Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Environmental benefits of lean, green and resilient supply chain

management: The case of the aerospace sector
Rocio Ruiz-Benitez*, Cristina Lo
 pez, Juan C. Real
Department of Management & Marketing, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Crtra. Utrera, Km.1, 41013, Seville, Spain

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

Article history: This paper aims to investigate the relationship and links between lean, green and resilient supply chain
Received 7 March 2017 (SC) practices and their impact on environmental performance. To achieve this objective, the aerospace
Received in revised form sector is chosen as the study sector. A combined methodology of Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA)
27 July 2017
technique and Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) approach is used in order to identify the re-
Accepted 27 July 2017
lationships' map between practices and performance measures. Lean SC practices appear as drivers for
Available online 4 August 2017
green and resilient SC practices and their impact on environmental performance is higher than that one
of the resilient SC practices. In addition, analysis of the findings is especially valuable for practitioners
Keywords:
Lean supply chain
that can gain knowledge on interactions between practices and their impact on environmental perfor-
Resilient supply chain mance measures.
Green supply chain © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Environmental performance
Interpretive structural modeling
Importance-performance analysis

1. Introduction management, supplier environmental collaboration and customer

More and more companies currently seek to achieve their goals
not only through efficient processes but also through sustainable
operations. This trend is being mainly motivated by the increasing
scarcity of resources, the growing pressure from international and
national organism adopting environmental regulations, as well as
the growing pressure and demands from stakeholders (Bouzon
et al., 2015; Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014). Earlier
research highlights that lean, green and resilient practices would
result in more sustainable Supply Chains (SC) (Garza-Reyes, 2015;
Govindan et al., 2014; Hajmohammad et al., 2013).
Extending lean principles from manufacturing to Supply Chain
Management (SCM) can leverage the SC players competitiveness
further with increased responsiveness to demand change and
reduced operating costs (Oliver et al., 1993). Lean SC represents a
strategy based on cost reduction and flexibility and it embraces all
the processes starting with the product design to the product sale.
Green SCM is an integration of natural environmental worries
into a value chain by implementing various green practices like
reverse logistics, green design, green purchasing, carbon
* Corresponding author.
pez),
E-mail addresses: rruiben@upo.es (R. Ruiz-Benitez), clopvar@upo.es (C. Lo
jcreafer@upo.es (J.C. Real).
environmental collaboration. Green SCM practices allow organi-
zations to achieve sustainable competitive advantages and benefits
of long-term performance like increased market share and profit-
ability by reducing environmental risk and impacts while
improving ecological efficiency (Azevedo et al., 2011).
Resilient practices have also proved to be critical in a sustainable
SC (Govindan et al., 2014). Resilience in the SC context refers to the
ability of the SC to return to its original state or to a new one, more
desirable, after experiencing a disturbance, and avoiding the
occurrence of failure modes. Recent studies have highlighted the
importance of quantifying the resilience and the greenness of
companies and their SC (Azevedo et al., 2013). Carter and Rogers
(2008) propose that risk management, contingency planning and
inbound and outbound SC disruptions are critical issues that should
be considered together with environmental performance to ach-
ieve a sustainable SC.
Therefore, resilient practices in the SC become an important
issue for companies and this strategy is also incorporated to the
previous two (lean and green) in order to study their joint impact
on SC sustainability (Govindan et al., 2014) or SC performance
(Govindan et al., 2015a). Our research differs from the previous
ones mainly in two aspects. First of all, in the sector under study,
the aerospace sector in this case. To the best of our knowledge, no
previous research in this area has focused on the aerospace sector.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.201
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
Additionally, this sector has showed an increasing commitment to
decrease the negative environmental impact of aerospace
manufacturing (International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO).
Thus, we will focus exclusively on the study of SC environmental
sustainability. Secondly, in the methodology used, that in this case
has been extended to consider a previous step to identify the most
important practices in the sector that should be considered in the
study, increasing the robustness of the methodology used. Inter-
esting results that differ somehow from the previous ones are ob-
tained, pointing out the existing difference between sectors and the
need for more real case studies in different sectors to further study
the interdependence of lean, green and resilient practices and their
joint impact on SC performance and sustainability.
Based on the research gap, this paper aims to address the
following issues: 1) Identify the critical lean, green and resilient SC
practices in the aerospace manufacturing sector (AMS); 2) Establish
the relationship among lean, green and resilient SC practices; 3)
Evaluate the impact of those lean, green and resilient practices on
SC environmental sustainability. With these goals in mind, a mixed
approach based on the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is implemented. ISM in
isolation has already been proven to be appropriate in the study of
Sustainable SCM (Dubey et al., 2017) and therefore it can also be
considered an appropriate methodology to evaluate SC environ-
mental sustainability. Additionally, we have also implemented a
variation of IPA in order to facilitate the implementation of ISM,
leading to better results than if no additional analysis had been
implemented.
The paper is structured as follows. After the introduction, a re-
view of the current literature on lean, green and resilient SC prac-
tices as well as on environmental performance measures is
presented. Then, a brief description of the sector under study and
its importance is established. After that, the methodology and
research design is presented to continue highlighting and discus-
sing the main findings and results. Finally, conclusions are drawn.
2. Literature review
This study comprises several research topics such as lean SCM,
green SCM, and resilient SCM, and finally different measures used
to evaluate the environmental performance.
An extensive literature review of such research topics was car-
ried out in order to identify practices of interest and environmental
performance measures used in this type of studies. The following
bibliographic databases were consulted: Science Direct, Willey
Online Library, Emerald Management Xtra, Taylor & Francis Online
and Springer Link; with the objective of covering the majority of
journals on the SCM field. The period of time was not limited.
Among the detected publications on the subject, those that clearly
identified either the practices or measures previously mentioned
were selected. Since in most of the cases the number of publications
that referred to certain practices or measures was so elevated, only
a few of the more recent publications have been represented in the
review tables since these publications already considered and
referenced the previous ones.
We will briefly review each of those research lines in order to
establish a convenient framework to carry out the study.
2.1. Lean supply chain management (LSCM)
Lean is a work philosophy that defines the means for improve-
ment and optimization of the production system focusing on
identifying and eliminating all types of waste and on reducing or
minimizing the variability from demand to supply (Shah and Ward,
2007). This pursues to achieve maximum efficiency developing
851
operations at minimum cost and with no waste. For that purpose,
non-value activities from the customer's point of view are elimi-
nated in order to improve quality, reduce costs and increase flexi-
bility (Womack et al., 1991).
Companies must adopt lean, both internally and externally,
spreading lean principles and practices through the whole SC in
order to achieve all the potential benefits of this philosophy. Lean
principles are, therefore, applicable to the whole SC, from the
provider to the final distributor and the final customer delivery,
which is known as Lean Supply Chain Management (LSCM) (Singh
and Pandey, 2015; Tortorella et al., 2017). Additionally, there exists
the necessity of SC flexibility in order to adapt to customer's de-
mand changes being able to modify raw materials, component and
product requirements.
Under the lean philosophy, the company must establish a rela-
tionship with its customers and providers based on trust, which
will lead to the exchange of knowledge and a high learning moti-
vation (MacDuffie and Helper, 1997). Empirical evidence shows that
providers applying lean principles achieve better performance than
providers that do not apply such principles (Wu, 2003).
In order to adopt lean principles, companies can apply diverse
LSCM practices. Table 1 shows LSCM practices identified in the
literature. These will be used in our study.
2.2. Green supply chain management (GSCM)
Green supply chain management (GSCM) has emerged as an
important organizational philosophy that helps organizations and
their partners to achieve corporate profit and market share objec-
tives by reducing environmental risks and impacts while improving
ecological efficiency (Azevedo et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2008a). Firms
need to look for cleaner SCM practices in order to increase orga-
nizational competitiveness. Bowen et al. (2002) identify three
levels of action in the implementation of green supply practices:
greening the supply process, product-based green supply and
advanced green supply. They try to explain why companies still do
not implement green supply practices, although beneficial in the-
ory, in their day to day activity.
Green SC practices have been previously studied in different
sectors such as the automotive industry (Azevedo et al., 2011;
Diabat et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2015b), the packaging print-
ing industry (Vachon, 2007) as well as in more general cross-
sectoral studies (Green et al., 2012; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009;
Tachizawa et al., 2012; Testa and Iraldo, 2010; Zhu et al., 2008a,
2008b). A total of fourteen GSCM practices that will be consid-
ered in the study have been identified. These are presented in
Table 2.
2.3. Resilient supply chain management (RSCM)
There exist various definitions of the concept of resiliency
applied to the SC. Juttner et al. (2003) define it as the identification
of potential risk sources and the implementation of appropriate
strategies in a coordinated manner among SC members in order to
reduce SC vulnerability. Mathematically, this vulnerability can be
measured as the combination of the occurrence probability of an
unexpected event and its potential impact on the SC performance
(Craighead et al., 2007; Pettit et al., 2010).
In this context, most efforts are focused on determining the
strategies that companies should follow in order to achieve a more
resilient SC, and therefore, to diminish both the impact of the event
and the time needed to go back to the initial performance level,
before the disturbance occurred. In order to achieve more resil-
ience, companies should direct their efforts to flexibility improve-
ment, agility, reengineering, collaboration and awareness of the
852 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862

Table 1
LSCM practices.

