Lean and sustainability programs: evidence of operational synergy for lean manufacturers and logical growth toward sustainability.
Abstract:
For many organizations, due to a general focus on waste reduction, intuition suggests that the key objectives of Lean programs and Sustainability (or Green) programs share great commonality, and that organizations that successfully implement Lean principles also should be successful when implementing Sustainability principles. In this study, an examination of known Lean organizations (applicants and finalists for the Shingo Prize) explores this intuitive synergy between Lean and Sustainability, and shows that Lean organizations should be able to reduce barriers for implementing subsequent successful Sustainability programs.

Keywords: Lean, Green, Sustainability, Environment, Manufacturing, Operations, Waste

Article Type:
Report
Subject:
News agencies (Growth)
News agencies (Waste management)
Sustainable development (Growth)
Refuse and refuse disposal
Authors:
Bergmiller, Gary G.
McCright, Paul R.
Weisenborn, Gregory
Pub Date:
09/01/2011
Publication:
Name: Review of Business Research Publisher: International Academy of Business and Economics Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Business, international Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 International Academy of Business and Economics ISSN: 1546-2609
Issue:
Date: Sept, 2011 Source Volume: 11 Source Issue: 5
Topic:
Event Code: 420 Pollutants produced & recycled Computer Subject: Company growth
Product:
Product Code: 7350000 News Syndicates & Wire Svcs NAICS Code: 51411 News Syndicates SIC Code: 7383 News syndicates
Organization:
Government Agency: United States. Environmental Protection Agency Company Name: The Associated Press; The Associated Press Organization: International Organization for Standardization
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States
Accession Number:
272484949
Full Text:
1. INTRODUCTION

Traditional Lean Systems models share key attributes with traditional Operations Management approaches for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of business operations. Important examples include 1) need for top management support and commitment, 2) identification and systematic reduction of traditional operational waste, and 3) long-term continuous waste reduction leading to increased competitiveness as demonstrated by improved business metrics (Bergmiller & McCright, 2009a; Liker, 2004). Similarly, Sustainability (or Green) models that historically address the impact of business operations on the environment, also show great consistency. Sustainability models tend to agree that 1) top management support and commitment is essential for program success, 2) environmental waste should be identified and systematically reduced, and that 3) long-term continuous environmental waste reduction should lead to both improved business metrics and environmental metrics (Bergmiller & McCright 2009a; Bergmiller, 2006). Some disagreement exists that investment in environmental Sustainability does not inherently support the objectives of organizational stakeholders. However, a variety of research, including an overview by Porter and van der Linde (1995), supports the notion that as an organizational objective (possibly, but not necessarily a legal requirement requiring enforcement) environmental Sustainability drives technological enhancement that often reduces organizational operations costs as well as reduces traditional environmental waste (Porter, 1991; Porter & van der Linde, 1995). With these basic similarities in mind, it should not be surprising to find at least anecdotal evidence that Lean organizations possess attributes associated with Sustainability-focused (green) organizations.

In addition to providing evidence that Lean organizations possess characteristics common to successful Sustainability programs, another significant contribution of this research should be to spur to action the organizations that promote greater industry-wide efforts to reduce the environmental impact of business operations (Bergmiller, 2006). To that end, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already has produced a wide variety of guidance and literature for public consumption that espouses the benefits of integrating environmental concerns into traditional Lean improvement projects, e.g. The Lean and Chemicals Toolkit (EPA, 2009a), The Lean and Energy Toolkit (EPA, 2007b), the Lean in Government Starter Kit (EPA, 2009b) and The Lean and Environment Toolkit (EPA, 2007a). If this study and subsequent research can show that Lean organizations possess traits that also promote environmental Sustainability, then organizations such as the EPA will have additional avenues to promote Sustainability programs in corporate America.

