Scope and relationship with OHS
Ergonomics in footwear manufacturing examines how tasks, machines, materials and work organisation combine to reduce workload that may affect health. This entry concerns making shoes, rather than selecting protective footwear for other industries. A traditional process can include machinery while still requiring fine handling and repeated operations.
The AVECAL and IBV sector guide identifies workstations spanning cutting, upper stitching, lasting, finishing and warehousing. This diversity prevents a whole factory being assessed from one photograph. It also does not justify automatically attributing a disease to a task without the appropriate assessment.
An applied approach is to connect each operation with incoming materials, outgoing work and style changes. Improvements must preserve machinery safety and product quality. Reducing an awkward posture by transferring effort to the person at the next workstation does not solve the process problem. The assessment therefore needs a view of both the individual station and the surrounding flow of work.
Mapping tasks and actual exposure
Before selecting an assessment method, describe what happens during a representative working day. A proposed record includes styles, materials, batch sizes, supporting operations and waiting periods. Include setup, tooling changes, replenishment, quality checks, rework and cleaning. Observing only the nominal cycle may omit a substantial part of the effort.
Identify tasks requiring precision, force, reaching, prolonged contact or a sustained posture. Ask workers what changes when the material is stiffer, a component resists or supplies arrive mixed together. These questions are a proposal for investigating the workstation, not a clinical scale or validated questionnaire.
Distinguish usual exposure from an exceptional incident, but record both. Select periods and participants that represent work variability, and explain the limits of the sample. Do not turn observation into a speed competition or use an accelerated demonstration as a description of normal activity. Record production conditions so that a later comparison has a meaningful basis.
Cutting and component preparation
For cutting and preparation, examine how material is presented before considering the cutting action alone. As a proposed analysis, follow the route taken by rolls, sheets, patterns, tooling and finished components. Check whether searching for references requires twisting, whether material must be held while a tool is selected and where offcuts are placed.
Royal Decree 487/1997’s priority of avoiding manual handling informs logistics; equipment suitability under Royal Decree 1215/1997 informs the workstation. Any proposed support or aid must remain compatible with guards and safe access to controls. A reaching problem must not be solved by disabling a guard or bringing hands closer to danger.
Trial layout changes with equipment stopped and with the participation of task operators. Compare repositioning and transport needs, visibility and whether the new storage avoids interference. The arrangement must also work when material dimensions change. Record any restrictions that prevent a proposed aid from being used safely with a particular machine.
Upper stitching and precision work
The INSST and IBV study of upper stitching specifically addresses a workstation involving static postures and repetition. OSHA sewing guidance connects material supply and positioning with reaching, pinch grip and posture. These references support investigation; they do not provide a universal workstation height or guarantee freedom from disorders.
A proposed review considers the seat, work surface, foot support, controls and viewing line together. Replacing the chair alone may worsen pedal access or raise the shoulders. Observe incoming and outgoing components too: a container behind the operator may introduce twisting in every cycle even if the position facing the machine appears comfortable.
Trial adjustments with different styles and users while respecting machine instructions and guards. Record what changed and which difficulties remain. Lighting should make the stitch visible without repeatedly bringing the head closer, avoiding shadows or reflections that create new compensations. Ensure that any adjustment remains stable and can be reproduced after another person uses the workstation.
Lasting, support and hand force
Lasting and assembly may combine precise positioning, holding the component and applying force. A proposed investigation distinguishes effort inherent in the operation from effort caused by missing support, poor fit or worn tooling. This distinction helps address causes rather than merely asking the operator to use less force.
Review how the last is supported, which part of the cycle requires pinch grip and where repeated corrections occur. Any holding aid should also be assessed for stability, safe release, compatibility with different sizes and possible trapping points. An improvised machine modification should not be adopted without checking its safety.
Compare proposals using representative materials without asking workers to exert maximum strength. Where force measurement is needed, use an appropriate technical protocol and record the conditions. A single reading does not capture repetition, duration, posture or variation between styles and users. Keep the assessment focused on reducing job demands rather than identifying which worker can tolerate the greatest demand.
Finishing, inspection and packing
Final operations may accumulate small tasks not listed as a separate workstation: inspecting, touching up, matching pairs, inserting packing material, wrapping and closing boxes. A proposed analysis groups these by actual demands and observes what happens when defects appear or references are missing. Rework counts as exposure even when it falls outside planned standard time.
