Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Simulation-based analysis of catalyzers and trade-offs in Lean & Green

manufacturing
Marina I. Baumer-Cardoso a, Lucila M.S. Campos a, b, *, Pedro Pfeifer Portela Santos b,
Enzo Morosini Frazzon a, b
a
polis, SC, 88040-900, Brazil
Graduate Program in Production Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campus Universitario Trindade, Floriano
b
Department of Production Engineering and Systems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campus Universitario Trindade, Floriano
polis, SC, 88040-900,
Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Manufacturing companies have been forced to rethink their management and operations strategies due
Received 18 July 2018 to the growing demand for greener products and services. To support these initiatives, the Lean and
Received in revised form Green (L&G) approach has gained increasing attention from academic and industry. However, according
9 September 2019
to the literature in the field not all Lean practice has a positive environmental impact. In addition, there is
Accepted 11 September 2019
Available online 12 September 2019
a lack of empirical research on L&G to understand the catalyzers and trade-offs between both paradigms.
Therefore, this study attempts to fill this gap by assessing the applicability of Lean Manufacturing (LM)
Handling Editor: Mingzhou Jin tools and investigate how Lean impacts Green performance in a real-world company case. This research
paper assesses the integration of Lean & Green in the job shop of a Brazilian company and is supported
Keywords: by a discrete-event simulation (DES) model. Green analysis regarding water, energy and raw material
Discrete event simulation consumption are performed for every single operation. Environmental and production variables are
Kanban simultaneously evaluated, and the environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the Lean
Lean & Green practices and tools, such as Kanban, are also discussed. While the outcomes of the research reveal a
Lean manufacturing
positive correlation between Lean & Green on performance indicators, they also substantiate a trade-off
Value stream map
on water consumption. The empirical study along with the simulation-based analysis demonstrate that
generalizations such as “Lean is Green” must be carefully revisited and also emphasize the importance of
Lean & Green relationship in the improvement of manufacturing processes.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environmental regulations, companies have been forced to

In the last decades, Lean Manufacturing (LM) practices have
been widely applied in several sectors of the economy in order to
improve operations performance (Chugani et al., 2017). Currently,
LM is considered the most influential paradigm in manufacturing
since it conforms to historical organizational goals, such as profit-
ability and efficiency, as well as contemporary goals which include
customer satisfaction, quality, and responsiveness (Garza-Reyes,
2015; Piercy and Rich, 2015). Concomitantly, in order to respond
to growing customer demands for products and services that are
environmentally friendly and comply with government
* Corresponding author. Graduate Program in Production Engineering, Federal

polis, SC,
University of Santa Catarina, Campus Universitario Trindade, Floriano
88040-900, Brazil.
E-mail address: lucila.campos@ufsc.br (L.M.S. Campos).
consider environmental issues in their strategic and operations
functions (Campos and Vasquez-Brust, 2016; Miller et al., 2010;
Mortan et al., 2015; Nabhani et al., 2017; Piercy and Rich, 2015). The
Lean principles are viewed as green-friendly because their target is
aligned with the saving of resources (Cherrafi et al., 2016; Chugani
et al., 2017; Farias et al., 2019). In 2009, Kleindorfer et al. (2009)
already pointed out that integrating sustainability in Lean opera-
tions and the supply chain was one of the most significant chal-
lenges for contemporary companies. The growing number of
publications studying the Lean & Green (L&G) relationship (Gupta
et al., 2018; Martínez-Jurado et al., 2014) enhancement is quite
relevant.
The Green strategy is a paradigm that focuses on the impact of
the production on the environment. It emphasizes the elimination
of environmental waste related to unnecessary usage of water, or
power, and exploitation of resources such as pollution, litter,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118411
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411
Abbreviations list
C/O changeover time
C/T cycle time
DES Discrete-Event Simulation
JIT Just-In-Time
KPI Key Performance Indicator
L&G Lean & Green
LM Lean Manufacturing
MRP Material Requirement Planning
OP Production Orders
PCP Planning and Control
VSM Value Stream Mapping
WIP Work in Process
greenhouse effects and eutrophication (Cherrafi et al., 2016; Duarte
and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Verrier et al., 2014). Researchers have
been linking Lean practices to the environment by promoting the
mantra that “Lean is Green”, since Lean aspires production effi-
ciency through waste elimination as well as Green waste elimina-
tion (Chiarini, 2014; Corbett and Klassen, 2006; Dües et al., 2013;
Faulkner and Badurdeen, 2014; Garza-Reyes, 2015). Carvalho et al.
(2011) reinforced this connection as synergic, which means Lean
is positive to Green, Green is positive to Lean, but Lean and Green
together are much better than one alone. Dües et al. (2013) also
support this connection, which becomes somewhat undeniable
that Green is the new Lean. However, the authors Sartal et al. (2018)
question this generalization and advocate that “one-size-fits-all”
recipes are insufficient because the conventional recommendations
are so generic that they end up being useless for both practitioners
and public policymakers. The authors support that an individual
roadmap is needed thus balanced objectives for each firm, and
specific tools that would be used for each Lean initiative are
recommended.
While the vast majority of the studies strongly highlight that
certain Lean practices have a positive effect on the environmental
performance of companies, yet some authors affirm that certain
practices may be negative or mixed (Dieste et al., 2019). L&G trade-
offs can happen depending on the Green objective (waste reduc-
tion, carbon emission, energy consumption) and the supply chain
management strategies (production, transportation, warehousing)
of the Lean practice (Fahimnia et al., 2015). As the environmental
footprint of organizations and products becomes relevant, it is
essential to understand which practices lead to a positive and
negative synergy between operational and environmental perfor-
mances (Ugarte et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is necessary to use the
correct time window and make the L&G implementation as a
simultaneous process, thus taking care of Green while imple-
menting Lean (Dües et al., 2013).
One way to better understand the L&G synergies and trade-offs
is to use a simulation method such as discrete-event simulation
(DES). Miller et al. (2010) support that Lean's traditional tools
combined with advanced techniques can help companies reduce
environmental impact. DES software provides a virtual experi-
mental environment to assess the dynamic effects and interactions
within a complex manufacturing system (Greinacher et al., 2016).
The simulation-based approach also allows modifying the current
scenario and simulate different situations in the system analyzed
(Greinacher et al., 2016). Although DES is commonly used in the
manufacturing and supply chain studies, Brandenburg et al. (2014)
report in their literature review that DES is hardly applied in sus-
tainability studies. However, a few authors only benefited from the
simulations of scenarios that DES provides to study the best L&G
condition in different production systems (Chandrakumar et al.,
2016; Diaz-Elsayed et al., 2013; Golzarpoor and Gonzalez, 2013;
Greinacher et al., 2015; Kruse et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2010; Paju
et al., 2010; Ugarte et al., 2016).
Although the interest on L&G approach has rapidly risen in both
academic and industry circles, minimal research has focused on its
implementation and its trade-offs (Cherrafi et al., 2017, 2016;
Garza-Reyes, 2015). Campos and Vasquez-Brust (2016) suggest
exploring what makes the synergy happen, to understand in depth
the “non-synergistic” practices. The same authors also recommend
investigating in detail the antecedents or possible mediators of
factors that influence synergies along. Empirical research on L&G
and DES modeling approach to assist the performance in L&G field
is still scarce. Therefore, this study would contribute to fill this gap
by assessing the applicability of LM tools and investigating how
Lean impacts Green performance in a real-world company case.
Therefore, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are defined to analyze
the paradigms of Green (such as material, energy, and water con-
sumption), and Lean (such as lead time, the amount produced,
Work in Process (WIP), working hours machine, setup quantity and
total setup time). The job shop of a Brazilian company of PVC pipes
and fittings was used for empirical research. As job shops have a
complex process, DES modeling would be an appropriate tool to
analyze scenarios and L&G performances.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2
presents a literature review of relevant L&G case studies, with
particular attention to those studies which use DES to assess the
environmental impact of Lean implementation. Section 3 presents
the methodology applied in this paper. Section 4 details the test
case and the results obtained and also explains the relationship
between Green and Lean KPIs. Section 5 concludes this paper by
summing up the findings and making recommendations for future
research.
2. Lean & Green synergies and trade-offs
Although Lean and Green have different aims while considering
waste minimization, they target the same type of wastes (Chugani
et al., 2017; Dües et al., 2013; Garza-Reyes, 2015), such as trans-
portation, production, and inventory (Dües et al., 2013). In the
framework proposed by Farias et al. (2019), the authors list some
Lean practices that can be combined with Green, such as value
stream mapping (VSM), kaizen, housekeeping, setup time reduc-
tion, just-in-time (JIT), pull production, and total productive
maintenance. Piyathanavong et al. (2019) present in their study
that Thai manufacturing firms implement L&G in order to get
benefits from cost savings and achieve improvements in opera-
tional efficiency. However, not everything is convergent, and
companies lead to the challenge of some trade-offs when what for
Lean is resource, for Green is a limitation (Campos and Vasquez-
Brust, 2016; Dües et al., 2013; Fahimnia et al., 2015). Dieste et al.
(2019) point out that 14% of the papers analyzed in their litera-
ture review conclude that Lean might have both positive and
negative environmental effects, depending on the practices applied
and the indicators measured.
JIT practices are frequently discussed as trade-offs in the liter-
ature because these practices generally imply more production,
transportation, deliveries and stock (Dieste et al., 2019; Dües et al.,
2013; Garza-Reyes, 2015). These additional activities mean excess
wastes in the normal functioning of the company (Dieste et al.,
2019; Dües et al., 2013; Garza-Reyes, 2015). Dieste et al. (2019)
even highlight that the financial savings gained by environmental
management techniques are not always significant and sometimes
nonexistent. In contrast, Sartal et al. (2018) suggest that this
 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411 3

