Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Will the real relationship between lean and safety/ergonomics please

stand up?
Joel G. Brawner *, Gregory A. Harris, Gerard A. Davis
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 3312 Shelby Center for Engineering Technology, AL, 36849-5346, Auburn, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper provides a review of studies containing safety and ergonomic outcomes in lean manufacturing (LM)
Toyota production system environments over the past 40 years. The aim is to identify effects from specific LM methods on specific safety/
Occupational safety ergonomic outcomes, to understand the relationship in greater detail. One hundred and one studies containing
one hundred and seventy outcomes were identified. Thirty-seven outcomes pertained to just-in-time (JIT) pro­
duction, which contained twenty-three negative, eleven neutral, and three positive safety/ergonomic outcomes.
Conversely, twenty-six outcomes pertained to 5S and consisted of twenty-four positive, two negative, and no
neutral outcomes. The most common negative JIT outcome was stress and mental strain, while the most common
positive 5S outcome was a tie between safety performance and hazard exposure. Studies containing other
methods were fewer in number with more mixed outcomes. These findings suggest that individual LM methods,
especially JIT and 5S, uniquely contribute to the safety/ergonomic outcomes attributed to LM.

Practitioner summary (Gronning, 1997). Standardized work, which established written pro­
cedures for each job and promoted worker interchangeability, came
A systematic review of the scientific literature over the past forty about in 1951; as did an employee suggestion system that would evolve
years (1980–2020) regarding the relationship between lean into the Kaizen method (Gronning, 1997). The most significant Toyota
manufacturing (LM) methods and occupational safety and ergonomics innovations of this post-WWII period were the concepts of just-in-time
(OSE). The purpose is to conduct a complete historical analysis of safety (JIT) production and Kanban “pull” supply systems, the operational
and ergonomic outcomes from LM systems and methods. Areas for control system for JIT (Sugimori et al., 1977). Several other TPS
future research are identified and discussed. methods evolved over time, such as Total productive maintenance
(TPM), an employee-involved method of improving machine perfor­
1. Introduction mance (Suryaprakash et al., 2020), and 5S, a method to create a cleaner
and more efficient workspace (Goswami et al., 2019).
The Toyota Production System (TPS) originated in post-World War II In 1973, a dispute between the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
(WWII) Japan, as the Toyota Motor Company had to overcome such Countries (OPEC) and multinational oil companies resulted in massive
challenges as a 10 to 1 productivity gap with American manufacturers, a increases on the price of oil (Fattouh, 2007). Referred to as the “1973 oil
small domestic market, American intervention in labor disputes, and crisis”, this event was followed by a recession where Japan’s economy
eagerness of outside car manufacturers to establish operations in Japan fell to a state of zero growth; but Toyota gained the attention of Japanese
(Womack et al., 1990). To withstand these adverse economic conditions, industry by posting higher earnings than other companies in the years
Toyota began innovating manufacturing methods that would evolve into that followed (Ohno, 1988). Toyota disseminated its JIT production
the Toyota Production System (TPS). In 1946, what would later be management technology to other Japanese automakers in the late
known as the “lean factory layout” was born, where the factory floor was 1970s, and by the end of the decade all Japanese automakers had
altered so that workers could operate multiple machines simultaneously; adopted JIT (Nakamura et al., 1998). By 1980, Toyota and other Japa­
and by 1947, each worker was operating an average of two machines nese auto manufacturers had become so competitive using the TPS

* Corresponding author. Auburn University Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 3301 Shelby Center for Engineering Technology Auburn, AL,
36849-5346, USA.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.G. Brawner), [email protected] (G.A. Harris), [email protected] (G.A. Davis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103673
Received 6 July 2021; Received in revised form 2 November 2021; Accepted 15 December 2021
Available online 20 December 2021
0003-6870/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

system that they had gained a 22.2% market share in US passenger car outcomes (outputs), by synthesizing literature containing safety and
sales (Holweg, 2007). Japan was importing cars into the US at lower cost ergonomic outcomes associated with LM. The hypothesis is that LM
and higher quality than domestic cars, due mainly to this difference in methods, when considered individually, each have a unique influence
production control systems (National Research Council, 1982). In on the safety and ergonomic outcomes resulting from the use of LM. This
response to the loss of market share, American industry became focused higher level of detail might explain the contradictory outcomes found in
on how Japanese manufacturing methods could be adopted in the US. the literature, as the safety/ergonomic outcomes from an LM imple­
However, the TPS concept entered North America through Japanese mentation could depend on the methods that are emphasized in that
“transplant” companies rather than through adoption by American car system.
companies (Robertson et al., 1992), and these transplant companies
outperformed American car companies in both quality and productivity, 2. Literature review method
just as with native Japanese car companies (Womack et al., 1990;
Krafcik, 1988). To understand the effect of LM on occupational safety and ergo­
Evaluating the reasons for the disparity, John Krafcik (1988) coined nomics, a review was conducted with the goal of capturing, summari­
the term “lean” in his 1988 thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of zing, and examining all safety and ergonomic outcomes related to the
Technology (MIT) to describe the TPS philosophy that was responsible use of LM methods found in the literature. The research referred back to
for the superior performance. Description of the “lean” production 1980, prior to worldwide adoption and 8 years before the term “lean”
process was then referenced in the books, “The Machine that Changed was introduced by Krafcik, attempting to gather all available literature
the World” (Womack et al., 1990) and “Lean Thinking” (Womack and on the topic. A systematic search and review was conducted based on the
Jones, 1996), which led to the mainstream establishment of “lean” as a method proposed by Grant and Booth (2009) which consists of separate
manufacturing model (Liker and Hoseus, 2010; Alkhoraif et al., 2019). phases for search, appraisal, and synthesis; and is designed for exhaus­
As with the TPS, the key feature of lean manufacturing (LM) is to in­ tive and comprehensive searching. Relevant articles from 1980 to 2020
crease business performance through the elimination of seven wastes: were identified from five databases: Science Direct, Web of Science,
defects, overproduction, waiting, unnecessary transportation, excess Ergonomics Abstracts, PubMed, and Google Scholar. In addition, rele­
inventory, motion, and over-processing (Ohno, 1988; Liker and Hoseus, vant articles cited in the identified manuscripts were also considered.
2010; Monden, 2011; Shingo and Dillon, 1989; Godinho Filho et al., Table 1 lists the search strings used in the article investigation. The
2017; Deshkar et al., 2018). Despite being essentially a re-branding of search string “(1 AND 2 AND 3)” was disallowed by Science Direct due to
TPS, LM is the system that would gain worldwide adoption (Nunes et al., limitations on the number of Boolean connectors used and was searched
2017). therefore using only strings “(1 AND 2)”. Similarly, Google Scholar was
Although LM is designed to be a worker-empowering system also searched using only strings “(1 AND 2)” as this unexpectedly yiel­
(Demeter and Matyusz, 2011), waste reduction efforts sometimes lead to ded fewer results than “(1 AND 2 AND 3)”. For the remaining databases,
shortened cycle times, which have the drawback of intensifying all three search strings were used.
employee workload (Longoni et al., 2013). Evidence to the claims that Sources not found in scholarly journals, conference papers/pro­
LM was harmful to workers began to emerge. A landmark case would ceedings, and book chapters were excluded as part of the search setting.
occur at the New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), a joint The focus of our research is on the worker in a manufacturing envi­
venture between General Motors and Toyota located in California. While ronment, not manufacturing support or other industries. Therefore, only
NUMMI was lauded for achieving performance based on the high LM implementations in a manufacturing setting were considered, which
employee involvement afforded by LM, it was also cited in 1993 by excluded industries such as healthcare, warehousing, and trans­
California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) portation. Studies containing implementations that combine safety and
for high ergonomic injury rates (Adler, Goldoftas and Levine, 1997). The ergonomic improvement measures alongside LM were excluded, as the
same authors published a study the following year attributing a poorly outcome would not be purely a result of lean.
planned new model launch to the ergonomic hazards (Adler et al., The initial article search identified 72,815 documents. Titles and
1998). However, the perception that LM increases efficiency at the abstracts of these documents were screened according to the following
expense of employee well-being would persist, as literature critical to criteria: 1) Relevance of the article to the topic of interest; 2) Full text
LM continued to emerge (Landsbergis et al., 1999; Shoaf et al., 2004; papers published in peer-reviewed journals; and 3) Written in or trans­
Arezes et al., 2015). lated into English. An irrelevant article was defined as any article clearly
Amid increasing concerns about safety and ergonomics, the National unrelated to manufacturing. For example, several articles concerning
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released the report lean healthcare were found using the search terms, which were thus
“The Changing Organization of Work and the Safety and Health of removed. Based on these criteria, 70,474 records were excluded. A full
Working People” in 2002, stating that the effect lean and other new article screening (n = 2341) eliminated 1760 articles that lacked a stated
organizations of work on employee health was an area where future safety or ergonomic outcome, and 131 duplicates were removed. The
research is urgently needed (Sauter et al., 2002). The body of scientific remaining articles (n = 349) were thoroughly reviewed in their entire
literature that grew after NUMMI and the NIOSH report was both critical content, and 248 were excluded where a cause-and-effect relationship
and complimentary of the effect of LM on occupational safety and er­ was not established between LM and the safety/ergonomic outcome(s).
gonomics (Arezes et al., 2015; Hasle et al., 2012; Hamja et al., 2017), The remaining articles (N = 101) are summarized in Table 2.
and the topic continues to be studied and debated to this day (Hamja
et al., 2019).
To further understand this contested topic, this paper aims to
examine the relationship between LM methods and safety/ergonomic
outcomes for workers in a manufacturing environment. Koukoulaki Table 1
(2014) found that lean methods such as JIT and standardized work cause Search strings used to identify articles.
intensification of work and are strongly associated with both mechanical Search Search Terms
and psychosocial exposure. Likewise Arezes, Dinis-Carvalho, and Alves String
(Arezes et al., 2015) identified associations between LM and several 1 “lean manufacturing” OR “lean production” OR “Toyota production"
safety and ergonomic dimensions. Building on the existing works, the 2 “ergonomic” OR “stress” OR “health” OR “safety” OR “OSH”
objective of this review is to investigate to a higher level of detail as to 3 “study” OR “experiment” OR “sectional” OR “longitudinal” OR “case
study”
which LM methods (inputs) lead to which safety and ergonomic

