Search results

Grocery store tasks provide many opportunities for efficiency and ergonomic improvements. Shelf stocking is one task that has received considerable attention in recent years as grocery stores seek to remain competitive by stocking shelves in an efficient manner in order to satisfy customers. The purpose of this paper is to detail an analysis performed to evaluate the effectiveness of a grocery store shelf stocking tool. This shelf stocking aid is a device designed to improve the accuracy and efficiency of stocking and fronting shelves in a supermarket or a similar retail environment.

To test the claims that the device actually does improve stocking accuracy, efficiency, and ergonomic soundness, an experiment was conducted to compare the processes of stocking shelves and fronting items on shelves with and without the stocking tool. In creating the realistic conditions of a real-world store environment, extensive inquiry about item stocking and fronting procedures was made by visiting stores and discussing the stocking and fronting tasks with industry experts. Tests were performed at varying combinations of shelf heights, shelf fullness, with and without First-In First-Out processing, and with various merchandise sizes and shapes.

The results indicate that the shelf stocking tool significantly reduces shelf stocking and fronting time. The ergonomic merits of the tool were also analyzed. A Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) was performed to evaluate biomechanical and postural stresses experienced by a shelf stocker as they stock and front store shelves. It appears that the largest contributor to higher-than-expected RULA scores is extensive upper torso bending in the sagittal plane at the L5 S1 disc position. This is exacerbated as the stocker reaches lower shelves and bends forward to reach under the shelf directly above the item being stocked or fronted.

Only three tall and five short items were used in testing. More testing is needed to draw conclusions about stacking items. Cumulative fatigue effects were not tested nor were the locations of specific physical discomfort. Testing was not done to examine simultaneously fronting two rows with the shelf stocking tool. Testing was not done to simulate the use of a step stool, including moving and repositioning the step stool for manual restocking and fronting on high shelves. The step stool handling would improve relative performance of the shelf stocking tool because the tool eliminates the need for a step stool.

Grocery store shelf stocking associates are at risk of developing cumulative trauma type injuries from awkward posture that they have to use when stocking shelves. With many small items on a shelf that are continually becoming disheveled as customers purchase the items, there are significant inefficiencies in continually arranging and rearranging the items as well as adding new. The analysis of a tool of the type tested here has shown that the use of a simple tool such as the one tested can go a long way to improving both of these elements of the stocking and fronting task.

While the shelf stocking tool is not necessarily a remedy for bending, it appears to reduce more pronounced bending than what is required without it. For stocking or fronting upper shelves, it also appears to reduce the extensive reaches (the second most stressful contributor to the high RULA scores). This approach to stocking and fronting shelves has helped to verify the idea that a tool such as this can help to improve not only the speed and efficiency at which the task is accomplished it can also reduce the stress on the back and shoulders during this tedious task.

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

This study employed a questionnaire survey to understand the safety attitudes, focusing on safety motivation and risk tolerance as well as safety management practices, including safety training and safety incentives, among construction site employees, including both managerial personnel and frontline workers. The objective was to explore the relationship between safety management practices and safety attitudes within both the managerial and frontline worker groups.

This study was conducted among 1,026 construction workers and 256 managerial personnel at 53 construction sites across 12 provinces in China. A t-test was used to compare the differences in safety-related scores between managerial personnel and frontline workers, and a structural equation model was used to explore the relationship between safety attitudes and safety management.

This study found that the scores of managerial personnel for safety motivation, safety training and safety incentives were significantly higher than construction workers, while their scores for risk tolerance were significantly lower than construction workers. Managerial personnel’s safety motivation has a significant positive impact on both safety training and safety incentives, while their risk tolerance has a significant negative impact on safety incentives. Safety training has a significant positive effect on construction workers’ safety motivation, whereas safety incentives have a significant negative impact on construction workers’ risk tolerance.

This study is one of the few that have investigated construction safety by conducting surveys targeting both site managerial personnel and frontline workers, employing an empirical approach to validate the role of safety management in transmitting safety attitudes from site managerial personnel to frontline workers.