See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/40498643

A systems approach to green operations strategy

Conference Paper · April 2009

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2456.4006 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
0 760

4 authors:

Breno Nunes Duncan Shaw

Aston University The University of Manchester
54 PUBLICATIONS   528 CITATIONS    138 PUBLICATIONS   2,022 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Naomi Brookes David Bennett

The University of Warwick Chalmers University of Technology
93 PUBLICATIONS   1,682 CITATIONS    349 PUBLICATIONS   2,804 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Green operations in the automotive industry View project

Physics of Sustainable Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Bennett on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Go To Main

IAMOT 2009
18th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY
April 5-9, 2009
Caribe Royale Hotel, Orlando, Florida, USA

Managing Green Technology

Conference Proceedings
ISBN: 0-9815817-2-2

Edited By
Dr. Yasser Hosni, PE
Conference Chair
 Go To Main

IAMOT 2009
18th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY
April 5-9, 2009
Caribe Royale Hotel, Orlando, Florida, USA

Managing Green Technology

Conference Proceedings
ISBN: 0-9815817-2-2

Edited By
Dr. Yasser Hosni, PE
Conference Chair

2
 Go To Main

IAMOT 2009 Conference Tracks

Track# Track title

1 Green Technologies
2 Social Impact of Technology Development
3 MOT Education and Research
4 Innovation, Technology Nurturing and Incubation.
5 National and Regional Technology Policies and Infrastructure
6 Small and Medium Enterprises
7 Technology Transfer, Marketing and Commercialization
8 Technology Foresight and Forecasting
9 Information and Communication Technology Management
10 The Integration of Technology and Business Strategies
11 R&D Management
12 Project and Program Management
13 Industrial and Manufacturing System Technologies
14 Logistics and Supply Chain Management
15 Management of Technology in Developing Countries
16 Theory of Technology
17 Emerging Technologies
18 Technology and Competitiveness
19 Women in Technology
20 Transportation Technology and its Management
21 Construction Technology Management
22 MOT - Theory and Practice

3
 Go To Main

Preface

The 18th International Conference for the International Association of

Management of Technology (IAMOT 2009) is being held this year during the
worst economic recession world wide since the World war II. In more than
one occasion the world leaders in their quest for an economic recovery have
voiced Technology as a possible saver for the recession. Specifically, they
pointed out to “Green Technology” as one of a number of technologies that
is bound to grow in the next few years. Hence, the theme of the IAMOT
2009 as “Managing Green Technology” is a timely selection for our
conference this year.

There were 334 abstract submissions, with 666 authors from 38 countries
for the IAMOT 2009. The acceptance rate for the conference was 77%,
resulting in a total of 259 accepted to the conference, including 104 for
presentation only, in the 22 tracks of the conference.
Based on this year’s conference statistics, one can conclude that the field of
Management of Technology is gaining momentum and appreciation in both
the academic and industrial communities globally, more so in Europe and
the developing countries than in the US.

Lots of effort has been invested in the authoring and the production of these
proceedings. First, we would like to thank the authors for their excellent
work and dedication in authoring the papers and in meeting the deadlines
for production. Second, we would like to thank the reviewers who insured
timely reviewing and for their valuable advise to the authors. Finally, we
would like to thank the IAMOT 2009 local committee and the IAMOT Staff
headed by Mrs. Silvia Rodriguez, the colleagues from IBM-Miami, and the
students Ahmed El-Nashar, and Dalia Mahgoub for the long hours they put
to realize this proceedings in its final format.

Conference Chairs,

Yasser Hosni
Tarek Khalil

4
 Go To Main

IAMOT 2009
Conference Reviewers

Michael Badawy
David Bennett
Frederick Betz
Jeff Butler
Elias Carayannis
Dilek Cetindamar
Hazem Ezzat
Najib Harabi
Dominique Jolly
Ahmed Khalafallah
Tarek Khalil
Louis-A. Lefebvre
Laure Morel
Thomas O'Neal
Amr Oloufa
Essam Radwan
Robert Reedy
Ziad Rotaba
Richard Smith
Harm-Jan Steenhuis
William Thompson
Steven Walsh
Yan Wang
Ayman Wasfy
Chihiro Watanabe
Gamal Weheba
Rias van Wyk

5
 Return
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO GREE OPERATIOS STRATEGY

BRENO NUNES
Technology and Operations Management Research Group
Aston Business School, Aston University
Birmingham, B4 7ET, United Kingdom
nunesbts@aston.ac.uk

DUNCAN SHAW
Technology and Operations Management Research Group
Aston Business School, Aston University
Birmingham, B4 7ET, United Kingdom
d.a.shaw@aston.ac.uk

DAVID BENNETT
Technology and Operations Management Research Group
Aston Business School, Aston University
Birmingham, B4 7ET, United Kingdom
d.j.bennett@aston.ac.uk

NAOMI BROOKES
Technology and Operations Management Research Group
Aston Business School, Aston University
Birmingham, B4 7ET, United Kingdom
n.j.brookes@aston.ac.uk
The objective of this paper is to present the potential contribution of systems thinking theory to the development of environmental
strategies in operations. Environmental management practices have been establishing their place in business agenda over the last 40
years from, for example, end-of-pipe solutions in the 70s, pollution prevention in the 80s, and environmental management systems in
the 90s. 2000s and next decade might emerge as an exciting era for environmental management and its contribution towards
sustainability of organisations. Although a lot has progressed in the identification, implementation and monitoring of environmental
practices; nevertheless, there still is a gap to the extent of selecting technologies or practices, and mainly, in developing
environmental strategies. Thus, this paper brings a systems model as tool to develop environmental strategies. The systems model
presented in this paper intends to contribute to the green operations literature and practice, mainly, in respect to environmental
decision making. Systems thinking methodology was used to turn the green operations framework (1unes and Bennett, 2008) into a
systemic tool. The model is now composed of three phases, namely: (A) Problem identification or objective definition, (B)
Development of alternatives, and (C) Selection of alternatives, implementation and management. Phase A brings together 5 activities,
which include defining strategic objectives, key elements, performance measures, assessment of status quo and classification of
environmental elements. Phase (B) refers to the identification of relevant areas for improvement, the evaluation of existing practices,
and the consideration of innovative alternatives. Finally, phase (C) analyzes the alternatives and their contribution, defines an
implementation plan, and the management post-implementation. In order to test the model a pilot study was used in a real
environmental decision making situation. The model is currently being applied within several environmental decision making teams in
the automotive industry. The methodology used is case research and the main research method is focus group. The model was applied
in the design of a green research strategy for a university. The coordinators of the research theme were first interviewed and then
participated together in a focus group, which took about 2 hours. From the pilot study, the participants considered that the model
increases consistency of decisions by its process and the visible link between objectives, criteria, measures and actions. Further
application in different industry would be important to better define the terminology used in the model in order to easy the facilitation
process in its utilisation. Moreover, the elements of environmental strategy, measures of environmental performance and possible
alternatives raised in the focus groups are in the context of the participants; therefore, they may not apply for other companies even
in the same sector. The results of its application are not intended to be generalised; in instead, the authors aimed at the
generalisation of the process of environmental decision making in operations. This work supplements previous research in the field of
environmental management, more specifically to its interface with operations management. Its systems approach avoids prescriptive
solutions and fosters the pursuit of innovative solutions. This reveals original to the development of environmental operations
strategy. Thus, the contribution of this paper for the Management Technology resides in its model as a tool in the choice of green
technologies.

