See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257492917

Lean vs. Green manufacturing: Similarities and

differences

CONFERENCE PAPER · JUNE 2009

CITATIONS DOWNLOADS VIEWS

2 125 43

2 AUTHORS:

Glenn Johansson Mats Winroth

Jönköping University Chalmers University of Technology
23 PUBLICATIONS 174 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 182 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Mats Winroth

Retrieved on: 19 July 2015
Lean vs. Green manufacturing: Similarities and
differences

Glenn Johansson1, Mats Winroth2

1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Engineering,

Jönköping University, Sweden
2 Division of Operations Management, Department of Technology Management and
Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

Abstract
This paper compares the Lean and Green manufacturing concepts regarding a number of
aspects: focus of the concept, basic principles of the concept, product and/or process
focus, methods and tools, employee involvement, and supply chain involvement. The
analysis shows that the concepts display similarities at the level of resource
productivity, organizational change, and source reduction. However, implementation of
the concepts may lead to trade-off situations, which originate from that the two concepts
have different generic focus. This duality needs to be managed in manufacturing
practice.

Keywords: Lean manufacturing, Green manufacturing, Comparison

Introduction  
Toyota’s Production System (TPS) is the origin of the Lean manufacturing concept that
was introduced in the early 1990s (Womack et al, 1990; Womack and Jones, 1996). The
concept is widely accepted among scholars and supposed to contribute to sustained
competitiveness. Strong focus is set on value creation and waste reduction in the
manufacturing processes. Lean manufacturing relies on certain principles such as
standardized processes, leveled production, JIT practices, visual inspection, and
continuous improvement. Lewis (2000) presented four research propositions on how the
Lean philosophy can contribute to more long-term and sustainable competitive impact.
None of these propositions, however, include environmental issues. More recently, the
Green manufacturing concept has entered the agenda as a response to negative
environmental impacts caused by manufacturing activities. This concept focuses mainly
on reducing effects on the natural environment and a number of principles have been
outlined: reduction of energy use, reduction of material waste and emissions, use of
recyclable materials, fewer manufacturing steps, new manufacturing technology,
environmental training, etc. However, the Lean and Green manufacturing concepts have
evolved rather independently and there is a need to “unpack the nature of the
relationship between lean and green.” (King and Lenox, 2001 p. 254).

1
Research  problem,  objective  and  method  
The lack of understanding of the relationships between the Lean and Green
manufacturing concepts is the problem at hand in this paper. The objective is to explore
these relationships in order to contribute to manufacturing theory and practice. Based on
a literature review, the two concepts are compared and contrasted.

Lean  manufacturing  
The history of TPS has been frequently described and Holweg (2007) provided a brief
overview of the background, from the early 20th century to present time. The
predecessors of lean were autonomation, originating from the time of Toyoda automatic
loom, and Just-In-Time, to which Kiichiro Toyoda got the idea from the American car
manufacturers during late 1940ths. In a literature review on Lean manufacturing, Shah
and Ward (2007) found that there is a clear distinction between the two ways of
approaching the philosophy: the focus is either on the components and tools or on the
system. The trend has been that the early Japanese books were much more precise in
their definition of TPS (Lean had not yet occurred as terminology), than the early
academic researchers. After that, Lean has been generally described from two
perspectives, either a more philosophical one linked to overarching goals, or from a
more practical perspective intended to be a guideline for managers (Shah and Ward,
2007). TPS is based on four rules (Spear and Bowen, 1999):
1. All work shall be highly specified as to content, sequence, timing, and outcome.
2. Every customer-supplier connection must be direct, and there must be an
unambiguous yes-or-no way to send requests and receive responses.
3. The pathway for every product and service must be simple and direct.
4. Any improvement must be made in accordance with the scientific method, under
the guidance of a teacher, at the lowest possible level in the organization.
Liker (2004) presented a list of 14 management principles for Lean manufacturing
that belongs to four categories: philosophy (long-term thinking), process (elimination of
waste), people and partners (respect, challenge and grow them), and problems solving
(continuous improvement and learning):
1. Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy, even at the
expense of short-term financial goals.
2. Create a continuous process flow to bring problems to the surface.
3. Use “pull” systems to avoid overproduction.
4. Level out the workload (heijunka).
5. Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time.
6. Standardized tasks and processes are the foundation for continuous improvement
and employee empowerment.
7. Use visual control so no problems are hidden.
8. Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and
processes.
9. Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy, and
teach it to others.
10. Develop exceptional people and teams who follow your company’s philosophy.
11. Respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them
and helping them improve.
12. Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation (genchi
genbutsu).

