Ciccullo Et Al - 2018 - Integrating The Environmental and Social Sustainability Pillars Into The Lean

Accepted Manuscript
Integrating the environmental and social sustainability pillars into the lean and
agile supply chain management paradigms: A literature review and future research
directions
Federica Ciccullo, Margherita Pero, Maria Caridi, Jonathan Gosling, Laura Purvis
PII: S0959-6526(17)32849-4
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.176
Reference: JCLP 11315
To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 8 February 2017

Revised Date: 20 October 2017
Accepted Date: 22 November 2017
Please cite this article as: Ciccullo F, Pero M, Caridi M, Gosling J, Purvis L, Integrating the
environmental and social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply chain management
paradigms: A literature review and future research directions, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.176.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TITLE PAGE
Integrating the environmental and social sustainability pillars into the

Lean and Agile supply chain management paradigms: a literature review
and future research directions
PT
Corresponding author: Federica Ciccullo
Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano
RI
Via Lambruschini 4/b, 20156, Milan (Italy)
e-mail address: [email protected]
SC
Margherita Pero
Maria Caridi
U
AN
M
Jonathan Gosling
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff (UK)
Aberconway Building, Colum Dr, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK
D
TE
Laura Purvis
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff (UK)
Aberconway Building, Colum Dr, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK
C EP
AC
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Integrating the environmental and social sustainability pillars
into the Lean and Agile supply chain management paradigms: a
literature review and future research directions
PT
Abstract
Established supply chain management paradigms such as leanness, agility, and sustainability
RI
have received increased attention in the literature, but mainly as separate topics. However,
while the importance of sustainability as a competitive priority has grown significantly in
recent years, companies still try to reconcile the pressures of enhancing their supply chain
SC
efficiency and effectiveness. Thus, understanding what is the best way for companies to
design and implement a system of practices that meets, on the one hand, the environmental
and social requirements of a wide set of stakeholders and, on the other hand, the need to be
U
lean (efficient and waste free) and / or agile (fast and flexible to the needs of the market
place) is critical. Our paper develops a systematic literature review addressing the integration
AN
of lean, agile and sustainable supply chain management paradigms. 73 papers are analysed,
deriving 6 types of integration between lean & sustainable and agile & sustainable supply
chain paradigms. To achieve each type of integration, a set of practices are highlighted.
Interestingly, the same practices can support different integration types. The paper discusses
M
possible reasons behind these differences and provides future research directions. We suggest
further studies should be devoted to investigating the agile – sustainable paradigms
integration more in depth as well as the effect of including social dimension when
D
considering the integration between established and sustainable supply chain paradigms.
Moreover, we address the lack of empirical studies and the need to take an evolutionary
TE
perspective when looking at the integration. Finally, we suggest developing conceptual and
empirical studies on whether and how integration between paradigms is contingent upon the
strategic relevance of sustainability.
EP
Keywords: Lean, Agile, Sustainability, Paradigm, Literature review
1. Introduction
C
The current adverse global economic conditions have highlighted the need for organisations
AC
to integrate various supply chain paradigms, in order to meet customer demand efficiently
and effectively, while adhering to the environmental and social requirements of a wider set of
stakeholders. Supply chain paradigms are defined as set of practices coherent with a
philosophical and cultural belief (Christopher and Towill, 2001, Narasimhan et al., 2006).
Rana Plaza collapse on April 24, 2013 (BBC, 2013), where more than 1,000 workers were
killed, as well as the Palm Oil scandal, which brought to light systematic social and
environmental abuses in supply chain of major firms (Greenpeace, 2007; Amnesty
International, 2016), are examples of the negative consequences of supply chain governance
still too focused on the traditional goal of profit, disregarding or underestimating the social
and environmental impact of the business.
A sustainable strategy should guide today’s business. Coherently with the Triple Bottom Line
(TBL) perspective of sustainability (Elkington, 1997), companies’ strategy should
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
simultaneously consider and balance economic, environmental and social goals (Carter and
Rogers, 2008).
Focusing on the economic pillar, supply chain management practices should be adapted to the
specific conditions of the business environment, in order to have profitable supply chains
(Heydari, 2011). The Lean paradigm in supply chain management is applicable in stable,
predictable and controllable business environments, whereas agile paradigm is required for a
business to survive in an environment with unpredictable market changes. Naylor et al.
(1999) define them as follows: “Leanness means developing a value stream to eliminate all
waste, including time, and to ensure a level schedule. Agility means using market knowledge
PT
and a virtual corporation to exploit profitable opportunities in a volatile market place”. The
two concepts have more recently been extended to the supply chain, highlighting a need for
companies to enlarge their focus to include intra-organisational aspects. According to
RI
Vonderembse et al. (2006) a lean supply chain “employs continuous improvement efforts that
focus on eliminating waste or non-value steps along the chain”.
Lee (2002) states that agile supply chains are aimed at “being responsive and flexible to the
SC
customers while the risk of supply shortage or related to upstream disruptions is hedged
thanks to resource and inventory pooling and/or redundancy”.
As far as the environmental pillar is concerned, recent literature suggests a new supply chain
paradigm, the green supply chain paradigm (e.g. Dües et al. 2013; Carvalho and Cruz-
U
Machado, 2011; Azevedo et al., 2012)., i.e. a set of practices aimed at reducing the
environmental impact of the supply chain. Expanding this definition to the social pillar, the
AN
“sustainable supply chain paradigm” is defined as a set of supply chain practices aiming at
reducing the environmental impact (measured in terms of e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, waste reduction) as well as at improving the social condition of different
M
stakeholders, while contributing to the long term economic development of the supply chain
(e.g. Pagell and Wu, 2009; Marshall et al., 2015).
Most researchers have studied the established paradigms (lean/agile) and the
D
green/sustainable paradigms as separate entities (e.g. Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Dües et al.,
2013), while other researchers have begun discussing the implications of a potential
compatibility between them, e.g. integrating lean and green practices or paradigms
TE
(Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011; Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-
Fuentes, 2014; Garza-Reyes, 2015; Wichaisri and Sopadang, 2017). However, despite some
recent attempts, current studies neglect the social pillar of sustainability or omit agility-
EP
related aspects. The result is a lack of clarity as to how the environmental and social goals
can be incorporated into established supply chains paradigms (Piercy and Rich, 2015).
Leveraging on this gap, this paper will address the following research question (RQ) through
C
the use of a systematic literature review that focuses on lean, agile and sustainable supply
chain paradigms: How do the established lean and agile supply chain paradigms integrate
AC
with the sustainable supply chain paradigm? We will answer to this question delineating
some process steps to implement this integration and to point out uncovered areas and
challenges for future researches.
It is worth highlighting here that the subject of sustainability is expansive and, while the
importance of the economic pillar is recognised, research works about sustainable supply
chain usually focus on the environmental and the social pillar only, so neglecting the
economic pillar (Ashby et al., 2012). Similarly, hereinafter we will use the term
“sustainability” to refer to “environmental and social sustainability”.
The paper proceeds as follows. First, the research background and the methodology used for
the systematic review are introduced. Secondly, we present a descriptive analysis of the
sample of papers. Thirdly, we discuss and categorise the articles depending on the type of
integration between the established and sustainable paradigms. The last two sections discuss
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the implications emerging from the categorisation, suggest a future research agenda and
highlight the conclusions and the managerial implications.
2. Background
The need for, and opportunities to integrate various management paradigms were first
highlighted by Naylor et al. (1999) in their seminal paper on ‘Leagility: Integrating the lean
and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain’. This work revealed that lean
and agile manufacturing paradigms can be extended beyond the boundaries of a single
PT
company, thus defining the lean or agile supply chain paradigm, which includes, but it is not
limited to, practices of lean or agile production paradigm. More recent studies indeed have
also investigated the opportunities for integrating the lean and green paradigms (Mollenkopf
RI
et al., 2010; Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014; Wichaisri and Sopadang, 2017).
Looking at the relationship between lean and agile supply paradigms, Narasimhan et al.
(2006) argue that established paradigms can be competing, precursor and complementary to
SC
each other. In terms of a competing relationship, for example, Dües et al. (2013) suggests that
the differences between the Lean and Green paradigms lie in certain practices, such as the
increase in replenishment frequency reducing inventory levels while increasing CO2
emissions connected to transportation. As for precursor, Mollenkopf et al. (2010) note that
U
close collaboration with supply chain partners, which is an important practice for lean
paradigm, is also a necessary condition for developing a green supply chain. For a
AN
complementary relationship, Kurdve et al. (2015) argue that the practice of waste flow
mapping combines flow mapping, which is part of the lean paradigm, with waste associated
with the environmental focus, which is part of the sustainable paradigm.
M
These examples suggest that the same established paradigm (i.e. lean or agile) can be at the
same time competing, precursor and complimentary to the sustainable paradigm. Moreover,
these contributions shed light on the fact that the integration between different paradigms lies
in inter-dependencies in place between practices. This means that looking at the individual
D
practices associated with each paradigm (e.g. high stock replenishment frequency, supplier
collaboration, etc. for the lean paradigm) could help understanding the root cause of the
TE
different ways of integration. Therefore, our analysis of the literature will focus not only on
the paradigms, but also, on the practices adopted under these paradigms. This in-depth
analysis allows investigation of the reasons behind some possible contradictory results in the
EP
literature.
To satisfy the aim of our research, we have identified a set of practices for lean, agile and
sustainable paradigm respectively. We acknowledge that there are papers that identify cross-
paradigm approaches, thus suggesting hybrid practices, but we shall investigate them as one
C
type of integration, with its associated practices, in the following parts of the paper.
In particular, practices associated with the agile supply chain paradigm can be classified in
AC
line with the definitions provided by Naylor et al. (1999) and Lee (2002) as follows:
• Risk hedging practices, such as: increased capacity surplus, supply chain risk
management initiatives, risk hedging supply chain strategy;
• Flexibility and responsiveness practices, such as: flexible sourcing, flexible
transportation, flexibility in product design (e.g. modularity), flexibility in production;
• Using supply chain knowledge for innovation, such as: customer involvement,
mechanisms to promote innovation on the supply side, dynamic alliances and virtual
network for product development.
As for lean practices, we acknowledge that literature is rich of notable contributions defining
the pillars of lean production (e.g. Shah and Ward, 2007). Nevertheless, in line with our
supply chain-wide perspective, we adopted Naylor et al. (1999) and Lee (2002) as reference
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
definitions for lean supply chain paradigm. We derived the following practices characterising
a lean supply chain paradigm:
• Waste reduction practices such as: inventory, buffer capacity and materials reduction
to produce exactly what needed (i.e. pull production) as well as reduction in defects
and production process errors and wastes (through tools as: TQM, TPM, 5S, visual
workplace, process mapping for certifications and value stream mapping);
• Closeness to suppliers’ practices, namely focus on supply lead time reduction,
geographical concentration of the supply base, close relationships with suppliers and
direct deliveries from suppliers;
PT
• Continuous improvement and workforce involvement practices as people-driven
improvements in the production process through training, engagement and delegation;
• One piece flow, such as Just in Time (JIT) system, increase in replenishment
RI
frequency, set – up time reduction;
• Internal manufacturing efficiency practices as: investment in efficient production
process technologies to increase in the utilisation rate and equipment efficiency.
SC
Additionally, Lee (2002) highlights visibility as a fundamental practice of both lean and agile
paradigms. To reach visibility, companies rely on information sharing with supply chain
partners. In lean supply chains, the information sharing is meant to facilitate the
U
implementation of cost optimisation. In agile supply chains, visibility helps in capturing
customer requirements and timely communicating orders along the supply chain.
AN
As far as the sustainable supply chain paradigm is concerned, many classifications of
practices have been proposed, mainly taking an environmental focus (e.g. Rao and Holt,
M
2005; Vachon and Klassen, 2006). A few contributions, however, do encompass both
environmental and social practices (e.g. Pagell and Wu, 2009; Parmigiani et al., 2011). We
focus on environmental and social practices, leaving aside the economics sphere (e.g.
D
collaborating with suppliers to improve operational performance) since these types of actions
are part of the established supply chain paradigms. Given its exhaustiveness, we build on the
TE
classification of suppliers’ related practices by Marshall et al. (2015) and Formentini and
Taticchi (2016). We adopted the former to cover external sustainable supply chain practices
(i.e. practices that rely on upstream relationships with suppliers). Formentini and Taticchi
(2016) complement this list of practices by adopting an internal perspective, thus considering
EP
product and production process related aspects.
Therefore, we distinguish between:

