Accepted Manuscript

Lean/Green integration focused on waste reduction techniques

Alain Fercoq, Samir Lamouri, Valentina Carbone

PII: S0959-6526(16)31002-2
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.107
Reference: JCLP 7679

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 15 October 2013

Revised Date: 30 April 2016
Accepted Date: 19 July 2016

Please cite this article as: Fercoq A, Lamouri S, Carbone V, Lean/Green integration focused on
waste
reduction techniques, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.107.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a
service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lean/Green integration focused on waste reduction

techniques

Alain Fercoq a,*, Samir Lamouri a, Valentina Carbone b

a Arts et Meé tiers, 151 Boulevard de l’Hoô pital, 75013 Paris, France b

ESCP Europe, 79 Avenue de la Reé publique, 75011 Paris, France

* Corresponding author. Tel. +33 140645900, Mobile +33 607230012 (not to be published)

E-mail addresses: alain.fercoq@ensam.eu, samir.lamouri@ensam.eu, vcarbone@escpeurope.eu

Abstract

In a context in which companies aim to optimize their social and environmental

responsibility, they can adopt and combine Lean and Green strategies. This paper offers a

quantitative study of Lean/Green integration focused on waste reduction techniques in

manufacturing processes. The literature confirms the convergence of the concepts of

Lean Manufacturing and Green Management. Specifically, Waste Reduction Techniques

are considered one of the main areas of the overlap between the Lean and Green

paradigms. This offers interesting possibilities for future research on the development of

quantitative studies on Waste Reduction Techniques, especially for a solid waste

minimization program in manufacturing. Using the Design of Experiments tool, the

present study measures the influence of different methods, derived from both the Lean

and Green approaches, on solid waste management performance. Based on these results,

a hierarchy of progress factors for a waste minimization program in manufacturing is

outlined: the 3R Hierarchy must be preferred to a deadly waste (muda) analysis and

combining the 3R Hierarchy and the deadly wastes of Lean Management improves the

performance of a waste minimization program in manufacturing. In addition, the use of

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
a Lean/Green matrix —a check-list that integrates Lean and Green best practices— was

shown to consistently increase the performance of a waste minimization plan and as a

result, the impact on the waste reduction can be doubled. This work is of interest to

practitioners because they can build upon this experience to implement a waste

reduction program using a set of tools to monitor and measure the program’s

achievements, which can ultimately lead to balanced performance improvement in terms

of environmental, social and economic dimensions.

Keywords

Green Supply Chain Management - Lean Manufacturing - Waste management - Waste

Reduction Techniques

1. Introduction

Initially developed in the Japanese automotive industry, Lean Manufacturing now stands

as the main paradigm for industrial companies. It aims to reduce waste and improve

value, and is customer focused (high quality, low cost, short lead times) (Pettersen,

2009). A Lean company is an integrated entity that efficiently and effectively creates

value for its various stakeholders (Nightingale, 2009). A challenging conceptualization of

Lean refers to its ability to resolve the efficiency paradox, shifting a company's focus

from resource to flow efficiency (Modig and AÄ hlstroö m, 2012). In addition, Lean

manufacturing is an integrated socio technical system whose main objective is to

eliminate waste by concurrently reducing and minimizing supplier, customer, and

internal variability (Angelis and Fernandes, 2012). Lean is not only a set of tools, but also

a managerial approach for improving processes based on a complex system of

interrelated socio-technical practices (Bortolotti et al., 2015).

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Otherwise, environmental and social concerns have become increasingly critical within

our societies and economies. Since the end of the Eighties, the sustainable development

concept (WCED, 1987), defined as “development that meets the needs of the present

generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs,” has aroused growing interest. A sustainable enterprise is one that contributes to

sustainable development by simultaneously delivering economic, social, and

environmental benefits or what has been termed “the triple bottom line” (Elkington,

1998). The idea behind the “triple bottom line” paradigm is that a corporation’s ultimate

success or health can and should be measured no only by the traditional financial bottom

line, but also by its social/ethical and environmental performance (Norman and

MacDonald, 2004). Among the major concerns brought to the fore by the sustainability

movement are the debilitating effects of environmental pollution, which has put

industries and communities on alert to impending doom if appropriate action is not

taken in time. This is the reason why the green paradigm has emerged as a philosophical

and operational approach to reducing the negative ecological impact of an organization's

products and services as well as improving the environmental efficiency of its

operations, while still achieving its financial objectives (Garza-Reyes, 2015). According to

Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2013), environmental management (henceforth called

“Green” in this paper) is a topical strategy aimed at making decisions that are favorable

to the environment. Green product or process innovation induced by environmental

regulations or market demand or a firm’s internal initiatives has shown significant

positive effects on the firm’s economic, social, and environmental performance (Zailani

et al., 2015). Green concerns increasingly span functions and organizations. In the

supplier selection process, for instance, various environmental dimensions are being

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
taken into account, such as the supplier’s performance in terms of solid waste

management, energy consumption, green materials, and green design. This phenomenon

has recently been studied by Govindan et al. (2015), Wu and Barnes (2016).

Manufacturers can simultaneously adopt and combine Lean and Green strategies in

order to create an environmental stance that is a driver for reduced costs and risks,

increased revenue, and improved brand image. Phrases such as “Lean is Green” have

become increasingly mainstream (Corbett and Klassen, 2006). Steve Hope, general

manager of Toyota Motor Europe, stated that the whole company should be “green, clean

and lean”. Accordingly, Toyota was the first company to achieve “zero waste to landfill” in

the worldwide automotive industry (Farish, 2009). Bergmiller and McCright (2009a)

identify the correlation between Green operations and Lean results. They found that

Lean companies that implement Green practices achieve better Lean results than

companies that do not. Lean not only serves as a catalyst, but also is synergistic with the

Green strategy. This means that Lean is beneficial for Green practices and the

implementation of Green practices in turn has a positive influence on existing business

practices (Duö es et al., 2013). At the supply chain level, Green practices are often

considered to be an opportunity for firms to maximize Lean quality improvements and

performance (Mollenkopf et al., 2010). Nevertheless, some contradictory results have

been highlighted: the Green Supply Chain prescribes a reduction in delivery frequency in

order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, resulting in a potentially negative impact on

operational supply chain performance (Carvalho et al., 2011). At the company level,

combining Green management with Lean Manufacturing is also proving to be a suitable

choice (Yang et al., 2011). Lean and Green manufacturing can provide the competitive

advantage and profitability that many manufacturers are looking for. In their recent

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
examination of the relationships between Lean, Green, and sustainability, Dhingra et al.

(2014) observe that the previously held notion that Lean leads to Green, but not

necessarily vice versa, is reiterated and confirmed. And concerning formal management

systems, Kurdve at al. (2015) recommend the integration of the production system and

formal environmental management systems (ISO 14001).

Several issues can be dealt with in an environmental improvement plan: carbon

dioxide (CO2) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, waste generation and

water use (Yu et al., 2009). The latter two are very common in any industry, and waste

generation is the area that is closest to the Lean Manufacturing concept, as it is focused

on the reduction of any type of excess. Lean practitioners traditionally have focused on

what they refer to as the seven forms of waste: over-production, defects, unnecessary

inventory, inappropriate processing, excessive transportation, waiting, and unnecessary

motion (Pepper and Spedding, 2009). Environmental waste can be added to that list.

