You are on page 1of 6

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 562 – 567

The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Enablers and Barriers of Sustainable Manufacturing: Results from a Survey


of Researchers and Industry Professionals
Neeraj Bhanota*, P. Venkateswara Raoa, S.G. Deshmukha
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, 110116, India

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9873279084; E-mail address: neeraj.bhanot@mech.iitd.ac.in

Abstract

Sustainable Manufacturing (SM) has gained significant importance in today’s competitive environment as many organizations still depend on
natural resources and at the same time generate wastes and environmental pollution. However, the adoption of SM is a huge challenge for
organizations since most of them are not aware on how to utilize the enablers and mitigate the effect of barriers of SM. This paper tends to
present the opinions of various researchers around the globe and industry professionals on the important enablers and barriers and analyze them
using statistical techniques to highlight the differences in opinions for strategic implementation of SM.
© 2015
© 2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the Conference “22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Engineering.under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Peer-review
Keywords:Sustainable Manufacturing; Enablers and Barriers; Comparison; Researchers and Industry Professionals.

1. Introduction that the percentage share of manufacturing in Indian GDP


varies from 13-16% [4]. However, it is important to note that,
Sustainability is all about the ability to sustain. However, this share has been continually decreasing since January,
the importance of economic, environmental and social 2007. India is ranked amongst the largest economies in the
dimensions varies from time to time and according to different world and it is expected to continue its growth rapidly over
criteria. Various activities such as “product design, the next two decades. But this growth is subject to various
manufacturing by-products, by-products produced during challenges accompanying it. With growing economy, India is
product use, etc.” have also been included in the supply chain bound to experience dramatic increase in demand for
core activities [1]. materials and energy, hence putting serious constraints on
The success of an industry depends on its natural resources such as land, water, minerals, and fossil
manufacturing performance where competitive environment is fuels, and driving up energy and commodity prices.
followed by superior performance. Hence, organizations need Moreover, increasing activity will lead to increase in level of
to evaluate their performance at regular intervals to ensure waste and pollution, particularly in the form of higher GHG
high-level of performance in order to stay competitive in emissions, which can ultimately restrict the India’s ability to
global competition [2]. U.S. Department of Commerce [3] grow, rendering its momentum unsustainable. Due to the on-
defined sustainable manufacturing (SM) as “creation of going trend, it has thus become a need to develop and pursue
manufactured products that use processes that are non- manufacturing activities, which helps in maximizing
polluting, conserve energy and natural resources, and are economic and social benefits along with minimizing
economically sound and safe for employees, communities and environmental impact [5].
consumers” which clearly implies fostering of domestic and In today’s globalised scenario, the collaboration of
international conditions for doing business in addition to academia and industry professionals is imperative when it
fulfilling basic dimensions of sustainability. For a developing comes to identifying the solutions for the sustainability issues.
nation like India, manufacturing industry plays an There have been similar studies on investigating the driving
indispensable part in its economy. It is evident from the fact factors and barriers of implementing SM initiatives in

2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.01.036
Neeraj Bhanot et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 562 – 567 563

Malaysian automotive companies [2]; investigation of current Infrastructure facilities in