C
• Environmental supply chain monitoring practices, such as monitoring suppliers’

practices and policies;
AC
• Environmental supply chain management systems, including the implementation of

environmental management system to reduce pollution and wastes, ISO14000
certification, green purchasing;
• Environmental new product and process development, which includes the use of
recycled materials and the design and production of products that can be re-used and
recycled;
• Environmental supply chain strategy (re)definition, meaning for instance creating
closed- loop supply chains and using waste as a resource;
• Social supply chain monitoring, such as implementing health and safety and well-
being systems in the workplace and with suppliers;
• Social supply chain management systems, which includes, among the others, the
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
definition of health and safety management procedures;
• Social new product and process development practices, which refer to the
development of products and processes to ensure health and safety fair margins and
wages and workers’ welfare;
• Social supply chain strategy (re)definition practices, such as the inclusion of NGOs,
community and charity groups in the decision making process.
Despite some of the more recent attempts to understand how various lean and agile practices
might support or conflict with the adoption of the sustainability paradigm, no systematic
PT
understanding of the potential complementarity of the three paradigms and their underpinning
practices exists. This is a first gap that our study aims to fill. Moreover, the systematic
understanding we aim to develop includes also a discussion around possible contingencies in
RI
place, which might explain contradictions presented in the literature (i.e. contributions
claiming synergies and contributions underlining a contrast between established and
sustainable paradigms through considerations made on the same practice/set of practices).
SC
3. Methodology
A systematic literature review was conducted in our study, which relies on a rigorous and
U
well-defined approach to reviewing the literature in a specific subject area (Vom Brocke et al.
(2009). The recognised output of such literature review is to map, consolidate and evaluate
AN
the intellectual territory of a certain field as well as to identify knowledge gaps to be filled in
order to develop the existing body of knowledge further (Tranfield et al., 2003). It can be
performed adopting a meta-analysis or meta-synthesis method (Cronin et al., 2008). In
M
managerial research, which deals with the understanding of organisations and management
processes, researchers tend to use meta-synthesis, especially when dealing with qualitative
studies (Tranfield et al, 2003).
D
The aim of the meta-synthesis we conducted was to summarise, integrate and cumulate the
findings of different studies on the topic under investigation (Tranfield et al., 2003). Adopting
TE
a process model similar to Seuring and Müller (2008), as well as Gosling and Naim (2009)
we organise the work along three steps:
• Material collection (section 3.1): setting the approach to select the papers by defining
EP
the exclusion and inclusion criteria, the sources to adopt as well as the unit of analysis
(i.e. the paper).
• Descriptive analysis (section 3.2): providing temporal and journals distribution of the
C
chosen papers as well as description of paper type (i.e. empirical: case studies based,
survey based, simulation model based; theoretical: conceptual, literature review) and
AC
the analysed paradigms (i.e. lean, agile, lean and agile, environmental, social and
sustainable).
• Thematic analysis (section 4): presenting the main finding of the literature review
(categorisation and evaluation of the material to set future research paths).
3.1 Material collection
As hereinafter explained, two – steps approach (see Figure 1) has been used to select the
papers. In the first step the initial set of papers was collected based on a structured keyword
search and the screening of the titles to retain papers that appear to be aligned with the
general research topic (i.e. excluding contributions of different disciplines). During the
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
second step the body of the text of each paper was analysed and the final list of papers was
identified based on the adherence to the specific research question that we posed.
554 agile and

sustainable
PT
756 lean and
First step sustainable
Filtering criteria: compliance with
RI
the research topic (title screening)
SC
216 lean and sustainable
153 agile and sustainable
42 intersections lean, agile and sustainable
U
AN
Second step
Filtering criteria: compliance with

the research question (abstract
M
and full paper screening)

D
73 papers
TE
Figure 1 - Material collection
First step: keyword extraction and title screening

In the first step, the keywords derived from literature regard: leaness, agility, and
EP
sustainability. We included also two more keywords that the literature links with agile supply
chain paradigm (Lee, 2002), namely “flexible” and “responsive”. Moreover, in line with
Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015), who claim that in the literature resilience is mostly connected
C
with the concept of agility, we used also the keywords “resilient.

As for sustainability, the keywords were chosen in line with the TBL approach by Elkington
AC
(1997). However, in line with Ashby et al. (2012) and Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012) our
focus is on the environmental and the social pillar only, so neglecting the economic pillar.
Therefore “economic” was purposely not used, in order to not include those papers that limit
the discussion to purely economic performance.
Thus, the keywords used were “lean”, “agile”, “responsive”, “resilient”, “flexible” in
combination with “sustainability”, “sustainable”, “environmental”, “green” and “social”.
These keywords are in line with the approach adopted by Seuring and Müller (2008) for their
literature review on sustainable supply chain management. We searched these keywords in
both abstract and title. For all the queries, “supply chain” was used as a further filter in the
body of the text.
Scopus and Google Scholar databases were searched. Queries on the databases were
performed in different time slots with the last update made in May, 2017. Contributions
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ranging from the year 1999 to present were included in the research. The starting year is the
publication year of Naylor et al. (1999) seminal paper addressing lean and agile as paradigms,
as well as the idea of a possible integration between them. The research has been limited to
journals, book chapters and, due to the novelty of the topic, conference proceedings.
As Figure 1 outlines, 756 papers resulted from the query combining ‘lean’ and ‘sustainable’-
related keywords, whereas 554 resulted by the combination of ‘agile’ and ‘sustainable’ –
related keywords. The title of each article has been screened to check the adherence of the
paper to the general topic. For example, papers showing clearly a strong focus on information
system design (e.g. agile programming, agile software development) or service management
PT
have been excluded, consistently with the definitions of lean and agile supply chain
paradigms provided in the introduction, which clearly address manufacturing system. The
output of the screening is a list of 411 papers: 216 papers dealing with lean and sustainable
RI
paradigms, and 153 with agile and sustainable paradigms. It is worth noticing that 42 papers
are at the intersection, they indeed mention all three paradigms: lean, agile and sustainable
(however, some papers just mention both lean and agile paradigms, but they revealed to have
SC
a marked focus on only one of them). Interestingly, after the screening of the titles, a high
number of papers (540) dealing with lean paradigm were excluded because they tackle a wide
range of aspects, without a clear focus on “lean” related aspects. On the contrary, we found
that contributions related to the agile paradigm are based on a more recent concept and more
U
likely to include a supply chain view.
AN
Second step: analysis of the full body of the papers
The second step encompasses the selection of the final list of papers for full text review based
on the adherence to the research question, i.e. considering the integration between established
M
supply chain paradigms and sustainable supply chain paradigm. To this purpose, abstracts
and full body of the papers were reviewed (as in Gosling and Naim, 2009).
The output of the second step is a list of 73 papers that were selected for our final review.
D
Table 1 lists the papers and classifies them based on the type of article: empirical works (i.e.
case study, survey, mathematical quantitative methods and model application, action based
research) or theoretical works (i.e. literature review and conceptual paper).
TE
C EP
AC
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Authors (year) Journal / conference proceeding / book chapter title ID Article type
Rothenbergh et al. (2001) Production and Operations Management 1 E: survey and in
depth interviews
King and Lenox (2001) Production and Operations Management 2 E: survey based on
PT
secondary data
Zhu and Sarkis (2004) Journal of Operations Management 3 E: survey
Kleindorfer et al. (2005) Production and Operations Management 4 T: literature review
RI
Simpson and Power (2005) Supply Chain Management: an International Journal 5 E: exploratory case
studies
Venkat and Wakeland (2006) 50th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences 2006, ISSS 2006 6 E: simulation model
SC
Carvalho and Cruz-Machado (2011) Supply Chain Management 7 T: conceptual
Bae and Kim (2007) IGLC Conference 8 E: case studies
Kim and Bae (2010) Journal of Architectural Engineering 9 E: case studies
U
Mollenkopf et al. (2010) International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 10 T: literature review
Torielli et al. (2010) 69th World Foundry Congress 2010, WFC 2010 11 T: literature review
AN
Parveen et al. (2011) Proceedings of the International Conference on Green Technology and Environmental Conservation, 12 E: survey based on
GTEC-2011 secondary data
Vieira and Cachadinha (2011) 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2011, IGLC 2011 13 E: single case study
M
Vinodh et al. (2011) Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 14 E: case studies
Yang et al. (2011) International Journal of Production Economics 15 E: survey
D
Azevedo et al. (2012) IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 16 E: single case study
Cabral et al. (2012) International Journal of Production Research 17 E: single case study
TE
Espadinha-Cruz et al. (2012) Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, ITI 18 E: single case study
Hong et al. (2012) Benchmarking: an International Journal 19 E: survey
Puvanasvaran et al. (2012) Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 20 E: survey
EP
Rosenbaum et al. (2012) IGLC 2012 - 20th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 21 E: single case study
Youn et al. (2012) Benchmarking: an International Journal 22 E: case studies
Azevedo et al. (2013b) Airports and the Automotive Industry: Security Issues, Economic Efficiency and Environmental Impact 23 E: single case study
C
Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2013) Sixth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management 24 E: single case study
Dües et al. (2013) Journal of Cleaner Production 25 T: literature review
AC
Hajmohammad et al. (2013a) Journal of Cleaner Production 26 E: survey

