uC2 in Figure 3) using Formula (1):

  $${\mathrm{u}}_{\mathrm{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{x}}-{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{j}}^0}{{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{j}}^1-{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{j}}^0}}$$

  (1)

  where ${\mathrm{u}}_{\mathrm{x}}$ = the utility corresponding to the current consequence; ${\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{x}}$ = current consequence; ${\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{j}}^1$= favorable consequence; and ${\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{j}}^0$ = unfavorable consequence.
• Establishment of the synthetic utility (us), calculated by summing the multiplication of the calculated utilities and the importance coefficient of criterion, applying Formula (2):

  $${\mathrm{us}}_{\mathrm{x}}{=\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{jC}1}\cdot {\mathrm{uC}1}_{\mathrm{x}}{ + \mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{jC}2}\cdot {\mathrm{uC}2}_{\mathrm{x}}$$

  (2)

  where ${\mathrm{us}}_{\mathrm{x}}=$ the synthetic utility corresponding to the current version; ${\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{jC}1}{, \mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{jC}2}$ = the importance coefficients of the criteria C1 and C2, respectively; and ${\mathrm{uC}1}_{\mathrm{x}}{, \mathrm{uC}2}_{\mathrm{x}}$ = the current utilities corresponding to criteria C1 and C2, respectively.
• Calculation of the average values expected at the M2 decision-making process, by weighing the synthetic utility with the corresponding probability of the states of nature, by applying Formula (3):

  $${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{snxy}}{ =\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{sn}1}\cdot {\mathrm{us}}_{\mathrm{x}}{ + \mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{sn}2}\cdot {\mathrm{us}}_{\mathrm{y}}$$

  (3)

  where ${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{snxy}}$ = average value corresponding to decision at the M2 decision-making process; ${\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{sn}1}$, ${\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{sn}2}$ = the corresponding probability for sn1 and sn2 states of nature, respectively; ${\mathrm{us}}_{\mathrm{x}}{,\mathrm{us}}_{\mathrm{y}}$ = the synthetic utilities corresponding to the variants of decision for which the average is calculated.
• Calculation of the average values expected at the M1 decision-making process, by weighing the synthetic utility with the corresponding probability of the states of nature, applying Formula (4):

  $${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{SNzw}}{=\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{SN}1}\cdot {\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{snz}}{ + \mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{SN}2}\cdot {\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{snw}}$$

  (4)

  where ${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{SNzw}}$ = the average value corresponding to decision at the M1 decision-making process; ${\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{SN}1}$, ${\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{SN}2}$ = the corresponding probability for SN1 and SN2 states of nature, respectively; ${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{snz}}$,${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{snw}}$ = the synthetic utilities corresponding to the variants of decision at the M2 decision-making process, for which average value is calculated.

Based on the research decision process described above, the optimum variant for implementing the qualitative research considering the criteria of accuracy and availability of the information was the selection of:

• industries and services ranked by OHS score as part of S&P Global ESG score;
• leaders in the manufacturing industry.

2.2.3. Step 3—Qualitative Research Design: Objectives and Methodology

To implement the decision and achieve the research aim, three operational objectives for the qualitative research were defined.

Firstly, the qualitative research aimed to identify all categories of industries and services ranked by S&P Global using the OHS score, as a key criterion in evaluating ESG score for corporate sustainability. All industries were checked to identify the targeted categories, as

Table 3. Industries and services ranked by OHS score as part of S&P Global ESG score.

Industry Code/Label *	Category Name **	Category Code **
B/Mining and quarrying	Metals and mining	MNX
C/Manufacturing	Aluminum	ALU
	Auto components	ATX
	Automobiles	AUT
	Building products	BLD
	Chemicals	CHM
	Construction materials	COM
	Personal products	COS
	Containers and packaging	CTR
	Electrical components and equipment	ELQ
	Paper and forest products	FRP
	Household products	HOU
	Industrial conglomerates	IDD
	Machinery and electrical equipment	IEQ
	Electronic equipment, instruments, and components	ITC
	Steel	STL
	Textiles, apparel, and luxury goods	TEX
D/Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Gas utilities	GAS
	Electric utilities	ELC
	Oil and gas upstream and integrated	OGX
E/Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities	Multi and water utilities	MUW
F/Construction	Construction and engineering	CON
	Homebuilding	HOM
G–U/Services	Aerospace and defense	ARO
	Casinos and gaming	CNO
	Food and staples retailing	FDR
	Health care providers and services	HEA
	Commercial services and supplies	ICS
	Oil and gas refining and marketing	OGR
	Energy equipment and services	OIE
	Oil and gas storage and transportation	PIP
	Professional services	PRO
	Restaurants and leisure facilities	REX
	Trading companies and distributors	TCD
	Transportation and transportation infrastructure	TRA
	Hotels, resorts and cruise lines	TRT

* Based on [49]; ** Based on [48], alphabetical order.

shows. As a direct result, a total of thirty-six categories of industries and services, ranked by OHS score as part of S&P Global ESG score were selected. The results were grouped in six categories using ILOSTAT industries categories codes and labels [49] and keeping the names and codes of industries categories based on [48].

Secondly, the research aimed to select the manufacturing industry leaders, manufacturing companies ranked by OHS score and the social dimension weights in S&P Global ESG score. For this purpose, the research focused on all industries categories included by ILOSTAT in the C/Manufacturing category. The top-ranked companies in the manufacturing industry categories were identified and coded using a personalized code (L-IND, composed of L, meaning leader, and the code of S&P Global industry category). As

Table 4. S&P Global manufacturing industry leaders and social dimension weights in ESG score.

Industry Code/ Label	Leader Code	Industry Short Description	Social Dimension Weights * (%)	Leader OHS Score **	Best Industry OHS Score **
C/Manufacturing	L-ALU	Aluminum products manufacturing	35	94	94
	L-ATX	Manufacture of auto components	30	59	97
	L-AUT	Automobiles manufacturing	33	44	88
	L-BLD	Building products and fixtures manufacturing	32	75	90
	L-CHM	Manufacture of chemical goods, including basic chemicals, plastics, industrial gases, and agricultural and specialty chemicals	32	76	94
	L-COM	Manufacture of cement aggregates, concrete, and related materials	35	48	96
	L-COS	Personal products manufacturing	36	86	95
	L-CTR	Manufacture of containers and packaging alternatives	35	64	86
	L-ELQ	Manufacture of electrical components and equipment	30	76	95
	L-FRP	Manufacture of paper and forest products	33	85	87
	L-HOU	Manufacture of household products	35	69	83
	L-IDD	Industrial conglomerates/Manufacturers, diversified, and highly dispersed businesses working across globalized value chains	30	54	88
	L-IEQ	Industrial equipment manufacturers	30	88	98
	L-ITC	Manufacture of electronic equipment, instruments, and components	32	88	90
	L-STL	Steel manufacturing	34	41	95
	L-TEX	Textiles and apparel manufacturing	37	82	100

* Based on [48]; ** Based on [47].

and Figure 4 show, a total of sixteen manufacturing companies ranked as S&P Global leaders in different manufacturing industries were selected for the next stage of the research process.