2
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Table 2
Details from safety and ergonomic outcomes found in literature.
Article Industry Location Meas. Method Sample Study Type Lean Method ↑↓ Safety and Ergonomic
Outcome

Babson (1993) Automobile assembly Michigan, Survey & 2380 workers Cross- Just-in-time (JIT) ↓ Increased intensity,
USA worker’s sectional and Kaizen high workers’
compensation compensation claims
claims
Rinehart et al. (1994) Automobile assembly Ontario, Survey 2300 workers Longitudinal Unspecified lean ↓ Workers viewed lean
Canada methods or as “competitive and
systems stressful” 83% of the
time, “cooperative and
helpful” 17% of the
time. Pre-lean, these
views were 43% and
57% respectively.
Mullarkey et al. Electronics United Survey 32 workers Longitudinal JIT ↑↓ No effect on stress or
(1995) manufacturing Kingdom work intensification.
Parker et al. (1995) Car seat manufacturing New Zealand Questionnaires 38 workers Longitudinal General TPS ↑↓ Neutral to positive
implementation health effects for
workers participating
in change, workload
and strain increase for
uninvolved workers.
Stewart and Garrahan Automobile USA and Questionnaires 372 workers in Case study Unspecified lean ↓ Workers perceived
(1995) manufacturing United 4 factories methods or lean to be more
Kingdom systems demanding, both
physically and
mentally.
Jackson and Martin Electronics United Survey 44 workers Longitudinal JIT ↑↓ JIT had no effect on
(1996) manufacturing Kingdom psychological well-
being.
Adler, Goldoftas, and Automobile assembly California, Cal-OSHA 4000 workers Longitudinal JIT and Kaizen ↓ Increase in ergonomic
Levine (1997) USA citations (est.) injuries, Cal-OSHA
citations
Lewchuk and Automobile assembly Canada Survey 2424 workers Cross- JIT and Kaizen ↑↓ Of two lean plants, one
Robertson (1997) sectional had higher work
intensity than
traditional plants, one
had lower
Parker and Sprigg Truck chassis assembly Great Britain Survey 38 workers Longitudinal Moving assembly ↓ Increased stress,
(1998) (automotive) line, work-in- decreased perception
process (WIP) of well-being
reduction
Lewchuk and Automotive Canada Survey 1670 workers, Cross- Unspecified lean ↓ Workers reported
Robertson (1999) components 16 workplaces sectional methods or faster pace and heavier
systems workload in lean
factories, compared to
traditional factories
Yildirim (1999) Tyre manufacturing Turkey Interviews and 147 workers Case study Total quality ↑ Improvement in safety
surveys management perception and
(TQM) accident rate after
TQM implementation
Jackson and Garment United Survey 556 workers Cross- JIT ↑↓ No overall effect on
Mullarkey (2000) manufacturing Kingdom sectional mental job strain,
balanced effect on job-
related strain.
Godard (2001) Multiple industries Canada Telephone survey 508 workers Cross- JIT ↓ Negative effect on
sectional worker stress
Hunter (2001) Machining and South 3D simulation, 1 work cell Cross- Lean work cell ↑ The lean work cell
metalworking Carolina, RULA, REBA simulation sectional presented less
USA ergonomic risk
compared to the job
shop configuration.
Lewchuk et al. (2001) Automobile United Survey 2639 workers Cross- WIP reduction, ↓ Excessive workload,
manufacturing Kingdom and sectional pull systems, JIT increased stress
Canada
Anderson-Connolly Anonymous company USA Survey 1000 workers Longitudinal Unspecified lean ↓ Increased stress and
et al. (2002) methods or higher work intensity
systems
Bruno and Jordan Automobile assembly Illinois, USA Survey 1000 workers Longitudinal Kaizen ↓ Job eliminations from
(2002) Kaizen results
intensified workload
Harenstam, Rydbeck, Multiple industries Sweden Interviews 208 workers Case study General lean ↓ Increased workload
Johansson, reported in lean
Karlqvist, and organizations.
Wiklund (2002)
(continued on next page)

3
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Table 2 (continued )
Article Industry Location Meas. Method Sample Study Type Lean Method ↑↓ Safety and Ergonomic
Outcome

Parker (2003) Automobile assembly United Survey 368 workers Longitudinal WIP reduction, ↓ Negative stress and
Kingdom pull system psychological
outcomes
Brenner et al. (2004) Multiple industries USA Survey 1848 workers Cross- Quality circles ↓ Negative effect on
sectional and JIT cumulative trauma
disorders
Schouteten and Bicycle manufacturing Netherlands Survey 63 workers Case study JIT and ↑↓ Neutral findings on
Benders (2004) standardized stress and general
work health, although
increase in exhaustion
was reported
Seppala and Klemola Multiple industries Finland Interviews and 525 workers Cross- JIT ↓ Increase in stress,
(2004) questionnaires sectional particularly for white-
collar, maintenance,
and material workers
Cochrane et al. Dairy products New Zealand Postal survey 106 workers Case study Lean-based high- ↑ 52.8% of survey
(2005) performance respondents agreed
work practices that the work
(HPWP) environment was safer,
32.0% disagreed
Conti et al. (2006) Multiple industries United Interviews and 1391 workers Cross- Total productive ↓ Negative ergonomic
Kingdom questionnaires sectional maintenance effects from JIT,
(TPM), JIT, and negative stress effects
Kaizen from TPM, positive
stress effects from
Kaizen
Leroyer et al. (2006) Automobile assembly France Questionnaire 80 workers Longitudinal TQM ↓ Negative effect on
injury rate, strain, and
stress
Mehri (2006) Automobile assembly Japan Interviews and 75 affiliated Case study Unspecified lean ↓ High work intensity
direct people methods or and injury rates, along
observations systems with accident
misreporting by the
company
Velazquez, Munguia, Various industries; Mexico OSHA program 50 workers Case study Unspecified lean ↓ Multiple negative
de los Angeles maquiladora evaluation profile methods or effects from lean
Navarrete, and manufacturing (PEP) systems production, including
Zavala (2006) musculoskeletal
symptoms.
Brown and O’Rourke Shoe manufacturing Guangdong, Surveys, direct 1 company Case study Lean work-cell ↓ Observation of
(2007) China measurements, analyzed; 27 configuration increased worker
and observations workers exposure to heat,
surveyed noise, chemicals, and
moving machine parts.
Surveyed workers
reported higher stress.
Eklund and Berglund Turbine and lift truck Sweden Interviews 19 workers Case study Kaizen, TPM, and ↓ Increase in worker
(2007) manufacturing kanban stress and a higher
work pace.
Grunberg et al. Advanced technology USA Questionnaires 525 workers, Longitudinal Unspecified lean ↓ Increase in reported
(2008) products and interviews white & blue methods or health problems after
collar systems lean implementation
Hunter (2008) Furniture Mississippi, General shop 8 workers Case study Lean work-cell ↑ Positive effect on
manufacturing USA floor observations configuration ergonomics and
general worker health
Mothersell et al. Automobile Antwerp, Company 1 Company, Longitudinal Unspecified lean ↑ Reduction in minor
(2008) manufacturing Belgium documentation >1000 workers methods or (first aid) accidents
and interviews est. systems after lean
implementation,
despite doubling of car
output per worker
Lu (2009) Garment and Philippines Questionnaire 630 workers Cross- Unspecified lean ↓ Intensification of work
electronics sectional methods or resulted in stress, new
manufacturing systems forms of hazard, and
occupational illnesses.
Nikolou-Walker and Engineering Ireland Observations, 250 workers Cross- Unspecified lean ↑↓ Lean improved overall
Lavery (2009) interviews, & sectional methods or safety, but a minority
statistical analysis systems of workers experienced
increased workload
and stress
Saurin and Ferreira Farm equipment Brazil Survey 67 workers Case study Housekeeping ↑ Improvement in
(2009) manufacturing (5S) perceived safety
Womack et al. (2009) Automobile USA HAL and ACGIH 112 jobs (56 Cross- JIT, increased ↑↓ Workers in lean plant
manufacturing TLV® lean and 56 sectional work frequency had higher HAL scores
assessments traditional) but lower ACGIH TLV
(continued on next page)

