Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compag

Original papers

A model for Lean and Green integration and monitoring for the coffee sector T
a a,⁎ b
Lucas Vinícius Reis , Liane Mahlmann Kipper , Fáber Danilo Giraldo Velásquez ,
Nicholas Hofmannc, Rejane Frozzaa, Sofia Aldana Ocampod, Cesar Augusto Taborda Hernandezd
a
Post-Graduation in Industrial Systems and Processes, University in Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Santa Cruz do Sul, RS, Brazil
b
Faculty of Engineering – Post-Graduation in Engineering, University del Quindío, Armenia, Quindío, Colombia
c
Mechanical Engineering Course, University in Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Santa Cruz do Sul, RS, Brazil
d
University del Quindío, Armenia, Quindío, Colombia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Companies have been under pressure from different sectors of society to make their processes more en-
Lean management vironmentally sustainable, a fact that drives the joint adoption of Lean and Green production systems. Studies
Green management relating these systems have intensified in the past decade and follow a growth trend. However, this can be
Lean green synergy considered a relatively new field with many gaps to be filled. One of these gaps is found in the agricultural
Maturity model
sector, where no studies relating Lean and Green have been identified. The main contribution of this article is to
Sustainable operations
develop a model for the evaluation of the integration of Lean and Green systems (Lean Green Synergy – LGS)
through the formulation of a conceptual framework. In order to demonstrate the viability of the model, a case
study was carried out on a set of six specialty coffee producing properties, located in the state of Quindío,
Colombia. The research carried out provides a non-subjective means to establish the maturity of the Lean and
Green systems and establishes 20 metrics capable of providing the information necessary to carry out the LGS
calculations. The calculation method described allows the replication of the model and its adaptation to other
sectors by defining the appropriate metrics for it, encouraging the joint adoption of Lean and Green systems.

1. Introduction
The Lean production system developed by Taiichi Ohno is directly
related to sustainability issues investigated by various authors (Rolo
et al., 2014; Verrier et al., 2014; Dhingra et al., 2014; Fercoq et al.,
2016). These authors have found possibilities of integration between
the Lean philosophy and sustainable production from the environ-
mental point of view, which is usually identified as Green production,
or the Green system.
Sustainable development is a central theme for our era (Hsu et al.,
2013; Sachs, 2015) and is a subject that is present in the strategic
planning of companies and in the academic environment. The discus-
sion of this topic is growing somewhat and is a response of policy-
makers to environmental concerns (Porter and Kramer, 2006), and the
Green supply chain is one of the areas where more attention has been
given (Ben Brik et al., 2013), mainly in emerging economies (Hsu et al.,
2013).
In this sense, there is a need to improve production systems and
improve existing methodologies. Green thinking was born of this need
for improvement, and its integration into the Lean system has provided
good results (Jabbour et al., 2013), creating the need for companies to
align commercial practices with principles of environmental sustain-
ability (Caldera et al., 2017).However, concern about environmental
issues is still seldon discussed in smaller companies. Fonseca and
Jabbour (2012) make this finding in their study and propose a frame-
work to evaluate the inclusion of Green concepts in Brazilian in-
cubators.
In the coffee sector, studies on the use of Lean and Green systems
are scarce. Nevertheless, the expansion of tropical agricultural com-
modities, such as coffee, has been considered a major threat to biodi-
versity (Donald, 2004; Haggar et al., 2017), requiring that practices of
optimization of productive processes and reduction of environmental
impacts be introduced. With an average annual production of 5.9
Mtons, coffee is one of the most commercialized drinks in the world
(Battista et al., 2016) and is the economic backbone of countries
throughout Latin America, Asia, and Africa (RAINFOREST, 2017), and
its popularity and volume of consumption continues to grow every year
(Tsai and Chen, 2017).
In Colombia, the production of specialty coffees is extremely im-
portant for the national economy, with the livelihoods of about 2