For illustrating the OHS performance of manufacturing companies’ leaders in relation to other companies ranked by S&P Global in the same category of industry, on one hand, and with the importance of social dimension, on the other hand, the OHS-weighted score for each industry leader was calculated based on Formula (5):

$$\mathrm{OHS-weighted} \mathrm{score}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Leader} \mathrm{OHS} \mathrm{score}}{\mathrm{Best} \mathrm{industry} \mathrm{OHS} \mathrm{score}}}\right) \times \mathrm{Industry} \mathrm{social} \mathrm{dimension} \mathrm{weight}$$

(5)

The proposed metric provides a more comprehensive and insightful perspective beyond purely financial metrics obtained by the analyzed companies (leaders in the industry), based on S&P Global ranking system. It intends to quantify the company’s OHS performance by assigning a different weight based on the importance of social dimension impact and suggests information related to opportunities and potential for OHS performance growth in the company analyzed. The metric was proposed with the aim of comparing the OHS performance of the manufacturing industry leaders with the best OHS performance in the same category of industry (best industry OHS score) and can be used in making informed decisions.

Thirdly, the last operational objective for the qualitative research was to conduct the case studies analysis on S&P Global leaders (L-IND) in the manufacturing industry in accordance with the research aim.

The qualitative research methodology was based on the systematic review of S&P Global leaders (L-IND) sustainability reports, following the methodology presented in

Table 5. Qualitative research methodology.

Steps	Details
Sample selection	Selecting top-manufacturing companies with global market capitalization
Database	Identifying companies’ sustainability reports
Qualitative content analysis	(1) exploratory reading; (2) coding focused on HF/E-related keywords; (3) cross-case matrix comparison.
Coding categories	(1) mapping initiatives; (2) maturity matrix analysis

and using the search criteria and guidelines presented in Figure 5.

The research methodology is justified by its 3R characteristics (repeatability, reproducibility and replicability) that sustain a scientific systematic review. The concept of the “3R characteristics” was inspired by Bolis et al. [1] that mentions these attributes as essential for a systematic review given its scientific character. The term describes qualitative research characterized by:

• Repeatability, the ability to obtain the same result when a study is repeated multiple times, under the same conditions, by the same researcher, using the same methods, over a period.
• Reproducibility, the ability of an independent researcher or research team to obtain the same results or very similar results when conducting a study or analysis using the original data, computational steps, methods, and code provided by the initial researchers.
• Replicability, the ability to obtain consistent results when a study is repeated by a different research team, typically in a different setting, using new data, but aiming to answer the same scientific question and employing similar or identical methods as the original study.

2.2.4. Step 4—Conducting the Case Studies

The qualitative content analysis of the sustainability reports was based on the results of the bibliographic study carried out in the research theoretical framework (Figure 2, step 1). To cover the research purpose and to search relevant arguments to demonstrate the benefits of HF/E interventions declared by manufacturing companies, the research methodology included three groups of words defined based on the search criteria: (1) safety, (2) digital technologies and (3) wellbeing. Furthermore, for each criterion research guidelines were defined based on related terms, as follows: (1) ergonomic, hazard, safety, health; (2) digital, machine, machinery; (3) wellbeing, well-being, wellness.

All sixteen selected sustainability reports published by manufacturing companies’ leaders were systematically searched using the defined terms, as

Table 6. Word frequency in S&P Global manufacturing leaders sustainability reports.

Company Code (Country)	Word Frequency	Reference
L-ALU (India)	ergonomics (3), digital (86), wellbeing/well-being (32)	[50]
L-ATX (Italy)	ergonomic (4), digital (47), wellbeing (10)	[51]
L-AUT (Republic of Korea)	ergonomic (0), digital (17), well-being (5), hazard (32), machinery (6)	[52]
L-BLD (USA)	ergonomic (5), digital (33), well-being (45), hazard (25), machine (16)	[53]
L-CHM (Thailand)	ergonomic (0), digital (17), hazard (14), well-being (9)	[54]
L-COM (Thailand)	ergonomic (0), digital (25), well-being (20)	[55]
L-COS (Japan)	ergonomic (0), digital (1), safety (28), health (44)	[56]
L-CTR (Thailand)	ergonomic (0), digital (4), machinery (2)	[57]
L-ELQ (France)	ergonomic (0), digital (445), safety (314), well-being (74)	[58]
L-FRP (Chile)	ergonomic (0), digital (25), well-being (12), hazard (4), health (106)	[59]
L-HOU (United Kingdom)	ergonomic (0), digital (7), hazard (5), wellbeing (25)	[60]
L-IDD (Republic of Korea)	ergonomic (0), digital (114), hazard (7), machinery (5), well-being (3)	[61]
L-IEQ (USA)	ergonomic (14), digital (7), machine (49), well-being (12)	[62]
L-ITC (China)	ergonomic (1), digital (14), machine (17), wellbeing/well-being (11)	[63]
L-STL (Republic of Korea)	ergonomic (0), digital (11), hazard (39), machine (13), wellbeing (4)	[64]
L-TEX (Italy)	ergonomic (0), digital (20), hazard (4), machine (13), well-being (4)	[65]

shows.

The exploratory reading was guided by the mentioned search criteria and guidelines, considered relevant to ensure that the retrieved results directly facilitated the identification of HF/E-related initiatives, and the most important parts of the reports were selected. The selection prioritized initiatives that demonstrate a direct and significant connection to the implementation of digital practices in companies to support HF/E, the general research aim, thereby contributing meaningfully to the comprehension and resolution of the research’s objectives. The findings were consolidated in a structured form and are reported in the results section.

2.2.5. Step 5—Reporting the Results

The selected initiatives were mapped and evaluated using maturity matrix analysis. For analyzing the results, six coding categories were defined and cross-case matrix comparison was used.

