Critical Reflection: Automation, Flexibilization, and Telepresence in the Workplace-An Analysis of the Ambivalences of Industry 4.0, Human- Machine Interaction and the ‘Sense of Place’

The ongoing transformation of production work through automation and flexibilization is often regarded as a significant technological advancement that opens new avenues for increased efficiency and flexibility in the workplace [1-3]. Industry 4.0, telepresence, industrial robots, collaborative robots (cobots) and Machine-to-Machine communication (M2M) possess the potential to elevate the work environment through enhanced efficiency, flexibility and innovative collaboration opportunities [4-6]. This technological vision offers numerous possibilities for improving efficiency and flexibility in production and optimizing work processes [7,8]. Concurrently, it is crucial to comprehend the profound changes these technologies impose on the social structures of work, the roles of employees, and their connection to the workplace [9-12]. How do they influence workplace dynamics? To what extent do they exacerbate existing forms of alienation or create new opportunities for collaboration and participation? Moreover, how does the “sense of place”-the emotional and social attachment of employees to their physical work environment-transform in an increasingly automated, digitized, and flexible work setting? The loss of this “sense of place” may weaken the sense of community and identification with work and the workplace, particularly if the work environment is reduced to a purely functional, automated and digital space. This shift can lead to a feeling of alienation among employees, as the traditional markers of a shared workspace, such as personal interactions and communal areas, become less prominent. Furthermore, it raises the question of how the meaningfulness and significance of work for employees evolve in an environment where human control diminishes and technical systems dominate. As tasks become more automated, employees might struggle to find personal fulfillment and purpose in their roles, potentially leading to decreased job satisfaction and motivation. The challenge lies in integrating technology in a way that enhances rather than diminishes the human experience at work. Organizations must therefore consider strategies to maintain and even enhance the “sense of place” in a digital and automated work environment. This could involve creating hybrid spaces that blend physical and virtual elements, fostering a culture of collaboration and inclusivity and ensuring that employees feel valued and connected despite the technological changes. By addressing these aspects, companies can help preserve the emotional and social bonds that are crucial for a positive and productive workplace.

Industry 4.0 and human-machine interaction: The challenge of human autonomy in technological change

Industry 4.0, as a paradigm of fully interconnected and automated production, promises significant technological advancements. Key technologies such as Machine-to-Machine Communication (M2M) and robotic automation systems enable more efficient and autonomous production processes. These developments drive efficiency gains and streamlining by allowing machines to communicate independently and make decisions [13,14]. This relieves humans from repetitive, hazardous, or monotonous tasks, which is often seen as a central advantage of these technologies [15-18]. Despite the apparent benefits of these technologies, their increasing application raises fundamental questions regarding their impact on humans in the production process. As machines increasingly assume control functions [19- 21], the autonomy and agency of workers are constrained [22]. The role of workers shifts from active process controllers to supervisors of automated systems, which can significantly heighten the risk of alienation [23,24]. There is a danger that humans may be displaced from the center of the production system while technology increasingly dominates the management of production processes [13,25-29]. Consequently, the transition to automation in the workplace may limit human participation in shared tasks, further reducing opportunities for collaborative problem-solving and interpersonal engagement. The introduction of automated processes often results in employees functioning primarily as supervisors monitoring machines rather than actively participating in problem-solving processes. This can impair the long-term innovation capacity and flexibility of organizations [30]. The reduction of the human role to predominantly observational and supervisory functions have profound psychosocial consequences [31]. Research indicates that increasing automation often leads to a decline in job satisfaction, particularly when employees feel that their skills are not fully utilized [32]. This can result in technostress and burnout, as employees are exposed to the cognitive demands of supervising complex technologies without being actively involved in shaping workflows [33]. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between increasing levels of automation and its psychosocial impacts, highlighting trends in job satisfaction, autonomy, and technostress.”

Figure 1:Relationship between automation levels and psychosocial impacts.