The benefits associated with persuading organizations also to promote Sustainability will be considered a moot point for the purposes of this paper. Evidence can be found elsewhere (e.g. Bergmiller, 2006; Meadows et al, 2004) that human-driven production and consumption currently exceed technological and social progress toward a sustainable environmental balance. Moving forward from that point, in this paper, the authors perform two basic analyses: 1) investigating whether Lean manufacturers demonstrate greater Lean success if they also exhibit features of Sustainability programs, and 2) comparing typical or average manufacturing organizations to Lean manufacturers with respect to key variables associated with Sustainability.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

A seminal essay by Michael Porter (1991), as well as subsequent research summarized nicely by Porter and van der Linde (1995), highlight the economic benefits associated with regulating emissions of environmental waste to create environmentally sustainable business. Additionally, a variety of literature has erupted at the cross-section of Lean and Sustainability. Kleindorfer, Singhal and van Wassenhove (2005) provide a good introduction to the incorporation of traditional sustainability concepts into operations management. Corbett and Klassen (2006) make the argument that as an academic field, operations management should expand to include issues related to environmental excellence. Simpson and Power (2005) discuss the development of "lean and green" suppliers. Sources such as Mollenkopf et al (2010) extend further to provide good insight into the ongoing development of the field with a specific focus on global supply chains. From a broader perspective, Lean and Sustainability represent only parts of the movement toward a greater focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which also encompasses elements of public policy and the impact of industry on social systems (Eberhard-Harribey, 2006).

Lean manufacturers differ from their average counterparts by demonstrating an advanced level of operational excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness. The Shingo Prize is awarded to organizations that demonstrate "Operational Excellence"; this is often idealized through the principles of the Toyota Production System (Shingo Prize, 2010a), and otherwise known as Lean principles. The Shingo Prize evaluation process utilizes key metrics associated with Operational Excellence, and have been adopted in this study as measures of Leanness of a manufacturing organization (Bergmiller, 2006; Shingo Prize, 2003). Current Shingo Prize guidelines can be accessed at its web site (Shingo, 2010b). When compared to typical or average manufacturers, Shingo Prize applicants, finalists, and winners are assumed to be considerably more Lean, based on the close scrutiny associated with the Shingo Prize evaluation process. Shingo Prize criteria are a comprehensive view of Lean operations excellence, and include the evaluation of multiple Lean dimensions including but not limited to organizational leadership and culture, employee empowerment, quality, cost, and customer satisfaction (Shingo, 2003; Bergmiller, 2006). At the time of data collection for this research, the Shingo Prize scoring system defined eleven sub-elements that were grouped into three categories in this study: Lean Management System (LMS), Lean Waste Reduction Techniques (LWRT) and Lean Results (LR) (Bergmiller, 2006).

From the perspective of a Lean manufacturer, the seven traditional wastes are: defects, over-production, transportation, waiting, inventory, motion, excess-processing; together these are otherwise known by Lean practitioners as the acronym "DOTWIMP". The Toyota Production System also usually defines an eighth major form of waste: unused employee creativity. Good explanations of these traditional forms of manufacturing waste can be found in The Toyota Way (Liker, 2004, p.28). From this traditional Lean perspective, environmental wastes are not specifically addressed. However, a variety of studies have shown that adoption of various Lean principles can result in improved business performance gains, e.g. MacDuffie (1995) and Ichniowski et al (1993).

Conceptually, Sustainability or "sustainable development" refers to attempts by human beings to achieve a balance with nature that will protect future generations' abilities to thrive on planet Earth. A good working definition can be found from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (UN-WCED): "... development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (UN-WCED), 1987, Ch. 2). Often, based on the outputs of modern production processes and the consumption of limited natural resources, the surrogates of Sustainability are measurable goals and objectives such as: 1) reduced environmental waste streams, 2) reduced consumption of nonrenewable natural resources, 3) increased utilization of renewable resources, and 4) increased technological advancement for the improvement of the first three listed items. The last measurable objective (increased technological advancement) is perceived to be the driver for economic advantage when balanced against the investment cost associated with traditional regulatory compliance associated with reducing environmental waste streams (Porter & van der Linde, 1995).