affirmation was made based on studies that analyzed JIT practices
in the transport process, which involves CO2 emissions or non-
reusable packing in small batches. Moreover, Dües et al. (2013)
affirm that in order to achieve environmental friendliness, enter-
prises may have to compromise some of their Lean practices.
Cherrafi et al. (2016) support this statement by adding that,
although there are some areas where Lean and Green cannot be
combined, however these limitations may provide an opportunity
to develop solutions to overcome certain challenges.
Carvalho et al. (2017) and Miller et al. (2010) believe that the
decrease of overproduction has a positive impact on energy con-
sumption, since less production would result in less machine work,
and consequently less energy consumption. Chugani et al. (2017)
mention in their literature review several studies, which conclude
that Lean can play a vital role in the conservation of energy. Dieste
et al. (2019) present in their literature review several studies that
mention the positive impact between Lean and energy consump-
tion, while one study only presents a negative impact. Adversely,
Sartal et al. (2018) question this positive relationship affirming that
smaller batches, another common JIT practice, require more
frequent adjustments and additional packaging, thereby increasing
electricity consumption.
A similar situation happens with material consumption, where
Lean principles can result in the conservation of resources, directly
or indirectly through the elimination of waste (Chugani et al., 2017).
There are some Lean tools studied by researchers which contribute
to a reduction in material consumption (Aguado et al., 2013;
Chiarini, 2014; Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Piercy and Rich,
2015). Dieste et al. (2019) also list several cases that show the
positive impact of Lean on material use. Dües et al. (2013) affirm
that in the case of energy and material reduction, L&G results in a
catalytic relationship.
The literature that relates water consumption, a very used Green
parameter, to Lean is yet scarce. Different case studies present
measuring water consumption (Brown et al., 2014; Faulkner and
Badurdeen, 2014; Folinas et al., 2014; Helleno et al., 2016). How-
ever, none of them assesses the future state map after applying
Lean techniques. Only general affirmations are found, like the au-
thors, Larson and Greenwood (2004) and Vinodh et al. (2011) who
claim that Lean could reduce the amount of energy, raw materials,
and water. However, Dieste et al. (2019) present eleven cases that
show the positive relationship between Lean and water use, while
one study only presents a negative impact.
While the papers stated in this study do not use a simulation
tool to assist in the planning and simulation of scenarios, however
Table 1 summarizes eight papers founded in the literature review
that assess L&G using some tool to support the results. These pa-
pers are discussed below.
Golzarpoor and Gonzalez (2013) used a civil construction as a
case study. The Green KPIs measured are carbon emission and fuel
consumption. Moreover, the Lean strategies are lead time and
working time. They Lean strategies are simulated separately and
together. The best results in Green KPIs are obtained when both
approaches are operated together. Greinacher et al. (2015) and
Kruse et al. (2015) propose an interesting L&G assessment of
manufacturing systems in discrete production environments. The
manufacturing system is described as input/throughput/output-
model and analyzed according to value and non-value adding
activities.
Miller et al. (2010) demonstrate how DES can actively help
companies visualize L&G changes. The authors present three case
studies in the same factory but do not provide details on the
measurement of Green impacts, but they mention only the cost
production. Diaz-Elsayed et al. (2013) show a different methodol-
ogy in their study. Their objective was to evaluate the best L&G
strategies to be used considering cost. Some authors present new
studies, although they had not yet validated them with a case study.
Paju et al. (2010), for instance, propose a new methodology called

Table 1
Literature review regarding L&G manufacturing simulations studies (2006 to 2017).

