Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

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

An ANP-based approach for lean and green performance assessment T

Luana Marques Souza Farias, Luciano Costa Santos , Cláudia Fabiana Gohr,
⁎

Lenilson Olinto Rocha

Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, João Pessoa, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Simultaneous application of lean and green practices requires adequate methods to evaluate the contribution
Lean manufacturing and effects of both paradigms on organizational performance. Thus, the objective of this study is to develop an
Green manufacturing integrated approach to evaluate the impacts of lean and green practices on organizational performance and
Analytic network process prioritize improvements in the system. To this end, this research used the Analytic Network Process (ANP) for
Assessment
the operationalization of the theoretical framework and tested it through an application in a footwear company.
By applying the assessment approach, it was possible to evaluate the lean and green systems individually and in
an integrated way through the lean-green index, a performance measure developed specifically for this work.
From a managerial perspective, this research provided a tool that enables companies to evaluate their lean and
green systems and identify which practices should be prioritized to improve operational and environmental
performance.

1. Introduction León and Calvo-Amodio (2017) defend the systemic implementation of

Companies from different industries have adopted the lean manu-
facturing approach, which allows better utilization of productive re-
sources and substantial waste reduction (Womack et al., 1990; Jasti and
Kodali, 2015). However, besides improving the use of productive re-
sources, it is important that an organization make decisions to improve
the use of natural resources as well, avoiding waste and minimizing the
negative impacts of manufacturing activities. In order to support such
decisions, the green manufacturing approach emerges as a management
paradigm that applies tools and techniques to reduce waste and mini-
mize the environmental impact of manufacturing processes, ensuring
improved pollution control and reduction of consumption of natural
resources (Garza-Reyes, 2015; Gandhi et al., 2018).
Although the study of the relationship between lean and green is a
recent theme (Caldera et al., 2017; Zhan et al., 2018), it has been found
in the literature that the interest in the joint implementation of both
paradigms has increased significantly (Prasad et al., 2016; Chugani
et al., 2017). This trend is justified by the fact that both seek waste
reduction and continuous improvement (Dües et al., 2013; Chugani
et al., 2017). However, while the interactions between both approaches
stand out, Chaplin and O’Rourke (2018) and Hallam and Contreras
(2016) emphasize that lean and green are still seen as separate func-
tions within organizations. In order to obtain the benefits of integration,
lean and green practices. The systemic implementation, therefore, re-
quires adequate metrics to evaluate the contribution and effects of both
paradigms on organizational performance.
In the case of lean and green performance assessment, the sys-
tematic literature review conducted by Garza-Reyes (2015) indicated
that most assessment methods were designed for supply chains, and
only the method developed by Verrier et al. (2014) was tested in
manufacturing. In addition to this, León and Calvo-Amodio (2017)
emphasized that the effects of lean and green practices on organiza-
tional performance have been neglected in the literature. One of the few
studies with this purpose was conducted by Thanki et al. (2016), who
evaluated the influence of lean and green practices on organizational
performance criteria. However, in spite of their contribution, the au-
thors did not consider interrelationships between lean and green
practices. Aware of this gap, Thanki et al. (2016) suggested the use of
the Analytic Network Process (ANP) as a way to include interrelation-
ships between practices in lean and green assessment. The inclusion of
interdependencies between practices in the assessment process re-
cognizes the systemic nature of it and addresses the appeal of the
current literature for greater integration between lean and green
(Hallam and Contreras, 2016; León and Calvo-Amodio, 2017; Chaplin
and O’Rourke, 2018).
Considering the demand for research on this subject, this study aims