Energy consumption and generation are two of the most visible and controversial topics related to Sustainability. Examples include public fights over the feasibility and aesthetics of wind generation (e.g. Galvin, 2010; Corn, 2008), and environmental damage caused by oil exploration and generation (e.g. Associated Press (AP), 2010; Lancaster, 2010). The brightening spotlight on sustainable energy has prompted The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to develop several new international standards focused on a variety of energy-related challenges. Among others, ISO is developing (or has developed) standards ISO/PC 248--Sustainability Criteria for Bioenergy (ISO, 2010), ISO 21930:2007--Sustainability in Building Construction (ISO, 2007), and ISO/PC 242--Energy Management (ISO, n.d.,a). The Energy Management standard is of particular interest and will be known as ISO 50001 after final approval and adoption. Its scope will include:

"Standardization in the field of energy management, including for example: energy efficiency, energy performance, energy supply, procurement practices for energy using equipment and systems, and energy use. The standard will also address measurement of current energy usage, implementation of a measurement system to document, report, and validate the continual improvement in the area of energy management" (ISO, n.d.,b).

Additionally, as noted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) while reporting on the approval of the Draft International Standard of ISO 50001, the Energy Management standard will address important issues including: 1) "Making better use of existing energy-consuming assets", 2) "Transparency and communication on the management of energy resources", 3) "Energy management best practices and good energy management behaviors", 4) "Evaluating and prioritizing the implementation of new energy-efficient technologies" and 5) "A framework for promoting energy efficiency throughout the supply chain" (ANSI, 2010). After the final ISO 50001 standard is approved and published, information regarding "energy management best practices and good energy management behaviors" should be compared and potentially incorporated into the various Sustainability criteria discussed throughout this research, especially with respect to Lean organizations and their potential for implementing successful Sustainability programs.

In 2003, Melnyk et al evaluated the "greenness" of more than 1000 average manufacturing plants in the United States (Melnyk, Sroufe, & Calantone, 2003). This purpose of that study was to investigate antecedents of various companies' level of commitment to pursuing ISO 14001 certification (the ISO Environmental Management Systems standard). We utilized this study to identify important Sustainability variables, which were then grouped into three categories similar to the Shingo Prize categorization discussed above. The criteria were borrowed and adapted from Melnyk, including dimensions associated with Green Management Systems, Green Waste Reducing Techniques, and Green Results. Throughout this paper, comparisons of Lean and Sustainability variables and programs will be made with respect to the frameworks suggested by Melnyk et al (2003) and those utilized via the Shingo Prize (Bergmiller, 2006).

Generally, Management Systems encompass procedures and policies "that create the environment/culture that commits the organization toward waste reduction" (Bergmiller, 2006). Results are observable or measurable indices relative to the Lean or Sustainability goals and objectives set by organizations to define success. Waste Reducing Techniques are proven practices that are applied to manufacturing and business processes by the Management System to improve Results.

3. METHODOLOGY

To evaluate potential synergy between Lean principles and Sustainability principles, and to evaluate Lean manufacturing organizations' tendencies toward adopting practices associated with Sustainability, survey results were collected from Lean manufacturing plants; plants defined as Lean in this study were either applicants, finalists, or winners of the Shingo Prize. Lean manufacturers were visited and evaluated by the Shingo Prize team between 2000 and 2005 (Bergmiller, 2006).

Surveys were sent to key employees from 120 Shingo Prize applicants (plant sites). Usable surveys from 47 plant sites were evaluated and compared to similar data published by Melnyk, Sroufe, & Calantone (2003). The unit of analysis for this study was an individual plant site that was previously evaluated by the Shingo Prize team and which submitted complete survey data.

As noted above, three primary categories define the framework for identifying key variables and metrics: Management Systems, Waste Reduction Techniques, and Results. Liker (2004) and the Shingo Prize Application Guidelines (2003) provided this basic framework for a Lean production system. Criteria from the Shingo Prize Site Evaluation Form were adapted to fit this common framework of Management Systems, Waste Reduction Techniques, and Results (Bergmiller, 2006). See Table 1 below:

In Table 1, aggregated variables LMS, LWRT, and LR represent the summed values of their respective components. Similarly, key elements for Sustainability-driven production systems were derived from Melnyk et al (2003), the EPA (2001) and the ISO 14001 Environmental Management Specification standard (ISO, 2002). Minor modifications include the elimination of two variables from the original Melnyk et al (2002) survey and model (Bergmiller, 2006). Detailed definitions of all the Melnyk et al Sustainability-related variables and the Shingo Prize Lean variables can be found in Bergmiller (2006). In Table 2 below, the aggregated variables GMS, GWRT, and GR represent the summed values of their respective components.

