Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Analyzing sustainable manufacturing practices e A case study in

Indian context
K. Madan Shankar a, Devika Kannan a, *, P. Udhaya Kumar b
a
Center for Sustainable Supply Chain Engineering, Department of Technology and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, 5230, Denmark
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KLN College of Engineering, Pottapalayam, 630612, India

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

Article history: Rising advancements in manufacturing sectors force manufacturers to rethink and redesign their existing
Received 21 March 2017 systems in order to cope with the challenges that emerged with globalization and environmental con-
Received in revised form cerns. An increase in customer awareness and pressures from stakeholders shifted manufacturers' focus;
1 May 2017
no longer were financial benefits the primary concern in the contemporary business environment. As a
Accepted 18 May 2017
Available online 14 June 2017
result, many innovative strategies were brought into the realm of manufacturing systems, such as lean,
green, agile, and sustainable manufacturing practices. Sustainable manufacturing has been praised in
^ as de
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo recent years for its significant benefits directed at triple bottom line factors (social, environmental, and
Almeida financial), but the majority of manufacturing strategies remain limited to either one or two factors. No
reliable guidelines exist to guarantee the successful implementation of sustainable manufacturing;
Keywords: available literature fails to explore such a complex research topic. Minding this gap, this study takes the
Sustainable manufacturing practices opportunity to analyze and identify effective sustainable manufacturing practices that may help in a
DEMATEL specific domain. This study proposes a framework to achieve the research aim in an Indian context,
MCDM
where sustainability issues are especially relevant. Initially, the common sustainable manufacturing
Indian context
practices are collected from literature resources and validated with focus groups. Then, the collected
practices are compared with one another with the assistance of case industry decision makers. To
analyze the practices, a multi-criteria decision making methodology was adopted, specifically DEMATEL.
From the case results, we determine that among 22 common sustainable manufacturing practices,
promoting 6R (reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, redesign, and remanufacture) concepts reveals the greatest
influence on implementation. Clearly, focusing on 6R concepts will effectively improve sustainable
manufacturing implementation in the organization. Finally, this study sheds some light on the future
opportunities hidden in this research area by providing contributions towards both scientific and social
means.
© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction transitional nations. Hence, a worldwide effort to practice sus-

tainability in businesses, including engineering, design, and
Organizations are running hard to achieve their sustainable manufacturing, exists. Among the businesses with sustainable
development goals due to rising pressures from stakeholders and goals, manufacturing sectors generally require the most change
from their high-end customers. This commitment towards sus- due to their seriously negative impact on 3Ps (people, planet, and
tainability forces the organizations to rethink their strategies in profit) (Wu et al., 2017). For instance, according to the report of
order to maintain sustainability in their operations and services. IEA (2015), manufacturing industries are solely responsible for
The movement towards sustainability is seen not only among 36% of carbon dioxide emissions and they consume approximately
developed nations, it is considered a key strategy in developing one-third of the globe's energy consumption (Shubham et al.,
and emerging economies because many big brands are located in 2016). In addition, manufacturing sectors are noted for their ma-
terial consumption and waste generation (Bhanot et al., 2017;
Govindan et al., 2017). Improving sustainability and environ-
mental stewardship without compromising profitability and
* Corresponding author. productivity has recently become a primary responsibility for
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Kannan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.097
0959-6526/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343 1333

manufacturing companies (Rosen and Kishawy, 2012; Mangla 2. Literature review

et al., 2017; Govindan, 2017). Sustainable manufacturing, with
its main objective of reduced or zero negative impacts to society, This section provides a view of the current status of sustainable
environment, and economy, has become a popular research topic. manufacturing. For greater clarification, this section delineates
However, there is no standard definition for sustainable sustainability theory, sustainable manufacturing, and practices in
manufacturing, relevant terms have evolved with environmen- its subsections. The first and second subsections address general
tally conscious manufacturing (Govindan et al., 2015a,b), green concepts and applications, and the third subsection focuses solely
manufacturing (Govindan et al., 2015a,b), lean manufacturing on practices and orientations.
(Jabbour et al., 2013), and so on. For successful implementation of
sustainable manufacturing, concepts (Molamohamadi and Ismail, 2.1. Sustainability theory
2013), metrics (Feng et al., 2010), drivers (Shankar et al., 2016),
challenges (Bhanot et al., 2017), and indicators (Joung et al., 2013) Sustainability has a multi-disciplinary focus that may include
are explored. Concepts provide more information regarding areas from business management to natural sciences. As a result of
strategy and it is necessary to understand the practices that are this breadth of application, sustainability research may be classified
needed for the implementation of sustainable manufacturing as social sustainability, corporate sustainability, triple bottom line,
(Mathivathanan et al., 2017a,b; Correia et al., 2017; Formentini human sustainability, environmental sustainability, ecological
et al., 2016). Hence, this study seeks to explore sustainable sustainability, or some combination of the above (Stubbs and
manufacturing practices in an Indian context. As a developing Cocklin, 2008; Soleimani et al., 2017; Rajeev et al., 2017). Howev-
nation, India is considered an ideal case to identify effective sus- er, all these terms are combined under the umbrella term of sus-
tainable manufacturing practices and to validate the proposed tainable development. This study emphasizes one of the key
model. According to Abdul-Rashid et al. (2017), manufacturing in strategies, the triple bottom line (TBL), which, according to Castka
developing sectors plays a vital role in the economy; transitions and Balzarova (2007), significantly improves the production and
involved in such circumstances impact the whole business cul- operations of the host organization from a long-term perspective.
ture. In addition, many studies (Luthra et al., 2017a; Govindan Initially, Elkington (1997) formed the concept of TBL, in which he
et al., 2016a,b; Tseng et al., 2016; Shankar et al., 2016) frequently argued that the environmental dimension is highly correlated with
argue the status of sustainability issues in an Indian context, economic and social needs. After this intervention, many studies
which validates the study's geographical focus. With these ob- started to explore TBL and sustainability concepts in a wide range of
jectives, the following research questions were made. applications. Meanwhile, new theories and approaches were
developed, such as the stakeholder theory and the Global Reporting
➢ What are the common sustainable manufacturing practices that Initiative (GRI) approach, which brought more attention to TBL and
assist in sound implementation? sustainability. Many studies began to explore the TBL concepts with
➢ What are the dimensions involved in the categorization of diversified theories, approaches, models, and frameworks; sus-
sustainability in manufacturing applications? tainable manufacturing has become one of the most debated topics
➢ What is the most essential practice that influences the suc- among both researchers and practitioners. Much of the interest in
cessful implementation of sustainable manufacturing in an In- this topic can be linked to the intervention of sustainable devel-
dian context? opment concepts from the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) in 1987. WCED defined sustainable devel-
According to Wu et al. (2017), sustainable manufacturing prac- opment as “Development that meets the needs of the present
tices have a positive relationship on performance, and those ben- without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
efits can be analyzed in a balanced and systematic way through their own needs.”
multiple factors. Govindan et al. (2015a,b) and Gandhi et al. (2016a)
argued that multi-criteria decision methodologies are best suited 2.2. Sustainable manufacturing
for analyzing new manufacturing strategies with multiple criteria.
This study applies MCDM techniques to analyze common sustain- As mentioned earlier, integrating sustainability into
able manufacturing practices with the assistance of case industry manufacturing sectors is not a new concept. To formulate the
decision makers. While many MCDM techniques were discussed strongest concepts, researchers identified three basic pillars of
from the literature, this study chose one of the most reliable ap- sustainability, the TBL, which encompasses economic, environ-
proaches: decision making trial and evaluation laboratory mental, and social issues in a manufacturing context. Further,
(DEMATEL). Initially, common practices are collected from the adequate studies (Van Berkel, 2010; Willard, 2012; Song and Moon,
existing literature and further validated with focus groups. Next, 2016) focused on the benefits of sustainability with manufacturing
the common practices are analyzed with the assistance of DEMA- as one of the highly disputed sectors.
TEL based on the replies of decision makers to identify effective and Some studies focus on the conceptual development and
influential sustainable manufacturing practices. More detail will be implementation challenges of sustainable manufacturing.
presented in the upcoming sections. Molamohamadi and Ismail (2013) studied the development and
The remaining sections of the paper are as follows. Section 2 evolution of sustainable manufacturing concepts, and they nar-
details the current state of sustainable manufacturing practices rowed their study to issues involved in sustainable manufacturing
and validates the novelty of this research. Section 3 describes the frameworks and new schemes. Despeisse et al. (2012a,b) studied
problem and proposes a framework to evaluate the effective sus- the tactics and models which could help manufacturing industries
tainable manufacturing practices. DEMATEL is discussed as a so- to integrate sustainability into their operations. In particular, they
lution methodology in Section 4. Section 5 validates the proposed focused on design and improvement challenges. Garetti and Taisch
model by applying it to a developing case industry. Section 6 re- (2012) studied the trends and challenges that exist in the imple-
ports obtained results and includes relevant acknowledgements, mentation of sustainable manufacturing with various fruitful
and Section 7 concludes with fruitful insights of the study along research clusters. Jayal et al. (2010) analyzed the challenges of
with its limitations and future scope. sustainable manufacturing on the process and systems levels with
the assistance of modeling and optimization. A few studies shift the
1334 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343