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: luanamarques.sf@hotmail.com (L.M.S. Farias), luciano@ct.ufpb.br (L.C. Santos), claudiagohr@ct.ufpb.br (C.F. Gohr),
lenilson3000@hotmail.com (L.O. Rocha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.004
Received 30 July 2018; Received in revised form 18 October 2018; Accepted 6 December 2018
Available online 24 December 2018
0921-3449/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L.M.S. Farias et al.
to develop an ANP-based approach for lean and green performance
assessment. In addition to making possible the prioritization of im-
provements in the system, ANP considers interdependence and feed-
back among elements. Feedback allows judgments in any direction
within the network of relationships (Saaty, 1996) and it is an important
aspect of ANP to capture the interactions between lean and green. From
a managerial perspective, the main contribution of this research is to
provide a tool that enables companies to evaluate their lean and green
systems and identify which practices should be prioritized to improve
operational and environmental performance. From the research litera-
ture perspective, this study helps to reduce the gap of integration be-
tween lean and green, in particular, when it comes to performance
assessment. Moreover, unlike many studies focused on lean and green
supply chains, this study differentiates from previous research since it
was focused on lean and green operations, from the internal practices’
point of view (Chavez et al., 2013).
The proposed approach was tested in a footwear manufacturing
plant that has successfully applied lean and green practices. Results
were consolidated by calculating the lean-green index (LGindex), which
allows an integrated view of impacts on organizational performance.
The lean-green index is another relevant contribution of this article
since it provides a simple and unified performance measure that can be
easily understood by managers and researchers for self-assessment and
comparison purposes.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: initially, the
theoretical background is presented for the construction of the assess-
ment approach. Next, the theoretical framework for lean and green
performance assessment is described, as well as the procedures for its
empirical application and calculation of the lean-green index. Then, the
application of the framework, the calculation of the lean-green index
and the sensitivity analysis are described. Subsequently, we discuss the
main implications of the framework. Finally, the conclusions and sug-
gestions for future studies are presented.
2. Theoretical background
The lean system encompasses a set of interlinked operational
practices that aim to reduce or eliminate non-value-added activities
throughout a product value stream (Hajmohammad et al., 2013; Jasti
and Kodali, 2015). The literature demonstrates that the implementation
of lean practices is associated with better operational performance
(Chavez et al., 2013; Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2017). On
the other hand, current studies also show that the adoption of lean
practices may lead to positive results for environmental performance
(Rothenberg et al., 2001; Fercoq et al., 2016; Cherrafi et al., 2017).
However, although the lean system has provided significant benefits
regarding environmental performance, its scope is limited and it does
not cover all resource flows from a life-cycle perspective, such as energy
and water (Ball, 2015). With a focus on minimizing negative environ-
mental impacts, the green manufacturing system appears as an appro-
priate approach (Verrier et al., 2014; Fercoq et al., 2016; Gandhi et al.,
2018). As an improvement approach, the green manufacturing system
is implemented through practices that limit or reduce the potential
negative impacts of the production and consumption of goods and
services on the natural environment, thus improving the company's
environmental footprint (Galeazzo et al., 2014; Verrier et al., 2014).
The study of the joint adoption of lean and green practices has also
been discussed in the literature. Galeazzo et al. (2014), for example,
investigated the synergistic effects of the interaction of lean practices
with green practices. This interaction was investigated through quali-
tative research and generated results more relevant to the im-
plementation process than to the performance evaluation, the focus of
this paper. From the implementation point of view, Galeazzo et al.
(2014) proposed that simultaneous implementation of lean and green
practices is likely to be associated with higher operational performance
when compared to the sequential implementation approach of both
78
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
systems. This finding is aligned to León and Calvo-Amodio’s (2017)
proposition towards a systemic view of lean and green, in which lean
practices should not be implemented in isolation.
When it comes to the links between lean and green practices and
performance, some studies demonstrate empirical evidence of these
relationships. Chiarini (2014), for example, identified how four lean
practices (5S, cellular manufacturing, total productive maintenance,
and setup time reduction) could help to reduce environmental impacts.
Diaz-Elsayed et al. (2013), in another case study, used an optimization
and simulation approach to assess the performance of a manufacturing
system affected by the application of lean and green strategies.
The relationships between practices and performance have also
been investigated by survey studies with larger samples sizes.
Rothenberg et al. (2001), for instance, examined the relationship be-
tween lean manufacturing practices and environmental performance in
31 automobile assembly plants in North America and Japan. Although
they found some evidence to support the link between lean practices
and resource efficiency, they did not include green practices in their
research. Yang et al. (2011) expanded this view, including environ-
mental management practices in their study. Using data collected from
309 manufacturing firms, they provided empirical evidence that en-
vironmental management practices represent an important mediating
variable to resolve the conflicts between lean manufacturing and en-
vironmental performance. Likewise, Hajmohammad et al. (2013) con-
firmed that the impact of lean management on environmental perfor-
mance is mediated by environmental practices. On the other hand,
Hong et al. (2012) confirmed lean practices as an important mediator to
achieve excellent environmental performance, but they did not include
green practices in their study. More recently, Garza-Reyes et al. (2018)
surveyed 250 manufacturing organizations to investigate the effect of
lean practices on environmental performance. They found that the
practices of total productive maintenance (TPM) and just-in-time (JIT)
have the strongest significance on environmental performance. Finally,
by conducting empirical studies in Chinese organizations, Zhan et al.
(2018) found that the adoption of lean and green practices can lead to
better organizational performance, especially when it is moderated by
the Chinese practice of guanxi.
Most of the previous studies demonstrate that lean and green
practices may complement each other when the focus is on improving
operational and environmental performance. This complementarity
justifies the gap claimed in the literature for an integrated performance
measurement system (Garza-Reyes, 2015; Carvalho et al., 2017; Ramos
et al., 2018). The premise of it is that lean and green are mutually
supportive in order to achieve better performance.
The previous studies on lean and green allowed us to extract prac-
tices and performance criteria that have been used as variables in the
current research. In addition, we investigated the existence of re-
lationships between different lean and green practices and performance
criteria, regarding environmental and operational dimensions. The re-
sults of this analysis are presented in Table 1, which shows the re-
lationships between practices and criteria. As shown in Table 1, through
a literature review on lean and green, we identified criteria of opera-
tional performance (productivity, profit, and inventory), environmental
performance (environmental impacts and energy consumption), and
criteria common to both dimensions (waste reduction, cost reduction,
and quality). In addition, eight lean practices (VSM, SMED, KZ, 5S,
TPM, SW, PP, and CM) and five green practices (EMS, LCA, 3R, DFE,
and EEC) were selected. It is important to note that the so-called en-
vironmental management system is a general term for all certification
and standardization systems, such as ISO 14001 and similar systems.
The elements of Table 1 (criteria, practices, and relationships), identi-
fied from a literature review, were the basis for the development of the
lean and green performance assessment approach proposed in this ar-
ticle.
Although the current literature has proved the relationship between
lean and green practices and performance, management tools to
L.M.S. Farias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89

Lean practices: VSM – value stream mapping; KZ – kaizen; 5S – housekeeping (seiri, seiton, seiso, seiketsu, shitsuke); SMED – setup time reduction (single minute exchange of die); SW – standardized work; PP – pull
prioritize practices to achieve specific performance objectives seem to

Pampanelli et al. (2013); Chiarini (2014); Domingo and Aguado (2015); Garza-Reyes (2015); Hallam
Prasad et al. (2016); Fercoq et al. (2016); Hallam and Contreras (2016); Thanki et al. (2016); Thanki
Miller et al. (2010); Dües et al. (2013); Pampanelli et al. (2013); Ball (2015); Kurdve et al. (2015);

Diaz-Elsayed et al. (2013); Kurdve et al. (2015); Thanki and Thakkar (2016); Thanki et al. (2016);

Yang et al. (2011); Diaz-Elsayed et al. (2013); Hajmohammad et al. (2013); Domingo and Aguado
be still missing. Nevertheless, it can be found some few noteworthy

Miller et al. (2010); Hajmohammad et al. (2013); Verrier et al. (2014); Ball (2015); Thanki et al.
initiatives in this way. Carvalho et al. (2017), for example, developed a
mathematical model to support decision making in identifying the best
set of green and lean supply chain management practices to improve

Green practices: EMS – environmental management system; LCA – life cycle assessment; 3R – reducing, reusing and recycling; DFE – design for the environment; EEC – environmental emission control.
their eco-efficiency. As it was focused in supply chains, the study of

(2015); Thanki et al. (2016); Hallam and Contreras (2016); Vinodh et al. (2016).
Carvalho et al. (2017) presented a too narrow set of lean and green
practices to be considered in the context of internal manufacturing
Garza-Reyes (2015); Thanki et al. (2016); Hallam and Contreras (2016).

operations. Furthermore, even though the proposed mathematical

model allowed the prioritization of practices, it did not consider the
interactions that exist among lean and green practices.
Focused on manufacturing operations, Ramos et al. (2018) proposed
a checklist-based benchmarking method to assess cleaner and lean
production practices. Although comprehensive regarding practices and
Hallam and Contreras (2016); Prasad et al. (2016).

performance indicators, the method proposed by Ramos et al. (2018)

and Thakkar (2016); Garza-Reyes et al. (2018).

fails to relate practices to specific performance criteria.

and Contreras (2016); Vinodh et al. (2016).

Another noteworthy initiative is the work of Bai et al. (2018), who

Prasad et al. (2016); Thanki et al. (2016).

Miller et al. (2010); Vinodh et al. (2016).

developed multi-criteria decision-making model to support the eva-

luation of the investment in lean manufacturing practices in order to
(2016); Garza-Reyes et al. (2018).

achieve environmental and operational goals. To implement their

model, they used a three-parameter interval grey number with rough
set theory and the “Interactive and Multicriteria Decision Making”
method (TODIM). However, when the objective is to link integrated
lean and green practices to performance criteria, the model of Bai et al.
(2018) has two noticeable limitations. First, they did not include green
References

practices in the model. Second, even though the joint approach of grey
based rough set and TODIM is useful for dealing with psychological
expectations, the model did not consider all possible interactions be-
tween practices. As recommended by the authors, future research may
EEC

use ANP or Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DE-

•

•
DFE

MATEL) to incorporate inner and outer dependencies among practices.

•

More closely aligned with the aim of this study, Thanki et al. (2016)
3R

used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to investigate the influence

•
•

of lean and green paradigms on the overall performance of small and

LCA

medium-sized enterprises. Their model allows identifying the effect of

•
EMS

lean and green practices on different performance criteria. However,

•
•
•
•

AHP is conceptually limited to hierarchical relationships. As a result,

TPM

the study of Thanki et al. (2016) disregarded the intricate inter-

•

relationships between practices and performance criteria.

CM

In order to capture the interrelationships existing within a lean and

•

green system, we adopted the network perspective incorporated by

PP

ANP. As mentioned by Bai et al. (2018), DEMATEL would be another

SW

production; CM – cellular manufacturing; TPM – total productive maintenance.

potential method to incorporate network relationships. Notwith-

•
•
•

standing, DEMATEL does not consider hierarchical relationships, and

SMED
Relationships between performance criteria and lean and green practices.

consequently, it is not appropriate to link performance goals to en-

•
•
•
•

ablers. On the other hand, ANP allows for more complex relationships
5S

•
•
•
•

and feedback among elements in the hierarchy, thereby fulfilling the

KZ
Practices

purpose of this study.

•
•
•
•

•
VSM

3. Methodology
•
•
•
•

•
Environmental impacts

Energy consumption

3.1. The integrated framework

Waste reduction

Cost reduction
Productivity

The basic assumption of this study is that lean and green can be seen
Inventory

as subsystems of an integrated management system. Thus, both sub-

Criteria

Quality
Profit

systems can support each other and achieve performance objectives

that are not conflicting, but complementary. In this way, once perfor-
mance criteria, practices and their relationships were identified
(Table 1), we developed an integrated framework to evaluate the im-
pacts of lean and green practices on organizational performance
(Fig. 1). In this framework, the criteria were divided into two levels
Environmental
Operational and

(dimensions and determinants), and lean and green practices are con-
Environmental

sidered as enablers of performance criteria.

Operational
Dimension

The lean and green performance assessment is a problem that has

Table 1

three basic characteristics: (i) it involves multiple criteria for evalua-

tion, (ii) criteria and practices are interdependent, and (iii) the

79
L.M.S. Farias et al.
Fig. 1. Lean and green performance assessment framework.
evaluation is usually subjective since it depends more on the perception
of decision makers than on objective measurement. Considering these
three characteristics, ANP was the chosen technique for the oper-
ationalization of the framework. ANP is a multicriteria analysis tech-
nique that allows quantifying subjective judgments and evaluating the
interdependencies among the elements of a system (Saaty, 1996).
In the ANP methodology, problems are formulated as networks, and
not only as hierarchies, such as in the AHP. The elements of the system
are analyzed individually and in clusters, and their interdependencies
are analyzed in pairwise comparison matrices. The results from an ANP
model are displayed in supermatrices that allow establishing the im-
pacts of the elements on the criteria and prioritizing decisions based on
these impacts (Saaty, 1996).
The application procedure was divided into seven steps: 1) for-
mulation of the problem, 2) comparison matrix of performance di-
mensions, 3) pairwise comparison matrices of determinants in relation
80
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
to performance dimensions, 4) pairwise comparison matrices of en-
ablers in relation to performance determinants, 5) pairwise comparison
matrices between enablers, 6) supermatrix formation, and 7) calcula-
tion of the lean-green index. In addition, we performed a sensitivity
analysis to verify the effects on the system related to the variation of
weights in performance determinants. The application sequence is de-
tailed in Section 4.
3.2. Empirical research
In order to test the applicability of the ANP-based framework, we
conducted an assessment study in a Brazilian footwear manufacturing
plant. It is a large factory that employs around 7000 employees to
produce 670,000 pairs of rubber sandals per day. The plant was chosen
for having well-structured lean and green systems.
For data collection, we initially conducted semi-structured
L.M.S. Farias et al.
Table 2
Saaty's fundamental scale.
Source: Adapted from Saaty (1990).
Value Definition
1 Equal importance/contribution/relation
3 Weak importance/contribution/relation
5 Strong importance/contribution/relation
7 Very strong importance/contribution/relation
9 Extremely strong importance/contribution/relation
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
interviews with company managers to obtain an overview of the system
and to identify the lean and green practices adopted. This preliminary
analysis allowed us to adjust the generic framework to the application
context.
In the second phase of data collection, three respondents were se-
lected for being the most appropriate people in the plant to evaluate the
lean-green system: the production manager, the lean coordinator, and
the environmental manager. Each of the respondents evaluated the is-
sues related to his/her area, and the production manager evaluated the
performance criteria at a strategic level. For this, an assessment ques-
tionnaire divided into five blocks was used, containing comparative
questions in pairs.
The classification of the comparative answers was based on the
fundamental scale of Saaty (1990), used for both ANP and AHP
(Table 2). It is a scale of 1–9 for comparing two components of a system
in pairwise comparison matrices. On this scale, 1 implies equal im-
portance and 9 implies stronger importance of the row element than the
column element. When the column element has stronger importance
than the row element, a reciprocal value is assigned, where 1 represents
equal importance and 1/9 represents stronger importance.
Data obtained by the questionnaire were calculated according to
traditional ANP procedures. Thus, it was possible to obtain the weights
of each relationship existing in the assessment framework by analyzing
the comparison matrices and supermatrices generated, from which the
results are obtained.
3.3. Quantifying the lean-green index (LGindex)
After the matrices were obtained, the lean-green index (LGindex) was
calculated, which represents the combined impact of lean and green
systems on organizational performance. Initially, it was obtained the
influence index (Wia ), which consists in the sum of the product of the
relative importance of all weights involved. This index determines the
influence of each paradigm i (lean or green) on each dimension a
(operational or environmental). The equation for this index was based
on the studies conducted by Meade and Sarkis (1999); Agarwal et al.
(2006); Wong et al. (2014). Therefore:
J Kja
D I
Wia = Pja Akja Akja Sikja
j=1 k=1
where, Pja is the relative weight of determinant j on the dimension a;
D
Akja is the weight for enabler k of the determinant j in the dimension a
for the dependency relations (D) between components, that is, the de-
pendence between the enablers in relation to each determinant, and
consequently to each dimension; Akja I
is the stabilized weight for en-
abler k of the determinant j in the dimension a for the interdependency
Table 3
Pairwise comparison matrix of performance dimensions (CR: 0.00000).
Environmental performance
Environmental performance 1 1
Operational performance 1 1
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
Explanation
Two elements contribute equally.
Judgment slightly favors one activity over another.
Judgment strongly favors one activity over another.
An activity is strongly favored and its dominance demonstrated in practice.
The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation.
When compromise is needed.
relationships (I) between components; Sikja is the relative impact of
paradigm i on the enabler k of the determinant j of the dimension a.
Then, the lean-green index (LGindex) is calculated by the product of
Wia with the relative weight of each dimension (Ca ):
LGindex = Wia × Ca (2)
4. Application of the ANP framework
As mentioned earlier, the practical test of the framework was per-
formed in seven steps. The results of the application in a footwear
manufacturing plant are presented below.
STEP 1: Formulation of the problem
The construction of the lean and green performance assessment
started with the definition of elements that make up the evaluation
system and its interrelationships. The framework presented in Fig. 1
was the result of the structuring of the theoretical problem. As the
framework was constructed based on the literature, the formulation of
the problem was concluded with its adaptation to the practices adopted
by the company.
Based on the initial interviews, it was identified that the lean and
green practices that the company adopted were present in the original
framework. However, the company did not use three practices designed
in the framework: VSM, DFE, and LCA. Thus, these practices were ex-
cluded from the assessment procedure for application purposes.
STEP 2: Comparison matrix of performance dimensions
According to the proposed framework, operational and environ-
mental performance dimensions are at the highest hierarchical level of
the assessment system. Using a scale of one to nine, the relative im-
portance of dimensions was assessed through a single question: “with
regard to the importance to the company, compare the following di-
mensions of performance”. The results are shown in Table 3.
Although simple in numerical terms, Table 3 clearly shows the
company's strategy of integrating operational and environmental di-
mensions in a balanced way. According to the ANP methodology, the e-
Vector (Eigenvector) represents the weighted priority of each dimen-
sion, and the inconsistency is determined by the consistency ratio (CR),
an indicator recommended by Saaty (1996) to measure inconsistency in
judgment. According to Saaty and Kearns (1985), inconsistencies below
0.20 are considered tolerable.
(1)
STEP 3: Pairwise comparison matrices of determinants in relation to
performance dimensions
In order to capture the weighted priority (e-Vector) of each de-
terminant for each performance dimension (operational and environ-
mental), comparative questions were applied for each pair of determi-
nants. In this evaluation, an example of a question was: “with regard to
the importance to the company's operational performance, compare the
Operational performance e-Vector
0.50000
0.50000
81
L.M.S. Farias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89

Table 4
Pairwise comparisons of determinants for operational performance (CR: 0.09430).

Operational performance Inventory Profit Productivity Quality Cost reduction Waste reduction e-Vector

Inventory 1 5 1/7 1/5 1/3 1/5 0.06844

Profit 1/5 1 1/7 1/5 1/5 1/3 0.03681
Productivity 7 7 1 1 1 1 0.24760
Quality 5 5 1 1 1/3 1 0.19010
Cost reduction 3 5 1 3 1 1 0.25258
Waste reduction 5 3 1 1 1 1 0.20448

Table 5
Pairwise comparisons of determinants for environmental performance (CR: 0.04407).

Environmental performance Energy consumption Environmental impacts Quality Cost reduction Waste reduction e-Vector

Energy consumption 1 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 0.09401

Environmental impacts 3 1 3 3 3 0.41682
Quality 3 1/3 1 1 1 0.17512
Cost reduction 1 1/3 1 1 1 0.13894
Waste reduction 3 1/3 1 1 1 0.17551

