Green Lean and The Need For Six Sigma
Green Lean and The Need For Six Sigma
Green Lean and The Need For Six Sigma
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:126209 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
IJLSS
6,3
Green lean and the need for
Six Sigma
Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes
Centre for Supply Chain Improvement, University of Derby, Derby, UK
226
Received 28 April 2014
Revised 19 November 2014 Abstract
Accepted 10 December 2014 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically review the green lean approach and highlight its
limitations; examine the compatibility of the green, lean and Six Sigma concepts; and propose Six
Sigma, and specially its problem-solving methodology DMAIC, as an approach to help enhancing the
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
effectiveness of green lean initiatives. Historically, profitability and efficiency, and more recently
customer satisfaction, quality and responsiveness objectives have been the prevailing interest for
organisations. However, the move towards greener operations and products has forced companies to
seek alternatives to combine these with green objectives and initiatives. Green lean is the result of this
combination. Thus, the paper conceptually proposes Green Lean Six Sigma.
Design/methodology/approach – To do this, a systematic literature review (SLR) of the subjects
under investigation was conducted.
Findings – The SLR indicated that the green lean integration may have inherited the same limitations
as the individual green and lean approaches, but these may be overcome through the integration of Six
Sigma. It also identified the similarities of some of the main attributes of green, lean and Six Sigma,
which suggest their compatibility to be unified as an integrated approach.
Practical implications – The paper allows scholars to develop a deeper and richer knowledge on the
simultaneous deployment of green and operational improvement initiatives and help practitioners in
formulating more effective strategies for their deployment.
Originality/value – The paper is one of the very first researches that investigate the potential benefits
of integrating green lean and Six Sigma.
Keywords Six Sigma, DMAIC, Lean, Green
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Recently, with the rise of operations and quality improvement methodologies, such as
lean manufacturing, total quality management (TQM), business process re-engineering,
among others, and the increasing concerns for the environment, the market dynamic has
changed. Historically, profitability and efficiency, and more recently customer
satisfaction, quality and responsiveness have been the dominant concern for
organisations (Green et al., 2012; Mohanty et al., 1999). However, to respond to
governmental environmental regulations and the growth of customer demands for
products and services that are environmentally sustainable, companies have been
forced to rethink how they manage their operations and processes. Since the 1950s, lean
manufacturing has been gaining fame in a wide range of industries all around the world,
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma disseminating the concept of waste reduction (Chauhan and Singh, 2012). On the other
Vol. 6 No. 3, 2015
pp. 226-248
hand, “green” initiatives have been adopted as a requirement to comply with
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
environmental regulations and meet market and social demands (Digalwar et al., 2013).
DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-04-2014-0010 The combination of lean and green seems logical, but a question arises from this: Is their
integration enough to effectively achieve operational competitiveness and positive Green lean
green results at the same time? and the need
As lean aims at the elimination of waste in every area of production, design, supplier
network and factory management (Chauhan and Singh, 2012), the combination of lean
for Six Sigma
and green seems natural. However, although numerous studies have considered the
relationship and impact of green and lean practices on organisations and supply chains
(Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Hajmohammad et al., 2013; King and Lenox, 2001; Simpson and 227
Power, 2005; Rothenberg et al., 2001; Kainuma and Tawara, 2006; Carvalho et al., 2011,
2014), their combination as an integrated approach has only been explored by a handful
of experts and researchers (Dües et al., 2013).
For example, Dües et al. (2013) carried out a study that aimed at exploring and
evaluating, from a conceptual point of view, the “green lean” paradigm. The results of
their study suggest that lean has a positive effect on green initiatives and that these, in
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
turn, are also beneficial for existing lean business practices. Similarly, Duarte and
Cruz-Machado (2013) examined how different business models, standards and
frameworks, and embodied awards can contribute to modelling a green lean approach
for an organisation and its supply chain. Based on this, Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2013)
proposed guidelines to model green lean organisations. Verrier et al. (2014) proposed an
approach which adds environmental and social dimensions to the consideration of
economic earnings received through lean actions. Kurdve et al. (2011) applied value
stream mapping (VSM), a lean tool, at Volvo Penta Vara and Volvo Construction
Equipment Braås, with a particular focus on showing environmental losses. In the
construction industry, Martinez et al. (2009) proposed the integration of green building
and lean construction philosophies, while Enache-Pommer et al. (2010) suggested the
integration of lean, green and building information modelling (BIM) during the
programming and early design stages of a project in the health care construction market
segment. Other studies that have also explored the integration of green and lean as a
consolidated approach include Dawes (2009), Vinodh et al. (2011), Joshi and Sharma
(2014), Kurdve (2014) and Kurdve et al. (2014).