Hajmohammad et al. (2013b) Journal of Cleaner Production 27 E: survey
Longoni et al. (2013) International Journal of Production Research 28 E: case studies
Maia et al. (2012) International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 29 T: conceptual
Martínez-Jurado and Moyano- Journal of Cleaner Production 30 T: literature review
Fuentes (2014)
Silva et al. (2013) IFAC Proceedings Volumes (IFAC-PapersOnline) 31 E: single case study
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sobral et al. (2013) Environmental Quality Management 32 E: single case study
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
PT
Wang et al. (2013)
Management 33 E: single case study
Wiengarten et al. (2013) Supply Chain Management: an International Journal 34 E: survey
Azevedo et al. (2013a)
RI
Journal of Cleaner Production 35 E: single case study
Brown et al. (2014) Journal of Cleaner Production 36 E: case studies
Carvalho et al. (2014) Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 37 E: single case study
SC
Govindan et al. (2014) Journal of Cleaner Production 38 E: case studies
Gunasekharan et al. (2014) Applied Mechanics and Materials 39 E: modelling
Kurdve et al. (2015) Journal of Cleaner Production 40 E: case studies
U
Puvanasvaran et al. (2014) Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 41 T: conceptual
Rosenbaum et al. (2014) Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 42 E: single case study
AN
Alves and Alves (2015) International Journal of Production Research 43 T: conceptual
Domingo and Aguado (2015) Sustainability (Switzerland) 44 E: action based research
Dubey and Ali (2015) Benchmarking: an International Journal 45 E: survey
M
Garza-Reyes (2015) Journal of Cleaner Production 46 T: literature review
Govindan et al. (2015) International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 47 T: conceptual
Longoni and Cagliano (2015) International Journal of Operations and Production Management 48 E: case studies
D
Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou (2015) Journal of Cleaner Production 49 E: single case study
TE
Piercy and Rich (2015) International Journal of Operations and Production Management 50 E: case studies
Rajesh and Ravi (2015) Journal of Cleaner Production 51 E: single case study
Schillig et al. (2015) IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 52 E: modelling
EP
Soni et al. (2015) International Journal of Procurement Management 53 T: conceptual
Wu et al. (2015) Sustainability (Switzerland) 54 E: case studies
Yusup et al. (2015) International Journal of Agile Systems and Management 55 T: conceptual
C
So and Sun (2015) International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 56 E: design of an experiment
Fahimnia et al. (2015) Omega (United Kingdom) 57 E: modelling
AC
Gorane and Kant (2016) Benchmarking: an International Journal 58 E: survey

Shibin et al. (2016) Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 59 E: experts' interviews
Distelhorst et al. (2017) Management Science 60 E: single case study
Cherrafi et al. (2016) International Journal of Production Research 61 E: case studies
Garza-Reyes et al. (2016) Production Planning and Control 62 E: case study and simulation
Dev and Shankar (2016) Benchmarking: an International Journal 63 E: modelling
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Ugarte et al. (2016) Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 64 E: descrete event simulation
Campos and Vazquez-Brust (2016) Supply Chain Management: an International Journal 65 E: single case study
PT
Kumar BR et al. (2016) Competitiveness Review 66 T:conceptual
Wichaisri and Sopadang (2017) Sustainable Development 67 T:literature review
Carvalho et al. (2017) Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 E: case study
RI
Duarte and Cruz-Machado (2017) International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 69 E:case study
Powell et al. (2017) International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 70 E:case study
Martínez Leon et al. (2017) Journal of Cleaner Production 71 T:literature review
SC
do Rosàrio Cabrita et al. (2016) IFAC-PapersOnLine 72 T:conceptual
Azevedo et al. (2016) Benchmarking: an International Journal 73 E: case study
Table 1 – Papers resulting from the two-step keyword search
U
E= empirical work; T= theoretical work
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.2 Descriptive analysis
The selected body of literature comprises papers that have been published in a 17-year period
ranging from 2001 to 2017 (May). As Figure 2 shows, most of the papers (90%) have been
published in the more recent years, starting from 2010, with the highest number of works (16)
published in 2015, thus highlighting the growing interest devoted to the topic by scholars.
Furthermore, the Journal of Cleaner Production dominates in terms of number of relevant
studies, with 12 articles, followed by Benchmarking: an International Journal (5 papers),
Supply Chain Management: an International Journal and International Journal of
Production Research (4 papers each).
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
Figure 2 – Temporal distribution of papers in the final sample

D
Table 2 captures the main focus of the 73 papers. The papers are classified based on the
paradigms they concurrently refer to and based on the nature of the work (either empirical or
TE
theoretical). Most of the papers (40) study the lean supply chain paradigm integrated with the
environmental dimension of the sustainable supply chain paradigm. Not surprisingly, not
only is this focus the most covered in terms of number of contributions, but it appears also to
EP
be the most mature, given the higher numbers of empirical-based papers rather than
conceptual-based ones. Empirical articles focus on multiple or single in-depth case studies
(e.g. Youn et al., 2012; Piercy and Rich, 2015), on surveys (e.g. Yang et al., 2011;
Hajmohammad et al., 2013b) or model application (e.g. Shillig et al., 2015) Theoretical paper
C
instead either develop a conceptual framework (e.g. Govidnan et al., 2015; Yusup et al.,
2015) or a literature review (e.g. Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014; Garza-Reyes,
AC
2015).
The focus on the social dimension is instead limited to just three empirical papers (i.e.
Longoni et al., 2013; Longoni and Cagliano, 2015; Distelhorst et al., 2017).
The set of works taking both the social and the environmental perspective encompasses both
empirical studies (e.g. Wang et al. 2013) and theoretical ones (e.g. Kleindorfer et al., 2005).
The agile supply chain paradigm results to be less studied than the lean paradigm and is the
focus of only three papers: two empirical studies (Rajesh and Ravi, 2015; Shibin et al., 2016)
and a conceptual paper (Soni et al., 2015). Two of them (Rajesh and Ravi, 2015; Soni et al.,
2015) deal with the integration between agile, environmental and social paradigms.
Some contributions take a multi-paradigm perspective. Multi-paradigm perspective devotes
attention to both lean and agile and their integration with sustainability. In these works,
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
integration targets either the environmental dimension only (e.g. Cabral et al., 2012;
Espadinha-Cruz et al., 2012) or both the social and the environmental dimension (e.g.
Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011).
ENVIROMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL
& SOCIAL
AGILE E 59 51
T 53
1; 2; 3; 5; 6; 8; 9; 12; 15; 16; 20; 21;
PT
24; 26; 27; 31; 32; 34; 36; 39; 40; 13; 14; 33; 50; 54; 56;
LEAN E 28; 48; 60
42; 44; 45; 52; 57; 61; 62; 63; 65; 64
68; 69; 70
T 10; 11; 25; 29; 41; 46; 66 4; 30; 43; 55; 67
RI
LEAN & E 17; 18; 23; 35; 37; 38; 49; 58 19; 22
AGILE
T 7; 47
SC
Table 2 – Established supply chain paradigm and sustainability focus
E = empirical studies; T = theoretical studies
4. Results
4.1 Integration categories
U
Following the thematic content analysis of the 73 selected papers based on the ways the
AN
paradigms integrate, six categories have been found (see Table 3), namely:
1. Lean or Agile paradigms supporting sustainable paradigm: the implementation of
lean or agile practices allows performance improvements to be achieved also within
the area of sustainability, or lean or agile practices are considered as part of the
M
sustainable paradigm. For instance, the concentration of the supply base in a

geographical area is a lean practice (supply lead time is shorter) that contributes to the
reduction of CO2 emissions (environmental performance) and positively impacts the
D
social dimension by creating jobs in the region (social performance).

2. Synergistic paradigms: synergies exist in the way some lean, agile, and sustainable
TE
practices affect supply chain performance. For instance, Carvalho and Cruz Machado
(2011) observe that the three paradigms positively impact the service level
performance because they increase the “integration level” between two supply chain
EP
entities. However, each paradigm affects the integration level through different
practices. According to Carvalho and Cruz-Machado (2011), the “integration level” is
positively related to: the level of trust, openness and profit sharing of the traditional
alliances in lean supply chains; the existence of dynamic alliances in the agile supply
C
chains; the development of environmental risk sharing strategies and to the level of
reverse material and information flow integration in the green supply chain.
AC
Therefore, Carvalho and Cruz-Machado (2011) conclude that the three paradigms
independently (i.e. by means of different practices) synergistically affect the same
supply chain attribute (e.g. integration level) and ultimately the same performance
indicator (service level).
3. Established paradigms as complementary with sustainable paradigm: a lean/agile
practice is modified to make it coherent with sustainable principles. For instance, the
lean practice of workforce involvement can be extended to involve floor workers in
monitoring chemicals usage (Rothenberg et al., 2001).
4. Lean and Agile paradigms as precursors of the sustainable paradigm. Similar as the
concept of lean as antecedent of agile (Christopher and Towill, 2001) the
implementation of lean or agile practices simplifies the implementation of
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
sustainability-related practices or boost the positive impact of sustainable practices on
sustainable performance. For instance, Yang et al. (2011) state that the lean practice
of process streamlining can help firms to adopt some environmental practices, such as
an environmental management system.
5. Sustainable paradigm as precursor of lean / agile paradigms: the implementation of
sustainability-related practices enables the implementation of lean or agile practices or
boosts the positive impact of lean / agile practices on operational performance. For
instance, environment protection system certifications are necessary practices to
maintain competitiveness in an agile environment (Rajesh and Ravi, 2015).
PT
6. Lean and agile paradigms as competing with the sustainable paradigm: the
implementation of lean or agile practices negatively affects performance in the area of
sustainability. For instance, Carvalho and Cruz-Machado (2011) claim that the agile
RI
practice of relying on capacity buffer to hedge against disruptions is detrimental to
environmental performance, given the negative impact of this practice on resource
consumption.
SC
The precursor, competing and complementary categories are to be interpreted in line with
Narasimhan et al. (2006). In addition, we found that the lean and agile paradigms can be
supportive of sustainable paradigm as well as the other way around. Interestingly, we found
that paradigms can be synergistic too.
U
We carried out an in-depth analysis of the 73 articles in the sample and we classified them
based on the integration category that they address. Each paper in the sample explores
AN
specific practices adopted as part of lean/agile or sustainable paradigm. Depending on the
role of each practice, we conclude and classify the kind of integration claimed in the paper.
Table 3 depicts the papers addressing each category of integration. It should be noted that the
M
same paper can deal with several practices, resulting in various categories of integration.
With a closer look on the coverage in terms of number of papers in each integration category,
we notice how established paradigms supporting sustainable paradigm is the mostly
D
addressed form of integration (n=37) both for lean (n=35) and agile (n=5), followed by
precursor (n=20) for lean and competing (n=3) for agile. These differences in the coverage
might reflect different frequency of occurrence of such integration due to the nature of the
TE
practices in each paradigm, or might simply reflect a different maturity in the literature on the
established paradigms (the lean one appears to be way more developed than agile).
Most of the papers consider companies or supply chains that are already adopting established
EP
supply chain paradigms and that subsequently want to integrate the sustainable paradigm.
Very few contributions are taking the point of view of a company that is already adopting the
sustainable paradigm and wants to integrate established supply chain paradigms (i.e.
C
sustainable precursor).
In the following sections, we present the classification of the papers dealing with: both agile
AC
and sustainable paradigm (section 4.2), both lean and sustainable paradigm (section 4.3), and
synergistic paradigms (section 4.3).
In sections 4.2 and 4.3, we describe the role of each practice in determining the integration
between the paradigms.
For instance, paper 38 (Govindan et al., 2014) claims that the agile practice of risk hedging
improves sustainability performance. Therefore, in section 4.2 we discuss the role of risk
hedging as supporting the sustainable paradigm based on the evidence in paper 38. Moreover,
in Table 4 we classify paper 38 in the first category of integration.
We carried out this analysis for every single practice cited in the papers of the sample. For the
sake of readability, practices have been grouped into bundles of practices. For instance,
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
flexibility in transportation and flexibility in product design have been grouped under
“flexibility” (see section 4.2).
In section 4.2 and 4.3 all the categories of integration are analysed, except the synergistic
one. Papers dealing with the synergistic category highlight practices that are simultaneously
relevant to all three paradigms, therefore they have been discussed in a dedicated section, i.e.
section 4.4.
The results are shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5, and discussed in the following sections.
PT
Category Paper ID Paper ID
L/A 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 11; 12; 13;
1. Established
16; 17; 24; 25; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33;
paradigms as
RI
38; 43; 44; 45; 46; 48; 54; 55; 57;
supporting the
60; 61; 65; 67; 68; 69; 70
sustainable
paradigm
SC
(n*=37)
2 Synergistic A 17;18;19; 23; 35; 47; 49
paradigms L (n=7)
S
U
3.Established 1; 11; 14; 20; 24; 36; 41; 40; 48;
paradigms as L/A S 52; 62; 65
AN
complementary
with the (n=12)
sustainable
M
paradigm
2; 5; 10; 15; 22; 25; 26; 27; 28;
4.Established L/A S 30; 39; 45; 48; 50; 56; 59; 61; 63;
paradigms as
D
65; 66.
precursors of the
sustainable (n=20)
TE
paradigm
4; 34; 43; 50; 51; 58

5. Sustainable S L/A
EP
paradigm as (n=6)
precursor of the
established
C
paradigms
AC
6. Established 1; 6; 7; 8; 21; 25; 28; 30; 37; 38;

L/A
paradigms as 42; 57; 61; 64; 68
competing with the
sustainable (n=12)
paradigm
Table 3 - Categories of lean & sustainable and agile & sustainable integration
*n=number of papers
In the following sections, we discuss for agile (section 4.2) and lean (section 4.3) supply
chain paradigms how different categories of practices have been studied in terms of
integration with the sustainable paradigm, providing some notable examples. We analysed
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the synergistic integration category in a separate section, building a discussion on both lean
and agile or “hybrid” types of practices.
4.2 Integrating the agile and sustainable supply chain paradigms
Table 4 classifies the papers focusing on the integration between the agile paradigm and the
sustainable paradigm. The table shows the group of practices (rows) that the authors of the
papers claim to be relevant in determining each category of integration (column). For
instance, Youn et al. (2012) (i.e. paper 22) find that flexibility is precursor to sustainability,
PT
therefore paper 22 is classified in the “Agility as precursors to sustainability” category of
integration.
RI
Integration Agility Sustainabil
categories Supporting Complementary as precursor ity as
Categories Competing
to precursor
of practices sustainability to agility
SC
Risk Hedging 38 7; 38
Agile practices
Flexibility 7; 38; 57 22; 59 7; 37; 38

Using supply
chain knowledge 7 22
U
for innovation
Visibility 17
AN
Environmental
Sustainability practices
supply chain
51; 59
management
systems
M
Social supply
chain
51
management
D
systems
Table 4 – Categories of practices (agile and sustainable) studied by papers in the sample depending on
TE
integration categories
As far as the agile paradigm is concerned, most of the papers focus on the supporting
integration category, while no contributions of the sample discuss complementary integration.
EP
Two sets of practices have been discussed in the literature as being both supporting and
competing, namely risk hedging and flexibility.
C
As for risk hedging, Carvalho and Cruz-Machado (2011) claim that one major practice to
guarantee hedging against disruptions is excessive buffer capacity, which is viewed as
AC
detrimental to environmental performance, given the negative impact of this practice on

resource consumption. Govindan et al. (2014) also advocate that supply chain risk
management practices could impact environmental performance, but they use or do not
investigate further whether this impact is a positive or a negative one. Therefore, this fact led
us to classify the type of integration as both supporting and competing.
Various practice associated with flexibility are discussed in the selected papers. Flexibility in
transportation, for example, is perceived as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be
used to reduce environmental impact by choosing among different lot size deliveries
(Fahimnia et al., 2015). On the other hand, it allows leveraging on motor-based urgent
deliveries as part of contingency plans in case of a disruption (Govindan et al. 2014), thus
increasing CO2 emissions. Flexibility in product design (i.e. the application of modular
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
design) is also identified as enabling product re-manufacturability, thus becoming a precursor
of the sustainable paradigm (Youn et al. 2012). Finally, Shibin et al. (2016) claim that
flexible manufacturing, through improved manufacturability of customised products (i.e.
throughput time reduction and faster deliveries to end customers) enables green product
design. Green product design, in turn, might mean to add a new “green” variant to a product
family, thus increasing product variety and stimulating the adoption of flexible
manufacturing.
One contribution (i.e. Youn et al., 2012) highlights the role of using supply chain knowledge
for innovation, as a precursor of the sustainable paradigm. For instance, encouraging
PT
suppliers to propose innovations for the market can result in innovation also on the green
front, thus producing a positive impact on the environmental dimension.
RI
As for visibility, achieving end to end supply chain visibility reduces the need for material
buffers, thus positively affecting environmental performance (Cabral et al., 2012).
SC
As for sustainability practices, just environmental and social supply chain management
systems out of the 8 categories of practices identified have been found in literature as
precursors of agile practices. According to Rajesh and Ravi (2015) environmental and social
supply chain management systems are considered prerequisites of other attributes for the
U
selection of suppliers in the context of the agile supply chain paradigm. Environment
protection system certifications (e.g. ISO 14001), as well as safety practices, are considered
AN
necessary practices to maintain competitiveness in a resilient (agile) environment.
4.3 Integrating lean and sustainable supply chain paradigms

M
Table 5 classifies those papers that focus on the integration between the lean and sustainable
supply chain paradigms. The synergistic integration category, which highlights practices that
D
are simultaneously relevant to all three paradigms, will be discussed in section 4.4.
TE
C EP
AC
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Integration categories Sustainability Tab

Leanness as precursor to le 5
Supporting Complementary as precursor to Competing
sustainability -
Categories of leanness
practices Cla
PT
1; 12; 19; 31; 32; 33; 46; 48; ssifi
Continuous improvements 15; 25; 30; 48; 50; 56; 61; 65 cati
54; 69; 24; 65; 70; 60 1; 11; 48; 24
and workforce involvement on
RI
2; 3; 7; 11; 12; 13; 17; 25; 30; 11; 14; 20; 36; of
2; 15; 22; 27; 45; 48; 50; 56; 1; 21; 42; pap
Waste reduction 31; 38; 45; 46; 48; 54; 55; 61; 40; 41; 48; 52;
Lean practices
61; 63; 66; 71 57
SC
67; 69; 24; 65; 70; 71 62 ers
acc
6; 8; 25; ordi
1; 3; 7; 8; 9; 12; 16; 29; 32; 38; 28; 30; 57;
U
One piece flow 14; 48 15; 26; 27; 28; 48 ng
44; 45; 48; 54; 61 61; 64; to
68;71
AN
cate
Closeness to suppliers 7; 16; 17; 25; 46; 68; 24;71 24; 65 5; 10; 25; 27; 39; 50; 61; 65 gori
Internal manufacturing es
7; 43; 24; 22
M
efficiency of
Visibility 16; 64 10; 50 64 lean
prac
D
Environmental new
product and process 34 tice
TE
development s
and
Sustainability practices
Environmental supply
4; 34; 50 inte
chain management systems
EP
Environmental supply grat
50 ion
chain monitoring
Social supply chain cate
4; 50
C
management systems gor

Social supply chain y
AC
50
monitoring
Social supply chain
50
strategy redefinition
Sustainability principles 43
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
As shown in Table 5, several papers in the sample deal with practices playing a role in the
supporting integration category, as well as in the precursor one. However, evidence has been
found for each category of integration. This is different from the results about the integration
between the agile paradigm and the sustainable paradigm (section 4.2), where the
complementary category has no results.
In the following, for each group of practices we will discuss the role it plays when integrating
the lean paradigm and the sustainable paradigm, based on the findings of the papers of the
sample.
PT
As far as the group continuous improvement and workforce involvement is concerned, Hong
et al. (2012) found that the group plays a supporting role. Through a survey of 379
companies, they validate the positive impact of several lean practices on sustainability.
RI
Among the others, they studied how micro and macro - organisational changes as well as the
continuous improvement play a supporting role because they help the environmental
performance improve. Wang et al. (2013) get to the same conclusions with regards to multi-
SC
functional employees and continuous improvement, by means of two case studies. They
claim that continuous improvement and workforce involvement contribute to the increase of
employees’ wealth (social performance) and to waste reduction (environmental performance).
The same practices are discussed years later by authors such as Duarte and Cruz-Machado
U
(2017) as well as Distelhorst et al. (2017) as “lean and green” type of practices, thus
emphasizing that a supporting integration exists among the two paradigms.
AN
Some authors found that the group of practices plays the role of precursor. Yang et al. (2011)
test and validate that the practices increasing the level of delegation and knowledge of
workforce and implementation of a lean organizational model are precursors for the
M
development of an environmental management system.

