Materials Today: Proceedings 47 (2021) 5755–5759

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Evaluation of key performance indicators for sustainability assessment

in automotive component manufacturing organization
Vikas Swarnakar ⇑, A.R. Singh, Anil Kr Tiwari
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Raipur 492010, Chhattisgarh, India

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

Article history: The automotive components manufacturing organizations have been facing challenges to assess the sus-
Available online 23 April 2021 tainability performances. Automotive components manufacturing industry has been known as a leading
consumer of natural resources, raw materials, energy, fossil fuels, and an intensive source of numerous
Keywords: pollutants. Thus, sustainability performance assessment of automotive components manufacturing orga-
Key performance indicators nizations becomes essential. The present study proposes a list of ‘‘key performance indicators (KPIs)” for
Sustainable manufacturing assessing the sustainability performance of a manufacturing organization. The proposed KPIs are believed
Sustainability performance assessment
to be pertinent to assess the sustainability of automotive component manufacturing organization based
Analytical hierarchy process
Automotive components manufacturing
on the ‘‘triple bottom line (3BL)” perspectives. The study utilizes the ‘‘Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)”
organization to evaluate the KPIs using the expert’s opinion. Further, a hierarchical model has been developed to assess
the sustainability performance of five selected case organizations. The findings of the study guide indus-
trial managers to assess the sustainability performance of a manufacturing organization. The outcomes of
this study also encourage practitioners, and researchers to further explore their knowledge in the field of
sustainability assessment.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Technology Innovation
in Mechanical Engineering-2021.

1. Introduction
Presently, ‘‘sustainable manufacturing (SM)” has become very
essential issues amongst manufacturing organizations around the
globe. Sustainability achievement has been recognized as a crucial
requirement due to diminishing government regulations, and non-
government pressures related to social and environmental con-
cerns, and increasing customer preference for green products
[1,2]. It has been noted that the successful adaptation of SM in
any organization achieves better quality, greater market share,
and increased profits [3]. Many authors reported that ‘‘SM prac-
tices have positively associated with competitive outcomes”
[4,5]. Therefore, an adaptation of SM becomes a critical concern
globally [6].
Based on [7] SM defined as ‘‘it is a process that creates manufac-
tured products which reduce negative environmental impacts,
conserve energy and natural resources, are safe for organization
employees, community, and consumers and are economically
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vikkiswarnakar@gmail.com (V. Swarnakar).
sound”. The concept of ‘‘SM is to minimize the use of energy, mate-
rials, minimizes emissions, and reduces the creation of unwanted
by-products or processes while maintaining the product value to
the community and organization both” [8]. It is noted that SM con-
sidered three main indicators (Economic, Social, and Environmen-
tal) known as 3BL indicators. Thus, the sustainability of the
manufacturing process should be assessed with the help of those
3BL indicators only.
Sustainability assessment is one of the challenging issues for
the automotive components manufacturing organizations. It is
observed that automotive components manufacturing organiza-
tions have remarked as a leading consumer of natural raw materi-
als such as aluminum, glass, iron ore as well as petroleum products
used in plastic, rubber, and fiber manufacturing process [9].
According to the India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) report
[10] contribution of automotive organizations in the country’s
gross domestic product (GDP) is rise to over 12%. On the other
hand, this organization has been remarked as a major emitter
source of pollutants [11]. Further, these organizations have one
of the leading consumers of energy amongst other organizations
[12]. Therefore, the sustainability performance assessment of this
organization has become necessary. The sustainability assessment

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.045
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Technology Innovation in Mechanical Engineering-2021.
V. Swarnakar, A.R. Singh and Anil Kr Tiwari Materials Today: Proceedings 47 (2021) 5755–5759

