Identifying and Dealing with Interdependencies and Conflicts between Goals in Manufacturing Companies’ Sustainability Measures
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature and Methodology
3. Results
3.1. Requirements for a Method
- Weighting approaches (13 publications):
- Financial and utility-calculation-based approaches (9 publications):
- System dynamics approaches (8 publications):
- Graphical approaches (6 publications):
- Mathematical optimizations (5 publications):
- Management systems (4 publications):
- Single-index approaches (2 publications):
- Time-variant models (1 publication):One publication does not fit either of the aforementioned categories. It is introduced as a time-variant approach. It pertains to an approach where a sustainability vector of the system is calculated for multiple points in time, and an optimum path for sustainability measure implementation is derived [63].
3.2. Weighting Approaches
- Definition of system boundaries: System boundaries are not considered an explicit step in these the methods for most authors. Only Refs. [35,40] define the system boundary as part of their method, and [39] implicitly considers the system boundary since the method focuses not so much on the assessment of interdependencies and conflicts between goals but on data acquisition.
- Stability: Most methods are not stable in the sense that they specifically deal with potentially inaccurate or incomplete data. Only Ref. [26] includes a sensitivity analysis that investigates and addresses potentially inadequate data.
- Identification of KPIs: Most methods contain a step to identify the KPIs for consideration. This yields an average of 69% for this aspect. Only three methods do not consider the selection of KPIs. In two publications [36,37], the KPI selection is a prerequisite for the application of their method. Some authors [31] do select some criteria, but this step is not part of their method for general application.
- Assessment of interactions: None of the methods explicitly assess the interactions between multiple aspects of sustainability.
3.3. Financial and Utility Approaches
- Identification of sustainability goals: None of the financial and utility approaches identify the sustainability goals as part of the respective method.
- Prioritization of goals: Only one publication [43] prioritizes sustainability goals through weighting factors.
- Stability: Most of the methods are not stable regarding inaccurate or incomplete data since they are purely quantitative and rely on accurate input information. Some authors [2] compare decision alternatives based on the same data. Therefore, some of the impact of inaccuracies is mitigated if the expected impact of decisions on the aspects of sustainability is directionally correct.
- Assessment of interactions: None of the financial and utility approaches assess the interactions between aspects of sustainability.
- Coping with conflicts between goals: None of the financial and utility approaches systematically and synergetically address conflicts between sustainability goals as part of the respective method.
- Decision support: Decision support is provided by four out of nine methods [2,18,27,41] through financial or utility analysis of decision options. Five out of nine methods do not do so since the focus of the work is different, e.g., one publication [17] aims to determine an absolute measure of sustainability, some authors [25] focus on reporting, and some authors [43] aim to aid company valuations for external stakeholders.
3.4. System Dynamics
- Prioritization of goals: None of the publications prioritize the sustainability goals.
- Definition of system boundaries: Inherently, the system boundary is defined since the system dynamics model has to be set up and, thus, specifies the system boundaries. However, one publication [49] does not consider the system dynamics within a company but between the sustainable development goals (SDGs). In that sense, no system boundary is identified in this publication.
- Practicality: All but one of the approaches are not practical since creating a system dynamics model is inherently complicated and difficult. It requires knowledge of all interactions and the ability to quantify them accurately. The one exception [47] focuses on chemical processes, and the approach may be practical for this particular subset of applications.
- Company specificity: Since the system dynamics models are set up to investigate company interactions, they are inherently company-specific. An exception applies to one publication [49], since the focus is on interactions between SDGs.
- (Potential) Comprehensiveness: All aspects that can be quantified and mathematically described can potentially be considered in a system dynamics approach. Hence, this applies, at least to some degree, to all methods that were analyzed.
- Stability: Most methods are not stable in the sense that they specifically deal with potentially inaccurate or incomplete data. However, one group of authors provides a sensitivity analysis to address potentially inaccurate or incomplete data [47], and one group investigates and discusses potential uncertainties in the data [50]. One publication [49] considers the data on a more strategic level. General directions of interactions are more important than accuracy.
- Coping with conflicts between goals: There is no systematic way to synergetically resolve conflicts between goals in any of the methods.
3.5. Graphic Approaches
- Identification of sustainability goals: Only one publication [51] considers the identification of the company’s sustainability goals part of the process;
- Prioritization of goals: None of the graphical approaches contain a step within the method to prioritize the sustainability goals of the company;
- Definition of system boundaries: All but one [29] of the methods define system boundaries as part of the process.