2
 13. Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options;
implement decisions rapidly (nemawashi).
14. Become a learning organization through relentless reflection (hansei) and
continuous improvement (kaizen).
Liker (2004) further claimed that it is possible to follow only a few of these
principles, but in that case the outcome will be short-term improvements in some
performance measurements instead of sustainable and long-lasting improvements. In
addition, Shah and Ward (2007) developed a list of ten characteristics of a Lean
manufacturing system:
1. Supplier feedback.
2. JIT-delivery by suppliers.
3. Supplier development.
4. Customer involvement.
5. Pull.
6. Continuous flow.
7. Setup time reduction.
8. Total productive/preventive maintenance.
9. Statistical process control.
10. Employee involvement.
Figure 3 shows how these characteristics are linked together. The performance
regarding the characteristics can be measured through a number of operational
measures. Thus, there could be several measures describing each
characteristic.
Main
concept:
Lean production

Underlying
constructs:
Supplier related Customer related Internally related

Operational Supplier JIT Supplier Customer Continuous Set up time Employee

constructs:
Pull TPM
feedback delivery development involvement flow reduction involvement

Many of these characteristics are also related to and influencing how well a company
can achieve Green manufacturing (Shah and Ward, 2007).

Green  manufacturing  
Manufacturing has a key role in a company’s efforts to become more environmentally
conscious (Sarkis, 2001). The responses in manufacturing to environmental issues on a
larger scale occurred during the early 1990s (Hanna and Newman, 1995). A key event
that underscored the role played by industrial companies with respect to environmental
problems was the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil when
government representatives and industrial leaders from all over the world assembled to
discuss environmental issues (van Hemel, 1998). The literature presents a number of
concepts that addresses environmental concern related to manufacturing: Green
manufacturing, Environmentally conscious manufacturing, and Cleaner production
(Sarkis, 1995; van Berkel et al., 1997; Gungor and Gupta, 1999; Hui et al., 2001; Nagel,
2003; Ehrenfeld, 2004; Rusinko, 2007; Shi et al., 2008). Though some differences can
be found between the concepts, the bottom line is that concern for environmental issues
is central to companies’ manufacturing operations without compromising with
competitiveness. In this paper the term Green manufacturing is adopted and used as a
3
representative for all concepts that focus on environmental concern in the
manufacturing operations.
Green manufacturing aims at continuous integration of environmental improvements
of industrial processes and products to reduce or prevent pollution to air, water and
land; to reduce waste at source; and to minimize risks to humans and other species (van
Berkel et al., 1997). Therefore, the challenges associated with Green manufacturing
include meeting customer demands for environmentally sound products, development of
recycling schemes, minimization of materials use, and selection of materials with low
environmental impacts (Richards, 1994). Regarding processes, Green manufacturing
aims at conserving materials and energy, elimination of the use of toxic substances, and
reduction of waste produced, whereas for products Green manufacturing attempts to
minimize the environmental impacts along the entire product life cycle (van Berkel et
al., 1997). However, the process and product perspectives are partly overlapping
because adopting a product life cycle perspective means that environmental impacts
from manufacturing processes should also be considered.
Green manufacturing includes a number of subsets of practices: pollution prevention
(Hanna et al., 2000), toxic use reduction (Bergendahl et al., 2005), and design for
environment (Johansson et al., 2007). Pollution prevention focuses on avoidance or
minimization of waste and emissions through source reduction or on-site recycling.
Source reduction can be achieved by different means that relates both to the process and
the product (van Berkel et al., 1997):
• Product modifications, where the shape and material composition of the product
are changed
• Input substitution means that less-polluting raw and adjunct materials are used
as well as use of process auxiliaries (e.g. lubricants and coolants) with longer
service lifetime
• Technology modifications involves improved process automation, process
optimization, redesign of equipment and process substitution
• Good housekeeping means changes in operational and management procedures
to reduce or eliminate waste and emissions. Examples include spill prevention,
improved worker instructions and training
On-site recycling refers to recovery and reuse of waste materials that have been
produces in the manufacturing activities within the company. Toxic use reduction is to
some degree similar to pollution prevention. The difference refers to the type of
materials addressed. Toxic use reduction focuses solely on chemical substances that are
considered toxic, whereas pollution prevention adopts a broader view on which
materials are addressed.
Design for environment refers to the actions taken and activities carried out
originating from the incorporation of environmental performance requirements in
product development (Johansson and Magnusson, 2006). It involves analysis of
environmental impacts from the products based on a life cycle perspective as well as
implementation of improvements to reduce impacts. Hence, design for environment
addresses both the use of various tools and methods (Baumann et al., 2000) as well as
organisational considerations (Johansson et al., 2007). In the so-called Design for
Environment (DfE) strategy wheel, a typology of options for improving the
environmental profile of products is outlined (van Hemel, 1998). The typology includes
the following categories: new concept development, selection of low impact materials,
reduction of materials usage, optimisation of production techniques, optimisation of
distribution system, reduction of impact during usage, optimisation of initial lifetime,
and optimisation of end of life system. As was mentioned above, the typology shows
4
that even though a product perspective is adopted also the process perspective is
considered because the two perspectives are partly overlapping.