Author/Year Type Area Software LEAN GREEN

Simulation
KPI Concepts/Strategies KPI Concepts/Strategies

Chandrakumar Case Study Port Terminal FlexSim e Non-value adding activities e material consumption,
et al. (2016) (DES) (waiting times, empty traveling land acquisitions,
times, and accumulating queues); pollutants sequestration
waste elimination
Diaz-Elsayed Case Study Automotive Plant production cost, SMED, quality rates increase, e Dimensioning to reduce
et al. (2013) Manufacturing Simulation1 lead time machine availability pressure, use of energy-
(DES) improvement, tool life extension, efficient engines, process
and batch size reduction integration
Golzarpoor and Case Study Civil ExtendSim lead time; waste elimination (time and carbon emission, fuel e
Gonzalez Construction (DES) machinery process), non-value adding consumption, machinery
(2013) working time activities, continuous flow, fuel cost; machinery hire
production cost cost
Greinacher Case Study Metal Plant throughput time non-value adding activities CO2 emissions, energy e
et al. (2015) Mechanic Simulation1 efficiency consumption
Manufacturing (DES) cost, material efficiency
consumption cost
Kruse et al. Theoretical e Tecnomatix production cost waste elimination, non-value energy consumption e
(2015) Plant adding activities
Simulation
(DES)
Miller et al. Case Study Chair not inform production cost VSM, Kaizen, non-value-added e clean air, energy
(2010) Manufacturing activities, document process, work consumption, solid waste
cell, standardized work, Kanban, generation
5S, SMED
Paju et al. Theoretical Metal eVSM (DES) e VSM energy consumption, e
(2010) Mechanic waste material
Manufacturing
Ugarte et al. Theoretical Transportation Arena (DES) Just-in-time, gas emission e
(2016) Product
postponement,
Vendor manage
inventory
4 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411
sustainable manufacturing mapping which incorporates DES and
life-cycle analysis along with conventional Value Stream Mapping
(VSM). Ugarte et al. (2016) assess gas emission when applied on
three current best practices in Lean logistics using a simulation
model of a manufacturing retailer supply chain. Chandrakumar
et al. (2016) use the non-value adding activities concept from
Lean in a port terminal process. However, the environmental im-
pacts were measured qualitatively only and results were poorly
detailed. The authors only use FlexSim DES software to simulate
Lean scenarios.
The research studies presented above demonstrate that DES is a
useful tool to assess L&G systems. The material, water, and energy
consumptions and CO2 emission are the KPI most used to represent
and analyze the Green impact. From the Lean side, concepts of non-
value adding activities and waste elimination are the most common
elements analyzed. Nonetheless, Miller et al. (2010) only assess the
Green impact resulting from Lean tools, such as Kanban. Most of the
scholars interpret the effects of Lean practices in monetary units.
They affirm the necessity to establish transparency within the
process to allow appropriate comparison of different resources to
different prices (Kruse et al., 2015).
From the conducted review, one can infer that energy and ma-
terial consumption are commonly used as Green KPI. While water is
also considered as a significant environmental impact, it is less
explored through these empirical studies. The literature review also
shows a limited number of research on the L&G synergies area that
used DES to assess scenarios, which is proposed in this study.
3. Simulation-based analysis approach
The L&G simulation-based analysis approach was developed to
identify and assess mutually leverageable L&G initiatives. The first
and most important idea behind this approach is that L&G strate-
gies can be integrated and evaluated in a virtual environment,
considering different scenarios and assessing their catalyzers and
trade-offs. Based on Lean thinking, the L&G simulation-based
analysis approach involves five steps, presented in Fig. 1. The
objective, input and output of each step are also described.
The first step involves defining the L&G KPIs. The criteria to
define the KPIs take into consideration in this study mainly the case
studies seen in the literature review (Section 2), in addition to the
easy access to the data of the company under scrutiny, and the
relevance of the KPI to the company. The Green KPIs chosen for this
assessment were raw material consumption (kg), energy con-
sumption (kWh) and water consumption (l). Raw material con-
sumption (GM1) is calculated from the parts produced times the
amount of material consumed to manufacture one piece (pcs),
which varies according to the component. Energy consumption
(GM2) is derived from the amount of energy consumed by the
machine times working machine process time. Also, water con-
sumption (GM3) is calculated from the amount of water used in
each setup. In the injection molding process, the machine has a
closed water circuit and this water is disposed at the end since it is
contaminated with oil.
All KPIs are measured directly in DES software considering the
fluctuation in value according to the company's reality. Chosen Lean
management KPIs are the production lead time, the amount pro-
duced, WIP, working hours machine, total setup quantity and total
setup hours. The first one, and most common in LM studies, is lead
time (LM0) which represents the amount of time necessary to
produce one part. This KPI results from processing time is summed
from each activity that is required to manufacture the final product.
The total amount produced (LM1) for each component is calculated
as the sum of pieces produced during the simulation time. WIP
(LM2) is calculated by the average quantity pieces in stock during
the role simulation time. Working hours machine (LM3) considers
the total processing time by the product in the respective injection
molding machine. Setup quantity (LM4) is the total amount of
setups of the product in the machine. And total setup time (LM5)
represents the total setup in hours.
The second step involves understanding, mapping and simu-
lating the current state, which is the actual scenario with no change
considering Lean methodology. The current state map is performed
using VSM from LM. The VSM is a method that uses a visual map,
with standardized figures and icons, to show the different stages
and activities that represent the product flow (Smalley, 2004). The
flow of value is defined as the sequencing of all actions, those that
both add and do not add value, needed to be done before delivering
the product to the client (Smalley, 2004). The VSM is an appropriate
method to analyze aspects of sustainability in productive opera-
tions (Baumer-Cardoso and Campos, 2018; Lorezon dos Santos
et al., 2019). This method has been frequently used by re-
searchers in the last few years (Baumer-Cardoso and Campos,
2018). Based on the information from the current state map, a
model is used to obtain the results of the defined KPIs. The simu-
lation process is performed considering the historical data from 30
days of production, that is, the monthly production orders (item,
quantity, and setup). The current state simulation allows for the
creation, in a virtual environment, of the actual state of the pro-
duction system quantifying KPIs for comparison with the future
state.
After understanding the current state, it is time to focus on the
future state (third step). Based on the company's complaints and
the current state map defined earlier in the study, the high WIP and
the disconnection between processes are the most prominent
problems in the process studied. These problems are mostly caused
by the push production system adopted. Thus, to control the pro-
duction of components, just after in the injection molding process,
the Lean tools chosen are Kanban and supermarket. The re-
searchers decided that the assembly line production continues
with the MPR system, controlled by the PCP area. The supermarket
is used to control a defined quantity of a product. When the ma-
terial is withdrawn from the supermarket by the low flow process, a
signal is sent flowing up to the previous process, which will then
reset what has been removed. The most common signaling device
used is Kanban, which authorizes and instructs the production in a
work center. There are different ways to calculate the Kanban level,
however, in this study, it was chosen to follow Smalley (2004)
method.
In the regular VSM process, the stock time and lead time values
are estimated directly on paper. However, in the approach proposed
in this study, the process values and lead time are defined after the
simulation step, because the simulation software is used to identify
the best configuration after some future scenarios simulations.
Thus, the future state is wholly defined after the simulation process
is concluded. In the simulation stage, the same historical data from
30 days production is used in the current state. Using the same data
allows the researchers to compare the functionality of the Lean tool
applied as well as the environmental impact before and after its
implementation. After defining the simulated scenarios, the fourth
setup involves analyzing the L&G KPIs results, followed by the
application of L&G initiatives.
4. Simulation-based analysis of Lean & Green catalyzers and
trade-offs
The company used for the study is one of the market leaders in
Brazil, with more than 3000 employees and seven factories in
Brazil. Its products are made mainly from plastic and serve the
sectors of construction, infrastructure and agriculture. Injection
 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411 5

