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

net/publication/376385386

Development of a strategy deployment framework combining corporate

sustainability and operational excellence

Article in Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · December 2023

DOI: 10.1002/csr.2683

CITATION READS

1 240

2 authors:

Katharina Roche Rupert J. Baumgartner

Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION 177 PUBLICATIONS 8,197 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Katharina Roche on 12 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 15 June 2023 Revised: 10 November 2023 Accepted: 15 November 2023
DOI: 10.1002/csr.2683

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Development of a strategy deployment framework combining

corporate sustainability and operational excellence

Katharina E. Roche 1 | Rupert J. Baumgartner 1,2

1
Department of Environmental Systems
Sciences, University of Graz, Graz, Austria Abstract
2
Christian Doppler Laboratory for Sustainable Operations management requires models, methods and tools that integrate both sus-
Product Management in a Circular Economy,
Department of Environmental Systems tainability and operational excellence to support organizations in implementing long-
Sciences, University of Graz, Graz, Austria term sustainability. The purpose of this research is to provide a strategy deployment

Correspondence
Katharina E. Roche, Department of
Environmental Systems Sciences, University of
Graz, Merangasse 18/II, Graz, 8010, Austria.
Email: katharina.roche@uni-graz.at
framework integrating both corporate sustainability and operational excellence. The
research approach includes an explorative literature review, providing a background
on operational excellence, sustainability, and hoshin kanri, a special form of strategy
deployment. Comprehensive frameworks for both strategy deployment (hoshin kanri)
and sustainability (Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development) were used as a
foundation and adapted towards a strategy deployment framework linking sustain-
ability with operational excellence. This was done by integrating both frameworks
and by including operational excellence enablers. The resulting framework illustrates
how strategic sustainability goals can be aligned and deployed within businesses. This
research contributes towards supporting corporations in their efforts in becoming
sustainable businesses and serves as a theoretical base for future research.

KEYWORDS
corporate sustainability, framework for strategic sustainable development, hoshin kanri,
operational excellence, strategy deployment framework, sustainable operations management

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N Spinler, 2013). OM is increasingly connected to sustainability, and it

The increasing climate crisis has massive implications for businesses, as
global markets are thoroughly interconnected (Drake & Spinler, 2013).
Companies have not only been increasingly pressured by stakeholders
and society to implement environmental and social sustainability mea-
sures (Garcia et al., 2016; Mangla et al., 2020) but are also increasingly
seeking to achieve competitive advantage through corporate sustain-
ability (Nave & Ferreira, 2019). Operations management (OM) plays an
important role in businesses efforts in becoming more sustainable
(Mangla et al., 2020). Strategy determines what the business does and
operations carries out the strategy, that is, which resources are used,
and, in turn, which effects the organization's actual impact on environ-
ment and people as well as its economic success (Drake &
now concerns both the operational drivers of profitability and their rela-
tionship to people and the planet (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Organiza-
tions are facing a substantial new challenge in terms of operational
sustainability (Bhandari et al., 2019; Ghadimi et al., 2019). However, in
research so far, it is not obvious how far social and environmental objec-
tives are incorporated into various facets of OM (Gunasekaran &
Subramanian, 2018). Also, translating corporate strategy into operations
has been a key focus of OM for many decades (Kleindorfer et al., 2005),
as there is often a disconnect between strategy and its implementation
(Hristov et al., 2022), where day-to-day business has priority over the
consideration of investing time and effort in planning in the long-term
(Kudernatsch, 2019). A strategic management system seen as to have
potential for linking strategy and implementation in the long-term is

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2023;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr 1


2 ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
hoshin kanri (HoK), a specific form of policy or strategy deployment
(Löfving et al., 2021; Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023). It is a technique
for setting goals as well as an instrument for evaluation and is both
top-down and bottom-up approach. HoK prioritizes and focuses on a
few selected goals that are important to achieve the desired strategic
outcome (Lee and Dale, 1998; Jolayemi, 2008). These goals are then
broken down to all levels of the organization, where measures to
achieve these goals are developed respectively (Löfving et al., 2021).
Since its origins in the 1960s in Japan, HoK and versions thereof have
been implemented by companies globally, such as Toyota, Hewlett-
Packard, Nissan, Xerox, Texas Instruments, Tyco, IBM, Porter and Gam-
ble and AT&T (Evans & Lindsay, 2005; Feurer et al., 1995;
Kudernatsch, 2019; Witcher, 2013; Witcher & Butterworth, 1999,
2000). HoK is often associated with Total Quality Management (TQM)
and Lean production, and it is considered a typical system for OM
(Chiarini, 2013; Jolayemi, 2008; Karaszewski, 2010). Due to a different
cultural approach and problems related to translation from the
Japanese, HoK was not well known or used by Western companies until
the 1990s (Tennant & Roberts, 2001). The TQM and Lean production
movements brought HoK to the attention of global companies that
implement TQM and Lean principles. However, HoK has not received as
much attention as other management concepts, such as the Balanced
Scorecard (BSC) (Witcher & Chau, 2007). As quality in terms of opera-
tional excellence, that is, process efficiency and effectiveness
(Bourke, 2014), and sustainability are becoming increasingly important
for the global community in both business and customer markets,
addressing operations and enhancing sustainability will be a necessary
task for organizations (Piercy & Rich, 2015). Sustainable OM is therefore
in search for models that integrate operational excellence with
sustainability (Walker et al., 2014). Here, HoK also has great potential in
combining operations management and operational excellence with
sustainability. Applied for successful TQM (Akao, 2005), HoK is claimed
to be central for Lean thinking (Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023) and is
used as an approach for organizations' efforts in becoming Lean, that is,
to eliminate waste and to create a learning organization, among other
aspects (Villalba-Diez, 2017). At the same time, HoK possesses charac-
teristics useful for realizing corporate sustainability, as it is process
based and already integrates environmental aspects (to eliminate waste)
as well as social aspects (involving all employees and levels of decision
making) (Chiarini, 2016; Thürer et al., 2019).
Due to HoK's potential and gaps in literature, the main goal of this
research is to provide a strategy deployment framework that com-
bines sustainability and operational excellence through HoK. Regard-
ing the research goal, the following research questions were
formulated:
RQ 1. Where are links between sustainability, opera-
tional excellence, and strategy deployment, especially
hoshin kanri?
RQ 2. How to develop a strategy deployment frame-
work connecting operational excellence and sustainabil-
ity through hoshin kanri?
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
In line with the main objective and research questions, we begin
with a literature background including definitions, concepts and frame-
works connected to HoK, operational excellence, and sustainability. We
continue with describing the methods on explorative literature review
and framework development. In the subsequent section, we continue
with the main findings, including links between operational excellence,
sustainability and HoK, as well as a framework combining operational
excellence enablers and sustainability principles by adapting existing
frameworks. We then discuss the proposed framework against literature
and theory, the practical implications of the resulting framework as well
as limitations and further research opportunities. We conclude the study
with a summary of findings and outlook.
2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 | Operational excellence
For a company to succeed in the long term, it needs to participate in a
multitude of activities such as organizational excellence, product leader-
ship, customer relationship management, to name a few (Found
et al., 2018). Operational excellence has no commonly accepted defini-
tion (Found et al., 2018), however, definitions include many similar com-
ponents. It can be defined as process efficiency and effectiveness with
the systematic integration of an organization's culture and its human
resources (Bourke, 2014) and can be characterized as strategy that orga-
nizations use to provide quality, ease of purchase, price, and service in
such a way that no other company in the sector or industry can match
(Treacy & Wiersema, 1995). For an operational excellence program to
be successful in the long-term, it is necessary for an organization to be
aware of the social, economic, and environmental demands of stake-
holders and to transform these by reacting with suitable and innovative
operational excellence solutions (Sony, 2019). Numerous operational
excellence efforts, including Lean, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, have
emerged as crucial components for enhancing an organization's process
performance and supporting it in the present competitive market
(McLean et al., 2017). Value-added and non-value-added operations are
categorized in Lean, which helps remove waste and boost process effi-
ciency (Swarnakar et al., 2021), while Six Sigma is an organized method
focused on problem-solving and process improvement (Vinodh &
Swarnakar, 2015). Lean Six Sigma – a combination of both – lowers
faults brought on by excessive process variability and decreases waste
(Antony et al., 2022; Swarnakar & Vinodh, 2016).
2.2 | Corporate sustainability
The notion that sustainable development involves three interrelated
dimensions—an economic, an environmental, and a social one—are
widely acknowledged (WCED, 1987). Applying this system-level notion
of sustainability to the organizational level through the idea of corporate
sustainability has also existed for some time (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002).
The triple-bottom-line (TBL) integrates the economic, environmental,

ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
and social dimension. However, this traditional view of corporate sus-
tainability is itself limited (cf. Hahn et al., 2015). Efforts have been made
to expand the definition of corporate sustainability. According to
Dočekalová and Kocmanová (2016), corporate sustainability is a key
concept for companies to achieve long-term benefits by integrating
activities associated with sustainability into their strategy. Dyllick and
Muff (2016) state that a truly sustainable company understands how it
can create a significant positive impact in critical and relevant areas for
society and the planet. Schaltegger et al. (2016) refer sustainability man-
agement to approaches dealing with social, environmental, and eco-
nomic issues in an integrated manner to transform organizations in a
way that they contribute to the sustainable development of the econ-
omy and society, within the limits of the ecosystem. Upward and Jones
(2016) stress that a sustainable firm is an organization that creates posi-
tive environmental, social, and economic value throughout its value net-
work, thereby sustaining the possibility that human and other life can
flourish on this planet forever. Such a firm would not only do no harm, it
would also create social benefit while regenerating the environment to
be financially viable (Upward & Jones, 2016). For a corporation to be
truly sustainable, it should respect the Framework for Strategic Sustain-
able Development (FSSD) sustainability principles and develop, imple-
ment, adopt, and regulate business strategies and operations in a way
that meets the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders
(Baumgartner, 2014). The eight FSSD sustainability principles (environ-
mental and societal sphere) provide a clear operational definition of sus-
tainability that can be adopted by any organization in combination with
their existing purpose, values, and goals (Broman & Robèrt, 2017).
2.3 | Resource-based and dynamic
capabilities view
The main focus of strategic management is on how businesses create
and maintain competitive advantage (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009);
the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities are both theories
that explain how this can be achieved. Together, the dynamic capabili-
ties (DC) in combination with the resource-based view (RBV) provides
a bigger and better theoretical lens to examine how firms should use
dynamic managerial skills, attitudes, and competencies to enhance
their performance and competitive advantage. RBV suggests that
competitive advantage emanates from aligning motives, skills, and
attitudes of employees with organization's systems, processes,
and practices to develop dynamic capabilities at firm level
(Teece, 2007). DC is defined as an organization's ability to completely
create, expand, or modify its resource and capability bases in order to
respond to changes in the environment (Eriksson, 2014). Dynamic
capabilities relate, inter alia, to organizational learning, with the pur-
pose of developing knowledge resources within the company. Internal
mechanisms can be used to develop these capabilities (Sarkis
et al., 2011). DC is the total ability of a firm to effectively integrate,
build and reconfigure their competences (i.e., environmental ethics
and employee's environmental skills, knowledge, and attitudes)
(Teece, 2007, 2014). Teece et al. (1997) argue a dynamic capability is
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
difficult for outsiders to fully understand and that it cannot transfer
between firms in a complete sense. So, a similar application will
always vary in different firms (Witcher & Chau, 2007). Within man-
agement systems (such as TQM and Lean), HoK is used for its man-
agement and integration, and other important dynamic capabilities; in
this way, HoK in itself is a higher order dynamic capability, in which
second-order dynamic capabilities are set in (Winter, 2003; Witcher
et al., 2008); meaning, HoK helps develop core competences in key
areas of the business, and core capabilities in terms of its corporate
methodologies and business philosophies (Witcher et al., 2008).
2.4 | Tools for strategy formulation and
deployment – The balanced scorecard and HoK
HoK and the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) provide a structure and a set of
procedures to align strategy throughout the company and to measure
and manage progress towards corporate strategy achievement
(da Silveira et al., 2017). The BSC, for example, is strong in defining what
should be done, but it has little to say about how this should be done
(Witcher, 2013). The key to linking strategy to action is therefore not
the BSC itself, but the underlying procedures that make it function
(Witcher & Chau, 2007). HoK emphasizes singular techniques such as
feedback cycles between different levels of an organization, on what
should and what can be achieved and, above all, how it can be achieved
(da Silveira et al., 2018). A main difference of HoK to other strategic
management frameworks is the application of the Plan-Do-Check-Act
(PDCA) management methodology throughout all levels and business
functions of a company (da Silveira et al., 2018). HoK proposes pro-
cesses for better sharing strategies and involving all employees. By con-
trast, the BSC system introduced by Kaplan and Norton (1992) is based
on a top-down approach. Within the BSC, starting at a corporate level,
senior managers set strategies for the market and deploy these strate-
gies for the different business units and levels of the organization
(Chiarini, 2016). The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) devel-
oped by Figge et al. (2002) integrates environmental and social aspects
into the BSC. Criticism of SBSC for making business as usual more effi-
cient and thus standing in the way of fundamental sustainable transfor-
mation (Hahn & Figge, 2018). Research in this field considering HoK has
not been developed thus far. From a social and economic perspective,
HoK enhances an integrated workplace, but also drives forward com-
pany performance. At the same time, HoK as a TQM- and Lean system
shows environmental benefits, due to saving resources in production
and through quality improvements (Piercy & Rich, 2015).
3 | METHODS
The first step is to gain a comprehensive background on operational
excellence, sustainability, and HoK. For this, an explorative literature
review to operational excellence, HoK and sustainability was per-
formed. In a second step, a conceptual framework is developed and
proposed.

4 ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
3.1 | Literature review
Data were collected from an electronic database search for the litera-
ture review. As proposed by Webster and Watson (2002), the search
was undertaken by topic rather than by (top) journal to include more
publications in this field. The search terms used in searching the scien-
tific databases were divided into three theme groups focusing on
operational excellence, (corporate) sustainability and hoshin kanri. The
key words in each group were associated with the Boolean OR opera-
tor to create a search string for the respective group. Also, the group
search strings were associated with the Boolean AND operator to
develop combined search strings (Vrontis & Christofi, 2019). Further
keywords used were policy deployment, and strategy deployment (for
hoshin kanri), sustainable, sustainab*, excellence, operations, opera-
tions management. Primary data bases that were used were Web of
Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The data from Google Scholar
were extracted with Harzing's ‘Publish or Perish’ software (Harzing,
2007; version 8.0.3590.7978) in August 2022, and updated in
February and October 2023. Not only academic journals were
included, but also conference proceedings and other gray literature by
reputed publishers that may help overcome publication biases in liter-
ature (Hopewell et al., 2005). To achieve meaningful results, the time-
frame as well as geographical context were kept non-specific. The
initial sample of possibly relevant articles was subject to additional
evaluation based on different criteria. First, the search did not focus
on publications in peer-reviewed academic journals with full texts.
Thus, non-academic articles, such as book chapters, editorials, confer-
ence papers, extended abstracts, book reviews were included. Second,
articles available in English were included and others excluded. This
decision should bring focus on the common scientific knowledge base
represented by most scientific journals and is employed by other
researchers as well (e.g., Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Vrontis &
Christofi, 2019). Further filter steps after the removal of duplicates
included title and abstract screening. The remaining publications were
then subject to a full-text screening; criteria for this process were if
the texts substantially included sustainability, operational excellence,
and strategy deployment or hoshin kanri, and texts that were aligned
with the research goal. The initial sample contained 258 for sustain-
ability and operational excellence (Scopus and Web of Science, after
removing duplicates) and 377 for sustainability, operational excellence
and hoshin kanri (Google Scholar); the dataset after screening includes
61 publications. Journals, conference proceedings, books/chapters,
and working papers are among the publishing types extracted. An
overview of the research process is illustrated in Figure 1.
3.2 | Framework development
Based on the information retrieved from the literature review as well
as the findings on already developed frameworks, namely the Frame-
work for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) and HoK, a con-
ceptual framework was developed. A framework is a structure used to
put into practice a concept that has been conceptually designed and
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
developed (Soni & Kodali, 2013). For the strategy deployment frame-
work linking sustainability and operational excellence, core concepts,
methods, and tools with regards to the FSSD and HoK were applied
and integrated into a new framework. Additionally, operational excel-
lence factors were included that have been identified within the litera-
ture review. HoK as a management system links strategy and
implementation in the long-term. HoK can be viewed as key to
achieving superior organizational learning and that it can be employed
“to manage about anything that moves” (Jackson, 2006, p. XII), for
example to integrate value stream activities within a single plant or
integrating a total value stream involving multiple suppliers. While
HoK was still relatively unknown years ago, more and more western
companies, especially in the USA and Europe, are introducing HoK,
mostly under the term ‘policy deployment’ (Kudernatsch, 2019). The
FSSD is a framework for strategic sustainable planning that provides
organizations with practical tools and methods on how to systemati-
cally integrate sustainability within their whole organization. The
FSSD was developed through several iterations within a 25-year-long
learning process that involved scientists and practitioners alike
(Broman & Robèrt, 2017). The FSSD has been applied in various com-
panies, for example, IKEA, Interface, Electrolux, but also to municipali-
ties and for educational guidance. Through years of practice, there
have been experienced benefits through applying the FSSD men-
tioned in a myriad of cases (Broman & Robèrt, 2017). Due to its prac-
ticality, its clearly defined sustainability principles, and planning
process as well as combination possibilities with other management
methods and tools, the FSSD may work – together with HoK – as a
foundation for an implementation framework towards corporate sus-
tainability. Both frameworks have similar approaches towards goal
achievement from a strategic perspective, starting from a vision and
long-term goal orientation (in the FSSD the so-called back casting
approach (Broman & Robèrt, 2017)), whereas the FSSD stays at the
strategic level and HoK provides tools and methods towards
the achievement of these goals and long-term vision. Within the
frameworks, operational excellence enablers were included, to
illustrate which factors may be particularly relevant for each strategy
planning and -deployment phase.
3.2.1 | Hoshin kanri methods and models
There are methods and models stated related to HoK (da Silveira
et al., 2017). Most importantly and dominantly are the Deming Cycle
of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) methodology for continuous improve-
ment or variations thereof, and the so-called catchball process. Others
are connecting a corporation's strategy to its day-to-day business, as
well as certain planning tools, namely the X-Matrix and A3 Report
(da Silveira et al., 2017; Jolayemi, 2008; Tennant & Roberts, 2001).
The most recurring model within literature is the FAIR model
(Witcher & Chau, 2007) or PCDA-cycle, illustrated in Figure 2.
According to da Silveira et al. (2018) FAIR is an acronym that relates
to the PDCA/Deming cycle, starting with focus (act), alignment (plan),
integration (do), and review (check). The first step (focus/act) entails

ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
FIGURE 1 The research process.
F I G U R E 2 The FAIR-model or PDCA cycle of HoK. Source:
Witcher et al. (2008).
deciding on a few key strategic priorities for the coming year. These
hoshins, or strategic priorities, are significant adjustments required to
achieve the company's medium- and long-term goals. Increasing
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
improvement and hoshin-related targets are expressed in a QCDE-
scheme, where quality (Q) refers to customer goals, cost (C) refers to
efficiency and financial goals, delivery (D) refers to internal processes,
logistics, and innovation goals, and education (E) refers to human
resource development, morale, and safety goals (Witcher &
Chau, 2007). The annual goals are then developed and deployed itera-
tively within the organization, top-down, bottom-up and between
departments, with the so-called catchball process in the second step
(alignment/plan) (da Silveira et al., 2018; Tennant & Roberts, 2001).
The catchball mechanism starts with a carefully planned break
through goal or hoshin and represents the operationalization of the
strategy. Catchball consists of feedback and discussion about goals
and the means to achieve these goals; the process is meant to close
the knowing-doing-gap (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). During this process,
the goals and resource allocations can be affected (Tennant &
Roberts, 2001). The agreed upon performance targets and action
plans are integrated into the work routine in the third step (integra-
tion/do). The fourth and final element of the cycle (review/check)
entails top management's annual diagnostic of how HoK is being used
to manage and achieve the company's strategic goals. The annual
review gives valuable information that influences the choice of

6 ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
FIGURE 3 The hoshin planning process. Source: Jolayemi (2008).
strategic breakthrough goals for the following annual cycle (da Silveira
et al., 2018).
The organization's vision, strategy and breakthrough goals
developed by the top management are central for the whole orga-
nization and all its departments (Kudernatsch, 2019). Here, impor-
tant during the process of defining the annual goals are the
engagement with all levels (cascading down) and translating these
goals into all levels. This process illustrates the importance of feed-
back loops – the catchball process – within the organization or
business unit, to align the goals as effectively as possible by means
of vertical (top-down and bottom-up) and horizontal (between
departments) integration within the organization. The 7-step hos-
hin planning model by the GOAL/QPC Research Committee
(1994), illustrated in Figure 3 (Jolayemi, 2008), depicts the stages
within the hoshin planning process and is often referred to in aca-
demic literature (Barnabè & Giorgino, 2017). Within this planning
process model, the stages beginning from the organizational vision
to the annual review are illustrated, including the catchball process
during the deployment of objectives to departments (phase 4) and
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FAIR/PDCA cycles during the actual implementation and regular
progress reviews. Depending on the annual reviews, the organiza-
tional vision, 3-5-year plan or breakthrough goals, but most defi-
nitely the annual goals may be adjusted.
3.2.2 | The framework for strategic sustainable
development
The FSSD provides organizations with a common language and a
knowledge of the sustainability issue. It is founded on a sustainability
vision, which is bounded by sustainability principles; starting from the
vision, an organization follows a backcasting approach (Robèrt, 2009).
The five levels of the FSSD by Robèrt et al. (2002) are (1) the system,
which focuses on the ecosphere, (2) success, which defines the out-
come, that is, the state sustainability within the ecosphere, (3) strategic
guidelines, meaning the process to reach the outcome, (4) actions, that
is, concrete measures that comply with the principles for the process
to reach a favorable outcome in the system, and (5) tools to monitor
and audit the relevance of actions with reference to principles for the
process and/or monitoring the status of the system itself, and impacts
or reduced impacts, as a consequence of strategically planned societal
actions. The FSSD principles by Broman and Robèrt (2017, p. 23) state
that “in a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically
increasing (1) concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's
crust, (2) concentrations of substances produced by society, (3) degra-
dation by physical means, and people are not subject to structural
obstacles to (4) health, (5) influence, (6) competence, (7) impartiality,
as well as (8) meaning-making”. The operationalization of the FSSD is
carried out through the so-called ABCD process. It is a four-stage iter-
ative tool which integrates all the levels of the FSSD (Broman &
Robèrt, 2017), including (A) learning about the sustainability issue and
-principles, and collectively developing the organization's vision, (B) a
baseline assessment of the actual state of the organization's sustain-
ability, (C) co-creating possible solutions and actions to achieve the
organization's vision, and (D) deciding on which solutions are viable
and feasible. Here, the solutions are prioritized, whether they are
likely to help achieve the organization's sustainability-framed vision
(Broman & Robèrt, 2017).
4 | FR A M E WO RK F O R S TR A TE G Y
DE P L O Y M E N T L I N K I N G O P E RA T I O N A L
EX CELLENC E WIT H CORPO RA TE
SUSTAINABILITY
The results are structured two-fold: in (1) the key insights from the lit-
erature review, and (2) conceptual framework development. The first
part includes (a) an extended presentation of key insights depicting
links between operational excellence, sustainability, and HoK, and (b)
a table illustrating operational excellence enablers (Carvalho
et al., 2021) and sustainability dimensions that have been identified in
literature to be combined with certain management systems and key

ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
tools. The second part showcases the conceptual framework devel-
oped from HoK, the FSSD, as well as key enablers for operational
excellence.
4.1 | Literature review
4.1.1 | Operational excellence, sustainability
and HoK
What defines operational excellence has changed through the years,
from a price-oriented perspective (Treacy & Wiersema, 1993), to the
maximization of operational resilience through efficient and flexible
integrated management and production processes (Brookbanks
et al., 2002), to an enabler-oriented framework in the context of oper-
ational excellence (e.g., Sutton, 2012). Here, the focus lies on the
development, composition, and expansion of enablers for continuous
improvement, change, and the optimization of business processes
(Jaeger & Matyas, 2016). Operational excellence can be defined as
process efficiency and effectiveness with the systematic integration
of an organization's culture and its human resources (Bourke, 2014)
and the results of operational excellence programs are influenced by
the organizational culture and enablers (Carvalho et al., 2019).
Enabler-focus relates to providing an optimal setting for enablers of
operational excellence (Jaeger & Matyas, 2016). Among enablers for
operational excellence are strategy alignment, development, planning,
and deployment, as well as process assessment, control and optimiza-
tion, organizational communication, commitment of leadership and
management, engagement of employees, and quality systems man-
agement (Carvalho et al., 2021). According to Sony (2019), for an
operational excellence program to be sustainable, the three main con-
ceptual viewpoints of social, economic, and environmental factors
should be imbedded in the organizational culture. Especially, organiza-
tional culture is thought to play a significant role in assisting or imped-
ing organizational change in the direction of sustainability (Wijethilake
et al., 2023). An organization's agility also plays a key role for the sus-
tainability of operational excellence programs (Sony, 2019). Agility can
be defined as an organization's ability to identify changes in its busi-
ness environment and provide its stakeholders with focused and rapid
responses by rearranging its resources, processes, and strategies
(Carvalho et al., 2019; Mathiyakalan et al., 2005).
Analyzed influencing factors from literature for the successful
implementation of operational excellence as well as sustainability are
leadership and strongly engaged top management (da Silveira
et al., 2017; Morsing & Oswald, 2009; Shingo Institute, 2014); organi-
zational culture; organizational agility (Carvalho et al., 2019;
Sony, 2019); organizational learning and continuous improvement
(Sawhney et al., 2020; Souza & Alves, 2018), organizational capabili-
ties (da Silveira et al., 2018; Thürer et al., 2019), as well as employee
involvement and communication (Piercy & Rich, 2015). However, in
research the mechanisms associated with these factors are seldom
addressed (Nicholas, 2016) – for example, how management exercises
leadership and communicates; the HoK approach is one of those
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
7
mechanisms (Nicholas, 2016). HoK may act as an enabler for compa-
nies to achieve agile capabilities (Jackson, 2006); agile capabilities or
attributes allow companies to quickly respond to changes in their
business environment (Bottani, 2010; Ren et al., 2003). Important
concepts related to HoK are leadership, communication, control, and
review (Dale, 1990, Kondo, 1998, Lee and Dale, 1998), and continu-
ous improvement (Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023). HoK is in parts
already applied as an environmental management tool (Wijethilake
et al., 2018) and may provide a basis for implementing sustainability
strategy within an organization to fill gaps between
sustainability strategy and its actual implementation in day-to-day
business.
4.1.2 | Management systems relating to operational
excellence
TQM, Lean Management, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma are manage-
ment approaches associated with business and operational excel-
lence and often researched with regards to corporate sustainability.
HoK, which evolved alongside TQM and Lean Management (Löfving
et al., 2021; Nicholas, 2016), is often associated with Lean practices,
and long-lasting competitive advantage and continuous improve-
ment (Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023). One of the goals of Lean
operations is to use fewer resources to generate the same outcome.
As less materials are used in production, and quality improvements
reduce rework, scrap, power and water consumption, and pollution
costs, environmental benefits are observed (e.g., Rothenberg
et al., 2001). In the past, Lean operations have been criticized for
focusing on resource efficiency. Sustainability benefits of Lean oper-
ations have been mostly limited to environmental and economic per-
formance (Cherrafi et al., 2016; Miller & Sarder, 2012; Mollenkopf
et al., 2010; Prasad & Sutharsan, 2012). However, recent literature
focuses increasingly on the social sustainability aspects of Lean prac-
tices (Ciannella & Santos, 2021); for example, social Lean practices
that address behavioral and human aspects of people and their rela-
tionships (Lizarelli et al., 2023). Organizations increasingly require
sustainability models that consider economic, social, and environ-
mental perspectives, also within the implementation of management
systems and Lean manufacturing systems (Souza & Alves, 2018). The
aims of Six Sigma are to improve process performance and achieve
high levels of quality by investigating and eliminating the root causes
of defects and minimizing process and product variability (Cherrafi
et al., 2016). Research attention has increased on combining Lean,
Six Sigma and sustainability. Lean Six Sigma is the combination of
Lean and Six Sigma philosophies (Sheridan, 2000; Swarnakar &
Vinodh, 2016), which aims to overcome the shortcomings of both
methodologies as well as to increase potential improvement
(Cherrafi et al., 2016; Snee, 2010). However, organizations are facing
difficulties in managing the complexity of integration process and
high amount of human and financial resources (Nunhes et al., 2017)
and lack the necessary tools, to integrate such systems into an orga-
nization (Souza & Alves, 2018). Research by Souza and Alves (2018)
 8

TABLE 1 Selected management systems and tools integrating operational excellence enablers and sustainability aspects.

Management systems related to operational excellence Strategic management tools

Operational
excellence enablers Total quality management Lean management Six sigma Lean six sigma Balanced scorecard Hoshin kanri
Leadership/top- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
management
commitment
Workforce ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
engagement and
empowerment
Learning organization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Workforce needs and (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) ✓ ✓
expectations
Value chain ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) (✓)
Product and market (✓) (✓) (✓) ✓ (✓) (✓)
development
Quality systems ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Management, control ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
and optimization
Process assessment (✓) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
and data validity
Strategy alignment (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) ✓ ✓
Strategy development ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) (✓)
Strategy planning and (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) ✓
deployment
Organizational ✓ ✓ (✓) ✓ ✓ ✓
communication
Integrated sustainability aspects
Environmental ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) (✓)
Social (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓)
Economic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓)
Authors Carvalho et al., 2019; Antony et al., 2022; Liker, Antony et al., 2022; Antony et al., 2022; Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Chiarini, 2016; da Silveira,
Sreedharan et al., 2018; 2021; Sreedharan et al., Chiarini, 2013; Snee, Swarnakar et al., 2021; Figge et al., 2002; et al. 2018; Nicholas,
Nicholas, 2016; Chiarini, 2018; Souza and Alves, 2010; Sreedharan et al., Sreedharan et al., 2018; Chiarini, 2016, 2016; Jackson, 2006;
2013; Chiarini, 2016 2018; Ciannella and 2018; Cherrafi et al., Swarnakar and Vinodh, Wijethilake et al., 2018; Liker. 2021; Wijethilake
Santos, 2021; Lizarelli 2016 2016; Zhang et al., Hahn and Figge, 2018 et al., 2018, Santhiapillai
et al., 2023 2012; and Ratnayake, 2023

Note: operational excellence enablers based on Carvalho (2021); Sustainability aspects in operational excellence based on Sony (2019).✓: identified in literature; (✓): potential for integration.
ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER

15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
F I G U R E 4 Framework for linking sustainability in strategy with operations. Source: own illustration. Structure based on Barnabè and Giorgino
(2017); levels and sustainability aspects based on Broman and Robèrt (2017); operational excellence enablers: Carvalho et al. (2021).
introduces the Lean-Integrated Management System for Sustainabil-
ity Improvement, which is based on the rational use of resources and
energy while engaging and empowering people. In their research,
many correlations and synergies have been identified between cor-
porate sustainability standards and requirements (ISO 9001:2015,
ISO 14001:2015, OHSAS 18001:2007, ISO 26000:2010) and HoK
and/or qualities associated with HoK (such as Kaizen and Kanban).
The survey by Nicholas (2016) finds HoK in theory potentially pro-
vides much of what the published research says is important to Lean
production success. Differences between HoK and Lean lie in their
goal orientation. Primarily, Lean is focused on continuous improve-
ment efforts (Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023). Development efforts
are driven by discrepancies from a defined standard. HoK, however,
is especially concerned with overcoming the obstacles preventing
the organization from moving from the current condition to the tar-
get condition, that is, the vision for the future. This vision is formu-
lated by (top-)management, after which it is broken down into
medium to short-term target conditions, which is also a reason for
the crucial role which management plays in HoK implementation
(Melander et al., 2021).
In Table 1, enablers of operational excellence (based on Carvalho
et al., 2021), associated management systems (TQM, Lean, Six Sigma)
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
9
and key strategic management tools (BSC, HoK) as well as (potentially)
integrated sustainability aspects are depicted.
4.2 | Strategy deployment framework towards
operational excellence and corporate sustainability
A conceptual framework for linking sustainability with operations in
Figure 4 combines the deployment process of goals (Barnabè &
Giorgino, 2017) with the FAIR-model (Witcher et al., 2008) as well as
includes the FSSD levels and principles (Broman & Robèrt, 2017);
leading questions for guidance concerning the different levels
(Kudernatsch, 2019), and key operational excellence enablers
(Carvalho et al., 2021) were added. Sustainability objectives can be
included within the targets, based on the vision, mission, values as
well as the business model of an organization (core capabilities and
competencies) (Breuer et al., 2018; Figge et al., 2002). The framework
provides an overview on how sustainability objectives can be aligned
throughout an entire organization.
In Level 1, the system level (Why?), focuses on the company's
positive impact on the ecosphere and society, and should be incorpo-
rated in the vision to be truly sustainable. Here lies the foundation of

