The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-4166.htm

Indonesian
Manufacturing sustainability wooden
assessment using a lean furniture
industry
manufacturing tool
A case study in the Indonesian wooden 957
furniture industry Received 31 December 2017
Revised 18 January 2019
Sri Hartini 10 September 2019
Accepted 11 November 2019
Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang,
Indonesia and Department of Industrial Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Indonesia
Udisubakti Ciptomulyono and Maria Anityasari
Department of Industrial Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember,
Surabaya, Indonesia, and
Sriyanto
Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Diponegoro,
Semarang, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – Manufacturers and engineers need a practical and operational way to understand sustainable
manufacturing and to apply it to their shop floors. The single index enables manufacturing industries to make
decisions considering the continuous improvement to increase sustainability performance. The purpose of
this paper is to develop a manufacturing sustainability index (MSI) based on lean and sustainability concepts
using sustainable-value stream mapping.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology of this research is linked to Delphi- analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) qualitative assessment with sustainable-value stream mapping quantitative
analysis for determining MSI. The Delphi method is used with relevant indicator selection, sustainable-
value stream mapping is used to score the relevant indicator with efficiency approach and the AHP
method is used to determine the indicator weight. To evaluate the applicability of this framework for
assessing sustainability in the manufacturing process, a case study in Indonesian Wooden Furniture
was developed.
Findings – The findings of this research is the framework for evaluating and assessing the sustainability
performance of the manufacturing process. Although evaluation of the framework is limited to the furniture
industry, there is a methodology potential to reproduce for the other sectors.
Research limitations/implications – Theoretically, this study has provided a single index to measure
performance of the manufacturing sustainability comprehensively at factory level. However, the
implementation of the developed model is too limited. More application in different sectors and different
industrial sizes is needed.
Originality/value – The value of this research lies in the novelty of the single index in measuring
manufacturing sustainability and the relevant indicators for the furniture industry in Indonesia. The selection
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
Vol. 11 No. 5, 2020
pp. 957-985
The authors are grateful for the financial support from Diponegoro University. They also © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-4166
acknowledge the efforts of the reviewers. DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2017-0150
IJLSS of the indicators has involved practitioners in the furniture industry and encompassed economic,
environmental and social dimensions. The visualization of indicators through sustainable-value stream
11,5 mapping is proven to be more practical and helpful for industrialists.
Keywords Lean manufacturing, Sustainable manufacturing,
Manufacturing sustainability assessment, Value stream mapping (VSM), Furniture industry,
Single score index, Furniture industry
958 Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Sustainable manufacturing is a new paradigm in which manufacturing produces products
in a sustainable manner while maintaining global competitiveness and coping with recent
challenges and problems (Lee et al., 2014). Sustainable manufacturing involves not only the
making of more sustainable products but also using more sustainable processes for the
production of those products (Pusavec et al., 2010). To accomplish sustainable
manufacturing, it is important to evaluate sustainability performance regarding how well
products are produced. Companies must move away from using traditional techniques that
focus only on cost minimization and efficiency improvement to those that also take into
account the environmental and societal implications of operations (Jayal et al., 2010;
Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014).
Some publications have developed sustainability performance measurement in the
corporate context (Searcy, 2012; Hunt, 2013). Some of the existing frameworks for
indicators are aimed at external reporting, rather than providing valuable information for
internal decision-makers (Moldavska and Welo, 2019). The most well-known set of
corporate sustainability indicators are the 79 measures included in the global reporting
initiative’s (GRI) (Searcy, 2012). The United Nations commission on sustainable
development (CSD) devised a framework of monitoring the various sustainability
indicators for assessing the performance of government toward sustainable development
goals (Singh et al., 2012). Another set of indicators formulated by The Institution of
Chemical Engineers (IChemE) has also formulated sustainability metrics covering three
dimensions environment, economic and social. However, it is still difficult to evaluate the
sustainability performance of the manufacturing process at a practical level. Most
frameworks are very conceptual and impractical (Lee et al., 2014). Additionally, as most
frameworks and indicators for sustainability assessment have been developed from a
business perspective, they cannot evaluate sustainability performance at the factory or
shop floor level from a manufacturing engineering perspective. Most sustainability
indicators focus on business purposes, thus, they cannot fully support the assessment of
the sustainability performance of manufacturing at the factory level. In other word, many
indicators have been defined at the conceptual level, and do not consider the practical or
operational aspects in their development. Lee et al. (2012) have analyzed changes in
production systems toward sustainable solutions, and they highlighted the need to
develop methods to measure the levels of sustainability of manufacturing processes. Lee
et al. (2014) developed concepts and methods to assess the sustainability performance of
manufacturing industries from a manufacturing engineering perspective at the factory
level in a single index. This concept is in line with Huang and Badurdeen (2018).
However, most manufacturing industries do not have such detailed sustainability data to
fit the model. Therefore, industries need a method or a particular methodology to help
them refine and measure specific indicators for environmental, economic and social
aspects at the factory level in a practical way.
 The fundamental theme of a lean enterprise is continuous improvement and evolution to Indonesian
the next best state of operations (Sahoo and Yadav, 2018; Sisson and Elshennawy, 2015). wooden
Within the scope of lean manufacturing, value stream mapping (VSM) is a well-known tool
to measure and evaluate the performance of manufacture practically to deliver continuous
furniture
improvement. VSM defines activities, both value added and non-value added, from the raw industry
material extraction stage up to the product delivery stage to the hand of the customer
(Rother and Shook, 1999). Its purpose is to identify value-adding and non-value-adding
activities in the value stream so that wasteful activities can be eliminated, and production 959
can be aligned with demand (Norton and Fearne, 2007). In the traditional VSM as a lean
manufacturing tool, there is no involvement of environmental and social aspects (Vinodh
et al., 2016). A number of studies have addressed the extension of VSM to incorporate
additional criteria. A vast majority of these efforts have focused on adding environmental
and energy-related metrics to VSM (Simons and Mason, 2003; US EPA, 2007; Torres and
Gati, 2009; Fearne and Norton, 2009; Kuriger and Chen, 2010; Dadashzadeh and Wharton,
2012; Li et al., 2012; Folinas et al., 2014). Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014) and Brown et al.
(2014) developed a methodology for Sustainable-VSM to capture economic, environmental
and societal sustainability of manufacturing firms. Ratnayake and Chaudry (2017) stated
that VSM enables the maintenance of TBL sustainable operations in the petroleum industry
while minimizing waste. Helleno et al. (2017) proposed a conceptual method to integrate a
new group of sustainability indicators based on references into the VSM tool to assess
manufacturing process. The sustainable-VSM was developed only to focus and identify a
general set of metrics that will have broad application across many industries. Further
customization would be needed to assess industrial specific aspects during application on a
case-by-case basis by first identifying key performance drivers for that industrial sector and
then selecting relevant metrics for evaluation. There are trade-offs to the number of
indicators one could include in extending conventional VSM to develop sustainable-VSM;
only the selected core indicators must be included in the sustainable-VSM to maintain its
usefulness as a visual tool. This is the key factor that must be considered when selecting
indicators to be included in the sustainable-VSM (Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014).
Therefore, the relevant indicators must be evaluated optimally according to the industrial
types.
Hartini et al. (2017) collected some literature on extended-VSM to enhance sustainable
manufacturing. The extended-VSM were applied in the automotive industry (Vinodh et al.,
2010; Lourenço et al., 2013; Vinodh et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2015; Vinodh et al., 2016; Edtmayr
et al., 2016; Garza-Reyes et al., 2018; Muñoz-Villamizar et al., 2019) followed by the food
industry (Torres and Gati, 2009; Norton and Fearne, 2009; Folinas et al., 2014; Folinas et al.,
2015; Hartini et al., 2019) and electronic industry (Li et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013; Brown
et al., 2014). Sustainable-VSM for the furniture industry is still potential to be developed. The
production of furniture is among the ones that most drives the global economy (Gabiati
et al., 2014). It must also be noted that this sector features specific characteristics: intense
environmental degradation and high levels of waste in operational activities (de Oliveira
et al., 2013). The wooden furniture industry is known for its high-volume consumption of
raw forest materials and was exploited and used in a sustainable manner. The wooden-
furniture is one of Indonesia’s featured products, but still has a low level of efficiency. An
Indonesian wooden-furniture factory has an efficiency rate of about 50 per cent because
there are some non-value-added activities, i.e. high setup and changeover time,
inappropriate processes, inventories and defects. Those non-value-added activities likely
cause lateness of order fulfilment that lead to penalties and a deterioration of a company’s
reputation (Hartini et al., 2010). The wooden furniture industry is the human-intensive
IJLSS factory and there are some cases of revoking the operating license of a wooden furniture
11,5 company due to waste management not fulfilling the requirements. These were evidence
that the company cannot ignore environmental and social factors. Therefore, wooden
furniture companies not only need lean manufacturing but also sustainable manufacturing.
If this condition persists, it can affect business sustainability in the long run. For this goal,
the assessment of manufacturing sustainability performance that includes sustainability
960 indicators is needed. Evaluation and improvement of the sustainability indicators are
expected to improve the corporate performance. Moreover, wooden furniture is Indonesia’s
flagship product. However, wooden furniture has a unique characteristic, as sustainable-
VSM previously developed has a general set of metrics that will have broad application
across many industries; therefore, further customization may be needed to assess specific
aspects of Furniture Company. It is important to develop a sustainable-VSM with specific
and relevant metrics for the production process of wood furniture companies that will be
used as a basis for evaluating manufacturing performance. Performance measurement can
be defined as the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of action (Neely and
Platts, 2005). The sustainability assessment with VSM requires a detailed formula to
measure the indicator performance. In this regard, this paper proposes the development of a
manufacturing sustainability index (MSI) using sustainable-VSM. MSI can be used to assess
the sustainability performance of the manufacturing processes. This index can be used to
effectively compare sustainability performances over different years for the same plant
(factory), which can help decision-makers to evaluate improvement in performance and
effectiveness of changes made to the plant (factory) (Huang and Badurdeen, 2018).
Performance measures help to see the evolution of business performance and the need for
eventual action (Duarte and Machado, 2017). The value of MSI can be used as a control tool
to monitor the manufacturing sustainability performance. In the mid to long run, the
compilation and the pattern of MSI results can be used as the basis of business process
improvement and even business model reengineering. In the previous research, the value of
sustainability performance was measured by the efficiency approach (Neely et al., 2005). In
this study, MSI is developed from several sustainability indicators that are then visualized
in the form of sustainable-VSM to identify inefficient activities. This will allow the selection
of necessary green and lean activities that must be implemented or improved (Duarte and
Machado, 2016).
This paper is organized as follows: Section 1 describes introduction, Section 2 reviews the
literature on sustainability assessment and sustainable-VSM, Section 3 describes the
development of a model, including framework, selection of related-indicators and method to
determine the single-index. Section 4 describes the results of a case study in the Indonesian
wooden-furniture corporate, and a discussion on the findings. Section 5 derives some
conclusions and summarizes the contributions and the future work.