First Hypothesis--Lean manufacturers are more "green"

H1: Lean manufacturers exhibit a greater number of traits also associated with Sustainability programs when compared to a set of average manufacturers.

The survey by Melnyk et al (2003) described above was adapted, validated, and used to collect data on Lean manufacturers' tendencies toward Sustainability, as defined by the various Green Management System criteria, Green Waste Reduction Techniques criteria, and Green Results criteria shown above in Table 2 (Bergmiller, 2006). Details on the validation of the modified survey can be found in Bergmiller (2006).

As mentioned previously, 47 usable surveys were generated from 120 Shingo Prize applicants, finalists, and winners. As a set, the survey results from 47 Lean manufacturers' Sustainability criteria were compared against the criteria from Melnyk's original survey data of average or typical manufacturers. For each key Sustainability criteria, Hotelling T-tests were used to compare the mean results from the Lean manufacturers to the mean results of average manufacturers from the original Melnyk et al (2003) study. Two of the 26 Sustainability criteria, ISO 14001 Certification, and Years Certified, were not tested due to the dependence of Years Certified on ISO 14001 Certification (Bergmiller, 2006).

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS--FIRST HYPOTHESIS

The data set was validated using correlation between several of the key composite scores. Detailed results can be found in Bergmiller (2006). Results from the T-tests are shown in Table 3 below (Bergmiller, 2006). Of the 24 T-tests that were performed comparing the Sustainability criteria means of the average manufacturers against criteria means of the Lean manufacturers, 15 of the T-tests show that the Lean manufacturers scored significantly higher than the average manufacturers at the (p < 0.0001) level; for 3 of the Sustainability criteria, the results show that the Lean manufacturers scores were significantly greater at the (p<0.001) level. For only one of the 24 criteria, Remanufacturing, was the result not significant at least at the (p<0.05) level.

Results show strong statistical evidence that the Lean manufacturers score significantly higher on an overwhelming number of Sustainability-related criteria when compared to average manufacturers. These results lead to a suggestion that that some synergy may exist between manufacturers' efforts toward Lean improvement and potential growth toward Sustainability.

5. DISCUSSION--FIRST HYPOTHESIS

The most logical explanation of this overwhelming result should be that proven Lean manufacturers already have strong basic skills in identifying and eliminating traditional organizational and manufacturing waste (DOTWIMP), and that environmental wastes associated with moving toward Sustainable business practices is a next logical extension. As suggested by Steve Fludder, VP of General Electric's company-wide business initiative Ecomagination, organizations like GE look to eliminate waste as a business motive, no matter what form waste takes (Fludder, 2010).

Second Hypothesis--Synergy between Lean and Sustainability

H2: Manufacturers pursuing Lean objectives will demonstrate greater Lean Results (LR) if they have also demonstrated greater commitment to Sustainability as measured by the Sustainability component variables of GMS and GWRT.

As discussed above, all sample organizations were manufacturers that were reviewed by the Shingo Prize team between 2000 and 2005, and were considered to be either winners or finalists for the Shingo Prize. Synergy between Lean and Sustainability programs was tested by comparing Lean Results (LR) outcome metrics for each organization when compared to scores for variables associated with Green Management System (GMS) and Green Waste Reduction Techniques (GWRT). The model is shown below in Figure 1 (Bergmiller & McCright, 2009c).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Variables and Data Collection

The individual Lean Results (LR) scores from the Shingo Prize plant site visits (as shown above in Table 1) were the dependent variables in this study. Additionally, an aggregate Lean score was utilized based on the overall Shingo Prize scoring system. These scores were accessed directly via the Shingo Prize scoring system database (Bergmiller, 2006).

As described in the methodology above, the independent variables were scored from the GMS and GWRT criteria. Scores for these criteria were collected via survey from the sample of Lean manufacturers described above. The survey was a slightly modified version of the Melnyk et al (2003) study (Bergmiller, 2006). Additionally, two composite independent variables were generated from aggregate scores from GMS criteria and from GWRT criteria. From the 120 companies in the Shingo Prize database, 47 Lean manufacturers responded sufficiently to be included in this study (Bergmiller, 2006).