Fig. 1. Research method. Adapted from Garza-Reyes (2015).

and extrusion are the main manufacturing processes used by the
company. The study was conducted within a specific product family
used in the construction sector. These products are manufactured
in one of the company's factories in the southern part of Brazil. The
manufacturing process of this particular product family involves
four injection machines and one assembly line.
For reasons of confidentiality, the company name and products
analyzed are not informed. The family product chosen is formed by
six products (PROD1, PROD2, PROD3, PROD4, PROD5, PROD6). Ac-
cording to the bill of materials (see Table 2), these products
consume a total of seven components (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) which are
manufactured in four different injection molding machines. After
manufacturing them, these components stay in stock until the final
assembly cell requests, which then ends at shipment. The final
assembly cell involves the production of an eighth component and
assembly of all parts together. Table 3 presents the data necessary
to model the process in the simulation software. This data com-
prises performance production per item (%), availability per ma-
chine (%), production per hour (pieces/hour), cycle time (seconds e
sec) and setup time (minutes emin). In this study, it was opted not

Table 2
Bill of materials and lot size.

Component Product A B C D E F G Lot size (pcs)

PROD1 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 2400
PROD2 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 1200
PROD3 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 700
PROD4 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 700
PROD5 1 1 1 1 e 1 e 700
PROD6 1 1 1 1 e 1 e 700
Lot size (pcs) 8000 9000 6850 24000 3500 830 750 e
6 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411

Table 3
Data process.

Item Machine Performance (per item) Availability (per machine) Pieces/hour Cycle (sec) Setup (min)

PROD1 Cell 95% a 100% e 491 7.33 10

PROD2 Cell 95% a 100% e 491 7.33 10
PROD3 Cell 90% a 99% e 313 11.50 10
PROD4 Cell 90% a 99% e 313 11.50 10
PROD5 Cell 90% a 99% e 313 11.50 10
PROD6 Cell 90% a 99% e 313 11.50 10
A Inj2171 89% a 97% 90% 2743 1.31 26
B Inj2171 96% a 100% 90% 9600 0.38 35
C Inj2093 89% a 95% 87% 2743 1.31 45
D Inj2093 87% a 95% 87% 5236 0.69 20
E Inj2086 65% a 88% 87% 2880 1.25 40
F Inj2086 86% a 95% 87% 847 4.25 60
G Inj2159 86% a 95% 80% 1920 1.88 40

