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

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

IJLSS
6,3
Green lean and the need for
Six Sigma
Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes
Centre for Supply Chain Improvement, University of Derby, Derby, UK
226
Received 28 April 2014
Revised 19 November 2014 Abstract
Accepted 10 December 2014 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically review the green lean approach and highlight its
limitations; examine the compatibility of the green, lean and Six Sigma concepts; and propose Six
Sigma, and specially its problem-solving methodology DMAIC, as an approach to help enhancing the
effectiveness of green lean initiatives. Historically, profitability and efficiency, and more recently
customer satisfaction, quality and responsiveness objectives have been the prevailing interest for
organisations. However, the move towards greener operations and products has forced companies to
seek alternatives to combine these with green objectives and initiatives. Green lean is the result of this
combination. Thus, the paper conceptually proposes Green Lean Six Sigma.
Design/methodology/approach – To do this, a systematic literature review (SLR) of the subjects
under investigation was conducted.
Findings – The SLR indicated that the green lean integration may have inherited the same limitations
as the individual green and lean approaches, but these may be overcome through the integration of Six
Sigma. It also identified the similarities of some of the main attributes of green, lean and Six Sigma,
which suggest their compatibility to be unified as an integrated approach.
Practical implications – The paper allows scholars to develop a deeper and richer knowledge on the
simultaneous deployment of green and operational improvement initiatives and help practitioners in
formulating more effective strategies for their deployment.
Originality/value – The paper is one of the very first researches that investigate the potential benefits
of integrating green lean and Six Sigma.
Keywords Six Sigma, DMAIC, Lean, Green
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
Recently, with the rise of operations and quality improvement methodologies, such as
lean manufacturing, total quality management (TQM), business process re-engineering,
among others, and the increasing concerns for the environment, the market dynamic has
changed. Historically, profitability and efficiency, and more recently customer
satisfaction, quality and responsiveness have been the dominant concern for
organisations (Green et al., 2012; Mohanty et al., 1999). However, to respond to
governmental environmental regulations and the growth of customer demands for
products and services that are environmentally sustainable, companies have been
forced to rethink how they manage their operations and processes. Since the 1950s, lean
manufacturing has been gaining fame in a wide range of industries all around the world,
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma disseminating the concept of waste reduction (Chauhan and Singh, 2012). On the other
Vol. 6 No. 3, 2015
pp. 226-248
hand, “green” initiatives have been adopted as a requirement to comply with
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
environmental regulations and meet market and social demands (Digalwar et al., 2013).
DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-04-2014-0010 The combination of lean and green seems logical, but a question arises from this: Is their
integration enough to effectively achieve operational competitiveness and positive Green lean
green results at the same time? and the need
As lean aims at the elimination of waste in every area of production, design, supplier
network and factory management (Chauhan and Singh, 2012), the combination of lean
for Six Sigma
and green seems natural. However, although numerous studies have considered the
relationship and impact of green and lean practices on organisations and supply chains
(Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Hajmohammad et al., 2013; King and Lenox, 2001; Simpson and 227
Power, 2005; Rothenberg et al., 2001; Kainuma and Tawara, 2006; Carvalho et al., 2011,
2014), their combination as an integrated approach has only been explored by a handful
of experts and researchers (Dües et al., 2013).
For example, Dües et al. (2013) carried out a study that aimed at exploring and
evaluating, from a conceptual point of view, the “green lean” paradigm. The results of
their study suggest that lean has a positive effect on green initiatives and that these, in
turn, are also beneficial for existing lean business practices. Similarly, Duarte and
Cruz-Machado (2013) examined how different business models, standards and
frameworks, and embodied awards can contribute to modelling a green lean approach
for an organisation and its supply chain. Based on this, Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2013)
proposed guidelines to model green lean organisations. Verrier et al. (2014) proposed an
approach which adds environmental and social dimensions to the consideration of
economic earnings received through lean actions. Kurdve et al. (2011) applied value
stream mapping (VSM), a lean tool, at Volvo Penta Vara and Volvo Construction
Equipment Braås, with a particular focus on showing environmental losses. In the
construction industry, Martinez et al. (2009) proposed the integration of green building
and lean construction philosophies, while Enache-Pommer et al. (2010) suggested the
integration of lean, green and building information modelling (BIM) during the
programming and early design stages of a project in the health care construction market
segment. Other studies that have also explored the integration of green and lean as a
consolidated approach include Dawes (2009), Vinodh et al. (2011), Joshi and Sharma
(2014), Kurdve (2014) and Kurdve et al. (2014).
In general terms, these studies investigate and discuss the relationship between lean
and green by highlighting the synergies and divergences between the two, possible
benefits of their integration in different industries, their impact on organisations and
supply chains’ performance and some of their theoretical implementation aspects when
tried to be simultaneously deployed. Although the study presented in this paper also
reviews and considers the synergies and divergences of lean and green, its objective is to
identify the possible limitations of the green lean paradigm, and provide some direction
as to how these may be overcome through the integration of Six Sigma. For this, the
paper investigates the compatibility of green, lean and Six Sigma, and discusses a
conceptual integration of the latest with green lean.

2. Research method
In light of the paper’s objective, the working methodology followed was based on a
systematic review of the existent literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) is a
method that adopts a rigorous, transparent and explicit approach that includes a series
of four phases (i.e. planning, sampling, analysing and reporting) to ensure that an
appropriate rigour and transparency is brought to the literature review process
(Tranfield et al., 2003; Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). Figure 1 illustrates and
IJLSS
6,3

228

Figure 1.
SLR phases, methods
and tools

summarises the phases of the SLR undertaken and the methods and tools used to
support every stage.

2.1 Planning phase

The planning phase was critical in determining the structure of the systematic review
and aligning it with the objective of the research (Briner and Denyer, 2012; Rousseau,
2012). For this, the planning phase indicated that it was first necessary to understand the
lean and green approaches as separated concepts, and then their synergies and
divergences (Section 3). Once this was achieved, the planning phase suggested the
exploration of:
• the limitations of green lean as an integrated approach (Section 4);
• the compatibility of green, lean and Six Sigma (Section 5); and
• how Six Sigma may help to overcome them (Section 5).

2.2 Sampling phase

The articles sampling was carried out by utilising search strings in numerous
publishers’ electronic databases to find publications relevant to the scope of the review.
Electronic databases included Elsevier (sciencedirect.com), IEEE (ieeexplore.ieee.org),
Emerald (emeraldinsight.com), Springer (springerlink.com), Taylor & Francis Green lean
(taylorandfrancis.com), Wiley (onlinelibrary.wiley.com) and Inderscience and the need
(inderscience.com). EBSCO (ebscohost.com), ISI Web of Science (wokinfo.com) and
Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) were also used to validate the previous searches
for Six Sigma
and make sure that no relevant articles had been ignored. The C-I-M-O
(context-intervention-mechanism-outcome) (Briner and Denyer, 2012; Rousseau, 2012)
framework was followed during this phase of the systematic literature review to 229
determine the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the search strings. This allowed the
definition of a specific search focus and the exclusion of articles when found that these
did not refer to the inclusion of both terms. In relation to the strings, they were specified
based on the main topics of the phenomena under investigation. In particular, they
comprised: green lean, environmental lean, environment lean, lean eco-efficiency and
lean eco-sustainability. Search results included all types of sources (i.e. peer-reviewed
journals, conference proceedings, books, brochures and website contents). For this
study, however, the review only included journal and conference articles due to the
peer-review process in the publication of these, which contributes to the production of
quality information (Saunders et al., 2012). Other search strings such as sustainability
lean and sustainable lean had also been considered initially. However, these were then
excluded, as they also involved the social and economic perspectives of sustainability
(Hosseini and Kaneko, 2012) and, hence, were not only concerned with green and lean. A
final sample of 59 articles with reference to lean and green aspects was identified.
However, 57 articles were used for the analysis as two of them were not full journal of
conference articles.