Keywords: environmental strategy, systems thinking, decision making, operations management

1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

Introduction to Business and Sustainability

The universally known concept of sustainability gained major international attention in the United Nations
(UN) report “Our Common Future”, also called the Brundtland Report, in 1987. The UN report stated that
sustainable development is development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1989).
There is indeed a huge relationship between business and environment. Once the major environmental
concerns in the 21st century are: atmospheric pollution (and its consequences for human health, global warming
and ozone layer depletion), scarcity of freshwater, energy security, raw material and land availability; the
impacts on businesses may be enormous as it was announced by the World Resources Institute’s report -
Tomorrow’s Market: Global Trends and Their Implications for Business (WRI, 2002).
From a national competitiveness policy perspective, Porter and Van Der Linde (1995) discuss the role of
regulation in stimulating innovation and therefore, increasing competitiveness within economic sectors. For
them, innovation offsets can be broadly divided into product offsets and process offsets. Products offsets refer
to better performing or higher quality products, safer goods and lower costs. On the other hand, process offsets
embrace higher resource productivity, material savings, better utilization of by-products, lower energy
consumption, reduced material storage and waste disposal costs, and finally create a safer workplace. In short,
both product and process innovation can lead companies to mitigate against pollution, which is understood as
inefficiency in the process. Thus, companies must improve their measurement and assessment methods to
detect environmental costs and benefits (Porter and Van Der Linde, 1995).
If a business is developed with consideration to its relationship with the environment the chances of wealth
creation and the welfare of mankind are higher (Hart, 1995). On the other hand, when businesses do not take
into account this relationship the image of the organisation may be negatively affected and the economic gains
might be offset by costs of recuperating the natural environment (including people’s health). For example, some
specialists believe that 4 to 8% of the Chinese GDP is consumed by pollution costs (Gallagher, 2003).
Hart (1997) summarises the link between business and sustainability:
“Yesterday’s businesses were often oblivious to their negative environmental impacts and today’s responsible
businesses strive for zero impact, tomorrow’s businesses must learn to make a positive impact.” (Hart, 1997)
Porter and Van Der Linde (1995) affirm that today a new frame of reference for thinking about
environmental improvement is urgently needed. For instance, considering the way companies are assessed, one
will find that Hart (1995) suggest a classification with three types of companies, in which companies would aim
pollution prevention, product stewardship and sustainable development (including the sustainability of product
and process). In fact, developing business strategies to enhance sustainability level is a great challenge as even
Hart (1995) considers difficult to find companies that would be realistic classified as a sustainable development
firm.
Actually, environmental protection is indeed one of the dimensions of sustainability, and in reality,
organisations’ decisions are judged by its impact on the firm’s economic, environmental, ethical and social
performance. Porter and Kramer (2006) highlight the importance of prioritizing and choosing sustainability
issues (social and environmental) that intersect with its particular business; therefore, creating a positive impact
on the company’s value chain. Accordingly, by connecting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to business
strategy, corporations could discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed
– rather it can be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2006).
If formerly the corporative performance evaluation could done based upon mostly financial measures; today
it is much more complex as it needs to include social and environmental measures. Other business trends such
as globalisation of production and markets brought even more complexity not only to evaluate business
performance but also how to manage it (Hill, 2007).
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

Bertalanffy (1972) had already highlighted that modern technology and society have become so complex that
the traditional branches of technology are no longer sufficient, so approaches using a holistic view or systems
thinking, and of a generalist and interdisciplinary nature, become necessary. The use of systems thinking
approaches has been steadily growing in organisations’ management and decisions (Senge, 1990; Checkland,
1981; Forrester, 1961; Ison, Blackmore, Collins and Furniss, 2007; Azapagic, 2003; Kunsch, Theys, Brans,
2007). Nonetheless, there is still the need of progressing with the research related to environmental decision
making.
Although some decision makers (managers and engineers) still argue that it is extremely difficult to
ascertain today whether a product could be considered environmentally friendly in ten years’ time
(Mildenberger and Khare, 2000), the question for companies has become not whether to commit to a strong
environmental, health, and safety record, but how to do so in the most cost-effective manner (Kleindorfer,
Singhal, and Wassenhove, 2005).
In terms of environmental decisions, those related to the operations functions are regarded as the most
important. For instance, the operations function of a company encounters environmental protection issues
directly because it is the main source of harmful emissions, and therefore, environmental management
programmes and policies should be carefully developed to strengthen its operations strategy (Gupta, 1995).

Operations Management, Sustainability and Systems Thinking

The discussions of sustainability issues in production systems recall late studies and even the collapse of
ancient civilisations (Malthus, 1798; King, 1995; Hardin, 1968; Kunsch, Theys, Brans, 2007). The recent
progress in operations can be seen by the historical path of environmental management presented by Beamon
(1999). Environmental management evolved from pollution control and risk management in the 70s to pollution
prevention in the 80s to the implementation of systematic product and process management, ISO 14000 series
launch, and the emergence of life cycle and industrial ecology approaches (Beamon, 1999). The further
evolution of environmental management heads to its recognition as a key area for those who want to be
competitive in modern times (Corbett and Klassen, 2006).
Nonetheless, as a key area of improvement will require environmental management to be taken under a
systemic approach (rather than systematic), i.e., analysing how the decisions will impact not only on the
environmental aspects but also the overall business and operations strategy. In fact, a number of authors have
already claimed the need of systems view for environmental issues (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989; Sarkis,
1995; Hart, 1995; Angell and Klassen, 1999; Klassen, 2001; Graedel and Allenby, 1995).
While the question of why a company should implement environmental management practices may have
already been answered, there are still many other questions that need further investigation. For instance, even if
there is an “environmental budget”, how are companies making environmental decisions? To define where a
company is supposed to invest is a very challenging and strategic decision that involves various possibilities
(e.g. facilities, manufacturing, logistics, marketing, process and product design, etc). Another difficult aspect of
environmental initiatives is how to implement them in a way to also meet corporative goals of profitability as
well as other business requirements. This may happen because of the elementary reasoning behind
environmental protection. While most of the business practices return private profits; environmental protection
is strongly recognised as a public good (Orsato, 2006). Indeed, it is not always that environmental management
initiatives will return a profit for an individual initiative or provide a match with all corporative objectives.
There will be conflicts, mainly when the initiatives are taken under an opportunity cost analysis. However, the
more businesses consider the importance of managing intangibles, the more environmental issues will become
better commended and prove valuable, even starting with an economic or financial analysis. Following this
trend, the field of environmental (green) operations management and sustainable operations has gained special
attention lately.
Gupta and Sharma (1996) define Environmental Operations Management (EOM) as the integration of
Environmental Management principles with the decision-making process for converting resources into usable
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

