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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm

Barriers to the adoption Barriers to the

adoption of
of integrated sustainable-green- ISGLSAMS

lean-six sigma-agile manufacturing

system (ISGLSAMS):
a literature review Received 5 October 2021
Revised 25 June 2022
6 August 2022
Dharmendra Hariyani Accepted 8 October 2022
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Department,
Rajasthan Technical University,
Kota, India and
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Swami Keshvanand Institute of Technology Management and Gramothan,
Jaipur, India, and
Sanjeev Mishra
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Department of Teaching,
Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, India

Abstract
Purpose – Scarcity of resources, ecological imbalance, global warming, rising energy prices and the ever-
changing need for variety have attracted the government and manufacturers for sustainable development of
the industries. The integrated sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile manufacturing system (ISGLSAMS)
provides a solid platform for meeting both the customers’ variety needs and business sustainability
requirements. Many organizations opted for ISGLSAMS, but still due to various barriers organizations are
not able to fully implement ISGLSAMS. The purpose of this paper is to identify the barriers to the
ISGLSAMS, so that a more sustainable industrial manufacturing system and industrial symbiosis can be
developed.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature review, from the Web of Science and Google Scholar
database, has been carried out to identify the various barriers to the implementation of ISGLSAMS in
the entire value chain. A total of 168 research papers have been reviewed for identifying the ISGLSAMS
barriers.
Findings – This paper elaborates the concept of the ISGLSAMS, its attributes and various barriers and
contributes to a better understanding and successful implementation of ISGLSAMS to meet business’
sustainability and market performance goals in the entire value chain. The paper also projects the future
research framework and directions for the ISGLSAMS, integrated sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile
(ISGLSA) product and ISGLSA supply and value chain.
Practical implications – The study contributes to a better understanding of ISGLSAMS’ barriers. The
government, stakeholders and policymakers may plan the policy, road map and strategies to overcome the
ISGLSAMS’ barriers. In-depth knowledge of subclauses of ISGLSAMS’ barriers will help the practitioners to
overcome the ISGLSAMS’ barriers strategically. By overcoming the ISGLSAMS barriers, a more sustainable
7 Rs based market focused manufacturing system can be designed. This will also increase the opportunities to
enhance the industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis and better recovery of the product, process and supply
chain residual value. This will reduce the waste to the ecosystem.
Originality/value – This work has been carried out in search of a more sustainable manufacturing system,
i.e. ISGLSAMS (which is 7 Rs based, i.e. 6 Rs of sustainability with 7th R, reconfiguration) to meet the
customer variety needs along with sustainability in the ever-changing customer market. This study adds
value to the practitioners to identify and prioritize the ISGLSAMS’ industry-specific barriers and design the
Benchmarking: An International
solution for the more sustainable development of (1) industries, (2) the industrial symbiosis system and (3) the Journal
ISGLSA product, process, system and supply value chain with minimum resource consumption and © Emerald Publishing Limited
environmental impact. The research also contributes to the (a) ISGLSAMS (b) ISGLSA supply chain (c) 1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/BIJ-10-2021-0585
BIJ reconfigurable, sustainable and modular products and (d) redesign, recovery and refurbishing of the product
to increase the product life cycle.
Keywords Integrated sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile manufacturing system (ISGLSAMS), Integrated
sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile (ISGLSA) manufacturing strategy, Sustainable products, Sustainable
supply chain, Social, environmental, market, ecological and financial performance, Industrial ecology and
industrial symbiosis
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
The scarcity of resources, ecological imbalance, global warming, rising energy prices and
ever-changing demand for variety have attracted the government and manufacturers for
sustainable development of the industries (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b). Over the past
decades, various manufacturing strategies, viz., lean manufacturing (LM), green
manufacturing (GM), sustainable manufacturing (SM), six sigma process/technique and
agile manufacturing (AM) have evolved to meet the various needs of the stakeholders
and organization. Each of these manufacturing strategies is having its advantages (Hariyani
and Mishra, 2022b). Here is a brief overview of these manufacturing strategies:

1.1 Lean manufacturing

LM, which originated from Toyota Production Systems, focuses on waste reduction activity.
It considers anything other than the minimum amount of resources needed to add value to the
product as waste (Russell and Taylor, 2000). LM identified eight types of waste, i.e.
overprocessing, overproduction, transportation, inventory, motion, defects, waiting and
unutilized human skills (Womack and Jones, 1997). Organizations identify and eliminate the
wastes from the system and supply chain through value stream mapping (Hariyani and
Mishra, 2022b). Organizations include the voice of customers while defining the lean value
(Jayanth et al., 2020; Machado, 2017). LM reduces work in process, cycle time (Andersson et al.,
2006), lead time, cost of conversion, space requirement (Ghosh, 2013), equipment downtime,
waste (Fullerton and Wempe, 2009) and overall cost (Hofer et al., 2012). LM gives the benefits
of an increase in inventory turnover, capacity, customer satisfaction (Andersson et al., 2006),
sale, return on assets (Fullerton et al., 2014), labor productivity, product quality, on-time
delivery (Fullerton and Wempe, 2009), overall productivity (Ghosh, 2013), financial
performance (Moyano-Fuentes and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, 2012), market performance (Yang et al.,
2011), competitive market position (Karim and Arif-Uz-Zaman, 2013) and various non-
tangible benefits (Worley and Doolen, 2006).

1.2 Green manufacturing

GM focuses on the reduction of the environmental impacts of the manufacturing and
consumption of goods and services (Deif, 2011). GM increases entry barriers to other competitors,
improves compliance with regulation, better product quality (Chiou et al., 2011), high market
share, tax benefits, government support (Deif, 2011), market performance, ecological
performance (Pujari et al., 2003), high resource efficiency (Rothenberg et al., 2001), competitive
advantage, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, corporate image, sales (Rusinko, 2007;
Shang et al., 2010), corporate sustainability performance (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) and subsidies
(Zhu et al., 2005) and reduces the cost of disposal of hazardous waste (Chiou et al., 2011).

1.3 Sustainable manufacturing

SM incorporates economic, social, environmental and life cycle dimensions of manufacturing
(Garetti and Taisch, 2012). For SM, a more holistic closed-loop approach is required
(Badurdeen et al., 2009). SM increases economic growth, environmental performance, social Barriers to the
performance, business-to-business relationships (Badurdeen et al., 2009), ecological balance adoption of
(Despeisse et al., 2012; Westk€amper et al., 2000), environmental stewardship (Rosen and
Kishawy, 2012), risk management potential (Joung et al., 2013), green image (Garetti and
ISGLSAMS
Taisch, 2012) and reduces of harmful practices (Badurdeen et al., 2009), source reduction
(Despeisse et al., 2012; Westk€amper et al., 2000), life cycle cost (Westk€amper et al., 2000), etc.

1.4 Six sigma practices

The six sigma process or technique, originated by Motorola, Inc., reduces product and
process performance variations. It yields 99.99966% of parts produced defect free (Pande
et al., 2000; Pyzdek, 2003). Six sigma practices reduce cost due to robust process design,
increase customers’ satisfaction and loyalty, market share, robustness and effectiveness of
the processes, increase quality and reliability, and financial benefits (Antony, 2006; Antony
et al., 2007), and improve yield (Raisinghani et al., 2005) and other intangible benefits.

1.5 Agile manufacturing

AM focuses on quick response manufacturing to meet customer needs in an unpredictable
environment by using a reconfigurable manufacturing system (Mehrabi et al., 2000). AM reduces
response time and increases customer satisfaction (Gunasekaran, 1998), cost-effectiveness for
variety needs in an unpredictable market, flexibility (Gunasekaran, 1998), market growth,
profitability (Cao and Dowlatshahi, 2005), order flexibility, product customization ability, sale
volume (Inman et al., 2011), manufacturing competitive strength (V
azquez-Bustelo et al., 2007)
and opportunity to fulfill demand in a volatile market (Naylor et al., 1999).
Many organizations try to implement lean, green, agile, leagile, lean-six sigma, lean-green,
agile-green and sustainability (Elmoselhy, 2013; Mittal et al., 2017; Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou,
2015). Elmoselhy (2013, 2015a, b) suggested the strategic and technical facets of a hybrid lean-
AM system for meeting the ever-changing customers’ demands economically. Nieuwenhuis
and Katsifou (2015) discussed the strategic importance of coupling and decoupling points for
more sustainable automotive production in the turbulent market. Mittal et al. (2017) discussed
the enablers and framework for the adoption of integrated lean-green-agile strategies
(LGAMS) for modern manufacturing systems to meet the sustainability dimensions.
Badurdeen and Jawahir (2017) discussed the importance of various strategies viz.,
development of (1) strategic capabilities, (2) technologies and methodologies, (3) public–
private partnerships and (4) vision for sustainable products, processes, systems and the
supply chain to create sustainable value for all stakeholders. Goyal and Agrawal (2020)
worked on the drivers for the adoption of an advanced manufacturing management system
for environmental sustainability. Many other research works have been done for meeting the
business sustainability and market goals; still organizations fail to get the desired outcomes
of sustainability and market performance (Hariyani et al., 2022; Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a,
b) either due to various barriers (Hariyani et al., 2022; Narkhede et al., 2020) or due to lack of
various enablers (Elmoselhy, 2013) or due to lack of an integrated strategic approach
(Mart
ınez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014) for right manufacturing strategy.
This arouses following research questions: (1) What is the best compatible manufacturing
strategy that will meet both the business sustainability goal and business market goal in the
ever-changing customer market demand? (2) What are the various barriers to the adoption of
that manufacturing strategy? (3) What are the various sub-causes of those barriers so that a
strategic approach can be planned to overcome those barriers, along with meeting both
business sustainability and market requirements in the ever-changing customer demand.
The curiosity for the search for a novel solution for this business sustainability and market
demand issues in an unpredictable market motivates the authors to review the literature.
BIJ It is observed through the literature that due to the scarcity of the resources and ever-
changing customers’ demand for variety in an unpredictable market, the integrated
sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile quick reconfigurable manufacturing system is now
becoming of great importance in automotive, modular, agile or other manufacturing
industries for more SM (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b). The ISGLSAMS improves the
organizational, ecological, environmental, market, social, economic, financial and operational
performance (Hariyani et al., 2022; Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b).
ISGLSAMS is 7 Rs based, i.e. 6 Rs of sustainability with the 7th R, reconfiguration. The
ISGLSAMS is more sustainable than 6Rs-based SM, as it meets customers’ variety needs in
an unpredictable market with reduced resource consumption through the use of
reconfiguration and modularity (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b). The ISGLSAMS will also
increase industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis (Hariyani et al., 2022; Hariyani and
Mishra, 2022a, b). Many organizations try to opt ISGLSAM strategy but are not able to opt for
this strategy fully either due to multi-objective or various barriers (Hariyani et al., 2022).
Considering the aforementioned context of the ISGLAMS, the research question
addressed by this study is the following: What are the various barriers to the
implementation of the ISGLSAMS? The rationale underlying this article is the
identification of various barriers which hinder the organization from successfully
implementing the ISGLSAMS (Hariyani et al., 2022) so that a more SM system can be
designed to meet both the customers’ variety needs and business sustainability requirements
(Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b). The method used is a literature review through keywords
search of sustainable, green, lean, six sigma, AM, and barriers in the title. This paper also
contributes to a better understanding of the concept of the ISGLSAMS and its various
domain areas.
Through this paper stakeholders, government, manufacturing organizations,
academicians, researchers and many plan the various operational and organizational
strategies, tools and techniques, and a road map to overcome the barriers. An evaluation
checklist and business model may also be designed to get fruitful results.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides insight into the ISGLSAMS; Section
3 explains the research methodology; Section 4 addresses the barriers to the ISGLSAMS, and
Section 5 presents the conclusion and future research issues.

2. Paradigm definition of ISGLSAMS

With ecological awareness, customers consider the total value of the organization’s product,
processes, system and supply chain in terms of various metrics, viz, quality, service, social
value, lead time, cost and the ecological footprint during the life cycle as presented in Figure 1.
As seen from Figure 1, for maximizing the sustainability of the organization’s products,
processes, system and supply chain, cost, lead time and the ecological footprint during the life
cycle must be minimized, and quality, services, market responsiveness and social
sustainability practices must be maximized (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b, c). These are
also major areas of research to gain sustainable business performance. Thus manufacturing
strategy plays an important role from an economic, social and ecological viability point of
view (Roth and Miller, 1992). To ensure the sustainable growth of the organization, an
organization should not be restricted solely to an individual manufacturing strategy. There
must be a balance and integration of sustainable, lean, green, agile and six sigma concepts in
the organization. For maximizing the sustainability of the organization, an ISGLSAMS is
essential (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b).
The ISGLSAMS focuses on the product, process, system and supply chain that (1)
conserve natural resources and energy, (2) are economically sound, (3) meet the product
variety needs in an unpredictable market, (4) minimize the negative impact on the ecology, (5)
are safe for employees, consumers and society and (6) also uplift and well-being the society.
  Meeting customer requirements Barriers to the
 Fitness for use and applications
 Minimum design specifications adoption of
variance
 Minimum performance
ISGLSAMS
variance
 Reconfigurable value-added
features
 Elimination of non-value added  Customer support services
features  Product services
 Continuous improvement  Product support services  Resource consumption
 Durability  Flexibility to meet  Time to Market (Organization  Waste generation
 Reliability customer needs competency, flexibility,  Emissions
 Process integrity  Flexibility to meet market reconfiguration,  Liquidation of ecological
 Resale or recoverable value changes responsiveness, speed) resources

Value = Quality + Services + Social Values – Cost – Lead time – Environmental foot print during life cycle

 Organizational governance  Design and Engineering

 Human rights  Conversion
 Labor practices  Elimination of non-value
 The environment added features and waste cost
Figure 1.
 Fair operating practices  Distribution and Logistics Total value metric of
 Consumer issues  Administrative and Support the product along with
 Community involvement  Materials
and development concerned dimensions
for each metric
Note(s): Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b, c

The ISGLSAMS incorporates social, economic, ecological and market responsiveness

dimensions under a single umbrella with strategic, tactical and operational planning and a
road map (Elmoselhy, 2013; Goldsby et al., 2006; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009; Mittal et al.,
2017; Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou, 2015; Stump and Badurdeen, 2012) through the
simultaneous inclusion of sustainable, green, lean, six sigma, agile and socially sound
practices, tools, techniques and equipment.
For the ISGLSAMS, sustainable clean reconfigurable manufacturing resources are
purchased and workstations are sustainable-green-lean-six sigma robust designed for a
particular product. For product variety needs, the system is reconfigured at decoupling
points, and then again sustainable-green-lean-six sigma value stream mapping is done for the
reconfigured system (Calvo et al., 2008; Christopher and Towill, 2001; Garza-Reyes, 2015;
Mason-Jones et al., 2000a; Nadeem et al., 2017; Naylor et al., 1999; Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou,
2015; Rusinko, 2007). All the elements are strategically planned, and resources are designed
and developed for system long-term sustainability and agility requirements. In the
ISGLSAMS, (1) economical sustainability is achieved through lean and six sigma
(Alhuraish et al., 2017; Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Henao Arango et al., 2016), (2)
ecological sustainability is achieved through the use of 6 Rs for the product, process, system
and supply chain design for the life cycle (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016), (3) market sustainability
is achieved through reconfiguration (Mehrabi et al., 2000) and social sustainability is achieved
through incorporating organizational governance, human rights, labor practices,
environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, community involvement and
development (Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013).
Integrating all these strategies in an organization, with strategic planning of coupling and
decoupling points, leads to a firm’s social, environmental, market, ecological and financial
performance (Abdul-Rashid et al., 2017; Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Inman et al., 2011;
Petrini and Pozzebon, 2009).
Childerhouse and Towill (2000), Elmoselhy (2013), Inman et al. (2011), Mason-Jones et al.
(2000b), Mittal et al. (2017), Naylor et al. (1999), Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou (2015) and Putnik
and Putnik (2012) classify all these concepts as mutually supportive concepts, i.e. all these
concepts can coexist in one system. The organization has to use one piece, pull flow and the
BIJ visual control system. This strategy will lower the inventory in the system and will surface
out organization’s various hidden problems, viz, lack of planning of coupling and decoupling
points, lack of value mapping, poor supply chain design, poor database and information
management, poor vendor quality, absenteeism, machine problems, scheduling problems,
transportation problems, etc. Strategic decisions should be made by the organizations for the
amount of inventory to be stored to strike a balance between the cost of stocking and the cost
of lost sales (Elmoselhy, 2013, 2015). Planning of proper decoupling and coupling points must
be done, and lean implementation is considered a predecessor to agility.
It is observed through the literature that stakeholders’ values will get maximized through
the ISGLSAMS than individual practices alone (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022b). Figure 2 shows
the timeline path of innovation in manufacturing strategy.
Figures 3 and 4 show the process and product design characteristics of the ISGLSAMS.
“For ISGLSAMS process design, For ISGLSAMS process design, an organization must focus
on the design for (1) functionality, (2) environment, (3) society, (4) recycle/remanufacture, (5)
optimum resource utilization and economy, (6) six sigma/robustness, (7) reconfiguration and
(8) employee’s health with safety; with the total lifecycle and total value focus” (Hariyani and
Mishra, 2022a).
For ISGLSAMS product design, “an organization must focus on the design for (1)
functionality, (2) environment, (3) society, (4) recycle/remanufacture, (5) optimum resource
utilization and economy, (6) six sigma/robustness, (7) reconfiguration and (8) manufacturing,
packaging, assembly, storage and transportation; with the total lifecycle and total value
focus” (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022b).