2.3 Analysis phase

Methods such as qualitative comparative analysis, thematic analysis/synthesis,
grounded theory, qualitative meta-summary, meta-ethnography, qualitative
meta-analysis and content analysis exist for the synthesis of qualitative research. For
the systematic review of the literature performed in this study, thematic synthesis was
considered the most appropriate method due to its effectiveness in identifying important
recurring themes and the use of structured ways of dealing with data within each theme.
In particular, as Thomas and Harden (2008) and Thorpe et al. (2005) consider NVivo as
the most effective computer software for coding data from full articles; this software and
data extraction forms were used to conduct the thematic synthesis of the selected
articles. Characteristics of lean and green, their synergies and divergences, limitations of
green lean, characteristics of Six Sigma and possible synergies of this approach with the
green lean concept were the research elements that shaped the finding synthesis.

2.4 Reporting phase

Systematic review possesses clear advantages over classical narrative reviews; for
example, it reduces the bias that may be introduced by original research and reports
(Thomas and Harden, 2008; Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). It also contributes to the
reduction of bias by the reviewers during the data collection and sampling phases, as it
introduces an element of rigour and transparency to the work that is being presented. In
general terms, this article follows the introduction, methods, results, and discussion
(IMRaD) structure to report the systematic literature review findings. This structure,
IJLSS according to Booth et al. (2012) and Smith (2000), provides a clear and easy to follow flow
6,3 for the readers of the article.

3. Green, lean and green lean

3.1 Green and lean
Environmental concerns have led organisations to take a proactive role in developing
230 cleaner manufacturing processes and services as well as designing recyclable products.
Thus, the green paradigm has emerged as a philosophy and operational approach to
improve the environmental efficiency of organisations and reduce the ecological impact
of their products and services while still achieving their financial objectives. In general
terms, the green concept can be considered an initiative (Digalwar et al., 2013) that
encompasses methods that include environmental operations management, also known
as green operations, (Gupta and Sharma, 1996; Nunes and Bennett, 2010), green supply
chains (Sarkis, 2012; Zhu et al., 2008), reverse logistics (Sarkis, 2003), design for
environment or eco-design, (Sarkis, 2001; Gottberg et al., 2006), green building
(Paumgartten, 2003) and green manufacturing (Sarkis, 1998; Kleindorfer et al., 2005).
Green can, therefore, be defined as an initiative that intends to reduce the negative
environmental impact of the production and consumption of products and services
through the utilisation of these methods, thus improving the environmental footprint of
organisations (Galeazzo et al., 2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995).
On the other hand, lean manufacturing was initially developed in Japan by Taiichi
Ohno and Shigeo Shingo, where it was known as Toyota Production System (Herron
and Hicks, 2008). After the Second World War, Toyota could not compete with the mass
production system used in the USA, especially when considering quality and cost
(Abdul Wahab et al., 2013). For this reason, instead of focusing on mass production,
Toyota created a new management system focused on the reduction of waste in all
aspects of it is operations (Herron and Hicks, 2008). Waste, according to Womack and
Jones (1996) and based on the lean philosophy, is defined as all those process activities
which do not contribute with, or add value to, the transformation of a product into its
final form as sold to the customer (Marriott et al., 2013). These include unnecessary
motion, excess inventory, waiting, quality defects, over-processing, unnecessary
transport and overproduction. To eliminate or reduce these wastes, various tools that
include kaizen, cellular manufacturing, Just-in-Time (JIT), poka-yoke, pull systems,
standardised work, 5S or housekeeping, among others, were developed as part of the
lean approach (Herron and Hicks, 2008). Nowadays, lean manufacturing is considered
the most influential new paradigm in manufacturing, as empirical evidence suggests it
improves the competitiveness of organisations (Hines et al., 2004) by reducing
inventories and lead-times, and improving productivity and quality (Abdul Wahab
et al., 2013).

3.2 Green lean – synergies and divergences

The move towards green operations has forced organisations to seek alternatives to
combine the now “traditional” measures of performance of profitability, efficiency,
customer satisfaction, quality and responsiveness with green objectives and initiatives.
Green lean is the result of this combination. Thinking about the meaning of lean and
green, their synchronism seems to be around their focus on waste reduction; however,
this goes further beyond. Mollenkopf et al. (2010) suggest that green lean searches for a
more efficient system to reduce the production of undesired products, and the Green lean
environmental impact of their conception along the supply chain and internal operations and the need
of an organisation. Also, Simpson and Power (2005) comment that the practice that
supports lean and green are similar, generating a system that is efficient and
for Six Sigma
well-organised devoted to continuous improvement. To Duarte and Cruz-Machado
(2013), green lean works to improve processes at an operational level, reducing
operational cost. So it is possible to conclude that green lean is an effective tool to 231
improve processes and reduce costs, by not only reducing non-value-added activities
but also physical waste created by systems.
According to Mollenkopf et al. (2010), lean companies, which deploy continuous
improvement techniques, seem to be more likely to accept environmental innovations.
As lean tends to emphasise waste reduction, it provides a better atmosphere to deploy
green philosophies, methods and tools. In this scenario, the similarity between the two
seems logical, waste reduction. However, green goes beyond waste reduction as it is also
concerned with process efficiency, reduction of material consumption and recycling, and
similarly as all the quality improvement approaches, one of its ultimate objectives is to
improve customers’ satisfaction. From this view, it is possible to identify several
synergies between the lean and green concepts, these being: waste reduction, lead-time
reduction and use of different approaches and techniques to manage people,
organisations and supply chain relations (Dües et al., 2013; Mollenkopf et al., 2010).
However, waste has different meanings in lean and green (Dües et al., 2013; Carvalho
et al., 2011; Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013). For lean, waste refers to any activity that
does not add value to the product, while for the green concept, waste is related to the
wasteful consumption of water, energy or any natural resource (Duarte and
Cruz-Machado, 2013). Despite their difference, non-value-added activities can also be
considered part of wasting energy and natural resources. For example, unnecessary or
excessive transportation of products and/or raw materials is not only one of the seven
wastes defined by lean but also a waste of non-renewable natural resources. Thus, both
practices aim for less transportation to save cost (lean) and reduce the consumption of
natural resources and CO2 output (green) (Carvalho et al., 2011). Another example is
excessive inventory, which according to lean is considered waste because it increases
lead time, prevents the rapid identification of problems and discourages communication
(Hines and Rich, 1997). Excessive inventory also requires storage space and needs to be
lighted, and sometimes heated or chilled, which from the environmental point of view
may be considered a waste of energy if the lighting, heating and/or chilling is not done
efficiently (Franchetti et al., 2009). In this way, it is possible to relate all the seven lean
wastes to those considered and defined by green initiatives. This indicates that lean can
serve as a catalyst for green, facilitating companies the deployment of environmental
policies and practices. However, there are still some areas in which lean and green
cannot be combined as well as there are still some limitations when considering green
lean as an integrated approach.
Some objectives of both approaches that may not be possible to combine, for
example: their focus, what are considered wastes, the customer, manufacturing
strategies and some practices adopted by organisations (Dües et al., 2013; Mollenkopf
et al., 2010). For this reason, despite the several synergies already identified, lean and
green cannot perfectly be combined, they are concurrent and, thus, can effectively work
together, but there are still some points that deserve attention when deploying both
IJLSS initiatives simultaneously. According to Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2013), the main
6,3 difference between lean and green lies in how waste is defined, this divergence is also
identified by Dües et al. (2013). Despite both meanings take the approach of working to
improve processes at an operational level, lean focuses on workforce reduction, space
reduction, increase capacity utilisation, higher system flexibility and the use of standard
components (Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Pettersen, 2009). Whereas green ranges
232 from practices like reduce, reuse and recycle (3Rs), rework, return and remanufacture
(Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013). Another clear difference between lean and green is
the type of customer (Dües et al., 2013). Lean focuses on cost and lead-time reduction to
satisfy customers (Carvalho et al., 2011) while in green, customers are more concerned as
to whether the product that they are purchasing is helping them being more
environmentally friendly (Dües et al., 2013; Mollenkopf et al., 2010). Also, the green
customer would not mind paying more for an environmental-friendly product, which
would not occur with lean customers.
So it is clear that lean and green are not completely compatible, there are still some
areas in which they cannot be combined. However, those areas do not undermine or
block the utilisation of lean and green simultaneously as an integrated management
approach; contrary to this, it gives the opportunity to improve both methods in a way
that they can perfectly match. Nevertheless, even as an integrated approach, the green
lean concept may still find some limitations that require attention.