- Practicality: Most of the methods (4 out of 6) can be considered very practical. They rely on workshops and established graphical tools such as value stream mapping for visualization. Two of the methods [54,55] require elaborate computations and interpretation of the results prior to visualization and are not practical.
- Company specificity: Two of the methods [52,54] are company-specific. Other methods consider company specifics but focus on intra-company comparisons [51] or consider the company specifics implicitly by selecting KPIs and reference values for the KPIs in workshops with management [29]. Two of the methods are not company-specific [53,55].
- Stability: All but one of the methods are stable due to their graphical qualitative nature, their consideration of fuzzy approaches, or the involvement of multiple experts to assess the data and results. One publication [51] is not stable regarding incomplete or inaccurate data but analyzes the impact of such data on the results.
- Identification of KPIs: The identification of KPIs is part of the method for four out of six methods, and for two more, KPIs are selected, but in one case only via a literature review and only regarding ergonomics [52] and in one case only via a literature review for the publication and not as part of the method [54].
- Assessment of interactions: Interactions are not assessed in any of the publications. Ref. [54] identifies interactions but does not assess them.
- Coping with conflicts between goals: None of the graphical approaches contain a step to synergetically resolve conflicts between goals among aspects of sustainability.
- Decision support: There is no decision support, i.e., recommendation, in any of the graphical methods.
3.6. Mathematical Optimization Approaches
- Identification of sustainability goals: None of the mathematical optimization approaches determine sustainability goals as part of the method.
- Prioritization of goals: None of the mathematical optimization approaches determine the priority of sustainability goals for the company as part of the method.
- Definition of system boundaries: Definition is mostly not considered for the mathematical optimization approaches. In one publication, there is an implicit definition via the formulation of a utility function [56], and two more publications [16,58] formulate a system boundary, but the focus is not an individual company.
- Practicality: Most of the approaches are mathematically very challenging and, therefore, not practical to implement. One approach [57] is practical through the combination of comparatively simple mathematics and graphical analysis.
- (Potential) Comprehensiveness: Generally speaking, the mathematical optimization approaches are not comprehensive. If the utility function can be expressed in commensurable terms for all KPIs, one of the methods [56] may be considered comprehensive.
- Stability: One of the methods [56] systematically considers variance and scatter in the data. The others do not.
- Assessment of interactions: None of the mathematical optimization approaches assess interactions between different aspects of sustainability.
- Coping with conflicts between goals: None of the mathematical optimization approaches attempt to synergetically resolve conflicts between goals among aspects of sustainability.
3.7. Management Systems
- Definition of system boundaries: System boundaries are not defined in any of the management systems.
- Practicality: Three of the management systems are not practical for various reasons. Ref. [61] builds upon well-known management systems and is, therefore, very practical.
- (Potential) Comprehensiveness: All management systems are potentially comprehensive, i.e., they at least potentially consider all aspects of sustainability.
- Stability: None of the management systems specifically address the issue of incomplete or inaccurate data. However, one publication [20] discusses “future worlds”, which is inherently a very inaccurate undertaking, so inaccuracies in the data are less important than generally possible long-term developments.
- Identification of KPIs: All management systems identify KPIs. One publication [61] proposes a KPI selection from the literature but does not identify KPIs as part of the management system.
- Assessment of interactions: The management systems do not assess interactions between different aspects of sustainability.
- Coping with conflicts between goals: There is no systematic way to synergetically resolve conflicts between goals in any of the management systems.
- Decision support: None of the management systems offer decision support.
3.8. Single Index Approaches
- Identification of sustainability goals: The identification of the sustainability goals is not part of either of the methods;
- Prioritization of goals: For both methods, prioritization is conducted by weighting factors for each aspect;
- Definition of system boundaries: The system boundaries are defined in both methods.
- Practicality: One of the approaches [5] is practical to implement;
- Company specificity: Both methods consider company specifics;
- Stability: Both methods do not address the issue of potentially inaccurate or incomplete data.
- Assessment of interactions: Interactions are not discussed in either of the publications.
- Coping with conflicts between goals: Only one of the publications [5] considers conflicts between goals. However, there is no attempt to synergetically resolve them. They are dealt with merely on a weighting factor basis.
- Decision support: Only one publication [5] offers support to decision-makers in companies as a result of the method.
3.9. Time-Variant Approaches
- Identification of sustainability goals: The method does not contain a step to identify sustainability goals, but it is acknowledged that this would be a necessary step to perform the analysis.
- Prioritization of goals: The method does not contain a step to prioritize goals. But it is acknowledged that this would be a necessary step to perform the analysis.
- Definition of system boundaries: The method does not contain a step to identify the system boundaries. But, again, it is acknowledged that this would be a necessary step to perform the analysis.