4
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Table 2 (continued )
Article Industry Location Meas. Method Sample Study Type Lean Method ↑↓ Safety and Ergonomic
Outcome

scores than traditional

plant
Bernardo and Sato Automobile Brazil Interviews 40 workers Case study Unspecified lean ↓ Physical and mental
(2010) manufacturing methods or illnesses due to work
systems pressure and work
intensification.
Brännmark (2010) Multiple industries Sweden Interviews and 123 workers Case study Unspecified lean ↑↓ Increase in workplace
questionnaires methods or safety, but also an
systems increase in stress
Wong and Semiconductor Malaysia Ergonomic 61 workers Cross- Unspecified lean ↑↓ Lean production line
Richardson (2010) manufacturing assessment sectional methods or had more reported job
systems risk and eye strain than
conventional line, but
less reported head and
neck pain
Edwards et al. (2011) Multiple industries Denmark Seminars and 3 cases, 130 Longitudinal Unspecified lean ↑ Lean implementation
surveys total workers methods or had a positive effect on
systems the psychosocial
working environment
in 1 case, and a neutral
effect in 2 cases
Bockerman, Bryson, Multiple industries Finland Empirical 3755 Longitudinal Lean-based high ↑ HIM Practices are
and Ilmakunnas analysis of observations involvement positively associated
(2012) government data management with employee well-
(HIM) being and lower
accident rate
Enríquez-Díaz et al. Automotive Germany Questionnaire 165 workers Longitudinal Chaku-Chaku ↓ Increased stress from
(2012) component work intensification
manufacturing
Shaikh et al. (2012) Automotive United Questionnaire 12 participants Case study Cycle-time ↑↓ Neutral effect on
(simulated) Kingdom reduction participant stress
through waste levels
elimination
Brännmark and Multiple industries Sweden Surveys and 129 workers Cross- Continuous ↑↓ Higher worker
Holden (2013) interviews sectional improvement perception of safety,
but increase in stress
Rojasra and Qureshi Injection molding India Expert assessment 1 company Longitudinal 5S ↑ Safety scores improved
(2013) after 5S
implementation.
Sujatha and Rao Multiple industries India Questionnaires 44 managers Cross- Unspecified lean ↑ Safety and ergonomics
(2013) and executives sectional methods or had a positive
systems relationship with lean
program success.
Tregaskis et al. Heavy manufacturing United Company data, 58 various Longitudinal Lean-based high- ↑ Safety perception and
(2013) Kingdom surveys, and interviewees performance performance improved
interviews and 611 work practices after HPWP was
workers (HPWP) implemented.
Bouville and Alis Multiple industries France Survey 24,486 Cross- Unspecified lean ↓ Lean practices, as a
(2014) employees sectional methods or bundle, have a
systems deleterious effect on
employee-perceived
health at work.
Chan et al. (2014) Automotive assembly China Survey 1084 Case study Unspecified lean ↓ High prevalence of
employees, 12 methods or WMSD related injury.
factories systems More than 90% of
workers over 35 had
reported injury.
Chiarini and Vagnoni Multiple industries Italy Questionnaire 40 workers Multi-case TQM and 5S ↑ 5S improvements led
(2014) study to workspaces that are
safer and more
ergonomic. Reduction
of injuries was
reported.
Cullinane et al. Pharmaceutical Ireland Survey 200 workers Cross- Increased pace ↓ Increase in worker
(2014)) manufacturing sectional (resulting from exhaustion
various lean
improvements)
Gupta and Jain Glass manufacturing India Direct 1 company Longitudinal Kaizen and 5S ↑ Kaizen based 5S
(2014) observation improvements
improved ergonomics
and removed hazards.
Khandelwal et al. Machinery India IDEEA device 2 workers Longitudinal 5S ↑ Less energy
(2014) manufacturing consumption after 5S
improvements, which
had led to stress.
(continued on next page)

5
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Table 2 (continued )
Article Industry Location Meas. Method Sample Study Type Lean Method ↑↓ Safety and Ergonomic
Outcome

Pagell et al. (2014) Multiple industries Oregon, USA Surveys, phone 153 facilities Cross- JIT ↓ JIT was a significant
questionnaires, sectional and negative predictor
and government of safety.
safety date.
Shanmuganathan Textile manufacturing India Surveys and 150 workers Case study 5S ↑ Health and safety
et al. (2014)) interviews standards were
improved after the
introduction of 5S.
Singh and Ahuja Boiler manufacturing India Company records 1 company Case study 5S ↑ Decrease in accident
(2014) severity after 5S
implementation.
Hernández Lamprea Automotive Colombia Surveys and 1 company Case study 5S ↑ Ergonomic, physical,
et al. (2015) components direct and other hazards
assessments were greatly reduced
after 5S
implementation.
Kumar and Kumar Multiple industries India Survey 59 industries Case study Unspecified lean ↑↓ Reportable accidents,
(2015) methods or unsafe practices, and
systems behavioral safety were
not improved after
lean implementation.
Mohiuddin et al. Automotive Malaysia Company safety 1 company Longitudinal Unspecified lean ↑ Company experienced
(2015) manufacturing data methods or a sharp drop in
systems accident rate after lean
implementation
Wan Mahmood et al. Multiple industries Malaysia Questionnaire 40 managers Case study Unspecified lean ↑ Lean production has a
(2015) and staff methods or positive correlation
systems with sustainability
components, including
safety.
Zhang (2015) Automobile China Ethnographic 7 factories Case study Unspecified lean ↓ Lean systems resulted
manufacturing research methods or in intense work pace
systems and high stress.
Abeysekera and Garment Sri Lanka Survey 118 workers Case study 5S, Kaizen ↑↓ Positive worker
Illankoon (2016) manufacturing across 3 perception of
companies workplace
ergonomics, but
negative perception of
heat and noise
hazards.
Alhuraish et al. Multiple industries France Survey 33 (est.) lean Case study Unspecified lean ↑↓ Hypothesis that lean
(2016) experts methods or had positive safety
systems effects was rejected.
Baoet al. (2016) Multiple industries USA SI, HAL, TLV®, 1834 workers Cross- Single-piece flow ↑↓ Workers using single-
assessments sectional piece flow had higher
perception of H&S and
lower force
requirements, but
higher repetition of
forceful exertions.
Hussain et al. (2016) Textile manufacturing Pakistan Questionnaire 326 employees Case study Standardized ↑↓ Standardized work
work created more stress for
blue-collar workers,
less for white-collar
workers.
Kumar and Kumar Multiple industries India Survey 62 companies Case study Unspecified lean ↑ Lean has a positive
(2016) methods or impact on employee
systems safety participation.
Manfredsson (2016) Textile manufacturing Sweden Interviews, 2 teams, 11 total Case study Unspecified lean ↑↓ Lean was found to
observations, & workers methods or have increased stress
group systems in one company, but
discussions. reduced stress in
another.
Ramesh and Ravi Cutting tool India Questionnaire 75 workers Case study 5S ↑ Significant
(2016) manufacturing relationship between
5S implementation
and improved safety
performance.
Resta et al. (2016) Multiple industries Italy Interviews, direct Unknown Case study JIT, TQM and ↑↓ JIT implementation
observations, sample from TPM resulted in higher
company >300,000 safety and ergonomics,
documentation workers but higher stress. TQM
resulted in reduced
risks. TPM resulted in
(continued on next page)

6
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Table 2 (continued )
Article Industry Location Meas. Method Sample Study Type Lean Method ↑↓ Safety and Ergonomic
Outcome

reduced risks and

reduced stress.
Srinivasan et al. Instrumentation device USA Survey 8 participants Longitudinal 5S ↑ Safety climate
(2016) manufacturing plus 5 control improved after 5S
implementation;
remained unchanged
for the control group.
Stewart et al. (2016) Automobile United Surveys and 439 workers Case study Unspecified lean ↓ Increased work
manufacturing Kingdom and interviews methods or intensity, higher levels
Poland systems of physical discomfort,
stress, and exhaustion
after lean introduction.
Widyanti and Aerospace Indonesia Questionnaires 90 workers Case study Unspecified lean ↑↓ No significant
Larutama (2016) manufacturing and NASA-TLX methods or correlation between
systems lean performance and
mental workload.
Aziz et al. (2017) Textile manufacturing Egypt Direct 2 factories Case study Unspecified lean ↑ Lean implementation
observation methods or resulted in a reduction
systems of heat, chemical, and
ergonomic hazards.
Camuffo et al. (2017) Tire manufacturing Multiple Interviews and 32 production Cross- Unspecified lean ↑ The degree of lean
countries observations departments in sectional methods or adoption was
(Europe) 9 facilities systems positively related to a
reduction of accidents.
Distelhorst et al. Apparel manufacturing 11 Factory audits 300 factories Cross- Unspecified lean ↑↓ No relationship was
(2017) (Nike) developing sectional methods or found between lean
countries systems adoption and health
and safety standards.
Håkansson et al. Fabricated metal Sweden Surveys, 70 workers Longitudinal Kaizen, ↑ Kaizen made jobs less
(2017) products interviews, (est.) standardized strenuous and
assessments work improved H&S
perception.
Standardized work had
no effect on stress
level.
Huo and Boxall Consumer-goods China Survey 226 frontline Case study Unspecified lean ↓ Lean-associated role
(2017) manufacturing managers methods or overload was a risk to
systems frontline managers,
which relates to
exhaustion.
Ramesh and Ravi Cutting tool India Questionnaire 75 workers Case study Unspecified lean ↑ 70.6% of workers felt
(2017) manufacturing methods or that total employee
systems involvement created a
safe workplace.
Todorovic and Cupic Rubber goods Serbia Company OHS 1179 workers Case study 5S ↑ Injury frequency and
(2017) manufacturing metrics severity showed
downward trends after
5S implementation.
Wiengarten et al. Multiple industries USA OSHA and 3945 companies Cross- Slack (waste) ↓ Reduction in
(2017) COMPUSTAT sectional reduction operational slack
data increases number of
safety violations.
Fernandes et al. Automobile Europe Direct 1 work area Longitudinal 5S ↑ 5S implementation
(2018) manufacturing observation reduced risk of forklift-
pedestrian collision by
64%.
Huo and Boxall Transportation China Questionnaire 357 workers Case study Employee ↓ Problem solving
(2018) equipment problem solving demands from lean
manufacturing implementation
increase exhaustion
but may be mitigated
by increased job
resources.
Morvan and Automotive and France Company records 2 companies Cross- JIT ↓ Increase in WMSD
Buchmann (2018) aerospace and worker sectional from JIT
manufacturing interviews implementation.
Nagaraj and Jeyapaul Garment industry Sri Lanka Questionnaires, 557 workers Case study Lean cell design ↓ Workers experienced
(2018) REBA, and CMDQ and one-piece medium ergonomic
flow risk on most jobs, and
high occurrence of
pain & discomfort
Randhawa and Ahuja Automotive parts India Company safety 36 Case study 5S and Kaizen ↑ Accident frequency
(2018) manufacturing metrics manufacturing and severity improved
zones after 5S, improved
(continued on next page)

