Identifying challenges facing manufacturing ...

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Identifying challenges facing manufacturing enterprises toward implementing sustainability in newly industrialized countries Ibrahim Garbie,

Article information:

Downloaded by 62.61.179.247 At 01:55 13 October 2017 (PT)

To cite this document: Ibrahim Garbie, (2017) "Identifying challenges facing manufacturing enterprises toward implementing sustainability in newly industrialized countries", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 28 Issue: 7, pp.928-960, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2017-0025 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2017-0025 Downloaded on: 13 October 2017, At: 01:55 (PT) References: this document contains references to 110 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 26 times since 2017* Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Token:Eprints:JCM68XWERHIAF3J6V4UR:

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM 28,7

928 Received 16 February 2017 Revised 22 May 2017 17 June 2017 22 August 2017 Accepted 22 August 2017

Identifying challenges facing manufacturing enterprises toward implementing sustainability in newly industrialized countries Ibrahim Garbie Department of Mechanical Engineering, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt Abstract


Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present and identify the challenges toward implementing sustainability strategies both strategic and tactical (STs) and performance measures (PMs) facing industrial organizations in newly industrialized countries. Design/methodology/approach – Conducting a comprehensive survey on the published papers focused on the area of sustainability and/or sustainable development (S/SD) in manufacturing enterprises to identify the most common critical challenges. Setting with industrialists to determine which challenges the industrial organizations facing while implementing the S/SD strategies in terms of strategic, tactic and PMs. Using support logic techniques such as interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and interpretive ranking process (IRP) as modeling approaches to examine the contextual relationship among the STs and PMs individually “first phase,” to clarify and identify the most and least dominant factors, and to rank STs with respect to the PMs “second phase.” Findings – The investigation shows that some challenges are more dominant and influential. Literacy and an awareness of sustainability, globalization and international issues and competitive strategies have emerged as the most dominant and key driving factors for STs in the ISM model, while the whole PMs are driven by remanufacturing and recycling factors in the ISM model. In addition, drivers and barriers to implementing S/SD challenges received the highest rank in the IRP model. Research limitations/implications – Most of the STs and PMs were identified from academicians. Most of the manufacturing companies participated in the discussion; unfortunately, all are not familiar with the S/SD as a whole. They see to the S/SD from very narrow scope like climate change, environmental and energy issues only based on what they heard from media. Most of them are not fully interested to join with academicians to progress the work. Practical implications – Most of the manufacturing companies are keen to investigate extremely sustainability challenges. Although this paper has a goal to provide a comprehensive framework to analyze, investigate and model sustainability challenges for industrial/manufacturing companies in different industrial sectors, most of the STs and PMs were identified from academicians. Most of the industrial/ manufacturing companies participated in the discussion; unfortunately, all are not familiar with the S/SD as a whole. This study will help manufacturing/industrial companies to analyze and investigate the challenges toward implementing S/SD. Originality/value – The originality of this paper is to identify the most common ST and PM challenges facing industrial organization toward implementing S/SD, modeling them into logical techniques and comparing between STs with respect to PMs. Keywords Manufacturing, Manufacturing systems, Sustainable production Paper type Research paper

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Vol. 28 No. 7, 2017 pp. 928-960 © Emerald Publishing Limited 1741-038X DOI 10.1108/JMTM-02-2017-0025

1. Introduction and motivation Industry 4.0 appears to be the next industrial revolution, and it mainly relies on the sustainability/sustainable development (S/SD) of manufacturing enterprises as one of the major drivers of their design enablers and operations to make balance between the pillars of sustainability which are so-called triple bottom lines. The S/SD is a dynamic but turbulent field, which has faced challenges in implementation and practice, especially in the The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable and useful feedback comments who contributed to an improvement of this paper.


developing and newly industrialized countries (NICs). Implementing and practicing successful sustainability practices in the NICs represents a critical challenge, which includes strategic and tactical (STs) challenges and expected performance measures (PMs). The industries in NICs, mainly represented by manufacturing enterprises, have faced enormous challenges in global markets to be competitive. NICs are represented as any industrialized countries which are not considered as developed countries including the group of BRICS “Brazil; Russia, India, China and South Africa,” besides developing countries. Such industries need to update their manufacturing/production activities based on an understanding of challenges, which focus on ST factors. These factors are numerous and play a critical role in the practice and implementation of sustainability strategies. Implementing S/SD is attractive to many academicians and industrialists. The expected PMs and outcomes used to determine the degree of importance in implementing sustainability takes into consideration these STs. Implementing sustainable facilities requires a flow of information to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of manufacturing enterprises. STs are considered necessary elements for manufacturing enterprises to achieve their goals. The main goal of this paper is to identify and develop STs and PMs. These STs are derived from theory and/or from the literature and industry experts. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) is used to express and clarify the contextual relationship among STs and PMs in order to clarify and identify the most and least dominant issues; it also has been used to extract the essential factors that facilitate the adoption and implementation of sustainability (Haleem et al., 2012). In this paper, a framework for understanding the importance of STs and PMs that represents the lion’s share of the successful adoption and implementation of sustainability was examined to rank STs and PMs individually and STs in reference to PMs. A team of academicians and industrialists participated in brainstorming to identify 15 STs and 11 PMs. Academicians are the references listed in this section covering all aspects of “STs” and “PMs.” Most of the industrialists in this investigation are CEOs, general managers and middle-level managers but the types of industries in general conducting in different organization sizes range from small- to medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. The proposed STs are including literacy and/or awareness of S/SD with commitment from stakeholders; globalization and international issues; innovative products designs; lack of accountability; liquidity in organizational management; competitive manufacturing strategies; standardized workplaces; follow-up on human rights procedures; follow-up on procedures associated with customer issues and business practices; management of the natural environment; the consumption of natural resources; the prevention of pollution and climate change; drivers and motivators; and understanding barriers within enterprises. In addition, the team agreed on 11 PMs that can occur as a consequence of implementing sustainability, including an increase in enterprises’ competitiveness, profitability, productivity and market share; an elimination/reduction in environmental risks; consumption of natural resources; air, liquid and solid waste pollution; an increase in customer satisfaction, societal commitment and employees’ rights; and the use of remanufacturing and recycling. In this paper, the challenges of implementing sustainability in NICs are examined through analysis and investigation of the applicability of implementing S/SD strategy. A case study was used to illustrate the proposed approach and present the structural logic model. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 will continue in discussing the published papers in the area of sustainability in terms of implementing and practicing it to identify the problem statement and research gap. Section 3 is used to illustrate the theoretical foundation of critical challenges facing industrial organizations toward practicing and implementing sustainability in the NICs based on Section 2. How the ISM

