The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM
22,8 Sustainable supply chain for
collaborative manufacturing
Swee Siong Kuik, Sev Verl Nagalingam and Yousef Amer
984 School of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering,
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Received March 2011
Revised April 2011 Abstract
Accepted May 2011 Purpose – Owing to the manufacturing trend of stringent product disposal regulations, a new
business scenario, which requires an alternative disposal option on consumer products and further
product recovery operations, is increasingly important for promoting sustainable supply chain
performance. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use to post-use stage of the product lifecycle,
that may have significant potential for increasing product utilisation value and reducing product
disposal to landfills.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper proposes a re-classification of the 6R (reduce, recover,
redesign, reuse, recycle, remanufacturing) methodology for rectifying waste minimisation along a
supply chain, to increase product utilisation at the post-use stage.
Findings – Intensive study of 6R considerations to improve end-of-life planning and strategy and
extend of product lifecycle management is lacking. None of the existing supply chain frameworks
clearly illustrates the aspects of 6R perspectives for the use to post-use stage.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitation is that this study only focuses on
6R perspective for achieving waste minimisation along a supply chain. There is a need to explore
various practical issues of the implementation, including the establishment of specific performance
metrics for various manufacturing industries to assess organisational performance.
Practical implications – This proposed sustainable supply chain for collaborative manufacturing
may provide a very useful source of what needs to be implemented and achieved to meet the
requirements of sustainability, which is the current and future trend of manufacturing.
Originality/value – This paper provides some of the insights into holistic aspects of 6R perspective
to increase product utilisation value between use and post-use stages.
Keywords Supply chain management, Waste minimization, Returns, Product returns,
Product recovery, Sustainability in manufacturing, Sustainable supply chain
Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management
Vol. 22 No. 8, 2011
pp. 984-1001
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410381111177449
1. Introduction
Environmental issues are becoming the main concerns of many global supply chain
practitioners in today’s world (Kuik et al., 2010a). Further, there are a number of on-going
product disposal regulations that have been introduced in recent years such as waste
electrical, electronic and equipment, restriction of hazardous substances, end-of-life
vehicles and energy using product directives in promoting cleaner production
(Gladwin et al., 1995; Gottberg et al., 2006; Fortes, 2009). In the past, the classical
framework for supply chain management considers conventional material flows from
pre-manufacturing to use stages along the supply chain towards consumers or
end-users. It excludes some additional post-use operation and management such as
environmental conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO) (Gungor and
Gupta, 1999; Gupta and Lambert, 2008; Ilgin and Gupta, 2010), reverse logistics
(Carter and Ellram, 1998; Setaputra and Mukhopadhyay, 2010; Fleischmann et al., 1997),
green supply chains (Srivastava, 2007; Fortes, 2009), remanufacturing strategy
(Ferrer and Clay Whybark, 2001), end-of-life product management (Badurdeen et al., Sustainable
2009; Jayal et al., 2010), sustainable supply chain (Seuring and Muller, 2008) and others supply chain
(Kuik et al., 2011a). Not only that the implementation cost that is needed to rectify any
environmental issue, also plays a major part for managerial decisions and
considerations in selecting an implementation strategy.
In view of these environmental considerations in a global supply chain, the
definition of supply chain management by Lambert and Cooper (2000), as “the 985
integration of key business processes from end-user through original suppliers that
provides products, services and information that add value for customers and other
stakeholders” may not reflect satisfactorily on the current practices of a supply chain.
Recent studies by Linton et al. (2007), Carter and Rogers (2008), Kaynak and Montiel
(2009) and Sharma et al. (2010) emphasised that sustainable supply chain development
in terms of social, economic and environmental benefits should be taken into
consideration in supply chain practices. More specifically, supply chain management is
defined as the integration of the social, economic and environmental aspects within a
global supply chain that provide sustainable product, excellent services and accurate
information sharing may be beneficial to all employees, shareholders, business
partners and the wider community at large.

1.1 Sustainable development

The term sustainability, as mentioned in this paper is not a monolithic research agenda
but refers to the huge number of areas of the end-of-life planning and strategy to extend
the product lifecycle along a supply chain for increasing product utilisation value.
Further, the significant aspects of the collaborative manufacturing are dealing with
exchanging communication and information, aligning activities among entities for
efficient and effective results, sharing resource for achieving mutual agreement in terms
of compatible goals and achieving joint identities of resources, risk, competence,
responsibility, loss and rewards (Camarinha-Matos et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2009). As such
these manufacturing associated activities are generally categorised into various aspects
of manufacturing practices as summarised in Table I. This table shows a comparison
between conventional and sustainable manufacturing practices in terms of its
implementation, scope of these practices and operational costs. At this stage, these
associated practices are not differentiated well such as product returns and recovery
operations. Many researchers criticise that trade-off considerations among
environmental and economic dimensions plays a significant role in the decision
making process for achieving sustainability in supply chain (Kuik et al., 2011a, b). For
simplicity, Table I summarises a generalised list of the primary aspects of
manufacturing practices either a conventional approach or sustainable approach.
This helps in understanding an overview of sustainable development associated with
collaborative manufacturing along a supply chain, which is in regards of inter- or
intra-organisational activities.