3. Research methodology
To answer the research question, a systematic literature review of the sustainable, green,
lean, six sigma, and AM barriers is carried out. The selection of papers to be included in the
literature review is done as per Moher et al., (2009) involving (a) identification of the papers,

Figure 2.
Timeline path of
innovation in
manufacturing
strategy and
stakeholders’ value
 Barriers to the
2. Design for adoption of
environment
ISGLSAMS
Environmental effect
Life cycle factor
1. Design for Ecological balance and
functionality efficiency 3. Design for society
Service life/Durability Regional and Global
impact Operational safety
Functional effectiveness
Health and wellness
Ease of use
effect
Maintainability
Ethical responsibility
Upgradability
Social impact
Ergonomics
Reliability

4. Design for
8. Design for workers recycle/remanufacture
safety
Operational safety
Process Design in Disassembly
Recyclability
Health impact ISGLSAMS Disposability
Ethical responsibility Remanufacturability
Reusability

7. Design for 5. Design for resource

reconfiguration utilization and economy
Modularity Energy efficiency
Integrability Material utilization
Convertibility Use of renewable energy
Scalability Installation & training
Customization 6. Design for six sigma cost
Operational cost
Robust design
Failure mode and
effects analysis

Figure 3.
Process design for the
ISGLSAMS
Note(s): Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a

(b) screening, (c) eligibility and (d) inclusion steps. As for the identification step, the Web of
Science and Google scholar database was included. The database was queried between Apr.
15th, 2020 and Aug. 25th, 2021. The search criteria include (1) the terms “Lean” AND
“Manufacturing” and “Barriers,” “Agile” and “Manufacturing” and “Barriers,” “Green” and
“Manufacturing” and “Barriers,” “Six Sigma” and “Manufacturing” and “Barriers,”
“Sustainable” and “Manufacturing” and “Barriers,” “Lean” and “Manufacturing” and
“Practices,” “Agile” and “Manufacturing” and “Practices,” “Green” and “Manufacturing”
and “Practices,” “Six Sigma” and “Manufacturing” and “Practices” and “Sustainable” and
“Manufacturing” and “Practices,” in the title. This limitation was necessary since browsing in
the full text returned a very large number of results. The period of publications was not
specified during the search. In the screening process papers other than the English language
and full content access denied papers were excluded. In the eligibility step, the full contents of
articles were analyzed with the following exclusion and inclusion criteria: (1) Papers in which
the terms “Sustainability” and “Barriers,” “Green” and “Barriers,” “Lean” and “Barriers,”
“Agile” and “Barriers” and “Six Sigma” and “Barriers” were not used in the sense of the
research question were excluded. (2) Papers with individual barriers and relevance were
BIJ
2. Design for
environment
Environmental effect
1. Design for Life cycle factor
functionality Ecological balance and
efficiency 3. Design for society
Service life/Durability Regional and Global
Functional impact Operational safety
effectiveness Health and wellness
Ease of use effect
Maintainability Ethical responsibility
Upgradability Social impact
Ergonomics
Reliability

8. Design for
4. Design for
Manufacturing
recycle/remanufacture
Manufacturing
Methods Product Design in Disassembly
Recyclability
Packaging
Assembly
ISGLSAMS Disposability
Remanufacturability
Storage
Reusability
Transportation

5. Design for resource

7. Design for utilization and
reconfiguration economy
Modularity Energy efficiency
Integrability Material utilization
Convertibility Use of renewable energy
Scalability 6. Design for six Installation & training
Customization sigma cost
Operational cost
Robust design
Failure mode and
effects analysis

Figure 4.
Product design for the
ISGLSAMS
Note(s): Hariyani and Mishra, 2022b

included. As a result of applying these criteria in the end, 168 papers were included in the
literature review. Figure 5 shows the methodology to identify the barriers to the ISGLSAMS.

4. Barriers to ISGLSAMS
Even after awareness of SM, GM, LM, design for six sigma, AM and the methodology to
integrate these various strategies, many organizations fail to implement the ISGLSAMS due
to various barriers. This paper through literature review identifies various barriers and their
associated subclauses that hinder the organization to implement the ISGLSAMS and get the
desired outcomes. Table 1 shows the alphabetical list of the resources of the papers included
in the study. Figure 6 shows the year-wise distribution of the papers included in the study.
The following section describes the contribution of various authors to the various barriers.

4.1 Weak legislation

(1) Absence of environmental laws, (2) presence of complex and/or ineffective environmental
legislations (Asuka-Zhang, 1999; Mittal and Sangwan, 2014a), (3) absence of laws for resource
 Identification of Barriers to the
records through adoption of
database searching
(2380)
ISGLSAMS

Screening the Records Excluded

records (1973) (407)

Full text articles Records Excluded

accessed for eligibility (1558)
(415)

Articles included for

study (168)

Figure 5.
Identification of the barriers Four-step methodology
through papers which met research to identify the barriers
objective of the study to the ISGLSAMS

recovery through modular product design (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008), (4) lack of
compliance with environmental legislation (Muduli et al., 2013), (5) corruption and week
political support, (6) lack of clearly defined rules, lack of audit and monitoring (Ghose, 2003),
(7) lack of enforcement or lack of strict supervision, (8) changing regulations from changing
political environment (Abdullah et al., 2016; Muduli et al., 2013), (9) delay in decision-making
or lengthy legal procedures (Sharma et al., 2009) and (10) ineffective enforcement and an
inadequate monitoring mechanism (Mittal and Sangwan, 2014a) contribute to weak
legislation for the implementation of the ISGLSAMS.

4.2 Uncertain future legislation

Uncertain developments in legislation withhold the organization’s investments for future
regulations. (1) Uncertainty about environmental regulations, (2) immature developments in
legislation and (3) the possibility of development of new regulations in the future (Mittal and
Sangwan, 2014a) for resource use, resource recovery and modular manufacturing (Iacovidou
et al., 2017; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008) prevent the organizations from the adoption of the
ISGLSAMS. Lack of provision of incentives, viz., tax rebate, financial and technical assistance
and penalties for not opting for SM also affect the adoption of the ISGLSAMS.

4.3 Lack of government support

Lack of government support in terms of the absence of investment subsidies, grant, research
and development (R&D) support and funds for (1) sustainable projects (Raut et al., 2018), (2)
green projects (Bhanot et al., 2016), (3) green-lean projects (Singh et al., 2020) and (4) agile
projects (Potdar et al., 2017) prevent the organizations from the adoption of the ISGLSAMS.
BIJ Journals Authors

Academy of Management Journal Russo and Harrison (2005)

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis Oh and Sharpe (1995)
and Manufacturing
Benchmarking: An International Journal Bhardwaj (2016), Gaikwad et al. (2020), Nunes and
Bennett (2010), Potdar et al. (2017), Raut et al. (2018)
and Virmani et al. (2021)
Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Veiga et al. (2011)
Management
Business Strategy and the Environment Brammer et al. (2012), Gonz
alez and del (2005),
Guignard (2018), Hussain (1999) and Millar and
Russell (2011)
California Management Review Florida (1996)
Computers and Mathematics with Applications Chen et al. (2012)
Computers and Industrial Engineering Ali et al. (2020)
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sarkis et al. (2010)
Management
Environment, Development and Sustainability Sharma et al. (2009)
Environmental Impact Assessment Review Asuka-Zhang (1999)
Environmental Management Bowonder (1986)
European Journal of Operational Research Akkermans et al. (2004)
Government Information Quarterly Weerakkody et al. (2011)
Industrial Engineering Kezsbom (1992)
Industrial Engineering and Management Zanjani et al. (2017)
Industrial Management and Data Systems Quazi (1999)
Information and Software Technology Hoda et al. (2011)
International Journal Logistics Systems and Mudgal et al. (2010)
Management
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management Hasan et al. (2007)
International Journal of Computer Integrated Hicks and Matthews (2010)
Manufacturing
International Journal of Engineering Singh et al. (2012)
International Journal of Environmental Science and Hsu and Hu (2008)
Technology
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Rehman and Shrivastava (2011)
Management
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Yang and Yu (2010)
Technology
International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering Kumar (2014)
and Technology (IJLTET)
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma Chaple et al. (2021), Cudney and Elrod (2011), D. and
Vinodh (2020), Machado (2014) and Yadav et al.
(2018)
International Journal of Lean Thinking Halling and Wijk (2013)
International Journal of Manpower Zwick (2002)
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Lee and Whang (2000)
Management
International Journal of Operations and Production Min and Galle (2001), Muscatello et al. (2003) and
Management Sohal et al. (2001)
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Carter and Rogers (2008) and Christopher and
Logistics Management Towill (2001)
Table 1. International Journal of Production Economics Govindan et al. (2014), Stratton and Warburton
Resources of the (2003) and Yusuf et al. (1999)
papers included in
the study (continued )
Journals Authors
Barriers to the
adoption of
International Journal of Production Research Henderson et al. (2004), Jabbour et al. (2016), Kaur ISGLSAMS
et al. (2018), Marodin and Saurin (2015) and Mittal
and Sangwan (2014a)
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Closs and Savitskie (2003) and Kalpande and Toke
Management (2020)
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Pandey et al. (2018)
Management
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Aboelmaged (2011), Antony et al. (2007), Lam et al.
Management (2007) and Yadav and Desai (2017)
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering Parmar and Desai (2021) and Rahimifard et al. (2009)
International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering Mittal et al. (2016)
and Management
Journal of Advances in Management Research Pathak et al. (2020)
Journal of Applied Psychology Simons and Peterson (2000)
Journal of Business Ethics Chen et al. (2006)
Journal of Business Logistics Lambert et al. (2005)
Journal of Business Research Wiedmann et al. (2011)
Journal of Cleaner Production Bhanot et al. (2016), Caldera et al. (2019), Cherrafi
et al. (2016), Deif (2011), Fang et al. (2020), Gandhi
et al. (2018), Ghose (2003), Gohoungodji et al. (2020),
Govindan et al. (2016), Karuppiah et al. (2020), Luken
and Rompaey (2008), Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013),
Moktadir et al. (2018), Muduli et al. (2013), Ngu et al.
(2020), Shankar et al. (2017), Xia et al. (2015) and Zhu
and Geng (2013)
Journal of Enterprise Information Management Kadambi (2000), Marri et al. (2007) and Nazam et al.
(2020)
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Luthra et al. (2011)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Mehrabi et al. (2000)
Journal of International Business Studies Murray et al. (2005)
Journal of Management Wall and Callister (1995)
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Barve and Muduli (2013), Singh et al. (2020), Yadav
et al. (2019) and Zhang et al. (2017)
Journal of Modelling in Management Jaiswal et al. (2021)
Journal of Public Procurement Vejaratnam et al. (2020)
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management Giunipero et al. (2012)
Journal of Strategic Information Systems Petrini and Pozzebon (2009)
Learning Organization Flumerfelt et al. (2012)
Management Decision Lee and Rhee (2007) and Worley and Doolen (2006)
Management of Environmental Quality: An Soni et al. (2020)
International Journal
Management: An International Journal Appelbaum et al. (1998)
Production and Inventory Management Journal Kwan (1999)
Production Planning and Control Antony et al. (2020), Cherrafi et al. (2017), Kumar
et al. (2016a, b), Mangla et al. (2018), Schulze and
Dallasega (2021) and Udokporo et al. (2020)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Luthra et al. (2015)
Resources, Conservation and Recycling Bai and Satir (2020), Gupta et al. (2020)
Review of Managerial Science Abdullah et al. (2016)
Supply Chain Management Kwon and Suh (2005)
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Cox (1999)
Sustainable Development Baumgartner and Ebner (2010)

(continued ) Table 1.
BIJ Journals Authors

Systems Engineering in Context Ivansen et al. (2019)

Technological Forecasting and Social Change Ravi and Shankar (2005)
Technovation Crute et al. (2003)
TQM Journal Kumar et al. (2021)
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence Antomarioni et al. (2020)
Uncertain Supply Chain Management Dhull and Narwal (2016)
Work Study Antony (2002)
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Seidel et al. (2008)
Technology
Conferences
10th International Research/Expert Conference Jawahir et al. (2006)
“Trends in the Development of Machinery and
Associated Technology
11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing Kulatunga et al. (2013)
13th IEEE International Conference on Commerce and Jung (2011)
Enterprise Computing, CEC 2011
19th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering Mittal et al. (2012)
2009 International Association of Computer Science Wong et al. (2009a)
and Information Technology - Spring Conference,
IACSIT-SC 2009
2010 International Conference on Industrial Nambiar (2010)
Engineering and Operations Management
Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Amrina and Sha’ri (2012)
Systems Conference 2012
CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology Bey et al. (2013)
Engineering Postgraduate Conference (EPC) Nordin et al. (2008)
Greening of Industry Network Conference Best Practice Fiksel et al. (1999)
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Nordin et al. (2014)
Engineering and Engineering Management, 2014
Materials Today Lamba and Thareja (2020), Mundra and Mishra
(2020), Rathi et al. (2021) and Ruben et al. (2020)
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences Mani et al. (2015)
Procedia CIRP Alefari et al. (2017), Bhanot et al. (2015), Fargani et al.
(2016), Ghazilla et al. (2015), Lodgaard et al. (2016),
Mittal and Sangwan (2014a, b), Ritz
en and
Sandstr€om (2017) and Salonitis and Tsinopoulos
(2016)
Procedia Engineering Wyrwicka and Mrugalska (2017)
Magazine article
Management Science Letters Basu et al. (2018)
Sloan Management Review Thamhain and Wilemon (1975)
Vendors as Industrial Energy Service Providers Elliott (2002)
Book section
Finding the percentage effectiveness of agile Haider and Khan (2020)
manufacturing barriers: an AHP approach
Lean supply chain management: a systematic literature Berger et al. (2018)
review of practices, barriers and contextual factors
inherent to its implementation
Book
Methodology for Large-scale Systems Sage (1977)
Production Systems, and Computer-Integrated Groover (2002)
Manufacturing

Table 1. (continued )
Journals Authors
Barriers to the
adoption of
Staying Lean: Thriving, Not Just Surviving Hines et al. (2008) ISGLSAMS
The Global Manufacturing Revolution: Product-Process- Koren (2010)
Business Integration and Reconfigurable Systems
The ManuFuture road: Towards Competitive Jovane et al. (2009)
and Sustainable High-Adding-Value Manufacturing
Symposium
2011 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Koho et al. (2011)
Manufacturing (ISAM) Table 1.

Figure 6.
Year-wise distribution
of the papers included
in the study

The high initial cost of investment and long payback period (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013)
cause organizations to seek government support for the fund for the ISGLSAMS.