sustainable manufacturing focus to the application of the supply instance, Rachuri et al. (2009) discussed the metrics, models,
chain. Ghadimi and Heavey (2014) examined suppliers of the standards, and practices of sustainable manufacturing systems;
medical device industry on their performances in sustainable however, their practices section was limited, which provide ample
manufacturing, and they argue that sustainable manufacturing room for further study. Nordin et al. (2014) explored the impacts of
procurement increases an organization's effectiveness. Some sustainable manufacturing practices with the assistance of a
studies combined sustainable manufacturing with other Malaysian case study in which four key dimensions of practices
manufacturing strategies. Ijomah et al. (2007) studied the impact of were studied, namely: responsive product strategy, lean practices,
remanufacturing with development of design in order to assist the supply chain restructuring, and sustainable material and design.
implementation of sustainable manufacturing within UK Jayaraman et al. (2012) explored the impacts of practicing sus-
manufacturing sectors. Dornfeld (2014) combined the perspectives tainable manufacturing with revenue growth and customer satis-
of green and sustainable manufacturing with the objective of faction with the assistance of an Indian case. Rosen and Kishawy
cleaner production. Few studies linked sustainable manufacturing (2010) reviewed sustainable manufacturing design, concepts,
with social dimensions, including labor problems, community practices, and needs with a generalized perspective, and they
commitment, and so on. Adebiyi and Charles-Owaba (2009) stud- concluded that the key contributors of sustainable manufacturing
ied sustainable manufacturing in Nigerian companies based on are indicators, design, environmental monitors, community
their safety programs; they considered 30 manufacturing firms and engagement, customer attitude, supplier support, and company
evaluated them on their safety education, awareness, and accident culture.
investigation factors. Few studies explore developing and transitional nations. Gupta
While the majority of studies focus on concepts and imple- et al. (2015) evaluate the sustainable manufacturing practices in an
mentation, some recent studies examine what occurs after the Indian context with the concern of electrical panel industries. This
implementation of sustainable manufacturing practices. Joung et al. study provides some highlights regarding the practices, but it was
(2013) studied the indicators of sustainable manufacturing; they limited in the number of practices. Sustainable manufacturing
categorize the indicators into several dimensions including envi- generally involves different dimensions with corresponding prac-
ronmental stewardship, economic growth, social well-being, tices, so the inclusion of only six practices may not achieve the
technological advancement, and performance management. Then, proper goal of sustainability implementation in manufacturing.
they apply the proposed indicator in a manufacturing sector to Zubir et al. (2012) reviewed lean improvements, practices, and
ensure sustainable performance. Amrina and Yusof (2011) and Paju performances of a Malaysian automotive industry with sustainable
et al. (2010) studied sustainable manufacturing with the perspec- focus. They explored the interactions between sustainable
tives of its key performance indicators. Reich-Weiser et al. (2008) manufacturing practices with automotive sustainability. Millar and
studied the metrics of sustainable manufacturing by proposing a Russell (2011) studied the current status of a Caribbean manufac-
framework with a top-down approach. Some studies began to turer's adoption of sustainable manufacturing practices and
discuss education and training; for instance, Jawahir et al. (2015) learned that the adoption level was very low. They also discussed
presented an innovative education program in order to facilitate the potential roles of various stakeholders in the implementation of
sustainable manufacturing among the actors involved. In addition, sustainable manufacturing practices. Shubham et al. (2016) studied
they sought to ignore the fundamental education challenges that the adoption level of sustainable manufacturing practices in an
exist in the implementation of sustainable manufacturing at the Indian context by examining the interrelationship between insti-
product, process, and system levels. With little attention paid to the tutional and corporate environmental theories. Habidin et al.
machining level, Marksberry and Jawahir (2008) studied the per- (2017) analyzed the critical success factors of sustainable
formance of near dry machining under sustainable manufacturing; manufacturing in a Malaysian automotive industry.
they examined tool life and considered wear. Among the studies on While a number of studies have explored sustainable
sustainable manufacturing, only a few studies addressed sustain- manufacturing practices, no previous study identifies effective
able manufacturing practices; those will be detailed in the next practices for sound implementation of sustainable manufacturing,
section. particularly in an Indian context. As cited, some studies (Shubham
et al., 2016; Gupta et al., 2015) discussed practices but were limited
2.3. Sustainable manufacturing practices with the selection of effective practices and their interactions.
Further, this study categorizes the practices into various di-
In order to implement a successful strategy, researchers have mensions and seeks to identify their interactions, achievements
found it helpful to study sustainable manufacturing practices and that the other studies did not pursue.
their relevant operations. Roberts and Ball (2014) reported and
reviewed the practices of sustainable manufacturing with con- 3. Problem description and proposed framework
ceptual model examples, and they categorized these practices as
environmental, economic, and/or social. Despeisse et al. (2012a,b) Sustainability issues in manufacturing have motivated in-
discussed the benefits of sustainable manufacturing practices dustries to focus more on suitable strategies with their operations,
with the assistance of combined academic and virtual examples, service, and management, but no single clear method for successful
including literature review and case studies, respectively. They implementation exists. Accordingly, this study seeks to evaluate the
highlighted the motivation and implementation strategies of sus- best options for sustainable practices. This study is narrowed to
tainable manufacturing practices within different industrial appli- consider the context of India, because it is one of the world's
cation sectors. Seidel et al. (2006) explored the challenges and fastest-emerging economies and it occupies a central position in
issues involved in the implementation of sustainable global manufacturing. Based on these facts, a novel framework was
manufacturing practices in New Zealand furniture manufacturing proposed which will be validated with a case study. According to
units, particularly with the focus of small and medium scale en- Yin et al. (2016), case study methodologies are more reliable, they
terprises (SMEs). Seidel et al. (2007) again analyzed the challenges calibrate easily with results, and they can deal with multiple
and issues of sustainable manufacturing practices implementation tangible and intangible datasets with regard to the problem at
with different stakeholder views. Some studies analyzed the com- hand. In addition, many studies (Mangla et al., 2016; Govindan
bined perspectives of practices with other success factors. For et al., 2016a,b; Tseng et al., 2016; Luthra et al., 2017a; Govindan
 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343 1335