1.2 Research motivation

In today’s highly competitive business world, a supply chain consists of complicated
global networks that constitute the organisation’s dependent or independent business
units to coordinate collaborative manufacturing activities in achieving a mutual
agreement. Growing interest in sustainability along a supply chain by customers,
 22,8

986

Table I.
JMTM

Comparison of
conventional and
sustainable practices
Aspects Conventional Sustainable

Forecast and demand Relatively simple and straight forward (Chopra and Meindl, More complex due to unexpected quantities received from
activities 2010; Cooper et al., 1997) product returns (Vachon and Klassen, 2008; Dias-Sardinha
and Reijnders, 2001; Kumar and Malegeant, 2006)
Logistics and Transport from one point to many points (Chopra and Transport from many to one point such as collection of
transportation activities Meindl, 2010; Cooper et al., 1997; Butner, 2010; Lambert, 2008) recyclable, remanufacturable and reusable products
(Jayal et al., 2010; Linton et al., 2002, 2007; Vachon, 2007;
Vachon and Klassen, 2008)
Product quality and Uniform and consistent (Bolstorff and Rosenbaum, 2003; Varies and inconsistent for example where recycled material
packaging Butner, 2010; Lambert, 2008) is used, extra effort is required to maintain quality ( Jayal et al.,
2010; Badurdeen et al., 2009; Beamon, 1999)
Disposition and end of life Clear and understandable (Chopra and Meindl, 2010; Case by case basis, significant effort is required to establish
Lambert, 2004, 2008; Butner, 2010; Lambert and Cooper, 2000; 6R incorporation within operational processes ( Jayal et al.,
Lambert et al., 1998) 2010; Linton et al., 2002, 2007)
Product lifecycle spectrum Easy to manage (Butner, 2010; Lambert, 2004, 2008; Lambert Involves effort to manage multiple lifecycle spectrum
and Cooper, 2000; Lambert et al., 1998) (Jayal et al., 2010; Linton et al., 2007; Vachon, 2007; Vachon
and Klassen, 2006, 2008)
Corporate negotiation Straightforward and simple (Butner, 2010; Lambert, 2004, Complicated and difficult ( Jayal et al., 2010; Linton et al.,
2008; Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Lambert et al., 1998) 2007; Vachon, 2007; Vachon and Klassen, 2006, 2008)
Visibility of operating More transparent (Chopra and Meindl, 2010; Cooper et al., Less transparent due to uncertainty of product returns as
costs 1997; Butner, 2010; Lambert, 2008) product conditions may vary ( Jayal et al., 2010; Linton et al.,
2002, 2007; Vachon, 2007; Vachon and Klassen, 2008)
Production planning Easy and clear (Chopra and Meindl, 2010; Cooper et al., 1997; Negotiable and complicated due to uncertainty of product
Butner, 2010; Lambert, 2008) returns or recovery ( Jayal et al., 2010; Linton et al., 2002, 2007;
Vachon, 2007; Vachon and Klassen, 2008)
Inventory management Consistent and uniform (Chopra and Meindl, 2010; Inconsistent and case by case basis if considering 6R
Cooper et al., 1997; Butner, 2010; Lambert, 2008) incorporated strategy ( Jayal et al., 2010; Linton et al., 2002,
2007)
Environmental concerns Easy to manage; achieve minimal benefits (Chopra and Difficult to manage; achieve global benefits (Jayal et al., 2010;
Meindl, 2010; Cooper et al., 1997) Linton et al., 2002, 2007; Vachon, 2007; Vachon and Klassen,
2008)
businesses and governments, and wider community awareness is driving many Sustainable
sectors of manufacturing industries to undertake a strategy of the environmental supply chain
conscious manufacturing on design and product recovery. As a result of these external
pressures and drivers towards sustainable development initiatives, the industry
practitioners have been struggled to establish strategic plan in minimising product
disposal to landfills.
The intent of this study is to propose a conceptual framework to illustrate the 987
sustainable practices along a supply chain including the post-use operations and
management. First, the paper focuses on generic supply chain frameworks such as
supply chain operations reference (SCOR), Global Supply Chain Forum (GSCF)
framework and some integrated frameworks that are being used by many industry
practitioners. To contribute to the development of the sustainable supply chain, this
paper also proposes a more detailed analysis for minimising disposable costs that
emphasises specifically on 6R perspective in the supply chain. A process model of
sustainable supply chain is further developed to address some practical limitations of
current practices for process improvement and product design development levels.
Second, this study is aimed at answering the following specific questions:
.
What are the distinct characteristics of the supply chain frameworks that have
been commonly used by many practitioners in industry?
.
What are the limitations and drawbacks for the current practices in a supply
chain?
.
How the proposed sustainable supply chain management framework for
collaborative manufacturing will meet the practical limitations and drawbacks in
a supply chain?
.
What are the practical implications and research limitations of this proposed
framework?