Check the relationship between the inspection surface and incoming and outgoing containers. Improvements may combine component presentation, room to turn the product and separation of pending and completed work. Prevent boxes occupying leg space or storage repeatedly requiring packages to be lifted from the floor.
Finishing ergonomics does not replace assessment of dust, chemicals, noise or machinery hazards where these are present. Review changes together: moving an item closer may improve reach while positioning the worker less favourably relative to local extraction. A successful trial should therefore record both the intended ergonomic benefit and any effects on other protective arrangements.
Assessment and method limitations
HSE’s ART tool was designed to assess risk factors in repetitive upper-limb tasks. Select it according to the task and its instructions. It is neither a complete factory risk assessment nor a medical fitness test. Other issues, such as load handling or chemical exposure, need their own analysis.
As a proposed procedure, document why the method was selected, which tasks it covers and what remains outside its scope. Record the observation supporting each score and differences between cycles or styles. Preserve uncertainty in the report instead of assigning an apparently precise value without evidence.
Compare before and after situations under equivalent conditions: material, pace, observation duration and work organisation. If those factors change, explain the limits of the comparison. A score informs decisions; verification requires observing whether the factor that caused concern changed and whether the solution works during ordinary production. The method must serve the improvement process rather than become an isolated administrative result.
Sources: [4]
Organisation, learning and adaptation
Work organisation determines exposure duration and the opportunity to adjust the task. A proposed review covers batches, replenishment, quality problems, style changes and recovery between demanding operations. Rotation provides useful variety only when demands genuinely change; transferring someone between tasks involving the same repetitive pinch grip may preserve the problem.
Allow practical training in adjustments, use of aids and reporting difficulties, especially when introducing a new machine or style. Adaptation should address actual work characteristics and needs, without assuming incapacity because of age or blaming a presumed lack of individual endurance.
An early discomfort reporting route supports workstation investigation and referral for occupational health assessment where appropriate. Health information requires confidentiality; supervisors need to know applicable work arrangements or adjustments, rather than diagnoses. Health surveillance does not replace technical process improvements. Review whether workers can actually use an adjustment during production, since an available aid that cannot fit the workflow may deliver little practical benefit.
Applied example: a style change
Hypothetical example: a workshop switches to a style whose upper is harder to orient during stitching. Repositioning increases and pending components accumulate to one side. This is not presented as an event at a real company or as evidence of a diagnosed injury.
The proposal begins by observing a representative sample of the new cycle and talking to those involved. Two issues are separated: batch presentation and support during the operation. Accessible container positions and a compatible workstation adjustment are trialled while machine guards remain in place. Replenishment is also reviewed to prevent supplies requiring backward reaching.
Follow-up compares equivalent tasks and records adjustments, difficulties and rework. If the improvement works for only one shoe size, that limitation is recorded and the trial extended. The example illustrates how to verify a decision without promising a percentage reduction in injuries. Production feedback is used to refine the proposal rather than to claim that an untested arrangement is successful.
Follow-up and documentation
Follow-up should preserve the link between problem, measure and verification. A proposed task record includes authorised workstation photographs, observed conditions, assessment method, decisions, owner and review date. Identifiable worker images are not necessary to document every adjustment; where people are recorded, applicable rules must be respected.
Useful indicators may include adjusted and verified workstations, resolved replenishment problems, correctly used aids and outstanding actions after style changes. Define each indicator so that merely buying a chair or issuing an instruction is not counted as an improvement. Absence of complaints does not establish absence of risk.
Related entries expand on repetition, posture, handling, tools and participatory ergonomics. A document system can bring this evidence together and make it accessible, but its existence does not by itself demonstrate an adequate assessment. The relevant outcome is that working conditions change and that the change is checked with the workforce under representative production conditions, including the next significant model change.
Sources: [5]
Frequently asked questions
Is this entry about protective footwear?
No. It examines workstations where footwear is manufactured. Selecting foot protection is a different topic.
Is replacing stitching chairs enough?
Assess seating together with the table, pedal, vision, supplies and task; an isolated change can introduce other difficulties.
Does rotation eliminate repetition?
It provides useful variation only when actual demands change. Assess the combined tasks and exposure duration.
Does an ART score diagnose an injury?
No. ART assesses factors in repetitive upper-limb tasks and does not replace a health assessment.
