Towards future of work in immersive environments and its impact on the Quality of Working Life: a scoping review

2.1 Immersive environments

Immersive environments are digital, virtual simulations/applications or virtual worlds in which users fully immerse themselves in a computer-generated reality or integrate digital, non-physical elements into their physical surroundings. ^{38 , 39 , 40 , 41} Sensory experiences can be created through visual, auditory, and/or haptic stimuli, which convey a sense of physical presence in the simulated world. ^{39 , 42} Immersive environments are enabled by various technologies such as VR, AR, and MR – collectively referred to as Extended Reality (XR). ^{41 , 43 , 44} Each technology offers a different approach to immersion and also differs in terms of use cases. ^{5 , 16 , 45 , 46 , 47}

The lowest level of immersion is AR. ⁴⁸ AR enhances physical reality by overlaying digital information or objects, such as images, texts, and 3D models, on the physical environment in real-time without fully replacing it. ^{16 , 48 , 49} AR utilizes cameras, sensors, and processors to analyze the physical surroundings and superimpose virtual objects in real-time. ^{41 , 47} For instance, AR applications have proven particularly effective in reducing cognitive load during complex tasks, enhancing both performance and user satisfaction. ¹⁷ In the workplace, AR is used in maintenance and repair, such as assisting technicians with troubleshooting machinery through visual instructions. ^{5 , 17} Another example is the use of AR for neurosurgical training, where difficult surgical scenarios can be practiced using various AR applications. ⁵

Considering the level of immersion, MR is level two, between AR and VR. ⁴⁸ MR seamlessly blends the real world with virtual elements, allowing users to interact with both worlds simultaneously, supported by advanced mapping and sensors. ^{40 , 48} MR allows virtual objects to be embedded in the real world while being physically manipulable. ⁴⁸ An example is the use of Microsoft HoloLens 2 in medicine, where MR enables real-time data integration with visual aids during live surgeries, enhancing decision-making and increasing precision. ^{3 , 50} In industrial settings, MR systems have also demonstrated utility in enabling ergonomic workspace designs, reducing physical strain for workers. ⁵¹

VR offers level-three immersion by completely replacing the real world with computer-generated environments and requires specialized hardware, such as head-mounted displays (HMDs), like the Oculus Rift. ^{3 , 52} Common workplace applications include training for complex industrial tasks, such as practicing assembly steps or repairs in virtual environments without the need for expensive physical equipment. ^{5 , 15} Moreover, VR facilitates collaboration in distributed teams by enabling immersive environments that replicate physical meeting dynamics, enhancing team cohesion and productivity. ²⁸

While immersive technologies such as AR, MR, and VR are typically used for short-lived, temporary environments that can be restarted as needed, there are also more expansive, immersive virtual world platforms, such as the Metaverse(s) (e.g., Wang et al. ⁸ ). Metaverses differ fundamentally from the typical applications of immersive technologies: They are developed as persistent, immersive virtual environments that coexist with the physical world, seamlessly integrating work, social interaction, and everyday activities. ⁸ Metaverses are large, interoperable networks of one or more 3D virtual worlds, which can be accessed synchronously and continuously by an unlimited number of users across various industries. ⁵³ Within these environments, essential data, such as identities, are preserved and can be adapted to meet diverse needs. ^{53 , 54 , 55} Dwivedi et al. ² categorize the Metaverse into group-oriented purposes (e.g., virtual offices, remote teamwork) and individual-oriented purposes (e.g., gaming, entertainment, and virtual business). This distinction highlights the Metaverses’ versatility in serving both collaborative and personal needs. ² Recent studies show that current developments in Metaverses are fundamental for a socio-economic system that will be closely intertwined with the global economy. ² Hence, Metaverses have been subject to various studies in recent times. ^{1 , 2 , 54} Notably, metaverse platforms are also being explored for their potential to enhance cross-cultural collaboration by bridging geographical and cultural gaps. ⁵⁶