Firstly, the results were grouped into six areas of practical interventions that represent HF/E-related initiatives, programs, and strategies implemented in at least one of the observed companies. Secondly, for understanding and analyzing the current maturity level of analyzed companies in relation to the digital practices to support HF/E, maturity analysis was defined using the framework presented in

Table 7. Levels and corresponding indicators assign for maturity analysis.

Level	Indicators
Emergent	Punctual initiatives, without HF/E-related KPIs
Intermediary	Safety KPIs, digital training, OHS audits
Advanced	AI and robots’ integration, safety-related digital tools
Leading	External reporting on specific HF/E and OHS metrics

. For each of the six coding categories, a specific tool for evaluating the maturity level was proposed based on the findings, and the results were analyzed using cross-case matrix comparison to identify patterns and differences between industries.

This empirical method was proposed as a tool for evaluating the degree of maturity in OHS performance. It can be used to identify patterns related to the use of digital technologies for supporting HF/E in organizational practice, especially within non-indexed ESG companies.

The results represent a systematic synthesis of the use of HF/E-related digital technologies in manufacturing systems and intend to fill the theoretical gap, on the one hand, and to present recommendations for guiding other organizations for increasing social performance in manufacturing, on the other hand.

The findings of the qualitative research based on the systematic review carried out according to the methodological framework described are presented in the next part.

3. Results

This section presents a description of the main results, and their interpretation using a mapping of the analyzed manufacturing companies’ proactive approaches related to social responsibility. It is structured in seven parts, as follows: (1) short radiography of manufacturing industry leaders OHS performance, (2) human-centered design of machines, equipment, tools, and products, (3) activity-centered ergonomics and OHS risks assessment, (4) robotics and digital technologies use, (5) digital learning for safety and ergonomics, (6) digital wellbeing initiatives, and (7) digital transformation strategies for OHS and wellbeing.

3.1. Short Radiography of Manufacturing Industry Leaders OHS Performance

This part analyzes the social performance of manufacturing industry leaders in S&P Global ranking system in 2024, based on company OHS-weighted scores. The ranking of all sixteen manufacturing companies’ leaders is represented in Figure 6. It can be observed that with one exception, L-ALU, the manufacturing companies’ leaders were ranked above the maximum industry OHS score, as part of the social dimension weights in S&P Global ESG performance. Considering this aspect, it can be expected that new initiatives in the field of improving health and safety in manufacturing systems can increase social companies’ performance.

Considering the results that present the word frequency in documents based on the research criteria, it can be observed that the term “ergonomic” was identified in five of the sixteen sustainability reporting-based cases, but social responsibility initiatives related to HF/E and wellbeing were identified in all sixteen case studies, as the following sub-sections show. The next part of the article reveals six categories of aspects related to enhancing human safety and health within manufacturing systems by integration of digital technologies and AI. These proactive approaches are linked to HF/E-related actions for social responsibility and concerns improvements in machines, equipment, tool and products design, occupational risk assessments, detection of human presence in hazardous zones, safety and ergonomics training, and digital initiatives for enhancing wellbeing.

3.2. Human-Centered Design of Machines, Equipment, Tools, and Products

The case studies-based analysis identified the following ergonomic-related initiatives for improving machines, equipment and products design, promoted by companies in sustainability reports:

• Integrating ergonomics in different products and tools design, such as: (1) ergonomic handling devices for electrical vehicles battery packs; (2) ergonomic handling systems that facilitate pallets manipulation; (3) robotic or manual handling of packages using vacuum pumps and ergonomic tightening systems, tools that reduce the reaction force experienced by workers by up to 63%; (4) an innovative ergonomic tool designed for various industries, including wind energy, that improves bolting efficiency, reduces costs, ensures repeatable accuracy for critical joints, and enhances operator comfort and mobility through its cordless and lightweight design, while also promoting sustainability by reducing the number of tools required; (5) an innovative ergonomic solution for lift fixture used in products manipulation [62] (p. 15, 19–20, 24, 50).
• Eliminating safety hazards of machinery and equipment [63] (p. 92); prioritizing automation and the integration of ergonomic requirements into machines design and sustaining continuous improvement programs [51] (p. 219).
• Asking suppliers to ensure the safety of production-related machinery, instruments, and facilities, with mandatory inclusion of the provision and maintenance of physical safeguards like guards, interlocks, and barriers to protect workers from potential injuries [61] (p. 165).
• Developing a strategic framework that integrates products and services characterized by sustainable attributes that provide quantifiable safety benefits for clients; designing products that surpass established industry standards, with ergonomic and safety features and performance characteristics [62] (p. 14).

Summarizing, some manufacturing companies—leaders in industries like auto components (ATX), industrial equipment (IEQ), electronic equipment, instruments, and components (ITC), and industrial conglomerates (IDD)—are actively promoting within their sustainability reports the ergonomic initiatives to enhance machine, equipment, and product design. These initiatives involve integrating ergonomics into tool and product development (industry: IEQ; country: USA), eliminating safety hazards in machinery, often by prioritizing automation (industry: ATX; country: Italy) and embedding ergonomic requirements into new machine designs (industry: ITC; country: China). Furthermore, key strategies involve requiring suppliers to implement robust safety measures for production machinery, including physical safeguards (industry: IDD; country: Republic of Korea) or strategically design products and services with sustainable attributes that deliver measurable safety and ergonomic benefits for clients, often exceeding industry standards (industry: IEQ; country: USA).