2. The review of literature

This section describes concepts and previous research related to evolution of sustainable
manufacturing, sustainability assessment and sustainable-VSM.

2.1 Lean, green and sustainable manufacturing

The primary goal of lean manufacturing was to reduce the cost and to improve productivity
by eliminating wastes or non-value added activities (Ghosh, 2013; Jasti and Kodali, 2014).
Lean manufacturing reorganizes a manufacturing firm into cells and value streams to
improve the quality, flexibility and customer response time of their manufacturing
processes (Fullerton et al., 2014). Lean manufacturing is very powerful in increasing
operational performance on quality (Shah and Ward, 2003), productivity (Fullerton and Indonesian
Wempe, 2009; Singh et al., 2011), reduced inventory (Chong et al., 2012; Losonci and wooden
Demeter, 2013), reduced cost (Hallgren and Olhager, 2009; Pampanelli et al., 2011), reduced
defect (Gupta and Kumar, 2013; Prashar, 2014) and on time delivery (Bortolotti et al., 2014).
furniture
Lean manufacturing is also powerful in increasing systems performance based on cost, industry
quality, delivery and flexibility (Boyle and Scherrer-Rathje, 2009) and transactional
processes leads to a better sustenance of achieved performance improvements on the shop
floor under high uncertainty (Birkie et al., 2017). However, many researchers stated that 961
conventional lean manufacturing tools did not consider the environmental and social
benefits (Vinodh et al., 2016). Next, the indicator commonly used in lean manufacturing will
be tested for relevance to the wooden furniture industry, such as time, inventory, defect and
cost.
Some empirical reviews to find out the effect of lean manufacturing on environmental
performance are reducing waste and pollution and resource needs (King and Lenox, 2001;
Chiarini, 2014; Verrier et al., 2014; Fercoq et al., 2016) and improving environmental
performance (Sawhney et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2011; Nadeem et al., 2017). Bergmiller and
McCright (2009) suggest that lean and green systems can co-exist but provide evidence of
synergy. This statement is confirmed by Corbett and Klassen (2006). Lean and green
strategies are often seen as compatible initiatives because both focus on waste reduction
(Mollenkopf et al., 2010), efficient use of resources (Torielli et al., 2011), satisfying customer
needs and the lowest possible cost (Duarte et al., 2011).
Some research using case studies in companies were conducted to investigate the effects
of integration of lean and green on system sustainability performance (Hartini and
Ciptomulyono, 2015; Garza-Reyes, 2015; Piercy and Rich, 2015). Integration between lean
and green can reduce material and energy consumption, waste and production cost and into
the economic and environment dimension (Miller et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2011; Aguado et al.,
2013; Elsayed et al., 2013; Pampanelli et al., 2014). Glover et al. (2011) and Bocken et al. (2014)
state that integration of lean and green can improve social performance. Lean and green
contributes to a better understanding of the influence of green and lean upstream supply
chain management (SCM) practices on company performance in terms of economic, social
and environmental performance (Azevedo et al., 2012). Thanki et al. (2016) investigated the
impact of select lean and green practices on performance benefits and evaluated the
influence of lean and green paradigms on overall performance. Next, indicators commonly
used in green manufacturing will be tested for relevance to the wooden furniture industry,
such as waste and pollution, material and energy consumption.
According to Dornfeld et al. (2013), to achieve sustainable manufacturing requires a
concept that focuses more on the environment, namely, green manufacturing and a concept
that focuses more on economy, namely, lean manufacturing. If the concept of lean and green
manufacturing is equipped with an approach that aims toward the social aspect, it will
achieve “a manufacturing that minimizes negative impact on the environment saves energy
and natural resource that is safe for employees, society and costumers, and is also
economic.” Lean-Green integration models are just emerging and a number of authors are
working and putting them forward. Development of lean-green models are needed as a
contribution for the construction of the base of knowledge to reach sustainable
manufacturing (Abreu et al., 2017). Although lean Production was not developed to directly
address sustainability issues, its principles and practices provide green benefits and
produce synergies known as lean-green links (Abreu et al., 2019). Ben Ruben et al. (2018)
reviewed some articles and found that integrated lean sustainable manufacturing systems
can be defined as a system that creates value for the customers by eliminating waste
IJLSS consistently and adopting processes that are eco-friendly, economically viable and safe for
11,5 employees to produce green products that enhance social performance.
Feil et al. (2015) found 77 indicators related to sustainable manufacturing from the
literature review. The environmental indicators of sustainability (37) with the greatest
frequency include effluents, emissions, products, power, raw materials, water and the
environment, among others. The social indicators (31) are most frequently related to the
962 aspects, which involve employment, training, education, health and safety, child and slave
labor, complaints from customers and the community, ethics and integrity, local
communities and more. The economic indicators (nine) cited most frequently concern the
aspect of economic performance, market presence and purchasing practices. Feil et al. (2015)
used the Delphi method to the 22 researchers to select and identify a set of indicators for
quickly measuring sustainability in the furniture industry. In an attempt to select a set of
indicators specifically for the activities of the furniture industry, the set obtained consisted
of 26 indicators, and these were selected by researchers and are the most effective in rapidly
assessing sustainability.
Henceforth, the process of selecting indicators that are relevant to practitioners only
involves indicators of lean and sustainable manufacturing. This is because green indicators
have been involved in environmental indicators in sustainable manufacturing.

2.2 Sustainability assessment

A sustainability indicator is a single parameter used to measure the condition of an aspect in
sustainability (Sarkar et al., 2011). To successfully assess sustainability, sustainability
indicators should be clearly defined according to the purpose and scope of sustainability
assessment.
Frameworks and indicators for sustainability assessment have been developed from a
business perspective, for example, the Global Reporting Initiative (Hunt, 2013); The United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, 2001); The Institution of
Chemical Engineers (IChemE, 2002); life cycle assessment (ISO, 2006); linking supply chain
performance and the balanced scorecard (BSC) based on lean and green (Duarte et al., 2011).
Among the existing frameworks and methods, few methods have addressed the
sustainability performance of manufacturing industries at the factory level, for example,
MAS2: an integrated modeling and simulation-based life cycle evaluation approach (Lee
et al., 2014), integrating between sustainability using lean manufacturing tools (Satolo et al.,
2017; Helleno et al., 2017; Huang and Badurdeen, 2018).
Several pieces of research have developed a structured view of integrating sustainability
in a corporate performance measurement system based on empirical evidence (Morioka and
Carvalho, 2016; Zhan et al., 2016). A holistic system to explore pathways for lean principles
to be augmented with sustainability concepts could be developed. Particularly, academics
and practitioners could further study lean methods to better manage the company.
Industrial practitioners can identify opportunities in lean thinking not only toward
excellence in manufacturing but also to fulfil their responsibility toward the environment in
a collective effort (Caldera et al., 2017). Practitioners can be assisted in managing and
prioritizing barriers toward the successful implementation of green lean initiatives for better
sustainability performance (Cherrafi et al., 2017). Duarte and Machado (2017) proposed an
assessment framework to evaluate businesses in terms of the implementation of green and
lean organizations. Their finding is an assessment framework to evaluate an organization’s
supply chain in terms of green and lean implementation in the automotive industry.
However, validation of the model is not based on quantitative techniques and more study is
need in different industry sectors.
2.3 The Delphi method Indonesian
The Delphi method technique is described as an assessment method for a group of experts wooden
to recognize the unavailable knowledge (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). Delphi may be
characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process so that the
furniture
process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex industry
problem (Linstone and Turoff, 2002). The Delphi group size does not depend on statistical
power, but rather on group dynamics for arriving at consensus among experts. Generally,
the literature recommends 10 to 18 experts on a Delphi panel (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004) or 963
between 3 and 15 (Rowe and Wright, 1999). The technique has been used to address
sustainable development issues, including determining of indicators weight using 12
experts (Azevedo and Barros, 2017) and green supplier selection using 8 experts (Jiang et al.,
2018).

