Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT) theoretical

Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00512-3
Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT): theoretical

and conceptual model proposition of a composite framework
Cagatay Tasdemir1 · Rado Gazo1 · Henry J. Quesada2
Received: 7 December 2018 / Accepted: 4 November 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019
Abstract
Sustainable development and sustainability notions are among trending topics of twenty-
first century. Elevated sustainability concerns of various stakeholders have been forcing
members of all industries to evolve into their more environmentally and socially responsi-
ble versions. However, a complete framework with a true sustainability and benchmarking
focus is yet to be delivered. Within this study, an innovative, holistic, versatile and scalable
tool was developed to assess and benchmark sustainability performance of organizations
and supply chains. The proposed framework was established upon trivet structure of triple
bottom line philosophy and fueled by lean, Six Sigma and life cycle analysis methodolo-
gies for accurate and effective measurement of sustainability performance. Completeness
of the framework was ensured through development of first-generation key performance
indicator pool with 33 indicators, a unique work environment assessment mechanism for
safety and environmental protection issues in terms of 11 risk categories and by construc-
tion of an ownership structure for ease of framework deployment. Proposed framework
is expected to help with true sustainability performance improvement and benchmarking
objectives at a range of business levels from facility to sectoral operations. Both small- and
medium-sized enterprises and large corporations could benefit from SBT Framework since
it eliminates unit-based comparisons within its standardized performance measurement
modules. Industries with lower profit margins could also gain competitive edge through
continuous discovery of improvement opportunities. Furthermore, some manufacturing
industries with unique characteristics such as wood products industries with their carbon
sequestration potential and electric car manufacturers with their renewable energy-depend-
ent final products could document their strengths more effectively through this science-
based assessment mechanism.
Keywords Triple bottom line · Lean management · Sustainability · Six Sigma · Sustainable
development · Composite framework
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s1066

8-019-00512-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Cagatay Tasdemir
ctasdemi@purdue.edu
1
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
2
Department of Sustainable Biomaterials, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
C. Tasdemir et al.
1 Introduction
The old planet, Earth, has always been so generous to all its occupants for countless gen-
erations since the very first traces of life. Human population on earth has been rapidly
increasing and expected to continue to increase at global level despite slowing growth due
to decreasing fertility rates (United Nations 2017). However, existing natural resources
don’t have unlimited capacities and reserves to keep up with ongoing and increasing con-
sumption rates of human population (Bell et al. 2012; Dyllick et al. 2002; Elkington 1994).
On the other hand, global macrotrends such as increased level of globalization, climate
change, resource scarcity, tighter profit margins and fiercer competition in all industries,
laws and regulations, and increased awareness among people of importance of sustainabil-
ity force companies to alter and re-calibrate their competitive strategies to do more with
less, to comply with laws and regulations as well as to meet expectations of all stakehold-
ers (Authry et al. 2012; Stank et al. 2013). Moreover, level of competition has shifted from
“clash of companies” to “clash of supply chains” (Myerson 2012). Such an action plan that
ensures survival in the long run requires increased level of collaboration and communica-
tion among business partners.
Sustainability has been named among the strongest frontiers of sixth innovation wave
along with Renewable Energy Systems, Green Nanotechnology and few others (Seebode
et al. 2012). Some researchers also claimed that Sustainable Manufacturing is the latest
form of manufacturing strategies evolution and should be driven by true life cycle (6Rs)
approach to achieve a closed-loop flow (Faulkner and Badurdeen 2014). It was also pointed
out as the key for survival of future generations (WCED 1987). However, without invest-
ing in sustainability of remaining resources or revitalizing the consumed values, it does not
seem feasible to ensure ability of future generations to survive. Sustainability efforts have
failed to truly yield desired outcomes up until today. Therefore, further collective action
plans should be developed in a timely manner and ways to achieve “true sustainability”
should be intensively sought after. Global trends usually cause birth of innovations, and
innovations drive the evolution of industries. If all industries are going to work toward an
aligned ultimate objective, highest possible level collaboration and communication should
be achieved firstly at intra- and inter-organizational levels and then at inter-sectoral lev-
els as explained in a previous study within an Ultimate Objective Concept (Tasdemir and
Gazo 2018). Increased levels of transparency and communication among business part-
ners were also shown among future trends in supply chain management (Sweeney 2013).
Therefore, top executives of sectoral leaders should demonstrate extreme devotion that will
infuse from top levels to shop floor level employees and will trigger bottom-up transpar-
ency and strategic alignment of entire workforce. Only such a transformation and dedica-
tion could help with this massive scale strategic partnership.
This study builds upon a previous work that evaluated current state-of-the-art for lean-
driven sustainability (Tasdemir and Gazo 2018). Findings of this previous research have
included but are not limited to; (1) lean could be used as a foundation for sustainability
benchmarking frameworks. (2) Synergies between lean and sustainability outweigh the
divergences. (3) There is still lack of frameworks and models with sufficient effectiveness
to measure and benchmark true sustainability performance. Moreover, integrated and com-
posite frameworks were pointed out among the options with high potential for effective
measurement, improvement and benchmarking of sustainable performance across many
sectors by many researchers (Brewer and Pojasek 2012; Rebelo et al. 2016; Wang et al.
2013). Some researchers also emphasize that reverse logistics, closed-loop supply chains
13
Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT): theoretical and…
and waste management practices need special attention for enhanced environmental sus-
tainability (Singh and Trivedi 2016).
Based on these findings, the objectives of this study are (1) development and propo-
sition of a versatile and innovative composite framework with capabilities of measuring
and benchmarking true sustainability performance of organizations and supply chains in
various sectors, (2) creation of first-generation key performance indicator (KPI) pools for
accurate assessment of environmental, economic and social sustainability performance,
(3) defining a deployment strategy and ownership model for the proposed framework and
(4) pointing out the future research direction on the path to validation of the proposed
framework.
1.1 Significance and novelty of the study
Transparency from the perspective of TBL has started to become a mandatory practice
rather than a voluntary disclosure mechanism (Berger-Walliser and Scott 2018; McCarty
et al. 2011). Therefore, organizations should make sure that sustainability is part of their
corporate strategy and its principles are aligned with organization’s vision, mission and
culture (Pojasek 2012a). Corporate organizations should consider whether their business
activities must conform to existing or future regulations and to assess the risk of non-
compliance. This involves proper evaluation of direct and indirect impact of domestic and
international regulations and laws on organizations’ own operations as well as their busi-
ness partners. Nowadays, such risk factor is often too high for corporate firms of sectors
such as manufacturing, transportation and energy (McCarty et al. 2011). This risk factor
itself could be a sufficient reason to measure and improve sustainability performance.
To further emphasize significance of the study, one important question to ask is “What
happens if Sustainability is Ignored?” Steve Howard, Chief Sustainability Officer at IKEA
Group, highlights potential catastrophic outcomes of such ignorance by discussing some
global facts based on three numbers, 3, 6 and 12.
The first number 3 stands for three billion people coming out of poverty and joining
to global middle-class by 2030. It is striking when the current number of people who
belongs to global middle-class (2 billion) is considered. Second number is 6, which
is the estimated Celsius Degree increase in the level of global warming by the end
of this decade. The last number, 12, is the number of cities with one million or more
people by end of nineteenth century. Today, the world has approximately 500 cities
that exceeded threshold of one million. This growth and consumption rate created a
challenge which is called resources scarcity (TEDGlobal 2013).
What Steve Howard said is a strong statement that highlights significance of climate
change, increasing population and resource scarcity issues. Responsible, effective and
efficient use of available resources can be a solution to foreseen catastrophic outcomes.
Investing in renewable energy resources, promoting recycling activities and avoiding
waste generation can help with achieving socially and environmentally responsible activi-
ties. Furthermore, several reporting mechanisms and indices were developed by various
independent and government organizations in the last two decades (Svensson et al. 2016).
Some of these indices have been serving as mandatory reporting mechanisms as part of
regulations in place, while others have been designed for voluntary reporting purposes
(Vimal et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2013). However, almost all of them were limited to com-
puting and reporting economic, environmental and social impacts of operations and failed
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
to offer benchmarking perspective, which incapsulated these frameworks into their self-
created hard-shells that avoid enriched proposition of sustainability improvement ideas. As
Ebert and Welsch stated in their study, measurability and comparability are two common
characteristics of meaningful indices for environmental performance reporting, and most
of the current indices are not satisfactorily meaningful (Ebert and Welsch 2004). Moreover,
Dahl (2012) acknowledged, in his study, both urgency of tackling sustainability concerns
and potential of values-based indicators to guide sustainability efforts of all stakeholders at
the individual, national and global levels. Today, people of the Earth should act collectively
to take proactive and innovative steps to avoid catastrophic outcomes of our actions that
will impair well-being of future generations (Closs et al. 2011).
On the other hand, academics have focused on development of frameworks and models
in the past (Ansari and Kant 2017). However, many of them highlighted environmental
aspects of sustainability and, somehow ignored its trivet structure (Klewitz and Hansen
2014) and failed to address at least one pillar of triple bottom line (TBL) (see Fig. 1) dur-
ing their effort to generate sustainability solutions. Any sort of misbalance in the cogni-
tive importance placed on each pillar of sustainability would cause it to totally fall apart
(Gopalakrishnan et al. 2012; Wang and Dai 2017). Ness et al. (2007) evaluated available
tools for sustainability assessment from a wide perspective in detail and highlighted that
a limited number of tools are capable of integrating nature-society facets and there still
is a heavy bias toward environmental parameters which ignores other two pillars of TBL.
The authors also stated that lack of successful integration when more than one tools are
co-deployed to achieve desired assessment objectives (Ness et al. 2007). Some of the stud-
ies lacked a complete design, either from perspective of TBL or macro-to-micro business
structure, for target processes or sectors. Without a holistic approach, sustainability is noth-
ing more than a delusion in a desert. As Ness et al. (2007) stated, if scientific commu-
nity is to redefine sustainability assessment, three factors, namely integration of nature-
society systems, scalability and temporal aspects, should be considered (Ness et al. 2007).
Fig. 1 Triple bottom line philosophy and inter-relationship of sustainability pillars
13
The originality of the study lies within its extensive, comprehensive and holistic design.
Almost all of the previously proposed lean-based sustainability measurement tools have
either failed to offer a solution to benchmark sustainable performance or lacked at least
one of scalability, versatility and flexibility features that are critical to ensure applicability
of frameworks to various levels of operations within a supply chain (Tasdemir and Gazo
2018). Some of them addressed issues at the supply chain level, while others focused on
the applicability of methods to operations. With utmost acknowledgement of contributions
presented in previous studies, this study tries to build on existing knowledge and to pay
special attention to filling the gaps left by previous attempts to contribute to the body of
knowledge in the intersection zone of Operations Management and Sustainable Develop-
ment disciplines.
Another novel feature of this study is its strong practical perspective accompanying its
comprehensive theoretical and methodical development phase. Sustainability could be per-
ceived as a complex and difficult concept by executives of organizations (Pojasek 2012b).
This situation could worsen when developed sustainability frameworks are full of scientific
terms and notions. Proposed user interface, KPI definition and formulas and deployment
methodology of the proposed framework were designed to carry feature of “Convenience”
to ensure meaningfulness and practicality for all parties interested in true sustainability.
Despite existence of previous research studies, discovered portion of truly sustainable
operations is still limited when compared to the whole. Authors of some past studies agreed
upon beneficial impacts of simultaneous implementation of lean and sustainability on TBL
pillars (Hajmohammad et al. 2013; Larson and Greenwood 2004; Poveda and Young 2015;
Wiengarten et al. 2013). Although some studies tried to discover potential benefits gained
through sequential and simultaneous implementation of lean and sustainability initiatives
within organizations or along supply chains, they often lacked a clear conclusion on imple-
mentation and applicability procedures (Tasdemir and Gazo 2018). Therefore, it could be
stated that concept of truly sustainable performance measurement still lacks availability
of a versatile framework that could be conveniently applied to any industry and to any
segment of operations. On the other hand, the proposed framework has been designed to
ensure benchmarking and continuous improvement features through exhaustive use of lean
and Six Sigma tools with a purpose of proactive elimination of economic, environmen-
tal and social wastes (Das 2018). It also avoids undesirable consequences of operations
and activities at both intra- and inter-organizational levels. Use of lean, Six Sigma and life
cycle analysis (LCA) tools within the proposed framework is further discussed in later sec-
tions of this study.
2 Proposal of a new sustainability performance benchmarking tool
As Maslow (1943) explained in his paper titled “A Theory of Human Motivation”, needs
of humankind can be illustrated as a five-tier hierarchical model, in which fulfillment of
bottom levels (basic needs) opens the door for higher level needs. Regardless of whether
it is deficiency needs (water, food, warmth) or self-actualization needs (creative activi-
ties), necessities and desires of humankind have led to birth of countless industries. All
these industries highly rely on natural resources, namely air, water, trees and plants, fossil
energy resources and soil either to use as raw, intermediary and supplementary materials
for creation and delivery of products or services. Operations of today’s industries signifi-
cantly contribute to resource depletion rate through over-consumption, waste generation,
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
contamination and pollution. All these factors have drastic impacts on both environment
and society. Increased awareness of sustainability has also changed expectations of stake-
holders, especially customers, from organizations engaged in various industries. Today,
many customers have started to demand green, sustainable or responsibly generated prod-
ucts and services. Organizations and Supply Chain structures have been reshaped based on
end-cast rather than forecast to ensure fully customer centric focus (Bowersox et al. 2000).
Since the very first days of industrialization, the way industries operate has continu-
ously changed due to technological advancements and development of modern operations
management techniques as functions of innovation waves. World population projection,
natural resource scarcity, shrinking profit margins across many industries and innovation
trends discussed in introduction have put organizations in a situation where “Doing More
with Less”(Vais et al. 2006) is the new daily practice to ensure long-term economic surviv-
ability through increased competitive advantage while ensuring societal and environmental
responsibilities are also fulfilled. Such an effective operations management requires sig-
nificantly enhanced efficiency levels in terms of workforce and space capacity utilization,
productivity, quality and materials usage. All of these could be possible with continuous
and aggressive elimination of waste. Production wastes were shown to be among causes
of weak environmental performance in a past study (Moreira et al. 2010). As of today, the
best management technique available to academics and professionals for such purposes is
lean management. Lean tries to achieve better efficiency and effectiveness through continu-
ous elimination of 8 types of wastes (Ohno 1988). Lean philosophy also aims for engraving
continuous improvement mindset into DNA of organizations through aggressive cultural
transformation to ensure standardization (Wilson 2009). Lean could be used as a catalyst
for development of a new assessment mechanism through its wide range of applicabil-
ity spectrum. Lean is being applied to even Service, IT and Public sectors (Dadashzadeh
and Wharton 2012; Rauch et al. 2016; Teeuwen 2010). Chiarini (2014) studied potential
environmental benefits of lean implementation and concluded that certain lean tools such
as value stream mapping (VSM) and 5S, total productive maintenance and SMED can be
used to increase environmental performance. In several past studies, potential contribu-
tion of RFID technology to increase TBL performance was also investigated. Findings of
those studies covering various areas of a closed-loop supply chains were in favor of cost
efficiency, pollution reduction and waste reduction (Jaggi et al. 2014; Kumar and Rahman
2014; Sarac et al. 2010). This project proposes the use of Lean philosophy as a solid cata-
lyst to establish other layers of the new tool upon it. Supportive nature of Lean philosophy
toward TBL performance was already mentioned within the context of previous chapters.
Therefore, strengthening this feature with other available performance measurement tools
could galvanize effectiveness of the proposed framework.
Integrated implementation of triple bottom line (TBL) developed by Elkington (1994)
and lean philosophy evolved from Ohno’s Toyota Production System (TPS, 1980) could
play crucial role in achievement of true sustainability and open the door for a whole new
level of competitive advantage within the walls of organizations and across the supply
chains. An integrated approach empowers the synergies between lean and sustainability
and establishes the background for the development of a new and consolidated method
(Mollenkopf et al. 2010; Pampanelli et al. 2015). Tasdemir and Gazo (2018) found that
synergies between lean and sustainability outweigh the divergences. Several other
researchers have also highlighted complementary aspects of lean with sustainability such
as reduced emission of VOCs as a function of lean initiatives (WSDE 2007), financial and
work area safety performance enhancements through 5S application (Ho 2010a, b; Vieira
and Cachadinha 2011), pollution prevention through Kaizen events (Soltero and Waldrip
13
2002), increased energy efficiency and reduced C O2 emissions with help of layout recon-
figuration practices (Fahad et al. 2017), and enhanced safety in workplaces through lean
transformation (Taubitz 2010). Government organizations also promote integrated imple-
mentation of lean and sustainability (US EPA 2000, 2007, 2011). EPA emphasizes syner-
gistic nature of lean and environmental sustainability by stating that; “… one simple way
to understand how your company’s lean efforts are affecting the environment is to add one
or more environmental performance metrics to the metrics used to evaluate and track the
success of lean implementation” (US EPA 2007). Lean could also be the low-hanging fruit
in the path to Truly Sustainable Supply Chains. However, such an integrated approach may
still leave some soft spots in terms of analytic tools required to conduct quantitative analy-
sis and impact analysis required to detect emission, pollution, water and energy footprint
performance at intra- or inter-organizational levels when it comes to assessment of true
sustainability performance. To cover such drawbacks, Six Sigma and LCA methodologies
were introduced to the design and development phases of the proposed tool.
The evolution of modern Six Sigma methodology was initiated within the walls of
Motorola toward the end of 1970s and beginning of 1980s (Pepper and Spedding 2010).
However, underlying methodology, sigma variation analysis, can be traced back to 1930s
(Chiarini 2012). Toward mid-1990s, Six Sigma has gained more popularity once compa-
nies like Motorola, Allied Signal and General Electric (GE) revealed significant cost sav-
ings, improved quality and customer satisfaction (Hahn et al. 2000). Usefulness of Six
Sigma methodology for performance benchmarking purposes was also documented in
the past (Harry et al. 2010). Today, paths of lean and Six Sigma crossed with each other
and often co-employed within a scope of integrated methodology called lean Six Sigma
(Maleyeff et al. 2012). Applicability of quality management tools to improve environmen-
tal performance and positive correlation between environmental performance and increase
in quality was also documented in a previous study (Pil and Rothenberg 2003).
In a different development path, LCA has emerged from 1960s’ energy impact analysis
and rapidly gained popularity in the eyes of industry experts, academia and policy makers
(McManus and Taylor 2015). LCA is one of the most commonly used tools for eco-design
and eco-efficiency purposes (Cluzel et al. 2010). It is also the most commonly employed
methodology for assessment of environmental impact of products and services. As defined
in ISO 14044, LCA methodology comprises a four phases, namely Goal and Scope Defi-
nition, Inventory Analysis, Impact Assessment and Interpretation (Lehtinen et al. 2011).
LCA is also effectively used for public policy making and strategic planning purposes
(Klöpffer 2013). Necessity of looking at the entire life cycle of products and processes
is becoming a common practice rather than an optional one (Curran 2004). LCA has also
been successfully incorporated with lean Six Sigma-driven sustainability studies (Banawi
and Bilec 2014; Cheung et al. 2017; Vinodh et al. 2016).
As could be interpreted from above scientific findings, lean philosophy, Six Sigma
methodology and LCA Techniques have significant potential to contribute toward true sus-
tainability and sustainable development purposes. Therefore, within this study, an innova-
tive and versatile sustainability benchmarking tool, which is fueled by lean, Six Sigma and
LCA, is proposed. Overall, achieving true sustainability would be a breakthrough improve-
ment for humanity. However, metrics and methodology are not enough for breakthrough
improvements (McCarty et al. 2011). That is why we need to embed a proper methodology
with an innovative and comprehensive framework that also consists of an effective bench-
marking feature through proactive KPIs. Definition of a proper deployment strategy is also
a critical success factor. Therefore, theoretical details and conceptual structure, modules of
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
the framework, first-generation KPI pool and deployment plan of the proposed framework
are documented in detail in the following sections of the study.
2.1 Theoretical and conceptual framework of sustainability benchmarking tool

