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

net/publication/282159980

Identifying Critical Indicators In Sustainable Manufacturing Using Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Article in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering · September 2015

DOI: 10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444

CITATIONS READS

26 751

5 authors, including:

Lanndon Ocampo Van Gaitano Nemeño Vergara

Cebu Technological University Cebu Technological University
199 PUBLICATIONS 2,476 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carlito Impas
University of San Jose-Recoletos
2 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lanndon Ocampo on 28 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J

ISSN 1339-2972 (On-line)

Identifying Critical Indicators In Sustainable Manufacturing Using

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Lanndon A. Ocampo1 - Van Gaitano N. Vergara2 – Carlito G. Impas, Sr.3 – Jose Arvin S. Tordillo4 – Joey S. Pastoril5
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of San Carlos , Email: laocampo@usc.edu.ph
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of San Carlos, Email: vanvergz@yahoo.com
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of San Carlos, Email: carlitopas@yahoo.com
4
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of San Carlos, Email: josearvintordillo@yahoo.com
5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of San Carlos, Email: jpastoril@yahoo.com

Keywords
sustainable manufacturing
sustainability indicators
sustainability assessment
triple-bottom line
Analytic Hierarchy Process
History Received 26 December 2014 | Revised 17 March 2015 | Accepted 27 April 2015
Abstract
This paper identifies critical indicators for sustainable manufacturing that could be adopted in sustainability assessment at firm level.
Previous works in literature suffered from either lack of being comprehensive or being operational or both. The manufacturing
indicator set of the US NIST framework was used because of its detailed and wide-ranging exposition of the triple-bottom line. The
proposed approach is to attach priorities on the elements of the NIST framework in order to prioritize sustainability indicators.
Following the hierarchical structure of the framework, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was adopted in this work. Three domain
decision-makers who have sufficient international exposure on manufacturing policy development and experience in managing
manufacturing firms were asked to elucidate judgments on the elements of the framework based on the context of the AHP. The
most critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing are presented in this work. Results show that socio-economic indicators are
highly relevant in sustainable manufacturing.

Category Original Scientific Paper

Article
Ocampo LA, Vergara VGN, Impas CG, Tordillo JAS, Pastoril JS (2015) Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Journal
Citation
of Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, 14(3-4):1-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444

INTRODUCTION
Current and emerging issues of sustainability have become
the motivations of various government institutions, legislative
bodies, industries, corporations and businesses in policy-making
and strategic decision-making. These issues have radically
changed the way how decisions, which were previously focused
on economic returns especially in developing countries [1], must
be made such that environmental and social issues are
simultaneously addressed [2]. However, the vagueness
associated with these issues has been overwhelming not to
mention the difficulty of developing their measurement
systems. For instance, manufacturing industry, being a
significant key to sustainable development [3], has coined the
term ‘sustainable manufacturing’ to emphasize the manufacture
of products with processes that conform to the demands of
sustainability [4]. These prompted manufacturing firms to adopt
initiatives such as cleaner production, life cycle assessment
(LCA), design for environment, environmentally conscious
manufacturing, and green technology toward approaches in
larger scales such as sustainable supply chain and industrial
symbiosis. Two important questions are relevant: (i) Given
limited resources, what set of initiatives do manufacturing firms
implement to maximize sustainability status? (ii) After adopting
these approaches, how is sustainability evaluated? These
require holistic sustainability assessment approaches.
One particularly famous approach in literature is by the use
of sustainability indicators. These indicators can capture the
three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. environmental
stewardship, economic growth and social well-being, on various
levels and at different resolutions, e.g. companies, facilities,
processes and products [5] as well as in larger spatial scales such
as economic sectors, cities, etc. At the firm level, the use of
sustainability indicators is directly associated with the practice
of sustainability reporting [6] following the GRI framework
recently proposed in practice. Lodhia and Martin [7] argued that
the vital aspect of initiating sustainability reporting process is a
more focused set of indicators for organizations. It is also widely
pronounced that the use of sustainability indicators is one of the
main methods in sustainability evaluation [8] because they
provide a quantifiable approach in measuring various aspects of
sustainability issues. Various sustainability indicators have been
developed by different institutions at different spatial
resolutions. See Joung et al. [4] for a review of these indicator
sets. Current literature on the other hand has given significant
attention on the development of sustainability indicators at firm
level in the context of sustainability assessment, e.g. corporate
sustainability indicators [7,9], indicators for product service
systems [10] and sustainability indicators appropriate at process
level [5].
Two underlying criteria have to be balanced out in
developing sustainability indicators especially at the firm level:
being comprehensive and operational. The works of Rahdari and
Rostamy [9] and Lodhia and Martin [7] on sustainability
indicators at the corporate level fall short of being
comprehensive as social sustainability is scarcely addressed. On
the other hand, indicators at the process level proposed by
Sundin et al. [10] and Linke et al [11] are limited only in focus.
Widely-known sustainability indicators reviewed by Joung et al.
[4] were highly comprehensive but the issue of being
operational was at stake. Bordt [12] provided a map on widely-
known indicators and argued that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) framework later presented by
Joung et al. [4] is characterized by indicators that are able to
address product, process and facilities level. These levels are
inclined to address the issues of sustainability in manufacturing