Infrastructure development for
SM situation of manufacturing sector among Sri Lankan [6] E9 viable Air, Rail and Road
Transportation sector
and Spanish companies [7], and an assessment of Indian and Connectivity.
German industry for sustainability initiatives [8]. However, no E10 Development in E-Economy
Deployment of E-Technology
paper has studied the existing practical differences of opinions in Manufacturing Sector.
and perceptions between academia and industry professionals.
In this paper, the enablers and barriers to SM in the Table 2. Description of Barriers for Sustainable Manufacturing.
manufacturing sector industry are analyzed using statistical No. Barriers Description
analysis to assess the differences between the opinions of Lack of awareness of No or limited access to
various researchers around the globe and industry B1
sustainability concepts sustainability literature.
professionals focusing small, medium and large scale Lack of awareness programs No awareness of sustainability
industries of Ludhiana (a city in the Indian State of Punjab, B2
conducted locally trends.
which is also known as "Manchester of the East" as it has an Lack of awareness of local Not enough publicity about
established manufacturing base for engineering products). The B3
customers in green products green products.
statistical analysis is, however, carried out by applying
Negative attitudes towards Insignificant knowledge of
‘independent t-test’ statistical method to compare the B4
sustainability concepts sustainability concepts.
significance of differences. The statistical analysis will
Lack of funds for green Neglected approach for
provide the significance of the difference between enablers B5
projects judicious funds distribution.
and barriers of researchers and industry professionals group.
Lack of standardized metrics or Absence of practicable
In addition to this, the magnitude of the difference in these B6
performance benchmarks guidelines and parameters.
factors is also assessed, if any difference exists. Hence, this
Lack of support from senior Total neglect by concerned top
study will help the industry professionals; government and B7
leaders brass.
other policy makers to understand the challenges faced in
Initial high costs for sustainable
implementing SM issues in manufacturing organizations. B8 Cost too high
technology implementation.
Need for improving present
2. Research Methodology
B9 Power Shortage power production and
distribution.
Table 1 and Table 2 present a list of 10 enablers and 10
Need based allocation of funds
barriers identified as an outcome of review of research articles B10 Low Availability of Credit at low interest rates by banking
relating to topics like implementing sustainable manufacturing and financial institutes.
concepts [6], sustainable development issues [7], sustainable
manufacturing initiatives [2], green manufacturing concepts
Researchers from different countries have been approached
[8], Indian strategy for manufacturing [9], which are almost
for the survey keeping in mind that the perceptions on
synonyms of SM, and after discussing with experts and
sustainability issues tend to be the same since theories
academicians working in the field of SM.
concerning sustainable manufacturing are fundamentally the
Table 1. Description of Enablers for Sustainable Manufacturing. same regardless of any regions. On the other hand, in case of
No. Enablers Description
the industry professionals, the busy schedule of industry
professionals everywhere did not help us to obtain online
Trade and Commercial
E1 Pressure from market Practices, Competitors,
responses. Hence, we decided to zero in on Ludhiana city
Customer Satisfaction. (Punjab, India) due to its geographic importance in
manufacturing and since it was also located at a distance of
Law Enforcement and Judicial
Government promotions and Regulations, Private-Public approximately 300 km from the authors’ base (IIT Delhi). The
E2 survey was also constrained to one city because the socio-
regulations Participation and
Accountability. political and economic factors vary with regions. Moreover,
Recurring & Long-Term Ludhiana is a hub of manufacturing firms in North India; there
E3 Economic Benefits
Financial Yields. are a lot of small-scale manufacturing firms, which have
Advance Technological sustainability issues, providing valuable insights potentially
Investment in Innovation &
E4 Initiatives for Performance for the study.
Technology
Enhancement. A questionnaire was developed to obtain opinions of
Efficient Process Management researchers working in the field of SM and industry
E5 Lowering Manufacturing Cost
with Minimum Waste outputs. professionals (from Ludhiana city). The participants were
Innovative Process, Product asked to rate the importance of enablers and barriers on a scale
E6 Improving Quality
Quality, Enhanced Production. of 1 to 5, where 1 means very low influence, 2 means low
Inducting periodical influence, 3 stands for medium influence, 4 means high
deployment of workers training influence and 5 means very high influence. The required
E7 Education and Training System
and upgraded technological participation time ranges from 10 to 15 minutes. Before the
education. release of the questionnaire, academic and industrial experts
E8
Attracting Foreign Direct Liberalization of Universal with knowledge in the field of SM reviewed it for clarity and
Investment Economic Ties. understandability. As a pilot study, the questionnaire was
564 Neeraj Bhanot et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 562 – 567