4.4 Low public and peer pressure due to lack of awareness

Lack of awareness about (1) green products (Russo and Harrison, 2005), green processes and
GM practices (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (2) green innovation, green supply chain management
(GSCM), reverse logistics, recycling and reuse efforts (Abdullah et al., 2016), (3) green
opportunities (Barve and Muduli, 2013), (4) SM practices (Kulatunga et al., 2013), (5)
reconfigurable technology and products (Yusuf et al., 1999) and (6) sustainability (Cherrafi
et al., 2016) and environmental and ecological impact of product’s consumption (Russo and
Harrison, 2005) among the politicians, citizens and bureaucrats (Bowonder, 1986) cause the
barriers to frame these concepts within policymaking level (Kulatunga et al., 2013).
Also, inadequate pressure from societies, NGOs and environmental advocacy groups
(Barve and Muduli, 2013) and a society with low green attitudes (Ghazilla et al., 2015) affect
the choices for green and sustainable manufacturing.

4.5 The misconception of the high cost

The misconception of high investment such as (1) high investment for the green product, green
design, GM technologies, green practices, GSCM and green labeling (Luthra et al., 2011),
BIJ (2) hazardous waste disposal (Abdullah et al., 2016; Govindan et al., 2014), (3) green purchasing,
environmental programs and the environmental quality framework (Min and Galle, 2001), (4)
green certification and penalties (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (5) environmental compliance costs
(Luthra et al., 2011), (6) cost to change the existing investments and information system
(Guignard, 2018), (7) cost of training (Nordin et al., 2014), (8) start-up cost for six sigma projects
and cost of poor quality (Antony, 2002) (9) cost of sustainability measures and technologies and
cost of auditors and consultants (Millar and Russell, 2011), (10) cost of monitoring and dishonest
officials (Mittal and Sangwan, 2014a), (11) cost of remanufacturing and disassembly (Jawahir
et al., 2006), (12) high sunk costs (Carter and Rogers, 2008) and (13) high technology risk costs
(Ivansen et al., 2019) lead to a barrier to the adoption of the ISGLSAMS.

4.6 Uncertain financial benefits

(1) Uncertain, low or no return on investment from GM (Ghazilla et al., 2015) and GSCM (Dhull
and Narwal, 2016), (2) the uncertainty of time delay in remanufacturing and returns
(Bhardwaj, 2016), (3) uncertainty or risk of selling of remanufactured product (Jawahir et al.,
2006) and (4) technology risk of modular manufacturing and design (Ivansen et al., 2019)
create barriers to the adoption of the ISGLSAMS.

4.7 Low customer awareness and demand for sustainable and agile products
(1) Lack of awareness about (a) SM practices (Shankar et al., 2017), (b) energy saving, and
emission reduction (Zhu and Geng, 2013), (c) environmental issues (Fargani et al., 2016), (d)
green products, processes and GM practices (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (e) GSCM (Abdullah et al.,
2016), (2) lack of customer demand about sustainable development and SM (Koho et al., 2011),
(3) lack of customers’ responsiveness to green products (Abdullah et al., 2016), (4) lack of
customer involvement or inadequate customer collaboration for (a) sustainable product
design and innovation and (b) low planet concern (Hoda et al., 2011) and (5) low customer
demand for reconfigurable products due to decreased rigidity (Fredriksson and Gadde, 2005)
lead to the barrier for the adoption of the ISGLSAMS.

4.8 Complexity in the design of the ISGLSA product

The (1) complexity of implementing green practices in product design and development
(Jovane et al., 2009), (2) difficulty in inclusion of recyclable and non-harmful materials in
design (Luthra et al., 2011), (3) difficulty in disassembling, assembling, handling of the part at
the end of life (Govindan et al., 2016), (4) complexity of design to reuse/recycle products
(Ghazilla et al., 2015), (5) lack of design for end-of-life recovery (Rahimifard et al., 2009), (6) the
inability of technology and knowledge to design the reuse and recycle of used products
(Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), (7) lack of supplier collaboration in ecodesign, lack of
technological innovations to reuse/recycle products (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), (8) the trade-
off between recyclable and non-harmful materials and energy-efficient manufacturing
operations (Millar and Russell, 2011), (9) the trade-off between economic and environmental
concerns during the product design stage (Nambiar, 2010) and (10) difficulty in designing the
reconfigurable product (Koren, 2010; Mehrabi et al., 2000) lead to abandonment of ISGLSA
product design.

4.9 Complexity in the design of the ISGLSAMS process

Complexity due to (1) incorporating (a) green practices in process design (Abdullah et al.,
2016) and (b) reduced energy and resource requirement and consumption (Jabbour et al.,
2016), (2) lack of supplier collaboration in ecodesign and technological innovations of the
process (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), (3) the end of life product management (Luthra et al.,
2011), (4) finding lower-impact manufacturing process alternatives (Bey et al., 2013), (5) agile
process design (Hasan et al., 2007; Koren, 2010; Mehrabi et al., 2000), (6) absence of alternative Barriers to the
sustainable process technology (Jovane et al., 2009; Luken and Rompaey, 2008), (7) the trade- adoption of
off between economic and environmental concerns of process design (Nambiar, 2010), (8)
process parameter design for six sigma (Closs and Savitskie, 2003) and (9) designing
ISGLSAMS
corporate social contributing processes (Mani et al., 2015; Millon, 2015) lead to an
abandonment of ISGLSA process design.

4.10 Complexity in the design of the ISGLSAMS system

Complexity in (1) green innovation and R&D capabilities, (2) the environmental management
systems (EMS) for proactively controlling (a) pollution and (b) environmental performance of
organization (Luthra et al., 2011), (3) energy management systems, (4) system to improve
ecoefficiency, (5) optimizing the performance of such a system (Nambiar, 2010), (6) the cost
control method for process items, (7) development of methods to minimize consumable
materials and material waste, (8) practices for proactive management of addressing issues in
turbulence environment, (9) adoption of techniques to improve speed, error and waste in
operation, supply chain and end of life, corporate social responsibility, etc., (10) green system
innovation for ideas that strengthen green environmental performance and competitiveness
of a company (Abdullah et al., 2016), (11) system due to misunderstanding of process and
subprocesses and poor system design (Aboelmaged, 2011), (12) green products, processes and
systems’ managerial innovations (Chen et al., 2006), (13) lack of flexibility of the system to
switch over to GM systems (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (14) identification of areas to be improved,
(15) the unreliable data collection system and inappropriate communication system (Kumar
et al., 2016a), (16) lack of proper channel, recycling system, lack of remanufacturers, lack of
measure and measurement system to measure the impact of missed sustainable business
opportunities (Govindan et al., 2016), (17) lack of flexible manufacturing systems, lack of
customer, supplier, employee and stakeholder feedback systems and its integration,
enterprise resource planning systems with the sustainability module (Hasan et al., 2007), (18)
relationships among elements of a system (Sage, 1977), (19) environmental parameters within
the supply chain management systems (Jung, 2011), (20) the system due to lack of managerial
skill or fear of failure (Kaur et al., 2018), (21) poor design–manufacturing interface (Hasan
et al., 2007), (22) product service system (Nunes and Bennett, 2010), (23) information system
and (24) habits and ways of working (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013) lead to the barriers to the
adoption of the ISGLSAMS.

4.11 Management complexity

(1) Complexity of (a) integration of various strategies, (b) lack of system exposure
professionals (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), (2) complexity due to layoff or engaging and
developing employees (Alefari et al., 2017), (3) complexity due to other barriers, (4) complexity
of the process and system (Marodin and Saurin, 2015), (5) complexity in management of the
supply chain in an integrated manner (Akkermans et al., 2004) due to involvement of various
companies, independent business units and customers (Lambert et al., 2005), (6) complexity
due to plant size (Berger et al., 2018), (7) complexity of purchasing, (8) complexity due to
different market segments and personalized need, (9) complexity due to lack of updated data
and unpredictable market demand (Giunipero et al., 2012), (10) complexity due to relationship
between customers and suppliers (Nordin et al., 2008), (11) complexity due to design to reuse/
recycle reduced consumption of resource/energy requirement, (12) complexity due to product
portfolio, (13) complexity due to relationship between the external and internal factors and
operational practices, (14) complexity of measuring/monitoring environmental practices of
suppliers, (15) complexity due to complex distribution networks (Kaur et al., 2018), (16)
complexity due to system investigation (Zhang et al., 2017) and optimization of the system
BIJ performance (Nambiar, 2010), etc. create difficulties in management, integration and adoption
of the ISGLSAMS.

4.12 Low top management commitment due to low awareness or negative attitude about the
ISGLSAMS
Poor commitment of senior level management in the transformation and other improvement
strategies (Hicks and Matthews, 2010) due to (1) poor knowledge (Kumar et al., 2016a) about
green products, green processes and GM practices and long-term benefits (Ghazilla et al.,
2015), (2) lack of environmental training and awareness programs (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (3)
lack of SM, concept and sustainability issues (Cherrafi et al., 2016), (4) lack of awareness about
framing these concepts within policymaking level (Kulatunga et al., 2013), (5) lack of
awareness regarding cost savings from (a) GSCM (Lee and Rhee, 2007), (b) reverse logistics,
recycling and reuse efforts and corporate social responsibility (Abdullah et al., 2016) and (c)
waste reduction and elimination of pollution, energy efficiency, prevention and mitigation of
accidents, (6) failure to identify the areas where these advanced technologies could be utilized
(Barve and Muduli, 2013), (7) lack of relevant information on market and new green
technologies (Abdullah et al., 2016), (8) lack of awareness about reconfigurable agile
technology (Yusuf et al., 1999), (9) lack of interest due to high technology risk (Ivansen et al.,
2019), (10) perception of huge amount of documentation work, (11) possibilities of social
outcry or even legal action upon disclosure of any serious noncompliance during the
environmental audit process (Quazi, 1999), etc. hamper management commitment for new
practices (Alefari et al., 2017; Barve and Muduli, 2013).
This causes management reluctance to allocate adequate financial, technological and
human resources (Cherrafi et al., 2017) for the implementation of sustainable green AM
practices (Amrina and Sha’ri, 2012; Hasan et al., 2007; Kaur et al., 2018; Lee and Rhee, 2007)
and to sustain the new program or concept (Wong et al., 2009a).

4.13 Lack of leadership

(1) Poor or limited leadership of all level employees (Lodgaard et al., 2016; Veiga et al., 2011), (2)
owner–manager leadership issues (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (3) lack of leadership behavior
(Machado, 2014), (4) lack of a strategic direction and vision (Basu et al., 2018), (5) lack of focus
of occupational health, hazards and safety (Muduli et al., 2013), (6) lack of leadership to run
and design a new technological system (Adeleye and Yusuf, 2006; Yusuf et al., 2003), etc.
cause poor sustainability of change (Hines et al., 2008). Lack of visionary leadership causes
divisions in the project team, missing deadlines (Muscatello et al., 2003) and also affects the
problem-solving approach, employee and supplier involvement, and commitment.
Firm, inspiring, relentless, resilient, demanding, forgiving, focused and flexible leadership
ensures a smooth change (Yang and Yu, 2010). Strong leadership ensures effective skill
development and knowledge enhancement among the employees (Gandhi et al., 2018).
Leadership also drives the direction through changes (Hicks and Matthews, 2010) and affects
employees’ motivation for work.
Leadership creates the vision to align people and business with strategy (Halling and
Wijk, 2013) and takes a coaching approach for participating much more in daily work
(Epstein and Roy, 2003). Leadership affects organizational culture (Appelbaum et al., 1998),
organization development and HRM practices (Machado, 2014). In the ISGLSAMS, the leader
should also have green leadership with vision, support and commitment to International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 certification and kaizen practices (Chen et al.,
2012) for the sustainability of the ISGLSAMS. Strong leadership for streamlining ISGLSAMS
companywide will lead to the successful implementation of the ISGLSAMS.
4.14 Lack of expertise of higher executives to plan and manage the ISGLSAMS with Barriers to the
coupling and decoupling strategy adoption of
Lack of (1) technical expertise and knowledge (Cherrafi et al., 2017) to integrate (a) core
competencies, organization learning and knowledge, (b) green technology, green operations
ISGLSAMS
and green innovation (Abdullah et al., 2016), (c) GM practices (Ghazilla et al., 2015) and (d)
reverse logistics (Kaur et al., 2018), (2) expertise in specific industries (Elliott, 2002), (3) expertise
to deal with environmental issues (Rehman and Shrivastava, 2011), (4) expertise to manage
global supply chains (Christopher and Towill, 2001), (5) expertise in coupling and decoupling of
technology and resources (Ivansen et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2005), (6) experts/human resources
(Muduli et al., 2013) etc. – all these lead to the failure of the implementation of the ISGLSAMS.

4.15 Lack of ISGLSAMS technical resources and infrastructure

Lack of (1) availability of technical resources for GM (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (2) flexible
resources for AM (Potdar et al., 2017), (3) human resources (Mittal and Sangwan, 2014b) and
(4) organization infrastructure for green practices (Asuka-Zhang, 1999) and reverse logistics
and social sustainability (Sarkis et al., 2010), lead to a lack of interest of management or
organization for the ISGLSAMS.

4.16 Financial constraints or lack of fund

(1) Lack of (a) financial resources (Brammer et al., 2012), (b) external funds (Abdullah et al.,
2016) for green projects (Bhanot et al., 2015), (2) uneven distribution and unplanned budgets
for environmental projects (Bhanot et al., 2015), (3) limited investment due to longer return on
investment period on green projects (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), (4) lack of funds for research
in new and remanufacturing technologies (Xia et al., 2015) and (5) lack of financial incentives
and policies from the government (e.g. tax, rebate and soft loan) for implementing Green
Manufacturing Practice (GMP) (Ghazilla et al., 2015), all these cause lack of interest of
management in the ISGLSAMS.
The fund is also needed to support (a) the infrastructure, informational and manpower
requirements of GSCM activities (Mudgal et al., 2010), (b) environmental management
practices (Barve and Muduli, 2013) and (c) green-lean-six sigma-agile product R&D (Kumar
et al., 2016a; Mehrabi et al., 2000). The availability of the fund encourages the adoption of the
ISGLSAMS in products, processes, the supply chain and system design.

4.17 Lack of awareness, training, education and the reward system of employees
Lack of (1) awareness, knowledge and education of employees (Dhull and Narwal, 2016) about
(a) sustainable (Millar and Russell, 2011), (b) lean (Marodin and Saurin, 2015), (c) six sigma
(Aboelmaged, 2011), (d) environmental savvy (Cherrafi et al., 2017) and (e) green product and
services (Dhull and Narwal, 2016), (2) awareness about advanced manufacturing practices,
occupational health and safety hazards and protocols, (3) awareness about cost savings due
to GSCM (Muduli et al., 2013), (4) awareness about environmental impact of unsustainable
practices (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (5) awareness about reverse logistics and sustainability
benefits (Kaur et al., 2018; Kulatunga et al., 2013), (6) awareness of international trends in
legislation and markets with regard to the environmental aspects (Schaper, 2002), (7)
awareness about energy-saving and emission reduction (ESER) program for sustainable
production and consumption (Zhu and Geng, 2013), (8) no or insufficient continuous training,
education and reward system (Hasan et al., 2007), (9) training by professionals (Schein, 2004),
(10) specific domain training for white-collar managers and blue-collar workers for expertise
and execution (Machado, 2014), (11) rewards (Hsu and Hu, 2008) or recognition (Wyrwicka
and Mrugalska, 2017) for green employees, (12) compatibility of manufacturing strategy with
BIJ the company bonus or incentives systems (Machado, 2014), (13) rewards and penalty from the
government (Kulatunga et al., 2013), etc. do not motivate the employees and organization for
ISGLSAM practices. The presence of a reward system, training and awareness program
motivates the employees to learn and opt for ecological concepts (Hsu and Hu, 2008) and
enhances the commitment to the ISGLSAMS.

4.18 Technological risk

Many times tools and procedures associated with a new manufacturing strategy are not
compatible with the existing management and manufacturing system (Singh et al., 2012) and
processes (Fiksel et al., 1999). Uncertainties related to the drastic changes (Ivansen et al., 2019)
caused by the adoption of a new manufacturing strategy (Gonz
alez and del, 2005; Mittal et al., 2012)
cause the threat or technological risk of compatibility of the ISGLSAMS with the existing system.