Table 6 Table 7
Pairwise comparisons of the influence of green practices on energy consump- Pairwise comparisons between lean practices in relation to 3R (CR: 0.00942).
tion (CR: 0.00675).
3R 5S CM KZ TPM PP SMED SW e-Vector
Energy consumption 3R EEC EMS e-Vector
5S 1 5 3 5 5 5 5 0.41076
3R 1 1 7 0.45070 CM 1/5 1 1/5 1 1 1 1 0.06943
EEC 1 1 9 0.49009 KZ 1/3 5 1 3 3 3 3 0.22515
EMS 1/7 1/9 1 0.05921 TPM 1/5 1 1/3 1 1 1 1 0.07367
PP 1/5 1 1/3 1 1 1 1 0.07367
SMED 1/5 1 1/3 1 1 1 1 0.07367
criterion productivity with the criterion profit”. The response obtained SW 1/5 1 1/3 1 1 1 1 0.07367
was represented by score 7 (third column of Table 4), which indicates
that productivity was assessed as much more important than profit
when considering operational performance. STEP 6: Supermatrix formation
The relative weights of each determinant for each performance di- After the construction of individual matrices, the ANP methodology
mension can be seen in Tables 4 and 5. It is worth noting that not all proceeds with the formation of a supermatrix, in which the final scores
determinants were evaluated in both dimensions. The relationships can be evaluated globally. The supermatrix contains the e-Vectors ob-
have been previously defined in the framework presented in Fig. 1, in tained from the matrices previously elaborated. The previous matrices
which the operational dimension relates to six determinants, the en- were considered valid for the construction of the supermatrix (Table 8)
vironmental dimension relates to five determinants, and three de- since all presented inconsistencies below 0.20, as recommended by
terminants are common for both dimensions. Saaty and Kearns (1985).
STEP 4: Pairwise comparison matrices of enablers in relation to Then, the initial supermatrix is multiplied by an arbitrarily large
performance determinants number, so that the values remain stable and reach convergence, thus
The next step was to evaluate the lean and green practices (en- obtaining the final supermatrix as shown in Table 9. This supermatrix
ablers) in relation to the performance determinants, according to the contains the relative priorities of each practice, that is, the final impact
pre-established relationships in the assessment framework. Table 6 scores of each practice considering all criteria analyzed.
shows, for example, the comparison matrix of green practices in rela- The priorities of the lean and green practices in the supermatrix
tion to the determinant energy consumption. In this example, the after convergence correspond to the stabilized values of the rows in
standard question was “how intensely does the practice X contribute to Table 9. Thus, it can be verified that the practices with the greatest
energy consumption compared to the practice Y?”. Matrices such as impact on the company’s performance are EMS, 3R, 5S, and KZ. These
these were made for all performance determinants. The resulting data findings mean that the company must prioritize these practices to im-
from these matrices are synthesized in the supermatrix shown in prove its organizational performance, considering the environmental
Table 8. and operational dimensions.
STEP 5: Pairwise comparison matrices between enablers If there is any change in the priority of determinants concerning
In order to capture interdependencies between lean and green operational and environmental performance, the priority of the prac-
practices, comparison matrices between enablers were constructed. tices may also change. The influence of the variation in priority of
Thus, lean practices were compared to each other in relation to each determinants on practices is described in Section 5, where the sensi-
green practice, and vice-versa (green practices were compared to each tivity analysis is conducted.
other in relation to each lean practice). Table 7 shows, for example, the STEP 7: Calculation of the lean-green index (LGindex)
comparison matrix of lean practices in relation to the green practice 3R. The final stage of the assessment process was the calculation of the
In this case, the standard question was “compare the lean practice ‘A’ lean-green index based on Eqs. (1) and (2) presented in Section 3.3. For
with the lean practice ‘B’ in relation to 3R”. Comparing 5S with CM, for this purpose, it was necessary to create first a pairwise comparison
example, the result obtained was score 5, indicating that the practice 5S matrix (Table 10) to obtain the values of S, which correspond to the
has a stronger relationship with 3R than with CM. Analogous matrices weights of each paradigm concerning the enablers.
were constructed for the other practices, and the results were synthe- The influence indexes (Wia ) of each paradigm on the environmental
sized in the supermatrix (Table 8). and operational dimensions, calculated by Eq. 1, can be observed in

82
 Table 8
Supermatrix before convergence.

Cluster/Elements Dimensions Green enablers Lean enablers

L.M.S. Farias et al.

Environmental Operational 3R EEC EMS 5S CM KZ TPM

performance performance

Green enablers 3R 0 0 0 0 0 0.327 0.327 0.280 0.202

EEC 0 0 0 0 0 0.260 0.260 0.094 0.097
EMS 0 0 0 0 0 0.413 0.413 0.627 0.701
Lean enablers 5S 0 0 0.411 0.065 0.424 0 0 0 0
CM 0 0 0.069 0.065 0.072 0 0 0 0
KZ 0 0 0.225 0.421 0.153 0 0 0 0
TPM 0 0 0.074 0.192 0.100 0 0 0 0
PP 0 0 0.074 0.092 0.056 0 0 0 0
SMED 0 0 0.074 0.092 0.036 0 0 0 0
SW 0 0 0.074 0.073 0.158 0 0 0 0
Determinants Energy consumption 0.094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inventory 0 0.068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Environmental 0.417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
impacts
Profit 0 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Productivity 0 0.248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quality 0.175 0.190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cost reduction 0.139 0.253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waste reduction 0.175 0.204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cluster/Elements Lean enablers Determinants

83
PP SMED SW Energy consumption Inventory Environmental impacts Profit Productivity Quality Cost reduction Waste reduction

Green enablers 0.600 0.584 0.600 0.451 0 0.091 0.900 0.900 0 0 0.500
0.200 0.135 0.200 0.490 0 0.091 0 0 0 0 0
0.200 0.281 0.200 0.059 1.000 0.818 0.100 0.100 0 1.000 0.500
Lean enablers 0 0 0 0.027 0.065 0.367 0.034 0.146 0.481 0.026 0.051
0 0 0 0.102 0 0.076 0 0.082 0 0 0.067
0 0 0 0.283 0.178 0.279 0.306 0 0.405 0.273 0.249
0 0 0 0.554 0 0.233 0 0.294 0.114 0.295 0.264
0 0 0 0.034 0 0 0 0.170 0 0 0.053
0 0 0 0 0.460 0.044 0.421 0.309 0 0.295 0.264
0 0 0 0 0.300 0 0.239 0 0 0.111 0.053
Determinants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
 Table 9
Supermatrix after convergence.

Cluster/Elements Dimensions Green enablers Lean enablers

L.M.S. Farias et al.

Environmental Operational 3R EEC EMS 5S CM KZ TPM

performance performance

Green enablers 3R 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165
EEC 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084
EMS 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201
Lean enablers 5S 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159
CM 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
KZ 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103
TPM 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
PP 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
SMED 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
SW 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
Determinants Energy consumption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inventory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
impacts
Profit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Productivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cost reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waste reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cluster/Elements Lean enablers Determinants

84
PP SMED SW Energy consumption Inventory Environmental impacts Profit Productivity Quality Cost reduction Waste reduction

Green enablers 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165
0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084
0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201
Lean enablers 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159
0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103
0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
Determinants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
L.M.S. Farias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89

Table 10
Pairwise comparisons between paradigms and enablers.