Results and Analysis--Second Hypothesis

A correlation analysis was performed comparing the Sustainability survey results to the Lean scores from the Shingo Prize database. Table 4 below shows key results from the correlation analysis (Bergmiller, 2006). Although some tested relationships were not significant, all correlation calculations were positive. Only relationships showing significance greater than (p<0.05) are displayed in Table 4. Of the sixteen GMS and GWRT independent variables described above in Table 2, only six (plus the two aggregate variables for GMS and GWRT) show significant correlation with at least one of the Lean Results dependent variables.

The remaining ten independent variables show positive correlation with the Lean Results dependent variables, but with non-significant correlation results: Years Certified, Product Redesign, Process Redesign, Disassembly, Reduce, Recycling, Remanufacturing, Consume Internally, Spreading Risks, and Alliances.

Discussion--Second Hypothesis

Statistical evidence exists that several Sustainability criteria positively impact the Lean Results variables in a significant manner. All of the Lean Results dependent variables are positively impacted, and they are all significantly positively impacted by at least one of the Sustainability variables. Specifically, as related to the discussion of the first hypothesis, a strong logical foundation exists for the relationships between the Sustainability independent variables and the dependent output variable of Cost. Any organization seeking to reduce operational costs will seek to eliminate waste. Since a key objective of Lean process--improvement initiatives is cost reduction through the elimination of the DOTWIMP wastes, it should not be surprising that a strong relationship exists between the dependent variable Cost and several of the Sustainability variables (Bergmiller & McCright, 2009c). It is highly likely that organizations will extend the traditional definition of waste to include environmental wastes, especially if cost--reduction or environmental compliance issues (deferred economic penalties) are at stake. With respect to the relationships between other Sustainability and Lean Results variables, a larger sample of Lean manufacturers might provide stronger evidence for the known positive relationships between the Sustainability variables and the Lean Results dependent variables. A larger study might indicate more conclusively which independent variables should receive greater attention by Lean manufacturers in their efforts to improve their Lean Results output metrics.

6. CONCLUSIONS

From the investigation of the first hypothesis, the analysis of this data bears out the assumption that Lean manufacturers (as identified via the Shingo Prize criteria) have significantly greater tendencies toward Sustainability than a set of average manufacturers. Evidence was overwhelming that Lean manufacturers displayed significantly higher Sustainability--related criteria scores when compared to average manufacturers. These results suggest that Lean manufacturers display a greater number of Sustainability traits and practices, and thus they might be more likely to initiate and maintain successful Sustainability programs.

From the investigation of the second hypothesis, there is some evidence that Sustainability variables positively impact the Lean Results output metrics of Lean manufacturers. Of all of the relationships between the Sustainability independent variables and the Lean Results dependent variables, Cost was impacted more significantly by a greater number of Sustainability input variables than any of the other dependent variables. This suggests that at a minimum, the adoption of some key Sustainability practices by Lean manufacturers could significantly impact these organizations' efforts to reduce costs and otherwise improve overall Lean Results metrics.

A strong case continues to be made for the relationship between Sustainability and Lean manufacturing practices. This research has identified several strong relationships that suggest that Lean manufacturers have an inherent advantage over their more average competitors with respect to successfully adopting key criteria related to Sustainability. As suggested in the introduction, the EPA and other similar environmental advocacy organizations should be able to utilize supporting research such as this to promote the adoption of Sustainable business practices through the evidence associated with Lean manufacturing practices. The synergy that exists between Sustainability programs and Lean programs should continue to be explored.

Additionally, after the final adoption of the ISO 50001 standard, an updated review of key Sustainability variables should be undertaken. Confirmatory research with a larger number of Lean manufacturers (and possibly with new or additional Sustainability variables) might help to better identify which Sustainability variables have the most impact on output Lean Results metrics.

Last, researchers should continue to explore the creation of a more representative business model that incorporates the most significant elements of both Sustainability and Lean business criteria. Identification of the most influential Sustainability and Lean business levers should provide manufacturers with better guidance toward continuous improvement of performance metrics.