2. Literature review
In a recent study, Setaputra and Mukhopadhyay (2010) categorised sustainable
development of the reverse logistics into a few research areas including recycle,
remanufacture, reuse, returns policy, outsourcing and others (i.e. dealing with various
aspects of the reverse logistics). Ilgin and Gupta (2010) reviewed over 540 published
papers that were focused on ECMPRO related research and a holistic view of ECMPRO
was presented by considering elements of product design, reverse or closed loop supply
chains, remanufacturing and disassembly. This review shows that there is still a need to
establish environmental conscious product design methodologies in order to achieve
integrated design of product and process. A recent study of remanufacturing within the
context of automotive industries by Subramoniam et al. (2009) concluded that for the
implementation of sustainable development, manufacturers have to satisfy customer
demand, promote less raw materials usage within operational processes, reduce energy
for raw material extraction and processing and encourage use of low-energy
consumption for machinery and equipments.
By reviewing Fortes’s study (1982 and 2007), it is evident that Fortes (2009) proposed to
have an intensive qualitative study on various stakeholder’s opinion towards greening a
supply chain. Seuring and Muller (2008) classified some literature between 1994 and 2007
and showed that a number of published research papers on environmental related issues
JMTM is still dominant within sustainability research community. Srivastava (2007) strongly
22,8 recommended that more research is required on inter- or intra-organisational activities of
best practices, advanced technology transfer or improvement and environmental
performance measurement. However, environmental and economic dimensions for
sustainability, although require trade-off considerations, help form an initial awareness
for those intending to improve supply chain performance.
988 Generally, sustainable practices along a supply chain include the post-use stage
within multiple product lifecycle spectrums, whereas conventional practice along a
supply chain excludes post-use operations. Both Lambert (2003) and Fleischmann et al.
(1997) stated that one of the critical issues for implementing end-of-life strategy within
the post-use stage is basically dealing with the uncertainty in product returns and
recovery operations. Guide (2000) summarised seven primary characteristics of these
uncertainties such as uncertainty of timing and quality returns, the need to balance
returns and demand management, the inability to disassemble returned products,
complication of material matching restriction and stochastic routings for material flow
and highly uncertainty of processing time. Furthermore, there is a weak correlation
between supply rates of those returned product and demand of processing product in
production planning strategy to tackle this product returns issue.
In addition, Zhang et al. (1997) reviewed some literature on environmental conscious
design and manufacturing and proposed a hierarchical approach for environmental
conscious manufacturing strategy including post-use processes (i.e. reuse,
remanufacture, recycle and disposal) and design factors or constraints (i.e. time,
cost, material, energy and modularity).
These sustainability interests and development have created a need for establishing
a waste minimisation strategy to meet current manufacturing trend. Further, there are
also business added values and benefits for the implementation of sustainability in
manufacturing along a supply chain (Stuart et al., 2005). However, this research scope
is still in a budding stage and has a wider boundary in terms of its definitions and
research agenda.

2.1 Essential characteristics of supply chain frameworks

Current practice in supply chain management utilises two generic supply chain
management frameworks. There are: GSCF (Lambert, 2004; Lambert and Cooper, 2000)
and SCOR (SCC, 2008) frameworks. Nevertheless, the nature of these frameworks are
diverse in terms of their centric focus, supply chain strategy, scope of organisational
activities, value creation in a supply chain and collaboration in a global partnership
(Lambert et al., 1998; Lambert and Pohlen, 2001). The following brief discussion is to
explicitly highlight the limitations and practical issues of current generic supply chain
management frameworks and classify them into six distinct characteristics as shown
in Table II.
Both frameworks are considered the most widely used approaches by many supply
chain practitioners. Despite these generic frameworks, there are numerous integrated
supply chain management frameworks found in literature, such as collaborative
supply chain management framework by Udin et al. (2006), collaborative partnership
framework by Nagalingam and Fretes (2009) and integrative framework for supply
chain collaboration by Simatupang and Sridharan (2005). These frameworks still
remain as standalone approaches by evaluating a specific view of the value chain,

Characteristic SCOR
Centric focus Achieve transactional and
operational improvement
Supply chain strategy More focused on the operational
strategy based on benchmarking
analysis for developing the
organisational goals
Value creation Align with operational strategy if
low intra-operational efficiency
Scope of organisational More focused on customer-oriented
activities approach by considering the
interaction of customer’s order and
demand fulfilment only
Sustainability A strong linkage between various
emissions and the originating
processes
Collaborative in a global Emphasise on intra-organisational
partnership activities within logistics,
production and purchasing
functional units for mutual
agreement of decision
synchronisation
Source: Kuik et al. (2010a)
Sustainable
GSCF
supply chain
Achieve corporate long-term
improvement
Aligned corporate and functional
strategies to develop organisational
activities 989
Align with corporate strategy if
high intra-organisational efficiency
Cross-functional integration of
business processes that describe
every business activities
The development of avoidance,
gate-keeping and disposition
guideline for improving returns
management
Emphasis on customer and supplier
relationship for mutual agreement
of decision synchronisation and
streamline inter-company business
processes Table II.
Essential characteristics
of supply chain
framework

customer driven demand or managing a limited scope of internal or external business

process interfaces (Kuik et al., 2010a).
For example, a standalone conceptual model by Simatupang and Sridharan (2002)
related to the collaboration in supply chains proposed four key elements to achieve an
efficient supply chain management. They considered performance systems for
information sharing, decision synchronisation, incentive alignment and streamlined
inter-company business processes. These considerations may not sufficiently reflect
current global supply chains through collaborative manufacturing activities for
improving post-use operation and management (Kuik et al., 2011a, b). To a certain
extent, there is still a lack of a system-wide approach for sustainable supply chains that
is related to post-use operations and management.

