Exploring Barriers in Implementing Ergonomics in SME Companies

This research aims to analyze the importance of ergonomics in the office area and why businesses might benefit from it. The main focus is to find out the reasons and barriers for not using ergonomics in organizations in the UK and what may be done to overcome small to medium (SMEs) organizations.

Degree: BSc Business Studies
Cass Business School
Title: Ergonomics and exploring the barriers in
implementing ergonomics in SME companies
Name: Alireza Mohajerin Esfahani
Supervisor’s name: Mr John Forth
Submission date: 3rd April 2019
"I certify that I have complied with the guidelines on plagiarism
outlined in the Course Handbook in the production of this dissertation and
that it is my own, unaided work".
Signature……Alireza Mohajerin Esfahani……………………….

Abstract
Organisation ergonomics plays a vital role in increasing employee engagement in an
organisation and decreasing staff turnover, absenteeism and presenteeism within the firm and
lastly increasing company profits. However, still, many companies’ businesses do not adopt
such an environment fully. The research aims to analyse the importance of ergonomics in the
office area and why businesses might benefit from it. The main focus of the paper is to find
out the reasons and barriers for not using ergonomics in organisations in the UK and what
may be done to overcome small to medium (SMEs) organisations.
The existing literature on the barriers to the adoption of ergonomics focuses mostly on the
experience of large firms. This thesis, therefore, contributes to the literature by taking its
target population as SME businesses in the UK. In order to collect primary data, a semi-
structured interview was developed to assess firms' perceptions of ergonomics, and numerous
questions had been asked to understand their working environment. If they don't have a
proper ergonomic environment, what are the barriers for them to implement it and how they
see their company in the long run in case they have a proper ergonomic workplace. The data
had been analysed through a content analysis in which the interview data is coded to identify
common themes and to draw out aggregate concepts which address the research question.
In the analysis, it has been found that lack of awareness around bad ergonomics problems and
insight around current performance, insufficient financial resource and change in business
culture are the main barriers for organisations. In brief, the benefits are much more than what
they feel and they know while the costs are not necessarily as high as they estimate.
Ergonomics professionals need to help businesses measure the potential benefits of
implementing ergonomics as a preventative measure (i.e. an investment to prevent health
pg. 1

problems and increase employee concentration), rather than seeing it as a health-focused
intervention (a cost) when an employee gets ill.
pg. 2

Table of Content
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 5
The problems caused by a poor working environment................................................................5
Significance of Ergonomics....................................................................................................7
What do we know about the barriers to implementation?............................................................7
Literature Review......................................................................................................................9
Introduction........................................................................................................................... 9
The costs of a non-ergonomic workplace environment.............................................................10
The Advantages of Ergonomics.............................................................................................12
Factors and barriers in implementing Ergonomics....................................................................13
Gaps in the literature............................................................................................................ 15
Summary............................................................................................................................ 15
Methodology........................................................................................................................... 17
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 17
Research Approach and Justification......................................................................................17
Data collection process.........................................................................................................18
Target Sample and justification.............................................................................................20
Data analysis process and Justification...................................................................................21
Limitation of Methodology...................................................................................................21
Empirical analysis and findings.................................................................................................23
4.1 Insufficient Financial Resource........................................................................................23
pg. 3

4.2 Lack of Awareness Around Bad Ergonomics Problems and Insight Around Current Performance
.......................................................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Change in Business Culture.............................................................................................26
4.4 Arrangement.................................................................................................................. 27
4.5 Administration............................................................................................................... 28
4.6 Managerial Attitudes Towards Health and Safety...............................................................29
4.7 Management Commitment...............................................................................................31
4.8 Complexity.................................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion and final remarks....................................................................................................32
References / bibliography.........................................................................................................35
Appendices............................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix 1: Interview Guide....................................................................................................41
Appendix 2: Participant Information Sheet.................................................................................43
Appendix 3: Consent Form.......................................................................................................47
pg. 4

Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank Mr John Forth for his support and guidance during the project
and reassurance throughout my studies.
Secondly, I would like to thank all of the participants in my research interview, for their time
and expertise that has allowed me to undertake this research.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their unconditional love, support and
encouragement during my studies.
Thank you all.
pg. 5

Introduction
The value of ergonomics is beyond health and safety. This discussion paper
emphasizes the importance of health in the workplace, the changing environment for
workplace wellbeing and the challenges in the implementation of ergonomics and solutions to
current and future challenges. For this discussion we employ the broad description of
ergonomics, proposed by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA): "Ergonomics (or
human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions
among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory,
principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall
system performance."
This description implies that ergonomics has both a social goal (well-being) and an
economic goal (total system performance), that ergonomics considers both physical and
psychological human aspects, and that ergonomics is looking for design solutions in both the
technical and the organizational environment.
The problems caused by a poor working environment
Offices are complex socio-technical systems. The world has admitted more open-plan
style offices, with space for discussion and collaboration. It has been argued by Lee and
Brand (2005), this causes distractions in concentration at the workplace. When the
concentration is broken, it causes poor performance, which impacts negatively on wellbeing
and these non-physical factors ultimately may lead to ill health. Distractions from the working
environment and our need to concentrate on the task at hand compete for attention.
pg. 6

Also because of advance in technologies, many professional activities involve long
hours using computers of one kind or another as a primary work tool, and we tend to sit for
more than 9 hours a day behind our desks which could lead to many physical disorders
(Franco and Fusetti, 2004). With these changes, the needs of ergonomics are also increasing
in the operational business environment to decrease the risks caused by sedentary behaviour,
considering both onshore and offshore business operations (Lewis et al., 2016). However,
globally the employee engagement is declining clearly which has a direct impact on an
increase in employee turnover rate (Scott, 2017). Research in 2014 from a national study by
Oxford Economics found that, on average, the turnover of each employee costs an employer
£30,614 to replace (ERS Research and consultancy, 2016). In this critical situation, a minimal
number of business organisations have imposed ergonomic workplace planning for the
betterment of their performance and profitability.
The most common form of occupational ill-health because of sedentary life in many of
today's industrialised nations is musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). MSDs include a range of
conditions affecting the muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints, and nerves and 6.6 million
working days lost in 2017/18 due to work-related MSDs, accounted for 469, 000 (35%) of
injuries and illnesses in the UK involving days away from work at an estimated cost of around
£1.8 billion annually (HSE, 2018).
In managing physical and psychological issues in the workplace, the World Health
Organisation WHO (1988) recommended that organisations combine ergonomics
improvements with health promotion activities aimed at modifying behaviour. Every
employee has some needs and expectations from the work environment that includes both the
psychological and physiological concerns. Therefore, the poor or incompatible work
environment can influence the performance of the employee significantly by altering the
physical and emotional components of the surroundings. According to environmental
pg. 7