Implementing sustainability in NIC

929

JMTM 28,7


930

model is explaining and discussing the most and least dominant factors regarding STs and PM challenges and using the interpretive ranking process (IRP) model to compare between STs with respect to PMs will be discussed and implemented in Section 4. Section 5 illustrates the theoretical and practical implications as a consequence of challenges facing manufacturing companies. Finally, conclusion and recommendation for further works will be provided in Section 6. 2. Literature review Nowadays, several research papers have been published in the area of sustainability as a general concept but none of the works mentioned the sustainability implementation and practicing in industrial companies, especially in NICs. It is possible, right now, to go around and discuss the challenges facing the manufacturing companies toward implementing sustainability enablers in the NICs and find the most dominant and key driving factors for STs and PMs. Tables I and II describe ST- and PM-associated challenges individually as a novel way to summarize the published works in categories based on each challenge. 3. Theoretical foundation ST factors, which help manufacturing enterprises to implement and practice sustainability, have been identified by academicians and industrialists who have carried out direct research. As there are 15 different STs, the number of published papers associated with each one varies. Some have been presented explicitly while others have been implicit. The first STs mainly discussed the importance of sustainability awareness to increase the level of literacy in manufacturing enterprises, and 20 papers have recommended awareness and its effect on implementing and practicing sustainable strategies. With respect to globalization and international issues (ST2), 33 published papers mentioned the importance of considering globalization and international issues when considering sustainability. Innovative products design (ST3) has also impacted the importance regarding S/SD. In total, 28 published papers mentioned different issues associated with innovation and in terms of sustainability. Surveys have identified reconfiguration of manufacturing enterprises (ST4) which represents an overlapping concept of innovative products design (ST3), and 20 papers have focused on it. Another survey of areas associated with sustainability has proposed 14 references which mentioned different aspects associated with a lack of accountability (ST5). Although liquidity concepts in organization management (ST6) as an organizational structure has not been discussed explicitly in most published papers on sustainability, it is recommended as one of the most important STs in six published papers. Conducting competitive manufacturing strategies (ST7), which includes complexity analysis, lean, agile, remanufacturing and recycling, represents a major factor regarding STs, and 33 published papers have focused on it. Three STs address societal sustainability: standardized workplace (ST8), human rights (ST9) and customer issues and business practices (ST10). Three STs address environmental sustainability factors: natural environment management (ST11), wise use of resources (ST12) and preventing pollution and climate change (ST13). Drivers and barriers are discussed as two important STs in implementing S/SD strategies and each one was equally presented in five papers. With respect to the expected PMs, some are represented in more published papers than others. Increases in remanufacturing and recycling and decreases in pollution and natural resources are represented most frequently along with increasing employees’ rights through 20, 17 and 10 references, respectively. Increasing competitiveness and decreasing environmental risks are equal in the total number of published papers with nine papers having been published in each area. In addition, increasing customer satisfaction and societal commitment is recommended as a PM by five research works. Productivity,

ST3

ST2

ST1

ST code

Innovative products design

Globalization and international issues

Sustainability literacy in manufacturing enterprises is considered one of the most important objectives in practice and implementation. Awareness is apparent in stakeholders, including managers, government entities, the public and in academicians

Literacy in sustainability with commitment from stakeholders

Research studies

No.

(continued )

Glavic and Lukman (2007), Accenture and United Nations 20 Global Compact (2010), Epstein et al. (2008), Stechel et al. (2009), Nidumolu et al. (2009), Davidson et al. (2010), Hasna (2010), Liu et al. (2011), Bi (2011), Rosen and Kishawy (2012), Rosen (2012), Lozano (2012), Chou and Chou (2012), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Borchardt et al. (2012), Melo et al. (2012), Kulatunga et al. (2013), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b, 2017a) Globalization and international issues are major motivations Yip et al. (2000), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Azapagic (2004), 33 for the practice of sustainability pillars. Many issues surround George (2006), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Garbie (2013a, b, globalization and international issues, focusing mainly on 2014a), Veleva et al. (2001), Nagurney and Nagurney (2010), Lee supply chain management (SCM), information and et al. (2010), Wu and Pagell (2011), Liu et al. (2011), Ageron et al. communication technology (ICT), energy prices, emerging (2012), Abdallah et al. (2012), Dai and Blackburst (2012), Palvia markets and business models. These issues have a significant et al. (2002), George (2006), Liu and Young (2007), Lee et al. influence on practices associated with S/SD practices (2011), Goncalves et al. (2012), Pardo et al. (2012), Stevens (1995) Nakhle (2007), Asif and Muneer (2007), Weiser et al. (2008), Sadorsky (2009), Tseng et al. (2009), Bi (2011), Niinimaki and Hassi (2011), Birkin et al. (2009), Garbie (2013a, 2014a) 28 As innovative products designs are made sustainable for both Hauschild et al. (2005), Hu and Bidanda (2009), Tseng et al. economic reasons, and reducing a product’s environmental (2009), Kusiak (2009), Jayal et al. (2010), Gao et al. (2010), Liu et al. impact is increasingly becoming an urgent need in (2011), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Parry and Roehrich (2013), manufacturing enterprises. Designing new products or Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a), Yan et al. (2009), Pardo et al. (2012), developing existing ones is a goal of mass customization Parry and Roehrich (2013), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Veleva et al. (2001), Fornasiero et al. (2012), Harraz and Galal (2011), Du et al. (2012), Vinodh and Rathod (2010), Ramani et al. (2010), Vinodh and Rajanayagam (2010), Koren (2010)

Description

ST name



931

Table I. Summary of strategic and tactical factors

ST7

ST6

ST5

Designing/ reconfiguring manufacturing enterprises

ST4

Description

No.

