CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Workplace Health and Well-beingFacilities and Workplace ManagementEmployee Performance and Management

An analytical study of the work environment in industrial companies: Evidence from Arab countries

Open access
Wagdi, Osama, Sayed, Said·2023·Cogent Social Sciences
DOI 10.1080/23311886.2023.2175489
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigated the features of the work environment in Arab industrial companies. This study was conducted by using a quantitative survey with 108 items that correspond to their views and opinions on their work environment and identify their individual stress and productivity levels based on a combination of four preexisting surveys; “Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)”, “Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS)”, “Work Environment Survey (WES)” and “World Health Organisation—Workplace Health and Productivity Questionnaire (WHO-HPQ)”. A total of 434 responses were received on May 2022 from seven Arab countries (Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia). The study found a difference in the characteristics of the work environment in Arab industrial companies, where there is a difference in the attitudes of workers in those companies towards “Perceived Stress”, “Work Productivity”, “Work Environment”, and “Workplace Health and productivity” between Arab industrial companies according to the country. The study can explain this result according to the difference in financial and technology resources between manufacturing companies in the Arab Gulf versus Egypt and Jordan. Finally, there are two evidences that can be implemented immediately. A significant percentage of unsatisfied work environments are derived from a lack of relationships between supervisors and subordinates. It is therefore advisable for companies to devise a training programme to achieve a healthy work environment on the other hand.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23311886.2023.2175489

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ergonomics has proven essential for the sustainable development of the manufacturing industry.

    “La ergonomía, entendida como la disciplina que estudia la relación entre las personas y los componentes de los sistemas de trabajo, ha demostrado ser esencial para el desarrollo sostenible de la industria manufacturera [1], [2], [3].”

    From Impact of ergonomics on work performance in the manufacturing industry: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

    Section 2.1 (page not provided) defines ergonomics in terms of safe, comfortable human–system interaction and says poor ergonomics can impair task performance and harm workers. It does not establish that ergonomics has proven essential to the sustainable development of the manufacturing industry. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Inadequate postures, repetitive activity, and use of weights are important risk factors in the industry.

    “Estos estudios, que incluyen evaluaciones posturales con métodos como OWAS y REBA, demuestran que las posturas inadecuadas, de actividad repetitiva y el uso de pesos, son factores de riesgo importantes en la industria [3].”

    From Impact of ergonomics on work performance in the manufacturing industry: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

    Section 2.1, “Physical work environment” (page not supplied), links poor industrial ergonomics and manual handling to physical stress and possible musculoskeletal injury. It does not identify repetitive activity or the use of weights specifically as risk factors, and it does not report postural evaluations using OWAS or REBA. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A deficient work environment adversely influences general well-being and work aptitude, increasing the risk of accidents and diseases.

    “Los estudios señalan que un entorno de trabajo deficiente influir de manera adversa en el bienestar general y en la aptitud de trabajo, incrementando el riesgo de accidentes y enfermedades [3], [19].”

