REVIEW ON SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE IN MANUFACTURING SECTOR

The following reviews are concerning on studies related to sustainability issues within
manufacturing sector. These reviews include research articles with both approaches (case study
and survey) as well as review articles.
A case study on integration of lean tools with sustainability manufacturing concept was
done by Miller, Pawloski, and Standridge (2010) in a USA furniture production company. The
lean tools and sustainable manufacturing implementation were integrated using discrete event
simulation (DES) and mathematical programming. As the results, the application of DES
successfully avoided the waste of overproduction and subsequently prevent unnecessary energy
consumption. Meanwhile, mathematical programming which used for limiting and optimizing
number of suppliers had also reduced travelling mileage, which resulted a leaner system with
respect to the waste elimination of transportation. Thus, the supply activity became greener, cost
saving and regarded as sustainable. However, no effect on social sustainability was discussed or
included in this research.
Local researchers, Amrina and Yusof (2011) had proposed a set of initial key
performance indicators (KPIs) for sustainable manufacturing evaluation in Malaysian automotive
industry. The KPIs were constructed based on the triple bottom line of sustainability which
include environmental, economic and social performance indicators. Table 1 presents underlying
indicators resides within triple bottom line. These indicators were compiled into a questionnaire
survey form which would be distributed to Malaysian auto parts and accessories manufacturers.
There was no finding revealed since it was a conception paper to propose an evaluation model.
However, researchers did conduct a pilot study to 9 respondents among practitioners,
academicians and consultants for validation and improvement purpose.

Table 1: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Sustainable Manufacturing

Economic
Quality: product
reliability/durability,
conformance to specs, customer
complaint, scrap-rework & reject
rate
Cost: material, setup, overhead,
inventory, rework & labour

Environmental
Deterioration: Air emission,
Water pollution & Land
Contamination
Resource: Energy & Water
utilization, Fuel consumption &
Land used
Waste: Solid, Water & Hazardous

Social
Employee: Training, OSH,
Turnover rate, Job &
Community satisfaction
Supplier: Certification,
Commitment & Initiative

Delivery: On-time, lead, cycle,

speed, due date & schedule
Flexibility: Volume, Product,
Process, Technology & NPD

Gimenez, Sierra, and Rodon (2012) had analysed the impact of internal environmental
programmes and social practices on the triple bottom line of sustainability (economy, social and
environment) using hierarchical regression analysis. Researchers had distributed International
Manufacturing Strategy Survey (IMSS) forms to Operation or Manufacturing Directors from 519
manufacturing plants within assembly industry across 19 countries. From the survey, internal
environment management programme showed positive impact on all three bottom lines while
internal social practices only had positive impact on social and environmental bottom line.
Researchers also had addressed their limitation while selecting the respondent firms. The period
of environmental and social programmes implementation between the respondent firms were
vary. Researchers believed the survey results might be different if they made the implementation
period constant. For example, all firms had implemented the programmed within the period of 5
years.
A framework for sustainable business development (SBD) in manufacturing and service
sectors was developed by Gunasekaran and Spalanzani (2012) based on their critical review on
important issues regarding sustainability. The framework consists of challenges, problems and

advances in SBD, besides sustainable operations in terms of distribution, production, supply,

reverse logistics and design of products and processes. Other than proposing a framework,
authors also listed numerous research gaps and directions for future research. One of the gap was
the lack of a clear performance measures and metrics at strategic, tactical and operational levels
for SBD.
In the same year, Zubir and Habidin (2012) proposed a conceptual model to determine
interrelationship between sustainable manufacturing practices (SMP), sustaining lean
improvements (SLI) and sustainable performance (SP). SMP consists of manufacturing
processes, supply chain management, social responsibility and environment management while
SLI includes standard work, employee involvement and continuous improvement. Researchers
had stated that the proposed model will be tested by conducting a quantitative survey in the
Malaysian automotive industry. Since the study is still in progress, no result is yet disclosed but
authors did mention 4 hypotheses to describe the future findings. They had predicted there are
positive and directly significant relationships between all the variables under studied.
Another conceptual model called Sustainable Performance Measurements (SPMs) was
proposed by Heng, Lee, Foong, and San (2012) to evaluate sustainable performance in
Malaysian electronic and electrical industry. The content of the performance measures are as
described in Table 2.
Table 2: Sustainable Performance Measurements (SPMs)
Economic
a) impact on shareholder
b) impact on employees
c) impact on government