Furthermore, automation reduces social interactions in the workplace, weakening social cohesion and teamwork [34,35]. To counteract these developments, experts advocate for the introduction of human-centered work models that prioritize employee involvement [32]. These models should aim for technologies to serve as support rather than replacements for humans. Concepts such as Human-Centered Design and Sociotechnical Systems offer potential solutions by ensuring that human needs and capabilities remain at the forefront of production processes [36-38]. Concrete technologies for optimizing humanmachine interaction: One approach to fostering effective humanmachine interaction involves the implementation of specific technologies that provide employees not only with tools but also with active interaction platforms. Augmented Reality (AR), for instance, offers an intuitive interface that delivers real-time information and visual instructions directly within the employees’ work environment. This technology has the potential to enhance employee autonomy and reduce errors by making context-sensitive information accessible. Adaptive interfaces, on the other hand, adjust to the individual needs of employees by recognizing, based on machine learning, which information and tools are most relevant in the specific work process. In practice, studies show that adaptive interfaces increase satisfaction and efficiency by facilitating intuitive operation and enhancing the user experience [39]. The integration of such technologies helps maintain human influence over work processes by assuming a supportive, non-substitutive role and providing employees with greater control over their work environment.

Telepresence and flexibilization: Freedom or precarity?

The introduction of telepresence technologies, which enable the remote monitoring and control of production processes [39], fundamentally alters the dynamics of the workplace [40- 42]. These technologies are often celebrated as instruments of flexibilization, even within production, as they allow workers to operate independently of spatial and temporal constraints [43- 47]. However, the reality presents a more complex picture: While telepresence facilitates a new form of mobility and flexibility, the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life [48-50] often leads to negative psychosocial consequences [51-53]. The culture of constant availability that arises from the dissolution of traditional working hours and locations, coupled with the implementation of flexibility through telepresence, poses a significant challenge to the work-life quality of employees [54]. This culture creates the expectation of perpetual professional accessibility, as clear distinctions between work time and leisure time increasingly dissolve [55]. The resulting pressure to be constantly available adversely affects the mental well-being of employees (Figure 2).

Figure 2:Advantages and challenges of telepresence technologies.

This radar chart visualizes the key advantages and challenges associated with telepresence technologies. The chart categorizes the factors into two groups: benefits (highlighted in green) and challenges (highlighted in red). The advantages include increased flexibility, which allows workers to operate without spatial or temporal constraints, remote monitoring and control, enabling more efficient oversight of production processes, reduced commuting time, offering environmental and personal benefits and efficient resource utilization, contributing to more sustainable work practices. These benefits are shown as varying in intensity across the “Low”, “Middle” and “High” scale, reflecting the degree to which each factor is perceived. On the other hand, the challenges of telepresence are represented in red. These include the blurring of work-life boundaries, which creates difficulties in separating personal time from professional responsibilities, constant availability pressure, driven by the expectation of perpetual connectivity, technostress and burnout, which result from sustained high levels of stress, and the precarization of employment, where the lack of fixed structures can lead to insecurity and job instability. These challenges also vary in intensity, illustrating the multifaceted impact of telepresence on workers’ well-being and job security. This chart serves as a visual summary of the ambivalent nature of telepresence technologies, which, while offering substantial benefits, also introduce significant psychosocial and employment-related risks.

Research indicates that this persistent connectivity can lead to increased stress, technostress and in the long term, burnout [44,45]. Additionally, telepresence undermines the ability to maintain a clear separation between professional and personal life, further diminishing employees’ quality of life and contributing to the precarization of employment relationships [44]. Thus, telepresence symbolizes not only technological advancement but also introduces new social challenges. The erosion of boundaries between work and leisure raises critical questions regarding the sustainability of such practices. The flexibilization enabled by telepresence also leads to the precarization of employment conditions. Employees who work remotely may find themselves in insecure employment situations due to the absence of fixed structures, resulting in a decline in job security and social cohesion [45]. These new forms of work carry the risk that employees increasingly find themselves in an environment where the pressure of constant availability and the expectation of flexibility place them in precarious circumstances, making it difficult to delineate their working hours [56]. Furthermore, the ecological sustainability of telepresence [57] must be considered not only from an environmental perspective but also from a social standpoint. Studies indicate that while the long-term maintenance of a flexible working environment through telepresence may reduce commuting times and facilitate more efficient resource utilization, it also presents new social and health challenges [58-60].