In general terms, these studies investigate and discuss the relationship between lean
and green by highlighting the synergies and divergences between the two, possible
benefits of their integration in different industries, their impact on organisations and
supply chains’ performance and some of their theoretical implementation aspects when
tried to be simultaneously deployed. Although the study presented in this paper also
reviews and considers the synergies and divergences of lean and green, its objective is to
identify the possible limitations of the green lean paradigm, and provide some direction
as to how these may be overcome through the integration of Six Sigma. For this, the
paper investigates the compatibility of green, lean and Six Sigma, and discusses a
conceptual integration of the latest with green lean.
2. Research method
In light of the paper’s objective, the working methodology followed was based on a
systematic review of the existent literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) is a
method that adopts a rigorous, transparent and explicit approach that includes a series
of four phases (i.e. planning, sampling, analysing and reporting) to ensure that an
appropriate rigour and transparency is brought to the literature review process
(Tranfield et al., 2003; Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). Figure 1 illustrates and
IJLSS
6,3
228
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
Figure 1.
SLR phases, methods
and tools
summarises the phases of the SLR undertaken and the methods and tools used to
support every stage.
journals, conference proceedings, books, brochures and website contents). For this
study, however, the review only included journal and conference articles due to the
peer-review process in the publication of these, which contributes to the production of
quality information (Saunders et al., 2012). Other search strings such as sustainability
lean and sustainable lean had also been considered initially. However, these were then
excluded, as they also involved the social and economic perspectives of sustainability
(Hosseini and Kaneko, 2012) and, hence, were not only concerned with green and lean. A
final sample of 59 articles with reference to lean and green aspects was identified.
However, 57 articles were used for the analysis as two of them were not full journal of
conference articles.
as green operations, (Gupta and Sharma, 1996; Nunes and Bennett, 2010), green supply
chains (Sarkis, 2012; Zhu et al., 2008), reverse logistics (Sarkis, 2003), design for
environment or eco-design, (Sarkis, 2001; Gottberg et al., 2006), green building
(Paumgartten, 2003) and green manufacturing (Sarkis, 1998; Kleindorfer et al., 2005).
Green can, therefore, be defined as an initiative that intends to reduce the negative
environmental impact of the production and consumption of products and services
through the utilisation of these methods, thus improving the environmental footprint of
organisations (Galeazzo et al., 2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995).
On the other hand, lean manufacturing was initially developed in Japan by Taiichi
Ohno and Shigeo Shingo, where it was known as Toyota Production System (Herron
and Hicks, 2008). After the Second World War, Toyota could not compete with the mass
production system used in the USA, especially when considering quality and cost
(Abdul Wahab et al., 2013). For this reason, instead of focusing on mass production,
Toyota created a new management system focused on the reduction of waste in all
aspects of it is operations (Herron and Hicks, 2008). Waste, according to Womack and
Jones (1996) and based on the lean philosophy, is defined as all those process activities
which do not contribute with, or add value to, the transformation of a product into its
final form as sold to the customer (Marriott et al., 2013). These include unnecessary
motion, excess inventory, waiting, quality defects, over-processing, unnecessary
transport and overproduction. To eliminate or reduce these wastes, various tools that
include kaizen, cellular manufacturing, Just-in-Time (JIT), poka-yoke, pull systems,
standardised work, 5S or housekeeping, among others, were developed as part of the
lean approach (Herron and Hicks, 2008). Nowadays, lean manufacturing is considered
the most influential new paradigm in manufacturing, as empirical evidence suggests it
improves the competitiveness of organisations (Hines et al., 2004) by reducing
inventories and lead-times, and improving productivity and quality (Abdul Wahab
et al., 2013).
green philosophies, methods and tools. In this scenario, the similarity between the two
seems logical, waste reduction. However, green goes beyond waste reduction as it is also
concerned with process efficiency, reduction of material consumption and recycling, and
similarly as all the quality improvement approaches, one of its ultimate objectives is to
improve customers’ satisfaction. From this view, it is possible to identify several
synergies between the lean and green concepts, these being: waste reduction, lead-time
reduction and use of different approaches and techniques to manage people,
organisations and supply chain relations (Dües et al., 2013; Mollenkopf et al., 2010).