filled by 3 researchers and 4 industrial experts and was revised 3. Results and Discussions
in terms of language to increase understandability. An online
survey was then started using the www.qualtrics.com website. Initially, Cronbach’s alpha value is used to assess the
Initially, researchers working in the field of SM were searched reliability of the data collected through the questionnaire,
using Scopus database and were sent the survey requests at the which tells the suitability of data for further analysis and
mentioned email id’s and were also requested to provide valuable interpretation. Then, the importance of enablers and
references whom they also consider suitable for the survey. barriers are calculated through their mean values. Very low
These researchers were spread across all over the world mean values of any enabler/barrier suggest that the particular
ranging from U.S.A, India, Germany, Australia, Italy, etc. enabler/barrier is not important and should be eliminated from
Altogether 314 researchers have been contacted using Scopus the study. Later on, central tendency of the data is measured
Database and referrals and 110 researchers provided the by calculating the standard deviation values since the mean
responses making response rate to be 35%. However, 4 value is not always sufficient. Lastly, significance of the
responses were found to be invalid and were discarded. difference is assessed by 'independent t-test'. The measures of
Hence, 106 useful and reasonable responses have been central tendency and results of the tests conducted on the
received from researchers all around the world. In case of obtained data are presented as follows:
industry survey, email requests have been sent to the members
(according to the id’s available in online database) of three 3.3. Descriptive Statistics
main organizations/associations of Ludhiana (a town in North
India): Federation of Auto Parts Manufacturers, Micro, Small Table 3 presents the group statistics of enablers and
& Medium Enterprises Development Institute and Chamber of barriers for sustainable manufacturing on the basis of
Industrial and Commercial Undertakings. Altogether, 229 responses provided by both groups. The mean value of all the
online survey requests had been sent, out of which 49 factors is considered to check their importance between both
responses were obtained online turning the response rate to be groups. The internal consistency analysis is carried out using
21%. However, 3 responses were found to be invalid and were the software SPSS 21.0 for MacBook Pro, to measure the
discarded. Hence, 46 useful and reasonable responses have reliability of each factor in terms of the Cronbach’s alpha. An
been received from industry professionals in online mode. alpha value of 0.7 is often considered the criteria for
Compared with number of responses obtained from establishing internal consistency on a scale of 0 to 1, where '0'
researchers, efforts were further made to get close to response means that the data is not reliable and '1' means that the data
rate of researchers. Hence, personal visits were made to some is fully reliable. However, a value of 0.6 is also considered
of the reputed industries and their referrals, and senior sufficient for newly collected data. If necessary (alpha < 0.6),
managers were explained the survey and responses were items are eliminated in order to achieve an increase of the
collected through interview mode. In this way, 53 valid Cronbach’s alpha value [8]. In this study, during the initial
responses were obtained in offline mode giving a total of 99 analysis, none of the factors was eliminated to improve the
useful and reasonable responses from industry professionals. reliability.
The total time duration for the survey has been 2 months The Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.959 for the enablers and
approximately being August and September, 2014. Further, 0.867 for the barriers is achieved on the combined data of
reminders were sent to the respondents after approximately 7- both groups being researchers and industry professionals,
10 days from date of sending the survey request and in total 3 which is considered good, and hence it can be concluded that
reminders were sent to the respondents. the data is highly reliable.

Table 3. Group Statistics of Enablers and Barriers for Sustainable Manufacturing.


Job Profile:
Mean Mean
1 – Researchers; Enablers Std. Deviation Barriers Std. Deviation
(On a Scale of 1-5) (On a Scale of 1-5)
2 – Ind. Professionals
1 3.58 1.04 3.92 0.98
E1  B1 
2 3.52 1.00 3.88 1.07
1 3.81 0.96 3.64 0.89
E2  B2 
2 2.54 1.19 3.70 1.04
1 3.92 1.05 3.75 0.98
E3  B3 
2 3.23 1.07 3.46 0.90
1 3.75 0.97 3.24 1.24
E4  B4 
2 3.52 1.03 3.48 1.15
1 3.76 1.11 3.74 1.08
E5  B5 
2 3.82 0.81 3.52 1.19
1 3.82 0.94 3.81 0.87
E6  B6 
2 4.10 0.83 3.51 0.92
1 3.31 0.98 3.72 0.96
E7  B7 
2 3.63 1.02 3.53 1.21
1 3.08 1.18 3.97 0.93
E8  B8 
2 2.70 1.08 3.84 0.93
1 3.12 1.06 3.40 1.13
E9  B9 
2 3.12 1.14 3.58 1.00
1 3.16 1.11 3.41 0.97
E10 B10
2 3.04 1.11 3.54 1.03
Neeraj Bhanot et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 562 – 567 565