psychology (the study of the relationship between individuals and their surroundings), poorly
performing physical environments can increase staff turnover, make the recruitment of top
talent difficult, increase absenteeism and presenteeism and lastly reduce company profits (Dul
and Neumann 2009). Therefore, there is a sharp need for maintaining a proper office
ergonomics.
Significance of Ergonomics
According to the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), Ergonomics refers to
the study and the concept of designing the workplace while paying explicit attention to the
abilities and limitation of the workers (IEA.cc, n.d.). These include workplace layout and
safety, such as how people sit, stand, move while doing their work and lighting and heating of
the workplace. When people are doing work that requires close attention and concentration,
they have to exert energy and ultimately cognitive resources to compensate for the distraction
of any physical discomfort.
Office ergonomics places great significance on the use of well-planned workplaces,
useful workstations, and general inside stylistic layout and it can be applied on a micro as
well as a macro-scale. Ergonomics need to be applied in both new designs and as an
intervention in existing designs, and its efficacy can be judged. There are without doubt
circumstances in which ergonomic improvements introduced in the interests of health and
safety have a positive pay-off in terms of productivity (Vink, Koningsveld and Molenbroek,
2006). Likewise, as described in Otto and Scholl or Battini et al (2011) the product that is
easy to use will probably, for that very reason, be both safe and efficient in its operation.
Ergonomic risks at the workplace cause much damage to workers and are financially
damaging the economy in general.
pg. 8

What do we know about the barriers to implementation?
Since ergonomics has clear benefits, it is important to understand why more
organisations, especially in the UK, do not adopt an ergonomic approach to the design of their
workforce environment. The major purpose of this research is to find why do more firms not
implement ergonomic work environments. A review of the literature suggested five major
hypotheses for barriers in the implementation of ergonomics in firms which are:
 Most of the firms perceive ergonomics is an occupational health and safety related issue,
where the focus on organisational performance has become insignificant
 it is difficult for line managers or HR departments to get senior managers to agree and
commit to the ergonomic design
 Lack of available funding to implement the ergonomic strategies
 lack of human resources and knowledge about how to implement ergonomics?
 The firms expect the results in a short period for a long-term organisational strategy like
This research aims to examine the underlying reason behind the poor acceptance rate of
implementing the ergonomic procedure in UK SME workplaces. Another aim of this study is
to find appropriate recommendations for the further intervention plan of the ergonomic work
environment in business.
pg. 9

Literature Review
Introduction
The literature review section will focus on the major points mentioned in introduction
sections namely the work environment, the significance of Ergonomic workforce strategy, the
factors and barriers of implementing the strategies and the factors that are still unknown
because of the lack of assessment and accessibility to the practical work environment. The
implementation of the ergonomic strategy and the potential benefit is the well-known topic in
human resource related researches. Ergonomics implies the concept of designing the
workplace while keeping in minds the abilities and limitation of the workers. The literature
included for the review process are based on the global as well as a regional organisational
crisis in terms of human resource. Considering the absenteeism and presenteeism the study of
ergonomic work environment will include the relevant literature or secondary sources such as
books, research papers, published business reports, articles and case studies. This literature
review will explore the underlying factors behind the productive work environment under the
light of conventional and potential implementation process of ergonomic strategies in the
work environment. The work environment is another major regulator at the same time a major
outcome of human resource management strategies like ergonomics. The barriers to
implementing ergonomics in any organisational environment will also be discussed in this
literature review. Some major factors such a financial contribution, employee satisfaction,
operational understanding, mutual obligations will also be considered while reviewing the
literature. Therefore, the purpose of this literature review is to examine the underlying reason
behind the poor acceptance rate of implementing the ergonomic procedure in UK level and
pg. 10

international level workplaces. Another aim of this study is to find appropriate
recommendations for the further intervention plan of the ergonomic work environment in
business.
The costs of a non-ergonomic workplace environment
Workplace environment refers to the physical and non-physical environment
surrounding the workforce. The physical environment includes the organisational
infrastructure, lighting, heating system, types of equipment, hazard control systems and other
physical materials that help to operate the organisational operation. The physical work
environment is directly related to occupational health and safety requirements, whereby
employers are bound to keep their workplace safe and secure for their employees.
The most common form of occupational ill-health in many of today's industrialised
nations is musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Musculoskeletal Disorders or MSDs are injuries
and disorders that affect the human body's movement or musculoskeletal system (i.e. muscles,
tendons, ligaments, nerves, discs, blood vessels, etc.). Manual handling, awkward or tiring
positions and keyboard work or repetitive actions are estimated to be the main causes of
work-related MSDs. According to UK Health and Safety Executive, 6.6 million working days
lost due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders in 2017/18, accounting for 469, 000 (35%)
of injuries and illnesses in the UK involving days away from work at an estimated cost of
around £1.8 billion annually (HSE, 2017. The best management of work-related
Musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) is to identify and control risks by increasing the health
and safety of the physical environment. Early intervention, treatment and careful return to
work programmes usually prevent long term conditions developing.
pg. 11

In order to prevent and mitigate the negative impact of stress on individual employees and
organisations, and to apply its positive impact, many business managers began to think about
implementing proper ergonomic physical workplace. The goal is that employees can improve
their work efficiency, thereby improving the performance and expanding benefits of the entire
organisation.
As per the argument presented by Dul and Neumann (2009), the non-physical
environmental components such as distraction also can influence the work performance and
the employment quality significantly. According to the Gensler (2014), one of the leading
global design and architecture firm, they have surveyed individuals from the world’s top
companies to understand their work patterns and work environments through their Workplace
Performance Index® (WPI) tool. The resulting database of more than 90,000 people from 155
companies across 10 industries represents the most significant factor in workplace
effectiveness is individual concentration and it is the least effectively supported activity
(Gensler, 2014). The major changes in non-physical material can have a huge impact on
employee performance considering the absenteeism and presenteeism. The term
‘Presenteeism’ means the sub-optimal performance of those still at work but with difficulty
and reduced efficiency/productivity (Johns, 2009). Work published in the UK estimates that
lost productivity due to presenteeism is on an average 7.5 times greater than productivity lost
due to absenteeism (Main, Glozier and Wright, 2005). So, it is pretty important to decrease
the presenteeism cost in order to save operating cost and increase the health of the businesses.
The ability to focus and complete one’s individual work is a baseline need for
today’s knowledge workers. Extended effort on concentration leads to negative
reactions which can threaten work performance and wellbeing. Writing in the
Wall Street Journal, Sue Shallenberger (2013), draws together the results of a
number of research papers setting out the impact of interruptions causing
pg. 12