⁎
Corresponding author at: Post-Graduation in Industrial Systems and Processes, University in Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Av. Independência, 2293 -53 (5340), 96800-000 Santa Cruz
do Sul, RS, Brazil.
E-mail address: liane@unisc.br (L.M. Kipper).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.03.034
Received 23 November 2017; Received in revised form 29 March 2018; Accepted 30 March 2018
0168-1699/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L.V. Reis et al.
Fig. 1. Research evolution of the Lean and Green systems.
million people dependent on this activity (Cano et al., 2012). Special
crops are characterized by the small size of the properties, non-me-
chanized production, and high added value. This type of crop has re-
ceived good acceptance since consumers have changed their pre-
ferences, demanding a greater variety of products of higher value and
with specific characteristics (Niederhauser et al., 2008). Introducing
Lean and Green systems in this sector allows improvement in property
productivity and a reduction in costs. Tinoco et al. (2014) commented
that the Colombian coffee harvest is very expensive since it is done
manually. Monitoring the productive process of this sector is crucial to
ensuring the viability of the properties since they are small areas.
Also, the integration of Lean and Green systems is presented as an
alternative that minimizes the negative effects of coffee production.
Hartman (2015) found good results with the use of the Lean system in
food production. Dora et al. (2015) suggest that it is time to introduce
Lean concepts in agriculture, given the magnitude of the residues and
losses in that field. However, it is also necessary to develop models to
evaluate the application of systems from industry related to agricultural
production.
In this study, the main objective is to develop a model for the
evaluation of the integration of Lean and Green systems in special
coffee producing properties. This model, which herein we call LGS, will
be supported by a web platform and has flexible features that allow
easy adaptation to other industrial sectors.
The article is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the con-
ceptual basis for the LGS model based on a literature review, Section 3
presents the characteristics of the LGS and its form of application.
Section 4 addresses a case of application in the coffee sector, and Sec-
tion 5 presents the conclusions of the study.
2. The conceptual basis for the LGS model
This chapter will discuss the motivations for research and the
structuring of the bibliographic research that guided the development
of the LGS model.
63
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73
2.1. Research motivations
To support Lean and Green integration, deployment, and evalua-
tion, models of these systems have been developed. These include: the
LARG-ANP model (Cabral et al., 2012), which also integrates Agile and
Resilient systems; the framework for Lean and Green of Verrier et al.
(2014); the methodology of Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014), which
uses Value Stream Mapping - VSM to evaluate the environmental per-
formance (SUS-VSM); the Lean and Green matrix of Fercoq et al.
(2016), which integrates the seven types of Lean waste with the hier-
archy of the 3Rs of the Green system and the maturity model proposed
by Verrier et al. (2016).
Another model is the model of ROBECOSAM (2017). It does not
directly use the terms Lean and Green, but it makes an evaluation of
sustainability based on the social, environmental and economic pillars.
ROBECOSAM, in association with S & P Dow Jones Indexes, offers an
important tool that uses the results of over 600 performance indicators
and a set of 80–120 questions that are applied annually to define
business maturity. Although it is an extremely complete tool, this model
is limited to a select set of companies and has a level of complexity that
limits its use by smaller companies.
The integration of Lean and Green systems is a research topic that is
arousing great interest (Verrier et al., 2014) but which still needs to be
developed further, particularly regarding studies on the synergy of
these systems and the ways of measuring an organization’s Lean and
Green maturity level. Analysis of the research already carried out shows
that the majority of the studies on this subject are dedicated to litera-
ture review, concentrating more on the conceptual field. There are a
large number of issues that still need to be addressed (Garza-Reyes,
2015) as well as the need to follow up the research already published.
Among the models mentioned above, it can be shown that all of
them present positive results, being able to partially or fully meet the
proposed end. However, there are some limitations. Cabral et al. (2012)
mention problems of inconsistency in their multicriteria decision
method besides the need for a large number of comparisons to define
the indicators. SUS-VSM (Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014) is an ex-
cellent tool for the preliminary assessment of sustainability, but it is not
L.V. Reis et al.
able to make a complete evaluation of Lean and Green synergy. Verrier
et al. (2016) propose a Lean and Green maturity model, but their study
is at an early stage and the adaptation of the maturity levels of the
CMMI institute is carried out in a very subjective way.
Lean and Green relationships can be considered a relatively new
approach (Garza-Reyes, 2015) and have not yet been widely discussed
(Verrier et al., 2014). Fig. 1 shows the growth of studies on the Lean
and Green systems over the years in the Scopus database. This growth
demonstrates the importance that both systems have gained, but we did
not show their application in the coffee sector. Based on these literature
gaps and seeking to overcome some limitations of the models already
proposed, the aim of this study is to carry out the structuring and for-
mulation of a Lean and Green maturity assessment model for companies
in the coffee sector thet can easily be adapted to other industrial seg-
ments. The LGS makes a clear contribution in the formulation of a
conceptual and methodological framework with technological support,
since it will have support at the web platform level. The LGS was de-
signed to be applied through a web platform, which is responsible for
generating the charts and calculating the organization’s maturity level.
The conceptual support is developed from the literature review. The
methodological support includes formulation of the model, definition of
calculation procedures, selection of evaluation metrics, and definition
of characteristics in order to group organizations and perform the
benchmarking.
The LGS is based on metrics that are composed of performance in-
dicators and structured questionnaires to establish the level of Lean and
Green integration. Sachs et al. (2012) believe that applying perfor-
mance indicators from the three pillars of sustainability together with a
monitoring system will enable scientists and managers to find solutions
to the problems of global food security. In the same way, many other
authors point to indicators of performance as metrics for evaluating
Lean and Green relations (Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2017; Johnsen
and Drevland, 2016; Verrier et al., 2014). For the coffee sector, the goal
is to encourage the introduction of Lean and Green systems, in order to
reduce the environmental impact of this crop, improve the efficiency of
producing properties, and provide a reliable means of monitoring.
2.2. Literature review
To guide our study and to develop the LGS model, a review of the
literature on Lean and Green systems was carried out. In this review, we
searched for the related works and metrics already identified by other
authors that allow the evaluation of the synergy between these systems.
The literature review was conducted on the indexing bases Scopus,
Science Direct, Web of Science, and Springer. The search string de-
scribed in Table 1 was used as the first filter. It seeks to answer the
research question: “What are the metrics capable of evaluating Lean
and Green synergy?”. The search was limited to title, abstract, and
keywords.
From the application of this first filter, we obtained 34 articles in
Scopus, 10 in Science Direct, 27 in the Web of Science, and no articles
in Springer.
The second filter applied was the definition of the research sub-
areas: “Engineering”, “Business, Management and Accounting”, and
Table 1
Search string.
Terms Operators Research Chain
Lean And ((Lean and (Green and (Manufacturing or
Green Or Production or Management)) and (Metrics or
Manufacturing Indicator∗)))
Production
Management
Metrics
Indicators
64
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73
“Environmental Science” for the Scopus database, and related sub-areas
for the other databases. This reduced the number of articles to 29 in
Scopus without changing the number of articles from the other data-
bases.
To certify that all of the articles actually address the subject matter
of our research, the title and abstract of the 66 articles were read. In this
step (which functioned as a third filter), 14 articles were excluded be-
cause they did not address the topic of our interest, and 24 articles were
excluded because they were duplicated.
We then attempted to download the remaining 28 articles, but it
was not possible to access the full text of seven of them, leaving 21 to be
completely evaluated. The search protocol is defined, in Fig. 2, showing
all of the questions that guided the identification of the relevant in-
formation that was sought to be extracted from the remaining 21
documents.
The 21 papers were qualitatively evaluated to determine the fol-
lowing: Do the authors suggest metrics for assessing Lean and Green
integration?; Is any Lean and Green synergy evaluation model pro-
posed?; Is it supported by any platform or software?; What industrial
sector is it developed for?; and Is it applied only to a specific area of the
company?.
Since the metrics found are composed of performance indicators
and information that can be obtained through interviews, an applica-
tion of the model is divided into two parts: one for the evaluation of
performance indicators and the other one for the application of a
questionnaire to extract more information.
As regards its structure, the LGS is also divided into two parts: one
composed of the basic concepts of the model (i.e., the model factors that
will be used in all maturity evaluations regardless of the industrial
sector and the characteristics of the company to be evaluated); and one
composed of the variable concepts (i.e., the group of characteristics that
will need adjustments, depending on the industrial sector to which the
LGS will be applied).
In this study, through the literature review, articles that presented
models of evaluation of Lean and Green relations and other related
research were identified to serve as the starting point of our work. We
also determined the main metrics to be used to evaluate Lean and Green
synergy. We then developed an evaluation model that is composed of
basic concepts and variable concepts and that also has the level of
maturity of the company based on the five levels of maturity of the
CMMI (CMMI, 2017) as output. Fig. 3 shows the methodological steps
of this study in a flowchart.
2.3. Results of the literature review
Fig. 4 shows the results from the search performed on the 21
documents analyzed. According to Fig. 4, in the first step, one article
was excluded because it did not address the Lean and Green relations.
The remaining 20 articles were evaluated according to questions 2 and
3, and this evaluation resulted in the stratification of information about
metrics and Lean and Green assessment models.
Fig. 4 shows that eleven documents have performance indicators. In
these documents, we identified 53 indicators, of which eleven have a
description and a clear calculation method that are reported by the
authors. For another 28 indicators, the description and method of cal-
culation were identified through the bibliographic references of the
documents analyzed. The remaining 14 indicators were only mentioned
by the authors without further detail on how they should be im-
plemented.
The 53 indicators, which have a calculation method, are pointed out
by the authors as being important metrics for evaluating Lean and
Green performance. It was also possible to identify other important
aspects for making this performance evaluation, such as the use of
practices including Just-in-Time (Bae and Kim, 2008; Mollenkopf et al.,
2010; Parveen et al., 2011), Kaizen (Parveen et al., 2011), Value Stream
Mapping (Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Kurdve et al., 2015; Ng et al.,
L.V. Reis et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73