needed a list of KPIs that help to assess the sustainability leval of
organization. The identification of KPIs itself does not help to
assess the sustainability level of the organization, the prioritization
of indicators and detailed evaluation model may help to assess the
‘‘sustainability performance” of automotive components manufac-
turing organizations. Therefore, the present study objective is to
identify and evaluate the key performance indicators for sustain-
ability assessment of automotive components manufacturing orga-
nization. The present study considered five Indian manufacturing
organizations for the research setting. The evaluation of key perfor-
mance indicators has been done in two stages; first, identify the
pool of KPIs related to the automotive component manufacturing
sector, and second evaluation of the process. In last, the study iden-
tified the sustainability performance of selected case organizations.
2. Research methodology
The research methodology included the identification of sus-
tainable manufacturing key performance index, validation part,
and evaluation of KPIs. The identification of sustainable manufac-
turing KPIs have been done through a comprehenshive literature
review process. The literature has been searched from different
databases such as SCOPUS, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Elsevier, Emer-
ald, Springer, and Taylor and Francis using appropriate keywords.
Then validated the selected KPIs through industrial experts.
Finally, an evaluation of those KPIs has been done using Analytical
Hierarchy Process. The research methodology for the present study
is described in in the form of flowchart which is shown in Fig. 1.
The detailed methodological steps is discussed in the form of a case
study and evaluation process.
groups of elements, it sets the computations to assign weights to
the elements, and it uses the consistency measure to validate the
rating consistency based on the panel experts or decision-
makers” [15]. The stepwise identification and evaluation process
are discussed in the next section.
3. Case study and evaluation process
The case study was conducted in five different automotive com-
ponents manufacturing organization located in different regions of
India. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the KPIs for
the sustainability performance assessment of case organizations.
The evaluation process included identification, selection, prioriti-
zation, and modeling sustainable manufacturing KPIs concerning
the case sector. Further, the evaluation model has been applied
in these five case organizations to compare their overall perfor-
mance scores as well as individual performance scores based on
the performance rating of KPIs. The organizations are leading man-
ufacturers and suppliers of automotive components within India
and abroad. The organizations are certified by a different standard
such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and follow the government safety
standard rules. The case organizations are listed in the categories
of SMEs and having a sufficient workforce. The organizations are
looking for essential key performance indicators that help to assess
sustainability performance. Therefore, the present study performs
the evaluation process of KPIs and compares the performance score
of these organizations. The detailed evaluation process is described
below in subsections.

2.1. Evaluation approach

3.1. Identification of KPIs
The Analytical Hierarchy process is primarily introduced by
The KPIs for evaluating the sustainability of automotive compo-
‘‘Thomas L. Saaty in 1971”. This approach has become most popu-
nents manufacturing organization has been identified through the
lar to solve decision-related problems in ‘‘multi-criteria decision
detailed literature review process. The identified pool of KPIs was
making (MCDM)”. This technique was designed to solve complex
provided to panel experts for clustering purpose, the experts have
problems where several criteria are involved [13]. The AHP
been providing their opinion to cluster those KPIs in 3BL ‘‘Eco-
approach has been the most popular and essential tool for both
nomic, Social, and Environmental” categories. The initial list of sus-
academicians and practitioners to research complex decision-
tainable manufacturing KPIs are listed in Table 1.
making environments [14]. This methodology has various benefits
such as, ‘‘it helps to decompose an unstructured problem into a
rational decision hierarchy, it can elicit more information from Table 1
panel experts by employing the pairwise comparison of individual The initial list of sustainable manufacturing KPIs.

Sustainability factors Key performance indicators Reference

Economic Operational cost [16,17]
Acceptance rate of product [9,5]
Overall equipment effectiveness [18,19]
Work in process inventory level [20,17]
Machine/equipment performance [21]
Facilities cost [5]
Transportation efficiency [22]
Social Accident rate [5,17]
Absenteeism ratio [20,23]
Gender ratio [5,17]
Contribution to society [24]
Labor relation [24]
Training opportunities [5,25]
Employee satisfaction [20,23]
Volunteer sustainability initiatives [17]
Environmental Harmful gas release [26]
Green area impact [25]
Material consumption [17,25]
Water and fuel consumption [16,17]
Energy consumption [16,17]
Scrap rate [22]
Net solid waste generation [27]
Toxic discharge to water [27]
Fig. 1. Research methodology flowchart.