While XR (AR, MR, and VR), as the primary interface technologies, ² have already reached the required technical maturity, ⁵⁷ only limited progress has been made due to technical challenges in communication, coordination, and interoperability. ^{57 , 58} This has led to the conclusion that a functional Metaverse has not yet emerged. ^{55 , 59} Researchers emphasize that AR, MR, and VR are not synonymous with the Metaverse but are rather technologies through which the Metaverse can be experienced. ^{2 , 8 , 13}

Furthermore, Schöbel & Tingelhoff ³² highlight that the successful realization of the potential of Metaverse platforms is depending not only on overcoming technical challenges but also on addressing societal challenges. These include fostering trust and acceptance, integrating into social structures, and effectively communicating the potential benefits and risks. ³² Addressing these societal factors is particularly crucial for ensuring equitable access to the Metaverse, especially for underrepresented groups. ⁶⁰ With the increasing digitization of the workplace and the ongoing evolution of Metaverses, they are expected to be more common in work environments. ³⁰ This could fundamentally change how people work, creating new forms of work opportunities.

Consequently, QWL could be significantly impacted. The persistent nature of these virtual worlds sets them apart from the short-term use cases of other immersive technologies, highlighting the need to consider Metaverses as a distinct development in the realm of immersive environments. In the following, when we refer to Metaverse platforms, we will understand them as technical tools ² and use the term Virtual Worlds synonymously, as Metaverses represent the current development stage or virtual worlds. ¹ Finally, Figure 1 illustrates the differences between the immersive technologies AR, MR, VR, and VWs (e.g., Metaverses), summarizing their respective levels of immersion, required hardware and software, as well as potential work tasks associated with each technology.

Figure 1:

Immersive technologies scale.

2.2 Future of work in immersive environments

Technological changes such as AR, MR, VR, its applications and immersive virtual worlds in general, as well as Artificial Intelligence, economic changes like digital business models, and sociodemographic changes such as the pluralization of employment requirements bring numerous new demands for companies regarding the future of work (e.g., Santana & Cobo ⁶¹ ). In particular, digitalization has profoundly changed the way work is done and the necessary skills employees need in terms of communication, coordination, and collaboration with IT tools, a change accelerated by the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. ^{62 , 63}

Identifying the future work competencies employees need to adapt to future requirements has received significant attention in research. ^{64 , 65 , 66} Research has highlighted numerous essential soft and hard skills needed for future work, such as adaptability for dynamic shifts between projects, high social skills, innovation capability, and willingness to learn. Employees will also need to be mobile, able to switch between different projects quickly, possess social and communication skills, and be familiar with office tools that require quick learning, creativity, IT skills, and teamwork. ^{67 , 68} The multitude of new demands carries the risk of quality deficits associated with economic costs. ⁶⁷ Therefore, companies need to invest in training and retraining their employees to ensure they have the necessary skills and qualifications.

Immersive Environments offer a way to develop essential skills in a targeted manner. VR- and AR-based learning platforms provide opportunities to acquire practical skills and enable the development of crucial soft skills such as communication and teamwork. Holuša et al. ⁴ demonstrate that VR creates an immersive and interactive learning environment, which is particularly effective in fostering practical abilities and social competencies. Similarly, Kiss et al. ⁶⁹ emphasize that VR is valuable in the business context for training teamwork and communication. Employees can enhance their skills in realistic, simulated environments. ⁶⁹ Doroudian ⁷⁰ further highlights that immersive environments improve social presence and coordination, which is especially important in team-oriented work settings.