disturbances in concentration. Based on her finding, 63 per cent of tasks is
interrupted when people work in open-plan offices. 14 per cent more compared
to when people work in private offices. An interrupt or even 2 seconds is long
enough for people to lose the thread of a difficult or complex task. Average time
spent on a task before being interrupted is 12 min 40 secs and the average time
elapsed before returning to work on the same task is about 25 min 26 seconds.
After resuming a difficult task, it takes 15 min to get back into the same level of
intense concentration (Shellenbarger, 2013). It Shows the importance of
ergonomic design such as office layout, lighting and furniture to allow for people
to concentrate. Therefore, it is very crucial to make sure to decrease the non-
physical factors in the workplace which could decrease the benefits of the firm in
long-run.
At the same time, prolonged working time is another highly discussed issue in human
resource management that reduces the long-term productivity of any worker. Any living
organism, especially the human body needs some alteration after staying a particular posture
from a prolonged period. The study found that the best way to get people moving at work is to
change the environment in such a way that makes being active easier (Carr et al., 2015). the
researcher states that a lot of companies have gone the route of building expensive fitness
facilities that typically get use only by the healthiest employees. The people who need to
improve their health the most are less likely to use worksite fitness facilities.
A national level study on the UK has found that around 39% of UK adults, that's around 20
million people, are physically inactive which the prolonged seating in the workplace is one of
the major factors (BHF, 2017). The prolonged seated working process creates several health
issues such as heart and circulatory disease, and premature death. The impact of physical
inactivity and sedentary lifestyles also weighs heavily on UK healthcare, estimated to cost as
much as £1.2 billion a year. (BHF, 2017)
pg. 13

The Advantages of Ergonomics
Before exploring the limitation of implementing the ergonomic workforce
management, the significance of this workforce management method should be discussed.
According to Whysall, Haslam and Haslam (2004), ergonomics design can help to formulate
the work environment in a way that increases the operational, financial and ethical benefits
significantly in the long run. In terms of the internal and external operation of any enterprise,
ergonomic workforce strategy can provide a sustainable route for the growth of a business.
The major benefit that can be noticed by the ergonomic management is a significant reduction
of absenteeism, which implies the greater rate workforce presence in a typical working day
and decreases presenteeism (Dul and Neumann, 2009). As discussed earlier, presenteeism can
be noticed in the prolonged working hours, inadequate work environment and other cases. By
providing a flexible and more encouraging work environment the ergonomic structure can
increase the effective engagement level of the employees, which can reflect better quality of
works. The quality of work is highly related to the brand image in any industry. Therefore,
with good quality work, an ergonomic workplace can provide more market reputation and
validity.
Furthermore, apart from the employee perspective, the ergonomic workforce strategy
can improve overall productivity (Resnick and Zanotti, 1997). Studies show that a company
can expect a noticeable improvement in the overall profitability, quality, and productivity in
the long run (Goggins, Spielholz and Nothstein, 2008)
Factors and barriers in implementing Ergonomics
Despite the benefits of ergonomics, discussed above, there are some highly
considerable factors that are creating a barrier in adopting an ergonomic work environment in
pg. 14

an organisation (Rothmore, Aylward and Karnon, 2015).In the study of barriers, the main
focus is on the organisational barriers. The organisation barriers refer to the poor
management commitment, lack of resources and lack of collaborative work structure.
According to Driessen et al. (2010), many European organisations, face poor funding
from various external potential resources. Lack of funding causes a financial deficiency,
which eventually makes the organisation more focused on short term benefits rather than long
term benefits from ergonomic workforce environment and operation.
However, Dul and Neumann (2009), argues that along with the financial deficiencies,
the current labour market is not developed enough to accumulate ergonomic structure in the
workplace. Due to a lack of professional experience and academic knowledge regarding
ergonomics, the implementation of an effective ergonomic structure becomes difficult for
most of the organisations. As a result, reduced health issues such as obesity, diabetes and
others are not properly incorporated in the ergonomic practices in the business organisations.
Eventually, the workforces are becoming weak from both physically, psychologically and
even financial by spending too much money on various chronic diseases.
According to Van Eerd et al. (2016), it has been found that lack of understanding of
the implementation principles of Ergonomic work environment has been posing as one of the
biggest challenges that can be faced. It often causes a lack of interest in the imposition of the
Ergonomics work environment into action in the workplaces. The study noted that the
implementation of ergonomics was thought to be a short-term process in many organisations
and industries, without the need for expert leadership to oversee planning and
implementation. To show proper outcomes the Ergonomic strategy requires a prolonged time.
instead of being given a long time for implementation, the people who tend to be appointed to
oversee ergonomics within organisations tend to be given limited time in their work schedules
pg. 15

to analyse the work properly and find out the proper ergonomics that needs to be
implemented.
As argued by Whysall, Haslam and Haslam (2004), it has been found that the
management has often considered the accomplishment of ergonomics to be one of the
inconsequential things to implement within the business. It is also supported that the
understanding of ergonomics has been extremely difficult for senior executives or managers
within organisations. Therefore, the major barrier is the minimum understanding of
ergonomics and the negative realisation about the potential effects plus the absence of a
proper cost-benefit analysis for implementing ergonomics within the organisation. It also
results in a minimum level of support from the management executives under the
circumstances of limited human and financial resource.
Gaps in the literature
From the above literature review, it can be said that the authors of the literature have
found out the barriers in the existing work environment while comparing that the needs and
expectations of the workforce mostly in large scale companies. Most of the quantitative
resources focused more on large scale companies rather than small to medium businesses
(SMEs). Therefore, the literature and journals have not effectively found the problems
associated with what barriers do SME firms experience in implementing a proper ergonomics
and there is less information about these businesses compared to large companies. Also, most
of the resources are from the United States and there is a limited number of resources from
the UK. Additionally, the effect of business culture and cultural differences within the
organisation have not been discussed properly. Apart from that, the literature review did not
focus on a particularly recommended framework or on a proper plan in order to provide a
systematic solution to the problem.
pg. 16

Summary
The studies also support that ergonomics design can help to formulate the work environment
that increases the operational, financial and ethical benefits significantly in the long run. Apart
from the employee perspective, the ergonomic workforce strategy can improve the overall
profitability in the long run. It has been found that by decreasing the absenteeism the
ergonomic workforce strategy can increase the total productivity, which is very effective in
parallel operations consisting logistics, sales, marketing, production, procurement, accounts,
and others.
Existing studies of the barriers to implementing ergonomics have discussed different
reasons behind not implementing ergonomics in businesses such as lack of financial resources
and professional experiences. Apart from that issues most of the organisations are not aware
of the significance of ergonomic work environment because of lack of knowledge. This is
why the proper implementations of the ergonomics could not be possible. The organisations
are failed to realise the importance of high-quality ergonomics which can be led to
productivity, quality, and profitability.
However, much of the literature is based on large firms. So in my study, I will explore
the barriers that are specifically relevant to SME businesses operating in the UK. Based on
the literature review, some hypotheses such as lack of financial resources and the size of the
workplaces can be suggested.
pg. 17

Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this methodology section is to discuss the procedure of
executing different methods of data collection and analysis in order to formulate
an accurate and valid conclusion. The purpose of this methodology is to collect
the data from different resources to examine the underlying factors that are
restricting the organisations to adopt ergonomic workforce management. In this
section, the research approach will be explained with justification, followed by
the explanation of data collection and data analysis process. The target audience
will also be mentioned in this section with proper justification. The tools which
have been used to collect data through various strategies will also be explained
while discussing the ethical consideration related to the research method.
pg. 18

Research Approach and Justification
Research approach defines the approach of data collection techniques
along with the approach for data presentation and meeting the objectives. The
research approach depends on the purpose and the design of the research (Rubin
and Babbie 2016)
The purpose of this research is to identify why the organisations are not
adopting ergonomic workforce management for human resource and other
related operations. Therefore, this research is based on the exploration of
existing variables acting within the social, psychological and organisational
factors. Hence, this exploratory research needs an approach that can collect the
information from the involved personnel and the case studies of various
industries. The core research approach of this research is inductive where case
study method has been used to strengthen the situational analysis.
Data collection process
The data collection process implies the process of collecting data from the
external environment such as collecting people's opinions, conducting
instrumental research, reviewing literature and others. Data collection processes
can be segregated into two different types namely the primary data collection
and the secondary data collection. Primary data collection implies collecting the
data from real-time research on a population or on some subjects (Eriksson and
Kovalainen 2015). On the other hand, the secondary data collection method
implies the collection from various project reports, articles, research papers,
publications, books, and others. For this research, the exploration of all the major
factors behind the poor ergonomic implementation has to be examined through
collecting the qualitative data. As discussed earlier, the approach of this research
pg. 19

is based on a target sample and case study based. Therefore, both primary and
secondary data have been collected. Primary data have been collected through
Semi-structured Interview of 6 respondents of 3 business organisations. From
these case studies, it can be found that what do they know about the ergonomic
management and why these organisations were not implemented the ergonomic
system and. However, the purpose of the semi-structured interview is to find the
reason behind not implementing the ergonomic work environment. The reason
behind choosing the interview process was that it can allow the respondents to
answer in a more open-ended condition without depending too much on the
selection of attributes provided by the research. Choosing an interview as a
primary data collection process also allow this exploratory research to explore
the unknown factors under workforce management and effectiveness. The
interview process can be structured, semi-structured and unstructured. The
structured interview is an interview process similar to the survey. The
significance of utilising the semi-structured interview is it can guide the
respondents about the major factors on which they have to convey their
perspectives but also leaves space for the respondent to reply in their own words. The
unstructured interview is more suitable for longitudinal study, where only one
participant is interviewed regarding a very broad descriptive topic. Therefore, the
semi-structured interview had been conducted.
The focus of this semi-structured interview will be to collect data on the basis of
the following points:
 What do they understand about Ergonomics
 Does their organisation use ergonomics techniques
 What Ergonomics tools and techniques are used in their organisation
 How do they promote ergonomics in your organisation
pg. 20

 What are the challenges faced by their company in terms of
presenteeism and absenteeism of the employee
 If they do not have a proper ergonomic environment, what are the
barriers for them to implement it (e.g. financial cost, lack of
expertise…)
 How do they see their company in the long run in case they have a
proper ergonomic workplace
The ethical consideration is another essential part of the data collection
procedure that holds the validity and authenticity of the research method and
projected results. In this research, there were numbers of ethical issues
associated with conducting that. Building trust, need for cross-cultural
communication skills to build rapport and respect the project population were the
main factors that have been dealt with those problems through the ethics
procedure in the research. A project population needed to be comfortable with
giving personal details or discussing controversial information. In order to that,
project population have been provided with confidentiality at all stages of the
research.
For minimise risks and burdens for research, participants have been pre-
informed about the maximum interview length, a brief background about the
project, anonymisation and how their information would be used and stored
securely. Also, consent form and participant information sheet have been given
to them before the interview. Very importantly, participants identity is only
known to the researcher conducting the study and the audio- recordings
produced can be only listened by the researcher.
According to the data protection act and as City university ethics the personal
data of the respondents such as age, name, gender has not been exposed in this
pg. 21

research. Apart from that, the interview has been conducted after receiving the
acknowledgement from the target respondents, while presenting the purpose of
this interview to them. As per the terms and conditions, they could skip a
question or even could quit the interview process.
Target Sample and justification
Before conducting primary research, the selection of participants is
essential. The purpose of this primary data collection is to identify the reason
behind the poor adaptation of ergonomic from various organisational
perspectives. Hence, 6 participants from 3 organisations have been chosen for
the interview. Due to the limitation of time and as the research should be from
the SME businesses just in the UK, 3 SME organisation with 2 people, CEOs and
HR managers, were interviewed. Also, as the sample was from the managerial
level, it was difficult to approach more people from other companies because of
the availability of them during the limited time frame of the research.
Sampling style is a major part of any primary data collection method, which can
be two types namely the probability sampling and non-probability sampling.
Probability sampling is a method where respondents are selected randomly
without any subdivisions or systematic selection. On the other hand,
nonprobability sampling refers to the systematic sampling under certain inclusion
and exclusion criteria. For this interview, systematic sampling was used for each
of the 3 organisations. These 3 organisations were chosen from a different
industry through prior personal contacts. One company is from the retail industry,
one company is from the construction industry and another one is from the
petroleum company. The reason behind choosing these organisations was they
were completely different industries in the UK, which can provide a diverse and
more tangibles image of the overall SME organisational operation. To comply with
pg. 22

the data privacy regulation the name of the company and the name of the
respondents are not disclosed in this research. However, all the respondents are
currently working in a managerial position in their respective organisations and
they are one of the decision makers in this concern.
Data analysis process and Justification
The data analysis process is essential for any organisation, which defines
the credibility and authenticity of the research outcomes. The data analysis
process is the second essential part of any research after data collection. For this
research, both the primary and secondary data are mostly non-numeric and
qualitative. Therefore, for this research, qualitative data analysis has been
chosen as the data analysis method. More specifically, for primary data analysis
from interview data, the thematic analysis (TA) had been used. The theme had
been chosen by coding the responses while prioritising the maximum repeated
significant terms. Often, TA is used in research studies and subsequently labelled
as qualitative research, without providing the necessary details about how the
analysis reduced the data into workable themes and the emerging conclusions
(Castleberry and Nolen, 2018).
Limitation of Methodology
The limitation of methodology implies the results barriers of the current
methodology used for particular research, which restrict the research to obtain
the optimum attainability. Before analysis, the limitation of this research the
purpose of this methodology has to be considered. Considering the
methodological approach of this research there are three major points that are
limiting the potentiality of this research such as lack of numeric measurement,
focusing on only three industries and limitation of time. With regards to the lack
pg. 23

of quantitative data from a large sample of firms, it has to be understood that the
purpose of this research needs a comparative measurement of different factors.
Therefore, the lack of quantitative data collection and analysis can reduce the
feasibility. The significance of utilising the semi-structured interview is it can
guide the respondents about the major factors on which they have to convey
their perspectives. The participants are chosen from 3 industries namely retail,
construction, and petroleum. Therefore, it can cause biased results, because
there are so many other industries where the ergonomic is becoming a measure
issue. Also, as there is only one firm per industry, that firm may not be a good
representative.
pg. 24