2.2 Practical limitations in current practices of a supply chain

Through the preliminary review of the available literature above, it was found out that
there is limited focus on sustainable practices along a supply chain based on the 6R
perspective. A summary of the practical limitations in a supply chain is as follows
(Kuik et al., 2011a, b):
.
There is often a lack of system-wide and integrated approach (known as 6R
approach) for achieving sustainable manufacturing and to convince global
practitioners to utilise this 6R concept throughout organisation.
. Practitioners focus on process improvement for normal mass production and
ignore other operational processes such as low volume product returns or
recovery to increase product utilisation value at the post-use stage.
JMTM In order to fill these voids in current supply chain management research, a framework
22,8 of sustainable supply chain for collaborative manufacturing is suggested by
incorporating 3R’s process improvement level (reuse, recycle and remanufacturing)
and 3R’s product design level (reduce, recover and redesign) across organisational
activities. Upon end-of-life of product utilisation within the use stage, a strategy of
further improving product utilisation need to be considered to extend product lifecycles
990 in order to significantly reduce product disposal levels. Figure 1 shows a scenario of
physical product utilisation values that are represented across pre-manufacturing,
manufacturing, use and post-use stages of product lifecycle management. Table III
shows a detailed discussion on waste minimisation strategy of a combination for 3R’s
process improvement and 3R’s product design levels.
Conventional product lifecycle management aims to improve operational processes
within its organisational activities and meet the demand management through key
customer and supplier relationship management as proposed by Lambert (2004). This
strategy is often less focussed on the post-use’s opportunity of the product recovery in the
later stage. A classification of 6R waste minimisation for product lifecycle management
is suggested to be aligned with manufacturing strategy by categorising product
development level and process-wide improvement for the use and post-use stages and to
increase product utilisation value.

3. Conceptual framework
The development of sustainability for research is to target the transformation of global
organisations into sustainable enterprises to balance environmental and economic
aspects within the managerial decision-making purview. This new challenging
environmental solution is highly regarded as a tough transformation due to potential
3R's Product Design + 3R
Process Improvement
3R's Process Improvement
3R's Product Design
Product Utilisation value ($)

Reduce Recover Redesign

3R's Process Improvement

re
g

Use Re- ufactu

rin

man
tu

le
ac

Reuse cyc
uf

Re
an

Use
M

g l Disp
rin osa osal
ctu Disp
e- fa Dispo
Pr anu sal Disposal
m
Post-Use

Figure 1.
Classical product lifecycle Extended product Multiple lifecycle
Product utilisation
management management
by 6R methodology
Product Lifecycle Stages

6R incorporation
1R: reduce resource utilisation
2R: recyclability of returned
product
3R: reusability of returned product Utilise usable condition of equipments, in-process packaging, etc.
4R: recoverability of returned
product for further processing
5R: remanufactureability of
returned products as usable
product
6R: redesign future post-use
processes as usable products
Sources: Kuik et al. (2011a, b)
Sustainable
Description
supply chain
Implementation of improved advanced technology and method
by use of less materials or energy efficiency methods within
product and process level and aiming for less by product waste
during operations. For example, yearly budget plan for
developing new advanced technology and financial stability for 991
development (high growth rate), implementation successful rate
for new technology or method
Always seek an opportunity for increasing usage of recyclable
materials when designing new products and processes. These
designs should not affect the functional capability of the
utilisation of returned products For example, recovery rate (i.e.
first use and subsequent use on within post-use processes),
transportation efficiency, usage demand vs consumption plan,
negotiation opportunity for product recovery (i.e. increase
recyclability rate with less virgin materials upon agreement from
customers, etc.), disposal options, quality performance, durability
or upgradeability
or always seek for any secondary market opportunity for product
having reused components (e.g. consider reusable products in
developing countries) or by-product waste that has reuse
potential and option for other industries. For example, number of
parts or component available for reuse, secondary market
opportunity for by-product waste such as solid, liquid and gas,
packaging materials
Always seek for any opportunity to utilise components/products
for further processing or incorporate in the system design after
use stage. For example, recovery rate (i.e. first use and so on
within post-use processes); transportation efficiency, usage
demand vs consumption plan, negotiation opportunity for
product recovery (i.e. increase recyclability rate with less virgin
materials upon agreement from customers, etc.), disposal options,
quality performance, durability or upgradeability
Additional involvement on reprocessing or refurbish/repair of
returned products or components to conserve its original identity
or preferably rebuild with most reused components or parts for
this operational approach after use or post-use stage. For
example, number of parts/components available for
remanufacture, secondary market opportunity for refurbished or
repaired product/component
Implementation of advanced technology and methods by
incorporating 3R’s process improvement levels as a foundation
for redesigning any product or component to extend its usage
lifecycle (less energy/resource usage, modular design for easy
recycling, reuse and remanufacture, unique identity to the
returned product, etc.). For example, development of future post-
use processes (i.e. modular design (e.g. per cent of change against
previous design), reduction on hazardous materials (e.g. per cent
of reduction on usage), ease for installation and mobility, etc.) Table III.
Waste minimisation
by 6R
JMTM problems such as unexpected product returns or related recovery and governmental
22,8 legislations on environmental compliance. Furthermore, this transformation also forces
global organisations to change their mindset on products, technologies, processes and
business models to move forward. In this section, a framework of sustainable supply
chain management for collaborative manufacturing is discussed.

992 3.1 Building an integrated sustainable supply chain framework

The proposed sustainable supply chain framework consists of three main components
as shown in Figure 2:
(1) manufacturing management (i.e. source, make, distribute and control);
(2) collaborative management; and
(3) sustainable management.