Paradigms Green (S1) Lean (S2) e-Vector

Green enablers S1 1 9 0.900

(EMS, EEC, 3R) S2 1/9 1 0.100
Lean enablers S1 1 1/9 0.100
(5S, CM, SMED, SW, PP, KZ, TPM) S2 9 1 0.900

Tables 11 and 12. The values in the second column of these tables
correspond to the weights of determinants found in Table 8. The values
in the fourth column correspond to the weights of practices contained
in Table 8. The values of the fifth column correspond to the stabilized
weights of practices contained in the supermatrix after convergence
(Table 9).
The green paradigm appeared as the one of greatest impact on both
environmental and operational performance, with influence indexes
(Wia ) of 0.144 and 0.142, respectively. Once these indexes are obtained,
the impact of each paradigm on organizational performance (LGindex)
can be calculated (Eq. 2), as shown in Table 13. The results show that
the green paradigm has a greater impact on the company’s perfor-
mance, with a weight of 0.143 (14.3%). According to Table 13, lean and
green systems have, jointly, an impact of 0.230 (23.0%) on organiza-
tional performance (under operational and environmental perspec-
tives).
Thus, although the lean system has a greater number of practices
implemented in the company, the green system stands out when it
comes to the influence on the organizational performance. These results
reflect the company's strong emphasis on safety and environmental
management, with a strong focus on meeting environmental standards.
In spite of the interesting results, it is noteworthy to mention that
the assessment process using the proposed framework was conducted to
test and illustrate its applicability. Therefore, the findings from the field
are just valid for that company, from the interviewees’ perspective.
5. Sensitivity analysis
When using ANP, the sensitivity analysis is an essential procedure
since it allows testing the robustness of the model in relation to the
variation in judgments (Saaty, 1996). In this study, a sensitivity analysis
was conducted to identify the effects of changing priorities on perfor-
mance determinants for prioritization of lean and green practices. In
each graph in Fig. 2, the dashed vertical line in black represents the
current weight of each determinant. The dashed vertical lines in red
represent points at which the priorities of the practices change with the
variation of the determinant weights.
Upon analyzing Fig. 2(a), it is observed, for example, that the

Table 11
Influence indexes for environmental performance.

Environmental performance D
Pja Akja I
Akja Sikja

Determinants Pja Enabler D

Akja I
Akja S1 S2 Lean Green

Energy consumption 0.094 3R 0.451 0.165 0.1 0.9 0.00070 0.00629

0.094 EEC 0.490 0.084 0.1 0.9 0.00039 0.00348
0.094 EMS 0.059 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00011 0.00101
0.094 5S 0.027 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00036 0.00004
0.094 CM 0.102 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00027 0.00003
0.094 KZ 0.283 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00247 0.00027
0.094 TPM 0.554 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00225 0.00025
0.094 PP 0.034 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00009 0.00001
Environmental impacts 0.417 3R 0.091 0.165 0.1 0.9 0.00063 0.00563
0.417 EEC 0.091 0.084 0.1 0.9 0.00032 0.00286
0.417 EMS 0.818 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00685 0.06169
0.417 5S 0.367 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.02191 0.00243
0.417 CM 0.076 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00088 0.00010
0.417 KZ 0.279 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.01079 0.00120
0.417 TPM 0.233 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00420 0.00047
0.417 SMED 0.044 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00045 0.00005
Quality 0.175 5S 0.481 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.01204 0.00134
0.175 KZ 0.405 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00658 0.00073
0.175 TPM 0.114 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00086 0.00010
Cost reduction 0.139 EMS 1.000 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00279 0.02513
0.139 5S 0.026 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00051 0.00006
0.139 KZ 0.273 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00352 0.00039
0.139 TPM 0.295 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00177 0.00020
0.139 SMED 0.295 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00100 0.00011
0.139 SW 0.111 0.050 0.9 0.1 0.00070 0.00008
Waste reduction 0.175 3R 0.500 0.165 0.1 0.9 0.00144 0.01300
0.175 EMS 0.500 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00176 0.01584
0.175 5S 0.051 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00128 0.00014
0.175 CM 0.067 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00033 0.00004
0.175 KZ 0.249 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00405 0.00045
0.175 TPM 0.264 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00199 0.00022
0.175 PP 0.053 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00026 0.00003
0.175 SMED 0.264 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00112 0.00012
0.175 SW 0.053 0.050 0.9 0.1 0.00042 0.00005
Influence index (Wia ) 0.095 0.144

85
L.M.S. Farias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89

Table 12
Influence indexes for operational performance.

Operational D
Pja Akja I
Akja Sikja
performance
Determinants Pja Enabler D
Akja I
Akja S1 S2 Lean Green

Inventory 0.068 EMS 1.000 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00138 0.01238

0.068 5S 0.065 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00064 0.00007
0.068 KZ 0.178 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00113 0.00013
0.068 SMED 0.460 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00077 0.00009
0.068 SW 0.300 0.050 0.9 0.1 0.00092 0.00010
Profit 0.037 3R 0.900 0.165 0.1 0.9 0.00055 0.00492
0.037 EMS 0.100 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00007 0.00067
0.037 5S 0.034 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00018 0.00002
0.037 KZ 0.306 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00104 0.00012
0.037 SMED 0.421 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00038 0.00004
0.037 SW 0.239 0.050 0.9 0.1 0.00040 0.00004
Productivity 0.248 3R 0.900 0.165 0.1 0.9 0.00368 0.03309
0.248 EMS 0.100 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00050 0.00448
0.248 5S 0.146 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00516 0.00057
0.248 CM 0.082 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00057 0.00006
0.248 TPM 0.294 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00314 0.00035
0.248 PP 0.170 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00117 0.00013
0.248 SMED 0.309 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00186 0.00021
Quality 0.190 5S 0.481 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.01307 0.00145
0.190 KZ 0.405 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00714 0.00079
0.190 TPM 0.114 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00094 0.00010
Cost reduction 0.253 EMS 1.000 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00508 0.04569
0.253 5S 0.026 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00093 0.00010
0.253 KZ 0.273 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00640 0.00071
0.253 TPM 0.295 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00322 0.00036
0.253 SMED 0.295 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00181 0.00020
0.253 SW 0.111 0.050 0.9 0.1 0.00126 0.00014
Waste 0.204 3R 0.500 0.165 0.1 0.9 0.00169 0.01518
reduction 0.204 EMS 0.500 0.201 0.1 0.9 0.00206 0.01850
0.204 5S 0.051 0.159 0.9 0.1 0.00150 0.00017
0.204 CM 0.067 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00038 0.00004
0.204 KZ 0.249 0.103 0.9 0.1 0.00473 0.00053
0.204 TPM 0.264 0.048 0.9 0.1 0.00233 0.00026
0.204 PP 0.053 0.031 0.9 0.1 0.00030 0.00003
0.204 SMED 0.264 0.027 0.9 0.1 0.00131 0.00015
0.204 SW 0.053 0.050 0.9 0.1 0.00049 0.00005
Influence index 0.078 0.142
(Wia )