ID LSCM practice References

Lean

L1 Supplier selection, evaluating and monitoring. (Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Maleki and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2013;
Wiengarten et al., 2013)
L2 Suppliers and company involvement in NPD (New (Cabral et al., 2012; Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Kou and Lee, 2015; Maleki and Cruz-Machado, 2013;
Product Development) Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2013; Wiengarten et al., 2013)
L3 Communication and information exchange between (Cabral et al., 2012; Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Kou and Lee, 2015; Maleki and Cruz-Machado, 2013;
suppliers and company Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2013; Wiengarten et al., 2013)
L4 Electronic-enabled supply chains. (Azevedo et al., 2012; Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Hong et al., 2010; So and Sun, 2010; So, 2010)
L5 JIT delivery practices. (Azevedo et al., 2012; Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Govindan et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2015a;
Wiengarten et al., 2013)
L6 Pull production systems. (Agus and Hajinoor, 2012; Marodin et al., 2016; Perez et al., 2010)
L7 Value stream mapping (VSM). (Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Hines and Rich, 1997)
L8 Training in lean initiatives. (Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2014; Stewart et al., 2010)

Table 2
GSCM practices.

Code GSCM Practice Reference

G1 Joint planning (Azevedo et al., 2011; Diabat et al., 2013; Vachon, 2007)
G2 Cooperation with suppliers to solve end-of-pipe environmental issues
(Azevedo et al., 2011; Diabat and Govindan, 2011)
G3 Cooperation to minimize logistical impact of material flow (Diabat et al., 2013; Vachon, 2007)
G4 Environmental collaboration with suppliers (Azevedo et al., 2011; Diabat et al., 2013; Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Holt and Ghobadian,
2009; Vachon, 2007; Zhu et al., 2008b, 2005)
G5 Environmental monitoring upon suppliers (Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj, 2009; Tachizawa et al., 2012; Vachon, 2007)
G6 Green procurement/sourcing (Azevedo et al., 2011; Diabat et al., 2013; Green et al., 2012; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009;
Paulraj, 2009; Routroy, 2009)
G7 Prequalification of suppliers (Paulraj, 2009)
G8 Communication of environmental criteria for goods and services (Diabat et al., 2013; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Zhu et al., 2008b)
G9 To encourage suppliers to take back packaging (Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Rao and Holt, 2005)
G10 To use recyclable pallet to delivery materials (Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Rao and Holt, 2005)
G11 Collaboration with suppliers in product design to reduce and (Diabat et al., 2013; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj, 2009; Tachizawa et al., 2012; Vachon,
eliminate product environmental impacts 2007; Zhu et al., 2005)
G12 Communication and collaborative approaches to foster environmental (Diabat et al., 2013; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Vachon, 2007)
improvements across the SC
G13 Suppliers environmental management systems requirement (Azevedo et al., 2011; Bowen et al., 2002; Diabat et al., 2013; Diabat and Govindan, 2011)
G14 Supplier education, coaching and mentoring (Diabat et al., 2013; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Tachizawa et al., 2012)

implicated agents of the risks to manage (Christopher and Peck,
2004).
Tomlin (2006) categorized the actions leading to improved SC
resilience in two groups: mitigation actions and contingency ac-
tions. On one hand, mitigation actions are focused on diminishing
the occurrence probability or the disturbance impact before it
happens. On the other hand, contingency actions are the ones that
take place once the event has occurred. Both actions affect all main
elements in the SC, such as providers (Iakovou et al., 2007; Rice and
Caniato, 2003), clients (Govindan et al., 2014; Tang, 2006), em-
ployees (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Pettit et al., 2013), infor-
mation and material flows (Rajesh et al., 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al.,
2015), the product (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009) and the pro-
duction and control process of the company (Behzadi et al., 2017;
Elzarka, 2013; Stecke and Kumar, 2009). Table 3 indicates the
RSCM practices obtained in the literature review. These will be used
in the current study.
2.4. Environmental performance measurement
Choosing appropriate SC performance measures is a difficult
task due mainly to the complexity of such systems. Several efforts
have been made in the literature to create a general framework to
evaluate SC performance (Gunasekaran et al., 2001, 2004). Having
just a single performance measure is generally inadequate since it
probably ignores critical factors and important interactions of the
SC. However, having too many SC performance measures is not
useful in practice. Measuring SC performance becomes even harder
when different practices are implemented and the impact of those
needs to be evaluated. Beamon (1999) proposes three performance
measure types and states that a good SC performance measure-
ment system must contain at least one individual measure from
each of them.
Different studies have tried to establish a measurement model
that applies to measure the environmental performance of the SC.
The measurement items listed in Table 4 will be used in the present
study to evaluate the environmental benefits obtained after the
implementation of different lean, green and resilience strategies in
the SC.
3. Description of the study sector
The aerospace sector is committed to decrease the environ-
mental impact of all aspects of aerospace manufacturing, and civil
aviation travel. Over the last 50 years, a considerably reduction
(70%) of fuel-burn/passenger-km has been reached, and the sector
is currently committed to achieve further emissions reduction and
production impact and cost (International Civil Aviation Organi-
zation, ICAO). Even more, ICAO produced a briefing document for
the United Nations Rioþ20 conference on Sustainable Development
in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), where their ongoing commitment to
sustainable development in all areas of the aerospace industry was
 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
Table 3
RSCM practices.
Code RSCM practice
R1 Use of information control systems
R2 Communication and information sharing with suppliers
R3 Flexible supply base
R4 Core firm pays a proportion of costs derived from their supplier/s get/s (Guojun and Caihong, 2008)
redundancy
R5 More mutually beneficial agreements between core firm and their
suppliers with clearly stated incentives and obligations across time
R6 Improve visibility, collaboration, coordination and understanding with (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Govindan et al., 2014 . Govindan et al., 2015a; Rajesh
suppliers
R7 Maintaining excess capacity in productions, storage, handling and/or (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Govindan et al., 2015a; Rajesh et al., 2015; Soni et al.,
transport.
R8 Enforce security
R9 Contingency planning
R10 Disaster recovery plan
R11 Alternative transportation routing
R12 Visible transportation
Table 4
Environmental performance measures.
Code Measurement item
EVP1 Reduction of air emissions
EVP2 Reduction of effluent wastes
EVP3 Reduction of solid wastes
EVP4 Decrease of consumption for hazardous/toxic materials
EVP5 Decrease of frequency for environmental accidents
EVP6 Increase of recycled materials
EVP7 Decrease of energy consumption
outlined (ICAO, 2013).
The AMS is one of the EU's key high-tech sectors on the global
market since it provides more than 500,000 jobs and generates a
turnover of approximately US$253 billion (in 2015). The industry is
highly concentrated, both geographically (in particular EU coun-
tries) and in terms of the few large companies involved. Employ-
ment in the AMS is particularly significant in the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland and Sweden.
Therefore, the AMS is chosen to carry out the study of the
interaction between lean, green and resilient SC practices and their
impact on environmental sustainability. SCs in the AMS contain a
large number of small businesses making inexpensive parts, as well
as other larger companies producing more expensive parts or as-
semblies. Complexity of the aerospace SC has been well established
in the literature (Bales et al., 2004; Ehret and Cooke, 2010; Hickie,
2006).
Previous studies on the SCM of the AMS have described the
evolution of the SC within the sector (Bales et al., 2004) and have
studied the dynamics and trends for the aerospace suppliers trying
to conceptualize the aerospace SC structure (Ehret and Cooke,
2010). Lean is of great importance not only on production pro-
cesses but also on the supply function within the AMS (Bortolotti
et al., 2016; Michaels, 1999). Supplier risk is high in these types of
SCs and in this sector, which makes necessary ways of mitigating
supplier risks along the SC (Sinha et al., 2004). Romaniw and Bras
(2012) address common environmental and sustainable practices
in the AMS, finding future lines of research needed in the area.
Environmental sustainability of the SC in the AMS, however, has not
been previously studied even though its impact on the environ-
ment and its commitment to sustainable development has been
recognized for different organizations (European Commission,
853
Reference
(Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Elzarka, 2013; Pettit et al., 2013, 2010; Romano et al.,
2013; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015)
(Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Elzarka, 2013; Rajesh et al., 2015; Soni et al., 2014)
(Govindan et al., 2014; Guojun and Caihong, 2008; Iakovou et al., 2007; Rajesh et al., 2015;
Spiegler et al., 2012; Stecke and Kumar, 2009)
(Pettit et al., 2013, 2010; Rajesh et al., 2015; Rice and Caniato, 2003; Romano et al., 2013;
Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015)
et al., 2015; Scholten et al., 2014; Soni et al., 2014; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Zailani et al.,
2015)
2014; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Zailani et al., 2015)
(Stecke and Kumar, 2009; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015)
(Pettit et al., 2013, 2010; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Zailani et al., 2015)
(Pettit et al., 2013, 2010; Romano et al., 2013)
(Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Govindan et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2015a; Pettit et al.,
2013; Rajesh et al., 2015; Romano et al., 2013)
(Romano et al., 2013; Stecke and Kumar, 2009)
Reference
(Green et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2008a)
(Aras et al., 2010; Green et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2008a)
(Green et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2008a)
(Aras et al., 2010; Green et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2008a)
(Aras et al., 2010)
International Civil Aviation Organization).
4. Methodology and research design
The main purpose of this study is to understand the joint effect
of lean, green and resilient practices in environmental sustain-
ability of the AMS. For that purpose, Spain is chosen to carry out the
present study, as one of the countries in which the aerospace sector
plays a prominent role in the European aerospace industry. In fact,
the Spanish aerospace business network is the fifth in Europe in
terms of turnover (US$ 11,300 million in year 2015) and employ-
ment (more than 54,400 employees in year 2015) (ICEX, 2016).
Likewise, aerospace firms operating in Spain cover the whole value
chain on the aircraft manufacturing process which contributes to
its importance at global level. In what follows, the step-by-step
process is described.
4.1. Identifying practices and environmental sustainability
measures in the AMS
In the first stage, the list of practices and environmental mea-
sures obtained in the literature review is reduced to consider only
the ones that are relevant to the sector. In this way, the complexity
of the problem is reduced becoming more manageable. For this
purpose, the importance-performance analysis (IPA) technique is
used. Martilla and James (1977) defined it with the aim of under-
standing customer satisfaction in the automobile industry. Since
then, IPA has also been successfully adopted in many diverse fields
such as touristic activity (Frauman and Banks, 2011), quality man-
agement of food service (Park et al., 2017), e-Business strategies
 pez and
practices (Trang et al., 2016), project risks management (Lo
854 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862