Comparison  between  Lean  and  Green  manufacturing  

O’Brien (1999, p. 5) stated: “organizations must be lean as well as clean”, i.e. in order
to achieve clean and sustainable production, previous paradigms such as leanness,
quality, and efficiency should be combined and refined. Adding to that statement,
Sharma and Kodali (2008) argued that a framework for manufacturing excellence needs
both the Lean and Green manufacturing concepts to be part of the pillars. However, as
was stated earlier the relationships between the two concepts should be better
understood. Table 1 summarizes similarities and differences between the two concepts
and thereafter follows a more detailed discussion of each aspect.

Table 1: Comparison between the Lean and Green manufacturing concepts.

Aspect Lean manufacturing Green manufacturing
Focus of the Focuses on enhancing
concept competitiveness through value
creation for customers. Quality, waste
minimization/elimination and
delivery times are key issues.
Basic principles of Includes a number of principles
the concept related to four categories: philosophy
(long-term thinking), process
(elimination of waste), people and
partners (respect, challenge and grow
them), and problems solving
(continuous improvement and
learning)
Product and/or Mainly focus on processes, but the
process focus products’ influence on performance
of processes is strongly
acknowledged. Lean product
development is a complementary
view on the lean enterprise
Methods/tools Various tools are used for process
improvements
Employee Involvement of employees is key in
involvement order to achieve continuous
improvement and learning.
Supply chain Customer focus and involvement as
involvement well as close cooperation with
suppliers are important
Focuses on integration of environmental
improvements of industrial processes and
products. Reduction or prevention of
pollution to air, water and land; reduction
of waste at source; and minimization of
risks to humans and other species are key
issues
Includes principles related primarily to
three categories: pollution prevention,
reduction of use of toxic substances, and
design for environment.
Focus on both processes and products.
Various tools are used for improvements
of environmental performance of
processes and products
Involvement of employees is key in order
to implement measures for improving
environmental performance of both
processes and products
Involvement of suppliers is essential
because sharing and integration of ideas
for environmental improvements across
organizational boundaries will support the
achievement of high environmental
performance in manufacturing

Focus  of  the  concept  

Lean manufacturing focuses on creating value for the customer. All activities in the
production system and supply chain that do not add value should be eliminated, or at
least reduced. Elimination of various forms of waste, including overproduction, waiting,

5
unnecessary transport, over processing, excess inventory, unnecessary movement,
defects and unused employee creativity, is thus at the heart of the concept (Liker, 2004).
Waste elimination is also a key issue of Green manufacturing. It concerns reduction
or prevention of pollution to air, water and land as well as reduction of waste at source.
Reuse and recycling are also part of the Green manufacturing concept to reduce the
amount of waste produced. Waste is thus considered in a slightly different manner than
within the Lean concept, but the concepts share the view that resource productivity
(Porter and van der Linde, 1995) are central aspects of a firm’s competitiveness. Still,
the literature presents a somewhat inconclusive view of the waste concept. As resource
productivity is focused upon in both concepts, the “zero waste” goal of lean
manufacturing is considered by some proponents to inevitably lead to pollution
prevention (King and Lenox, 2001). Others claim, however, that efforts to increase
efficiency of throughputs may actually lead to a greater production of waste, because
small batch manufacturing inherent in lean manufacturing will lead to an extended
number of changeovers. These changeovers will require increased cleaning of
manufacturing equipment and disposal of unused process material (ibid.). In summary,
even though the concepts differ in focus, both share the idea that resource productivity
is at the heart. Waste, no matter what type, should be avoided or preferably eliminated.