Empirical analysis and findings
This part of the paper explores what are the barriers and reasons behind implementing
ergonomics in the organisations. It explores eight critical themes that challenge the
successful implementation of workplace physical and mental wellbeing programmes,
including difficulty in changing business culture.
The semi-structured interview has been conducted by decision makers of SME organisations
in the UK. In some SME organisations, it was possible to monitor 4 or 5 different factors
within disparate sites, offices, or departments, enabling comparisons between them. As a
result, the strongest themes to emerge in terms of perceived barriers to implementing
changes to reduce the risks of physical and mental risks were: insufficient financial resource,
the resistance of employees to changing their behaviour, problems in gaining senior
managerial authorisation for changes, and managers’ attitudes towards health and safety in
general. The systematic categorisation of responses identified a number of patterns
according to the interviewee’s occupation.
4.1 Insufficient Financial Resource
Lack of resource was the most common reason for interviewees. The theme evaluating a
lack of appreciation for the benefits of enacting prevention methods are mainly due to a
deficiency of resources. Most every now and again, managers detailed that execution was
hampered because of inadequate money related assets. Deficient money related assets
regularly assumed a job amid the usage of physical ergonomic measures (i.e., new desks).
As suggested by the CEO of a trading company: “Office furniture and equipment as one of
the main parts of ergonomics is one of the biggest investments the companies should do
once they establish their office, expand or relocate. It is not something that happens every
day and seems a huge reinvestment to change it. Each Company has a life cycle for its
pg. 25

furniture which is not usually less than 5 years. It means they don’t consider it in their cash
flow as a short-term change requirement.”
Also, as the director of the SME business in the petroleum sector which already implemented
ergonomics in his business stated: ‘There are numerous down to earth factors which make it
difficult to accomplish something with this ergonomic measure. As of now, this is primarily
brought about by the huge absence of monetary assets. We have implemented an
ergonomic environment, however, one of the biggest barriers for such implementations is the
cost involved. Office furniture and refit is not cheap, and it will not be cost effective if
purchasing for one or two employees. The best option would to implement for example for a
minimum group of ten so that when you break the cost per head it becomes more attractive
instead of single purchases “.Also, the HR manager of the trading company stated that:
“When the price of these ergonomics product drops, the quality drops more and we don't
want to go for cheaper ones with a good price as they are not compatible with our furniture.
However, a good quality one is hugely expensive for our organisation.”
However, the common belief which is not far from reality is that the cost of designing and
implementing an ergonomic environment is much more than a normal traditional workplace.
The above-mentioned facts turn such a change into a big project with a huge cost for the
companies partly as the reality and partly as a fear.
4.2 Lack of Awareness Around Bad Ergonomics Problems and Insight Around Current
Performance
Lack of knowledge and awareness can be clearly seen in organisations. Organisations often
underestimate how many employees are dealing with mental health problems and can fall
prey to ignoring the importance of dealing with these issues. This is due to the stigma of
mental health issues and the lack of discussion being voiced about them. One interviewee
pg. 26

proposed this. “We’d like to invest in a wider preventative agenda, but we don’t really know
where to focus and how to improve”
Organisations each deal with physical and mental health workplace wellbeing at differing
calibres. The more effective end of the spectrum understands the that the physical and
mental wellbeing of the employees is crucial in reaching peak organisational performance
and investing in the area as a strategic priority. However, when speaking with these
organizations at varying levels of action, all had a desire to learn what best practice looks
like, including those already considered best practice. The overall lack of knowledge
indicates a barrier to achieve progress, as we will explore in the implementation life cycle.
Those organisations that are starting to see health as a priority recognise that it is important
for recruiting and retaining the talent of the future, and that good mental health and wellbeing
is linked to strong performance and decrease presenteeism. However, when speaking with
these organisations, regardless of their stage, all expressed an interest in understanding
what best practice looks like, including those already considered best practice. This collective
lack of information acts as a barrier to action, as we will explore in the implementation life
cycle.
A major issue faced is that there is a deficient of knowledge when it comes to the
implementation of an ergonomic environment. CEO of the trading company stated that: "In
comparison with the traditional office environment, you need more knowledge to implement
an ergonomic environment or decide as a manager or HR department head, which proposal
best fits your company requirement. This makes this decision making riskier, especially when
you know you are going to pay much more. Lack of knowledge means darkness and
darkness is scary.”
Placing a calibre on workplace wellbeing and the effect on business performance a difficult
task. Because of the stigma of mental health issues many issues and conditions are not put
on record and reason for absence is not given. Currently this is no determined method to
pg. 27

correctly measure presenteeism, defined earlier in this report as the loss in productivity that
occurs when employees come to work but function at less than full capacity because of ill
health. The return on investment (ROI) for mental health programs and initiatives in the
workplace prohibits incentivising companies to invest. In the conversations with employers,
none of the employers were able to measure the return on investment for this kind of
programs. In addition to the strain of accumulating data on ROI, outcomes around ROI
measurement are varied. This could be due to a deficit of supporting data, that relatively few
employers are collecting information of wellbeing.
Despite these challenges, there are motives to be optimistic. Expert in organisations are are
speaking out about methods to increase the mindfulness and information of the public and
businesses and to reduce the burden on employers who may have little to no expertise
around wellbeing and its measurement.
4.3 Change in Business Culture
The resistance of workers to changing their behaviour (or managers’ failure to promote
behaviour change among workers) is also one of the most frequently cited barriers to the
intervention process. The difficulties experienced in getting employees to adapt their
behaviour were highlighted by the manager of a small trading company, who exclaimed that:
“Like any other change, it needs a change in culture in your entire company to transform
from a traditional workplace to an ergonomic one. There is a resistance to change between
both employees as the beneficiaries of this change and the decision makers who should pay
for and defend it.”
A number of other interviewees made similar references. Habits are hard to change, some
are still working the same way. Further exploration of the data suggested that this resistance
might be more related to workers’ attitudes than external factors such as usability, or
practicality. A HR manager involved in implementing new equipment aimed at reducing
pg. 28