Salmeron, 2012) and environmental practices (To et al., 2015), Table 6

among others. Its wide acceptance can be explained by its ease of Grade of implementation and importance ratings for lean, green and resilient
practices (in bold the practices selected).
application, simplicity and utility which have encouraged its
widespread adoption. Practices Grade of implementation Importance Quadrant
Martilla and James (1977) identify attributes related to customer L1 3.5 4 B
satisfaction and evaluate each of them using two dimensions: L2 3 3.4 B
performance (P) and importance (I) perceived. These ratings are L3 3.4 3 B
L4 3.4 3 B
then graphically displayed into a two-dimensional grid or matrix.
L5 3 3 B
Then, the grid is divided into four quadrants, requiring each one a L6 2.8 3 B
specific strategy. The findings, thus, help managers to make rational L7 2.2 3 A
decisions and respond effectively to clients' preferences. L8 3.6 3.6 B
G1 2.6 2.6 C
In order to identify lean, green and resilient practices really
G2 2.4 3 A
implemented and relevant in the AMS as well as the environmental G3 1.8 2 C
measures pursued in the sector, experts in the AMS were consulted. G4 2.25 2.25 C
For that purpose Fundacio n H elice, a member of the European G5 1.4 1.75 C
Aviation Clusters Partnership, funded by the European Commission G6 2.6 2.5 C
G7 2.6 2.25 C
with the aim to promote the development of Industrial Clusters in
G8 3.8 3 B
the Aerospace industry, was consulted. This organism helped us to G9 1.6 1.25 C
choose the three senior experts who took part in this stage of the G10 1.6 2 C
research. G11 3.2 2.25 D
Participants were required to have occupied high level man- G12 2.25 2.25 C
G13 3.4 3 B
agement positions and been involved in different company's de- G14 2 1.5 C
partments, such as operations, procurement, quality and supply R1 3.2 2.8 B
chain management, which would provide an extensive view and R2 2.4 3.8 A
knowledge of the aerospace SC as well as lean/green/resilient ini- R3 4.5 2.75 B
R4 2.6 2.6 C
tiatives. Additionally, most of these positions required a close and
R5 2.6 2.6 C
frequent contact with multiple agents in the SC. This knowledge R6 2.6 2.4 C
was, thus, the required one to complete this part of the study in R7 2.4 1.6 C
which the main objective was to eliminate the practices and per- R8 2.6 3 A
formance measures that were not relevant for the AMS. The pool of R9 3.4 3.8 B
R10 3 3 B
experts satisfying all these requirements was limited and finally, R11 3.4 3.8 B
three experts were chosen (Table 5). Previous studies using similar R12 2.2 1.6 C
methodologies based on expert panels have proven three senior
experts as an acceptable number for this type of studies (Adebanjo
et al., 2016; Case and Stylios, 2016; Hsu et al., 2013). were chosen.
In a parallel way, we adapted the two-dimensional method Fig. 1 presents the resulting IPA grid where we have represented
proposed by Martilla and James (1977). Our IPA model combined coordinates (x, y) for each practice with a symbol and color (red,
measures of importance of each practice and its grade of imple- blue and green denote lean, resilient and green practices, respec-
mentation in the sector. To identify environmental sustainability tively). Each practice was plotted according to its level of impor-
measures pursued in the industry only measure of importance was tance (y-axis) and grade of implementation (x-axis). Both y-axis
considered. Accordingly, a questionnaire was designed to collect all and x-axis lines were based on the grand mean of importance and
required information. This was built using a 5-point likert scale to grade of implementation values for n practices (Pi ), respectively (To
measure each dimension, where 1 means “not important” or “not et al., 2015). The equation is expressed as follows:
implemented” and 5 means “very important” or “completely
implemented”. Personal interviews to collect experts' opinions Pn
i¼1 Pi
were conducted. ¼ (1)
The practices that had both, an importance mean greater than
P n
the global mean value and a grade of implementation mean greater Quadrant B shows practices with high importance and high
than the corresponding global mean value were selected (Table 6). degree of implementation in the AMS. Hence, those practices in
In the case of the environmental sustainability measures, the ones Quadrant B were selected.
that had an importance mean greater than the global mean value Concerning environmental sustainability measures, the mean of

Table 5
Experts profile for IPA.