10
F I G U R E 5 The ABCDEFG-implementation framework. Source: own illustration. ABCD planning method by Broman and Robèrt (2017); hoshin
planning and implementation process from Jolayemi (2008); Operational excellence enablers: Carvalho et al. (2021).
the purpose of an organization, and its contribution towards sustain-
ability. In the second level, success (What?), the goal or outcome is
defined, that is, the state of sustainability within the company; here
the sustainability principles from the FSSD can be integrated. The
framework includes the breakthrough goals (3–5) of a certain com-
pany or business unit (i.e., Strategies), divided in a scheme of quality,
cost, delivery, and education objectives (Kudernatsch, 2019). Sustain-
ability principles can be aligned with the general goals or be formu-
lated as stand-alone sustainability objectives that are in accordance
with the sustainability principles of the FSSD. In the third level, that of
strategic guidelines (What and to what extent this year?), which con-
stitutes the process to reach the desired outcome and includes guide-
lines for how to approach the principle-framed vision strategically
(Broman & Robèrt, 2017) the principles of sustainable development
can be integrated, which include strategic investment principles
(e.g., good return on investment), social principles (e.g., transparency),
and political means (e.g., norms and standards) (Robèrt et al., 2002). In
the framework, the strategic guidelines can be included within the
annual goals (i.e., strategic objectives). Level 4 (How?), actions, that is,
concrete measures that comply with the principles for the process to
reach a favorable outcome in the system. Within the framework,
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
these measures will be integrated in the improvement priorities
section (i.e., initiatives, or tactics). Level 5 (How much and when?)
focuses on tools to monitor and audit (i) the relevance of actions with
reference to principles for the process and/or monitoring (ii) the sta-
tus of the system itself, and impacts or reduced impacts, due strategi-
cally planned societal actions (Broman & Robèrt, 2017). In the
framework, this level aligns with success factors (i.e., KPIs). Within
the actions, accountability and responsibility concerning the different
goals and tasks defined (i.e., Who is responsible?). The catchball pro-
cess is highlighted throughout all levels, as the breakthrough goals
integrating sustainability principles should be redefined through the
alignment with the annual goals, the setting of concrete measures as
well as the definition of tools and success factors.
An implementation process framework shown in Figure 5 was
derived by combining both the hoshin planning process as well as the
FSSD's ABCD strategic planning method, depicting the implementa-
tion steps of the conceptual framework (cf. Figure 4). Here, the seven
steps of the hoshin planning context presented in GOAL/QPC
Research Committee (1994) and in Jolayemi (2008) was used as a
basis to provide an extended ABCD-method from the Framework for
Strategic Sustainable Development by Broman and Robèrt (2017).

ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
The FSSD strategic planning method was complemented with addi-
tional execution and feedback phases, proposing an ABCDEFG-
method towards deploying a corporate sustainability strategy. Steps
1–3 (A, B, C, and D) include the classic strategic planning process for
sustainable development, provided with the FSSD. However, these
visions and strategic goals still need to be deployed within all levels of
the organization. This process should be supported through the stages
(E) execution and (F) feedback. Steps 4–7 (E and F) focus on the (suc-
cessful) deployment of the defined strategic goals. The last step
entails (G) goal achievement and standardization, where the goals
once achieved can lead to standardizing certain processes that have
proven successful and to the development of new goals. Steps 1–3
are, in turn, influenced by the feedback provided by regular monthly
and annual reviews, as well as regular evaluations and on-going catch-
ball processes throughout the company. If there have been changes
internally (employees' awareness on the topic, top management's
involvement, specific stakeholder needs, etc.), or externally (regulatory
pressures, environmental and societal changes), this may affect the
company's vision. The results achieved during a year will change the
baseline of a company, and priorities that were previously decided
upon will have to be re-evaluated, if these are still relevant or have to
be adjusted. The previously proposed strategy deployment framework
with HoK at the core acts as a guide towards goal alignment through-
out the whole organization, namely the breakdown of strategic goals
on all levels to their measurement on operations level (up to the defi-
nition of KPIs). Key operational excellence enablers (Carvalho
et al., 2021) within the entire process of strategic planning and
deployment are commitment of leadership and top management
(within strategic planning as well as implementation), product and
market development (baseline mapping), considering the value chain
(baseline mapping), workforce needs and expectations (setting of pri-
orities), strategy development (setting of priorities), organizational
communication and strategy alignment (translation of strategy into
midterm and annual goals, execution and feedback phase), engage-
ment of employees (execution and feedback phase), quality systems
management (execution and feedback phase), control and optimiza-
tion, process assessment and data validity (feedback phase), learning
organization (feedback phase).
5 | DISCUSSION
5.1 | Theoretical contributions
The proposed framework addresses how operational excellence and
sustainability can be combined and applied through HoK. The frame-
work is based on an operations management and strategy deployment
framework (HoK) which has been extended with sustainability princi-
ples (FSSD) and includes operational excellence enablers as well as
applies a backcasting approach. This framework includes process
steps combining strategic planning (A-D) (based on the FSSD by Bro-
man & Robèrt, 2017) with operationalization (E-G) of strategic goals
(based on the hoshin planning process, for example, GOAL/QPC
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
Research Committee, 1994), linking existing frameworks of strategy
deployment and corporate sustainability with operational excellence.
The framework supports the integration of operational excellence
insofar as it integrates operational excellence tools and enablers.
Models for operational excellence and corporate sustainability exist,
however, a combinations of both as well as translating long-term sus-
tainability goals and corporate sustainability strategy into operations
have proven difficult for companies to conduct (Hristov et al., 2022).
Here, beginning from a long-term sustainability vision and strategy
formulation according to the FSSD and its sustainability principles,
HoK planning process including key HoK methods (catch ball, PCDA)
act as a support of the actual implementation of long-term strategic
goals. When considering operational excellence enablers, these not
only support successful implementation of operational excellence sys-
tems (Carvalho et al., 2021), but can also foster corporate sustainabil-
ity (Wijethilake et al., 2018) and are often associated with HoK
(Löfving et al., 2021; Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023; Wijethilake
et al., 2018). Here, to name a few, are, commitment of leadership and
management, engagement of employees, learning organization (con-
tinuous improvement), workforce needs and expectations, value
chain, product and market development, quality systems management,
control and optimization, process assessment and data validity, orga-
nizational communication, strategy alignment, development, planning,
and deployment (Carvalho et al., 2021).
5.1.1 | Implementation factors for operational
excellence and sustainability
Main reasons that management systems such as TQM, Lean, Six
Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma sometimes fail to be implemented are,
among others, the resistance to change, unfitting organizational cul-
ture, poor alignment of strategy, poor leadership and lack of top man-
agement support, lack of proper communication, lack of employee
engagement (at all levels) (Antony et al., 2022). HoK and tools thereof
(such as the PCDA and X-Matrix), as operational excellence and Lean
tools, can contribute to an effective alignment of goals and resources
within an organization. Hereby, specific methods related to HoK are
beneficial, especially the catch ball process, communication, and docu-
mentation tools (e.g., X-Matrix, A3 report), and Deming's PCDA
approach (Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023). The PDCA approach is
included in widespread operational excellence models, such EFQM
(Jaeger & Matyas, 2016), and MBNQA (Bou-Llusar et al., 2009); how-
ever, these complex management systems oftentimes do merely pro-
vide indications for their successful implementation. What other
strategic management tools, such as the SBSC, lack of, the proposed
framework may provide, which is a holistic integration of sustainability
within strategic planning, by including a principle-based definition of
sustainability, boundary conditions for backcasting planning and rede-
sign for sustainability, as well as providing the alignment and deploy-
ment of the long-term sustainability strategy throughout the whole
organization by breaking the long-term sustainability vision down into
mid- to short-term goals, measures, and responsibilities. However, an