Environment
a) Non-renewable resource productivity
b) Renewable resource productivity
c) Recycle
d) Waste management/intensity
e) Pollution/emission intensity
f) Investment on awareness

Social
a) Health & safety
b) Labor productivity
c) Quotas (gender/race)
d) Customer satisfaction
e) Community initiatives

This paper also did not reveal any result since it is a conception paper to unveil a research model
for future research. Unlike Zubir and Habidin (2012), the authors did not mention any hypothesis
to describe the outcomes. However, they did describe their strategy to use questionnaire survey
as the research instrument for data collection. The collected data then would be analysed using
structural equation model (SEM) programme.
Molamohamadi and Ismail (2013) proposed a new scheme for sustainable manufacturing
framework which include 2 more enablers besides technology and education. They added ethics
and accountability that assumed to have interlink connections with triple bottom line (economic,
social and environment). Researchers suggested that these enablers will stimulate and accelerate
the process of transforming traditional manufacturing into sustainable manufacturing. Besides
proposing a new scheme for sustainable manufacturing, authors also present overview of
sustainability concept, background and current issues related to sustainable manufacturing. The
denoted issues are involving product, process and system development within manufacturing
discipline. For product development, the concept of 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle) is now have
been extended to 6R, which added recover, redesign and remanufacture. Meanwhile, process
development focuses on issues related to planning (resource consumption), analysis (product life
cycle) and technology improvement. Finally, issues related to system improvement includes
supply chain design, facility design and operations, and planning.
A case study to evaluate sustainable manufacturing practices using analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) was carried out by Gupta, Dangayach, Singh, and Rao (2015). They chose 3 rival
manufacturing firms (EPI 1, EPI 2 and EPI 3) which produce electrical panel in India as their
unit of analysis. From the literature, authors identified 6 important sustainable manufacturing

practices which are eco design, process design, lean practices, green supply chain, product
recovery and cleaner production. They then evaluated the case firms sustainability using AHP
calculations based on these 6 practices implementation level. The results revealed that EPI 3 was
the most sustainable firm and cleaner production as the most important practice of all six.
Authors also recommended a software based tool development to evaluate sustainable practices
in manufacturing organizations.
Using a set of framework named Composite Sustainable Manufacturing Practices and
Key Performance Indicators (Table 3), Wang, Subramanian, Gunasekaran, Abdulrahman, and Liu
(2015) to examine the effectiveness of composite practices to improve sustainability
performance. This case study involved 2 leading auto-parts manufacturers in China, labelled as
Company A and Company B. In addition to semi-structured interviews and on site observation as
data collection approaches, researchers also distributed questionnaires to 3 senior production
managers from each case companies.
Table 3: Items of Composite Sustainable Manufacturing Practices and Key Performance
Indicators Framework
Composite Sustainable Manufacturing Practices
Green practices
Recycle materials and components
Measuring CO2 footprint
Use fuel efficient tools & machine
Use recyclable packaging materials
Lean practices
Inventory reduction
Continuous improvement
Multi-skilled employees
Total Productive Maintenance
Social practices
Employee education & training
Volunteering & philanthropy
Health & safety systems

Key Performance Indicators

Economic
Operational cost
Inventory cost
Environmental cost
Environmental
Business waste
Green image
CO2 emission
Social
Wealth created
Technology improvement
Health & Safety

Environmental friendly & safe product

The case study results demonstrated that both companies were into green practices but paid least
attention on measuring CO2 footprint. Obviously, green practices had contributed greatly in
environmental performance especially in business waste reduction and green image
improvement. Meanwhile, lean practices were implemented at high level by both companies
especially in continuous improvement and total productive maintenance. In general, lean
practices mainly demonstrated significant positive impact on economic performance. However,
lean practices also cause subsequent effect on few environmental and social performance such as
business waste reduction, green image improvement and enhanced wealth created per employee.
Surprisingly, social practices had most impact on environmental performance instead of social
performance dimensions. For example, Company B considered employees training and
healthcare system contributed to reduction of environmental cost, business waste and improve
green image.
Nordin, Ashari, and Rajemi (2014) had reported on sustainable manufacturing practised
by a local aircraft composite components and sub-assemblies manufacturer through a case study.
Through 2 hours of semi-structured interview session with an experienced personnel from the
company, the researchers had concluded that the case company had implemented 4 categories of
sustainable manufacturing practices. The categories are; responsive product strategy, lean
practices, supply chain restructuring and sustainable material and design. As the result of
implementing sustainable manufacturing practices, the case company had realized 3 benefits in
their business operation which are on-time delivery, cost and energy saving and compliance to

regulations and market trend (green manufacturing). However, this study only involved one
company which might affect the result generalization.