Human-machine interaction and the “sense of place”

In a digitized work environment, the “sense of place”-the emotional and social attachment of employees to their workplaceis increasingly eroded. Traditionally, the workplace is not only a physical location but also a social space that shapes collective identities and facilitates social interactions [61]. The concept of “sense of place”-the emotional and social connection of employees to their workplace-faces growing challenges in the context of digital and remote working environments. In a traditional work setting, the physical workplace serves not only as a functional space but also as a social arena where collective identities are formed and social interactions are promoted. However, with the increasing digitization of the workforce, many employees experience a dilution of this connection. Virtual work environments do not provide the informal, spontaneous interactions [62,63]. The rising automation and telepresence technologies thereby fragment the physical work space, potentially reducing opportunities for meaningful interpersonal interactions and social cohesion [64]. The assertion that automation and telepresence technologies fragment the physical work environment and diminish the opportunities for significant interpersonal interactions and social cohesion is supported by various studies on the social impacts of these technologies [65-68]. In increasingly digitized work environments, research indicates that telepresence and automation disrupt the traditional dynamics of face-to-face interactions [69], which are critical for building social bonds and maintaining team cohesion [70]. The attachment of employees to their workplace, their identification with their roles, and social interaction are increasingly supplanted by technological systems, such as comprehensive automation [71,72].

Figure 3:Comparison of dimensions of “sense of place” in different work environments.

The Figure 3 visually supports the chapter’s discussion by illustrating the dimensions of ‘Sense of Place’ across different work environments. It clearly shows how the ‘Sense of Place’-the emotional and social attachment of employees to their workplaceis increasingly eroded in digital and automated work settings. In traditional work environments, the workplace is not only a physical location but also a social space that shapes collective identities and fosters social interactions. However, in digital environments, especially with the rise of automation and telepresence technologies, this social connection is increasingly replaced by technological systems, leading to a fragmentation of the physical workspace. The figure highlights that in digital environments, all three dimensions of ‘Sense of Place’-social interaction, identification, and physical presence-are less pronounced, aligning with the chapter’s argument that digitization and automation reduce interpersonal interactions and social cohesion. It should be noted that the figure is based on qualitative assumptions or theoretical models that describe the differences between the work environments presented. One such theoretical foundation can be found in the work of Dai & Liu [59], which enriches the concept of ‘Sense of Place’ in the digital age by exploring the impacts of digital work environments on social bonds and identification.

The meaning derived from work, which is vital for employees’ well-being [73], may undergo changes. Studies demonstrate that the significance and purpose of work have a substantial impact on employee well-being. A fulfilling workplace contributes to mental health and overall life satisfaction [74,75]. As human influence on the production process diminishes, the workplace transforms from a social space into an impersonal digital interface. An analysis of the work environment reveals that the loss of physical space often corresponds to a loss of social cohesion, solidarity, and collective agency [76,77]. Work becomes a depersonalized process increasingly dictated by technological interfaces and digital communication. Humans are displaced from the center of production and find themselves in a “placeless” work world where the traditional role of the workplace as a site of social integration diminishes [78]. This shift can lead to feelings of alienation and disconnection from one’s work, undermining both job satisfaction and motivation. To address this challenge, a reevaluation is necessary regarding how workplaces can maintain their role as spaces for social interactions, even in an increasingly automated and interconnected work environment [53,60].

Industry 4.0 and ecological sustainability: A complex but integrative symbiosis

The ecological advantages promised by Industry 4.0-particularly the enhancement of resource efficiency and the reduction of energy consumption-represent a significant advancement in the transformation of production processes. Technologies such as Machine-to-Machine Communication (M2M) and collaborative robots (cobots) enable a markedly more efficient use of resources and contribute to energy consumption reduction by creating more precise and automated control processes. These technologies play a crucial role in advancing the ecological objectives of various industries by enhancing the sustainability of production systems and reducing their ecological footprint [6,79-82]. However, this technological progress should not be viewed in isolation. A purely technical focus on ecological efficiency often overlooks the social costs associated with the implementation of such systems. While automation and digitization undoubtedly have the potential to streamline work processes, they also pose risks of displacing the workforce and minimizing their involvement in core production processes [83]. This can lead to a reduction in job satisfaction and social alienation, as employees are increasingly confined to supervisory roles [84-87]. Therefore, sustainability must not be solely reduced to ecological dimensions. A sustainable workplace requires that ecological, social and economic sustainability are considered on an equal footing. In addition to reducing energy consumption and increasing resource efficiency, the social dimension must be prioritized. This includes, in particular, the quality of life of employees, the sense of place, and the promotion of participation and social integration within the organization. Sustainability should thus be regarded as a multidimensional concept that equally weighs ecological, social and economic factors [83,84].