However, waste has different meanings in lean and green (Dües et al., 2013; Carvalho
et al., 2011; Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013). For lean, waste refers to any activity that
does not add value to the product, while for the green concept, waste is related to the
wasteful consumption of water, energy or any natural resource (Duarte and
Cruz-Machado, 2013). Despite their difference, non-value-added activities can also be
considered part of wasting energy and natural resources. For example, unnecessary or
excessive transportation of products and/or raw materials is not only one of the seven
wastes defined by lean but also a waste of non-renewable natural resources. Thus, both
practices aim for less transportation to save cost (lean) and reduce the consumption of
natural resources and CO2 output (green) (Carvalho et al., 2011). Another example is
excessive inventory, which according to lean is considered waste because it increases
lead time, prevents the rapid identification of problems and discourages communication
(Hines and Rich, 1997). Excessive inventory also requires storage space and needs to be
lighted, and sometimes heated or chilled, which from the environmental point of view
may be considered a waste of energy if the lighting, heating and/or chilling is not done
efficiently (Franchetti et al., 2009). In this way, it is possible to relate all the seven lean
wastes to those considered and defined by green initiatives. This indicates that lean can
serve as a catalyst for green, facilitating companies the deployment of environmental
policies and practices. However, there are still some areas in which lean and green
cannot be combined as well as there are still some limitations when considering green
lean as an integrated approach.
Some objectives of both approaches that may not be possible to combine, for
example: their focus, what are considered wastes, the customer, manufacturing
strategies and some practices adopted by organisations (Dües et al., 2013; Mollenkopf
et al., 2010). For this reason, despite the several synergies already identified, lean and
green cannot perfectly be combined, they are concurrent and, thus, can effectively work
together, but there are still some points that deserve attention when deploying both
IJLSS initiatives simultaneously. According to Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2013), the main
6,3 difference between lean and green lies in how waste is defined, this divergence is also
identified by Dües et al. (2013). Despite both meanings take the approach of working to
improve processes at an operational level, lean focuses on workforce reduction, space
reduction, increase capacity utilisation, higher system flexibility and the use of standard
components (Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Pettersen, 2009). Whereas green ranges
232 from practices like reduce, reuse and recycle (3Rs), rework, return and remanufacture
(Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013). Another clear difference between lean and green is
the type of customer (Dües et al., 2013). Lean focuses on cost and lead-time reduction to
satisfy customers (Carvalho et al., 2011) while in green, customers are more concerned as
to whether the product that they are purchasing is helping them being more
environmentally friendly (Dües et al., 2013; Mollenkopf et al., 2010). Also, the green
customer would not mind paying more for an environmental-friendly product, which
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
improvement projects. This lack of systematic rigour may not allow lean to provide a
good level of confidence that the real root causes of problems have been addressed, and
to create a data-based culture for decision-making within an organisation (Husby and
Swartwood, 2009). Thus, operational and green problems may not be eliminated from
their root cause, running the risk of reappearing again. Finally, the lack of a systematic
approach to conduct improvements may also complicate the definition of wastes as
previously discussed.
On the other hand, in the case of green, although decision support and expert systems
tools are available to support it, Chan et al. (2010) comment that their application to solve
green problems is limited. For this reason, unlike lean, green cannot be thought as a
toolbox but mainly as a concept and initiative that comprises a series of practices and
methods (e.g. environmental operations management, green supply chains, reverse
logistics, design for environment, green building and green manufacturing). This
results in the green concept not being able to “lend” lean, if integrated with it, tools that
could help overcome the lean drawbacks previously discussed. Thus, the limitations of
lean will be inherited by the green lean approach.