Vinodh, Ruben, and Asokan (2015) had utilised Life-cycle Analysis (LCA) integrated
value stream mapping (VSM) as a tool to attain sustainable manufacturing in an automotive
component manufacturing organization located at Tamil Nadu, India. Different from past studies
which also used VSM as a tool for achieving sustainability, authors claimed that their research is
the only research that considered all three bottom lines (economic, social and environment).
Table 4 displays sustainability metrics measured in this study.
Table 4: Sustainability metrics in LCA-VSM framework

Environment
Carbon footprint
Water eutrophication
Air acidification
Water consumption
Society
Physical load index
Work environmental risks
Noise level

Sustainability Metrics
Economy
Value-added time
No value-added time
Value-added cost
No value-added cost
Raw material consumption
Power consumption
Total energy consumption
Oil and coolant consumption

Authors concluded that this study had helped the case organization in enhancing sustainable
performance and provided insight into comprehensive assessment of energy consumption and
value added process.
A review on sustainable manufacturing practices by Yusup, Mahmood, Salleh, and Yusof
(2015) based on research articles published between 2003 and 2014, suggested that high
performance of lean tools adaptation such as 5S, JIT, SMED, CFA, root cause analysis, takt time,

bottleneck analysis, standardised work, jidoka, poka-yoke, heijunka, andon, kanban and visual
factory had potential contribution to competency accomplishment. Authors defined competency
accomplishment as socially related performance such as work organization improvement, better
working conditions, productivity increment and so on. Meanwhile, the same list of lean tools
along with gemba, kaizen, hoshin kanri, OEE, VSM and TPM might affect economic
achievement. Economic achievement include, reduction of non-value added activities,
production lead time and operation cost. Visual factory, root cause analysis, standardised work,
jidoka, poka-yoke, gemba, kaizen, hoshin kanri, TPM, KPI and CFA are tools that potentially
influence environmental responsiveness. Lastly, authors did point direction for a future research
which to quantitatively analyse the influence of lean tools adaptation towards all three discussed
performance.
Silva, Vaz, and Ferreira (2013) studied the impact of lean manufacturing on
environmental and social sustainability through a case study. A Portuguese manufacturing
company was selected as the case company and the data was gathered from 11 personnel in
charge under several functional department namely Product Development, Assembly, Production
Planning and Control, Quality and Environment, Health and Safety Management. Using concept
mapping methodology which combined both quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative
(interviews) approaches followed by hierarchical cluster analysis, researchers revealed the
findings as follow:
i.
ii.
iii.

The increment in productivity and efficiency of manufacturing process are the main
impact of lean manufacturing
Very positive relationship between lean manufacturing and employee satisfaction
Very positive relationship between lean manufacturing and financial strength

iv.

Weak relation between lean manufacturing and quality improvement due to high quality

v.

standard prior to lean implementation

Very weak relation between lean manufacturing and environmental management

Even the fifth finding showed weak relationship of lean manufacturing and environmental
management, authors still claimed that lean manufacturing supports overall sustainability.
The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations was revealed by
Piercy and Rich (2015) in a multi-case analysis within UK manufacturing sector. 5
manufacturing companies with different production (pharmaceutical, metal, cosmetic, drink and
furniture) were chose to be studied. Longitudinal observation was used by researchers to prove
that lean operations develop positive sustainability outcomes more than just environmental
benefits. The observation was done from 2008 to 2012 which is within 5 years period. As the
findings, researchers suggested that companies which became lean first were easier to achieve
sustainability compare to companies that pursue for sustainability first and then decided to be
lean. Researchers also highlighted several characteristics in which lean operation and sustainable
operation shared like problem solving, team working, suppliers focus and better production
quality.
Due to issues of contradictory effect in implementing lean practices while pursuing
environmental sustainability initiative, Brecht (2012) developed a mathematical model to
optimize the trade-off. However, the established model only specific to single manufacturing
process (turning process) and considered only 2 factors; total cost represented the process
leanness and total CO2 emission as greenness measure. Besides the main objective of developing
the model, authors also highlighted several differences and similarities between lean and
sustainability concept. For example, even both lean and sustainability concept emphasized on