3.3. Activity-Centered Ergonomics and OHS Risks Assessment

Focusing on physical, psychological and organizational workloads and continuous improvement of work conditions, activity-centered ergonomics emphasize the importance of adapting work to human characteristics, to create sustainable conditions that support quality work, foster professional development, and promote health [23]. The case studies revealed the following programs, initiatives and actions implemented by companies, in relation to work conditions and occupational risks assessment:

• Commitment to OHS and employee wellbeing through several initiatives aimed at improving the working environment, such as: (1) workplace ergonomic assessments to reduce fatigue and enhance productivity, (2) installation of environmentally friendly LED lighting to improve working conditions, (3) regular monitoring of workplace noise levels to ensure compliance with safety standards, (4) addressing potential discomfort and health impacts from air quality, temperature, and humidity by upgrading ventilation systems with diverse microclimates [65] (p. 57), [66], (5) establish specific safety and health standards for work in high heat conditions, through impact evaluation based on a heat index and implementing various preventive and harm mitigation measures, including environmental controls, work hour limitations, health monitoring, and first aid training for workers [55] (p. 81), (6) proactively identifying hazards representing potential sources for occupational disease and mitigating ergonomic risks through technological advancements [51] (p. 219), and (7) implementing total productive maintenance principles, including kaizen improvements, to reduce the noise level in a plant area with pneumatic machine by installing an acoustic enclosure, standardizing air pressure, and utilizing a redesigned machine [53] (p. 104).
• Implementing different risk assessments and monitoring digital tools to improve the analytical capabilities of production personnel for effective identification and assessment of risks inherent in manufacturing processes, for establishing efficient prevention measures [54] (pp. 203–204), and for monitoring processes to reduce human error and implement systematic operational control across the organization [58] (p. 122).
• Using digital dashboards for risks assessment with multidisciplinary teams and process specialists, safety practice observations, safe practice index calculation and monitoring, etc. [59] (p. 183).
• Analysis of safety data to identify critical areas for developing improvement plans based on ergonomics, machine safety programs, and change management procedures [62] (p. 49).
• Using IIoT (Industrial Internet of Things) services by enabling remote machine health assessments through interconnected products; mitigating the risk of worker injury associated with travel and on-site inspections and supporting safety in products service [62] (p. 20).

Through various initiatives to improve working conditions and assess occupational risks, companies are demonstrating their commitment to foster sustainable conditions that support quality work, employees’ health, safety, and wellbeing—especially in manufacturing industries like auto components (ATX), building products and fixtures (BLD), chemical goods (CHM), cement aggregates, concrete and related materials (COM), electrical components and equipment (ELQ), paper and forest products (FRP), industrial equipment (IEQ), and textiles and apparel (TEX). The identified initiatives refer to implementing total productive maintenance principles to reduce noise (industry: BLD; country: USA), upgrading physical environments, and conducting workplace ergonomic assessments using digital tools (industries: ATX, TEX, COM; countries: Italy, Thailand). Some companies are also leveraging digital tools for risk assessment and monitoring (industries: CHM, ELQ; countries: Thailand, France), utilizing dashboards for risk assessments with multidisciplinary teams (industry: FRP; country: Chile), and analyzing safety data to develop inform improvement plans (industry: IEQ; country: USA). Finaly, a new identified approach is to use IIoT services to enhance worker safety by reducing the need for on-site inspections (industry: IEQ; country: USA).

3.4. Robotics and Digital Technologies Use

The analysis of corporate sustainability reports identified the following initiatives involving robots, exoskeletons, and other digital technologies, with the aim of detecting human presence in hazardous zones, reducing and eliminating accidents, enhancing OHS management processes, and providing technological support for improving work efficiency and safety:

• Investing in research and development of future human-centered technologies to expand human reach by medical exoskeleton, new mobility platforms, and new mobile living spaces, for connecting mobility and buildings [52] (pp. 125–137).
• Implementing a range of digital technologies, including robotic cleaning, video and online monitoring (CCTV), drone surveillance, and different applications to enhance OHS management processes and reinforce risk control hierarchy [50] (p. 121).
• Improving access control through physical barriers and remote monitoring, strengthening work monitoring with CCTV and wearable devices; expanding the use of smart equipment like safety balls and quadruped robots (SPOT) for remotely measure risks and potentially replace high-risk tasks [64] (p. 54).
• Using AI-powered and camera-based systems to monitor vehicle and pedestrian movement in the plant, to identify high-risk interaction areas and to reduce and eliminate accidents involving powered industrial vehicles like forklifts [53] (p. 103).
• Innovatively using SPOT to replace high-risk tasks and significantly minimize the accidents risks and enhance worker safety in hazardous environments; expanding the robot capabilities with AI, IoT, sensors, and cameras to be able to take dangerous tasks and ensure safety compliance [64] (p. 19).
• Using AI and digital platforms technologies to proactively monitor and prevent safety and security risks in operational zones, specifically focusing on (1) fire detection in high-risk zones and access control in hazardous zones, (2) ensuring personal protective equipment usage to prevent worker falls from heights, and (3) real-time monitoring and notifications using different mobile phones applications [55] (p. 82).
• Using different wearable devices (e.g., VEX—a vest-type wearable robot, CEX—a chair-type industrial exoskeleton robotic system) to prevent musculoskeletal disorders; the two lightweight industrial wearable robots are designed to assist workers in physically demanding tasks by providing support and reducing muscle strain, thereby improving work efficiency [52] (p. 54).

In summary, corporate sustainability reports highlight a growing trend in leveraging robots, exoskeletons, and various digital technologies to enhance workplace safety, efficiency, and OHS management—especially in automobiles (AUT), aluminum products (ALU), building products and fixtures (BLD), cement aggregates (COM), and steel (STL) manufacturing. Companies are investing in human-centered technologies like medical exoskeletons and new mobility platforms to expand human capabilities (industry: AUT; country: Republic of Korea), and digital tools such as robotic cleaning, video monitoring, drone surveillance, and advanced access control systems for risk control (industry: ALU; country: India). A significant focus is on using smart equipment, including quadruped robots (SPOT), AI-powered camera systems, and wearable devices (industry: STL; country: Republic of Korea) for remote risk measurement, to identify high-risk interaction areas, and to ultimately replace humans in hazardous tasks, significantly reducing accidents (industry: STL; country: USA). Furthermore, companies are deploying AI and digital platforms for proactive safety monitoring, focusing on fire detection, access control in hazardous zones, prevent falls, and providing real-time mobile notifications (industry: BLD, COM; country: USA, Thailand). Finally, the use of wearable robotic devices like exoskeletons emerges as a key strategy to prevent musculoskeletal disorders by providing physical assistance and reducing strain during demanding tasks, thereby improving overall work efficiency (industry: AUT; country: Republic of Korea).