Expert Years in Current position Management experience SCM roles

the AMS

Expert 35 years General Manager of Aerospace
A Cluster Foundation
Expert 25 years Assistant General Director in OEM
B assembly plant
Expert 29 years Senior advisor of Innovation and
C Development Agency for the AMS
Departments of Operations and Quality in OEM Purchasing Manager
Suppliers Selection and Management
Senior Manager Head of Industrialization Programs in Suppliers evaluation
OEM assembly plant Contracts negotiation
Product quality
Purchasing agents and buyers supervision
Creator of Aerospace Cluster Foundation. Supply Chain Consultant of AMS
Head of a supply chain management electronic platform Improvement of production, purchasing, warehousing
project to synchronize SC of OEMs and Tier-1 and distribution procedures for AMS companies
 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
Fig. 1. IPA model for lean (red), green (green) and resilient (blue) practices. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)
the importance dimension, as well as the global mean value were
calculated. This acted as limit between low and high scores. Mea-
sures with values above the global mean were selected. This
segment represents the most important measures of environ-
mental sustainability pursued in the AMS. Table 7 summarizes the
results.
4.2. Modeling interactions between practices and environmental
sustainability measures
In order to model interactions between lean, green and resil-
ience practices and its joint effect on the environmental sustain-
ability measures, we employed the ISM approach. Since it was first
developed by Warfield (1973, 1974), this technique has proven to be
a very useful method to solve a great variety of complex decision-
making problems (Bouzon et al., 2015 and Kannan et al., 2009 for
Reverse Logistics decisions; Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994 for ven-
dors' selection; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013 for identifying barriers
in the implementation of GSCM).
ISM provides a structured and iterative learning process to
aggregately represent expert knowledge about the set of elements
that describes a system and how these elements are interrelated.
The method, thus, helps transform unclear and poorly articulated
mental models into visible and well-defined hierarchical models
showing the direct and indirect relationships between the ele-
ments (Attri et al., 2013; Sage, 1977).
For the complex problem considered here, a high number of
connected practices may influence environmental sustainability.
Table 7
Grade of importance ratings for environmental sustainability measures (in bold the
environmental measures selected).
Measures Importance
EVP1 1.75
EVP2 4.5
EVP3 4.5
EVP4 3.5
EVP5 4.25
EVP6 2.25
EVP7 3.25
855
The direct and indirect connections between them describe this
problem far more precisely than the individual practices taken into
isolation. ISM will provide insights into understandings of these
connections. This would even help managers to identify patterns
within the diagraph. Indeed, it has been successfully adopted for
achieving more sustainable SCM (Diabat et al., 2014; Hussain et al.,
2015; Kannan and Haq, 2007). ISM has also proven to be useful for
representing inter-relationships among lean, green and resilient
practices and their impact on automotive SC performance
(Govindan et al., 2015a). The ultimate aim of our study is to model
the influence of those practices in the environmental sustainability
measures of the AMS.
4.2.1. Data collection
ISM model is normally built based on experts' opinions in the
domain. In order to select appropriate participants, we used again
the database of Fundacio n H elice which contained information on
active aerospace manufacturing firms operating in Spain. The
importance of AMS in that country was explained in Section 3.
Finally, 15 experts pertaining to 14 different manufacturing plants
operating in different levels of the SC agreed to participate in our
study (Table 8).
The optimal number of experts depends on the characteristics of
the study itself. We can, however, say that the greater the hetero-
geneity of the group, the fewer is the number of experts recom-
mended, 15 being a good size (Clayton, 1997; Pawlowski et al.,
2004). A heterogeneous group is understood as a group of people
with the same knowledge but on a different social or professional
scale - which is what took place in our study (Table 9).
Individual face-to-face interviews with experts were performed
from June to November 2016. Data collection can be performed
using a great variety of tools like brainstorming, questionnaires or
nominal techniques, among others. With this in mind, a specific
questionnaire was designed. The first part included questions about
experts' profile which are summarized in Table 9. The second part
of the questionnaire contained the data needed to build the
Structural Self-Interaction Matrix.
4.2.2. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)
ISM model represents a finite set of n elements in a system
represented by S ¼ ðs1 ; …; si ; …; sn Þ. SSIM is built up based on
contextual relationships of pair of elements (si and sj ). This means
that one practice leads to/facilities another or impacts an envi-
ronmental sustainable measure. In this way, experts were asked to
fill out pairwise relationship among elements of the system in a
18*18 SSIM. With this in mind, we provided them the following
four symbols:
V: Element i leads to/facilities element j.
A: Element j leads to/facilities element i.
X: Elements i and j are mutually interdependent.
O: No relationship between elements i and j.
The impact of each lean, green and resilience practice on each
environmental sustainability measure was also questioned. In this
case, only one direction was valid, from the practice to the
Quadrant Table 8
Low Position of participants firms in the SC.
High
Level in supply chain
High
High OEM 3
High Tier 1 5
Low Tier 2 4
Low Tier 3 3
856 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862

Table 9
Experts'profile.

Position Academic background Experience in lean, green,

resilience

Plant Quality manager 6 Bachelor's Degree 1 1-5 years 7,5,6

Operations manager 3 University Degree 3 6-10 years 3,5,4
Lean manager 2 Diploma of Higher Education 2 >10 years 5,5,5
Performance monitoring 1 Engineer's Degree 5
Supply Chain manager 1 Not mentioned 4
Facility manager 1
Deputy Director of Plant 1

environmental sustainability measure. Experts were also requested Table 12. It also includes the driving and dependence power of each
to fill out pairwise comparisons among environmental sustain- element in the system.
ability measures. In this latter case, all directions were possible.
Finally, a total of fifteen SSIM from experts were gathered and
4.2.4. Level partitions
combined by a simple averaging process to reach the final SSIM
This step consists in partitioning the final reachability matrix
(Table 10). For this purpose, each expert's matrix was transformed
obtained above into different levels. This provides the reachability
into a binary matrix following the process explained in the next
and antecedent set for each element (i.e., si ). These are represented
section. Then, the mode matrix was calculated, and finally, the bi-
by Eq. (2) and (3) respectively.
nary matrix was transformed back into the symbols matrix
obtaining the SSIM (Table 10).  
Rðsi Þ ¼ sj 2S = eij¼ 1 ∪fsi 2Sg (2)

4.2.3. Final reachability matrix   

The SSIM was converted into a binary matrix (E), also denomi-
nated initial reachability matrix, by replacing the nomenclature (V,
A, X, and O) with eij ¼ 1 if si leads to sj and 0 otherwise. This is
depicted in Table 11. For a better understanding, the rules applied to
convert the entries in the SSIM into binary digits are the following:
 If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is V, the (i,j) entry in the reachability
matrix becomes 1 and the (j.i) entry becomes 0.
 If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is A, the (i,j) entry in the reachability
matrix becomes 0 and the (j.i) entry becomes 1.
 If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is X, the (i,j) entry in the reachability
matrix becomes 1 and the (j.i) entry becomes 1.
 If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is O, the (i,j) entry in the reachability
matrix becomes 0 and the (j.i) entry becomes 0.
Subsequently, we converted the initial reachability matrix into
the final reachability matrix by applying the transitivity property.
This implies that if si leads to sj , and sj leads to sk , then si should
lead to sk . That is, si exerts indirect influence on sk . This indirect
relationship was represented in the final reachability matrix with
1*. Accordingly, we reached the final reachability matrix given in
Aðsi Þ ¼ sj 2S eji ¼ 1 fsi 2Sg (3)
The intersection set of each element is computed as follows:
Iðsi Þ ¼ Rðsi Þ∩Aðsi Þ (4)
Table 13 shows the reachability, antecedent and intersection
sets found for each element in the system. An element is plotted on
the top position of the ISM model (level I), if Rðsi Þ ¼ Iðsi Þ and then is
separated out from the remaining elements. This process is
repeated to assign elements in Level II, being these then deleted.
This iterative process finishes when all elements have been already
assigned to a level.
4.2.5. Formation of ISM model
An initial diagraph according to the level partition of each
element and the conical form of the reachability matrix is repre-
sented. The conical form was obtained by rearranging the elements
in the final reachability matrix according to its partitioning level
(from highest to lowest). The initial diagraph was obtained by
representing each element in its corresponding level, as well as
connections between them. Subsequently, transitiveness in the

Table 10
Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM).

EVP5 EVP4 EVP3 EVP2 G13 G8 R11 R10 R9 R3 R1 L8 L6 L5 L4 L3 L2

L1 V V V O O V O O V V V O V V X V V
L2 O V O O O O O O O O O O O O A X
L3 O V O O O O V V V V V V X V X
L4 O O O O O O O O O O V O V V
L5 O O V O O O V O O V V A X
L6 O O O O O O V V O V O A
L8 V V V V O O O O O V O
R1 O O O O O O V V V O
R3 O O O O O V O V V
R9 V O O O O O X V
R10 O O O O O O X
R11 O O O O O O
G8 V V V O V
G13 V V V V
EVP2 V A O
EVP3 V A
EVP4 V
 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862 857

Table 11
Initial reachability matrix.

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L8 R1 R3 R9 R10 R11 G8 G13 EVP2 EVP3 EVP4 EVP5

L1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
L2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
L3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
L4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
L6 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
L8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
R1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
R3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
R9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
R10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
R11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
G8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
G13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
EVP2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
EVP3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
EVP4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
EVP5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Table 12
Final reachability matrix.