Basic  principles  of  the  concept  

Liker (2004) presented ”The four P’s” of Lean manufacturing: Philosophy (i.e. long-
term thinking), Process (i.e. elimination of waste), people and partners (i.e. respect,
challenge, and grow them), and problem solving (i.e. continuous improvement and
learning). This means that the obvious starting point is to base management decisions on
long-term goals, even if short-term financial goals may have to be neglected. When this
is settled, it is possible to work continuously with the other three P’s, i.e. to reduce
waste, develop personnel, and to solve problems. Another presentation of the Lean
manufacturing principles was provided by Feld (2001). He lists a number of Lean tools
located in three subsequent stages, showing how to actually carry out lean improvement
work.
The Green manufacturing concept also advocates long-term thinking. Environmental
impacts originating from industrial activities affect the natural environment for many
years. The change towards environmentally sound manufacturing is also associated with
a long-term time frame (Johansson, 2002), because changes in technology and processes
may call for investments. On a short-term time basis, costs may increase as a result of
the investments but if a longer time frame is adopted, the initial costs can be
outweighed, for example, by reduced costs for waste. Processes, people, partners and
problem solving are also at the core of Green manufacturing. The focus on reducing
pollution in the process instead of treating it at the end-of-pipe has a similar logic as
building quality into products and processes (King and Lenox, 2001) and can increase
process yield, lower energy consumption, improve workplace conditions etc (Porter and
van der Linde, 1995). To sum up, Lean and Green manufacturing share many basic
principles. Long-term thinking and process focus, for example, are key aspects of each
concept respectively.

Product  and/or  process  focus  

The Lean philosophy is mainly focused on improving the manufacturing processes. This
must, however, be linked to the product development, since the product design sets the
conditions for manufacturing thus affecting the process efficiency (Feld, 2001; Liker,

6
2004). Interrelationships between manufacturing process improvements and product
development is therefore acknowledged. So even though Lean manufacturing primarily
addresses manufacturing processes also the products and product development are
considered. Actually, competitiveness relates to both process development and product
development (Kennedy, 2003; Morgan and Liker, 2006)
Green manufacturing clearly acknowledges the need of improvements related to both
processes and products. The goal to minimize the environmental impacts along the
entire product life cycle (van Berkel et al., 1997), requests a process as well as product
focus. The field of DfE (also denoted Ecodesign or Environmentally conscious design)
has thus emerged as an important part of Green manufacturing. That product
development is at the heart of Green manufacturing has been advocated in the literature
(e.g. Baumann et al., 2002; Johansson and Magnusson, 2006). For example, based on a
study of product properties affecting end-of-life systems performance, Johansson and
Huge Brodin (2008, p. 713) concluded that “product development is one of the main
drivers of end-of-life system performance because a product’s various properties are
defined in the product development process”. In summary, whereas Lean manufacturing
focuses primarily on the manufacturing process per se, also the need to consider
products and product development is acknowledged. Green manufacturing involves
both process and product focus, which are needed in order to result in industrial
activities with low environmental impacts.

Methods/tools  
There is a whole set of methods/tools used in Lean manufacturing. On an overall level
we can find more philosophical methods such as JIT, aiming at creating flow,
improving delivery precision, and eliminating overproduction (Shah and Ward, 2007).
Low-level tools can be exemplified by set-up time reduction, SMED (i.e. Single Minute
Exchange of Die), with the aim to increase the available manufacturing time (Feld,
2001).
Green manufacturing also relies on several methods/tools. The methods/tools relates
to both processes and products. In general, the methods/tools can be classified as
assessment oriented or improvement oriented. The perhaps most well-known
method/tool is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). It aims at analyzing environmental
impacts over the entire life cycle (raw material extraction, material production,
manufacturing, use, and end-of-life treatment) of a product (or service). Various
improvement tools have also emerged, such as different DfE handbooks for various
types of products, lists of restricted or banned substances, etc. Hence, both Lean and
Green manufacturing rely on the application of various types of methods/tools.