In the previous discussion, it became clear how important it is to consider ecological, social and economic sustainability on an equal footing. This is not only crucial for the acceptance of Industry 4.0 technologies but also for creating work environments that are both productive and socially inclusive. A sustainable workplace in Industry 4.0 requires that these three dimensions be harmonized in a balanced approach to enable long-term viable and socially responsible production. Figure 4, which is inserted below, visualizes these interrelations and illustrates how the dimensions of sustainability-ecological, social, and economic-are interconnected within an integrative concept such as the “Green Factory.” This graphical representation clearly highlights the balance between the different sustainability goals, demonstrating that the transformation of production processes involves not just technological innovations, but also the well-being of employees and long-term economic stability. The Figure 4 illustrates the sustainability dimensions in Industry 4.0, focusing on ecological, social and economic aspects. The ecological dimension emphasizes minimizing environmental impact, efficient resource use and reducing emissions and waste. The social dimension highlights worker well-being, fair labor practices and inclusivity. The economic dimension focuses on efficiency, profitability, innovation, and circular economy principles. The “Green Factory” concept integrates these dimensions, promoting sustainable work environments, innovation with social equity, and cost-effective production methods. This balanced approach ensures that technological advancements contribute to overall sustainability in Industry 4.0.

Figure 4:Sustainability in industry 4.0: Ecological, social and economic dimensions.

To ensure social sustainability in Industry 4.0, it is essential to create work models in which employees are actively involved in the development and implementation of new technologies. Participatory work models can help ensure that the transition to new technologies does not come at the expense of work quality, but aligns with the needs of employees. Sociotechnical systems and human-centered design provide promising approaches to ensure that technologies serve not only to enhance efficiency but also to meet social requirements. The ecosystem of a Green Factory offers a structural framework for a holistic approach aimed at resolving the ambivalences between ecological, social and economic demands. The concept of a Green Factory refers to a production facility oriented towards ecological sustainability, utilizing advanced technologies and processes to minimize energy consumption and environmental impact [86]. Key priorities include resource efficiency, waste reduction and the use of renewable energy sources [87]. Simultaneously, the Green Factory promotes sustainable business models and enhances social responsibility by creating safe, healthy and human-centric working conditions [88,89]. Automation and Industry 4.0 technologies play a central role in enhancing efficiency and environmental compatibility. Scientifically, the Green Factory integrates ecological, economic and social sustainability, meaning it targets not only the eco-friendliness of production processes but also the welfare of employees and longterm economic stability [90]. Achieving a sustainable balance among these dimensions is crucial for implementing a comprehensive sustainability approach in industrial production. By integrating sustainable technologies and practices, the Green Factory creates an environment in which these seemingly contradictory goals can be pursued and reconciled simultaneously. This fosters sustainable, resource-efficient production that respects the environment while also addressing social and economic demands.

This critical reflection highlights the transformative effects of Industry 4.0 technologies, particularly automation, flexibilization and telepresence, while emphasizing both the opportunities and challenges associated with these developments. These technologies promise potential increases in efficiency and flexibility of operational processes. However, the associated social and psychological consequences-such as the preservation of human autonomy, the avoidance of workplace alienation, and the assurance of a stable “sense of place”-are of paramount importance and require systematic consideration for sustainable workplace design. A central aspect of designing future work environments lies in optimizing human-machine interaction, which can increasingly be supported by technologies such as Augmented Reality (AR) and adaptive interfaces. These technologies have the potential not only to enhance production efficiency but also to promote employee autonomy by facilitating the active engagement of individual competencies and maintaining control over the work process. In this context, adaptive technologies serve as supportive tools that do not substitute the human role but empower individuals in their task execution. Such technological interventions can foster a sense of self-efficacy and social cohesion in the workplace, contributing to increased job satisfaction and psychological stability among employees. Forward-looking work models within the context of Industry 4.0 should therefore aim to link technological efficiency with social inclusion. This implies a transdisciplinary approach that integrates both engineering and work psychology perspectives. Such a work environment enables flexibilization and efficiency enhancement without compromising the social and psychological integrity of employees. Flexible work schedules that promote a balance between professional demands and personal well-being are as relevant as the introduction of collaborative robotic systems.