4.19 Lack of updated information, communication and data

(1) Lack of availability of updated and real-time information (Petrini and Pozzebon, 2009) on
market and technology (Abdullah et al., 2016), (2) lack of information and communication
technology (ICT) infrastructure for integration (Berger et al., 2018), (3) lack of information of
environmental impact of the product and process value chain (Bey et al., 2013), (4) lack of
customer feedback systems integration (Hasan et al., 2007), (5) lack of information sharing/
communication with suppliers (Machado, 2014), (6) lack of communication among value chain
partners (Zhang et al., 2017), (7) an inappropriate communication system and IT enablement
(Kumar et al., 2016a), (8) insufficient data and information (Dhull and Narwal, 2016), etc. lead to a
lack of availability of updated product life data, supply chain data, market trend data and best
practice benchmarking data for successful adoption and implementation of the ISGLSAMS.

4.20 Resistance to change

There are always acts of opposing changes for any new system as employees and management
assume that it alters the status quo. Various resistances viz, (1) resistance to change or adopt (a)
green practices (Ravi and Shankar, 2005), (b) modern technology (Abdullah et al., 2016; Luthra
et al., 2011) and (c) innovation, business process transformation and improvement programs
(Weerakkody et al., 2011), (2) resistance to learn multiskills (Ghobakhloo and Azar, 2018)
occurring due to the (a) lack of clarity, knowledge, (b) fear of losing jobs or reduction of jobs, (c)
insufficient communication, (d) poor corporate norms, (e) poor culture or poor human resource
practices, (f) unshared changes, (g) absence of an explicit system and process, (h) lack of support
and commitment from top management (Zwick, 2002) and (i) the uncertainty of the changes
(Mittal et al., 2016; Oleghe and Salonitis, 2016; Wyrwicka and Mrugalska, 2017) – all these
resistances cause a barrier to the adoption of the ISGLSAMS. Suppliers’ resistance or lack of
suppliers’ cooperation (Machado, 2014) for streamlining their operations as per the
requirements of the organization also creates problems for the organization. Organizations
must develop a good and healthier organizational culture along with a shared mission and
vision for the successful implementation of the ISGLSAMS.

4.21 Difficulty in the evaluation of system performance throughout the life cycle
Various difficulties viz. (1) difficulty in quantifying the benefits upfront (Alefari et al., 2017), (2)
difficulty in finding information on environmental impact (Bey et al., 2013), (3) absence of
practical guidelines, the performance evaluation matrix and parameters to assess sustainable
performance and identify underperforming domains (Bhanot et al., 2016), (4) difficulty in
estimating quality, flexibility, competitive advantage and customer satisfaction (Henderson
et al., 2004), (5) difficulty in measuring agility performance (Prince and Kay, 2003), (6)
difficulty in measuring and monitoring suppliers’ environmental practices and performance
(Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), (7) difficulty in tracing the carbon footprint (Raut et al., 2018) and
(8) difficulty in collection of the product, process and system data (Rahimifard et al., 2009) and Barriers to the
system performance measurement (Wyrwicka and Mrugalska, 2017) throughout the life adoption of
cycle, etc. create a major barrier for adoption of the ISGLSAMS.
ISGLSAMS
4.22 Lack of cooperation and mutual trust among management, employees and supply
chain partners
Due to a lack of cooperation, mutual trust, mistrust among management, employees, workers
(Machado, 2014; Marodin and Saurin, 2015), supply chain (Berger et al., 2018), and corporate
partners for new practices (Kumar et al., 2016b) and innovation (Abdullah et al., 2016), the
ISGLSAMS is difficult to implement.

4.23 Low employees’ commitment

Low employees’ commitment to (1) manufacturing practices (Marodin and Saurin, 2015) and
(2) the change (Salonitis and Tsinopoulos, 2016) and (3) to performing or executing cross-
functional jobs (Ghobakhloo and Azar, 2018) due to (a) poor understanding, poor knowledge,
(b) change inertia, (c) fear of job cutting and (d) changes were not shared and discussed
(Alefari et al., 2017), cause poor employees’ attitude towards the ISGLSAMS.

4.24 Lack of employees’ involvement, empowerment and cultural difference

Lack of (1) early or inadequate (Mittal et al., 2016) involvement of employees (Kumar, 2014) in
(a) improvement projects or programs (Lodgaard et al., 2016; Marodin and Saurin, 2015), (b)
cross job design projects (Ghobakhloo and Azar, 2018), (c) continuous improvement culture-
building due to geographical, educational, skill, cultural, societal and historic barriers (Muduli
et al., 2013) or mismatches in strategic thinking and organizational culture (Machado, 2014),
(2) empowerment to make decisions and solve problems or issues related to their task
(Machado, 2014) or GM practices (Ghazilla et al., 2015), etc. – all these affect employees’
motivation, enthusiasm and satisfaction for the new practices (Zhang et al., 2017). Cultural
and language issues also affect employees’ motivation and involvement in improvement
projects (Cudney and Elrod, 2011; Halling and Wijk, 2013). Care must be taken for the early
involvement of the employees with a shared road map for the successful implementation and
continuous improvement of the ISGLSAMS.

4.25 Undeveloped organizational culture

(1) Lack of development of right or supportive organizational culture (Zhang et al., 2017), (2) lack
of a culture of respect, fair rules, behavior, fair wealth/profit allocation, consideration of
stakeholders’ needs and ethical behavior toward sustainability (Baumgartner and Ebner, 2010)
with shared beliefs (Aboelmaged, 2011), (3) changes in organizational culture from
management side (Berger et al., 2018), (4) lack of a culture of change (Wyrwicka and
Mrugalska, 2017), (5) lack of kaizen culture and presence of poor corporate culture (Luthra et al.,
2011) separating environmental and continuous improvement decisions (Cherrafi et al., 2017),
(6) lack of sociocultural responsibility for GSCM and undeveloped organizational
environmental culture (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (7) lack of job rotation culture (Aravindraj et al.,
2013) and (8) organizational politics (Seidel et al., 2008) – all these close the door of innovation
and implementation of new practices in the organization. Autonomous and participative work
culture is healthier for the implementation of any manufacturing strategy (Crute et al., 2003).

4.26 Organizational structure

Inappropriate or weak organizational structure for GM practices (Mittal et al., 2016) and green
supply chain management (Dhull and Narwal, 2016) cause (a) communication problems at
BIJ various levels of hierarchy (Mittal et al., 2016), (b) leadership issues and delay in decisions
(Potdar et al., 2017), (c) lack of environmental training and awareness, (d) lack of capability to
innovate, (e) lack of relationship with external stakeholders (Ghazilla et al., 2015) and (f) lack of
sustainable process improvement (Caldera et al., 2019). A sound organizational structure for a
smooth flow of information and quick decision-making is essential for the successful
implementation of the ISGLSAMS.

4.27 Lack of teamwork

(1) Lack of a culture of multifunctional cross-trained teamwork (Flumerfelt et al., 2012), (2)
poor selection of team members (Halling and Wijk, 2013), (3) lack of dedication of employees
and the management team (Lodgaard et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017), (4) lack of coordination in
various teams and the research team (Pandey et al., 2018), (5) lack of motivation for
improvement and empowerment (Marri et al., 2007) for manufacturing and supply chain
management (Kumar et al., 2016b), etc. reduce the continuous improvement process and
creative and innovative organizational learning (Flumerfelt et al., 2012). All these lead to the
failure of the implementation of the ISGLSAMS.

4.28 Cross-functional/interdepartmental conflict

Conflicts due to (1) lack of communication (Worley and Doolen, 2006), (2) a communication
gap, (3) lack of interdepartmental relationship (Machado, 2014), (4) lack of cooperation
(Cherrafi et al., 2017) and inadequate coordination between different the shop floor
departments (Mittal and Sangwan, 2014b), (5) a management gap (Dhull and Narwal, 2016) (6)
difference in technical belief (Oh and Sharpe, 1995), (7) lack of mutual understanding and
relationship conflicts (Oh and Sharpe, 1995; Simons and Peterson, 2000), (8) difference in
education, language, organizational and cultural backgrounds (Oh and Sharpe, 1995), (9)
differences in viewpoints (Simons and Peterson, 2000; Wall and Callister, 1995), (10) incorrect
or incomplete exchange of information (Kezsbom, 1992), (11) unclear product specifications,
design objectives or difference in practices (Lam et al., 2007), (12) disagreement on the
managerial and administrative procedure (Thamhain and Wilemon, 1975), (13) ambiguous
roles (Kezsbom, 1992), (14) mistrust (Wall and Callister, 1995), (15) difference in goal (Oh and
Sharpe, 1995), (16) scheduling, i.e. due to timing, sequencing and duration of the work
(Thamhain and Wilemon, 1975), (17) resource allocation (Kezsbom, 1992), (18) cost of the
project or budget allocation (Thamhain and Wilemon, 1975), (19) unresolved prior conflict
(Kezsbom, 1992), (20) poor team management and lack of cross-functional team (Kumar et al.,
2016a), (21) frequent changes in design, (22) lack of cooperation from suppliers, (23) disparate
manufacturing environments and other initiatives (Zhang et al., 2017), (24) conflicts among
firm’s manufacturing, sales, marketing and/or distribution functions and departments (Oh
and Sharpe, 1995), (25) conflict between low cost and quick response manufacturing (Stratton
and Warburton, 2003), (26) conflict between profitability and environmental performance
(Hussain, 1999), etc. cause failure of organization-wide implementation of the ISGLSAMS. All
these conflicts must be eliminated and the organization-wide ISGLSAMS plan must be
streamlined by developing a win-win strategy and interpersonal skills in the organization.
Constructive conflicts may result in improvements (Machado, 2014).

4.29 Poor partnership

Poor partnership due to (1) lack of trust and commitment, (2) lack of standardization in
practices, policy and technology in manufacturing and the supply chain (Berger et al., 2018;
Cox, 1999; Kwon and Suh, 2005; Lee and Whang, 2000), (3) financial and resource factors, (4)
incompatibility (Kwan, 1999; Sohal et al., 2001), (5) economic, geographic and physical factors,
such as infrastructure (Kadambi, 2000), (6) lack of partnership with customers (Groover, Barriers to the
2002), (7) lack of collaboration and cooperation (Wyrwicka and Mrugalska, 2017) in adoption of
manufacturing and the supply chain (Cudney and Elrod, 2011; Yusuf et al., 1999), (8) poor
partnership among the supply chain (Hasan et al., 2007) and R&D groups for product and
ISGLSAMS
process design optimization and quality (Hasan et al., 2007), (9) unwillingness to exchange
information (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), etc. lead to the failure of the ISGLSAMS. A strategic
partnership among the value chain suppliers provides a solid base for the ISGLSAMS.

4.30 Lack of continuous improvement culture

Lack of continuous improvement of organizational learning (Yang and Yu, 2010) for the
product, process and system design for lean green (Cherrafi et al., 2017; Deif, 2011), six sigma
(Florida, 1996; Kumar et al., 2016a), sustainability (Kumaravel and Chakraborty, 2018) and
agility (Wang et al., 2012) cause the failure of innovations for best practices and benchmarks.
Organizations must focus on continuous improvement of each and everything and
benchmark the best practices of the ISGLSAMS for the long-term benefits of the ISGLSAMS.

4.31 Lack of supplier integration, supplier awareness, and supplier commitment

(1) Lack of awareness, understanding, knowledge, education in suppliers (Dhull and Narwal,
2016) about (a) sustainability (Kulatunga et al., 2013; Millar and Russell, 2011), (b) six sigma
(Aboelmaged, 2011), (c) lean (Marodin and Saurin, 2015), (d) environment (Cherrafi et al., 2017)
and environmental impact (Ghazilla et al., 2015), (e) green product and services (Dhull and
Narwal, 2016), (f) advanced technology and agile supply (Christopher and Towill, 2000), (g)
occupational health and safety hazards, (h) cost savings due to GSCM (Muduli et al., 2013) and
reverse logistics (Kaur et al., 2018) and (i) international trends in legislation and markets about
the environmental aspects (Schaper, 2002); (2) poor supplier attitude, commitment or
cooperation (Bey et al., 2013; Wyrwicka and Mrugalska, 2017) or reluctance to change due to
(a) lack of flexibility or noninvolvement in the design process and technology for
sustainability (Raut et al., 2018) and GSCM (Kumar et al., 2016a; Luthra et al., 2011), (b)
unwillingness to exchange environmental information with industries (Mathiyazhagan et al.,
2013), (c) difficulties in obtaining green technological information, raw materials and finance
(Ghazilla et al., 2015), (d) problems in maintaining the environmental awareness of suppliers,
(e) complexity in measuring and monitoring environmental practice and performance of
suppliers (Ghazilla et al., 2015; Kaur et al., 2018), (f) lack of demand from suppliers’ end for new
practices (Nordin et al., 2014); and (3) lack of proper training system for suppliers for six sigma
(Antony et al., 2007), lean (Alefari et al., 2017), environmental aspects (Muduli et al., 2013),
GSCM (Kaur et al., 2018), etc. lead to the failure or nonadoption of ISGLSAMS.
Table 2 outlines the frequency of citation of the various barriers in the literature.
It is observed through the literature that the ISGLSAMS ensures the optimum utilization
of the natural resources and energy through 7 Rs. This manufacturing cycle does not
diminish the quality of the life due to the low ecological impact, and reduced waste and
emissions through reduce, reuse, recycle, recovery, remanufacture, redesign and
reconfiguration. Thus, the ISGLSAMS gives the social, economic and environmental
balance benefits throughout the total product and process life cycle, i.e. from raw material
extraction to the end of life (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b), along with meeting the ever-
changing customers’ demands for the variety as seen in Figure 6. The linkages also show that
an industrial symbiosis system, i.e. the process by which wastes or by-products of an
industry or industrial process become the raw materials for another can also be developed
through 7 Rs and a strategic integrated approach. Figure 7 shows a proposed research
framework. An organization has to study the effects of countermeasures of barriers
(i.e. enablers of the ISGLSAMS) on the incremental success of the system as well as on various
 BIJ

literature
Table 2.

of barriers in the
Frequency of citation
Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Antony et al. (2020) U U U U

Abdullah et al. (2016) U U U U U U U U U U
Aboelmaged (2011) U U U
Akkermans et al. (2004) U
Alefari et al. (2017) U U U U U
Ali et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U
Marodin and Saurin U U U U U U U U U U U
(2015)
Amrina and Sha’ri U
(2012)
Antomarioni et al. U U U U U U U U U U U U
(2020)
Antony et al. (2007) U
Antony and Banuelas U
(2002)
Appelbaum et al. (1998) U
Asuka-Zhang (1999) U U
Bai and Satir (2020) U U U U U U U
Barve and Muduli U U U
(2013)
Basu et al. (2018) U
Baumgartner and U
Ebner (2010)
Ruben et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U
Berger et al. (2018) U U U U U
Bey et al. (2013) U U U U
Bhanot et al. (2015) U
Bhanot et al. (2016) U U
Bhardwaj (2016) U
Bowonder (1986) U
Brammer et al. (2012) U
Caldera et al. (2019) U
Carter and Rogers U
(2008)
Chaple et al. (2021) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Chen et al. (2006) U

(continued )
Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Chen et al. (2012) U

Cherrafi et al. (2016) U
Cherrafi et al. (2017) U U U U U U U
Christopher and Towill U
(2001)
Closs and Savitskie U
(2003)
Cox (1999) U
Crute et al. (2003) U
Cudney and Elrod U U
(2011)
D. and Vinodh (2020) U U U U U U U
Deif (2011) U
Gonz
alez and del (2005) U
Dhull and Narwal U U U U U U U
(2016)
Elliott (2002) U
Jovane et al. (2009) U
Fang et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U U U U U
Fargani et al. (2016) U
Fiksel et al. (1999) U
Florida (1996) U
Flumerfelt et al. (2012) U
Gaikwad et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Gandhi et al. (2018) U
Ghazilla et al. (2015) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Ghose (2003) U
Giunipero et al. (2012) U
Gohoungodji et al. U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
(2020)
Jabbour et al. (2016) U
Govindan et al. (2016) U U
Groover (2002) U
Guignard (2018) U
Gupta et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Haider and Khan (2020) U U U U

(continued )
ISGLSAMS
Barriers to the
adoption of

Table 2.
 BIJ

Table 2.
Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Halling and Wijk (2013) U U U