and Chaudhuri, 2016) successfully performed case studies in Indian influences, so this study chose the particular MCDM tool called
contexts with various innovative strategies. Hence, this study uti- DEMATEL. DEMATEL was first proposed in 1973 by Gabus and
lizes a case study methodology to validate the proposed model, as Fontela (1973) at the Battelle Memorial Institute, Geneva
shown in Fig. 1. Research Centre. It allows decision makers to identify the influence
The framework starts with the identification of common prac- and strength of criteria involved in the concerned problem through
tices involved in the implementation of sustainable manufacturing a coherent structuring of its relationships (Lee et al., 2011).
based on the combined assistance of field experts, industrial DEMATEL classifies criteria into two groups, cause and effect;
managers, and existing state-of-the-art research. Further, the influencing criteria are placed in the cause group and influenced
collected common barriers are included in questionnaires sent to criteria are placed in the effect group. According to Luthra et al.
the case industry in order to allow for the ranking of priority (2017b), DEMATEL assists decision makers to solve complex prob-
practices. From the replies of the case industry's decision makers, lems where multiple tangible and intangible criteria exist. Owing to
the practices of sustainable manufacturing are compared and these benefits, DEMATEL is applied in a wide range of applications,
analyzed with the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory including manufacturing (Gandhi et al., 2016b; Govindan et al.,
(DEMATEL) tool. Finally, the results obtained from our analysis are 2016a,b; Tseng et al., 2016), supply chain management
validated with the integrated approaches of state-of-the-art, virtual €
(Mathivathanan et al., 2017a,b), education (Ozdemir and Tüysüz,
applications through literature resources and focus groups and 2017), medical (Shieh et al., 2016), tourism (Jeong et al., 2016), re-
from case industry's feedback respectively. newables (Rodríguez et al., 2017), and so on. Concerning this suc-
cessful range of DEMATEL with innovative strategies, this study
integrates DEMATEL as a suitable solution methodology.
4. DEMATEL methodology The steps involved in DEMATEL methodology was discussed
below (adapted from Govindan et al., 2014.
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) tools are highly appre- Step 1: Direct relationship matrix “T” in linguistic variables
ciated by researchers due to their wide range of applications and Based on the replies of the case decision makers, direct rela-
adaptability. These MCDM tools have the flexibility to deal with tionship matrix among criteria (practices) were set up with lin-
multi-criteria problems associated with different application sec- guistic variables and denoted as “T”. The linguistic variables range
tors, whereas many other tools are limited. Sustainable from 0 to 4, in which “0” e No influence, “1” e Very low influence,
manufacturing involves multiple perspectives and diversified

Literature Review Opinions of Industrial managers

Experts’ notions

Identification of Common practices of sustainable

manufacturing

Questionnaire preparation and circulation with

collected common practices of sustainable
manufacturing

Replies from case industrial managers

Evaluation of influential practice based on the replies

of case industrial managers with the assistance of
DEMATEL approach

Conclusion with influential practices and priorities

among common practices of sustainable
manufacturing

Feedback Feedback Feedback

Review of existing Experts’ opinions Experienced industrial

Literatures managers

Validated results

Fig. 1. Proposed framework for evaluating influential sustainable manufacturing practices.

1336 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343

“2” e Low influence, “3” e High influence and “4” e Very high 2 3
influence. The form of the matrix obtained from step 1 is shown in X
n
Eqn. (1). ri ¼ 4 mij5n  1 (5)
j¼1

2 3 " #
1 a12 a13 …: a1ðn  1Þ a1n X
n
6 a21 1 a23 …: a2ðn  1Þ a2n 7 si ¼ mij 1  n (6)
6 7
6 …: …: …: …: …: …: 7 i¼1
T¼6
6
7
7
6 …: …: …: …: …: …: 7
4 aðn  1Þ1 aðn  1Þ2 aðn  2Þ3 …: 1 aðn  1Þn 5 M ¼ mij, i, j ¼ 1, 2, ….., n
an1 an2 an3 …: anðn  1Þ 1
(1) Step 5: Causal influential diagram
Based on the obtained sum of rows and columns, the causal
Step 2: Normalized direct-relation matrix “X”
influential graph is made, in which ri þ si acts as a horizontal axis
Next, the direct relationship matrix was normalized with the
(by adding ri to si) and ri-si acts as vertical axis (by subtracting ri
assistance of Eqns. (2) and (3) to set up the normalized direct
from si).
relation matrix “X. However, all the elements in this normalized
matrix lie between 1 and 0.
5. Application of proposed framework