3.5. Digital Learning for Safety and Ergonomics

Some of the analyzed companies present in sustainability reports digital learning-related initiatives, like e-learning and digital platforms for OHS-related training. The main findings are:

• Integrating various digital technologies like IoT, AI, drones, and AR into core operations to improve efficiency, safety, and sustainability; upskilling the workforce through different programs using digital training initiatives to ensure employees can effectively utilize these technologies and drive operational improvements; safety enhancement in maintenance activities using AR/VR digital training, real-time monitoring and alerts through AI and drones [50] (p. 82).
• Continuous training of employees in new regulations or agreements implementation, including ergonomics, for updating the workforce skills [51] (p. 206); safety management for special machinery and equipment, to increase awareness of OHS issues [63] (p. 95).
• Implementing employee engagement programs based on virtual training on ergonomics approach, to empower workers with knowledge and resources for overall wellbeing [50] (p. 92).
• Using digital technology solutions (digital platforms) that streamline the implementation of OHS protocols to decrease accidents risks, injuries, and occupational illnesses, to support business growth and to enhance operational efficiency [57] (p. 23), [55] (p. 31, p. 82).
• Implementing electronic permits to work, a digital platform for managing high-risk work authorizations, enabling integrated access to databases of contractor personnel who have completed requisite training and meet qualification criteria across diverse job classifications; the functionality enhances the precision of contractor screening processes, contributing to improved work safety outcomes [55] (p. 82).
• Using external partnerships and e-learning platforms to support OHS related training programs for employees [60] (p. 85), [59] (p. 245)
• Focusing on the digital age by external partnerships campaigns, to increase awareness about the impact of new digital technologies on work and the associated safety challenges and opportunities [51] (pp. 227–228).

In brief, companies are increasingly leveraging digital learning initiatives, such as e-learning and dedicated digital platforms, for OHS training—especially in aluminum products (ALU), auto components (ATX), cement aggregates (COM), containers and packaging alternatives (CTR), electronic equipment, instruments, and components (ITC), paper and forest products (FRP), and household products (HOU) manufacturing. These efforts include upskilling the workforce with specific AR/VR training, using new technologies like IoT, AI, drones, and AR for improved efficiency, safety, and real-time monitoring (industry: ALU; country: India). Some companies provide continuous training on OHS regulations and ergonomics through virtual programs for employees (industries: ALU, ATX, ITC; countries: India, Italy, China). Furthermore, companies use digital platforms for OHS protocol implementation to reduce accidents and occupational illnesses (industries: CTR, COM; country: Thailand) and electronic permits-to-work systems to manage high-risk authorizations and ensure contractor compliance (industry: COM; country: Thailand). Finally, external partnerships for e-learning are used to raise awareness about the safety implications and opportunities presented by new digital technologies in the workplace (industries: FRP, HOU; countries: Chile, UK).

3.6. Digital Wellbeing Initiatives

The qualitative research results show that all companies declared their commitment to enhance the wellbeing of employees and their families through healthcare solutions that address physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual health, supported by initiatives like:

• Digital health and wellbeing applications, physical check-ups, and efforts to reduce mental health stigma with accessible counseling services [50] (p. 4).
• Using platforms to strengthen employee communication and develop a culture that supports work–life balance; promoting employee work–life balance through establishing health and welfare policies, actively incorporating employee feedback to improve the work environment and implementing systems focused on reinforcing self-led work environments, expanding retirement support, and strengthening care for employees’ families [61] (pp. 74–76).
• fostering a strong culture of safety by encouraging employee participation and implementing a variety of engaging initiatives, such as interactive theater, competitions, office ergonomics demonstrations, virtual reality and safety trivia games, to raise safety awareness and promote a safe work environment; producing comprehensive promotional OHS resources, a wide range of global and local resources provided to employees, including videos, contests, games, posters, talks, and banners on health and wellness topics [50] (p. 123).
• collaboration partnerships to develop and implement an innovative digital telemedicine initiative, a telemonitoring and telemedicine system targeting preventive, chronic, and palliative patient care, for proactive health monitoring and improved prevention and treatment outcomes [55] (p. 51).

In summary, some companies—leaders in industrial conglomerates (IDD), aluminum products (ALU), and cement aggregates and concrete (COM) manufacturing—are demonstrating a strong commitment to enhance the holistic wellbeing of their employees and families, through initiatives such as providing digital health and wellbeing applications (industry: ALU; country: India), fostering a culture of work–life balance through robust communication platforms, supportive policies, and systems (industry: IDD; country: Republic ok Korea), and prioritizing a strong safety culture by engaging digital-related initiatives like VR games, videos, contests, posters, talks, and banners on health and wellness topics (industry: ALU; country: India). Finally, innovative digital telemedicine partnerships are implemented for proactive health monitoring, prevention, and improved patient care (industry: COM; country: Thailand).

3.7. Digital Transformation Strategies for OHS and Wellbeing

The following initiatives to enhance OHS and wellbeing within organizations for creating safer, healthier, and more productive work environments by strategically integrating digital technologies were identified in the analyzed sustainability documents:

• Developing health and safety strategy maps [67], incorporating objectives and KPIs to ensure that employees are both physically and mentally healthy; creating work situations where work engagement (performance) is high and presenteeism and absenteeism are reduced [56] (p. 71).
• Considering transformation with digitization and data analytics [58] (p. 123).
• Promoting prevention and safety-oriented behaviors using training and organizational strategies that foster a culture of safety and prevention [51] (p. 219).
• Using digital tools to measure attitudes and perceptions about OHS and develop improvement plans and a safety culture [60] (p. 85).
• Investments in AI hubs to address technology evolution opportunities through: upskilling and reskilling human resources, and potentially new talent acquisition, that are crucial for preparing the workforce with relevant skills to AI technologies and changes brought by AI; proactive workforce planning and transformation to actively prepare employees for working with AI in the future; using AI and machine learning to boost employee productivity and improve products, services, and customer experiences. [58] (p. 346)
• Investments in Wellbeing Hubs to facilitate employees’ access to wellbeing experts, tools, practical advice, education for physical and mental wellbeing, and training in workload, stress management, mindset, movement, nutrition, recovery, and resilience [60] (p. 86).
• Using a system based on periodical employees’ happiness and mental stress surveys, happiness index, and burnout diagnosis that collects data on happiness levels and influencing factors before and after work, providing feedback to manage organizational happiness and develop a happiness culture. [61] (p. 77, p. 84)
• Using centralized databases to comprehensively track all environmental, health, and safety capital investments and operating expenses, along with all capital safety projects, from the initial planning to completion, including detailed data on resources, costs, impact, and savings [62] (p. 42).
• Investments in DX (digital transformation) academies, for strategic development of all employees and researchers’ digital capabilities, through a structured four-level training program aiming to create a digitally proficient workforce capable of leading smart factory construction, strengthening the company’s competitiveness, and demonstrably improving financial performance [64] (p. 50).
• Recognizing employee engagement and feedback as crucial factors for DXs success and leveraging digital tools and initiatives across various departments (customer service, human resources, sourcing, new product development, capital engineering, and enterprise) to create a more efficient, cohesive, and collaborative work environment for employees, ultimately leading to improved customer experiences, streamlined processes, enhanced innovation, and greater overall productivity [53] (p. 126).