Bicheno (2000) identifies wasted materials as one of the “new” wastes. Environmental

impacts can be considered as a result of “green wastes” (Verrier et al., 2015). Inspired by

the Lean methodology, Hines (2009) proposes a categorization of eight green

manufacturing wastes: greenhouse gases, eutrophication, excessive resource usage,

excessive power usage, pollution, rubbish, excessive water usage, and poor health and

safety. A key issue is the overuse of natural resources, which leads to environmental

harm (Wang and Gupta, 2011) and the depletion of those resources. As raw materials

have become more and more scarce, hence expensive, reducing their consumption is a

key objective for most companies.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
This article presents a quantitative study on Lean/Green integration with a focus on

solid waste management in manufacturing. It builds on the recent work by Duö es et al.

(2013), Martíénez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes (2014), and Garza-Reyes (2015). Duö es et

al. (2013) point out that Lean and Green overlap especially in Waste Reduction

Techniques (WRT), which constitute the focus of our research. Martíénez-Jurado and

Moyano-Fuentes (2014) show that Lean and Green are complementary and are governed

by three main principles: waste reduction, a process-centered focus, and high levels of

involvement and participation by people. In addition, according to a recent state-of-the-

art review of the research on Lean/Green (Garza -Reyes, 2015), there are some

interesting research questions that could be answered by the development of a

quantitative study on Lean/Green management (compatibility, integration, performance

assessment method, and impact on organizational performance).

This paper contributes to Lean/Green research in two ways. First, using the Design of

Experiments tool, this study measures the influence on waste management performance

of the different approaches: the seven deadly wastes (muda) of Lean Management, the

3R hierarchy (Reduction/Reuse/Recovery) and the combination of these two methods.

Second, it demonstrates that integrating the two methods in a Lean/Green matrix

strengthens the performance of a solid waste progress plan.

The remainder of this paper contains five main sections. Section 2 contains the literature

review and states the research hypotheses. Next, the quantitative methodology is

detailed in Section 3. Findings are presented in Section 4. The 5 th section interprets the

experimental results. Finally, Section 6 concludes, outlining the contributions of this

paper and suggesting future research activities in this area.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Literature review and research hypotheses

In keeping with the research question, the literature review is divided into four parts:

Lean Manufacturing tools, Waste Management, Lean/Green Management in

manufacturing and Lean/Green integration for a waste minimization program in

manufacturing. A research hypothesis is formulated for each. A fifth subsection

summarizes the hypotheses in a hierarchy of progress levels for a waste minimization

program in manufacturing.

2.1 Lean Manufacturing tools

Lean offers organizations a toolbox of methods that can be used to eliminate waste from

business processes. Lean practitioners have traditionally focused on what they refer to

as the “Seven Deadly Wastes”: defects, overproduction, waiting, transport, inventory,

motion, and excessive processing (Pojasek, 2008). The matrix below (Table 1) illustrates

the link between the deadly wastes (commonly called muda — the Japanese term) and

solid waste impacts according to the US EPA (2007). For instance, overproduction

generates excess products that may spoil or become obsolete, requiring disposal. In

addition to this qualitative approach, it is interesting to measure the impact of using the

"muda" concept on a program to reduce waste in the manufacturing sector. This original

quantitative study will confirm whether Lean is effective in implementing an

environmental program. Thus, the first hypothesis is formulated as:

H1 – A deadly waste (muda) analysis will optimize a progress plan to reduce the amount

of waste incinerated.

Table 1. Lean and solid waste impacts (US EPA, 2007)

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Extra products may spoil or become obsolete requiring disposal

Extra hazardous materials used result in extra waste disposal.

More packaging to store work-in-process (WIP)

Waste from deterioration or damage to stored WIP
More packaging required to protect components during movement

Defective components require recycling or disposal

Unnecessary processing increases waste
Potential material spoilage or component damage causing waste

Deadly waste categories Solid waste impacts

(muda)
Over production

Inventory

Transportation and
motion Defects

Over processing
Waiting

2.2 Waste management

The production of waste and its disposal through end-of-pipe means (e.g., landfill,

incineration or off-site treatment) is an increasingly undesirable outcome for firms and

their stakeholders. Landfill disposal generates costs for the firm in transport and

disposal fees. It also represents an opportunity cost owing to the loss of material that has

potential reuse value. Waste reduction, rather than waste disposal, offers a range of

benefits to a firm’s environmental and financial performance (King and Lenox, 2001).

Reducing waste in processes or reusing waste as raw material can reduce costs for firms

(Doonan et al., 2005). Simpson and Power (2005) have demonstrated that investments

in resources that allow firms to improve their waste reduction performance have

implications in terms of competitive advantage.

There is widespread agreement in the waste management literature that waste

management alternatives can be ranked in chronological order, although slightly

different hierarchies have been proposed (Table 2).

Table 2. The waste hierarchies

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Least preferred Most preferred
Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Allen, D.M. (1994) X X X X X
Petek and Glavic (1996) X X X X X

Morris et al. (1998) X X X X X

Mohan Das Gandhi et al. X X X X X

(2006)
US EPA (2007) X X X X X
Black and Phillips X X X X X

(2010)
Schroeder and Robinson X X X X X X
(2010)
1 - Disposal / Landfilling / Incineration; 2 - Recovery / Retrieve energy; 3 - Recycle; 4 - Reuse; 5 -
Reduce / waste minimization by source; 6 - Prevention at design stage; 7 - Elimination / Refine

These hierarchies set out the priorities for waste management. As early as 1994, Allen

defined the five echelons of a waste hierarchy. First, disposal – usually landfill or

incineration – is the least attractive waste management option. The second level is the

recovery of value or energy from waste materials. This includes material recycling,

composting and the recovery of energy from waste. Third, reuse involves putting objects

back into use so they do not enter the waste stream. Reduction is the main priority for

sustainable waste management: the reduction or minimization of waste at the source.

The final aim is the total elimination of waste by radical process changes (usually an

unrealistic expectation). This hierarchy of action is commonly called "3R” (Reduction,

Reuse, Recovery). Dan Azimi Jibrila et al. (2012) state that the 3R hierarchy is a strategic

approach to solid waste management. 3R practices comprise different measures and

skillful techniques to minimize the volume of discarded waste materials. The waste

management hierarchy is the internationally accepted policy for waste management

practice, and emphasizes reducing waste at the source (Schroeder and Robinson, 2010).

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
As such, the 3R hierarchy can be regarded as a reference method for operating a waste

management progress plan. In addition, conceptual frameworks for waste minimization

have been developed. Hicks et al. (2004) present a generic functional model for modeling

the material and flow of waste from both a physical and cumulative cost perspective. A

three-step sequential approach is described by Musee et al. (2007): waste source

identification and quantification, qualitative evaluation of waste causes, and finally, a

feasible development of alternatives for waste minimization. Similarly, Darlington et al.