to detail the stages of the cell process because no change will be
demonstrated, and the company has already made changes in the
cell considering the LM approach. It is also the case for setup time
(changeover time e C/O) and cycle time (C/T) which were already
studied and improved by the company according to LM principles.
The data for L&G KPIs defined in Section 3 were provided by the
company. Raw material consumption (GM1) varies according to the
component, but in general, it can be considered a variation by þ/-
5%. The energy amount (GM2) used on the studied injection
molding machines range from 48 to 52 kWh. However, the water
consumption (GM3) amount used on the injection molding ma-
chines is around 5 L per setup. The information was obtained from
machine manufacture's manual, as Brown et al. (2014) did, and also
provided through the periodic evaluations that the company itself
makes.
To define the variation for each KPI, discussions with the pro-
duction and maintenance specialists of the company were carried
out. The consensus on the injection process studied is considered to
be relatively stable. Therefore, the triangular type variation for each
indicator was chosen. The lower limit, mode and upper limit values
considered were: (a) GM1 material (5%, standard for each
component, þ 5%), (b) GM2 energy (48, 50, 52) and (c) GM3 water
(4, 5, 6).
After studying the process and defining the KPI data (Step 1), the
next step is mapping the current state.
4.1. Current state map
After analysis and mapping of the whole process, the current
state map was defined (see Fig. 2) and it shows the complexity of
the process. The Production Planning and Control (PCP) area sends
a weekly schedule to the Production area, informing the production
orders (OP) for each component and each final product. The OPs
contain information about the production of an item: quantity,
machine, date and time. The PCP area uses MRP (Material
Requirement Planning) systems to calculate the production re-
quirements, and this is made individually for each item. The
problem of this type of system, also called push production, is the
processing of large batches of products at a maximum rate, based
on demand forecast, moving those batches to the next, down-
stream, or storage process, without taking into account the actual
variations in the following process work rate (Smalley, 2004).
The production process begins with the manufacturing of the
seven components in four injection molding machines. Compo-
nents A and B are produced in the machine INJ2171, C and D in the
INJ2093 machine, E and F in the 2086 machine and the G compo-
nent is provided in the INJ2159. These same injectors are used for
the production of other products, so they are not exclusive to the
manufacturing of the items studied. Since the components that
share the same injector cannot be produced at the same time, the
processing time informed in the current state map is the sum of the
cycles times (C/T) of all the components provided in a machine. For
example, in INJ2171, the total processing time is the sum of the
production time of item A (1.31 s) and item B (0.38 s), which results
in 1.69 s. The production of the components between injectors can
happen in parallel, so the total production time reported in the
current state map timeline is the most extended process time be-
tween the machines, which is the INJ2086 with 5.50 s. This time
means that, in 5.50 s, it is possible to produce all components
necessary for the final product in the subsequent process.
After production, each component goes to its defined stock area
and it is available to be used for the next process, which is the final
assembly in the assembly cell. The stock quantity of each item is
translated into inventory days in the current state map, based on
the average daily consumption of the subsequent process. The total
inventory time reported on the map is the sum of the inventory
time of the components produced for each machine. The map also
informs the setup times (C/O e change over time) for each element,
as well as the uptime and working days for each machine.
The subsequent process is the final assembly cell that receives
the necessary components based on the bill of materials according
to production orders. This process produces the six final products
with a specific cycle time for each. Information about this process,
such as cycle time, setup time, uptime and work schedule, follow
the same criteria as the previous process. However, the value
informed in the timeline is not the sum of all products. In a value
stream map, the timeline goal is to show the necessary time to
produce one product, so it does not make sense to sum up the
production time of all six products.
After the production process is concluded, the products are
taken to the shipment area, and they are ready to be sent to the
clients.
After the current state map ended, it was possible to note the
complexity of the whole process. The seven components can be
produced in parallel, unless some challenging issues appear. Even
when the WIP is very high, the company complains of constant
stops because of a lack of material on the assembly line, showing a
disconnection between processes. Another difficulty the company
faces is that the size of lots varies for each component (see Table 3).
It means there is no least common multiple between lots and that
there will always be leftovers in the cell, thus facilitating losses and
scrap. One crucial fact to consider is that the injection molding
machines produce other components, which means they cannot be
restricted to this product family. Therefore, it is necessary to control
the device working time per part in order not to interfere in the
production of other company's products. Yet, as the company also
 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411
Fig. 2. Current state map.
has a setup team exclusively for the injection area, such an increase
in the number of setup time becomes acceptable. Following the
research method, the current state was modeled using Simio®
software, taking into account the process data, presented in Table 3.
Due to the software limitation, the availability was informed ac-
cording to the history of the injection machine and not of the
product as desired. Also, it was not possible to add a variation to
that value. Availability for the assembly line was not added since it
followed the completion of production orders of September/2017.
The performance was informed by the product, and a triangular
variation was added as a way to represent the change of this indi-
cator in practice. This variation considered the performance of the
last six months (March to August) as well as the performance of
September/2017. The setup time was considered with a difference
of less 15% for all items based on historical data reported by the
company.
As mentioned in Section 3, a 30 days historical data of both
production and material lack occurrence was used. After the model
was concluded, the simulation process was performed twenty
times, and the KPIs results were the average value from all twenty
times simulations. Table 4 shows the results of KPIs defined for the
current state.
4.2. Future state map
Before starting to model the future state in Simio® software,
7
partial future state map was constructed to visualize the future flow
(see Fig. 3). This future state embraces the application of two spe-
cific Lean practices, namely supermarket and Kanban, implemented
after the injection molding process to control the production
cadence.
Defining the Kanban level was a challenge because, although the
company had a setup time and accepted an increase in this aspect,
they also had the concern of not overloading the team with many
setups. Furthermore, the chosen Kanban levels must meet the
consumption of the cell without lacking inventory and still main-
tain a level of stock security, avoiding approaching zero. Also, there
is the problem of lot size difference which did not have a least
common multiple.
First, only PROD1 and PROD2 have lot size different from 700
pcs and the company accepted to change the size to equalize the
others to facilitate the stock management of the components.
Second, the lot sizes for components also need to be replaced to
avoid stock leaks in the final assembly cell. However, changing the
Kanban lot also to 700 pcs could result in a significant increase in
setup because the cycle times parts are very short. In light of this
situation, it was chosen to use multiple Kanban's, which means,
there is a minimum Kanban level necessary to do the setup and
start the part production. It is at this point that the use of the
simulation helps to visualize the best scenario for Kanban level
without having to test in practice. Some scenarios were simulated
varying the products lot sizes, the components lot size and the
8 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411

Table 4
KPI results for the current state.

KPIs A B C D E F G Total

GM1 Kg 338 490 542 92 308 917 1,246 3,934

GM2 kWh 3,815 2,614 3,882 3,017 2,977 5,616 2,710 24,631
GM3 l 15.5 4.9 9.6 10.0 10.7 15.5 15.4 81.6

LM0 days e e e e e e e 29
LM1 units 192,000 495,000 191,800 288,000 133,000 84,660 108,000 1,492,460
LM2 units 78,256 559,368 80,967 123,463 113,609 22,779 88,625 1,067,067
LM3 hours 76.4 52.3 77.3 60.5 59.7 112.5 54.3 493.1
LM4 qtd 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 16
LM5 hours 1.7 0.6 2.2 0.7 1.4 3.8 2.1 12.5

Fig. 3. Partial future state map.