On the other hand, immersive environments are transforming how communication, coordination, and collaboration occur in the workplace. Communication serves as the foundation for other processes, enabling information exchange and shared understanding through various channels, e.g., in immersive environments. ^{28 , 29} In VR and AR, teams can communicate in immersive environments using nonverbal cues like eye contact and gestures, reducing misunderstandings and enhancing interaction. ^{29 , 30 , 56 , 71} Coordination builds upon communication by aligning individual efforts and resources toward shared objectives. ^{28 , 72} Immersive environments enhance coordination through AR and MR functionalities, allowing remote experts to overlay instructions directly into the user’s field of view, which facilitates the precise execution of complex tasks. ^{30 , 72} Finally, collaboration integrates communication and coordination into shared problem-solving and goal achievement. ^{4 , 9 , 29} Real-time project work in immersive environments allows teams to share and manipulate visual representations in simulated settings, thereby increasing efficiency and fostering shared understanding. ^{5 , 30} In immersive settings, tools like AR and VR enable synchronized interactions, facilitating better collaborative dynamics and reducing the ambiguity often present in remote teamwork. ^{30 , 72} Well-designed work processes and user-friendly technologies are crucial for this, as individuals are often not experts in collaboration. ^{73 , 74} Providers of immersive solutions must take responsibility for creating these conditions to foster meaningful collaboration. ^{32 , 60}

Workplaces are already evolving as companies establish Metaverse offices for telework and remote work. ^{2 , 56} Examples of this include platforms developed by Gather, Teamflow, NVIDIA, and Meta Inc. ^{30 , 75} According to Šímová et al., the productivity of virtual teams can be increased through knowledge, autonomy, creativity, trust, communication, and physical health. ³⁰ It is unclear whether these factors are applicable in virtual worlds like Metaverses. ³⁰ Employees must also have the skills to utilize the technical aspects of VR, MR, and AR systems. ^{3 , 4} This includes explicit proficiency in handling the necessary hardware, such as HMDs, controllers, and the relevant software. ⁴ Additionally, spatial awareness is essential or must be developed to effectively interact with objects in augmented, mixed, or virtual reality environments. ^{4 , 76} Furthermore, trust in the respective technology is one of the most significant prerequisites for working in immersive virtual environments/worlds and new technologies in general. ^{31 , 77} There is a need to foster trust in this technology to achieve usage and acceptance. ^{31 , 77} According to Nevo et al., employees who already use virtual worlds, such as games, for leisure purposes can recognize their suitability for the workplace and thus contribute to dissemination and acceptance within their company. ⁶⁰

Additionally, well-being could be promoted by quickly entering and leaving virtual worlds, facilitating a switch between work and leisure. ⁷⁸ Immersive technologies such as VR and AR are the subject of scientific debate regarding health concerns. “Cybersickness” or “motion sickness” can occur, which can affect hand-eye coordination, ²⁷ lead to rapid eye fatigue, ⁷⁹ and cause nausea, headaches, and dizziness. ²⁵ While this primarily affects older VR systems, ²⁶ current devices are also impacted. ²⁵ Future studies should address these issues to ensure that the use of VR systems will be smoother in the future. Moreover, in a few years, AR, MR, and VR will be widely used for employee training and development, conducting meetings, and organizing events and conferences. ⁸⁰ Utilizing virtual worlds allows employees to fulfill their professional obligations from various geographical locations, overcoming territorial restrictions, potentially leading to better work-life balance and lower employee turnover. ^{81 , 82} This is because virtual worlds like the Metaverse can create a more pleasant working environment and thus help reduce work-related stress. ⁸³ Furthermore, if properly designed, virtual worlds can increase productivity and be free from distractions that can occur in physical work environments such as the office. ^{84 , 85} On the other hand, it is not only the responsibility of employees to master immersive technologies but also of providers to ensure usability through user-centered design, collaborative workflows, and process-supporting technologies. Intuitive interfaces and training can further ease adoption and acceptance. ^{32 , 60}

2.3 Quality of Working Life (QWL)

Taking these effects into account, the term QWL generally refers to employees’ satisfaction with their work life. It assesses the quality of the relationship between the employee and their work environment. ^{24 , 86} QWL represents a multi-dimensional concept in human resource management, which has been operationalized differently in various periods. ^{87 , 88} It is also defined as a program to enhance employee satisfaction to improve the satisfaction, productivity, and effectiveness of a company. ^{88 , 89} Richard Walton introduced the term QWL in the 1970s. ¹⁹ In his article “Quality of Working Life: What Is It?” Walton defined eight dimensions that constitute the QWL: fair compensation, safe working conditions, opportunities for development, job security, social integration, participation rights, work-life balance, and the societal significance of work. These factors are intended to promote employee well-being and create a positive, fulfilling work environment. ¹⁹