4. Limitations of green lean as an integrated approach

There is little empirical evidence of the extent of adoption and effectiveness of green lean
(Pampanelli et al., 2014; Galeazzo et al., 2013), but Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000) and Dües
et al. (2013) agree that organisations that jointly implement lean and green achieve both
higher environmental and operational performance. In addition, the extensively
documented success and expansion of lean into other industries different to
manufacturing (Garza-Reyes et al., 2012), and the fact that it is now accepted as a best
practice for many organisations all around the world (Forrester et al., 2010), may also
corroborate that green lean will be able to help organisations in achieving improvements
that are not only finance- and operation-driven but also environment-oriented.
Nevertheless, despite this, the integrated green lean approach may suffer from the
same limitations as the individual lean and green philosophies. In the case of lean, Salah
et al. (2010) think about it as a toolbox that is composed of tools that are directed toward
the reduction of waste. These tools were not all invented with this methodology, but they
have been systematically used in a structured manner to form lean (Salah et al., 2010).
One of the main limitations of the pure lean approach includes the fact that it does not
scrutinise and targets the reduction of variations in processes (Devane, 2004; Lee et al.,
2013). For instance, reducing inventory can not only be achieved by the implementation
of a pull system and by reducing batch sizes; in this case, the minimisation of variation
in the process is also necessary (El-Haik and Al-Aomar, 2006; Snee and Hoerl, 2003), as
there are variations in demand, supply and production yield. As a consequence, there
will also be variations in green aspects, such as storage space, inventory waste and
energy consumption, for example, through lighting, heating and/or chilling.
Montgomery (2001) and Snee and Hoerl (2003) comment that reducing variation is a
primary means for improving operations. Arguably, this is also the case for green
performance. In addition, the scrutiny of variation also informs and supports
decision-making (Devane, 2004) for a more effective management and improvement of Green lean
operations and green performance. The lack of practices and lean tools associated with and the need
the use of quality and advanced statistical/mathematical tools, able to collect and use
statistical data to control and monitor processes and identify further problems still
for Six Sigma
remaining after waste has been eliminated (Devane, 2004; Lee et al., 2013), is considered
another limitation of lean. Thus, Assarlind et al. (2012) suggest that lean organisations
do not extensively utilise data in decision-making and that they should use 233
methodologies that promote a more scientific approach to improvement. In this context,
the lack of a data-driven approach to process improvement makes lean less accurate and
precise (Hilton and Sohal, 2012). Also, despite lean being an operational approach that
focuses on fulfilling customers’ needs (Chauhan and Singh, 2012), it does not present a
structured approach to control processes, solve problems and/or systematically conduct
improvement projects. This lack of systematic rigour may not allow lean to provide a
good level of confidence that the real root causes of problems have been addressed, and
to create a data-based culture for decision-making within an organisation (Husby and
Swartwood, 2009). Thus, operational and green problems may not be eliminated from
their root cause, running the risk of reappearing again. Finally, the lack of a systematic
approach to conduct improvements may also complicate the definition of wastes as
previously discussed.
On the other hand, in the case of green, although decision support and expert systems
tools are available to support it, Chan et al. (2010) comment that their application to solve
green problems is limited. For this reason, unlike lean, green cannot be thought as a
toolbox but mainly as a concept and initiative that comprises a series of practices and
methods (e.g. environmental operations management, green supply chains, reverse
logistics, design for environment, green building and green manufacturing). This
results in the green concept not being able to “lend” lean, if integrated with it, tools that
could help overcome the lean drawbacks previously discussed. Thus, the limitations of
lean will be inherited by the green lean approach.
Following the same reasoning, an integrated green lean approach will not only
confront the limitations of lean but also the limitations and challenges of the green
approach. From the discussion of Nunes and Bennett (2010) on environmental
management systems and green operations, it is possible to imply that the main
limitations of green are not related to operational but strategic aspects. For example,
Nunes and Bennett (2010) suggest that although there is clear and strong reasons as to
why organisations should implement green, it is still unclear to them how to make green
decisions when a company faces a challenging strategic decision regarding where to
make the investment when there are involved various possibilities (e.g. in facilities,
manufacturing, logistics, marketing, process and product design, etc.). Another
strategic challenge of green is how to implement its initiatives in a way in which they
also meet corporate goals of profitability and other business requirements (Nunes and
Bennett, 2010). This is because, in some cases, green activities do not return a profit from
individual initiatives or are matched with corporate objectives.
Besides these strategic challenges, green can also present operational limitations.
Joseph (2014) comments that two of the most common limitations include conversion
expense and more expensive products. For example, it can be expensive for an
organisation to go green initially as new energy-saving equipment (e.g. solar panels)
may need to be bought and installed. Unfortunately, cost reductions in energy savings
IJLSS gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial capital conversion costs
6,3 (Joseph, 2014). In addition, moving into the use of more environmentally friendly
products can lead to more expensive products for consumers.
Similarly, as with the inheritance of the lean limitations by the green lean approach,
the limitations and challenges of the green concept will also be passed on to the
integrated green lean approach, without lean being able to contribute to overcome some
234 of them. For instance, in terms of prioritising strategic green investment decisions, lean
lacks a prioritisation approach (Bendell, 2010; Kirkham et al., 2014) to support a decision
of this type. In addition, as lean lacks a project-based approach to improvement (Devane,
2004; Lee et al., 2013) and, thus, a planning phase, it may not help in aligning the green
lean initiatives to corporate goals of profitability as well as to other business
requirements. This lack of a project-based approach may also contribute to lean not
being able to specifically focus and dedicate a project to identify the most cost-effective
and environmentally friendly equipment and raw material, which could offset and/or
limit the negative impact on operational and product costs that these may have.
The individual limitations and challenges of lean and green, also inherited by the
integrated green lean approach, and the lack of methods and/or tools from the “other”
concept (e.g. lean or green) to overcome these, calls for the integration of additional tools
capable of contributing to the reduction or elimination of these challenges and
limitations. These “other” tools can come from Six Sigma.