3. Model development
3.1 Research method
This research takes the advantage of sustainable-VSM as the performance measurement
tool on the approach of lean manufacturing. Sustainable-VSM is able to identify the
inefficient activity with the level of efficiency that can be measured quantitatively by using
an indicator of lean and sustainable manufacturing. Hence, the potential improvement can
be done on three indicators of three bottom lines as the pillars of sustainable manufacturing.
The first stage starts with the selection of a relevant indicator. A database of indicators
searched through the literature is to be assessed by the industry practitioners using the
Delphi method. Indicator relevance with the sustainability of the company is determined by
using the weighted-average method (Feil et al., 2015). Respondents are at the top level in
furniture companies and are head of Indonesian furniture association.
Furthermore, the selected indicator will be measured and visualized in sustainable-VSM.
The score of the indicator is determined by an efficiency approach. When the level of
efficiency is found, the level of inefficiency can be identified. Basically, the level of
inefficiency constitutes to the potential of the management to corporate performance
improvement to improve sustainability performance. The advantage of using sustainable-
VSM mapping is that the management may identify the level of inefficiency based on
activity in each process. The utilization of resources is an efficient way to produce long-term
positive effects while minimizing the adverse consequences of resource exploitation. This
implies the use of resources in a way that will ensure long-term existence and profitability of
businesses (Yusuf et al., 2013). Scoring system in sustainable-VSM is made together with a
traffic light system to give a sign, whether an indicator needs improvement. In this design
the traffic light system is made using three colors, namely, red, yellow and green. The red
color indicates the score of the indicator is still below the target, the yellow color indicates
that the score achieved needs to be increased. Finally, the green color indicates the score of
the indicator is in accordance with the target. The target score is determined by the
company’s top level policy.
To obtain the evaluated manufacture sustainability, the score of each indicator will be
multiplied with the weight. The weight of each indicator is determined using the method of
analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The respondent who assesses the weight of the
indicator is the top level of the company that becomes the case study. In principle, the
sustainability index could be approached by multiplying the indicator score with its weight
(Niranjali de Silva et al., 2009; Huang and Badurdeen, 2018).
To evaluate concept applicability of manufacturing sustainability measurement, the case
study will be conducted to the wooden-furniture company. The case study will measure each
IJLSS chosen indicator, determine the indicator weight, determine MSI, as well as to find inefficient
11,5 activity, as well as to give the recommendation of strategy to improve it. The assessment
was based on case study results with data from a survey, in-depth interviews, observations,
internal documents, national newspapers and the internet. The method of research is shown
in Figure 1.

964
The indicators The indicators
based on lean relevant to sustainable
manufacturing manufacturing

Design of
Questionnaire

Design of the The Experts

respondent must represent
Selection of the relevant

the industry
being measured

the Delphi method

indicator

Choose the relevant

indicators by expert

no
Consensus?

yes
Selected indicators for sustainability
performance

Design of formula for

indicators scoring with
Create Sus – VSM : efficiency approach
Index based on Sustainable-VSM

- material flow
Manufacturing Sustainability

- information flow
Integrang the relevant
indicators into sus-VSM

Measure the performance of

Design of AHP indicators based on activity
structure
Calculate the efficiency level
Top execuve of for each indicator
the company

Determine of Economic sustainability index,

the Indicator environment sustainability index
Weight social sustainablility index

Determine of the
Dimension Manufacturing Sustainability
Weight Index

Top execuve of
the company

Implement of Manufacturing
Case study in the Wooden

Sustainability Assessment based

Furniture Corporate

on Sustainability-VSM

Determine of Manufacturinf
Sustainability Index

Analyze and Provide

Figure 1. Recommendation for
Improvement
Research method
3.2 Selection of the indicator Indonesian
3.2.1 Design of the indicators. Many previous studies have involved some indicators in the wooden
lean manufacturing approach, especially incorporation in sustainable-VSM (Table I). These furniture
indicators need to evaluate the relevant indicators to improve sustainability performance for
wooden-furniture companies. However, the challenge is to define the relevant indicators for
industry
each dimension and understand how they connect with each other to achieve truly
sustainable processes (Helleno et al., 2017). Feil et al. (2015) present a set of twelve 965
environmental indicators, seven social and seven economic as the relevant indicators to
wooden-furniture company (Table II).
3.2.2 Selection of the indicator: the Delphi method. The selection of indicators on this
research followed the method of Delphi. It is an established survey method for seeking
unbiased opinions and consensus on a complex issue and involves sequential questionnaires
answered anonymously by a group of experts.
To fulfill the practical objectives, a group of experts were chosen from practitioners who
manage a furniture company with a minimum of five years of experience at top level. Before
asking these respondents to choose an indicator, previously they were explained the
following (Feil et al., 2015):

The reason for selecting respondents, respondents were the practitioners of the
wooden furniture industry.

Measurement and company activities. The company selected was a wooden
furniture company from the medium and large enterprise in Central Java, Indonesia.
Based on the result of the preliminary questionnaire, production flow of small
enterprises was not stable. Central Java is a province with the biggest volume of
furniture production amongst another region in Indonesia.

The description of the process of wooden furniture industrial production.

Selection of the indicators based on the influence of indicators on manufacturing
sustainability performance.

Indicator Author

Cycle time Almost all of value stream mapping consider the cycle time (Hartini et al., 2017;
Garza-Reyes et al., 2018; Muñoz-Villamizar et al., 2019)
Change over time (US EPA, 2007; Norton and Fearne, 2009; Paju et al., 2010; Kuriger and Chen,
2010; Keskin et al., 2013; Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Sparks, 2014; Ng et al.,
2015; Vinodh et al., 2016; Atieh et al., 2016; Dadashnejad and Valmohammadi,
2017; Garza-Reyes et al., 2018; Muñoz-Villamizar et al., 2019)
Downtime (Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Ng et al., 2015)
Setup time Torres and Gati, 2009
Value added time (Simons and Mason, 2003; US EPA 2007; Norton and Fearne, 2009; Keskin et al.,
2013; Müller et al., 2013; Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Brown et al., 2014;
Vinodh et al., 2016; Seth et al., 2017)
Inventory (Lourenço et al., 2013; Keskin et al., 2013; Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Brown
et al., 2014; Sparks, 2014; Atieh et al., 2016; Vinodh et al., 2016; Helleno et al.,
2017)
Transportation time (Dadashzadeh and Wharton, 2012; Sparks, 2014) Table I.
Defect (Sparks, 2014) Lean indicators in
Cost (Torres and Gati, 2009; Lourenço et al., 2013; Vinodh et al., 2016; Helleno et al., sustainable-value
2017) stream mapping
IJLSS Indicator for Wooden Furniture (Feil Has been used in relationship with
11,5 Dimension et al., 2015) sustainable-VSM

Environment Generation of dangerous waste N/A

Waste disposal N/A
Effluent treatment Used by Helleno et al. (2017)
Recycling of waste N/A
966 Atmospheric emissions [Cox, NOx, Used by Li et al. (2012), Garza-Reyes
SOx] et al. (2018)
Recycling of products N/A
Reuse of products N/A
Renewable energy consumption N/A
Efficiency of energy consumed Used by Faulkner and Badurdeen,
(2014), Vinodh et al. (2016), Helleno
et al. (2017), Garza-Reyes et al. (2018)
Material Consumption Used by Faulkner and Badurdeen,
(2014), Vinodh et al. (2016), Helleno
et al. (2017), Garza-Reyes et al. (2018)
Adherence to environmental standards No
Water consumption Used by Helleno et al. (2017), Garza-
Reyes et al. (2018)
Social Employee satisfaction N/A
Employee training and development N/A
Serious and fatal accidents Used by Helleno et al. (2017)
Employee health evaluation N/A
Child labor N/A
Complaints of dust N/A
Business ethics N/A
Economic Recipes N/A
Table II. Operating profit N/A
Net profit N/A
The relevant
Tax payments N/A
indicators for Operational costs Used by Helleno et al., 2017
wooden-furniture Comparison of the wages with the Used by Vinodh et al., 2016
sustainability value set by the market
measurement Local suppliers N/A

The first round, the set of indicators were sent via email and posted to 100 companies in
Central Java, members of the Indonesian wooden furniture association. The questionnaire
consisted of a description of the company’s general information and the set of indicators. To
understand the purpose of filling out the questionnaire and the basis for selecting the
respondents, a letter was submitted together with a questionnaire. Finally, there are 10
respondents as experts: 4 experts from a medium company, 4 experts from a large company
and 2 experts from an association. There are 6 experts as vice president, 2 experts as a
manager and 2 experts as a head of an association. The associations included ASMINDO
(Indonesian Furniture Association) and HIMKI (Indonesian Furniture and Craft
Association). They have been practitioners in the furniture world for more than 10 years.
The analysis of the indicators cut-off assessed by the 10 experts was based on analysis of
weighted average (WA) and the level of consensus (LC). The studies using the Delphi
method are satisfied with these tests (Miller, 2001; Feil et al., 2015). The indicators that had
LC  0.7 or WA  4.0 to compose the set of indicators used to rapidly measure the
sustainability of wooden furniture companies.
 The first produces several indicators with WA and LC values below the cut-off. In Indonesian
addition, there are indicators that are considered important by expert A but not important wooden
by expert B (for example, water consumption), so there is no consensus from the 1st round.
Therefore, the 2nd round was needed. In the 2nd round, all experts are given the same
furniture
questionnaire with an explanation of the results of the 1st round. The results of the 2nd industry
round stated that indicators that have LC > 0.7 do not change. This means that the relevant
indicators in the 1st round do not change in the 2nd round. Thus, consensus has been
967
reached in determining the relevant indicators. The results of questionnaire process were
shown in Tables III and IV.
Economic indicators were selected based on a lean approach are cycle time, change over
time, downtime, transportation time, setup time, inventory, cost and defect. Furthermore,
cycle time, change over time, downtime, transportation time and setup time will be merged
as a time indicator. Analysis of manufacturing lead-time in lean manufacturing was affected
by value-added time and non-value added time (Vinodh et al., 2015). Cycle time is value-
added time whereas, change over time, downtime, transportation time and setup time are
non-value added time. Economic indicators were selected based on a sustainable approach,
and are business ethics, operating profit, net profit, tax payments, operational cost. Business
ethics and taxes are important indicators from a business perspective. This is because the
scope of the measurement is limited to the manufacturing perspective so that these next
indicators have not been involved. Evaluating net profit is comparing costs and revenues
(Lim and Park, 2009). Based on this, operating profit, net profit and cost will be merged as
cost indicators. Furthermore, manufacturing sustainability performance assessment will
involve time, quality, inventory and cost as economic indicators.
Adherence to environmental standards is a requirement in factory operations. From a
manufacturing perspective, controlling of waste, efficiency of energy and materials will
drive the company toward being environmentally-friendly. Furthermore, manufacturing
sustainability performance assessment involves recycling of waste, efficiency of energy and
efficiency of materials as environment indicators. This confirms the statement of Kang and
Lee (2016), whereby energy savings and the minimization of environmental waste can
prevent circumstances of worsening global warming and resource depletion.
Social indicators were selected based on a sustainable approach, which are employee
satisfaction level, safety level, employee health level and employee training level. This is
confirm in the statement of Lee et al. (2014) and Helleno et al. (2017).
The next round was all to classify all identified indicators based on their similarities. The
experts were asked to confirm the 11 selected indicators. All of the experts agreed, thus, the
consensus has been reached.