physical strain among workers said: “I think ergonomic products such as standing desks are
now mostly used for high-end companies and organisation as a class and disciplines of the
company, while when it becomes the culture and people see it more often, they will be used
with other organisations or individuals more regularly. I think there is a cultural hurdle which
requires to be omitted.” Also, one of the interviewees from the petroleum industry explained
that it was important to ensure that workers do not ‘‘start doing their own thing, as this can
compromise the ergonomics principles set out’’
Also, the fear of how this change may affect the other parts of the company as an integrated
unique system is another change barrier. Many Companies especially the bigger ones have
an integrated software and hardware system and a partial change may lead to more required
changes in other parts of the system. It makes any decision to change risky. So, decision
makers prefer to preserve their current situation and avoid any type of change.
4.4 Arrangement
As per numerous decision makers, 'arrangement' was encouraging if there was one
implementer in the working gathering who assumed a main job amid the execution
procedure, while not having such a pioneer was experienced as a boundary. Amid the
meeting, one implementer stated: “As I would like to think this is on the grounds that she
burned through the entirety of her endeavours on the usage and on the off chance that she
needs something, at that point, it must be finished. She doesn't stop before she's contacted
her objective, and that was an extremely imperative factor for this measure.” With uncommon
accentuation towards the execution of individual ergonomic measures, managers from
offices portrayed by a psychological outstanding task at hand revealed that 'arrangement'
hampered usage on account of the high number of dropouts in their working gathering. As a
result, a couple of people were left in the working gathering to execute all organized
ergonomic measures. A few managers had such a large number of other business-related
assignments and in this manner did not have an opportunity to assume a functioning job in
pg. 29

the usage procedure. Others revealed that 'creation' hampered usage, in light of the fact that
their working gathering came up short on an individual who was qualified to settle on choices
at the departmental dimension. Subsequently, the choices must be affirmed by another
(higher) the executives' level.
As indicated by certain managers, this factor was a facilitator if amid the usage they stayed
persuaded of the overall preferred standpoint of the organized ergonomic measure.
Nonetheless, with exceptional respect to physical ergonomic measures, most managers
announced that amid the usage they found that the generally favourable position of the
organized ergonomic measure was little contrasted with the present circumstance. In these
cases, the minimal relative preferred standpoint was seen as a boundary. One of the
managers stated: “The lifting gadget costs some cash however that isn't the issue, the most
vital point is its preference. As to advantage, I'm as yet not persuaded.”
A few managers announced that execution was hampered on the grounds that the
ergonomic measures were too hard to even think about implementing inside three months. In
any case, in this investigation a couple of decision makers revealed that the organized
ergonomic measure was not truly perfect at the office and execution was hampered. One of
these managers stated: “I gathered data on this, yet it [Desktop with ergonomic advice] was
not good in the offices, so it couldn't be executed. That was to my feeling a specialized
issue.”
4.5 Administration
A number of interviewees made reference to the difficulties they had experienced in gaining
authorisation for the interventions to be implemented, and the need to effectively justify such
plans to senior management. The HR department of the within construction company, for
instance, referred to ‘‘the people you have to go through'' as one of the major barriers in
tackling problems and highlighted the need to ‘‘just keep banging on about it'' to senior
management. Another manager described this as ‘‘a constant battle.'' He identified the main
pg. 30

obstacle to implementing changes and reducing risks as The number of people that must be
consulted and in agreement. It's a very slow process and it takes time for things to get the
go-ahead by senior management.''
The basic experience announced was that “we don't frequently find the opportunity to
develop”. General understanding existed with respect to the absence of proof to help
consultancy approaches, numerous HR managers being suspicious that their suggestions
are completed in the way expected. One interviewee proposed this 'is either in light of the
fact that they [management] are not obviously putting the message over or featuring money-
saving advantage enough.' One purpose behind the absence of assessment given by various
administrations was the vulnerability of its handy advantages. As enunciated by a director
with more than 30 years’ experience: “We once in a while assess, yet on the other hand,
there are advantages and disadvantages for doing this. For the most part, however, the
absence of assessment was to a great extent credited to factors outside of the
administrations' control: 'We would love to accomplish more to assess advantages of
methodologies, yet as far as I can tell, organizations appear to be unengaged in assessment.
When they have rolled out their improvements, they're on to the following thing.' One of the
interviewees featured an inclination for long haul contracts for work and keeping up long-term
associations with continuous solicitations for work. In these cases, administrations clarified
that they do find the opportunity to see the results of their suggestions, in spite of the fact that
the unmistakable message was that 'less of those [long-term projects] exist'. In different
conditions where assessment is directed, it created the impression this may not really be
attempted to evaluate the usage of proposals, yet more for deals purposes, to start further
work.
4.6 Managerial Attitudes Towards Health and Safety
Closely associated with the theme of gaining management commitment, unsurprisingly, was
the general theme of managerial attitudes towards ergonomics. A number of specific
pg. 31

subthemes were identified in this regard, namely, the perceived importance of tackling
MSDs, appreciation of the benefits of taking preventative (as opposed to reactive) measures,
and concern that identification of such problems may reflect badly on an individual’s
managerial competence.
The perceived importance of tackling ergonomics (according to other managers within the
organisation) emerged as an important theme in 2 interviews. In a number of cases, lack of
appreciation for the importance of health and safety initiatives was suggested as leading to
these initiatives being seen as just extra initiatives on top of what are considered everyday
management activities, rather than an integral part of the management process. The HR
manager of a trading company felt that staff saw occupational health and safety initiatives as
‘‘just one other thing on the workload that they don’t have time to do and see it as an add-on
and something extra for them to do.'' One interviewee also suggested that appreciation of the
issue was important not only among managers (both senior and local) but among staff at all
levels of the organisation.
The second subtheme in relation to managerial attitudes was the failure to appreciate the
benefits of taking preventative action. The tendency for health and safety. Initiatives to be
reactive in nature was highlighted by the HR manager for in one borough council, who
explained that amongst senior management:
There has been a long-standing position, though not openly stated, that health and safety
apply when things go wrong and have perpetuated the negative approach towards health
and safety generally.
Further support for this theme came from the health and safety advisor for one
manufacturing. A further subtheme in terms of managerial attitudes was the suggestion that
managers within their organisation perceived health and safety initiatives as reflecting
negatively on their own managerial competence. This subtheme emerged from interviews
pg. 32

with HR personnel alone. One of the interviewees, for example, identified the main barrier in
tackling health and safety problems such as MSDs as:
Cultural problems, specifical cynicism of staff being concerned as to why a sudden interest
and focus is being placed upon them.
4.7 Management Commitment
The factor 'management commitment' alluded to whether the administration upheld or did not
bolster the execution of the organized ergonomic measure. Regardless of a (division)
director or its agent going to the working gathering meeting and affirming the usage of the
organized ergonomic measure, the managers still detailed this factor as being critical for
execution. The executive's responsibility was much of the time referenced as a facilitator.
Amid the meeting, one of the managers stated: There were, obviously, the managers at the
office yet they approved of it [the organized ergonomic measure] and upheld the activity to
be progressively mindful on work and wellbeing.
4.8 Complexity
In this investigation 'Complexity' was possibly seen as a hindrance when the ergonomic
measure seemed, by all accounts, to be unreasonably intricate for the staff to promptly
comprehend and to utilize it. Amid the meeting, one of the managers stated: 'what's more, on
the off chance that we would have to be actualized, labourers needed to pursue
extraordinary instructional courses on the most proficient method to utilize them.' The
number of managers referenced this was the situation for a portion of the ergonomic
estimates they organized and encountered this encouraged the execution procedure. One of
the managers stated: 'Well, the designs to execute new ergonomic environment were at that
point made, even before the working gathering meeting was held. In this way, when the
working gathering organized to actualize the new environment, it was not all that hard to
arrange them.'
pg. 33