products. They believe that EOM is a strategic level of operations management since it primarily concerns
product and process design. In fact, defining the strategic operations objectives is strongly connected to
environmental issues. The operations function of a company encounters environmental protection issues
directly because it is the main source of harmful emissions and thus, environmental management programmes
and policies should be carefully developed to strengthen its operations strategy (Gupta, 1995).
Sarkis (2001) has designed the concept of greener manufacturing and operations through the use of
environmental tools such as: design for environment, green supply chains, total quality environmental
management and reverse logistics.
Manufacturing strategy researchers have also spotted the need to include environmental issues in their
studies. Dangayach and Deshmukh (2001) did a literature review on the topic of manufacturing strategy. They
warn of the need of progressing with the research related to manufacturing strategies in the context of green
manufacturing. Van Hoek (2002) discusses the integration of environmental issues and business strategy, which
could be understood as a call for an extension of Terry Hill’s studies to include environmental issues, once Hill
(1993) points out the importance of the alignment of corporative objectives, marketing and operations strategy.
Van Hoek (2002) uses Reinhardt’s (2000) approach, from the book Down to Earth, calling for the
integration of the overall position of the product, the company and other aspects of business strategy. “The
point being that it should not be an add-on characteristic; it is a strategic choice that has to be managed
consistently and accordingly” (Van Hoek, 2002). Van Hoek (2002) adds how important is to consider if there is
a market willing to pay for the green product and other business issues such as barriers to imitation.
Concurrently, a number of authors have been pointing out the importance of having a systems view for
operations strategy and education (Skinner, 2007; Hayes, 1984; Hill, 1993; Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989;
Sarkis, 1995; Machuca, 1998). Albeit some of the previous work may not explicitly state this need, they
highlight the link and interactions between strategic decisions and the impact from one area on another, e.g., the
effect of technology choice on production facilities and warehouse capacity. Now, due to the pressure for
higher social and environmental performance, we suggest a systems model to design green operations strategy.
Thus, the model presented in this paper brings together 3 major disciplines: environmental management,
operations management (strategy), and systems thinking (decision making).
Indeed, environmental decision making was already explored in previous work; although mostly to develop
environmental policies. English (1999) brings together a tool for information-gathering and analysis tool for
environmental decision making, which consists 8 functional categories: (1) determine goals and values, (2)
characterise the environment, (3) characterise the economic, social, and political setting, (4) characterise the
legal and regulatory setting, (5) integrate information, (6) forecast, (7) assess, refine, and narrow options, and
finally (8) conduct post-decision assessment.
A different approach is taken by Hoffman (1999) with a roadmap for organizational change to invoke
environmental actions. Hoffman (1999) designs 4 phases to make the change happen: diagnosis, unfreezing,
movement, refreezing. After ‘diagnosis’, ‘unfreezing’ phase would include the establishment of a sense of
urgency, the formation of a powerful guiding coalition, and the creation of a vision. ‘Movement’ encompasses
to communicate the vision, to empower others to act, to plan for and create short-term wins and consolidate
improvements and produce still more change. Finally, ‘refreezing’ is related to institutionalizing new
approaches.
A system approach has already been used for environmental decision making by previous authors. Van Der
Vorst (1999) highlights the need for having a systems approach to go beyond the environmental impact
assessment, environmental management systems, and life-cycle assessment. Azapagic (2003) proposes a
general framework for Corporate Sustainability Management System, which was modelled to be compatible
with the familiar structures of ISO 14000 environmental management systems standards, including 5 stages: (1)
sustainable development policy, (2) planning, (3) implementation, (4) communication, and finally finishing the
cycle at (5) review and correction actions. Azapagic (2003) locates the business strategy and vision in the centre
of the model linking it to sustainable development policy and planning stages.
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

Once it has been identified by several authors the need of introducing both sustainability and systems
thinking in operations management, we have chosen the strategic decision making in operations to pursue this
challenge.
Next section presents the model and the following one shows it application in a real decision making
situation.

The GRASS model - A systems model for green operations strategy

This section presents the GRASS model (GRASS stands for Greener Approach for Systems Strategy – see
figure 1). The GRASS model comes to help organisations in taking environmental decisions. It is important to
highlight the role of the structure provided here as this model does not intend to substitute the structure of
environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 environmental management systems standards. The
reason is that while the ISO 14001 standards are specifications to manage the environmental aspects of an
organisation; the GRASS Model is aimed at improving environmental decision making within organisations.
This is a crucial difference that one should notice. The theoretical underpins behind the GRASS model are
supported by the disciplines of environmental management, systems thinking (decision making science), and
strategic operations management. As the previous section has shown, operations strategy will need to be seen
under the context of sustainability, and based upon a more systemic approach. Thereby, the GRASS model
comes to join those disciplines to help better strategic environmental decision making in operations.
The GRASS Model focus on the strategic issues and decisions for an organisation to improve its
environmental performance, therefore, non-environmental factors (such as customer satisfaction, competitors’
actions, image, etc) could be integrated as “key elements for environmental strategy”. Figure 1 shows how the
model consists of three major phases (A, B, C) and eleven main activities (A1 to A5, B1 to B3, and C1 to C4).
Being a strategic decision making tool, the GRASS model has in its core the classic structure of decision
making. Hammond, Keeney and Raiffa (1999) identified 5 elements for smart choices: Problem, objective,
alternatives, consequences, and tradeoffs. Kleindorfer (1999) applies decision science to environmental
decisions and puts together the phases of problem-solving process based upon formulation of objectives,
identification of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, choice, and legitimacy and implementation. Goodwin
and Wright (2004) highlight the fact that several decisions involves multiples objectives, uncertainty,
complexity, multiple stakeholders; and therefore, decision analysis needs to decompose the decision problem
into a set of smaller problems. In such complex context, an understanding of the value and utility of decision
criteria is very important as well as the determination of the weight for each criterion (Bana e Costa, 2004;
Goodwin and Wright, 2004).
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