energy consumption weight at 9.40% (actual weight) makes EMS a 6. Discussion

priority. As the weight increases, the priority for this practice decreases;
by increasing over 20%, the priority changes to 3R. The next priority
change occurs when energy consumption weight is over 70%, at which
moment TPM takes priority over the others. On the other hand, EMS is
the priority for any value of the determinant inventory (Fig. 2b).
Analogous understanding can be found when analyzing the variation in
priority of the others determinants.
Sensitivity analysis makes the assessment dynamic and helps man-
agers to anticipate the consequences of decisions on the lean-green
system. Considering that business strategies may change over time, the
proposed framework allows a continuous assessment and indicates the
redefinition of priorities in lean and green practices.
The application of the assessment framework made it possible to test
the ANP model and its relationships in practice. In the case of the
studied company, the application revealed interesting results, revealing
the lean and green practices with more influence on performance by
analyzing the operational and environmental dimensions. From the
practitioners’ point of view, the framework assists in identifying which
lean and green practices should receive more attention and greater
investment, depending on the performance criteria the company wishes
to prioritize. In addition, the framework will also help managers to
identify which practices can work together to improve performance in
both lean and green systems and thus achieve higher levels of

Table 13
Lean-green impact levels on organizational performance (LGindex).

Paradigms Environmental performance Operational performance Lean-Green index (LGindex) Normalized values for LGindex