These systems are intended to relieve employees rather than replace them, placing creative and complex tasks at the forefront of human work. Moreover, fostering interpersonal interactions and social cohesion is a critical component of a human-centered work environment. Physical and digital spaces that encourage social exchange are essential for maintaining collective identity and the “sense of place,” thereby counteracting the increasing alienation brought about by digitization. The development and implementation of continuous training programs support employees in adapting and evolving within a dynamically changing technological environment, thereby promoting long-term resilience to technological changes. Additionally, ecological sustainability aspects must be considered to ensure a holistic transformation. Concepts such as the “Green Factory” and the integration of resource-efficient technologies contribute to reducing environmental impact while optimizing working conditions. Only through the integrative linkage of technological advancements with the social and ecological requirements of employees can a sustainable, human-centered, and socially just transformation of the workplace be successfully realized. Such a holistic model of Industry 4.0 can not only enhance operational efficiency but also promote long-term job satisfaction and societal cohesion, thus meeting the demands of a forwardlooking, resilient work environment.

1. Dupuis M, Massicotte A (2024) Are new technologies empowering workers? Digital lean production and the reorganization of work in manufacturing. Work and Occupations, pp. 1-30.
2. Oesterreich TD, Teuteberg F (2016) Understanding the implications of digitization and automation in the context of industry 4.0: A triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Computers in Industry 83: 121-139.
3. Deckert R (2019) Digitalization and industry 4.0. Springer Specialist Media Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany.
4. Matheson E, Minto R, Zampieri EG, Faccio M, Rosati G (2019) Human-robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: A review. Robotics 8(4): 100.
5. Bragança S, Costa E, Castellucci I, Arezes PM (2019) A brief overview of the use of collaborative robots in industry 4.0: Human role and safety. Occupational and environmental safety and health 202: 641-650.
6. Weidemann C, Mandischer N, Van Kerkom F, Corves B, Hüsing M, et al. (2023) Literature review on recent trends and perspectives of collaborative robotics in work 4.0. Robotics 12(3): 84.
7. Fragapane G, Ivanov D, Peron M, Fabio S, Jan Ola S, et al. (2022) Increasing flexibility and productivity in Industry 4.0 production networks with autonomous mobile robots and smart intralogistics. Ann Oper Res 308: 125-143.
8. Höse K, Amaral A, Götze U, Pecas P (2023) Manufacturing flexibility through industry 4.0 technological concepts-impact and assessment. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 24: 271-289.
9. Miller NG, Erickson A, Yust BL (2001) Sense of place in the workplace: The relationship between personal objects and job satisfaction and motivation. Journal of Interior Design 27(1): 35-44.
10. Budie B, Appel-Meulenbroek R, Kemperman A, Weijs-Perree M (2019) Employee satisfaction with the physical work environment: the importance of a need-based approach. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 23(1): 36-49.
11. Blake E Ashforth, Brianna B Caza, Alyson Meister (2024) My place: How workers become identified with their workplaces and why it matters. AMR 49(2): 366-398.
12. Sander ELJ, Caza A, Jordan PJ (2019) Psychological perceptions matter: Developing the reactions to the physical work environment scale. Building and Environment 148: 338-347.
13. Bedi P, Goyal SB, Rajawat AS, Kumar J, Malik S, et al. (2024) Industry revolution 4.0: From industrial automation to industrial autonomy. In: Kautish S, Chatterjee P, Pamucar D, Pradeep N, Singh D (Eds.), Computational Intelligence for Modern Business Systems, Disruptive Technologies and Digital Transformations for Society 5.0. Springer, Singapore, pp. 321-356.
14. Gabsi AEH (2024) Integrating artificial intelligence in industry 4.0: Insights, challenges and future prospects: A literature review. Ann Oper Res.
15. Campilho RDSG, Silva FJG (2023) Industrial process improvement by automation and robotics. Machines 11(11): 1011.
16. Jamwal A, Agrawal R, Sharma M, Giallanza A (2021) Industry 4.0 technologies for manufacturing sustainability: A systematic review and future research directions. Applied Sciences 11(12): 5725.
17. Goel R, Gupta P (2020) Robotics and industry 4.0. A Roadmap to Industry 4.0: Smart Production, Sharp Business and Sustainable Development, pp. 157-169.