7
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Table 2 (continued )
Article Industry Location Meas. Method Sample Study Type Lean Method ↑↓ Safety and Ergonomic
Outcome

further through
Kaizen.
Ratnayake and Apparel manufacturing Sri Lanka Surveys 84 workers Cross- Lean work cell ↑ Workers found the lean
Dinosha (2018) sectional (U-shaped) layout to be safer and
more ergonomic than
traditional layouts.
Singh and Deokar Multiple industries India Questionnaire 100 companies Case study 5S ↑ Workplace safety was
(2018) viewed as “highly
improved” after 5S
implementation.
Adzrie et al. (2019) Metal Malaysia Survey 30 workers Longitudinal 5S ↑ Safety initially
fabrication—stainless improved after 5S
steel tables introduction and
continued to improve
over time.
Beraldin et al. (2019) Appliance Italy Job demands 138 workers Case study JIT ↓ JIT has a negative
manufacturing research model effect on exhaustion,
(JDRM) but effect can be
reduced by soft lean
practices (SLPs).
Bocquet et al. (2019) Multiple industries 2 European, Employee 24 employees Case studies Multiple lean ↓ Lean implementation
1 unknown interviews practices negatively affected
worker stress. High
involvement practices
(HIP) can mitigate if
fully integrated into
the lean
implementation.
de Negreiros et al. Automotive Brazil Direct evaluation 120 workers Cross- Lean work-cell ↑↓ Neutral effect on stress
(2019) component (QEC, WAI, NFR, sectional configuration and other health
manufacturing JSS) factors.
Huo et al. (2019) Consumer goods China Survey 315 workers Longitudinal JIT, ↓ Negative effects on
manufacturing intensification of emotional stress and
work physical health,
mediated by
supervisory support
Seddik (2019) Garment industry Egypt Safety climate 1 company Cross- 5S ↑ 5S had a positive
survey sectional impact on safety
climate in 7 of 8
categories, neutral in 1
of 8.
Tortorella et al. Multiple industries Brazil Survey 144 companies Cross- JIT ↑↓ Neutral effect on
(2019) sectional worker health
Ulewicz and Lazar Metal manufacturing Poland and Surveys and 20 companies Cross- Unspecified lean ↑ Companies using lean
(2019) Romania public company sectional methods or tools reported fewer
safety data systems critical incidents than
industry average and
improved further with
time.
Annamalai et al. Garment Tamilnadu, Questionnaires 80 workers Case study Lean production ↑ Positive correlation
(2020) manufacturing India layout between lean
production layout and
safety/ergonomics
Cierniak-Emerych Multiple industries Lower Silesia Direct 3 companies Case study 5S ↑↓ 5S improved physical
and Golej (2020) (Poland) observations and working conditions but
interviews increased stress and
anxiety
Dieste et al. (2020) Metal casting Italy General 600 workers Case study 5S, TPM, and ↑ Multiple risks and
(foundry) observation, Kaizen hazards were
OCRA evaluation mitigated by
eliminating wasteful
activities.
Mousavi et al. (2020) Multiple industries Worldwide Survey 112 workers Cross- Multiple lean ↑↓ Lean implementation
and sectional practices influences OHS
professionals performance, with
several mediating
factors
Sakthi Nagaraj and Multiple industries India and Sri Survey 168 workers Cross- General lean ↑ Positive human factors
Jeyapaul (2020) Lanka and sectional outcomes are
professionals associated with
successful lean
implementation
Stimec (2020) Multiple industries France Surveys and 9 companies, Case studies General lean ↓ Negative perceived
interviews 380 workers transformation health effect,
mitigated by team
learning.

8
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

3. Article search results human factors (4), hazard exposure (6), and safety performance (6) were
the most common categories benefiting from 5S. Only two negative
The search and screening process produced 101 articles that con­ outcomes were found, where one was due to the inadvertent introduc­
tained a safety and ergonomic outcome resulting from LM or related tion of noise and heat hazards from the implementation (Abeysekera and
methods. Most articles (n = 54) pertained to unspecified lean methods or Illankoon, 2016); and the other was due to worker stress resulting from
systems. The most prevalent safety and ergonomic outcome contained in fear of change (Cierniak-Emerych and Golej, 2020).
the literature was stress and mental strain (n = 36). Table 3 summarizes
the LM methods and safety/ergonomic outcomes found in the articles. 3.3. Kaizen outcomes
Some articles contain multiple lean methods or safety and ergonomic
outcomes and therefore appear in the results multiple times. The literature contains safety outcomes from both kaizen related
activities and their resulting changes in working conditions. Kaizen
3.1. Safety and ergonomic outcome categories outcomes were evenly split between positive and negative at nine each,
with one neutral outcome (Table 3). Negative outcomes from kaizen
The safety outcomes found in the literature have been sorted into 10 include higher work intensity (3) and stress (2) resulting from the
categories which includes some overlapping dimensions due to the lack changes in the workplace or work methods. Positive outcomes include
of detail found in many articles. For example, when a specific outcome human factors and ergonomic improvements (2) and hazard mitigation
such as physical strain was identified, it was categorized as such, even (2).
though a physical strain outcome can also be associated with a broader
outcome such as general health and safety. Hazard exposure refers to the 3.4. Just-in-time (JIT), Chaku-Chaku, and work pacing outcomes
introduction of sources of harm with the potential to cause injury or
death to the worker, such as mechanical energy, temperature extremes, In the literature, safety and ergonomic outcomes from JIT related
and noise. Workload, work intensity, and exhaustive work is the one methods were the most prominent among individual LM methods and
category that is not a direct safety and ergonomic outcome. However, had the most proportionately negative results. Twenty-three of the
items in this category are associated with a reduction or elimination of thirty-seven safety and ergonomic outcomes found in the literature were
non-value added time, which reduces recovery time for the worker and negative, while only three were positive and eleven had a neutral or
may increase the risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders offsetting effect (Table 3). These negative outcomes occurred in the
(WMSD) (Winkel and Westgaard, 2008) and stress (van Eijnatten, 2000). categories of human factors and ergonomics (4), stress and mental strain
(9), psychological and psychosocial well-being (1), workload and work
3.2. 5S outcomes intensity (3), safety performance/accident rates (4), and general health
and well-being (2). Two of the three positive outcomes were found in
Of the outcomes pertaining to 5S, twenty-four of twenty-six con­ one multi-case study that also listed stress as a negative outcome (Resta
tained a positive safety and ergonomic effect (Table 3). Improvements in et al., 2016). Chaku-Chaku methods were included in these totals,

Table 3
Outcome summary with symbols for negative (●), neutral/offsetting (◐), and positive (○) safety/ergonomic outcomes.
JIT, Work Pacing, Slack Kanban 5S Standardized TPM Kaizen, Problem Lean Work TQM HPWP HIM Unspecified Lean
Reduction, Chaku-Chaku Work Solving, Cell, Lean Methods or Systems
Continuous Factory
Improvement Layout

Hazard Exposure ●○○○○○○ ○○ ●○○ ● ○ ●●○

Human Factors, ●●●●○ ○○○○ ●○○ ●○○○○ ●●◐○○
Ergonomics,
CTD, MSD,
WMSD
Overall Safety, ●●◐◐○ ○ ◐ ◐○○○ ○ ●●●◐○○○○
General
Health & Well-
Being
Physical Strain ◐ ○ ● ●●●
Psychological ●◐ ●◐
Psychosocial
Well-Being
Safety and ○ ○○○○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ●●○
Health
Perception,
Safety Climate
Safety Behavior ◐○
and Safety
Participation
Safety Records, ●●●● ○○○○○○ ●●○ ● ○ ○ ●◐◐◐○○○○
Accident Rate,
and Safety
Performance
Stress and ●●●●●●●●●◐◐◐ ● ●○ ◐◐◐ ●○ ●●○ ●◐ ● ●●●●●●●●◐◐
Mental Strain
Workload, Work ●●●◐◐◐◐ ● ○ ● ●●●◐ ●●●●●●●●●●●
Intensity, and
Exhaustive
Work
Totals 23,11,3 2,0,0 2,0,24 0,4,0 2,0,3 9,1,9 3,2,7 3,0,2 0,0,3 0,0,2 33,9,13

9
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

contributing two negative outcomes, stress and work intensification, LM is a safe and worker-empowering system. Babson (1993) reported
both from the same longitudinal study (Enríquez-Díaz et al., 2012). that Ohno’s original purpose for Kaizen was for workers to figure out
how to return to normal production levels after he removed 10 percent
3.5. Outcomes from other methods of the workforce; a process that was repeated each time equilibrium was
reached. And, according to Alcaraz (2014), JIT waste reduction efforts
Only one article containing two negative outcomes from Kanban was have evolved to include increasing worker capacity, while Weingarten
found in the literature. Eklund et al. (2007) reported negative outcomes (2017) associated a 1% decrease in worker slack (increase in worker
in stress and work intensity in a multiple-method LM system that capacity) with a 0.69% increase in workplace injuries.
emphasized Kanban. Only five safety and ergonomic related outcomes Therefore, the objective of this review was to determine whether
from TPM were found in the literature, (3) positive and (2) negative specific LM methods uniquely contributed to safety and ergonomic
(Table 3). Positive outcomes were due to hazard mitigation and stress outcomes, thus adding detail to this complex topic. As hypothesized,
reduction from the simplification of work (Resta et al., 2016; Dieste some LM methods uniquely contributed to safety and ergonomic out­
et al., 2020). Negative outcomes were due to work intensification and comes, as the two most prominently mentioned methods in the literature
resulting increase in stress, however both outcomes were from a single contained biased and opposing outcomes. Some explanation as to why
study involving a multiple-method lean implementation (Eklund and contradicting viewpoints exist concerning the relationship between LM
Berglund, 2007). Only three studies containing five TQM outcomes were and safety/ergonomics might be found by determining whether a LM
found in the literature. Leroyer et al. (2006) listed physical strain, stress implementation has a disproportionate focus on one of these impactful
and mental strain, and safety performance as negative outcomes. Resta methods.
et al. (2016) lists hazard mitigation as a positive outcome, and Yildirim It is not surprising that some methods resulted in positive safety and
(1999) found safety climate to be a positive safety and ergonomic ergonomic outcomes. 5S lends itself well to safety improvement, so
outcome. Both positive and negative safety and ergonomic outcomes much so that safety is often considered as a direct benefit of 5S imple­
from lean factory layouts are found in the literature. Positive effects in mentation (Veres et al., 2018; Mutaza et al., 2020). Likewise, a typical
human factors and ergonomics (4), and overall safety and health (3), goal of a kaizen event is the enhancement of safety in a particular area
were found. Negative effects on human factors/ergonomics (1), stress (Vieira et al., 2012), often implementing 5S methods in this effort (Zocca
and mental strain (1), and increased hazard exposure (1) were also et al., 2018). Also, the employee-involvement aspect of kaizen tends to
found. Neutral or offsetting effects (2) were also reported. Only three have a positive impact on worker stress by giving workers more job
articles and four outcomes were found in the literature from standard­ control (Conti et al., 2006). A lean factory layout is composed of a group
ized work, all of which were neutral to safety and ergonomics. of dissimilar processes operated by multifunctional workers, thus re­
High-performance work practices (HPWP) and high-involvement man­ petitive motion is reduced, along with ergonomic risk (Hunter, 2001).
agement (HIM) yielded positive outcomes in safety perception (2), HPWP and HIM are both worker-focused methods of increasing per­
safety performance (2), and overall safety and health (1) were found in formance through employee involvement and engagement (Böckerman
three articles. No negative or neutral outcomes associated with HPWP or et al., 2012; Tregaskis et al., 2013), so positive outcomes from these
HIM were found in the literature (Table 3). methods could also be expected.
Few safety and ergonomic outcomes were found that resulted from
3.6. Unspecified lean and TPS methods or systems TPM and TQM, and those results were evenly positive and negative.
TPM and TQM are not methods that directly affect the workplace like 5S,
The largest number of safety and ergonomic outcomes found in the or that change worker motion characteristics like the lean factory
literature were resulting from unspecified lean methods or systems. The layout, thus a small number of outcomes and mixed results associated
literature contains fifty-five outcomes, most of which are negative with these methods is unsurprising. Likewise, standardized work is
(Table 3). These negative outcomes are in the categories of human concerned with publishing a standardized sequence of operations
factors and ergonomics (2), physical strain (3), stress and mental strain (Hussain et al., 2016) rather than changing how the work is performed,
(8), psychological and psychosocial well-being (1), workload and work so a small number of outcomes, all with neutral safety and ergonomic
intensity (11), hazard exposure (2), safety perception and climate (2), effects, was a plausible finding in the literature.
overall safety and health (3), and safety performance (1). Positive out­ Only two outcomes were associated with Kanban, negative effects on
comes were in the categories of human factors and ergonomics (2), stress and work intensity, both from the same study that examined a
hazard exposure (1), safety perception and safety climate (1), safety newly introduced LM system. It is possible that the change itself was the
behavior and participation (1), overall safety and health (4), and safety source of the stress outcome, as newly employed persons without ex­
performance (4). Several neutral or offsetting outcomes (9) were also periences of the previous system accepted the new system better (Eklund
found in the literature. and Berglund, 2007). Kanban is a material flow system, so the work
Outcomes from unspecified lean methods or systems in the cate­ intensity outcome might be attributed to the removal of slack from the
gories of physical strain and stress/mental strain were numerous and overall LM system, rather than the Kanban method itself.
mostly negative (11) or neutral (2), with no positive outcomes. The large number of negative results from JIT and related methods
Conversely, safety performance, which includes accident and severity are understandable given that JIT attempts to remove slack and there­
rates, was mostly positive (4) or neutral (3) and rarely reported as fore increases work intensity. In a Chaku-Chaku system, the cycle time of
negative (1). the machine(s), and the possibility that the load-unload rate may be
machine controlled, can create ergonomic problems through work in­
4. Discussion tensity and a set frequency of motion for the worker. Other methods to
enhance JIT through work pacing, such as piece-rate policies that base
In his book “Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to worker wages on quantity of pieces produced, may have a likewise effect
Just-in-Time”, Monden (2011) states that one goal of the TPS is “respect on work intensity.
for humanity, or morale, which must be cultivated while the system
utilizes human resources to attain its cost objectives.” Womack et al. 4.1. Review summary
(1990) describes LM as “humanly fulfilling.” And Liker (2004), quoting
Ohno, stated that “safety is the foundation of all our activities” in Just as with the contradicting claims about the design intent of LM
reference to the TPS. concerning worker well-being, the LM related safety and ergonomic
However, some literary claims exist that challenge the assertion that outcomes found in the literature are also contradictory. Our research

10
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

found 101 articles containing safety and ergonomic outcomes from LM, A national or regional cross-sectional study could be used to
in which 37 had positive outcomes, 39 had negative outcomes, and 25 demonstrate associations between several of these factors within rela­
contained neutral or offsetting outcomes. However, some clarity can be tionship between LM and safety and ergonomics. Effects from factors
found by examining details of the LM methods used, the specific safety such as culture, industry type, LM methods used, LM maturity, employee
and ergonomic outcomes resulting from these methods, along with other demographics, union status, and company size could be determined
details from these studies. from such a large sample size. An employee-perceived safety climate
This review found that use of JIT resulted in negative safety/ergo­ survey, which has been demonstrated to have association with safety
nomic outcomes in 62% of occurrences found in the literature, most behavior and injury data (Zohar, 2000; Zohar and Luria, 2005), could be
commonly in the category of stress and mental strain. On the other hand, used to determine safety outcome (dependent variable) if actual injury
the use of 5S resulted in a positive outcome in 92% of cases, impacting data cannot be obtained. If the other factors (independent variables) can
several safety and ergonomic dimensions. Such a wide disparity of also be defined with survey questions, such a large cross-sectional study
outcomes in the two most common methods found in the literature is a might be feasible.
matter to consider when examining the unclear relationship between LM The aptitude of the LM systems and methods is generally unstated in
and safety/ergonomics. the literature. However, if the safety and ergonomic outcomes occurred
in an incomplete or poorly designed LM method or system, then these
4.2. Areas for future research outcomes might be attributed to a poorly functioning system. The use of
a survey to assess the state of a lean implementation, such as the survey
Krafcik (1988) noted that cultural differences between native Japa­ by Huang, Harris, and Loyd (Huang et al., 2021), could be compared to
nese TPS and transplanted TPS affected efficiency outcomes. Likewise, safety data to determine if lean aptitude has any bearing on safety and
there is an indication that the country and/or culture where LM practice ergonomic outcomes. Company incident rates are publicly available
occurs influences the relationship between LM and safety and ergo­ from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
nomics. Brown and O’Rourke (2007) established that obstacles to NIOSH, which could be used to define the safety and ergonomic
effective worker participation in China must be overcome to realize component of the study.
safety under LM, whereas Kumar and Kumar (2016) found that Indian While most of the literature search results pertained to front-line
culture embraces the idea that worker participation is a necessary manufacturing workers, two studies contained outcomes for managers.
component of LM. Our research harmonizes with this view, as all out­ Hussain, Rehman, Case, Masood, and Habib (Hussain et al., 2016) found
comes in this review that took place in China, along with France, had that standardized work created less stress for white-collar workers in a
exclusively negative outcomes; while outcomes that occurred in India case study in Pakistan. Conversely, Huo and Boxall (2017) found role
were entirely positive. Scientific confirmation of this notion, along with overload to be a risk in a case study of 226 front-line LM managers in
how these cultural differences manifest into variations in safety and China. The effect of LM on supervisors and managers is another op­
ergonomic outcomes, would be a meaningful contribution to the LM and portunity for meaningful research.
Safety/Ergonomic communities.
There are signs that unionized companies experience dispropor­
tionately negative safety and ergonomic outcomes (Kaminski, 2001). Declaration of competing interest
This outcome might be attributed to automobile manufacturing com­
panies, as they have a high propensity for both unionization and LM The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
adoption. Regardless, a determination of what effect unionization has on interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the relationship between LM and safety and ergonomics would also be a the work reported in this paper.
meaningful contribution to the literature.
Ergonomic assessment methods such as OCRA (Occupational Re­ Acknowledgement
petitive Actions), RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment), and REBA
(Rapid Entire Body Assessment) are designed to determine safety and This research was partially supported by the Deep South Center for
ergonomic risk in work activities. An increase in work intensity is a Occupational Health and Safety, a National Institute for Occupational
common outcome from LM systems and methods, especially JIT. Safety and Health (NIOSH) Education and Research Center (Grant
Therefore, a derivative method of determining a work frequency limit, #5T42 OH008436-16). The contents are solely the viewpoint of the
based on the movement details of a particular job, would benefit man­ authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Deep
agers and engineers in the design and implementation of a JIT system. South Center or NIOSH.
The review findings also indicate that different industries experience
different results from LM implementation and methods. For example, References
our research concurs with Koukoulaki (2014), in that negative safety
and ergonomic outcomes in the automotive industry are more evident Abeysekera, J., Illankoon, P., 2016. The demands and benefits of ergonomics in Sri
Lankan apparel industry: a case study at MAS holdings. Work 55 (2), 255–261.
than other industries. Conversely, the textile industry had only positive Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B., Levine, D., 1998. Stability and Change at NUMMI," between
outcomes from our research. Experimental confirmation of this ten­ Imitation and Innovation, the Transfer and Hybridization of Productive Models in the
dency, and determination of causes for differences, would also be a International Automobile Industry, pp. 128–161 (Between imitation and innovation,
the transfer and hybridization of productive models in the international automobile
meaningful contribution. industry).
The number of respondents in the study sample group also appeared Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B., Levine, D.I., 1997. Ergonomics, employee involvement, and the
to have some bearing on the nature of the outcome. A sample size of 150 Toyota Production System: a case study of Nummi’s 1993 model introduction. ILR
Review 50 (3), 416–437.
people or less resulted in about 2 to 1 positive to negative outcomes. On Adzrie, M., Chai, F., Elcy, K., Joselyn, R., Mohd-Lair, N., Madlan, M., 2019.
the other hand, a sample size of more than 150 people contained more Implementation of 5S in small and medium enterprises (SME). Journal of Advanced
negative outcomes than positive by about a 5 to 1 ratio. One category Research Design 61 (1), 1–18.
Alcaraz, J.L.G., Maldonado, A.A., Iniesta, A.A., Robles, G.C., Hernández, G.A., 2014.
that stands out is the effect of unspecified lean methods or systems on
A systematic review/survey for JIT implementation: Mexican maquiladoras as case
workload and work intensity, where all eleven negative outcomes were study. Comput. Ind. 65 (4), 761–773, 2014/05/01/.
found with sample sizes larger than 150. These tendencies may imply Alhuraish, I., Robledo, C., Kobi, A., 2016. Impacts of lean manufacturing and six sigma.
that company size is associated with safety and ergonomic outcomes due In: In 22nd ISSAT International Conference on Reliability and Quality in Design.
Alkhoraif, A., Rashid, H., McLaughlin, P., 2019. Lean implementation in small and
to LM, or that negative outcome data might be suppressed by smaller medium enterprises: literature review. Operations Research Perspectives 6, 100089,
sample sizes. 2018/12/07/.

11
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Anderson-Connolly, R., Grunberg, L., Greenberg, E.S., Moore, S., 2002. Is lean mean? assembly lines-a follow-up study in a German automotive manufacturing company.
Workplace transformation and employee well-being. Work. Employ. Soc. 16 (3), Work 41 (Suppl. 1), 5121–5128.
389–413 (Work, employment and society). Fattouh, B., 2007. OPEC Pricing Power: the Need for a New Perspective. Oxford Institute
Annamalai, S., Vinoth Kumar, H., Bagathsingh, N., 2020. Analysis of lean manufacturing for Energy Studies.
layout in a textile industry. Mater. Today Proc. 33, 3486–3490. Fernandes, J.P., Godina, R., Matias, J.C., 2018. Evaluating the impact of 5S
Arezes, P.M., Dinis-Carvalho, J., Alves, A.C., 2015. Workplace ergonomics in lean implementation on occupational safety in an automotive industrial unit. In:
production environments: a literature review. Work 52 (1), 57–70 (Work). Presented at the International Joint Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Aziz, A., Moussa, A., Nafee, A., 2017. Lean manufacturing system and its impacts on Operations Management XXIV IJCIEOM, Lisbon, Portugal.
work environment and human health in garments manufacturing. Egyptian Journal Godard, J., 2001. High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of
of Occupational Medicine 41 (2), 237–258. alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. ILR Review 54
Babson, S., 1993. Lean or mean: the MIT model and lean production at Mazda. Labor (4), 776–805.
Stud. J. 18, 3–24. Godinho Filho, M., Marchesini, A.G., Riezebos, J., Vandaele, N., Ganga, G.M.D., 2017.
Bao, S.S., et al., 2016. Relationships between job organisational factors, biomechanical The application of quick response manufacturing practices in Brazil, Europe, and the
and psychosocial exposures. Ergonomics 59 (2), 179–194. USA: an exploratory study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 193, 437–448, 2017/11/01/.
Beraldin, A.R., Danese, P., Romano, P., 2019. An investigation of the relationship Goswami, D., Gupta, R.K., Choudhary, B., 2019. An experimental examination of ‘5S’
between lean and well-being based on the job demands-resources model. Int. J. technique for continuous improvement of the manufacturing process. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 29 (12), 1295–1322. Innovative Technol. Explor. Eng. 8 (11), 3494–3497.
Bernardo, M.H., Sato, L., 2010. Toyotism in Brazil: the contrast between discourse and Grant, M.J., Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
practice and the consequences for workers’ health. New Solut.: a Journal of associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26 (2), 91–108.
Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 20 (3), 349–367. Gronning, T., 1997. The emergence and institutionalization of toyotism: subdivision and
Böckerman, P., Bryson, A., Ilmakunnas, P., 2012. Does high involvement management integration of the labour force at the Toyota motor corporation from the 1950s to the
improve worker wellbeing? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 84 (2), 660–680, 2012/11/01/. 1970s. Econ. Ind. Democr. 18 (3), 423–455.
Bocquet, R., Dubouloz, S., Chakor, T., 2019. Lean manufacturing, human resource Grunberg, L., Moore, S., Greenberg, E.S., Sikora, P., 2008. The changing workplace and
management and worker health: are there smart bundles of practices along the its effects: a longitudinal examination of employee responses at a large company.
adoption process? Journal of Innovation Economics Management 30 (3), 113–144. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44 (2), 215–236.
Bouville, G., Alis, D., 2014. The effects of lean organizational practices on employees’ Gupta, S., Jain, S.K., 2014. The 5S and kaizen concept for overall improvement of the
attitudes and workers’ health: evidence from France. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25 organisation: a case study. International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research 1 (1),
(21), 3016–3037. 22–40.
Brännmark, M., 2010. Is lean no longer mean?: a study of the consequences for working Håkansson, M., Dellve, L., Waldenström, M., Holden, R.J., 2017. Sustained lean
conditions in companies implementing lean. In: Forum För Arbetslivsforsknings transformation of working conditions: a Swedish longitudinal case study. Human
Årliga Konferens. FALF. Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 27 (6), 268–279
Brännmark, M., Holden, R.J., 2013. Packages of participation: Swedish employees’ (Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries).
experience of lean depends on how they are involved. IIE Transactions on Hamja, A., Hossain, A., Maalouf, M.M., Hasle, P., 2017. A review paper on lean and
Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors 1 (2), 93–108. occupational health and safety (OHS) in RMG industry. In: 4th International
Brenner, M.D., Fairris, D., Ruser, J., 2004. “Flexible” work practices and occupational Conference on Mechanical Engineering and Renewable Energy 2017. Chittagong,
safety and health: exploring the relationship between cumulative trauma disorders Bangladesh.
and workplace transformation. Ind. Relat.: A Journal of Economy and Society 43 (1), Hamja, A., Maalouf, M., Hasle, P., 2019. The effect of lean on occupational health and
242–266. safety and productivity in the garment industry–a literature review. Production &
Brown, G.D., O’rourke, D., 2007. Lean manufacturing comes to China: a case study of its Manufacturing Research 7 (1), 316–334.
impact on workplace health and safety. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 13 (3), Härenstam, A., Rydbeck, A., Johansson, K., Karlqvist, M., Wiklund, P., 2002. Work life
249–257. and organizational changes and how they are perceived by the employees. In: I, K.,
Bruno, R., Jordan, L., 2002. Lean production and the discourse of dissent. Work. U. S. A. H, C., E, C., T, T. (Eds.), Health Effects of the New Labour Market. Springer,
6 (1), 108–134 (WorkingUSA). pp. 105–117.
Camuffo, A., De Stefano, F., Paolino, C., 2017. Safety reloaded: lean operations and high Hasle, P., Bojesen, A., Langaa Jensen, P., Bramming, P., 2012. Lean and the working
involvement work practices for sustainable workplaces. J. Bus. Ethics 143, 245–259 environment: a review of the literature. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 32 (7), 829–849
(Journal of Business Ethics). (International Journal of Operations & Production Management).
Chan, A., Chen, Y.P., Xie, Y., Wei, Z., Walker, C., 2014. Disposable bodies and labor Hernández Lamprea, E.J., Camargo Carreño, Z.M., Martínez Sánchez, P.M.T., 2015.
rights: workers in China’s automotive industry. Work. U. S. A. 17 (4), 509–529. Impact of 5S on productivity, quality, organizational climate and industrial safety in
Chiarini, A., Vagnoni, E., 2014. Lean production, job satisfaction and motivation in the Caucho Metal Ltda. Ingeniare Rev. Chil. Ing. 23 (1), 107–117.
Italian manufacturing industry," presented at the Atti del XXVI Convegno annuale di Holweg, M., 2007. The genealogy of lean production. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (2), 420–437,
Sinergie. 2007/03/01/.
A. Cierniak-Emerych and R. Golej, "Changes in safety of working conditions as a result of Huang, Z., Harris, G., Loyd, N., 2021. An improved lean assessment based on employee
introducing 5S practices," IBIMA Bus. Rev., vol. 2020, 2020. perception. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 32 (4), 887–908. Ahead-of-Print, no. Ahead-
Cochrane, W., Law, M., Piercy, G.L., 2005. Lean, but is it mean? Union members’ views of-Print.
on a high performance workplace system. In: Proceedings of the 19th Conference of Hunter, S.L., 2001. Ergonomic evaluation of manufacturing system designs. J. Manuf.
the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand. Syst. 20 (6), 429–444.
University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 129–138. Hunter, S.L., 2008. The Toyota production system applied to the upholstery furniture
Conti, R., Angelis, J., Cooper, C., Faragher, B., Gill, C., 2006. The effects of lean manufacturing industry. Mater. Manuf. Process. 23 (7), 629–634.
production on worker job stress. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26 (9), 1013–1038. Huo, M.L., Boxall, P., 2017. Lean production and the well-being of the frontline manager:
Cullinane, S.-J., Bosak, J., Flood, P.C., Demerouti, E., 2014. Job design under lean the job demands–resources model as a diagnostic tool in Chinese manufacturing.
manufacturing and the quality of working life: a job demands and resources Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 55 (3), 280–297.
perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25 (21), 2996–3015. Huo, M.L., Boxall, P., 2018. Are all aspects of lean production bad for workers? An
de Negreiros, A.W.F., da Silva, P.R., Arezes, P.M.F.M., Dangelino, R., Padula, R.S., 2019. analysis of how problem-solving demands affect employee well-being. Hum. Resour.
Manufacturing assembly serial and cells layouts impact on rest breaks and workers’ Manag. J. 28 (4), 569–584.
health. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 70, 22–27. Huo, M.-L., Boxall, P., Cheung, G.W., 2019. Lean production, work intensification and
Demeter, K., Matyusz, Z., 2011. The impact of lean practices on inventory turnover. Int. employee wellbeing: can line-manager support make a difference? Econ. Ind.
J. Prod. Econ. 133 (1), 154–163 (International Journal of Production Economics). Democr. 1–23. December 2019.
Deshkar, A., Kamle, S., Giri, J., Korde, V., 2018. Design and evaluation of a lean Hussain, A., Rehman, A.U., Case, K., Masood, T., Habib, M.S., 2016. Lean manufacturing
manufacturing framework using value stream mapping (VSM) for a plastic bag culture: the role of human perceptions of standardized work. In: Proceedings of the
manufacturing unit. Part 2 Mater. Today Proc. 5 (2), 7668–7677, 2018/01/01/. Sixteenth International Conference on Manufacturing Research. Skövde, Sweden,
Dieste, M., Baseggio, A., Panizzolo, R., Biazzo, S., 2020. Lean Thinking and Workplace pp. 523–528.
Safety: insights from two improvement projects. In: Presented at the International Jackson, P.R., Martin, R., 1996. Impact of just-in-time on job content, employee attitudes
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM 2020), and well-being: a longitudinal study. Ergonomics 39 (1), 1–16 (Ergonomics).
Dubai, UAE. Jackson, P.R., Mullarkey, S., 2000. Lean production teams and health in garment
Distelhorst, G., Hainmueller, J., Locke, R.M., 2017. Does lean improve labor standards? manufacture. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5 (2), 231–245.
Management and social performance in the Nike supply chain. Manag. Sci. 63 (3), Kaminski, M., 2001. Unintended consequences: organizational practices and their impact
707–728. on workplace safety and productivity. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 6 (2), 127–138.
Edwards, K., Thye, N., Nielsen, A.P., 2011. Lean and psychosocial work environment in Khandelwal, A., Prathik, R., Kikani, R.P., Ramesh, V., 2014. 5S implementation and its
manufacturing. In: 21th International Conference on Production Research. effect on physical workload. Int. J. Renew. Energy Technol. 3 (9), 437–440.
Fraunhofer-Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. Koukoulaki, T., 2014. The impact of lean production on musculoskeletal and
Eklund, J., Berglund, P., 2007. Reactions from employees on the implementation of lean psychosocial risks: an examination of sociotechnical trends over 20 years. Appl.
production. In: Presented at the Nordic Ergonomics Society (NES) Annual Ergon. 45 (2), 198–212 (Applied Ergonomics).
Conference 2007, Lysekil, Sweden. Krafcik, J.F., 1988. Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Manag. Rev. 30 (1),
Enríquez-Díaz, J.-A., Kotzab, D., Sytch, A., Frieling, E., 2012. Impact of increasing 41–52.
productivity on work content and psychosocial work characteristics in Chaku-Chaku Kumar, R., Kumar, V., 2015. Lean manufacturing in Indian context: a survey.
Management Science Letters 5 (4), 321–330.

12
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Kumar, R., Kumar, V., 2016. Effect of lean manufacturing on organisational performance Randhawa, J.S., Ahuja, I.S., 2018. An investigation into manufacturing performance
of Indian industry: a survey. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag. 17 (3), 380–393. achievements accrued by Indian manufacturing organization through strategic 5S
Landsbergis, P.A., Cahill, J., Schnall, P., 1999. The impact of lean production and related practices. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 67 (4), 754–787.
new systems of work organization on worker health. Journal of Occupational Health Ratnayake, R., Dinosha, V., 2018. Effectiveness of lean manufacturing layout of a firm
Psychology, Review 4 (2), 108–130 (Journal of occupational health psychology). within the apparel industry of Sri Lanka: a case study. In: In 2nd International
Leroyer, A., Kraemer-Heriaud, H., Marescaux, L., Frimat, P., 2006. Prospective Conference in Technology Management, iNCOTeM 2018, p. 17.
evaluation of the impact of a change in the organization of work on perceived stress Resta, B., Dotti, S., Gaiardelli, P., Boffelli, A., 2016. Lean manufacturing and
and health in assembly-line workers in an automobile plant. Rev. Epidémiol. Santé sustainability: an integrated view. In: IFIP International Conference on Advances in
Publique 54 (1), 15–25. Production Management Systems. Initiatives for a Sustainable World. Springer,
Lewchuk, W., Robertson, D., 1997. Production without empowerment: work Cham, pp. 659–666.
reorganization from the perspective of motor vehicle workers. Cap. Cl. 21 (3), Rinehart, J., Huxley, C., Robertson, D., 1994. Worker commitment and labour
37–64. management relations under lean production at CAMI. Relations industrielles/
Lewchuk, W., Robertson, D., 1999. The Canadian automobile workers and lean Industrial Relations 49 (4), 750–775.
production: results of a worker-based benchmarking study. In: Waddington, J. (Ed.), Robertson, D., Rinehart, J., Huxley, C., 1992. Team concept and kaizen: Japanese
Globalization and Patterns of Labour Resistance. Mansell, London, pp. 56–71. production management in a unionized Canadian auto plant. Stud. Polit. Econ. 39
Lewchuk, W., Stewart, P., Yates, C., 2001. Quality of working life in the automobile (1), 77–107.
industry: a Canada-UK comparative study. New Technol. Work. Employ. 16 (2), Rojasra, P., Qureshi, M., 2013. Performance improvement through 5S in small scale
72–87. industry: a case study. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research 3 (3),
Liker, J.K., 2004. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest 1654–1660.
Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill Professional. Sakthi Nagaraj, T., Jeyapaul, R., 2020. An empirical investigation on association between
Liker, J.K., Hoseus, M., 2010. Human resource development in Toyota culture. Int. J. human factors, ergonomics and lean manufacturing. Prod. Plann. Control 1–15.
Hum. Resour. Dev. Manag. 10 (1), 34–50. Saurin, T.A., Ferreira, C.F., 2009. The impacts of lean production on working conditions:
Longoni, A., Pagell, M., Johnston, D., Veltri, A., 2013. When does lean hurt?–an a case study of a harvester assembly line in Brazil. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39 (2), 403–412.
exploration of lean practices and worker health and safety outcomes. Int. J. Prod. Sauter, S.L., et al., 2002. The Changing Organization of Work and the Safety and Health
Res. 51 (11), 3300–3320. of Working People. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Lu, J.L., 2009. Effect of work intensification and work extensification on women’s health Cincinnati, OH.
in the globalised labour market. J. Int. Wom. Stud. 10 (4), 111–126. Schouteten, R., Benders, J., 2004. Lean production assessed by Karasek’s job demand–job
Manfredsson, P., 2016. Textile management enabled by lean thinking: a case study of control model. Econ. Ind. Democr. 25 (3), 347–373.
textile SMEs. Prod. Plann. Control 27 (7–8), 541–549. Seddik, K., 2019. The impact of 5S strategy on the safety climate & productivity at
Mehri, D., 2006. The darker side of lean: an insider’s perspective on the realities of the Egyptian garment firms (assembly plants). Open J. Bus. Manag. 7 (2), 1072–1087.
Toyota production system. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 20 (2), 21–42. Seppälä, P., Klemola, S., 2004. How do employees perceive their organization and job
Mohiuddin, A., Rahman, M.A., Jabar, J.B.H.A., 2015. Adoption and adaptation of when companies adopt principles of lean production? Human Factors and
Japanese manufacturing management in an automotive company of Malaysia. Adv. Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 14 (2), 157–180.
Mater. Res. 1115, 589–595. Shaikh, S., Cobb, S., Golightly, D., Segal, J., Haslegrave, C., 2012. Investigating the
Monden, Y., 2011. Toyota Production System: an Integrated Approach to Just-In-Time. effects of physical and cognitive demands on the quality of performance under
CRC Press. different pacing levels. Work 41 (Suppl. 1), 1625–1631.
Morvan, E., Buchmann, W., 2018. What becomes of lean manufacturing after it is Shanmuganathan, J., Sripriya, S.T., SathishKumar, A., 2014. A study on employee
implemented? A longitudinal analysis in 2 French multinational companies. In: opinion towards 5S implementation in PGC Textile Corporation (P) Ltd, Tirupur. Int.
Presented at the Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 256–258.
Mothersell, W.M., Moore, M.L., Strolle, M., 2008. A brownfield lean conversion: a case Shingo, S., Dillon, A.P., 1989. A Study of the Toyota Production System: from an
study of Opel Belgium. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag. 3 (2), 161–182. Industrial Engineering Viewpoint. CRC Press.
Mousavi, S.S., Jazani, R.K., Cudney, E.A., Trucco, P., 2020. Quantifying the relationship Shoaf, C., Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., Huang, S.H., 2004. Improving performance and
between lean maturity and occupational health and safety: antecedents and leading quality of working life: a model for organizational health assessment in emerging
indicators. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 11 (1), 150–170. enterprises. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
Mullarkey, S., Jackson, P., Parker, S., 1995. Employee reactions to JIT manufacturing 14 (1), 81–95 (Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service
practices: a two-phase investigation. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 15 (11), 62–79. Industries).
Mutaza, M.S.R., Ani, M.N.C., Hassan, A., 2020. Investigation the impact of 5S Singh, A., Ahuja, I.S., 2014. Evaluating the impact of 5S methodology on manufacturing
implementation toward accident-free manufacturing industries. In: Abu Bakar, M., performance. Int. J. Bus. Continuity Risk Manag. 5 (4), 272–305.
Azwa Zamri, F., Öchsner, A. (Eds.), Progress in Engineering Technology II, Advanced Singh, K., Deokar, A., 2018. Effects of 5S implementation on performance of
Structured Materials, vol. 131. Springer, Cham, pp. 199–204. organization. Int. J. Bus. Gen. Manag. 7 (2), 1–14.
Nagaraj, T.S., Jeyapaul, R., 2018. Ergonomic study on work postures of sewing machine Srinivasan, S., Ikuma, L.H., Shakouri, M., Nahmens, I., Harvey, C., 2016. 5S impact on
operators in government industry: a case in lean environment garment industry. In: safety climate of manufacturing workers. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 27 (3), 364–378
Ray, P., Maiti, J. (Eds.), Ergonomic Design of Products and Worksystems-21st (Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management).
Century Perspectives of Asia, Managing the Asian Century. Springer, Singapore, Stewart, P., Garrahan, P., 1995. Employee responses to new management techniques in
pp. 83–101. the auto industry. Work. Employ. Soc. 9 (3), 517–536.
Nakamura, M., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R., 1998. Adoption of just-in-time Stewart, P., Mrozowicki, A., Danford, A., Murphy, K., 2016. Lean as ideology and
manufacturing methods at US-and Japanese-owned plants: some empirical evidence. practice: a comparative study of the impact of lean production on working life in
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 45 (3), 230–240. automotive manufacturing in the United Kingdom and Poland. Compet. Change 20
National Research Council, 1982. The Competitive Status of the US Auto Industry: A (3), 147–165.
Study of the Influences of Technology in Determining International Industrial Stimec, A., 2020. Lean management and occupational health: team learning as a key
Competitive Advantage. National Academies Press. factor. J. Workplace Learn. 32 (5), 363–375.
Nikolou-Walker, E., Lavery, K., 2009. A work-based research assessment of the impact of Sugimori, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F., Uchikawa, S., 1977. Toyota production system and
‘lean manufacturing’on health and safety education within an SME. Res. Post- kanban system materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system. Int. J.
Compulsory Educ. 14 (4), 441–458. Prod. Res. 15 (6), 553–564.
Nunes, F., Vaccaro, G.L.R., Antunes, J.A.V., 2017. The development of the Hyundai Sujatha, Y., Rao, K.P., 2013. A study on lean manufacturing tools and techniques
Production System: the historical evolution. J. Manuf. Syst. 43, 47–57, 2017/04/01/ implementation in the andhrapradesh silk production industry. International Journal
. of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research 2 (4), 59–73.
Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota Production System: beyond Large-Scale Production. Productivity Suryaprakash, M., Gomathi Prabha, M., Yuvaraja, M., Rishi Revanth, R.V., 2020.
Press, New York. Improvement of overall equipment effectiveness of machining centre using tpm. In:
Pagell, M., Dibrell, C., Veltri, A., Maxwell, E., 2014. Is an efficacious operation a safe Materials Today: Proceedings, pp. 1–6.
operation: the role of operational practices in worker safety outcomes. IEEE Trans. Todorovic, M., Cupic, M., 2017. How does 5s implementation affect company
Eng. Manag. 61 (3), 511–521. performance? A case study applied to a subsidiary of a rubber goods manufacturer
Parker, S.K., 2003. Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and from Serbia. Eng. Econ. 28 (3), 311–322.
the mediating role of work characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (4), 620–634 Tortorella, G.L., Fettermann, D.C., Piñeres, A., Gaiardelli, P., 2019. The moderating role
(Journal of Applied Psychology). of just-in-time on sociotechnical practices’ effect over quality and workers’ health.
Parker, S., Sprigg, C., 1998. A move backwards? The introduction of a moving assembly Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 29 (3),
line. In: Presented at the Proceedings of British Psychological Society Annual 210–223.
Occupational Psychology Conference, Leicester, England. Tregaskis, O., Daniels, K., Glover, L., Butler, P., Meyer, M., 2013. High performance work
Parker, S.K., Myers, C., Wall, T.D., 1995. The effects of a manufacturing initiative on practices and firm performance: a longitudinal case study. Br. J. Manag. 24 (2),
employee jobs and strain. Contemp. Ergon. 37–42, 1995. 225–244.
Ramesh, N., Ravi, A., 2016. 5S route for safety management. Int. J. Bus. Excel. 10 (3), Ulewicz, R., Lazar, L.V., 2019. The effect of lean tools on the safety level in
283–300. manufacturing organisations. System Safety: Human-Technical Facility-Environment
Ramesh, N., Ravi, A., 2017. Determinants of total employee involvement: a case study of 1 (1), 514–521.
a cutting tool company. Int. J. Bus. Excel. 11 (2), 221–240. van Eijnatten, F.M., 2000. From Intensive to Sustainable Work Systems. Institute for
Business Engineering and Technology Application, pp. 47–66.

13
J.G. Brawner et al. Applied Ergonomics 100 (2022) 103673

Velázquez, L., Munguía, N., de los Angeles Navarrete, M., Zavala, A., 2006. An overview Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., Carpenter, D.S., 1990. The Machine that Changed
of sustainability practices at the maquiladora industry in Mexico. Manag. Environ. the World. Rawson Associates, New York.
Qual. Int. J. 17 (4), 478–489. Womack, S.K., Armstrong, T.J., Liker, J.K., 2009. Lean job design and musculoskeletal
Veres, C., Marian, L., Moica, S., Al-Akel, K., 2018/01/01/2018. Case study concerning 5S disorder risk: a two plant comparison. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
method impact in an automotive company. Procedia Manuf. 22, 900–905. Manufacturing & Service Industries 19 (4), 279–293.
Vieira, L., Balbinotti, G., Varasquin, A., Gontijo, L., 2012. Ergonomics and Kaizen as Wong, S.B., Richardson, S., 2010. Assessment of working conditions in two different
strategies for competitiveness: a theoretical and practical in an automotive industry. semiconductor manufacturing lines: effective ergonomics interventions. Human
Work 41 (Suppl. 1), 1756–1762. Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 20 (5), 391–407.
Wan Mahmood, W.H., Yusup, M.Z., Salleh, M.R., Mohd Yusof, A.S., 2015. The relation Yildirim, E., 1999. Modern management techniques in the developing world: the case of
between manufacturing sustainability and lean production in Malaysian industries- TQM and its impact on workers in Turkey. Work. Employ. Soc. 13 (4), 693–709.
an initial study. Appl. Mech. Mater. 761, 560–565. Zhang, L., 2015. Lean production “with Chinese characteristics”: a case study of China’s
Widyanti, A., Larutama, W., 2016. In: The Relation between Performance of Lean automobile industry. Int. J. Sociol. 45 (2), 152–170.
Manufacturing and Employee’ Mental Workload," in 2016 IEEE International Zocca, R., Lima, T.M., Gaspar, P.D., Charrua-Santos, F., 2018. Kaizen Approach for the
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Bali. systematic review of occupational safety and health procedures in food industries.
IEEE, pp. 252–256. In: International Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design, vol. 876.
Wiengarten, F., Fan, D., Lo, C.K., Pagell, M., 2017. The differing impacts of operational Springer, Cham, pp. 722–727.
and financial slack on occupational safety in varying market conditions. J. Oper. Zohar, D., 2000. A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate
Manag. 52 (1), 30–45. on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 (4), 587–596.
Winkel, J., Westgaard, R., 2008. Risk factors of occupational MSDs and potential Zohar, D., Luria, G., 2005. A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships
solutions: past, present and future. Risk 34, 3–7. between organization and group-level climates. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (4), 616–628.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 1996. Lean thinking–Banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 48 (11).

14