12
organization's culture as well as leadership maintain a focal role within
the success and failure of corporate sustainability (Wijethilake
et al., 2023), operational excellence (Carvalho et al., 2019) and HoK
implementation (Nicholas, 2016).
5.1.2 | RBV and dynamic capabilities view
Within the RBV, by aligning an organization's employee motivation,
knowledge with the firm's processes and by developing DCs, a com-
pany enhances its competitive advantage (Teece, 2007). Expanding on
the RBV, DCs are the ability of the company to develop or modify its
resources as a response to a changing environment (Eriksson, 2014).
The proposed framework contributes to the RBV as well as DC as it
supports the alignment of an organization's resources and, combined
with operational excellence enablers, the development of necessary
dynamic capabilities. This in turn helps achieve long-term sustainabil-
ity goals while at the same time being able to respond and adapt to
changes in the business environment and to carry out day-to-day
operations. Combining sustainability principles and strategy develop-
ment through the FSSD as well as developing core competencies in
effectively aligning and deploying these strategies through HoK, leads
to organizational learning and achievement of long-term strategies
necessary for implementing corporate sustainability. In the proposed
framework, HoK is applied as a higher order dynamic capability
(Witcher et al., 2008) to develop core competences in a company's
sustainability and operational excellence. The proposed framework
supports the development of dynamic capabilities, as it enhances the
ability of companies to effectively integrate, build and reconfigure
their competences (Teece, 2007, 2014).
5.2 | Practical implications and recommendations
The framework may assist companies in achieving their sustainability
goals (e.g., climate neutrality by 2050) by offering a process for defin-
ing and deploying long-term sustainability goals. It is applicable for
companies that have already set long-term sustainability goals or are
in the process of (re-)defining their vision to include sustainability. The
framework should be applicable to any size of company. The smaller
the company, the less complex the deployment process; however, the
factors affecting the implementation process may differ, especially in
their importance (Löfving et al., 2021). In order to apply the frame-
work, especially initiation by top management and top management
commitment, employee engagement, and communication with inter-
nal and external stakeholders is necessary; aspects companies not
only need for successful deployment, but which are also necessary for
the implementation of TQM, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, operational excel-
lence, and corporate sustainability (Antony et al., 2022). The frame-
work may support enhancing organizational learning and agility,
important factors when dealing with sustainability issues but also with
any changes in business environment, as it puts structures in place
where continuous improvement and adaptability are at the core
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
(Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023). It provides a clear link between
long-term, mid- to short-term objectives, and responsibilities can be
made clearly visible within the company both in between departments
(horizontal) as well as on all levels of the company (vertical)
(Kudernatsch, 2019). Key processes in the framework, namely catch-
ball and PDCA, work together to foster an integrated approach
towards continuous improvement that strengthens managers' and
employees' involvement and participation in all levels of a company
(Santhiapillai & Ratnayake, 2023). The framework supports a culture
for continuous improvement and for tackling wicked and complex
problems (such as climate change); a relevant aspect, as in multiple
instances culture has been identified as one of the success factors
that foster or hinder transitions towards sustainability (Wijethilake
et al., 2023). One of the most beneficial aspects about the framework
is, that it illustrates the process and importance of alignment (goals,
measures, tools between all departments and on all levels) and inte-
grates enablers that support corporate sustainability and operational
excellence implementation; another is its contribution to change man-
agement towards sustainability. To see the benefits of the framework
over time, certain aspects and their development need to be mea-
sured. These include process efficiency, return on investment, product
quality and safety, employee engagement, customer satisfaction, and
further social and explicit environmental KPIs. To make the long-term
sustainability goals measurable, information on possible KPIs for mea-
suring sustainability is necessary as well as an initial assessment of
where the company stands in terms of sustainability in order to iden-
tify future developments. As such, these are not provided with the
framework, as it provides an overview of the process on how to break
down long-, to mid-, to short-term objectives. Dependent on industry
and company-context, the KPIs involved should refer to the environ-
mental (e.g., energy use, greenhouse gas emissions), social
(e.g., employee turnover rate, number of training hours), and economic
dimension (e.g., return of investment) (Hristov et al., 2022). It is, how-
ever, not necessary to link merely one KPI to one measure, but it is
possible to link more than one KPI to a measure, task or project, or
the other way around. For clarification on this process, the example of
a long-term goal of “reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” is
provided. With a breakthrough goal (3–5 years) “reduce emissions by
30%” and annual goal “reduction of GHG emissions by 8%–10%”,
possible measures include “improve efficiency in production” and
“increase energy from renewables”. Hence, KPIs linked to these mea-
sures could include “GHG emissions in t CO2-equivalent”, “energy
consumption in KWh”, and “energy consumption from renewables
in KWh”.
5.3 | Research opportunities and limitations of
the study
The present study serves as a theoretical foundation for further
research. For validation purposes, empirical data should be collected
from practitioners and experts in the field of operations management.
Another research opportunity arises by applying the framework to a

ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
case study. These will help to discover further insights, limitations,
and help to develop the framework further. In this context, it would
be of interest to analyze the influencing factors for implementation,
such as the level of maturity and size of a company, the organizational
structure and culture, pre-existing lean production or other manage-
ment systems as well as tools for strategic planning and implementa-
tion. The study also has its limitations. Since it is, to the authors'
knowledge, the first explorative literature review combining sustain-
ability, operational excellence, and strategy deployment (HoK), further
empirical studies are needed to identify challenges and benefits in
applying HoK for corporate sustainability. Another limitation is the
strong focus on HoK, as it is not as well known in western countries
as in Japan; as a result, it may be difficult to implement due to cultural
differences. However, as stated within the study, examples of compa-
nies exist that prove otherwise and which have integrated and rear-
ranged HoK to fit the companies own organizational culture, for
example, Toyota, Hewlett-Packard, Nissan, Xerox, Texas instruments,
Tyco, IBM, Porter and Gamble and AT&T (Evans & Lindsay, 2005;
Feurer et al., 1995; Kudernatsch, 2019; Witcher, 2013; Witcher &
Butterworth, 1999, 2000). The sustainability framework used, the
FSSD, may also show potential for improvement; however, it provides
a holistic yet practical framework that has proven to be useful in a
myriad of cases and has been developed throughout decades of prac-
tical experience and research efforts (Broman & Robèrt, 2017).
6 | C O N CL U S I O N
More and more companies aim to achieve operational excellence and
sustainability; however, their long-term goals often do not match their
actions or operations. Many companies have difficulties breaking
down their corporate sustainability strategy and long-term targets into
achievable deliverables. Classic strategic management tools, such as
the Balanced Scorecard, have been adapted to integrate sustainability
into their strategic management (e.g., the SBSC). However, these have
not been very effective as of yet, and other strategic or operations
management tools have not been researched much thus far in terms
of their sustainability potential. One of these management tools, HoK
or strategy deployment (as it is often translated from Japanese),
shows potential in linking sustainability strategic long-term goals to
operations and is frequently used in practice in connection with
operational excellence and aspects thereof. This research aims to
overcome the gap between corporate sustainability strategy and its
implementation. The results obtained should be able to give insights
about sustainable operational excellence, relationship between opera-
tional excellence, HoK and sustainability and fill gaps in literature,
especially concerning frameworks for sustainable operational excel-
lence. The framework provided supports overcoming the gap between
long-term vision and action through strategy deployment by combin-
ing frameworks and principles related to operational excellence and
sustainability. With this research, contributions have been made
towards the identification of possible links between operational excel-
lence and sustainability, as well as challenges and benefits for
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
13
implementing HoK. As a strategy deployment framework, HoK is
promising and has already shown many positive results when properly
implemented. Within management theory, this research contributes
to the research-based view and dynamic capabilities. Internal mecha-
nisms can be used to develop dynamic capabilities (Sarkis et al., 2011).
As HoK can be viewed as one of these internal mechanisms, which
contributes to organizational learning, we argue it is a method to
effectively use a company's own resources and tacit knowledge. In
combination with the FSSD, it may support organizations towards
achieving long-term sustainability. However, the present study serves
as a theoretical foundation for further research processes. For valida-
tion purposes, further steps will include collecting empirical data from
practitioners and experts in the field of operations management.
Another research opportunity arises by applying the framework to a
specific case.
This study's main contribution is a framework that especially
focuses on goal alignment, continuous improvement, and employee
engagement, combining vertical and horizontal integration: aspects
that are critical in achieving corporate sustainability and long-term
goals. With this framework, companies may find a means to achieve
corporate sustainability throughout their whole organization. Like
every introduction of a new management system, tool, or philosophy,
it needs time, a motivated top management, effective internal com-
munication, and engaged employees – time and efforts well spent,
with respect to the effects it would have on accomplishing corporate
sustainability. In light of Agenda 2030 and the UN SDGs, frameworks
like this support companies in achieving these long-term goals and in
contributing to sustainable development.
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
The financial support provided by the Austrian Federal Ministry for
Digital and Economic Affairs, the National Foundation for Research,
Technology, and Development, the Christian Doppler Research Asso-
ciation, and the University of Graz is gratefully acknowledged.
OR CID
Katharina E. Roche https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3567-2709
Rupert J. Baumgartner https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0956-7997
RE FE RE NCE S
Akao, Y. (2005). Hoshin Kanri: Policy deployment for successful TQM (1st
ed.). Productivity Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367554255
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and
are they a useful construct in strategic management? International
Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00251.x
Antony, J., Sony, M., McDermott, O., Swarnakar, V., Galli, B.,
Doulatabadi, M., & Kaul, R. (2022). An empirical study into the reasons
for failure of sustaining operational excellence initiatives in organiza-
tions. The TQM Journal, 35(7), 1569–1587. https://doi.org/10.1108/
TQM-05-2022-0176
Barnabè, F., & Giorgino, M. C. (2017). Practicing lean strategy: Hoshin
Kanri and X-matrix in a healthcare-centered simulation. The TQM Jour-
nal, 29, 590–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-07-2016-0057
Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A
conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments

14
contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity and Environmental Management, 21(5), 258–271. https://doi.org/
10.1002/csr.1336
Bhandari, D., Singh, R. K., & Garg, S. K. (2019). Prioritisation and evaluation
of barriers intensity for implementation of cleaner technologies:
Framework for sustainable production. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 146, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.
02.038
Bottani, E. (2010). Profile and enablers of agile companies: An empirical
investigation. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2),
251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.02.016
Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martín, I.
(2009). An empirical assessment of the EFQM excellence model: Eval-
uation as a TQM framework relative to the MBNQA model. Journal of
Operations Management, 27(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.
2008.04.001
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. Quali-
tative Report, 19(33), 1–9. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/
tqr/vol19/iss33/3
Breuer, H., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Brick, C. (2018). Business model innova-
tion in the era of sustainable development goals. In ISPIM conference
proceedings (pp. 1–27). The International Society for Professional Inno-
vation Management (ISPIM).
Broman, G. I., & Robèrt, K. H. (2017). A framework for strategic sustainable
development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 17–31. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121
Brookbanks, M., Gandy, T., & Pourquery, P. (2002). Operational resilience:
The art of risk management. Global Professional Publishi.
Carvalho, A. M., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch, E., Carvalho, J. Á., &
Saraiva, P. (2019). Operational excellence, organisational culture
and agility: The missing link? Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, 30(13–14), 1495–1514. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14783363.2017.1374833
Carvalho, A. M., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch, E., Carvalho, J. Á., & Saraiva, P.
(2021). The influence of operational excellence on the culture and agil-
ity of organizations: Evidence from industry. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 38, 1520–1549. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJQRM-07-2020-0248
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., & Benhida, K. (2016). The
integration of lean manufacturing, six sigma and sustainability: A litera-
ture review and future research directions for developing a specific
model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 828–846. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101
Chiarini, A. (2013). Relationships between total quality management and
six sigma inside European manufacturing companies: A dedicated sur-
vey. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management,
11(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2013.052023
Chiarini, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility strategies using the
TQM: Hoshin kanri as an alternative system to the balanced scorecard.
The TQM Journal, 28(3), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-03-
2014-0035
Ciannella, S., & Santos, L. C. (2021). Exploring the influence of lean
manufacturing practices on employee social sustainability. Social
Responsibility Journal, 18, 1677–1691. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-
06-2021-0229
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of
organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
Dale, B. G. (1990). Policy Deployment. The TQM Magazine, 2(6). https://
doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000003052
da Silveira, W. G., de Lima, E. P., Deschamps, F., & Gouvea da Costa, S. E.
(2018). Identification of guidelines for Hoshin Kanri initiatives. Interna-
tional Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(1), 85–
110. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2016-0071
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
da Silveira, W. G., de Lima, E. P., Gouvea da Costa, S. E., & Deschamps, F.
(2017). Guidelines for Hoshin Kanri implementation: Development and
discussion. Production Planning and Control, 28, 843–859. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1325020
Dočekalová, M. P., & Kocmanová, A. (2016). Composite indicator for mea-
suring corporate sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 61, 612–623.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.012
Drake, D. F., & Spinler, S. (2013). Sustainable operations management: An
enduring stream or a passing fancy? Manufacturing and Service Opera-
tions Management, 15(4), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.
2013.0456
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate
sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable busi-
ness: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business
sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29, 156–174. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1086026615575176
Eriksson, T. (2014). Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic
capabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1), 65–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.05.001
Evans, J. R., & Lindsay, W. M. (2005). The management and control of
quality (6th ed.). South-Western, Thomson Corporation.
Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K., & Wargin, J. (1995). Analysis of strategy
formulation and implementation at Hewlett Packard. Management
Decision, 33(10), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251749510100203
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability
balanced scorecard – linking sustainability management to business
strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.339
Found, P., Lahy, A., Williams, S., Hu, Q., & Mason, R. (2018). Towards a
theory of operational excellence. Total Quality Management and Busi-
ness Excellence, 29(9–10), 1012–1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14783363.2018.1486544
Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R. d. C. S. R., & Lima, F. G. (2016). Corporate
sustainability management: A proposed multi-criteria model to support
balanced decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136,
181–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.110
Ghadimi, P., Wang, C., & Lim, M. K. (2019). Sustainable supply chain
modeling and analysis: Past debate, present problems and future
challenges. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 72–84. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.005
GOAL/QPC Research Committee. (1994). Hoshin planning: A planning
system for implementing total quality management. In H. I. Costin
(Ed.), Readings in Total quality management. The Dryden Press.
Gunasekaran, A., & Subramanian, N. (2018). Sustainable operations
modeling and data analytics. Computers and Operations Research, 89,
163–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.09.009
Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2018). Why architecture does not matter: On the
fallacy of sustainability balanced scorecards. Journal of Business Ethics,
150, 919–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3135-5
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate
sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business
Ethics, 127(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-
2047-5
Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or Perish. available from https://harzing.
com/resources/publish-or-perish
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., & Mallett, S. (2005). Grey literature and system-
atic reviews. In Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment
and adjustments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/
0470870168.ch4
Hristov, I., Appolloni, A., & Chirico, A. (2022). The adoption of the key
performance indicators to integrate sustainability in the business
strategy: A novel five-dimensional framework. Business Strategy and

ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
the Environment, 31(7), 3216–3230. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.
3072
Jackson, T. L. (2006). Hoshin Kanri for the lean enterprise: Developing com-
petitive capabilities and managing profit. CRC Press.
Jaeger, A., & Matyas, K. (2016). Transformation of the EFQM approach
from business towards operations excellence. Production Engineering,
10(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-016-0665-8
Jolayemi, J. K. (2008). Hoshin kanri and hoshin process: A review and liter-
ature survey. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 19,
295–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360701601868
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures
that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
Karaszewski, R. (2010). Leadership in global business environment through
a vision creation process. The TQM Journal, 22(4), 399–409. https://
doi.org/10.1108/17542731011053325
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable
operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14,
482–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00235.x
Kondo, Y. (1998). Hoshin kanri-a participative way of quality management
in Japan. The TQM Magazine, 10, 425–431.
Kudernatsch, D. (2019). Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment durch agile Strate-
gieumsetzung. Schäffer-Poeschel.
Lee, R. G., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Policy deployment: an examination of the
theory. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(5),
520–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656719810203659
Liker, J. K. (2021). Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's
greatest manufacturer (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Lizarelli, F. L., Chakraborty, A., Antony, J., Jayaraman, R., Carneiro, M. B., &
Furterer, S. (2023). Lean and its impact on sustainability performance
in service companies: Results from a pilot study. The TQM Journal,
35(3), 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-03-2022-0094
Löfving, M., Melander, A., Elgh, F., & Andersson, D. (2021). Implementing
Hoshin Kanri in small manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufactur-
ing Technology Management, 32(9), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JMTM-08-2020-0313
Mangla, S. K., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Luthra, S., Bai, C., Jakhar, S. K., &
Khan, S. A. (2020). Operational excellence for improving sustainable
supply chain performance. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162,
105025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105025
Mathiyakalan, S., Ashrafi, N., Zhang, W., Waage, F., Kuilboer, J. P., &
Heimann, D. (2005). Defining business agility: An exploratory study.
Proceedings of the 16th Information Resources Management Conference
(pp. 15–18). Idea Group Publishing.
McLean, R. S., Antony, J., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2017). Failure of continuous
improvement initiatives in manufacturing environments: A systematic
review of the evidence. Total Quality Management & Business Excel-
lence, 28(3–4), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.
1063414
Melander, A., Andersson, D., Elgh, F., Fjellstedt, F., & Löfving, M. (2021).
Implementing Hoshin Kanri: How to manage strategy through policy
deployment and continuous improvement. Productivity Press. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781003194811
Miller, C. R., & Sarder, M. D. (2012). Public works policy implications of
sustainable reverse logistics operations. Public Works Management &
Policy, 17(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X11429044
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W. L., & Ueltschy, M. (2010). Green, lean,
and global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 40(1–2), 14–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09600031011018028
Morsing, M., & Oswald, D. (2009). Sustainable leadership: Management
control systems and organizational culture in Novo Nordisk A/S.
Corporate Governance, 9(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14720700910936083
Nave, A., & Ferreira, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility strategies:
Past research and future challenges. Corporate Social Responsibility and
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
Environmental Management, 26(4), 885–901. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1729
Nicholas, J. (2016). Hoshin kanri and critical success factors in quality man-
agement and lean production. Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, 27(3–4), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.
2014.976938
Nunhes, T. V., Barbosa, L. C. F. M., & de Oliveira, O. J. (2017). Identifica-
tion and analysis of the elements and functions integrable in inte-
grated management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142,
3225–3235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.147
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart compa-
nies turn knowledge into action. Harvard business press.
Piercy, N., & Rich, N. (2015). The relationship between lean operations
and sustainable operations. International Journal of Operations and Pro-
duction Management, 35(2), 282–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-03-2014-0143
Prasad, M. M., & Sutharsan, S. M. (2012). Integrated of lean principles with
sustainable manufacturing. International journal of lean. Thinking, 3(1),
102–106. Retrieved from https://vpn.deusto.es/img/files/DanaInfo=
thinkinglean.com+PAPER_8(2).pdf
Ren, J., Yusuf, Y. Y., & Burns, N. D. (2003). The effects of agile attributes
on competitive priorities: A neural network approach. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, 14(6), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09576060310491351
Robèrt, K. H. (2009). Real change through backcasting from sustainability
principles: Presentation of an international research programme built
on a unifying framework for strategic sustainable development (FSSD).
Progress in Industrial Ecology An International Journal, 6(3), 207–215.
https://doi.org/10.1504/PIE.2009.031069
Robèrt, K. H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., De Larderel, J. A., Basile, G., Jansen, J. L.,
Kuehr, R., Thomas, P. P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P., & Wackernagel, M.
(2002). Strategic sustainable development—Selection, design and syn-
ergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), 197–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00061-0
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F. K., & Maxwell, J. (2001). Lean, green, and the quest
for superior environmental performance. Production and Operations
Management, 10(3), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.
2001.tb00372.x
Santhiapillai, F. P., & Ratnayake, R. C. (2023). Lean thinking and strategy
deployment: Adapting Hoshin Kanri and A3-based project prioritiza-
tion in police services. The TQM Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/
TQM-05-2022-0177
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of
green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics, 130(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.
11.010
Sawhney, R., Treviño-Martinez, S., de Anda, E. M., Tortorella, G. L., &
Pourkhalili, O. (2020). A conceptual people-centric framework for sus-
tainable operational excellence. Open Journal of Business and Manage-
ment, 8(3), 1034–1058. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2020.83066
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models
for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806
Sheridan, J. H. (2000). ‘Lean Sigma’ Synergy, 249(17), 81–82.
Shingo Institute. (2014). Shingo institute – Shingo model. Shingo
Institute – Utah University Retrieved from: https://shingo.org/model
Snee, R. D. (2010). Lean six sigma–getting better all the time. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/
20401461011033130
Soni, G., & Kodali, R. (2013). A critical review of supply chain management
frameworks: Proposed framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
20(2), 263–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771311307713
Sony, M. (2019). Implementing sustainable operational excellence in organi-
zations: An integrative viewpoint. Production and Manufacturing Research,
7(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2019.1581674

16
Souza, J. P. E., & Alves, J. M. (2018). Lean-integrated management system:
A model for sustainability improvement. Journal of Cleaner Production,
172, 2667–2682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.144
Sreedharan, V. R., Sunder, M. V., & Raju, R. (2018). Critical success factors
of TQM, six sigma, lean and lean six sigma: A literature review and key
findings. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(9), 3479–3504.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2017-0223
Sutton, D. (2011). Back to basics: A practitioner's guide to operations
excellence. Operations Excellence LLC.
Swarnakar, V., Bagherian, A., & Singh, A. R. (2021). Modeling critical suc-
cess factors for sustainable LSS implementation in hospitals: An empir-
ical study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 39,
1249–1280. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-04-2021-0099
Swarnakar, V., & Vinodh, S. (2016). Deploying lean six sigma framework in
an automotive component manufacturing organization. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 7(3), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLSS-06-2015-0023
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-
foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic
and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amp.2013.0116
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::aid-smj882>3.0.co;2-z
Tennant, C., & Roberts, P. (2001). Hoshin Kanri: Implementing the catch-
ball process. Long Range Planning, 34(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0024-6301(01)00039-5
Thürer, M., Maschek, T., Fredendall, L., Gianiodis, P., Stevenson, M., &
Deuse, J. (2019). On the integration of manufacturing strategy:
Deconstructing Hoshin Kanri. Management Research Review, 42(3),
412–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2018-0178
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer intimacy and other value dis-
ciplines. Harvard Business Review, 71(1), 84–93.
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1995). The discipline of market leaders: Choose
your customers, narrow your focus, dominate your market. Perseus
Books.
Upward, A., & Jones, P. (2016). An ontology for strongly sustainable busi-
ness models: Defining an enterprise framework compatible with natu-
ral and social science. Organization & Environment, 29, 97–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615592933
Villalba-Diez, J. (2017). The Hoshin Kanri Forest: Lean strategic organiza-
tional design (1st ed.). Productivity Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/
9781315155814
Vinodh, S., & Swarnakar, V. (2015). Lean six sigma project selection using
hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS. Interna-
tional Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 6(4), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJLSS-12-2014-0041
Vrontis, D., & Christofi, M. (2019). R&D internationalization and innova-
tion: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research
View publication stats
15353966, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.2683 by CochraneAustria, Wiley Online Library on [11/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ROCHE and BAUMGARTNER
directions. Journal of Business Research, 128, 812–823. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.031
Walker, H., Seuring, S., Sarkis, J., & Klassen, R. (2014). Sustainable opera-
tions management: Recent trends and future directions. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(5). https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJOPM-12-2013-0557
Wced, S. W. S. (1987). World commission on environment and
development – Our Common Future. Sustainable Development Knowl-
edge Platform, 17(1), 1–91.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the
future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319
Wijethilake, C., Munir, R., & Appuhami, R. (2018). Environmental innova-
tion strategy and organizational performance: Enabling and controlling
uses of management control systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 151,
1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3259-7
Wijethilake, C., Upadhaya, B., & Lama, T. (2023). The role of organisa-
tional culture in organisational change towards sustainability: Evi-
dence from the garment manufacturing industry. Production
Planning & Control, 34(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2021.1913524
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 24(10), 991–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318
Witcher, B. (2013). Hoshin Kanri through the eyes of English language
texts. Journal of Business Studies, 53(3), 72–90.
Witcher, B., & Butterworth, R. (1999). Hoshin Kanri: How Xerox manages.
Long Range Planning, 32(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-
6301(99)00036-9
Witcher, B., & Butterworth, R. (2000). Hoshin Kanri at Hewlett-Packard.
Journal of General Management, 25(4), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.
1177/030630700002500405
Witcher, B. J., & Chau, V. S. (2007). Balanced scorecard and hoshin kanri:
Dynamic capabilities for managing strategic fit. Management Decision,
45(3), 518–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710745115
Witcher, B. J., Sum Chau, V., & Harding, P. (2008). Dynamic capabilities:
Top executive audits and hoshin kanri at Nissan South Africa. Interna-
tional Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28(6), 540–561.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810875359
Zhang, Q., Irfan, M., Khattak, M. A. O., Abbas, J., Zhu, X., & Shah, M. S.
(2012). Critical success factors for successful lean six sigma implementa-
tion in Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary, 4(1), 117–124.
How to cite this article: Roche, K. E., & Baumgartner, R. J.
(2023). Development of a strategy deployment framework
combining corporate sustainability and operational excellence.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2683