18. Krueger V, Rovida F, Grossmann B, Petrick R, Crosby M, et al. (2019) Testing the vertical and cyber-physical integration of cognitive robots in manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 57: 213-229.
19. Åkerberg J, Furunäs Åkesson J, Gade J, Vahabi M, Björkman M, et al. (2021) Future industrial networks in process automation: Goals, challenges, and future directions. Applied Sciences 11(8): 3345.
20. Karabegović I, Turmanidze R, Dašić P (2020) Robotics and automation as a foundation of the fourth industrial revolution-industry 4.0. In: Tonkonogyi V (Ed.), Advanced Manufacturing Processes, Inter Partner 2019, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, pp. 128-136.
21. Chaurasia A, Parashar B, Kautish S (2024) Artificial intelligence and automation for industry 4.0. In: Kautish S, Chatterjee P, Pamucar D, Pradeep N, Singh D (Eds.), Computational Intelligence for Modern Business Systems. Disruptive Technologies and Digital Transformations for Society 5.0. Springer, Singapore, pp. 357-373.
22. Nazareno L, Schiff DS (2021) The impact of automation and artificial intelligence on worker well-being. Technology in Society 67: 101679.
23. Deranty JP, Corbin T (2024) Artificial intelligence and work: A critical review of recent research from the social sciences. AI & Soc 39: 675-691.
24. Jacobs A, Verhofstadt E, Van Ootegem L (2023) Unravelling the link between automatability and job satisfaction. J Labor Res 44: 199-227.
25. Szabó-Szentgróti G, Végvári B, Varga J (2021) Impact of industry 4.0 and digitization on labor market for 2030-verification of Keynes’ prediction. Sustainability 13: 7703.
26. Folgado FJ, Calderón D, González I, Calderón AJ (2024) Review of industry 4.0 from the perspective of automation and supervision systems: Definitions, architectures and recent trends. Electronics 13(4): 782.
27. Kibulungu JW, Laseinde OT (2023) Automatic control system based on industry 4.0, PLC, and SCADA. In: Nagar AK, Singh Jat D, Mishra DK, Joshi A (Eds.), Intelligent Sustainable Systems. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer, Singapore, pp. 183-197.
28. Wu K, Xu J, Zheng M (2024) Industry 4.0: Review and proposal for implementing a smart factory. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 133: 1331-1347.
29. Huchler N (2015) The role human actors play in the "Industry 4.0"-Technocentric vs. human-centric approach 9(1): 57-79.
30. Tang Y, Du X, Hung JL, Hengtao T, Yiqian X (2024) Exploring the effects of roles and group compositions on social and cognitive interaction structures in online collaborative problem-solving. Educ Inf Technol 29: 18149-18180.
31. Martinez-Balderrama R, Rodriguez-Urrea MD, García-Vázquez JP, Mendoza-Muñoz I, Jacobo-Galicia G (2024) Psychosocial factors related to the increasing automation of work processes: A systematic review. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management 15: 132-152.
32. Kadir BA, Broberg O (2020) Human well-being and system performance in the transition to industry 4.0. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 76: 102936.
33. Kaasinen E, Schmalfuß F, Özturk C, Aromaa S, Boubekeur M, et al. (2020) Empowering and engaging industrial workers with Operator 4.0 solutions. Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105678.
34. Shabur MA (2024) A comprehensive review on the impact of Industry 4.0 on the development of a sustainable environment. Discov Sustain 5: 97.
35. Sangwan SR, Bhatia MPS (2020) Sustainable development in industry 4.0. In: Nayyar A, Kumar A (Eds.), A roadmap to industry 4.0: Smart production, sharp business and sustainable development. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer, pp. 39-56.
36. Marcon É, Soliman M, Gerstlberger W, Frank AG (2022) Sociotechnical factors and Industry 4.0: An integrative perspective for the adoption of smart manufacturing technologies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 33(2): 259-286.
37. Davies R, Coole T, Smith A (2017) Review of socio-technical considerations to ensure successful implementation of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing 11: 1288-1295.
38. Fantini P, Pinzone M, Taisch M (2018) Placing the operator at the center of industry 4.0 design: Modelling and assessing human activities within cyber-physical systems. Computers and Industrial Engineering 139: 11.
39. Lipton JI, Fay AJ, Rus D (2017) Baxter's homunculus: Virtual reality spaces for teleoperation in manufacturing. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(1): 179-186.
40. Hernandez F, Waechter M, Bullinger AC (2021) A first approach for implementing a telepresence robot in an industrial environment. In: Nunes IL (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors and System Interactions. AHFE 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer, Cham, 265: 141-146.