REFERENCES:

American National Standards Institute (ANSI). "ISO 50001 on Energy Management Systems approved as draft international standard." Accessed July 2010. http://www.ansi.org/news publications/news story.aspx? menuid=7&articleid=2551

Associated Press (AP). "A by-the-numbers look at the Gulf oil spill." Accessed July 2010. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38270299/ns/us news-environment

Bergmiller, Gary G. and Paul R. McCright. "Parallel models for lean and green operations." Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference. 2009a.

Bergmiller, Gary G. and Paul R. McCright. "Lean manufacturers transcendence to green manufacturing." Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference. 2009b.

Bergmiller, Gary G. and Paul R. McCright, "Are lean and green programs synergistic?" Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference. 2009c.

Bergmiller, Gary G. "Lean manufacturers transcendence to green manufacturing: Correlating the diffusion of lean and green manufacturing systems." PhD diss., University of South Florida, 2006.

Corbett, C.J. and R.D. Klassen. "Extending the horizons: Environmental excellence as key to improving operations." Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8(1) (2006): 5-22.

Corn, Mike. "Wind opponents file lawsuit." August 26, 2008. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.hdnews.net/SpecialSections/Story/windfarm082708

Eberhard-Harribey, L. "Corporate social responsibility as a new paradigm in the European policy: How CSR comes to legitimate the European regulation process." Corporate Governance 6(4) 2006: 358-366.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). An organizational guide to pollution prevention and waste minimization. Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA625-R-01-003). 2001.

EPA. "The lean and environment toolkit." 2007a. Accessed July 2010. http://www.epa.gov/lean/toolkit/LeanEnviroToolkit.pdf

EPA. "The lean and energy toolkit." 2007b. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/lean/toolkit/LeanEnergyToolkit.pdf

EPA. "The lean and chemicals toolkit." 2009a. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/lean/chemicalstoolkit/resources/ Lean-and-Chemicals-Toolkit.pdf

EPA. "Lean in government starter kit, version 2.0." 2009b. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/lean/starterkit/resources/Lean-Starter-Kit.pdf

Fludder, S.M. "Ecomagination--addressing the environment as a growth market." Plenary Address to the AACSB Sustainability Conference, Denver, Colorado. June 15, 2010.

Galvin, W.F. "Headwaters residents protest town wind turbine plans." Accessed July, 2010. http://www.capecodchronicle.com/harnews/har120309 1.htm

Ichniowski C., K. Shaw and G. Prennushi. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity. Columbia University, Carnegie Mellon University, and the World Bank. 1993.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO14001 environmental management systems specification. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 2002.

ISO. "ISO Management system standard for energy." No-date, a. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.iso.org/iso/hot topics/hot topics energy/ energy management system standard.htm

ISO. "TC 242--Project committee and scope: Energy management." No-date, b. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso technical committee.html?commid=558632

ISO. "ISO Standard to make bioenergy sustainable." January 7, 2010. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1282

ISO. "New ISO standard encourages sustainability in building construction." November 16, 2007. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.iso.org/iso /pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1087

Kleindorfer, P.R., K. Singhal and L.N. vanWassenhove. "Sustainable operations management." Production and Operations Management 14(4) 2005: 482-492.

Lancaster, C. "Messy cleanup of BP oil spill damages the gulf." July 21, 2010. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/ Messy-Cleanup-Of-BP-Oil-Spill-Damages-The Gulf/FCwrhUpGPEG1H4joscQMuA.cspx

Liker, J. The Toyota Way: 14 Management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 2004.

MacDuffie J.P. "Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry." Industrial Labor Relations Review 48(2) 1995: 197.

Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows and J. Randers. Limits to Growth: 30 year update. Chelsea: Green Publishing Co. 2004.

Melnyk, S.A., R. Sroufe and R.J. Calantone. "Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance." Journal of Operations Management 21(3) 2003: 329-351.

Mollenkopf, D., H. Stolze, W.L. Tate and M. Ueltschy. "Green, lean, and global supply chains." International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40(1/2) 2010: 14-41.

Nunnally, J.C. and I.H. Bernstein. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 1994.

Porter, M.E. "America's Green Strategy." Scientific American 264(4) 1991: 168.