Xn The reliability of the proposed model is validated in this section

1
K¼ a (2) by applying it in a reputed Indian industry who is a manufacturer of
max1in j¼1 ij tyres. This company offers a wide range of products, including tyres
for commercial two wheelers, four wheelers, heavy trucks, agri-
cultural, and industrial automotive. They have a long successful
history in this business markets by extending their client base with
X¼KF (3) various US and EU clients over the past 30 years. They have pro-
Step 3: Total relation matrix “M” duction facilities across the country, spread over 72 acres area, with
Total relation matrix “M” was set up from the obtained average of 2400 dealers. In order to maintain their position in the
normalized direct relation matrix “X” through Eqn. (4), in which “I” fluctuating business marketplace, they are interested in imple-
denotes identify matrix. menting innovative strategies as pilot models in their industries.
Recently, due to increasing pressure from US and EU clients and
from sustainability-based supplier selection practices, this case
industry wishes to implement all the strategies pursued by a
M ¼ X ðI  XÞ1 (4)
developed nation's clients. Sustainable manufacturing is a key
Step 4: Obtain sum of sum of rows and columns debate topic and due to this concern, they agreed to this research
From the total relation matrix “M,” the sum of rows and columns proposal for their industry to carry out. Once our research team
are identified through Eqns. (5) and (6), further denoted as ri and si gained approval from top level management of the case industry,
respectively. the proposed framework was shown and implemented in a step-

Table 1
Collected common sustainable manufacturing practices.

S. No Sustainable Manufacturing Practices Source

Dimensions Practices

1 Economic Responsive product strategy Molamohamadi and Ismail (2013); Shankar et al. (2016); Joung et al.
2 Development of bill of materials (2013); Abdul-Rashid et al. (2017); Nordin et al. (2014); Jayaraman
3 Quality improvement tools et al. (2012); Rosen and Kishawy (2012); Gupta et al. (2015); Zubir et al.
4 Supply chain restructuring (2012); Millar and Russell (2011)
5 Advanced product design
6 Enterprise level system integration
7 Improved process performance
8 Resource utilization and economy
9 Reduction of manufacturing cost
10 Reduction of product development time
11 Environment Energy saving Nordin et al. (2014); Jayaraman et al. (2012); Rosen and Kishawy
12 Using advanced material and manufacturing techniques (2012); Gupta et al. (2015); Zubir et al. (2012); Millar and Russell
13 Water consumption (2011); Wu et al. (2017); Shubham et al. (2016); Bhanot et al. (2017);
14 Promoting 6R (reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, redesign, Jawahir et al. (2006)
remanufacture) concepts
15 Improve effectiveness of environment policy
16 Sustainable material and design selection
17 Safety Developing education and training Nordin et al. (2014); Jayaraman et al. (2012); Rosen and Kishawy
18 Awareness creation (2012); Gupta et al. (2015); Zubir et al. (2012); Millar and Russell
19 Guarding (2011); Despeisse et al. (2012a,b); Jayal et al. (2010); Ghadimi and
20 Accident investigation Heavey (2014); Ijomah et al. (2007); Dornfeld (2014); Shankar et al.
21 Motivation of workers and safety personnel (2016)
22 Personal protective equipment
 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343 1337

Table 2
Direct relationship matrix (T).

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22

P1 0 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 3
P2 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1
P3 2 3 0 1 1 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 3
P4 3 3 3 0 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 4 2 3
P5 3 3 2 1 0 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 3
P6 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2
P7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2
P8 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1
P9 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 3
P10 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 3
P11 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 3 3
P12 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 0 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 4 2 3
P13 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 3
P14 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 0 3 2 2 3 4 4 2 3
P15 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 4 4 1 3
P16 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 0 2 3 4 4 2 3
P17 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 4 4 1 2 3
P18 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 3 1 2
P19 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 2 1 2
P20 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 0 1 2
P21 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 0 3
P22 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 0

by-step process. According to the proposed framework, the activ- Step 3: Set up total relation matrix “M”
ities are categorized in two phases: identification and categoriza- Total relation matrix (M) was framed with the assistance of Eqn.
tion of common sustainable manufacturing practices and (5) and shown in Table 4.
evaluation of influential sustainable manufacturing practice using Step 4: Obtain sum of sum of rows and columns
DEMATEL. Each of the phases is detailed in upcoming sections. The sum of rows and columns of criteria were identified and
Phase I: Identification and categorization of common sus- shown in Table 5. However, the steps followed for criteria were
tainable manufacturing practices repeated for dimensions, and the sum of rows and columns ob-
First, the existing literature in the field of sustainable tained for dimensions is shown in Table 6.
manufacturing and its related topics were collected from the Step 5: Set up causal diagram
renowned databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. We uti- Based on the sum of rows and columns, the influential graph for
lized key terms such as “Sustainable manufacturing,” “Sustain- criteria and dimension were plotted and shown in Figs. 2 and 3
ability in production,” “sustainable practices,” and so on. From the respectively. These influential graphs show the influence of
literature survey, 18 practices were developed and listed. To fill the criteria and dimensions and reveal their interrelationships.
gap between the state-of-the-art and virtual applications, the
collected practices were sent to industrial managers in relevant
fields to gain their knowledge. In addition, a one-day workshop was 6. Results and discussion
organized and attended by academicians working in sustainability
and manufacturing operations. The practices were circulated This section presents the study's results and validates them
among the invited researchers, and all replies and suggestions were through existing literature, target groups, and feedback from case
combined. 22 common sustainable manufacturing practices were industrial managers. This final step, reported in the proposed
tabulated (shown in Table 1). With the knowledge gained by these framework, proves the effectiveness of the framework in real life
discussions, the practices are categorized into dimensions, which application. This section explains the interrelationship and in-
are broadly classified as the three pillars of sustainability in fluences among sustainable manufacturing practices and reveals
manufacturing. the essential practices among alternatives based on their influential
Phase II: Evaluation of influential sustainable manufacturing strength. Two different influential effects are analyzed, one with
practice using DEMATEL the concern of dimensions and the other with the dimensional
Once the practices were finalized, our research team practices involved in the implementation of sustainable
approached the case industrial managers in order to evaluate the manufacturing. The detailed description can be seen in upcoming
influential practices of sustainable manufacturing. For this evalu- sections.
ation, DEMATEL steps were followed and detailed below. From Table 5, the influential graph among common sustainable
Step 1: Direct relation matrix “T” manufacturing practices was plotted, and this table reveals that
The direct relation matrix “T” was prepared in linguistic vari- “Promoting 6R concepts (P14)” is top on the cause group with the
ables based on the replies of industrial managers. For this study, values (2.394, 1.002). On the other hand, “Improved process per-
three industrial managers are considered as decision makers in formance (P7)” seems least influential in the effect group. However,
order to limit the individual human bias. The direct relation matrix among 22 common sustainable manufacturing practices, 13 (P14,
“T” obtained from the replies is shown in Table 2. P12, P4, P16, P11, P17, P21, P13, P10, P9, P5, P3, P15) practices lie in
Step 2: Set up normalized direct-relation matrix “X” the cause group and the remaining 9 practices (P1, P8, P2, P22, P18,
Further, the matrix obtained from step 2 was normalized P6, P20, P19, P7) are grouped under the effect group, which shows
through Eqns. (2) and (3). The normalized matrix is shown in that most of the practices play an influential role rather than
Table 3. influenced. Overall influences among common practices are as
follows: P14 > P12 > P4 > P16 > P11 > P17 > P21 > P13 > P10 > P9 >
 1338
Table 3
Normalized direct relation matrix (X).

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22

P1 0.000 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.041 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041
P2 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.041 0.041 0.014 0.014
P3 0.027 0.041 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041
P4 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.000 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.041 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.055 0.027 0.041
P5 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.000 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041
P6 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.041 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.027
P7 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.027
P8 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.041 0.041 0.014 0.014
P9 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041
P10 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041
P11 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041 0.041
P12 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.014 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.055 0.027 0.041

K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343

P13 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041
P14 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.041 0.000 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.055 0.027 0.041
P15 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.041 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.041
P16 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.041 0.000 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.055 0.027 0.041
P17 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.027 0.041
P18 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.041 0.041 0.014 0.027
P19 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.041 0.000 0.027 0.014 0.027
P20 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.041 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.027
P21 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.055 0.041 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.055 0.055 0.014 0.000 0.041
P22 0.014 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.041 0.041 0.014 0.000

Table 4
Total influence matrix for criteria (M).

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22

P1 0.023 0.053 0.033 0.028 0.034 0.058 0.069 0.053 0.035 0.030 0.029 0.027 0.029 0.028 0.032 0.032 0.029 0.072 0.093 0.090 0.029 0.070
P2 0.033 0.022 0.030 0.025 0.031 0.053 0.075 0.035 0.032 0.027 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.025 0.029 0.029 0.026 0.041 0.073 0.070 0.027 0.039
P3 0.053 0.070 0.022 0.030 0.036 0.075 0.101 0.069 0.038 0.032 0.031 0.029 0.031 0.030 0.048 0.035 0.031 0.064 0.099 0.096 0.032 0.075
P4 0.078 0.084 0.071 0.023 0.085 0.103 0.120 0.083 0.061 0.053 0.051 0.035 0.051 0.037 0.070 0.042 0.051 0.092 0.118 0.114 0.052 0.090
P5 0.068 0.073 0.050 0.031 0.025 0.078 0.104 0.072 0.053 0.033 0.033 0.030 0.032 0.031 0.050 0.036 0.033 0.067 0.103 0.100 0.033 0.078
P6 0.035 0.038 0.031 0.027 0.033 0.029 0.078 0.038 0.046 0.028 0.028 0.026 0.027 0.026 0.031 0.043 0.028 0.069 0.063 0.061 0.028 0.055
P7 0.034 0.037 0.031 0.026 0.032 0.041 0.036 0.037 0.045 0.028 0.027 0.025 0.027 0.026 0.030 0.041 0.027 0.067 0.062 0.059 0.027 0.053
P8 0.034 0.049 0.030 0.026 0.031 0.054 0.076 0.022 0.032 0.028 0.027 0.025 0.026 0.026 0.030 0.029 0.027 0.042 0.074 0.071 0.027 0.040
P9 0.068 0.073 0.050 0.031 0.051 0.078 0.104 0.072 0.026 0.033 0.033 0.030 0.032 0.031 0.050 0.036 0.033 0.067 0.103 0.100 0.033 0.078
P10 0.069 0.074 0.051 0.032 0.052 0.079 0.106 0.073 0.054 0.020 0.033 0.031 0.033 0.032 0.050 0.036 0.033 0.068 0.104 0.101 0.033 0.079
P11 0.073 0.078 0.054 0.033 0.055 0.084 0.112 0.077 0.056 0.050 0.022 0.032 0.034 0.047 0.039 0.038 0.049 0.098 0.110 0.066 0.062 0.083
P12 0.080 0.086 0.073 0.051 0.087 0.106 0.124 0.085 0.062 0.054 0.053 0.023 0.052 0.038 0.072 0.056 0.053 0.095 0.122 0.117 0.054 0.092
P13 0.070 0.075 0.052 0.032 0.053 0.080 0.107 0.074 0.054 0.048 0.033 0.031 0.019 0.032 0.051 0.037 0.033 0.069 0.105 0.103 0.034 0.080
P14 0.082 0.088 0.074 0.052 0.089 0.109 0.127 0.087 0.064 0.056 0.054 0.050 0.066 0.025 0.073 0.058 0.054 0.097 0.125 0.120 0.055 0.094
P15 0.050 0.054 0.033 0.028 0.034 0.059 0.070 0.053 0.035 0.030 0.029 0.027 0.029 0.028 0.019 0.032 0.029 0.073 0.094 0.092 0.030 0.071
P16 0.079 0.085 0.072 0.050 0.086 0.105 0.122 0.084 0.062 0.054 0.052 0.036 0.051 0.037 0.071 0.029 0.052 0.094 0.120 0.115 0.053 0.091
P17 0.072 0.077 0.053 0.033 0.054 0.083 0.110 0.076 0.055 0.049 0.048 0.032 0.034 0.047 0.039 0.037 0.021 0.097 0.109 0.065 0.049 0.082
P18 0.035 0.051 0.031 0.026 0.032 0.055 0.078 0.050 0.033 0.028 0.028 0.026 0.027 0.026 0.030 0.030 0.028 0.030 0.076 0.073 0.028 0.054
P19 0.035 0.038 0.031 0.027 0.033 0.055 0.078 0.038 0.046 0.028 0.028 0.026 0.027 0.026 0.031 0.043 0.028 0.069 0.037 0.061 0.028 0.055
P20 0.035 0.038 0.031 0.026 0.032 0.055 0.077 0.037 0.045 0.028 0.027 0.025 0.027 0.026 0.030 0.042 0.027 0.068 0.049 0.033 0.028 0.054
P21 0.072 0.077 0.053 0.033 0.054 0.083 0.110 0.076 0.055 0.049 0.048 0.032 0.034 0.047 0.039 0.037 0.048 0.097 0.109 0.065 0.022 0.082
P22 0.034 0.050 0.031 0.026 0.032 0.054 0.077 0.049 0.032 0.028 0.027 0.025 0.027 0.026 0.030 0.029 0.027 0.042 0.075 0.072 0.028 0.027
 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343 1339