Employee  involvement  
The degree of employee involvement is essential in Lean manufacturing. Actually,
Liker (2004) based the entire set of the “4 P” model of Lean manufacturing on first
creating the management environment and awareness, then developing the leadership to
encourage individual competence development and responsibility.
Green manufacturing also relies heavily upon involvement of employees. Dahlmann
et al. (2008) reported that environmental management in some companies is largely
driven and supported by the employees themselves. In a case study of three
organizations, Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000) found that the organizations provided their
employees with systematic training courses to increase environmental consciousness
which in turn contributed to knowledge and skills to solve complex problems involving

7
environmental issues as well as other issues. Education and training may support the
establishment of a new mindset emphasizing the importance of environmental
considerations (van Hemel and Keldmann, 1997). According to Hanna et al. (2000),
continuous improvement efforts of operations managers, including employee
involvement team projects, can constitute a key source of environmental improvements.
To sum up, both Lean and Green manufacturing need employee involvement in order to
be successful.

Supply  chain  involvement  

One of the principles of Lean manufacturing concerns respect for the extended network
of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them with improvements
(Liker, 2004). That is, close cooperation with actors in the supply chain is an essential
ingredient of the Lean concept. Likewise, close relationships with customers constitute
a key for business success as the main focus of Lean is to create value for the customers.
Environmental impacts occur in the entire supply chain and are thus not isolated to a
single company. That is, all different actors and processes in the supply chain generate
environmental impacts. Supply chain considerations must therefore include
environmental issues and customer-supplier relationships play a role in the
environmental performance of the business activities (Nagel, 2003). Sharing and
integrating ideas for environmental improvements across organizational boundaries will
support the abilities of a manufacturing facility to achieve high environmental
performance, conscious manufacturing, or even lead to investments in direct
involvement activities at the supplier. Dahlmann et al. (2008) found in their survey of
environmental management in the UK that some companies have implemented
successful waste-sharing schemes with other companies for various production
processes. They claimed that this indicates possibilities to reduce environmental impacts
by taking advantage of broader strategies outside the single company via operation
through industry and community-wide initiatives or industrial symbioses. In summary,
both Lean and Green manufacturing advocates involvement of supply chain actors in
order to achieve business success.

Conclusions  and  discussion  

The comparison between the Lean and Green manufacturing concepts shows that they
are complementary and to some degree overlapping. Both concepts promote resource
productivity in manufacturing. Reduction of waste in terms of inventory, rework, etc as
augmented by the Lean concept contributes to resource productivity. Similarly, the
Green concept asserts reduction of material waste and emissions, fewer production steps
which also support high resource productivity. Furthermore, the strong focus on
continuous improvement in the Lean concept needs employee involvement and training.
Improvements of environmental performance, as advocated by the Green concept, also
require employee involvement and training. Both concepts require changed mindsets
and establishment of company cultures supporting the philosophy underlying each
concept. Another feature of the Lean concept is not only to solve any problem that
occurs in manufacturing, but to avoid occurrence in the future. This displays similarities
with the Green manufacturing concept, which advocates source reduction. That is,
attention should be paid to avoidance of negative environmental impacts rather than use
of “end-of-pipe” solutions when the impacts occur. Hence, the analysis shows that the
concepts display similarities at the level of resource productivity, organizational change,
and source reduction.

8
 However, despite the similarities that can be found between the concepts, there are
some differences. Basically, the concepts have different focus which implies differences
and potential conflicts that must be managed. Investments in equipment, for example to
reduce emissions, may from a Lean perspective be seen as superfluous as it does not
directly contribute to customer value. From a Green perspective it is motivated to
reduce effects on the natural environment. Hence, implementation of the concepts may
lead to trade-off situations, which are due to that the two concepts have different generic
focus. This duality needs to be managed in manufacturing practice.
The theoretical value of the comparison presented in this paper is that it provides a
starting point for further studies that add to the scarce empirical research on the
relationships between the concepts. Such studies are urgently needed in order to extend
current manufacturing theory towards a more holistic theory on resource productive
manufacturing. For practitioners, the findings presented in this paper enhance the
possibilities to improve current manufacturing practice. Understanding of the
similarities and differences between the concepts will be helpful if only one of the
concepts is implemented and the company wants to implement also the other concept in
order to maintain competitiveness in the global marketplace.