In brief, companies are strategically integrating digital technologies to enhance occupational wellbeing—especially in auto components (ATX), building products and fixtures (BLD), personal products (COS), household products (HOU), electrical components and equipment (ELQ), industrial conglomerates (IDD), industrial equipment (IEQ), and steel (STL) manufacturing.

The identified key initiatives focused on developing health and safety strategy maps (industry: COS; country: Japan) and using KPIs to improve health and safety maturity (industry: ELQ; country: France). Furthermore, some companies support digital transformation and use digitalization and data analytics (industries: COS, ELQ, STL; countries: Japan, France, USA), promote prevention and safety-oriented behaviors through cultural strategies (industry: ATX; country: Italy), use digital tools to measure OHS perceptions and develop safety improvement plans (industry: HOU; country: UK), and use centralized databases to track safety capital investments (industry: IEQ; country: USA).

Some companies made significant investments in AI hubs to upskill and reskill the workforce for future AI integration (industry: HOU; country: UK), wellbeing hubs to provide expert access and training on physical and mental health topics (industry: ELQ; country: France), and DX academies to foster digital proficiency across the workforce, a crucial aspect for successful digital transformation (DX) implementation (industry: BLD; country: USA), alongside implementing digital survey systems to monitor employee happiness and prevent burnout (industry: IDD; country: Republic of Korea). Besides developing safety cultures, some companies mention the use of digital tools to develop a happiness culture (industry: IDD; country: Republic of Korea).

4. Discussion

This paper aimed to identify examples of good practices of using digital tools to support HF/E in sustainable manufacturing systems in the context of Industry 5.0, especially in companies with recognized market performance. Through the second research objective, the paper aimed to present a systematic synthesis of digital practices integration in manufacturing companies to support HF/E and social strategies. All analyzed companies foster in their public sustainability documents the application of HF/E through initiatives related to the integration of digital technologies into safety, health, and wellbeing enhancement, the mitigation of occupational risks, human error, and accidents, and the growth of overall system performance.

The research started by investigating the overall performance of manufacturing companies activating in industrial contexts characterized by technological advancement. The S&P Global investment ranking system was used to identify sixteen manufacturing industries ranked by OHS score’s weight in the social dimension of S&P Global ESG performance. It can be noticed that even though the observed manufacturing companies demonstrated a maximum S&P Global performance in the industry, in most cases the OHS-weighted score did not reach the best OHS industry score. Based on this finding, it is hypothesized that the implementation of novel HF/E initiatives related to health, safety, and wellbeing within manufacturing systems can be positively liked with the enhancement of social performance indicators.

Following that, using secondary research sources, especially public sustainability reports available on companies’ websites, a case study-based analysis was carried out on each leader company and the main findings of the case study-based analysis are visually mapped in Figure 7.

The first category of ergonomic-centered initiatives revealed by the case study-based analysis aims for the enhancement of machinery, equipment, and product design and are in line with the literature review that shows the importance of integrating user-experience and human-centered vision into design [10,20]. These initiatives are outlined as follows:

• Integration of ergonomics in product and tool design by (1) utilization of robotics, technology-assisted manual handling systems, lightweight ergonomic tools, or ergonomic lifting fixtures for reducing human effort during manipulation, and (2) incorporating ergonomic principles into design through ergonomic handling devices and systems for reducing musculoskeletal strain and efficient manipulation.
• Mitigation of machinery and equipment safety hazards, focusing on the elimination of dangers associated with machinery and equipment by (1) prioritization of automation technologies, (2) integration of ergonomic requirements into machine design specifications, and (3) implementation of continuous improvement programs.
• Supplier engagement for safety assurance, by explicitly including contractual obligation for the provision and ongoing maintenance of physical safeguards, such as protective guards, interlock systems, sensors, and physical barriers, to proactively protect workers from potential occupational injuries.
• Development of a strategic framework for sustainable safe products, to integrate used-centered products and services with sustainable characteristics that provide quantifiable safety benefits for clients, by designing products that exceed established industry safety standards, incorporating advanced ergonomic and safety features alongside enhanced performance characteristics.

The maturity level of the analyzed companies that mentioned in their sustainability reports some initiatives related to human-centered design of machines, equipment, tools, and products is presented in Figure 8.

Regarding activity-centered ergonomics and OHS risks assessment, a prominent direction of HF/E-related interventions involves commitment to employee wellbeing, health and safety through various initiatives focused on improving the working environment, in different levels of maturity, as Figure 9 shows. These organizational interventions encompass the following aspects:

• Ergonomic assessments, to mitigate physical strain and enhance worker productivity using the systematic application of ergonomic assessment methodologies, as previous studies have shown [2,9,44,45].
• Mitigation of ergonomic risks, through the adoption of technological advancements in accordance with the areas of human-robot collaboration relevance [6,7].
• Digital risk assessment and monitoring, to improve the analytical skills of production specialists in the effective identification and evaluation of inherent manufacturing process risks; digital dashboards are utilized as platforms for risks assessment; the analysis of safety-related data is conducted to identify critical areas and to develop targeted plans associated with ergonomic design, machinery safety protocols, and change management procedures; IIoT is used to enable remote assessments of machine health through interconnected devices, enhancing safety in product servicing operations and mitigating the potential for injury associated with travel and on-site inspections [6,25].
• LED lighting installation, the deployment of energy-efficient lighting systems to optimize visual working conditions.
• Noise level monitoring and reduction, the continuous monitoring of workplace sound pressure levels to ensure adherence to established safety regulations; the implementation of lean management principles, including Kaizen methodologies, is also employed to reduce noise pollution within industrial facilities via the installation of acoustic enclosures, the standardization of pneumatic system pressures, and the utilization of redesigned machinery.
• Air quality management, by active management of indoor environmental quality, including air composition, temperature, and humidity, through the integration of advanced ventilation systems capable of generating proper microclimates.
• Heat stress management, by (1) establishment of specific safety protocols and health standards for high-temperature work environments, (2) employing impact evaluation, and (3) implementing preventive risk reduction strategies, such as environmental controls, temporal limitations on work duration, physiological monitoring, and the provision of emergency medical training for personnel.