(SBT)
The development phase was initiated with determination and definition of key features that
the new measurement tool must carry to properly serve the purpose and to fill the gaps
detected during systematic literature review. These features are:
• Versatility—To ensure applicability to any system or sector through modifications.

• Visual—To ensure effective transfer of information.
• Comprehensive—To address micro and macro supply chain issues at intra- and inter-
organizational level.
• Holistic—To cover all pillars of sustainability in a bias-free fashion.
• Convenient—To ensure user friendliness via simplistic design and user interface.
• Innovative—To bear opportunities for further developments.
• Scalable—To vertically and horizontally compare, align and improve measured out-
comes along the supply chain (within and outside the walls).
• Standardized—To ensure comparability of measurement results with those of other
business units, organizations and supply chains.
Accommodation of each unique feature by using only one method or tool was not feasible.
Therefore, the proposed tool had to be a combination of a set of methodologies and tools
working toward the same goal, assessing and benchmarking true sustainability. The pro-
posed framework incorporates use of Six Sigma and life cycle assessment (LCA) methods
to fill in the gaps where synergies of lean and sustainability (TBL) cannot meet the require-
ments for effective environmental footprint tracking, social responsibilities evaluation and
overall benchmarking of sustainable performance. Triple bottom line sets the foundation
for development of the proposed framework while lean, Six Sigma and LCA principles are
exhaustively employed to detect and to remedy sustainability issues throughout an organi-
zation or supply chain based on desired aggregation level. These four complex and effec-
tive methodologies were melted in the same pot and shaped into a composite framework
named as “sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT)” Fig. 2.
Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT) was designed take advantage of strengths of
each methodology involved and synergies that exist among all four. Lean and Six Sigma
have enormous number of tools to offer, each of which bears economic, environmental and
social benefits for corporations (Langenwalter 2006; McCarty et al. 2011; Parveen et al.
2011; Vieira and Cachadinha 2011). Each of these has many proven direct or indirect con-
tributions toward at least one of TBL pillars. The lean philosophy is used to ensure cultural
change, continuous improvement, transparency and waste elimination (a TBL perspective),
while LCA tools are tasked to track footprints left by business operations and to provide
input for environmental performance indicator calculations. Last, but not the least, Six
Sigma methodology has been extensively used for root causes, improvement opportunities
and controlling existing variation in the system.
In addition to employment of lean, Six Sigma and LCA concepts, development of a
“True Sustainability Index” (TSI), a rating system for “Work Environment Risks Assess-
ment Mechanism” and creation of KPI pools comprising economic, environmental and
13
Fig. 2 Illustration of methodologies that powered proposed composite framework
social metrics have been key elements of the proposed methodology. A three-phase theo-
retical framework of the proposed tool is given in Fig. 3.
Design of the proposed tool has 6 modules, 1 Main and 5 Add-on Modules. The gen-
eral structure of the tool was named “Space Shuttle Configuration” (SSC) since Add-on
modules can be easily mounted or dismounted upon necessity to increase or decrease level
of detail represented in the tool. Conceptual framework of the new tool is given in Fig. 4.
Main module, a modified VSM, is designed to be the locomotive for other modules. It is
used to map the organization or supply chain level processes or activities and to detect
and report value-added and non-value-added activities. Capacity, time, material, energy,
water and inventory status information as well as cost factors are documented in this mod-
ule. Four of five add-on modules, namely Environmental Performance Module, Economic
Performance Module (FPM), Social Performance Module (SPM) and Work Environment
Risk Assessment Rating (WERAR) Modules are tasked to generate and report associated
TBL performance data for processes or organizations or supply chains being analyzed.
The last add-on module, TSI Module, is used to calculate and generate a quantified index
score of the TBL performance of the process as of evaluation date. Assessment mechanism
and sustainable performance modules of the proposed framework rely on fundamentals of
Fig. 3 Theoretical framework of proposed tool
13
13
Fig. 4 a Space shuttle configuration as the inspiration source (A) (NASA 2005). b Conceptual framework of the proposed tool
C. Tasdemir et al.
Balanced Score Card technique (Kaplan and Norton 1996) to ensure alignment of sustain-
ability perceptions and expectations of all stakeholders. In two different studies, Shaker
discovered sustainable development in EU (Shaker 2015) and developed a mega index for
the Americas to assess sustainability of nations (Shaker 2018) from a macro perspective.
The author stated that “…A constructive sustainable development index revolution would
allow sustainability scientists to streamline complex indices into simple, meaningful tools
for operationalizing development planning and policymaking. (Shaker 2018).” The design
of assessment mechanism of SBT Framework is complimentary with the statements of
Shaker and aims to report sustainability performance at various scales with a simple yet
meaningful index score. The framework combines modern management techniques and
philosophies with the up-to-date technological tools to capture, evaluate and improve eco-
nomic, environmental and social performance of organizations and supply chains.
Value Stream Mapping was the most critical lean tool employed since it comprises
the main module of SBT Framework to capture, visualize and document the work area
to be assessed. VSM is frequently preferred in scientific studies, since it can operate in
harmony with LCA analyses (Cherrafi et al. 2016; Chiarini 2014; Faulkner and Badurdeen
2014; Torres Jr. and Gati 2009). Accuracy and reliability of environmental data analyses
is ensured through the use of a set of LCA tools including life cycle inventory databases,
computer software programs such as Sima Pro 8 and Gabi (Fu et al. 2015; Ng et al. 2015;
Santero et al. 2010).
There also are some simplified LCA (S-LCA) tools such as spreadsheets, online
interfaces designed to aid with life cycle assessment procedures (Hitchcock et al. 2011;
McManus and Taylor 2015; Rossi et al. 2016). As documented in a previous study, depend-
ing on outcome of software selection decision, conclusions reached at the end of LCIA
analysis could vary (Speck et al. 2016). Therefore, using proper software based on contin-
gency of company/supply chain/sector is critical. These tools will be used to generate and
extract material and resource consumption data as well as to determine emission values
associated with supply chain operations and processes. Tools that could have potential use
within this study are listed in Table 1.
Advanced software programs like SimaPro 8 and GaBi enable researchers and profes-
sionals to conduct a cradle to grave life cycle assessment by disclosing footprints of supply
chain operations. Such software programs provide a science-based information and offer
transparent daily operations in terms of environmental impacts to promote conscious deci-
sion-making activities. They could be effectively used for collecting, analyzing and moni-
toring environmental sustainability performance data for any process along the life cycle
of a product or service. Creators of Sima Pro 8 state the potential application areas of the
software as:
It can be used for a variety of applications, such as sustainability reporting, carbon
and water foot printing, product design, generating environmental product declara-
tions and determining key performance indicators (Pre Sustainability 2017).
Moreover, the location of the organization subject to assessment and the geographical
extension of its supply chain dictate the type of LCA database and software to be used. For
instance, if the SBT Framework is to be deployed in a European company, Sima Pro 8 and
European Life Cycle Data Network will be better options to pick, whereas for a US-based
corporation, GaBi and US Life Cycle Inventory would serve a better purpose. Furthermore,
if the analysis is to be conducted on a series of supply chain operations for a global com-
pany with facilities on more than one continent, a combination of both tools and databases
could be used to generate necessary emission, resource consumption and waste generation
13
13
Table 1 Major LCA software and databases that could be used for analyses and calculations (Cooper and Fava 2006; Hitchcock et al. 2011; Lehtinen et al. 2011; Menke et al.
1996)
LCA software Provider Cost of licensing Separate LCA databases Type Provider Cost of licensing
Sima Pro 8 PRé sustainability $$$$ Ecoinvent v3 Multi-type Ecoinvent Centre $$$
Gabi Thinkstep $$$$$ U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Life Cycle Database U.S. NREL Free
Umberto IFU Hamburg $$$$ European Life Cycle Data Network Life Cycle Database European Commission Free
(ELCD)♦
Open LCA Green Delta Free International Reference LC Data Life Cycle Database European Commission Free
System (ILCD)
TRACI U.S. EPA Free GHG protocol’s worksheets Life Cycle Database WRI Free
CEDA 5* VitalMetrics $$$ Global emissions model for inte- Emission and Waste IINAS Free
grated systems (GEMIS) Treatment Data
EIME CODDE - France $$$ CO2 emission smart search engine Emission Data AMEE Free
EIO-LCA Carnegie Mellon University Free Waste reduction model (WARM) Emission Data U.S. EPA Free
CCalC2 University of Manchester Free NREL Data and Analyses Tools Multi-type U.S. NREL Free
AIST-LCA Version 4 AIST- Japan Unknown Agri-Footprint 4.0 Life Cycle Database Block Consultants $$$
*Offers free educational version, ♦discontinued by provider