Relevance
No. Indicators 1 2 3 4 5 WA LC

1 Cycle time 0 0 1 3 6 4.5 0.90

2 Change over time 0 0 3 3 4 4.1 0.70
3 Downtime 0 0 1 5 4 4.3 0.90
4 Transportation time 0 0 2 7 1 3.9 0.80
5 Inventory 0 0 3 4 3 4.0 0.70 Table III.
6 Setup time 0 0 3 5 2 3.9 0.70 The Indicators based
7 Cost 0 0 0 5 5 4.5 1.00 on lean
8 Defect 0 0 1 5 4 4.3 0.90 manufacturing
IJLSS Relevance
11,5 No. Indicators 1 2 3 4 5 WA LC

1 Generation of dangerous waste 0 0 6 4 0 3.4 0.40

2 Waste disposal 0 1 1 7 1 3.8 0.80
3 Effluent treatment 0 1 1 5 3 4.0 0.80
4 Recycling of waste 0 1 1 5 3 4.0 0.80
968 5 Atmospheric emissions [Cox, NOx, SOx] 0 1 4 3 2 3.6 0.50
6 Recycling of products 0 1 3 5 1 3.6 0.60
7 Reuse of products 0 1 3 5 1 3.6 0.60
8 Renewable energy consumption 0 2 3 4 1 3.4 0.50
9 Efficiency of energy consumed 0 0 1 4 5 4.4 0.90
10 Material consumption 0 1 1 6 2 3.9 0.80
11 Adherence to environmental standards 0 0 1 4 5 4.4 0.90
12 Water consumption 0 3 2 2 3 3.5 0.50
13 Employee satisfaction 0 0 3 5 2 3.9 0.70
14 Employee training and development 0 0 3 4 3 4.0 0.70
15 Number of accidents 0 2 1 4 3 3.8 0.70
16 Employee health evaluation 0 1 2 4 3 3.9 0.70
17 Child labor 3 4 1 2 0 2.2 0.20
18 Complaints of dust 0 3 3 3 1 3.2 0.40
19 Business ethics 0 0 2 6 2 4.0 0.80
20 Recipes 0 0 4 3 3 3.9 0.60
21 Operating profit 0 0 0 5 5 4.5 1.00
22 Net profit 0 0 0 6 4 4.4 1.00
23 Tax payments 0 0 2 4 4 4.2 0.80
24 Operational costs 0 0 0 5 5 4.5 1.00
Table IV. 25 Comparison of the wages with the value set by the market 0 0 4 4 2 3.8 0.60
The Indicators based 26 Local suppliers 0 0 4 5 1 3.7 0.60
on sustainable
manufacturing Note: 1. Very irrelevant, 2. Irrelevant, 3. Netral, 4. Relevant, 5. Very relevant

3.3 Development of the manufacturing sustainability performance assessment model

3.3.1 Principles in model development. Some principles used in developing model shown in
Table V.
3.3.2 The determination of manufacturing sustainability index. The score of the
indicator is determined by using the concept of efficiency, that is the comparison between
the use of the sources with added value toward the total use. The score of the economic
indicator is the reflection toward efficiency of time, quality, inventory and cost. The score of
environment indicator is a reflection toward efficiency of the use of material, energy and
waste management. The score of the social indicator is the reflection toward efficiency of
workers in terms of health, safety, satisfaction and the development of human resources.
The basis of determining to score for social indicators:

Employee satisfaction is calculated based on the turnover rate of the employee
(Meyer and Tett, 1993).

Employee healthy is calculated based on the attendance rate. This refers to Paju
et al. (2010), Sloan (2010) and Lu et al. (2011).

The level of safety uses the level of risk (OHSAS, 2008). The efficiency of the
risk level is approached by comparing activities that are not at risk for all
activities.
No. Principle Reference
Indonesian
wooden
1 The measurement of performance can be approached with the Neely et al. (2005) furniture
efficiency concept
2 The efficiency of manufacture system is a ratio between Lee et al. (2014); Edtmayr et al. industry
output toward input related to the manufacture system, earth (2016)
and social. Examples of input factors that the earth system
offers to the manufacturing system are materials and energy. 969
Examples of input factors that the social system offers to the
manufacturing system are labor
3 A sustainability indicator is a single parameter used to Sarkar et al. (2011)
measure the condition of an aspect in sustainability
4 Sustainability index can be approached by multiplying the Silva et al. (2009); (Huang and
indicator value and its weight of indicator Badurdeen, 2018)
5 The weight of an indicator depends on the level of Lu et al. (2011)
significance and relative priority of the company. The weight
of significance of an indicator toward the sustainable
performance of a company could be different with another
company
6 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) can be used to determine the Ilgin and Gupta (2010)
level of relative significance from the influencing factors
7 Sustainable manufacturing should consider the effect on the Elkington (1994); Jayal et al.
economy, environment and social that commonly is called (2010); Gimenez et al. (2012),
triple bottom line. This underlies that manufacturing Ahi and Searcy (2014); Helleno
sustainability assessment considers economic, environmental et al. (2017)
and social dimensions
8 Sustainability indicators must be relevant, measured, easy to Feng et al. (2010), Helleno et al.
understand and maintained with effective data (2017)
9 The improvement of economic performance can be achieved Bergmiller and McCright
by increasing efficiency, quality, profitability and reducing of (2009) Table V.
cost and lead-time Principles for MSI

The common formula of efficiency that will be used is a ratio between the use of resource
and total resource. Details of the formula are shown in Table VI.
MSI is approached by adding all weighted economy index, environment and social. The
formula is as follows in Table VII.

4. Case study
4.1 Case study selection: an Indonesian furniture industries
The case study was done at PT X, a wooden furniture company in Semarang, Indonesia.
The reason to choose this company is that it has relatively high standard product with
several product variations. Generally, the production processes are raw material
preparation, construction, assembly, finishing, quality control and packaging. Raw material
preparation is turning wood logs into boards to be processed. The construction process is
forming the boards according to the product design. Assembly is the process of combining
the various components. Finishing is the last process to finalize the product, e.g.
smoothening of the wood surface. Quality control is done before finishing and packaging to
ensure that products are in accord to the specifications. Products that meet the specifications
at the assembly stage will enter the finishing stage. Products that have not met the
specifications will be reworked. Products that pass the finishing stage will enter the
packaging stage. Products whose smoothness does not meet specifications will be re-
sanded.
IJLSS No. (i) Indicators Input Equation
11,5
1 Time efficiency (TE) TE : Time efficiency TE = VAT/TT
Pn
VAT: value added time VAT ¼ P ð
i¼1 VATi
Þ
TT: total time NVAT ¼ ni¼1 ðNVATiÞ
NVAT: non- value added time TT = VAT þ NVAT
n: process to n
970 2 Inventory efficiency (IE) NI: Number of inventory IE = NI/TM
TM: Total material
3 Quality efficiency (QE) ND: Number of defect QE = 1 – ND/TM
TM: Total material
4 Cost efficiency (CE) CE : cost efficiency CE = VAC/TC
Pn
VAC : value added cost VAC ¼ P ð
i¼1 VACi
Þ
NVAC: non-value added cost NVAC ¼ ni¼1 ðNVACiÞ
TC : total cost TC = VAC þ NVAC
n: activity to n
Material efficiency (ME) ME : efficiency material ME = VAM/TM
Pn
VAM: value added material VAM ¼ P ð
i¼1 VAMi
Þ
TM: total material used NVAM ¼ ni¼1 ðNVAMiÞ
NVAM: non-value added material TM = VAM þ NVAM
n: material to n
6 Energy efficiency (EE) EE: energy efficiency EE = VAE/TE
Pn
VAE : value added energy VAE ¼ P ð
i¼1 VAEi
Þ
NVAE: non-value added energy NVAE ¼ ni¼1 ðNVAEiÞ
ET: energy total TE = VAM þ NVAM
n: activity to n
7 Efficiency of waste recycling TW: Total waste WE = 1 – WL/TW
WL: Number of waste to landfill
8 Satisfaction level TO: Number of employee turnover SE = 1 – TO/NE
NE: Number of employee
9 Health level NA: Number of employees absent HE = 1 – NA/NE
NE: Number of employee
10 Safety level NR: Number of activity with risk RE = 1 – NR/Nac
Table VI. Nac: Number of activity
Formula for indicator 11 Employee training level NT: Number of employee training E_HRD = NT/NE
scoring NE: Number of employee