Going further, the third direction of practical interventions revealed by the analysis of corporate sustainability reports is related to involving robotics, exoskeletal systems, and other digital technologies for the detection of human presence within hazardous environments, the reduction and elimination of occupational accidents, and the enhancement of OHS management for improved work efficiency and safety, consistent with prior findings from both laboratory and field investigations [6,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]:

• Research and development of future anthropocentric technologies, to extend human capabilities through medical exoskeletons, novel mobility platforms, and integrated mobile living spaces, to facilitate the convergence of mobility and built environments.
• Access control and remote monitoring of work, through the deployment of physical barriers; remote monitoring systems and online surveillance, aerial vehicle surveillance like drones, wearable sensor devices, and diverse software applications to optimize OHS management processes and reinforce the hierarchy of risk control.
• Robots and intelligent equipment in high-risks tasks, to significantly minimizing accident potential, enhancing worker safety within hazardous environments, and enable remote risk assessment; the potential substitution of human by robotic cleaning systems or quadrupedal robots; these capabilities are being augmented through the integration of AI, the Internet of Things (IoT), sensors, and camera systems to enable the execution of dangerous tasks and ensure adherence to safety regulations.
• AI-powered systems and digital platforms technologies, for proactive monitoring, prevention of OHS-related risks within operational zones, mitigation and elimination of accidents involving powered industrial vehicles, with specific focus on: (1) real-time monitoring, (2) alerts delivered through various mobile phone applications, (3) ensuring the mandatory use of personal protective equipment to prevent falls from height, (4) automated fire detection in high-risk areas, and (5) access control within hazardous zones.
• Implementing wearable robotic devices, designed to assist workers during physically demanding tasks by providing biomechanical support and reducing muscular strain, consequently enhancing work efficiency and mitigating the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders.

The maturity level of the companies that mentioned in the sustainability reports initiatives related to robotics and digital technologies use for HF/E is presented in Figure 10.

In accordance with the literature review [1,43], the fourth important direction of using digital technologies to support HF/E-related intervention in organizations focuses on the implementation of digital learning-related initiatives, particularly:

• E-learning platforms based on external partnerships, to support OHS-related training programs for employees.
• Virtual training modules focusing on ergonomic principles to empower workers with knowledge and resources for holistic wellbeing.
• AR/VR-based digital training, to ensure the proper use of new technologies in operational and maintenance processes.
• Digital platforms for OHS protocols to support business growth and enhance operational efficiency, with the objective of decreasing the incidence of accidents, injuries, and occupational illnesses.
• Electronic permits to work in high-risks tasks, using digital platforms designed for evaluating employees training needs, job competences, authorizations, and OHS management.
• Continuous upskilling and professional development to increase awareness of OHS-related issues, in accordance with new regulations or agreements implementation, encompassing ergonomics and safety management protocols for specialized machinery and equipment.
• Strategic focus on the digital age, through external partnership for increasing awareness regarding both the impact of novel digital technologies on work processes and associated safety challenges and opportunities.

The maturity level of the digital learning approaches in the companies analyzed is presented in Figure 11.

The fifth identified direction, a pattern for using digital technologies to support HF/E-related intervention in investigated companies, unanimously revealed by the case study-based analysis and corroborated by the literature review [46], indicates a commitment to employees’ wellbeing enhancement, through healthcare solutions and initiatives such as:

• Digital health and wellbeing applications, used to provide access to counseling services and for physical and mental health assessments.
• Digital platforms to cultivate a work–life balance organizational culture, supported by (1) internal communication, (2) active integration of employee feedback for continuous improvement of the work environment, and (3) implementation of systems designed to reinforce self-directed work practices.
• Digital support for a robust safety culture, by encouraging employee participation and implementation of diverse and engaging initiatives like VR simulations, safety trivia games, office ergonomics demonstrations, digital OHS promotional materials, addressing various health and wellness topics, to increase safety awareness and promote a secure work environment.

The maturity level of the analyzed companies that mentioned in their sustainability reports initiatives related to digital wellbeing is presented in Figure 12.

The sixth area of practical interventions identified in the analyzed sustainability documentation revealed the following macro-ergonomics initiatives, strategic directions for the integration of digital technologies in organizations to foster safer, healthier, and more productive work environments:

• Health and safety strategy maps, to ensure the physical and psychological health of employees with consideration for digital transformation and data analytics by defining specific objectives and key performance indicators; creation of work environments that reduce presenteeism or absenteeism and promote high work engagement (performance).
• Happiness and mental stress surveys, to manage organizational happiness and to cultivate a happiness and safety culture based on: (1) digital tools to assess attitudes and perceptions regarding OHS, used for developing and formulating evidence-based improvement plans and (2) mechanisms to collect data on employee’s happiness levels and influencing factors, and to generate indicators like happiness index and burnout diagnoses.
• Tracking of human capital investments using centralized databases to follow all health and safety capital investments and operating expenditures, alongside all capital safety projects from initial planning stages to completion; this includes detailed data on resource allocation, costs, impact assessments, and realized savings.
• AI hubs, strategic investments directed towards the capitalization of technological evolution opportunities for upskilling, reskilling, and potential new talent acquisition initiatives critical to equipping the workforce with the relevant competencies for AI technologies and the associated changes; proactive workforce planning and transformation strategies to prepare employees for future collaboration with AI; using AI and machine learning to enhance employee productivity and improve products, services, and customer experiences.
• Wellbeing hubs, strategic investments to facilitate employee access to training (e.g., workload management, stress reduction techniques, mindset development, physical activity, nutrition, recovery strategies, and resilience building) and professionals, resources, practical guidance, and educational materials on physical and mental health.
• DX (digital transformation) academies, for the strategic development of digital capabilities across all employee levels and researchers using training programs designed to cultivate a digitally proficient workforce capable of leading smart factory construction, strengthening organizational competitiveness, and demonstrably improving financial performance.

The maturity level of the companies that mentioned in the sustainability reports initiatives related to digital transformation strategies for OHS and wellbeing is presented in Figure 13.