Porter, M.E. and C. van der Linde. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship." Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4) 1995: 97-118.

Shingo Prize. Shingo prize for excellence in manufacturing: Application guidelines 2003-2004. Logan, Utah: College of Business, Utah State University. 2003.

Shingo Prize. "About us." 2010a. Accessed July 2010. http://www.shingoprize.org/htm/about-us/theshingo-prize

Shingo Prize. "Shingo prize for operational excellence: Model & application guidelines." 2010b. Accessed July 17, 2010. http://www.shingoprize.org/files/ uploads/ShingoModelGuidelines.pdf

Simpson, D.F. and D.J. Power. "Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers." Supply Chain Management 10(1) 2005: 60-68.

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (UN-WCED). "Report of the world commission on environment and development." 1987. Accessed July, 2010. http://www.undocuments.net/wced-ocf.htm

Gary G. Bergmiller, Zero Waste Operations Research and Consulting, St. Pete Beach, FL, USA

Paul R. McCright, University of South Florida, and Zero Waste Operations Research and Consulting

Gregory Weisenborn, Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS, USA
Table 1. Key criteria and aggregated
variables for the Lean production systems model

Aggregated Variable:   Aggregated Variable:     Aggregated Variable:
Lean Management        Lean Waste Reduction     Lean Results (LR):
Systems (LMS):         Techniques (LWRT):       Dependent Variable
Independent Variable   Independent Variable

Component criteria:    Component criteria:      Component criteria:

1. Leadership          1. Manufacturing         1. Quality & Quality
                       Vision & Strategy        Improvement

2. Empowerment         2. Innovation in         2. Cost& Productivity
                       Market Service &         Improvement
                       Product

                       3. Partnering with       3. Delivery & Service
                       Suppliers/Customers &    Improvement
                       Environmental
                       Practices

                       4. World-Class           4. Customer
                       Manufacturing            Satisfaction &
                       Operations & Processes   Profitability

                       5. Non-manufacturing
                       Support Functions

Table 2. Key criteria and aggregated variables
for the Sustainability production model

Aggregated Variable:    Aggregated Variable:    Aggregated Variable:
Green Management        Green Waste Reduction   Green Results (GR):
Systems (GMS):          Techniques (GWRT):      Dependent Variables
Independent Variables   Independent Variables

Component criteria:     Component criteria:     Component criteria:

1. ISO 14001/           1. Process redesign     1. Reduced costs
Environmental
Management System

2. Years of             2. Product redesign     2. Reduced lead-times
certification under
ISO 14001

                        3. Disassembly          3. Improved market
                                                position

                        4. Substitution         4. Enhanced reputation

                        5. Reduce               5. Improved product
                                                design

                        6. Recycling            6. Benefits outweigh
                                                costs

                        7. Remanufacturing      7. Improved
                                                international sales

                        8. Consume internally

                        9. Prolong use

                        10. Returnable
                        packaging

                        11. Spreading risks

                        12. Creating markets

                        13. Waste segregation

                        14. Alliances

Table 3. T-test results comparing average (Melnyk, 2003)
manufacturers to Lean (Shingo Prize) manufacturers

                                Melnyk companies

Sustainability/Green Factors     N     Mean     SD

ISO14001 certified              1510   0.083
Years certified                 1510   0.917
Product redesign                1163   2.996   1.228
Process redesign                1166   3.380   1.164
Dissassembly                    1155   2.612   1.208
Substitution                    1163   3.408   1.220
Reduce                          1160   3.328   1.212
Recycling                       1165   3.192   1.276
Remanufacturing                 1148   2.664   1.248
Consume Internally              1163   2.464   1.196
Prolong Use                     1154   3.004   1.592
Returnable Packaging            1162   3.324   1.292
Spreading Risks                 1153   2.776   1.156
Creating markets                1156   2.696   1.228
Waste Segregation               1161   3.212   1.220
Alliances                       1154   2.984   1.220
Reduced costs                   1142   2.340   1.028
Reduced lead-times              1143   2.084   0.912
Improved product quality        1144   2.296   1.012
Improved market position        1140   2.392   1.080
Enhanced reputation             1144   2.940   1.236
Improved product design         1144   2.440   1.108
Reduced process waste           1144   2.892   1.196
Improved equipment selection    1133   2.608   1.116
Benefits outweigh costs         1138   2.684   1.132
Improved international sales    1133   2.492   1.156