5756
V. Swarnakar, A.R. Singh and Anil Kr Tiwari Materials Today: Proceedings 47 (2021) 5755–5759

3.2. Validation of KPIs
The initial KPIs presented in (Table 1) were then validated by
the industrial experts, the experts are having more than 15 years
of experience in the relevant field. The experts are belonging to
the 5 different automotive industries located in India. The experts
were selected based on the qualification, experience, and availabil-
ity to perform the research study. The selected manufacturing
organizations are leading manufacturers and suppliers of various
automotive parts and the industries are located in different regions
of India. A group of 25 experts was selected from the above dis-
cussed five organizations to survey for validating the KPIs. The
panel experts were asked to rate the importance of KPIs in sustain-
ability performance assessment in the automotive manufacturing
sector using a 5-point Likert scale (1 represents ‘‘not important
at all” and 5 represents ‘‘very important”). The data gathered from
the experts through direct meetings and face to face interaction.
Further, the consistency of received responses data was checked
through Cronbach alpha value. The calculated Cronbach alpha
value was observed 0.883 which shows that the collected
responses are statistically significant [11]. The result of the analysis
is presented in Table 2.
The analyzed result presented in Table 2 ‘‘indicated that opera-
tional cost is the most important KPI with a mean importance
value of 4.871 representing 97.42% importance”. Similarly, the
other most important KPIs represent their mean value with impor-
tance. On the other hand, the five KPIs such as Facilities cost, Trans-
portation efficiency, Absenteeism ratio, Labor relation, and
volunteer sustainability initiatives are considered as least impor-
tant KPIs. Based on the analysis result and requirement of the case
manufacturing organizations these least important indicators are
excluded from the list for the further model development process.
Finally, 18 leading KPIs were selected for the evaluation model
development process.
3.3. Constructing AHP based evaluation model
An AHP based evaluation model for sustainability performance
assessment of automotive components manufacturing organiza-
tion is developed based on the 18 selected KPIs. The model has
been developed based on the applied AHP methodology in the pre-
Table 2
Mean importance values of KPIs.
sent study. The developed model consisted of three levels includ-
ing goal, triple bottom line factors, and key performance
indicators. In this hierarchy, the goal was presented at the top in
the model known as level 1. The second level consist of triple bot-
tom line factors and the last level consisted of 18 selected KPIs
which separately clustered in triple bottom line dimensions of sus-
tainability. The developed hierarchical model is shown in Fig. 2.
3.4. Weighting the KPIs
After the development of the hierarchical based model, KPIs
weights needs to be calculated”. In this perspective, a question-
naire has been developed consisting set of required pairwise com-
parison matrices for the analysis. The questionnaire has been
distributed to panel experts by the direct meeting. The experts
were provided their inputs in a pairwise comparison matrix for
the evaluation of sustainability assessment KPIs. 1 to 9 Likert scale
were used for providing inputs indicating (‘‘1 = less importance, 3
moderate importance, 5 = strong importance, 7 = very strong
importance, 9 = extreme importance, and 2, 4, 6, 8 values represent
the importance between them”). The frequency analysis was per-
formed to select the inputs for the final evaluation process. The
AHP methodology was used to calculate the KPIs weights and the
same steps were followed to calculate the weights [13]. The
weights were calculated for sustainability factors and selected KPIs
both. The results obtained after the analysis is depicted in Table 3.
Table 3 indicates the calculated importance weights of KPIs for
sustainability assessment in automotive components manufactur-
ing organization. It shows that the importance value of one KPI
over another KPI. In terms of sustainability factors, the economic
sustainability factor obtained the highest importance weight with
a value of 0.3882. Similarly, the Operational cost is obtained the
high value (0.0895) is regarded as the most important KPI to the
economic factor. In the case of the social sustainability factor, con-
tribution to society is considered the most important KPI with an
importance value (0.0810). Moreover, the harmful gas release is
considered as a much more important KPI with an importance
value of (0.0791) to environmental category factor.
3.5. Rating the KPIs
Once the weight for each KPI was calculated, the next step of
evaluation is to rate the KPIs. This step of the evaluation process

S. No. Key performance indicators Obtained Importance

Mean value value (%)
1 Operational cost 4.871 97.42
2 Overall equipment effectiveness 4.716 94.32
3 Contribution to society 4.702 94.04
4 Harmful gas release 4.699 93.98
5 Acceptance rate of product 4.695 93.90
6 Toxic discharge to water 4.661 93.22
7 Net solid waste generation 4.648 92.96
8 Work in process inventory level 4.628 92.56
9 Green area impact 4.615 92.30
10 Machine/equipment performance 4.602 92.04
11 Gender ratio 4.561 91.22
12 Accident rate 4.492 89.84
13 Water and fuel consumption 4.403 88.06
14 Training opportunities 4.337 86.74
15 Energy consumption 4.321 86.42
16 Employee satisfaction 4.321 86.42
17 Material consumption 4.282 85.64
18 Scrap rate 4.083 81.66
19 Facilities cost 3.415 68.30
20 Transportation efficiency 3.353 67.06
21 Absenteeism ratio 3.327 66.54
22 Labor relation 3.211 64.22
23 Volunteer sustainability initiatives 3.071 61.42
Fig. 2. Hierarchical evaluation model of KPIs.