References  
Baumann H., Boons F. and Bragd A. (2002), “Mapping the green product development field: engineering,
policy and business perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 409-425.
Bergendahl, C-G, Lichtenvort, K., Johansson, G., Zackrisson, M. and Nyyssönen, J. (2005),
“Environmental and economic implications of a shift to halogen-free printed wiring boards”,
Circuit World, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 26-31.
Berkel van, R., Willems, E. and Lafleur, M. (1997), “The relationship between Cleaner Production and
Industrial Ecology”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Dahlmann, F., Brammer, S. And Millington, A. (2008), “Environmental management in the United
Kingdom: new survey evidence”, Management Decision, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 264-283
Gungor, A. and Gupta, S. (1999), “Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product
recovery: A survey”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 811-853.
Ehrenfeld, J. (2004), “Industrial ecology: A new field or only a metaphor?”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 12, pp. 825-831.
Feld, W.M. (2001), Lean Manufacturing – Tools, Techniques, and How To Use Them, The CRS Press
Series on Resource Management, USA
Hanna, M. and Newman, W.R. (1995), ”Operations and environment: an expanded focus of TQM”
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 38-53.
Hanna, M., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000), “Linking operational and environmental
improvement through employee involvement”. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 148-165.
Hemel, C. van and Keldmann, T. (1997), “Applying ‘Design for X’ Experience in Design for
Environment”, In: Huang, G. Q. (Ed.) Design for X - Concurrent Engineering Imperatives,
Chapman & Hall, London
Hemel van, C. (1998), EcoDesign Empirically Explored - Design for Environment in Dutch Small and
Medium Sized Enterprises. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft
Hui, I.K., Chan, A. and Pun, K.F. (2001), “A study of environmental management system implementation
practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 269-276.
Holweg, M. (2007), “The genealogy of lean production”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25,
pp. 420-437.
Johansson, G. (2002), Environmental concern in electronics product development: A means to improve
business performance? Report No. V040097, VI/Industrilitteratur, Stockholm
Johansson, G., Greif, A., Fleischer, G. (2007), Managing the design/environment interface: Studies of
integration mechanisms. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, Nos. 18–19, pp.
4041–4055
Johansson, G. and Magnusson, T. (2006), “Organising for environmental considerations in complex
product development projects: Implications from introducing a “green” sub-project”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, Nos. 15-16, pp. 1368-1376.
9
Johansson, G. Huge Brodin, M. (2008), “Product properties affecting performance of end-of-life systems
for electrical and electronic equipment”. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 705-717
Kennedy, M. (2003), Product development for the lean enterprise. The Oaklea Press, Richmond, Virginia
King and Lenox, (2001) “Lean and Green? An empricial examination of the relationship between lean
production and environmental performance.” Production and Operations Maangement, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp. 244-256
Kitazawa, S. and Sarkis, J. (2000), “The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source reduction
programs”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.
225-248.
Lewis, M. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 959-978.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0071392319.
Morgan, J., Liker, J. (2006) The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process, and
Technology. Productivity Press, New York
Nagel, M.H. (2003), “Managing the environmental performance of production facilities in the electronics industry:
more than application of the concept of cleaner production”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 11, pp 11-
26.
O’Brien, C. (1999), “Sustainable production – a new paradigm for a new millennium”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 60-61, pp. 1-7.
Porter, M., van der Linde, C. (1995), “Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate”, Harvard Business
Review, September-October, pp. 120-134
Richards, D. (1994), “Environmentally conscious manufacturing”. World Class Design to Manufacture,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 15-22
Rusinko, C. (2007), “Green manufacturing: An evaluation of environmentally sustainable manufacturing
practices and their impact on competitive outcomes”, IEEE Transaction on Engineering
Management, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 445-454.
Sarkis, J. (1995), “Manufacturing strategy and environmental consciousness”, Technovation, Vol. 15, No.
2, pp. 79-97.
Sarkis, J. (2001), “Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability – Concerns for the new
millennium”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21, No. 5/6,
pp. 666-686.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 785-805.
Sharma, M., Kodali, R. (2008), “Development of a framework for manufacturing excellence”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 50-66.
Shi, H., Peng, S.Z., Liu, Y. and Shong, P. (2008), “Barriers to the implementation of cleaner production
in Chinese SMEs: Government, industry and expert stakeholders’ perspectives”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 842-852.
Spear, S. and Bowen, H.K. (1999), “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System”, Harvard
Business Review, September-October, pp 96-106.
Womack J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine That Changed the World, Rawsons
Associates, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon & Schuster, NY.

10