A1. Define scope and A2. Identify the key elements for
(A) strategic environmental Environmental Strategy
Problem Objectives
Identification
&
Objective A3. Select environmental
definition performance measures

A5. Classify the elements

of environmental strategy

A4. Assess the

status quo
C4. Manage the
implementation and
Monitor the system
B1. Recognise relevant
areas and the need for
(C) improvement
C3. Develop an Selection of
implementation plan alternatives,
implementation and (B)
management Development of
Alternatives

B2. Evaluate existing

C1. Select alternatives environmental practices
and analyse their
contribution

B3. Consider new ideas,

creative or innovative
alternatives

C2. What’s the cost of

NOT doing it?
Figure 1 – The Grass Model
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

In the GRASS model, the three phases are related to (A) Problem identification or objective definition,
(B) Development of alternatives, and (C) Selection of alternatives, implementation and management. Having
this structure, the model is not intended to substitute ISO 14001 EMS, but to supplement the environmental
management system in place as a decision making tool. Also, the model could be applied either to help decision
making or to design the environmental strategy at company level as well to take environmental decisions in
different departments.

GRASS model activities and rationale

Each activity in the model is described as follows:

A1. Define strategic environmental objectives and their scope:

Aim: This activity is aimed at linking the problem identification to an objective definition, which should
tackle and contribute to bring a solution to the problem in question.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity tends to affect all other activities once it is
the start point of the model. More specifically, the strategic environmental objectives and their scope will
impact on the identification of the elements of environmental strategy.
This activity is probably the most crucial one in the model. Basically, if a problem is not correctly
identified or the objectives are not well defined or wrongly designed they will harm the whole environmental
strategy development, and thereby, decisions of the organisation. Problems roots should be identified; and
actions should not limit to the symptom of the problems but to the causes (Checkland, 1981; Senge, 1990)
Firstly, it is important to design strategic objectives as final objectives, i.e., they are directly related to
the environmental performance. For instance, having “the certification of ISO 14001” as a strategic objective is
not a final objective per se in terms of actual results. ISO 14001 EMS is a means to achieve a broader objective
such as “to improve overall environmental performance”, “to reduce our environmental impacts” or “to become
the environmental leader in the sector”. It is essential to reflect if the objectives refer to a result or a mean to
reach this result. Another example of misleading environmental objective is “to reduce operational costs”. Cost
reduction can indeed be achieved as an effect of the implementation of environmental practices or the pursuit of
a higher environmental performance; however, it is NOT the core statement of an environmental strategy. Cost
or investment could be an environmental measure or a consequence though; but not the objective of an
environmental strategy. On the other hand, “to make a greener product cheaper” or “to reduce overall harmful
emissions at the minimal cost” could be perfectly considered as strategic environmental objectives.
Furthermore, these broad objectives can now be split into more details environmental goals. Environmental
goals would give a better direction to address the company’s environmental objectives.
Secondly, the scope of the strategic objectives need to be defined at the beginning too. In a more
globalised world, organisations tend to work in different countries, therefore, different contexts with diverse
environmental demands or support for environmental initiatives. As pointed out by English (1999), the context
counts. Alike, the environmental objectives of departments in a company need to be tailored for its reality;
nevertheless, they would need to converge towards the improvement of the overall environmental performance
of the organisation. Shortly, the same company may share a global environmental strategy while having
different objectives to also thrive in considerations of its local environmental impacts.
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

A2. Identify the key elements for Environmental Strategy

Aim: This activity is aimed at identifying the elements (factors or criteria) which should be taken into
consideration when designing an environmental strategy.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity is closely related to the areas and the
recognition of the need for improvement. The elements will also play a role on the selection of options to
achieve an established environmental objective.
While, in the ISO 14001 (1999) the environmental aspect and impact assessments are the input to define
the environmental programmes; in the GRASS Model, they are part of a wider range of factors that need to be
considered when one is taking environmental decisions. For example, environmental decisions regarding the
development of a new product would probably need to be aligned with aesthetics, functionality, customer’s
perception and so on. With this approach, the structure of the GRASS Model gets closer to the real way in which
organisations are considering environmental initiatives (i.e., projects or investments that compete with other
investments such as expansion of production capacity, marketing campaigns, etc) – in other words,
environmental initiatives within the business context. For instance, Hoffman (1999) looks through the lens of
institutional theory at environmental decision making as a corporate issue, i.e., impacting on the different
functions of a company and its internal organization (marketing, finance, operations, engineering, R&D, etc).
Thereby, we consider an element for the environmental strategy any factor that need to be taken into account to
the strategy development or in the decision making process.
It is quite evident that the key elements for an environmental strategy will change accordingly to the
nature of business, its context, and the scope of its implementation. Thus, in order to design an effective
environmental strategy, the selection of key elements needs to include environmental-related elements. It
sounds rather self-evident but it is not as straight forward as it seems. Other than the environmental legislation,
it is extremely easy to miss important elements like “contribution to the overall environmental performance”,
“implication for the product life-cycle” or “environmental gains” when raising the key elements. Those should
come alongside other non-environmental elements such as: operational costs, risk, investment, organisational
culture, feasibility, suppliers, etc. A very few concern should be taken now of how important, accurate or
redundant the elements are. The beginning of this step should encourage the creation of a broad list aiming at
discovering unusual important elements and with caring so that all relevant parts involved in the decision have
their say.
Within the context of operations, several elements from different views could be taken. For instance,
Gupta and Sharma (1996) say that defining the strategic operations objectives (cost, quality, speed, flexibility
and reliability) is strongly connected to environmental issues. Taking this from the systemic approach of
feedback loops, environmental initiatives would impact on operations objectives (and performance), which
could perhaps be considered as elements for environmental decision making. Other authors had already selected
criteria for decisions based upon: human resources, technology, information technology, organization and
management, and of course, environmental aspects (Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2001).
Having the whole list displayed in a visible set, it is time to select the key elements to facilitate the
selection of alternatives. A more critical analysis now is required, to split an element into two more specific; or
in the opposite way, to merge two or three elements under the umbrella of a single one, for example.

A3. Select environmental performance measures

Aim: This activity is aimed at selecting environmental performance measures that reflect if the
organisation is moving towards its environmental objectives.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity impacts on the assessment of the status quo,
as well as in the selection of options, and the management and monitoring of the environmental management
system.
Once the objectives, scope and the key elements are defined, environmental performance measures can
now be selected. This step may reveal environmental objectives or goals that are hard to be measured through
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

conventional quantitative data. Subjective and qualitative analysis is as important as quantitative analysis to
evaluate the achievements of organisation’s environmental strategy. As an example, assessing the benefits from
reducing toxic substances in a specific product or process, an organisation may found that employees have
increased their morale or their work satisfaction since the programme implementation. Hence, the measures of
effectiveness of the strategy could combine hard data such as on the actual percentage of toxic substances and
also soft issues that could sometimes be hardly represented by a number.
Various authors have suggested sustainability performance indicators. Rothenberg, Schenck, and
Maxwell (2005) suggest an environmental benchmarking for automotive manufacturers, which involves four
categories: regulatory compliance, gross emissions, efficiency and life-cycle analysis. Veleva, Hart, Greiner
and Crumbley (2001) listed indicators for sustainable production according to five levels of sustainability:
facility compliance/conformance, facility material use and performance, facility effects, supply chain and
product life-cycle and, sustainable systems. ISO 14031:1999 provides examples of approaches for selecting
indicators for environmental performance evaluation, which takes a set of measures related to water, energy,
material, and other resources consumptions as well as emissions used by a company when running its
operations.

A4. Assess the status quo

Aim: This activity is aimed at diagnosing the company performance before implementing the options. It
provides a initial review of how far the company is from its objectives.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity is critical to the identification of areas that
might need to be prioritised.
Through the assessment of the status quo, the decision makers can reflect on their objectives and also
sketch out the identification of important areas for improvement as possible solutions. Most of the companies
with an EMS in place will have their environmental initial review or auditing systems as a powerful source of
data to define the status quo of processes, production units, or products. The importance here is then to evaluate
the gap between the objectives and goals and the current performance.

A5. Classify the elements

Aim: This activity is aimed at classifying the elements of environmental strategy. The classification
should help the decision makers to identify elements that could be more relevant and the degree of control the
organisation has over them.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity helps in analysing the contribution of
improvement options to achieve the environmental objectives.
Aware of the objectives, key elements, performance measures and how far or close the company is to
achieve its objective, it is recommended that the decision-making team to classify the key elements of the
environmental strategy in a matrix which evaluate the degree of control of the company over them and their
relevance for the environmental strategy and performance. In addition, discussing the connection between the
elements and feedback loops (i.e., how one element affects or influences the others) is also useful as well as
classifying whether the element is internal or external to the company.
Besides the properties of linking the activities in the model, the potential contribution of systems
thinking to the model also resides in the understanding of the relationship between selected elements. A
hypothetical example of the systemic relationship between elements of environmental strategy is shown in
figure 2. For instance, facilities’ location affect on how easy a company can meet the legislation requirements.
Facilities’ location itself is a high-controllable element while legislation is low-controllable; nevertheless, by
controlling the location of facilities the company can facilitate or make more difficult the environmental
compliance. Product design can be strongly affected by the availability of materials, and have potential link to
suppliers and manufacturing processes, which may be the core of environmental performance. Forrester (1961)
highlights the feedback loops, the magnitude and nature (negative or positive) effects of one element on another
when analysing system dynamics.
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

Figure 2 – An example of classifying elements according to relevance, control, internal x external and feedback loops

B1. Recognise relevant areas and the need for improvement

Aim: This activity is aimed at reflecting the need for improvement and identifying the main areas that
may bring the best results.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity strongly interacts with the evaluation of
existing practices, creation of new ideas and selection of options.
Once the assessment of the status quo has revealed “how much” is needed to improve in order to
achieve the environmental objectives, activity B1 suggests a recognition of the areas that most contributes to
the strategic objectives. It is start up of matching what need to be done with where and how to do it. This refers
to identifying important phases of a life-cycle of a product or process, or problematic products or production
sites for the environmental strategy and performance. Once the areas are defined and the improvement is
recognised, possible alternatives can be raised.
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

B2. Evaluate existing environmental practices

Aim: This activity is aimed at benchmarking the existing solutions and their contribution to an
organisation’s environmental performance.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity feeds the options matrix for analysing
possible solutions.
The basic source of possible solutions is benchmarking against the environmental existing practices.
The benchmarking could be done through competitors’ actions, environmental regulatory agency improvement
guidelines, cross-sector analysis, or even with internal comparisons between different production sites under the
same brand. There are indeed many other sources of identification of existing practices that are already in place,
working efficiently, and with important description of its implementation (e.g. main barriers, benefits, etc). The
most important point of this activity is to avoid embarking upon a new idea or alternative while many less risky
solutions have been tested by others and may match very well with the organisation’s needs.
For instance, a list of the main existing environmental practices for operations function would be
composed of: green buildings, eco-design, green supply chains, green manufacturing (production), and reverse
logistics. The activity B3 as innovation is considered as an alternative in the GRASS model.

B3. Consider new ideas, creative or innovative alternatives

Aim: This activity is aimed at fostering the discussion and consideration of innovative and possibly
radical solutions in order to an organisation to break paradigms and solve problems with different solutions
from the existing practices.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity feeds the options matrix for analysing
possible solutions.
Having a systemic and strategic approach, the GRASS Model embraces imagination, creativity and
innovation as sources of solutions. This is vital for those organisations competing in aggressive markets or
under extreme environmental pressure. By fostering creativity and innovation as part of the environmental
strategy development, an organisation might encounter unconventional ways of finding win-win solutions,
matching higher environmental benefits with a greater profitability and positing itself ahead of legislation and
competitors as well as enhancing its value to customers and stakeholders. This feature is particularly important
to achieve qualitative leap rather than incremental improvements, although they are not necessarily mutually
exclusive within an organisation’s improvement plan. For example, one area or process could be approached by
radical innovation; while others can continue carrying out incremental improvements.

C1. Select options and analyse their contribution

Aim: This activity is aimed at selecting options that will contribute to an organisation to achieve its
environmental objectives.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity is connected to the elements of
environmental strategy, and provides the actions that will compose the implementation plan.
The selection of possible solutions should be based on their relation for the key elements from activity
A2.
Based upon the figure 2, decision makers can visualise the elements that are more controllable and
relevant for the environmental strategy. Indeed, some of the option may consider radical changes (e.g. new
business models or process reengineering) that modify the degree of control of an element. This should be
considered in analysis of its impact on the other elements and the overall environmental strategy.
A table where the rows are options and the columns are the elements of environmental strategy would
help the discussion of the impact of each possible initiative or solution on each element. At this moment, a
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

number of techniques such as scenario planning could be used to select the alternatives to compose the strategic
environmental plan. In the case the analysis become very complex, it is recommended to use analytical tools
(e.g Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis - MCDA techniques) to help the decision making process. Bana e Costa
and Chagas (2004) apply a decision support system which is able to convert qualitative preference judgments
into quantitative measures, allowing the decision makers to have a better (and analytical) comparison amongst
the options.