4.2 Implementation of sustainable-value stream mapping to the indicator scoring

Measurements of production time were designed with 20 observations in each process.
Material consumption was calculated using an approximated unit of weight by multiplying
the wood volume and the density of tamarind wood at 0.75 (Reyes et al., 1992). Production of
wood waste was calculated by subtracting material input with its output. Energy
consumption was approximated by calculating electrical energy needed for production
process at each machine in kWh. To evaluate the environment indicator, the reference value
is determined through interviews with the senior management. The record about the
workforce is not differentiated based on job description. It is simpler in the recording and in
fact the movement of the operator from one machine to another still occurs. Sustainable-
VSM is shown in Figure 2. According to the top management where the case study was
conducted, efficiency value of performance indicators below 65 is critical and represented by
red color, between 60-90 is moderate and represented by yellow color, greater than 90 is
excellent and represented by green color. This system is often named as “traffic light
system.” From the result of sustainable-VSM it can be seen that potential waste from
No. Dimension Input Formula
Indonesian
P wooden
1 Economic index wi: weight of indicator- i Ec_I = n¼4
i¼1 wi : Ei furniture
(Ec_I) Ei: score of economic indicator - i
i: indicator to 1,2,3,4 Pn¼7
industry
2 Environment index wi: weight of environment indicator En_I = i¼5 wi : Vi
(En_I) Vi: score of environment indicator –i
i: indicator to 5,6,7 P 971
3 Social index (S_I) wi: weight of social indicator S_I = n¼11
i¼8 wi : Si
Si: score of social indicator
i: indicaator to i: 8,9,10,11
4 Manufacturing a: weight of economic dimension MSI =
sustainability index Ec_I: economic index (a.Ec_I þ b .En_I þ
(MSI) b : weight of environment dimension g .S_I)
En_I: environment index
g : weight of social dimension Table VII.
S_I: social index Formula for indexing

economic and social aspects is almost spread in almost all production processes while the
potential of the environmental impact occurs at the sawmill and construction process. A
Kaizen burst highlights that area problems are critical to achieving value stream success.
Different shape/line of burst are used to represent three different dimensions. Authors
decided to use shape to distinguish burst with performance indicator that shown by
different colors. The color of kaizen burst was divided into yellow (economy), green
(environment) and blue (social).
4.2.1 Economic dimension. The level of efficiency of time indicator is only as much as
82.7 per cent. The stage that has a problem is the materialization stage (80 per cent),
construction stage (50 per cent) and assembly stage (73 per cent). Non-value-added activities,
which still occur are set up, changeover time, waiting time, as the breakdown on the
bandsaw machine and idle time on the spindle machine for waiting for the process that have
not finished in bandsaw machine. A bandsaw is a power saw with a long, sharp blade to cut
material. They are used principally in woodworking, metalworking and lumbering, but may
cut a variety of materials.
The degree of efficiency of the quality indicator is still around 40 per cent caused by
many defects in the stage of materialization, construction and assembly. It causes
unachieved numbers of demand toward the product. The issue comes from the aspect of
human beings, machine and material. The lack of number of operators in a certain machine
requires other operators to be forced to operate the machine. They do not master very well
without any prior training. The factor of machine occurs, as there has not been any good
management in engine maintenance. Such symptoms are seen from the presence of machine
breakdown in operational time or the operator is forced to use a blunt cutter, as no more
stock of the cutter is left. Wooden material frequently has a not straight fiber. There is no
quality control in each stage of materialization to inspect the wooden board. Consequently,
the wood with bent fiber frequently goes through the construction stage. Although a little,
the quality control found defects at the finishing stage. Smoothing the surface of the wood
with sandpaper still does not meet the specifications of the buyer.
The level of inventory on materialization stage and construction stage are still high. It is
because the materialization stage stores over half of target stock and the construction stage
stores stocks more than the target of production. The level of efficiency of average inventory
is 77 per cent.
 11,5

972
IJLSS

Figure 2.

traffic color of
Sustainable – value

furniture production
stream mapping with
PROCESS Customer
PLANNING
Supplier
2 supplier

Truck
Leadtime : 1 month
Leadtime : 1 month

Work Work
Bandsaw Operator
position not position not
Machine limited
ergonomic ergonomic
often failed
Sawmill Raw material Construction Assembling Rework based Finishing with Re-sanded Packaging
on QC Result Sandpaper based on QC
Process
time too
result
Operator Operator
long Repair limited limited
machine Process
time too
Leadtime CT : 2 month, 240" CT : 78 “ 25" CT : 3444" Waiting : 4 days, 205". CT : 300 “ CT : 186" CT : 1308 “ CT : 2928 “ CT : 540"
155 legs 180 legs, long
Too long Operator : 4 persons CO : 22 “ CO : 14“ 48 frame, CO : 101” CO : 3" Operator : 3 Operator : 5 CO : 3 “t
Energy Repair : 60 “ Repair : 220” 48 center block Operator : 1 Operator : 2 Product : 41 unit Product : 41 unit Operator : 3
consumption Transportation : 4” Operator : 4 Defect : 13 unit Product : 41 unit Defect : 2 unit Product : 41 unit
Wood too much
Operator : 4 Defect : 33 legs WIP too
waste too
Defect : 14 legs much
much Defect Process and Process Process
Process
too much setup time time too time too Process Postur not
Transportation
time too
long too long long long time too ergonomic
without material Energy long
handling consumption
too much

Time VAT RATIO = 2398/4749 = VAT RATIO = 1537/1554 = VAT RATIO = 13198/15959 =
VA = 930.83, NVA = 222,2, VAT RATIO = 80.7% VAT RATIO = 270/369 = 73% VAT RATIO = 8063/8135 = 99.1% 98.9%
50.4% 82.7 %

14 legs, 86% 33 legs, 63% 13 products, 77% 2 products, 95% 47 legs + 15 producs, 40%
Quality

188 legs, 48 frames, 48 center

Inventory 55 legs, 50% 100% 100% 100% 77%
blocks, 40%

Total cost = 23200

Total cost = 36597 TC = 3000 TC = 35150 TC = 10932 VAC Rao =
Non-value Added cost = 23543
Cost Non-value Added cost = 10998, Cost efficiency = 70% NVAC = 2200 NVAC = 6090 NVAC = 773 (108879-42573)/108879 = 60.9%

122/233 = 52% 15/22,8 = 65% 8/10.07 = 78% 100% 90% 90% VAM Rao = 145/266 = 54.5%
Material

20.34 Kwh, 100% 10.07 Kwh, 100% 100%

Energy

Waste
recycling 55/111 = 50% 2/2.25 = 90% 100% 100 % 100% 88%

Risk of 4 3 2 1 3 Risk Ratio = 3/5 = 60 %

safety

Satisfaction 90 % 90 %

Health
85 % 85 %

Employee
10 % 10 %
training
The level of efficiency of cost indicator, basically, is not easily measured at the level of the Indonesian
factory. Determination of production cost based on direct material cost, direct energy cost wooden
and direct labor cost. Non-value-added cost was determined using a non-value-added
activity approach, including the loss of material and production time because defects and
furniture
the cost of wooden material waste. If the defect rate, inventory rate or time inefficiency is industry
still high, the number of costs spent for things that do not add value is higher. The large
amount of material wasted, inefficient use of energy and the high absence of the workforce
will increase the production cost. In this case, cost efficiency is estimated around 60.9 per 973
cent.
4.2.2 Environment dimension. Types of waste in environmental aspect include the high
amount of wood waste, especially in the sawmill process. Wood consumption efficiency is
145 kg/266 kg (54.5 per cent). The high amount of energy consumption during the sawmill
process is the most and is followed by oven process. The level of efficiency of waste
treatment is approached by interviewing the management. Principally, the waste that occurs
has to be recycled. Big size wooden waste is used to make raw material using finger joint
technique (50 per cent). While the small chunk and the powder was sold to the third party as
the material to make fertilizer or bricks (90 per cent). Chemical substance waste is
maintained by the third party (100 per cent). The level of efficiency of waste treatment is
assumed to be 80 per cent.
4.2.3 Social dimension. Sustainable performance of the social dimension is influenced by
the level of satisfaction, safety, health and the development of human resources. Value
stream mapping prefers to use quantitatively measurable data. In this research, the level of
satisfaction of the workforce is approached using turnover rate of the workforce (Meyer and
Tett, 1993). In this case, measurements use an internal document of company. The employee
of a company has not been classified based on activity on the shop floor, so measurement of
social performance was done overall and has not been visualized in sustainable-VSM based
on activity.
The level of turnover of the workforce is small. The level of satisfactory indicator
performance is about 90 per cent, dominantly by drafter. The level of health efficiency is
approached using the data of the workforce at attendance level. The level of health efficiency
is around 85 per cent. Such a result of in-depth interviews finds the disease suffered by the
most employees, which mostly it is digestion-related. The level of safety indicator can be
approached by the level of accidents occur. However, in this case, it is approached using
the existing potential risk on each stage of production process (OHSAS, 2008). Accidents in
the wooden industry are very small if it is counted from the ratio of accidents. However, the
potential of risk is very high in some stages of the process. And if the accident occurred, it
could be fatal. The high number of wood lifting and machining that is not ergonomic can
cause muscle tension. A sawmill machine has the potential for the occurrence of a finger cut.
The level of safety efficiency is approached with the improvement of risky activities of 3/5
(60 per cent). The culture of human resources development by conducting training has not
been a custom for the Indonesian furniture industry. The company tends to rely on the basic
competence of each employee. Even though the awareness of the importance of the
competence of the employee begins to be realized by the top level, however, the training for
new employee would only be done at the managerial level. The performance of the human
resource development is around 10 per cent.

4.3 Manufacturing sustainability index

4.3.1 Weight of the indicator. The weight of indicator/dimension was determined by using
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) based on the preference of the decision-maker. The result
IJLSS of the weight of each indicator is shown in Figure 3, with the consistency index value <0.1.
11,5 The inconsistencies of all dimensions are 0, the inconsistency of the economic dimension is
0.04, the environmental dimension is 0 and the social dimension is 0.08.
The economic, social and environment have the same weight. From in-depth interviews,
some practitioner experts state that each dimension has an important role for achieving the
sustainability of manufacturing in the furniture industry. The economic dimension affects
974 the productivity rate, production costs, product quality and the level of demand fulfilment.
These are important for gaining profit and customer trust. The relative efficiency of energy
and other resources has a positive influence on productivity (Kang and Lee, 2016). It is
agreed by expert practitioners that energy savings, material and wood waste management
will save resources and affect the cost of production. Moreover, waste management becomes
a necessity. Waste management is government policy and consumer demand must be
fulfilled. The social dimension affects manufacturing sustainability performance. This
statement was confirmed by the fact of existing corporate conditions. Low levels of training
for workers leads to unskilled workers, especially in the machining process. The number of
defect product is high. The high level of workers is permitted due to illness and will reduce
the available time for production process.
4.3.2 Calculation of the manufacturing sustainability index. Determining of the index is
done based on a hierarchy of the indicators. Firstly, determine of economic index,
environment index and social index. The economic index was determined by multiplying
the economic indicator score with weight of the indicator. Once the index of each dimension
is recognized, MSI is determined by multiplying the index of each dimension by the weight
of the dimension. The calculation of MSI is shown in Figure 4.