Since inter-relationship among participating companies is considered as a critical

success factor in achieving an improved sustainable supply chain for collaborative
manufacturing, an inter-relationship linkage is proposed. Apart from this linkage,
consideration of sustainable supply chain development, which is associated with
economic and environmental benefits, also poses a challenge for collaborative
manufacturing activities in a global network. However, top management involvement
and their vision play a significant role in reshaping an organisation’s belief and
orientation in achieving a strong foundation of trust, commitment, interdependency,
organisational strategy and reducing conflicts in reaching agreements among
collaborative partners in a collaborative environment.
The Company A as shown in Figure 2 is considered as a focal company. This focal
company can be treated as a “mainstream producer” interacting with two other companies
B and C in order to produce a complete product to the end-user. In reality, there are many
companies in a partnership network who work together towards mutual objectives

Global Supply Chain for Collaborative Manufacturing

Collaborative Inter- Collaborative Inter- Collaborative

Management relationship Management relationship Management

Source Make Distribute Source Make Distribute Source Make Distribute

Control Control Control

Sustainable Inter- Sustainable Inter- Sustainable

Management relationship Management relationship Management
Figure 2.
A framework of
sustainable supply chain
for collaborative Company C Company A Company B
manufacturing Local Supply Chain Local Supply Chain Local Supply Chain
to enhance customer satisfaction. These activities are the essence of a collaborative Sustainable
manufacturing. The inter-relationship linkage between collaborative and sustainable supply chain
management to support manufacturing management is important in achieving economic
and environmental benefits.

3.2 A process model based on 6R methodology

As discussed earlier, the organisational activities within the focal Company “A” can 993
extend to include 6R perspective at the post use stage as shown in Figure 3. This process
model based on 6R methodology is to further consider the conventional approach of
material flow from pre-manufacturing to the use stages (i.e. source, make, distribute, use)
along a supply chain towards consumers or end-users by including the post-use stage
(i.e. source, 3R’s reuse, recycle, remanufacture, distribute, post-use). Within these
sequential stages of product lifecycle management (post-use), managerial decision and
judgment on direct reuse, recycle and remanufacture are important to recover the
returned products into usable products for improving product utilisation value.
To a certain extent, the product design improvement approach by incorporating
novel 3Rs of reduce, recover and redesign strategy can significantly increase product
utilisation value. This approach needs to be incorporated within the early stage
of product design development in order to reduce the disposable costs involved.
In reality, there are many joint companies using the collaborative manufacturing
approach for developing a new product. These companies include supplier/vendor,
customer, sub-contractor and end-user in forming a collaborative network that work
together in achieving mutual objectives for gaining customer satisfaction and
promoting sustainable development.

Process model based on 6R perspective along a supply chain

3 R's Product Design

Design Source Make Distribute Use

Reuse/ QC QC
Recycle/ Inspection Inspection
Repair
Disposal Control

Re-use
Alternative product & process

Recycle
3 R's Process Improvement

Re-processing
Use Source Distribute Post-use
Repair/
Remanufacture

Reuse/ Rectify
Recycle/ QC
Repair Inspection
Alternative Refurbish/
option Recondition
Figure 3.
QC Inspection A supply chain that
Disposal/ accounts for product
Control
landfill returns and recovery
JMTM 3.3 Product design and process improvement
22,8 In particular, global practitioners struggle in handling returned products from the
customers either reclaiming or reselling those items within a reasonable timeframe
(Rogers et al., 2002). As a result, operational process-wide improvement and
organisational strategic planning usually ignored the improvement on product
returns and recovery operations that have potential in minimising certain operating
994 costs (Ferrer and Clay Whybark, 2001; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2003; Geyer and Jackson,
2004). However, there are various product lifecycle assessment techniques such as
sustainable product design performance measurement, sustainability performance
index, quality function deployment and others that can be used for designing a product
in order to minimise significant environmental impacts by cross-disciplinary teams from
engineering, production and research departments (Jaafar et al., 2007; Badurdeen et al.,
2009; Robèrt et al., 2002). For example, Badurdeen et al. (2009) presented some literature
review of an efficient approach for the multiple product lifecycle management and
operations in achieving sustainability in manufacturing along a supply chain.
Meanwhile, Jayal et al. (2010) and Jaafar et al. (2007) discussed a simplified and integrated
methodology to assess sustainability performance measurement by the 6R approach in
order to address the balance among environmental, economic and social dimensions.
However, there is a limited research on developing specific performance metrics to
quantify the degree of sustainability within inter- or intra-organisational activities for
post-use operations. Further, the integration of product development and process levels
for improving product utilisation value for the subsequent product lifecycle needs to be
considered along the supply chain as shown in Figure 1.
First, a target on the reduction and elimination of by-products waste is critical in
many sectors of manufacturing industry. A usual approach may include the
introduction of cleaner process technologies and continuous improvement through
lean Six Sigma concepts by improving product quality (Angusto and Miguel, 2004;
Antony et al., 2007, 2008). Second, another sustainability option is to take into
consideration the use of by-products wastes for other purposes such as the application of
the thermo-acoustics device (e.g. thermo-acoustic engine and refrigerator) to convert
waste heat from an engine into sound (Huelsz and Ramos, 1998). These are considered as
continuous improvement activities for both product design and process improvement
and contribute to increasing the sustainability performance. Third, perhaps the
substantial benefits of considering product development at the early stage are based on
the constraint factors of materials selections, available of advanced technology,
collaborative manufacturing approach, easy for further disassembly and product
lifecycle’s periods that may contribute to the success and failure in implementing
6R process model. To a certain extent, these strategies create the potential opportunity in
terms of maximising functionality and decreasing operational costs at the later stage of
post-use operations.
In general, there are two key points being addressed here as follows:
(1) Product design development level: this 3R’s level means designing
environmental friendly product to meet sustainable development.
(2) Process improvement level: this 3R’s level means developing waste and product
recovery management strategies to reduce waste materials and by-product
wastes generated.
An integration of these two key points within this 6R perspective is still limited and Sustainable
unexplored. Nevertheless, the implementation of sustainability in a supply chain is an supply chain
important milestone for global practitioners in achieving significant benefits within
manufacturing environment. However, there is still limited focus and insufficient
literature review within the context of sustainability in manufacturing typically in the
aspects of the post-use stage, to promote and utilise sustainable practices along a
supply chain. 995
4. Discussion of proposed framework
For implementation purposes, a managerial guideline is defined into four supporting
facets to ensure this proposed framework can be fully implemented in industries as
shown in Figure 4 (Kuik et al., 2010b). Managerial guideline consists of:
.
Management responsibility. Higher degree of management commitment and
leadership is very crucial for the implementation of an integrated sustainable
supply chain management framework. Also, the organisational culture may have
some contributing factors to the success or failure of any implementation strategy.
.
Management system. The fundamental management systems within organisation
cannot be ignored or abandoned, e.g. ISO 9001:2008, ISO 14001:2004, etc.
.
Resource management. This is an essential requirement to provide for an
interactive training programme to assist organisations in achieving an operational
excellence such as employee development, infrastructure and work environment.