(2009) propose a waste analysis methodology tailored to the specific requirements of

food manufacturing, which consists of the following: waste inventory analysis to

highlight and monitor the sources of waste throughout the production processes, cost

and environmental impact analysis to perform a cost analysis and to prioritize the

importance of cost management, and reduce–recycle–disposal analysis to formulate a

detailed step-by-step solution for reducing, reusing, recycling and safe disposal of the

waste. To support such a framework, Darlington et al. (2009) describe a set of tools for

waste minimization: IDEF0 (Integrated Definition method) representation, a physical

flow and an input (raw materials) / output (wastes) diagram through the various stages

of manufacturing. Other researchers (Hogland and Stenis, 2000; Maxime et al., 2006)

produce a similar deliverable: input and output flows, flows of solid residues and of

materials and energy.

A large number of studies have developed optimization methods, but without doing a

quantitative study of the impact of the 3R hierarchy or any other particular tool to

minimize solid wastes in manufacturing. This is why, in this paper, the impact of the 3R

hierarchy on a waste minimization program is precisely measured and compared with

the "seven deadly wastes" of lean management. Thus, our second hypothesis is:

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
H2 - As a reference method, the 3R hierarchy is a better tool than the seven deadly waste

categories of Lean Management for minimizing solid wastes in manufacturing.

2.3 Lean/Green management in manufacturing

Lean Manufacturing focuses on the elimination of waste within the production system

through continuous improvement and process changes to reduce non -value added

activities (Womack et al., 1990). Cleaner production, on the other hand, introduced by

UNEP (2005), is defined as a continuous implementation of an integrated preventive

environmental strategy applied to products, processes and services to address the

causes of pollution. This approach aims to prevent pollution at its very source, as

opposed to the end-of-pipe solutions practiced in many industries (Purba Rao, 2004).

Manufacturers can simultaneously adopt both Lean and Green strategies in order to

create an environmental stance that is a driver for reduced costs and risks, increased

revenue, and improved brand image. The pioneering work by Florida (1996) has already

argued that the efforts of firms to improve manufacturing processes and increase

productivity can create substantial opportunities for environmental improvement.

Recent state-of-the-art types of articles by Martíénez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes (2014)

and Garza-Reyes (2015) confirm interest in a combined “Lean and Green” strategy.

Acknowledging that the scope of application for a Lean/Green approach is very often the

supply chain or parts of it, Garza-Reyes (2015) argues that there is a shortage of Lean

and Green research focused on the company level, and in particular, “on developing

measurement methods or models for specific processes and industries”. The main

argument supporting the idea of the virtual convergence between Lean and Green is that

using Lean principles in environmental projects will help create a cooperative approach

to continual improvement (Pojaseck, 2008). The objective of Lean is to generate a

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
system that is efficient, well organized, and devoted to continuous improvement and the

elimination of all forms of waste. There is great potential for benefits to a firm’s

environmental management practice (Simpson and Power, 2005). On the other hand,

operational performance objectives such as quality, reliability and volume flexibility can

be improved through more ecological supply chain management and with adequate

recycling and reverse logistics systems (Gonzaé lez-Benito and Gonzaé lez-Benito, 2005).

Bergmiller and McCright (2009b) confirm that Green manufacturing drives Lean results

and, in particular, improved cost performance. More recently, the convergence between

the two concepts has again been underlined: Lean orientation may also help firms adopt

environmental management practices that aim to reduce waste and pollutant emissions

(Yang et al., 2011). Furthermore, research by Hajmohammad et al. (2013) indicates that

a good way to facilitate the implementation and adoption of environmental practices and

to improve a plant’s environmental performance is to create an adequate operating

context based on Lean Management principles. Chiappetta Jabbour et al. (2013) confirm

that Lean Management tends to positively influence Environmental Management.

According to Galeazzo et al. (2013), collaboration among different actors (environmental

managers, operations managers, suppliers, etc.) is also desirable in implementing a

Lean/Green program. Tseng et al. (2013) identify Lean Supply Chain management as a

major component in the promotion of large-scale sustainable production. Overall,

scholars tend to converge on the mutual and reciprocal benefits that derive from a

combination of Lean and Green strategies.

The main overlapping area between the two approaches seems to be linked to the

prominent role attributed to “waste”. Pojasek (1999) states that environmental

principles and practices have to integrate waste reduction from the Lean approach in

order to be effective. Mollenkopf et al. (2010) argue that Lean and Green strategies are
12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
often seen as compatible initiatives because of their joint focus on waste reduction. Duö es

et al. (2013) agree, but show that the overlap of the Lean and Green paradigms

encompasses other common features (beyond waste and waste reduction techniques),

such as people and organization, lead time reduction, supply chain relationship and Key

Performance Indicators built around service level attributes. Figure 1 shows the concept

of waste within the Lean and Green approaches and their overlapping areas.

Figure 1. Overlap of Lean and Green Paradigms (Dües et al., 2013).

This broader view of the overlap between Lean and Green has also been adopted in

recent studies. Martíénez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes (2014) argue that Lean and Green

are complementary and are governed by three main principles: waste reduction, a

process-centered focus, high levels of people involvement and participation. In their

view, waste reduction is one of the key areas, although it needs to be complemented by

human resource participation and the process management approach. Another very

recent work by Verrier et al. (2016) defines an original framework — the Lean and

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Green House — based on the “Lean House” from the Toyota Production System and

embedded environmental concerns. This framework is meant to facilitate both the

understanding and practical implementation of an effective and sustainable Lean and

Green way of thinking through detailed best-practices. Moreover, the authors develop a

Lean and Green maturity model, similar to Capability Maturity Model Integration

(CMMI), in order to optimize the formalization of assessment and deployment in a global

approach.

Despite the fact that the convergence between the two approaches is unanimously

acknowledged, one question has been overlooked in the literature. Following Garza-

Reyes (2015), a research gap exists concerning how to measure the compatibility

between Lean and Green and their joint effects. Most of the papers that have tried to

answer this question draw upon qualitative approaches, except for three recent studies.

The first (Chiarini 2014) quantifies the environmental performance obtained through

the implementation of five Lean tools (Value Stream Mapping (VSM), 5S, etc.) and links

each tool to a specific environmental performance (oil leakages, elimination of dust, etc.).

The second (Ruisheng et al., 2015) demonstrates that carbon footprint / Carbon-Value

Efficiency and lead time can be improved at the same time. The third study (Verrier et al.,

2014) proposes a framework for Lean and Green management, which includes Lean

indicators, Green performance indicators and Green intention indicators.

In the same vein as these recent articles, our research tackles the issue of measuring the

change in environmental impact can that be attributed to the use of Lean and Green tools

in the specific case of a waste reduction program. The study builds on the recent work by

Duö es et al. (2013), which specifies the nature and attributes of the integration of

Lean/Green and WRT. Their qualitative research calls for quantitative and

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
experimental developments to strengthen the validity of the basic principles promoting

the integration of Lean and Green principles in waste reduction programs. Therefore,

testing our third hypothesis will involve measuring the overall increase in WRT

performance due to the joint use of Lean and Green tools.

H3 - Combining the two methodological approaches (3R hierarchy, Lean deadly wastes)

leads to better performance for solid waste reduction than the 3R Hierarchy alone.

2.4 Lean/Green integration for a waste minimization program in manufacturing

In addition to using the two methods concurrently, it may be advantageous to fully

integrate the 3R process with the deadly wastes (muda) of Lean Management. Our

proposal for an integrated framework that includes Lean and Green Tools extends the

work by Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2013) and Pampanelli (2014). Duarte and Cruz-

Machado (2013) define a framework for Lean/Green transformation based on

standardized management business models e.g. E.F.Q.M, ShingoPrize, Deming Prize.