5757
V. Swarnakar, A.R. Singh and Anil Kr Tiwari Materials Today: Proceedings 47 (2021) 5755–5759

Table 3
Importance weight of sustainability variables and KPIs.

Sustainability Variables Key performance indicators KPIs

factors weight weight
Economic 0.3882 Operational cost 0.0895
Acceptance rate of product 0.0773
Overall equipment effectiveness 0.0821
Work in process inventory level 0.0588
Machine/equipment 0.0525
performance
Social 0.2657 Accident rate 0.0487
Gender ratio 0.0518
Contribution to society 0.0810
Fig. 3. Overall performance scores of organizations compared.
Training opportunities 0.0394
Employee satisfaction 0.0271
Environmental 0.3461 Harmful gas release 0.0791
Green area impact 0.0558 Table 4
Material consumption 0.259 Individual performance scores of organizations compared.
Water and fuel consumption 0.0413
Organization compared Individual performance score (performance
Energy consumption 0.0313
level)
Scrap rate 0.0211
Net solid waste generation 0.0612 Economic Environmental Social
Toxic discharge to water 0.0761
Organization1 8.301 7.327 6.924
(Good) (Good) (Fair)
Organization2 7.652 6.801 6.401
needs a scale to rate the concerned KPIs. In this context, the pre- (Good) (Fair) (Fair)
sent study utilized ‘‘a scale range from 1 to 10, where 1 = highly Organization3 8.735 7.490 6.999
(Good) (Good) (Fair)
poor, 2 = moderate poor, 3 = low poor, 4 = low fair, 5 = moderate Organization4 9.007 8.174 7.204
fair, 6 = high fair, 7 = low good, 8 = moderate good, 9 = high good, (Good) (Good) (Good)
10 = excellent”. This value of scale is used to assess the perfor- Organization5 8.609 7.308 6.023
mance rating of each KPI. (Good) (Good) (Fair)

3.6. Computing the automotive manufacturing organization scores

The ‘‘values generated from the performance rating are multi-
plied with the corresponding weights of KPIs” which gives the
organization performance score. This ‘‘score is calculated for the
overall performance score” of respective five case organizations
as well as individual performance score in the perspective of each
sustainability factors. Further, the calculated scores are then clus-
tered into the four different performance levels. The categorization
has been performed based on the following rules:
If the obtained value is 1  score  4 then the organization per-
formance level is poor
If the obtained value is 4 < score  7 then the organization per-
formance level is fair
If the obtained value is 7 < score  9 then the organization per-
formance level is good
If the obtained value is >9 then the organization performance
level is excellent
‘‘The overall performance and individual performance score
were calculated based on the above-discussed rule and the results
are discussed in the next section”.
mance level category. The individual score has been also calculated
for each category of sustainability factors and the results are pre-
sented in Table 4.
Table 4, indicated that the obtained performance level of orga-
nizations is quite varied. The results indicated that organization 4
is to be prioritized as a ‘‘top rank” for all sustainability factors
because it has a good performance level. On the other hand, the
least overall performance score has been observed for organization
2 (Fig. 3) but the result of individual performance score shows that
organization 2 ‘‘is not at the lowest individual” performance level
for all sustainability factors. Based on the results, ‘‘it can be con-
cluded that the organization with a low overall performance score
might not be the worst in all sustainability factors”. To take the
quality decision and improve the sustainability of an organization,
need to primarily identify the factor where improvement is
needed. Then work on improving the particular factor to enhance
the overall sustainability level of an automotive component man-
ufacturing organization.
5. Conclusions