Weights (Ca) 0.500 0.500

Lean 0.095 0.078 0.087 0.378
Green 0.144 0.142 0.143 0.622
Total 0.230 1.000

86
L.M.S. Farias et al.
Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis: (a) energy consumption, (b) inventory, (c) environmental impacts, (d) profit, (e) productivity, (f) quality, (g) cost reduction, (h) waste
reduction.
operational and environmental performance.
Another feature that makes the framework useful for performance
management is its flexibility. From the generic framework presented in
Fig. 1, each company can remove or add lean and green performance
criteria and practices to adapt the evaluation to its context. Although
the components and relationships of the framework are rooted in the
current literature, most of them with empirical evidence, managers
interested in modifying the original structure of the assessment system
will be able to do so since this paper already provides a starting point
for that. Therefore, the assessment procedure of the theoretical frame-
work can be considered generalizable and at the same time adaptable
for practical application.
A potential barrier to the practical application of the framework is
inherent to the ANP methodology. Although some companies may not
have trained personnel to use ANP, there is a free software application
87
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
available on the internet (https://superdecisions.com) that implements
the technique by assisting in structuring the problem and allowing
automatic calculation. Software support greatly increases the usability
of the framework and encourages managers to use it even without prior
training.
A relevant contribution of the proposed framework was the devel-
opment of the lean-green index. The LGindex helps to unify the results of
the assessment, allowing incorporating this metric to the performance
measurement system of the company. Although ANP is useful for
evaluating relationships and influences, the technique does not present
a unified result. With the incorporation of the LGindex, companies can
easily track the progress of their lean and green strategies. On the other
hand, besides the unified monitoring, the detailing of the cause-effect
relationships of ANP allows the identification of improvement actions
necessary to increase local and global performance.
L.M.S. Farias et al.
Sensitivity analysis is also another procedure that brings important
practical contributions to the evaluation of lean and green systems.
Besides adding the perspective of a continuous assessment, sensitivity
analysis can be used as a planning tool since it allows anticipating the
consequences of changing priorities in business strategy.
7. Conclusion
This research sought to propose an original approach for the as-
sessment of lean and green practices using ANP as a fundamental
technique. To that end, through a review of the literature, it was pos-
sible to identify practices that support the implementation of lean and
green systems, as well as the related performance criteria under the
operational and environmental dimensions. Finally, the relationships
between performance criteria and practices were structured in a fra-
mework that was operationalized via ANP. The framework was tested
in a footwear manufacturing plant, confirming that it is feasible to
evaluate lean and green practices regarding the impacts on operational
and environmental performance, and thus identify which practices
should be prioritized. The assessment is unified through the lean-green
index (LGindex), which brings a synthesized view of results and sim-
plifies the monitoring of the progress of the system.
Considering the literature on lean and green, there is a scarcity of
assessment models involving both approaches. Therefore, it can be
stated that this study contributes to the literature of the area since it
proposes an assessment structure of both systems using ANP as an im-
plementation tool and providing an index (LGindex) that enables the
evaluation of lean and green systems in an integrated way.
Compared to other similar assessment approaches, the framework
proposed in this paper is different in some ways. Unlike the model
proposed by Carvalho et al. (2017), it is focused on internal manu-
facturing operations, and not on supply chains, so it addresses a more
appropriate set of practices and performance criteria for this context. It
links practices to specific performance criteria and considers lean and
green as components of the same integrated system. However, the most
remarkable characteristic of the proposed approach is that it considers
all possible interactions between practices and performance criteria, a
gap left by Thanki et al. (2016); Carvalho et al. (2017); Ramos et al.
(2018); Bai et al. (2018).
Particularly, this article had an objective similar to that proposed by
Thanki et al. (2016), which focused on small and medium-sized en-
terprises (SMEs). However, in addition to having a broader scope (fo-
cusing not only on SMEs), this study goes beyond the work of Thanki
et al. (2016) in three ways: (i) it evaluates interrelationships between
practices and performance criteria in a network, and not only in hier-
archies, allowing feedback among the elements; (ii) it provides an in-
strument for a practical application, which enables companies to self-
assess their performance; and (iii) it proposes a unified performance
indicator (LGindex).
Regarding the limitations of the research, it is important to consider
that the existing relationships in the framework were based solely on
literature analysis. Future studies could analyze the elements contained
in the framework through factorial analysis to confirm the relationships
obtained from the literature. Another opportunity for improvement in
the framework is to measure the level of integration between lean and
green practices applied to a company in order to identify synergies
between both systems. Another path for the continuity of this research
is to combine ANP with other multicriteria analysis techniques that take
into account the relationships between the elements of a system, such as
Graph-Theoretic Approach (GTA) or Interpretive Structural Modeling
(ISM), in order to enrich the results generated.
Regarding the practical application, future works could apply the
focus group technique to the decision-makers to test the convergence in
judgments. Furthermore, it is always noteworthy to recommend the
extension of the number of practical applications to understand the
limits of applicability of the proposed framework.
88
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
Acknowledgments
This study was partially funded by the Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) –
Finance code: 1600604.
References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2006. Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and
leagile supply chain: an ANP-based approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 173, 211–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.12.005.
Bai, C., Satir, A., Sarkis, J., 2018. Investing in lean manufacturing practices: an en-
vironmental and operational perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1498986.
Ball, P., 2015. Low energy production impact on lean flow. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 26,
412–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0120.
Caldera, H.T.S., Desha, C., Dawes, L., 2017. Exploring the role of lean thinking in sus-
tainable business practice: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 167,
1546–1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.126.
Carvalho, H., Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Cruz-Machado, V., 2017. Modelling green and
lean supply chains: an eco-efficiency perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 120,
75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.025.
Chaplin, L., O’Rourke, S.T.J., 2018. Could lean and green be the driver to integrate
business improvement throughout the organisation? Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag.
67, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2017-0008.
Chavez, R., Gimenez, C., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F., Yu, W., 2013. Internal lean practices
and operational performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33, 562–588. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01443571311322724.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K., Mokhlis, A., 2017.
A framework for the integration of green and lean six sigma for superior sustain-
ability performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 4481–4515. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2016.1266406.
Chiarini, A., 2014. Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific lean
production tools: an empirical observation from European motorcycle component
manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.
07.080.
Chugani, N., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Rocha-Lona, L., Upadhyay, A., 2017.
Investigating the green impact of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma. Int. J. Lean Six
Sigma 8, 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-11-2015-0043.
Diaz-Elsayed, N., Jondral, A., Greinacher, S., Dornfeld, D., Lanza, G., 2013. Assessment of
lean and green strategies by simulation of manufacturing systems in discrete pro-
duction environments. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 62, 475–478. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cirp.2013.03.066.
Domingo, R., Aguado, S., 2015. Overall environmental equipment effectiveness as a
metric of a lean and green manufacturing system. Sustain 7, 9031–9047. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su7079031.
Dües, C.M., Tan, K.H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new lean: how to use lean practices as
a catalyst to greening your supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 93–100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.023.
Fercoq, A., Lamouri, S., Carbone, V., 2016. Lean/green integration focused on waste
reduction techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.07.107.
Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A., Vinelli, A., 2014. Lean and green in action: interdependencies
and performance of pollution prevention projects. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 191–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.015.
Gandhi, N.S., Thanki, S.J., Thakkar, J.J., 2018. Ranking of drivers for integrated lean-
green manufacturing for Indian manufacturing SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 171, 675–689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.041.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015. Lean and green: a systematic review of the state of the art lit-
erature. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.064.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, V., Chaikittisilp, S., Tan, K.H., 2018. The effect of lean methods
and tools on the environmental performance of manufacturing organisations. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 200, 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.03.030.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., Gavronski, I., 2013. Lean management and
supply management: their role in green practices and performance. J. Clean. Prod.
39, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.028.
Hallam, C., Contreras, C., 2016. Integrating lean and green management. Manag. Decis.
54, 2157–2187. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2016-0259.
Hong, P., Roh, J.J., Rawski, G., 2012. Benchmarking sustainability practices: evidence
from manufacturing firm. Benchmarking Int. J. 19, 634–648. https://doi.org/10.
1108/MRR-09-2015-0216.
Jasti, N.V.K., Kodali, R., 2015. Lean production: literature review and trends. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 53, 867–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.937508.
Kurdve, M., Shahbazi, S., Wendin, M., Bengtsson, C., Wiktorsson, M., 2015. Waste flow
mapping to improve sustainability of waste management: a case study approach. J.
Clean. Prod. 98, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.076.
León, H.C.M., Calvo-Amodio, J., 2017. Towards lean for sustainability: understanding the
interrelationships between lean and sustainability from a systems thinking perspec-
tive. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 4384–4402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.
132.
Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., 1999. Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile
manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37,
241–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499191751.
L.M.S. Farias et al.
Miller, G., Pawloski, J., Standridge, C., 2010. A case study of lean, sustainable manu-
facturing. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 3, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2010.v3n1.
p11-32.
Pampanelli, A.B., Found, P., Bernardes, A.M., 2013. A lean & green model for a pro-
duction cell. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.
014.
Prasad, S., Khanduja, D., Sharma, S.K., 2016. An empirical study on applicability of lean
and green practices in the foundry industry. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 27, 408–426.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2015-0058.
Ramos, A.R., Ferreira, J.C.E., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Cherrafi, A., 2018. A lean and
cleaner production benchmarking method for sustainability assessment: a study of
manufacturing companies in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 218–231. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.145.
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K., Maxwell, J., 2001. Lean, green, and the quest for superior en-
vironmental performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10, 228–243. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00372.x.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 48, 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making With Dependence and Feedback: the Analytic Network
Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh 370 pp.
Saaty, T.L., Kearns, K.P., 1985. Analytic Planning: the Organization of Systems. Pergamon
Press, Oxford 208 pp.
Thanki, S.J., Thakkar, J.J., 2016. Value-value load diagram: a graphical tool for lean-
green performance assessment. Prod. Plan. Control 27, 1280–1297. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09537287.2016.122064.
Thanki, S., Govindan, K., Thakkar, J., 2016. An investigation on lean-green
89
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 77–89
implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.
105.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., Remita, H., 2014. Combining organizational perfor-
mance with sustainable development issues: the lean and green project benchmarking
repository. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.
023.
Vinodh, S., Ramesh, K., Arun, C.S., 2016. Application of interpretive structural modelling
for analysing the factors influencing integrated lean sustainable system. Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 18, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1025-7.
Wickramasinghe, G., Wickramasinghe, V., 2017. Implementation of lean production
practices and manufacturing performance: the role of lean duration. J. Manuf.
Technol. Manag. 28, 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2016-0112.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine That Changed the World. Rawson
Associates, New York 323 pp.
Wong, W.P., Ignatius, J., Soh, K.L., 2014. What is the leanness level of your organisation
in lean transformation implementation? An integrated lean index using ANP ap-
proach. Prod. Plan. Control 25, 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.
674308.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P., Modi, S.B., 2011. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 129, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.017.
Zhan, Y., Tan, K.H., Ji, G., Chung, L., Chiu, A.S.F., 2018. Green and lean sustainable
development path in China: guanxi, practices and performance. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 128, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.02.006.