Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
P
ole Syste mes Industriels et Logistiques, Institut Franc- ais de Mecanique Avancee, Clermont Ferrand, France
Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States
c
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Environmental sustainability has become a high priority for many industries. While the growing
concern to preserve our environment is critical to society and consumers, industries can also realize
additional benets of higher production efciency and lower costs with this emphasis. Current research
has focused on identifying carbon maps of supply chains by assessing the carbon footprint of products.
Little work has been done on establishing methodologies that standardize these attempts. This paper
surveys existing approaches, identies commonly utilized methodologies and looks beyond carbon
criteria for sustainable manufacturing. The challenges of establishing a comprehensive and standardized index based on all the manufacturing aspects, allowing companies to quickly assess the
environmental footprint of their manufactured products, are debated. This exploratory paper also
discusses possible approaches to alleviate shortcomings in current research in this area.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Environmental sustainability
Green manufacturing
Environmental footprint
Standardized performance index
Eco-labeling
1. Introduction
With the growing concern about climate change and environmental issues, sustainable manufacturing and efcient resource
utilization are gaining popularity with signicant potential in theoretical study as well as industrial applications. The most commonly
accepted denition of sustainability and sustainable development can be considered as passing on to the future generations
a stock of capital that is at least as big as the one that our
own generation inherited from the previous generations
(http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/case-studyworking-for-sustainabledevelopment-primary-industry 65-211-2.php). A more focused
denition of sustainable manufacturing was developed as part of
the U.S. Department of Commerce report on sustainable manufacturing, where it is dened as the creation of manufactured products
that use processes that are non-polluting, conserve energy and
natural resources, and are economically sound and safe for employees, communities, and consumers (Westkamper and Alting, 2000).
Therefore, sustainable manufacturing entails implementation of a
range of initiatives at the enterprise level, beginning with the design
stage and throughout the products lifecycle to achieve the aforementioned goals. As illustrated in Fig. 1, such an approach would
necessarily acknowledge that development in the social, environmental and economic dimension is of equal importance toward a
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bidanda@pitt.edu (B. Bidanda).
0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.12.002
516
2. Literature review
Current research (and literature) in the area of sustainable
manufacturing can be divided into two mutually exclusive areas.
Each broad area is briey described below.
2.1. Environmental impact and product lifecycle evolution
The proposed indexes however are detailed and need signicant resources both in time and technical content to establish the
index for a single product. Substantial amount of data has to be
gathered and analyzed to assess the different parameters composing the index. Another difcult aspect is the assessment of
fuzzy parameters that sometimes even dont allow for a quantiable metric or methodology. The methodology and software
proposed by Moron et al. (2009) is a step toward offering a
framework and tools to assess and quantify the fuzzy factors such
as persistence, effect, synergy, etc.
In the manufacturing sector, a products lifecycle generally
follows the progression shown in Fig. 2.
Product lifecycle assessment (LCA) and analysis was brought
out largely due to the increased environmental awareness from
the part of public, industry and governments (http://www.gdrc.
org/uem/lca/life-cycle.html). Since then, it has been a powerful
tool to assist manufacturers analyze the processes and improve
products, help government/regulator form legislations and even
inform consumers to make better choices. One of the most
popular tools in LCA is lifecycle costing analysis (Pesonen,
2001), in which environmental issues and green values are taken
into account. Nowadays, lifecycle analysis is being recognized as a
standard tool in sustainable product management arena.
Traditional methods in the sustainable product lifecycle management are often conceptual. Labuschagne and Brent (2005)
point out that current project management framework does not
effectively address the three goals of sustainable development
(i.e., social equity, economic efciency and environmental performance). They outline the needs of sustainable development and
propose several ways to achieve the true sustainable lifecycle
management in the manufacturing sector.
Existing literature has also often focused on a single lifecycle
stage. Schmidt et al. (2001) conduct an experiment to examine
the effectiveness of new product development and project continuation decisions. Their suggestion is that teams make more
effective decisions than individuals, and virtual teams (not communicating face-to-face) make the most effective decisions. Yet,
this study is primarily qualitative in nature. In another analysis,
Day (1981) discuss the factors that determine the progress of the
product through the stages of the lifecycle and the role of the
product lifecycle concept in the formulation of competitive
strategy.