- Practicality: The method is not practical, as it is very complicated mathematically and involves assumptions about the future state of the system;
- Company specificity: The publication only describes the mathematical part of the method; it would be possible to consider company specifics;
- (potential) Comprehensiveness: The method does consider all aspects of sustainability and is, therefore, comprehensive;
- Stability: The method relies heavily on numerical input for its analysis but does not contain any steps or precautions to deal with inaccurate or incomplete data.
- Identification of KPIs: The method does not identify KPIs. However, it is indicated that this is a necessary step.
- Assessment of interactions: Interactions among various aspects of sustainability are not analyzed.
- Coping with conflicts between goals: Coping systematically with conflicts between goals to synergetically resolve them is not part of the method.
- Decision support: The method offers decision support or, rather, decision options since the result is a set of pareto-optimal decision options that are presented to the decision-maker.
3.10. Summary of Chapter 3
4. Discussion and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hallam, C.R.; Contreras, C. The interrelation of Lean and green manufacturing Practices: A case of push or pull in implementation. In Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, 4–8 September 2016; pp. 1815–1823. [Google Scholar]
- Hahn, T.; Figge, F.; Liesen, A. Assessing Trade-Offs in Investments for the Environment—The Case of a VOC-Reduction Investment at AUTO Group. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 19, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1997; ISBN 1-900961-27-X. [Google Scholar]
- Gbededo, M.A.; Liyanage, K. Sustainable Manufacturing Assessment: Approach and the Trend Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis. In Advances in Manufacturing Technology XXXI: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Manufacturing Research, Incorporating the 32nd National Conference on Manufacturing Research, 5–7 September 2017; Gao, J., El Souri, M., Keates, S., Eds.; University of Greenwich: London, UK; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 383–388. ISBN 978-1-61499-792-4. [Google Scholar]
- Gerdes, C.; Maier-Speredelozzi, V. A Case Study for Sustainable Routing in Manufacturing Enterprises. In Proceedings of the IISE Annual Conference and Expo 2018, Orlando, FL, USA, 19–22 May 2018; Barker, K., Berry, D., Rainwater, C., Eds.; Curran Associates Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 913–918, ISBN 978-1-5108-6935-6. [Google Scholar]
- Gbededo, M.A.; Liyanage, K.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis: A systematic review of approaches to sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 1002–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moldavska, A.; Welo, T. A Holistic approach to corporate sustainability assessment: Incorporating sustainable development goals into sustainable manufacturing performance evaluation. J. Manuf. Syst. 2019, 50, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kravchenko, M.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; McAloone, T.C. A Trade-Off Navigation Framework as a Decision Support for Conflicting Sustainability Indicators within Circular Economy Implementation in the Manufacturing Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Souza, J.P.E. Lean integrated management system for sustainability improvement: An integrated system of tools and metrics for sustainability management. In Methods in Sustainability Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 265–293. ISBN 9780128239872. [Google Scholar]
- Kopfmüller, J. (Ed.) Ein Konzept auf dem Prüfstand: Das Integrative Nachhaltigkeitskonzept in der Forschungspraxis; Edition Sigma: Berlin, Germany, 2006; ISBN 978-3-89404-582-1. [Google Scholar]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shaffril, H.A.M.; Samsuddin, S.F.; Samah, A.A. The ABC of systematic literature review: The basic methodological guidance for beginners. Qual Quant 2021, 55, 1319–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanyama, S.B.; McQuaid, R.W.; Kittler, M. Where you search determines what you find: The effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2022, 25, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Schoot, R.; de Bruin, J.; Schram, R.; Zahedi, P.; de Boer, J.; Weijdema, F.; Kramer, B.; Huijts, M.; Hoogerwerf, M.; Ferdinands, G.; et al. An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2021, 3, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welsing, M. Bewertung der ökologischen Nachhaltigkeit von Produktionsnetzwerkkonfigurationen. Doctoral Thesis, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Miehe, R. Methodik zur Quantifizierung der Nachhaltigen Wertschöpfung von Produktionssystemen an der Ökonomisch-Ökologischen Schnittstelle Anhand Ausgewählter Umweltprobleme. Doctoral Thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Siepelmeyer, D. Development of Material Flow Cost Accounting and Value Added Statements as Planning Instruments for Sustainability Management; Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen: Göttingen, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhlmann, T.; Mandel, J.; Sauer, A. Bewertung von Ultraeffizienzmaßnahmen: Skalierbarer, ganzheitlicher Ansatz zur Bewertung von Ultraeffizienzmaßnahmen in der Produktion. wt Werkstattstech Online 2016, 2016, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopfmüller, J.; Weimer-Jehle, W.; Naegler, T.; Buchgeister, J.; Bräutigam, K.