Accordingly, two interviewees depicted that they have started to recommend their staff lead
'pilot' ventures, to empower them to get a sensible vibe for the money-saving advantages
and likely hindrances to actualizing change, beginning by focusing on the key regions
requiring consideration in their association. This empowers them to build up a business case
that can be utilized to persuade the board regarding the advantages of dispensing the
fundamental assets. Peoples' inspirations to demand help were additionally featured as a key
factor in deciding activity: “yet the day's end it relies upon the association, regardless of
whether they plan to do the changes, which they frequently have the goal (or not) directly
from the earliest starting point.” In summary, despite the common sense among many
companies' decision makers about their knowledge about the benefits of an ergonomic
workplace for their company and also about the cost of such a change, there is a big lack of
knowledge here which needs more training to build this culture. In brief, the benefits are
much more than what they feel and they know while the costs are not necessarily as high as
they estimate
Conclusion and final remarks
Based on the purpose of this research, it has been examined the underlying reason behind
the poor acceptance rate of implementing the ergonomic procedure in the UK SME
workplaces. Another goal of this study was to find appropriate recommendations for the
further implementation plan of the ergonomic work environment in SME businesses.
Therefore, the objectives of this study are:
• To explore the current workplace environment and workforce management in the UK
• To identify the reasons or barriers behind not adopting the ergonomic work environment
in SME organisations
• To identify the cost of absenteeism and presenteeism because of not having a proper
ergonomic workplace in British organisations and economy
pg. 34

• Besides, this research can also help to develop implementable strategies by providing
various perceptions and recommendations.
From the literature reviews, many existing barriers have been found, which are also known to
the organisations, where there are still some obstacles to implementing ergonomics. Around,
6.6 million working days lost due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders in 2017/18,
accounted for 469, 000 (35%) of injuries and illnesses in the UK which is causing Human
Resource Management related expenditures of around £1.8 billion per year (HSE, 2017).
Hence, it can be said that there are still many things to explore for further improvement of the
organisational process. In the literature review, it can be clearly found that there are some
barriers to the implementation of ergonomic workforce management procedure, but it also
has some gaps in the literature. Most of the literature are analysing large companies and it
doesn’t say much about the barriers in the SME organisation.
The methodology of this research was highly based on a target sample and qualitative case
study analysis. For data collection, both primary and secondary data collection has been
used. Primary data have been collected through semi-structured Interview of 6 respondents
consisting of CEOs and HR managers of 3 SME organisations in the UK. For this interview,
systematic sampling was used for each of the 3 organisations. These 3 organisations were
chosen from a different industry to give us more unique results and findings. More
specifically, for primary data analysis from interview data, the thematic analysis has been
used. Choosing an interview as a primary data collection process allowed this exploratory
research to explore the unknown factors under workforce management and effectiveness.
The key findings from the interviews can be summarised in the insufficient financial resource,
lack of knowledge and awareness, difficulty in changing the business culture and difficulties
in convincing and gaining authorisation from their senior managers. It was evident that the
nature of ergonomics practice with represented in the sample interviewed and literature for
this research focused heavily on the physical aspects of work such as force, posture,
pg. 35

workstation layout, and so on rather than non-physical aspects. This is perhaps surprising
given the notion of ergonomics as a ‘holistic approach to understanding complex and
interacting systems’ (Wilson, 2000) and the widely recognised importance of the contribution
of psychosocial factors to bad ergonomics.
Having identified barriers and challenges, the next step becomes how to overcome the
barriers and put in place a process that boosts the facilitators. Knowing that a lack of
management commitment is a barrier does not directly lead to activities that ensure that
there is management commitment. Of these barriers and facilitators, those that affect poor
ergonomics prevention largely affect occupational safety and health as well. Work to
surmount these obstacles for one type of program can likely be done successfully for the
other. In order to help companies, overcome the barriers these points could be done to:
• Implementation processes should be approached as a long-run commitment to worker's
safety and company success.
• Risk prevention should be incorporated into other management and H&S processes.
• Management commitment should be demonstrated by allocating adequate time and
resources to bad ergonomics environment risk prevention activities.
• Participation of workers, communicating their opinions and suggestions for ergonomic
program improvements, must be included.
• Lack of information as a barrier can be overcome by comprehensive training coupled,
ideally, with the implementation of ergonomic interventions.
• In order for individual implementations to be accepted and utilized, they must be culturally
relevant and easy to integrate into workers' current work practices and the organizations'
procedures.
• Ergonomics consultancy should be improved by adopting a more collaborative, ongoing,
problem-solving approach, rather than generating a single report of analysis and
pg. 36

recommendations. Such an approach might be expected to allow consultants to develop a
more informed relationship with their clients, improving understanding of expectations and
feasibility of different solutions.
In conclusion, with physical and mental risks continuing to be the most common form of
work-related ill health in the work-places, this study has revealed important concerns and
challenges that should be examined in the attempt to make interventions to reduce the risk of
not having proper ergonomic workplace and overcome the barriers to have more effective
businesses.
References / bibliography
Arezes, P.M., Dinis-Carvalho, J. and Alves, A.C., 2015. Workplace ergonomics in lean
production environments: A literature review. Work, 52(1), pp.57-70.
BHF (2017). Physical Inactivity and Sedentary Behaviour Report 2017. [online] British heart
foundation(BHF).Availableat:https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/publications/
statistics/physical-inactivity-report-2017
Bryman, A., 2016. Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Cantley, L.F., Taiwo, O.A., Galusha, D., Barbour, R., Slade, M.D., Tessier-Sherman, B. and
Cullen, M.R., 2014. Effect of systematic ergonomic hazard identification and control
implementation on musculoskeletal disorder and injury risk. Scandinavian journal of work,
environment & health, 40(1), p.57.
pg. 37