Symbol:
Value-adding activities
Information flow

Managerial Guideline

Customer Management
Customer
Responsibility

Resource Management
Implementation system
Management
Strategy
Satisfaction

INPUT Technical & Continuous OUTPUT

Requirements Improvement
Product

Potential
Suppliers
Entrants

Industry
competitors Figure 4.
Implementation strategy
of sustainable supply
Substitutes Porter's Buyers chain for collaborative
Model manufacturing
JMTM .
Technical scope and continuous improvement. The adoption of technology
22,8 changes and differential capabilities may directly impact on the implementation
strategy.

Porter’s (1980) Five Forces Model is incorporated as this model is useful when
analysing competitors among other organisations within global supply chain networks
996 and promoting competitive advantage.

4.1 Practical implication

This proposed integrated sustainable supply chain management framework has several
implications for practitioners in supply chain management. Aligning sustainable supply
chain management with the corporate strategy and business performance concepts
will assist practitioners to be more aware of the challenges in managing inter- or
intra-organisational activities. This paper has outlined several issues that should be
considered when starting an implementation or managing a sustainable supply chain
for collaborative manufacturing. The first feature of the framework is consideration of
the inter- or intra-organisational activities towards achieving an improved performance
of the sustainable supply chain management. Some of the managerial guidelines of
being a sustainable supply chain member for collaborative manufacturing include:
.
producer and supplier are responsible for green sourcing activities;
.
integrated logistics members are responsible for green distribution and reducing
waste in transportation;
.
producer is required to be responsible for green product to be designed, re-used,
re-manufactured and recycled through the coordination and communication with
customers and suppliers or collaborative partners;
.
all supply chain members in a global network are jointly responsible for
achieving sustainable development in terms of economic and environmental
practices; and
.
6R perspective is to promote and design supply chain processes of returns
management towards sustainability.

This includes use of sustainability performance metrics in terms of by-product waste

and utilisation of by-product waste for other applications as well as performance
assessment criteria in operations from use to post-use stage that are capable to trigger
the differential returned product types for post-use operations within manufacturing
companies. These aspects are not assessed well within SCOR and GSCF frameworks
due to the unexpected quantity and quality of the returned products.
Meanwhile, the second feature of the sustainable supply chain framework is focused
on the key inter-relationship management with all supply chain members of a
collaborative manufacturing environment in sharing all responsibilities to improve the
economic and environmental performances of the entire supply chain. This proposed
framework also recommends practitioners to incorporate customer-orientated
perspectives and supply chain benchmarking in a collaborative performance
measurement system (e.g. improved timely delivery within Six Sigma margins).
Finally, future study is to examine a set of performance metrics for the post-use
operation and management along a supply chain.
4.2 Research limitations Sustainable
As stated at the outset of this paper, the current literature of the generic supply chain supply chain
framework to support the sustainable supply chain development for collaborative
manufacturing has limited investigation on the probable interaction or
inter-relationship among supply chain business processes, collaborative supply
chain performance and corporate strategy. Furthermore, many industry practitioners
are interested to identify strategies that would achieve sustainable supply chain among 997
different entities within a collaborative manufacturing structure; but the answer to this
question has remained unclear in current literature. This paper has attempted to
develop post-use activities associated with 6R perspective to be incorporated with this
sustainable supply chain framework for collaborative manufacturing in order to
identify potential opportunity to implement environmentally conscious manufacturing
and design.
Currently, this framework has three significant weaknesses. First, although
collaborative processes and sustainability of economic and environmental practices are
defined in this framework, future research is required to investigate various types of
practical issues within collaborative manufacturing processes and sustainability in
supply chains that are included in this framework. Second, social aspects and impacts
are not assessed in this framework, as this assessment is beyond our discipline focus.
However, this important aspect will be addressed in future by a cross-disciplinary
research team. Third, although this framework briefly discussed the interaction of a
collaborative manufacturing network and sustainability in a supply chain, further
research is needed to examine the level of responsibilities and the inter-relationship
management of global supply chain members. This paper also suggests that an
appropriate area to research would be the consideration of performance measurement
management systems for assisting industry practitioners by conducting supply chain
benchmarking in this framework of sustainable supply chain management. So far, the
sustainable supply chain management research has been focussed more on operational
efficiency and manufacturing performance. Additional research is required not merely
at the level of single manufacturing and production system, but to take into account
multiple collaborative manufacturing networks to improve the overall performance of
a sustainable supply chain at the post-use stage.