Hasan et al. (2007) U U U U U U
Henderson et al. (2004) U
Hicks and Matthews U U
(2010)
Hines et al. (2008) U
Hoda et al. (2011) U
Hsu and Hu (2008) U
Hussain (1999) U
Ivansen et al. (2019) U
Jabbour et al. (2016) U
Jaiswal et al. (2021) U U U U U U U U U U U U
Jawahir et al. (2006) U U
Jung (2011) U
Kadambi (2000) U
Kalpande and Toke U U U U U U U U
(2020)
Karuppiah et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U U U
Kaur et al. (2018) U U U U U U
Kezsbom (1992) U
Lam et al. (2007) U
Koho et al. (2011) U
Koren (2010) U U
Kulatunga et al. (2013) U U
Kumar et al. (2016a, b) U U U U U
Kumar et al. (2021) U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Kumar (2014) U
Kwan (1999) U
Kwon and Suh (2005) U
Lamba and Thareja U U U U U U U U U
(2020)
Lambert et al. (2005) U
Lee and Rhee (2007) U
Lee and Whang (2000) U
Lodgaard et al. (2016) U U U

(continued )
Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Luken and Rompaey U

(2008)
Luthra et al. (2011) U U U U U U
Luthra et al. (2015) U U U U
Machado (2014) U U U U U U U
Shankar et al. (2017) U
Mangla et al. (2018) U U U U U U U U U U
Mani et al. (2015) U
Seidel et al. (2008) U
Marri et al. (2007) U
Mathiyazhagan et al. U U U U U U U U U
(2013)
Mehrabi et al. (2000) U U U
Millar and Russell U U U U
(2011)
Min and Galle (2001) U
Mittal and Sangwan U U U U U U U U U
(2014a, b)
Moktadir et al. (2018) U U U U U U U U U U
Mudgal et al. (2010) U
Muduli et al. (2013) U U U U U
Mundra and Mishra U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
(2020)
Murray et al. (2005) U
Muscatello et al. (2003) U
Nambiar (2010) U U U U
Nazam et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U U U U
Ngu et al. (2020) U U U U U
Nordin et al. (2014) U U
Nordin et al. (2008) U
Nunes and Bennett U
(2010)
Oh and Sharpe (1995) U
Pandey et al. (2018) U
Parmar and Desai U U U U U U U U U U U
(2021)

(continued )
ISGLSAMS
Barriers to the
adoption of

Table 2.
 BIJ

Table 2.
Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Pathak et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U

Petrini and Pozzebon U
(2009)
Yang and Yu (2010) U
Potdar et al. (2017) U
Quazi (1999) U
Rahimifard et al. (2009) U
Rathi et al. (2021) U U U U U U
Raut et al. (2018) U U
Ravi and Shankar U
(2005)
Rehman and U
Shrivastava (2011)
Ritz
en and Sandstr€om U U U U U U U U
(2017)
Russo and Harrison U
(2005)
Sage (1977) U
Salonitis and U U
Tsinopoulos (2016)
Sarkis et al. (2010) U
Schaper (2002) U
Schulze and Dallasega U U U U U U U U U
(2021)
Sharma et al. (2009) U
Simons and Peterson U
(2000)
Singh et al. (2012) U
Singh et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Sohal et al. (2001) U
Soni et al. (2020) U U U U U U U U U
Stratton and U
Warburton (2003)
Thamhain and U
Wilemon (1975)
Udokporo et al. (2020) U

(continued )
Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Veiga et al. (2011) U

Vejaratnam et al. (2020) U U U U U U U
Virmani et al. (2021) U U U U U U U U U U U
Wall and Callister U
(1995)
Weerakkody et al. U
(2011)
Wiedmann et al. (2011) U U U
Wong et al. (2009b) U
Worley and Doolen U
(2006)
Wyrwicka and U U U U U U
Mrugalska (2017)
Xia et al. (2015) U
Yadav et al. (2018), U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Yadav and Desai (2017)
Yadav et al. (2019) U U
Yusuf et al. (1999) U U
Zhu et al. (2017) U U U U U U
Zhu and Geng (2013) U U
Zwick (2002) U
Note(s): Abbreviations: 1 – weak legislation, 2 – uncertain future legislation, 3 – lack of government support, 4 – lack of awareness, low public and peer pressure, 5 – the
misconception of the high cost, 6 – uncertain financial and other intangible benefits, 7 – low customer awareness and demand for sustainable and agile products, 8 –
complexity in the design of ISGLSA Product., 9 – complexity in the design of ISGLSAMS’ process., 10 – xomplexity in the design of ISGLSAMS’ system., 11 – complexity to
manage and integrate the ISGLSAMS., 12 – low top management commitment due to low awareness or negative attitude about the ISGLSAMS, 13 – lack of leadership, 14 –
lack of expertise of higher executives to plan and manage the ISGLSAMS with coupling and decoupling strategy, 15 – lack of ISGLSAMS technical resources and
infrastructure, 16 – financial constraints or lack of fund, 17 – lack of awareness, training, education and rewards system of employees, 18 – technological Risk, 19 – lack of
availability of updated information, communication and data, 20 – resistance to change, 21 – difficulty in the evaluation of system performance throughout the life cycle,
22 – lack of cooperation and mutual trust among management, employees and supply chain partners, 23 – low employees’ commitment, 24 – lack of employees’
involvement, empowerment and cultural difference, 25 – undeveloped organizational culture, 26 – organizational structure, 27 – lack of teamwork, 28 – cross-functional/
interdepartmental conflict, 29 – poor partnership, 30 – lack of continuous improvement culture, 31– lack of supplier integration, supplier awareness and low supplier
commitment
ISGLSAMS
Barriers to the
adoption of

Table 2.
BIJ Economic
ISGLSAMS ISGLSA Performance
Energy
Enablers or Product Design
practices
ISGLSA Market
Process Plan Performance

ISGLSAMS
Environmental
Barriers Performance
Material Usage
Remanufacturing
Recycling Wastes & Reuse
Extraction
Social
Emissions End of life
Performance
Anthro-sphere
Ecosphere

Environment

Economy Society
Energy
Material
Product
Figure 7. Wastes & Emissions
Research framework
for the ISGLSAMS
Note(s): Hariyani et al., 2022; Hariyani and Mishra, 2022c

performance outcomes viz., market, environmental, social, financial, sustainability and

ecological performance of the organization due to the ISGLSAMS (Hariyani et al., 2022,
Hariyani and Mishra, 2022c).
Abdul-Rashid et al. (2017), Bogue (2014), Despeisse et al. (2012), Dornfeld (2014), Gremyr
et al. (2014), Ijomah et al. (2007), Joung et al. (2013), Labuschagne and Brent (2005), Rosen and
Kishawy (2012), Rusinko (2007), Seidel et al. (2007), Smith and Ball (2012), Torielli et al. (2010)
and Vinodh and Joy (2012) regarded the “simultaneous achievement of economic,
environmental and social sustainability as a requirement for long-term business success,
customer loyalty and competitiveness.” They associated leanness with resource efficiency
and value-based high performance; and sustainability with (1) ecological balance and
preservation and (2) social responsibility for social uplift and well-being. A strategic and
holistic approach provides a specific direction, road map and control mechanisms for
defining, developing and implementing the ISGLSAMS for an industry-specific context
(Elmoselhy, 2013, 2015b; Stump and Badurdeen, 2012).
Organizations and government must design common and area-specific enablers, drivers
and policies for motivating the organization to the adoption of the ISGLSAMS.

5. Conclusion and future research issues

In the volatile market, sustainability focus has moved from SM to sustainable, reliable,
reconfigurable and robust low volume production than mass production of the products, viz.,
in automobile, modular, agile and other manufacturing industries. This causes the adoption
of an ISGLSAMS (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a, b). Social acceptance, ecological sustainability,
cost and quality leadership of an organization can only be viable through the ISGLSAMS as
the ISGLSAMS gives a business sustainable, environmental, market, financial, economic,
social and operational performance. Many organizations have tried to adopt the ISGLSAMS
but are still unable to implement the ISGLSAMS successfully. This study explores the
various barriers and associated various subclauses to the adoption of the ISGLSAMS. The
study found following 31 barriers to the ISGLSAMS: (1) weak legislation, (2) uncertain future Barriers to the
legislation, (3) lack of government support, (4) low public and peer pressure, (5) the adoption of
misconception of the high cost, (6) uncertain financial benefits, (7) low customer demand for
sustainable and agile products, (8) complexity in the design of the ISGLSA product, (9)
ISGLSAMS
complexity in the design of the ISGLSA process, (10) complexity in the design of the ISGLSA
system, (11) management complexity, (12) low top management commitment, (13) lack of
leadership, (14) lack of expertise of higher executives to plan and manage the ISGLSAMS
with coupling and decoupling strategy, (15) lack of technical resources and infrastructure,
(16) financial constraints or lack of fund, (17) lack of awareness, training, education and
reward system of employees, (18) technological risk, (19) lack of updated information,
communication and data, (20) resistance to change, (21) difficulty in the evaluation of system
performance throughout the life cycle, (22) lack of cooperation and mutual trust among
management, employees and supply chain partners, (23) low employees’ commitment, (24)
lack of employees’ involvement, empowerment and cultural difference, (25) undeveloped
organizational culture, (26) organizational structure, (27) lack of teamwork, (28) cross-
functional/interdepartmental conflict, (29) poor partnership, (30) lack of continuous
improvement culture and (31) lack of supplier integration, supplier awareness and supplier
commitment.
To assure the implementation of the ISGLSAMS, government has to develop stringent
industry-specific effective environmental laws and regulations. Periodic audits of the
organizations must be conducted to ensure that manufacturing organizations are meeting the
environment and sustainability norms (Farias et al., 2019; Severo et al., 2015).
Government must also provide funds, investment subsidies, grant, tax benefits and R&D
support for ISGLSAMS projects (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022b; Neri et al., 2018). Government
aid and fund support may boost the implementation of the ISGLSAMS in the organizations.
Education awareness programs about the benefits of the ISGLSAMS, and the impact of the
product, process and value chain on the environment and Earth ecology, affects the public
pressure, peer pressure and customers’ demand for the ISGLSAMS. Training and education
programs for top management increase their commitment to the ISGLSAMS. This will also
reduce their misconception about the high cost of the ISGLSAMS (Hariyani and Mishra,
2022a) and will increase their technical and leadership skill sets for planning, managing,
integrating and implementing ISGLSAMS-related projects and innovations.
The development of industry-specific ISGLSAM technologies will also lead to the
management’s commitment to the adoption of the ISGLSAMS throughout the whole value
chain (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022a).
The use of ICT technologies for the availability of updated information and data and
proper communication help the organization to take the right decision at right time related to
the ISGLSAMS (Bai and Satir, 2020; Ciccullo et al., 2018; Parmar and Desai, 2021).
Good and healthier organizational culture (Talapatra et al., 2019) will help the organization
to get the desired outcome of the ISGLSAMS (Hariyani et al., 2022). The organization must
involve the employees in the continuous improvement of the ISGLSAMS.
This study contributes to academics, managers, decision-makers, researchers, supply
chain members, stakeholders and government officials in a better understanding of
(1) the ISGLSAMS
(2) ISGLSAMS barriers and their subclauses.
(3) further analysis of ISGLSAMS barriers (Hariyani et al., 2022).
(4) identifying the opportunity to study the coupling effect of the barriers on
ISGLSAMS performance.
BIJ (5) the directions of design of enablers for the ISGLSAMS product, process and system
design.
(6) the directions of design of enablers for the ISGLSA supply chain.
(7) a more SM system to meet all stakeholders’ needs.
(8) the directions of research design of enablers to overcome ISGLSAMS barriers
(9) various soft and hard practices of ISGLSAMS and its value chain partners
(10) development of a decision support system for benchmarking the best practices and
generic practices
(11) development of intellectual management skills to overcome the ISGLSAMS barriers
(12) planning future research directions to overcome the barriers throughout the whole
supply chain strategically
(13) new dimensions to plan, design and drive enablers to overcome the common and
industry-specific barriers to be worked out by the governments and organizations
for the successful adoption of the ISGLSAMS
(14) the research framework also providing a solid platform to study the ISGLSAMS and
its best practices.
The practical implication of this study is that it contributes to a better understanding of
ISGLSAMS barriers and their associated subclauses. The research also contributes to the (1)
ISGLSAMS literature and (2) the awareness and demand for (a) the ISGLSAMS (b) the
ISGLSA supply chain (c) reconfigurable, sustainable and modular products (d) redesign,
recovery and refurbishing of the product to increase the product life cycle. ISGLSAMS
barriers can be generalized based on (1) product-specific industries and (2) country-specific
industries.
Government, manufacturing organizations, policymakers, value chain partners and
stakeholders as a team must work out the solution for the common and industry-specific
barriers to the successful adoption of the ISGLSAMS, and the development of a more
sustainable industrial symbiosis system.
Through this study government, manufacturing organizations, policymakers, value chain
partners and stakeholders may plan the road map and strategies to overcome the ISGLSAMS
barriers and develop a more sustainable industrial manufacturing house and industrial
symbiosis system. In-depth knowledge of subclauses of ISGLSAMS barriers will help the
practitioners to overcome the ISGLSAMS barriers strategically.
This study adds value to the practitioners to identify and prioritize the ISGLSAMS
industry-specific barriers, and design the solution for the more sustainable development of (1)
industries, (2) the industrial symbiosis system and (3) ISGLSA product, process, system, and
supply value chain with minimum resource consumption and environmental impact.

5.1 Limitations and future research issues

The limitations of this review are (1) the number of selected sources for the database, (2) we
are not aware of any papers that were missed by the search; and (3) as only one researcher had
fully read the final set of papers, it may lead the inclusion of bias in the identification of the
barriers. A more sound controlled industry-specific study has to be conducted for the
identification of the barriers for control groups.
Following a few research issues (Hariyani et al., 2022) concerning barriers to the
ISGLSAMS are identified and require further exploration.
 (1) identification and ranking of key industry-specific barriers for their individual effects Barriers to the
on the adoption of ISGLSAMS adoption of
(2) identification and ranking of key industry-specific barriers for the control groups or ISGLSAMS
demographic regions.
(3) study of the contribution of the subcauses on the generation of individual ISGLSAMS
barrier
(4) development of technologies for the successful adoption of the ISGLSAMS and to
overcome the various barriers
(5) development of management practices for the successful adoption of the ISGLSAMS
and to overcome the various barriers
(6) development of management tools, resources and the decision support system to
overcome the various barriers to ISGLSA reverse and forward supply chain design
(7) development of management tools, resources and the decision support system to
measure the performance of ISGLSAMS, and supply chain
(8) structural equation modeling of the effect of ISGLSAMS barriers on organizational
operational, market, social, financial, economic and sustainable performance
(9) Study of the effect of ISGLSAMS barriers and strategies for attempting the big data
projects, Internet of Things and Services (IoTS), and artificial intelligence (Chen, 2017;
Gupta et al., 2020; Hansen and Bøgh, 2021; Kiel et al., 2017; Paiola and Gebauer, 2020;
Xu et al., 2020) in the ISGLSAMS and ISGLSA supply chain.

