Green and lean implementation: an assessment in the automotive industry

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this research work is to propose an assessment framework to evaluate businesses in terms of the implementation of a green and lean organization’s supply chain. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual framework was developed for the assessment of green and lean implementation. The framework was designed using key criteria to identify green and lean initiatives. This led to the development of guidelines for each criterion, and the development of a scoring method. A multiple case study of five different organizations in the automotive industry was conducted to validate the conceptual framework. Findings The study reveals that high scores are derived from a good interaction between green and lean implementation in these companies. The results confirm that the initiatives considered in the conceptual framework were appropriate to represent the green and lean assessment framework. Research limitations/implications The case study was developed in five organizations. Validation of the model is not based on quantitative techniques. The sample size is too small. More study is need in different industry sectors. Practical implications The proposed model can be the basis for further research on green and lean concepts, contributing to the understanding of green and lean implementation. With this assessment method, managers can evaluate their business in relation to the implementation of green and lean supply chain initiatives. Originality/value To the author’s knowledge, this paper is the first to provide an assessment framework to evaluate an organization’s supply chain in terms of green and lean implementation.

A systematic literature review to integrate lean, agile, resilient, green and sustainable paradigms in the supply chain management

“…In manufacturing : in the wood and paper industry (Agus & Shukri Hajinoor, 2012; Azadeh et al, 2017; El Mokadem, 2017; Fercoq et al, 2016; Fullerton & Wempe, 2009; Galeazzo et al, 2014; Gandhi et al, 2018; Garza‐Reyes et al, 2018; Gavronski et al, 2011; Green et al, 2012; Hallgren & Olhager, 2009; Hajmohammad et al, 2013; Inman & Green, 2018; Kumar & Rodrigues, 2018; Laosirihongthong et al, 2013; Lin et al, 2006; Manuj & Mentzer, 2008; Martin & Patterson, 2009; Parkouhi et al, 2019; Prajogo et al, 2016; Sajan et al, 2017; Zhan, Tan, Ji, Chung, & Chiu, 2018); in automotive (Azevedo et al, 2012; Azevedo et al, 2016; Azevedo et al, 2011a, 2011b; Azevedo, Carvalho, et al, 2013; Azevedo, Govindan, et al, 2013; Cabral et al, 2012; Carvalho et al, 2017; Carvalho, Azevedo, et al, 2011; Carvalho, Barroso, et al, 2012; Chiarini, 2014; Dey et al, 2019; Diaz‐Elsayed et al, 2013; Drohomeretski et al, 2014; Duarte & Cruz‐Machado, 2017; Govindan et al, 2014; Govindan, Khodaverdi, & Vafadarnikjoo, 2015; Lockamy, 2014; Lotfi & Saghiri, 2018; Luthra et al, 2016; Mohammaddust et al, 2017; Sen et al, 2017; Thomas et al, 2016; Wong et al, 2018; Wu et al, 2018); in aerospace (Ruiz‐Benitez et al, 2017; Ruiz‐Benitez, López, & Real, 2018); in garment industry (Arif‐Uz‐Zaman & Nazmul Ahsan, 2014; Bruce et al, 2004; Chan et al, 2017; Distelhorst, Hainmueller, & Locke, 2016; Fahimnia et al, ...…”

“…Kumar and Rodrigues (2018) used resource‐based view approach. Azevedo et al (2011a) and Duarte and Cruz‐Machado (2017) used score method. Azevedo et al (2011b) used balanced scorecard model, Lockamy (2014) used Bayesian networks, and Norrman and Jansson (2004) used tree analysis, that is, fault and evolution.…”

“…Kumar and Rodrigues (2018) analysed the synergetic impact of LG paradigms on innovation, whereas Diaz‐Elsayed et al (2013) empirically identified that both strategies helped in reducing production cost. Ng et al (2015) integrated LG paradigms and validated them, just as Duarte and Cruz‐Machado (2017) developed and validated conceptual framework. Thanki and Thakkar (2018b) used balanced scorecard and assessment criteria to evaluate LG performance and also discussed the causal relation between them.…”

Validation of Sustainability Benchmarking Tool in the Context of Value-Added Wood Products Manufacturing Activities

“…Such a method was considered to be a proper methodology for validation of similar frameworks as highlighted by Ben Ruben et al (2017) [58]. The success of this study on the proper validation of the SBT framework could be deemed satisfactory since Dubey and Gunesakaran (2015) [59] and Duarte and Cruz Machado (2017) [60] validated their agile manufacturing system and integrated green-lean frameworks through documentation of case study-based empirical evidence. As documented in the Results section, if the contingency of the target industry and organization is well understood, the SBT framework could effectively yield reliable results in terms of sustainability performance improvements.…”

Improving effectiveness of parallel machine scheduling with earliness and tardiness costs: A case study

“…Furthermore, the company can know if it is more convenient to focus on renegotiating job due dates and/or the penalty costs or to focus on improving storage conditions. As an opportunity for further research, this optimization approach can be considered compatible with green/environmental initiatives (Duarte & Cruz-Machado, 2017) because of its focus on waste reduction and the effective use of resources. Our approach aims to eliminate waste (i.e., losses in OEE metrics) in scheduling jobs in order to use fewer resources and generate the same (or best) outcome.…”