    From Impact of ergonomics on work performance in the manufacturing industry: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) links a poor work environment to stress, declining health and reduced work performance. Section 2.1 (page unavailable) describes injuries and illnesses associated with poor ergonomics and harsh working conditions, but does not specifically say that a deficient work environment increases the risk of accidents. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Amick, B. C., Robertson, M. M., DeRango, K., Bazzani, L., Moore, A., Rooney, T., & Harrist, R. (2003). Effect of office ergonomics intervention on reducing muscu- loskeletal symptoms. Spine, 28, 2706-2711. https:// doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000099740.87791.F7 · DOI
  2. Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive organizational intervention: Addressing the needs of the Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials. Journal of Leadership. Accountability, and Ethics, 8(4), 67-83. http://www.na-businesspress.com/JLAE/andert_ abstract.html
  3. Bubonya, M., Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Wooden, M. (2017). Mental health and productivity at work: Does what you do matter? Labour Economics, 46, 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2017.05.001 · DOI
  4. Capuano, T., Bokovoy, J., Hitchings, K., & Houser, J. (2005). Use of a validated model to evaluate the impact of the work environment on outcomes at a magnet hospital. Health Care Management Review, 30(3), 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004010-200507000-00007 · DOI
  5. Carrivick, P. J., Lee, A. H., Yau, K. K., & Stevenson, M. R. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of a participatory ergonomics approach in reducing the risk and severity of injuries from manual handling. Ergonomics, 48, 907-914. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0014013042000327698 · DOI
  6. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1994). Perceived stress scale. Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists, 10(2), 1-2. https://books. google.com.eg/books/about/Measuring_Stress.html?
  7. Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organi- zational psychology (pp. 193-237). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119992592.ch6 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Despiégel, N., Danchenko, N., François, C., Lensberg, B., & Drummond, M. F. (2012). The use and performance of productivity scales to evaluate presenteeism in mood disorders. Value in Health, 15(8), 1148-1161. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2206 · DOI
  9. Dick, N., & Shepherd, G. (1994). Work and mental health: A preliminary test of Warr's model in sheltered workshops for the mentally ill. Journal of Mental Health, 3(3), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.3109/ 09638239408997949 · DOI
  10. Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environ- ments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 579-599. https:// doi.org/10.1348/096317909X470690 · DOI
  11. Dunbar, E. (1994). The German executive in the US work and social environment: Exploring role demands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94) 90034-5 · DOI
  12. Enam, A., & Konduri, K. C. (2018). Time allocation behavior of twentieth-century American generations: GI gen- eration, silent generation, baby boomers, generation X, and millennials. Transportation Research Record, 2672(49), 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0361198118794710 · DOI
  13. Endicott, J., & Nee, J. (1997). Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS): A new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 33(1), 13. https://eurekamag.com/research/008/601/ 008601091.php
  14. Freund, A., & Band-Winterstein, T. (2013). Between tradition and modernity: Social workrelated change processes in the Jewish ultra-orthodox society in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(4), 422-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.10.003 · DOI
  15. Garrido, R., Garcia-Ramirez, M., & Balcazar, F. E. (2019). Moving towards community cultural competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 73, 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.09.002 · DOI
  16. Harmon, R. B., DeGennaro, G., Norling, M., Kennedy, C., & Fontaine, D. (2017). Implementing healthy work envir- onment standards in an academic workplace: An update. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34(1), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.06.001 · DOI
  17. Hedge, A., & Puleio, J. (2014) Proactive office ergonomics really works. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 482-486.
  18. Huff, S. T., Hanek, K. J., Lee, F., & Brannen, M. Y. (2021). Cultural adaptation and societal context: The role of historical heterogeneity in cultural adaptation of newcomers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 85, 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin trel.2021.09.008 · DOI
  19. Jansson von Vultée, P. H. (2015). Healthy work environ- ment-a challenge? International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 28, 660-666. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJHCQA-11-2014-0108 · DOI
  20. Kaifi, B. A., Nafei, W. A., Khanfar, N. M., & Kaifi, M. M. (2012). A multi-generational workforce: Managing and understanding millennials. International Journal of Business and Management, 7, 88. https://doi.org/ 10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p88 · DOI
  21. Kalliath, T., & Kalliath, P. (2012). Changing work environ- ments and employee wellbeing: An introduction. International Journal of Manpower, 33, 729-737. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721211268285 · DOI
  22. Karim, Y. (2020). Long working hours and their impact on employee productivity in the UAE service sector. In P., Vijay, N., Mark, T., Yama, & Q., Wardah (Eds.), Human Capital in the Middle East (pp. 119-145). Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.springerprofes sional.de/en/long-working-hours-and-their-impact- on-employee-productivity-in-/18302158