4. Results and discussion The automotive components manufacturing organizations are

The evaluation model has been applied in five case manufactur-
ing organizations to evaluate their performance score. The perfor-
mance score of the organization was calculated based on the rating
value and calculated KPIs weight. This study is calculated overall as
well as an individual performance score of concerned organiza-
tions. The overall performance score of organizations compared
is depicted in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 3, it can be seen that organization 4 has shown the ‘‘high-
est performance score” value (9.639), this score comes under the
excellent level category. So, we can say that organization 4 has
an excellent performance level. On the other side, the performance
score for organization 2 is 6.452 and it comes under the fair perfor-
5758
‘‘an intensive consumer of fossil fuels, natural raw materials,
energy, and emitting high pollutants in the environment”. Thus,
it is essential to assess its sustainability level in 3BL perspectives.
Therefore, the present study has identified and evaluated the 3BL
‘‘key performance indicators” for assessing the sustainability level
of automotive components manufacturing organization. The initial
set of ‘‘key performance indicators were identified from the litera-
ture review and validated by the industrial experts”. A pool of 23
key performance indicators (KPIs) were initially selected for the
evaluation process. Based on the outcome, three sustainability fac-
tors with 18 KPIs were finalized for the development of an evalu-
ation model to assess the sustainability performance level of an
automotive component manufacturing organization. Analytical
V. Swarnakar, A.R. Singh and Anil Kr Tiwari
Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology was utilized to develop a
‘‘hierarchical based model” on the proposed KPIs. The importance
weight of KPIs was calculated based on the inputs provided by
experts in the pairwise matrix using the same methodology. Fur-
ther, the experts were asked to rate KPIs to calculate the overall
and individual performance score of the case organization. The
present study considered 5 different automotive components man-
ufacturing organizations for the assessment of sustainability per-
formance level of organizations. The result of this study
‘‘concluded that the organization with the least overall perfor-
mance score might be not the least in the perspective of all sustain-
ability factors”. The study provides directions to plant managers to
‘‘take appropriate actions in improving sustainability perfor-
mance”. The result of the study also encourages practitioners,
decision-makers, and researchers to explore the research on the
field of sustainability assessment of the organization.
5.1. Limitations and future work
The present study has been performed to evaluate the key per-
formance indicators to assess the performance level of automotive
components manufacturing organization. The evaluation of indica-
tors has been done with the help of inputs provided by industrial
experts. The biasness in the input will affect the outcome of the
evaluation process and it may affect the sustainability assessment
process of the organization. The study has been performed in the
automotive sector and data were gathered from the Indian auto-
motive components manufacturing organizations. Therefore, the
evaluation model may observe different results in other organiza-
tions. The evaluation model was applied in five different types of
automotive components manufacturing organizations; hence ‘‘the
findings may be generalized for the other similar type of organiza-
tions”. The present study has been selected 18 key performance
indicators in triple bottom line perspectives, the other leading indi-
cators could be eliminated or added based on the problem of other
organizations. The present study provides sufficient research
extension for researchers, practitioners to perform the study in
the future to assess the sustainability of the organization.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vikas Swarnakar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Writing - original draft. A.R. Singh: Visualization,
Investigation, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Anil Kr
Tiwari: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge all the experts who supported us to
perform this study and provided their valuable inputs timely in
the entire evaluation process.
References
[1] A.D. Jayal, F. Badurdeen, O.W. Dillon Jr, I.S. Jawahir, Sustainable manufacturing:
modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system
levels, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2 (3) (2010) 144–152.
5759
Materials Today: Proceedings 47 (2021) 5755–5759
[2] V. Swarnakar, A.K. Tiwari, A.R. Singh, Evaluating critical failure factors for
implementing sustainable lean six sigma framework in manufacturing
organization, Int. J. Lean Six Sigma (2020), https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-05-
2019-0050.
[3] A.N. Nambiar and others, Challenges in sustainable manufacturing, in:
Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on industrial engineering