References
Abdul-Rashid, S.H., Sakundarini, N., Raja Ghazilla, R.A. and Thurasamy, R. (2017), “The impact of
sustainable manufacturing practices on sustainability performance: empirical evidence from
Malaysia”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 182-204, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-04-2015-0223.
Abdullah, M., Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M. and Jayaraman, K. (2016), “Barriers to green innovation
initiatives among manufacturers: the Malaysian case”, Review of Managerial Science, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 683-709, doi: 10.1007/s11846-015-0173-9.
Aboelmaged, M.G. (2011), “Reconstructing Six Sigma barriers in manufacturing and service
organizations: the effects of organizational parameters”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 519-541, doi: 10.1108/02656711111132562.
Adeleye, E.O. and Yusuf, Y.Y. (2006), “Towards agile manufacturing: models of competition and
performance outcomes”, International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 93-110, doi: 10.1504/IJASM.2006.008861.
Akkermans, H., Bogerd, P. and Van Doremalen, J. (2004), “Travail, transparency and trust: a case study
of computer-supported collaborative supply chain planning in high-tech electronics”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 153 No. 2, pp. 445-456, doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00164-4.
Alefari, M., Salonitis, K. and Xu, Y. (2017), “The role of leadership in implementing lean
manufacturing”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 63, pp. 756-761, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.169.
Alhuraish, I., Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2017), “A comparative exploration of lean manufacturing and
six sigma in terms of their critical success factors”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 164,
pp. 325-337, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.146.
Ali, S.M., Hossen, M.A., Mahtab, Z., Kabir, G., Paul, S.K. and Adnan, Z.U.H. (2020), “Barriers to lean six
sigma implementation in the supply chain: an ISM model”, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 149 January 2019, 106843.
BIJ Amrina, E. and Sha’ri, M.Y. (2012), “Drivers and barriers to sustainable manufacturing initiatives in
Malaysian automotive companies”, Proceedings of the Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering and
Management Systems Conference 2012, January, pp. 629-634.
Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006), “Similarities and differences between TQM, six
sigma and lean”, TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-296, doi: 10.1108/09544780610660004.
Antomarioni, S., Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F.E., De Sanctis, I. and Ordieres-Mer
e, J. (2020), “Lean
projects’ evaluation: the perceived level of success and barriers”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1-25.
Antony, J. (2002), “Design for six sigma: a breakthrough business improvement strategy for achieving
competitive advantage”, Work Study, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 6-8, doi: 10.1108/00438020210415460.
Antony, J. (2006), “Six sigma for service processes”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 234-248, doi: 10.1108/14637150610657558.
Antony, J., Antony, F.J., Kumar, M. and Cho, B.R. (2007), “Six sigma in service organisations: benefits,
challenges and difficulties, common myths, empirical observations and success factors”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 294-311, doi: 10.
1108/02656710710730889.
Antony, J., Psomas, E., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Hines, P. (2020), “Practical implications and future
research agenda of lean manufacturing: a systematic literature review”, Production Planning
and Control, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1-37.
Appelbaum, S.H., Shapiro, B. and Elbaz, D. (1998), “The management of multicultural group conflict”,
Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 211-234, doi: 10.
1108/13527599810234173.
Aravindraj, S., Sudheer, A., Vinodh, S. and Anand, G. (2013), “A mathematical model to evaluate the
role of agility enablers and criteria in a manufacturing environment”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 19, pp. 5971-5984, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2013.825381.
Asuka-Zhang, S. (1999), “Transfer of environmentally sound technologies from Japan to China”,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 19 Nos 5-6, pp. 553-567, doi: 10.1016/S0195-
9255(99)00028-1.
Badurdeen, F. and Jawahir, I.S. (2017), “Strategies for value creation through sustainable
manufacturing”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 8, pp. 20-27.
Badurdeen, F., Iyengar, D., Goldsby, T.J., Metta, H., Gupta, S. and Jawahir, I.S. (2009), “Extending total
life-cycle thinking to sustainable supply chain design”, International Journal of Product Lifecycle
Management, Vol. 4 Nos 1-3, pp. 49-67, doi: 10.1504/IJPLM.2009.031666.
Bai, C. and Satir, A. (2020), “Barriers for green supplier development programs in manufacturing industry”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 158, p. 104756, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104756.
Barve, A. and Muduli, K. (2013), “Modelling the challenges of green supply chain management
practices in Indian mining industries”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1102-1122, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-09-2011-0087.
Basu, P., Ghosh, I. and Dan, P.K. (2018), “Using structural equation modelling to integrate human
resources with internal practices for lean manufacturing implementation”, Management Science
Letters, Vol. 8, pp. 51-68, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2017.10.001.
Baumgartner, R.J. and Ebner, D. (2010), “Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles
and maturity levels”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 76-89, doi: 10.1002/sd.447.
Berger, S.L.T., Tortorella, G.L. and Rodriguez, C.M.T. (2018), Lean Supply Chain Management:
A Systematic Literature Review of Practices, Barriers and Contextual Factors Inherent to its
Implementation, Springer International Publishing, pp. 39-68, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73648-8_2.
Bey, N., Hauschild, M.Z. and McAloone, T.C. (2013), “Drivers and barriers for implementation of
environmental strategies in manufacturing companies”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology, CIRP, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 43-46, doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.001.
Bhanot, N., Rao, P.V. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2015), “Enablers and barriers of sustainable Barriers to the
manufacturing: results from a survey of researchers and industry professionals”, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 29, pp. 562-567, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2015.01.036. adoption of
Bhanot, N., Rao, P.V. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2016), “An integrated approach for analysing the enablers
ISGLSAMS
and barriers of sustainable manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142,
pp. 4412-4439, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.123.
Bhardwaj, B.R. (2016), “Role of green policy on sustainable supply chain management: a model for
implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR)”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 456-468, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2013-0077.
Bogue, R. (2014), “Sustainable manufacturing: a critical discipline for the twenty-first century”,
Assembly Automation, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 117-122, doi: 10.1108/AA-01-2014-012.
Bowonder, B. (1986), “Environmental management problems in India”, Environmental Management,
Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 599-609, doi: 10.1007/BF01866764.
Brammer, S., Hoejmose, S. and Marchant, K. (2012), “Environmental management in SMEs in the UK:
practices, pressures and perceived benefits”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21
No. 7, pp. 423-434, doi: 10.1002/bse.717.
Caldera, H.T.S.S., Desha, C. and Dawes, L. (2019), “Evaluating the enablers and barriers for successful
implementation of sustainable business practice in ‘lean’ SMEs”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 218, pp. 575-590, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.239.
Calvo, R., Domingo, R. and Sebasti
an, M.A. (2008), “Systemic criterion of sustainability in agile
manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 3345-3358,
doi: 10.1080/00207540601096957.
Campos, L.M.S. and Vazquez-Brust, D.A. (2016), “Lean and green synergies in supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 627-641,
doi: 10.1108/SCM-03-2016-0101.
Cao, Q. and Dowlatshahi, S. (2005), “The impact of alignment between virtual enterprise and
information technology on business performance in an agile manufacturing environment”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 531-550, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.10.010.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387, doi: 10.1108/09600030810882816.
Chaple, A.P., Narkhede, B.E., Akarte, M.M. and Raut, R. (2021), “Modeling the lean barriers for
successful lean implementation: TISM approach”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 98-119.
Chen, Y. (2017), “Integrated and intelligent manufacturing: perspectives and enablers”, Engineering,
Elsevier LTD on Behalf of Chinese Academy of Engineering and Higher Education Press Limited
Company, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 588-595, doi: 10.1016/J.ENG.2017.04.009.
Chen, Y.S., Lai, S.B. and Wen, C.T. (2006), “The influence of green innovation performance on corporate
advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 331-339, doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-
9025-5.
Chen, C.C., Shih, H.S., Shyur, H.J. and Wu, K.S. (2012), “A business strategy selection of green supply
chain management via an analytic network process”, Computers and Mathematics with
Applications, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 2544-2557, doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2012.06.013.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A. and Benhida, K. (2016), “The integration of lean
manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future research directions
for developing a specific model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 139, pp. 828-846, doi: 10.
1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K. and Mokhlis, A. (2017), “Barriers in Green Lean
implementation: a combined systematic literature review and interpretive structural modelling
BIJ approach”, Production Planning and Control, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 829-842, doi: 10.
1080/09537287.2017.1324184.
Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D. (2000), “Engineering supply chains to match customer
requirements”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 337-345, doi: 10.1108/
09576050010355635.
Chiou, T.Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F. and Chung, S.H. (2011), “The influence of greening the suppliers
and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan”,
Transportation Research E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 822-836,
doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.016.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and
customised”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 206-213, doi: 10.1108/
13598540010347334.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2001), “An integrated model for the design of agile supply chains”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 235-246, doi: 10.1108/09600030110394914.
Ciccullo, F., Pero, M., Caridi, M., Gosling, J. and Purvis, L. (2018), “Integrating the environmental and
social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply chain management paradigms:
a literature review and future research directions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172,
pp. 2336-2350, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.176.
Closs, D.J. and Savitskie, K. (2003), “Internal and external logistics information technology integration”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-76, doi: 10.1108/
09574090310806549.
Cox, A. (1999), “Power, value and supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 167-175, doi: 10.1134/S0031918X1301011.
Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S. and Graves, A. (2003), “Implementing Lean in aerospace—challenging
the assumptions and understanding the challenges”, Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 917-928,
doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00081-6.
Cudney, E. and Elrod, C. (2011), “A comparative analysis of integrating lean concepts into supply
chain management in manufacturing and service industries”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-22, doi: 10.1108/20401461111119422.
D., S.K. and Vinodh, S. (2020), “TISM for analysis of barriers affecting the adoption of lean concepts to
electronics component manufacture”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 1127-1159.
Deif, A.M. (2011), “A system model for green manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19
No. 14, pp. 1553-1559, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.022.
Despeisse, M., Mbaye, F., Ball, P.D. and Levers, A. (2012), “The emergence of sustainable manufacturing
practices”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 354-376, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2011.
555425.
Dhull, S. and Narwal, M.S. (2016), “Drivers and barriers in green supply chain management
adaptation: a state-of-art review”, Uncertain Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 61-76,
doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2015.7.003.
Dornfeld, D.A. (2014), “Moving towards green and sustainable manufacturing”, International Journal
of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing - Green Technology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 63-66, doi: 10.
1007/s40684-014-0010-7.
Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2013), “Modelling lean and green: a review from business models”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 228-250, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-05-2013-0030.
Elliott, R.N. (2002), “Vendors as industrial energy service providers”, Washington, D.C.
Elmoselhy, S.A.M. (2013), “Hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system technical facet, in automotive
sector”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 598-619, doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.05.011.
Elmoselhy, S.A. (2015a), “Implementing the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system strategically in Barriers to the
automotive sector”, SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 2015-01-9083, doi: 10.4271/2015-01-9083. adoption of
Elmoselhy, S.A. (2015b), “Hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system strategic facet in automotive
ISGLSAMS
sector”, SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 2014-01-
9104, doi: 10.4271/2014-01-9104.
Epstein, M.J. and Roy, M. (2003), “Improving sustainability performance: specifying, implementing
and measuring key principles”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Fang, H., Wang, B. and Song, W. (2020), “Analyzing the interrelationships among barriers to green
procurement in photovoltaic industry: an integrated method”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Elsevier B.V., Vol. 249, 119408.
Fargani, H., Cheung, W.M. and Hasan, R. (2016), “An empirical analysis of the factors that support
the drivers of sustainable manufacturing”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 56, pp. 491-495, The
Author(s), doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.10.096.
Farias, L.M.S., Santos, L.C., Gohr, C.F., Oliveira, L.C.de, Amorim, M.H. and Da, S. (2019), “Criteria and
practices for lean and green performance assessment: systematic review and conceptual
framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 218, pp. 746-762, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.042.
Fiksel, J., McDaniel, J. and Mendenhall, C. (1999), “Measuring progress towards sustainability;
principles, process, and best practices”, Greening of Industry Network Conference Best Practice
Proceedings, Chapell Hill.
Florida, R. (1996), “Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing”, California
Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 80-105, doi: 10.2307/41165877.
Flumerfelt, S., Siriban-Manalang, A.B. and Kahlen, F.J. (2012), “Are agile and lean manufacturing
systems employing sustainability, complexity and organizational learning?”, Learning
Organization, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 238-247, doi: 10.1108/09696471211219976.
Fredriksson, P. and Gadde, L.-E. (2005), “Flexibility and rigidity in customization and build-to-order
production”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 695-705, doi: 10.1016/j.
indmarman.2005.05.010.
Fullerton, R.R. and Wempe, W.F. (2009), “Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures,
and financial performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 214-240, doi: 10.1108/01443570910938970.
Fullerton, R.R., Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K. (2014), “Lean manufacturing and firm performance:
the incremental contribution of lean management accounting practices”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 32 Nos 7-8, pp. 414-428, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.002.
Gaikwad, S.K., Paul, A., Moktadir, M.A., Paul, S.K. and Chowdhury, P. (2020), “Analyzing barriers and
strategies for implementing Lean Six Sigma in the context of Indian SMEs”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 2365-2399.
Gandhi, N.S., Thanki, S.J. and Thakkar, J.J. (2018), “Ranking of drivers for integrated lean-green
manufacturing for Indian manufacturing SMEs”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 171,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.041.
Garetti, M. and Taisch, M. (2012), “Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 2-3, pp. 83-104, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2011.591619.
Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2015), “Green lean and the need for six sigma”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 226-248, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-04-2014-0010.
Ghazilla, R.A.R., Sakundarini, N., Abdul-Rashid, S.H., Ayub, N.S., Olugu, E.U. and Musa, S.N. (2015),
“Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian SMEs:
a preliminary findings”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26, pp. 658-663, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.085.
Ghobakhloo, M. and Azar, A. (2018), “Business excellence via advanced manufacturing technology
and lean-agile manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 2-24, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-03-2017-0049.
BIJ Ghose, M.K. (2003), “Indian small-scale mining with special emphasis on environmental management”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 159-165, doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00035-5.
Ghosh, M. (2013), “Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 113-122, doi: 10.1108/
17410381311287517.
Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E. and Denslow, D. (2012), “Purchasing and supply management
sustainability: drivers and barriers”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 258-269, doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.003.
Gonz
alez, P. and del, R. (2005), “Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: a study
of the Spanish pulp and paper industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 20-37, doi: 10.1002/bse.426.
Gohoungodji, P., N’Dri, A.B., Latulippe, J.M. and Matos, A.L.B. (2020), “What is stopping the
automotive industry from going green? A systematic review of barriers to green innovation in
the automotive industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 277, 123524.
Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), “Modeling lean, agile, and leagile supply chain strategies”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-80, doi: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2006.tb00241.x.
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D. and Haq, A.N. (2014), “Barriers analysis for green supply chain
management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, PART B, pp. 555-568, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijpe.2013.08.018.
Govindan, K., Madan Shankar, K. and Kannan, D. (2016), “Application of fuzzy analytic network
process for barrier evaluation in automotive parts remanufacturing towards cleaner production -
a study in an Indian scenario”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 114, pp. 199-213, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.06.092.
Goyal, A. and Agrawal, R. (2020), “Drivers in adoption of advanced manufacturing management
system for environmental sustainability”, SSRN Electronic Journal, April, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.
3562700.
Gremyr, I., Siva, V., Raharjo, H. and Goh, T.N. (2014), “Adapting the Robust Design Methodology to
support sustainable product development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 79, pp. 231-238,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.018.
Groover, M.P. (2002), Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, PHI,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Guignard, F. (2018), “Greening supply chains: the case of the body shop international”, Revue
Française de Psychanalyse, Vol. 82 No. 5, p. 1519, doi: 10.3917/rfp.825.1519.
Gunasekaran, A. (1998), “Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementation framework”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1223-1247, doi: 10.1080/
002075498193291.
Gupta, S., Modgil, S. and Gunasekaran, A. (2020), “Big data in lean six sigma: a review and further
research directions”, International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 58
No. 3, pp. 947-969, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1598599.
Haider, A. and Khan, U.A. (2020), “Finding the percentage effectiveness of agile manufacturing
barriers: an AHP approach”, pp. 133-145.
Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), “Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and
performance outcomes”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-999, doi: 10.1108/01443570910993456.
Halling, B. and Wijk, K. (2013), “Experienced barriers to lean in Swedish manufacturing and health
care”, International Journal of Lean Thinking, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 43-63.
Hansen, E.B. and Bøgh, S. (2021), “Artificial intelligence and internet of things in small and medium-
sized enterprises: a survey”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 58, August, pp. 362-372,
doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.08.009.
Hariyani, D. and Mishra, S. (2022a), “An analysis of drivers for the adoption of integrated sustainable- Barriers to the
green-lean-six sigma-agile manufacturing system (ISGLSAMS) in Indian manufacturing
industries”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, adoption of
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0488. ISGLSAMS
Hariyani, D. and Mishra, S. (2022b), “Drivers for the adoption of integrated sustainable green lean six
sigma agile manufacturing system (ISGLSAMS) and research directions”, Cleaner Engineering
and Technology, Vol. 7, p. 100449, doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2022.100449.
Hariyani, D. and Mishra, S. (2022c), “Organizational enablers for sustainable manufacturing and
industrial ecology”, Cleaner Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, p. 100375, doi: 10.1016/j.clet.
2021.100375.
Hariyani, D., Mishra, S. and Sharma, M.K. (2022), “A descriptive statistical analysis of barriers to the
adoption of integrated sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile manufacturing system
(ISGLSAMS) in Indian manufacturing industries”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2021-0701.
Hasan, M.A., Shankar, R. and Sarkis, J. (2007), “A study of barriers to agile manufacturing”,
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1504/
IJASM.2007.015679.
Henao Arango, R., Sarache, W.A. and Gomez, I. (2016), “Lean manufacturing and sustainable
performance: trends and future challenges”, 5th World Conference on Production and
Operations Management, September, pp. 0-5.
Henderson, S.C., Swamidass, P.M. and Byrd, T.A. (2004), “Empirical models of the effect of integrated
manufacturing on manufacturing performance and return on investment”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 1933-1954, doi: 10.1080/00207540310001645138.
Hicks, B.J. and Matthews, J. (2010), “The barriers to realising sustainable process improvement: a root
cause analysis of paradigms for manufacturing systems improvement”, International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 585-602, doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2010.485754.
Hines, P., Found, P., Griffiths, G. and Harrison, R. (2008), Staying Lean; Thriving, Not Just Surviving,
Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff.
Hoda, R., Noble, J. and Marshall, S. (2011), “The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on self-
organizing Agile teams”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 521-534, doi:
10.1016/j.infsof.2010.10.009.
Hofer, C., Eroglu, C. and Rossiter Hofer, A. (2012), “The effect of lean production on financial
performance: the mediating role of inventory leanness”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 138 No. 2, pp. 242-253, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.025.
Hsu, C.W. and Hu, A.H. (2008), “Green supply chain management in the electronic industry”,
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 205-216, doi: 10.
1007/BF03326014.
Hussain, S.S. (1999), “The ethics of ‘going green’: the corporate social responsibility debate”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 203-210, doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0836(199907/08)8:
43.3.co;2-9.
Iacovidou, E., Millward-Hopkins, J., Busch, J., Purnell, P., Velis, C.A., Hahladakis, J.N., Zwirner, O. and
Brown, A. (2017), “A pathway to circular economy: developing a conceptual framework for
complex value assessment of resources recovered from waste”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 168, pp. 1279-1288, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.002.
Ijomah, W.L., McMahon, C.A., Hammond, G.P. and Newman, S.T. (2007), “Development of design for
remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing”, Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 712-719, doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2007.02.017.
Inman, R.A., Sale, R.S., Green, K.W. and Whitten, D. (2011), “Agile manufacturing: relation to JIT,
operational performance and firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 343-355, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.001.
BIJ Ivansen, L., Andersson, J. and Bergsj€o, D. (2019), “Identifying barriers to agile technology
roadmapping”, Systems Engineering in Context, pp. 371-382, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00114-8_31.
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., de Freitas, T.P., Soubihia, D.F., Kannan, D. and
Latan, H. (2016), “Barriers to the adoption of green operational practices at Brazilian companies:
effects on green and operational performance”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 3042-3058, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1154997.
Jaiswal, P., Singh, A., Misra, S.C. and Kumar, A. (2021), “Barriers in implementing lean manufacturing
in Indian SMEs: a multi-criteria decision-making approach”, Journal of Modelling in
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 339-356.
Jawahir, I.S. and Bradley, R. (2016), “Technological elements of circular economy and the principles of
6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 40,
pp. 103-108, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.067.
Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, O.W., Rouch, K.E., Joshi, K.J. and Jaafar, I.H. (2006), “Total life-cycle considerations
in product design for sustainability: a framework for comprehensive evaluation”, 10th
International Research/Expert Conference, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 1-10.
Jayanth, B.V., Prathap, P., Sivaraman, P., Yogesh, S. and Madhu, S. (2020), “Implementation of lean
manufacturing in electronics industry”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 33, pp. 23-28, doi: 10.
1016/j.matpr.2020.02.718.
Joung, C.B., Carrell, J., Sarkar, P. and Feng, S.C. (2013), “Categorization of indicators for sustainable
manufacturing”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 24, pp. 148-157, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.030.
Jovane, F., Westk€amper, E. and Williams, D. (2009), The Manufuture Road: towards Competitive and
Sustainable High-Adding-Value Manufacturing, Springer, Berlin.
Jung, J.J. (2011), “A bibliometric analysis on green supply chain management: a preliminary result”,
Proceedings - 13th IEEE International Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing,
CEC, pp. 418-420, doi: 10.1109/CEC.2011.68.
Kadambi, B. (2000), “IT-enabled supply chain management – a preliminary study of few
manufacturing companies in India”, available at: http://www.xlri.ac.in/cltm/LogistiX-2-
2000.HTM
Kalpande, S.D. and Toke, L.K. (2020), “Assessment of green supply chain management practices,
performance, pressure and barriers amongst Indian manufacturer to achieve sustainable
development”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. doi: 10.1108/
IJPPM-02-2020-0045.
Karim, A. and Arif-Uz-Zaman, K. (2013), “A methodology for effective implementation of lean
strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 169-196, doi: 10.1108/14637151311294912.
Karuppiah, K., Sankaranarayanan, B., Ali, S.M., Chowdhury, P. and Paul, S.K. (2020), “An integrated
approach to modeling the barriers in implementing green manufacturing practices in SMEs”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 265, 121737.
Kaur, J., Sidhu, R., Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. and Goyal, S. (2018), “A DEMATEL based approach for
investigating barriers in green supply chain management in Canadian manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 56 Nos 1-2, pp. 312-332,
doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1395522.
Kezsbom, D.S. (1992), “Re-opening pandora’s box: sources of project conflict in the ‘90s”, Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 54-59.
Kiel, D., Arnold, C. and Voigt, K.I. (2017), “The influence of the Industrial Internet of Things on
business models of established manufacturing companies – a business level perspective”,
Technovation, Vol. 68, September 2016, pp. 4-19, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.09.003.
Koho, M., Torvinen, S. and Romiguer, A.T. (2011), “Objectives, enablers and challenges of sustainable
development and sustainable manufacturing”, Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), pp. 1-6,
doi: 10.1109/ISAM.2011.5942343.
Koren, Y. (2010), The Global Manufacturing Revolution: Product-Process-Business Integration and Barriers to the
Reconfigurable Systems, Wiley, New Jersey.
adoption of
Kulatunga, A.K., Jayatilaka, P.R. and Jayawickrama, M. (2013), “Drivers and barriers to implement
sustainable manufacturing concepts in Sri Lankan manufacturing sector”, 11th Global
ISGLSAMS
Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, September pp. 171-176, doi: 10.13140/2.1.2952.1927.
Kumar, R. (2014), “Barriers in implementation of lean manufacturing system in Indian industry:
a survey”, International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJLTET),
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 243-251.
Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kumar, N. and Haleem, A. (2016a), “Barriers in green lean six
sigma product development process: an ISM approach”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 27 Nos 7-8, pp. 604-620, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2016.1165307.
Kumar, V., Babu, G. and Muthusamy, S. (2016b), “Assessing the awareness of the agile manufacturing
for organizational change in Indian small manufacturing firms: an empirical investigation”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 713-731, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-
11-2015-0200.
Kumar, R., Singh, K. and Jain, S.K. (2021), “An empirical investigation and prioritization of barriers
toward implementation of agile manufacturing in the manufacturing industry”, TQM Journal,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 183-203.
Kumaravel, S. and Chakraborty, A. (2018), “Identifying drivers of sustainability initiatives in
manufacturing organizations—an exploratory study from the Indian cement industry”,
pp. 11-20, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-8010-4_2.
Kwan, A.T.W. (1999), “The use of information technology to enhance supply chain management in the
electronics and chemical industries”, Production and Inventory Management Journal,
Vol. 40, pp. 7-15.
Kwon, I.W.G. and Suh, T. (2005), “Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management:
a path analysis”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 26-33, doi: 10.1108/
13598540510578351.
Labuschagne, C. and Brent, A.C. (2005), “Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: the need to
integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 159-168, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.003.
Lam, P.K., Chin, K.S. and Pun, K.F. (2007), “Managing conflict in collaborative new product
development: a supplier perspective”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 891-907, doi: 10.1108/02656710710826171.
Lamba, N. and Thareja, P. (2020), “Developing the structural model based on analyzing the
relationship between the barriers of green supply chain management using TOPSIS approach”,
Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, Vol. 43, pp. 1-8.
Lambert, D.M., Garc
ıa-Dastugue, S.J. and Croxton, K.L. (2005), “An evaluation of process-oriented
supply chain management frameworks”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-51,
doi: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2005.tb00193.x.
Lee, S.Y. and Rhee, S.K. (2007), “The change in corporate environmental strategies: a longitudinal
empirical study”, Management Decision, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 196-216, doi: 10.1108/
00251740710727241.
Lee, H.L. and Whang, S. (2000), “Information sharing in a supply chain”, International Journal of
Manufacturing Technology and Management. doi: 10.1504/IJMTM.2000.001329.
Lodgaard, E., Ingvaldsen, J.A., Gamme, I. and Aschehoug, S. (2016), “Barriers to lean implementation:
perceptions of top managers, middle managers and workers”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 57,
pp. 595-600, The Author(s), doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.103.
Luken, R. and Rompaey, F. Van. (2008), “Drivers for and barriers to environmentally sound
technology adoption by manufacturing plants in nine developing countries”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. S67-S77, SUPPL. 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.10.006.
BIJ Luthra, S., Kumar, S., Garg, D. and Haleem, A. (2015), “Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy
technologies adoption: Indian perspective”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Elsevier, Vol. 41, pp. 762-776.
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S. and Haleem, A. (2011), “Barriers to implement green supply chain
management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique-an
Indian perspective”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 231-257, doi: 10.3926/jiem.2011.v4n2.p231-257.
Machado, S.D.V.C. (2014), “Exploring barriers in lean implementation”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-148, doi: 10.1108/EL-01-2017-0019.
Machado, S.D.V.C. (2017), “Green and lean implementation: an assessment in the automotive industry”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 602-614, doi: 10.1108/EL-01-2017-0019.
Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N.P., Dora, M. and Dwivedi, Y. (2018), “Barriers to
effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context”, Production
Planning and Control, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 551-569.
Mani, V., Agrawal, R. and Sharma, V. (2015), “Supply chain social sustainability: a comparative case
analysis in Indian manufacturing industries”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 189, pp. 234-251, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.219.
Marodin, G.A. and Saurin, T.A. (2015), “Managing barriers to lean production implementation: context
matters”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 13, pp. 3947-3962, doi: 10.
1080/00207543.2014.980454.
Marri, H.B., Gunasekaran, A. and Sohag, R.A. (2007), “Implementation of advanced manufacturing
technology in Pakistani small and medium enterprises: an empirical analysis”, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 726-739, doi: 10.1108/
17410390710830745.
Mart
ınez-Jurado, P.J. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2014), “Lean management, supply chain management and
sustainability: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 134-150, doi: 10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.09.042.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000a), “Engineering the leagile supply chain”,
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 54-61, doi: 10.1108/
14654650010312606.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000b), “Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supply
chain to the marketplace”, International Journal of Production Research, SPEC, Vol. 38 No. 17,
pp. 4061-4070, doi: 10.1080/00207540050204920.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A. and Geng, Y. (2013), “An ISM approach for the
barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 47, October 2018, pp. 283-297, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.042.
Mehrabi, M.G., Ulsoy, A.G. and Koren, Y. (2000), “Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: key to
future manufacturing”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 403-419, doi: 10.
1023/A:1008930403506.
Millar, H.H. and Russell, S.N. (2011), “The adoption of sustainable manufacturing practices in the
caribbean”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 512-526, doi: 10.1002/
bse.707.
Millon, D. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability”, Company Law
and Sustainability: Legal Barriers and Opportunities, January, pp. 35-78, doi: 10.1007/
CBO9781107337978.004.
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing strategies of U.S firms”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1222-1238, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.017.
Mittal, V.K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2014a), “Prioritizing barriers to green manufacturing: environmental,
social and economic perspectives”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 17, pp. 559-564, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.
2014.01.075.
Mittal, V.K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2014b), “Development of a model of barriers to environmentally Barriers to the
conscious manufacturing implementation”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 584-594, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2013.838649. adoption of
Mittal, V.K., Sangwan, K.S., Herrmann, C., Egede, P. and Wulbusch, C. (2012), “Drivers and barriers of
ISGLSAMS
environmentally conscious manufacturing: a comparative study of Indian and German
organizations”, Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World - Proceedings of the 19th CIRP
Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, pp. 97-102.
Mittal, V.K., Sindhwani, R. and Kapur, P.K. (2016), “Two-way assessment of barriers to lean–green
manufacturing system: insights from India”, International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering
and Management, Springer India, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 400-407, doi: 10.1007/s13198-016-0461-z.
Mittal, V.K., Sindhwani, R., Kalsariya, V., Salroo, F., Sangwan, K.S. and Singh, P.L. (2017), “Adoption
of integrated lean-green-agile strategies for modern manufacturing systems”, Procedia CIRP,
Vol. 61, pp. 463-468, The Author(s), doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.189.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. and Grp, P. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (reprinted from annals of internal
medicine)”, Physical Therapy, Vol. 89 No. 9, pp. 873-880, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Moktadir, M.A., Ali, S.M., Rajesh, R. and Paul, S.K. (2018), “Modeling the interrelationships among
barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 181, pp. 631-651.
Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, M. (2012), “Learning on lean: a review of thinking and
research”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 551-582, doi: 10.1108/01443571211226498.
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P. and Raj, T. (2010), “Modelling the barriers of green supply chain
practices: an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management,
Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 81, doi: 10.1504/IJLSM.2010.033891.
Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A. and Geng, Y. (2013), “Barriers to green supply chain management
in Indian mining industries: a graph theoretic approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 47,
pp. 335-344, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.030.
Mundra, N. and Mishra, R.P. (2020), “Impediments to Lean Six Sigma and Agile Implementation: an
interpretive structural modeling”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, Vol. 28, pp. 2156-2160.
Murray, J.Y., Kotabe, M. and Zhou, J.N. (2005), “Strategic alliance-based sourcing and market
performance: evidence from foreign firms operating in China”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 187-208, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400120.
Muscatello, J.R., Small, M.H. and Chen, I.J. (2003), “Implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP)
systems in small and midsize manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 23 Nos 7-8, pp. 850-871, doi: 10.1108/01443570310486329.
Nadeem, S.P., Garza-reyes, J.A., Leung, S., Cherra, A., Anosike, A.I. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Advances in
production management systems. The path to intelligent, collaborative and sustainable
manufacturing”, Vol. 514, pp. 331-340, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66926-7.
Nambiar, A. (2010), “Challenges in sustainable manufacturing”, Proceedings of the 2010 International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
pp. 10-15, doi: 10.5539/jsd.v4n6p36.
Narkhede, B.E., Raut, R.D., Roy, M., Yadav, V.S. and Gardas, B. (2020), “Implementation barriers to
lean-agile manufacturing systems for original equipment manufacturers: an integrated
decision-making approach”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 108 Nos 9-10, pp. 3193-3206, doi: 10.1007/s00170-020-05486-5.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62
Nos 1-2, pp. 107-118, doi: 10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00223-0.
BIJ Nazam, M., Hashim, M., Baig, S.A., Abrar, M. and Shabbir, R. (2020), “Modeling the key barriers of
knowledge management adoption in sustainable supply chain”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1077-1109.
Neri, A., Cagno, E., Di Sebastiano, G. and Trianni, A. (2018), “Industrial sustainability: modelling
drivers and mechanisms with barriers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 194, pp. 452-472,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.140.
Ngu, H.J., Lee, M.D. and Bin Osman, M.S. (2020), “Review on current challenges and future
opportunities in Malaysia sustainable manufacturing: remanufacturing industries”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 273, 123071.
Nieuwenhuis, P. and Katsifou, E. (2015), “More sustainable automotive production through
understanding decoupling points in leagile manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 95, pp. 232-241, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.084.
Nnorom, I.C. and Osibanjo, O. (2008), “Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices
and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries”, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 843-858, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.01.004.
Nordin, N., Deros, M.B. and Wahab, D.A. (2008), “Change management issues in lean manufacturing:
literature analysis”, Engineering Postgraduate Conference (EPC), Faculty of Engineering and
Built Environment, UKM.
Nordin, N., Ashari, H. and Hassan, M.G. (2014), “Drivers and barriers in sustainable manufacturing
implementation in Malaysian manufacturing firms”, IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE, pp. 687-691, doi: 10.1109/IEEM.
2014.7058726.
Nunes, B. and Bennett, D. (2010), “Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: an
environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 396-420, doi: 10.1108/14635771011049362.
Oh, V. and Sharpe, J. (1995), “Conflict management in an interdisciplinary design environment”,
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 247-258, doi: 10.1017/S0890060400002808.
Oleghe, O. and Salonitis, K. (2016), “Variation modeling of lean manufacturing performance using
fuzzy logic based quantitative lean index”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 41, pp. 608-613, doi: 10.1016/j.
procir.2016.01.008.
Paiola, M. and Gebauer, H. (2020), “Internet of things technologies, digital servitization and business
model innovation in BtoB manufacturing firms”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 89,
pp. 245-264, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.009.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola and
Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pandey, H., Garg, D. and Luthra, S. (2018), “Identification and ranking of enablers of green lean Six
Sigma implementation using AHP”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, p. 187, doi: 10.1504/IJPQM.2018.089156.
Parmar, P.S. and Desai, T.N. (2021), “Ranking the solutions of Sustainable Lean Six Sigma
implementation in Indian manufacturing organization to overcome its barriers”, International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 304-317, doi: 10.1080/
19397038.2020.1813834.
Pathak, P., Singh, M.P. and Badhotiya, G.K. (2020), “Performance obstacles in sustainable
manufacturing – model building and validation”, Journal of Advances in Management
Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 549-566.
Petrini, M. and Pozzebon, M. (2009), “Managing sustainability with the support of business
intelligence: integrating socio-environmental indicators and organisational context”, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 178-191, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2009.06.001.
Potdar, P.K., Routroy, S. and Behera, A. (2017), “Analyzing the agile manufacturing barriers using Barriers to the
fuzzy DEMATEL”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, p. 1912, doi: 10.1108/
BIJ-02-2016-0024. adoption of
Prince, J. and Kay, J. (2003), “Combining lean and agile characteristics: creation of virtual groups by
ISGLSAMS
enhanced production flow analysis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85
No. 3, pp. 305-318, doi: 10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00118-X.
Pujari, D., Wright, G. and Peattie, K. (2003), “Green and competitive influences on environmental
new product development performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8,
pp. 657-671, doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00310-1.
Putnik, G.D. and Putnik, Z. (2012), “Lean vs agile in the context of complexity management in
organizations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 248-266, doi: 10.1108/
09696471211220046.
Pyzdek, T. (2003), The Six Sigma Handbook - A Complete Guide for Green Belts, Black Belts, and
Managers at All Levels, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Quazi, H.A. (1999), “Implementation of an environmental management system: the experience of
companies operating in Singapore”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 99 No. 7,
pp. 302-311, doi: 10.1108/02635579910262526.
Rahimifard, S., Coates, G., Staikos, T., Edwards, C. and Abu-Bakar, M. (2009), “Barriers, drivers and
challenges for sustainable product recovery and recycling”, International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 80-90, doi: 10.1080/19397030903019766.
Raisinghani, M.S., Ette, H., Pierce, R., Cannon, G. and Daripaly, P. (2005), “Six sigma: concepts, tools,
and applications”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 491-505, doi: 10.
1108/02635570510592389.
Rathi, R., Singh, M., Kumar Verma, A., Singh Gurjar, R., Singh, A. and Samantha, B. (2021),
“Identification of Lean Six Sigma barriers in automobile part manufacturing industry”,
Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.221.
Raut, R., Narkhede, B.E., Gardas, B.B. and Luong, H.T. (2018), “An ISM approach for the barrier
analysis in implementing sustainable practices”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1245-1271, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-05-2016-0073.
Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-1029, doi: 10.1016/j.
techfore.2004.07.002.
Rehman, M.A.A. and Shrivastava, R.L. (2011), “An innovative approach to evaluate green supply
chain management (GSCM) drivers by using interpretive structural modeling (ISM)”,
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 315-336,
doi: 10.1142/S0219877011002453.
€ (2017), “Barriers to the circular economy – integration of perspectives
Ritz
en, S. and Sandstr€om, G.O.
and domains”, Procedia CIRP, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 64, pp. 7-12.
Rosen, M.A. and Kishawy, H.A. (2012), “Sustainable manufacturing and design: concepts, practices
and needs”, Sustainability, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 154-174, doi: 10.3390/su4020154.
Roth, A.V. and Miller, J.G. (1992), “Success factors in manufacturing”, Business Horizons. doi: 10.1016/
S0007-6813(05)80165-X.
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K. and Maxwell, J. (2001), “Lean, green, and the quest for superior environmental
performance”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 228-243, doi: 10.1111/j.
1937-5956.2001.tb00372.x.
Ruben, R.B., Nagapandi, P. and Nachiappan, S. (2020), “Modelling and analysis of barriers of lean
sustainability in metal manufacturing organizations”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier,
Vol. 45, pp. 6807-6812.
BIJ Rusinko, C.A. (2007), “Green manufacturing: an evaluation of environmentally sustainable
manufacturing practices and their impact on competitive outcomes”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 445-454, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2007.900806.
Russell, R.S. and Taylor, B.W. (2000), Operations Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Russo, M.V. and Harrison, N.S. (2005), “Organizational design and environmental performance: clues
from the electronics industry”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 582-593, doi:
10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843939.
Sage, A.P. (1977), Methodology for Large-Scale Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Salonitis, K. and Tsinopoulos, C. (2016), “Drivers and barriers of lean implementation in the Greek
manufacturing sector”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 57, pp. 189-194, The Author(s), doi: 10.1016/j.procir.
2016.11.033.
Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M. and Hervani, A.A. (2010), “Reverse logistics and social sustainability”, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 337-354, doi: 10.1002/
csr.220.
Seidel, R., Shahbazpour, M. and Seidel, M.C. (2007), “Establishing sustainable manufacturing practices
in SMEs”, Department of Mechanical Enginering,The University of Auckland, Vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Schaper, M. (2002), “The challenge of environmental responsibility and sustainable development:
implications for SME and entrepreneurship academics”, in F€ uglistaller, U., Pleitner, H.,
Voleryand, T. and Webwe, W. (Eds), Radical Changes in the World: Will SMEs Soar or Crash?
Recountres de St Gallen, pp. 525-35, available at: www.kmu.unisg.ch/rencontres/ band2002/F_
09_Schaper.pdf (accessed 18 September 2010).
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schulze, F. and Dallasega, P. (2021), “Barriers to lean implementation in engineer-to-order
manufacturing with subsequent assembly on-site: state of the art and future directions”,
Production Planning and Control, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1-25.
Seidel, M., Seidel, R., Tedford, D., Cross, R. and Wait, L. (2008), “A systems modeling approach to
support environmentally sustainable business development in manufacturing SMEs”, World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 24, pp. 121-129.
Severo, E.A., De Guimar~aes, J.C.F., Dorion, E.C.H. and Nodari, C.H. (2015), “Cleaner production,
environmental sustainability and organizational performance: an empirical study in the
Brazilian metal-mechanic industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 96, pp. 118-125, doi: 10.
1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.027.
Shang, K.C., Lu, C.S. and Li, S. (2010), “A taxonomy of green supply chain management capability
among electronics-related manufacturing firms in Taiwan”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1218-1226, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.016.
Shankar, K.M., Kannan, D. and Kumar, P.U. (2017), “Analyzing sustainable manufacturing practices –
a case study in Indian context”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 164, pp. 1332-1343, doi: 10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.097.
Sharma, Y.C., Aggarwal, P. and Singh, T.N. (2009), “Economic liabilities of environmental pollution by
coal mining: Indian scenario”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 589-599, doi: 10.1007/s10668-007-9131-2.
Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict snd relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 102-111,
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Singh, A., Singh, B. and Dhingra, A.K. (2012), “Practices : drivers and barriers of green manufacturing
practices A survey of Indian industries”, International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 01 No. 01, pp. 5-19.
Singh, C., Singh, D. and Khamba, J.S. (2020), “Analyzing barriers of Green Lean practices in
manufacturing industries by DEMATEL approach”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 176-198, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-02-2020-0053.
Smith, L. and Ball, P. (2012), “Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through modelling material, Barriers to the
energy and waste flows”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1,
pp. 227-238, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.036. adoption of
Sohal, A.S., Moss, S. and Monash, L.N. (2001), “Comparing IT success in manufacturing and service
ISGLSAMS
industries”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1-2,
pp. 30-45, doi: 10.1108/01443570110358440.
Soni, G., Prakash, S., Kumar, H., Singh, S.P., Jain, V. and Dhami, S.S. (2020), “An interpretive structural
modeling of drivers and barriers of sustainable supply chain management”, Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1071-1090.
Stratton, R. and Warburton, R.D.H. (2003), “The strategic integration of agile and lean supply”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 183-198, doi: 10.1016/S0925-
5273(03)00109-9.
Stump, B. and Badurdeen, F. (2012), “Integrating lean and other strategies for mass customization
manufacturing: a case study”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 109-124,
doi: 10.1007/s10845-009-0289-3.
Talapatra, S., Santos, G., Uddin, K. and Carvalho, F. (2019), “Main benefits of integrated management
systems through literature review”, International Journal for Quality Research, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 1037-1054, doi: 10.24874/IJQR13.04-19.
Thamhain, H.J. and Wilemon, D.L. (1975), “Conflict management in project life-cycle”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 31-49.
Torielli, R.M., Abrahams, R.A., Smillie, R.W. and Voigt, R.C. (2010), “Using lean methodologies for
economically and environmentally sustainable foundries”, 69th World Foundry Congress 2010,
WFC 2010, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 710-726.
Udokporo, C., Anosike, A. and Lim, M. (2020), “A decision-support framework for Lean, Agile and
Green practices in product life cycle stages”, Production Planning and Control, Taylor &
Francis, pp. 1-22.
V
azquez-Bustelo, D., Avella, L. and Fern
andez, E. (2007), “Agility drivers, enablers and outcomes:
empirical test of an integrated agile manufacturing model”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1303-1332, doi: 10.1108/01443570710835633.
Veiga, G.L., Lima, E.P., Angelis, J.J. and Costa, S.E.G. (2011), “The strategic role of lean A discussion”,
Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-30, doi: 10.4322/
bjopm.2011.001.
Vejaratnam, N., Mohamad, Z.F. and Chenayah, S. (2020), “A systematic review of barriers impeding
the implementation of government green procurement”, Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 451-471.
Vinodh, S. and Joy, D. (2012), “Structural equation modeling of sustainable manufacturing practices”,
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-84, doi: 10.1007/s10098-011-
0379-8.
Virmani, N., Bera, S. and Kumar, R. (2021), “Identification and testing of barriers to sustainable
manufacturing in the automobile industry: a focus on Indian MSMEs”, Benchmarking, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 857-880.
Wall, J.A. and Callister, R.R. (1995), “Conflict and its management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 515-558, doi: 10.1177/014920639502100306.
Wang, X., Conboy, K. and Cawley, O. (2012), “Leagile’ software development: an experience report
analysis of the application of lean approaches in agile software development”, Journal of
Systems and Software, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 1287-1299, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.061.
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2011), “Transformational change and business
process reengineering (BPR): lessons from the British and Dutch public sector”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 320-328, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.010.
BIJ Westk€amper, E., Alting and Arndt (2000), “Life cycle management and assessment: approaches and
visions towards sustainable manufacturing”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 501-526, doi: 10.
1016/S0007-8506(07)63453-2.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., Pankalla, L., Kassubek, M. and Seegebarth, B. (2011), “Adoption
barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector”, Journal of Business
Research, Elsevier, Vol. 64 No. 11, pp. 1201-1206.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1997), “Lean thinking—banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY,
Vol. 48 No. 11, p. 1148, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600967.
Wong, Y.C., Wong, K.Y. and Ali, A. (2009a), “Key practice areas of lean manufacturing”, 2009
International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology - Spring Conference,
IACSIT-SC 2009, pp. 267-271, doi: 10.1109/IACSIT-SC.2009.44.
Wong, Y.C., Wong, K.Y. and Ali, A. (2009b), “A study on lean manufacturing implementation in the
Malaysian electrical and electronics industry”, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 521-535.
Worley, J.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2006), “The role of communication and management support in a lean
manufacturing implementation”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 228-245, doi: 10.1108/
00251740610650210.
Wyrwicka, M.K. and Mrugalska, B. (2017), “Mirages of lean manufacturing in practice”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 182, pp. 780-785, The Author(s), doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.200.
Xia, X., Govindan, K. and Zhu, Q. (2015), “Analyzing internal barriers for automotive parts
remanufacturers in China using grey-DEMATEL approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 811-825, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.044.
Xu, X., Han, M., Nagarajan, S.M. and Anandhan, P. (2020), “Industrial Internet of Things for smart
manufacturing applications using hierarchical trustful resource assignment”, Computer
Communications, Vol. 160, pp. 423-430, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.06.004.
Yang, P. and Yu, Y. (2010), “The barriers to SMEs’ implementation of lean production and
countermeasures — based on SMEs in wenzhou”, International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 220-225.
Yadav, G. and Desai, T.N. (2017), “A fuzzy AHP approach to prioritize the barriers of integrated Lean
Six Sigma”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 8,
pp. 1167-1185.
Yadav, V., Jain, R., Mittal, M.L., Panwar, A. and Sharma, M.K. (2019), “An appraisal on barriers to
implement lean in SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 195-212.
Yadav, G., Seth, D. and Desai, T.N. (2018), “Prioritising solutions for Lean Six Sigma adoption barriers
through fuzzy AHP-modified TOPSIS framework”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 270-300.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P. and Modi, S.B. (2011), “Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 251-261, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.
2010.10.017.
Yusuf, Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts and
attributes”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1-2, pp. 33-43, doi: 10.
1016/S0925-5273(98)00219-9.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Adeleye, E.O. and Sivayoganathan, K. (2003), “Volume flexibility: the agile manufacturing
conundrum”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 613-624, doi: 10.1108/00251740310495540.
Zanjani, M.K., Ashtiani, N.N. and Bhuiyan, N. (2017), “Lean leadership practices-a literature review”,
Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, doi: 10.4172/2169-0316.1000226.
Zhang, L., Narkhede, B.E. and Chaple, A.P. (2017), “Evaluating lean manufacturing barriers: an Barriers to the
interpretive process”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 8,
pp. 1086-1114, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-04-2017-0071. adoption of
Zhu, Q. and Geng, Y. (2013), “Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy
ISGLSAMS
saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 40, pp. 6-12, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.09.017.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.
2004.01.005.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices
and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 449-468, doi: 10.1108/01443570510593148.
Zhu, X., Zhang, H., Wu, C. and Huang, Z. (2017), “An economic model of integration framework of lean
production and green manufacturing based on sustainability balanced scorecard”, Boletin
Tecnico/Technical Bulletin, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 263-269.
Zwick, T. (2002), “Employee resistance against innovations”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 23 No. 6, doi: 10.1108/01437720210446397.