Research on QWL began in the 1960s, initially focusing on dimensions of the desirability of working conditions. ²⁴ From the 1980s onwards, the need satisfaction approach and additional dimensions were introduced. ²⁴ In today’s context, these two perspectives are often combined, ²⁴ resulting in a variety of QWL dimensions, including intrinsic work motivation, job satisfaction, happiness, job autonomy, job security, safe working environments, physical health & safety, job stress & mental health, work-life balance, facilities & aesthetic needs, training & development, as well as workload, which vary depending on the model, author, year, and context. ^{18 , 23 , 86 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95} Thus, it can be concluded that there is no unified concept to measure QWL holistically. ⁹⁰ Overall, however, the authors agree that determining QWL always involves interactions between employees and work contexts or contents.

Closely related to the concept and dimensions of QWL and partly integral is job satisfaction, one of the most studied concepts in work and organizational psychology. ⁹⁶ Yang ⁹⁷ argues that QWL can be seen as a precursor to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is often considered a separate concept, distinct from QWL, as QWL mainly focuses on employees’ well-being, a point of consensus in the literature. ^{24 , 98 , 99 , 100} Nevertheless, some QWL research integrates job satisfaction, particularly due to the combination of the mentioned perspectives (e.g., Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy ¹⁸ and Warr et al. ⁹⁰ ). In our study, we treat job satisfaction as one dimension of QWL. QWL is usually measured using satisfaction levels. ¹⁰¹

While the diversity of QWL dimensions in the literature reflects its complex and multi-faceted nature, recurring themes allow for a more structured understanding of the concept. ^{18 , 23 , 95} These themes address fundamental aspects of employees’ work experiences, such as their psychological well-being, physical safety, and the design of their work environment. ^{18 , 24 , 95} Walton’s foundational work identified dimensions like safe working conditions, opportunities for development, and work-life balance as key components of QWL. ¹⁹ Subsequent research has expanded on these ideas, emphasizing the importance of mental health, risk prevention, and ergonomic workplace design. ^{18 , 19 , 23 , 24 , 95} Despite the absence of a universally accepted framework for measuring QWL holistically, ⁹⁰ the literature consistently highlights three overarching dimensions that capture the key aspects of QWL: (i) Mental Health, (ii) Safety & Prevention, and (iii) Workplace Design.

Mental Health refers to employees’ psychological well-being, stress levels, and ability to maintain a work-life balance. ^{19 , 95 , 102} This dimension is closely tied to intrinsic factors such as autonomy and self-worth, which Walton ¹⁹ emphasized early on and is further supported by contemporary perspectives that stress the balance between work demands and mental resources. ^{23 , 95 , 102}

Safety & Prevention involve ensuring physical and psychological safety at the workplace to minimize risks and hazards. ^{18 , 24 , 95} Researchers such as Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy ¹⁸ and Ellis & Pompili ⁹⁵ emphasize that accident prevention, ergonomic measures, and safeguarding employees’ physical health are essential for QWL.

Workplace Design pertains to the physical layout and structure of the work environment. ^{18 , 19 , 23} Walton ¹⁹ and Sirgy et al. ²³ highlight that a well-designed work environment not only reduces stress and workload but also enhances productivity and creates a more pleasant atmosphere for employees. ^{18 , 19 , 23}

These overarching dimensions provide a structured lens for analyzing QWL, capturing the interplay between mental well-being, physical safety, and the design of the work environment. ^{18 , 23 , 95} By consolidating these recurring themes from the literature, we establish a robust foundation for understanding how QWL is influenced across diverse work contexts. ^{18 , 24 , 90} This perspective allows for a more systematic exploration of QWL, particularly in evolving settings such as those shaped by immersive technologies. ^{18 , 19 , 23 , 95}

In summary, QWL can be identified as a crucial factor in attracting and retaining qualified employees, ^{24 , 103} which can lead to a competitive advantage in the context of the Future of Work, especially in the War for Talents ¹⁰⁴ and the diversified demands of different generations (e.g., Baby Boomers, Generation Y, etc.). ⁸⁹

3.1 Literature search

The electronic databases used for the literature search are: (i) Scopus, (ii) IEEE, (iii) AISEL, and (iv) PubMed. The literature search was limited to works written in English. All articles were accessed from July to September 2024, with the last search run in September 2024 to update the results.