5. Finding and discussion

Although the development of the sustainable-VSM is not fully practical, sustainable-VSM
contains the material flow and production process flow. Given the indicators into
sustainable-VSM, we can identify the non-value-added activity and the inefficient process
that we need to improve. Scoring indicators in VSM with an efficiency approach produces
objective values. A sustainable-VSM shows that non-value-added activity still occurs in all
stages, dominantly in material preparation and construction. This result confirms the

Figure 3.
Hierarchy of
indicators for MSI
 Dimension Indicator Score Weight
Dimension
MSI
Indonesian
index
wooden
Economic Time 82,70 0,16 12,98
Cost 60,90 0,24 14,80
furniture
Inventory 77,00 0,28 21,64
industry
Quality 40,00 0,32 12,76
Economic Index 62,18
975
Environment Material Consumption 54,50 0,33 18,15
Energy Consumption 100,00 0,33 33,30
62,53
Waste Recycling 88,00 0,33 29,30
Environment Index 80,75
Social Satisfaction Level 90,00 0,09 8,46
Safety Level 60,00 0,18 10,56
Healthy Level 85,00 0,25 21,00 Figure 4.
Employee Training 10,00 0,48 4,83 The calculation of
Social Index 44,85 MSI

previous research (Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Vinodh et al., 2016; Helleno et al., 2017)
that VSM can evaluate the environmental and societal sustainability performance of a
manufacturing line, not just economic performance. The strength of this research is that the
indicators involved are selected by expert practitioners from related industries and
measured their performance in each process with an efficiency approach. Measuring
relevant indicators in sustainable-VSM will be proportional to the effort spent.
MSI was developed as control tool to monitor the whole manufacturing sustainability
performance. MSI can be controlled periodically after improvements have been made to
indicators that have not been efficient. MSI is used as “reference value” by manager for
continuous improvement in manufacturing sustainability performance. In evaluating and
controlling process, this is important for management to know what action can increase
sustainability performance. The advantage of developing MSI using sustainable-VSM is
that there is a weight of indicators involved in addition to the indicator score. Indicator
weight is the top level, which manages the company. This means that the weight of the
indicator is very likely different for each company. When there are several activities that
must be improved while the funds held are limited, prioritization needs to be made.
Table VIII can indeed be made only by looking at sustainable-VSM. From Figure 4, it is
discovered that MSI is still low. The prominent issue that still occurs is high defect, low
training. Operators who lack competence have a potential to cause defects, to lower the
usability of wooden raw material, and increase the production cost to fulfil the target of
production. On the most critical level, it is the poor performance of manufacture that causes
lateness in fulfilling the order from the customer. With a penalty cost, the poor performance
of manufacture would not only increase the cost but also reduce net profit and goodwill from
the customer.
This result confirms previous research (Huang and Badurdeen, 2018). Based on in-depth
interviews, identification of root causes of non-value-added activity can be known and
recommendations for improvement will be proposed (Table VIII). To implement
recommendation requires a lot of resources. With limited resources, companies must choose
indicators that are priorities for performance improvement. To determine the priority
indicator, not only is it determined by the indicator with a low score (inefficient) but it is also
determined by the weight of the indicator. From Figure 4, we can find out that the indicators
IJLSS Non-added Recommendation for
11,5 Dimension activity Root caused improvement

Economic Time Lead-time of wood material is still a long Government policies to

dimension time with the price of wooden uncontrolled. regulate the stability of the
Setup time and changeover time often timber trade
occurred because the wooden furniture has Specialties products for the
976 much variety of components. Downtime of furniture company to reduce
the machine still long time because the variety of products in each
maintenance management have not company
scheduled 5S, TPM
Inventory Inventory of raw materials is still high Collaboration between
because to anticipate the availability of association of furniture
unstable materials. Timber Supplier is company and association of
monopolized by PERHUTANI* at very wood supplier
volatile prices
Quality Skill operators on machinery that has not Training of machining
been good cause defects in the product. operator
Quality control is done only at the final Total quality control,
stage causes the wood with poor quality to especially in stage of
go into the production preparation material
Environment Material To achieve the sustainability of raw logging at a certain age
dimension consumption materials, ASMINDO invites the Knowledge sharing about
community to grow industrial trees. These good industrial timber
activities foster the private forests as an cultivation in the community
alternative raw material. Wood price of Invite the community to grow
private forests cheaper and more stable but more industrial trees as
the quality is lower. As a result, timber alternative supplier
yield is only about 50%
Energy Energy for wood drying process is still high Using burning of wood waste
consumption for alternative energy.
Comparison between using
electricity and burning wood
waste can be done
Waste The wood waste used is limited to a large Collaboration with craft
recycling dimension. Sawdust has been sold to a third company for utilization of
party as material of compost and bricks. wood waste to reuse and
But the small size of the wood waste is still recycle of wooden waste
untapped. The selling price of wood waste
is still very low
Social Risk of safety Risk of furniture manufacturing process is Training of safety and healthy
dimension still high high. The use of cutting tools, heavy wood in furniture company
weight and limited material handling Ergonomic environment and
equipment are the cause material handling equipment
can reduce risk of safety in
furniture manufacturing
industries (Mirka et al., 2002)
Employee The skill of workers in the machining Allocation budget for training
training process is still low. This led to high product of machining operator.
out of specification, so that the high defect Education and training are the
Table VIII. levels. Top management have not most important component of
Non-value-added considered the importance of training for any change process in an
the performance of the company organization (Gunasekaran
activity in furniture
and Ngai, 2004)
company and
recommendation for Note: *Perum Perhutani is a State-Owned Enterprise in Indonesia that has the duty and authority to carry
improvement out planning, management, business and forest protection in its working area
that need to be corrected immediately are quality indicators in the economic dimension, Indonesian
material consumption indicators on environmental dimensions and HRD training indicators wooden
and safety rates on the social dimension. The priority order is HR training, material
consumption, quality and safety level.
furniture
industry
6. Conclusion
The main goal of this research has developed a framework for evaluating the sustainability
performance of manufacturing process at factory level. The novelty of this research is
977
integrating the Delphi method, sustainable-value stream mapping and AHP becomes a MSI.
The Delphi method is used for the selection of relevant indicators, sustainable-VSM is used
for the assessment of indicators using the efficiency approach and the AHP method is used
to determine the indicator weights. MSI can be controlled periodically after improvements
have been made to indicators that have not been efficient.
This research selected 11 workable indicators for assessing manufacturing sustainability
performance in the furniture industry using the practitioner’s expert as the respondent. This
research has successfully developed an assessment model for furniture sustainability
performance at factory level as a single score called MSI. Most manufacturing industries
need to evaluate sustainability performance of manufacturing process to implement
sustainable manufacturing. The single index enables manufacturing industries to make
decisions considering both productivity and sustainability to accomplish sustainable
manufacturing. Using sustainable-VSM, the source of inefficient activity can be identified
and assists managers in improving sustainability performance. The critic’s indicators are
HR training, material consumption, quality and safety level.

6.1 Theoretical and managerial implications

The basic principle of lean manufacturing is continuous improvement. This study proposed
academics and practitioners a better understanding of refining and measuring specific
indicators for environmental, economic and social aspects at the factory level in a practical
way, especially the wooden-furniture industry. The manufacturers and engineers have a
practical and operational way to understand sustainable manufacturing and apply it to their
shop floors. Thus, manufacturers and engineers will be able to assess and make decisions
considering the continuous improvement to increase manufacturing sustainability
performance.
In terms of its theoretical value, the study complements the previous research pursued in
manufacturing sustainability indicators and lean manufacturing to assess manufacturing
processes at factory level (Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Helleno et al., 2017; Huang and
Badurdeen, 2018). Given the scarcity of previous research on using VSM for sustainability
performance assessment, considering the relevant indicator with the type of industry and
the single score benefits that represent the whole manufacturing performance, it provides
interesting clues for further theoretical work. For example, a framework for evaluating the
sustainability performance of the manufacturing process consists of the relevant indicators
selection and the formulation of MSI. Although this study only uses case studies in wooden-
furniture companies, the methodology developed can be reproduced in other sectors.

6.2 Limitation and future research opportunities

The limitations of the method used in this study are linked to the use of the Delphi method
and the choice of the research group. The Delphi method is not a decision-making tool, it
only assists in a more accurate analysis of the selection of sustainability indicators for
wooden furniture companies. Therefore, a decision regarding the selection of indicators is
IJLSS done with the joint cut-off of WA and LC, which are set subjectively. The group of
11,5 researchers for applying the Delphi method evaluated the indicators based specifically on
this group, but if another group had been chosen, for example, managers from furniture
companies, the results of the WA and LC could have been different. The limitation of the
research is the number of companies for case study. This case study only evaluates
the workability of the model. It is noteworthy that the selected indicators in this research are
978 valid only for evaluating industries belonging to the furniture segment of Indonesian
Furniture Company context. Further studies to apply the proposed methods to more case
studies for different types of manufacturing industries can help further validate and
improve them. Need sensitivity analysis of the most influential indicator. And need to study
at all stages of the product life cycle for a more comprehensive performance assessment.