For summarizing the discussions and information presented in Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13, a comparative analysis across cases is presented in Figure 14. Considering that the qualitative content analysis was based on data presented in sustainability reports—secondary data subjected by lack of standardization, lack of comparability, and a possible lack of transparency regarding failures, challenges, or negative impacts—the companies included in the qualitative study were selected based on their overall performance, ranked by a global recognized ranking system, S&P Global. To mitigate the mentioned challenges, companies in manufacturing industry, leaders in The Sustainability Yearbook—2024 Rankings [48] were selected. Therefore, the findings presented in this paper reflect HF/E-related benefits mentioned by the companies analyzed in public documents and should not be generalized due to the mentioned limitations.

Analyzing the results by regions and countries, the following patterns and differences between the analyzed companies can be highlighted:

• Activity-centered ergonomics and OHS risks assessment using digital tools were identified especially in the sustainability reports of the analyzed companies from Europe and America. One possible interpretation can be related to the legislative factors and different OHS-based countries’ legislation.
• Robotics and digital technologies used in relation to HF/E initiatives were identified exclusively in sustainability reports of analyzed companies from Asia and USA.
• Digital wellbeing initiatives were identified exclusively in sustainability reports of analyzed companies from Asia.

Analyzing the results by manufacturing industry categories, the following differences and patterns across industries can be highlighted:

• The highest level of maturity for integrating digital technologies to support HF/E was assigned, based on this research methodology, to the company leader in industrial equipment manufacturing (IEQ), for initiatives in: (1) human-centered design of machines, equipment, tools, and products, (2) activity-centered ergonomics and OHS risks assessment, and (3) digital transformation strategies for OHS and wellbeing. However, the company still has the potential for increasing the market performance, as Figure 4 and Figure 6 show, by enhancing OHS performance.
• A high level of maturity for integrating digital technologies to support HF/E was assigned to the company leader in aluminum products manufacturing (ALU), for initiatives in: (1) robotics and digital technologies use, (2) digital learning for safety and ergonomics, and (3) digital wellbeing initiatives. Even though the company was ranked with the best OHS score in the industry, as Table 4 shows, the company still has potential for increasing the market performance by enhancing the OHS performance, as Figure 4 suggests. HF/E initiatives related to human-centered design, activity-centered ergonomics and digital transformation strategies for OHS and wellbeing can be considered.
• Analyzing the maturity level of the analyzed companies considering the mapping of the six categories of initiatives related to HF/E defined in Figure 7, it is hypothesized that the highest number of the analyzed companies has a potential to grow the market performance by implementing digital wellbeing initiatives.

According to the previous discussions and considering the main limitations of this research, given especially by the number of companies included in the qualitative research and the impossibility of directly verifying the implementation of the initiatives, measures, and strategies presented by companies in secondary sources used in the research, further research directions can be considered to gather more insights into the practical use of digital technologies to support HF/E in manufacturing systems as follows:

• Implementing double-perspectives qualitative analyses, using both public documents published by companies in relation to corporate sustainability, on the one hand, and primary research sources based on internal analysis, feedback collected from employees through interviews, questionnaire-based surveys, workshops, or focus groups, on the other hand.
• Replicating and building on the research methodology, with extensions in other industry and services fields, by analyzing companies’ best practices and initiatives in occupational health and safety, human resources, and talents management.

5. Conclusions

This research offers added value to non-indexed ESG companies by providing an empirical method designed to evaluate the maturity of OHS performance. This method serves as a tool for assessing the degree of OHS maturity, particularly within non-indexed companies, and can be utilized to identify patterns concerning the application of digital technologies in supporting HF/E within organizational practice.

Summarizing the main conclusions, the qualitative research presented in this paper aims to fill a theoretical gap in research by presenting systematic synthesis on practical examples of companies’ benefits from using ergonomics and human-centered design in manufacturing industry processes, and recommendations for different stakeholders.

Through its first operational objective, this research contribution consists in identifying all categories of industries and services ranked by S&P global on OHS score, as a key criterion in evaluating corporate social sustainability. This result can be an input for future research that replicates and builds on this paper research methodology and results, with extensions in occupational health and safety, human resources, and talents management related fields. Through its second operational objective, this paper contribution lies in mapping and deeply analyzing available public documents on sustainability-contribution of the sixteen top-ranked companies, leaders in the manufacturing industry, selected for the applied study. Through its third operational objective, this research contribution consists in providing compelling evidence for companies to prioritize both HF/E integration in the design of manufacturing systems and HF/E-related interventions for complex systems redesign in the context of new technologies used in Industry 5.0.

The case study-based research, founded on a comparative analysis of sustainability reports from manufacturing industry leaders, reveal insightful patterns regarding the integration of digital technologies to support HF/E initiatives. While European and American companies showed a focus on activity-centered ergonomics and OHS risk assessment using digital tools, Asian and U.S. companies highlighted robotics and digital technologies use in relation to HF/E, with a specific focus of Asian companies to digital wellbeing initiatives. The research also presents different levels of maturity across manufacturing industries, based on a proposed theoretical framework for assessing, analyzing, and demonstrating advanced HF/E integration with potential for enhancing OHS and market performance. Despite discussed limitations due to the nature of data used in research, the findings underscore the diverse approaches to leveraging digital technologies for HF/E and provide possible insights and recommendations, both for companies and researchers. The following three guidelines that support sustainable manufacturing and social responsibility should be considered in future research, employed with the proactive involvement of different stakeholders—e.g., researchers, company experts, HF/E and standardization specialists, policymakers etc.: (1) standardizing HF/E-related KPIs for humans-machines integration in Industry 5.0 context by defining a common set of indicators differentiated by maturity levels—e.g., human-centered digital transformation scales, human–machine trust index, happiness and wellbeing index etc.; (2) integrating HF/E into existing OHS legislation and standardization, to achieve paramount worker safety and wellbeing in robot-assisted work scenarios—e.g., operational guidelines and requirements that address the complex interactions between human workers, robotic systems, and the work environment, and (3) cross-sector partnerships, collaborative alliances between researchers and organizations or entities from different manufacturing industries to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes and address the complex safety challenges brought by digital transformation—e.g., mitigating human-robots collaboration challenges and monitoring the mid-term impact of robots and digital technologies on OHS performance and wellbeing.

The paper bridges the existing knowledge gaps and provides arguments that digital technologies are becoming the primary vehicle for the HF/E approach within Industry 5.0, while the maturity of their integration varies significantly across different contexts. Nevertheless, the trajectory of Industry 4.0 is an evident shift from automation towards human-centric ecosystems, augmented by artificial intelligence and robotics. Implementing the proactive measures outlined in this paper can accelerate the transition towards more sustainable, safe, and inclusive manufacturing environments.