Focusing on the manufacturing process stage, Martins et al.
(2007) propose four 3D metrics: material intensity, energy intensity, potential chemical risk and potential environmental impact.
This framework can be effective in selecting more sustainable
process from a group of candidates. Sheng and Hertwich (1998)
conducted an overview of the planning and design decisions and
proposed indexes for comparative waste assessment in environmentally conscious manufacturing industry.
Silva et al. (2009), Wanigarathne et al. (2004) and Ungureanu
et al. (2007) present different versions of Jawahir et al. (2006)
assessment methods for evaluating sustainability characteristics
applied in various manufacturing industries, including consumer
electronics and auto body panels by considering both design,
development, machining, and recycling processes.
Wiedmann and Minx (2008) propose the denition of carbon
footprint with the concept of entire product lifecycle evolution: The
517
518
manufacturing were outlined. This section details some conceptual aspects of eco-labeling programs/initiatives that seek to
encapsulate the results of the overall environmental impact
assessment.
An overarching goal of several eco-labeling programs is to
encourage environmentally responsible purchasing habits among
consumers and motivate manufacturers to innovate and adopt
production practices that are progressively sustainable. The Green
House Gas (GHG) Protocol Initiative has developed a suite of tools
to assist companies in calculating their emissions of six Greenhouse Gases covered by the Kyoto protocol. It has also prepared
guidance documents such as the GHG Protocol for project
accounting and provides standards and guidance for companies
and other organizations preparing a GHG emissions inventory.
The GHG Protocol Initiative is a decade-long partnership between
the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCSD) and provides a
framework for almost every GHG standards and program in the
world (Sinden, 2009; WRI and WBCSD, 2004).
The assessment of GHG emissions arising from goods and
services is emerging as a high prole application of LCA, with an
increasing desire from retailers and other supply chain organizations to better understand, and in some cases communicate, the
carbon footprint of products. Publicly Available Specication
(PAS) 2050:2008 for the assessment of life cycle GHG emissions
of goods and services addresses global warming to provide a
standardized and simplied implementation of doing this. The
use of PAS 2050 to rene, clarify and simplify existing LCA
methods and standards, has resulted in the development of
specic approaches to key GHG assessment issues (WRI and
WBCSD, 2004). Further guidance on communicating and reducing
product carbon footprint information is presented in the Code of
Good Practice for Product Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Claims (Carbon Trust, 2008). In addition, PAS 2050 brings
together relevant methods and approaches in the eld of GHG
assessment like (International Organization for Standardization)
ISO 14064:2006 (description follows), IPCC publications (IPCC
2006, 2007) and the GHG Protocol (WRI and WBCSD, 2004).
ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, is an
international-standard-setting body composed of representatives
from various national standards organizations (http://
www.iso.org/iso/home.html). ISO standards directly related to
climate change include ISO 14067 (under development) and are
associated with measurement of carbon footprint of products. The
ISO 14067 would complement other published standards (ISO
14064 and ISO 14065) which provide an internationally agreed
framework for measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, verifying claims made about them, and accrediting the bodies which
carry out such activities. ISO 14067 would provide requirements
for the quantication and communication of the GHGs associated
with products. There will be two parts for this objective: quantifying the carbon footprint (Part1); and harmonized methodologies for communicating the carbon footprint information and also
provide guidance for the communication (Part 2). More standardization documents may be found in the website.
The European Union (EU) Ecolabel (also known as the ower
because of their logo) is a voluntary ecological product award
issued by the 1980/2000 Regulation of the European Commission
(EC) (Baldo et al., 2009). Adopting the ISO classication, the EU
Ecolabel belongs to the Type I environmental labelling (ISO
14024:1999). EC was involved in a project that aimed at developing and checking a CF calculation procedure that would
account for GHG Emissions. This would aid the EC during EU
Eco label certications. The output tool from this project (an
EXCEL le) was developed so that it was useful while formulation
of policies by the EC, the EU Ecolabel Board and the Ad Hoc
519
3.4. EcoLogo
EcoLogo compares products/services with others in the same
category, develops scientically relevant criteria that reect the
entire lifecycle of the product, and certies those that are veried
by an independent third party as complying with the criteria. It
also scrutinizes products for environmental impact throughout
their life cycle, including manufacturing, use and disposal. Criteria
for a category are developed using a Technical brieng note (TBN)
examining the life cycle of a product. After a review committee
formulates the proposed guidelines a public review is done and
once it is accepted by the government the nal guideline is
released (http://www.environmentalchoice.com/en/index.asp).