References
Abreu, M.F., Alves, A.C. and Moreira, F. (2019), “The Lean-Green BOPSE indicator to assess efficiency
and sustainability”, in Alves A., Kahlen F.J., Flumerfelt S. and Siriban-Manalang A. (Eds) Lean
Engineering for Global Development, Springer, Cham.
Abreu, M.F., Alves, A.C. and Moreira, F. (2017), “Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable
production”, Energy, Vol. 137 No. 15, pp. 1-8.
Aguado, S., Alvarez, R. and Domingo, R. (2013), “Model of efficient and sustainable improvements in a
lean production system through processes of environmental innovation”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 47, pp. 141-148.
Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2014), “An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and
sustainable supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 86, pp. 360-377.
Atieh, A.M., Kaylani, H., Almuhtady, A. and Al-Tamimi, O. (2016), “A value stream mapping and
simulation hybrid approach: application to glass industry”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 84, pp. 1573-1586.
Azevedo, S. and Barros, M. (2017), “The application of the triple bottom line approach to sustainability
assessment: the case study of the UK automotive supply chain”, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 286-322.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2012), “Influence of green and lean
upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability”, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 753-765.
Ben Ruben, R., Vinodh, S. and Asokan, P. (2018), “State of art perspectives of lean and sustainable
manufacturing”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, No. 10, pp. 234-256.
Bergmiller, G. and McCright, P. (2009), “Are lean and green programs synergistic”, Proceedings of the
2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, pp. 1-6.
Birkie, S.E., Trucco, P. and Kaulio, M. (2017), “Sustaining performance under operational turbulence: the role of
lean in engineer-to-order operations”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 457-481.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2014), “A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 65, pp. 42-56.
Bortolotti, T., Danese, P., Flynn, B.B. and Romano, P. (2014), “Leveraging fitness and lean bundles to
build the cumulative performance sand cone model”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 162, pp. 227-241.
Boyle, T.A. and Scherrer-Rathje, M. (2009), “An empirical examination of the best practices to ensure
manufacturing flexibility: lean alignment”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 348-366.
Brown, A., Amundson, J. and Badurdeen, F. (2014), “Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM) in
different manufacturing system configurations: application case studies”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 85, pp. 164-179.
Caldera, H.T.S., Desha, C. and Dawes, L. (2017), “Exploring the role of lean thinking in sustainable Indonesian
business practice: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 167,
pp. 1546-1565.
wooden
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K. and Mokhlis, A. (2017), “Barriers in green lean
furniture
implementation: a combined systematic literature review and interpretive structural modelling industry
approach”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 829-842.
Chiarini, A. (2014), “Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific lean production tools:
an empirical observation from European motorcycle component manufacturers”, Journal of 979
Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 226-233.
Chong, A., Cheah, H., Wong, W.P. and Deng, Q. (2012), “Challenges of lean manufacturing
implementation: a hierarchical model”, Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Istanbul, Turkey, (1997), pp. 2091-2099.
Corbett, C.J. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending the horizons: environmental excellence as key to
improving operations”, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Dadashnejad, A.A. and Valmohammadi, C. (2017), “Investigating the effect of value stream mapping on
overall equipment effectiveness: a case study”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 3/4, pp. 1-17.
Dadashzadeh, M.D. and Wharton, T.J. (2012), “A value stream approach for greening the IT
department”, International Journal of Management and Information Systems (IJMIS), Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 125-136.
de Oliveira, F.R., França, S.L.B. and Rangel, L.A.D. (2018) “Challenges and opportunities in a circular
economy for a local productive arrangement of furniture in Brazil”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Elsevier, Vol. 135, pp. 202-209, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.031.
Dornfeld, D., Yuan, C., Diaz-Elsayed, N., Zhang, T. and Vijayaraghavan, A. (2013), Green
Manufacturing, Springer, New York, NY Heidelberg Dordrecht London.
Duarte, S., Cabrita, R. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2011), “Exploring lean and green supply chain
performance using balanced scorecard perspective”, Proceedings of the 2011 International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur.
Duarte, S. and Machado, V.C. (2016), “Green and lean model for business sustainability”, Proceedings of
the Tenth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management,
pp. 1281-1291.
Duarte, S. and Machado, V.C. (2017), “Green and lean implementation: an assessment in the automotive
industry”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 1.
Edtmayr, T., Sunk, A. and Sihn, W. (2016), “An approach to integrate parameters and indicators of
sustainability management into value stream mapping”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 41, pp. 289-294.
Elkington, J. (1994), “Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-Win-Win business strategies for
sustainable development”, California Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 90-100.
Elsayed, N., Jondral, A., Greinacher, S., Dornfeld, D. and Lanza, G. (2013), “Assessment of lean and
green strategies by simulation of manufacturing systems in discrete production environments”,
CIRP Annals – Annals, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 475-478.
Faulkner, W. and Badurdeen, F. (2014), “Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM): methodology to
visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 85, pp. 8-18.
Fearne, A. and Norton, A. (2009), “Sustainable value stream mapping in the food industry”, in Waldron,
K. (Ed.), Handbook of Waste Management and Co-Product Recovery in Food Processing,
Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge.
Feil, A.A., Quevedo, D.M. and Schreiber, D. (2015), “Selection and identification of the indicators for
quickly measuring sustainability in micro and small furniture industries”, Sustainable
Production and Consumption, Vol. 3, pp. 34-44.
IJLSS Feng, S., Joung, C. and Li, G. (2010), “Development overview of sustainable manufacturing
metrics”, in Proceedings of the 17th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle
11,5 Engineering, pp. 6-12.
Fercoq, A., Lamouri, S. and Carbone, V. (2016), “Lean/green integration focused on waste reduction
techniques”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 137, pp. 567-578.
Folinas, D.K., Aidonis, D. and Karayannakidis, P. (2015), “Greening the canned peach production”,
980 Journal of Agricultural Informatics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 24-39.
Folinas, D., Aidonis, D., Malindretos, G., Voulgarakis, N. and Triantafillou, D. (2014), “Greening the
agrifood supply chain with lean thinking practices”, International Journal of Agricultural
Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 129.
Fullerton, R.R., Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K. (2014), “Lean manufacturing and firm performance:
the incremental contribution of lean management accounting practices”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 414-428.
Fullerton, R.R. and Wempe, W.F. (2009), “Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures,
and financial performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 214-240.
Gabiati, J., Deimling, M.F. and Barichello, R. (2014), “Performance indicators: a study on the Western
Santa Catarina furniture sector”, International Administration Conference.
Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2015), “Lean and green – a systematic review of the state of the art literature”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 102, pp. 18-29.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Torres Romero, J., Govindan, K., Cherrafi, A. and Ramanathan, U. (2018), “A PDCA-
based approach to environmental value stream mapping (E-VSM)”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 180, pp. 335-348.
Ghosh, M. (2013), “Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 113-122.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V. and Rodon, J. (2012), “Sustainable operations: their impact on the triple bottom
line”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 149-159.
Glover, W.J., Farris, J.A., Van Aken, E.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2011), “Critical success factors for the
sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: an empirical study”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 197-213.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E. (2004), “Information systems in supply chain integration and
management”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 159 No. 2, pp. 269-295.
Gupta, S. and Kumar, V. (2013), “Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for superior
performance”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 311-320.
Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), “Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and
performance outcomes”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-999.
Hartini, S. and Ciptomulyono, U. (2015), “The relationship between lean and sustainable manufacturing
on performance: literature review”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 4, pp. 38 -45.
Hartini, S., Ciptomulyono, U. and Anityasari, M. (2017), “Extended value stream mapping to enhance
sustainability: a literature review”, 3rd International Materials, Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering Conference (MIMEC2017), AIP Publishing, Vol. 1902.
Hartini, S., Ciptomulyono, U. and Anityasari, M. (2019), “Life cycle – value stream mapping: evaluating
sustainability using lean manufacturing tools in the life cycle perspective”, AIP Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 2114 No. 030024, pp. 1-8.
Helleno, A.L., de Moraes, A.J.I. and Simon, A.T. (2017), “Integrating sustainability indicators and lean
manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: application case studies in Brazilian
industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 153, pp. 405-416.
Huang, A. and Badurdeen, F. (2018), “Metrics-based approach to evaluate sustainable Indonesian
manufacturing performance at the production line and plant levels”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 192.
wooden
Hunt, L. (2013), “Business improvement sustainability frameworks and indicators: literature review”,
furniture
The NZ Sustainability Dashboard Research Report, ARGOS, available at: www.nzdashboard. industry
org.nz
IChemE (2002), “The sustainability metrics: sustainable sevelopment progress metrics recommended
for use in the process industries”. 981
Ilgin, M.A. and Gupta, S.M. (2010), “Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery
(ECMPRO): a review of the state of the art”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91
No. 3, pp. 563-591.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006), ISO 14044 – Environmental Management
– Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidance, ISO, Geneva.
Jasti, N. and Kodali, R. (2014), “Validity and reliability of lean product development frameworks
in Indian manufacturing industry”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 27-53.
Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Dillon, O.W. and Jawahir, I.S. (2010), “Sustainable manufacturing: modeling
and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels”, CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 144-152.
Jiang, P., Yi-Chung, H. and Yen, G. (2018), “Industry using grey decision-making green supplier
selection for sustainable development of the automotive industry using grey decision - making”,
Sustainable Development, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1-8.
Kang, D. and Lee, D.H. (2016), “Energy and environment efficiency of industry and its productivity
effect”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 184-193.
Keskin, C., Asan, U. and Kayakutlu, G. (2013), “Value stream maps for industrial energy efficiency”, in
Cavallaro, F. (Ed.), Assessment and Simulation Tools for Sustainable Energy Systems, Green
Energy and Technology, Springer, pp. 357-379.
King, A. A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001), “Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between lean production and environmental performance”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-256.
Kuriger, G.W. and Chen, F.F. (2010), “Lean and green: a current state view”, Proceedings of the 2010
Industrial Engineering Research Conference.
Lee, J.Y., Kang, H.S. and Do Noh, S. (2012), “Simulation-based analysis for sustainability of
manufacturing system”, International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,
Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 1221-1230.
Lee, J.Y., Kang, H.S. and Noh, S.D. (2014), “MAS2: an integrated modeling and simulation-based life
cycle evaluation approach for sustainable manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 66, pp. 146-163.
Li, H., Cao, H. and Pan, X. (2012), “A carbon emission analysis model for electronics manufacturing