Table 5 clients towards them. One of the managers argued that although
Sum of influences received and given over criteria. the results sound great, he recognizes that they are in conflict with
Practices ri si ri þ si ri-si the results of their industry's current status. Among three di-
P1 0.974 1.213 2.187 0.239
mensions of sustainable manufacturing, as per the obtained results,
P2 0.799 1.370 2.169 0.571 the environmental dimension shows more influence than other
P3 1.126 0.985 2.111 0.141 dimensions. But in real life scenarios, they focus more attention
P4 1.562 0.694 2.256 0.868 towards environmental and economic issues. In terms of safety and
P5 1.211 1.050 2.261 0.161
employee fulfillment, they need to increase their attention and
P6 0.864 1.574 2.438 0.71
P7 0.815 2.057 2.872 1.242 attempt to maintain positive results. Also, they admit they need
P8 0.823 1.339 2.162 0.516 more employees and they need more attention towards their
P9 1.211 1.020 2.231 0.191 community related practices in order to balance the three pillars of
P10 1.241 0.813 2.054 0.428
sustainable manufacturing. However, both literature and case in-
P11 1.351 0.765 2.116 0.586
P12 1.632 0.647 2.279 0.985
dustry feedback coincides with the obtained results, so the reli-
P13 1.271 0.740 2.011 0.531 ability of the obtained results and proposed framework is proven.
P14 1.698 0.696 2.394 1.002
P15 1.001 0.940 1.941 0.061
P16 1.597 0.825 2.422 0.772 7. Implications
P17 1.320 0.765 2.085 0.555
P18 0.873 1.579 2.452 0.706 This study provides various managerial insights that are not
P19 0.864 2.018 2.882 1.154
only limited to the academic level but also shed light on managerial
P20 0.839 1.843 2.682 1.004
P21 1.320 0.789 2.109 0.531
and policy makers' perspectives. Each perspective's implications
P22 0.848 1.516 2.364 0.668 are well detailed below.

i) Academic implications
Table 6
Total influence matrix for dimensions and sum of influences given/received for The study results reveal that very little attention is paid to so-
dimensions. cietal concerns in the context of manufacturing, and that weakness
Dimensions D1 D2 D3 ri si ri þ si ri-si
makes the system inefficient in achieving long-term success. In
addition, this study emphasizes some key areas where the aca-
D1 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.03
demic studies still need to upgrade and to delve more deeply.
D2 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.11 0.36 0.08
D3 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.2 0.31 0.06 Although some of the earlier studies on sustainable manufacturing
practices are not yet fully explored, this study act as pioneering
work in terms of an in-depth exploration of sustainable
manufacturing practices with a specific geographical perspective.
P5 > P3 > P15 > P1 > P8 > P2 > P22 > P18 > P6 > P20 > P19 > P7.
Based on Table 6, an influential graph was plotted among the
ii) Managerial implications
dimensions of sustainable manufacturing practices; it is shown in
Fig. 3. Among three dimensions (namely, economic, environment
This study assists industrial managers to focus on the essential
and safety), environment lies in the cause group and other two
sustainable manufacturing practices that will further improve their
dimensions are placed in the effect group. It clearly proves that for
chances of successful implementation of sustainable
effective implementation of sustainable manufacturing, more focus
manufacturing. Recent business environments force managers to
is needed to pay for sustainable environment related practices. To
concentrate on many factors, and they are urged to make fine de-
validate the obtained results, the following literature references are
cisions every time. Hence, it is difficult for industrial managers to
vital. According to Jawahir et al. (2015); Molamohamadi and Ismail,
select and work around a single strategy for the implementation of
2013, and Jawahir et al., 2006, the transformation of green
sustainable manufacturing without prior experience. With this
manufacturing to sustainable manufacturing can only be achieved
concern, this study supports their decision in terms of sustainable
by shifting the focus from 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle) concepts
manufacturing practices with proper validations.
to 6R (reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, redesign, and remanufacture)
concepts. They also argue that this transformation has to be done at
iii) Implications for policy makers
the product level, i.e., at the manufacturing level; then, it can be
further extended to the system level, which includes supply chain
Developing nations, especially in a country like India, are under
life cycles. With these arguments, it can be concluded that the re-
pressure to raise the economic standards and to sustain their global
sults obtained can be coincided with the concepts of sustainable
position by holding international clients. With this concern, now it
manufacturing. Hence, it can be argued that the results are under
becomes mandatory to implement sustainable strategies in all
the consideration of sustainable manufacturing; however, it is not
applications including manufacturing sectors. However, the study
enough to finalize the influential practices until they gain feedback
clearly reveals that Indian industries are still facing troubles in the
from focus groups and case industries. The obtained results are
implementation of green manufacturing, and their transformation
communicated to case industrial managers (decision makers), and
towards sustainable manufacturing remains currently superficial.
this step reflects their clients' expectations in terms of sustainable
But due to the existence of green policies, they are eager to adopt
criteria in the supplier selection process. They welcome the results
green strategies in their manufacturing operations. On the other
obtained and they acknowledge that they are lacking in certain
hand, few policies are reported in the sustainable focus. Hence, it is
practices, especially with the 6R focus. The decision makers reveal
time for policy makers to revisit the policies with a focus towards
that this study helps them to understand the perspectives of their
sustainability. At this point, this study assists those policy makers to
1340 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343

Fig. 2. Causal diagram with degree of central role and degree of relation among sustainable manufacturing practices as criteria.

accept the importance of implementing sustainable manufacturing common practices were finalized and categorized under three di-
practices. mensions and analyzed through DEMATEL with the assistance of
the case industry decision maker's input. Subsequently, the steps of
DEMATEL were followed to analyze the common practices, by
8. Conclusion
which it is determined that among 22 common sustainable
manufacturing practices, “Promoting 6R concepts (P14)” gained the
With the overwhelming need to integrate sustainability in
primary influential level (as shown in Fig. 2). Contrary to this,
manufacturing, this study concentrated on implementing sustain-
“Improved process performance (P7)” demonstrated the least
able manufacturing strategies in the organizations located in
influential level, which clearly shows that more attention needs to
developing nations. With this objective, a framework was proposed
be paid on promoting 6R strategies in order to implement sus-
in which initially, common practices of sustainable manufacturing
tainable manufacturing effectively. In addition, among three di-
were collected from the literature and were then validated with
mensions, the “Environment (D2)” dimension gets more influential
focus groups including field experts and industrial managers. 22
 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343 1341

Fig. 3. Causal diagram with degree of central role and degree of relation among sustainable manufacturing practices as dimensions.