http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444 1
Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J
at firm level. However, the large number of indicators listed in
the NIST framework prompts difficulty for firms to monitor all of
these indicators thus making it hardly operational.
To address this issue, this paper aims to prioritize significant
sustainability indicators in the NIST framework. This is relevant
in offering a set of indicators which is comprehensive and
operational. Due to the hierarchical structure of the NIST
framework, this work adopts an analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
approach proposed by Saaty [13] in attaching priorities to the
elements in the structure necessary to identify highly relevant
sustainability indicators. The contribution of this work in the
literature of sustainable manufacturing is the identification of
significant indicators that could be used in sustainability
assessment at firm level.
LITERATURE REVIEW
SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING
The foundation of sustainable manufacturing is based from
the definition of sustainable development provided by the
report of Brundtland [14] claiming that sustainable development
both meets the needs of the present and future generations.
Formally, sustainable manufacturing is defined as “the creation
of manufactured products that use processes that minimize
negative environmental impacts, conserve energy and natural
resources, are safe for employees, communities and consumers
and are economically sound” [4]. This implies that the design of
products and processes and their impact to the stakeholders
along the products’ life cycle stages must be consistent with the
issues associated with the economy, environment and society –
widely-known as the triple-bottom line [15].
Sustainable manufacturing came into the limelight following
the global awareness on potential role of manufacturing in
sustainable development. It has become a very important issue
among industries worldwide [16]. It has been recognized as a
critical need because of the increasing consumption of non-
renewable resources, stricter regulations on key environmental
issues and occupational health and safety, and the collective
consumer preference for environmentally-benign products [17].
For instance, Hassine et al. [18] claimed that manufacturing
industries consume around 30% of global energy demand while
the same emit around 36% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
This pattern of energy consumption entails adverse
environmental impact and degradation of natural resources
[18]. It is also expected that the five-fold increase of GDP per
capita in the next fifty years would imply ten-fold increase in
material usage, energy consumption and waste generation [19]
and these impacts are closely associated with the manufacturing
sector as main users of materials and energy and producers of
wastes. Rashid et al. [19] highlighted that the manufacturing
sector serves as the “backbone” of the well-being of nations
being the leading employment sector and main contributor of
global GDP. Sustainable manufacturing gained several interests
both in industry and academia for a couple of decades and
inspired leading developed economies in terms of research
allocation and policy development [20]. Siemieniuch et al. [21]
presented a high level discussion on the impact of global drivers
in global sustainability and the roles of sustainable
manufacturing in mitigating these impacts. The novel argument
implies that sustainability requires significant input from
ergonomics and human factors in some expansion in the level of
thinking.
2 http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444
Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
To address various concerns on the sustainability of
manufacturing, several approaches spanning management and
design and engineering of manufactured products and
manufacturing processes have emerged in literature such as
environmental collaboration, life cycle assessment, sustainable
product design, and techniques that address materials, energy
and wastes. Development of these approaches has been
regarded as a global concern [22]. See Ocampo and Ocampo
[23] for this discussion. While these approaches were developed
to address a specific aspect of sustainability, assessing their
impact at firm level remains a significant issue in current
literature. In fact, Ocampo and Clark [24] noted in a case study
that the strategies adopted by a manufacturing firm lack a clear
direction on which sustainability drivers they attempt to address
in the context of the triple bottom-line. Nevertheless, it has
been pointed out that firms adopting sustainability initiatives
yield better product quality, higher market share, and increased
profit and these initiatives are positively related with
competitive outcomes [25].
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND INDICATORS
Sustainability assessment is defined as “a generic term for a
methodology that aims to assist decision-making by identifying,
measuring and comparing the social, economic and
environmental implications of a project, program, or policy
option” [26]. The main goals of sustainability assessment as
pointed out by Guijt and Moiseev [27] are the following: (1) an
input to strategic planning and decision-making in various
institutions, (2) information for monitoring, evaluation and
impact analysis of any policy, strategy or initiative, (3) a source
for reporting on the state of the environment, and (4) a process
to raise awareness about sustainability issues. Several
approaches in sustainability assessment are available in
literature. The use of value stream mapping (VSM) which was
previously used in lean manufacturing has been regarded as a
viable tool in sustainability assessment. For instance, Faulkner
and Baburdeen [28] introduced sustainable value stream
mapping in assessing processes in terms of their environmental
and societal impact along with the traditional metrics of lean
manufacturing. Brown et al. [29] reported the application of
sustainability VSM (Sus-VSM) in three different studies to assess
its versatility of its use. Bilge et al. [30] on the other hand,
presented an approach in measuring and monitoring a firm's
success and sustainability performance by assessing value
creation. Garbie [31] proposed an optimization model that
minimizes sustainable time and sustainable cost in the context
of sustainability indices. Taisch et al. [32] presented a reference
model that attempts to support decision-makers in managing
manufacturing improvement programs with environmental and
social focus such that sustainability becomes a manufacturing
strategy. Zhang and Haapala [33] performed sustainability
assessment at the production work cell level using a set of
measures. A thorough review of sustainability assessments was
done by Moldavska and Welo [34] and Lee and Lee [35]
proposed a depository of research articles in manufacturing
sustainability assessment that allows easy access for decision-
makers.
Dizdaroglu [36] presented three categories of sustainability