minimum and maximum levels of Kanban. The best situation fits component E was almost 40,000 pieces. At the end of the simula-
within the company's needs and limitations are presented in tion, on October 3rd, 2017, the stock level was around 30,000
Table 5. pieces. Moreover, the fluctuation of the stock level was between
After selecting the best level Kanban multiple, the simulation 20,000 and 40,000 pieces, during the period simulated. This means
was conducted with the same criteria as current state simulation. that component E had a stock level that is very far from zero. In fact,
The same 30 days historical data were used and performed the most of the stocks of the components were far from a zero stock,
simulation twenty times. Table 6 shows the results of KPIs defined representing an opportunity to improve Kanban level and reduce
for the future state. The last column presents the variation values even more the stock process. Adversely, component B almost had a
comparing to current state results. Fig. 4 presents the final future stockout and showed the necessity to review the minimum Kanban
state map with the results in the timeline. level.
The KPI working hours (LM3) also decreased, mainly because of
B, D and E parts, since they had the most amount produced (LM1)
4.3. Result analysis and discussion
decrease. The working hour's drop was typical, and this shows an
opportunity for the company to use the machines to provide other
From the Lean point of view, the KPIs lead time (LM0), amount
products and also reveals the considerable overproduction of these
produced (LM1), WIP (LM3) and working hours (LM4) had good
items. In contrast, the A, C, F and G parts have also presented a
improvement. Lead time had a reduction of 83% due to WIP
discrete decrease in LM1 and LM3. This fact reveals that, for these
reduction. Overproduction was the most significant company
items, the total amount planned to produce in the current state was
problem in every stage. Many Kanban systems had allowed
close to the best situation, according to the Kanban scenario. The
defining a maximum level and controlling the inventory parts.
problem is that this amount has not been producing in the best
Fig. 5 shows the stock level over time of all components during the
timeframe and this is what the WIP KPIs (LM2) shows. The LM2 is
simulation conducted. The Y-axis of the graphic represents the
the average quantity in stock during the simulation period. For all
amount of stock (pieces) and the X-axis represents the timeline
the components, except for F, the WIP decrease was more than 60%,
(date). For example, on August 28th, 2017, the stock level of
resulting in a total decrease of 83%. Less WIP reflects in less physical
space for inventory, and more inventory turns.
Table 5 The KPIs setups were the only that had an increase of 213% in
Kanban levels for Scenario K. quantity of setups and 164% in total setup time. The Lean approach
Item Lot size (pcs) Kanban maximum (lots) Kanban minimum (lots) proposes the flexibility of production through setups, so in most
cases, an increase in the amount of setup is expected. Yet, LM seeks
A 700 54 23
B 700 54 51 to minimize this situation by proposing a continuous improvement
C 700 54 20 in the reduction of activities and setup times. In addition, this KPI is
D 700 54 34 directly impacted by the defined minimum Kanban level. Thus, if
E 700 54 25 the company needs to reduce setups, one way is to expand the
F 700 34 6
minimum Kanban level, which can lead to an increase in WIP.
G 700 34 11
 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411 9

Table 6
KPI results for the future state scenario K.

KPIs A B C D E F G Total Variation

GM1 Kg 310 185 535 57 223 898 1,213 3,420 13%

GM2 kWh 3,568 1,063 3,981 1,695 2,229 5,490 3,098 21,124 14%
GM3 l 24.5 25.6 39.2 34.4 15.1 14.9 95.7 249.5 206%

LM0 days e e e e e e e 4.9 83%

LM1 units 177,100 186,900 189,000 178,500 95,900 82,600 105,000 1,015,000 32%
LM2 units 29,549 21,238 30,770 27,385 32,568 21,881 20,500 183,891 83%
LM3 hours 71.6 21.3 79.6 33.8 44.5 109.3 62.0 422.0 14%
LM4 qtd 5 5 8 7 3 3 19 50 213%
LM5 hours 2.2 3.5 5.8 2.7 2.6 3.1 12.9 32.9 164%

Fig. 4. Future state map from scenario K.

Again, the simulation tool can help in these situations by simulating
different scenarios with different Kanban levels.
The reduction in inventory is a target for Lean and for Green, and
therefore is an attribute that one paradigm is positive for other
(Dües et al., 2013). Analyzing the Green KPIs, the raw material
(GM1) had a reduction of 13% after Lean implementation, which
was expected since the levels of the produced amount have fallen
(LM1). This result shows that the Lean strategy adopted is catalytic
with this Green KPI, converging with the results found in the
literature review (Aguado et al., 2013; Chandrakumar et al., 2016;
Chiarini, 2014; Chugani et al., 2017; Duarte and Cruz-Machado,
2013; Golzarpoor and Gonzalez, 2013; Piercy and Rich, 2015).
The energy consumption (GM2) also presents a decrease of
14% in the future state proposed. This situation occurs because
of the decrease of working hours (LM3), which confirms what
the literature states (Carvalho et al., 2017; Chugani et al., 2017;
Dües et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2010). This result is different from
Sartal et al. (2018)’ findings, because our study leads to JIT ap-
plications, with smaller batches but with no additional packing,
since the component's container is reused throughout the entire
process.
Adversely, water consumption (GM3) increases with Lean, as it
was expected since it is strictly related to setup (LM4 and LM5). As
mentioned in Section 3, the injection molding process involves the
10 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411

Stock level - Scenario K

40000

Amount of stock (pieces)

35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 8/28/2017
8/29/2017
8/30/2017
8/31/2017
9/1/2017
9/2/2017
9/3/2017
9/4/2017
9/5/2017
9/6/2017
9/7/2017
9/8/2017
9/9/2017
9/10/2017
9/11/2017
9/12/2017
9/13/2017
9/14/2017
9/15/2017
9/16/2017
9/17/2017
9/18/2017
9/19/2017
9/20/2017
9/21/2017
9/22/2017
9/23/2017
9/24/2017
9/25/2017
9/26/2017
9/27/2017
9/28/2017
9/29/2017
9/30/2017
10/1/2017
10/2/2017
10/3/2017
Timeline

A B C D E F G

Fig. 5. Stock level over time in scenario K.

use of a significant amount of water in each setup, so the increase of
setups consequently raises water consumption. Due to this process
characteristic, the water consumption paradigm has shown as a
trade-off, and it is in agreement with Dües et al. (2013), who
observed that there is a conflict of L&G practices when Lean focuses
on flexibility. Dieste et al. (2019) point out eleven studies which
examine the relationship between Lean and water use, with only
one study presenting a negative impact. The water trade-off found
in this research does not confirm the general affirmations of Lean
and water positive relationship presented in Larson and
Greenwood (2004) and Vinodh et al. (2011) studies. Although the
company considers this amount relatively small and not harmful, it
has yet, an environmental impact. Water reuse in the same or
another process could reduce the impact and convert this trade-off
as a positive relationship as proposed by some authors (Faulkner
and Badurdeen, 2014; Folinas et al., 2014; Helleno et al., 2016).
Based on the results obtained in this study, the scenario k had a
substantial improvement in the production through Lean's lenses.
Even though the financial impact was not the objective of this
study, it can yet affirm that these results impacted positively the
company's financial results, with a reduction of material, energy,
and WIP. Although the water KPI had a negative impact, the amount
increased is considered not harmful by the company and the au-
thors suggest to adopt the L&G scenario simulated.
5. Conclusion
This research was carried out to assess Lean & Green catalyzers
and trade-offs in a job shop of a Brazilian company using DES
modeling. The Lean paradigms were represented using Kanban tool
and the Green paradigm was interpreted as material, energy and
water consumption. The results of material consumption converge
with the literature in the field, showing a reduction in the material
consumption when Lean is adopted. This situation is expected since
the amount of products produced drops. The same situation hap-
pens with the energy consumption. The amount of energy drops
when Lean is adopted. This result matches the majority of the
research studies. In contrast, water consumption has a different
result from other research studies because the water amount in-
creases when a Lean tool is applied. This happens because, in this
study, the injection-molding process involves water consumption
that is not reused, and therefore the situation results in a trade-off
when a JIT tool is adopted.
From the results obtained, Lean is a catalyzer for Green when
material and energy aspects are analyzed. However, water con-
sumption performed as a trade-off in this case study. Scholars must
be careful with general affirmations such as Lean is Green since the
characteristics of the production process have a direct influence on
the results. Adversely, the adoption of Lean practices cannot be
ruled out just because one KPI had a negative impact, but rather,
environment-friendly alternatives should be further researched to
reduce such impact. While Lean is not 100% synergistic to Green,
Lean can still be reshaped to become so, but companies will need
additional changes in their process. However, the adoption of Lean
is still positive for reducing Green impact and it is one of the most
promising paths.
Even though some of the research present case studies, there is
still room to explore and to improve the synergy between L&G,
including using DES. DES has proved to be versatile in the simula-
tion process, since analyzing single process is very useful and rec-
ommended, mainly because different scenarios can be tested. In
this case study, DES was fundamental to the company because it
helped visualize the results considering different Kanban levels.
Moreover, DES enabled the company to study which situation they
could apply, according to their reality, especially the number of
setups acceptable. The L&G using DES proved to be both accessible
and useful as well as practical to analyze L&G initiatives in a
manufacturing system.
The results not only support a great potential to reduce both
environmental and production waste, but also highlight the po-
tential of using this approach for managing a broader concept of
L&G in manufacturing using simulation techniques. Applying such
L&G analyses with DES modeling to different manufacturing pro-
cesses, contributes to the development of more sustainable pro-
duction projects considering green aspects in the planning phase.
As part of further research, the presented simulation-based
approach should be applied to different manufacturing systems of
different branches and sizes. This would allow to obtain a broader
insight into the L&G effects of variety and possible influencing
factors for L&G optimization. The authors also suggest exploring
the other common Green KPIs found in the literature, such as
greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation. Adding Green
 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411
analysis in Lean processes, contributes to understand in depth the
environmental impact and also the catalyzers and trade-offs of the
L&G paradigms. Furthermore, studies including the circular econ-
omy aspects are also recommended (as it is a rising trend to envi-
ronmental sustainability) and even an exploration of solutions for
Green impact when Lean is not favorable to it is to be considered.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Coordination of Improvement of Higher
Education Personnel - CAPES and the National Council of Scientific
and Technological Development - CNPq for the financial support of
this research and also thank the company for the data provided.
References
Aguado, S., Alvarez, R., Domingo, R., 2013. Model of efficient and sustainable im-
provements in a lean production system through processes of environmental
innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 141e148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.
048.
Baumer-Cardoso, M.I., Campos, L.M.S., 2018. VSM : a flexibilidade e a versatilidade
do uso no campo da Sustentabilidade VSM : the flexibility and versatility use in
the field of Sustainability. J. Lean Syst. 3, 110e130.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S., 2014. Quantitative models for
sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 233, 299e312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.032.
Brown, A., Amundson, J., Badurdeen, F., 2014. Sustainable value stream mapping
(Sus-VSM) in different manufacturing system configurations: application case
studies. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 164e179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.101.
Campos, L.M.S., Vasquez-Brust, D.A., 2016. Lean and green synergies in supply chain
management. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 21, 228e244. https://doi.org/10.
1108/SCM-08-2015-0331.
Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., Machado, V.C., 2011. Lean, agile, resilient and green: di-
vergencies and synergies. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2, 151e179. https://doi.org/10.
1108/20401461111135037.
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, 75e87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.025.
Chandrakumar, C., Gowrynathan, J., Kulatunga, A.K., Sanjeevan, N., 2016. Incorpo-
rate LEAN and green concepts to enhance the productivity of transshipment
terminal operations. Procedia CIRP 40, 301e306. In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2016.01.042.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., Benhida, K., 2016. The integration of
lean manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future
research directions for developing a specific model. J. Clean. Prod. 139,
828e846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Garza-reyes, J.A., Benhida, K., 2017. The Management of
Operations Barriers in Green Lean implementation : a combined systematic
literature review and interpretive structural modelling approach Barriers in
Green Lean implementation : a combined systematic literature review and
interpretive st. Prod. Plan. Control 7287, 1e14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2017.1324184.
Chiarini, A., 2014. Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific
Lean Production tools: an empirical observation from European motorcycle
component manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 226e233. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.07.080.
Chugani, N., Kumar, V., Garza-reyes, J.A., Rocha-lona, L., Upadhyay, A., 2017. Inves-
tigating the green impact of lean, six Sigma and lean six Sigma: a systematic
literature review. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 8, 7e32. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-11-
2015-0043.
Corbett, C.J., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending the Horizons: environmental excellence
as Key to improving operations. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 8, 5e22. https://doi.
org/10.1287/msom.1060.0095.
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
production environments. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 62, 475e478. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.066.
Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R., Garza-reyes, J.A., Anosike, A., 2019. The relationship be-
tween lean and environmental performance : practices and measures. J. Clean.
Prod. 224, 120e131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.243.
Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Modelling lean and green: a review from
business models. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 4, 228e250. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLSS-05-2013-0030.
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, 93e100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.023.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Eshragh, A., 2015. A tradeoff model for green supply chain
planning: a leanness-versus-greenness analysis. Omega (United Kingdom) 54,
173e190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.01.014.
Farias, L.M.S., Santos, L.C., Gohr, C.F., Oliveira, L.C. De, Amorim, M.H. da S., 2019.
11
Criteria and practices for lean and green performance assessment : systematic
review and conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 218, 746e762. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.042.
Faulkner, W., Badurdeen, F., 2014. Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM):
methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance.
J. Clean. Prod. 85, 8e18.
Folinas, D., Aidonis, D., Malindretos, G., Voulgarakis, N., Triantafillou, D., 2014.
Greening the agrifood supply chain with lean thinking practices. Int. J. Agric.
Resour. Gov. Ecol. 10, 129. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2014.063580.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015. Lean and Green e a systematic review of the state of the art
literature. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 18e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.
064.
Golzarpoor, H., Gonzalez, V., 2013. A green-lean simulation model for assessing
environmental and production waste in construction. In: 21st Annual Confer-
ence of the International Group for Lean Construction 2013, IGLC 2013, July 29,
2013 - August 2, 2013, 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction 2013, IGLC 2013. The International Group for Lean Con-
struction, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 845e854.
Greinacher, S., Moser, E., Freier, J., Muller, J., Lanza, G., 2016. Simulation-based
methodology for the application of lean and green strategies depending on
external change driver influence. In: 23rd CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engi-
neering, LCE 2016, May 22, 2016 - May 24, 2016, Procedia CIRP, vol. 12. Elsevier,
Wbk Institute of Production Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kai-
serstr., Germany, pp. 242e247. Karlsruhe; 76131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.
2016.03.240.
Greinacher, S., Moser, E., Hermann, H., Lanza, G., 2015. Simulation based assessment
of lean and green strategies in manufacturing systems. Procedia CIRP 29, 86e91.
In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.053.
Gupta, V., Narayanamurthy, G., Acharya, P., 2018. Can lean lead to green? Assess-
ment of radial tyre manufacturing processes using system dynamics modelling.
Comput. Oper. Res. 89, 284e306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.03.015.
Helleno, A.L., de Moraes, A.J.I., Simon, A.T., 2016. Integrating sustainability in-
dicators and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: applica-
tion case studies in Brazilian industry. J. Clean. Prod. 1e12. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.072.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., Wassenhove, L.N., 2009. Sustainable operations man-
agement. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14, 482e492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.
2005.tb00235.x.
Kruse, A., Butzer, S., Drews, T., Steinhilper, R., 2015. A simulation-based framework
for improving the ecological and economic transparency in multi-variant pro-
duction. Procedia CIRP 26, 179e184. In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.
101.
Larson, R., Greenwood, T., 2004. Perfect complements: synergies between lean
production and eco-sustainability initiatives. Environ. Qual. Manag. 13, 27e36.
Lorezon dos Santos, D., Giglio, R., Helleno, A.L., Campos, L.M.S., 2019. Environmental
Aspects in VSM: a study about barriers and drivers. Prod. Plan. Control 30 (15),
1239e1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1605627.
Martínez-Jurado, P.J., Moyano-Fuentes, J., Martinez-Jurado, P.J., Moyano-Fuentes, J.,
2014. Lean management, supply chain management and sustainability: a
literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 134e150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2013.09.042.
Miller, G., Pawloski, J., Standridge, C., 2010. A case study of lean, sustainable
manufacturing. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 3, 11e32. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2010.
v3n1.p11-32.
Mortan, M., Raţiu, P., Vereş, V., Baciu, L., 2015. Integration level of environmental
issues into the company strategies. Case study. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 14,
2591e2603.
Nabhani, F., Bala, S., Evans, G., Shokri, A., 2017. Review of implementing Lean Six
Sigma to reduce environmental wastes of internal supply chains in food in-
dustry. In: M, E.S., J, G., S, K. (Eds.), 15th International Conference on
Manufacturing Research, ICMR 2017. IOS Press BV, School of Science and En-
gineering, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, pp. 327e332.
https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-792-4-327.
Paju, M., Heilala, J., Hentula, M., Heikkila, A., Johansson, B.B., Leong, S., Lyons, K.,
Heikkila €, A., Johansson, B.B., Leong, S., Lyons, K., 2010. Framework and indicators
for a sustainable manufacturing mapping methodology. In: Proceedings of the
2010 Winter Simulation Conference, Proceedings - Winter Simulation Confer-
ence. IEEE, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P.O. Box 1000, Espoo,
02044, FinlandProduct and Production Development, 412 96. Chalmers Uni-
versity of Technology, Gothenburg, pp. 3411e3422. SwedenManufacturing
Systems Integration Division, National Institute of Standards and. https://doi.
org/10.1109/WSC.2010.5679031.
Piercy, N., Rich, N., 2015. The relationship between lean operations and sustainable
operations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35, 282e315. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09574090910954864.
Piyathanavong, V., Garza-reyes, J.A., Kumar, V., Maldonado-Guzman, G.,
Mangla, S.K., 2019. The adoption of operational environmental sustainability
approaches in the Thai manufacturing sector. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 507e528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.093.
Sartal, A., Martinez-senra, A.I., Cruz-machado, V., 2018. Are all lean principles
equally eco-friendly ? A panel data study. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 362e370. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.190.
Smalley, A., 2004. Creating Level Pull. Lean Enterprises Inst Inc.
Ugarte, G.M., Golden, J.S., Dooley, K.J., 2016. Lean versus green: the impact of lean
12 M.I. Baumer-Cardoso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118411

logistics on greenhouse gas emissions in consumer goods supply chains.
J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22, 98e109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2015.09.
002.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., Remita, H., 2014. Combining organizational per-
formance with sustainable development issues: the Lean and Green project
benchmarking repository. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 83e93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.12.023.
Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R., Somanaathan, M., 2011. Tools and techniques for enabling
sustainability through lean initiatives. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13,
469e479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-010-0329-x.