Following the same reasoning, an integrated green lean approach will not only
confront the limitations of lean but also the limitations and challenges of the green
approach. From the discussion of Nunes and Bennett (2010) on environmental
management systems and green operations, it is possible to imply that the main
limitations of green are not related to operational but strategic aspects. For example,
Nunes and Bennett (2010) suggest that although there is clear and strong reasons as to
why organisations should implement green, it is still unclear to them how to make green
decisions when a company faces a challenging strategic decision regarding where to
make the investment when there are involved various possibilities (e.g. in facilities,
manufacturing, logistics, marketing, process and product design, etc.). Another
strategic challenge of green is how to implement its initiatives in a way in which they
also meet corporate goals of profitability and other business requirements (Nunes and
Bennett, 2010). This is because, in some cases, green activities do not return a profit from
individual initiatives or are matched with corporate objectives.
Besides these strategic challenges, green can also present operational limitations.
Joseph (2014) comments that two of the most common limitations include conversion
expense and more expensive products. For example, it can be expensive for an
organisation to go green initially as new energy-saving equipment (e.g. solar panels)
may need to be bought and installed. Unfortunately, cost reductions in energy savings
IJLSS gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial capital conversion costs
6,3 (Joseph, 2014). In addition, moving into the use of more environmentally friendly
products can lead to more expensive products for consumers.
Similarly, as with the inheritance of the lean limitations by the green lean approach,
the limitations and challenges of the green concept will also be passed on to the
integrated green lean approach, without lean being able to contribute to overcome some
234 of them. For instance, in terms of prioritising strategic green investment decisions, lean
lacks a prioritisation approach (Bendell, 2010; Kirkham et al., 2014) to support a decision
of this type. In addition, as lean lacks a project-based approach to improvement (Devane,
2004; Lee et al., 2013) and, thus, a planning phase, it may not help in aligning the green
lean initiatives to corporate goals of profitability as well as to other business
requirements. This lack of a project-based approach may also contribute to lean not
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
being able to specifically focus and dedicate a project to identify the most cost-effective
and environmentally friendly equipment and raw material, which could offset and/or
limit the negative impact on operational and product costs that these may have.
The individual limitations and challenges of lean and green, also inherited by the
integrated green lean approach, and the lack of methods and/or tools from the “other”
concept (e.g. lean or green) to overcome these, calls for the integration of additional tools
capable of contributing to the reduction or elimination of these challenges and
limitations. These “other” tools can come from Six Sigma.
Madu and Kuei (1995) comment that quality is more than just achieving capable/reliable
processes or manufacturing products free of defects. Thus, Kuei and Madu (2003)
suggest that a system’s overall performance should not only be measured on the basis of
product quality but also environmental safety, integrity and social responsibility.
However, very few authors have correlated the quality paradigm with the green
paradigm. Total quality environmental management (TQEM), a sub-development of
TQM, emphasises environmental controls in industries that are associated with
environmental waste (e.g. electronic component and semiconductors manufacturing)
(Sarkis, 2001; Raisinghani et al., 2005). TQEM is a method that correlates quality with
green aspects. However, in the case of Six Sigma, there is no academic evidence, as far as
this author is concerned, of research that has tried to investigate the relationship
between Six Sigma and green initiatives/performance. Nevertheless, Kuei and Madu
(2003) argue that besides the quality dimension, Six Sigma needs to also include the
environmental safety, integrity and social responsibility dimensions as all of these are
mutually dependant.
The systematic, data- and statistical-driven characteristic of Six Sigma can
complement the green lean approach and contribute in overcoming the limitations and
challenges of this concept highlighted in Section 4. Extensive evidence suggests the
effective compatibility of the green lean (Dües et al., 2013; Simpson and Power, 2005;
Duarte and Cruz-Machado, 2013; Galeazzo et al., 2013; Pampanelli et al., 2014; Verrier
et al., 2014) and lean Six Sigma (Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Assarlind et al., 2012; Salah et al.,
2010; Pepper and Spedding, 2010; Thomas et al., 2009; Wang and Chen, 2010; Lee et al.,
2013) integrations. This also suggests the compatibility of green, lean and Six Sigma if
integrated as a unified approach. Their compatibility born not only from the
commonality of green lean and lean Six Sigma comprising lean principles and tools,
which could act as a link to integrate green and Six Sigma (Figure 2) but also from the
“natural” similarities that all three concepts share through some of their attributes.
Table I presents some attributes and a comparison of how these are treated under the
green, lean and Six Sigma philosophies. The grey coloured area below the description of
the attributes indicates those that are shared by either two or even the three concepts.