Rothenberg et al. (2001) notice how in lean plants the practice of workforce involvement
could be extended to involve floor workers in areas such as the monitoring and reduction of
D
chemicals usage, thus emphasizing that the practice has a role in the complimentary
integration between the lean paradigm and the environmental paradigm.
TE
Waste reduction is studied as having a supporting, complementary, precursor and even

competing role in the context of sustainability by different authors.
As for the supporting category, according to Dües et al. (2013) the practices of waste
EP
reduction, which are typical of the lean paradigm, help to improve the environmental
performance. The lean paradigm leverages on product and process changes to achieve a more
efficient production process. These changes enable also product recycling (i.e. environmental
C
supply chain management systems) as well as environmental new product and process
development (i.e. design products to re-use its wastes) and supply chain strategy
AC
(re)definition (i.e. build a closed loop supply chain). Also Parveen et al. (2011) discuss the
supporting role of six sigma. The authors claim that the practice can aid in detecting defects
and eliminate waste with a direct positive impact on environmental performance. Similarly,
Rothenberg et al. (2001) argue that the lower the buffer level, the more instantaneous the
feedback about any problems during production is, making it easier to monitor waste and,
hence, to reduce water and energy consumption.
Waste reduction practices play also a complementary role when integrating the lean and the
sustainable paradigm. For instance, value stream mapping can be adapted to include
sustainable elements. Brown et al. (2014) for example proposes to use sustainable value
stream mapping as a monitoring tool that includes not only the monitoring on non-value
added activities, but also environmental monitoring (i.e. energy and water usage) as well as
social monitoring (i.e. risk faced by workers).
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Under the precursor integration category falls a set of waste reduction practices such as 5s
cleanup and visual workplace that, according to Piercy and Rich (2015), are useful baselines
to move from the lean paradigm applied in the workplace to the lean paradigm extended to
the whole supply chain and ultimately to a sustainability strategy. When considering waste
reduction intended as increasing quality conformance, King and Lenox (2001) state that
companies adopting ISO 9000 quality standards are more likely to adopt ISO 14001
environmental standards, thus having a positive impact on environmental performance
indicators.
Finally, waste reduction intended as increasing quality conformance can play a competing
PT
role, as Rothenberg et al. (2011) observe. The authors argue that in some processes (e.g.
paint), the water use is critical to product quality. Superior quality production asks for high
water usage, thus conflicting with the environmental goals.
RI
Another group of practices whose integration with sustainability has been debated is one
piece flow, which is considered as having a supporting, competing, precursor or
SC
complimentary role.
Procuring smaller and more frequent lots of parts from suppliers makes products spend less
time in storage. Sobral et al. (2013) observe that, in the case study under their investigation, if
the product spends less time in storage it is possible to avoid a washing operation on the
U
product, so supporting sustainability goals.
The group of practices is considered as being competing with the sustainable supply chain
AN
paradigm when some contingencies are in place. According to Longoni et al. (2013) a
manufacturing program having the primary goal to assure a continuous production (JIT)
could harm the safety climate and negatively affect safety performance, if not accompanied
M
with HR practices such as proper incentives, involvement, job rotation. Moreover, according
to Dües et al. (2013), JIT deliveries in presence of a long and geographically dispersed supply
chain is not to be considered “green”, given that transportation is the major source of CO2
D
emissions (Dües et al., 2013).

As for the role of precursor, Hajmohammad et al. (2013a) discuss how JIT (as part of the
lean management construct) can create an adequate operating context and a suitable route to
TE
facilitate the implementation of sustainable practices. Set up time reduction is analysed by

Hajmohammad et al. (2013b) as part of a lean management construct that results to be
precursor for the development of environmental practices such as pollution prevention and
EP
recycling of materials. The authors conclude that the implementation of these environmental
practices is facilitated by the skills and the know-how gained when applying lean
management principles, including, among others, set up time reduction. The same finding is
C
confirmed by the simulation study by Ugarte et al. (2016), who, in the context of a two-
echelon consumer good supply chain, demonstrate that JIT yields more than double carbon
AC
emissions than the baseline scenario (i.e. economic order quantity inventory management).
Lastly, Longoni and Cagliano (2015) advocate that JIT, under cross-functional executives’
involvement, can be designed as aligned with operations’ environmental and social
sustainability goals. In the evidence they collected, JIT appears as complimentary with
sustainability. They indeed analyse a case of a company that adopts a Takt Time based on
workforce fatigue levels and breaks, thus combining health and safety principle with a JIT
practice.
The literature discussing closeness to suppliers deals with supporting, precursor and
complementary types of integration with sustainability. Azevedo et al. (2012) consider some
practices that reduce supply lead time (i.e. deliveries directly to the point of use, geographical
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
concentration of the supply base, lean supply network) as both lean and green practices. For
example, geographical concentration of the supply base (i.e. the development of a suppliers’
park) contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions through the reduction of transportation
routes, but it also positively impacts the social dimension by creating jobs in the region,
producing a consequent positive effect in terms of welfare of local community.
When discussing close relationship with suppliers, Simpson and Power (2005) identify that
the supplier-customer relationship is positively related to the implementation of
environmental management practices of the supplying firm, thus delineating a precursor
integration. With the same integration perspective, Gunasekaran et al. (2014) underline in a
PT
hierarchical conceptual model how supplier involvement is a precondition for disassembly
intended as a waste reduction technique, given that suppliers should design parts to be easily
dis-assembled or dismantled. Recently, Campos and Vazques Brust (2016) among lean and
RI
green supplier oriented practices, suggest that special types of awards for suppliers should be
designed. These awards can bring “synergistic lean and green results” and include lean and
environmental (i.e. waste, energy, emissions, water management) aspects. These
SC
considerations suggest that a to define the criteria upon which to establish these awards,
complementary type of integration can be possible, adding green elements to lean oriented
measures.
U
When it comes to internal manufacturing efficiency, the practices emerge to have a
supporting integration role. Youn et al. (2011), for example, report that the implementation of
AN
a technological innovation in the production process of a steel manufacturer led the company
initially to reap benefits in terms of lowered equipment and material costs, but secondly also
in terms of air pollution. Moreover, the authors underline how this investment has led the
M
company to bring into the market an environmentally friendly type of steel. Moreover, Alves
and Alves (2015) argue that greater efficiency of production process not only would generate
larger economic gain, but bring to consume less resources and production inputs as well as
D
lower waste.
As for the visibility between supplier and manufacturer, Azevedo et al. (2012) claim that
TE
electronic data interchange (EDI) allows sharing higher quality information regarding
production planning and scheduling, hence improving the accuracy of the information flow
and consequently supporting an efficient and environmentally-friendly use of resources. In
EP
Mollenkopf et al. (2010) as well as in Piercy and Rich (2015), information sharing and
transparency represent two precursors for the development of environmental management
practices. According to Mollenkopf et al. (2010) information sharing represents a bridge
between lean and green practices with the suppliers, whereas Piercy and Rich (2015) in their
C
theoretical stage model for integrating lean and sustainable operations, point out how greater
transparency between business partners is one of the starting point to develop a sustainability
AC
oriented strategy.
Finally, a set of practices of the sustainable supply chain paradigm has been identified as
being precursor of the lean paradigm or as factors to increase the positive impact of
sustainable practices on operational performance. For instance, according to Wiengarten et al.
(2013), environmental supply chain management systems (i.e. compliance with ISO 14001
certification standard, pollution prevention) and environmental new product and process
development (i.e. recycling of materials) are both factors that enhance the impact of lean
practice on operational supply chain performance. Moreover, Piercy and Rich (2015) carry
out some longitudinal case studies and observe that companies having a sustainability focus,
rather than a lean orientation, already undertake a range of lean solutions for production
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
problems, thus creating a “ready-made base for lean improvement”.
4.4 Synergistic paradigms
In this category, the works address the topic of integrating both the lean and agile supply
chain paradigms with the sustainable supply chain paradigm into a single integrated paradigm
by means of a set of practices that contributes to create a lean – agile - sustainable paradigm.
These contributions, although quite numerous in terms of number of papers, are limited to a
few authors (i.e. Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011; Azevedo et al., 2013a; Azevedo et al.,
PT
2013b; Govindan et al., 2015). Starting from 2009, this group of authors has developed a
research stream based on Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Green (LARG) paradigms, including
supply chain practices and principles that synergistically affect traditional manufacturing and
RI
supply chain performance (i.e. inventory level, quality, customer satisfaction, time, cost) as
well as environmental performance (e.g. business waste) and social (e.g. corruption risk)
(Azevedo et al., 2012).
SC
Table 6 shows the papers discussing more than one paradigm, identifying hybrid practices,
capabilities, multi-paradigms performance indicators, thus creating a full joint paradigm
perspective in which the practices and principles belonging to different strategies cannot be
separated from each other. They study the integration between the established paradigms and
U
the sustainable supply chain paradigms, as well as between the lean and agile supply chain
paradigms.
AN
Azevedo et al. (2013a) and Azevedo et al. (2013b) are classified into the synergistic
paradigms category because they are centering their discussion around the formulation of
fuzzy LARG index (Azevedo et al., 2013a) and ecosilient index (Azevedo et al., 2013b) to
assess the joint LARG paradigm in an automotive supply chain. Additionally, part of the
M
discussion carried out by Hong et al. (2012) falls in this category too. They tested the
mediating role of lean practices on the relationship between responsive product strategy
(agility) and environmental performance (sustainability). Finally, Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou
D
(2015) support this result and emphasise that the environmental and social performance is
related to the positioning of the decoupling point in a leagile (leand and agile) supply chain
TE
belonging to the automotive industry. Gorane and Kant (2016) add further elements to the
discussion, claiming that green supply chain management and reverse logistics (i.e.
sustainable practices) are precursor for the construct of “operational responsiveness”, which
EP
includes lean manufacturing and agile manufacturing practices.

Carvalho and Cruz-Machado (2011) take a multi-paradigms perspective but discuss practices
and principles of lean, agile and sustainable supply chain strategy separately. They claim that
the three paradigms synergistically affect the following supply chain attributes: integration
C
level, production and transportation lead time, and inventory level. For instance, they observe
that the lean goal of inventory minimization (negatively) affects the inventory level; the agile
AC
practice of selecting suppliers that are flexible, produce high-quality products and deliver
fast, affects inventory level too because the need of safety stocks is low; finally, the green
practice of reducing redundant and unnecessary materials in the supply chain also helps to
reduce inventory level. Therefore, the authors find that the three paradigms independently yet
synergistically affect inventory level, as well as other supply chain attributes.
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Practices/attributes for the synergistic integration category ID

Adoption of fuzzy index for LARG supply chain decision making 23
Adoption of Ecosilient index for LARG supply chain decision-making 35
Adoption of LARG index for classifying LARG behaviours 73
Adoption of LARG key activities, resources, partners 72
Strategic stocks
PT
System for rapid response in case of emergencies and special demands 17
Reuse materials and packaging
Supplier involvement
Practices Use of compatible IT between actors
RI
Use of IT to develop visibility on upstream and downstream 18
inventories
Flexible transportation
SC
Flexible transportation 47
JIT with suppliers in the same industrial area 47
Responsive product strategy 19
U
Positioning of the decoupling point 49
Operational responsiveness (lean manufacturing and agile
AN
58
manufacturing)
Integration level
Attributes Production and transportation lead time 7
M
Inventory level
Table 6 – Papers in the synergistic category and lean, agile, sustainable practices
5. Discussion and future research agenda

D
From a theoretical perspective, the literature analysis shows a spectrum of diverse ways to
TE
integrate the established lean and agile supply chain paradigms with the sustainable
paradigm. Findings suggest that lean-sustainable, agile-sustainable, or even lean-agile-
sustainable supply chain paradigms can be achieved by leveraging different integration
EP
categories. In the selected papers, the integration between lean and sustainable supply chain
paradigms occur under the supporting, complementary, synergistic, precursor, and competing
integration categories. The integration between agile and sustainable supply chain paradigms
instead occurs under a smaller set of integration categories, namely supporting, precursor,
C
and synergistic. This difference might be due to the different level of maturity of the literature
on established paradigms: literature on lean supply chain paradigm is more developed than
AC
the one on agile supply chain paradigm.

