Introduction
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) remain the leading cause of occupational disability worldwide, despite several decades of progress in ergonomics and occupational health [1,2]. Ergonomic approaches have contributed to improving workplace design, reducing biomechanical demands, and limiting certain risk factors. Nevertheless, the global burden of WMSDs remains high [3]. This observation does not call into question the effectiveness of ergonomics, but rather the adequacy of our prevention models in addressing the profound transformations taking place in the world of work.
The world of work is currently evolving within a context marked by globalization, the aging of the workforce, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and climate change [4]. These developments simultaneously modify the physical, cognitive, organizational, psychosocial, and environmental exposures faced by workers [5,6]. In this context, WMSDs appear less as the consequence of isolated biomechanical factors and more as the result of complex interactions among multiple determinants acting throughout the entire professional life course. This evolution aligns with recent transformations in health sciences. Global Health, One Health, and Planetary Health approaches demonstrate that health results from continuous interactions between individuals, organizations, societies, and their environment [7,8]. In occupational health, the concepts of Total Worker Health®, occupational exposome, and resilience engineering also emphasize the need to integrate risk prevention, health promotion, and the adaptive capacity of work systems [9,10].
Ergonomics has already undergone several major transformations. Following physical ergonomics, which focused primarily on biomechanical constraints, the discipline expanded to include cognitive ergonomics, organizational ergonomics, and systems ergonomics. Each of these stages progressively broadened the object of analysis, moving from the individual workstation toward increasingly complex sociotechnical systems [11,12]. We believe that the time has come to initiate a new evolution: that of Global Ergonomics. This concept does not challenge the foundations of ergonomics; rather, it proposes placing them within a broader perspective that incorporates contemporary challenges related to global health, sustainability, and resilience.
Global Ergonomics is based on a simple idea: workers’ health is an emergent property of work systems. It depends not only on physical constraints but also on the continuous interaction between biomechanical, psychosocial, organizational, technological, environmental, and societal factors. Consequently, preventing WMSDs no longer consists solely of reducing exposures, but rather of designing systems capable of sustainably generating health. Integrating the occupational exposome, systemic approaches, and methods derived from public health will make it possible to better understand the developmental trajectories of WMSDs and to evaluate interventions that target not only workstations but also entire work systems. This evolution will also promote a better understanding of the effects of major contemporary transitions, particularly climate change, digital transformations, and workforce aging.
This approach will lead to a rethinking of the role of ergonomists. Beyond workstation analysis, the ergonomist becomes an actor in organizational transformation, the integration of technological innovations, adaptation to climate change, and the promotion of policies that support occupational health. Their contribution is part of a systems design approach aimed at creating resilient systems capable of simultaneously maintaining workers’ health, organizational performance, and the sustainability of activities.
Global Ergonomics proposes a conceptual framework connecting ergonomics with the major contemporary paradigms of global health. Its ambition is no longer solely to adapt work to humans but to design work systems capable of sustainably generating health, strengthening organizational resilience, and contributing to sustainable development.
This proposal primarily constitutes an invitation for scientific debate. If Global Ergonomics succeeds in stimulating new research, fostering collaborations between ergonomics, public health, systems sciences, and environmental sciences, it could become one of the major developments in ergonomics over the coming decades.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
- Punnett, L.; Wegman, D.H. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: The Epidemiologic Evidence and the Debate. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2004, 14, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- da Costa, B.R.; Vieira, E.R. Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2010, 53, 285–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gorce, P.; Jacquier-Bret, J. Continental Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Prevalence Among Healthcare Professionals. Theor. Appl. Ergon. 2025, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Romanello, M.; Napoli, C.; Green, C. The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: The imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms. Lancet 2023, 402, 2346–2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cieza, A.; Causey, K.; Kamenov, K.; Hanson, S.W.; Chatterji, S.; Vos, T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2021, 396, 2006–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- World Health Organization; International Labour Organization. WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury, 2000–2016; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034945 (accessed on 11 August 2026).
- Missoni, E. Global health, planetary health, One Health: Conceptual and ethical challenges and concerns. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 2024, 45, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Jacobsen, K.H.; Waggett, C.E.; Adeyi, O.; Bruchhausen, W.; Chowdhury, S.; Davidson, P.M.; Garzón-Villalba, X.; Gostin, L.O.; Grant, L.; Landrigan, P.J.; et al. An updated definition of global health. Glob. Health Res. Policy 2025, 10, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Koplan, J.P.; Bond, T.C.; Merson, M.H.; Reddy, K.S.; Rodriguez, M.H.; Sewankambo, N.K. Towards a common definition of Global Health. Lancet 2009, 373, 1993–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Fundamentals of Total Worker Health® Approaches: Essential Elements for Advancing Worker Safety, Health, and Well-Being. 2017. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2017-112/pdfs/2017_112.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2026).
- Mackenzie, J.S.; Jeggo, M. The One Health approach—Why is it so important? Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2019, 4, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Woods, D.D. Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2015, 141, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.