assessment and noted that indicator-based sustainability
assessment is increasingly recognized as a useful tool in the
planning process by determining the state of local sustainability,
thus making sustainability measurable and manageable,
Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
providing feedback on the progress during the implementation
stage of sustainable development, and identifying the
advantages and disadvantages of different alternatives to help
determine win–win situations. Joung et al. [4] defined an
indicator as “as a measure or an aggregation of measures from
which conclusions on the phenomenon of interest can be
inferred”. Use of indicators is one category of sustainability
assessment tools and techniques [37]. They are useful in
tracking progress of sustainability over time, identifying
problems for improvement, and identifying issues that may be
overlooked from previous analysis [12]. They are considered as
more holistic measurement and important for comprehensive
firm valuations [38].
Sustainability indicators have been widely used in
sustainability assessment at different spatial resolutions. For
instance, Zhou et al. [39] introduced a methodology in
identifying sustainable urbanization indicators by determining
departments in a city who assume responsibilities over key
areas while reviews on urban sustainability indicators were
performed separately by Braulio-Gonzalo [40] and by Michael et
al. [41]. Domingues et al. [42] developed a conceptual
framework to define a sustainability label for local public
services by adopting the criteria of EU Ecolabel initiative for
environmental aspects and the criteria of Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) for other sustainability aspects. Agol et al. [43]
explored the challenges and opportunities in the application of
sustainability indicators for impact evaluation of development
and conservation projects in developing countries. Dizdaroglu
[36] proposed micro-level urban ecosystem indicators for
monitoring the sustainability of residential developments. Since
development of these indicators are quite expensive, Rivera et
al. [44] interestingly developed text mining framework to
identify sustainability indicators from digital news articles with a
baseline sustainability reports in a particular locality.
Current literature on the other hand has given ample
attention on the development of sustainability indicators at firm
level in the context of sustainability assessment. With limited
resources, sustainability indicators provide firms an approach
for analyzing sustainability. Firms can assess their actual
situation with the indicators, raise their awareness and set their
goals [45]. Rahdari and Rostamy [9] developed a general set of
sustainability indicators at the corporate level. Particularly
applicable in small and medium enterprises (SMEs), Tan et al.
[46] developed a 40-indicator framework from internationally-
known indicator frameworks. Lodhia and Martin [7] developed
company specific corporate sustainability indicators (CSI) and
investigated their practical application and appropriateness to a
certain company and its stakeholders. Sundin et al. [10]
identified a set of indicators appropriate in developing product
service systems (PSS). These indicators were then used in
sustainability assessment or as a part of firm’s measurement
system. For example, Nappi and Rozenfeld [47] attempted to
incorporate sustainability indicators in firms’ performance
measurement system. On higher resolution, Linke et al. [11]
identified relevant sustainability indicators and used them in
assessing sustainability in process level and particularly in
finishing operations based on process performance and part
quality [5].
The strength of sustainability indicators lies in providing
better simplification, quantification, analysis and
communicating information from the perspectives of the triple
bottom-line. Rahdari and Rostamy [9] emphasized that various
studied have tried to develop industry specific sets of
sustainability indicators. The general contention in current
http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444
Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J
literature is that these indicators must be integrated in industry-
specific processes order to provide an understanding of the
linkage between the triple bottom-line such that a holistic
evaluation of sustainability issues is achieved [7]. With this, a
number of indicator sets of sustainability have been proposed
by international institutions, individual companies and private
institutions. A review of these indicator sets was done by Joung
et al. [4]. However, identifying a suitable set of sustainability
indicators remains a main challenge [46]. There are issues
associated with its use. For example, Lehtonen et al. [48]
presented trade-offs and ambiguities in relation to the use and
development of sustainable development indicators in policy
processes. With this number of indicator sets, Bordt [12]
described a map of these sets in terms of their technical details
and application domain as shown in Fig 1.
Figure 1 A map of different indicator sets showing technical details
against application domains
Fig 1 shows that the US National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) framework has high technical details that are
applicable to product and process applications. These domains
constitute the core of sustainable manufacturing as described in
its definition. This makes the framework more appealing and
appropriate to manufacturing at firm level. The complete
indicator set of the NIST framework was published by Joung et
[4]. The strength of this framework is in its hierarchical
representation of the triple bottom-line with significant breadth
and depth. The framework is the result of a careful integration
of eleven widely known indicators with a total of 212 indicators:
77 from environmental stewardship, 23 for economic growth,
and 70 for social well-being dimension, 30 for performance
management and 12 for technological advancement
management. The repository of these indicators is found in
NIST’s Sustainable Manufacturing Indicator Repository (SMIR)
website. This framework is used in current literature [2,49-50].
However, Roca and Searcy [51] noted that few studies have
focused on developing general sets of sustainability indicators.
While generality of sets is important, Sundin et al. [10]
emphasized that indicators must be adjusted to each company’s
need and to limit the number of indicators as less as possible to
minimize extra work required in evaluating and monitoring
them. Thus, the challenge now is to identify critical indicators of
sustainable manufacturing without losing too much on the
generality of these indicators. This is significant as it determines
the limited number of indicators that firms must monitor in
order to promote better sustainability. This supports resource
allocation decisions and policy development at firm level. The
approach promoted in this paper is to identify the critical
indicators identified by the NIST framework.
3
Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

knowledge and experience of the problem under consideration.

SUSTAINABLE INDICATORS PRIORITIZATION AND ANALYTIC Decision components and elements are usually a combination of
HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) both objective and subjective ones, with measurements in
different and multiple dimensions.
Sustainability indicators are based on measured and/or esti-
mated data that must undergo normalization, scaling and 2. Eliciting judgment in paired comparisons
aggregation [52]. The aggregation process is usually carried out
by computing an index – a single score that represents the Through experts’ knowledge, pairwise comparisons of elements
aggregation of indicators using weight-based mathematical in the same level with respect to an element in the immediate
methods [4]. This is used as an overall performance of a process, higher level are carried out in the AHP. The generic question in
product or a firm. Examples in literature include a product making pairwise comparisons goes like this: “Given a parent
sustainability index [53], product sustainability assessment element and given a pair of elements, how much more does a
using a weight fuzzy assessment method [54], a sustainable given member of the pair dominate other member of the pair
manufacturing index at firm level [49]. This list is not intended with respect to a parent element?” [57]. To achieve a uni-
to be comprehensive. dimensional scaling property of the comparisons, Saaty [13]
The normalization and scaling processes involve placing a established the famous Saaty fundamental 9-point scale as
relative weight to each sustainability indicator. Following the shown in Table 1.
hierarchical structure of the NIST framework, the use of analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) is found to be more appropriate. AHP is Table 1 Saaty fundamental scale
a powerful tool in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) in Rate Definition Explanation
which the decision problem is described in a hierarchy. Central 1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to
the objective
to the theory of AHP is the pairwise comparisons approach [13]
2 Weak between equal and moderate
where decision-makers elicit judgment by comparing any two 3 Moderate Experience and judgment slightly
elements with respect to a higher, immediate element in the importance favor one element over another
hierarchy. The strength of AHP is in capturing subjective 4 Moderate plus between moderate and strong
judgments of decision-makers and integrating them in the 5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly
decision-making process. AHP is widely used in sustainability favor one element over another
assessment. Jawahir et al. [55] applied AHP to assess product 6 Strong plus between strong and very strong
sustainability using life cycle approach. Sudarsan et al. [56] 7 Very strong or An element is favored very strongly
emphasized the use AHP in manufacturing sustainability demonstrated over another; its dominance
assessment. Ziout et al. [1] implemented a sustainability importance demonstrated in practice
assessment of manufacturing system reuse from a point of view 8 Very, very strong between very strong and extreme
9 Extreme The evidence favoring one element
of the triple-bottom line using AHP. Amrina and Vilsi [16]
importance over another is one of the highest
proposed a set of key performance indicators and use AHP to possible order or affirmation
prioritize these indicators.
The gap identified in this study is the identification of
sustainability indicators that are critical in sustainable
manufacturing. This work attempts to apply AHP in normalizing Suppose, aijk represents the decision of k th decision-maker on
and scaling sustainability indicators identified by Joung et al. [4]. the influence of element i on j . To aggregate individual
The NIST framework of Joung et al. [4] provides
judgments, Saaty [13] proposed the weighted geometric mean
a comprehensive set of sustainability indicators while AHP
method (WGMM) as shown in (1):
prioritizes critical indicators as input to product and process
design, strategy development and policy-making.

k
  k
aij  aijk (1)