when comparing to other two dimensions (as shown in Fig. 3), satisfies its research objective along with providing a fruitful path
which reveals that industries should focus more on environmental- towards more useful research on the implementation of sustainable
based practices in their manufacturing operations. This study manufacturing.
provides both scientific and societal contributions by shedding
light on the exploration of the more common sustainable practices, References
a study that has not been considered so far in existing literature. In
addition, implementing sustainability improves the work culture Abdul-Rashid, S.H.H., Sakundarini, N., Raja Ghazilla, R.A., Thurasamy, R., 2017. The
and employee commitment towards work. In sustainable impact of sustainable manufacturing practices on sustainability performance:
empirical evidence from Malaysia. Int. J. Operations Prod. Manag. 37 (2).
manufacturing, safety plays a key role; hence, it acts as a societal Adebiyi, K.A., Charles-Owaba, O.E., 2009. Towards setting a sustainable
concern of this research. Although this study has numerous ad- manufacturing safety programme in Nigeria. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 18 (4),
vantages, it has its own limitations: it examined only one case 388e396.
Amrina, E., Yusof, S.M., 2011. December. Key performance indicators for sustainable
study, so in the future, it can be extended with more cases through manufacturing evaluation in automotive companies. In: Industrial Engineering
the involvement of statistical tools. As a pioneering work, this study and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference. IEEE,
1342 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343

pp. 1093e1097. International Research/Expert Conference, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 1e10).

Bhanot, N., Rao, P.V., Deshmukh, S.G., 2017. An integrated approach for analysing the Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Dillon, O.W., Jawahir, I.S., 2010. Sustainable
enablers and barriers of sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 142, manufacturing: modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process
4412e4439. and system levels. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2 (3), 144e152.
Castka, P., Balzarova, M.A., 2007. A critical look on quality through CSR lenses: key Jayaraman, V., Singh, R., Anandnarayan, A., 2012. Impact of sustainable
challenges stemming from the development of ISO 26000. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. manufacturing practices on consumer perception and revenue growth: an
Manag. 24 (7), 738e752. emerging economy perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (5), 1395e1410.
Correia, E., Carvalho, H., Azevedo, S.G., Govindan, K., 2017. Maturity models in Jeong, J.S., García-Moruno, L., Herna ndez-Blanco, J., Sa
nchez-Ríos, A., 2016. Planning
supply chain sustainability: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 9 (1), of rural housings in reservoir areas under (mass) tourism based on a fuzzy
64. DEMATEL-GIS/MCDA hybrid and participatory method for Alange, Spain.
Despeisse, M., Ball, P.D., Evans, S., 2012a. Modelling and tactics for sustainable Habitat Int. 57, 143e153.
manufacturing: an improvement methodology. In: Sustainable Manufacturing. Joung, C.B., Carrell, J., Sarkar, P., Feng, S.C., 2013. Categorization of indicators for
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 9e16. sustainable manufacturing. Ecol. Indic. 24, 148e157.
Despeisse, M., Mbaye, F., Ball, P.D., Levers, A., 2012b. The emergence of sustainable Lee, Y.C., Li, M.L., Yen, T.M., Huang, T.H., 2011. Analysis of fuzzy decision making trial
manufacturing practices. Prod. Plan. Control 23 (5), 354e376. and evaluation laboratory on technology acceptance model. Expert Syst. Appl.
Dornfeld, D.A., 2014. Moving towards green and sustainable manufacturing. Int. J. 38 (12), 14407e14416.
Precis. Eng. Manufacturing-Green Technol. 1 (1), 63e66. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S.K., Garg, C.P., 2017a. An integrated
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century, framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains.
p. 73. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1686e1698.
Feng, S.C., Joung, C.B., Li, G., 2010, May. Development overview of sustainable Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Mangla, S.K., 2017b. Structural model for sustainable con-
manufacturing metrics. In: Proceedings of the 17th CIRP International Confer- sumption and production adoptionda grey-DEMATEL based approach. Resour.
ence on Life Cycle Engineering. PRC, Hefei. Conserv. Recycl. 125, 198e207.
Formentini, M., Taticchi, P., Govindan, K., Riblan, M., 2016. Implementation of Mangla, S.K., Govindan, K., Luthra, S., 2016. Critical success factors for reverse lo-
Corporate Sustainability Strategies at the Supply Chain Level: Insights from the gistics in Indian industries: a structural model. J. Clean. Prod. 129, 608e621.
Disclosure of Global Fortune 500 Companies. Mangla, S.K., Govindan, K., Luthra, S., 2017. Prioritizing the barriers to achieve
Gabus, A., Fontela, E., 1973. Perceptions of the World Problematique: Communica- sustainable consumption and production trends in supply chains using fuzzy
tion Procedure, Communicating with Those Bearing Collective Responsibility. Analytical Hierarchy Process. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 509e525.
Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva, Switzerland. Marksberry, P.W., Jawahir, I.S., 2008. A comprehensive tool-wear/tool-life perfor-
Gandhi, K., Govindan, K., Jha, P.C., 2016a. Fuzzy bi-criteria decision making approach mance model in the evaluation of NDM (near dry machining) for sustainable
for supplier selection and distribution network planning in supply chain manufacturing. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 48 (7), 878e886.
management. J. Inf. Optim. Sci. 37 (5), 653e679. Mathivathanan, D., Govindan, K., Haq, A.N., 2017a. Exploring the impact of dynamic
Gandhi, S., Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., 2016b. A combined approach using capabilities on sustainable supply chain firm's performance using Grey-
AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating success factors in implementation of green Analytical Hierarchy Process. J. Clean. Prod. 147, 637e653.
supply chain management in Indian manufacturing industries. Int. J. Logist. Res. Mathivathanan, D., Kannan, D., Haq, A.N., 2017b. Sustainable Supply Chain Man-
Appl. 19 (6), 537e561. agement Practices in Indian Automotive Industry: a Multi-stakeholder View.
Garetti, M., Taisch, M., 2012. Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
challenges. Prod. Plan. Control 23 (2e3), 83e104. Millar, H.H., Russell, S.N., 2011. The adoption of sustainable manufacturing practices
Ghadimi, P., Heavey, C., 2014. Sustainable supplier selection in medical device in- in the Caribbean. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20 (8), 512e526.
dustry: toward sustainable manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 15, 165e170. Molamohamadi, Z., Ismail, N., 2013. Developing a new scheme for sustainable
Govindan, K., Chaudhuri, A., 2016. Interrelationships of risks faced by third party manufacturing. Int. J. Mater. Mech. Manuf. 1 (1), 1e5.
logistics service providers: a DEMATEL based approach. Transp. Res. Part E Nordin, N., Ashari, H., Rajemi, M.F., 2014. A case study of sustainable manufacturing
Logist. Transp. Rev. 90, 177e195. practices'. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2 (1), 12e16.