process based on value-stream mapping and sensitivity analysis”, International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1102-1110.
Lim, S.R. and Park, J.M. (2009), “Environmental indicators for communication of life cycle impact
assessment results and their applications”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90
No. 11, pp. 3305-3312.
Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (2002), The Delphi Method – Technique and Applications, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Losonci, D. and Demeter, K. (2013), “Lean production and business performance: international empirical
results”, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 218-233.
IJLSS Lourenço, E.J., Baptista, A.J., Pereira, J.P. and Dias-Ferreira, C. (2013), “Multi-Layer stream mapping as
a combined approach for industrial processes eco-efficiency assessment”, 20th CIRP
11,5 International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering. Singapore.
Lu, T., Gupta, A., Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Feng, S.C., Dillon, O.W. and Jawahir, I.S. (2011), “A
framework of product and process metrics for sustainable manufacturing”, Advances in
Sustainable Manufacturing, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 333-338.
Meyer, J.P. and Tett, R.P. (1993) “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and
982 turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytical findings”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 259-293.
Miller, G. (2001), “The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi survey of
tourism researchers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 351-362.
Miller, G., Pawloski, J. and Standridge, C.R. (2010), “A case study of lean, sustainable manufacturing”,
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 11-32.
Mirka, G.A., Smith, C., Shivers, C. and Taylor, J. (2002), “Ergonomic interventions for the furniture
manufacturing industry. Part I F lift assist devices”, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 263-273.
Moldavska, A. and Welo, T. (2019), “A holistic approach to corporate sustainability assessment:
incorporating sustainable development goals into sustainable manufacturing performance
evaluation”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 50, pp. 53-68.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean, and global supply chains”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 1/2, pp. 14-41.
Morioka, S.N. and Carvalho, M.M. (2016), “Measuring sustainability in practice: exploring the inclusion
of sustainability into corporate performance systems in Brazilian case studies”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 136, pp. 123-133.
Müller, E., Stock, T. and Schillig, R. (2013), “Dual energy signatures enable energy value-Stream
mapping”, in Azevedo, A. (Ed.), Advances in Sustainable and Competitive Manufacturing
Systems, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 1603-1611.
Muñoz-Villamizar, A., Santos, J., Garcia-Sabater, J.J., Lleo, A. and Grau, P. (2019), “Green value stream
mapping approach to improving productivity and environmental performance”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 608-625.
Nadeem, S.P., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Leung, S., Cherra, A., Anosike, A.I. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Lean
manufacturing and environmental performance – exploring the impact and relationship”, IFIP
International Federation for Information Processing 2017, Vol. 514, pp. 331-340.
Neely, A., Platts, K., Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (2005), “Performance measurement system
design: a literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1228-1263.
Ng, R., Low, J.S.C. and Song, B. (2015), “Integrating and implementing lean and green practices based on
proposition of carbon-Value efficiency metric”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 95, pp. 242-255.
Niranjali de Silva, I.S., Dillon, O., Jr and Russell, M. (2009), “A new comprehensive methodology for the
evaluation of product sustainability at the design and development stage of consumer electronic
products”, 13th CIRP International Conference On LIife Cycle Engineering, pp. 335-340.
Norton, A. and Fearne, A. (2007), Sustainable Value Stream Mapping: A Practical Aid to Sustainable
Production.
Norton, A. and Fearne, A. (2009), “Sustainable value stream mapping: a tool for process change and
waste reduction”, in Waldron, K. (Ed.) Handbook of Waste Management and Co-Product
Recovery in Food Processing, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge.
Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) (2018), BS OHSAS 18002:2008 –
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems. Guidelines for the Implementation of
OHSAS 18001:2007.
Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004), “The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design Indonesian
considerations and applications 1 introduction 2 overview of the Delphi method”, Information
and Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 15-29. wooden
Paju, M., Heilala, J., Hentula, M., Heikkila, A. and Johansson, B. (2010), “Framework and indicator for a furniture
sustainable manufacturing mapping methodology”, Proceeding of the 2010 Winter Simulation industry
Conference, pp. 3411-3422.
Pampanelli, A.B., Brazil, D. and Silveira, J. (2011), “A lean and green kaizen model”, POMS 21st Annual
Conference, Reno, 2011, pp. 20-31. 983
Pampanelli, A.B., Found, P. and Bernardes, A.M. (2014), “A lean and green model for a production cell”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 19-30.
Piercy, N. and Rich, N. (2015), “Article information: the relationship between lean operations and
sustainable operations”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 282-315.
Prashar, A. (2014), “Redesigning an assembly line through Lean-Kaizen: an Indian case”, The Tqm
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, p. 475.
Pusavec, F., Krajnik, P. and Kopac, J. (2010), “Transitioning to sustainable production - part I: application
on machining technologies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 174-184.
Ratnayake, R.M.C. and Chaudry, O. (2017) “Maintaining sustainable performance in operating
petroleum assets via a Lean-Six-Sigma approach: a case study from engineering support
services”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 33-52, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-11-
2015-0042.
Reyes, G., Brown, S., Chapman, J. and Lugo, A. (1992), “Wood density of tropical tree species”, General
Technical Report SO-88, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, New Orleans,
Lousiana.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1999), Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and Eliminate
Muda, Lean Enterprise Institute Brookline.
Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999) “The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis”,
International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 353-375, doi: 10.1016/s0169-2070(99)
00019-9.
Sahoo, S. and Yadav, S. (2018), “Lean production practices and bundles: a comparative analysis”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 374-398.
Sarkar, P., Joung, C.B., Carrell, J. and Feng, S.C. (2011) “Sustainable manufacturing indicator
repository”, Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Asme, Washington, DC.
Satolo, E.G., de Souza Hiraga, L.E., Goes, G.A. and Lourenzani, W.L. (2017), “Article information: lean
production in agribusiness organizations: multiple case studies in a developing country”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 3.
Sawhney, R., Teparakul, P., Bagchi, A. and Li, X. (2007), “En-Lean: a framework to align lean and green
manufacturing in the metal cutting supply chain”, International Journal of Enterprise Network
Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, p. 238.
Searcy, C. (2012), “Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: a review and research
agenda”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 239-253.
Seth, D., Seth, N. and Dhariwal, P. (2017), “Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for lean and
cycle time reduction in complex production environments: a case study”, Production Planning
and Control, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 398-419.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Simons, D. and Mason, R. (2003), “Firms are under pressure to prove their environmental
credentials. Now a win-win way of weaving ‘green’ considerations into business decisions
IJLSS is emerging lean and green: ‘doing more with less”, International Commerce Review,
pp. 84-91.
11,5
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2011), “Value stream mapping: literature review and
implications for Indian industry”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 53 Nos 5/8, pp. 799-809.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K. and Dikshit, A.K. (2012), “An overview of sustainability
984 assessment methodologies”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 281-299.
Sisson, J. and Elshennawy, A. (2015), “Achieving success with lean: an analysis of key factors in lean
transformation at Toyota and beyond”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 263-280.
Sparks, D.T. (2014), Combining Sustainable Value Stream Mapping and Simulation to Asses
Manufacturing Supply Chain Network Performance, University of KY.
Thanki, S., Govindan, K. and Thakkar, J. (2016), “An investigation on lean-green implementation
practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 284-298.
Torielli, R.M., Abrahams, R.A., Smillie, R.W. and Voigt, R.C. (2011), “Using lean methodologies
for economically and environmentally sustainable foundries”, China Foundry, Vol. 8
No. 1.
Torres, A.S. and Gati, A.M. (2009), “Environmental value stream mapping (EVSM) as sustainability
management tool”, PIET ‘09 – 2009 Portland International Conference on Management of
Engineering and Technology, August 2-6, 1689–1698.
US EPA (2007), The Lean and Environment Toolkit United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E. and Remita, H. (2014), “Combining organizational performance with
sustainable development issues: the lean and green project benchmarking repository”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 83-93.
Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R. and Somanaathan, M. (2010) “Application of value stream mapping in an
Indian camshaft manufacturing organization”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 888-900.
Vinodh, S., Ruben, R.B. and Asokan, P. (2016), “Life cycle assessment integrated value stream mapping
framework to ensure sustainable manufacturing: a case study”, Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, Vol. 18 No. 1.
Vinodh, S., Selvaraj, T., Chintha, S.K. and Vimal, K.E.K. (2015), “Development of value stream map for
an Indian automotive components manufacturing organization”, Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 380-399.
Yang, M.G., (Mark), Hong, P. and Modi, S.B. (2011), “Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 251-261.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Gunasekaran, A., Musa, A., El-Berishy, N.M., Abubakar, T. and Ambursa, H.M. (2013),
“The UK oil and gas supply chains: an empirical analysis of adoption of sustainable measures
and performance outcomes”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 146 No. 2,
pp. 501-514.
Zhan, Y., Hua, K., Ji, G., Chung, L. and Chiu, A.S.F. (2016), “Green and lean sustainable development
path in China: Guanxi, practices and performance”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 128.
Further reading
Li, W., Thiede, S., Kara, S. and Herrmann, C. (2017), “A generic Sankey tool for evaluating energy value
stream in manufacturing systems”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 61, pp. 475-480.
About the authors Indonesian
Sri Hartini is an Associate Professor and a Lecturer in the Department of Industrial Engineering, wooden
Diponegoro University. She received Master Degrees in Industrial Engineering from Bandung
Institute of Technology. Her research interests include lean manufacturing, sustainable furniture
manufacturing sustainable product design and supply chain management. Sri Hartini is the industry
corresponding author and can be contacted at: ninikhidayat@yahoo.com
Udisubakti Ciptomulyono is a Professor and a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Industrial
Engineering, Institute of Technology Sepuluh November-Surabaya (ITS) Indonesia. He passed his 985
Master Degree of Engineering Management and Development Technology in The University of
Melbourne-Australia (1991) and holds a Doctoral degree in Facultet des Sciences et Techniques de
Saint Jerome-MarseilleFrance (2000). To date, Udisubakti has teaching responsibility for Graduate
and Doctoral student Program in many Departments of ITS, courses taught: Multiple Criteria
Decision Making, System Modelling and Analysis, Management of Technology, Sustainable
Manufacturing and Environmental Management.
Maria Anityasari is an Associate Professor and a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Industrial
Engineering Institute of Technology Sepuluh November-Surabaya (ITS) Indonesia. Her research
interest includes in socio engineering, green and sustainability practices, management of change,
system design and risk management. He passed her Master and PhD from UNSW Sydney, Australia.
Her current research focuses on sustainable manufacturing and sustainable oriented communities.
Sriyanto is an Associate Professor and a Lecturer in the Department of Industrial Engineering,
Diponegoro University. She received Master Degrees in Industrial Engineering from Bandung
Institute of Technology. His research interests include lean manufacturing, sustainable
manufacturing, Information System, and Supply Chain Management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com