C2. What are the strategic implications of 1OT doing it?

Aim: This activity is aimed at analysing the strategic implications of not implementing an alternative to
improve environmental performance.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity is part of the analysis of the contributions
of selected options for improvement.
Moreover, an important step of analysing the options is the cost of NOT doing. Again, organisations
must consider not only quantitative data but also include subjective view of this issue (e.g market trends,
customers’ perception, supplier relationship, etc) to try to predict what the cost of NOT implementing those
practices is. For instance, the damage in the organisation’s image or stock market value may be as important
factor as the opportunity cost revealed in a viability analysis. Subjective and abstract perception of customers,
competitors, markets, and the future could play an important role in design scenarios, hence, in selecting
environmental initiatives.
Hill (1993) recommends Drucker’s concept when designing strategies for manufacturing. Peter Drucker
noted that “cost accounting gives you information on the cost of doing, but not on the cost of not doing - which
is increasingly the bigger cost” (Hill, 1993). In fact, we suggest that this activity is understood in an even
broader approach, i.e., the strategic implication of not pursuing a higher environmental performance rather than
a basic cost opportunity analysis. This debate in strategy could bring the dilemma of being an environmental
leader or a follower in the market.

C3. Develop an implementation plan

Aim: This activity is aimed at formalising the plan for the implementation environmental improvement
actions.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity needs to be linked to management and
monitoring of the whole environmental management system.
The main output from activity C3 is an implementation plan, which needs to be developed into real
actions. Now the choices from the previous step can harmonically be incorporated in the EMS of the company
(if there is any!) and be part of its continuous improvement programmes and auditing systems.

C4. Manage and Monitor the implementation of alternatives

Aim: This activity is aimed at managing and monitoring the implementation of selected alternatives. The
chosen alternatives could also be integrated into the routines of the environmental management system. Its
importance resides in the environmental learning process that will lead the company to achieve its
environmental objectives. It provides a chance for reflection and critical analysis of objectives, performance
measures, actions, and implementation procedures.
Relationship with other activities of the model: This activity will focus mostly on the environmental
performance measures and its feedback for managing the environmental management system.
Whether or not being part of an EMS after implementation of alternatives, managing and monitoring
them is as important as learning tool as well as a source of critical analysis if the strategic objectives are being
achieved. The selection of environmental performance measures plays the central role to monitor and manage
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

the systems. The activity C4 is not a final step of the GRASS Model, it is indeed the stage where objectives,
measures, options and ideas are revisited in order to thrive higher levels of environmental sustainability.
In fact, having a structured and systematic approach such as ISO 14001 will definitely help the company
in managing and monitoring the strategic decisions in an integrated way within its EMS. The use of the GRASS
Model will add a systemic view (to the systematic way) of how EMS is usually structured in organisations.
Figure 3 shows a theoretical application of the GRASS model for green operations strategy

Environmental performance,
Facilities, product design, suppliers,
Improve Environmental logistics routes, manufacturing processes,
(A) Performance of recovery networks, customers, legislation,
Problem Operations Function sales centres
Identification
&
Objective
definition
Energy, material and water
consumption, Emissions,
Customer satisfaction, cost
savings, employee satisfaction

Environmental
Integrate within the review 2008
current ISO 14001
management system
Manufacturing
Suppliers
(C) Sales Centres
st
1 Green Manufacturing Selection of
2nd Green Supply Chain alternatives,
implementation and (B)
management Development of
Alternatives

Green manufacturing
Green manufacturing Green Supply Chain
Reverse Logistics
Green Supply Chain

Reengineering,
New business model
adoption

Loss of competitiveness
Image deterioration

Figure 3 – Theoretical example of the GRASS Model application for Green Operations Strategy
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

Model Application and its Methodology

Methodology

The GRASS model presented in this paper intends to contribute to the green operations literature and
practice, mainly, in respect to environmental decision making. Systems thinking methodology was used to turn
the green operations framework (Nunes and Bennett, 2008) into a systemic tool. The model application
supplements a wider research project that aims at understanding why and how automotive companies are taking
environmental decisions. The model itself comes to answer the research question: “how does an environmental
decision making model contributes to making strategic environmental decisions for operations function in the
automotive industry?”
In order to test the model a pilot study was used in a real environmental decision making situation. The
model was applied in the design of a green research strategy for a university. The coordinators of the Social
Responsibility and Sustainability research theme were first interviewed and then participated together in a focus
group, which took about 2 hours.
The model is currently being applied within several environmental decision making teams in the
automotive industry. It is important to say that the GRASS graphic is selective and illustrative in order to
represent the recommended flow of activities and their stronger links. During its application is possible to
achieve deeper levels of detail and understanding of the environmental decision making processes.
Due to the level of detail we explore with the model, methodology used is case research and the main
research method is focus group for data collection and the model population. Yin (2003) supports case study
research as a suitable methodology when investigating why and how research questions and dealing with
contemporary events. Yin (2002) highlights how case study methodology is powerful to pursuing phenomenon
investigations within its real-life context. In operations management this is no different. Voss, Tsikriktsis and
Frohlich (2002) explain the importance of case research in operations management. Besides highlighting the
need of rigor in conducting the research, they also discuss the use of complementary methods to increase
reliability and the importance of being flexible and open to accept the feedback from the system (research
context) to find valuable insights and build powerful theories. Furthermore, the feedback from the interviews
might make the research questions to evolve during a case research:
“When conducting a case-based research it is not uncommon for the research question to evolve over time and for the construct
to be modified, developed or abandoned during the course of the research. This can be a strength, as it can allow the
development of more knowledge than if there were just a fixed research question. Again, over time the research may shift from
theory building to theory testing. This should be recognised on the one hand, but not used as an excuse for inadequate
specification of research questions or constructs” (Voss, Tsikriktsis and Frohlich, 2002)
This study had one case with one unity of analysis. We considered a decision making team as one unity of
analysis and followed the logic for generalising the results supported by Yin (2003): “Case studies are
generalizable to theoretical proposition and not to populations or universes”. In this sense, from the model
application we want to generalise the contribution of our decision making structure and the potential benefits of
systems thinking to green operations strategy. Decision making teams would configure as a valid measure once
they will be composed of different people or formed for a different purpose and going through a real decision
making process. Finally, Mintzberg (1979) points out: “No matter how small our sample, or what our interest,
we have always tried to go into organisations with a well defined focus”
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

Findings

The population of the model is shown in figure 4. As the implementation of the actions are still going
on, our analysis refer to the contribution of the decision making structure, we critically analyse the potential
contribution of system thinking in understanding how the elements could impact on each other.