Pampanelli et al. (2014) propose a Lean and Green model to improve mass and energy

flows in manufacturing environments that already possess the necessary deployment

level to apply Lean thinking. A focus on waste minimization completes these two models

and contributes to answering the research question raised by Garza-Reyes (2015): What

constitutes an effective integrating approach? He suggests that the concurrent

deployment of Lean and Green approaches requires tools and metrics to evaluate the

contribution and impacts of each of them, as well as their dependencies, on the

performance of organizations. Consequently, a matrix linking the deadly wastes

approach and 3R is proposed here.

From Table 1 above “Lean and solid waste impacts” (US EPA, 2007), each muda category

gives rise to a phase of a systematic study on waste reduction, thus constituting a

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
checklist for a waste minimization program in manufacturing. By linking each action to

the 3R items, a matrix is formed. For example, the deadly waste “transportation and

motion” is connected to each of the three Rs: Reduction, by optimizing the location of

facilities, Reuse, by introducing reusable packaging, and Recovery, by pooling the

transport of waste. Thus Table 3 offers a potentially useful method to address the waste

progress plan. Building on the work of Liker (2004), this structured checklist of good

practices, corresponding to the seven muda, is a suitable method for stimulating the

creativity of a continuous improvement team. The Lean/3R matrix can be used in

support of the model by Pampanelli et al. (2014), specifically during the improvement of

the environmental value stream. Accordingly, we postulate that the Lean/3R matrix is a

tool that leads to stronger Lean/Green integration and implementation.

Table 3. The Lean/3R matrix

3R
Deadly wastes Lean
(muda) 1 - Reduction 2 - Re-use 3 - Recovery
Over production . Adhering to the production schedule generates just the X
right amount of output
. Excess production is donated to charities X
Inventory . Inventory control eliminates the obsolete materials or X
products
. Process optimization upstream of inventories reduces X
their level to the minimum
Transportation and . An optimum location reduces need for packaging X
motion . Introduction of re-usable packaging X
. Internal recycling reduces transport X
. Pooling waste transport reduces environmental impact
per tonne of waste X

Defects . Control of important parameters (setting mode, control X

card, poka-yoke) reduces defects

. Scraps are re-integrated into the process as raw material

. Segmenting the quality required, can induce the re-use of X waste in by-products

Over processing . The products are made at the right level of quality X
required
. Process control optimizes material efficiency X
. Strict rules limit material use to the right amount
X
Waiting . Reducing work-in-progress inventory prevents damage to X
the material / product

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Therefore, our final hypothesis is:

H4 – A Lean/3R matrix combining the Lean “deadly wastes” approach and the 3R

Hierarchy positively affects the performance of a waste minimization program.

2.5 The hierarchy of progress levels for a waste minimization program in

manufacturing

To conclude this section, the different hypotheses formulated are summarized in the

following diagram (Figure 2), which presents the hierarchy of progress levels for a waste

minimization program in manufacturing.

Figure 2. Research framework

With a focus on solid waste performance, this framework can provide an answer to a

recent call (Garza-Reyes, 2015) for a method to distinguish the individual contributions

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of Lean and Green to an organization’s performance in an integrated Lean/Green

approach.

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

In accordance with positivist research, a quantitative experimental study is preferred for

testing the proposed hypotheses (Yin, 2009). The aim of the hypotheses developed in the

previous section is to understand how different factors (seven muda analysis, 3R

Hierarchy, and a combination of the two methodological approaches) have an impact on

the performance of a solid waste management program (reducing the amount of waste

to be incinerated). Our aim is to quantify the events. Therefore, a quantitative

experimental approach that measures the cause-and-effect relationship on the object

studied is desirable (Savall and Zardet, 2004). The Design of Experiments method is a

powerful statistical technique to determine the optimal factors configuration of a

process (Antony and Antony, 2001). The process of performing an experiment follows

eight steps (Figure 3).

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Step 1 – Formulation of the problem

Step 2 – Identification of the output performances

Step 3 – Identification of control factors (and their levels)

Step 4 – Design of an appropriate orthogonal array

Step 5 – Preparation of the experiment

Step 6 – Running of the experiment

Step 7 – Statistical analysis

Step 8 – Interpretation of experimental results

Figure 3. The process of performing an experiment (Antony and Antony, 2001).

Each step is defined more precisely in the following paragraphs.

To test the various hypotheses, an experiment is conducted in two stages. It involves a

group of 55 Master II students from the Arts & Meé tiers ParisTech engineering school.

Each student must provide two progress actions for two industrial case studies. The

students are divided into eleven groups; each group uses a specific method of solid waste

reduction. To separately analyze the combination and integration of Lean/Green

methods, a two-stage experimental process is adopted. First, a full factorial design of

experiments is used to test all combinations between two factors (deadly wastes and 3R

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
hierarchy). Second, an additional experiment is conducted to measure the impact of

using the Lean/3R matrix. The following paragraphs detail the experimental approach.

3.2 Formulation of the problem and identification of output performance

The objective of the study is to investigate the factors impacting the effectiveness of an

improvement plan to reduce waste. Multi-criteria selection is one of the recommended

tools in deciding whether to choose an optimization action (Monteil et al., 1985). Two

major criteria are used to assess the proposed solutions in an improvement plan:

performance and the implementation of action plans. O’Connor and Spangenberg (2008)

propose a list of indicators for solid waste: the volume of treated waste, the means

devoted to handling waste, and the recycling quota. The reduction in the volume of

treated waste is chosen as the environmental performance indicator for the study. The

implementation of action plans is commonly linked to lead-time and cost. For any

business, the ideal situation is to find action plans with low investment and/or high

return on investment, which can be implemented in a short time.

3.3 Identification of control factors (and their levels)

For the full factorial design of experiments, two factors are tested, each at two levels.

According to the research framework (Figure 2), factor A is Lean Management linked to

solid waste management and factor B is the 3R process. For each factor, two levels are

chosen: level 1 requires the use of a method and level 2 does not require any method. In

the additional experiment, factor C is the implementation of the Lean/3R matrix.

3.4 Design of an appropriate orthogonal array

A full factorial design of experiments was chosen because it strategically studies all

combinations of factor levels without multiplying the trials, since only two factors are

considered in our study. The matrix with four trials (two factors, each at two levels)

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
structures the plan (Table 4). The comprehensive plan also allows for the study of

interactions.

Table 4. The orthogonal array

Combination (test number) Factor A (lean) Factor B (3R)

1 1 1
2 1 2
3 2 1
4 2 2

3.5 Preparation of the experiment

A testing protocol specifies all the details of the experiment. It involves 55 students from

Arts & Meé tiers ParisTech, divided into 5 groups of 11. All the students have taken a 6-

hour course on the principles and tools of Lean Management and Green Management.

They must work on two case studies (Table 5). These two industrial cases come from a

waste minimization program in the electronics industry (components). For each case

study, each student has to propose two solutions to minimize waste.