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Columns of Table 3 present the group
statistics of enablers wherein, the mean value of all enablers is 3.2. Independent t-test for Means Comparison
more than 2.54 on a scale of 1-5, which highlights that all the
enablers are important in both groups. Two entirely different and independent samples of
The examination of the mean values suggests that the respondents from researchers and industry professionals
'economic benefits' is the most important in researchers group group are considered to conduct an independent t-test (two-
(mean of 3.92) and 'improving quality' in industry tailed) to assess the impact of enablers and barriers in both
professionals group (mean of 4.10). 'Attracting foreign direct groups.
investment' is least important in researchers group (mean of The following hypotheses are set for the independent t-test:
3.08) and 'government promotions and regulations' in industry The Null Hypothesis (H0) assumed is
professionals group (mean of 2.54). In addition to this, the H0: μResearchers= μIndustry Professionals
standard deviation measure is used to measure confidence in and the alternate hypothesis (H1) is
statistical conclusions. The standard deviation of data from H1: μResearchers ≠ μIndustry Professionals
both groups varies from a minimum value of 0.81 for A value of 0.05 is used for alpha and the actual 't' value is
'lowering manufacturing cost' to maximum value of 1.19 for calculated as follows:
'government promotions and regulations’ from industry  
 
(1)
professionals group only.     
The last three Columns of Table 3 present the group where:
statistics of barriers wherein, the mean value of all barriers is  = Sample Mean
more than 3.24 on a scale of 1-5, which highlights that all the   = Pooled Variance
barriers are considerable and really important in both groups. n = Sample Size
The examination of the mean values of all the barriers
suggests that the 'cost too high' is the most important in Conducting Levene’s test for Equality of Variances in case
researchers group (mean of 3.97) and 'lack of awareness of of enablers, it can be observed that the p-value of enablers 1,
sustainability concepts' in industry professionals group (mean 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is more than 0.05 and hence, it can be
of 3.88) whereas 'negative attitudes towards sustainability concluded that variances are equal and 'EVA' row has to be
concepts' is least important in researchers group (mean of selected whereas the p-value for enablers 2 and 5 is less than
3.24) and 'lack of awareness of local customers in green 0.05 and hence, it can be concluded that variances are not
products' is least important in industry professionals group equal and 'EVNA' row has to be selected. Table 4 assesses the
(mean of 3.46). In addition to this, the standard deviation significance in the difference of impact for enablers in
measure is used to measure confidence in statistical between both groups using t-test for equality of means.
conclusions. The standard deviation of data from both groups Similarly, in case of barriers, the p-value of barriers 1, 2, 3,
varies from a minimum value of 0.87 for 'lack of standardized 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 is more than 0.05 and hence, 'EVA' row
metrics or performance benchmarks' to maximum value of has to be selected whereas p-value of barrier 7 is less than
1.24 for 'negative attitudes towards sustainability concepts’ 0.05 and hence, 'EVNA' row has to be selected. Table 5 again
from researchers group only. assesses the significance in the difference of impact for
barriers in both groups.
Table 4. Comparing Enablers for Researchers and Industry Professionals by Independent t-test.
Levene's Test for Equality of
t-test for Equality of Means Cohen’s d
Variances
Enablers (To assess Remarks
F Sig. t Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Effect Size)
EVA .107 .744 .422 .674 .06032 .14304
E1 0.0592 -------
EVNA .422 .673 .06032 .14286
EVA 8.221 .005 8.488 .000 1.27597 .15033 0.1228 S.D.
E2
EVNA 8.426 .000 1.27597 .15144 (0.0613) (Small)
EVA .344 .558 4.611 .000 .68277 .14809 0.6472 S.D.
E3
EVNA 4.608 .000 .68277 .14816 (0.3079) (Medium)
EVA .655 .419 1.708 .089 .23957 .14023
E4 0.2397 -------
EVNA 1.705 .090 .23957 .14052
EVA 13.853 .000 -.396 .693 -.05403 .13657
E5 -0.0576 -------
EVNA -.400 .690 -.05403 .13517
EVA 3.776 .053 -2.254 .025 -.28026 .12431 -0.3164 S.D.
E6
EVNA -2.265 .025 -.28026 .12375 (0.1562) (Small)
EVA .000 .984 -2.259 .025 -.31494 .13939 -0.3171 S.D.
E7
EVNA -2.257 .025 -.31494 .13956 (0.1565) (Small)
EVA .123 .726 2.391 .018 .37850 .15827 0.3356 S.D.
E8
EVNA 2.398 .017 .37850 .15782 (0.1655) (Small)
EVA .597 .441 .009 .993 .00143 .15322
E9 0.0013 -------
EVNA .009 .993 .00143 .15360
EVA .123 .727 .773 .440 .11997 .15514
E10 0.1085 -------
EVNA .774 .440 .11997 .15510
*S.D. = Significantly Different
566 Neeraj Bhanot et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 562 – 567