5. Conclusion
This paper provides a holistic view of the sustainable supply chain management
framework based on 6R (reduce, recover, redesign, reuse, recycle, remanufacture)
perspective. For the implementation of this sustainable supply chain management
framework, a process model is first developed for industry practitioners to understand
the decomposition of post-use operations into six key process elements (3R’s process
improvement and 3R’s product design level) that can fulfil the interactions of economic
benefits associated within intra- or inter-organisational activities.

References
Angusto, P. and Miguel, C. (2004), “Benchmarking Six Sigma application in Brazil – Best
practices in the use of the methodology”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16,
pp. 124-34.
JMTM Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Cho, B.R. (2007), “Six Sigma in service organisations: benefits,
challenges and difficulties, common myths, empirical observation and success factors”,
22,8 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24, pp. 294-311.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Labib, A. (2008), “Gearing Six Sigma into UK manufacturing SMEs:
results from a pilot study”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 59, pp. 482-93.
Badurdeen, F., Lyengar, D., Goldsby, T.J., Metta, H. and Gupta, S. (2009), “Extending total
998 life-cycle thinking to sustainable supply chain design”, International Journal of Product
Lifecycle Management, Vol. 4, pp. 49-67.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Measuring supply chain performance”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19, pp. 275-92.
Bolstorff, P. and Rosenbaum, R. (2003), Supply Chain Excellence: A Handbook for Dramatic
Improvement Using the SCOR Model, American Management Association (ANACOM),
New York, NY.
Butner, K. (2010), “The smarter supply chain of the future”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 38,
pp. 22-31.
Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., Galeano, N. and Molina, A. (2009), “Collaborative
networked organisations – concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprises”,
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57, pp. 46-60.
Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998), “Reverse logistics: a review of the literature and framework
for future investigation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19, pp. 85-102.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving towards new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 38, pp. 360-87.
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2010), Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and Operation,
Prentine-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management: more than a new
name for logistics”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, pp. 1-13.
Dias-Sardinha, I. and Reijnders, L. (2001), “Environmental performance evaluation and
sustainability performance evaluation of organisations: an evolutionary framework”,
Eco-Management and Auditing, Vol. 8, pp. 71-9.
Ferrer, G. and Clay Whybark, D. (2001), “Material planning for a remanufacturing facility”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10, pp. 112-24.
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Dekker, R., van Der Laan, E., van Nunen, J.A.E.E. and
van Wassenhove, L.N. (1997), “Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 103, pp. 1-17.
Fortes, J. (2009), “Green supply chain management: a literature review”, Otago Management
Graduate Review, Vol. 7, pp. 51-62.
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Moll, H.C. and Schoot Uiterkamp, A.J.M. (2003), “Design and development
of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 46, pp. 231-48.
Geyer, R. and Jackson, T. (2004), “Supply loops and their constraints: the industrial ecology of
recycling and reuse”, California Management Review, Vol. 46, pp. 55-73.
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.-S. (1995), “Shifting paradigms for sustainable
development: implications for management theory and research”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 874-907.
Gottberg, A., Morris, J., Pollard, S., Mark-Herbert, C. and Cook, M. (2006), “Producer Sustainable
responsibility, waste minimisation and the WEEE Directive: case studies in eco-design
from the European lighting sector”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 359, pp. 38-56. supply chain
Guide, V.D. Jr (2000), “Production planning and control for remanufacturing: industry practice
and research needs”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 467-83.
Gungor, A. and Gupta, S.M. (1999), “Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and
product recovery: a survey”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 811-53. 999
Gupta, S.M. and Lambert, A.J.D.F. (2008), Environment Conscious Manufacturing, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Huelsz, G. and Ramos, E. (1998), “Power production in thermoacoustics”, International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 25, pp. 481-90.
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, pp. 563-91.
Jaafar, I.H., Venkatachalam, A., Joshi, K., Ungureanu, A.C., Rouch, K.E., Dillon, O.W. Jr and
Jawahir, I.S. (2007), “Product design for sustainability: a new assessment methodology and
case studies”, in Kutz, M. (Ed.), Environmentally Conscious Mechanical Design, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F. Jr, O, W.D. and Jawahir, I.S. (2010), “Sustainable manufacturing:
modeling and optimisation challenges at the product, process and systems levels”, CIRP
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 2, pp. 144-52.
Kaynak, H. and Montiel, I. (2009), “The relationship between sustainable supply chain
management and sustainable performance: an integrated framework”, Academy of
Management Proceedings, pp. 1-6.
Kuik, S.S., Nagalingam, S.V. and Amer, Y. (2010a), “Challenges in implementing sustainable
supply chain within a collaborative manufacturing network”, 8th International Conference
on Supply Chain Management and Information Systems, Hong Kong, pp. 662-9.
Kuik, S.S., Nagalingam, S.V. and Amer, Y. (2011a), “A framework of product recovery to improve
sustainability in manfuacturing”, International Conference on Mechanical, Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering, Lecture Notes in Information Technology 2011 Melbourne,
Austalia, pp. 232-5.
Kuik, S.S., Nagalingam, S.V. and Amer, Y. (2011b), “Criticality of product recovery management
in sustainable supply chain”, International Conference on Mechanical, Industrial, and
Manufacturing Engineering, Lecture Notes in Information Technology, Melbourne,
Austalia, pp. 227-31.
Kuik, S.S., Nagalingam, S.V., Amer, Y. and Saw, Y.P. (2010b), “Implementation of Six Sigma
methodology to improve supply chain network in the context of Malaysian manufacturing
industries”, 8th International Conference on Supply Chain Management and Information
Systems, Hong Kong, pp. 707-14.
Kumar, S. and Malegeant, P. (2006), “Strategic alliance in a closed-loop supply chain, a case of
manufacturer and eco-non-profit organization”, Technovation, Vol. 26, pp. 1127-35.
Lambert, A.J.D. (2003), “Disassembly sequencing: a survey”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 41, pp. 3721-59.
Lambert, D.M. (2004), “The eight essential supply chain management processes”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 18-26.
Lambert, D.M. (2008), Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance, Supply
Chain Management Institute, Sarasota, FL.
JMTM Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 65-83.
22,8
Lambert, D.M. and Pohlen, T.L. (2001), “Supply chain metrics”, The International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 12, pp. 1-19.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation
issues and research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
1000 Vol. 9, pp. 1-19.
Lin, H.W., Nagalingam, S.V. and Lin, G.C.I. (2009), “An interactive meta-goal programming
based decision analysis methodology to support collaborative manufacturing”, Robotics
& Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 25, pp. 135-54.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1075-82.
Linton, J.D., Yeomans, Y.S. and Yoogalingam, R. (2002), “Supply planning for industrial ecology
and remanufacturing under uncertainty: a numerical study of leaded-waste recovery from
televison disposal”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 53, pp. 1185-96.
Nagalingam, S. and Fretes, O.M. (2009), “Integration of small and medium manufacturing
enterprises through collaborative partnerships”, The 7th ANZAM Operations, Supply
Chain, and Service Management Symposium, Adelaide, pp. 312-15.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Robèrt, K.H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi De Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R., Price
Thomas, P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P. and Wackernagel, M. (2002), “Strategic sustainable
development – selection, design and synergies of applied tools”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 10, pp. 197-214.
Rogers, S.D., Douglas, M.L., Keely, L.C. and Sebastian, J.G.-D. (2002), “The returns management
process”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13, pp. 1-18.
SCC (2008), Supply Chain Operations Reference Model: Overall of SCOR Version 9.0, Supply
Chain Council, Pittsburgh, PA.
Setaputra, R. and Mukhopadhyay, S.K. (2010), “A framework for research in reserve logistics”,
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 7, pp. 19-55.
Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16,
pp. 1699-710.
Sharma, A., Gopalkrishnan, R.L., Mehrota, A. and Krishnan, R. (2010), “Sustainability and
business-to-business marketing: a framework and implications”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 39, pp. 330-41.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002), “The collaborative supply chain”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13, pp. 15-30.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005), “An integrative framework for supply chain
collaboration”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16, pp. 257-74.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9, pp. 53-80.
Stuart, J.A., Bonawi-Tan, W., Loehr, S. and Gates, J. (2005), “Reducing costs through improved
returns processing”, Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 464-80.
Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D. and Chinnam, R.B. (2009), “Remanufacturing for the automotive Sustainable
aftermarket-strategic factors: literature review and future research needs”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 1163-74. supply chain
Udin, Z.M., Khan, M.K. and Zairi, M. (2006), “A collaborative supply chain management: part 2
the hybric KB or gap analysis system for planning stage”, Vol. 12, pp. 671-87.
Vachon, S. (2007), “Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental
technologies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, pp. 4357-79. 1001
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain: the
impact of upstream and downstream integration”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 26, pp. 795-821.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2008), “Environmental management and manufacturing
performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 111, pp. 299-315.
Zhang, H.C., Kuo, T.C. and Lu, H. (1997), “Environmentally conscious design and manufacturing:
a state-of-art survey”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 16, pp. 352-71.