Table 5. The case studies

Case Area Process Solid waste

study
1 Workshop: surface Rinsing step: necessary to remove The rinse water ("hazardous" waste)
treatment by electrolytic excess electrolyte and prepare parts is the most expensive waste for the
deposition done by for subsequent processing, this is company (€ X k /year). It is
dipping components in done in two successive tanks of X processed by a specialized external
baths containing metal liters. The two tanks are emptied company.
particles to be deposited twice a week (Wednesday and
Friday).

2 Workshop: coating with The components are immersed in a The epoxy resin is a costly waste for
resin, after winding and tank filled with epoxy resin, before a the company (€ Y k /year - No. 2 in
stacking. final stage of polymerization. the Pareto costs). It is processed by
a specialized external company.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 6 defines each level for factors A and B of the full factorial design of experiments.

Table 6. Definition of levels for each factor

Level definition Factor A (lean) Factor B (3R)

Level 1 lean and solid wastes impacts (US EPA, The waste hierarchy - Table 2.
2007) - Table 1.
Level 2 No specific method No specific method
(just raising awareness ) (just raising awareness )

An additional test is conducted to evaluate the impact of the Lean/3R matrix.

For each test (or combination), the sub-groups are made up of 11 students chosen at

random. Thus the number of measurements per combination of factors is 11; the mean

and variability of the results for each test can therefore be evaluated satisfactorily.

Indeed, statistically, for a parent population considered to be infinite, our sample size of

n = 55 students allows us to make conclusions with a confidence level of 95% (t = 1.96),

a margin of error of 13.2% (e = t√(p (1-p)/n), for a success probability p = 0.5

(proportion of the elements of the parent population that have a particular property).

3.6 Running the experiment with appropriate data collection

All the students are in the same room. Five groups of 11 students are formed based on

the number of combinations to be assessed (four for the full factorial design of

experiments, and another one for the additional experiment to measure the impact of

using the Lean/3R matrix). A document presenting the two case studies is given to each

student (Table 5). In addition, a list detailing factors A (Table 1), B (Table 2), or C (Table

3) is given to each student, depending on the combination the student will be working

on. An overview explains the context (a waste minimization program), and the objective

(“…for the two case studies, please give two suggestions, in order of priority, that would

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
be desirable to implement in order to minimize the various wastes”). Students then have

15 minutes to treat the two cases.

3.7 Measurement protocol

The measurement protocol defines precisely how to evaluate the proposed solutions. A

rating grid containing nine boxes has been developed (Table 7). It measures two

important criteria for evaluating a progress plan: namely, the impact on the expected

performance (reducing the volume of waste) and the ease of implementation of

improvement actions, characterized by cost and time. For each case study, the possible

responses and their position in the grid are evaluated by a committee (made up of a

university professor, a PhD student and an industrial manager) – Tables 8 and 9

(reference solutions). Student responses are evaluated anonymously. Each answer is

compared to the reference grid and gives rise to an overall score.

Table 7. The proposed performance rating grid

Improvement action implementation

Impact Difficult Medium Easy
Strong 3 6 9
Medium 2 4 6
Weak 0 1 2

Table 8. Reference solutions (case 1)

3R Lean Impleme Score Action

ntation

Reduction over- easy 9 Replace the first container with the second
processing one and change water only for the first

container

Reduction over- easy 6 Increase interval between two renewals of

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
processing rinse water
Reduction over- difficult 4 Reduce capacity of containers to limit the

production volume used

Reduction over- difficult 4 Optimize the number of liters of water used

production to rinse

Reduction over- difficult 2 Minimize excess electrolyte so tanks only

processing need to be emptied once a week

Re-use over- difficult 2 Reuse the electrolyte

production

Recovery defects easy 2 Recover metal particles

Recovery defects difficult 1 Recycle internally instead of externally

Table 9. Reference solutions (case 2)

3R Lean Implementa Score Action

tion

Reduction over- easy 9 Optimization of batch size (relative to the

processing tank)

Reduction over- easy 9 Always fill the tank

processing

Reduction over- easy 9 Adjust the amount of resin in the tank

processing depending on how many components must

be immersed

Re-use defects difficult 4 Reuse resin in another process

Reduction over- difficult 3 Reduce the amount of resin used,

processing optimizing the process

Reduction over- difficult 3 Reduce the capacity of tank to limit the

processing volume used

Recovery defects difficult 1 Recycle internally instead of externally

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.8 Statistical analysis

For each combination, the effect of the factors on the measured value and the variability

of measured characteristics is studied. Following Taguchi (1986), the signal-to-noise

ratio (S/N) has been chosen to analyze variability. This metric simultaneously takes into

account the desirable value (signal) to be reached and the undesirable variability of this

value (noise) to fight. The signal/noise ratio was calculated using the formula S/N (dB)

=-10log ((1/mean2) (1 +3 SD2/mean2)), because the goal is to maximize the effect

(Taguchi, 1986). In addition, the AB interaction between factors and the analysis of

variance (ANOVA) are studied.

4. Results

First, the results of the full factorial design of experiments are presented.

The case study results are presented in the following tables: Case Study 1 “rinse water”

(Tables 10, 11 and 12), Case Study 2 “epoxy resin” (Tables 13, 14 and 15).

An additional experiment to measure the impact of the Lean/3R matrix is conducted.

The results and statistical analysis are summarized in Tables 16 and 17.

Finally, a summary of the influence of the factors on waste performance is presented.

(Table 18, Figures 4 and 5)

Table 10. Case study 1 – Results

Case 1 - Rinse water Test Number Factor A (Lean) Factor B (3R) n°1 n°2 n°3 n°4 n°5 n°6 n°7 n°8 n°9 n°10 n°11
1 1 1 4 5 5 11 13 6 8 10 10 8 2
2 1 2 4 2 8 2 2 6 6 0 2 2 8
3 2 1 2 11 2 6 4 8 4 6 10 2 2
4 2 2 2 0 3 10 0 0 2 0 2 4 2

Table 11. Case study 1 – Statistical analysis (impact on measured value and S/N ratio)
25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Case 1 Impact on measured value Impact on S/N max ratio
Test Number Mean SD S/N Sum Sq Factor Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2
1 7,5 3,4 15,38 124,00 A 0,95 -0,95 3,17 -3,17
2 3,8 2,8 7,56 83,20 B 1,64 -1,64 4,80 -4,80
3 5,2 3,3 10,82 120,60 AB 0,18 -0,18 -0,89 0,89
4 2,3 2,9 -0,57 92,60 A1B1 A1B2 A1B1 A1B2
4,7 8,30 420,40 A2B2 A2B1 A2B2 A2B1

Table 12. Case study 1 – Statistical analysis (ANOVA)

df Gross Sum Sq Variance F=Vf/Vr Net Sum Sq Contribution % F Risk F Risk

Factor A 1 40,09 40,09 3,91 29,84 5,16% 8,757 0,5% 4,067 5,0%
Factor B 1 117,82 117,82 11,49** 107,56 18,60% 8,757 0,5% 4,067 5,0%
Residuals 41 420,40 10,25 440,91 76,24%
Total 43 578,31 578,31

For the first case study, factors A1 and B1 do have an impact on the measured value

(+0.95 and +1.64, compared to the average). They greatly increase the S/N ratio (+3.17

and +4.80, compared to the average). In addition, the combination of A1 and B1(test N°1

in Table 11) improves performance: +2.8 on the measured value and +7.08 on the S/N

ratio. It should be noted that the interaction between A and B is low (+0.18 on the

measured value and -0.89 on the S/N ratio). The ANOVA study shows that factors A and B

together account for 23.76%, so other factors are influential.

Table 13. Case study 2 - Results

Case 2 - Epoxy resin Test Number Factor A (Lean) Factor B (3R) n°1 n°2 n°3 n°4 n°5 n°6 n°7 n°8 n°9 n°10 n°11
1 1 1 9 7 4 9 3 0 3 9 9 0 9
2 1 2 0 3 1 0 4 7 9 0 4 0 0
3 2 1 13 7 13 3 7 0 3 0 7 0 4
4 2 2 4 5 1 7 0 3 4 0 0 4 0

Table 14. Case study 2 – Statistical analysis (impact on measured value and S/N ratio)

Case 2 Impact on measured value Impact on S/N max ratio

Test Numbe Mean SD S/N Sum Sq Factor Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2
1 5,6 3,7 11,39 152,40 A 0,11 -0,11 0,20 -0,20
2 2,5 3,2 0,58 110,80 B 1,43 -1,43 4,34 -4,34
3 5,2 4,7 8,85 246,00 AB 0,11 -0,11 1,06 -1,06
4 2,5 2,5 2,30 66,80 A1B1 A1B2 A1B1 A1B2
4,0 5,78 576,00 A2B2 A2B1 A2B2 A2B1

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 15. Case study 2 – Statistical analysis (ANOVA)

df Gross Sum Sq Variance F=Vf/Vr Net Sum Sq % contribution F value Risk F Risk
Factor A 1 0,57 0,57 0,04 -13,48 -2,02% 8,757 0,5% 4,067 5,0%
Factor B 1 90,20 90,20 6,42* 76,16 11,42% 8,757 0,5% 4,067 5,0%
Residuals 41 576,00 14,05 604,10 90,60%
Total 43 666,77

For the second case study, factors A1 and B1 have an impact on the measured value

(+0.11 and 1.43 respectively, compared to the average). In addition, they greatly increase

the S/N ratio (+0.20 and 4.34 respectively, compared to the average). In addition, the

combination of A1 and B1 (test N°1 in Table 14) improves performance: +1.6 on the

measured value and +5.61 on the S/N ratio. It should be noted that the interaction

between A and B is low (+0.11 on the measured value and +1.06 on the S/N ratio). The

ANOVA study shows that factors A and B together account for 9.40%, so other factors are

influential. This clearly confirms the results of the first case study. This result will be

used in the discussion in the next paragraph.

To summarize the results of the full factorial design of experiments, it can be said that

applying the deadly wastes (muda) analysis (hypothesis H1) and the 3R method

(hypothesis H2) can lead to effective measures for reducing the amount of waste

incinerated. Hypotheses H1 and H2 are validated, although other factors may also

influence the expected performance. The results show that combining A1 and B1

increases performance, so hypothesis H3 is validated.

Table 16. Lean/Green integration: results of additional testing

Test Number n°1 n°2 n°3 n°4 n°5 n°6 n°7 n°8 n°9 n°10 n°11
Case 1 6 8 6 2 4 10 7 15 5 7 13
Case 2 7 9 10 13 13 13 10 8 5 0 0

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 17. Lean/Green integration: statistical analysis of additional test (impact on

measured value and S/N ratio)

Mean SD S/N Sum Sq

Case 1 7,5 3,8 15,07 161,40
Case 2 8,0 4,7 14,96 244,20

This additional test demonstrates that the “integrated Lean/3R” method improves the

performance of a waste minimization program in manufacturing in case study 2. Indeed,

as shown in Table 18, the results for measured value increase in comparison with the

average (+2.8 for case study 1 and +4 for case study 2). The results for the S/N ratio have

also increased (+6.77 for case study 1 and +9.18 for case study 2). Hypothesis H4 is

therefore partially confirmed.

Table 18 and Figures 4 and 5 (below) summarize the influence of the different factors on

waste performance, ranked by the size of the impact. A clear hierarchy has emerged from

the study and reinforces the research framework (Figure 2).

Table 18. Summary of the influence of the factors on waste performance

Case study 1 Case study 2

Impact on measured value S/N ratio measured S/N ratio

value

Integrated Lean/3R matrix 2.8 6.77 4 9.18

Combined Lean and 3R methods 2.8 7.08 1.6 5.61

3R hierarchy 1.64 4.8 1.43 4.34

The deadly wastes of Lean (muda) 0.95 3.17 0.11 0.2

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Solid Wastes Performance Case study 1 Case study 1 Solid Wastes Performance
(measured value) (S/N ratio)

8
H4
3

H3
6

2
H2
4

1
2
H1

Deadly wastes analysis 3R hierarchy Combined Lean and 3R methods Integrated Lean 3R matrix

Figure 4. Summary of the influence of factors on waste performance – Case study 1.

Solid Wastes Performance Solid Wastes Performance

(measured value) Case study 2 Case study 2 (S/N ratio)

8
H4
3

6
H3
2

H2
1
2

H1
Deadly wastes analysis 3R hierarchy Combined Lean and 3R methods Integrated Lean 3R matrix

Figure 5. Summary of the influence of factors on waste performance – Case study 2

5. Discussion

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lean and Green integration has a positive impact on continuous process improvement

(Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Many researchers have been investigating the integration of

Lean and Green Manufacturing from the end of the Nineties (Florida, 1996) to the

present time (Verrier et al., 2016) and they emphasize the great convergence between

them. Providing empirical results, the present research contributes to the Lean/Green

literature and complements these mainly theoretical studies with some empirical

grounding. In particular, the use of a Lean/Green matrix, containing a check-list of Lean

and Green best practices, was shown to consistently increase the performance of a waste

minimization plan.

Lean management has a positive impact on environmental performance. Lean

emphasizes searching for non-value added and seeks to detect and eliminate the seven

deadly wastes (Pettersen, 2009). The results of this study confirm the impact of a deadly

waste analysis on the performance of a waste minimization program in manufacturing

(+0.95 on measured value for case study 1 and +0.11 on measured value for case study

2).

The 3R Hierarchy is considered the method of reference for reducing solid wastes. The

results of this study confirm the impact of the 3R Hierarchy on a progress plan to reduce

waste (+1.64 on measured value for case study 1 and +1.43 on measured value for case

study 2). Moreover, the results of this research indicate that combining the two methods

improves the performance of a waste progress plan in manufacturing (+2.80 on

measured value for case study 1 and +1.60 on measured value for case study 2). The

Lean/3R matrix proposed here is a structured tool that embodies Lean/Green

integration. This checklist, following the seven muda, is a beneficial method that

stimulates the creativity of a continuous improvement team. The results of this study

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
confirm the positive impact of the integrated matrix (+2.8 and +4 on measured value for

case studies 1 and 2 respectively; +6.77 and +9.18 on the S/N ratio for case studies 1 and

2 respectively) on the performance of a waste minimization program. Each muda

category stimulates thinking on waste reduction. Therefore, using the integrated matrix

improves environmental performance, specifically in the reduction of incinerated waste.

As such, this study adds to the recent work by Duö es et al. (2013), which demonstrates

that waste reduction techniques are one of the main areas of overlap between the Lean

and Green paradigms. In addition, this work refines Pampanelli's model (2013),

specifically during step 4: improvement of the environmental value stream.

However, the study reveals (as per the ANOVA analysis) that other factors also improve

the performance of a waste minimization program in manufacturing. Indeed, the three

methods that were tested (3R hierarchy, deadly wastes, Lean/Green matrix) are similar

(checklists, analytical frameworks), which certainly influences the results favorably. In

addition, other progress tools may be implemented in the search for solutions to this

type of case: fishbone diagrams (cause and effect diagrams), root cause analysis / the 5

Whys. Using such methods and tools (not necessarily deliberately) enhances the

performance improvement plan to reduce solid waste. Moreover, the implicit use of

heuristic methods based on historical experience or even the work habits of project team

members using creativity tools can be considered possible influencing factors.

6. Conclusions, limitations and future research

This study focuses on Waste Reduction Techniques and adopts a quantitative approach

using a Design Of Experiments tool. An analysis of the results reveals a hierarchy of

progress factors for a waste minimization program in manufacturing. First, the results

identify the individual contributions of the Lean and Green methodologies on solid

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
waste performance in manufacturing within an integrated Lean/Green approach.

Second, they demonstrate that combining the 3R Hierarchy and the deadly wastes

(muda) of Lean Management improves the performance of a waste minimization

program in manufacturing. Third, integrating the two methods through the use of a

Lean/Green matrix strengthens the performance of a waste progress plan. The impact on

a waste minimization plan can be doubled. Thus, this study measures the degree of

compatibility between Lean and Green and their joint impact upon performance. A

check-list that links the 3R Hierarchy and the deadly wastes ( muda) of Lean management

provides an integrated framework that is easy to implement. At the beginning of an

improvement plan to reduce waste, this method provides structured guidance that

builds on the 3R hierarchy process by linking it with the deadly wastes ( muda). Finally,

the matrix is a concrete implementation of Lean/Green integration in industry. Similar to

other check-list methods, it could be useful for stimulating creativity and interaction in

group work. Implementing this method could be managed by a Lean/Green engineer.

Furthermore, it stands as a structured application of Waste Reduction Techniques to

optimize solid waste performance. This original research meets the shortcomings that

were revealed during the state of the art: there had been no quantitative study on the

impact of the 3R hierarchy or any other particular tool to minimize solid wastes in

manufacturing. This work also addresses the research gap concerning how to measure

the compatibility between Lean and Green and their joint effects.

This research is useful for practitioners because they can implement WRT using a set of

tools to monitor and measure waste reduction initiatives. Such tools have been proven to

demonstrate a positive impact upon the operational performance of a solid waste

progress plan. While the seven deadly wastes are broadly known and monitored by
32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
industrial companies, the Lean/Green matrix stands as a powerful tool built using the

traditional language and tools of Lean management, though it has been reshaped to

serve the goal of improving environmental performance. Moreover, in terms of

operational impact, it is worth highlighting that this experiment generates two types of

effects in addition to the actual waste reduction (measured and improved). First, the

production cost was reduced (less material and energy used) – evidence of higher

process efficiency – which would improve operational performance overall. Second,

thanks to the Lean/Green matrix, it was much easier to get people involved in a progress

plan as individuals showed greater awareness of the environmental concerns that are

linked to daily operations. In an industrial setting, this could be considered a preliminary

stage in the evolution towards greater willingness on the part of employees to joining

future programs to improve environmental performance. In this sense, the tools

developed could serve as motivational tools, which might increase employee

participation in environmental programs within the company. Bringing together the

social and environmental stances of employees may also lead to improved economic

performance through process efficiency and focus, showing how to achieve a balanced

performance improvement around the three pillars of sustainability.

However, our experiment would benefit from additional methodologies to find the root

causes of waste, thus leading to better solutions. Additionally, research that is

complementary to this preliminary work should try to demonstrate more precisely the

relevance of the integrated Lean/3R tool as an application of Waste Reduction

Techniques. It would be advantageous to test the matrix in different industrial contexts.

One priority would be to target economic sectors where a large volume of waste is

generated in production and where the potential for waste recovery or reduction is high.

The reduction of organic waste in food retailing could be considered, for example.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
It is acknowledged that Green Supply Chain Management fosters the optimization of

engineering, procurement, logistics, customer relationships and end-of-life management

beyond production. In particular, an extension of these principles to the product design

phase could be interesting, to further the work of Johansson and Sundin (2014).

Therefore, a study of various processes could be of interest. Finally, the use of Waste

Reduction Techniques could be extended to other areas: to improve energy efficiency

and to reduce water consumption, for example. Thus, many interesting avenues of

research in this field may be explored in the coming years. Complementary studies to

this preliminary work might further demonstrate the utility of the integrated

Lean/Green matrix throughout the life cycle of a product, irrespective of the economic

activity, for different kinds of environmental wastes (solid waste, water, energy).

References

Allen, D.-M., 1994. Waste minimization and treatment: an overview of technologies.

Greener Management International 5 (1), 22–28.

Angelis, J., Fernandes, B., 2012. Innovative lean: work practices and product and process

improvements. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma Vol. 3 No. 1, 74-84.

Antony, J., Antony, F.-J., 2001. Teaching the Taguchi method to industrial engineers.

Work Study 50, 141–149.

Bergmiller, G.-G., McCright, P.-R., 2009a. Parallel Models for Lean and Green Operations.

Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Miami, USA

Bergmiller, G.-G., McCright, P.-R., 2009b. Are Lean and Green Programs Synergistic?

Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Miami, USA.

Bicheno, J., 2000. The Lean Toolbox, 2nd Edition. PICSIE Books, Buckingham, UK.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Black, J.-T, Phillips, D., 2010. The lean to green evolution. Industrial Engineer, 6, 46–51.

Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., Danese, P., 2015. Successful lean implementation:

Organizational culture. Int. J. Production Economics 160, 182–201.

Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., Machado, V.-C., 2011. Lean, agile, resilient and green:

divergencies and synergies. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2, 151–179.

Chiappetta Jabbour, C.-J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.-B., Govindan, K., Alves Teixeira, A., de

Souza Freitas, .W.-R., 2013. Environmental management and operational performance in

automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management and lean

manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 47, 129–140.

Chiarini, A., 2014. Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific Lean

Production tools: an empirical observation from European motorcycle component

manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 226–233.

Corbett, C.-J., Klassen, R.-D., 2006. Extending the horizons : environmental excellence as

key to improving operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8 (1), 5–

22.

Dan Azimi Jibrila, J., Bin Sipan, I., Sapric, M., Aliyu Shikad, S. , Abdullah, M.-I. & S., 2012.

3R’s Critical Success Factor in Solid Waste Management System for Higher Educational

Institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65, 626–631.

Darlington, R., Staikos, T., Rahimifard, S., 2009. Analytical methods for waste

minimization in the convenience food industry. Waste Management 29, 1274–1281.

Dhingra, R., Kress, R., Upreti, G., 2014. Does lean mean green? Journal of Cleaner

Production 85, 1–7.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Doonan, J., Lanoie, P., Laplante, B., 2005. Determinants of environmental performance in

the Canadian pulp and paper industry: an assessment from inside the industry.