                                Shingo companies

Sustainability/Green Factors    N    Mean     SD

ISO14001 certified              47   0.787   0.225
Years certified                 47   3.574   2.842
Product redesign                42   3.619   1.011
Process redesign                46   4.174   0.769
Dissassembly                    42   3.024   1.239
Substitution                    47   4.128   0.924
Reduce                          46   3.978   0.830
Recycling                       46   3.826   1.180
Remanufacturing                 41   2.902   1.261
Consume Internally              42   3.000   1.230
Prolong Use                     44   3.545   1.170
Returnable Packaging            47   4.191   0.970
Spreading Risks                 42   3.262   1.061
Creating markets                40   3.175   1.412
Waste Segregation               45   4.378   0.806
Alliances                       47   3.723   1.057
Reduced costs                   47   3.915   0.855
Reduced lead-times              42   3.095   0.821
Improved product quality        46   3.435   0.981
Improved market position        47   3.638   0.819
Enhanced reputation             47   4.298   0.623
Improved product design         45   3.622   0.886
Reduced process waste           47   4.191   0.798
Improved equipment selection    47   3.745   0.793
Benefits outweigh costs         46   3.935   0.680
Improved international sales    47   3.872   0.824

                                T-test Significance

Sustainability/Green Factors       t        p      Significance

ISO14001 certified                        Meaningful difference
Years certified                           Meaningful difference
Product redesign                 3.248    0.0012        **
Process redesign                 4.586    0.0000       ****
Dissassembly                     2.168    0.0303        *
Substitution                     3.997    0.0001       ****
Reduce                           3.605    0.0003       ***
Recycling                        3.315    0.0009       ***
Remanufacturing                  1.202    0.2297
Consume Internally               2.851    0.0044        **
Prolong Use                      2.233    0.0258        *
Returnable Packaging             4.551    0.0000       ****
Spreading Risks                  2.683    0.0074        **
Creating markets                 2.413    0.0160        *
Waste Segregation                6.355    0.0000       ****
Alliances                        4.092    0.0000       ****
Reduced costs                   10.355    0.0000       ****
Reduced lead-times               7.081    0.0000       ****
Improved product quality         7.492    0.0000       ****
Improved market position         7.818    0.0000       ****
Enhanced reputation              7.490    0.0000       ****
Improved product design          7.068    0.0000       ****
Reduced process waste            7.380    0.0000       ****
Improved equipment selection     6.909    0.0000       ****
Benefits outweigh costs          7.438    0.0000       ****
Improved international sales     8.100    0.0000       ****

Indications of significance:
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
*** p<0.001
**** p<0.0001

Table 4: Significant correlation results for hypothesis two

Key Independent        Dependent Variables
Variables              (Lean Results variables)
(Sustainability
variables)
                       Quality    Delivery     Cost

Environmental Mgmt     p < 0.05     n.s.     p < 0.01
System
Total GMS score          n.s.       n.s.     p < 0.05
Substitution             n.s.       n.s.     p < 0.01
Prolong Use              n.s.       n.s.       n.s.
Returnable Packaging     n.s.       n.s.     p < 0.01
Creating Markets         n.s.     p < 0.05   p < 0.05
Waste Segregation        n.s.       n.s.     p < 0.01
Total GWRT score         n.s.       n.s.     p < 0.05

Key Independent        Dependent Variables
Variables              (Lean Results variables)
(Sustainability
variables)
                         Customer      Total Lean
                       Satisfaction/    Results
                       Profitability     Score
Environmental Mgmt         n.s.         p < 0.05
System
Total GMS score            n.s.           n.s.
Substitution             p < 0.05       p < 0.05
Prolong Use              p < 0.05         n.s.
Returnable Packaging       n.s.           n.s.
Creating Markets         p < 0.05       p < 0.01
Waste Segregation        p < 0.05       p < 0.05
Total GWRT score           n.s.         p < 0.05
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.