The integration categories differ in terms of level of effort required for the integration of
paradigms. In fact, both lean and agile supply chain paradigms can be integrated with
sustainable paradigm by implementing already existing lean and agile practices (i.e.
supporting category). Therefore, a company that is already developing a lean or agile supply
chain paradigm might use practices that are already sustainable. This case requires a limited
additional effort for the integration with sustainability. Higher integration effort is required
when a lean supply chain paradigm is integrated with sustainability leveraging on a
complementary or precursor integration. In fact, the company has either to adapt existing
practices with sustainable principles (e.g. sustainable value stream mapping) or to implement
new sustainable practices building upon existing lean or agile practices (i.e. precursor
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
category). To integrate sustainability in the agile supply chain paradigm, new sustainable
practices might have to be implemented, since we did not find evidence of contributions
discussing the integration as complementary. Finally, when a company deals with practices
that might be detrimental for the integration with the sustainable paradigm (i.e. competing
paradigm) the effort should be directed towards avoiding the implementation of a certain
practice or to contain its negative social and environmental impact.
The fact that the same lean or agile practice may act a role both as competing and as
beneficial to sustainability goals (i.e. supporting, precursor, complementary, synergistic) in
different papers might be contingent upon some contextual variables. For instance, this is the
PT
case of flexible transportation, which Carvalho et al. (2014) claim to be competing and
Fahimnia et al. (2015) who claim it is supporting of the sustainable paradigm. Literature does
not provide some tested contingencies in these regards, but does provide some studies that
RI
discuss how findings addressing the integration between established and sustainable supply
chain paradigms refer to some specific industry (e.g. Hong et al., 2012; Distelhorst et al.
2017) or even to some specific operations, as transport (e.g. Garza Reyes et al., 2017) or to a
SC
specific shop floor area (e.g. Rothenbergh et al., 2001).
Beyond external context-related factors, the strategic role assigned to sustainability within
corporate strategy might influence the amount of effort that the company is willing to allocate
to the integration between the paradigms, and consequently the type of integration category.
U
Indeed, literature has already claimed (e.g. Seuring and Müller, 2008; Wu and Pagell, 2011)
that sustainability can be part of the corporate strategy or just seen as a constraint to be
AN
considered by supply chain managers. If sustainability is not strategically important, the
company complies with minimum requirements for sustainability (e.g. regulations); to this
purpose, the company might consider leveraging on practices already in use (i.e. supporting
M
category). Whereas, if sustainability is the key to win competition, the company might invest
in new practices (i.e. complementary and precursor categories). The former might be the case
of companies that see sustainability as “nice to have” for their business, not worth ad-hoc
D
investments, while in the latter sustainability assumes a higher strategic importance.

Moreover, the integration category “sustainable precursor” can be of interest of those
companies that perceive sustainability as a necessary condition to be eligible for competition,
TE
even when the orders are won based on established competitive priorities associated to the
lean and agile paradigms. In fact, under the “sustainable precursor” category, sustainable
practices can boost the positive impact of lean or agile practices on operational performance
EP
and this is extremely convenient for those type of companies. In this regard, it should be
noticed that just two out of the eight categories of practices for the sustainable paradigm are
analysed as precursor of the agile paradigm. These practices are environment protection
C
systems and safety systems certifications. For the lean paradigm instead not just
certifications, but also monitoring schemes, new product and process development, and
AC
supply chain strategy (re)definition are considered antecedents. This fact can shed a further
light on a higher maturity for sustainability in lean contexts.
As for the integration category “synergistic”, findings reveal that integration might be
obtained leveraging on the synergies among different paradigms coexisting in a single supply
chain. However, at the same time, trade-offs between the paradigms might occur, generating
the need for making decisions on what set of practices to implement. Partially, contributions
like Govindan et al. (2015) already addresses this issue by identifying practices that are
considered “foundations” in a LARG (lean, agile, resilient and green) paradigm and upon
which other LARG practices are built.
Thereby, we propose the following future research avenues:
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
• Conceptual and empirical studies on whether and how the choice of the integration
category is contingent upon the strategic relevance of sustainability or other
contingencies, e.g. the integration effort required to integrate sustainability with
traditional supply chain paradigms;
• Conceptual and empirical studies of the role of sustainable practices as catalyst for the
development of lean and agile practices;
• Conceptual and empirical studies analysing how to manage the integration of the three
paradigms: lean, agile and sustainable and how to balance the trade-offs among them.
PT
We believe that the study on the integration between established supply chain paradigms and
sustainability should be approached with an evolutionary perspective to capture not only how
but also why both lean and agile supply chains evolve to integrate sustainability. We
RI
acknowledge that Piercy and Rich (2015) suggest a “stage model” to integrate lean and
sustainable operations. Despite the relevance of this contribution, the focus is limited to the
lean paradigm and how integration with sustainability occurs, without discussing reasons and
SC
implication of such choice. Therefore, we recommend the following further research areas to
be investigated in the near future:
• Empirical longitudinal studies of the evolutionary path of lean/agile supply chains
integrating sustainability.
U
• Empirical longitudinal studies on the evolution of supply chains of companies that
have already integrated leanness with agility (i.e. leagile supply chain paradigm) and
AN
which aim to integrate also sustainability;
Finally, the results of this work show that there are under-studied areas. The complex links
between supply chain practices and environmental and social performance are still to be
M
uncovered, and this is an interesting area for future research (Rothenberg et al. 2001).
Understanding the trade-offs in place among the economic, social and environmental
performance when implementing supply chain practices might be the basis for developing
D
decision making models to choose the supply chain practice to implement when pursuing the
sustainability goal, as well as to support policy makers in defining actions to support
TE
companies in their path towards sustainability. Moreover, researchers have focused on the
integration between lean paradigm and environmental sustainability, partially neglecting the
social one (as already stated by Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014). Investigating
EP
the integration with social sustainability would help companies understanding how to address
the complete set of sustainable performance. Furthermore, the integration between the agile
supply chain paradigm and sustainability is also understudied, despite the relevance of agile
supply chain paradigm for companies. From these considerations, the following research
C
paths arise:
• Conceptual and empirical studies of the trade-offs between the social, environmental and
AC
economic performance when deciding which supply chain practice to implement;

• Inclusion of social aspects in conceptual and empirical studies on the integration between
the established supply chain paradigms and sustainability;
• Empirical studies on agile supply chains integrating sustainability.
6. Managerial implications
From a managerial point of view, results support companies willing to integrate sustainability
into their supply chains, as depicted in figure 3. Traditional models (Lee, 2002) support the
definition of the established lean and agile supply chain paradigms. The integration category
the company is to follow (see table 3) is dependent upon the effort the company is ready to
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
devote to integrate sustainability into already established supply chain management
paradigms. The relevance of sustainability within the company’s strategy represents the
baseline for setting the level of effort required.
Figure 3 shows a possible process to achieve integration between lean/agile and sustainable
paradigms. In the first step, the strategic importance of sustainability for a certain company
is assessed and the positioning of the company with respect to practices is analysed.
The second step consists of deciding how much effort to devote to integrate or adapt existing
practices to lead to environmental and social goals.
PT
Decision on the
strategic role of
sustainability
Decision on the
RI
• Low Choice of Definition of
• Medium effort to devote
integration practices to
• High to paradigms’
category adopt
integration
Assessment of
SC
• Low • Competing
the established • Medium • Supporting • Lean/ Agile practices
supply chain • High • Complementary • Sustainable practices
paradigm • Precursor
• Synergistic
• Lean
U
• Agile
AN
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Figure 3. Process for integrating lean/agile and sustainable paradigms