Documents that deal with Lean

and Green relations

Are there more No

documents to evaluate?
Yes

Are Lean and Green

No
evaluation metrics
proposed?
Yes

Identify metrics

Is a Lean and Green

No evaluation model
proposed?
Yes

Identify the existence of Identify the industrial sector to Identify the area of the
platforms or software which it is applied company to which it is applied

Fig. 2. Search protocol.

2015), and Genba Walk (Verrier et al., 2016). The application of a
questionnaire that seeks to identify the existence or lack of training for
company employees and the time of use of these production systems
(Ng et al., 2015) and the use of simulation systems (Paju et al., 2010).
Since these metrics were identified in documents that discuss Lean
and Green in different industry sectors and supply chain levels, they can
be considered a global set of metrics. The ones that best fit the studied
sector can be extracted from this set. We understand that this set can be
improved and expanded through new studies, and we do not intend to
present a fixed set of metrics. However, the metrics identified here can
be used to select a smaller, more specific set based on the description in
Section 3.
which will be discussed in detail in the following subsections.
This model will be supported by a web platform that is under de-
velopment, which will be the object of future publications. The plat-
form will automate the completion of the questionnaires, the mon-
itoring of the performance indicators, the generation of the radial graph
as well as allow the stakeholders to manage all of the information ne-
cessary to establish the level of maturity of the organization.
Additionally, each organization will have easy access to its analysis
history, allowing the evolution of the implemented improvement ac-
tions to be viewed/tracked.
3.1. Methodological basis of the LGS model

3. Lean and Green Synergy Model (LGS)
In this section, the LGS model will be explained in detail, providing
the necessary information so that those interested in the business or
academic environment can use it in the evaluation of the Lean and
Green maturity level.
For a better understanding, LGS is divided into basic concepts (a set
of characteristics that is applied independently of the industrial sector)
and variable concepts (a set of characteristics that need to be adapted
according to the industrial sector). Table 2 presents the LGS concepts,
The basic concepts of the LGS are detailed in this subsection and can
be adopted for any industrial sector without any adaptation.
3.1.1. Lean and Green maturity levels
This model proposes a division of Lean and Green maturity into 5
levels following the ladder structure proposed by the CMMI (CMMI,
2017). Verrier et al. (2016) also propose a maturity model that is based
on the CMMI model, but their study is presented in a very preliminary
way. They make a subjective analogy of the maturity levels since their
main objective is to propose the practices to be implemented by

65
L.V. Reis et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73

Table 2
LGS internal concepts.
Basic concepts Variable concepts
LITERATURE REVIEW
Maturity level Performance indicator
- Identify evaluation metrics of Lean
Evaluation procedure Questionnaire
and Green synergy;
Business Features
- Identify related works;

lack of awareness of the waste in these systems, the level of commu-

DETERMINE MODEL
STRUCTURE
DETAIL BASIC CONCEPTS
DETAIL VARIABLE CONCEPTS
VALIDATE MODEL
Fig. 3. Flow of the methodological steps performed in the study.
companies in order to reduce Lean and Green waste.
Since our intention is to make a better alignment with the CMMI
proposal, for Level 1 (the chaotic level), there is no corporate en-
vironment that is capable of supporting improvement processes. There
is a tendency to extrapolate budgets and deadlines and the individual
heroism of employees is required in order to achieve good results. The
company is unable to apply Lean and Green practices since there is a
nication is low, and actions for improvement are isolated and un-
documented, making them difficult to repeat.
At Level 2 (the level of stabilization), there is an awareness of waste
since the company already follows standardized and repeatable pro-
cesses. Controls at this level already exist, although they are basic
(using basic indicators). It is possible to apply Lean and Green practices
even in isolation.
At Level 3 (the level of standardization), the processes are better
consolidated, better understood, and better documented. The number
of metrics used is larger, covering more specific indicators and enabling
actions to anticipate possible waste. Improvement objectives are pro-
posed, although they are not quantified. Lean and Green systems can
coexist, but there is little integration among their practices.
At Level 4 (the level of optimization), improvement goals are
quantified and aligned with business objectives. This is the statistical
level, where Lean and Green integration is present, with the awareness
that actions taken to achieve one goal can not go against one another.
Training is given to all employees generating corporate awareness
about the performance of these production systems. Actions are mea-
sured and controlled, allowing the Lean and Green systems perfor-
mance to be predicted.
At Level 5 (the level of innovation), continuous improvement is
applied and measured through incremental processes. All Lean and
Green goals are quantified and periodically revised to reflect changes in
business objectives. The company has full control and awareness about
the effects that the use of the practices of one system can have on an-
other system, and there is concern about the overall performance of the
organization. At this level, the company has great opportunities to

Lean indicators
(3 documents)
Lean and Green indicators
Yes (5 documents)
(11 documents)
Green indicators
(3 documents)
2) Are metrics to
evaluate Lean and Green Structured questionnaire
relationships proposed? (1 document)
Yes
No
(20 documents) Lean practices
(9 documents)
(4 documents)
Articles evaluated Simulation system
(21 documents) (1 document)
1) Are Lean and Green
relationships discussed?
Platforms to
manage evaluation
No and generate
(1 document) reports.
Yes
(0 documents)
(8 documents) Automotive industry
3) Is a Lean and (1 document)
Green evaluation Industrial sector
model proposed? (8 documents)
General models
No (7 documents)
(12 documents)

Production process
(7 documents)
Company area
(8 documents)
Not specified
(1 document)

Fig. 4. Evaluation of Lean and Green articles.