METHODOLOGY
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
Generally, the procedure of AHP can be described as follows:
1. Structuring the decision problem
In AHP, decision problems are structured hierarchically in a top-
down approach [13]. Oftentimes in many selection problems,
there is an explicit definition and representation of goal, criteria
and alternatives components. In various cases, criteria
component is described in more than two levels so that further
details of criteria are explicitly presented in the decision
structure. The decision of the inclusion of components and
alternatives is usually carried out either through a critical review
of literature with regard to the facets of the decision problem or
through an expert or group of experts who have sufficient
wihere aij iss the aggregated judgment,  k is the decision-
maker’s importance to the decision making process with
 k 0 and   k 1 . The values of aij i , j form the pairwise
k
comparisons matrix.
In pairwise comparisons, reciprocity is maintained. Priority
vectors (w) are obtained from the pairwise comparison matrix
(A) by solving an eigenvalue problem in the following equation:
Awmax w (2)
where max is the maximum eigenvalue of the positive
reciprocal square matrix (A). The approach also provides a way
to measure the consistency of judgments in the pairwise
comparison matrix. When decision-making in the pairwise
comparisons matrix is consistent max n ; otherwise, max n

4 http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444
Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
where n is the number of elements being compared. The
Consistency Index (CI), as a measure of degree of consistency,
was calculated using the formula
CI  max n / n1 (3)
The consistency ratio (CR) is computed as
CRCI / RI (4)
where RI is the mean random consistency. Acceptable CR values
must be less than 0.1. Decision-makers were asked to repeat the
pairwise comparisons for CR values greater than 0.1.
3. Synthesizing judgments
Saaty [13] described that synthesizing judgments in AHP is
done by weighting the elements being compared in the lower
level to an element in the next immediate level, referred to as
the parent element, by the priority of that element and adding
Figure 2 Sustainable manufacturing hierarchal structure
PROCEDURE
The procedure adopted in this paper is as follows:
1. Use the hierarchical structure of the NIST framework on
sustainable manufacturing. Instead of five dimensions as
shown in Joung et al. [4], this work adopts the first three
dimensions which are consistent with the triple-bottom
line. The hierarchical structure is presented in Fig. 2 which
is composed of four levels denoted as level 0, 1, 2, 3. Each
element of level 3 element is composed of sustainability
indicators. See SMIR website for these indicators.
2. Construct the pairwise comparisons matrices of the level 3
elements with respect to their level 2 parent element, level
2 elements with respect to their level 1 parent element,
and level 1 elements with respect to their level 0 parent
element. See Saaty [13] for this discussion.
3. Decision-makers elicit judgments on the pairwise
comparisons matrices. Judgments are based on the Saaty 9-
http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444
Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J
all parents for each element in the lower level. This is referred
to as the distributive mode of the AHP. This can be represented
in the form for two levels in a hierarchy
WT Xm
T T
 T