Objectives Elements
1. To make contribution to new Staff, Money, Facilities, Intangibles
knowledge that informs research,
teaching, and business practices
2. To be recognised as a credible
institution in SRS Performance Measures
Number and quality of
publication, events, partnerships,
funding applications, staff
engaged in SR&S

Status Quo:
Manage and monitor School Survey
the implementation 2008

Scope
All academic groups of
the school

Implementation
priority:
(1)
(5)
(6) and (2)
(4)
Improvement Actions:
(1) Provide Resources and
Time and development for
current academic and support
staff to engage with SRS
(2) Recruit academic and
support staff with particular
interest in SRS
Evaluation Method (3) Increase SRS funding
Analysis based on the applications
contribution for (4) Provide bursaries for PhD
Objectives and degree students in the area of SRS
of control (5) Implementation of SRS
curriculum report
(6) Organise SRS Events
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

As this study focus on the process of decision making rather than the decisions themselves, we consider
the more important part of the findings the perception of the decision making team when using the model.

Participant perception
We run a survey questionnaire after the model application in order to receive a feedback on our decision
making structure. This survey revealed that the participants found that the model helped them a lot in
developing the strategy (4 in a 1 to 5 scale).
One participant said: “It helped provide a structured process that then brought my thoughts together”.
The second participant highlighted the choice of elements: “It made me focus more… really think about the
elements involved in developing our strategy”.
Both participants found the model only a little bit easy to be used. However, one answered it was
somewhat different from previous approaches (s)he had taken, while the other participant found it definitely
different. Their opinion about the time of the activity was relatively close (a little bit long and fair). They both
said they could use the model again and recommended the model to be used in other departments or for
university-level strategy. Also, they found the activity interesting and dynamic although the complaints about
its duration.

Data Analysis and critical evaluation of the process

Objectives
In fact, our data is in accordance with the literature of decision making about the choice of objectives.
This was a critical step, mostly to the definition of its scope. The participants were constantly moving back and
forth from wider to narrow objectives (strategy only for research or for research and teaching?). Due to the
interdependence between these two areas, they moved from an objective that included both research and
teaching.
The choice of final objectives was controlled by questioning ‘why’ until it was possible to move from
the means to one final objective.

Elements
There was confusion in the beginning of this activity between elements and actions (options). They also
discuss quite extensive the wording, and therefore, the sub-elements for environmental strategy. For instance,
for STAFF, they chose to split it down to academic and support staff.

Measures
While choosing the measures, the participants were worried in having quantitative and qualitative
measures. Another concern was related to the choice of measures difficult to be measured. Besides quantitative
and qualitative, the measures they selected included both measures for final result and efforts (intermediate
results).

Classifying the elements

When classifying the elements based upon a matrix of degree of control and relevance to environmental
objectives, the matter of “who really controls” was raised, i.e., they were developing the strategy; however, they
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

were not in control of some of the elements (such staff members – to be hired through the school budget). Also,
the fact of an element being external or internal to the organisation was mentioned.
During this classification activity, the facilitator required a hierarchical order of the elements to avoid
the comfort zone of giving them the same weight.

Selecting improvement actions

The actions were relatively easily listed. They mentioned the fact that the structure gave more
consistency for the decisions as well as the importance of the visibility of the objectives to form the
improvement actions. In fact, at one time of the activity, one participant highlight the team was forgetting about
part of one objective (teaching) and only focusing on research.

Analysis of contribution of the actions to the objectives

Similarly to the classification of the elements, this activity needed the stimulus of the facilitator in
provoking reflection to create a priority order. For time constraints, it was not analysed the effect of the actions
on the elements.

Potential contribution of systems thinking

The decision making team chose 4 elements: Staff, Money, Facilities, Intangibles. Due to the time
constraints, there was no evaluation of the relationship amongst the elements. Nevertheless, we can see the
potential contribution of systems thinking through a deduction analysis. Some examples below:

a. the SRS staff can affect money negatively by increasing the costs in salaries
b. the SRS staff can affect money positively by attracting money through research grants
c. Money can affect staff positively by offering good salaries
d. Money can affect intangibles positively by funding partnerships with other institutions
e. Facilities can affect money negatively by construction and maintenance
f. Facilities can affect money positively by profitable activities
g. Partnerships can affect staff positively by enhancing the academic networking

A more systemic view of the elements could help the decision makers in minimising the problems of
lack of control with a specific element or the apparent low relevance of one element that in fact has strong
effect on other relevant elements.

Final Remarks and Future Research

This paper intended to supplement previous research in the field of environmental management,
particularly, to their call to the introduction of green issues in operations strategy as well as the use of systems
thinking approach. When developing the GRASS model, through its systems approach, we avoided following
prescriptive solutions, and included the encouragement in pursuing of innovative alternatives. This reveals
original to the development of environmental operations strategy.
Our model, underpinned on the classical decision making structure, proved helpful in its first
application. The focus group participants found it increasing the consistency of their decisions and assisting
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

their thoughts. Due to their observation regarding the duration of the activities, we reinforce our previous
suggestion that the model is recommended for strategic decisions. Strategic decisions will impact on the
organisation’s long term, therefore, it justifies to spend more time in a decision making process. For
incremental improvements, tactical and operational decisions there are other decision making tools that might
be more time effective providing the same benefits.
Indeed, the level of complexity in the pilot study was probably not high as it would be for complex
manufacturing or industrial systems. Thereby, our intention in discussing theoretically the potential contribution
of systems thinking when classifying the elements of environmental strategy in a ‘Degree of Control x
Relevance’ matrix.
In other to test the real benefit of a systems approach for green operations strategy, the GRASS is
currently being applied in the car makers. Car manufacturers have been facing huge pressure to have
environmental improvements in the car production and utilisation, as well as to take care of the vehicles scrap
in its final disposal (end of life). This implies they will take environmental decisions in a context of multi-
stakeholders (customers, legislation, suppliers, financial stakeholders, engineers, etc) facing a multi criteria
decision analysis comparing environmental benefits and technology feasibility in terms of cost, quality, lead
time, cycle time, amongst other constructs. Thus, the contribution of this paper for the Management
Technology resides in its model as a tool in the strategic choice of green technologies.