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L8 R1 R3 R9 R10 R11 G8 G13 EVP2 EVP3 EVP4 EVP5 Driving power

L1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 1 1 1 18
L2 0 1 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 0 0 1* 1* 1 1* 15
L3 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 0 1* 1* 1 1* 17
L4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 0 0 1* 1* 1* 16
L5 0 0 1* 0 1 1 0 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 0 0 1 0 1* 11
L6 0 1* 1 1* 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1 1* 0 0 1* 1* 0 14
L8 0 0 1* 0 1 1 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 0 1 1 1 1 14
R1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1* 5
R3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1* 1 1* 0 1* 1* 1* 9
R9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
R10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1* 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
R11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1* 4
G8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1* 1 1 1 6
G13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
EVP2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
EVP3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
EVP4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4
EVP5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dependence power 3 5 7 5 7 7 6 8 8 12 12 12 8 4 8 12 10 16

Table 13
Level partitions in the ISM model.

Level Reachable set Antecedent set Intersection Variable

IX L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11, G8, G13, EVP2, EVP3, L1, L3, L4 L1, L3, L4 L1
EVP4 EVP5
VIII L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11, EVP2, EVP3, EVP4 EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L6 L2, L3, L4, L6 L2
VII L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11, G8, EVP2, EVP3, EVP4 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L3
EVP5 L8
VIII L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11, G8, EVP3, EVP4 EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L6 L1, L2, L3, L4, L6 L4
VII L3, L5, L6, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11, G8, EVP3, EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8 L3, L5, L6 L5
VII L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11, G8, EVP3, EVP4 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8 L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8 L6
VII L3, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11, G8, EVP2, EVP3, EVP4 EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L6, L8 L3, L5, L6, L8 L8
III R1, R9, R10, R11, EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1 R1 R1
VI R3, R9, R10, R11, G8, G13, EVP3, EVP4 EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R3 R3 R3
II R9, R10, R11, EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11 R9, R10, R11 R9
I R9, R10, R11 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11 R9, R10, R11 R10
II R9, R10, R11, EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R1, R3, R9, R10, R11 R9, R10, R11 R11
V G8, G13, EVP2, EVP3, EVP4 EVP5 L1, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R3, G8 G8 G8
IV G13, EVP2, EVP3, EVP4 EVP5 L1, R3, G8, G13 G13 G13
II EVP2, EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L8, G8, G13, EVP2, EVP4 EVP2 EVP2
II EVP3, EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, R3, G8, G13, EVP3, EVP4 EVP3 EVP3
III EVP2, EVP3, EVP4, EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L6, L8, R3, G8, G13, EVP4 EVP4 EVP4
I EVP5 L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L8, R1, R3, R9, R11, G8, G13, EVP2, EVP3, EVP4 EVP5 EVP5
EVP5
858 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
Fig. 2. Final ISM diagraph for SC of AMS.
model was removed and each ID node was replaced with its cor-
responding description. Finally, the model was checked for in-
consistencies. Fig. 2 shows the final diagraph. Oval circles represent
elements and arcs pairwise relationships. This is analyzed in
subsection 5.2.
4.2.6. MICMAC analysis
In the SCM context, ISM generates a multilevel diagraph of the
identified lean, resilient and green practices as well as the envi-
ronmental sustainability measures. In order to gain a better un-
derstanding of interactions among practices, we can apply a
MICMAC (Matrice d'Impacts croises-multipication applique an
classment) analysis (Diabat et al., 2014; Dubey et al., 2017). This
consists in plotting lean, resilient and green practices identified in
quadrant B of IPA matrix in a grid. This representation is based on
its dependence (x-axis) and driving power (y-axis). This informa-
tion appears in the final reachability matrix (Table 12). The central
value of dependence and driving power for all practices is depicted
in the x-axis and y-axis, respectively, and represents the boundary
between quadrants.
Fig. 3 shows the final MICMAC grid for lean, resilient and green
SC practices in the AMS. These have been classified into four clus-
ters explained as follows:
Cluster 1: autonomous practices with weak driving power and
weak dependence power. These practices are relatively discon-
nected from the rest since few connections have been found.
Fig. 3. Clusters of lean, green and resilience practices in aerospace manufacturing SC.
Cluster 2: dependence practices with weak driving power and
strong dependence power. Any action of other practices may have
an effect on them, although the opposite is not true.
Cluster 3: linkage practices with strong driving power and
strong dependence power. These practices are unstable since they
both affect and are affected by other practices.
Cluster 4: independent practices with strong driving power but
weak dependence power. Any action on these practices may have
an effect on other practices. However, they are not normally
affected by any action on other practices.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. IPA results and discussion
This study highlights that SC actors in the AMS seek to achieve
their goals not only through efficient processes but also through
sustainable operations. IPA grid characterizes those lean, green and
resilient practices adopted by SC members of the AMS in a coor-
dinated way to improve its environmental sustainability (See
Fig. 1). Quadrant B brings together 14 out of 34 practices identified
in the literature. These practices present a high degree of imple-
mentation and importance in the sector. Most of lean practices are
plotted in this quadrant, with the single exception of L7 (VSM). This
is considered a highly important practice, but its grade of imple-
mentation is low (Quadrant A). Hence, it would be appropriate for
managers to coordinately implement it with their suppliers.
Regarding resilient practices, 5 out of 11 appear in Quadrant B.
R2 (Communication and information sharing with suppliers) and R8
(Enforced security) are classified in Quadrant A, and therefore
managers should promote them since they are considered impor-
tant for the sector but with low implementation. Quadrant B also
includes green practices although to a minor extent (2 out of 14).
Most of these are contained in Quadrant C (10 out of 14). Therefore,
managers do not conceive additional green practices as very
important on their suppliers operations and consider suppliers
environmental management systems as enough to achieve environ-
mentally efficient operations. In consequence, its grade of imple-
mentation is low. By contrast, quadrant D only incorporates
practice G11 (Collaboration with suppliers in product design to reduce
and eliminate product environmental impacts). This practice is
currently implemented although the perceived importance is
limited.
As it was explained in subsection 4.1, IPA was applied to identify
the most relevant practices in the AMS for achieving environmental
SC sustainability. That is, those practices classified in Quadrant B.
This, in turn, allowed to drastically cut down the direct pairwise
comparisons (DPC) required in the ISM approach [n*ðn  1Þ=2,
where n indicates the number of elements in the system].
Table 14 shows a sensitivity analysis on the combined meth-
odology of IPA and ISM. It compares the DPC required in our
research if we had only applied ISM versus different combinations
of ISM and IPA. The highest percentage of improvement (81.34%)
corresponds to the combined IPA-ISM approach applied in our
study, with a reduction on the DPC from 820 to 153. If the combined
approach had not been adopted, 820 DPC would have been
required, and thus our research would have been ineffective and/or
unrealistic.
5.2. ISM results and discussion
ISM approach allowed us to model the joint effect of the most
relevant practices (Quadrant B of IPA) on environmental sustain-
ability in the aerospace industry. The final diagraph is given in
Fig. 3. This may help managers to improve their SC environmental
 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
Table 14
Sensitivity analysis of improvements with the combined approach IPA-ISM.
Combination
ISM
ISM þ IPA (only lean practices)
ISM þ IPA(only resilient practices)
ISM þ IPA(only green practices)
ISM þ IPA(only environmental sustainability measures)
ISM þ IPA (all practices and environmental sustainability measures)
sustainability.
Lean practices appear at the base of the diagraph. These present
a high driving power and low dependence power, meaning that
they lead to/influence on green and resilient practices together
with environmental sustainability measures. Therefore, lean prac-
tices directly and indirectly improve SC environmental sustain-
ability. Pagell and Wu (2009) already identified some of the lean
practices (supplier selection, collaboration with suppliers, lean/JIT)
as being able to help companies to achieve sustainability. Addi-
tionally, Resta et al. (2017) also demonstrated through case study
research a positive impact of lean manufacturing practices, such as
JIT, on environmental performance. Therefore, the results obtained
in this study are aligned with theirs.
However, lean practices are not activated by resilient or green
practices. Thus, managers should directly promote lean practices if
they desire to exploit its positive influence on the remaining
resilient and green practices as well as on SC environmental sus-
tainability. Regarding the relationship between lean and green
practices, these results are consistent with the ones in Dües et al.
(2013) where they pointed out the synergistic effect of lean and
green practices.
At intermediate levels of the diagraph, two paths arise. The first
one is composed of green practices, and the second one is
composed of resilient practices. Both paths are prompted by R3
(Flexible supply base). This resilient practice also acts as linkage or
bridge between lean and the other two dimensions (or paths).
However, both green and resilient practices are not inter-related.
Environmental sustainability measures are drawn at the upper
levels of the structure. EVP4 (Decrease in consumption for hazardous/
toxic materials) leads to the remaining environmental measures.
Hence, managers should prioritize it in order to achieve, in a more
effective way, a sustainable SC from the environmental point of
view.
On the top of the diagraph, we find two elements: R10 (Disaster
recovery plan) and EVP5 (Decrease in frequency for environmental
accidents). These have a high dependence power. This means that
R10 and EVP5 are activated by many elements in the system, but
they have little influence on all the elements considered. Initially,
managers should not perform important efforts on them. However,
when disasters occur, firms needs to implement R10 to return to
the normal SC activity (Pettit et al., 2013, 2010; Romano et al., 2013),