3 X m 2 I X m1I (5)
where W is is the global (synthesized) weight vector of the
elements in the lowest (or third level in this case), X m3 is the
local priority vector of the third level elements (the lowest
level), X m 2 is the local priority vector of the second level
elements, X m1 is the local priority vector of the first level
elements, and I is an identity matrix.
point fundamental scale shown in Table 1. In this study,
three experts were asked to perform pairwise comparisons.
These experts were selected based on their expertise in
manufacturing and sustainable development projects.
4. Aggregate judgments from three decision-makers using (1).
These form single decision-maker pairwise comparisons
matrices.
5. Compute for the local eigenvectors using (2) along with CR
values using (4).
6. Synthesize judgments using (5) and this yields a global
priority vector of level 3 elements. Rank these elements in
decreasing order and obtain the top 10 elements.
7. List down the sustainability indicators associated with the
top 10 level 3 elements. These are considered as critical
elements in sustainable manufacturing. These sustainability
indicators must be given high priority by manufacturing
firms.
5
Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Three sets of pairwise comparisons were performed by Table 7 Sample aggregated type 3 pairwise comparisons matrix
decision-makers: (type 1) level 3 elements with respect to level Sustainable manufacturing (a1) (a2) (a3) Priority vector
2 parent element, (type 2) level 2 elements with respect to level (a1) Environmental stewardship 0.248 0.296 0.1140
(a2) Economic growth 2.392 0.5801
1 parent element, and (type 3) level 1 elements with respect to (a3) Social well-being 0.3059
level 0 parent element. These sum up to 14 pairwise
CR  0.052
comparisons matrices. Table 2 shows a sample of type 1
pairwise comparison matrices by a single decision-maker. Table
Using (5) to compute for the global priority vector of level 3
3 shows a sample of type 2 and Table 4 shows a sample of type
elements, Table 8 presents the list of level 3 elements with their
3.
corresponding global priorities.
Table 2 Sample type 1 pairwise comparisons matrix
Pollution (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) (a5)
Table 8 Global priority vector of level 3 elements
(a1) Toxic substances 1 3 5 3
Level 3 elements Priorities Rank
(a2) Greenhouse gas emissions 3 5 3
Toxic substance 0.014578 18
(a3) Ozone depletion gas emissions 2 1
Greenhouse gas emissions 0.012578 20
(a4) Noise 1/2 Ozone depletion gas emissions 0.007187 23
(a5) Acidification substance Noise 0.005165 29
Acidification substance 0.004741 30
Effluent 0.009651 21
Air emissions 0.013685 19
Table 3 Sample type 2 pairwise comparisons matrix Solid waste emissions 0.007213 22
Environmental stewardship (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) Waste energy emissions 0.002234 33
(a1) Pollution 1 3 2 Water consumption 0.003960 31
Material consumption 0.003036 32
(a2) Emission 3 2
Energy/electrical consumption 0.006350 25
(a3) Resource consumption 2 Land use 0.005373 28
(a4) Natural habitat conservation Biodiversity management 0.006713 24
Natural habitat quality 0.006156 26
Habitat management 0.005405 27
Revenue 0.123208 1
Table 4 Sample type 3 pairwise comparisons matrix
Profit 0.112194 2
Sustainable manufacturing (a1) (a2) (a3) Materials acquisition 0.098543 3
(a1) Environmental stewardship 1/2 1/2 Production 0.058263 5
(a2) Economic growth 1 Product transfer to customer 0.032955 13
End-of-service-life product handling 0.050722 6
(a3) Social well-being
Research and development 0.040135 9
Community development 0.064100 4
Employees health and safety 0.033757 12
In aggregating judgments of three decision-makers, (1) is Employees career development 0.034856 11
Employee satisfaction 0.021455 17
used with 10.5 ,  2 0.3 and 3 0.2 . When the aggregated Health and safety impacts from manufacturing/product use 0.045944 8
pairwise comparisons matrix yield CR0.10 , then 10.7 , Customer satisfaction from operations and products 0.046978 7
Inclusion of specific rights to customer 0.027960 15
 2 0.2 and 3 0.2 . Table 5 shows a sample of aggregated Product responsibility 0.027508 16
Justice/equity 0.029352 14
pairwise comparisons matrix of type 1. Table 6 shows a sample
Community development programs 0.038046 10
of type 2 and Table 7 shows a sample of type 3. Local priority
vectors and CR values were presented in these samples.
Table 8 shows that the top 10 level 3 elements are
Table 5 Sample aggregated type 1 pairwise comparisons matrix
Priority
concentrated in economic growth and social well-being
Pollution (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) (a5) dimensions. This shows that socio-economic issues are highly
vector
(a1) Toxic substances 1.516 1.620 3.389 2.625 0.3294 relevant in sustainable manufacturing. Environmental
(a2) Greenhouse gas stewardship elements can be treated as consequences in
1.407 1.816 4.899 0.2842
emissions
(a3) Ozone depletion
addressing socio-economic issues. For instance, addressing
1.219 1.196 0.1624 health and safety impacts from manufacturing/product use in
gas emissions
(a4) Noise 0.922 0.1167 the social well-being dimension implies eliminating or reducing
(a5) Acidification the use of toxic substance in the environmental stewardship
0.1072
substance
dimension. From this priority listing of level 3 elements, top 10
CR0.036 elements were obtained and their indicators were listed in Table
8. These indicators were based from the work of Joung et al.
(2013).
Table 6 Sample aggregated type 2 pairwise comparisons matrix
Table 9 presents the critical sustainability indicators firms
Priority
Environmental stewardship (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) must monitor in order to promote sustainability efficiently and
vector
(a1) Pollution 1.817 2.269 1.853 0.3881 comprehensively.
(a2) Emission 2.269 1.853 0.2875
(a3) Resource consumption 1.288 0.1642
(a4) Natural habitat conservation 0.1603
CR  0.027

6 http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444
Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J