-R.; Stelzer, V. Integrative Scenario Assessment as a Tool to Support Decisions in Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wietschel, L.; Messmann, L.; Thorenz, A.; Tuma, A. Environmental benefits of large-scale second-generation bioethanol production in the EU: An integrated supply chain network optimization and life cycle assessment approach. J. Ind. Ecol. 2021, 25, 677–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabral, I.F. An Information Model for Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green Supply Chain Management. Doctoral Thesis, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Lissabon, Portugal, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Govindan, K.; Garg, K.; Gupta, S.; Jha, P.C. Effect of product recovery and sustainability enhancing indicators on the location selection of manufacturing facility. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 517–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reich-Weiser, C.; Dornfeld, D.A. A discussion of greenhouse gas emission tradeoffs and water scarcity within the supply chain. J. Manuf. Syst. 2009, 28, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chousa, J.P.; Castro, N.R. Integrating Sustainability into Traditional Financial Analysis. In Sustainability Accounting and Reporting; Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R., Eds.; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 83–108. ISBN 978-1-4020-4079-5. [Google Scholar]
- Saad, M.H.; Nazzal, M.A.; Darras, B.M. A general framework for sustainability assessment of manufacturing processes. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 97, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasiński, D.; Meredith, J.; Kirwan, K. Sustainable development model for measuring and managing sustainability in the automotive sector. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 29, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jurík, L.; Horňáková, N.; Šantavá, E.; Cagáňová, D.; Sablik, J. Application of AHP method for project selection in the context of sustainable development. Wirel. Netw. 2022, 28, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helleno, A.L.; de Moraes, A.J.I.; Simon, A.T. Integrating sustainability indicators and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: Application case studies in Brazilian industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 405–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sauer, A. Machtbasierte Entwicklung von Intellectual Capital in Kollaborationen der Produzierenden Industrie. Doctoral Thesis, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bezerra, P.R.S.; Schramm, F.; Schramm, V.B. A multicriteria model, based on the PROMETHEE II, for assessing corporate sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 2927–2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoycheva, S.; Marchese, D.; Paul, C.; Padoan, S.; Juhmani, A.; Linkov, I. Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pattanaik, L.N.; Baug, T.K.; Koteswarapavan, C. A hybrid ELECTRE based prioritization of conjoint tools for lean and sustainable manufacturing. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 2019, 13, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozmehmet Tasan, S.; Felekoglu, B.; Ozmehmet, E. Sustainability Assessment of Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing Companies. In Closing the Gap Between Practice and Research in Industrial Engineering; Viles, E., Ormazábal, M., Lleó, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 59–66. ISBN 978-3-319-58408-9. [Google Scholar]
- Ong, M.C.; Leong, Y.T.; Wan, Y.K.; Chew, I.M.L. Multi-objective Optimization of Integrated Water System by FUCOM-VIKOR Approach. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2021, 5, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, R.V.; Patel, B.K. Novel method for decision making in the manufacturing environment. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2011, 225, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Voet, H.; van der Heijden, G.W.; Kruisselbrink, J.W.; Tromp, S.-O.; Rijgersberg, H.; van Bussel, L.G.; van Asselt, E.D.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. A decision support tool for assessing scenario acceptability using a hierarchy of indicators with compensabilities and importance weights. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 43, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kluczek, A. Application of Multi-criteria Approach for Sustainability Assessment of Manufacturing Processes. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2016, 7, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castiglione, C.; Pastore, E.; Alfieri, A. Technical, economic, and environmental performance assessment of manufacturing systems: The multi-layer enterprise input-output formalization method. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 35, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, A.; Ion, W. A Novel Approach towards Sustainability Assessment in Manufacturing and Stakeholder’s Role. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuart, J.A.; Ammons, J.C.; Turbini, L.J.; Saunders, F.M.; Saminathan, M. Evaluation approach for environmental impact and yield trade-offs for electronics manufacturing product and process alternatives. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment ISEE (Cat. No.95CH35718), Orlando, FL, USA, 1–3 May 1995; pp. 166–170, ISBN 0-7803-2137-5. [Google Scholar]