and operations management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2010, pp. 9–10.
[4] C. Rusinko, Green manufacturing: an evaluation of environmentally
sustainable manufacturing practices and their impact on competitive
outcomes, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 54 (3) (2007) 445–454.
[5] V. Swarnakar, A.R. Singh, A.K. Tiwari, Assessment of manufacturing process
through lean manufacturing and sustainability indicators: case studies in
Indian perspective, Emerging Trends in Mechanical Engineering, Springer
(2020) 253–263.
[6] W.L. Ijomah, C.A. McMahon, G.P. Hammond, S.T. Newman, Development of
design for remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing,
Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 23 (6) (2007) 712–719.
[7] US Department of Commerce. Sustainable manufacturing initiative.
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Sustainable Manufacturing Summit 2009.
[8] OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).
Sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation: towards a green economy
2009. http://www.oecd.org.
[9] V. Swarnakar and S. Vinodh, ‘‘Deploying Lean Six Sigma framework in an
automotive component manufacturing organization,” Int. J. Lean Six Sigma,
vol. 7, no. 3, 2016, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-06-2015-0023.
[10] Indian auto components Industry Report (2020), ‘‘Indian auto components
industry analysis report”, available at: https://www.ibef.org/industry/
autocomponents-india.aspx (accessed 10 December 2020).
[11] V. Swarnakar, A.R. Singh, J. Antony, A.K. Tiwari, E. Cudney, S. Furterer, A
multiple integrated approach for modelling critical success factors in
sustainable LSS implementation, Comput. Ind. Eng. 150 (2020) 106865.
[12] V. Swarnakar, A.R. Singh, A.K. Tiwari, Effect of lean six sigma on firm
performance: A case of Indian automotive component manufacturing
organization, Mater. Today Proc. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2020.07.115.
[13] J. D. Kendrick and D. Saaty, ‘‘Use Analytic Hierarchy Process for Project
Selection,” ASQ Six Sigma Forum Mag., pp. 22–29, 2007, [Online]. Available:
http://dschoenherr.fatcow.com/sitebuildercontent/
sitebuilderfiles/analytic_hierarchy_process.pdf.
[14] E.W.L. Cheng, H. Li, D.C.K. Ho, Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Meas. Bus.
Excell. (2002).
[15] F.T.S. Chan, H.K. Chan, H.C.W. Lau, R.W.L. Ip, ‘‘An AHP approach in
benchmarking logistics performance of the postal industry”, Benchmarking
An, Int. J. (2006).
[16] S. Aguado, R. Alvarez, R. Domingo, Model of efficient and sustainable
improvements in a lean production system through processes of
environmental innovation, J. Clean. Prod. 47 (2013) 141–148, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.048.
[17] A.L. Helleno, A.J.I. de Moraes, A.T. Simon, A.L. Helleno, Integrating
sustainability indicators and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing
processes: Application case studies in Brazilian industry, J. Clean. Prod. 153
(2017) 405–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.072.
[18] J. Pettersen, Defining lean production: Some conceptual and practical issues,
TQM J. 21 (2) (2009) 127–142, https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910938137.
[19] S. Hajmohammad, S. Vachon, R.D. Klassen, I. Gavronski, Reprint of Lean
management and supply management: their role in green practices and
performance, J. Clean. Prod. 56 (2013) 86–93.
[20] J.Y. Lee, H.S. Kang, S. Do Noh, MAS2: An integrated modeling and simulation-
based life cycle evaluation approach for sustainable manufacturing, J. Clean.
Prod. 66 (2014) 146–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.029.
[21] M. Hallgren, J. Olhager, Lean and agile manufacturing: External and internal
drivers and performance outcomes, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 29 (10) (2009)
976–999, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570910993456.
[22] C. Tasdemir, R. Gazo, and H. J. Quesada, ‘‘Sustainability benchmarking tool
(SBT): theoretical and conceptual model proposition of a composite
framework,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., pp. 1–43, 2019.
[23] R.E. Freeman, J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, B.L. Parmar, S. De Colle, Stakeholder
theory: The state of the art, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[24] L.C. Roca, C. Searcy, An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate
sustainability reports, J. Clean. Prod. 20 (1) (2012) 103–118.
[25] C.J.C. Jabbour, A.B.L. de Sousa Jabbour, K. Govindan, A.A. Teixeira, W.R. de
Souza Freitas, Environmental management and operational performance in
automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management and
lean manufacturing, J. Clean. Prod. 47 (2013) 129–140.
[26] GRI 305., 2016. GRI 305: Emissions. GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative.
https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?
g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
[27] GRI 306., 2016. GRI 306: Effluents and waste. GRI Standards. Global Reporting
Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-
download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last Accessed
on 9 Nov 2018.