The search string used three AND conditions, covering the areas of immersive environments, work, and QWL (components). The keyword selection and search string for our inquiry are presented in Table 1.

3.2 Selection of studies

This scoping review examines the impact of working in immersive environments on QWL. During the study period, we gathered a total of 1,210 records from various sources: Scopus (n = 821), IEEE (n = 244), AISeL (n = 8), and PubMed (n = 137). Additionally, we identified two records through a manual search, which were included in our analysis. Duplicates (n = 197) were removed manually. The study selection flowchart is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2:

PRISMA-ScR flow diagram.

3.3 Inclusion and exclusion of studies

The remaining records (n = 1,015) were classified as “relevant” and “non-relevant” for our research. To do so, three inclusion and one exclusion criteria were applied when reviewing the title and abstract, which are shown in Table 2.

The inclusion criteria were defined as follows: (1) Work in immersive environments refers to work activities supported by AR, MR, VR, or VW, such as VR-based training or AR-assisted maintenance processes. ^{3 , 4} Working conditions (2) relate to the dimensions of QWL, as outlined in Chapter 2.3. These include physical, psychological, and organizational factors such as stress reduction, safety, and work-life balance, grounded in established QWL literature from Walton ¹⁹ and Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy. ¹⁸ Additionally, the study had to examine the (3) employee level, focusing on workers’ experiences and perceptions. For example, studies analyzing the impact of VR on employees’ stress reduction or workload were included, while technological or purely organizational aspects without a direct connection to employees were excluded. ⁹ The exclusion criterion specifies that studies were excluded if they represented documents such as books, glossaries, or conference reviews where the keywords appeared incidentally, but no research was conducted that addressed all the defined keywords in a meaningful and systematic manner.

If all the inclusion criteria were met, and the exclusion criteria did not apply, the result was included in the in-depth analysis (n = 60). It should be noted that abstracts were not available for ten of the records. The literature search was conducted by two reviewers independently of each other, that is, blinded, to determine whether a study would be included in our research or not. To report on the differences of this independent procedure (and for risk of bias assessment ¹⁰⁷ ), we used Cohen’s kappa coefficient. ¹⁰⁸ In this process, we calculated a kappa value of 0.92, which represents an almost perfect agreement between the author and the reviewer, according to McHugh. ¹⁰⁸ Subsequently, disagreements between the author and the reviewer concerning the inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to the studies were solved by consensus.

Following that, the 60 records were examined in full text for eligibility. Twenty-eight records were excluded: Thirteen did not reflect immersive environments for work as the focus of the research, eight did not focus on QWL, one focused on technology aspects/processes, two represented only a research idea or abstract for a talk, one did not reflect employees, two were not accessible, and one had an English abstract but was written in another language (see Figure 1).

3.4 Overview of the selected articles

A total of 32 records were considered relevant and thus examined. The publication frequency of the results by year is shown in Figure 3. The records included 17 journal articles, 10 conference papers, two reviews, and three book chapters.

Figure 3:

Publication frequency by year.

Table 3 shows the distribution of research methods used in the respective contributions according to the immersive technology used.

To assess quality, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) metric was applied, which combines citation frequency with the prestige of citing journals, providing a transparent framework for evaluating the quality of journal-based research (e.g., Falagas et al. ¹⁰⁹ ). The clustering techniques and visualization capabilities of SJR further enhance its suitability for evaluating interdisciplinary research, which is particularly relevant for rapidly evolving fields like immersive technologies. ¹¹⁰ While 56.25 % of the records originate from Q1 and Q2 journals, and 9.38 % of the records are classified as Q4 journals, 34.38 % are non-indexed sources, including conference papers, grey literature, and book chapters, as shown in Table 4. These non-indexed sources were included to capture emerging perspectives and applied insights, reflecting the growing need to address gaps in formal literature through diverse publication types. ¹¹⁰ This approach ensures that both foundational and innovative contributions, often emerging first in non-indexed formats, are represented in this review.