Carr, L., Leonhard, C., Tucker, S., Fethke, N., Benzo, R. and Gerr, F. (2015). Total Worker
Health Intervention Increases Activity of Sedentary Workers. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 50(1), pp.9-17.
Castleberry, A. and Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as
easy as it sounds?. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), pp.807-815.
Deros, B.M., Daruis, D.D.I. and Basir, I.M., 2015. A study on ergonomic awareness among
workers performing manual material handling activities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 195, pp.1666-1673.
Driessen, M.T., Groenewoud, K., Proper, K.I., Anema, J.R., Bongers, P.M. and van der Beek,
A.J., 2010. What are possible barriers and facilitators to implementation of a Participatory
Ergonomics programme?. Implementation Science, 5(1), p.64.
Driessen, M.T., Proper, K.I., van Tulder, M.W., Anema, J.R., Bongers, P.M. and van der
Beek, A.J., 2010. The effectiveness of physical and organisational ergonomic interventions on
low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review. Occupational and environmental
medicine, 67(4), pp.277-285.
Dul, J. and Neumann, W. (2009). Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied
Ergonomics, 40(4), pp.745-752.
Ergonomics.org.uk. (n.d.). What is Ergonomics?. [online] Available at:
https://www.ergonomics.org.uk/Public/Resources/What_is_Ergonomics_.aspx [Accessed 2
Apr. 2019].
Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A., 2015. Qualitative methods in business research: A practical
guide to social research. Sage.
pg. 38

ERS Research and consultancy (2016). Health at Work: Economic Evidence Report 2016.
Newcastle: ERS Research and consultancy, pp.1-26.
Franco, G. and Fusetti, L. (2004). Bernardino Ramazzini's early observations of the link
between musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic factors. Applied Ergonomics, 35(1), pp.67-
70.
Gaines, B.R. and Monk, A.F., 2015. Cognitive Ergonomics: Understanding, Learning, and
Designing Human-Computer Interaction. Academic Press.
Ganiyu, S.O., Olabode, J.A., Stanley, M.M. and Muhammad, I., 2015. Patterns of occurrence
of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and its correlation with ergonomic hazards among
health care professionals. Nigerian Journal of Experimental and Clinical Biosciences, 3(1),
p.18.
Gensler (2014). What we've learned about focus in the workplace. [online] Gensler, p.2007.
Availableat:https://www.gensler.com/uploads/document/306/file/Focus_in_the_Workplace_1
0_01_2012.pdf [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].
Goggins, R., Spielholz, P. and Nothstein, G. (2008). Estimating the effectiveness of
ergonomics interventions through case studies: Implications for predictive cost-benefit
analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 39(3), pp.339-344.
Gubrium, A.C., Hill, A.L. and Flicker, S., 2014. A situated practice of ethics for participatory
visual and digital methods in public health research and practice: A focus on digital
storytelling. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), pp.1606-1614.
Healthy Workforce Programme. (2017). [online] Available at:
https://www.nhsemployers.org/-/media/Employers/Documents/Retain-and-improve/Health-
and-wellbeing/Webinar-slides-sickness-absence-MSK-221117.pdf?
pg. 39

la=en&hash=DC849F4A14FECD6FB628CC46FE5C9CF35F08C125 [Accessed 14 Nov.
2018].
Hse.gov.uk. (2017). Health and safety at work Summary statistics for Great Britain 2017.
[online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1617.pdf [Accessed 4 Nov.
2018].
IEA.cc. (n.d.). Definition and Domains of Ergonomics. [online] Available at:
https://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].
International Ergonomics Association., 2019. Definition and Domains of Ergonomics.
[online] Available at: https://www.iea.cc/whats/ [Accessed 18 Feb. 2019].
Johns, G. (2009). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31(4), pp.519-542.
Lee, S. and Brand, J. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the
work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), pp.323-
333.
Lewis, B., Napolitano, M., Buman, M., Williams, D. and Nigg, C. (2016). Future directions in
physical activity intervention research: expanding our focus to sedentary behaviors,
technology, and dissemination. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 40(1), pp.112-126.
Main, C., Glozier, N. and Wright, I. (2005). Validity of the HSE stress tool: an investigation
within four organizations by the Corporate Health and Performance Group. Occupational
Medicine, 55(3), pp.208-214.
pg. 40

Martínez-Aires, M.D., Rubio Gámez, M.C. and Gibb, A., 2016. The impact of occupational
health and safety regulations on prevention through design in construction projects:
Perspectives from Spain and the United Kingdom. Work, 53(1), pp.181-191.
Morag, I. and Luria, G., 2013. A framework for performing workplace hazard and risk
analysis: a participative ergonomics approach. Ergonomics, 56(7), pp.1086-1100.
Otto, A. and Scholl, A., 2011. Incorporating ergonomic risks into assembly line
balancing. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(2), pp.277-286.
Resnick, M. and Zanotti, A. (1997). Using ergonomics to target productivity
improvements. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 33(1-2), pp.185-188.
Rothmore, P., Aylward, P. and Karnon, J., 2015. The implementation of ergonomics advice
and the stage of change approach. Applied ergonomics, 51, pp.370-376.
Rubin, A. and Babbie, E.R., 2016. Empowerment series: Research methods for social work.
Cengage Learning.
Shellenbarger, S. (2013). The Biggest Office Interruptions Are.... [online] WSJ. Available at:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-office-interruptions-are-1378852919 [Accessed 2
Apr. 2019].
Van Eerd, D., King, T., Keown, K., Slack, T., Cole, D.C., Irvin, E., Amick III, B.C. and
Bigelow, P., 2016. Dissemination and use of a participatory ergonomics guide for
workplaces. Ergonomics, 59(6), pp.851-858.
Vink, P., Koningsveld, E. and Molenbroek, J. (2006). Positive outcomes of participatory
ergonomics in terms of greater comfort and higher productivity. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4),
pp.537-546.
pg. 41

Wallace, M. and Sheldon, N., 2015. Business research ethics: Participant observer
perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), pp.267-277.
Whysall, Z.J., Haslam, R.A. and Haslam, C., 2004. Processes, barriers, and outcomes
described by ergonomics managments in preventing work-related musculoskeletal
disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 35(4), pp.343-351.
Whysall, Z., Haslam, C. and Haslam, R., 2006. Implementing health and safety interventions
in the workplace: An exploratory study. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 36(9), pp.809-818.
World Health Organisation, 1988. Health promotion for working populations. Report of a
WHO Expert Committee, Technical Report Series 765. WHO, Geneva.
Yazdani, A. and Wells, R., 2018. Barriers for implementation of successful change to prevent
musculoskeletal disorders and how to systematically address them. Applied ergonomics, 73,
pp.122-140.
pg. 42

Appendices
Appendix 1: Interview Guide
pg. 43

pg. 44

pg. 45

Appendix 2: Participant Information Sheet
pg. 46

pg. 47

pg. 48

pg. 49

Appendix 3: Consent Form
pg. 50