M
In the third step, the integration category is determined. In particular, five different ways of
integrating traditional supply chain paradigm and sustainable one are possible. (i) Companies
can leverage on already-in-use practices to increase the sustainable performance (i.e. the
D
practices in the supporting category). (ii) They can integrate sustainable elements with
already-in-use practices (i.e. complementary). (iii) They can leverage on traditional practices
TE
to set the basis for a future implementation of sustainable practices (i.e. precursor), and/or
recognise the role of sustainability as a precursor for developing established practices (i.e.
sustainability as precursor). (iv) Companies can reconsider the implementation of certain
EP
practices or opt for not implementing them at all (i.e. competing). Finally, (v) companies can
decide to integrate the three paradigms together (i.e. synergistic).
Finally, in step 4, companies should define what practices to maintain or to adopt. Examples
of these practices are shown in tables 4, 5 and 6.
C
Companies seeking to fit sustainability into an existing lean or agile supply chain strategy
AC
might, at first, enforce existing practices without any modifications or further investments
(i.e. supporting integration), by applying what Piercy and Rich (2015) defined as “re-
branding” initiatives. However, it should be noticed that re-branding specific isolated
practices (i.e. not considering an integrated approach) can be a viable option for companies in
which sustainability is less or not strategic. In line with Martinez Leon et al. (2017), this
choice might be detrimental in the medium-long term. Moreover, companies should also be
aware that practices might be beneficial in terms of environmental impact, but not applicable
in all contexts (e.g. opting for a geographically concentrated supply based in contexts in
which global sourcing is strategic) (Carvalho et al., 2017).
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
As far as the agile paradigm is concerned, examples of “re-branded” practices are (see also
Table 4): supplier selection based on flexibility, speed and quality, as well as dynamic
alliances and virtual network (Charvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011). Whereas, when it comes
to the lean paradigm, reduction in the capacity surplus (Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011),
small batch size, kaizen and improvement teams (Hong et al., 2012) are examples of practices
that can be rebranded and emphasised for sustainability purposes.
Moreover, when companies want to follow the way of embracing sustainability, they have to
be sure they have laid the right foundations (leveraging on lean or agile practices as precursor
PT
for sustainable practices). These practices might be: information sharing (Martínez-Jurado
and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014, Dües et al., 2013, Simpson and Power, 2005), JIT,
manufacturing throughput time reduction, set-up time reduction, delegation and knowledge of
RI
the workforce, total quality management, maintenance programs for improving equipment
productivity (Hajmohammad et al. (2013a), standardisation in the manufacturing process
(Youn et al., 2012).
SC
Furthermore, companies that opt for a complementary integration can adapt existing lean and
agile practices and tools to include sustainable elements (Sobral et al., 2013).
U
Companies should also take into account that some practices have a controversial impact on
sustainability performance. As show in tables 4, and 5, a practice can belong both to
AN
competing and to any other integration categories. For instance, some authors attribute to JIT
production and delivery a positive impact on sustainability performance (Govindan et al.,
2014, Azevedo et al., 2012), while others advocate the negative impact due to more frequent
M
not full truck load (FTL) transportations to the point of consumption (Martínez-Jurado and
Moyano-Fuentes, 2014) or its detrimental impact on sustainability if not supported by other
lean practices (Longoni et al., 2013). This implies the need for a company embracing the lean
D
paradigm to reconsider the choice of heavily relying on JIT, considering what potential
detrimental effect on environmental and social performance might arise and which
contingencies to rely on to overcome these pitfalls.
TE
Finally, some implications arise from the detection of synergies and trade-offs in place when
implementing practices pertaining to more than two paradigms. For researchers, this can
EP
represent an important step in the direction of defining a new archetype of supply chain
strategy that combines the characteristics of lean, agile and sustainable supply chains. We
believe that this approach might be beneficial for managers whose companies pursue a hybrid
C
strategy, e.g. leagile, which should understand how to implement lean and agile practices
alongside sustainability, while minimising trade-offs.
AC
7. Conclusions
With the present study, we aimed at shedding lights on how established lean and agile supply
chain paradigms integrate with the sustainable supply chain paradigm. 73 contributions have
been analysed and grouped based on the type of integration between established paradigms
and sustainable paradigms. Three of the categories of integration (i.e. supporting, precursor,
competing) are in line with the previous literature on established supply chain paradigms
(Narasimhan et al., 2006). The supporting and the synergistic categories are original results of
our work. The categorisation developed helps to clarify the logic behind existing constructs
adopted so far in the literature to integrate leanness or agility with sustainability. We noticed
how one paper should not, as a whole, be attributed to a single integration category, but
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
distinctions are to be done analysing the single category of practices. The results of the
literature review allow us to develop different paths for future researches addressing
uncovered areas. They include the following studies on: how the choice of an integration
category is contingent upon the strategic relevance of sustainability or other contingencies,
the role of sustainable practices as catalyst for the development of lean and agile practices,
how to manage the integration of the three paradigms: lean, agile and sustainable, the
integration between agile supply chain paradigm and sustainability as well as the integration
between established supply chain paradigms and the social dimension of sustainability, how
and why lean and agile supply chain paradigms evolve integrating sustainability. Moreover,
PT
interesting managerial implications have been presented in the form of a process for defining
the set of practices to implement when managers are integrating traditional and sustainable
supply chain paradigms, depending on the traditional paradigm in use and the strategic role of
RI
sustainability.
Other disclosed areas for future researches relate to the limitations of the present study. The
SC
role played by integration effort in shaping the set of practices to implement is based on our
discussion on literature review results, but it lacks of empirical evidence supporting it. This is
out of the scope of a literature review, but it could be the starting point for further researches.
Moreover, in this paper, we decided to provide a broad overview over groups of practices,
U
e.g. one piece flow, without providing a detailed analysis of each specific practice, e.g. JIT,
since the latter would have required more space than the one available in one paper. Future
AN
research can be devoted to analyze in details specific practices, to show the role they can play
in supporting different integration strategies, with a specific focus on those practices that
produce a contradictory impact on sustainability performance.
M
References
D
Ashby, A., Leat, M., Hudson-Smith, M., 2012. Making connections: A review of supply chain
management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Manag: an Int. J., 17 (5), 497-516.
TE
Alves, J.R.X., Alves, J.M., 2015. Production management model integrating the principles of lean
manufacturing and sustainability supported by the cultural transformation of a company. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 7543, 1–14.
EP
Amnesty International, 2016. Indonesia: The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind Big
Brand Names: Executive Summary. URL (Accessed 08 May 2017):
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa21/5243/2016/en/
C
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. Influence of green and lean
AC
upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability. IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag. 59, 753–765.
Azevedo, S.G., Govindan, K., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2013b. Ecosilient Index to assess the
greenness and resilience of the upstream automotive supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 131–146.
Azevedo, S. G., Fazendeiro, P., & Cruz–Machado, V., 2013a A fuzzy LARG index model to the
automotive supply chain. In Airports and the automotive industry: Security issues, economic
efficiency and environmental impact, Nova Publisher, 125-144.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V., 2016. LARG index: A benchmarking tool for
improving the leanness, agility, resilience and greenness of the automotive supply chain.
Benchmarking: An Int. J., 23(6), 1472-1499.
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Bae, J.W. and Kim, Y.W., 2007. Sustainable value on construction project and application of lean
construction methods. Proceedings of IGLC-15, 16-22.
BBC, 2013. Bangladesh textile workers' deaths 'avoidable'. URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-