66
L.V. Reis et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73

Lean and Green synergy is achieved with all quantified

Level INNOVATION objectives. Actions can be anticipated to promote
5 improvements.

Statistical level. There is Lean and Green integration

Level OPTIMIZATION with quantified improvement goals that are aligned
4 with business objectives.

The Lean and Green systems can coexist even though they
Level STANDARDIZATION are not integrated, There are unquantified goals and specific
3 indicators are applied.

Isolated practices of Lean and Green are being applied.

Level STABILIZATION There is awareness of waste and basic indicators are
2 used.

Chaotic level. The organization is not aware of its

Level CHAOTIC waste and has no ability to keep the Lean and Green
1 systems in place.

Fig. 5. Lean and Green maturity levels.

anticipate actions in order to promote improvements, maintaining good
and constant results for its indicators. Fig. 5 presents a summary of the
adaptation that was carried out in the framework developed by the
CMMI institute.
3.1.2. Evaluation procedure
To estimate an enterprise’s Lean and Green maturity level, the LGS
model needs to evaluate information from the enterprise and perform
some calculations that will frame the enterprise at one of the maturity
levels presented in Section 3.1.1. The information used by the LGS
model is extracted from a set of indicators and from a structured
questionnaire.
Both the indicators and the questionnaire are defined according to
the industrial sector; therefore, they are considered variable concepts of
LGS and are described in greater detail in Section 3.2. At this point, the
reader should only consider that the LGS model works with a set of 20
maturity evaluation metrics (10 Lean and 10 Green), which are com-
posed of performance indicators and a questionnaire. With these me-
trics, Lean and Green maturity is calculated from three different per-
spectives, each of which provides a level of maturity, and the average of
the three corresponds to the overall maturity level of the organization.
The perspectives considered by LGS are:
• Perspective i: Performance of metrics;
• Perspective ii: Number of metrics monitored;
• Perspective iii: Integration of the Lean and Green systems.
In order to evaluate the maturity of the performance of the metrics
(perspective i), initially their values are normalized through Eq. (1).
This equation is used in several studies where there is a need to put data
from different sources on the same scale (Jain et al., 2005; Venugopal
and Sundaram, 2017). It allows all values to be set between 0 and 100,
so it is possible to plot indicators with different units of measure in the
same radial graph.
(Vi−Vmin)
Ve = ∗100
(Vmax −Vmin) (1)
where:
Note that Eq. (1) requires that a minimum value and a maximum
value be reported. For this reason, the LGS model needs a set of data
extracted from a group of companies. This initial sample serves as a
benchmark for the other evaluations. In other words, an initial database
must be constructed for each sector, and the model can carry out eva-
luations of the level of maturity from this database.
The questionnaire is divided into two parts, one Lean and one
Green. Each part is made up of objective questions and each choice of
response has a weight assigned to it. In this way, the sum of the re-
sponses of each part generates a value that is equivalent to a perfor-
mance indicator that will also be normalized through Eq. (1). The
maximum and minimum values in this case will be established through
the sum of the response options with greater and lesser weight, re-
spectively.
After having the 20 normalized values, they will be plotted on a
radial graph. At this moment, the manager is given a visual indication
of the areas that need improvement even though he/she still does not
have his/her company framed at one of the maturity levels.
This level is then defined by the percentage of area covered by the
graph that is generated from the values identified in the evaluation in
relation to the total area of the graph, which corresponds to the area of
the center to the outer ring that is formed by the axes of the graph.
Table 3 presents a correlation between area percentages and ma-
turity levels. The left column contains the ranges of values corre-
sponding to each of the levels in the right column.
To establish the metric performance in the radial graph, or the
percentage of area occupied, we initially divide the radial graph into
triangles that are formed by the graph axes and we define the angle?
between each axis. Since there are 20 axes (20 metrics), θ is equal to
360/20, i.e., θ = 18. Eq. (2) (Leite, 2014) is then applied to calculate
the hinge that is opposite the angle θ .
b= a2 + c 2−2∗a∗c∗cosΘ (2)
Therefore, a and c correspond to two axes of the graph and their
Table 3
Performance of metrics X Maturity level.
Performance of metrics (%) Maturity level

Ve = the normalized value, (i.e., a value on a scale of 0–100); 0–20 1

Vi = the value of the indicator in the unit of measurement corre- 21–40 2
sponding to it; 41–60 3
61–80 4
Vmin = the lowest value found for this indicator; 81–100 5
Vmax = the highest value found for this indicator;

67
L.V. Reis et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73

1
20 100 2

90
19 3
80

70

18 60 4

50
B
40 A
17 5
30

20
C
10
θ
16 0 6

15 7

14 8

13 9

12 10
11

Fig. 6. Example of a radial graph.

length is given by the value of the corresponding performance in- Table 4

dicator, and b is calculated by Eq. (2), thus obtaining the three edges of Number of metrics monitored X Maturity level.
the triangle. After finding the value of b, Eq. (3) (Leite, 2014) is applied Number of metrics monitored Maturity level
to find component S1. This component is then used in Eq. (4) (Leite,
2014) to define the area of the triangle. 0–4 1
5–8 2
a+b+c 9–12 3
S1 =
2 (3) 13–16 4
17–20 5

area = S1∗ (S1−a) ∗ (S1−b) ∗ (S1−c ) (4)