41. Radi M, Reiter A, Zäh MF, Müller T, Knoll A (2010) Telepresence technology for production: From manual to automated assembly. In: Kappers AML, Van Erp, JBF, Bergmann Tiest WM, Van der Helm FCT (Eds.), Haptics: Generating and Perceiving Tangible Sensations, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 6191: 256-261.
42. Vacchiano M, Fernandez G, Schmutz R (2024) What’s going on with teleworking? A scoping review of its effects on well-being. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0305567.
43. Vleeshouwers J, Fløvik L, Christensen JO, Finne LB, Mohr B, et al. (2022) The relationship between telework from home and the psychosocial work environment: A systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 95: 2025-2051.
44. Consiglio C, Massa N, Sommovigo V, Fusco L (2023) Techno-stress creators, burnout and psychological health among remote workers during the pandemic: The moderating role of e-work self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(22): 7051.
45. Costin A, Roman AF, Balica RS (2023) Remote work burnout, professional job stress and employee emotional exhaustion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in psychology 14: 1193854.
46. Ollier Malaterre A (2023) Eroding boundaries and creeping control: “Digital Regulation” as new normal work. In: Bergum S, Peters P, Vold T (Eds.), Virtual Management and the New Normal, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, pp. 313-332.
47. Youssef K, Said S, Al Kork S, Beyrouthy T (2023) Telepresence in the recent literature with a focus on robotic platforms, applications and challenges. Robotics 12(4): 111.
48. Nam T (2014) Technology use and work-life balance. Applied Research Quality Life 9: 1017-1040.
49. Kossek EE, Lautsch BA, Eaton SC (2006) Telecommuting, control and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(2): 347-367.
50. Lee DJ, Joseph Sirgy M (2019) Work-life balance in the digital workplace: The impact of schedule flexibility and telecommuting on work-life balance and overall life satisfaction. In: Coetzee M (Ed.), Thriving in Digital Workspaces, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 355-384.
51. Beckel JLO, Fisher GG (2022) Telework and worker health and well-being: A review and recommendations for research and practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(7): 3879.
52. Metselaar SA, Den Dulk L, Vermeeren B (2023) Teleworking at different locations outside the office: Consequences for perceived performance and the mediating role of autonomy and work-life balance satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration 43(3): 456-478.
53. Yeo RK, Li J (2022) Blurring of boundaries between work and home: The role of developmental relationships in the future of work. In: Ghosh R, Hutchins HM (Eds.), HRD Perspectives on Developmental Relationships. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, pp. 305-332.
54. Naseer F, Khan MN, Altalbe A (2023) Telepresence robot with DRL assisted delay compensation in IoT-enabled sustainable healthcare environment. Sustainability 15(4): 3585.
55. Merino L, Schwarzl M, Kraus M, Sedlmair M, Schmalstieg D, et al. (2020) Evaluating mixed and augmented reality: A systematic literature review (2009-2019). 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Porto de Galinhas, Brazil, pp. 438-451.
56. Shaholli D, Manai MV, Iantorno F, Di Giampaolo L, Nieto HA, et al. (2024) Teleworking and mental well-being: A systematic review on health effects and preventive measures. Sustainability 16(18): 8278.
57. Marques B, Teixeira A, Silva S, Alves J, Dias P, et al. (2022) A critical analysis on remote collaboration mediated by Augmented Reality: Making a case for improved characterization and evaluation of the collaborative process. Computers & Graphics 102: 619-633.
58. French M (2012) Sense of workplace: The role of place in the modern work environment.
59. Dai J, Liu F (2024) Embracing the digital landscape: Enriching the concept of sense of place in the digital age. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1): 1-7.
60. Walter Y (2024) The digital transformation in the psychology of workplace spirituality. Digital Transformation and Society 3(1): 23-49.
61. Almeida L, Menezes P, Dias J (2022) Telepresence social robotics towards co-presence: A review. Applied Sciences 12(11): 5557.
62. Isabet B, Pino M, Lewis M, Benveniste S, Rigaud AS (2021) Social telepresence robots: A narrative review of experiments involving older adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(7): 3597.
63. Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A (2013) A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Advances in Human‐Computer Interaction 2013(1): 902316.