22296645
Brown, A., Amundson, J., & Badurdeen, F. (2014). Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM) in
different manufacturing system configurations: application case studies. J. Clean. Prod., 85, 164-
179.
PT
Cabral, I., Grilo, A., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. A decision-making model for Lean, Agile, Resilient
and Green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50, 4830–4845.
RI
Calvo, R., Domingo, R., Sebastián, M. A., 2008. Systemic criterion of sustainability in agile
manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46, 3345–3358.
SC
Campos, L. M., Vazquez-Brust, D. A., & Vazquez-Brust, D. A., 2016. Lean and green synergies in
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. : an Int. J., 21(5), 627-641.
Carter, C. R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
U
toward new theory, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38
(5), .360-387.
AN
Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2011. Integrating Lean, Agile, Resilience and Green Paradigms in
Supply Chain Management (LARG_SCM). Supply Chain Manag, in: Pengzhong Li (Ed.)
Supply Chain Management, Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 27-48. Available from:
M
http://www.intechopen.com/books/supply-chainmanagement/ integrating-lean-agile-resilience-
and-green-paradigms-in-supply-chain-management-larg-scm-
D
Carvalho, H., Govindan, K., Azevedo, S. G., & Cruz-Machado, V., 2017. Modelling green and lean
supply chains: An eco-efficiency perspective. Res., Conserv. and Recycl., 120, 75-87.
TE
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Benhida, K., & Mokhlis, A., 2016. A
framework for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma for superior sustainability
performance. Int. J. of Prod. Res., 55(15), 4481–4515.
EP
Christopher, M., & Towill, D. R. (2002). Developing market specific supply chain strategies. The Int.
J. of Log. Manag., 13(1), 1-14.
C
Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M., 2008. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach.
British J. of Nurs., 17(1), 38-43.
AC
Dev, N.K., Shankar, R. and Choudhary, A., 2017. Strategic design for inventory and production
planning in closed-loop hybrid systems. Intern. J. of Prod. Econ., 183, 345-353.
Distelhorst, G., Hainmueller, J., & Locke, R. M., 2016. Does lean improve labor standards?
Management and social performance in the Nike supply chain. Manag. Sc., 63(3), 707-728.
do Rosário Cabrita, M., Duarte, S., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V., 2016. Integration of Lean,
Agile, Resilient and Green Paradigms in a Business Model Perspective: Theoretical
Foundations. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(12), 1306-1311.
Domingo, R., & Aguado, S., 2015. Overall Environmental Equipment Effectiveness as a Metric of a
Lean and Green Manufacturing System. Sustainab., 7(7), 9031-9047.
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Duarte, S., & Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Lean and green supply chain initiatives: a case study. In IIE
Annual Conference. Proceedings. Institute of Industrial Engineers-Publisher.
Duarte, S., Cruz Machado, V., 2017. Green and lean implementation: an assessment in the automotive
industry. Int. J. of Lean Six Sigma, 8(1), 65-88.
Dubey, R. and Ali, S.S., 2015. Exploring antecedents of extended supply chain performance
measures: an insight from Indian green manufacturing practices. Benchmarking.: An Int.
J., 22(5), pp.752-772.
PT
Dües, C.M., Tan, K.H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new Lean: How to use Lean practices as a
catalyst to greening your supply chain. J. Clean. Prod, 40, 93–100.
RI
Elkington, J., 1997, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,
Capstone, Oxford.
SC
Espadinha-Cruz, P., Cabral, I., Grilo, A., & Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. Information model for
LARGeSCM interoperable practices. In Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), Proceedings
of the ITI 2012 34th Int. Conf. on Information technology interfaces, Croatia.
U
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Eshragh, A., 2015. A tradeoff model for green supply chain planning: A
AN
leanness-versus-greenness analysis. Omega (United Kingdom) 54, 173–190.
Formentini, M., & Taticchi, P., 2016. Corporate sustainability approaches and governance
mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod., 112, 1920-1933.
M
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015. Lean and Green – A systematic review of the state of the art literature. J.
Clean. Prod. 102, 18–29.
D
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M., 2012. Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature
TE
review. Supply Chain Manag.: An Int. J., 17(5), 531-543.
Gorane, S., & Kant, R., 2017. Supply chain practices and organizational performance-an empirical
investigation of Indian manufacturing organizations. Int. J. of Log. Manag., 28(1).
EP
Gosling, J., Naim, M.M., 2009. Engineer-to-order supply chain management: A literature review and
research agenda. Intern. J. Prod. Econ. 122, 741–754.
C
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2014. Impact of supply chain
management practices on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 212–225.
AC
Greenpeace, 2007. Palm oil: Cooking the Climate. Once you pop, you can't stop. URL (Accessed 08
May 2017): http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/palm-oil_cooking-the-
climate
Gunasekharan, S., EIangovan, D., & Parthiban, P. (2014). Critical Success Factors for Implementation
of Lean and Green in Medium Scale Manufacturing Industries. Applied Mechanics & Materials,
592-594, 2588-2595.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., Gavronski, I., 2013. Lean management and supply
management: Their role in green practices and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 312–320.
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., Gavronski, I., 2013. Reprint of Lean management and
supply management: Their role in green practices and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 86–93.
Heydari, J., 2011. Paradigms of Supply Chain Management, in: Farahani, R., Rezapour, S., Kardar, L.
(Eds.), Supply Chain Sustainability and Raw Material Management: Concepts and Processes,
Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 149-175.
Hong, P., 2012. Benchmarking sustainability practices: evidence from manufacturing firms.
Benchmarking An Int. J. 19, 634–648.
PT
Kim, Y., Asce, A.M., Bae, J., 2010. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of a Lean Supply System :
Case Study of High-Rise Condominium Construction in Korea 16, 144–150.
RI
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J., 2001. Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between lean production and environmental performance. Prod. and Oper. Manag., 10, 244-256.
SC
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N., 2005. Sustainable operations
management. Prod. and Oper. Manag., 14, 482-492.
Kumar, B.R.., Agarwal, A., Sharma, M. K., & Sharma, M. K., 2016. Lean management–a step
U
towards sustainable green supply chain. Competitiv. Rev. 26(3), 311-331.
AN
Kurdve, M., Shahbazi, S., Wendin, M., Bengtsson, C., Wiktorsson, M., 2015. Waste flow mapping to
improve sustainability of waste management: A case study approach. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 304–
315.
M
Lee, H. L., 2002. Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties. Calif. Manag.
Review, 44, 105-119.
D
Longoni, A., Pagell, M., Johnston, D., Veltri, A., 2013. When does lean hurt? – an exploration of lean
practices and worker health and safety outcomes. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51, 3300–3320.
TE
Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R., 2015. Cross-functional executive involvement and worker involvement
in lean manufacturing and sustainability alignment. Int. J. of Oper. & Prod. Manag., 35, 1332-
1358.
EP
Maia, L.C., Alves, A.C. and Leão, C.P., 2012, July. Sustainable Work Environment with Lean
Production in Textile and Garment Industry. In Proceedings of International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (ICIEOM2012), 9-11.
C
Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., Heavey, C., & McGrath, P., 2015. Environmental and social supply chain
AC
management sustainability practices: construct development and measurement. Prod. Plan. &
Cont., 26, 673-690.
Martínez-Jurado, P.J., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2014. Lean management, supply chain management and
sustainability: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 134–150.
Martínez, L.H.C. and Javier, C.A., 2016. Towards lean for sustainability: Understanding the
interrelationships between lean and sustainability from a systems thinking perspective. J. Clean.
Prod., 142, 4384e4402
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L., Ueltschy, M., 2010. Green, lean, and global supply chains.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 40, 14–41.
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., & Kim, S. W., 2006. Disentangling leanness and agility: an empirical
investigation. J. of Oper Manag., 24, 440-457.
Naylor, J. B., Naim, M. M., & Berry, D., 1999. Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain. Int. J. of Prod. Eco., 62(1), 107-118.
Nieuwenhuis, P., Katsifou, E., 2015. More sustainable automotive production through understanding
decoupling points in leagile manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod., 95, 232–241.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z.H., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain
PT
management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag, 45, 37–56.
Parveen, C.M., Kumar, A.R.P., Narasimha Rao, T.V.V.L., 2011. Integration of lean and green supply
RI
chain - Impact on manufacturing firms in improving environmental efficiencies. Proc. Int. Conf.
Green Technol. Environ. Conserv. GTEC-2011 143–147.
SC
Powell, D., Lundeby, S., Lundeby, S., Chabada, L., Chabada, L., ... & Dreyer, H., 2017. Lean Six
Sigma and environmental sustainability: the case of a Norwegian dairy producer. Int. J. of Lean
Six Sigma, 8(1), 53-64.
U
Piercy, N., & Rich, N., 2015. The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations. Int.
J. of Oper. & Prod. Manag., 35, 282-315.
AN
Puvanasvaran, P., Swee, R.K., Suresh, V. and Muhamad, M., 2012. Lean principles adoption in
environmental management system (EMS)-ISO 14001. J. of Ind. Eng. and Manag., 5(2), 406.
M
Puvanasvaran, P., Tian, R.K.S., Vasu, S.A.L., 2014. Lean environmental management integration
system for sustainability of ISO 14001:2004 standard implementation. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 7,
1124–1144.
D
Rajesh, R., & Ravi, V., 2015. Supplier selection in resilient supply chains: a grey relational analysis
TE
approach. J. of Clean. Prod., 86, 343-359.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25, 898–916.
EP
Rosenbaum, S., Toledo, M. and Gonzalez, V., 2012. Green-lean approach for assessing environmental
and production waste in construction. Proceedings IGLC-20. Toledo.
C
Rosenbaum, S., Toledo, M., González, V., 2014. Improving Environmental and Production
Performance in Construction Projects Using Value-Stream Mapping: Case Study, J. Constr. Eng.
AC
Manag., 140, 1–11.
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F. K., & Maxwell, J., 2001. Lean, green, and the quest for superior environmental
performance. Prod. and Oper. Manag., 10, 228-243.
Schillig, R., Stock, T., Egon, M., 2015. Energy Value-Stream Mapping a Method to Visualize Waste
of Time and Energy, IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management
Systems. Springer International Publishing, 609–616.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management. J. Clean Prod., 16, 1699-1710.
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Shibin, K. T., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Singh, M., & Wamba, S. F., 2016.
Enablers and barriers of flexible green supply chain management: A total interpretive structural
modeling approach. Gl. J. of Flex. Syst. Manag. 17(2), 171-188.
Silva, C., Vaz, P., & Ferreira, L. M., 2013. The impact of Lean Manufacturing on environmental and
social sustainability: a study using a concept mapping approach. IFAC Proceedings, 46, 306-
310.
So, S., & Sun, H., 2015. Lean thinking as organisational practice in enabling supply chain
sustainability. Int. J. of Env. Tech. and Manag., 18, 291-308.
PT
Sobral, M. C., Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. D., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., 2013. Green benefits from
adopting lean manufacturing: a case study from the automotive sector. Env. Quality
RI
Manag., 22(3), 65-72.
Torielli, R.M., Abrahams, R.A., Smillie, R.W., Voigt, R.C., 2011. Using lean methodologies for
SC
economically and environmentally sustainable foundries. China Foundry 8, 74–88.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British J. of Manag., 14, 207-
U
222.
AN
Tukamuhabwa, B.R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J. and Zorzini, M., 2015. Supply chain resilience:
definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. Int. J. of Prod. Res., 53(18),
5592-5623.
M
Ugarte, G. M., Golden, J. S., & Dooley, K. J., 2016. Lean versus green: The impact of lean logistics
on greenhouse gas emissions in consumer goods supply chains. J. of Purch. and Supply Manag.,
22(2), 98-109.
D
Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of
TE
upstream and downstream integration. Int. J. of Oper. & Prod. Manag., 26, 795-821.
Venkat, K., Wakeland, W., 2006. Is Lean Necessarily Green? Proceedings of the 50th Annual
Meeting of the ISSS-2006, Sonoma, CA, USA.
EP
Vieira, A.R., Cachadinha, N., 2011. Lean construction and sustainability - complementary
paradigms? a case study. Proceeding 19th Annu. Conf. IGLC 611–621.
C
Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R., Somanaathan, M., 2011. Tools and techniques for enabling sustainability
through lean initiatives. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13, 469–479.
AC
Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R. and Cleven, A., 2009, June.
Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search
process. In ECIS, 9, 2206-2217.
Vonderembse, M. A., Uppal, M., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P., 2006. Designing supply chains:
Towards theory development. Int. J. of Prod. Eco., 100, 223-238.
Wichaisri, S. and Sopadang, A., 2017. Trends and Future Directions in Sustainable Development.
Sust. Develop [in press].
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Wang, Z., Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M., Liu, C., 2013. Composite practices to improve
sustainability: A framework and evidence from Chinese auto-parts company. IEEE Int. Conf.
Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag. 1047–1051.
Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B. and Onofrei, G., 2013. Exploring synergetic effects between investments in
environmental and quality/lean practices in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag.: An Int.
J., 18(2), 148-160.
Wu, L., Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M.D., Liu, C., Lai, K. hung, Pawar, K.S., 2015. The impact
of integrated practices of lean, green, and social management systems on firm sustainability
PT
performance-evidence from Chinese fashion auto-parts suppliers. Sustain. 7, 3838–3858.
Wu, T., Jim Wu, Y.C., Chen, Y.J., Goh, M., 2014. Aligning supply chain strategy with corporate
RI
environmental strategy: A contingency approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 220–229.
Wu, Z., Pagell, M., 2011. Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain
SC
management. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 577–590.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P., Modi, S.B., 2011. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod.
U
Econ. 129, 251–261.
AN
Youn, S., Yang, M.G. (Mark), Roh, J.J., 2012. Extending the efficient and responsive supply chains
framework to the green context. Benchmarking: An Int. J. 19, 463–480.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Gunasekaran, A., Musa, A., Dauda, M., El-Berishy, N.M., Cang, S., 2014. A relational
M
study of supply chain agility, competitiveness and business performance in the oil and gas
industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 531–543.
D
Yusup, M. Z., Mahmood, W. H. W., Salleh, M. R., & Yusof, A. S. M., 2015. Review the influence of
lean tools and its performance against the index of manufacturing sustainability. Int. J. of Agile
TE
Sys. and Manag., 8(2), 116-131.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early
adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J.
EP
Oper. Manag. 22, 265–289.

C
AC
34

Ciccullo Et Al - 2018 - Integrating The Environmental and Social Sustainability Pillars Into The Lean

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ciccullo Et Al - 2018 - Integrating The Environmental and Social Sustainability Pillars Into The Lean

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ciccullo Et Al - 2018 - Integrating The Environmental and Social Sustainability Pillars Into The Lean

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 8 February 2017

Integrating the environmental and social sustainability pillars into the

Keywords: Lean, Agile, Sustainability, Paradigm, Literature review

product and production process related aspects.

Therefore, we distinguish between:

• Environmental supply chain monitoring practices, such as monitoring suppliers’

• Environmental supply chain management systems, including the implementation of

3.1 Material collection

554 agile and

Filtering criteria: compliance with

Filtering criteria: compliance with

and full paper screening)

Figure 1 - Material collection

First step: keyword extraction and title screening

with the concept of agility, we used also the keywords “resilient.

Hajmohammad et al. (2013a) Journal of Cleaner Production 26 E: survey

Gorane and Kant (2016) Benchmarking: an International Journal 58 E: survey

Figure 2 – Temporal distribution of papers in the final sample

sustainable paradigm. For instance, the concentration of the supply base in a

social dimension by creating jobs in the region (social performance).

4; 34; 43; 50; 51; 58

6. Established 1; 6; 7; 8; 21; 25; 28; 30; 37; 38;

4.2 Integrating the agile and sustainable supply chain paradigms

Flexibility 7; 38; 57 22; 59 7; 37; 38

detrimental to environmental performance, given the negative impact of this practice on

4.3 Integrating lean and sustainable supply chain paradigms

Integration categories Sustainability Tab

61; 63; 66; 71 57

management systems gor

development of an environmental management system.

Waste reduction is studied as having a supporting, complementary, precursor and even

emissions (Dües et al., 2013).

facilitate the implementation of sustainable practices. Set up time reduction is analysed by

4.4 Synergistic paradigms

includes lean manufacturing and agile manufacturing practices.

Practices/attributes for the synergistic integration category ID

5. Discussion and future research agenda

the one on agile supply chain paradigm.

investments, while in the latter sustainability assumes a higher strategic importance.

economic performance when deciding which supply chain practice to implement;

Figure 3. Process for integrating lean/agile and sustainable paradigms

BBC, 2013. Bangladesh textile workers' deaths 'avoidable'. URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-

review. Supply Chain Manag.: An Int. J., 17(5), 531-543.

approach. J. of Clean. Prod., 86, 343-359.

Manag., 140, 1–11.

Sys. and Manag., 8(2), 116-131.

Oper. Manag. 22, 265–289.

You might also like