- Figge, F.; Hahn, T. Sustainable Value Added—Measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Lin, L. Making sustainability accountable: A valuation model for corporate performance. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 2004. Conference Record. 2004, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 10–13 May 2004; pp. 7–12, ISBN 0-7803-8250-1. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, J.M.; Caudill, R.J. A more comprehensive and quantitative approach to corporate sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 83, 106409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petry, M.; Köhler, C.; Zhang, H. Interaction analysis for dynamic sustainability assessment of manufacturing systems. Procedia CIRP 2020, 90, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petry, M.; Köhler, C.; Zhang, H. Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung in der Produktion. Z. Wirtsch. Fabr. 2021, 116, 511–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, A.; Gani, R.; Matos, H. Design of sustainable chemical processes: Systematic retrofit analysis generation and evaluation of alternatives. Process. Saf. Environ. 2008, 86, 328–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H. Understanding the Linkages: A Dynamic Sustainability Assessment Method and Decision Making in Manufacturing Systems. Procedia CIRP 2019, 80, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zanten, J.A.; van Tulder, R. Improving companies’ impacts on sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 3703–3720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.B.; Shin, S.-J.; Shao, G.; Brodsky, A. A decision-guidance framework for sustainability performance analysis of manufacturing processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2015, 78, 1455–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paju, M.; Heilala, J.; Hentula, M.; Heikkila, A.; Johansson, B.; Leong, S.; Lyons, K. Framework and indicators for a Sustainable Manufacturing Mapping methodology. In Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, 2010 Winter Simulation Conference—(WSC 2010), Baltimore, MD, USA, 5–8 December 2010; pp. 3411–3422, ISBN 978-1-4244-9866-6. [Google Scholar]
- Rathore, B.; Pundir, A.K.; Iqbal, R.; Gupta, R. Development of fuzzy based ergonomic-value stream mapping (E-VSM) tool: A case study in Indian glass artware industry. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 34, 1618–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, A.; Amundson, J.; Badurdeen, F. Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM) in different manufacturing system configurations: Application case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 164–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhanot, N.; Rao, P.V.; Deshmukh, S.G. Sustainable Manufacturing: An Interaction Analysis for Machining Parameters using Graph Theory. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 189, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badri Ahmadi, H.; Lo, H.-W.; Gupta, H.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Liou, J.J.H. Analyzing interrelationships among environmental sustainability innovation factors. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2022, 24, 1191–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camahan, J.V.; Thurston, D.L. Trade-off Modeling for Product and Manufacturing Process Design for the Environment. J. Ind. Ecol. 1998, 2, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishima, N. Decision Making for Sustainable Manufacturing Utilizing a Manufacturing Technology Database. In Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence; Omatu, S., de Paz Santana, J.F., González, S.R., Molina, J.M., Bernardos, A.M., Rodríguez, J.M.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 17–24. ISBN 978-3-642-28764-0. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, A.; Lou, H.H. Hierarchical Pareto Optimization for the Sustainable Development of Industrial Ecosystems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 3265–3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vadenbo, C.; Hellweg, S.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Multi-objective optimization of waste and resource management in industrial networks—Part I: Model description. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 89, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watanabe, E.H.; Da Silva, R.M.; Tsuzuki, M.S.; Junqueira, F.; dos Santos Filho, D.J.; Miyagi, P.E. A Framework to Evaluate the Performance of a New Industrial Business Model. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2016, 49, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdil, N.O.; Aktas, C.B.; Arani, O.M. Embedding sustainability in lean six sigma efforts. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 520–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garbie, I.; Garbie, A. A holistic perspective of the sustainable manufacturing: A novel conceptual approach. IJISE 2022, 41, 135–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moradi Aliabadi, M.; Huang, Y. A Decision Support Framework for Sustainable and Smart Manufacturing. Smart Manufacturing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 353–376. ISBN 9780128200278. [Google Scholar]
Analysis and Coping | Interaction and Interdependencies | Pillars of Sustainability | Within the Factory |
---|---|---|---|
analy * | conflict * | sustainab * | compan * |
evaluat * | interact * | environm * | manufacturing * |
assess * | interdependenc * | ecolo * | factory |
cope | synerg * | soci * | production * |
coping | goal * | ||
deal | |||
dealing |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Koch, D.; Sauer, A. Identifying and Dealing with Interdependencies and Conflicts between Goals in Manufacturing Companies’ Sustainability Measures. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093817
Koch D, Sauer A. Identifying and Dealing with Interdependencies and Conflicts between Goals in Manufacturing Companies’ Sustainability Measures. Sustainability. 2024; 16(9):3817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093817
Chicago/Turabian StyleKoch, David, and Alexander Sauer. 2024. "Identifying and Dealing with Interdependencies and Conflicts between Goals in Manufacturing Companies’ Sustainability Measures" Sustainability 16, no. 9: 3817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093817