  23. Kessler, R. C., Ames, M., Hymel, P. A., Loeppke, R., McKenas, D. K., Richling, D. E., . . . Ustun, T. B. (2004). Using the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) to evaluate the indir- ect workplace costs of illness. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46, S23-S37. https://doi. org/10.1097/01.jom.0000126683.75201. · DOI
  24. Kessler, R. C., Barber, C., Beck, A., Berglund, P., Cleary, P. D., McKenas, D., Pronk, N., Simon, G., Stang, P., Ustun, T. B., & Wang, P. (2003). The world health organization health and work performance ques- tionnaire (HPQ). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45, 156-174. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/01.jom.0000052967.43131. · DOI
  25. Kim, D. Y., & Park, S. (2020). Rethinking millennials: How are they shaping the tourism industry? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(1), 1-2. https://doi. org/10.1080/10941665.2019.1667607 · DOI
  26. Koburtay, T., Refai, D., & Haloub, R. (2020). The role of cultural pressures and group favouritism in shaping Syrian refu- gees' identity in the Jordanian work environment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 79, 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.08.002 · DOI
  27. Lee, E. H. (2012). Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nursing Research, 6(4), 121-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Lewis, R. J., Krawiec, M., Confer, E., Agopsowicz, D., & Crandall, E. (2002). Musculoskeletal disorder worker compensation costs and injuries before and after an office ergonomics program. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29, 95-99. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0169-8141(01)00054-3 · DOI
  29. Mital, A. (2017). Guide to manual materials handling. CRC Press.
  30. Petreanu, V., Iordache, R., & Seracin, M. (2013). Assessment of work stress influence on work pro- ductivity in Romanian companies. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 420-425. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.695 · DOI
  31. Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 717-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2212-5671(15)00524-9 · DOI
  32. Robertson, M., Amick, B. C., DeRango, K., Rooney, T., Bazzani, L., Harrist, R., & Moore, A. (2009). The effects of an office ergonomics training and chair interven- tion on worker knowledge, behavior and musculos- keletal risk. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 124-135. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2007.12.009 · DOI
  33. Robertson, M. M., Ciriello, V. M., & Garabet, A. M. (2013). Office ergonomics training and a sit-stand workstation: Effects on musculoskeletal and visual symptoms and perfor- mance of office workers. Applied Ergonomics, 44, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.001 · DOI
  34. Ruiz, J., & Coduras, A. (2015). Can company restructuring create a healthier work environment, promote cor- porate entrepreneurship, and improve productivity? Journal of Business Research, 68, 1466-1467. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.035 Sage publications. · DOI
  35. Silla, I., Navajas, J., & Koves, G. K. (2017). Organizational culture and a safety-conscious work environment: The mediating role of employee communication satisfaction. Journal of Safety Research, 61, 121-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.02.005 · DOI
  36. Snook, S. H. (1978). The Ergonomics Society the Society's Lecture 1978. The design of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics, 21, 963-985. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00140137808931804 · DOI
  37. Strömberg, C., Aboagye, E., Hagberg, J., Bergström, G., & Lohela-Karlsson, M. (2017). Estimating the effect and economic impact of absenteeism, presenteeism, and work environment-related problems on reductions in productivity from a managerial perspective. Value in Health, 20(8), 1058-1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval. 2017.05.008 · DOI
  38. Suzuki, T., Miyaki, K., Song, Y., Tsutsumi, A., Kawakami, N., Shimazu, A., Takahashi, M., Inoue, A., & Kurioka, S. (2015). Relationship between sickness presenteeism (WHO-HPQ) with depression and sickness absence due to mental disease in a cohort of Japanese workers. Journal of Affective Disorders, 180, 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.03.034 · DOI
  39. Uguz, S., Inanç, B. Y., Yerlikaya, E. E., & Aydin, H. (2004). Reliability and validity of Turkish form of Endicott Work Productivity Scale. Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi= Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 15(3), 209-214. https:// europepmc.org/article/med/15362005
  40. Zhenjing, G., Chupradit, S., Ku, K. Y., Nassani, A. A., & Haffar, M. (2022). Impact of employees' workplace environment on employees' performance: A multi- mediation model. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 890400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.890400 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagdi, O., & Sayed, S.
Affiliations
  • Egyptian Russian University (EG)
  • Nahda University (EG)
Corresponding author
Wagdi, Osama
ORCID
Venue
Cogent Social Sciences
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-03-02
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-1886 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/23311886.2023.2175489
OpenAlex
W4322762713
Cited by
5
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cogent Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Facilities and Workplace Management
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
Keywords
work environment, industrial enterprises, perceived stress, labor productivity, workplace health, Arab world, supervisor-subordinate relationships, cross-national comparison, manufacturing companies, occupational health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review