References

Angell, L. C. and Klassen R. D. (1999), “Integrating Environmental Issues into the Mainstream: An Agenda for Research
in Operations Management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp 575-598.
Azapagic (2003) “Systems Approach to Corporate Sustainability: A General Management Framework”, Trans IChemE,
Vol 81, Part B, September 2003.
Bana e Costa and Chagas (2004) “A career choice problem: An example of how to use MACBETH to build a quantitative
value model based on qualitative value judgments”, European Journal of Operational Research, 153, (2004), 323–
331.
Beamon, B. (1999), "Designing the green supply chain", Logistics Information Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 332-342.
Bertalanffy, L.V. (1972), “The History and status of general systems theory”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
15, No 4, pp. 407-426.
Checkland, (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley: Chichester.
Corbett, C. J. and Klassen, R. D. (2006) “Extending the Horizons: Environmental Environmental Excellence as Key to
Improving Operations”, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management. Vol 8, No 1, pp 5-22.
Dangayach and Deshmukh (2001) “Manufacturing Strategy: Literature Review and Some Issues”, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21, No. 7, 2001, pp 884-932.
English (1999) Environmental Decision Making by Organizations: Choosing the Right Tools. In: Better Environmental
Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Business, and Communities. Island Press (ed.), pp 57-75. Washington, D.C.,
USA.
Forrester (1961) Forrester JW. Industrial dynamics. MIT Press; 1961.
Frosch, R. A. and Gallopoulos, N. E. (1989). Strategies for Manufacturing. Scientific American, 261(3), 144-152.
Gallagher, Kelly SimsKS, (2003). Foreign Technology in China’s Automobile Industry: Implications for Energy,
Economic Development, and Environment. China Environment Series 1º 6. pp. 1-18.
Goodwin and Wright (2004) Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 3rd Ed. Chichester,
West Sussex, England.
Graedel TE, Allenby BR. (1995) Industrial ecology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gupta, M. and Sharma, K. (1996), “Environmental Operations Management: An Opportunity for Improvement.”
 IAMOT 2009 Proceedings

Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 40-46.
Gupta, M. C. (1995). “Environmental Management and its impact on the operations function”. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 15 (8), pp. 34-51.
Hammond, J.S. Keeney R.L. and Raiffa, H., Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions, Harvard
Business School Press, 1999.
Hardin (1968) “The Tragedy of the commons”, Science. Vol. 162, No 3859. pp 1234- 1248
Hart, S (1997), “Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 66-
76.
Hart, S. (1995), “A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm”. The Academy of Management Review. Vol 20, No 4, pp.
986-1014.
Hayes, R. and S. Wheelwright (1984). Restoring our Competitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing. Wiley: 1ew
York.
Hill, T. (1993), Manufacturing Strategy : Text and Cases, Second Edition, MacMillan Press, London.
Hill, C. W. L. (2007) International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 6th Ed, New
York, NY.
Hoffman, A. (1999). The importance of organizational change management for environmental decision making. In: Better
Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Business, and Communities. Island Press (ed.), pp 245-266.
Washington, D.C., USA.
ISO 14001 (2002) International Organisation for Standardisation (2002). International Standard ISO 14001:2002.
Environmental management – Specification with guidance for use. Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 14031 (2002), International Organisation for Standardisation (2002). International Standard ISO 14031:2002.
Environmental management – Environmental performance evaluation – Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland.
Ison, Blackmore, Collins and Furniss (2007) “Systemic environmental decision making: designing learning systems”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 36 No. 9/10, pp. 1340-1361.
King, A (1995). “Avoiding ecological surprise: lessons from long-standing communities”, Academy of Management
Review. Vol 20, 4, 961-985
Klassen, R. (2001). “Plant-level Environmental Management orientation: The influence of management views and plant
characteristics”. Production and Operations Management, Vol 10, No 3, pp 257-275
Kleindorfer (1999) Understanding Individual’s Environmental Decisions: A Decision Sciences Approach. In: Better
Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Business, and Communities. Island Press (ed.), pp 245-266.
Washington, D.C., USA.
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K. and Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005), “Sustainable Operations Management”, Production
and Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 482-492.
Kunsch, Theys, Brans, (2007) “The Importance of Systems Thinking in Ethical and Sustainable Decision-Making”.
CEJOR - Central European Journal of Operations Research, 15, pp. 253–269.
Machuca, J. A. D. (1998) “Improving POM Learning: Systems Thinking and Transparent-Box Business Simulators”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 1998.
Malthus, T R. (1978) “An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the future improvements of society, with
remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, Mr. Condercet, and other writers”. London: UK
Mildenberger, U. and Khare, A, (2000). Planning for an environment-friendly car. Technovation, 20, pp 205-214.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, pp 590-601.
Nunes, B. T. S. and Bennett, D. J. (2008), “A Green Operations Framework and Its Application in the Automotive
Industry”, in Sherif, M. H. and Khalil, T. (Eds) Management of Technology, Innovation and Value Creations, World
Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore.
Orsato, R. J. (2006), “Competitive Environmental Strategies: When Does It Pay To Be Green?”, California Management
Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 127-143.
1unes, Shaw, Bennett & Brookes

Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006). “Strategy and Society: The link between competitive advantage and Corporative
Social Responsibility”. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Porter, M. E. and Linde, C. V. D. (1995). “Green and Competitive”. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), pp 120-134.
Reinhardt, F. L. (2000) Down to Earth, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Rothenberg, S., Schenck, B. and Maxwell, J. (2005). Lessons from benchmarking environmental performance at
automobile assembly plants. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12 (1), pp.5-15.
Sarkis, J. (2001), Greener Manufacturing and Operations: From design to delivery and back. Greenleaf Publishing,
Sheffield, UK.
Sarkis, J. (1995), “Manufacturing strategy and environmental consciousness”. Technovation, Vol 15, No 2, pp 79-97.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday, New York, 1990.
Skinner, (2007) “Manufacturing Strategy: The Story of Its Evolution”, Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007)
328–335
Van Der Vorst (1999) “A Systemic Framework For Environmental Decision-Making”. Journal of Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 1999) pp. 1–26
Van Hoek, R. I. (2002) “Case Studies of greening the automotive supply chain through technology and operations”, Int J.
Technology Management, Vol. 23, Nos. 1/2/3, pp. 89-112.
Veleva, V. Hart, M. Greiner, T. Crumbley, C. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 9, pp. 447-452.
Voss, C. Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M (2002). “Case Research in Operations Management”. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 22 (2), pp. 195-219.
WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development (1989). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1987.
WRI - World Resource Institute (WRI), (2002). Tomorrow’s Market: Global Trends and Their Implications for Business.
<http://www.wri.org> Accessed on [24th November 2006].
Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Ed. Sage Publications, Inc. London: UK.
Yin (2002) Applications of Case Study Research. 2nd Ed. Sage Publications, Inc. London: UK.

View publication stats