Table 5. Comparing Barriers for Researchers and Industry Professionals by Independent t-test.
Levene's Test for Equality of
t-test for Equality of Means Cohen’s d
Variances
Barriers (To assess Remarks
F Sig. t Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Effect Size)
EVA .787 .376 .319 .750 .04574 .14348
B1 0.0448 -------
EVNA .318 .751 .04574 .14391
EVA 1.651 .200 -.411 .682 -.05546 .13496
B2 -0.0577 -------
EVNA -.409 .683 -.05546 .13572
EVA .086 .770 2.140 .034 .28064 .13115 0.3004 S.D.
B3
EVNA 2.146 .033 .28064 .13077 (0.1485) (Small)
EVA .799 .373 -1.486 .139 -.24900 .16758
B4 -0.2086 -------
EVNA -1.489 .138 -.24900 .16718
EVA 1.446 .231 1.392 .166 .22070 .15858
B5 0.1954 -------
EVNA 1.387 .167 .22070 .15911
EVA 1.396 .239 2.446 .015 .30627 .12523 0.3434 S.D.
B6
EVNA 2.441 .015 .30627 .12545 (0.1692) (Small)
EVA 10.063 .002 1.261 .209 .19173 .15203
B7 0.1829 -------
EVNA 1.252 .212 .19173 .15319
EVA .071 .790 1.023 .307 .13331 .13026
B8 0.1436 -------
EVNA 1.023 .307 .13331 .13028
EVA 1.286 .258 -1.203 .230 -.17953 .14927
B9 -0.1689 -------
EVNA -1.208 .229 -.17953 .14867
EVA .968 .326 -.925 .356 -.12969 .14017
B10 -0.1298 -------
EVNA -.923 .357 -.12969 .14046
*S.D. = Significantly Different
These findings highlight the statistical significance being
3.3. Effect Size to assess Mean Differences different or equal for each enabler and barrier in both groups
along with the amount of difference, e.g. impact of enabler 2
Cohen’s d is considered one of the most important (government promotions and regulations) is different amongst
attributes to measure the 'effect size' [10], which assesses the researchers and industry professionals by small means.
magnitude of mean differences. It highlights the differences Similar interpretation holds for other enablers and barriers too.
in the 'means' of two samples in three categories being; small,
medium and large. Cohen’s d value is calculated only in case 4. Discussion and Insights Gained
null hypothesis has been rejected while conducting statistical
test. However, it holds very little or no-relevance in case null 4.1 Enablers & Barriers with No Significant Difference
hypothesis has not been rejected.
        (2)
This is interesting to know that for 5 enablers and 8
       barriers; there is common consensus between both groups and
      (3)
   hence no significant difference has been found in them. It has
also been observed that 'lowering manufacturing cost’;
If the values of 'effect size' are until 0.2 then it is
'investment in innovation & technology' and 'pressure from
considered small effect, values until 0.5 means medium effect
market' emerge as top 3 priority enablers along with 'lack of
and values until 0.8 denotes large effect [10].
awareness of sustainability concepts' and 'cost too high' as top
Tables 4 and 5 also highlights the values of Cohen’s d on
2 barriers in both groups according to their mean values.
the basis of which Effect Size are calculated for each of the
Table 6 presents the enablers and barriers with no
enablers and barriers after deciding the row to be considered
significant difference between both the groups.
based on Levene’s test for equality of variances [8].
Table 6. Discussion on Enablers and Barriers with No Significant Difference.
Enablers Barriers
Name Remarks Name Remarks Mitigation Measures
1. Lowering Most challenging task as it 1.Lack of No or limited access to • Suitable training workshops can be conducted for
Manufacturing involves managing the processes awareness of sustainable literature restricts practitioners from time to time wherein problems
Cost efficiently with minimum wastes sustainability the awareness of various faced by industry can be discussed and guidance
generation. concepts concepts and techniques by can be provided for implementing sustainability.
which practitioners can • Government can issue guidelines as part of
implement sustainability. industrial training.
2. Investment Necessary to enhance the 2. Cost too High initial costs of • Incentives by government in the form of tax rebate,
in innovation performance of processes by high implementing the sustainable financial and technical assistance to industries in
& Technology implementing advanced technology constrain the implementing sustainable technologies etc.
technological initiatives. industry practitioners from • Industries should also make efforts such as reducing
3. Pressure Enables industries to satisfy the investing in it and waiting for cost of overwastes produced, judicious utilization of
from Market customer requirements longer duration to gain resources such as energy, water etc.
considering competitive scenario. economic benefits make it • Researchers can devise cost effective sustainable
further tough for them. technologies for industries.
Neeraj Bhanot et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 562 – 567 567

4.2 Enablers & Barriers with Significant Difference quality' and 'education and training system' has been observed
more in case of industry professionals. Similarly, in case of
In case of enablers, it can be observed that almost half the barriers the impact of 'lack of awareness of local customers in
enablers statistically have significant difference between both green products' and 'lack of standardized metrics or
groups. The impact of 'government promotions and performance benchmarks' is higher in researchers group as
regulations', 'economic benefits', 'attracting foreign direct compared to industry professionals.
investment' is higher in researchers group as compared to Table 7 presents the enablers and barriers with significant
industry professionals whereas the impact of 'improving difference between both the groups.

Table 7. Discussion on Enablers and Barriers with Significant Difference


Name Researchers Industry Professionals
1. Government promotions Consider important for effective implementation of Feels burdened with current rules and regulations and not
and regulations policies and rules. of any help to improve their performance.
2. Economic benefits Consensus that implementing sustainable technology in Find it expensive to implement sustainable technology
manufacturing helps gain 'economic benefits'. currently considering economic benefits in longer run.
3. Attracting foreign direct Believe that it will help the industry in getting access to Averse to it as there is a sense of belief that it could lead
investment funds, which could be used for expansion, updating to loss of market share to bigger foreign players.
Enablers technology, improving processes and infrastructure.
4. Improving Quality Achieving high quality with lower costs is feasible Currently facing the challenges of improving quality of
provided industry is open to avenues such as 'foreign products and processes at low cost considering tough
direct investment', 'government promotions' etc. competition and increasing prices of utilities.
5. Education and Training May not have considered the current scenario of Feel the lack of quality education system due to absence
system quality and availability in education and hence ranked of adequate amount of professional institutes with the help
it as little less important enabler. of which they can upgrade and adapt new technology.
1. Lack of awareness of Consensus that if customers will not be aware of green State that they already have high demanding pressure
local customers in green products, then there will be no point for industries to from market as far as green products and green processes
Barriers products pursue the same goal. are considered.
2. Lack of standardized Developed a lot of sustainability frameworks to State the absence of guiding frameworks to implement
metrics or benchmarks evaluate the sustainability of organizations. sustainability in organizations as per different criteria.
   