About the authors

Swee Siong Kuik is currently doing his PhD research degree at the University of South Australia
under a Postgraduate Scholarship Award. He has published several international peer reviewed
papers in the research fields of supply chain management, sustainability in manufacturing, Six
Sigma, vibration/acoustics and engineering education. Before that he worked for more than five
years in manufacturing industries in the areas of quality management systems, implementation
of Lean Six Sigma, process improvement and production operations. In 2004, he was successfully
certified as Six Sigma Black Belt. Swee Siong Kuik is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: Swee.Kuik@unisa.edu.au
Sev Verl Nagalingam obtained his PhD in 1999 from the University of South Australia and
proposed a novel way of justifying investments in advanced manufacturing technologies.
Dr Sev Nagalingam is a Researcher, Lecturer, and the Program Director for the logistic and
supply chain management nested programs at the school of Advanced Manufacturing and
Mechanical Engineering, University of South Australia, Australia. He has published more than
60 international peer reviewed research papers, a book on CIM, two book chapters, and a booklet
on concurrent engineering to date. He is a member of Engineers Australia, Australasian
Association for Engineering Education and a Senior Member of SME, USA.
Yousef Amer obtained his PhD in 2007 from the University of South Australia and developed
a novel quantitative model to optimise supply chain processes using design for Six Sigma and
fuzzy logic. He has worked in manufacturing and logistics for over 18 years. Dr Yousef Amer is a
Lecturer, Course Coordinator and Research Degree Supervisor for the logistic and supply chain
management at the School of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering. He has
published several international peer reviewed research papers in the research fields of supply
chain management, sustainability in manufacturing, integration and performance measurement,
and business process re-engineering. He is a member of the Council of Supply Chain
Professionals, Logistics Association of Australia, Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply
and the Performance Measurement Association.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints