Accepted Manuscript

Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in

automotive industry

Stella Stoycheva, Dayton Marchese, Cameron Paul, Sara Padoan, Abdul-salam

Juhmani, Igor Linkov

PII: S0959-6526(18)30794-7

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.133

Reference: JCLP 12391

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 28 January 2017

Revised Date: 10 December 2017

Accepted Date: 13 March 2018

Please cite this article as: Stella Stoycheva, Dayton Marchese, Cameron Paul, Sara Padoan, Abdul-
salam Juhmani, Igor Linkov, Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable
manufacturing in automotive industry, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.03.133

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive

industry

Stella Stoycheva1, Dayton Marchese2, Cameron Paul2, Sara Padoan3, Abdul-salam Juhmani3,
Igor Linkov2,4*
1 Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Department of Management, Venice, Italy
2 US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Concord, MA, USA
3 Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and

Statistics
4 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Abstract
Increase in societal demand for sustainability has resulted in attention to sustainable
manufacturing. Although an attractive goal to most, executives face difficulties in implementing
sustainable manufacturing due to the necessity of balancing social, economic and environmental
outcomes associated with the implementation of different manufacturing alternatives and
processes. This is especially true in highly competitive consumer-oriented industries, such as the
automotive industry. The literature review presented herein indicated that most of the available
sustainability frameworks are qualitative in nature and limited to discussion of sustainable
materials and processes, while tradeoffs between the environmental, social and economic
domains of sustainability are rarely examined. To overcome such shortcomings, we develop a
quantitative framework for sustainable manufacturing and illustrate its application for the
automotive industry. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is utilized to combine the values
of industry executives and decision makers with performance criteria of different car
manufacturing materials (ferrous metals, aluminum, plastics, organic composites, and synthetic
composites). Our results show how material alternatives in manufacturing can be quantitatively
selected based on sustainability objectives. Additionally, we illustrate how sensitivity analyses
are used to assess the robustness of the resulting alternative selection. Although this framework
may be useful for decision makers in its current form, future applications might improve the
model by choosing different or more specific alternatives, using objective performance scores
supported by industry research, or by investigating a more diverse set of weight distributions
representing dissimilar stakeholder values.

Keywords: sustainability, manufacturing, automotive industry, MCDA, decision analysis

1. Introduction

Automobile ownership has been climbing sharply worldwide, and this trend is predicted
to continue for decades (Mayyas et al., 2012; McAuley, 2003; Sutherland et al., 2004). Dargay et
al. (2007) estimated that worldwide vehicle stock will increase by a factor of 2.5 between 2002
and 2030, reaching over 2 billion cars in use. Increases in fuel and resource costs, as well as
societal demand for responsible manufacturing, drives constant improvement and innovation of
the automotive industry due to its significant fuel consumption, resource usage, and greenhouse

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

gas (GHG) emissions. Despite the constant effort by car manufacturers to increase efficiency and
reduce environmental impact, quantitative metrics to assess the complex tradeoffs of
performance and sustainability are rarely implemented (Bakshi and Fiksel, 2003).
Sustainability has been widely discussed in the context of automobile manufacturing, and
is viewed as interdependent considerations for environmental, economic and social components
of the product life cycle (Ahmed Ali et al., 2015; Marsh, 2003; Zah et al., 2007). This approach
mirrors the “triple bottom line” of environmental, economic and social sustainability in
community development (Elkington, 1997). In the automotive industry, most sustainability
frameworks are qualitative in nature, and fail to holistically consider all three pillars of the triple
bottom line (Jasiński et al., 2016). Many manufacturers often focus on the economic component
of sustainability, neglecting the environmental and social aspects (Bergenwall et al., 2012). Other
manufacturers, such as those producing all-electric vehicles, may heavily weight the
environmental components of the product life cycle (Figge and Hahn, 2012). In part, these
unilateral approaches derive from segmented efforts by the research community toward
sustainable manufacturing (Ghadimi et al., 2012; Lozano, 2008).
One issue of critical importance for sustainable automobile manufacturing is the selection
of production materials. McAuley (2003) estimates that a 10% reduction in total vehicle weight
produces 3-7% better fuel economy; a life cycle perspective indicates that, because of this, the
selection of material types during the design phase will significantly affect a product’s overall
sustainability due to material weight alone (Mayyas et al., 2012). Additionally, material selection
will likely affect areas such as resource independence, recyclability and biodegradability
(Mohanty et al., 2002). As a result, focus on material selection can be a starting point for the
improvement of automotive-industry sustainability. Holistically, there are many other variables
and processes involved in automobile manufacturing that contribute to overall sustainability.
One way to evaluate the inclusion of these processes and products in sustainable
manufacturing is with decision analysis. Our review of the scientific literature suggested that
various methods of decision analysis have been used to assess sustainability in the automobile
industry (see e.g. Hwang, 2014; Mani et al., 2013; Zeydan et al., 2011); however, only a small
number focused on sustainable manufacturing (see e.g. Ahmed Ali et al., 2015; Ghadimi et al.,
2012). Among the decision analytical tools used is multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA),
which combines stakeholder preferences and performance data of different technological
alternatives to address complex tradeoffs involved in sustainability quantification. Cegan et al.
(2017) and Kurth et al (2017) showed in a recent literature review that the use of MCDA in
environmental science publications is steadily growing. MCDA quantifies the overall utility, or
value, associated with dissimilar alternative options, which can then be used to easily compare
alternatives and aid management and policy decisions. This comparison is especially important
when sustainability is the objective in selecting an alternative, because sustainability criteria are
often difficult to quantify in anything but relative terms (Marchese et al., 2017).
Traditional methods for assessing sustainability in manufacturing are rooted in life-cycle
assessment (LCA). LCA was introduced as a practical tool to analyze and minimize the
environmental pressures of manufacturing activities (Finnveden et al., 2009). Although MCDA
has been integrated with LCA in the context of fuel production (Dias et al., 2016; You et al.,
2012), little work has been completed illustrating the role of MCDA and LCA in sustainable
manufacturing.
This paper presents a conceptual framework for assessing sustainable manufacturing, and
illustrates its application for the automotive industry. The quantitative root of this framework is

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MCDA, with the objective of selecting among manufacturing alternatives. In the illustrative
application, five material alternatives were compared (ferrous metals, aluminum, plastics,
organic composites, and synthetic composites) according to three sustainability aspects
(economic, social and environmental). Subcriteria and metrics associated with these three
primary sustainability criteria were derived for the automotive industry based on a review of the
literature. Dissimilar stakeholder perspectives were captured with varying distributions of
importance weights among the three main level criteria. A “balanced” perspective was
investigated alongside three hypothetical “business” perspectives: an original equipment
manufacturer (OEM), a “green” company, and a non-governmental organization (NGO).
Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. In summary, this
framework represents a holistic approach capable of balancing social, economic and
environmental concerns associated with the implementation of different manufacturing
alternatives. Overcoming drawbacks of existing approaches, this framework aims at contributing
to the extant literature by conceptualizing sustainability assessment as a decision-making
problem. At a practical level, this framework is intended to aid practitioners by offering a
transparent tool to support complex decisions rated to sustainable manufacturing in the
automotive industry.

2. Assessing sustainability – the automotive industry perspective

2.1. Background and literature review methodology

Despite being criticized for definitional vagueness and ambiguity (Lele, 1991), the
concept of sustainability has become a critical issue for the business world. Notwithstanding the
long debate about the meaning of sustainability, within the academic community there is a
growing consensus that current research efforts should move towards developing concrete tools
for promoting and measuring sustainable achievements (Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2000). In the
automotive industry this issue is even more critical and urgent due to the enormous and diverse
influence the industry has on other business sectors, society, and nature, bringing economic and
social advantages (e.g. employment and mobility), but at the same time posing critical challenges
and negative externalities, such as deterioration of air quality in urban areas and a contribution to
global warming.
According to Orsato and Wells (2007) designing sustainable automobiles should
encompass a holistic approach entailing a balance between social, ethical, environmental and
economic factors within the product or service development process. Although the quest for
assessing sustainability in the automotive industry is manifested by a great body of research, a
continued development of sophisticated models, guidelines and frameworks, delivered by both
academic and practitioners, in reality, the prevailing approaches in the extant literature tend to
consider environmental, economic and social aspects along the product life cycle in isolation
from each other (Jasiński et al., 2016). Furthermore, according to Curtis and Walker (2001) the
inherent complexity in accounting for and tracking sustainability efforts have rendered most of
the sustainability studies to be of qualitative nature.
In order to explore in more depth the state-of-the-science of sustainability assessment in
the automotive industry, a rigorous literature review process was devised aimed at summarizing
and categorizing the available body of knowledge following partially the systematic literature
review process often employed in management and organization studies (Tranfield et al., 2003).

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Specifically, a research protocol was developed that included defining clear and precise purposes
of the literature survey, screening stage, and judgment based on exclusion and inclusion criteria,
followed by an assessment of the formal aspects of the collected material, research synthesis and
presentation of research findings.
The aim of this literature survey was to determine to what extent sustainability
assessment in manufacturing has been approached from a holistic point of view, and from what
perspectives does the automotive industry view sustainability. Moreover, the literature survey
serves the secondary purposes of identifying criteria for the sustainability framework model
development, and to inform alternative performance scores (where available) to be used in the
illustrative example.
To begin the literature survey, the ISI Web of Science database was searched with a pre-
defined set of keywords for the entire period of its online coverage until November 2015 (see
Table 1). The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles in English, falling under selected
subject areas.

Table 1. Search criteria employed in the literature review process

Database ISI Web of Science

Time span: 1960 – November 2015
Search: in Titles, Abstracts and Keywords
Limitations: ONLY peer-reviewed articles from journals in English
Environmental sciences, Ecology, Transportation, Energy fuels, Urban
Subject areas:
studies, Chemistry, Operations research, Management science
Key words: sustainab* AND automo* OR car*

The search resulted in 854 documents, which were analyzed through a cursory scan of
titles and abstracts aimed at setting further limitations and removing false and/or irrelevant
entries (screening stage). During this stage, sets of inclusion and exclusion criteria were
developed, against which each study was judged. Specifically, we included papers which 1)
explicitly discuss sustainability assessment frameworks, models and/or methods developed for
the automotive industry, or which presented a case study applying sustainability assessment to
processes, products, materials or components pertaining to automotive manufacturing or had a
business focus on the topic of sustainability in the automotive industry, and/or 2) considered
either one or more aspects (environmental, social, economic) in evaluating sustainability. All
studies that didn’t fall under the above stated criteria were excluded from the analysis. At this
stage, some of the studies were read in full in order to determine their inclusion or exclusion.
This resulted in a unique dataset of 70 articles which were considered relevant for further in-
depth analysis.
To assess the formal aspects of the collected material, descriptive statistics were
performed on the obtained dataset of articles (see Appendix A). Finally, in order to provide
answers to our primary literature review questions, the articles were categorized based on a set of
criteria, including the general type of sustainability assessment utilized (i.e. was it quantitative or
qualitative in nature), aspects of sustainability that were considered (i.e. environmental,
economic, and/or social impacts), area of application (e.g. automotive industry, supply chain),
specific quantitative methods employed (e.g. life cycle assessment, data envelopment analysis),
main objective of the study, focus of the study (e.g. model/indictor development, material

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

selection). For analytical purposes, we identified the main research streams and grouped them
into clusters. The results of this categorization can be found in Appendix B.

2.1. Literature review findings

The results of the literature survey yielded a number of conclusions, first being that
recent years have shown an increase in the number of papers published relating to sustainability
in the automobile industry. Of the 70 papers evaluated, more than 60 % were published between
2012 and 2015, signifying an increased academic interest in the issue of sustainability, as well as
a drive to increase sustainable applications. The Journal of Cleaner Production was most
represented in the literature review, with 22 of the 70 articles (31%) , while the rest of the
relevant publications were almost equally distributed with low frequency (1-4 papers per journal)
among journals addressing operations, business and environmental management research,
transportation, manufacturing and chemistry (see Appendix A). This is a significantly uneven
distribution of source material, possibly showing that automobile sustainability is mainly being
applied to production principles, and other areas of the industry (e.g. employment
considerations) receiving less scientific focus. A number of articles were found that involved
LCA or life cycle perspectives (23%), supporting the idea that this method of investigation
already has a strong foothold in the automobile industry. Papers that integrated all three concerns
of sustainability and were quantitatively focused represented only a small portion of the review,
8 of 70 papers (11%). Of the 19 studies that were quantitative in nature, only 42% considered the
social aspect of the triple bottom line agenda, whereas nearly 70% included economic factors
and 100% attended to environmental concerns. This suggests that more investigation of social
effects will be necessary for future assessments of sustainability. Overall, the descriptive
statistics results reconfirmed the observation made by Curtis and Walker (2001) about the
prevalence of sustainability assessment studies which are mainly qualitative in nature.
Furthermore, the observed scarcity of quantitative approaches considering holistically all three
sustainability pillars supports the assumption that the automotive industry would benefit from a
framework for sustainability that has quantitative application and is fully integrated across all
concerns of the triple bottom line.
The results of the literature categorization and clustering show the existence of several
perspectives for exploring sustainability assessment in the automotive industry. In particular we
identified seven streams of research (Clusters): 1) business and policy making - encompassing
studies aimed at policy making, providing business or managerial implications and studies with
consumer orientation (i.e. discussing green consumer perceptions and attitudes towards more
sustainable automotive products); 2) supply chain management - encompassing studies with a
main objective to discuss, assess or suggest strategies for “greening” the supply chain; 3)
model/indicator development - encompassing studies aimed at developing sustainability
assessment frameworks, indicators and models; 4) reporting; 5) LCA; 6) material selection; and
7) design for sustainability. Articles falling within the first two clusters had a sound management
paradigm discussing the broader questions of “whether or not it pays to be green” and “what are
the managerial implications and provisions for implementing sustainability considerations in
business operations. Although those questions are important for both theory and practice these
research streams failed to deliver a proper holistic framework for assessing sustainable
manufacturing. On the other hand, “green consumers” literature represents a building block of
the further discussion about sustainability assessment evident in the other cluster by giving solid

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

grounds for the existence of current industry trends and pressures towards accounting for
sustainability efforts. Stemming from this stream of research car manufacturers are pushing
forward the competition through sustainable path by developing hybrid technologies and
electrification. Additionally, since transport accounts greatly for greenhouse gases emissions
worldwide, public opinion widely considers it as one of the most evident symbols of pollution.
For this reason, car manufacturers are largely investing in the development of more efficient and
eco-friendly products, as well as in the communication of such features to the market. Studies
within the remaining clusters (cluster 3 to 7) showcased the various approaches for sustainability
assessment. From those research streams, only a small number of studies (Cluster 3) were aimed
at developing indices or models for assessing sustainability (see e.g. Andriankaja et al., 2015;
Chen, 2012; Lee et al., 2014; Salvado et al., 2015). Within this stream, MCDA methods were
used as a main perspective to build assessment tools. Another minor stream of research (Cluster
4) approaches sustainability measurement from a reporting perspective and discusses issues
pertaining to sustainability disclosure (see e.g. Jasch and Lavicka, 2006; Kehbila et al., 2010).
Although a reporting approach represents an attempt to track and quantify sustainability in a
holistic way, the main drawbacks from it lays in the fact that it represents a self-reported
voluntary disclosure which raises concerns about the objectivity and the rigor of such assessment
considering the well-known existence of greenwashing business practices.
As observed also in our descriptive statistics, a prominent approach for assessing
sustainability in the automotive industry is granted by LCA (Cluster 5). By definition, LCA
studies analyze environmental impacts associated with a product from the pre-manufacturing
stage (i.e. raw materials to its end-of-life stage). While having prominence in applications, this
approach suffers from several shortcomings when applied in automotive manufacturing, such as
the diversity and variations in materials, processing techniques, use durations, and disposal
routes (Mayyas et al., 2012). Furthermore, despite that fact the in general life cycle thinking has
developed to address also social and economic considerations (i.e. Life Cycle Costing and Social
Life Cycle Assessment), LCA studies applied in the automotive industry tend to address
exclusively environmental impacts.
The main focus in the studies falling within the design for sustainability cluster (Cluster
7) is to approach sustainability assessment in terms of analyzing the economic, environmental
and social impacts from different design alternatives with the aim to produce a more sustainable
product. Studies within this cluster discuss various design approaches and considerations such as
design for the environment (DfE) – a design approach aimed to reduce the overall human health
and environmental impact of a product, process or service, whilst considering impacts across its
life cycle (see e.g. Hwang et al., 2013); and design for end-of-life – an approach for reducing the
environmental impacts from dismantling and recycling with the ultimate aim of delivering
“closed loop recycling,” in which product components are remanufactured into the same kind of
product type, without the addition of any virgin material unless necessary (see e.g. Ye et al.,
2013; Zhang and Chen, 2013). This research stream tends to use Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA) to quantify design performance. Whilst it attempts to address various aspects of
sustainability assessment, the social aspect evaluation is highly neglected.
Finally, in line with the light-weighting trend in automobile manufacturing aimed to
enhance the vehicle fuel efficiency, and also to improve its driving performance, while lowering
its emissions, another prominent perspective - material selection studies (Cluster 6), attempts to
apply holistic methodologies for incorporating environmental, social and economic concerns in
the material selection phase. While such an approach seems to be a promising path towards

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

achieving sustainable manufacturing, our literature review shows that quantitative studies
addressing holistically the three sustainability pillars are relatively scares (for exceptions see
Ahmed Ali et al., 2015; Ghadimi et al.,2012).
Overall, the literature review results suggest that with minor exceptions, sustainability
assessments frameworks and models in the automotive industry fail to deliver tools that can
integrate the three pillars of the sustainability agenda in the product manufacturing. Drawing on
the few examples applying decision analytical tools, we propose a holistic quantitative
framework for sustainable manufacturing and illustrate its application in the automotive industry
in the following sections.

3. Model development

3.1. Multi-criteria decision analysis

The methodological foundation of the framework is multi-criteria decision analysis

(MCDA), which integrates complex criteria to evaluate alternative decisions (see e.g. Linkov and
Moberg, 2011). MCDA provides a method to score these alternatives based on the relative
importance of various stakeholder preferences and measurable performance data. Specific
MCDA methods include multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), analytical hierarchy process
(AHP), and multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) (Linkov et al., 2006). For this study, we use
MAVT, which quantitatively compares alternative options by calculating their expected
performance (value score) with respect to a task. This is performed using a weighted sum
formula to combine the relative importance weights of criteria with performance scores for each
alternative, and is especially useful when assessing tradeoffs between conflicting criteria and
combining dissimilar measurement units (Dyer, 2005).
For application to sustainable manufacturing, where sustainability is the objective in
selecting alternatives, the overall sustainability score (S) represents the total value score of each
alternative. This sustainability score is calculated through the weighted sum formula given by

𝑆 = ∑𝑖𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑖 (1)

where wi is the weight of criterion i, si is the performance score for criterion i, and Σi wi = 1.
Alternatives with a higher value for S are determined to be more sustainable.
If criterion i is composed of subcriteria, upper-level criteria scores are calculated using
the following set of weighted sum formulas

𝑠𝑖 = ∑𝑗𝑤𝑖𝑗𝑠𝑖𝑗, 𝑠𝑖𝑗 = ∑𝑘𝑤𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘, 𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘 = … (2)

where wij and wijk are the weights of subcriteria j and k belonging to upper-level criteria i, and
subcriteria j, respectively.
In this framework, all weights are to be derived from expert elicitation, and indicate the
relative importance of each criterion within its upper-level criterion. Additionally, the scores
from the lowest-level criteria (those that are not comprised of subcriteria) are to be derived from
expert elicitation or existing data. All other scores are calculated using Equation 1 and Equation
2.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.2. Identification of decision criteria

The conceptual framework for sustainable manufacturing is derived from the “triple
bottom line” approach to sustainable development, which includes environmental, economic, and
social considerations (Elkington, 1997). We use these three pillars of sustainability as the upper-
level criteria to evaluate sustainable manufacturing alternatives. Fig. 1 shows these criteria,
decomposed into two layers of subcriteria. The subcriteria were developed from information in
the literature relating to sustainable manufacturing (Azapagic and Perdan, 2000; Cinelli et al.,
2016) and decision analysis (Ahmed Ali et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2009) (see supplementary
material for systematic literature review). It is important to note that although these criteria
represent the broad scope of sustainable manufacturing, other criteria can be substituted for
relevant analyses. The remainder of this subsection describes the criteria and subcriteria
proposed for sustainable manufacturing.

Fig. 1. MCDA framework for sustainable manufacturing. Dw indicates a direct weighting

scheme, and Vf indicates a value function. The figure was generated using the DECERNS
software program.

Environmental Impacts consider how the production and use of this alternative may
alter nature and the environment. These result from emissions of harmful gases and harmful
chemicals, the associated effects on plant and animal species, and the consumption of natural
resources. This criterion is evaluated using the following metrics:

 Resource Usage describes extraction, transportation, and processing of natural resources,

and is evaluated as:

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

o Water Usage, which represents the amount of water required for general
refinement, cooling, washing, filtering, etc.
o Raw Material Usage such as metal ore, petroleum resources, plant fiber, minerals,
resin, epoxy, and polymer ingredients
o Energy Consumption for the refinement process, transportation, and use phase of
the material, accounting for energy type (e.g. coal, natural gas, wind).
 Impact on Species refers to the direct effects to plants and animals on the individual
species, community, and ecosystem levels. Examples include impacts to fish from the
physical deterioration of littered plastic particles in their habitat, or to nearby forests from
acid runoff caused by the mining of ore
 Emissions of all forms that are associated with the product life cycle should be considered
in this criterion, which is assessed by:
o Atmospheric Impact to air quality and atmospheric conditions on local and global
scales. Examples include GHG emissions from material manufacture and
refinement and volatile organic compound (VOC) release during the use phase.
o Aquatic/Marine Impact on freshwater and saltwater ecosystems. For instance,
direct release of industrial wastewater to a river from the production stage
o Land Impact on local and global landscapes. Mining for metal ore and petroleum,
or use of land for agriculture may contribute to this criterion.

Economic Impacts include the effects of the production and use of the alternative on the
manufacturer, as well as local and global economies. These criteria should consider all entities
along the supply chain, from the initial mining of resources to consumers of the end product, as
well as the state of the economy in general. Economic impacts can be evaluated using the
following criteria:

 Required Investment accounts for capital required to implement the development of the
alternative. This may involve, for instance, construction of processing facilities in areas
where none exist and training of employees to operate machinery
 Profitability should consider the likelihood that the production and use of the alternative
will result in profit gains to the manufacturer
 Cost to End-User accounts for both up-front costs and possible disposal costs. From this,
the value of recyclable materials may be subtracted, or considered in the negative.
Examples might include the cost of purchasing aluminum alloy and the value of the
recycled metal at the product’s end-of life.

Social Impacts include the effects of the alternative on individuals, local communities,
global social structures, and international politics. The following metrics are used to quantify the
relative contribution of alternatives to social considerations:

 Employment impacts to local and global workers. There are two employment categories
to consider:
o Employment Quantity, pertaining to the creation of jobs and the accessibility to
those jobs
o Employment Quality, which relates to job security, as well as safety and comfort
in the workplace. Factors to consider may include exposure to harmful chemicals,

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

adverse atmospheric conditions (e.g. from dust or exhaust), and length of working
day among others.
 Society refers to the associated group of effects on local and global social structure. Both
positive and negative factors must be weighed. The metrics to consider are:
o Community Impact, representing the effect on the dynamics of social groups. For
instance, smaller material manufacturing operations may facilitate close knit
communities when compared to large corporate factory settings
o Political Impact denotes the effect on political states, relationships, and general
landscapes, as well as policy and legislation. An example is the diplomatic strain
caused by the necessary import/export of raw materials across borders, and
associated difficulties caused by international trade tariffs or material regulations
o The Health and Safety Impact on citizens should describe the health hazards that
may result from both the manufacture and use phases of the product, as well as
the human safety component. Examples might include the creation of harmful
waste during manufacture, or compromised user safety caused by lower quality
construction materials.

4. Illustrative example

To demonstrate the use of the sustainable manufacturing decision framework, we provide

an illustrative example for choosing among automobile materials. Five manufacturing material
alternatives that are likely to be considered by industry professionals were evaluated: ferrous
metals (i.e. iron and steel), aluminum, plastics, organic composites, and synthetic composites
(Bergenwall et al., 2012; Holbery and Houston, 2006; Marsh, 2003). Moreover, four separate
implementations of the model were performed representing four disparate stakeholder
perspectives. These stakeholder views included three “business” perspectives: an original
equipment manufacturer (OEM), a green company, and a non-governmental organization
(NGO). Stakeholder perspectives govern the relative importance of the different sustainability
criteria. For example, a green company will likely find environmental sustainability relatively
more important than does an OEM. In addition to the three business perspectives, a “balanced”
perspective (i.e. equally weighting all sustainability criteria) was included for reference.

4.1. Identification of alternative materials

Many manufacturing materials and industries could be considered with this framework.
For this example, we investigate a group of materials that have multiple applications within an
automobile assembly (such as body paneling, frame construction, and interior components), and
consider their general use in automobile production. Through an analysis of the literature, we
selected the following five automobile fabrication materials, each of which have been used in
automobile construction:

 Ferrous Metals (iron and steel) are widely used in the automobile industry and make up
the majority of total curb weight (Mayyas et al., 2012). Even though steel is by far the
heaviest alternative, it has long been the default construction material for automobiles
because of its structural integrity and low cost

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 Aluminum is growing quickly as the preferred metal for automobile manufacturing. It

provides similar strength to steel at one third the weight, thus greatly improving vehicle
fuel efficiency. However, the cost of aluminum alloy is double that of steel (Fridlyander
et al., 2002)
 Plastics, although not usually stiff enough for structural components, are very
inexpensive, lightweight, versatile, and easy to produce. The use of plastics in car parts
has grown exponentially in recent decades due to the drive for lighter vehicles and better
fuel economy (ACC, 2014). Most plastic in vehicles is used for the interior, but it is also
used in other components to increase safety by shock absorption, and strength properties
of the material) and reduce overall vehicle weight (APME, 1999; McAuley, 2003)
 Organic Composites utilize plant fibers, the fastest-growing fiber composite filler
(Ashori, 2008), to achieve polymer strength. Because they are low cost, recyclable,
lightweight, and usually biodegradable, organic composites are of high research interest
in sustainable manufacturing (Al-Oqla and Sapuan, 2014; Joshi et al., 2004; Mohanty et
al., 2002; Zah et al., 2007). However, a number of problematic physical properties have
limited their widespread application (Holbery and Houston, 2006). In addition,
composites made from agricultural byproducts or plants with high carbon sequestration
are likely to have more environmental and social advantages throughout the product life
cycle than their inorganic counterparts (Pervaiz and Sain, 2003; Zah et al., 2007)
 Synthetic Composites, such as carbon or glass fiber reinforced polymers, have greater
environmental impacts and are often more expensive, but are usually stronger and lighter
when compared with natural alternatives (Joshi et al., 2004; Marsh, 2003). Glass and
carbon fiber are the standard composite types for the automotive industry, and use has
increased in recent years (Khanna and Bakshi, 2009), but natural fiber composites are
quickly replacing their use due to the growing need for automobile sustainability.

4.2. Identification of criteria weights and scores

To execute the MCDA model, all criteria and subcriteria must have associated weights
and scores. Each implementation of the model had its own series of importance weights. To
illustrate stakeholder weights, we assigned upper-level criteria weights according to the
perceived preferences of each of the three business perspectives, and equal weights of 33.3% to
each criteria for the “balanced” perspective. For example, because an OEM’s primary
stakeholders are its shareholders, we expected those decision makers to heavily weight profits
(i.e. economic concerns) relative to environmental or social concerns, and thus we assigned the
economic, environmental, and social criteria weights of 80%, 10%, and 10% respectively. The
same ideology was applied for each of the other business perspectives, and the assigned upper-
level criteria weights are shown in Fig. 2.
In this model, we assume that all subcriteria under a single parent criterion will be of
equal importance (i.e. all wij and wijk are equal for all j and k, respectively). In practice, this may
change as a result of stakeholder preferences, expert elicitation, and data collection.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 2. Weighting distributions among main-level criteria for each of the four model
implementations, representing separate individual business perspectives.

Differentiation among alternatives occurs in the scoring stage of the MCDA method.
Recall that sustainability scores for each alternative (S in Equation 1) are calculated using
Equation 1 and Equation 2 with expert-elicited or data-derived performance scores for the lowest
level criteria. Performing expert elicitation and manufacturing data collection are not the focus
nor the contribution of this work, but rather it is providing criteria to be used in sustainable
alternative analysis and demonstrating MCDA for sustainable manufacturing. Consequently, for
this illustrative example the lowest level scores are determined through reasonable estimates of
performance and knowledge gained in the literature review. Scores are assigned based solely on
the relative performance of the alternatives to the criteria, and are independent of the criteria
weights and stakeholder perspectives. These scores are shown in Fig. 3. An arbitrary scale from
0 to 100 was chosen, in which the best performing alternative is scored as 100, and all other
alternatives are scored as a percentage of the best.
As an example of the lower-level scoring, we discuss the scores for energy consumption.
These scores were estimated based on the amount of energy required to manufacture that
alternative, and the influence that the weight of the material will have on the lifetime energy
consumption of an automobile. Although nearly 90% of an automobile’s total energy
consumption occurs in the use phase (McAuley, 2003), that weight of the material will not
contribute 90% of the energy consumption performance score; energy required for
manufacturing must also be considered. These scores are assigned to compare alternatives
relatively, and the weight of one material versus another will have nominal impact on overall
fuel consumption. Organic composites scored the best (s = 100) because, although not the
lightest (synthetic composites and plastics may be lighter) producing this alternative requires
relatively little energy and the materials can be locally acquired in most cases (Mohanty et al.,
2002; Zah et al., 2007). Synthetic composites (s = 60) were scored second best because, although
lighter than organic composites, the production of synthetics is more energy intensive (Khanna
and Bakshi, 2009). Plastics (s = 50) scored only slightly behind that due to the relatively high
energy consumption in production. Although often lightweight, plastics are not as strong as
composites and require more mass to achieve similar strength (McAuley, 2003). Aluminum (s =
40) is heavier than all but one alternative, and requires a large amount of energy for refinement

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Fridlyander et al., 2002), resulting in a lower score. However, ferrous metals like iron and steel
(s = 25) are the heaviest alternative, providing the bulk of automobile weight (McAuley, 2003).
Ferrous metals contribute greatly to fuel consumption during the use phase, and also require a
large amount of energy to refine and shape (Mayyas et al., 2012). This same ontology was
applied to the scoring of each alternative with respect to each metric (lowest-level criteria).

Fig. 3. Performance scores for the lowest level criteria that were utilized in the model.

4.3. Illustration Example Results

It must be stated that this is a real model which has been illustrated using perceived and
theoretical values, so these results are unlikely to be replicated when substituted by a set of
weights and scores derived through different means. Equation 1 and Equation 2 were applied to
the set of performance scores from Fig. 3 for each of the weighting distributions from Fig. 2.
These calculations, performed in the DECERNS software, resulted in Overall sustainability
scores (S) for each alternative within each perspective, which are shown in Fig. 4. Model results
vary across the four perspectives investigated. Although the effect on world application is limited
due to the lack of rigorous data collection methods, results of the analysis show organic
composites to be the most sustainable alternative from all stakeholder perspectives, except that of
the OEM, for which ferrous metals scored better. This can be explained with the perceived
OEM’s high priority on economic concerns (80% importance weight), and the fact that ferrous
metals performed significantly better than other alternatives for that set of criteria.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 4. Sustainability scores for each alternative and each business perspective. Figure was
created using DECERNS decision software.

In addition to being dependent on the criteria score, alternative ranks are dependent on
stakeholder weights. Sensitivity analyses executed in the Decision Evaluation for Complex Risk
Network Systems (DECERNS) software for each of the three main level criteria in each
perspective are shown in Fig. 5. The slope of each line in Fig. 5 relates to the sensitivity of that
alternative (i.e. the steeper the slope, the more sensitive that alternative is to changes in weight).
Although sensitivity analyses were performed for every criterion, only those for the main level
criteria are displayed because weights for lower-level criteria remain constant within our model.
Because of the high economic performance of ferrous metal, the sustainability scores are most
sensitive to changes to the weight of economic impacts (row 2 in Fig. 5). Similarly, due to the
high weight of economic impacts for the OEM (column A in Fig. 5) the outcome showing
ferrous metals as the best contender is also sensitive to changes in weight for all three criteria.
All other sensitivity analyses show that organic composites as the best alternative is insensitive
to varying criteria weights.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 5. Weight sensitivity analyses for alternatives within each business perspective and main-
level criteria.

5. Discussion and conclusions

When decision makers are faced with a complex situation involving many alternatives
and dissimilar stakeholder group values, it is unlikely that a proper and defendable decision will
be made. Existing approaches fail to recognize the transdisciplinary nature of sustainability (i.e.
the combination and interaction of economic, environmental, and social concerns).
Understandably, the inherent differences of discipline among these concerns mean that they are
rarely all acknowledged together, and so tradeoffs among them are difficult to assess. This can
result in inconsistent attention to stakeholder values, which may cause unrest when paired with
indefensible decisions (Slovic et al., 1977).
When there are a finite number of options in a decision, and the outcome is based on
external factors and cannot be precisely predicted due to high complexity, decision analytics can
be utilized to aid the decision maker in making unbiased and data-informed choices; a holistic
consideration of stakeholder values is rarely achieved otherwise. The transparency of the MCDA
process is another great advantage; graphs displaying weights and scores are simple and easy
tools to aid communication. In addition, the ease of access to this method through the DECERNS
software makes MCDA’s application more likely to enter a wide range of subjects.
Of course, there are difficulties associated with this method. The weighting of criteria and
scoring of alternatives is the most vital and exhaustive part of the process, and should rely
heavily on measurable attributes when possible (Wang et al., 2009). Information may be elicited
from all representative stakeholders through interviews, questionnaires, and the scientific
literature. Industry professionals, executives, law-makers, academicians, private businesses and
organizations, and the public may all be consulted for this polling. Diversity of opinions should
be taken into account when assigning weights. However, this portion of the analysis is inherently
subjective. As a result, there will likely be a great degree of variability among implementations
of the model, even for the same task. For this reason, it is important to perform sensitivity

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

analyses to examine how changes in model parameters may alter end results, and employ that
information when making the final decision. Although DECERNS produces sensitivity analyses
for how criteria weights affect sustainability, it assumes scores are definitive. In a practical
implementation, scoring by different experts for the same situation will have a degree of
variability. This uncertainty, although not modeled in DECERNS, is important to consider in the
overall analysis.
This paper investigated the application of the conceptual framework to MCDA methods
by comparing results of four different weighting perspectives. It is important to note, that these
perspectives do not interact with each other to any extent, each merely represents an individual
implementation of the model by a single decision-making entity, whom we predict may be likely
to utilize this method. In this way, our example application of this method to the automotive
manufacturing industry is very limited. Future users should find and use different scoring
information (and will likely choose a weighting structure dissimilar to any of the four explored
here), and may therefore reach contradictory conclusions regarding alternative recommendations.
In addition, there are many forms and meanings of sustainability, and users may choose to define
it differently than we have; this would alter the model on a much higher level, ultimately making
changes to the framework necessary. Yet this flexibility is what makes the MCDA method so
widely applicable to the issue of sustainability, and the analysis will always remain as defensible
as the data that it utilizes.
This model is not intended to be the sole mechanism for implementing sustainable
manufacturing. For complex decisions, it can and should be utilized among other informative
analyses, such as life-cycle assessment (LCA), which examines a product or service over the
course of its lifetime to assess associated impacts (Ciambrone, 1997). LCAs are currently used
widely by manufacturing and design professionals to find environmentally friendly alternatives.
The life cycle perspective in any industry can help shine light onto underperforming aspects of
pre-established procedures. When used in conjunction with decision analysis, LCAs are better
able to achieve sustainability. The concept of design for sustainability, a brainchild of life cycle
frameworks, could be considered. This method utilizes LCA to observe the effects each life stage
has on the overall sustainability of a product, and then applies that information to the
improvement of product design (Mayyas et al., 2012). An environmentally conscious customer
base interested in sustainable products gives manufacturers and industries that exploit this
framework a market advantage above those who do not (Sullivan and Ehrenfeld, 1992). This
trend has been evident throughout the past two decades, and will likely continue. If these types of
tools are included in the decision-making process alongside MCDA, it is likely that the most
effective sustainability decisions will be made, and the maximum benefit reaped by executives
and the public alike.
The purpose of this study was not to provide a definitive solution, but to present through
example an application of a quantitative decision-analytical framework that can be easily
implemented for sustainable manufacturing. The use of an MCDA approach provides the
thoroughness, transparency, and adjustability necessary for the most defensible and sustainable
solution to be chosen in complex situations, and the method’s quantitative nature simplifies the
decision and communication portions of the process. In addition, the utilization of the user-
friendly DECERNS software platform to develop a workable conceptual framework for use with
MCDA approaches is a technique that will find application within a wide range of fields and
disciplines. MCDA has proven itself a useful tool in many instances involving difficult or
complex decisions (see e.g. Huang et al., 2011; Kiker et al., 2005; Linkov and Moberg, 2011;

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Subramanian et al., 2015). These range from public policy and infrastructure development, to
environmental stewardship and sustainability. Implementation of this procedure can lead to a
more economically, environmentally, and socially responsible world where sustainable
manufacturing (and sustainability at large) is not only a goal of industry, but a focus.
This study offers several implications in both theoretical and practical perspectives. At a
theoretical level, it contributes to the body of knowledge by conceptualizing sustainability as a
decision-making problem. On the other hand, the conceptual framework presented in the study
has significant implications for practitioners. Scientifically, it offers a rigorous and transparent
methodology to support complex decisions rated to sustainable manufacturing while accounting
for trade-offs between social, economic and environmental aspects. Moreover, this study gives a
more nuanced reading on the often debated but considered to be empirically proven in the
management and organization literature question whether implementing more socially
responsible and environmental friendly practices may improve economic performance. In
particular, it aims to offers managers a rigorous tool which can allow them to better embed
sustainability into manufacturing systems and processes.
The model presented herein is not intended to be the sole mechanism for implementing
sustainable manufacturing. It can and should be utilized alongside other informative analyses,
such as life cycle frameworks. Future applications might improve the model by choosing
different or more specific alternatives, using objective performance scores supported by industry
research, or by investigating a more diverse set of weight distributions representing dissimilar
stakeholder values.

Acknowledgements

This paper resulted from the student project completed as a part of the course on “Assessment
and management of environmental sustainability” at Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Italy, in
the Fall 2015. Our special thanks to Prof. Antonio Marcomini and Dr. Danail Hristozov for their
guidance in developing this class. We are grateful to Ben Trump and the three anonymous
reviewers for their reviews and recommendations.

References

Andriankaja, H., Vallet, F., Le Duigou, J., Eynard, B., 2015. A method to ecodesign structural
parts in the transport sector based on product life cycle management. J. Clean. Prod. 94,
165-176.

Ahmed Ali, B.A., Sapuan, S.M., Zainudin, E.S., Othman, M., 2015. Implementation of the
expert decision system for environmental assessment in composite materials selection for
automotive components. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 557–567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.084

Al-Oqla, F.M., Sapuan, S., 2014. Natural fiber reinforced polymer composites in industrial
applications: feasibility of date palm fibers for sustainable automotive industry. J. Clean.
Prod. 66, 347–354.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

American Chemimcal Council (ACC), 2014. Plastics and Polymer Composites Technology
roadmap for Automotive Markets. Plastics Division.

Ashori, A., 2008. Municipal solid waste as a source of lignocellulosic fiber and plastic for
composite industries. Polym.-Plast. Technol. Eng. 47, 741–744.

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME), 1999. A Material of Choice for the
Automotive Industry.

Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general
framework. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 78, 243–261.

Bakshi, B.R., Fiksel, J., 2003. The quest for sustainability: Challenges for process systems
engineering. AIChE J. 49, 1350–1358.

Bergenwall, A.L., Chen, C., White, R.E., 2012. TPS’s process design in American automotive
plants and its effects on the triple bottom line and sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140,
374–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.04.016

Cegan, J.C., Filion, A.M., Keisler, J.M., Linkov, I., 2017. Trends and applications of multi-
criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review. Environ. Syst.
Decis. 37(2), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-017-9642-9

Chen, C., Zhu, J., Yu, J. Y., Noori, H., 2012. A new methodology for evaluating sustainable
product design performance with two-stage network data envelopment analysis.
European J. Oper. Res. 221(2), 348-359.

Ciambrone, D.F., 1997. Environmental life cycle analysis. CRC Press.

Cinelli, M., Coles, S.R., Sadik, O., Karn, B., Kirwan, K., 2016. A framework of criteria for the
sustainability assessment of nanoproducts. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 277–287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.118

Curtis H., Walker J., 2001. Design council European survey of manufacturing companies’
attitudes towards design for sustainability. London: Design Council.

Dargay, J., Gately, D., Sommer, M., 2007. Vehicle ownership and income growth, worldwide:
1960-2030. Energy J. 143–170.

Dias, L.C., Passeira, C., Malça, J., Freire, F., 2016. Integrating life-cycle assessment and multi-
criteria decision analysis to compare alternative biodiesel chains. Ann. Oper. Res. 1–16.

Dyer, J.S., 2005. MAUT—multiattribute utility theory, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis:
State of the Art Surveys. Springer, pp. 265–292.

Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with forks. Cannibals Forks Triple Bottom Line 21st Century 1–
16. https://doi.org/http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tqem.3310080106

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figge, F., Hahn, T., 2012. Is green and profitable sustainable? Assessing the trade-off between
economic and environmental aspects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 92–102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.001

Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A.,
Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ.
Manage. 91, 1–21.

Fridlyander, I.N., Sister, V.G., Grushko, O.E., Berstenev, V.V., Sheveleva, L.M., Ivanova, L.A.,
2002. Aluminum alloys: promising materials in the automotive industry. Met. Sci. Heat
Treat. 44, 365–370.

Ghadimi, P., Azadnia, A.H., Mohd Yusof, N., Mat Saman, M.Z., 2012. A weighted fuzzy
approach for product sustainability assessment: a case study in automotive industry. J.
Clean. Prod. 33, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.010

Holbery, J., Houston, D., 2006. Natural-fiber-reinforced polymer composites in automotive

applications. JOM J. Miner. Met. Mater. Soc. 58, 80–86.

Huang, I.B., Keisler, J., Linkov, I., 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental
sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3578–3594.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022

Hwang, K., 2014. Sustainability, new economics and policy: Greening pathway for the auto
industry. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 13, 3–14.

Jasch, C., Lavicka, A., 2006. Pilot project on sustainability management accounting with the
Styrian automobile cluster. J. Clean. Prod. 14(14), 1214-1227.

Jasiński, D., Meredith, J., Kirwan, K., 2016. A comprehensive framework for automotive
sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1034–1044.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.027

Joshi, S.V., Drzal, L., Mohanty, A., Arora, S., 2004. Are natural fiber composites
environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? Compos. Part Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 35, 371–376.

Kehbila, A. G., Ertel, J., Brent, A. C., 2010. Corporate sustainability, ecological modernization
and the policy process in the South African automotive industry. Bus. Strat. and the Env.
19(7), 453-465.

Khanna, V., Bakshi, B.R., 2009. Carbon Nanofiber Polymer Composites: Evaluation of Life
Cycle Energy Use. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 2078–2084.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es802101x

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., 2005. Application of
multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess.
Manag. 1, 95–108.

Kurth, M. H., Larkin, S., Keisler, J.M., Linkov, I. (2017). Trends and applications of multi-
criteria decision analysis: use in government agencies. Environment Systems and Decisions
37:134-143.

Linkov, I., Moberg, E., 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis: environmental applications and
case studies. CRC Press.

Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Seager, T.P., Bridges, T., Gardner, K.H., Rogers, S.H.,
Belluck, D.A., Meyer, A., 2006. Multicriteria Decision Analysis : A Comprehensive
Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments 26.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x

Lee J., Kang, H., Noh S., 2014. MAS 2: an integrated modeling and simulation-based life cycle
evaluation approach for sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 146-163.

Lele, S. M., 1991. Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. World Development.19, 607-
621.

Lozano, R., 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1838–1846.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008

Mani, M., Johansson, B., Lyons, K.W., Sriram, R.D., Ameta, G., 2013. Simulation and analysis
for sustainable product development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1129–1136.

Marchese, D., Reynolds, E., Bates, M., Morgan, H., Clark, S., Linkov, I., 2017. Resilience and
sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications.
Sci. Total Environ. 613, 1275.

Marsh, G., 2003. Next step for automotive materials. Mater. Today 6, 36–43.

Mayyas, A., Qattawi, A., Omar, M., Shan, D., 2012. Design for sustainability in automotive
industry: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 1845–1862.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.012

McAuley, J.W., 2003. Global Sustainability and Key Needs in Future Automotive Design.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 5414–5416. https://doi.org/10.1021/es030521x

Mohanty, A.K., Misra, M., Drzal, L.T., 2002. Sustainable bio-composites from renewable
resources: opportunities and challenges in the green materials world. J. Polym. Environ.
10, 19–26.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Orsato, R.J., Wells, P., 2007. The automobile industry & sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 989-
993. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.035.

Pervaiz, M., Sain, M.M., 2003. Carbon storage potential in natural fiber composites. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 39, 325–340.

Salvado, M., Azevedo, S., Matias, J., Ferreira, L., 2015. Proposal of a Sustainability Index for
the Automotive Industry. Sustainability. 7(2), 2113-2144. doi:10.3390/su7022113.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., 1977. Behavioral decision theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
28, 1–39.

Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Zondervan-van den Beuken, E., Linkov, I.,
Marcomini, A., 2015. Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology.
Environ. Syst. Decis. 35, 29–41.

Sullivan, M.S., Ehrenfeld, J.R., 1992. Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts: An industry
survey of emerging tools and programs. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2, 143–157.

Sutherland, J., Gunter, K., Allen, D., Bauer, D., Bras, B., Gutowski, T., Murphy, C., Piwonka,
T., Sheng, P., Thurston, D., others, 2004. A global perspective on the environmental
challenges facing the automotive industry: state-of-the-art and directions for the future.
Int. J. Veh. Des. 35, 86–110.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management. 14, 207-222.

Veleva, V., Ellenbecker, M., 2001. Indicators of sustainable production: framework and
methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production. 9, 519-549.

Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., Zhao, J.-H., 2009. Review on multi-criteria decision
analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13,
2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021

Ye, S. Y., Bounaceur, A., Soudais, Y., Barna, R., 2013. Parameter optimization of the steam
thermolysis: a process to recover carbon fibers from polymer-matrix composites. Waste
and Biomass Valor. 4(1), 73-86.

You, F., Tao, L., Graziano, D.J., Snyder, S.W., 2012. Optimal design of sustainable cellulosic
biofuel supply chains: multiobjective optimization coupled with life cycle assessment and
input–output analysis. AIChE J. 58, 1157–1180.

Zah, R., Hischier, R., Leão, A.L., Braun, I., 2007. Curauá fibers in the automobile industry – a
sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1032–1040.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.036

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., Çobanoğlu, C., 2011. A combined methodology for supplier selection
and performance evaluation. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 2741–2751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064

Appendix A. Distribution of literature review papers by journal of publication.

22
Appendix B. Categorization and clustering of literature review papers

Author & Year Sustainability Method Application Area Study Objectives Quant. Focus Cluster Remarks
Consideration method/
Perspective
EN EC S Qual. Quant.

Rosenbloom Automotive Analyzing the implications of various Policy making Business and Conceptual
(2001) industry international mobility modes policy making orientation

Sutherland et X X Automotive Benchmarking of environmental issues LC Policy making, Material

al. (2004) industry in the automotive industry Perspective Material selection, LCA-
selection LC perspective

Wells & X X X X Automotive Analyzing the automotive IE Business/manag Business and

Orsato (2005) industry industry Perspective erial policy making
implications

Jasch & X X X X Styrian Development of framework for GRI, EMA Reporting Reporting
Lavicka automobile cluster assessment of sustainability
(2006) management costs

Koplin et al. X X X Automotive Developing framework for sustainable Supply chain Supply chain
(2007) industry supply supply chain management management management
chain

Zah et al. X X Composite Evaluation of prospective LCA Material Material

(2007) materials for environmental impacts of automobile selection selection, LCA-
automobile parts applications of curauá fiber LC perspective

Zhu et al. X X X Chinese Evaluating green supply chain Supply chain Supply chain
(2007) automotive supply management pressures/drivers management management
chain (motivators), initiatives and
performance of the Chinese automotive
supply chain

23
Suddell Automotive Analysis of utilisation of natural LC Material Material Conceptual
(2007) industry within materials in automotive components Perspective selection selection, LCA- orientation
Europe LCA
perspective

Winebrake et X X X Chinese Analyzing environmental and energy LC Policy making Business and
al. (2008) automotive issues stemming from the Chines Perspective policy making,
industry automobile market development LCA-LC
perspective

Tarascon X X Renewable energy Perspectives for utilization of Energy Design for Conceptual
(2008) sources utilized in renewable energy sources efficiency sustainability orientation
electric vehicles
industry

Heller (2008) X X Renewable energy Perspectives for utilization of Energy Design for Conceptual
sources utilized in renewable energy sources efficiency sustainability orientation
electric vehicles
industry

Castella et al. X X X Car-body Assessment of environmental and cost LCA, LCC Material Material
(2009) structures for the performance to aid materials and selection selection, LCA-
Korean Tilting process selection LC perspective
Train eXpress

Puri et al. X X Exterior door skin Evaluation of material alternatives and LCA Material Material
(2009) end-of-life strategies for automotive selection, End- selection,
components of-life Design for
sustainability,
LCA-LC
perspective

Thun & X X German Evaluating potentials and concerns of Supply chain Supply chain
Mueller automotive green supply chain management management management
(2010) industry supply practices in the German automotive
chain industry

24
Nyambo et al. X X Renewable green Evaluation of material alternatives of Material Material
(2010) composites renewable green composites selection selection
utilized for
automotive parts

Buehler X X Automotive Developing conceptual framework for Policy making, Business and Conceptual
(2010) industry analyzing international differences in Consumer policy making orientation
car use and investigate their behavior
determinants

Dangelico & X X Green products Develop a conceptual framework Business/manag Business and
Pontrandolfo (matrix) to analyze green products and erial policy making
(2010) practices implications

Kehbila et al. X X South Africa Survey of sustainability practices and Policy making, Reporting
(2010) automotive disclosure Reporting
industry

Kaenzig et al. X Quantitative Develop a procedure to verify and LC Reporting Reporting, Conceptual
(2011) environmental improve the quality and completeness Perspective LCA-LC orientation
disclosures in the of environmental reporting perspective
automotive and
other industries

Zeydan et al. Car manufacturing Develop a methodology for supplier MCDA Business/manag Business and Conceptual
(2011) factory in Turkey selection erial policy making orientation
implications,
Decision
making

Wilts et al. Metal recycling in Development of policy framework for Policy making Business and Conceptual
(2011) automotive and extended producer responsibility policy making orientation
other industries

Schau et al. X X X X Remanufactured Perform LCA, LCC and SLCA of three LCA, Business/manag Design for
(2011) alternators different design alternatives for an LCC, erial sustainability,
automobile generator SLCA implications, LCA-LC
perspective

25
 Design for
remanufacturing

Hetterich et Consumer Survey of consumer attitude to Business/manag Business and Conceptual

al. (2012) behavior sustainable materials in a car interior erial policy making orientation
implications,
Consumer
behavior

Hahn et al. VOC-reduction Developing an approach for the Business/manag Business and Conceptual
(2012) investment at a car assessment of tade-offs in erial policy making orientation
maker environmental investment projects implications,
Decision
making

Vinodh et al. X X X X Instrument panel Developing a sustainability LC Index Model/indicator

(2012) of an electric car index Perspective development development,
LCA-LC
perspective

Peng et al. X X X X Chinese Analysis of challenges and prospects Policy making Business and
(2012) automotive for Chines public transportation system policy making
industry

Wang (2012) China's electric Analysis of the feasibility of China's Policy making Business and Conceptual
car policies electric car policies policy making orientation

Coelho et al. X X Nanomaterial Analysis of nanotechnology LC Material Material

(2012) applications in applications in the automotive industry Perspective selection selection, LCA-
automotive LC perspective
industry

Chen (2012) X X Sustainable Development of model for sustainable DEA Model Model/indicator
vehicles design design performance evaluation development, development
Design for
sustainability

26
Ghadimi et al. X X X X Automobile Development of model for product MCDA Decision Material
(2012) manufacturing sustainability assessment making, selection
components Material
selection

Bergenwall et X X X X Automotive Evaluation of process design from a Business/manag Business and

al. (2012) process design triple-bottom line perspective erial policy making,
implications, Design for
Design for sustainability
sustainability

Figge & Hahn X X X Automotive Assessment of environmental and Business/manag Business and
(2012) companies economic aspects erial policy making
implications

Shepon et al. N.a. Development of sustainability Indicator Model Model/indicator Conceptual

(2013) development development orientation

Tittle & Qu Electric car Analysis of implications of utilization Policy making Business and Conceptual
(2013) industry of hydrocarbon fuels policy making orientation

Shafiei et al. General Development of conceptual framework Model/indicator Business and Conceptual
(2013) for a comprehensive evaluation of the development, policy making orientation
diffusion process of alternative fuel Consumer
vehicles behaviour

Tiwari & Transport sector Evaluation of the change in energy Energy Business and Conceptual
Gulati (2013) in India consumption in the transport sector in efficiency, policy making orientation
India Consumer
behavior

Hirano & X X Phenolic resins in Analysis of the implications of utilizing Material Material
Asami (2013) automotive phenolic resins in automotive and other selection selection
applications applications

27
Arena et al. X X X Automobile Development of performance LC Model Model/indicator
(2013) manufacturing measurement system Perspective development, development,
Design for LCA-LC
sustainability perspective,
Design for
sustainability

Ye et al. Carbon fiber Evaluating a method for recycling End-of-Life Design for Conceptual
(2013) reinforced carbon fiber composites Sustainability orientation
polymer-matrix
composite in
automitve parts

Negoitescu & X X Car emissions Evaluation of the concentrations of car Policy making Business and
Tokar (2013) exhausted emissions under urban traffic policy making
conditions with two fuel types

Chiappetta Brazilian Developing a concepual framework for Business/manag Business and Conceptual
Jabbour et al. automotive evaluating the impact of environmental erial policy making orientation
(2013) companies management on operational implications,
performance Decision
making

Hwang et al. X X Vehicle designs Development of model for design for DEA Model Design for
(2013) for the automobile the environment (DfE) performance development, sustainability
industry evaluation Design for the
environment

Mani et al. X X X X Automotive Developing a holistic approach to LC Decision Design for

(2013) manufacturing predicting impacts via sustainable Perspective making, Design sustainability,
manufacturing planning and simulation for LCA-LC
sustainability perspective

Chiara & X Vehicles fuel A literature review of the state of the art Policy making, Business and Conceptual
Canova efficiency and technology trends in the field of Energy policy making orientation
(2013) energy management and recovery for efficinecy
automotive systems

28
Azevedo et al. X X X X Automotive Develop an index-Ecosilient- to assess Model/indicator Supply chain
(2013) companies and the greenness and resilience of development, management
their supply chain automotive companies Supply chain
management

Zhang & X X X X Exterior parts of Development of evaluation model for SWOT Policy making, Design for
Chen (2013) passenger vehicles recycling industry led by automobile End-of-life sustainability
manufacturers

Smith et al. X X X Car fleets Development of model for sustainable PAM Policy making Business and Conceptual
(2013) car fleet assessment policy making orientation

Kimball et al. X Light rail system Integrated transportation and land-use LCA Energy Design for Conceptual
(2013) life-cycle assessment efficiency sustainability orientation

Mitropoulos Six highway Development of multi-criteria Policy making Business and Conceptual
& vehicles and assessment framework for urban policy making orientation
Prevedouros modes transportation
(2014)

Lee et al. X X X X Automotive Application of MAS2: an integrated LC Model Model/indicator

(2014) stamping shop modeling and simulation-based life Perspective development development,
cycle evaluation approach for LCA-LC
sustainable manufacturing perspective

Luz Martin- Spanish Examination of benefits and challenges Business/manag Business and Conceptual
Pena et al. automotive of implementing Environmental erial Policy Making orientation
(2014) industry Management Systems implications,
Decision
making

Kannegiesser X X European Application of sustainability Policy making Business and

et al. (2014) automotive optimization framework policy making
industry supply
chain

29
Kannegiesser X X X X Automotive Development of holistic sustainability Model/indicator Supply chain
& Guenther industry optimization framework for strategic development, management
(2014) network design of supply chain Supply chain
management

Stefanova et High purity Enhancing the approach for Life Cycle LCA Model Model/indicator Conceptual
al. (2014) hydrogen from Sustainability Analysis development development, orientation
biomass to be LCA-LC
used in perspective
automotive fuel
cells

Hoogmartens X X X End-of-life Literature review on Life Cycle Policy making Business and
et al. (2014) automotive glass Analysis, Life Cycle Costing and Cost– policy making
Benefit Analysis

Vivanco et al. Hybrid electric, Development of a framework to Business/manag Business and Conceptual
(2014) full-battery quantifying the environmental rebound erial policy making orientation
electric, and effect of different types of electric cars implications,
hydrogen fuel cell Policy making
cars

Sarioglu et al. X X X Fuel-cell vehicle Development of a model including a MCDA Model/indicator Model/indicator
(2014) design trade-off analysis for selection of Perspective development, development,
alternative designs Design for Design for
sustainability sustainability

Govindan et X X X X Portuguese Development of a conceptual model to Model/indicator Supply chain

al. (2014) automotive supply assess the impact of lean, resilient and development, management
chain green practices on supply chain Supply chain
sustainability management

Kurdve et al. Swedish Analysis of the integration of XPS, Policy making Business and Conceptual
(2014) automotive Quality Management Systems, policy making orientation
manufacturing Environmental Management Systems
companies and occupational health and safety
systems

30
Ahmed Ali et X X X Automotive Application of a decision making tool MDCA Material Material
al. ( 2015) components for selection of composite materials selection, selection
alternatives for automotive components Decision
making

Mondejar- Automotive Analysis of the driving forces that Business/manag Business and Conceptual
Jimenez et al. companies determine the environmental orientation erial policy making orientation
(2015) of automotive firms and their behavior implications,
Policy making

Salvado et al. X X X X Automotive Development of Sustainability index MCDA Index Model/indicator

(2015) industry supply development, development
chain Decision
making

Guenther et Supply chains for Analysis of the long-term dynamics in Policy making Business and Conceptual
al. (2015) conventional and the industry supply chain together with policy making orientation
electric vehicles the fleet development towards 2030

Muneer et al. X X X Electric vehicles Experimental evaluation of an electric Policy making, Business and
(2015) vehicle Energy policy making,
efficiency Design for
sustainability

Wu et al. Chines automotive Development of integrated sustainable Business/manag Business and Conceptual
(2015) industry suppliers practices model and investigating its erial policy making orientation
impact on the company's Triple Bottom implications
line performance

Andriankaja X X X Lightweight Development of eco-design method for LC Model Model/indicator

et al. (2015) design of vehicle lightweight design Perspective Development, development,
products Design for LCA-LC
sustainability perspective,
Design for
sustainability

31
 Severo et al. X X X Companies from Analysis of the relationship between Business/manag Business and Conceptual
(2015) the automotive cleaner production, environmental erial policy making orientation
and other sustainability and organizational implications,
industries performance within companies from Policy making
Brazilian cluster

Zhu et al. Automotive Development of optimization model to Model/indicator Design for Conceptual
(2015) assembly plant support the decision-making process for development, sustainability orientation
energy management and its application Energy
in an automotive assembly plant efficiency

Morgadinho Automotive Analysis of the perceptions of key Policy making Business and Conceptual
et al. (2015) industry stakeholders related with the European policy making orientation
automotive manufacturers about the
industry contribution to lowering
greenhouse gas emissions

Nieuwenhuis Automotive Analysis of existing manufacturing Business/manag Business and Conceptual

& Katsifou manufacturing modes and proposition of a more erial policy making, orientation
(2015) modes sustainable manufacturing system implications, Design for
Design for sustainability
sustainability

Legend: EN – Environmental; EC – Economic; S – Social, GRI - Global Reporting Initiative; EMA - United Nations Division for
Sustainable Development method for environmental management accounting (EMA); LC - Life Cycle; LCA - Life Cycle Assessment;
LCC - Life Cycle Costing; SLCA - Life Cycle Assessment; DEA - Data Envelopment Analysis; MCDA - Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis; PAM - Process Analysis Method; IE - Industrial Ecology.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix C. Literature Review Papers Reference List

Ahmed Ali, B.A., Sapuan, S.M., Zainudin, E.S., Othman, M., 2015. Implementation of the
expert decision system for environmental assessment in composite materials selection for
automotive components. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 557–567.

Andriankaja, H., Vallet, F., Le Duigou, J., Eynard, B., 2015. A method to ecodesign structural
parts in the transport sector based on product life cycle management. J. Clean. Prod. 94,
165-176.

Arena, M., Azzone, G., Conte, A., 2013. A streamlined LCA framework to support early
decision making in vehicle development. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 105-113.

Azevedo, S.G., Govindan, K., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Ecosilient Index to assess
the greenness and resilience of the upstream automotive supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 56,
131-146.

Bergenwall, A.L., Chen, C., White, R.E., 2012. TPS’s process design in American automotive
plants and its effects on the triple bottom line and sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
140(1), 374–384.

Buehler, R., 2010. Transport Policies, Automobile Use, and Sustainable Transport: A
Comparison of Germany and the United States. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 30 (1), 76-93.

Castella, P.S., Blanc, I., Ferrer, M.G., Ecabert, B., Wakeman, M., Manson, J.A., Emery, D., Han,
S.H., Hong, J., Jolliet, O., 2009. Integrating life cycle costs and environmental impacts of
composite rail car-bodies for a Korean train. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(5), 429-442.

Chen, C., Zhu, J., Yu, J.Y., Noori, H., 2012. A new methodology for evaluating sustainable
product design performance with two-stage network data envelopment analysis. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 221(2), 348-359.

Chiara, F., Canova, M., 2013. A review of energy consumption, management, and recovery in
automotive systems, with considerations of future trends. Proc. IMechE Part. D:J.
Automobile Engineering. 227(6), 914–936.

Coelho, M.C., Torrão, G., Emami, N., Gr’cio, J., 2012. Nanotechnology in Automotive Industry:
Research Strategy and Trends for the Future-Small Objects, Big Impacts. J. Nanosci.
Nanotechnol. 12(8), 6621-6630.

Dangelico, R.M., Pontrandolfo, P., 2010. From green product definitions and classifications to
the Green Option Matrix. J. Clean. Prod. 18(16-17), 1608-1628.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figge, F., Hahn, T., 2012. Is green and profitable sustainable? Assessing the trade-off between
economic and environmental aspects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140(1), 92–102.

Ghadimi, P., Azadnia, A.H., Mohd Yusof, N., Mat Saman, M.Z., 2012. A weighted fuzzy
approach for product sustainability assessment: a case study in automotive industry. J.
Clean. Prod. 33, 10–21.

Govindan, K., Azavedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2014. Impact of Supply chain
management practices on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 212-225.

Günther, H.O. Kannegiesser, M., Autenrieb, N., 2015. The role of electric vehicles for supply
chain sustainability in the automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 220-233.

Hahn, T., Figge, F., Liesen, A., 2012. Assessing Trade-Offs in Investments for the Environment -
The Case of a VOC-Reduction Investment at AUTO Group. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Mgmt. 19(2), 114-128.

Heller, A., 2008. Chemical Engineering Challenges and Investment Opportunities in Sustainable
Energy. ChemSusChem. 1(7), 651-652.

Hetterich, J., Bonnemeier, S., Pritzke, M., Georgiadis, A., 2012. Ecological sustainability - a
customer requirement? Evidence from the automotive industry. J. Environ. Plan. and
Management. 55(9), 1111-1133.

Hirano, K., Asami, M., 2013. Phenolic resins-100 years of progress and their future. React.
Funct. Polym. 73(2), 256-269.

Hoogmartens, R., Van Passel, S., Van Acker, K., Dubois, M., 2014. Bridging the gap between
LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 48,
27-33.

Hwang, S.N., Chen, C., Chen, Y., Lee, H.S., Shen, P.D., 2013. Sustainable design performance
evaluation with applications in the automobile industry: Focusing on inefficiency by
undesirable factors. Omega. 41(3), 553-558.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., Ricardo de Souza
Freitas, W., 2013. Environmental management and operational performance in
automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management and lean
manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 129-140.

Jasch, C., Lavicka, A., 2006. Pilot project on sustainability management accounting with the
Styrian automobile cluster. J. Clean. Prod. 14(14), 1214-1227.

Kaenzig, J. Friot, D., Saadé, M., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2010. Using Life Cycle Approaches to
Enhance the Value of Corporate Environmental Disclosures. Bus. Strat. and the Env.
20(1), 38-54.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kannegiesser, M., Günther, H.O., 2014. Sustainable development of global supply chains-part 1:
sustainability optimization framework. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J. 26(1-2), 24-47.

Kannegiesser, M., Günther, H.O., Gylfason, Ó., 2014. Sustainable development of global supply
chains-part 2: investigation of the European automotive industry. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J.
26(1-2), 48-68.

Kehbila, A. G., Ertel, J., Brent, A. C., 2010. Corporate sustainability, ecological modernization
and the policy process in the South African automotive industry. Bus. Strat. and the Env.
19(7), 453-465.

Kimball, M., Chester, M., Gino, C., Reyna, J., 2013. Assessing the Potential for Reducing Life-
Cycle Environmental Impacts through Transit-Oriented Development Infill along
Existing Light Rail in Phoenix. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 33(4), 395 – 410.

Koplin, J., Seuring, S., Mesterharm, M., 2007. Incorporating sustainability into supply
management in the automotive industry - the case of the Volkswagen AG. J. Clean. Prod.
15(11-12), 1053-1062.

Kurdve, M., Zackrisson, M., Wiktorsson, M., Harlin, U., 2014. Lean and green integration into
production system models - experiences from Swedish industry. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 180-
190.

Lee J., Kang, H., Noh S., 2014. MAS2: an integrated modeling and simulation-based life cycle
evaluation approach for sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 146-163.

Luz Martín-Peña, M., Díaz-Garrido, E., Sánchez-López, J.M., 2014. Analysis of benefits and
difficulties associated with firms' Environmental Management Systems: the case of the
Spanish automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 70, 220-230.

Mani, M., Johansson, B., Lyons, K.W., Sriram, R.D., Ameta, G., 2013. Simulation and analysis
for sustainable product development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18(5), 1129–1136.

Mitropoulos, L., Prevedouros, P., 2014. Multicriterion Sustainability Assessment in

Transportation: Private Cars, Carsharing, and Transit Buses. Transp. Res. Rec. 2403, 52-
61

Mondéjar-Jiménez, J., Segarra-Oña, M., Peiró-Signes, Á., Payá-Martínez, M., Sáez-Martínez,

F.J., 2015. Segmentation of the Spanish automotive industry with respect to the
environmental orientation of firms: towards an ad-hoc vertical policy to promote eco-
innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 86. 238-244.

Morgadinho, L., Oliveira, C., Martinho, A., 2015. A qualitative study about perceptions of
European automotive sector's contribution to lower greenhouse gas emissions. J. Clean.
Prod. 106. 644-653.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Muneer, T., Milligan, R., Smith, I., Doyle, A., Pozuelo, M., Knez, M., 2015. Energetic,
environmental and economic performance of electric vehicles: Experimental evaluation.
Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 35, 40-61.

Negoiţescu, A., Tokar, A., 2013. Investigations on Car Emissions Under the Urban Traffic
Conditions With the Influence on Timisoara Air Quality. Transport. 28(1), 38-45.

Nieuwenhuis, P., Katsifou, E., 2015. More sustainable automotive production through
understanding decoupling points in legal manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 95. 232-241.

Nyambo, C., Mohanty, A.K., Misra, M., 2010. Polylactide-Based Renewable Green Composites
from Agricultural Residues and Their Hybrids. Biomacromolecules. 11(6), 1654-1660.

Peng, Z.R., Sun, J., Lu, Q.C., 2012. China's Public Transportation: Problems, Policies, and
Prospective of Sustainability. ITE Journal. 82(5), 36-40.

Puri, P., Compston, P., Pantano, V., 2009. Life cycle assessment of Australian automotive door
skins. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(5), 420-428.

Rosenbloom, S., 2001. Sustainability and automobility among the elderly: An international
assessment. Transportation. 28(4), 375-408.

Salvado, M., Azevedo, S., Matias, J., Ferreira, L., 2015. Proposal of a Sustainability Index for
the Automotive Industry. Sustainability. 7(2), 2113-2144.

Sarioglu, I.L., Czapnik, B., Bostanci, E., Klein, O.P., Schröder, H., Küçükay, F., 2014. Optimum
design of a fuel-cell powertrain based on multiple design criteria. J. Power Sources. 266,
7-21.

Schau E.M., Traverso, M., Lehmann, A., Finkbeiner, M., 2011. Life Cycle Costing in
Sustainability Assessment-A Case Study of Remanufactured Alternators. Sustainability.
3(11), 2268-2288.

Severo, E.A., Ferro de Guimarães, J.C., Dorion, E.C.H., Nodari, C.H., 2015. Cleaner production,
environmental sustainability and organizational performance: an empirical study in the
Brazilian Metal-Mechanic industry. J. Clean. Pro. 96, 118-125.

Shafiei, E., Stefansson, H., Asgeirsson, E.I., Davidsdottir, B., Raberto, M., 2013. Integrated
Agent-based and System Dynamics Modelling for Simulation of Sustainable Mobility.
Transport Reviews. 33(1), 44-70.

Shepon, A., Israeli, T., Eshel, G., Milo, R., 2013. EcoTime-An intuitive quantitative
sustainability indicator utilizing a time metric. Ecol. Indic. 24, 240-245.

Smith, T.W., Axon, C.J., Darton, R.C., 2013. A methodology for measuring the sustainability of
car transport systems. Transport Policy. 30, 308-317.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Stefanova, M., Tripepi, C., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., 2014. Goal and Scope in Life Cycle
Sustainability Analysis: The Case of Hydrogen Production from Biomass. Sustainability.
6(8), 5463-5475.

Suddell, B.C., 2007. The increasing trend of utilising biobased materials in automotive
components. Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy. 1(3), 454-460.

Sutherland, J., Gunter, K., Allen, D., Bauer, D., Bras, B., Gutowski, T., Murphy, C., Piwonka,
T., Sheng, P., Thurston, D., others, 2004. A global perspective on the environmental
challenges facing the automotive industry: state-of-the-art and directions for the future.
Int. J. Veh. Des. 35, 86–110.

Tarascon, J.M., 2008. Towards Sustainable and Renewable Systems for Electrochemical Energy
Storage. ChemSusChem. 1(8-9), 777-779.

Thun, J.H., Mueller, A., 2010. An Empirical Analysis of Green Supply Chain Management in the
German Automotive Industry. Bus. Strat. and the Env. 19(2), 119-132.

Tittle, D., Qu, J., 2013. The implications of using hydrocarbon fuels to generate electricity for
hydrogen fuel powered automobiles on electrical capital, hydrocarbon consumption, and
anthropogenic emissions. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 18, 25-30.

Tiwari, P., Gulati, M., 2013. An analysis of trends in passenger and freight transport energy
consumption in India. Research in Transport. Econ. 38(1), 84-90.

Vinodh, S., Jayakrishna, K., Joy, D., 2012. Environmental impact assessment of an automotive
component using eco-indicator and CML methodologies. Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy. 14(2), 333-344.

Vivanco, D.F., Freire-González, J., Kemp, R., van der Voet, E., 2014. The Remarkable
Environmental Rebound Effect of Electric Cars: A Microeconomic Approach. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 48(20), 12063-12072.

Wang, J., 2012. Chinese electric car and SD-PAM: a case study. Climate and Development. 4(3),
210-218.

Wells, P., Orsato, R.J., 2005. Redesigning the industrial ecology of the automobile. J. Ind. Ecol.
9(3), 15-30.

Wilts, H., Bringezu, S., Bleischwitz, R., Lucas, R., Wittmer, D., 2011. Challenges of metal
recycling and an international covenant as possible instrument of a globally extended
producer responsibility. Waste Manag. Res. 29(9), 902-910

Winebrake, J., Rothenberg, S., Luo, J., Green, E., 2008. Automotive Transportation in China:
Technology, Policy, Market Dynamics, and Sustainability. Intern. J. of Sustainable
Transport. 2(4), 213-233.

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Wu, L., Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M.D., Liu, C., Lai, K., Pawar, K.S., 2015. The Impact
of Integrated Practices of Lean, Green, and Social Management Systems on Firm
Sustainability Performance-Evidence from Chinese Fashion Auto-Parts Suppliers.
Sustainability. 7(4), 3838-3858.

Ye, S. Y., Bounaceur, A., Soudais, Y., Barna, R., 2013. Parameter optimization of the steam
thermolysis: a process to recover carbon fibers from polymer-matrix composites. Waste
and Biomass Valor. 4(1), 73-86.

Zah, R., Hischier, R., Leão, A.L., Braun, I., 2007. Curauá fibers in the automobile industry – a
sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1032–1040.

Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., Çobanoğlu, C., 2011. A combined methodology for supplier selection
and performance evaluation. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 2741–2751.

Zhang, H., Chen, M., 2013. Research on the recycling industry development model for typical
exterior plastic components of end-of-life passenger vehicle based on the SWOT method.
Waste Manag. 33(11), 2341-2353.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K., 2007. Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and
performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 15(11-12), 1041-
1052.

Zhu, Q., Lujia, F., Mayyas, A., Omar, M.A., Al-Hammadi, Y., Al Saleh, S., 2015. Production
energy optimization using low dynamic programming, a decision support tool for
sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 105, 178-183.

38