The total area corresponds to the sum of the areas of the 20 triangles
formed by the axes of the graph, considering maximum values for the
metrics. Fig. 6 shows an example of a radial graph where it is possible to
identify the components a, b and c, the angle θ , and the triangles
formed by the axes of the graph. The area shaded in blue in Fig. 6 re-
presents the result obtained when entering values of performance in-
dicators of a given company.Its area is calculated in the same way as the
total area by simply replacing the maximum values of a and c with the
values obtained for each indicator. Thus Eqs. (1)–(3) are applied to
define the area of each triangle and the sum of all of them corresponds
to the blue area in the figure. To establish the level of maturity ac-
cording to this perspective, it is sufficient to calculate the percentage of
this area in relation to the total area and verify the corresponding level
(Table 3).
The level of maturity is also established based on the number of
metrics monitored (perspective ii). Table 4 defines the level of orga-
nization according to this perspective. At this stage, the LGS model
considers how much the company controls its process. In other words,
the important thing in this step is to know the number of metrics that
the company monitors.
Finally, a maturity level is established by taking into account the
integration of the Lean and Green systems (perspective iii). At this
point, the LGS model seeks to measure whether there is a balance in the
application of the metrics to control the two systems. To establish this
level, the difference between the number of Lean metrics and the
number of Green metrics deployed by the company is determined. This
difference is related to the number of metrics monitored (perspective
ii). Table 5 can be used to establish this relationship and define the level
of maturity for this perspective.
Therefore, if the difference between the number of Lean and Green
metrics deployed by the company is 0–3, the level defined for per-
spective ii is repeated. If this difference is 4–7, the level of perspective
iii will be one level below the one defined for perspective ii. If the
difference is from 8 to 10, it will be two levels below.

68
L.V. Reis et al.
Table 5
The difference between the number of Lean and Green metrics deployed X
Maturity level.
The difference between the number of Lean and Maturity level
Green metrics deployed
0–3 Same as perspective ii
4–7 One level below perspective
ii
8–10 Two levels below perspective
ii
Once the maturity levels are established according to each of the
above-mentioned perspectives, the arithmetic mean of the three is
calculated to find the global mean of Lean and Green maturity.
3.2. Variable concepts
In this subsection, we detail the aspects of the LGS model that vary
according to the industrial sector, referred to here as variable concepts.
3.2.1. Performance indicators
For each industrial sector, the application of the LGS model requires
the selection of a set of 18 performance indicators (9 Lean and 9 Green).
For convenience, in this study, the 18 indicators were selected from the
set of 53 indicators identified in the literature review. The validation of
these indicators was done through judgment by specialists in the area.
After the selection, the applicability within the coffee sector was ver-
ified through interviews with managers of companies of this sector. The
interviews were aimed at determining whether companies monitoring
the variables needed to implement the selected indicators or they al-
ready have these indicators implemented. After the interviews, a new
expert judgment was made to validate the selected indicators or pro-
pose the necessary changes. It was determined that the set of companies
in which the interviews were applied control a minimum of 50% of the
variables necessary to implement the indicators. Thus, at this stage of
the study, 18 of the 20 metrics that make up the LGS model were de-
fined.
3.2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed to extract information that can’t
be measured through performance indicators. Like the indicators, a
questionnaire must be developed for each industrial sector. According
to the literature review done during our study, we identified some
important items to consider when evaluating Lean and Green synergy.
These items can be found in Table 6.
Since the specific practices and terms of these production systems
are not known by all companies, we consider that terms that are easily
understood should be used for the development of the questionnaire.
Table 6
Items to be considered in the evaluation of Lean and Green synergy.
Information
Is Just-in-Time practice used?
Are actions applied to counteract the negative effects that Just-in-Time can have on the Green system?
Is Kaizen practice used?
Is Value Stream Mapping practice used?
Are there employees trained to work with these production systems?
How long have the concepts of these systems been applied in the company?
Is Genba Walk practice used?
Were environmental variables included in the process mapping (VSM)?
Is there a policy of reducing, reusing, and recycling (The 3Rs)?
Is there an assessment of opportunities for improvement in the environmental aspects of the product in the various
phases of its life cycle (Life Cycle Analysis - LCA)?
Does the company care about replacing the use of dangerous products in its processes and, in cases where substitution is
not possible, carrying out the control and monitoring?
69
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73
The questionnaire should also be divided into two parts: one to evaluate
items related to the Lean system and the other to evaluate items related
to the Green system. Each part of the questionnaire will be evaluated
independently. In other words, each part will return a value that will be
normalized and included in the radial graph. The questionnaire adds
two more metrics to the LGS model.
The two metrics extracted from the questionnaire added to the 18
performance indicators make up the 20 metrics of the LGS model. Since
we have 9 indicators and one part of the questionnaire for each system,
the LGS model has 10 Lean and 10 Green metrics.
3.2.3. Business features
To ensure greater accuracy in the maturity evaluation, in addition to
the industrial sector, some business characteristics that may make
benchmarking impossible to achieve should also be taken into account.
In other words, companies in the same industrial sector may have very
different characteristics, which makes the comparison difficult to make.
Therefore, we suggest carrying out comparisons among companies from
the same region (preferably participants of the same association and
that knowingly use similar production practices) following the same
regulatory norms. The size of the company and the number of em-
ployees should also be considered.
LGS proposes that those interested in the Lean and Green maturity
evaluation should be familiar with the characteristics of their company
and the market where they operate. Thus, initially, the company should
define the industrial sector to which it belongs and later the group of
companies of this sector that can serve as benchmarking for it.
4. Application case of LGS
In this section, we present an analysis of Lean and Green maturity
performed using the LGS model. The evaluation was carried out on
coffee producing properties located in the state of Quindio, Colombia.
This region has its economy based on small properties that produce
special coffees. Niederhauser et al. (2008) points out that markets are
increasingly signaling the demand for differentiated products, and the
requirements for the supply chain management of this type of product
are much more stringent than for traditional agricultural products This
sector was chosen because food production is one of the major concerns
for humanity in this century and the Lean system has shown good re-
sults in rural properties, including environmental gains (Hartman,
2015). Besides that, the cultivation of specialty products has become
increasingly important as it allows regional development, promotes li-
velihoods, and agricultural employment (Ozcelik, 2016).
The model was applied through on-site visits, in which interviews
were conducted with property managers in order to identify the values
of the performance indicators defined for the coffee sector and to apply
the questionnaire elaborated for this same sector. Appendix A presents
Reference
Bae and Kim (2008), Parveen et al. (2011)
Mollenkopf et al. (2010)
Parveen et al. (2011)
Kurdve et al. (2015), Ng et al. (2015), Faulkner and
Badurdeen (2014)
Barve and Muduli (2013), Dora et al. (2014)
Ng et al. (2015)
Verrier et al. (2016)
Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014)
Fercoq et al. (2016)
Verrier et al. (2014)
Verrier et al. (2016)
L.V. Reis et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73