About the authors

Dharmendra Hariyani is a research scholar at Mechanical Engineering Department,
University Department, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rajasthan, India. He is
also working as associate professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Swami Keshvanand Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. He did his
masters in manufacturing systems engineering from Malaviya National Institute of
Technology (MNIT), Jaipur. He teaches courses in operations and supply chain
management, quality systems engineering, product design and development,
industrial engineering and manufacturing technology. His research interests are in
areas of manufacturing strategy, organizational design, new product development and supply chain
management, innovation in management, quality assurance, and market focused sustainable
manufacturing. Dharmendra Hariyani is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
dhariyani12002@gmail.com
Dr Sanjeev Mishra is a professor at Mechanical Engineering Department, at University
Department, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rajasthan, India. He did his Ph.D.
(IIT Kanpur), Master of Engineering (ME) [Jai Narain Vyas University (JNV), Jodhpur],
M.Sc. Physics and B.Tech. [Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani].
He teaches courses in operations and supply chain management, product design and
development, industrial engineering, operations research, Computer Integrated
Manufacturing System (CIMS), stochastic modeling, simulation, quality
management, mechatronics and nanotechnology. His research interests are in areas
of manufacturing strategy, organizational design, new product development and supply chain
management, innovation in management, quality assurance, market focused sustainable
manufacturing, operations research, CIMS, stochastic modeling, simulation, quality management,
mechatronics and nanotechnology.

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