waste reduction but lean concept defined waste in terms of economic (7 Muda) while
sustainability concept interprets it in ecologic way such as air pollution and water contamination.
Another study which also attempted to cope with the issues of trade-off between lean
practices and sustainable development was done by Longoni and Cagliano (2015). Through an
inductive case study, researchers investigated how cross-functional executive involvement and
worker involvement affect strategic alignment of lean manufacturing and sustainability
programme. Besides 36 sessions of semi-structured interviews, several structured questionnaires
were also used to gain the sufficient data from 10 companies from different industries and sizes.
The respondent companies were among award winner lean manufacturers which also devoted in
social and environmental sustainability goals. As the results, cross-functional executive
involvement and workers engagement did positively affect the strategic alignment between the
two initiatives (lean and sustainability). However, researchers did address few limitations which
direct to improvement for future research. This research only covered single case from each
companies and the strategic alignment only measured in dichotomous measure instead of
intensity or level which might provide wider coverage.
Again, issues of aligning and trade-off between lean operation and sustainability initiative
had also caught local researchers interest. Wong and Wong (2014) had synergized leanecosphere with sustainable operation management by addressing human resource factor.
Researchers integrate workers between departments by setting common objective using unified
index derived from analytical network process (ANP). Meanwhile, Interpretive Structural
Modelling (ISM) technique was used to address vertical alignment of lean implementation. As
the results, job satisfaction level among workers had been increased since there were reduction
of reported complaints. Managers feedback also described the same, there was less conflict

between departments and people became more cooperative. Still, this study only covered only
one pillar of sustainability triple bottom line. Authors also suggested the incorporation of Planet
and Profit bottom line in the future research.

REFERENCES
Amrina, E., & Yusof, S. M. (2011). Key performance indicators for sustainable manufacturing
evaluation in automotive companies. Paper presented at the Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference on.
Brecht, S. C. B. (2012). Modeling optimal tradeoffs for lean and sustainable manufacturing:
University of Rhode Island.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple
bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149-159.
Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainability of manufacturing and services:
Investigations for research and applications. International Journal of Production
Economics, 140(1), 35-47.
Gupta, S., Dangayach, G., Singh, A. K., & Rao, P. (2015). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Model for Evaluating Sustainable Manufacturing Practices in Indian Electrical Panel
Industries. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 208-216.
Heng, T. B., Lee, C. L., Foong, Y. P., & San, O. T. (2012). A Framework of a Sustainable
Performance Measurements (SPMs) Model for the Malaysian Electronic and Electrical
Industry. World Applied Sciences Journal, 20(1), 107-119.
Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2015). Cross-functional executive involvement and worker
involvement in lean manufacturing and sustainability alignment. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 35(9), 1332-1358.

Miller, G., Pawloski, J., & Standridge, C. R. (2010). A case study of lean, sustainable
manufacturing. Journal of industrial engineering and management, 3(1), 11-32.
Molamohamadi, Z., & Ismail, N. (2013). Developing a New Scheme for Sustainable
Manufacturing. Int. J. Mater. Mech. Manuf, 1(1), 1-5.
Nordin, N., Ashari, H., & Rajemi, M. F. (2014). A case study of sustainable manufacturing
practices. Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol, 2(1).
Piercy, N., & Rich, N. (2015). The relationship between lean operations and sustainable
operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(2), 282315.
Silva, C., Vaz, P., & Ferreira, L. M. (2013). The impact of Lean Manufacturing on environmental
and social sustainability: a study using a concept mapping approach. Paper presented at
the Management and Control of Production and Logistics.
Vinodh, S., Ruben, R. B., & Asokan, P. (2015). Life cycle assessment integrated value stream
mapping framework to ensure sustainable manufacturing: a case study. Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy, 1-17.
Wang, Z., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., Abdulrahman, M. D., & Liu, C. (2015). Composite
sustainable manufacturing practice and performance framework: Chinese auto-parts
suppliers perspective. International Journal of Production Economics.
Wong, W. P., & Wong, K. Y. (2014). Synergizing an ecosphere of lean for sustainable operations.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 51-66.
Yusup, M. Z., Mahmood, W. H. W., Salleh, M. R., & Yusof, A. S. M. (2015). Review the
influence of lean tools and its performance against the index of manufacturing
sustainability. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 8(2), 116-131.
Zubir, A. F. M., & Habidin, N. F. (2012). The development of sustainable manufacturing
practices and sustainable performance in Malaysian automotive industry. Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(7), 130-138.