although it does not have any impact on environmental sustain-
ability measures.
ISM diagraph also shows that if EVP2 (Reduction of effluent
waste) and EVP3 (Reduction of solid waste) are successfully ach-
ieved, both may lead to EVP5 (Decrease in frequency for environ-
mental accidents).
5.3. MICMAC results and discussion
In order to provide a better understanding of interactions
among lean, green and resilient practices, we have developed a
MICMAC (Matrice d'Impacts croises-multipication applique an
classment) analysis. From Fig. 3, we have divided them into four
859
N DPC % Improvement
41 820 0%
40 780 4.88%
34 561 31.59%
29 406 50.49%
38 703 14.27%
18 153 81.34%
clusters according to their driving and dependence power. Each
colored point on the diagram represents a specific practice.
Together with the name of each one, environmental sustainability
measures that are directly impacted by the practice are added in
brackets.
Cluster I consists of practices with weak driving power and
weak dependence power. This holds true for G8 (Communication of
environmental criteria for goods and services), G13 (Suppliers envi-
ronmental management systems requirement), R1 (Use of control in-
formation system) and R3 (Flexible supply base). These have few links
with the remaining practices, which makes them relatively
disconnected from the system. For this reason, elements in cluster I
are recognized as autonomous variables.
Regarding G13 and G8, we can observe that these do not serve as
clear enablers of any other lean or resilient practices. However, G13
and G8 improve environmental sustainability as expected. Indeed,
G13 directly leads to improvements in all environmental measures,
while G8 leads to improvements in all environmental measures but
EVP2. Previous studies also remark that green practices in SCM
improve environmental performance (Testa and Iraldo, 2010; Zhu
et al., 2005). In contrast, R1 and R3 do not impact directly on
environmental performance measures. Notwithstanding, R3 also
plays an important role in the activation of green practices to
achieve environmental sustainability, as Fig. 2 shows.
The second cluster only includes three resilient practices (R9,
R10 and R11) with low driving power and high dependence power.
Hence, they can become identified as dependent variables. R9, R10
and R11 have a high dependence level on lean and other resilient
practices. Furthermore, they provide limited impact on environ-
mental sustainability measures. Only R9 causes direct effect in
EVP5.
In the environmental sustainability of the aerospace SC context,
R3 is close to cluster III. At the same time, it is located in the in-
termediate ISM level. In fact, it connects lean practices with resil-
ient and green practices. Hence, R3 could be considered as a linkage
practice even it does not clearly appear in cluster III. Although it
does not influence directly any environmental sustainability mea-
sures, R3 leads directly and indirectly to G8 and G13. R3, thus, af-
fects indirectly all environmental sustainability measures. Since
lean practices prompt R3, these also influence all environmental
measures. Hence, managers should encourage R3 (flexible base of
suppliers) in order to improve environmental sustainability in a
more efficient way.
Finally, the fourth cluster shows those elements with high
driving power and low dependence power. All the lean practices fall
into this area, and therefore should be considered as independents.
In other words, they may lead, directly and/or indirectly, to green
and resilient practices, but green and resilient practices cannot
activate lean practices. In addition, these practices are important as
well to achieve environmental sustainability since they may
directly impact some of the environmental measures considered if
not all of them. More specifically, L8 may positively impact all of the
environmental measures considered; meanwhile, L1 may positively
impact three of them and L2, L3 and L5 only two of them.
860 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
As a final remark, when managers in the AMS seek to improve
environmental sustainability of their operations, two alternative
ways exist. On one hand, they can develop green practices in a
coordinate way with other SC entities. These will lead to
improvement in all environmental performance measures consid-
ered. On the other hand, managers could implement lean practices
and R3 in their facilities and promote them among the rest of
players of the SC. Since R3 acts as bridge between lean, green and
other resilient practices, it should also be considered critical for
improving environmental sustainability in the AMS.
6. Conclusions
The implementation of lean, green and resilient SC practices is of
great importance in the AMS. Additionally, they are still a challenge
since even though some of the practices are identified as important,
its implementation is still scarce. In order to get a better under-
standing on how lean, green and resilient practices may improve
environmental sustainability of AMS, a combined approach based
on IPA and ISM was implemented.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
A major contribution of this research lies in the extension of the
proposed methodology to study the linkages among various lean,
green and resilient practices and environmental performance
through a single systemic framework. Besides ISM, a modified IPA
technique was added to evaluate the practices and measures that
should be included in the ISM study in order to make the problem
more manageable and to increase the robustness and significance
of results.
Additionally, our study reveals how the clustering of LSCM,
GSCM and RSCM practices are inter-related. Lean practices act as
important drivers of resilient practices, while green practices
appear as autonomous practices. This could be explained by the
high leanness level in the AMS, which results in a SC more
vulnerable to disruptions. Hence, the development of resilient
practices in order to minimize the effects of unexpected events is a
necessity in this type of settings.
Moreover, both lean practices and green practices may improve
environmental sustainability in the AMS. In contrast, the effect of
resilient practices is much more limited. Indeed, only a flexible
supply base may indirectly lead to improvement in all the envi-
ronmental sustainability measures under consideration. The only
environmental sustainability measure that may be positively
affected, directly or indirectly, by resilient practices is the frequency
of environmental accidents.
6.2. Managerial implications
First of all, important practices that are still not implemented in
the sector have been identified, and therefore, decision makers of
the AMS should target those practices and help them spread
through the SC. Practices such as VSM, communication and infor-
mation sharing with suppliers and enforced security should be
considered as targets and managers should try to adopt them.
Second of all, we have identified the practices that are the root of
leanness, greenness and resilience of the aerospace SCesupplier
selection, evaluating and monitoring-as well as the linkage practice
that acts as a bridge between lean, green and resilient practices
eflexible supply base. These findings provide useful information for
practitioners that wish to implement lean, green or resilient stra-
tegies establishing the order in which such practices should be
implemented and identifying practices that are drivers or enablers
of other practices.
Finally, impact of such lean, green and resilient practices on
environmental performance in the AMS was identified. Therefore,
decision makers can benefit from this information to decide which
practices to focus on for a better environmental performance.
6.3. Limitations and future research
Taking into account that the relationships and hierarchy among
practices and performance measures were identified according to
the perceptions of professionals from the Spanish AMS and they
will not be so different from the perceptions of a panel of experts
from a different country, these finding could be generalized to other
countries within the same sector.
This leads to a limitation of this study which is the sector under
consideration. We believe that the results are sector-related as
similar studies in different sectors had led to different conclusions.
Govindan et al. (2015a) study the automotive sector leading to
somehow different conclusions to the ones obtained here. There-
fore, some difference between sectors may be found and to
generalize the results obtained in this type of study may lead to
some inconsistencies. First of all, the practices that are critical for
each sector may differ. Second of all, the way in which each of those
practices is implemented may impact in a different way environ-
mental performance. However, some generalization is still possible
on the methodology used to identify such relationships between SC
practices and performance measures.
Thus, although we do not attempt to generalize the results ob-
tained to different industry sectors, we do believe that more studies
in different sectors are needed in order to establish what factors
define the relationship between such SC practices and to identify
similarities between sectors.
As future research, the relationships' map obtained in this study
through a panel of experts, can be statistically validated using
techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Additionally,
the same study could be replicated differentiating the stages of the
SC in order to establish similarities and differences on the various
levels of the SC. Aerospace SCs are very complex and fragmented
and experts' perception could differ depending on the SC stage in
which they operate. That is a question that still remains unan-
swered and that could be worth studying.
Acknowledgments
This project is supported by the Ministry of Industry, Economy
and Competitivity of the Spanish Government (Grant ECO2016-
78493-R).
References
Adebanjo, D., Laosirihongthong, T., Samaranayake, P., 2016. Prioritizing lean supply
chain management initiatives in healthcare service operations: a fuzzy AHP
approach. Prod. Plan. Control 27, 953e966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2016.1164909.
Agus, A., Hajinoor, M.S., 2012. Lean production supply chain management as driver
towards enhancing product quality and business performance: case study of
manufacturing companies in Malaysia. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 29, 92e121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656711211190891.
Aras, G., Aybars, A., Kutlu, O., 2010. Managing corporate performance. Int. J. Product.
Perform. Manag. 59, 229e254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401011023573.
Attri, R., Dev, N., Sharma, V., 2013. Interpretive structural modelling ( ISM )
approach: An Overview Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2, 3e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01443579410062086.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. Influence of green
and lean upstream supply chain management practices on business sustain-
ability. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 59, 753e765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TEM.2012.2189108.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Machado, V.C., 2011. The influence of green practices on
supply chain performance: a case study approach. Transp. Res. 47, 850e871.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.017.
Azevedo, S.G., Govindan, K., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Ecosilient Index
 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