C. Tasdemir et al.
data. Within engine of SBT Framework, environmental impact assessment is conducted as

an input–output-based process with help of above discussed LCA software and databases.
The framework tries to achieve a “cradle to grave” emission, energy and water foot-
print-based assessment as a function of aggregation of various business activities and
supply chain members through “gate to gate” (Klöpffer and Grahl 2014) assessment for
target business activities based on phases of LCA defined in ISO 14040 (Khasreen et al.
2009; Klöpffer 2013). Such segmentation of analysis scope is set in parallel to borderlines
of work environment that is subject to assessment and helps with precise investigation of
impacts of operations.
Within each of six modules, SBT Framework requires exhaustive use of various qualita-
tive and quantitative lean, Six Sigma and LCA tools and techniques as wells as integration
of technology through software programs. These programs are essential for flawless assess-
ment and benchmarking of True Sustainability Performance. A comprehensive list of these
tools, techniques and technology is provided in Table 2. All six modules of SBT Frame-
work were explained in detail within Sect. 2.2.
2.2 Modules of SBT Framework
2.2.1 Value stream mapping (VSM) module
SBT Framework was structured around an extended-VSM that was designed to serve as a
visual databank. All process information including material & information flow, inventory
levels, cost functions, and emission, waste generation, water and energy footprint data is
documented by VSM Module. From the perspective of a complete life cycle of a product or
service, the purpose of VSM can be stated as:
To provide optimum value to the final customer through waste elimination during
all phases of the life cycle (Erlach and Sheehan 2016; Martichenko and Von Grabe
2010; Rother and Shook 1999).
Since engaging with proper technology is among primary concerns of the proposed frame-
work, use of Minitab Companion (Minitab Inc. 2017b) is recommended for construction
of VSM Module. In this module, data related to business unit subject to assessment is col-
lected, documented and visualized within three main ladders. A similar approach to track
energy, material and natural gas consumption rates of manufacturing processes was also
utilized in EVSM Tool developed and presented by Litos et al. (2017). One ladder contains
value-added-time (VAT), value-added-cost (VAC), while another stream is tasked with
documentation of energy and water footprint for each process or step within the system.
Last ladder is designed to track emission footprint and solid waste generation data. Data
captured by these ladders later provide input for performance modules to calculate scores
for associated KPIs. A generic example of VSM Module created in companion by Minitab
can be viewed in Fig. 4 as part of SBT Framework interface.
VSM is a versatile tool by its nature that provides opportunity to detect value-added activi-
ties along with eight wastes from the perspectives of both lean and sustainability (Agustiady
and Badiru 2013; Martichenko and Von Grabe 2010; Myerson 2012). Use of extended or
modified versions of VSM for sustainability purposes has been validated by many research-
ers. Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014) developed a modified VSM and called it “Sustainable
Value Stream Mapping” to determine environmental and social sustainability performance.
Brown et al. (2014) tested applicability extent of the methodology developed by Faulkner
13
Table 2 List of tools, techniques and technology to be used within SBT Framework
Technology, tools and tech- Type Used within Methodology the tool, Purpose Recommended reading material
niques technology and technique for developing better understand-
13
belongs to ing of technology, tools and
techniques to be used within SBT
Framework
Minitab 18 or equivalent Technology TSI N/A All types of quantitative Minitab Inc. (2017a)
analysis
Quality companion or equiva- Technology VSM N/A Convenient creation of cus- Minitab Inc. (2017b)
lent tomized VSM and detailed
process maps
Sima Pro 8 and/or GaBi 8 or Technology EPM N/A Environmental footprint GaBi et al. (2012, 2013), Pre
equivalent analysis Consultants (2016)
Microsoft Excel or equivalent Technology FPM, EPM, SPM, N/A Performance calculations, Goldmeier and Duggirala (2015)
WERAR, TSI supplemental quantitative
analysis
Expert opinion Technique WERAR, TSI Delphi method* Determination of risk grades Linstone and Turoff (1975),
in WERAR Module and Okoli and Pawlowski (2004)
root cause detection within
DMAIC procedure
Balanced Score Card (BSC) Technique FPI, EPI, SPI, TSI Balanced Score Card Standardized performance Kaplan and Norton (1996),
measurement through equal- Person (2013)
weight indices
Time studies Technique VSM Lean & Six Sigma Capacity constraint and pro- Groover (2006)
ductivity detection, Takt time
calculation
DMAIC and PDCA Technique TSI Lean & Six Sigma Detection of pre- and post- Sokovic et al. (2010)
implementation control levels
Standardized work Technique TSI Lean & Six Sigma Safety improvements and waste/ Misiurek (2016)
defect avoidance
C. Tasdemir et al.
Table 2 (continued)
Framework
Root cause analysis (5Whys, Technique & Tool TSI Six Sigma Identification of root causes Andersen and Fagerhaug (2006)
FMEA, fish bone diagrams, associated with identified
impact/effort analysis, etc.) weaknesses, wastes and
defects. Feasibility detection
for identified improvement
opportunities
Hypothesis testing, correlation Technique TSI Six Sigma Science-based screening of Tague (2005)
& regression, DOE and pareto potential root causes to ensure
(ABC) analysis significance. Determination
of significant defect types.
Defect can be anything!
Value stream mapping Tool VSM Lean & Six Sigma Visualization, scope defini- Martichenko and Von Grabe
tion, detailed documenta- (2010), Rother and Shook
tion of work area subject to (2003)
assessment and opportunity
detection
Layout reconfiguration Tool TSI Lean & Six Sigma Efficiency and safety improve- Heragu (2016), Stephens and
ment through waste Meyers (2013), Tompkins et al.
minimization and tackling of (2010), Wang (2015)
ergonomics issues
SIPOC and process mapping Tool VSM, TSI Lean & Six Sigma Visualization, scope definition Basu (2009), Johnston and
and accurate identification of Dougherty (2012)
process steps, inputs, outputs,
suppliers and customers (both
internal and external)
13
Table 2 (continued)
13
Framework
Gemba walks Tool VSM, WERAR Lean & Six Sigma Risk grade assignment based Imai (2012), Womack (2013)
on risk grade matrix, progress
evaluation, opportunity
detection
TPM Tool TSI Lean & Six Sigma Safety improvement and Agustiady and Cudney (2016),
waste elimination through Borris (2006)
non-value-added time/cost
reduction
5S Tool TSI, WERAR Lean Basic housekeeping to elimi- ReVelle (2004)
nate waste and increase work
environment safety
*Modifications may be necessary to tailor this technique for in-house audit purposes
C. Tasdemir et al.
and Badurdeen in different manufacturing settings and concluded that use of VSM helps with
measurement of environmental and social sustainability performance of operations. In another
study, Marimin et al. (2014) used Green Value Stream Concept to evaluate Green Productivity
and focused on environmental and economic sustainability performances in rubber industry.
2.2.2 Economic (FPM), environmental (EPM), social (SPM) performance measurement

and True Sustainability Index (TSI) modules
Economic, environmental and social performance modules are used to capture sustainability
performance of operations subject to assessment for a specific review period. Within SBT
Framework, quarterly and annual updates on performance assessment are recommended.
Each of the three modules was designed to ensure equal-weight, accurate measurement and
standardized documentation of sustainability performance data based on TBL pillars. Easy-
to-interpret dashboards of the FPM, EPM and SPM modules will collectively generate True
Sustainability Index (TSI) for detection of improvement opportunities and comparison across
relevant business units. To generate input for these modules, value-added-time, cost, energy,
material and capacity efficiency analysis, LCA-based environmental performance measure-
ments and as well as social sustainability concepts are exhaustively used.
Product or service, process, supply chain, facility, logistics, environmental footprint and
energy consumption values captured by VSM Module are fed into these engine modules to
generate comprehensive and standardized economic, environmental and social performance
scores. Modules were also compared to each other in terms of non-compliance rates to create
an internal comparison mechanism prior to feeding of populated indices into TSI Module.
Such a comparison is useful for assessing effectiveness of existing sustainability principles
relative to each other. Strength and weakness identification of target functional unit/facility/
organization/supply chain in the means of various sustainability KPIs is also carried out in TSI
module. For any KPI score to be classified as strength or weakness, it should read an index
score higher than 9.00 or 7.00, respectively.
Title of the scoring index along with those of its components was inspired by Environmen-
tal Sustainability Index System developed by Yale University and Columbia University (EPI
2005; Hsu et al. 2016). TSI places measured sustainability performance on a 10-point scale
and aims to deliver a standardized and globally comparable outcome. TSI is the cumulative
product of Economic Sustainability Index (FSI), Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)
and Social Sustainability Index (SSI) and can be formulated as:
1 1 1
TSI = FSI + ESI + SSI
3 3 3
Economic, environmental and social sustainability indices were designed to measure true
status of sustainability performance at the time of performance measurement. Environmen-
tal and social indexes generate results considering predetermined Work Environment Risk
Assessment Ratings (WERAR) and recorded incident occurrence rates in a specific period.
These indexes can be formulated as:
( )
FSI = FI1 + FI2 + FI3 + ⋯ + FIn ∕n
4
FI1 + FI2 + FI3 + ⋯ + FIn ∑
ESI = − ai × pi
n i
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
7
SI1 + SI2 + SI3 + ⋯ + SIn ∑
SSI = − bi × pi
n i
where FI economic or financial indicator, EI environmental indicator, SI social indicator,

n total number of indicators used, a number of reported environmental incidents that falls
under a specific category, b number of reported social incidents that falls under an associ-
ated category, pi penalty coefficient assigned to that specific associated WERAR category.
TSI score is a strong holistic indicator of economic, environmental and social sustain-
ability, which enable intra- and inter-organizational comparison of sustainability perfor-
mance based on standardized KPIs. Improvement (if not optimization) activities are carried
out to enhance and improve TSI score and are based on define-measure-analyze-improve-
control (DMAIC) methodology (McCarty et al. 2011). Identified weaknesses are tackled
through a science-based waste minimization and variation elimination approach driven by
lean and Six Sigma principles. Summary of DMAIC steps and scientific methods is shown
in Fig. 5.
2.2.2.1 SBT maturity degrees and first‑generation KPI pools for SBT Framework Within
this section, classification of KPIs used to control and measure operational effectiveness
and efficiency in terms of TBL were discussed and presented. For different application
areas, they may take different names, acronyms and metrics; however, their main purpose,
“explain and quantify performance,” remains the same (Cai et al. 2009; Cohen et al. 2014;
Ness et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2012). Since measuring too much with too many indicators is
counterproductive (Parmenter 2015) and measurement process itself is non-value-added by
its nature (Grinsven 1993), determination of proper number of KPIs to be embedded into
SBT Framework was a critical decision. Proposed benchmarking tool also involves a KPI
pool that consists of a combination of standardized KPIs for pillars of sustainability at three
different complexity levels. A total of 33 KPIs was assigned to each sustainability pillar
based on desired assessment complexity as shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 5 Steps of DMAIC and procedures to be followed within each step (Ben Ruben et al. 2017)
13
Fig. 6 SBT Framework complexity degrees and corresponding KPI numbers
Each of the three levels, namely bronze frontier, silver frontier and gold frontier,
requires a certain level of organizational readiness and competency in terms of lean, Six
Sigma and LCA concepts. Number of KPIs per pillar increases as the culture of organiza-
tion matures. Therefore, bronze frontier KPI pool was designed to serve as the introductory
level repository with 5 direct and 1 relative KPIs, whereas gold frontier KPI pool is the
more comprehensive maturity degree with the highest number of KPIs for each of Sustain-
ability pillars as can be seen in Fig. 6. Key competencies created or obtained in terms of
lean, Six Sigma, LCA and sustainability have direct influence on decision of “Which level
to consider for benchmarking purposes?”
Since TBL concepts are in relatively early stages of their evolution, environmental and
social dimensions of TBL are less prevalent and more immature in terms of completeness
and effectiveness of measurement mechanisms when compared to the economic dimen-
sion (Tasdemir and Gazo 2018). To simplify the classification of sustainability indicators,
a taxonomy procedure was followed. Preferred taxonomy scheme consisted of two layers.
In the first layer, KPIs were classified depending on their essentiality to economic, environ-
mental and social efficiency and responsibility to create depth and maturity levels of the
framework while in the second layer, TBL-oriented categorization was used to distribute
indicators among sustainability pillars. Each KPI pool was created to serve unique require-
ments of industrial applications at company and sectoral level. First-generation KPI pool
of SBT Framework was designed with enough flexibility to position the framework within
the coverage area of Facility-Corporation-Sectoral level assessments on the scale of techni-
cal detail and measurement level comparison (Sarkar et al. 2011). Determination of KPIs
to be used within each pillar was a tricky job. Performance measurement power and scope
of each KPI had to be applicable to both intra- and inter-organizational and sectoral levels
since SBT Framework was designed to enable performance measurement and benchmark-
ability across organizations, supply chains and sectors through aggregation of standardized
True Sustainability Index as illustrated in Fig. 7. Therefore, KPIs were picked or created by
using EPA (Fiksel et al. 2012; US EPA 2000), GRI (2011) and OECD (OECD 2004, 2011)
publications as guidelines among those that could be strategically positioned to detect
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
Fig. 7 Illustration of aggregation and scaling of performance results across various macro and micro busi-
ness levels
sustainability performance with required level of macro or micro business focus scalability
to ensure effective measurement, comparison and aggregation.
Another important factor to consider during KPI selection and classification phase was
to ensure that measures are compliant with requirements of the framework. Any KPI to be
included in the pool should carry some fundamental properties. Eight commonly referred
to (Eckerson 2010) and three proposed(p) properties, namely essential and accurate, inter-
pretable, improvement-oriented, dynamic, up-to-date, useful and visual, communicative,
feasible, standardized(p), proactive(p), net-impact-oriented(p), were selected.
Following creation of initial pool, each KPI was modified to calculate performance
levels in a standardized manner rather than in absolute values of basic units or metrics.
Performance indicators that already have standardized values were left as is. Moreover,
with help of LCA analyses, Environmental and social KPIs were altered and redesigned
to be “Net Impact” oriented instead of a traditional gross impact perspective. For instance,
CO2 emission is picked as indicator of carbon footprint (Simons and Mason 2002; Ugarte
et al. 2016; US EPA 2012). Designated KPI for this purpose is named “Net CO2 Emission
Impact,” which also takes negative emissions and carbon storage potential into account.
Formulation and overall structure of performance indicators also acknowledge “existence
of purpose of corporate organizations as well as expectations of various stakeholders (De
Ron 1998), and therefore, they generate feasible and meaningful outcomes from a holistic
perspective for all associated parties. Although, in a perfect world, optimum outcome is
“Zero Emissions” or “Zero Harm,” some level of emissions and harm is a phenomenon of
today’s available technology and tools when ever-evolving and ever-increasing needs of
humans are considered. Therefore, benchmarking the processes based on the possible best
practices is the most feasible solution. Based on these facts, first-generation KPI pool for
13
Fig. 8 First-generation KPI Pool for SBT Framework
three complexity levels of SBT Framework is given in Fig. 8. Simplified formulas and cor-
responding reference sources of each KPI picked for sustainability measurement are given
in Appendix A.
First-generation KPI pool contains specifically selected sustainability performance
measures to ensure that the SBT Framework can be used for both inter- and intra-organ-
izational assessment purposes. Calculated ESI and SSI scores are a combined product of
measured KPI outcomes and detected work area safety issues and incidents. These inci-
dents and issues are identified and documented within a module described in the following
subsection.
2.2.3 Work Environment Risk Assessment Rating (WERAR) module
This mechanism has an employee, society and environmental safety focus and is compli-
mentary with Environmental and Social Sustainability index calculations. As precedents
or inspiration sources of this module, societal metrics used by (Brown et al. 2014), “Work
Environment Metric” proposed by (Faulkner and Badurdeen 2014) and “EPA EHS Icon”
developed by (US EPA 2007) are used. This module reaches beyond being an isolated met-
ric and/or signaling tool through its broader perspective and by introduction of integrated
control mechanism. WERAR establishes a two-layer, 5-grade risk scale of select risk cat-
egories, namely Noise (N), Electrical Systems (E), Exposure to Hazardous Materials (H),
Hazardous Material Spill (S), Pressurized Systems (P), Ergonomics (ER), High-Speed
Moving Machinery and Systems (V), Green Area or Biodiversity Damage (GB), Biologi-
cal Hazard (BH), Fire (F), Radioactivity (RA) as well as it keeps track of 5S Housekeeping
(5S). Risk categories are designed to cover Health, Safety and Environmental Protection
categories defined by major organizations such as OSHA, EPA, NRC and ISO (De Oliveira
Matias and Coelho 2002). F and RA categories have direct influence on both ESI and SSI
scores, while S and GB only have influence on ESI. The remaining categories take place
only in SSI calculations. Moreover, 5S Housekeeping activities are being investigated
within this module since its effectiveness of achieving clean and organized workplaces and
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
contribution to increased work area safety was proven and documented in the past (Chiarini
2014; Ho 2010a; Vieira and Cachadinha 2011).
Proposed mechanism assigns a risk grade called Work Environment Risk Assessment
Rating (WERAR) to the work environment subject to assessment. Assignment of WERAR
requires definition of probabilistic and incidental impact of identified risk as well as deter-
mination of existing control level associated with that risk within the work area. Probabil-
istic analyses are carried out based on past incident data whereas incidental impact risk is
determined through expert opinion. WERAR mechanism also requires the use of a supple-
mentary lean tool, Gemba Walks (Womack 2013). It involves actual observation of work
environment for detection of potential safety and inefficiency problems associated with the
work area under investigation. Gemba Walks will be used to determine risk grade of a
certain environment in addition to identification of current control levels. Implementation
of 5S and Standardized Work practices along with Kaizen events are recommended for
reducing various safety risks in work environments. Audit Form created for such purposes
was provided in Appendix B. Proposed module has other unique properties that encourage
safer work practices and environments through implementation of a standardized risk grad-
ing and incident tracking system. This risk assessment mechanism is designed to include a
risk grade matrix which issues a penalty coefficient “p” to work environment depending on
severity of probabilistic and incidental impact risk with a purpose of adjusting SBT Frame-
work’s environmental and social performance score. To achieve this objective, two scales
were introduced to WERAR mechanism. Probabilistic scale defines assigned risk grade of
an environment depending on occurrence frequency of environmental or social incidents,
while impact scale tries to assign a grade based on devastating impact degree of a probable
incident on people or environment. Incidents with high probability and expected high dev-
astating impact are penalized the most. Risk matrix was designed to penalize increases in
Impact scale more than it reacts to increases in Probabilistic Scale. Risk grade and penalty
coefficient assigned within this module has direct influence on Environmental and Social
Indices (EPI and SPI), while identification and assignment of control levels to risk catego-
ries highlight effectiveness of existing control mechanism. General structure, risk grade
matrix and control levels scale of WERAR mechanism are shown in Table 3.
All six modules of SBT Framework, associated methodology and required technologi-
cal intellectual and technological infrastructure, have been explained in detail in the pre-
vious sections. SBT Framework can be implemented by any facility/organization/supply
chain that is interested in such assessment and benchmarking of true sustainability through
methodical execution of steps provided in Fig. 9.
Organization-wide implementation of the proposed framework will require a high level
of dedication from the entire workforce. To provide all interested parties with a complete
guide, a part of the study was dedicated to present ownership of deployment and SBT
Framework maturity model for a successful cultural change.
2.3 Ownership of framework deployment and engraving true sustainability

into organization culture
Even the most well-thought framework will be prone to failure if its deployment and imple-
mentation phases are not managed in a rigorous fashion. Proposed framework requires an
integrated and aggressive deployment plan which will infuse throughout the entire struc-
ture of the organization starting from business strategy development to shop floor level
operations. However, prior to actual deployment, a small-scale pilot study is recommended
13
Table 3 Impact/probability and process control scales for WERAR mechanism
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
Fig. 9 Implementation steps of SBT Framework
to enhance level of familiarity with the framework. General structure of SBT Framework
deployment plan is quite similar to that of lean and can be evaluated under two main fac-
tors, namely impact scope and organizational readiness (Weiner 2009). The impact scope
of the proposed framework has two layers. First layer addresses cultural change within an
organization, while second layer aims for cultural transformation of the entire supply chain
by setting positive examples as a function of first layer outcomes. Past research studies
documented that it pays to be environmentally and socially responsible (Li et al. 2017)
and that being a sectoral leader could be a cutting edge competitive advantage (Langen-
walter 2006). However, there is no one single correct model which can be applied to all
organizations right away. Organizational readiness dictates the development of deployment
plan depending on industry dynamics considering the contingent theory (Torbjørn H. Net-
land 2016). It is essential to tailor the deployment plan based on organization’s situation
and realities. Economic stability, familiarity with lean, Six Sigma and sustainability (e.g.,
already in-place lean and sustainability initiatives or no experience at all), perspectives of
highest-level executives and current culture collectively determine the organizational read-
iness. Moreover, the proposed framework should be integrated in correlation with other
appropriate management approaches such as lean accounting, lean and green procure-
ment, sustainable product development, etc. Such deployment of the proposed framework
requires an effective leadership across the organization and high collaboration among lead-
ers of supply chain members. Since SBT Framework is a lean Six Sigma-based assessment
and benchmarking mechanism, a lean leadership model that ensures continuous improve-
ment of sustainability would serve the purpose. Dombrowski and Mielke’s (2014) study
13
can offer further insights into fundamental principles of lean leadership and the proposed
fifteen rules of sustainable lean deployment.
Although organization-wide deployment plans are quite traditional, they are the most
challenging to execute when compared to plans with narrower impact scope. Therefore, a
solid leadership from top management, large infrastructural investment, customer-oriented
perspective, employee involvement and establishment of an organization wide common
language as well as a problem-solving methodology are required. A past study found that
cross-functional executive and worker involvement increases effectiveness of lean ini-
tiatives and also helps with strategic alignment of lean activities with environmental and
social sustainability objectives (Longoni and Cagliano 2015). Distribution of SBT Frame-
work ownership can be performed in nine steps: (1) make the decision for the transfor-
mation and ensure strategic alignment throughout the organization. (2) Appoint a SBT
Framework champion and establish ownership. (3) Align business strategy with true sus-
tainability framework. (4) Gain possession of all the required resources including technol-
ogy, human resources and material. (5) Create a shared vision through expansion of owner-
ship (form a team). (6) Train the workforce. (7) Analyze current state of the organizational
readiness and detect opportunities. (8) Develop tactics to tackle the issues identified. (9)
Start deployment, review (monthly, annually) and adjust accordingly.
Having a dedicated team for deployment and implementation of corporate lean pro-
grams offers certain advantages (Torbjorn H. Netland et al. 2015). Therefore, the proposed
deployment plan requires one SBT Framework Champion from C-Suite and 3 Sustainabil-
ity Leaders for each triple bottom line (TBL) pillar. Then, the responsibility is distributed
over facility level leaders who will supervise department level team leaders. Team leaders
will be responsible for creating and supervising their own SBT teams as well as for collab-
oration with other linked teams. The size of SBT teams is dependent on scale of the organi-
zation and complexity of the product or service system. Economic Sustainability Leader
will be responsible for achievement of financial goals in collaboration with other pillar
leaders. Economic pillar leader will also deal with establishment of a transparent relation-
ship with suppliers and customers to achieve desired outcomes. Environmental Sustain-
ability Leader will ensure minimization (if not elimination) of environmental impacts of
various level operations as well as creating effort to ensure compliance with environmental
regulations, laws and standards. Last but not least, Social Sustainability Leader will man-
age relationship with worker unions and part of the society associated with the firm to
achieve targeted social outcomes. Ownership of the deployment is vertically and horizon-
tally shared among different management levels. Clear definition of roles and responsibili-
ties is essential for a successful deployment and its governance. Hierarchical structure of
dedicated implementation team with ownership distribution can be seen in Fig. 10.
Creating key competencies throughout the entire workforce is also essential for suc-
cessful deployment of the proposed framework. Therefore, proper education and train-
ing opportunities should receive sufficient attention and financial allocation from SBT
Framework Champion. Starting from leaders to team members, entire workforce should
be trained through in-house training sessions. TSF specialized personnel should have
complete understanding of lean, Six Sigma and TBL philosophies. They should also
be able to educate, train and motivate the rest of the workforce to help with creation
and development of a teamwork spirit as well as a common language along all organi-
zational units. Entire workforce should be consistently provided with daily, weekly and
monthly education opportunities to achieve certain level of key competencies. Such
competency of team members could be achieved by setting certain requirements for
TSF positions and by ensuring proper opportunity for obtaining of those credentials. An
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
Fig. 10 Proposed hierarchical ownership distribution of SBT Framework
example of minimum requirements for various levels of SBT Framework deployment

team positions could be as given below:
SBT True Sustainability Framework Champion
• At least an M.S. Degree (preferably Ph.D.) with a Specialization in Sustainability