Fig. 7. Lean and Green maturity according to performance indicators.

the set of indicators defined for the coffee sector, and Appendix B Table 7 shows the application of monitoring metrics of the Lean and
presents the questionnaire. Green systems, demonstrating that the analyzed properties are con-
The LGS model was applied to a set of six properties participating in cerned with both systems. When Table 7 is related to Tables 4 and 5
an association of coffee growers certified by Rainforest. Rainforest re- (presented in Section 3.1.2), it is possible to establish their maturity
quires that the properties follow a strict set of environmental protection levels according to the perspectives ii) number of metrics monitored;
and sustainability measures (RAINFOREST, 2017). These character- and iii) integration of the Lean and Green systems. Table 8 shows the
istics, together with the geographic location and the property size, give maturity level of each perspective for the analyzed properties as well as
the evaluated properties the necessary characteristics that are described the global level of maturity.
in Section 3.2.3 so that benchmarking is possible. Of the six properties analyzed, only property P4 is at level 2 of the
The data collected allowed the generation of graphs and area cal- global LGS. The other properties are at level 3 of the global LGS. The
culation for each property (Fig. 7). Table 7 shows the number of metrics processes are consolidated, documented, and controlled by a con-
monitored on each property, separately for each type of system (Lean or siderable number of indicators. There is interest in improving the Lean
Green). Thus, it was possible to find the Lean and Green maturity level and Green results even though there is still little integration between
according to each of the perspectives presented in Section 3.1.2, and, them.
consequently, to calculate the global level of maturity.
As Fig. 7 shows, the six properties have maturity levels of 2 or 3
according to the performance of the indicators. The graphs of the figure
indicate that the properties have control over their processes through
the monitoring of performance indicators, but there is possibility for Table 8
improvement. Lean and Green maturity.
Maturity level
Table 7
Metrics by property. Property Metrics Number of Integration of the Global LGS
performance metrics Lean and Green
Property Lean Metrics Green Metrics monitored systems

P1 8 6 P1 2 4 4 3
P2 9 5 P2 3 4 3 3
P3 9 6 P3 2 4 4 3
P4 5 7 P4 2 3 3 2
P5 9 6 P5 3 4 4 3
P6 9 7 P6 3 4 4 3

70
L.V. Reis et al.
5. Discussion
Even though Lean and Green integration is being addressed from
different perspectives, there is still only a limited number of studies on
this integration. In the agricultural sector, the joint introduction of
these productive systems was not identified from our literature review,
which is a gap to be filled. In addition, we discovered that the models
addressing Lean and Green synergy deal with the means of joint im-
plantation, but they pay little attention to the monitoring of either one
once they have been introduced into the organization. We understand
that these are important theoretical findings that should guide future
studies.
The LGS model encourages the adoption of Lean and Green systems
since it allows constant monitoring of the production process and
identifies improvement points, facilitating integrated management. In
the coffee sector, LGS was effective in establishing the maturity level of
the properties analyzed. According to the managers’ feedback, the ap-
plication of the model made it possible to make decisions regarding the
elaboration of action plans in the search for quality and productivity
improvements associated with environmental protection.
In addition, the flexibility of the LGS model expands the practical
gains of this research by offering a tool that is adaptable to other sec-
tors. Through selection of appropriate metrics, the LGS model allows
the application of the same calculation system and frames the organi-
zation into one of the five levels of maturity through benchmarking
between similar organizations.
6. Conclusion
The need to measure the integration between Lean and Green sys-
tems is a gap in research that needs to be filled. The LGS model has
shown to be efficient in determining the level of maturity of Lean and
Green integration, allowing benchmarking between organizations of
the same industrial sector.
Since the LGS model is designed to be deployed on an online plat-
form, this benchmarking can be done without one company obtaining
confidential information from another, ensuring data security without
loss of quality in the evaluation method. The intention is to use data
from a set of companies to establish the global LGS level, but each
organization will only have access to the final benchmarking result.
Since we initially did not have this platform, the application case of
LGS was performed with the manipulation of data through Microsoft
Excel software. The confidential information of each company was
Appendix A
LEAN
Indicator Description
Waste per unit of Measures the waste per unit of production.
production
Percentage of materials Measures the amount of raw material recycled in (Total value of recycled materials used in one month ($)/ Total
used that are recycled relation to the total of materials used.
Consumption of auxiliary Measures the consumption of materials that are
materials not used in the product.
Resource consumption Measures the amount of raw material used or
withdrawn in the processes.
Investments in new Measures the amount spent on new equipment for Amount invested in new equipment in one year ($)/ Size of the
equipment one year.
Number of operators Measures the number of employees who are
involved involved in the production process.
Cycle times Measures the time elapsed from the beginning of a Time needed to produce a bag (Hours)
process to its end.
Labor productivity Measures employee productivity relative to
quantity produced.
71
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73
restricted to the access of the authors, and only the final result for each
coffee-growing property was disclosed.
With regard to the level of maturity, five of the analyzed properties
are at Level 3, which indicates a standardization of processes through
the documentation of information and the measurement of indicators
which are considered to be essential by this study in determining Lean
and Green maturity for this sector. The Lean and Green systems coexist,
although there is still no management to integrate their practices.
One of the properties is at Level 2 (level of stabilization). There is
awareness of the waste and the importance of reducing it, but the use of
indicators and the monitoring of process variables are in the initial
stages of implementation.
The LGS model obtained a result that is similar to the opinion of
experts who visited the same properties. This model was able to gather
a set of data and information and return a numerical result. It was
possible to identify the companies that are obtaining the best results in
this sector, without the need to resort to subjective evaluations. In other
words, the LGS model has a calculation method that allows the level of
Lean and Green maturity of companies of an industrial sector to be
established, avoiding the influence of subjective factors that could alter
the result of the analysis.
For future studies, there is a need to develop a platform that sup-
ports the LGS application. This platform should make it possible to
register companies, generate a database with a history of past evalua-
tions to establish the evolution of companies, and have the capacity to
facilitate the application of the LGS model, while keeping information
confidential. It is also necessary to validate LGS for other sectors,
forming an initial database that allows benchmarking for new evalua-
tions.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the double degree agreement between
the Master in Systems and Industrial Processes of the University of
Santa Cruz do Sul and the Master in Engineering with emphasis on
software development at the University of Quindo, Colombia. The au-
thors are grateful to the Coordination for the Improvement of
Supplementary Level Personnel (CAPES) and the National Council for
Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the scholarships
granted. We also thank the coffee growers and the association of
Cordilleranos of the state of Quindo that allowed visits to the properties
and contributed to the questionnaire.
Calculation formula
Waste generated in one month (kg)/ Quantity produced in one
month (kg)
value of materials used in one month ($)) ∗ 100
Amount spent on auxiliary materials in one month ($)/ Quantity
produced in one month (kg)
Total amount spent on raw materials in one month ($)/ Quantity
produced in one month (kg)
farm (Ha)
Number of employees directly involved in the production
process/ Size of the farm (Ha)
(Hours worked in one month ∗ Number of employees)/ Quantity
produced (kg)
L.V. Reis et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73