For example, lean and Six Sigma share the same main purpose of “maximising profit
and competitiveness” while green’s main purpose is to “reduce the negative
environmental impact of the production and consumption of products”. Although, in
some cases, the second may also result in the maximisation of profits and increase in
competitiveness (Dües et al., 2013; Sarkis, 2003), this is not the main objective of green
IJLSS
6,3
236
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
Figure 2.
Green, lean and Six
Sigma’s
compatibility
illustration
(Galeazzo et al., 2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995). Similarly, all three concepts share
one of its principles, namely: customer satisfaction (Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Helu and
Dornfeld, 2013; Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines et al., 2004; Yang, 2004; Han and Lee,
2002). Because green, lean and Six Sigma may not only be considered compatible but
also the integration of Six Sigma may contribute to overcome the limitations of the green
lean approach, the following section presents a conceptual proposal to integrate green
lean Six Sigma.
Definition Initiatives and practices directed towards the A systematic removal of waste by all members of the A statistical measure of variation; a
creation of environmentally friendly products, organisation from all areas of the value stream (Womack management philosophy and strategy that
services and processes (Galeazzo et al., 2013; Rao, and Jones, 1996) allows organisations to achieve lower cost,
2004; Shrivastava, 1995) ensuring competitive operations; a
problem-solving and improvement
methodology that can be applied to every
type of process to eliminate the root cause
of defects (Brue and Howes, 2006; Garza-
Reyes et al., 2014)
Purpose Reduce the negative environmental impact of the Maximise profit and competitiveness (Carvalho et al., 2011) Maximise profit and competitiveness
production and consumption of products (Galeazzo (Pyzdek, 2014)
et al., 2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995)
Focus Improving environmental performance through Cost reduction through the elimination of waste (non-value Cost savings through defects reduction and
(approach to elimination of resource waste and pollution added) (Herron and Hicks, 2008; Womack and Jones, 1996) customers satisfaction (Pyzdek, 2014)
achieve (Carvalho et al., 2011; Mollenkopf et al., 2010)
purpose)
Principles Harmful inputs and outputs to the environment and Identify value from customers perspective; map current Voice of the customer (VOC); elimination of
humans should be reduced or eliminated; net processes; make the value flow; pull from the supplier; defects; capability and stability (no
resource use should be lowered; systems should be continuous improvement; customer satisfaction through variation); DMAIC; critical to quality
evaluated from a green perspective; customer cheap and high variety products (Womack and Jones, 1996; (CTQ); aligning customer needs with goals;
satisfaction through the provision of environmental Hines et al., 2004) deploying teams; customer satisfaction
products and services (Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Helu through defect-free products and services
and Dornfeld, 2013) (Yang, 2004; Han and Lee, 2002)
Customer satisfaction
Measures Environmental-based (Dües et al., 2013) Primarily simple; non-financial but operational; time-based Primarily financial, cost and quality-
measures (Salah et al., 2010) oriented, often considering other
management strategies (Salah et al., 2010)
Common KPIs CO2 emissions; service level (Dües et al., 2013); Lead time; inventory level/turnover; % of value and no- Number of defective units; number of
resources (e.g. energy, fuel, water, etc.) consumption; value added (time); overall equipment effectiveness (OEE); defects per unit; defectives per million units
green energy coefficient; energy reuse factor; carbon quality yields; throughput; batch size; cycle time; service (DPM); defects per million opportunities
usage effectiveness; % of recycling level (DPMO); parts-per-million defectives
(PPM); scrap rate; quality yields; capability
indices (Cp, Cpk); process/service (sigma)
level
Service level
(continued)
237
for Six Sigma
and the need
philosophies
and Six Sigma
Comparison of
Table I.
Green lean
6,3
238
IJLSS
Table I.