(TBL)
• Six Sigma Master Black Belt
• Certification in Lean Management
• Certification in Leadership Excellence
Senior Level Executives
• At least an M.S. Degree in Business or Related Discipline

• Certification in Lean
• Six Sigma Black Belt
• Highest Level Certification in Sustainability
Facility Level Leaders
• At least a B.S. Degree in Business Related Discipline

• Certification in Lean
• Six Sigma Black Belt
• Certification in Sustainability
Department Level Team Leaders
13
• At least Six Sigma Green Belt

• Well-Trained (if not Certified) in Lean and Sustainability Concepts
Existence of Work Environment Risk Assessment Mechanism (WERAR) requires audit

of facilities with a purpose of risk grade assignment. Such audits can only be performed by
professionals with corresponding credentials. Professionals could either be temporarily hired
from third-party providers or existing personnel can be provided with opportunity for certifi-
cation training to obtain necessary skill sets and credentials. Examples of such credentials are
ISO 9001:2015 Internal Audit Program Certification (ASQ 2018), ISSP Sustainability Associ-
ate (ISSP-SA) (ISSP 2018), Sustainability Management Certified Professional (SMCP) (SMA
2018), or equivalent.
Furthermore, deployment of the proposed framework requires proper and detailed analyses
of current state of the company structure in terms of lean and sustainability performance to
discover level of organizational readiness and to prioritize areas to be improved based severity
of identified weaknesses. Following business strategy decisions and establishment of required
infrastructure including ownership distribution, capital allocation and identification of stake-
holder expectations as well as deployment of the framework is ready to be initiated. Complete
implementation of the proposed framework is not an easy-task, since it intends to transform
the entire structure of the organization. It requires qualified workforce, adequate training, com-
puter software, consultants (if needed), compliance with regulations and further technologi-
cal investments (as part of lean transformation) related to infrastructure. Therefore, Return
on Investment (ROI) will totally depend on success of cultural transformation, consistency
of dedication, amount of investment made, size of the organization and external factors such
as political, social and economic dynamics of the industry/region/world. The ROI of the pro-
posed framework can be evaluated under two distinct titles, namely direct tangible and indi-
rect tangible returns. Tangible returns cover gains such as increased profitability, reduced cost
factors, reduced lead time, increased market share and actual ratio of ROI as well as reduced
cost of compliance with regulations. On the other hand, indirect tangible returns can be sum-
marized as increased reputation and brand value/firm image in the eyes of customers due to
increased social and environmental performance. These factors are expected to boost the sales
and market share in return. Moreover, increased job satisfaction and loyalty of workers can
be counted among indirect tangible gains since it will contribute to overall productivity and
efficiency. Both direct and indirect tangible gains could gradually be obtained starting from
the first day of deployment. Successful deployment of SBT Framework is expected to be com-
pleted between 3 and 5 years similar to the maturity establishment levels documented by (Raje
2018). Simplified version of TSF Maturity Model can be seen in Fig. 11.
This study was designed to propose and document in detail a composite framework and its
theoretical and conceptual models, as well as a deployment plan and ownership distribution to
assess and benchmark true sustainability performance. As is the case for any model proposi-
tion, SBT Framework was also based on some assumptions and has some limitations. In the
next section, these assumptions and limitations are presented.
3 Assumptions and limitations of the framework
Proposed framework was designed to operate based on seven assumptions associated with
implementing organization and LCA databases. One should also consider the underlying
assumptions of the proposed methodology and tools to develop a complete understanding
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
Fig. 11 Organizational culture transformation pathway
of the concept and to deploy it on an existing system with sufficient competency. These
assumptions are listed below.
Assumptions related to Implementing organization: (1) can develop a complete under-
standing of lean and sustainability philosophies, (2) are ready to provide required infra-
structure and training for the associated staff, (3) can assign a “SBT Framework Cham-
pion” and form a “SBT team,” (4) organization itself and its supply chain partners are
eager to achieve a fully transparent multi-directional information flow, (5) have appropriate
vision to lead and to set an example for its supply chain partners and sectoral competitors
along True Sustainability journey, and (6) product/service systems are suitable for value
stream mapping. On the other hand, assumption related to LCA Software and Database: (1)
has all the required process and inventory data available to determine performance within
the scope of environmental impact for that specific sector.
SBT Framework also has some limitations inherent in its design. Since the proposed
framework follows a lean Six Sigma Philosophy-based methodology, cost of deployment
or cost of transformation can become high depending on the size of the organization/sup-
ply chain, target industry and types of the inputs associated with the target industry. This
situation may quickly elevate once resource requirements of LCA studies are considered.
Advanced software programs are quite expensive and require user to develop a good under-
standing of the program modules through a steep learning curve. Moreover, some soft-
ware programs and databases could have missing environmental footprint data for certain
industry segments or geographical regions. Organizations operating with limited resources
may not be able to deploy the proposed framework due to such resource limitations. Next,
SBT Framework is yet to be validated through different case studies from different sec-
tors, which would enable the authors to have strong evidence on claimed applicability and
13
versatility of the proposed framework on an industrial scale. Authors of past studies high-
lighted a number of limitations of LCA principles. Two most common limitations reported
are insufficient transparency of the results and lack of consideration of social and eco-
nomic impacts during the life cycle of a product (Lehtinen et al. 2011). On the other hand,
the proposed Sustainability Benchmarking Tool (SBT) tries to compensate for this issue
with help of lean philosophy and high level of collaboration among supply chain partners
(Brockhaus et al. 2013). Last but not least, gains as a function of a lean transformation
may start to stagnate for a while after the first year. Similar pattern could be observed for
SBT Framework following its deployment. Therefore, observation and evaluation of actual
benefits of SBT Framework for different application areas would require a considerable
amount of time, which could delay release of next generation KPI pools and redefined
deployment guidelines. Despite these limitations, a successful SBT Framework implemen-
tation is expected to accurately assess all pillars of sustainability and closely monitor and
globally benchmark product’s life cycle.
Therefore, those considering employment of SBT Framework for true sustainability
assessment should take assumptions and limitations of the proposed tools into account and
should remember that true sustainability is not a destination, but a never-ending journey as
lean and continuous improvement are.
4 Conclusive remarks and future work
This study aims to build upon previous contributions made to the field of lean-driven sus-
tainability by proposing an innovative and versatile framework that is designed to aid with
unbiased assessment of True Sustainability Performance at intra- and inter-organizational
levels. Previously discovered untapped potential of lean-driven sustainability is utilized
and strengthened with Six Sigma and LCA principles to ensure effective and accurate per-
formance measurement. The outcomes of this conceptual paper are expected to contribute
to both sustainability science and sustainable operations management. Both SMEs (small
and medium-sized enterprises) and large corporations could benefit from SBT Framework
since it eliminates unit-based comparisons with its standardized performance measurement
modules. Industries with lower profit margin could also gain competitive edge through con-
tinuous discovery of improvement opportunities. Furthermore, some manufacturing indus-
tries with unique characteristics such as wood products industries with their carbon seques-
tration potential and electric car manufacturers with their renewable energy-dependent
final products could document their strengths more effectively through this science-based
assessment mechanism. To document legitimacy of the proposed framework, in parallel,
the authors are also working on two different validation studies one within value-added
wood products industry and one involving integration with higher education curriculum
to document proven effectiveness and contribution of the proposed tool in sustainability
performance. Further practical applications of the SBT Framework could include but are
not limited to; optimization of transportation activities for any supply chain to reduce fos-
sil fuel dependency through promotion of local business support and efficient transporta-
tion modes, a better documentation of earth-friendly and socially conscious practices of
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
electronics manufacturers who deal with conflict minerals, greening and control of indus-
tries that utilize harmful chemicals, to proactively promote recycling and reuse various
materials across all industries and to proactively control water utilization and wastewater
treatment. It could also be used to measure and benchmark success of organizations in pro-
tecting privacy of collected customer data with help of Social Performance Module. It is
also designed to effectively control and improve employee safety at any work area that may
bear potential risks.
As can be easily interpreted from above implications, the proposed framework is not lim-
ited to bare features of a technical tool. It is designed to trigger organizational and consecu-
tively inter-organizational level of cultural transformation to ensure Sustainable Operations
across various sectors. This framework is also flexible by its nature to respond to growing and
upcoming innovation waves as well as evolving stakeholder expectations. Therefore, future
work to be also needs to be defined.
Scheduled future work for the authors includes (1) to test and validate the proposed tool in
real industry settings, (2) evaluate negative impacts of SBT Framework deployment on busi-
ness stability, (3) integrate SBT Framework with digital innovation and enhance user inter-
face to make it more convenient and portable, (4) develop and publish second-generation KPI
pools based on ever-changing direction of innovation and sustainability research.
Appendix 1
See Table 4.
13
Table 4 First-generation KPI Pools with Simplified Formulas
SBT Framework KPI Pool Based on TBL Pillars per Maturity Level
Simplified formula Adapted and/or altered from
Bronze Frontier
Economic Pillar KPIs
VAT Ratio Value Added Time Ng et al. (2015), Shannon (1997)
VATR = × 100
�∑ �
Cycle Time
∑
Assign 1 if 0 ≤ VATR < 2.5; Assign 2.5 if 2.5 ≤ VATR < 5; Assign 5 if 5 ≤ VATR < 10;
Assign 7 if 10 ≤ VATR < 15; Assign 8 if 15 ≤ VATR < 20; Assign 9 if 20 ≤ VATR < 25;
Assign 10 if VATR ≥ 25
Value Added Cost
∑
VAC Ratio Vinodh et al. (2016)
� �
VACR = ∑ Cost of Operations+∑ Inv.Holding Cost × 10
Customer Service Level (CSL) Product or Service Processed &Deliveredw∕oDelay,Stockouts,Damage&Inaccuracy Myerson (2012)
CSL = × 10
�∑ �
Product or Service Orders Received
∑
Product or Service Returned or Required Revisit

∑
Inverse Rate of Returns IRR = 1 − × 10 Magoon (2008)
� �
Product or Service Sold
∑
Revenue− Cost of Goods Sold+Operating Exp.+Other Exp.+Interest+Tax

∑ ∑
Net Profit Margin NPM = × 10 Peterson-Drake (2018)
Revenue
∑
Assign 1 if NPM < 0

Number of Economic Non - compliant Incidents and Sanctions
∑
Econ-compliance ECCO = 1 − × 10 N/A
� �
Non - compliant Incidents and Sanctions
∑
Assign 10 if there is no non-compliant incidents and sanctions

Simplified formula References
Environmental Pillar KPIs

Green Area Removed− Green Area Created
∑ ∑
Net Green Area Impact NGAI = 1 − × 10 GRI 304-2/3 (2016), OECD (2011)
� �
Green Area Removed
∑
Assign 10 if right hand side of numerator > left hand side;

Assign 1 if NGAI = 0
CO2 Emitted − CO2 Removed
∑ ∑
Net CO2 Emission Impact NEI = 1 − × 10 GRI 305 (2016)
� �
CO Emitted
2
∑

Assign 1 if NEI = 0
13
Table 4 (continued)
Simplified formula References
Water Withdrawn −( Water Recycled+ Water Reused)
13
∑ ∑ ∑
Net Water Footprint NWF = 1 − × 10 GRI 303 (2018), Kim et al. (2012), US
� �
Water Used
∑
EPA (2011)
Do not subtract from 1 and Assign (|NWF| × 10) if right hand side of numerator > left
hand side;
Assign 1 if NWF = 0
Energy Used − (Renewable Energy Used+Fossil Fuel Avoided)
∑ ∑
Net Energy Footprint NEF = 1 − × 10 Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014), GRI
� �
Energy Used
∑
302-1 (2016)
Assign 1 if NEF = 0
Waste −( Waste Recycled+ Waste Reused+ Biodegradable Waste)
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
Net Solid Waste Generation NSWG = 1 − × 10 GRI 306 (2016)
� �
Waste
∑
Do not subtract from 1 and Assign (|NSWGF| × 10) if right hand side of numerator > left
hand side;
Assign 1 if NSWGF = 0
Number of Environmental Non - compliant Incidents and Sanctions
∑
Enviro-compliance ENCO = 1 − × 10 N/A
� �
Number of Non - compliant Incidents and Sanctions
∑