to assess the greenness and resilience of the upstream automotive supply chain.
J. Clean. Prod. 56, 131e146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.011.
Bales, R.R., Maull, R.S., Radnor, Z., 2004. The development of supply chain man-
agement within the aerospace manufacturing sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
9, 250e255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540410544944.
Beamon, B.M., 1999. Measuring supply chain performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
19, 275e292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579910249714.
Behzadi, G., O'Sullivan, M.J., Olsen, T.L., Scrimgeour, F., Zhang, A., 2017. Robust and
resilient strategies for managing supply disruptions in an agribusiness supply
chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 191, 207e220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpe.2017.06.018.
Bortolotti, T., Romano, P., Martínez-Jurado, P.J., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2016. Towards a
theory for lean implementation in supply networks. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 175,
182e196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.020.
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M.T., 2015. Reducing the extraction of
minerals: reverse logistics in the machinery manufacturing industry sector in
Brazil using ISM approach. Resour. Policy 46, 27e36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.resourpol.2015.02.001.
Bowen, F., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk, A.C., 2002. Horses for courses:
explaining the gap between the theory and practice of green supply. Greener
Manag. Int. 35, 41e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S2045796012000327.
Cabral, I., Grilo, A., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. A decision-making model for Lean,
Agile, Resilient and Green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50,
4830e4845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.657970.
Campos, L.M.S., Vazquez-Brust, D.A., 2016. Lean and green synergies in supply chain
management. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 21, 627e641. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/SCM-03-2016-0101.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38,
360e387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816.
Case, D.M., Stylios, C.D., 2016. Fuzzy Cognitive Map to model project management
problems. In: 2016 Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Informa-
tion Processing Society (NAFIPS). IEEE, Texas, USA, pp. 1e6. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/NAFIPS.2016.7851612.
Chowdhury, M.M.H., Quaddus, M.A., 2015. A multiple objective optimization based
QFD approach for efficient resilient strategies to mitigate supply chain vul-
nerabilities: the case of garment industry of Bangladesh. Omega 57, 5e21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.016.
Christopher, M., Peck, H., 2004. Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logist.
Manag. 15, 1e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675560600717763.
Clayton, M.J., 1997. Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical
decision-making tasks in education. Educ. Psychol. 17, 373e386. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170401.
Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J., Handfiel, R.B., 2007. The
severity of supply chain disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation ca-
pabilities. Decis. Sci. 38, 131e156.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting the imple-
mentation of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl 55,
659e667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.002.
Diabat, A., Kannan, D., Mathiyazhagan, K., 2014. Analysis of enablers for imple-
mentation of sustainable supply chain management - a textile case. J. Clean.
Prod. 83, 391e403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.081.
Diabat, A., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., 2013. An exploration of green supply chain
practices and performances in an automotive industry. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 68, 949e961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-4955-4.
Dües, C.M., Tan, K.H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new Lean: how to use Lean
practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 93e100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.023.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S.J., Shibin, K.T., Wamba, S.F.,
2017. Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research
directions. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 1119e1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.03.117.
Ehret, O., Cooke, P., 2010. Conceptualising aerospace outsourcing: airbus UK and the
lean supply approach. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 504, 300317. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1504/IJTM.2010.032678.
Elzarka, S.M., 2013. Supply chain risk management: the lessons learned from the
Egyptian revolution 2011. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 16, 482e492. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/13675567.2013.846307.
Frauman, E., Banks, S., 2011. Gateway community resident perceptions of tourism
development: incorporating importance-performance analysis into a limits of
acceptable change framework. Tour. Manag. 32, 128e140. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2010.01.013.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015. Lean and green-a systematic review of the state of the art
literature. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 18e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.04.064.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2015a. Lean, green and
resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: interpretive struc-
tural modeling approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12, 15e34. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0409-7.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2014. Impact of supply
chain management practices on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 212e225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.068.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Vafadarnikjoo, A., 2015b. Intuitionistic fuzzy based
DEMATEL method for developing green practices and performances in a green
supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 7207e7220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
861
j.eswa.2015.04.030.
Green, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J., Bhadauria, V.S., 2012. Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J.
17, 290e305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., McGaughey, R.E., 2004. A framework for supply chain
performance measurement. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 87, 333e347. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., Tirtiroglu, E., 2001. Performance measures and metrics in
a supply chain environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21, 71e87. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468.
Guojun, J., Caihong, Z., 2008. Study on supply chain disruption risk management
strategies and model. In: 2008 Int. Conf. Serv. Syst. Serv. Manag, pp. 1e6. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSSSM.2008.4598472.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., Gavronski, I., 2013. Reprint of Lean
management and supply management: their role in green practices and per-
formance. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 86e93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.06.038.
Hickie, D., 2006. Knowledge and competitiveness in the aerospace industry: the
cases of Toulouse, Seattle and North-West England. Eur. Plan. Stud. 14, 697e716.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310500500254.
Hines, P., Rich, N., 1997. The seven value stream mapping tools. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
17, 46e64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579710157989.
Holt, D., Ghobadian, A., 2009. An empirical study of green supply chain manage-
ment practices amongst UK manufacturers. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 20,
933e956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410380910984212.
Hong, P.C., Dobrzykowski, D.D., Vonderembse, M.A., 2010. Integration of supply
chain IT and lean practices for mass customization: benchmarking of product
and service focused manufacturers. Benchmarking An Int. J. 17, 561e592. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635771011060594.
Hsu, C.-W., Kuo, T.-C., Chen, S.-H., Hu, A.H., 2013. Using DEMATEL to develop a
carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain man-
agement. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 164e172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2011.09.012.
Hussain, M., Awasthi, A., Tiwari, M.K., 2015. An ISM-ANP integrated framework for
evaluating alternatives for sustainable supply chain management. Appl. Math.
Model 40, 3671e3687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.09.018.
Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., Xanthopoulos, A., 2007. An analytical methodological
framework for the optimal design of resilient supply chains. Int. J. Logist. Econ.
Glob. 1, 1e20.
ICAO, 2013. Flightplan to a Sustainable Future: the RIOþ20 Global Biofuels Inicia-
tive. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada. www.icao.int/
environmental-protection/Documents/RIOþ20_Flightpath_Review.pdf
(Accessed 27 July 2017).
ICEX, 2016. SPAIN: Business Opportunities in Aerospace. Ministerio de Economía,
Industria y Competitividad, Madrid, Spain. http://www.investinspain.org/
invest/wcm/idc/groups/public/documents/documento/mde1/mzy3/~edisp/
doc2015367125.pdf (Accessed 27 July 2017).
Juttner, U., Peck, H., Christopher, M., 2003. Supply chain risk management: outlining
an agenda for future research. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 6, 197e210. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675560310001627016.
Kannan, G., Haq, A.N., 2007. Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for
the selection of supplier in the built-in-order supply chain environment. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 45, 3831e3852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540600676676.
Kannan, G., Pokharel, S., Kumar, P.S., 2009. A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy
TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resour. Conserv. Recycl 54,
28e36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.06.004.
Kou, T.-C., Lee, B.C.Y., 2015. The influence of supply chain architecture on new
product launch and performance in the high-tech industry. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 30,
677e687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2013-0176.
Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., Omodei Junior, C., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., 2014.
Extending lean manufacturing in supply chains: a successful case in Brazil.
Benchmarking an Int. J. 21, 1070e1083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2013-
0014.
pez, C., Salmeron, J.L., 2012. Risks response strategies for supporting practitioners
Lo
decision-making in software projects. Procedia Technol. 5, 437e444. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.09.048.
MacDuffie, J.P., Helper, S., 1997. Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production
throughout the supply chain. Calif. Manage. Rev. 39, 118e151.
Maleki, M., Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Generic integration of lean, agile, resilient, and