Attribute Green Lean Six Sigma
Manufacturing Resource efficiency and waste reduction for High systems’ utilisation rate; using JIT practices, ‘pulling’ Focus on reducing variation (Salah et al.,
environmental benefit (Dües et al., 2013; Sarkis, the goods through the system based on demand (Dües 2010) for improving quality
2003); reduce, reuse and recycle (3Rs); rework, return et al., 2013); focus on efficiency (Salah et al., 2010)
and remanufacture
Product design Life-cycle assessment for evaluating environmental Limited focus on new product/processes design (Salah DFSS or DMADV to design new processes
risks and impact; eco-design (Dües et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2010); minimise cost while maximising performance or products (Salah et al., 2010) to minimise
et al., 2008) (Dües et al., 2013) cost while maximising performance
Minimise cost while maximising performance
Inventory Minimise inventory to reduce negative impact to Minimise inventory, as it is considered waste, to reduce No main focus (Salah et al., 2010), but
environment (Salah et al., 2010; Dües et al., 2013; cost (Salah et al., 2010; Dües et al., 2013) reduction in quality defects may contribute
Franchetti et al., 2009) to its reduction
Inventory reduction
Waste Must be eliminated due to environmental reasons Must be eliminated due to cost-saving and efficiency Reduction of defective products
reasons
Reduction of waste, but for different focus/reasons
Lead time Seeks transportation lead time reduction as long as Seeks its reduction as long as it does not increase cost No main focus, but has been used to reduce
it does not increase CO2 emissions (Dües et al., 2013) (Dües et al., 2013) it (Garza-Reyes et al., 2014)
Reduction of lead time
People Involve everyone in the organization (Galeazzo et al., Involve everyone in the organisation (Womack and Jones, Mainly few champions (called ‘belts’) and
2013; Rao, 2004; Shrivastava, 1995) 1996; Hines et al., 2004) project team members involved (Pyzdek,
2014)
Customers Profit-, people- and planet-driven (Dües et al., 2013) Cost-driven (Dües et al., 2013); strong customer focus in Cost-driven; strong customer focus in
relation to value relation to critical to quality
Customer focus based on different attributes
Suppliers Collaboration to disseminate green knowledge (Dües Considers the engagement of suppliers key for operations Consider suppliers only if they are critical
et al., 2013; Carvalho et al., 2011); integration of improvement; certifies and cooperates with few of them to quality for products/processes (Pyzdek,
reverse information and material (Dües et al., 2013; (Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines et al., 2004; Salah et al., 2014; Salah et al., 2010)
(Carvalho et al., 2011) environmental risk sharing 2010)
(Dües et al., 2013; (Carvalho et al., 2011)
Collaboration due to different reasons and at different levels
(continued)
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
Techniques Mainly analytical Mainly analytical but uses some formulas to identify Analytical; statistical and advanced
demand and calculate kanbans sizes; no mathematical statistical (Salah et al., 2010)
tools to identify and address quality problems (Salah et al.,
2010)
Use of analytical tools
Common tools Sustainable VSM (Kurdve et al., 2011); life cycle Brainstorming; process mapping; mistake proofing; Brainstorming; process mapping; mistake
assessment (Kainuma and Tawara, 2006); decision standardisation; VSM; kanban, one piece flow, single proofing; standardisation; hypothesis
support and expert systems (Chan et al., 2010) minute exchange of die (Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines testing; control charts; regression; design of
et al., 2004; Salah et al., 2010) experiments; measurement analysis;
capability analysis (Pyzdek, 2014; Salah
et al., 2010)
VSM used by all three while lean and Six Sigma share many other tools
Table I.
239
for Six Sigma
and the need
Green lean
IJLSS
6,3
240
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
Figure 3.
Six Sigma
enhancement of
green lean
and discussing the limitations of green lean as an integrated approach as well as their
compatibility with Six Sigma. This should not only allow scholars to develop a deeper and
richer knowledge on this approach but it should also help practitioners in formulating more
effective strategies for its deployment.
Although green lean is considered as an effective approach to achieve both higher
environmental and operational performance (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000; Dües et al.,
2013), this research suggests that green lean may inherent the limitations and challenges
of every individual approach. This may stop organisations from developing and
achieving the full potential of a simultaneous green and operations improvement
initiative. For this reason, the paper conceptually proposes and argues the compatibility
and integration of Six Sigma as a solution to address these limitations, complement the
green lean approach and, thus, enhance its effectiveness.
However, the relationships and compatibilities established in this paper among the
green, lean and Six Sigma paradigms were originated in an anecdotal form resulting
from the SLR conducted. In light of this, the future research agenda derived and stressed
from this paper includes:
• the validation of the proposed green, lean and Six Sigma compatibilities, for
example, by establishing them quantitatively and empirically testing them to
seek their statistical validation (Agarwal et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2008);
• the proposal of a conceptual framework that integrates green lean and Six Sigma
as a single approach;
• the validation of the integrated green lean Six Sigma framework through its
empirical application in real industrial scenarios or through simulation; and
• the exploration and definition of the possible limitations of the integrated green
lean Six Sigma approach.