Social Pillar KPIs

Scores for each Category of Survey
∑
Employee Satisfaction Rate ESR = ×2 AlJaberi et al. (2017), Helleno et al. (2017)
Number of Criteria
∑
(See supplementary)
Social Investment Made in a Year
∑
Contribution to Society CTS = × 10 GRI 413-1 (2016), Ocampo et al. (2015)
Total Other Investment Made in a Year
∑
Assign 10 if CTS > 10

Number of Days Work Related Absenteeism Occurred
∑
Absenteeism Ratio AR = 1 − × 10 GRI 403-2 (2016)
� �
Number of Total Absenteeism Days
∑
Number Female Employees

∑
Gender Bias Ratio GBR = × 10 GRI 405 (2016)
Number of Male Employees
∑
If number of female employees > male employees, swap numerator with

denominator
C. Tasdemir et al.
Table 4 (continued)
Number of Volunteer Initiatives

∑
Volunteer Sustainability Engagement Ratio VSER = × 10 N/A
Number of All Sustainability Initiatives
∑
Assign 1 if the organization/facility/SCM is involved with “0” initiatives

Number of Social Non - compliant Incidents and Sanctions
∑
Socio-compliance SOCO = 1 − × 10 N/A
� �
Non - compliant Incidents and Sanctions
∑

Silver Frontier
Current Assets
∑
Current Ratio CR = BOEM (2017)
Current Liabilities
∑
Assign 1 if CR < 1; Assign 2.5 if 1 < CR < 1.5

Assign 5 if 1.5 < CR < 2; Assign 8 if 2 < CR < 3; Assign 10 if CR ≥ 3
Inventory Turnover (ITR) Cost of Products or Service Sold per year Piasecki (2009)
ITR =
�∑ �
Avg.Inventory in Dollar per year
∑
Assign 1 if ITR < R; Assign 5 if R < ITR < 2R; Assign 8 if 2R ≤ ITR < 3R;
Assign 10 if ITR ≥ 3R
where R = total number of inventory replenishments per year
Quality Level Relative to 6σ Determined Sigma Quality Level Agustiady and Badiru (2013)
QLR6 = × 10
( )
6
Amount of Discharge− Amount Detoxified Prior to Release
∑ ∑
Toxic Discharge to Water TDW = 1 − × 10 GRI 306 (2016), US EPA (2007)
� �
Amount of Discharge
∑
Assign 1 if TDW = 0
Amount of Discharge− Amount Detoxified Prior to Release
∑ ∑
Toxic Discharge to Soil TDS = 1 − × 10 GRI 306 (2016)
� �
Amount of Discharge
∑
Assign 1 if TDs = 0
Recycled Input Materials Used
∑
Recycled Raw Material Ratio RRMR = × 10 GRI 301 (2016), OECD (2011), WMEP (2015)
Input Materials Used
∑
13
Table 4 (continued)
13
Social Pillar KPIs
Local Business Support Index Volume of Business with Local Suppliers Azevedo et al. (2012), GRI 204-1 (2016)
LBSI = × 10
�∑ �
Volume of Total Procurement Activities
∑
Local Supplier Radius = 150 miles

Ratio of Employee Turnover Number of Employees Who Left GRI 401 (2016)
∑
� �
RET = (Beginning+Ending Number of Employees for Assesment Period) × 10
2
Amount of Data Lost or Breached

∑
Customer Data Privacy Protection Success PPS = 1 − × 10 GRI 418-1 (2016)
� �
Amount of Data Collected
∑
Gold Frontier
Time Spent for TPM
∑
Total Productive Maintenance Ratio TPMR = × 10 Mourtzis et al. (2017)
� �
Time Spent for Breakdown Maintenance
∑
Revenue Generated by New Ideas

∑
ROI on Innovation ROII = Mahroum and Bascavusoglu-Moreau (2018)
R&DInvestment
∑
Assign 1 if ROII < 1; Assign 10 if ROII ≥ 10; Assign ROII if 1 < ROII < 10
Transportation Efficiency Rate Distance Btw Closest Supplier and Assessed Location N/A
TER = × 10
( )
Distance Btw Furthest Supplier and Assessed Location
Ratio of Suppliers Assessed Based on SBT SSBT = Number of Suppliers Assessed N/A
× 10
�∑ �
Number of All Suppliers
∑
Framework
Products and Packaging Collected for Reuse or Disposal after EOL
∑
Ratio of Products Collected for Reuse or RPC = × 10 Azevedo et al. (2016), GRI 301 (2016), Jr.Torres
Products and Packaging Sold
∑
Sustainable Disposal After EOL and Gati (2009)
Fossil Fuel Dependency of Fleet Fossil Fuel Consumed by Fleet (Cars+Forklifts+Trucks+Others) van Amburg (2015), UPS (2017)
�∑ �
FFD = 1 − ∑ Total Fuel (Electiric+Propane+Gas+Diesel)in Gallons Equivalent × 10
Social Pillar KPIs
Female/Male Salary Ratio Avg.Salary Paid to Female Employees GRI 405 (2016)
( )
FMSR = Avg.Salary Paid to Male Employees × 10
Availability of Training Opportunity Average Hours of Training per 6months per Employee GRI 404-1 (2016)
( )
ATO = Average for Highest Market Share Competitor in the Industry × 10
Post-parental-leave Retention Number of Employees Retained After 12Months of Return GRI 401 (2016)
PPLR = × 10
�∑ �
Number of Employees Took Parental Leave
∑
C. Tasdemir et al.
Appendix 2: WERAR Module Audit Form
References
Agustiady, T., & Badiru, A. B. (2013). Sustainability utilizing lean six sigma techniques. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Agustiady, T. K., & Cudney, E. A. (2016). Total productive maintenance: Strategies and implementation
guide. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
AlJaberi, O. A., Hussain, M., & Drake, P. R. (2017). A framework for measuring sustainability in health-
care systems. International Journal of Healthcare Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479
700.2017.1404710.
Andersen, B., & Fagerhaug, T. (2006). Root cause analysis: Simplified tools and techniques. Milwaukee:
ASQ Quality Press.
Ansari, Z. N., & Kant, R. (2017). Exploring the framework development status for sustainability in sup-
ply chain management: A systematic literature synthesis and future research directions. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 26(7), 873–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1945.
ASQ. (2018). ISO 9001:2015 internal auditor training (exemplar global certified). Retrieved Decem-
ber 5, 2018, from https://asq.org/training/iso-90012015-internal-auditor-training-exemplar-globa
l-certified-ia2015.
Authry, C. W., Goldsby, T. J., & Bell, J. E. (2012). Global macrotrends and their impact on supply chain
management: Strategies for gaining competitive advantage. London: Pearson Education.
Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2016). LARG index: A benchmarking tool for
improving the leannes, agility, resilience and greenness of the automotive supply Chain. Bench-
marking: An International Journal, 23(6), 1472–1499. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-07-2014-0072.
Azevedo, Susana G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Influence of green and lean
upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 59(4), 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2012.2189108.
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
Banawi, A., & Bilec, M. M. (2014). A framework to improve construction processes: Integrating lean,
green and six sigma. International Journal of Construction management, 14(1), 58–71. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15623599.2013.875266.
Basu, R. (2009). Implementing six sigma and lean. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bell, J. E., Autry, C. W., Mollenkopf, D. A., & Thornton, L. M. (2012). A natural resource scarcity
typology: Theoretical foundations and strategic implications for supply chain management. Jour-
nal of Business Logistics, 33(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0000-0000.2012.01048.x.
Ben Ruben, R., Vinodh, S., & Asokan, P. (2017). Implementation of lean six sigma framework with
environmental considerations in an Indian automotive component manufacturing firm: A case
study. Production Planning and Control, 28(15), 1193–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537
287.2017.1357215.
Berger-Walliser, G., & Scott, I. (2018). Redefining corporate social responsibility in an era of globalization
and regulatory hardening. American Business Law Journal, 55(1), 167–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ablj.12119.
BOEM. (2017). Financial terms and ratios. https://www.boem.gov/Proposed-Financial-Terms-Ratios/
Borris, S. (2006). Total productive maintenance: Proven strategies and techniques to keep equipment run-
ning at maximum efficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bowersox, D. J., Closs, D. J., & Stank, T. P. (2000). Ten mega-trends that will revolutionize supply chain
logistics. Journal of Business Logistics, 21(2), 1–15.
Brewer, A. S., & Pojasek, R. B. (2012). Assessing environmental sustainability performance at the national
level: leading indicators can help. Environmental Quality Management, 22(2), 33–47. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tqem.21325.
Brockhaus, S., Kersten, W., & Knemeyer, A. M. (2013). Where do we go from here? Progressing sustain-
ability implementation efforts across supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 167–182.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12017.
Brown, A., Amundson, J., & Badurdeen, F. (2014). Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM) in differ-
ent manufacturing system configurations: Application case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production,
85, 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.101.
Cai, J., Liu, X., Xiao, Z., & Liu, J. (2009). Improving supply chain performance management: A system-
atic approach to analyzing iterative KPI accomplishment. Decision Support Systems, 46(2), 512–521.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.09.004.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., & Benhida, K. (2016). The integration of lean manu-
facturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future research directions for develop-
ing a specific model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 828–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep
ro.2016.08.101.
Cheung, W. M., Leong, J. T., & Vichare, P. (2017). Incorporating lean thinking and life cycle assessment to
reduce environmental impacts of plastic injection moulded products. Journal of Cleaner Production,
Chiarini, A. (2012). From total quality control to lean six sigma (Vol. 26). Milan: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-88-470-2658-2.
Chiarini, A. (2014). Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific lean production tools: An
empirical observation from European motorcycle component manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 85, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.080.
Closs, D. J., Speier, C., & Meacham, N. (2011). Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: The role
of supply chain management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 101–116. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0207-4.
Cluzel, F., Yannou, B., Afonso, D., Leroy, Y., Millet, D., & Pareau, D. (2010). Managing the complexity of
environmental assessments of complex industrial systems with a lean 6 Sigma approach. In Proceed-
ings of the 1st international conference on complex systems design and management, CSDM 2010
(pp. 279–294). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15654-0_20.
Cohen, S., Bose, S., Guo, D., Miller, A., DeFrancia, K., Berger, O., et al. (2014). The growth of sustain-
ability metrics - sustainability metrics white paper series: 1 of 3. In: Research program on sustain-
ability policy and management (pp. 1–14). Earth Research Institute, Columbia University. https://doi.
org/10.7916/D8RN36RW.
Cooper, J. S., & Fava, J. A. (2006). Life-cycle assessment practitioner survey summary of results. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 10(4), 12–14.
Curran, M. A. (2004). The status of life-cycle assessment as an environmental management tool. Environ-
mental Progress, 23(4), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10046.
13
Dadashzadeh, M. D., & Wharton, T. J. (2012). A value stream approach for greening the IT Department.
International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 16(2), 125–136. https://doi.
org/10.19030/ijmis.v16i2.6912.
Dahl, A. L. (2012). Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 17, 14–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032.
Darmawan, M. A., Putra, M. P. I. F., & Wiguna, B. (2014). Value chain analysis for green productivity
improvement in the natural rubber supply chain: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85,
201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.098.
Das, K. (2018). Integrating lean systems in the design of a sustainable supply chain model. International
Journal of Production Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.01.003.
De Oliveira Matias, J. C., & Coelho, D. A. (2002). The integration of the standards systems of quality man-
agement, environmental management and occupational health and safety management. International
Journal of Production Research, 40(15 SPEC.), 3857–3866. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020754021
0155828.
De Ron, A. J. (1998). Sustainable production: The ultimate result of a continuous improvement. Inter-
national Journal on Production Economics, 5657(98), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925
-5273(98)00005-X.
Dombrowski, U., & Mielke, T. (2014). Lean leadership-15 rules for a sustainable lean implementation. Pro-
cedia CIRP, 17, 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.146.
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., & Thomas Dyllick, K. H. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustain-
ability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323.
Ebert, U., & Welsch, H. (2004). Meaningful environmental indices: A social choice approach. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2003.09.001.
Eckerson, W. (2010). 12 Characteristics of effective metrics. TDWI Blog. https://tdwi.org/Blogs/TDWI-
Blog/2010/04/Effective-Metrics.aspx.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sus-
tainable Development. California Management Review, 36(June 1992), 90–100. https://doi.
org/10.2307/41165746.
EPI. (2005). 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index. http://earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/images/ESI20
05_policysummary.pdf.
Erlach, B. K., & Sheehan, E. (2016). Value stream designing a factory. Industrial Engineer, (January),
31–37. http://www.iienet.org/iemagazine.
Fahad, M., Naqvi, S. A. A., Atir, M., Zubair, M., & Shehzad, M. M. (2017). Energy management in a manu-
facturing industry through layout design. Procedia Manufacturing, 8(October 2016), 168–174. https
://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.020.
Faulkner, W., & Badurdeen, F. (2014). Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM): Methodology to visu-
alize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 8–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.042.
Fiksel, J. R., Eason, T., & Frederickson, H. (2012). A framework for sustainability indicators at EPA. In:
National risk management research laboratory, Office of research and development, US environmen-
tal protection agency.
Fu, F., Sun, J., & Pasquire, C. (2015). Carbon emission assessment for steel structure based on lean con-
struction process. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, 79(3–4),
401–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-014-0106-x.
GaBi, PE International, & University of Stuttgart. (2012). GaBi paper clip tutorial—Part 1. http://www.
gabi-software.com/uploads/media/Paper_Clip_Tutorial_Handbook_Part1.pdf.
GaBi, PE International, & University of Stuttgart. (2013). GaBi paper clip tutorial—Part 2. http://www.
gabi-software.com/uploads/media/Paper_Clip_Tutorial_Handbook_Part2.pdf.
Goldmeier, J., & Duggirala, P. (2015). Dashboards for excel—Deliver critical information and insight at
the speed of a click. Dashboards for Excel. https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=111367326&site=eds-live&scope=site
Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y. Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T., & Ambursa, H. M. (2012). Sustainable supply
chain management: A case study of British Aerospace (BAe) Systems. International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics, 140(1), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.003.
GRI 204-1. (2016). GRI 204: Procurement practices. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalrepo
rting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last
Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
GRI 302-1. (2016). GRI - 302-energy. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/stand
ards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last Accessed on
9 Nov 2018.
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
GRI 304-2/3. (2016). GRI-304-biodiversity. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting

.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last
GRI 403-2. (2016). GRI 403: Occupational health and safety. GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative.
https://www.globalrepor ting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-
9d93-f746662dea78. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
GRI 404-1. (2016). GRI- 404: Training and education. GRI Standards (Vol. GRI101). Global Reporting Ini-
tiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-
453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
GRI 413-1. (2016). GRI-413—Local communities. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting
GRI 418-1. (2016). GRI 418—Customer privacy. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting
GRI (2011). GRI sustainability reporting guidelines. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-
Technical-Protocol.pdf. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
GRI 301. (2016). GRI 301: Materials. GRI standards. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalrepo
rting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
GRI 305. (2016). GRI 305: Emissions. GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalrepo
rting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last
GRI 306. (2016). GRI 306: Effluents and waste. GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.
globalrepor ting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f7466
62dea78. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
GRI 401. (2016). GRI 401: Employment. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/stand
ards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f746662dea78. Last Accessed on
9 Nov 2018.
GRI 405. (2016). GRI-405-diversity-and-equal-opportunity-2016. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.
globalrepor ting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/?g=dec8fd48-1dbf-453f-9d93-f7466
62dea78. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
GRI 303. (2018). GRI 303: Water. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/
gri-standards-download-center/. Last Accessed on 9 Nov 2018.
Grinsven, G. V. (1993). Performance measurements for world-class manufacturing (pp. 34–36). Cambridge:
Productivity Press.
Groover, M. P. (2006). Work systems: The methods, measurement & management of work (1st ed.). London:
Pearson.
Hahn, G. J., Doganaksoy, N., & Hoerl, R. (2000). The evolution of six sigma. Quality Engineering, 12(3),
317–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/08982110008962595.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R. D., & Gavronski, I. (2013). Lean management and supply man-
agement: Their role in green practices and performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 312–320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.028.
Harry, M. J., De Hodgins, O. C., Hulbert, R. L., Lacke, C. J., & Mann, P. S. (2010). Practitioner’s guide for
statistics and lean six sigma for process improvements. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Helleno, A. L., de Moraes, A. J. I., Simon, A. T., & Helleno, A. L. (2017). Integrating sustainability indica-
tors and lean manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: Application case studies in Brazilian
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.072.
Heragu, S. S. (2016). Facilities design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Hitchcock, D., Schenk, R., & Gordy, T. (2011). 2011 Directory of sustainability life cycle assessment tools
assembled by. International Society of Sustainability Professionals. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368
980014002468.
Hsu, A. et al. (2016). 2016 Environmental performance index. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Available:
https://www.epi.yale.
Ho, S. K. M. (2010a). Integrated lean TQM model for global sustainability and competitiveness. The TQM
Journal, 22(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731011085294.
Ho, S. K. M. (2010b). Integrated lean TQM model for sustainable development. The TQM Journal, 22(6),
583–593. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731011085294.
Imai, M. (2012). Gemba Kaizen: A commonsense approach to a continuous improvement strategy. New
York: McGraw Hill.
13
ISSP. (2018). Sustainability professional certification. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from https://www.sustainabi
lityprofessionals.org/sustainability-professional-certification.
Jaggi, A. S., Sawhney, R. S., Balestrassi, P. P., Simonton, J., & Upreti, G. (2014). An experimental approach
for developing radio frequency identification (RFID) ready packaging. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 85, 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.105.
Johnston, M., & Dougherty, D. (2012). Developing SIPOC Diagrams. ASQ Six Sigma Forum
Magazine, 11(2), 14–18. http://tue.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXM-
wY2AwNtIz0EUrE0Cjj2kphmaWJkaJackp5knJRpZpxuagxraJqXkiaGQ7zNvE0cs83NU-
0EnbtqT5027YerJAEl9wp-cmgQXN9YMsE1Pg1N7UvKNQF3SIFmm2FXqkBLJKNgZU5MHmbh-
0fC-1_A2skEcnyqpS5owydG8QuuU9wEKLZekEEAdjy0giMkAQgxMKXmCTN
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard—Translating strategy into action. Brighton:
Harvard Business Review Press.
Khasreen, M. M., Banfill, P. F. G., & Menzies, G. F. (2009). Life-cycle assessment and the environmental
impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability, 1(3), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1030674.
Kim, D. B., Leong, S., & Chen, C.-S. (2012). An overview of sustainability indicators and metrics for dis-
crete part manufacturing. In Volume 2: 32nd computers and information in engineering conference,
parts A and B (pp. 1173–1181). https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2012-71020
Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.017.
Klöpffer, W. (2013). Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1017/cbo9781107415324.004.
Klöpffer, W., & Grahl, B. (2014). Life cycle assessment (LCA)—A guide to best practice. In W. Klöpffer, &
B. Grahl (Eds.). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. https://doi.org/10.1002/97835
27655625
Kumar, A., & Rahman, S. (2014). RFID-enabled process reengineering of closed-loop supply chains in
the healthcare industry of Singapore. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 382–394. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.037.
Langenwalter, G. (2006). “Life” is our ultimate customer: From lean to sustainability. Target, 22(1), 5–15.
http://www.ame.org/sites/default/files/target_articles/06-22-1-Lean_Sustainability.pdf
Larson, T., & Greenwood, R. (2004). Perfect complements: Synergies between lean production and eco-
sustainability initiatives. Environmental Quality Management, 13(4), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tqem.20013.
Lehtinen, H., Saarentaus, A., Rouhiainen, J., Pits, M., & Azapagic, A. (2011). A review of LCA methods
and tools and their suitability for SMEs. Eco-innovation BIOCHEM. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo97
81107415324.004.
Li, D., Cao, C., Zhang, L., Chen, X., Ren, S., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Effects of corporate environmental respon-
sibility on financial performance: The moderating role of government regulation and organizational
slack. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1323–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.129.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method—Techniques and applications. London:
Addison-Wesley.
Litos, L., Borzillo, F., Patsavellas, J., Cockhead, D., & Salonitis, K. (2017). Management tool design for
eco-efficiency improvements in manufacturing—A case study. Procedia CIRP, 60, 500–505. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.02.001.
Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2015). Cross-functional executive involvement and worker involvement in
lean manufacturing and sustainability alignment. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 35(9), 1332–1358. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2015-0113.
Magoon, L. M. (2008). Dictionary of financial formulas and ratios. London: Global Professional Pub.
Mahroum, S., & Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E. (2018). Innovation metrics and KPIs: Are you getting what
you pay for? 1–3. https://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/innovation-metrics-and-kpis-are-you-getti
ng-what-you-pay-for-4386
Maleyeff, J., Arnheiter, E. A., & Venkateswaran, V. (2012). The continuing evolution of lean six sigma.
TQM Journal, 24(6), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731211270106.
Martichenko, R., & Von Grabe, K. (2010). Building a lean fulfillment stream rethinking your supply chain
and logistics to create maximum value at minimum total cost (1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Lean Enterprise Institute.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0054346.
McCarty, T., Jordan, M., & Probst, D. (2011). Six sigma for sustainability—How organizations design and
deloy winning environmental programs. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
McManus, M. C., & Taylor, C. M. (2015). The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass and Bio-
energy, 82, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.024.
Menke, D. M., Davis, G. A., & Vigon, B. W. (1996). Evaluation of life-cycle assessment tools. Ottowa:
Environment Canada, Hazardous Waste Branch.
Minitab Inc. (2017a). Getting started with Minitab 18. Retrieved September 17, 2018, from http://www.
minitab.com/uploadedFiles/Documents/getting-started/MinitabGettingStarted_EN.pdf.
Minitab Inc. (2017b). Companion by Minitab support. Retrieved September 17, 2018, from https://suppo
rt.minitab.com/en-us/companion/help-and-how-to/help-and-how-to/.
Misiurek, B. (2016). Standardized work with TWI: Eliminating human errors in production and service
processes. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
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.
Moreira, F., Alves, A. C., & Sousa, R. M. (2010). Towards eco-efficient lean production systems. Balanced
Automation Systems for Future Manufacturing Networks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14341
-0_12.
Mourtzis, D., Fotia, S., Vlachou, E., & Koutoupes, A. (2017). A lean PSS design and evaluation framework
supported by KPI monitoring and context sensitivity tools. International Journal of Advanced Manu-
facturing Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0132-5.
Myerson, P. (2012). Lean supply chain & logistics management (1st ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
NASA. (2005). Space shuttle basics. https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/.
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assess-
ment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023.
Netland, Torbjørn H. (2016). Critical success factors for implementing lean production: The effect of
contingencies. International Journal of Production Research, 54(8), 2433–2448. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1096976.
Netland, Torbjorn H., Schloetzer, J. D., & Ferdows, K. (2015). Implementing corporate lean programs: The
effect of management control practices. Journal of Operations Management, 36, 90–102. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.03.005.
Ng, R., Low, J. S. C., & Song, B. (2015). Integrating and implementing Lean and Green practices based on
proposition of carbon-value efficiency metric. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95, 242–255. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.043.
Ocampo, L., Vergara, V. G., Impas, C., Tordillo, J. A., & Pastoril, J. (2015). Identifying critical indicators
in sustainable manufacturing using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Manufacturing and Industrial
Engineering, 14(3–4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.12776/mie.v14i3-4.444.
OECD. (2004). Measuring sustainable development: Integrated economic, environmental and social frame-
works. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264020139-en.
OECD. (2011). OECD sustainable manufacturing toolkit—Seven steps to environmental excellence—Start
up guide. http://www.oecd.org/innovation/green/toolkit/48704993.pdf.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system beyond large-scale production (1st ed.). Cambridge: Productiv-
ity Press.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design con-
siderations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2003.11.002.
Pampanelli, A. B., Found, P., & Bernardes, A. M. (2015). Sustainable manufacturing: The lean and green
business model. In Sustainable operations management (pp. 131–160). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-14002-5.
Parmenter, D. (2015). Key performance indicators: Developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. In
Manager (Third Edit.). Wiley, Hoboken. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.denabs.2009.06.004.
Parveen, C. M., Kumar, A. R. P., & Narasimha Rao, T. V. V. L. (2011). Integration of lean and green supply
chain—Impact on manufacturing firms in improving environmental efficiencies. In Proceedings of
the international conference on green technology and environmental conservation, GTEC-2011 (pp.
143–147). https://doi.org/10.1109/gtec.2011.6167659.
Pepper, M. P. J., & Spedding, T. A. (2010). The evolution of lean six sigma. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 27(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711011014276.
Person, R. (2013). Balanced scorecards and operational dashboards with microsoft excel (2nd ed.).
Hoboken: Wiley.
13
Peterson-Drake, P. (2018). Financial ratio formulas. http://educ.jmu.edu/~drakepp/principles/module2/