Govindan, K., 2017. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply €
Ozdemir, A., Tüysüz, F., 2017. An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy ANP based
chain: a conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. in press. https://doi.org/10. balanced scorecard approach: application in Turkish higher education in-
1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.003. (Accessed 20 April 2017). stitutions. J. Multiple-Valued Log. Soft Comput. 28.
Govindan, K., Diabat, A., Shankar, K.M., 2015a. Analyzing the drivers of green Paju, M., Heilala, J., Hentula, M., Heikkila€, A., Johansson, B., Leong, S., Lyons, K., 2010.
manufacturing with fuzzy approach. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 182e193. December. Framework and indicators for a sustainable manufacturing mapping
Govindan, K., Garg, K., Gupta, S., Jha, P.C., 2016a. Effect of product recovery and methodology. In: Simulation Conference (WSC), Proceedings of the 2010
sustainability enhancing indicators on the location selection of manufacturing Winter. IEEE, pp. 3411e3422.
facility. Ecol. Indic. 67, 517e532. Rachuri, S., Sriram, R.D., Sarkar, P., 2009, August. Metrics, standards and industry
Govindan, K., Shankar, M., Shankar, M., 2016b. Evaluating the essential barrier to best practices for sustainable manufacturing systems. In: Automation Science
off-shore wind energyean Indian perspective. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 10 (2), and Engineering, 2009. CASE 2009. IEEE International Conference on. IEEE,
266e282. pp. 472e477.
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Shankar, K.M., 2014. Evaluating the drivers of corporate Rajeev, A., Pati, R.K., Padhi, S.S., Govindan, K., 2017. Evolution of sustainability in
social responsibility in the mining industry with multi-criteria approach: a supply chain management: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. (20), 299e314.
multi-stakeholder perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 214e232. Reich-Weiser, C., Vijayaraghavan, A., Dornfeld, D.A., 2008, January. Metrics for
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Shankar, M., 2015b. Evaluation of green manufacturing sustainable manufacturing. In: ASME 2008 International Manufacturing Science
practices using a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with PROMETHEE. Int. and Engineering Conference Collocated with the 3rd JSME/ASME International
J. Prod. Res. 53 (21), 6344e6371. Conference on Materials and Processing. American Society of Mechanical En-
Govindan, K., Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S., 2017. Prioritising indicators in improving gineers, pp. 327e335.
supply chain performance using fuzzy AHP: insights from the case example of Roberts, S.J.F., Ball, P.D., 2014. Developing a library of sustainable manufacturing
four Indian manufacturing companies. Prod. Plan. Control 28 (6e8), 552e573. practices. Procedia CIRP 15, 159e164.
Tseng, M.L., Tan, K.H., Geng, Y., Govindan, K., 2016. Sustainable consumption and Rodríguez, A., Ortega, F., Concepcio n, R., 2017. An intuitionistic method for the se-
production in emerging markets, 181 (Part B), 257e261. lection of a risk management approach to information technology projects. Inf.
Gupta, S., Dangayach, G.S., Singh, A.K., Rao, P.N., 2015. Analytic hierarchy process Sci. 375, 202e218.
(AHP) model for evaluating sustainable manufacturing practices in Indian Rosen, M.A., Kishawy, H.A., 2012. Sustainable manufacturing and design: concepts,
electrical panel industries. Procedia-Social Behav. Sci. 189, 208e216. practices and needs. Sustainability 4 (2), 154e174.
Habidin, N.F., Mohd Zubir, A.F., Mohd Fuzi, N., Md Latip, N.A., Azman, M.N.A., 2017. Seidel, R., Shahbazpour, M., Oudshoorn, M., 2006. Implementation of Sustainable
Critical success factors of sustainable manufacturing practices in Malaysian Manufacturing Practices in SMEsdcase Study of a New Zealand Furniture
automotive industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 1e6. Manufacturer. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ijomah, W.L., McMahon, C.A., Hammond, G.P., Newman, S.T., 2007. Development of Seidel, R.H.A., Shahbazpour, M. and Seidel, M.C., 2007, February. Establishing sus-
design for remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing. tainable manufacturing practices in SMEs. In Proceedings of the International
Robotics Computer-Integrated Manuf. 23 (6), 712e719. Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science, Talking and Walking
International Energy Agency (IEA). World energy outlook, 2015. IEA/Organization Sustainability. Auckland (pp. 1e10).
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED). Paris (France). Available Shankar, K.M., Kumar, P.U., Kannan, D., 2016. Analyzing the drivers of advanced
from: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/. sustainable manufacturing system using AHP approach. Sustainability 8 (8),
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., de Souza 824.
Freitas, W.R., 2013. Environmental management and operational performance Shieh, J.I., Wu, H.H., Huang, K.K., 2016. Identifying key factors of medical service
in automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management quality by a modified DEMATEL method based on total sensitivity analysis.
and lean manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 129e140. J. Med. Imaging Health Inf. 6 (8), 1844e1849.
Jawahir, I.S., Badurdeen, F., Rouch, K.E., 2015. Innovation in Sustainable Shubham, Charan, P., Murty, L.S., 2016. Organizational adoption of sustainable
Manufacturing Education. Universit€ atsverlag der TU Berlin. manufacturing practices in India: integrating institutional theory and corporate
Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, O.W., Rouch, K.E., Joshi, K.J., Venkatachalam, A. and Jaafar, I.H., environmental responsibility. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 1e12.
2006, September. Total life-cycle considerations in product design for sustain- Soleimani, H., Govindan, K., Saghafi, H., Jafari, H., 2017. Fuzzy multi-objective sus-
ability: A framework for comprehensive evaluation. In Proceedings of the 10th tainable and green closed-loop supply chain network design. Comput.
 K. Madan Shankar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 1332e1343 1343

Industrial Eng. 109, 191e203. of a Triple Bottom Line. New Society Publishers.
Song, Z., Moon, Y., 2016. Assessing sustainability benefits of cybermanufacturing Wu, H., Lv, K., Liang, L., Hu, H., 2017. Measuring performance of sustainable
systems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 1e18. manufacturing with recyclable wastes: a case from China's iron and steel in-
Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. dustry. Omega 66, 38e47.
Organ. Environ. 21 (2), 103e127. Yin, R., Kiliccote, S., Piette, M.A., 2016. Linking measurements and models in com-
Van Berkel, R., 2010. Quantifying sustainability benefits of industrial symbioses. mercial buildings: a case study for model calibration and demand response
J. Industrial Ecol. 14 (3), 371e373. strategy evaluation. Energy Build. 124, 222e235.
WCED, U., 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Zubir, A.F.M., Habidin, N.F., Conding, J., Jaya, N.A.S.L., Hashim, S., 2012. The devel-
Development Oxford University Press. opment of sustainable manufacturing practices and sustainable performance in
Willard, B., 2012. The New Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benefits Malaysian automotive industry. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 3 (7), 130e138.