Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss opportunities for health promotion through the workplace environment, adopting a ‘salutogenic’ perspective of health which more explicitly focuses on factors that support human health and wellbeing, as opposed to factors which cause disease. Design/Methodology/Approach: In the introduction, the salutogenic model of health and the Environmental Demands-Resources model are discussed, providing a conceptual framework to represent the workplace environment as a composite of pathogenic ‘demands’ and salutogenic ‘resources’. Subsequently, a narrative review is performed to discuss the existing literature from the perspective of this novel framework, identifying environmental resources which might strengthen the three components of an employee’s ‘sense of coherence’ (comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness), an individual orientation associated with more positive health outcomes. Findings: Comprehensibility can be supported by effectively implementing a clear set of rules governing the use of the workplace. Manageability can be supported through biophilic design solutions, and through design which supports social cohesion and physical activity. Meaningfulness can be supported by recognising the importance of personal identity expression and through design which reinforces the employees’ sense of purpose. Originality/Value: The salutogenic perspective is a potentially valuable but relatively under-considered paradigm in workplace practice. The key contribution of this paper is to encourage researchers and practitioners to recognise the crucial role that an individual’s sense of coherence plays in supporting higher levels of physical and mental health, so that they increase their ability to provide truly ‘healthy’ workplaces, capable of promoting health as well as minimising the risk of disease. The emerging healthy workplaces movement is primarily concerned with the pathogenic (harm-causing) potential of the office environment. The quality of the indoor workplace environment may contain numerous contributors towards ill health (see Al Horr et al., 2016, for review), partly as a result of the cost reduction paradigm which pervades workplace practice, in which space efficiency is prioritised above occupant requirements (Haynes, 2007a). As such, recent certification schemes for optimising heath and wellbeing in the built environment (e.g., the WELL Building Standard; International WELL Building Institute, 2018) largely focus on improving indoor environmental quality through strategies such as the minimisation of airborne pollutants and by reducing various sources of environmental discomfort. In this paper, we will argue that the mitigation of pathogenic environmental components is a necessary but not sufficient step towards the goal of providing truly healthy workplaces. We suggest that it is equally important to consider salutogenic (health-promoting) aspects of the workplace environment, in order to more suitably answer calls for more enabling paradigms in workplace practice (Haynes, 2007a). The distinction between harm-causing and health-promoting factors echoes the World Health Organisation’s (1948) definition of health as a “state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”, and also has parallels with the distinction between ‘languishing’ (the presence of mental illness) and ‘flourishing’ (the presence of positive emotions) in the positive psychology movement (Keyes, 2002). In recognition of the fact that the majority of workplace research has tended to be largely atheoretical and segmented by discipline (Sander et al., 2018), we believe future research and practice should be more explicitly designed in accordance with relevant conceptual frameworks. Accordingly, in this paper we explicate two conceptual frameworks to support understanding of the salutogenic potential of the workplace environment. First, we discuss the salutogenic model of health (Antonovsky, 1987), which has received good empirical support in healthcare disciplines. Second, we present the Environmental Demands-Resources (ED-R) model as a way of illustrating the pathogenic and salutogenic aspects of the workplace environment, and how they can be determined through the dynamic employee-workplace relationship.

中文翻译：

---

致健康的工作场所设计

目的：本文的目的是通过工作场所环境来发现和讨论促进健康的机会，采用“致咸”的健康观，更明确地侧重于支持人类健康和福祉的因素，而不是引起疾病的因素。设计/方法论/方法：在介绍中，讨论了健康的有益健康模型和环境需求-资源模型，提供了一个概念框架来代表工作场所环境，将病原性“需求”和有益健康的“资源”组合在一起。随后，从这种新颖框架的角度进行叙述性回顾，以讨论现有文献，确定可能加强员工“连贯性”（可理解性，可管理性和有意义性），与更积极的健康结果相关的个人取向。调查结果：通过有效实施一套明确的管理工作场所使用的规则，可以增强可理解性。可通过亲生物设计解决方案以及支持社会凝聚力和体育活动的设计来支持可管理性。通过认识到个人身份表达的重要性并通过设计来增强员工的目的感，可以支持有意义的工作。原创性/价值：有益健康的观点在工作场所实践中是一种潜在的有价值但相对未被考虑的范例。本文的主要贡献是鼓励研究人员和从业人员认识到个人的凝聚力在支持更高水平的身心健康中所起的关键作用，从而增强他们提供真正“健康”工作场所的能力，促进健康并最大程度地降低疾病风险。新兴的健康工作场所运动主要与办公环境的潜在致病性（危害）有关。室内工作场所环境的质量可能包含许多不利于健康的因素（请参阅Al Horr等人，2016，以进行审查），部分原因是普遍存在于工作场所实践中的降低成本的范式，在该范式中，空间效率优先于居住者要求（Haynes，2007a）。因此，最近的用于优化建筑环境中的健康和福利的认证计划（例如WELL建筑标准;国际WELL建筑学会，2018年）主要侧重于通过最小化空气中污染物和减少各种环境来源等策略来改善室内环境质量不舒服。在本文中，我们将论证减轻致病性环境成分是朝着提供真正健康的工作场所目标迈出的必要步骤，但还不够。我们建议，同样重要的是要考虑工作场所环境的有益健康（促进健康）方面，以便更适当地回答在工作场所实践中需要更多有利范例的呼吁（Haynes，2007a）。造成伤害的因素和促进健康的因素之间的区别与世界卫生组织（1948）对健康的定义相呼应，即“完全的身心，社会和幸福状态，而不仅仅是没有疾病或虚弱的状态”，并且也具有相似之处在积极心理学运动中区分“精神衰弱”（存在精神疾病）和“精神焕发”（存在积极情绪）（Keyes，2002）。认识到大多数工作场所研究倾向于很大程度上是理论上的并且按学科细分的事实（Sander et al。，2018），我们认为未来的研究和实践应根据相关的概念框架进行更明确的设计。因此，在本文中，我们阐述了两个概念框架来支持对工作场所环境的潜在致富作用的理解。首先，我们讨论健康的有益模型（Antonovsky，1987），该模型在医疗保健领域得到了良好的经验支持。其次，我们提出环境需求资源（ED-R）模型，以说明工作场所环境的致病性和致病性，以及如何通过动态的员工-工作场所关系来确定它们。