In addition, the role and contribution of Design for Six Sigma practices on environmental
and eco-design initiatives can also be explored as part of the future research agenda.
This author considers that the definition of the green lean limitations and
compatibility with Six Sigma as well as the proposal of the green lean Six Sigma
unification’s idea contribute to the development of new theoretical approaches and
empirical research regarding the simultaneous improvement of environmental and
operational performance.
References Green lean
Abdul Wahab, A.N., Mukhtar, M. and Sulaiman, R. (2013), “A conceptual model of lean and the need
manufacturing dimensions”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 1292-1298.
for Six Sigma
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2006), “Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile
supply chain: an ANP-based approach”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 173 No. 1, pp. 211-225.
Assarlind, M., Gremyr, I. and Bäckman, K. (2012), “Multi-faceted views on a lean Six Sigma 243
application”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 21-30.
Basu, R. (2004), Implementing Quality: A Practical Guide to Tools and Techniques: Enabling the
Power of Operational Excellence, Thomson Learning, London.
Bendell, T. (2010), “A review and comparison of Six Sigma and the lean organisations”, The TQM
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A. and Vinelli, A. (2013), “Lean and green in action: interdependencies and
performance of pollution prevention projects”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85,
pp. 191-200.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Oraifige, I., Soriano-Meier, H., Harmanto, D. and Rocha-Lona, L. (2010), “An
empirical application of Six Sigma and DMAIC methodology for business process
improvement”, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Flexible Automation
and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM), San Francisco, CA, 12-14 July, pp. 92-100.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Parkar, H.S., Oraifige, I., Soriano-Meier, H. and Harmanto, D. (2012), “An
empirical-exploratory study of the status of lean manufacturing in India”, International
Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 395-412.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Flint, A., Kumar, V., Antony, J. and Soriano-Meier, H. (2014), “A DMAIRC
approach to lead time reduction in an aerospace engine assembly process”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 27-48.
Goh, T.N. (2002), “A strategic assessment of Six Sigma”, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 403-410.
Gottberg, A., Morris, J., Pollard, S., Mark-Herbert, C. and Cook, M. (2006), “Producer responsibility,
waste minimisation and the WEEE directive: case studies in eco-design from the European
lighting sector”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 359 Nos 1/3, pp. 38-56.
Green, K.W. Jr, Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Gupta, M. and Sharma, K. (1996), “Environmental operations management: an opportunity for
improvement”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 40-46.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D. and Gavronski, I. (2013), “Lean management and
supply management: their role in green practices and performance”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 39, pp. 312-320.
Hammer, M. and Goding, J. (2001), “Putting Six Sigma in perspective”, Quality, Vol. 40 No. 10,
pp. 58-63.
Han, C. and Lee, Y. (2002), “Intelligent integrated plant operation system for Six Sigma”, Annual
Reviews in Control, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Harry, M.J., Mann, P.S., de Hodgins, O.C., Hulbert, R.L. and Lacke, J.C. (2010), Practitioners Guide
to Statistics and Lean Six Sigma for Process Improvement, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Helu, M. and Dornfeld, D. (2013), “Principles of green manufacturing”, Green Manufacturing:
Fundamentals and Applications, Springer, pp. 107-115.
Herron, C. and Hicks, C. (2008), “The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from Green lean
Japanese automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change
agents”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 524-531.
and the need
Hilton, R.J. and Sohal, A. (2012), “A conceptual model for the successful deployment of lean
for Six Sigma
Six Sigma”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 54-70.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean 245
thinking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), “The seven value stream mapping tools”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 46-64.
Hosseini, H.M. and Kaneko, S. (2012), “Causality between pillars of sustainable development:
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
Marriott, B., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Soriano-Meier, H. and Antony, J. (2013), “An integrated
methodology to prioritise improvement initiatives in low volume-high integrity product
manufacturing organisations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 197-217.