Ecological Economics 55 (1), 73–84.

Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Modelling lean and green: a review from business

models. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma Vol. 4 No. 3, 228–250.

Dues, C.-M., Tan, K.-H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new lean: how to use Lean practices as

a catalyst to greening your supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 93–100.

Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of

21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.

Farish, M., 2009. Plants that are green. Engineering & technology, 14 (2), 68–69.

Florida, R., 1996. Lean and Green: the move to environmentally conscious

manufacturing. California Management review 39, 80–105.

Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A., Vinelli, A., 2014. Lean and green in action: interdependencies and

performance of pollution prevention projects, Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 191–

200

Garza-Reyes, J.-A., 2015. Lean and green - a systematic review of the state of the art

literature. Journal of Cleaner Production 102, 18-29.

Gonzalez-Benito, J., Gonzalez-Benito, O., 2005. Environmental proactivity and business

performance: an empirical analysis. Omega 33, 1–15

Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015. Multi criteria decision making

approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of

Cleaner Production 98, 66–83.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.-D., Gavronski, I., 2013. Lean management and

supply management: their role in green practices and performance. Journal of Cleaner

Production 56, 86–93

Hicks, C., Heidricha, O, McGovern T., Donnelly T., 2004. A functional model of supply

chains and waste. Int. J. Production Economics 89, 165–174.

Hines, P., 2009. Lean and Green. The Home of Lean Thinking, 3rd edition sapartners.

Hogland, W. and Stenis, J., 2000. Assessment and system analysis of industrial waste

management. Waste Management 20, 537–543.

Johansson, G., Sundin, E., 2014. Lean and green product development: two sides of the

same coin? Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 104–121

Kleindorfer, P.-R., Singhal, K., Van Wassenhove, L.-N., 2005. Sustainable Operations

Management. Production and operations management 14 (4), 482–492.

Kurdve, M., Zackrisson, M., Wiktorsson, M., Harlin, U., 2014. Lean and green integration

into production system models - experiences from Swedish industry. Journal of Cleaner

Production 85, 180-190

Liker, J.-K., 2004. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest

Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

Martíénez-Jurado, P.-J., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2014. Lean Management, Supply Chain

Management and Sustainability: A Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 85,

134–150.

Maxime, D., Marcotte M., Arcand, Y, 2006. Development of eco-efficiency indicators for

the Canadian food and beverage industry. Journal of Cleaner Production14, 636–648.

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Modig, N. and AÅ hlstroö m, P, 2012. This is lean: resolving the efficiency paradox.

Rheologica publishing, Stockholm, Sweden.

Mohan Das Gandhi, N., Selladurai, V., Santhi, P. , 2006.Unsustainable development to

sustainable development: a conceptual model. Management of Environmental Quality:

An International Journal 17 (6), 654–672.

Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.-L., Ueltschy, M., 2010. Green, lean, and global supply

chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40 (1),

14–41.

Monteil B., Peé rigord M., Raveleau G. , 1985. The circles and tools for improving the

quality. Organization Editions, Paris, France.

Morris, J.-R., Phillips, P.-S., Read.A.-D., 1998. The UK Landfill Tax: an analysis of its

contribution to sustainable waste management. Resources Conservation and Recycling,

23, 259–270.

Musee, N., Lorenzen, L. and Aldrich, C., 2007. Cellar waste minimization in the wine

industry: a systems approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 417–431.

Nightingale, D.-J., 2009. Principles of Enterprise Systems. Second International

Symposium on Engineering Systems, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 15–17.

Norman, W., MacDonald, C., 2004. Getting to the bottom line of triple bottom line.

Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (2), 243–263.

O’Connor, M. , Spangenberg, J.-H., 2008. A methodology for CSR reporting: assuring a

representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance

issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1399–1415.

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Pampanelli, A.B., Found, P., Moura Bernardes, A., 2014. A Lean & Green Model for a

production cell, Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 19–30.

Pepper, M.P.J., Spedding, T.-A., 2009. The evolution of lean Six Sigma. International

Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 27 (2), 138–155.

Petek, J., Glavic, P., 1996. An integral approach to waste minimization in process

industries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17, 169–188.

Pettersen, J., 2009. Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues. The

Total Quality Management Journal 21 (2), 127–142.

Pojasek, R.B., 1999. Quality toolbox. Poka-yoke and zero waste. Environmental Quality

Management, 9 (2), 91–97.

Pojasek, R.B., 2008. Framing Your Lean-to-Green Effort. Environmental Quality

Management, Autumn, 85–93.

Savall, H., Zardet, V., 2004. Research in Management Sciences: qualimetric approach,

observe the complex object. Economica, Paris, France.

Schroeder, D.-M. , Robinson, A.-G. , 2010. Green is free: Creating sustainable competitive

advantage through green excellence. Organizational Dynamics 39, 345–352.

Simpson, D.-F., Power, D.-J., 2005. Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green

suppliers. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10 (1), 60–68.

Ruisheng, N., Choong Low, J.-S., Song, B., 2015. Integrating and implementing Lean and

Green practices based on proposition of Carbon-Value Efficiency metric. Journal of

Cleaner Production 95, 242-255.

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Taguchi, G., 1986. Introduction to quality engineering. Designing quality into products

and processes. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.

Tseng, M.-L., Chiu, S.-F., Tan, R.-R., Siriban-Manalang, A.-B., 2013. Sustainable

consumption and production for Asia: sustainability through green design and practice.

Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 1–5.

UNEP, 2005. Integrated Waste Management Scoreboard; a Tool to Measure Performance

in Municipal Solid Waste Management. Available at:

www.unep.org/SolidWasteManagement (10 July 2013)

US EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. The Lean and

Environment Toolkit. Available at: www.epa.gov/lean/environment/toolkits/index.htm

(accessed 18.09.13.)

Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., Remita H., 2014. Combining organizational performance

with sustainable development issues: the Lean and Green project benchmarking

repository. Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 83–93.

Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., 2016. Lean and Green strategy: The Lean and Green

House and Maturity deployment model. Journal of Cleaner Production 116, 150-156.

Yang, M.-G., Hong, P., Modi, S., 2011. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental

management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms.

International Journal of Production Economics 129 (2), 210–220.

Yin, R.-K., 2009. Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Applied Social Research

Methods Series, 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Yu, V., Ting, H., Wu, Y.-C.-J., 2009. Assessing the greenness effort for European firms, a

resource efficiency perspective. Management Decision 47 (7), 1065–1079.

Wang, H.-F., Gupta S.-M., 2011. Green Supply Chain Management: Product Life Cycle

Approach. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.

Available at: www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm (accessed 18.09.13.)

Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine that Changed the World. Harper

Collins Publishers, New York, USA.

Wu, C., Barnes, D., 2016. An integrated model for green partner selection and supply

chain construction. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2114–2132.

Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M.R., Chong, Y.S., 2015. Green

innovation adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian case. Journal of Cleaner

Production 108, 1115–1122.

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A quantitative study of Lean/Green integration is proposed.

The research is focused on waste reduction techniques in manufacturing processes.

The combination of the 3R Hierarchy and the Lean Wastes improves the performance.

The use of a Lean/Green matrix can double the performance of a waste progress plan.