iii) Even though the industry respondents were limited to a
5. Concluding Remarks city of Punjab, it is fairly representative of the industry.

In this paper, the responses on important enablers and References


barriers have been collected through online questionnaire
survey and presented after validating the data by statistical [1] Linton J, Klassen R, Jayaraman V. Sustainable supply chains: An
introduction. Journal of Operations Management 2007;25(6):1075–82.
analysis for strategic implementation of SM. [2] Amrina E, Yusof SM. Drivers and Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing
i) Based on the survey there seems to be huge difference in Initiatives in Malaysian Automotive Companies. In: Kachitvichyanukul
line of operation of researchers and industry professionals V, Luong HT, Pitakaso R, editors. Proceedings of the Asia Pacific
Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference 2012, pp.
with regard to SM. However, both groups need to
629-634.
collaborate in order to work together to strengthen the [3] U.S. Department of Commerce. How does commerce define sustainable
enablers and mitigate barriers. manufacturing? 2010. Available from:
ii) Although it is not desirable to pay equal attention to all the http://www.trade.gov/competitiveness/sustainablemanufacturing/how_do
c_defines_SM.asp
enablers and barriers at the same time, it will be useful to [4] World Development Indicators. Manufacturing, value added (% of gdp).
identify causal relationships in each of the enablers and 2013. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi
barriers respectively as it will help in identifying and [5] Joung CB, Carrell J, Sarkar P, Feng SC. Categorization of indicators for
sustainable manufacturing. Ecological Indicators 2013;24:148–57.
focusing on critical enablers and barriers. [6] Kulatunga AK, Jayatilaka PR, Jayawickrama M. Drivers and Barriers to
iii) There is a need to come up with suitable models in the Implement Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts in Sri Lankan
form of case studies implementing sustainability as to how Manufacturing Sector. In: Seliger G, editor. Proceedings of the 11th
Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing - Innovative Solutions
the problems emerged in due course of time and how they 2013, pp. 172-177.
were suitably tackled. [7] Koho M, Torvinen S, Romiguer AT. Objectives, enablers and challenges
of sustainable development and sustainable manufacturing: Views and
6. Limitations of Survey opinions of Spanish companies. In International Symposium on Assembly
and Manufacturing (ISAM), IEEE 2011, pp. 1-6.
[8] Mittal VK, Sangwan KS, Herrmann C, Egede P. Comparison of Drivers
i) The survey responses are limited to the extent to which the and Barriers to Green Manufacturing: A Case of India and Germany. In:
respondents themselves are subjected to their own Nee, Song and Ong, editors. Re-engineering Manufacturing for
Sustainability 2013, In proceedings of the 20th CIRP International
perceptions and beliefs based on their observations, Conference on Life Cycle Engineering (LCE 2013), Singapore, pp. 723-
intuition and experience. 728.
ii) The coverage of the industry professionals had been a [9] National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council. The National Strategy
for Manufacturing. 2006. Available from:
limitation for the study since there does not exist any http://nmcc.nic.in/pdf/strategy_paper_0306.pdf
online database of operational employees like the one in [10] Wilcox RR, Tian TS. Measuring effect size: a robust heteroscedastic
case of researchers. Hence, many of the industry approach for two or more groups. Journal of Applied Statistics
2011;38(7):1359-68.
professionals had to be approached in person.