5. Green lean Six Sigma

5.1 Six Sigma
Initiated by Motorola in the 1980s, Six Sigma is now considered one of the most
important developments to process and quality improvement of the past decades
(Garza-Reyes et al., 2014). Since then, Six Sigma has gained wide popularity among
organisations worldwide, with most Fortune 500 companies deploying it (Goh, 2002;
Garza-Reyes et al., 2010) not only to improve their financial and operational performance
but also customer satisfaction through the reduction of defective products and services.
Six Sigma focuses on the product’s or process’s critical quality characteristics that are
relevant to the customers. Based on these characteristics, Six Sigma identifies and
eliminates variability, defects, mistakes or failures that may affect processes or systems
(Garza-Reyes et al., 2014).
One of the Six Sigma’s distinctive approaches to problem-solving and improvement
is DMAIC (define-measure-analyse-improve-control). This methodology closely
resembles the Deming’s continuous learning and improvement model PDCA
(plan-do-check-act) (Deming, 2000). DMAIC assures the correct and effective process
execution by providing a structured method for solving business problems (Hammer
and Goding, 2001). Thus, the DMAIC model indicates, step-by-step, how problems
should be addressed, grouping quality and statistical tools, while establishing a
standardised routine to solve problems (Bezerra et al., 2010). Pyzdek (2014) considers
DMAIC as a learning model that although focused in “doing” (e.g. executing
problem-solving and improvement activities), also emphasises the collection and
analysis of data, previous to the execution of any improvement initiative. This provides
the DMAIC’s users with a platform to take decisions and courses of action based on real
and scientific facts. According to Harry et al. (2010), the rigorous and disciplined
structure of DMAIC is what many authors recognise as the main characteristic which Green lean
makes Six Sigma effective. and the need
Such have been the benefits that Six Sigma has brought to many organisations that
its principles and tools have been combined with those of lean under the umbrella of a
for Six Sigma
unified improvement approach known as “Lean Six Sigma” (Lee et al., 2013). According
to Sheridan (2000), the term Lean Six Sigma is utilised to indicate the integration of both
lean manufacturing and Six Sigma philosophies. Lean Six Sigma is a relatively new 235
business improvement methodology created to improve speed, through the elimination
of waste, and quality, through the reduction of process variability, at the same time (Lee
et al., 2013; Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Assarlind et al., 2012; Salah et al., 2010).

5.2 Six Sigma, green lean and their compatibility

Madu and Kuei (1995) comment that quality is more than just achieving capable/reliable
processes or manufacturing products free of defects. Thus, Kuei and Madu (2003)
suggest that a system’s overall performance should not only be measured on the basis of
product quality but also environmental safety, integrity and social responsibility.
However, very few authors have correlated the quality paradigm with the green
paradigm. Total quality environmental management (TQEM), a sub-development of
TQM, emphasises environmental controls in industries that are associated with
environmental waste (e.g. electronic component and semiconductors manufacturing)
(Sarkis, 2001; Raisinghani et al., 2005). TQEM is a method that correlates quality with
green aspects. However, in the case of Six Sigma, there is no academic evidence, as far as
this author is concerned, of research that has tried to investigate the relationship
between Six Sigma and green initiatives/performance. Nevertheless, Kuei and Madu
(2003) argue that besides the quality dimension, Six Sigma needs to also include the
environmental safety, integrity and social responsibility dimensions as all of these are
mutually dependant.
The systematic, data- and statistical-driven characteristic of Six Sigma can
complement the green lean approach and contribute in overcoming the limitations and
challenges of this concept highlighted in Section 4. Extensive evidence suggests the
effective compatibility of the green lean (Dües et al., 2013; Simpson and Power, 2005;
Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Galeazzo et al., 2013; Pampanelli et al., 2014; Verrier
et al., 2014) and lean Six Sigma (Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Assarlind et al., 2012; Salah et al.,
2010; Pepper and Spedding, 2010; Thomas et al., 2009; Wang and Chen, 2010; Lee et al.,
2013) integrations. This also suggests the compatibility of green, lean and Six Sigma if
integrated as a unified approach. Their compatibility born not only from the
commonality of green lean and lean Six Sigma comprising lean principles and tools,
which could act as a link to integrate green and Six Sigma (Figure 2) but also from the
“natural” similarities that all three concepts share through some of their attributes.
Table I presents some attributes and a comparison of how these are treated under the
green, lean and Six Sigma philosophies. The grey coloured area below the description of
the attributes indicates those that are shared by either two or even the three concepts.
For example, lean and Six Sigma share the same main purpose of “maximising profit
and competitiveness” while green’s main purpose is to “reduce the negative
environmental impact of the production and consumption of products”. Although, in
some cases, the second may also result in the maximisation of profits and increase in
competitiveness (Dües et al., 2013; Sarkis, 2003), this is not the main objective of green
IJLSS
6,3

236

Figure 2.
Green, lean and Six
Sigma’s
compatibility
illustration

(Galeazzo et al., 2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995). Similarly, all three concepts share
one of its principles, namely: customer satisfaction (Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Helu and
Dornfeld, 2013; Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines et al., 2004; Yang, 2004; Han and Lee,
2002). Because green, lean and Six Sigma may not only be considered compatible but
also the integration of Six Sigma may contribute to overcome the limitations of the green
lean approach, the following section presents a conceptual proposal to integrate green
lean Six Sigma.

5.3 Green lean Six Sigma conceptual integration

Figure 3 illustrates how Six Sigma may support green lean to form a coherent
management approach (e.g. green lean Six Sigma) for a simultaneous environmental
and operational improvement. In this context, the use of the DMAIC model can provide
green lean with a more specific and holistic project-based orientation to the
implementation and achievement of green lean initiatives. Thus, the Six Sigma’s
DMAIC methodology could be generalised as the base over which green lean initiatives
are implemented, managed, sustained and improved (Figure 3). DMAIC will provide a
unique characteristic of sequencing and linking green, lean and Six Sigma’s tools during
the five stages of DMAIC when conducting a green lean project. In this way, lean and Six
Sigma will contribute with the provision of principles and tools to support the green
ones to help identifying, defining, prioritising, conducting, managing, achieving,
sustaining and improving green lean initiatives.
In particular, the Define phase of DMAIC consists in identifying, prioritising and
selecting the right project as well as clarifying the project’s scope and defining goals
(Garza-Reyes et al., 2014; Pyzdek, 2014; Basu, 2004). Thus, at a strategic level, the Define
phase of DMAIC can help in objectively prioritising green lean initiatives and
Attribute Green
Definition Initiatives and practices directed towards the
creation of environmentally friendly products,
services and processes (Galeazzo et al., 2013; Rao,
2004; Shrivastava, 1995)
Purpose Reduce the negative environmental impact of the
production and consumption of products (Galeazzo
et al., 2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995)
Focus Improving environmental performance through
(approach to elimination of resource waste and pollution
achieve (Carvalho et al., 2011; Mollenkopf et al., 2010)
purpose)
Principles Harmful inputs and outputs to the environment and
humans should be reduced or eliminated; net
resource use should be lowered; systems should be
evaluated from a green perspective; customer
satisfaction through the provision of environmental
products and services (Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Helu
and Dornfeld, 2013)
Measures Environmental-based (Dües et al., 2013)
Common KPIs CO2 emissions; service level (Dües et al., 2013);
resources (e.g. energy, fuel, water, etc.) consumption;
green energy coefficient; energy reuse factor; carbon
usage effectiveness; % of recycling
philosophies
and Six Sigma
Comparison of
Table I.
under the green, lean
various attributes
Lean
A systematic removal of waste by all members of the
organisation from all areas of the value stream (Womack
and Jones, 1996)
Maximise profit and competitiveness (Carvalho et al., 2011)
Cost reduction through the elimination of waste (non-value
added) (Herron and Hicks, 2008; Womack and Jones, 1996)
Identify value from customers perspective; map current
processes; make the value flow; pull from the supplier;
continuous improvement; customer satisfaction through
cheap and high variety products (Womack and Jones, 1996;
Hines et al., 2004)
Customer satisfaction
Primarily simple; non-financial but operational; time-based
measures (Salah et al., 2010)
Lead time; inventory level/turnover; % of value and no-
value added (time); overall equipment effectiveness (OEE);
quality yields; throughput; batch size; cycle time; service
level
Service level
Six Sigma
A statistical measure of variation; a
management philosophy and strategy that
allows organisations to achieve lower cost,
ensuring competitive operations; a
problem-solving and improvement
methodology that can be applied to every
type of process to eliminate the root cause
of defects (Brue and Howes, 2006; Garza-
Reyes et al., 2014)
Maximise profit and competitiveness
(Pyzdek, 2014)
Cost savings through defects reduction and
customers satisfaction (Pyzdek, 2014)
Voice of the customer (VOC); elimination of
defects; capability and stability (no
variation); DMAIC; critical to quality
(CTQ); aligning customer needs with goals;
deploying teams; customer satisfaction
through defect-free products and services
(Yang, 2004; Han and Lee, 2002)
Primarily financial, cost and quality-
oriented, often considering other
management strategies (Salah et al., 2010)
Number of defective units; number of
defects per unit; defectives per million units
(DPM); defects per million opportunities
(DPMO); parts-per-million defectives
(PPM); scrap rate; quality yields; capability
indices (Cp, Cpk); process/service (sigma)
level
(continued)
237
for Six Sigma
and the need
Green lean
 6,3

238
IJLSS

Table I.
Attribute Green Lean Six Sigma

Manufacturing Resource efficiency and waste reduction for
environmental benefit (Dües et al., 2013; Sarkis,
2003); reduce, reuse and recycle (3Rs); rework, return
and remanufacture
Product design Life-cycle assessment for evaluating environmental
risks and impact; eco-design (Dües et al., 2013; Zhu
et al., 2008)
Inventory Minimise inventory to reduce negative impact to
environment (Salah et al., 2010; Dües et al., 2013;
Franchetti et al., 2009)
Waste Must be eliminated due to environmental reasons
Lead time Seeks transportation lead time reduction as long as
it does not increase CO2 emissions (Dües et al., 2013)
People Involve everyone in the organization (Galeazzo et al.,
2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995)
Customers Profit-, people- and planet-driven (Dües et al., 2013)
Suppliers Collaboration to disseminate green knowledge (Dües
et al., 2013; Carvalho et al., 2011); integration of
reverse information and material (Dües et al., 2013;
(Carvalho et al., 2011) environmental risk sharing
(Dües et al., 2013; (Carvalho et al., 2011)
Collaboration due to different reasons and at different levels
High systems’ utilisation rate; using JIT practices, ‘pulling’
the goods through the system based on demand (Dües
et al., 2013); focus on efficiency (Salah et al., 2010)
Limited focus on new product/processes design (Salah
et al., 2010); minimise cost while maximising performance
(Dües et al., 2013)
Minimise cost while maximising performance
Minimise inventory, as it is considered waste, to reduce
cost (Salah et al., 2010; Dües et al., 2013)
Inventory reduction
Must be eliminated due to cost-saving and efficiency
reasons
Reduction of waste, but for different focus/reasons
Seeks its reduction as long as it does not increase cost
(Dües et al., 2013)
Reduction of lead time
Involve everyone in the organisation (Womack and Jones,
1996; Hines et al., 2004)
Cost-driven (Dües et al., 2013); strong customer focus in
relation to value
Customer focus based on different attributes
Considers the engagement of suppliers key for operations
improvement; certifies and cooperates with few of them
(Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines et al., 2004; Salah et al.,
2010)
Focus on reducing variation (Salah et al.,
2010) for improving quality
DFSS or DMADV to design new processes
or products (Salah et al., 2010) to minimise
cost while maximising performance
No main focus (Salah et al., 2010), but
reduction in quality defects may contribute
to its reduction
Reduction of defective products
No main focus, but has been used to reduce
it (Garza-Reyes et al., 2014)
Mainly few champions (called ‘belts’) and
project team members involved (Pyzdek,
2014)
Cost-driven; strong customer focus in
relation to critical to quality
Consider suppliers only if they are critical
to quality for products/processes (Pyzdek,
2014; Salah et al., 2010)
(continued)
Attribute Green Lean Six Sigma

Techniques Mainly analytical
Common tools Sustainable VSM (Kurdve et al., 2011); life cycle
assessment (Kainuma and Tawara, 2006); decision
support and expert systems (Chan et al., 2010)
VSM used by all three while lean and Six Sigma share many other tools
Mainly analytical but uses some formulas to identify
demand and calculate kanbans sizes; no mathematical
tools to identify and address quality problems (Salah et al.,
2010)
Use of analytical tools
Brainstorming; process mapping; mistake proofing;
standardisation; VSM; kanban, one piece flow, single
minute exchange of die (Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines
et al., 2004; Salah et al., 2010)
Analytical; statistical and advanced
statistical (Salah et al., 2010)
Brainstorming; process mapping; mistake
proofing; standardisation; hypothesis
testing; control charts; regression; design of
experiments; measurement analysis;
capability analysis (Pyzdek, 2014; Salah
et al., 2010)

Table I.
239
for Six Sigma
and the need
Green lean
IJLSS
6,3

240

Figure 3.
Six Sigma
enhancement of
green lean

investments to determine in which organisational activity/function (e.g. facilities,

manufacturing, logistics, marketing, process and product design) they should be
deployed first, and/or in terms of which parameters (e.g. energy consumption, CO2
emissions, water consumption, etc.) should be targeted. Specific tools promoted by Six
Sigma to achieve this include Pareto analysis, project ranking matrix, project selection
matrix, quality function deployment, project assessment matrix, Pareto priority index,
cost benefit analysis, analytical hierarchy process (AHP), theory of constraints, etc.
(Kirkham et al., 2014; Marriott et al., 2013). According to Kirkham et al. (2014),
improvement projects selected objectively are more successful than those that are
prioritised subjectively. This scientific and data-driven approach to defining and
prioritising green lean initiatives would also ensure the selection of the right projects
and investments, as well as it will aid in clarifying the objectives, scope and resources of
the green lean initiatives. This will also ensure their alignment with corporate goals.
The Measure stage of DMAIC consists in establishing reliable metrics to help
monitoring key process characteristics, the scope of the parameters considered and their
performance to understand their progress towards the objectives (Basu, 2004; Pyzdek,
2014). At an operational level, the Measure phase of DMAIC will “force” an organisation,
as an initial step, to identify the similarities, unify and, thus, define the lean and green
wastes (e.g. excessive CO2 emissions, water consumption, energy consumption, raw
material consumption, inventory, transportation, etc.) into those that will be targeted for
reduction/elimination. In addition, specific metrics (e.g. for electricity: KWh, green
energy coefficient, energy reuse factor, carbon usage effectiveness, etc.; for CO2
emission: tons/week, etc.) for every waste will also need to be determined and agreed.
Once that wastes and their metrics have been defined, current sustainable VSM studies
can be conducted to identify the sources of waste and establish the scope of the
parameters, as well as their current performance. Based on the DMAIC approach,
the latest will be used to help monitoring progress towards the objectives established in
the Define phase. This phase of DMAIC will start helping in overcoming the “lack of a
data driven approach” limitation of green lean as quantitative data will be collected, Green lean
analysed and used as a comparative improvement base. and the need
The Analyse phase of DMAIC involves evaluating and identifying key causes and for Six Sigma
process determinants (Basu, 2004; Pyzdek, 2014). If integrated with green lean, this
phase of DMAIC will contribute in determining the root causes of wastes in the
parameters monitored. Six Sigma methods and tools based on inferential statistics, such
as scatter plots, analysis of variance, hypothesis testing, regression analysis, design of 241
experiments, among others, will complement the lean analytical tools and provide a
quantitative, scientific base for the analysis. Other analytical, but still effective and
systematic, methods that may include cause-and-effect diagrams and “5 whys” could
also be used in this stage to uncover the causes of wastes and the excessive
(unnecessary) use of energy, water, raw material, CO2, etc.
The Improve phase of DMAIC consists of proposing, testing and implementing
creative solutions to eliminate the root causes of problems (Garza-Reyes et al., 2014;
Pyzdek, 2014; Basu, 2004). Methods and tools such as 5S, brainstorming, corrective
action matrix, poka-yoke, among others, can be used to stimulate the development of
solutions to reduce/eliminate the wastes identified in the Measure phase. In many cases,
the solutions to tackle wastes could be as simple as, for example, installing occupancy
sensors to turn lights off in offices when not needed, and reprogramming thermostats to
avoid the unnecessary use of heating. Although determining the need to carry out
improvements of this type may not require the systematic implementation and
conduction of green lean initiatives, the Six Sigma’s DMAIC approach will provide a
platform to take decisions and courses of action based on real and scientific facts. Once
embedded within the organisation’s culture, this fact and scientific-driven approach to
decision-making will not only be used for green initiatives but also as part of the entire
managerial approach of the organisation.
Finally, the Control phase involves setting the mechanisms for ongoing
monitoring and institutionalising improvements (Basu, 2004; Pyzdek, 2014). After
the objectives set in the Define stage have been achieved, methods such as Statistical
Process Control (SPC) may help to monitor critical environmental parameters, such
as energy, water and raw material consumption, CO2 emissions, etc. In this case, SPC
control charts will aid in statistically setting specification limits based on the
maximum, average and minimum consumption of the parameters monitored
(Montgomery, 2001). This will allow differentiating the common and inherent
variation in the consumption and use of these parameters from excessive uses due to
assignable causes. In this context and based on the SPC methodology,
investigations and corrective actions will be taken, specially, if the consumption of
energy, water and raw material or CO2 emissions exceed the maximum specified
limit. SPC will also help to scrutinise and, thus, understand the degree and causes of
variation in the consumption/use of these, which will help organisations in
decision-making and assisting in the diagnosis of problems. The formal
documentation of all the improvement actions taken and best practices, as
suggested by the Control stage of DMAIC (Pyzdek, 2014; Montgomery, 2001), will
ensure that all employees perform the processes in a uniform manner, which will
contribute to the reduction of variability in the consumptions of the green
parameters considered.
IJLSS 6. Conclusions
6,3 Environmental sustainability is one of the strategic imperatives that nowadays must be
aligned to the traditional organisational priorities of profitability, efficiency, customer
satisfaction, quality and responsiveness. The green lean approach has been proposed with
the intention of achieving such alignment. However, conceptual and empirical studies
regarding green lean are limited (Dües et al., 2013), and those conducted have been mainly
242 focused on investigating aspects, such as the synergies and divergences between the two,
possible benefits of their integration in different industries, their impact on supply chains’
performance and some of their theoretical implementation issues (Mollenkopf et al., 2010;
Hajmohammad et al., 2013; King and Lenox, 2001; Simpson and Power, 2005; Rothenberg
et al., 2001; Kainuma and Tawara, 2006; Carvalho et al., 2011; Joshi and Sharma, 2014;
Kurdve, 2014; Kurdve et al., 2014). Unlike these studies, this paper is focused on investigating
and discussing the limitations of green lean as an integrated approach as well as their
compatibility with Six Sigma. This should not only allow scholars to develop a deeper and
richer knowledge on this approach but it should also help practitioners in formulating more
effective strategies for its deployment.
Although green lean is considered as an effective approach to achieve both higher
environmental and operational performance (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000; Dües et al.,
2013), this research suggests that green lean may inherent the limitations and challenges
of every individual approach. This may stop organisations from developing and
achieving the full potential of a simultaneous green and operations improvement
initiative. For this reason, the paper conceptually proposes and argues the compatibility
and integration of Six Sigma as a solution to address these limitations, complement the
green lean approach and, thus, enhance its effectiveness.
However, the relationships and compatibilities established in this paper among the
green, lean and Six Sigma paradigms were originated in an anecdotal form resulting
from the SLR conducted. In light of this, the future research agenda derived and stressed
from this paper includes:
• the validation of the proposed green, lean and Six Sigma compatibilities, for
example, by establishing them quantitatively and empirically testing them to
seek their statistical validation (Agarwal et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2008);
• the proposal of a conceptual framework that integrates green lean and Six Sigma
as a single approach;
• the validation of the integrated green lean Six Sigma framework through its
empirical application in real industrial scenarios or through simulation; and
• the exploration and definition of the possible limitations of the integrated green
lean Six Sigma approach.