Number of customer Measures the number of customer complaints. Customer complaints in one month/ Quantity produced in one
complaints month (kg)

GREEN
Indicator Description Calculation formula

Energy consumption
Water consumption
Initiatives to generate
greater efficiency in the
use of resources
Total environmental
protection expenditures
and investments
Employee health and safety
risks
CO2 emissions per unit of
production
Direct emissions (water and
soil)
Emission reduction
Environmental certification
Measures the energy consumption used per unit Power consumption in one month (KWh)/ Units produced
produced. in one month (kg)
Measures the water consumption used in the Water consumption in one month (m)/ Units produced in
processes for one month per unit. one month (kg)
Number of initiatives created to generate greater Number of initiatives to optimize the use of resources per
efficiency in the use of resources per year. year/ Number of employees
Measures investment and spending on environmental Amount invested in environmental protection per year
protection ($)/ Size of the farm (Ha)
Measures risks to the health and safety of employees (Number of hours not worked per health ratio/ (Monthly
through the number of hours not worked for health workload ∗ Number of employees in the production
reasons. process)) ∗ 100
Relates the amount of CO2 produced per production CO2 produced in one month (Ton.)/ Units produced in
performed over a given period of time. month (kg)
Measures the amount of emissions per unit produced. Total waste (solids and liquids) discarded in water and/ or
soil (kg)/ Quantity produced (kg)
Measures the reduction of CO2 emissions. (CO2 produced in the last period (Ton.) - CO2 produced in
the current period (Ton.))/ Size of the farm (Ha)
Measures the score of the farm achieved in the Score achieved on last certification (%)
environmental certification.

Appendix B

LEAN
N Question Replay options

1 Do you use practices for waste reduction and process optimization? A) Yes
B) No
2 If the answer to,question 1 is yes, how long do you use it? A) Less than 1 year
B) 1 to 3 years
C) 3 to 5 years
D) More than 5 years
3 Do you apply techniques for reducing inventories (Just-in-Time)? A) Yes
B) No
4 If the answer to question 3 is yes, have you seen an increase in transport, packaging consumption or A) Yes, we do actions to combat these
some other factor with negative impact? effects
B) Yes, nothing has been done to
combat these effects
C) We have had no effects
5 Is continuous improvement a consolidated philosophy in the company (Kaizen)? A)Yes
B) No
6 Have you already carried out the mapping of the productive process, seeking to identify bottlenecks, A) Yes
waste, and opportunities for improvement (Value Stream Mapping − VSM)? B) No
7 Are managers encouraged to leave their offices and experience problems where they occur, seeking A) Yes
solutions in conjunction with employees of the production process (Genba Walk)? B) No
8 Are there employees trained to apply the practices mentioned in the previous questions? A) Yes
B) No