EcoLogo has the innovative capability of certifying a product as
well a service, which the common eco-labeling organizations
520
521
Table 1
Properties of Eco-labeling Programs.
Program
Simple?
Repeatable &
standardizable?
Easily
interpreted?
Manufacturing
domain?
Validated
by
3rd party?
Quantitative
index?
Energy
Star
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
FSC
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
(weakly)
No
EcoLogo
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
EPEAT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
522
The direction is toward maximizing the completeness/comprehensiveness while minimizing the necessary data and other
resources. Resources include time, budget and labor and by
completeness on the x axis it is meant to include the features of
an ideal index that encapsulates the various dimensions of
sustainability factored across the lifecycle and through the products design, manufacturing supply-chain; hence in can be
concluded that the bottom right of the sustainability assessment
space will provide the most performance of the index.
References
Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., 2000. Indicators for sustainable development for industry:
a general framework. Transactions Institution of Chemical Engineers 78,
243261.
Baldo, G.L., Marino, M., Montani, M., 2009. The carbon footprint measurement
toolkit for the eu ecolabel. International Journal of Life Cycle Asses 14,
591596.
Bob, W., 2002. The sustainability advantage. Seven Business Case Benets of a
Triple Bottom Line. Friesens, Altona Canada.
Carbon Trust, Code of good practice for product greenhouse gas emissions and
reduction claims. Guidance to support the robust communication of product
carbon footprints, UK , 2008.
Day, G.S., 1981. The product lifecycle: analysis and applications issues. Journal of
Marketing 45, 6067.
Delahaye G.Products and carbon footprint: the example of a major retail group,
Presentation for the French Ministry of Economy, Industry and Employment.
2008.
Elkington, J., 1997. Enter the Triple Bottom Line. Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Giannetti, B.F., Bonilla, S.H., Silva, C.C., Almeida, C.M.V.B., 2009. The reliability of
experts opinions in constructing a composite environmental index: the case
of ESI 2005. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (8), 24482459.
Guide, V.D.R., Wassenhove, L.N.V., 2001. Managing product returns for remanufacturing. Production Operational Management 10, 142154.
Hervani, A., Helms, M., 2005. Performance measurement for green supply chain
management. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (4), 330353.
IUCN, 2006. The future of sustainability, re-thinking environment and development in the twenty-rst century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers
Meeting, 2931.. 2006.
Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, O.W., Rouch, K.E., Joshi, K.J., Venkatachalam, A., Jafar, I.H.,
2006. Total lifecycle consideration in product design for sustainability: a
framework for comprehensive evaluation. Trends in Developement of Machining Technology (TMT), 110.
Joshi K., Venkatachalam A., Jaafar I.H. & Jawahir I.S., A new methodology for
transforming 3R concept into 6R concept for improved product sustainability.
GSSM Conference, 2006.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., 2005. Sustainable project life cycle management: the
need to integrate life cycles to manufacturing sector. International Journal of
Project Management 23 (2), 159168.
Martin, A., 2009. How Green is My Orange. The New York Times, /http://www.
nytimes.com/2009/01/22/business/worldbusiness/22iht-22pepsi.19583527.htmlS.
Martins, A., Mata, T., Costa, C., Sikdar, S., 2007. Framework for sustainable metrics.
Indsustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 46, 29622973.
Moron, A.B., Calvo-Flores, M.D., Ramos, J.M.M., Almohano, M.P.P., 2009. Aieia:
software for fuzzy environmental impact assessment, expert systems with
applications. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal 36,
91359149.
Nansai, K., Kagawa, S., Kondo, Y., Suh, S., Inaba, R., Nakajima, K., 2009. Improving
the completeness of product carbon footprints using a global link input
output model: the case of Japan. Economic System research 21 (3), 247290.