[2] Ocampo L, Clark E (2015) A proposed framework in

developing sustainable manufacturing initiatives using
Table 9 Critical sustainability indicators Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Industrial and Systems
Engineering Review, 3:7-16
Level 3 elements Rank Sustainability indicators [3] Ocampo L, Clark E, Tanudtanud K V, Ocampo C O, Impas
Revenue 1 Revenue Sr. C, Vergara V G, Pastoril J, Tordillo J A (2015) An
Profit 2 Profit integrated sustainable manufacturing strategy frame-work
Materials acquisition 3 Material acquisition costs using fuzzy analytic network process. Advances in
Community development 4 Charitable investments Production Engineering and Management, 10:125–139
Investments and impacts of [4] Joung C B, Carrell J, Sarkar P, Feng S C (2012)
community development Categorization of indicators for sustainable manufacturing.
Production 5 Energy costs Ecological Indicators, 24:148-157
Tooling costs
Labor costs
[5] Linke B, Das J, Lam M, Ly C (2014) Sustainability indicators
Waste treatment costs for finishing operations based on process performance
Packaging costs and part quality. Procedia CIRP, 14:564–569
End-of-service-life product [6] Burritt R L, Schaltegger S (2010) Sustainability accounting
6 Recycling costs for WEEE
handling and reporting. Fad or trend?. Accounting, Auditing &
(labor) productivity Accountability Journal, 23:829-846
Customer satisfaction from
7
Customer satisfaction [7] Lodhia S, Martin N (2014) Corporate sustainability
operations and products assessment indicators: an Australian mining case study. Journal of
Customer complaints Cleaner Production, 84:1–9
Health and safety impacts from Life cycle assessment for health [8] Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators: measuring
8
manufacturing/product use and safety impacts
the immeasurable? Earthscan, London.
Incidents of non-compliance
with voluntary codes
[9] Rahdari A H, Anvary Rostamy A A Designing a general set
Product quality assurance and
of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. Journal
management of Cleaner Production, in press.
Innovation and research and [10] Sundin E, Nässlander E, Lelah A (2015) Sustainability
Research and development 9
development investments Indicators for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
Renewable energies investment in the transition to provide product-service systems (PSS).
Energy efficiency investments Procedia CIRP, 30:149–154
Community development [11] Linke B S, Cormanb G J, Dornfeld D A, Tönissen S (2013)
10 Programs for adherence to laws
programs
Sustainability indicators for discrete manufacturing
Violations of human rights
processes applied to grinding technology. Journal of
Public service management
Participation in public policy
Manufacturing Systems, 32:556-563
development [12] Bordt M (2009) OECD Sustainable manufacturing toolkit,
Political contributions sustainability and U.S. competitiveness summit. U.S.
Responsible care program Department of Commerce.
participation [13] Saaty T L (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-
Sustainability report publishing Hill, New York.
Population density [14] Brundtland G H (1987) Our Common Future: the World
Population growth Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK.
[15] Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom
Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK [16] Amrina E, Yusof S (2011) Key performance indicators for
sustainable manufacturing evaluation in automotive
companies. Procedia CIRP, 26:1093–1097
With analytic hierarchy process, priorities were attached to
[17] Jayal A D, Baburdeen F, Dillon O W Jr, Jawahir I S (2010)
the elements of the US NIST indicator framework on sustainable Sustainable manufacturing: modelling and optimization
manufacturing. From these priorities, critical indicators were challenges at the product, process and system levels. CIRP
identified. These indicators are the most prioritized indicators Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 2:144-
that may serve as guide in the implementation and evaluation of 152
sustainable manufacturing projects, initiatives and strategies. [18] Hassine H, Barkallah M, Bellacicco A, Louati J, Riviere A,
Practitioners can easily access the method due to its simple Haddar M (2015) Multi objective optimization for
analytical procedure. Thus, this paper has provided a sustainable manufacturing, application in turning.
methodology in identifying critical elements in sustainable International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 14:98-109
[19] Rashid A, Asif F M A, Krajnik P, Nicolescu C M (2013)
manufacturing. Further work can be extended on this paper by
Resource conservative manufacturing: an essential change
determining appropriate measurement systems for each in business and technology paradigm for sustainable
indicator. Causal relationships of these indicators may be manufacturing. Journal on Cleaner Production, 57:166-177
performed to further narrow down the scope of the monitoring [20] Kovac M (2012) Comparison of foresights in the
list. manufacturing research. Transfer Inovacii, 23:284-288
[21] Siemieniuch C E, Sinclai M A, Henshaw M J (2015) Global
drivers, sustainable manufacturing and systems
ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 51:104–119
REFERENCES [22] Ijomah W L, McMahon C A, Hammond G P, Newman S T
(2007) Development of design for remanufacturing
[1] Ziout A, Azab A, Altarazi S, ElMaraghy W H (2013) Multi- guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing. Robotics
criteria decision support for sustainability assessment of and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23:712–9
manufacturing system reuse. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, 6:59-69