GREEN
N Question Replay options

1 Do you use practices to reduce consumption of water, energy and waste?

72
L.V. Reis et al.
2 If the answer to question 1 is yes, how long do you use it?
3 Were environmental variables included in the process mapping (VSM)?
4 Is there a policy of reducing, reusing and recycling (3Rs)?
5 Is an assessment of opportunities for improvement made in the environmental
aspects of the product at the various stages of its life cycle (Life Cycle Analysis -
LCA)?
6 Does the company care about replacing the use of dangerous products in its
processes and in cases where substitution is not possible to carry out the control and process
monitoring?
7 Are there employees trained to apply the practices mentioned in the previous
questions?
References
Bae, J.-W., Kim, Y.-W., 2008. Sustainable value on construction projects and lean con-
struction. J. Green Build. 3, 156–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.3992/jgb.3.1.156.
Barve, A., Muduli, K., 2013. Modelling the challenges of green supply chain management
practices in indian mining industries. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 24, 1102–1122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2011-0087.
Battista, F., Fino, D., Mancini, G., 2016. Optimization of biogas production from coffee
production waste. Bioresource Technol. 200, 884–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2015.11.020.
Ben Brik, A., Mellahi, K., Rettab, B., 2013. Drivers of green supply chain in emerging
economies. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 55, 123–136.
Cabral, I., Grilo, A., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. A decision-making model for lean, agile,
resilient and green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50, 4830–4845.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.657970.
Caldera, H., Desha, C., Dawes, L., 2017. Exploring the role of lean thinking in sustainable
business practice: A systematic literature review. J. Clean Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.126.
Cano, C.G., Vallejo-Mejía, C., Caicedo-García, E., Amador-Torres, J.S., Tique-Calderón,
E.Y., et al., 2012. El mercado mundial del café y su impacto en colombia. Banco de la
República Documentos de Trabajo.
CMMI, 2017. Cmmi product team from the software engineering institute, carnegie
mellon university, URL <http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?
AssetID=9661>, [Online; accessed 28-junho-2017].
Dhingra, R., Kress, R., Upreti, G., 2014. Does lean mean green? J. Clean. Prod. 85, 1–7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.032.
Donald, P.F., 2004. Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production
systems. Conservat. Biol. 18, 17–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.
01803.x.
Dora, M., Van Goubergen, D., Kumar, M., Molnar, A., Gellynck, X., 2014. Application of
lean practices in small and medium-sized food enterprises. British Food J. 116,
125–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2012-0107.
Dora, M., Lambrecht, E., Gellynck, X., Van Goubergen, D., 2015. Lean manufacturing to
lean agriculture: It’s about time. 633.
Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2017. Green and lean model for business sustainability.
1281–1291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1837-4_105.
Faulkner, W., Badurdeen, F., 2014. Sustainable value stream mapping (sus-vsm): meth-
odology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance. J. Clean
Prod. 85, 8–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.042.
Fercoq, A., Lamouri, S., Carbone, V., 2016. Lean/green integration focused on waste
reduction techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 567–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.07.107.
Fonseca, S.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2012. Assessment of business incubators’ green perfor-
mance: A framework and its application to brazilian cases. Technovation 32,
122–132.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015. Lean and green–a systematic review of the state of the art lit-
erature. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 18–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.
064.
Haggar, J., Soto, G., Casanoves, F., de Melo Virginio, E., 2017. Environmental-economic
benefits and trade-offs on sustainably certified coffee farms. Ecol. Ind. 79, 330–337.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.023.
Hartman, B., 2015. The Lean Farm: How to Minimize Waste, Increase Efficiency, and
Maximize Value and Profits with Less Work. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Hsu, C.-C., Choon Tan, K., Hanim Mohamad Zailani, S., Jayaraman, V., 2013. Supply
chain drivers that foster the development of green initiatives in an emerging
economy. Int. J. Operat. Prod. Manage. 33, 656–688.
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., de Souza Freitas,
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150 (2018) 62–73
A) Yes
B) No
A) Less than 1 year
B) 1 to 3 years
C) 3 to 5 years
D) More than 5 years
A) Yes
B) No
A) Yes
B) No
A) Yes
B) No
A) We do not work with dangerous products in our
B) We perform the correct control of dangerous
products and seek replacement whenever possible
C) We control, but we do not seek to replace them
D) There is no adequate control
A) Yes
B) No
W.R., 2013. Environmental management and operational performance in automotive
companies in brazil: the role of human resource management and lean manu-
facturing. J. Clean Prod. 47, 129–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.
010.
Jain, A., Nandakumar, K., Ross, A., 2005. Score normalization in multimodal biometric
systems. Pattern Recogn. 38, 2270–2285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2005.
01.012.
Johnsen, C.A., Drevland, F., 2016. Lean and sustainability: Three pillar thinking in the
production process. 23–32.
Kurdve, M., Shahbazi, S., Wendin, M., Bengtsson, C., Wiktorsson, M., 2015. Waste flow
mapping to improve sustainability of waste management: a case study approach. J.
Clean. Prod. 98, 304–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.076.
Leite, C., 2014. Geometria Plana e Trigonometria, Intersaberes.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L., Ueltschy, M., 2010. Green, lean, and global supply
chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 40, 14–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
09600031011018028.
Ng, R., Low, J.S.C., Song, B., 2015. Integrating and implementing lean and green practices
based on proposition of carbon-value efficiency metric. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 242–255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.043.
Niederhauser, N., Oberthür, T., Kattnig, S., Cock, J., 2008. Information and its manage-
ment for differentiation of agricultural products: The example of specialty coffee.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 61, 241–253.
Ozcelik, A.E., 2016. Driving initiatives for future improvements of specialty agricultural
crops. Comput. Electron. Agric. 121, 122–134.
Paju, M., Heilala, J., Hentula, M., Heikkilä, A., Johansson, B., Leong, S., Lyons, K., 2010.
Framework and indicators for a sustainable manufacturing mapping methodology.
3411–3422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2010.5679031.
Parveen, C.M., Kumar, A.P., Rao, T.N., 2011. Integration of lean and green supply chain-
impact on manufacturing firms in improving environmental efficiencies. 143–147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/GTEC.2011.6167659.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2006. Strategy & society. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84.
RAINFOREST, Certificación para agricultura, 2017. URL <http://www.rainforest-
alliance.org/business/es/agriculture/certification>, [Online; accessed 18-agosto-
2017].
ROBECOSAM, We are sustainability investing, 2017. URL <http://www.sustainability-
indices.com/>, [Online; accessed 22-junho-2017].
Rolo, A., Pires, A.R., Saraiva, M., 2014. Supply chain as a collaborative virtual network
based on larg strategy. 701–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55182-6_61.
Sachs, J.D., 2015. The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press.
Sachs, J.D., Remans, R., Smukler, S.M., Winowiecki, L., Andelman, S.J., Cassman, K.G.,
Castle, D., DeFries, R., Denning, G., Fanzo, J., et al., 2012. Effective monitoring of
agriculture: a response. J. Environ. Monit. 14, 738–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/
C2EM10584E.
Tinoco, H.A., Ocampo, D.A., Peña, F.M., Sanz-Uribe, J.R., 2014. Finite element modal
analysis of the fruit-peduncle of coffea arabica l. var. colombia estimating its geo-
metrical and mechanical properties. Comput. Electron. Agric. 108, 17–27.
Tsai, D.-M., Chen, W.-L., 2017. Coffee plantation area recognition in satellite images using
fourier transform. Comput. Electron. Agric. 135, 115–127.
Venugopal, V., Sundaram, S., 2017. An online writer identification system using regres-
sion-based feature normalization and codebook descriptors. Expert Syst. Appl. 72,
196–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.038.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., Remita, H., 2014. Combining organizational perfor-
mance with sustainable development issues: the lean and green project benchmarking
repository. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 83–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.
023.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., 2016. Lean and green strategy: the lean and green house
and maturity deployment model. J. Clean. Prod. 116, 150–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.022.
73