In addition, the role and contribution of Design for Six Sigma practices on environmental
and eco-design initiatives can also be explored as part of the future research agenda.
This author considers that the definition of the green lean limitations and
compatibility with Six Sigma as well as the proposal of the green lean Six Sigma
unification’s idea contribute to the development of new theoretical approaches and
empirical research regarding the simultaneous improvement of environmental and
operational performance.
References Green lean
Abdul Wahab, A.N., Mukhtar, M. and Sulaiman, R. (2013), “A conceptual model of lean and the need
manufacturing dimensions”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 1292-1298.
for Six Sigma
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2006), “Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile
supply chain: an ANP-based approach”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 173 No. 1, pp. 211-225.
Assarlind, M., Gremyr, I. and Bäckman, K. (2012), “Multi-faceted views on a lean Six Sigma 243
application”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 21-30.
Basu, R. (2004), Implementing Quality: A Practical Guide to Tools and Techniques: Enabling the
Power of Operational Excellence, Thomson Learning, London.
Bendell, T. (2010), “A review and comparison of Six Sigma and the lean organisations”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 255-262.
Bezerra, C.I.M., Adriano, A.B.A., Placido, L.S. and Goncalves, M.G.S. (2010), “MiniDMAIC: an
approach to causal analysis and resolution in software development projects”, Quality
Management and Six Sigma, August.
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D. and Sutton, A. (2012), Systematic Approaches to A Successful
Literature Review, Sage Publications, London.
Briner, R.B. and Denyer, D. (2012), “Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and
scholarship tool”, Handbook of Evidence-Based Management: Companies, Classrooms and
Research, pp. 112-129.
Carvalho, H., Azevedo, S. and Cruz-Machado (2014), “Trade-offs among lean, agile, resilient and
green paradigms in supply chain management: a case study approach”, Proceedings of the
Seventh International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Springer, pp. 953-968.
Carvalho, H., Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2011), “Lean, agile, resilient and green: divergences
and synergies”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 151-179.
Chan, C.C.S., Yu, K.M. and Yung, K.L. (2010), “Green manufacturing using integrated decision
tools”, The IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, Venetia, Italy, 7-10 December.
Chauhan, G. and Singh, T.P. (2012), “Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 57-71.
Dawes, S. (2009), “Integrating lean and green initiatives in manufacturing organisations”, MHD
Supply Chain Issues, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 44-46.
Deming, W.E. (2000), The New Economic for Industry, Government, Education, 2nd ed., MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Devane, T. (2004), Integrating Lean Six Sigma and High-Performance Organizations: Leading the
Charge Toward Dramatic, Rapid, and Sustainable Improvement, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Digalwar, A.K., Tagalpallewar, A.R. and Sunnapwar, V.K. (2013), “Green manufacturing
performance measures: an empirical investigation from Indian manufacturing industries”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 59-75.
Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2013), “Modelling lean and green: a review from business
models”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 228-250.
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”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40, pp. 93-100.
IJLSS El-Haik, B. and Al-Aomar, R. (2006), Simulation-based Lean Six Sigma and Design for Six Sigma,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
6,3
Enache-Pommer, E., Horman, M., Messner, J. and Riley, D. (2010), “A unified process approach to
health care project delivery: synergies between greening strategies, lean principles, and
BIM”, Construction Research Congress: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice,
pp. 376-1405.
244 Forrester, P.L., Shimizu, U.K., Soriano-Meier, H., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Cruz Basso, L.F. (2010),
“Lean production, market share and value creation in the agricultural machinery sector in
Brazil”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 853-871.
Franchetti, M., Bedal, K., Ulloa, J. and Grodek, S. (2009), “Lean and green: industrial engineering
methods are natural stepping stones to green Engineering”, Industrial Engineer, Vol. 41
No. 9, pp. 24-29.
Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A. and Vinelli, A. (2013), “Lean and green in action: interdependencies and
performance of pollution prevention projects”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85,
pp. 191-200.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Oraifige, I., Soriano-Meier, H., Harmanto, D. and Rocha-Lona, L. (2010), “An
empirical application of Six Sigma and DMAIC methodology for business process
improvement”, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Flexible Automation
and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM), San Francisco, CA, 12-14 July, pp. 92-100.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Parkar, H.S., Oraifige, I., Soriano-Meier, H. and Harmanto, D. (2012), “An
empirical-exploratory study of the status of lean manufacturing in India”, International
Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 395-412.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Flint, A., Kumar, V., Antony, J. and Soriano-Meier, H. (2014), “A DMAIRC
approach to lead time reduction in an aerospace engine assembly process”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 27-48.
Goh, T.N. (2002), “A strategic assessment of Six Sigma”, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 403-410.
Gottberg, A., Morris, J., Pollard, S., Mark-Herbert, C. and Cook, M. (2006), “Producer responsibility,
waste minimisation and the WEEE directive: case studies in eco-design from the European
lighting sector”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 359 Nos 1/3, pp. 38-56.
Green, K.W. Jr, Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Gupta, M. and Sharma, K. (1996), “Environmental operations management: an opportunity for
improvement”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 40-46.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D. and Gavronski, I. (2013), “Lean management and
supply management: their role in green practices and performance”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 39, pp. 312-320.
Hammer, M. and Goding, J. (2001), “Putting Six Sigma in perspective”, Quality, Vol. 40 No. 10,
pp. 58-63.
Han, C. and Lee, Y. (2002), “Intelligent integrated plant operation system for Six Sigma”, Annual
Reviews in Control, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Harry, M.J., Mann, P.S., de Hodgins, O.C., Hulbert, R.L. and Lacke, J.C. (2010), Practitioners Guide
to Statistics and Lean Six Sigma for Process Improvement, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Helu, M. and Dornfeld, D. (2013), “Principles of green manufacturing”, Green Manufacturing:
Fundamentals and Applications, Springer, pp. 107-115.
Herron, C. and Hicks, C. (2008), “The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from Green lean
Japanese automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change
agents”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 524-531.
and the need
Hilton, R.J. and Sohal, A. (2012), “A conceptual model for the successful deployment of lean
for Six Sigma
Six Sigma”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 54-70.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean 245
thinking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), “The seven value stream mapping tools”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 46-64.
Hosseini, H.M. and Kaneko, S. (2012), “Causality between pillars of sustainable development:
global stylized facts or regional phenomena?”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 197-201.
Husby, P.C. and Swartwood, D. (2009), Fix Your Supply Chain: How to Create a Sustainable
Lean Improvement Roadmap, Productivity Press, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, New
York, NY.
Joseph, C. (2014), “The disadvantages of going green for a corporation”, available at: http://
smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html (accessed 13
April 2014).
Joshi, S. and Sharma, M. (2014), “Blending green with lean - incorporating best-of-the-breed
practices to formulate an optimum global supply chain management framework: issues and
concerns”, Handbook of Research on Design and Management of Lean Production Systems,
IGI Global, pp. 389-407.
Kainuma, Y. and Tawara, N. (2006), “A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green
supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 101 No. 1,
pp. 99-108.
King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001), “Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between lean production and environmental performance”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-256.