Martinez, P., Gonzalez, V. and Fonseca, E. (2009), “Green-lean conceptual integration in the project
design, planning and construction”, Revista Ingenieria de Construccion, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Mohanty, R.P. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1999), “Work study managing green productivity: a case
study”, Work Study, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 165-169.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean, and global supply
chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40
Nos 1/2, pp. 14-41.
Montgomery, D.C. (2001), Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 4th ed., John Willey and Sons,
New York, NY.
Nunes, B. and Bennett, D. (2010), “Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: an
environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 396-420.
Pampanelli, A.B., Found, P. and Bernardes, A.M. (2014), “A lean & green model for a production
cell”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 19-30.
Paumgartten, P.V. (2003), “The business case for high-performance green buildings: sustainability and
its financial impact”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 26-34.
Pepper, M.P.J. and Spedding, T.A. (2010), “The evolution of lean Six Sigma”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Pettersen, J. (2009), “Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Pyzdek, T. (2014), The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Green Belts, Black Belts, and
Managers at all Levels, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Raisinghani, M.S., Ette, H., Pierce, R., Cannon, G. and Daripaly, P. (2005), “Six Sigma: concepts,
tools, and applications”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 4,
pp. 491-505.
Rao, P. (2004), “Greening production: a South-East Asian experience”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 289-320.
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K. and Maxwell, J. (2001), “Lean, green, and the quest for superior environmental
performance”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 228-243.
Rousseau, D.M. (2012), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, Oxford University Green lean
Press, New York, NY.
and the need
Salah, S., Rahim, A. and Carretero, J.A. (2010), “The integration of Six Sigma and lean
management”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 249-274.
for Six Sigma
Sarkis, J. (1998), “Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 159-174.
Sarkis, J. (2001), Greener Manufacturing and Operations: from Design to Delivery and Back, 247
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Sarkis, J. (2003), “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 397-409.
Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 07:31 19 February 2016 (PT)
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012), Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education, Essex.
Sheridan, J.H. (2000), “Lean Sigma’ synergy”, Industry Week, Vol. 249 No. 17, pp. 81-82.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “Environmental technologies and competitive advantage”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 183-200.
Simpson, D.F. and Power, D.J. (2005), “Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green
suppliers”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 60-68.
Smith, R. (2000), “Quality improvement reports: a new kind of article”, British Medical Journal,
Vol. 321 No. 7274, pp. 1428-1428.
Snee, R.D. and Hoerl, R.W. (2003), Leading Six Sigma: A Step-by-Step guide Based on Experience
with GE and Other Six Sigma Companies, FT Prentice Hall, NJ.
Thomas, A., Barton, R. and Chuke-Okafor, C. (2009), “Applying lean six sigma in a small
engineering company – a model for change”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 113-129.
Thomas, J. and Harden, A. (2008), “Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research
in systematic reviews”, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 45, pp. 1-10.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A. and Pittaway, L. (2005), “Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 257-281.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E. and Remita, H. (2014), “Combining organizational performance
with sustainable development issues: the green and lean project benchmarking repository”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 83-93.
Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R. and Somanaathan, M. (2011), “Tools and techniques for enabling
sustainability through lean initiatives”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 469-479.
Wang, F.K. and Chen, K.S. (2010), “Applying lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in
banking services”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 301-315.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), “Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and pursue
perfection”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 140-151.
IJLSS Yang, C.C. (2004), “An integrated model of TQM and GE-Six Sigma”, International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
6,3
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2008), “Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 261-273.
has published a number of articles in leading international journals and conferences, and two
books in the areas of quality management systems and manufacturing performance measurement
systems. Jose Arturo has participated as a guest editor for special issues in the Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma (IJLSS),
International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research (IJLER), International Journal of Engineering
Management and Economics (IJEME) and International Journal of Engineering and Technology
Innovation (IJETI). He is currently serving in the editorial board of several international journals
as well as has contributed as a member of the scientific and organising committees of several
international conferences. His research interests include general aspects of operations and
manufacturing management, operations and quality improvement and performance
measurement. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes is a Chartered Engineer (CEng), a certified Six
Sigma-Green Belt and has over six years of industrial experience working as Production Manager,
Production Engineer and Operations Manager for several international and local companies in
both the UK and Mexico. He is also a fellow member of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA)
and a member of the Institution of Engineering Technology (IET). Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes can be
contacted at: J.Reyes@derby.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com