http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444 7
Ocampo L, Vergara VG, Impas C, Tordillo JA, Pastoril J
[23] Ocampo L, Ocampo C O (2015) A proposed sustainable
manufacturing strategy framework. Business Systems and
Economics, 5: 87-98
[24] Ocampo L, Clark E (2014) Developing a framework for
sustainable manufacturing strategies selection. DLSU
Business & Economics Review, 23: 115-131
[25] Rusinko C A (2007) Green manufacturing: an evaluation of
environmentally sustainable manufacturing practices and
their impact on competitive outcomes. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 54(3): 445-54.
[26] DSE (2007) Method for Conducting a Sustainability
Assessment of Future Management Options for State
Forests Supplying Water to Melbourne. Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.
[27] Guijt I, Moiseev A (2001) Resource Kit for Sustainability
Assessment. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources), Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK.
[28] Faulkner W, Badurdeen F (2014) Sustainable Value Stream
Mapping (Sus-VSM): methodology to visualize and assess
manufacturing sustainability performance. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 85:8–18
[29] Brown A, Amundson J, Badurdeen F (2014) Sustainable
value stream mapping (Sus-VSM) in different
manufacturing system configurations: application case
studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85:164–179
[30] Bilge P, Badurdeen F, Seliger G, Jawahir I (2014) Model-
based Approach for Assessing Value Creation to Enhance
Sustainability in Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 17:106–
111
[31] Garbie I H (2015) Sustainability optimization in
manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP, 26: 504–509
[32] Taisch M, Stahl B, & May G (2015) Sustainability in
manufacturing strategy deployment. Procedia CIRP,
26:635–640
[33] Zhang H, Haapala K (2014) Integrating sustainable
manufacturing assessment into decision making for a
production work cell. Journal of Cleaner Production,
105:52–63
[34] Moldavska A, Welo T (2015) On the applicability of
sustainability assessment tools in manufacturing. Procedia
CIRP, 29:621 – 626
[35] Lee J, Lee Y (2014) A framework for a research inventory
of sustainability assessment in manufacturing. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 79:207–218
[36] Dizdaroglu D (2015) Developing micro-level urban
ecosystem indicators for sustainability assessment.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 119–124
[37] Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007)
Categorising tools for sustainability assessment, Ecological
Economics, 60:498-508
[38] Bassen A, Kovacs A (2008) Environmental, social and
governance key performance indicators from a capital
market perspective. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsund
Unternehmensethik, 182-192
[39] Zhou J, Shen L, Song X, Zhang X 2015 Selection and
modeling sustainable urbanization indicators: A
responsibility-based method. Ecological Indicators, 56:87–
95
[40] Braulio-Gonzalo M, Bovea M D, Ruá M J (2015)
Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure
of indicators for the Spanish context. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 53:16–30
[41] Michael F L, Noor Z Z, Figueroa M J (2014) Review of urban
sustainability indicators assessment – Case study between
Asian countries. Habitat International, 44:491–500
[42] Domingues A R, Moreno Pires S, Caeiro S, Ramos T B
(2015) Defining criteria and indicators for a sustainability
label of local public services. Ecological Indicators, 57:452–
464
8 http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444
View publication stats
Identifying critical indicators in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
[43] Agol D, Latawiec A E, Strassburg B B N (2014) Evaluating
impacts of development and conservation projects using
sustainability indicators: Opportunities and challenges.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48:1–9
[44] Rivera S, Minsker B, Work D, Roth D (2014) A text mining
framework for advancing sustainability indicators.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 62:128–138
[45] Gutowski T, Dahmus J, Thiriez A (2006) Electrical energy
requirements for manufacturing processes. 13th CIRP
International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering,
Leuven
[46] Tan H X, Yeoa Z, Nga R, Tjandraa T B, Songa B (2015) A
sustainability indicator framework for Singapore small and
medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP,
29:132 – 137
[47] Nappi V, Rozenfeld H (2015) The incorporation of
sustainability indicators into a performance measurement
system. Procedia CIRP, 26:7–12
[48] Lehtonen M, Sébastien L, Bauler T (2016) The multiple
roles of sustainability indicators in informational
governance: between intended use and unanticipated
influence. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
18:1–9
[49] Ocampo L (2015) A hierarchical framework for index
computation in sustainable manufacturing. Advances in
Production Engineering and Management, 10: 40-50
[50] Ocampo L, Clark E (2015) An analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) approach in the selection of sustainable
manufacturing initiatives: a case in a semiconductor
manufacturing firm in the Philippines. International
Journal of Analytic Hierarchy Process, 7:32-49
[51] Roca L C, Searcy C (2012) An analysis of indicators
disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 20:103-118
[52] Graedel T, Allenby B, Comrie P (1995) Matrix approaches
to abridged life cycle assessment. Environmental Science
and Technology, 29:134A-139A
[53] de Silva N, Jawahir I S, Dillon O, Russel M (2006) A new
comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of product
sustainability at the design and development stage of
consumer electronic products. Proceedings of 13th CIRP
International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 335-
340
[54] Ghadimi P, Azadnia A H, Yusof N M, Saman M Z M (2012) A
weighted fuzzy approach for product sustainability
assessment: a case study in automotive industry. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 33:10-21
[55] Jawahir I S, Badurdeen F, Goldsby T, Iyengar D (2009)
Assessment of product and process sustainability: towards
developing metrics for sustainable manufacturing.
Retrieved:http://www.mel.nist.gov/msid/conferences/talk
s/ijawahir.pdf
[56] Sudarsan R, Ram D S, Anantha N, Prabir S (2010)
Sustainable manufacturing: metrics, standards, and
infrastructure – workshop summary. Retrieved:
http://www.nist. gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub
_id=905837
[57] Promentilla M A B, Furuichi T, Ishii K, Tanikawa N (2006)
Evaluation of remedial countermeasures using the analytic
network process. Waste Management, 26:1410–1421