3.5 Coding framework

To systematically analyze and structure the results of our scoping review, we developed a coding framework based on the immersive environment technologies employed. In accordance with the presentation in Chapter 2.1 and the identified results, these environments can be sorted into four categories: Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality (MR), and Virtual Worlds (VW). This classification allows us to examine different types of immersive technologies within immersive environments specifically and analyze their respective impacts.

In a second step, the results were structured according to the dimensions of the QWL. As previously described (see Chapter 2.3), there is currently no universally applicable framework for comprehensively capturing QWL. However, to enable systematic analysis, we clustered the results according to the QWL dimensions identified in the initial literature review, which we summarized into three major topics: (i) Mental Health, (ii) Safety & Prevention, and (iii) Workplace Design. Table 5 provides a summary of the coding framework, including the definitions and characteristics of each QWL dimension.

Figure 4 provides an overview of the relevant studies, highlighting the research methods used, the classification of immersive environment technologies, and the connection to QWL.

Figure 4:

Results according to the coding framework.

4.1 Augmented Reality (AR)

4.2 Mixed Reality (MR)

4.3 Virtual Reality (VR)

4.4 Virtual worlds

6.1 Theoretical implications

First, we contribute to the existing research by providing a first analysis of the impact of immersive environments on QWL. The analysis is based on a scoping review that provides insights into the existing literature. Second, we present a research agenda to guide future research directions. Since there are not many studies, especially given the novelty of immersive virtual worlds in relation to QWL, this agenda is of significant importance and should be considered before emerging virtual worlds such as Metaverses are developed and introduced into new work contexts. Furthermore, potential negative aspects of introducing immersive virtual technologies in the work context should be considered since the identified research on this topic has been predominately positive. These concerns, for example, include the problems with VR and AR that can lead to “cybersickness” and “motion sickness.” Third, our analysis provides a framework for topics on QWL in future work contexts in immersive environments. It enables research questions to be consolidated and the field to be further developed.

6.2 Practical implications

Our findings contribute to companies and society in several ways. First, the results are particularly relevant for companies. They highlight which technologies are most effective for specific aspects of promoting QWL. Our findings stress the importance of designing immersive environments that support well-structured collaborative processes, which are key to leveraging their potential benefits for QWL, including stress reduction and improved team dynamics. Companies can use these technologies strategically to optimize work environments, reduce stress, and prevent accidents, especially in safety-critical areas. Notably, VR is particularly promising for stress reduction in high-stress scenarios.

Furthermore, it becomes clear that companies should experiment with XR technologies, in general, before implementing VW to identify and respond to potential risks associated with these technologies early on. It is not time to wait until rigorous results are available from research; instead, ideas should be tested depending on the work environment. Second, we have demonstrated that immersive environments have the potential to reduce stress and promote well-being not only in the workplace but also in other societal areas. The research findings provide insights into the transformation of the working world through immersive environments. This is especially relevant for discussions about the future of workplace design and safety, particularly in an increasingly digitalized and globalized world. Finally, our findings offer individuals the opportunity to consciously choose companies that use these technologies to enhance their personal QWL.

6.3 Limitations

As with any research, our study has limitations. First, the search string used is limited to the keywords used. There may be other relevant terms that would identify other relevant articles. Second, we did not use a holistic framework, as one does not yet exist for QWL. We developed our own, but the accuracy could be improved by using a validated framework. Third, a considerable of the focus is on the short-term effects of immersive technologies on mental health, safety, and workplace design. Long-term effects, such as the continued use of XR technologies or working in virtual worlds and their potential negative effects (e.g., technology fatigue), remain uninvestigated, as indicated by our results.