Ninlawan C., Seksan P., Tossapol K. & Pilada W., The implementation of green supply
chain management practices in electronics industry. In: Proceeding of the
International MultiConfrence of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 3, 2010.
Padgett, J.P., Vandenbergh, M.P., Clarke, James, Steinemann, A., 2008. A comparison
of carbon calculators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, 106115.
Pesonen, L.T.T., 2001. Implementation of Design to Prot in a Complex and
Dynamic Business Context. Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, Oulu.
Prescott-Allen, R., 2001. The Well-being of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index
of the Quality of Life and the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Rees, W., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what
urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4 (2), 121130.
Rees, W., Wackernagel, M., 1996. Our ecologcal footprint: reducing human impact
on the earth. New Society Poblishers, Gabriola Island, BC.
Rusinko, C.A., 2007. Green manufacturing: an evaluation of environmentally
sustainable manufacturing practices and their impact on competitive outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (3), 445454.
Schmidt, J.B., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Massey, A.P., 2001. New product development
decision-making effectiveness: comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and
virtual teams. Decision Sciences 32 (4), 575600.
Sheng, P., Hertwich, E., 1998. Indices for comparative waste assessment in
environmentally conscious manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science
and Engneering 120, 129140.
Silva, N., Jawahir, I.S., Dillion, O., Russell, M., 2009. A new comprehensive
methodology for evaluation of product sustainability at the design and
development stage of consumer electronic products, technical report. International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing 1 (3), 251264.
Simpson, D., Power, D., Samson, D., 2007. Greenin the automotive supply chain: a
relationship perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 27 (1), 2848.
Sinden, G., 2009. The contribution of pas 2050 to the evolution of international
greenhouse gas emission standards. International Journal of Life Cycle Assesment 14, 195203.
Sundarakani, B., deSouza, R., Goh, M., Wagner, M., Manikandan, S., 28, 2010.
Modeling carbon footprints across the supply chain. International Journal of
Production Economics, 1, 4350.
Sutton, P.C., Costanza, R., 2002. Global estimates of market and non-market values
derived from nighttime satellite imagery, and cover, and ecosystem service
valuation. Ecological Economics 41, 509527.
Ungureanu, C.A., Das, S., Jawahir, I.S., 2007. Development of a sustainability
scoring method for manufactured automotive products: a case study of auto
body panels. ASME, International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition 15, 309314.
Wanigarathne P.C., Liew J., Wang X., Dillon O.W. & Jawahir I.S., Assessment of
process sustainability for product manufacture in machining operationstechnical report. Proceedings of Global Conference on Sustainable Product
Development and Life Cycle Engineering, Berlin, Germany, 2004, pp. 305312.
Westkamper, E., Alting, A., 2000. Life cycle management and assessment: approaches
and visions towards sustainable manufacturing. College International Pour La
Research En Productique Manufacturing Technology 49, 501526.
Wiedmann, T., Barret, J., 2010. Review of the ecological footprint indicatorpreceptions and methods. Sustainability 2, 16451693.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., 2008. A denition of carbon footprint, C. C. Pertsova,
Ecological Economics Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge
NY, USA. Chapter 1.
WRI and WBCSD, The Greenhouse gas protocol a corporate accounting and
reporting standard. World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2004.
Zhang, H.C., Kuo, H.C., Lu, H., 1997. Environmentally conscious design and
manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Manufacturing Systems
16 (5), 352371.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on
emergent green supply chain practices and performance. International Journal
of Production Research 45 (18), 43334355.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management 22,
265289.
/http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/case-studyworking-for-sustainable-developmentprimary-industry65-211-2.phpS, Nov 17 2011.
/http://www.groupe-casino.fr/en/The-Casino-Carbon-Index-a-green.htmlS, Nov 17
2011.
/http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Pages/Default.aspxS, Nov 17 2011.
/http://www.gdrc.org/uem/lca/life-cycle.htmlS, Nov 17 2011.
/http://www.apo-Tokyo.org/gp/e_publi/survey_gpp/japan_toyota_case.pdfS, Nov
17 2011.
/http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htmlS, Nov 17 2011.
/http://www.energystar.gov/S, Nov 17 2011.
/http://www.fscus.org/S, Nov 17 2011.
523