green practices in automotive supply chain. Rev. Int. Comp. Manag. 14,
237e248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBPSCM.2013.053492.
Mandal, A., Deshmukh, S.G., 1994. Vendor selection using interpretive structural
modelling (ISM). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 14, 52e59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01443579410062086.
Marodin, G.A., Frank, A.G., Tortorelle, G.L., Saurin, T.A., 2016. Contextual factors and
Lean Production implementation in the Brazilian automotive supply chain.
Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 21, 417e432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-05-
2015-0170.
Martilla, J.A., James, J.C., 1977. Importance-performance analysis. J. Mark. 41, 77e79.
Martínez-Jurado, P.J., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2014. Lean management, supply chain
management and sustainability: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 134e150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.042.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., Geng, Y., 2013. An ISM approach for
the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean.
Prod. 47, 283e297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.042.
862 R. Ruiz-Benitez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 850e862
Michaels, L.M.J., 1999. Case study the making of a lean aerospace supply chain.
Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 4, 135e145.
Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., Lowe, J., 1993. Manufacturing: Further Evidence from the
Lean Production Debate. Oxford, UK.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z.H., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag.
45, 37e56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03162.x.
Park, H.-R., Kim, H.M., Lee, Y., Jeong, S.Y., Lim, Y.S., 2017. Sanitation management of
cooks in childcare centers in South Korea according to working duration and
the type of childcare center: importance-performance analysis. Food control.
73, 1452e1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.10.057.
Paulraj, A., 2009. Environmental motivations: a classification scheme and its impact
on environmental strategies and practices. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 18, 453e468.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.612.
Pawlowski, Suzanne, D., Okoli, C., 2004. The delphi method as a research Tool: an
example, design considerations and applications 1 introduction 2 overview of
the delphi method. Inf. Manag. 42, 15e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.im.2003.11.002.
Perez, C., De Castro, R., Simons, D., Gimenez, G., 2010. Development of lean supply
chains: a case study of the Catalan pork sector. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J.
15, 55e68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541011018120.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L., Fiksel, J., 2013. Ensuring supply chain resilience: develop-
ment and implementation of an assessment tool. J. Bus. Logist. 34, 46e76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12009.
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J., Croxton, K.L., 2010. Ensuring supply chain resilience: develop-
ment of a conceptual framework. J. Bus. Logist. 31, 1e21. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.x.
Ponomarov, S.Y., Holcomb, M.C., 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain
resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20, 124e143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
09574090910954873.
Qrunfleh, S., Tarafdar, M., 2013. Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply
chain responsiveness: the role of strategic supplier partnership and post-
ponement. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 18, 571e582. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/SCM-01-2013-0015.
Rajesh, R., Ravi, V., Venkata Rao, R., 2015. Selection of risk mitigation strategy in
electronic supply chains using grey theory and digraph-matrix approaches. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 53, 238e257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.948579.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and eco-
nomic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25, 898e916. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/01443570510613956.
Resta, B., Dotti, S., Gaiardelli, P., Boffelli, A., 2017. How lean manufacturing affects
the creation of sustainable value: an integrated model. Int. J. Autom. Technol. 11,
10e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2017.p0542.
Rice, B.J.B., Caniato, F., 2003. Building a secure and resilient supply network. Supply
Chain Manag. Rev. 7, 22e30.
Romaniw, Y., Bras, B., 2012. Survey of common practices in sustainable aerospace
manufacturing for the purpose of driving future research. In: 19th CIRP Int.
Conf. Life Cycle Eng (Berkeley, USA).
Romano, E., Chiocca, D., Santillo, L.C., Guizzi, G., 2013. A resilient approach to
manage a supply chain network. In: IEEE 12th International Conference on
Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (SoMeT), pp. 93e97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SoMeT.2013.6645646. Budapest, Hungary.
Routroy, S., 2009. Antecedents and drivers for green supply chain management
implementation in manufacturing environment. ICFAI J. Supply Chain Manag.
VI, 20e36.
Sage, A.P., 1977. Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large Scale
Systems. McGraw Hill Higher Education, New York, NY, USA.
Scholten, K., Scott, P.S., Fynes, B., 2014. Mitigation processes e antecedents for
building supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Manag. 19, 211e228. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2013-0191.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production.
J. Oper. Manag. 25, 785e805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019.
Singh, S.C., Pandey, S.K., 2015. Lean supply-chain; a state-of-the-art literature re-
view. J. Supply Chain Manag. Syst. 4, 33e46.
Sinha, P.R., Whitman, L.E., Malzahn, D., 2004. Methodology to mitigate supplier risk
in an aerospace supply chain. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 9, 154e168. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540410527051.
So, S., Sun, H., 2010. Supplier integration strategy for lean manufacturing adoption
in electronic-enabled supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 15, 474e487.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541011080455.
So, S.C.K., 2010. Adopting lean principle as sustainable manufacturing strategy in an
electronic-enabled supply chain environment. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2, 310e333.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSE.2010.033397.
Soni, U., Jain, V., Kumar, S., 2014. Measuring supply chain resilience using a deter-
ministic modeling approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 74, 11e25. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2014.04.019.
Spiegler, V.L.M., Naim, M.M., Wikner, J., 2012. A control engineering approach to the
assessment of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50, 6162e6187. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.710764.
Stecke, K.E., Kumar, S., 2009. Sources of supply chain disruptions, factors that breed
vulnerability, and mitigating strategies. J. Mark. Channels 16, 193e226. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10466690902932551.
Stewart, P., Danford, A., Richardson, M., Pulignano, V., 2010. Workers' experiences of
skill, training and participation in lean and high performance workplaces in
Britain and Italy. Empl. Relat. 32, 606e624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01425451011083654.
Tachizawa, E.M., Thomsen, C.G., Montes-Sancho, M.J., 2012. Green supply man-
agement strategies in Spanish firms. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 59, 741e752.
Tang, C., 2006. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. Int. J.
Logist. 9, 33e45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675560500405584.
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., 2010. Shadows and lights of GSCM (green supply chain man-
agement): determinants and effects of these practices based on a multi-
national study. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 953e962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2010.03.005.
To, W.M., Lam, K.H., Lai, T.M., 2015. Importance-performance ratings for environ-
mental practices among Hong Kong professional-level employees. J. Clean.
Prod. 108, 699e706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.005.
Tomlin, B., 2006. On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for man-
aging supply chain disruption risks. Manage. Sci. 52, 639e657. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.1060.0515.
Tortorella, G., Miorando, R., Tlapa, D., 2017. Implementation of lean supply chain: an
empirical research on the effect of context. TQM J. 29, 610e623. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2016-0102.
Trang, S.T.N., Zander, S., De Visser, B., Kolbe, L.M., 2016. Towards an importance-
performance analysis of factors affecting e-business diffusion in the wood in-
dustry. J. Clean. Prod. 110, 121e131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.05.051.
Tukamuhabwa, B.R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., Zorzini, M., 2015. Supply chain resil-
ience: definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 7543, 1e32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934.
Vachon, S., 2007. Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental
technologies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45, 4357e4379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207540701440303.
Warfield, J., 1973. Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man.
Cybern. SMC 3, 441e449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.4309270.
Warfield, J., 1974. Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling. IEEE
Transcr. Syst. Men Cybern. 4, 51e81.
Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., Onofrei, G., 2013. Exploring synergetic effects between
investments in environmental and quality/lean practices in supply chains.
Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 18, 148e160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
13598541311318791.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., 1991. The Machine that Changed the World: the
Story of Lean Production. Harper Perennial, New York, USA.
Wu, Y.C., 2003. Lean manufacturing: a perspective of lean suppliers. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 23, 1349e1376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570310501880.
Zailani, S.H., Subaramaniam, K.S., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M.R., 2015. Research
on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 45, 652e673.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management in China: pres-
sures, practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25, 449e468. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570510593148.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K., 2008a. Confirmation of a measurement model for green
supply chain management practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111,
261e273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.029.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2008b. Green supply chain management implications for
“closing the loop”. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 44, 1e18. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.06.003.