Kirkham, L., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, V. and Antony, J. (2014), “Prioritisation of operations
improvement projects in the European manufacturing industry”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 18, pp. 5323-5345.
Kitazawa, S. and Sarkis, J. (2000), “The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source
reduction programs”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 225-248.
Kitchenham, B.A. and Charters, S. (2007), “Guidelines for performing systematic literature
reviews in software engineering version 2.3”, EBSE Technical Report, Keele University and
University of Durham.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N, (2005), “Sustainable operations
management”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-492.
Kuei, C.H. and Madu, C.N. (2003), “Customer-centric six sigma quality and reliability
management”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 954-964.
Kurdve, M. (2014), “Development of collaborative green lean production systems”, PhD Thesis,
Mälardalen University.
IJLSS Kurdve, M., Zackrisson, M., Wiktorsson, M. and Harlin, U. (2014), “Lean and green integration into
production system models – experiences from Swedish industry”, Journal of Cleaner
6,3 Production, Vol. 85, pp. 180-190.
Kurdve, M.L., Hanarp, P., Chen, X., Qiu, X., Yan, Z., John, S. and Jonas, L. (2011), “Use of
environmental value stream mapping and environmental loss analysis in lean
manufacturing work at Volvo”, Proceedings of the 4th Swedish Production Symposium
246 (SPS11), Lund, 3-5 May.
Lee, J.H., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, V., Rocha-Lona, L. and Mishra, N. (2013), “A comparative
study of the implementation status of lean Six Sigma in South Korea and the UK”, in
Azevedo, A. (ed), Advances in Sustainable and Competitive Manufacturing Systems,
Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, Springer, Vol. 1, pp. 1489-1502.
Madu, C.N. and Kuei, C. (1995), Strategic Total Quality Management, Quorum, Westport, CT.
Marriott, B., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Soriano-Meier, H. and Antony, J. (2013), “An integrated
methodology to prioritise improvement initiatives in low volume-high integrity product
manufacturing organisations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 197-217.
Martinez, P., Gonzalez, V. and Fonseca, E. (2009), “Green-lean conceptual integration in the project
design, planning and construction”, Revista Ingenieria de Construccion, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Mohanty, R.P. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1999), “Work study managing green productivity: a case
study”, Work Study, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 165-169.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean, and global supply
chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40
Nos 1/2, pp. 14-41.
Montgomery, D.C. (2001), Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 4th ed., John Willey and Sons,
New York, NY.
Nunes, B. and Bennett, D. (2010), “Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: an
environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 396-420.
Pampanelli, A.B., Found, P. and Bernardes, A.M. (2014), “A lean & green model for a production
cell”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 19-30.
Paumgartten, P.V. (2003), “The business case for high-performance green buildings: sustainability and
its financial impact”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 26-34.
Pepper, M.P.J. and Spedding, T.A. (2010), “The evolution of lean Six Sigma”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Pettersen, J. (2009), “Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Pyzdek, T. (2014), The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Green Belts, Black Belts, and
Managers at all Levels, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Raisinghani, M.S., Ette, H., Pierce, R., Cannon, G. and Daripaly, P. (2005), “Six Sigma: concepts,
tools, and applications”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 4,
pp. 491-505.
Rao, P. (2004), “Greening production: a South-East Asian experience”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 289-320.
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K. and Maxwell, J. (2001), “Lean, green, and the quest for superior environmental
performance”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 228-243.
Rousseau, D.M. (2012), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, Oxford University Green lean
Press, New York, NY.
and the need
Salah, S., Rahim, A. and Carretero, J.A. (2010), “The integration of Six Sigma and lean
management”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 249-274.
for Six Sigma
Sarkis, J. (1998), “Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 159-174.
Sarkis, J. (2001), Greener Manufacturing and Operations: from Design to Delivery and Back, 247
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Sarkis, J. (2003), “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 397-409.
Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012), Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education, Essex.
Sheridan, J.H. (2000), “Lean Sigma’ synergy”, Industry Week, Vol. 249 No. 17, pp. 81-82.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “Environmental technologies and competitive advantage”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 183-200.
Simpson, D.F. and Power, D.J. (2005), “Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green
suppliers”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 60-68.
Smith, R. (2000), “Quality improvement reports: a new kind of article”, British Medical Journal,
Vol. 321 No. 7274, pp. 1428-1428.
Snee, R.D. and Hoerl, R.W. (2003), Leading Six Sigma: A Step-by-Step guide Based on Experience
with GE and Other Six Sigma Companies, FT Prentice Hall, NJ.
Thomas, A., Barton, R. and Chuke-Okafor, C. (2009), “Applying lean six sigma in a small
engineering company – a model for change”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 113-129.
Thomas, J. and Harden, A. (2008), “Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research
in systematic reviews”, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 45, pp. 1-10.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A. and Pittaway, L. (2005), “Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 257-281.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E. and Remita, H. (2014), “Combining organizational performance
with sustainable development issues: the green and lean project benchmarking repository”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 83-93.
Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R. and Somanaathan, M. (2011), “Tools and techniques for enabling
sustainability through lean initiatives”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 469-479.
Wang, F.K. and Chen, K.S. (2010), “Applying lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in
banking services”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 301-315.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), “Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and pursue
perfection”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 140-151.
IJLSS Yang, C.C. (2004), “An integrated model of TQM and GE-Six Sigma”, International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
6,3
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2008), “Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 261-273.

248 Further reading

Brue, G. and Howes, R. (2006), Six Sigma: The McGraw-Hill 36 Hours Course, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.

About the author

Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes is a Senior Lecturer in Operations and Supply Chain Management at the
Centre for Supply Chain Improvement, Derby Business School, the University of Derby, UK. He
has published a number of articles in leading international journals and conferences, and two
books in the areas of quality management systems and manufacturing performance measurement
systems. Jose Arturo has participated as a guest editor for special issues in the Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma (IJLSS),
International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research (IJLER), International Journal of Engineering
Management and Economics (IJEME) and International Journal of Engineering and Technology
Innovation (IJETI). He is currently serving in the editorial board of several international journals
as well as has contributed as a member of the scientific and organising committees of several
international conferences. His research interests include general aspects of operations and
manufacturing management, operations and quality improvement and performance
measurement. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes is a Chartered Engineer (CEng), a certified Six
Sigma-Green Belt and has over six years of industrial experience working as Production Manager,
Production Engineer and Operations Manager for several international and local companies in
both the UK and Mexico. He is also a fellow member of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA)
and a member of the Institution of Engineering Technology (IET). Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes can be
contacted at: J.Reyes@derby.ac.uk

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