64. Tuli TB, Terefe TO, Rashid MMU (2021) Telepresence mobile robots design and control for social interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 13: 877-886.
65. Boudouraki A, Fischer JE, Reeves S, Rintel S (2023) "Being in on the action" in mobile robotic telepresence: Rethinking presence in hybrid participation. 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, New York, USA, pp. 63-71.
66. Schiefer D, Van der Noll J (2017) The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Soc Indic Res 132: 579-603.
67. Cvenkel N (2020) Workplace well-being: Understanding psychologically ‘WELL’ employees and the sustainable healthy workplace. Well-Being in the Workplace: Governance and Sustainability Insights to Promote Workplace Health. Approaches to Global Sustainability, Markets and Governance. Springer, Singapore, pp. 25-62.
68. Inalhan G (2009) Attachments: The unrecognized link between employees and their workplace (in change management projects). Journal of corporate real estate 11(1): 17-37.
69. Moniz AB, Krings BJ (2016) Robots working with humans or humans working with robots? Searching for social dimensions in new human-robot interaction in industry. Societies 6(3): 23.
70. Wijngaards I, King OC, Burger MJ, Exel JV (2022) Worker well-being: What it is and how it should be measured. Applied Research Quality Life 17: 795-832.
71. Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Taris TW (2008) Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress 22(3): 187-200.
72. Proshansky HM, Fabian AK, Kaminoff R (2014) Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. The people, place, and space reader, Routledge, England, UK, pp. 77-81.
73. Stedman RC (2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources 16(8): 671-685.
74. Lertlakkhanakul J, Lee SY, Choi JW (2008) A study of the effects of placeness on collaborative virtual workplace. Proceedings of the 13^th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 572-578.
75. Hentout A, Aouache M, Maoudj A, Akli I (2019) Human-robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: A literature review of the decade 2008-2017. Adv Robot 33: 764-799.
76. Segura P, Lobato-Calleros O, Ramírez-Serrano A, Soria I (2021) Human-robot collaborative systems: Structural components for current manufacturing applications. Adv Ind Manuf Eng 3: 100060.
77. De Oliveira Neto GC, Da Conceição Silva A, Filho MG (2023) How can Industry 4.0 technologies and circular economy help companies and researchers collaborate and accelerate the transition to strong sustainability? A bibliometric review and a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20: 3483-3520.
78. Willcocks LP (2024) Automation, digitalization and the future of work: A critical review. Journal of Electronic Business & Digital Economics 3(2): 184-199.
79. Arntz M, Gregory T, Zierahn U (2016) The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers, OECD Library, Paris, France, p. 189.
80. McKinsey (2023) What is the future of work? McKinsey & Company, New York, USA.
81. McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) (2017) Jobs lost; jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation. McKinsey & Company, New York, USA.
82. Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science 14: 681-695.
83. Vacchi M, Siligardi C, Demaria F, Cedillo-González EI, González-Sánchez R, et al. (2021) Technological sustainability or sustainable technology? A multidimensional vision of sustainability in manufacturing. Sustainability 13(17): 9942.
84. Gebbe C, Hilmer S, Götz G, Lutter-Günther M, Chen Q, et al. (2015) Concept of the green factory Bavaria in Augsburg. Procedia CIRP 32: 53-57.
85. Singh A, Philip D, Ramkumar J, Das M (2018) A simulation-based approach to realize green factory from unit green manufacturing processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 182: 67-81.
86. Jo H, Noh SD, Cho Y (2014) An agile operations management system for green factory. Int J of Precis Eng and Manuf Green Tech 1: 131-143.
87. Pampanelli A, Trivedi N, Found P (2015) The green factory: Creating lean and sustainable manufacturing. CRC Press, Florida, USA, p. 192.
88. Küpper D, Kuhlmann K, Pieper C, Burchardt J, Schlageter J (2020) The green factory of the future, BCG Global, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
89. Ferrara B, Pansini M, De Vincenzi C, Buonomo I, Benevene P (2022) Investigating the role of remote working on employees’ performance and well-being: An evidence-based systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(19): 12373.
90. Zhenjing G, Chupradit S, Ku KY, Nassani AA, Haffar M (2022) Impact of employees' workplace environment on employees' performance: A multi-mediation model. Frontiers in Public Health 10: 890400.