fin_formulas.pdf.
Piasecki, D. J. (2009). Inventory management explained: A focus on forecasting, lot sizing, safety stock,
and ordering systems. Pleasant Prairie: OPS Publishing.
Pil, F. P., & Rothenberg, S. (2003). Environmental performance as a driver of superior quality. Pro-
duction and Operations Management, 12(3), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2003.
tb00211.x.
Pojasek, R. B. (2012a). Quality toolbox—Planning a sustainability thrust for organizational governance.
Environmental Quality Management, 21(4), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21310.
Pojasek, R. B. (2012b). Quality toolbox—Implementing a sustainability management system. Environ-
mental Quality Management, 22(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem21319.
Poveda, C. A., & Young, R. (2015). Potential benefits of developing and implementing environmental
and sustainability rating systems: Making the case for the need of diversification. International
Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.12.003.
Pre Consultants. (2016). SimaPro Tutorial, (May), 89. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/
SimaPro8Tutorial.pdf.
Pre Sustainability. (2017). About Sima Pro. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from https://simapro.com/about/.
Raje, P. (2018). Maturity model describes stages of six sigma evolution. Retrieved December 5, 2018,
from https://www.isixsigma.com/implementation/basics/maturity-model-describes-stages-six-
sigma-evolution/.
Rauch, E., Damian, A., Holzner, P., & Matt, D. T. (2016). Lean hospitality—Application of lean man-
agement methods in the hotel sector. Procedia CIRP, 41, 614–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci
r.2016.01.019.
Rebelo, M. F., Santos, G., & Silva, R. (2016). Integration of management systems: towards a sustained
success and development of organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 96–111. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.011.
ReVelle, J. B. (2004). Quality essentials: A reference guide from A to Z. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality
Press.
Rossi, M., Germani, M., & Zamagni, A. (2016). Review of ecodesign methods and tools. Barriers and
strategies for an effective implementation in industrial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production,
Rother, M., & Shook, J. (1999). Learning to see. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lean Enterprise Institute.
Rother, M., & Shook, J. (2003). Learning to see: Value stream mapping to add value and eliminate
muda. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lean Enterprise Institute.
Santero, N., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2010). Life cycle assessment of pavements: A critical review of
existing literature and research. Portland Cement Asssociation, Skokie, Illinois, (April), 81. http://
escholarship.org/uc/item/8632v9cc.
Sarac, A., Absi, N., & Dauzre-Prs, S. (2010). A literature review on the impact of RFID technologies on
supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 77–95. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.07.039.
Sarkar, P., Joung, C. B., Carrel, J., & Feng, S. C. (2011). Sustainable manufacturing indicator reposi-
tory. In Proceedings of the ASME 2011 international design engineering technical conferences &
computers and information in engineering conference computers and information in engineering
conference, Washington, DC, USA.
Seebode, D., Jeanrenaud, S., & Bessant, J. (2012). Managing innovation for sustainability. R and D
Management, 42(3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00678.x.
Shaker, R. R. (2015). The spatial distribution of development in Europe and its underlying sustainability
correlations. Applied Geography, 63, 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.07.009.
Shaker, R. R. (2018). A mega-index for the Americas and its underlying sustainable development correla-
tions. Ecological Indicators, 89(July 2017), 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.050.
Shannon, P. (1997). The value-added ratio. Quality Progress, 30(3), 94–97.
Simons, D., & Mason, R. (2002). Environmental and transport supply chain evaluation with sustainable
value stream mapping. In Lean enterprise research centre logistics and operational management
section (pp. 2–7).
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment
methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007.
13
C. Tasdemir et al.
Singh, A., & Trivedi, A. (2016). Sustainable green supply chain management: Trends and current
practices. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(3), 290–305. https://doi.
org/10.1108/CR-05-2015-0034.
SMA. (2018). Sustainability management certified professional. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https
://sustainabilityma.org/certification/sustainability-management-certified-professional/.
Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D., & Pipan, K. K. (2010). Quality improvement methodologies—PDCA cycle,
RADAR matrix, DMAIC and DFSS industrial management and organisation. Journal of Achieve-
ments in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 43(1), 476–483.
Soltero, C., & Waldrip, G. (2002). Using Kaizen to reduce waste and prevent pollution. Environmental
Quality Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.10026.
Speck, R., Selke, S., Auras, R., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2016). Life cycle assessment software: Selection can
impact results. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12245.
Stank, T., Autry, C., Bell, J., Gilgor, D., Petersen, K., Dittmann, P., et al. (2013). Game-Changing Trends
In Supply Chain. Management Faculty at the University of Tennessee, 29. http://www.ey.com/
Publication/vwLUAssets/Game-Changing_Trends_in_Supply_Chain/$FILE/UT Game Changing
Trends in SC_FINAL Online.pdf
Stephens, M. P., & Meyers, F. E. (2013). Manufacturing facilities design and material handling. West
Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
Svensson, G., Høgevold, N., Ferro, C., Varela, J. C. S., Padin, C., & Wagner, B. (2016). A triple bot-
tom line dominant logic for business sustainability: Framework and empirical findings. Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing, 23(2), 153–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2016.11691
19.
Sweeney, E. (2013). Supply chain “mega-trends”: Current status and future trends. In: LinkLine: Journal
of the chartered institute of logisticsand transport (CILT) in Ireland (pp. 31–34). Springer.
Tague, N. R. (2005). The quality toolbox (2nd ed.). Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Tasdemir, C., & Gazo, R. (2018). A systematic literature review for better understanding of lean driven
sustainability. Sustainability, 10(7), 2544. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072544.
Taubitz, M. A. (2010). Lean, green & safe. Professional Safety, 55(5), 39–46.
TEDGlobal. (2013). Steve Howard: Let’s go all-in on selling sustainability. USA. http://www.ted.com/
talks/steve_howard_let_s_go_all_in_on_selling_sustainability/transcript?language=en.
Teeuwen, B. (2010). Lean tools for the public sector: The pursuit of perfection in government services.
Portland: Productivity Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/purdue/detail.action?docID
=625002.
Tompkins, J. A., White, J. A., Bozer, Y. A., & Tanchoco, J. M. A. (2010). Facilities planning. Hoboken:
Wiley.
Torres Jr., A. S., & Gati, A. M. (2009). Environmental value stream mapping (EVSM) as sustainabil-
ity management tool. In PICMET’09—2009 Portland international conference on management of
engineering & technology (pp. 1689–1698). https://doi.org/10.1109/picmet.2009.5261967
Ugarte, G. M., Golden, J. S., & Dooley, K. J. (2016). Lean versus green: The impact of lean logistics on
greenhouse gas emissions in consumer goods supply chains. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 22(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2015.09.002.
United Nations. (2017). World population prospects the 2017 revision key findings and advance tables.
The World Population Prospects, 2017, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
UPS. (2017). Environmental responsibility—Fuels & fleets. https://sustainability.ups.com/committed-to-
more/fuels-and-fleets/.
US EPA. (2007). The lean and environment toolkit (pp. 1–96). https://www.epa.gov/sustainability/lean-
environment-toolkit.
US EPA. (2011). Lean & water toolkit (pp. 1–108). https://www.epa.gov/sustainability/lean-water-toolk
it.
US EPA. (2012). A framework for sustainability indicators at EPA, 59. http://scholar.google.com/schol
ar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:A+Framework+for+Sustainability+Indicators+at+EPA#0.
US EPA. (2000). The lean and green supply chain: A practical guide for materials managers and supply
chain managers to reduce costs and improve environmental performance. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107415324.004.
Vais, A., Miron, V., Pedersen, M., & Folke, J. (2006). “Lean and Green” at a Romanian secondary tis-
sue paper and board mill—Putting theory into practice. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
46(1), 44–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.06.005.
Van Amburg, B. (2015). Sustainable fleet accreditation—A tool to drive climate action. https://www.arb.
ca.gov/msprog/onroad/caphase2ghg/presentations/2_5_bill_a_calstart.pdf.
13
Vieira, A. R., & Cachadinha, N. (2011). Lean construction and sustainability—Complementary para-
digms? A case study. In Proceeding of 19th annual conference of IGLC (pp. 611–621).
Vimal, K. E. K., Vinodh, S., & Gurumurthy, A. (2017). Modelling and analysis of sustainable manufactur-
ing system using a digraph-based approach. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 7038,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1420108.
Vinodh, S., Ben Ruben, R., & Asokan, P. (2016). Life cycle assessment integrated value stream mapping
framework to ensure sustainable manufacturing: A case study. Clean Technologies and Environmen-
tal Policy, 18(1), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1016-8.
Wang, J. X. (2015). Cellular manufacturing: Mitigating risk and uncertainty (systems innovation book
series). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Wang, J., & Dai, J. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management practices and performance. Industrial
Management & Data Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2016-0540.
Wang, Z., Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M., & Liu, C. (2013). Composite practices to improve sustain-
ability: A framework and evidence from Chinese auto-parts company. IEEE International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2013.69625
70.
WCED. (1987). Our common future: Report of the world commission on environment and development.
Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 4(1), 300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.
Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., & Onofrei, G. (2013). Exploring synergetic effects between investments in envi-
ronmental and quality/lean practices in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 18(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541311318791.
Wilson, L. (2009). How to implement lean manufacturing (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
WMEP. (2015). Next generation manufacturing—World-class performance benchmarks. https://www.
wmep.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NGMBENCHMARKS4109.pdf.
Womack, J. (2013). Gemba walks: Expanded (2nd ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Lean Enterprise Institute.
WSDE. (2007). Lean & environment case study: Canyon Creek Cabinet Company. https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/canyon_creek_cabinet_company.pdf.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT) theoretical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT) theoretical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment, Development and Sustainability

Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT): theoretical

Cagatay Tasdemir1 · Rado Gazo1 · Henry J. Quesada2

Received: 7 December 2018 / Accepted: 4 November 2019

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​

1.1 Significance and novelty of the study

Fig. 1 Triple bottom line philosophy and inter-relationship of sustainability pillars

2 Proposal of a new sustainability performance benchmarking tool

2.1 Theoretical and conceptual framework of sustainability benchmarking tool

• Versatility—To ensure applicability to any system or sector through modifications.

Fig. 2 Illustration of methodologies that powered proposed composite framework

Fig. 3 Theoretical framework of proposed tool

*Offers free educational version, ♦discontinued by provider

data. Within engine of SBT Framework, environmental impact assessment is conducted as

2.2 Modules of SBT Framework

2.2.1 Value stream mapping (VSM) module

2.2.2 Economic (FPM), environmental (EPM), social (SPM) performance measurement

where FI economic or financial indicator, EI environmental indicator, SI social indicator,

Fig. 6 SBT Framework complexity degrees and corresponding KPI numbers

Fig. 8 First-generation KPI Pool for SBT Framework

2.2.3 Work Environment Risk Assessment Rating (WERAR) module

2.3 Ownership of framework deployment and engraving true sustainability

Table 3 Impact/probability and process control scales for WERAR mechanism

Fig. 9 Implementation steps of SBT Framework

Fig. 10 Proposed hierarchical ownership distribution of SBT Framework

example of minimum requirements for various levels of SBT Framework deployment

SBT True Sustainability Framework Champion

• At least an M.S. Degree (preferably Ph.D.) with a Specialization in Sustainability

Senior Level Executives

• At least an M.S. Degree in Business or Related Discipline

Facility Level Leaders

• At least a B.S. Degree in Business Related Discipline

Department Level Team Leaders

• At least Six Sigma Green Belt

Existence of Work Environment Risk Assessment Mechanism (WERAR) requires audit

3 Assumptions and limitations of the framework

Fig. 11 Organizational culture transformation pathway

4 Conclusive remarks and future work

Product or Service Returned or Required Revisit

Revenue− Cost of Goods Sold+Operating Exp.+Other Exp.+Interest+Tax

Assign 1 if NPM < 0

Assign 10 if there is no non-compliant incidents and sanctions

Environmental Pillar KPIs

Assign 10 if right hand side of numerator > left hand side;

Assign 10 if right hand side of numerator > left hand side;

Water Withdrawn −( Water Recycled+ Water Reused)

Assign 10 if there is no non-compliant incidents and sanctions

Social Pillar KPIs

Assign 10 if CTS > 10

Number Female Employees

If number of female employees > male employees, swap numerator with

Number of Volunteer Initiatives

Assign 1 if the organization/facility/SCM is involved with “0” initiatives

Assign 10 if there is no non-compliant incidents and sanctions

Assign 1 if CR < 1; Assign 2.5 if 1 < CR < 1.5

Local Supplier Radius = 150 miles

Amount of Data Lost or Breached

Revenue Generated by New Ideas

Appendix 2: WERAR Module Audit Form

GRI 304-2/3. (2016). GRI-304-biodiversity. Global Reporting Initiative. https​://www.globa​lrepo​rting​

Peterson-Drake, P. (2018). Financial ratio formulas. http://educ.jmu.edu/~drake​pp/princ​iples​/modul​e2/

You might also like

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s1066

1.1 Significance and novelty of the study

2 Proposal of a new sustainability performance benchmarking tool

2.1 Theoretical and conceptual framework of sustainability benchmarking tool

2.2 Modules of SBT Framework

2.2.1 Value stream mapping (VSM) module

2.2.2 Economic (FPM), environmental (EPM), social (SPM) performance measurement

2.2.3 Work Environment Risk Assessment Rating (WERAR) module

2.3 Ownership of framework deployment and engraving true sustainability

3 Assumptions and limitations of the framework

4 Conclusive remarks and future work

GRI 304-2/3. (2016). GRI-304-biodiversity. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting

Peterson-Drake, P. (2018). Financial ratio formulas. http://educ.jmu.edu/~drakepp/principles/module2/