6

14

(continued )

Garbie (2012a, b, 2013a, b, 2014a, b, 2015b, 2016a, 2017b), 33 Azapagic (2004), Pham et al. (2008), Bi (2011), Thomas et al. (2012), Pham and Thomas (2012), Rosen (2012), Sherehiy et al. (2007), Thomas et al. (2012), Hasan et al. (2012), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Veleva et al. (2001), Achanga et al. (2005), Ijomah et al. (2007), Tseng et al. (2009), Liu et al. (2011), Jung and Hwang (2011), Alimoradi et al. (2011), Bi (2011), Godichaud et al. (2012), Corominas et al. (2012), Cao and Folan (2012), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Harraz and Galal (2011)

Azapagic (2004), Hicks and Matthews (2010), Dai and Blackburst (2012), Huertas et al. (2013), Veleva et al. (2001), Herron and Braiden (2006), Genaidy et al. (2010), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Rosen (2012), Tseng et al. (2009), Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a) Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a, 2015a, b, c)

Lee (1997), Obrien (1999), Abdi and Labib (2003, 2004), Molina 20 et al. (2005), Liu and Liang (2008), Matta et al. (2008), Liu et al. (2011), Bi (2011), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a, b, c), Rosen (2012), Bi (2011), Nassehi et al. (2006)

Research studies

932

Due to highly changeable markets and/or the need to respond rapidly to turbulent markets, manufacturing enterprises must be reconfigured. A reconfigurable strategy can change the arrangement of an enterprise’s components: machines, material handling equipment and/or similar items. In order to achieve this strategy, the manufacturing enterprises should be managed to respond quickly and cost effectively. A major goal in recommending sustainable strategies is to identify the major elements of reconfiguration regarding manufacturing enterprises Lack of accountability Organizational performance is used to evaluate manufacturing enterprises in terms of accountability. Traditional performance measurements include product cost, manufacturing lead time, productivity, human resource appraisal, resources status and product quality Liquidity in Liquidity in organizational management represents one of the organizational most important issues related to the practice and management implementation of sustainability. Management for sustainability is used as an alternative word for liquidity in organizational management and includes several aspects: strategic planning, organizing work, organization structures, leadership styles and management culture Competitive Five non-traditional strategies are manufacturing complexity, manufacturing production leanness, manufacturing agility, remanufacturing strategies and recycling. Complexity needs to be minimized while leanness, encouraging agility, remanufacturing and recycling should be maximized. They are considered the major targets for manufacturing enterprises to achieve sustainability

ST name

Table I.

ST code


JMTM 28,7

ST11

ST10

ST9

ST8

ST code

Description

Standardized workplaces are managed through understanding the concepts of work management. Although there are many issues belonging to standardized workplaces, work conditions represent one of the most important issues. Noise, lighting, A/ C, etc., are considered important sub-issues for standardized workplaces to reduce or eliminate a number of accidents and/ or number of absent days due to injuries Follow-up on human Human rights is an important issue in social sustainability and rights procedures includes several sub-issues such as eliminating child labor, increasing the degree of freedom to create an association and eliminating discrimination among employees in the same enterprise in terms of promotion, bonuses and benefits, layoffs and termination Follow-up on customer Customer issues are considered one of the most urgent and business practice strategic and tactical success factors in practicing and issues implementing sustainability strategies. Customer issues include rights associated with marketing and information, protection of privacy and access to essential services. Business practices mainly focus on understanding corruption, fair trade and foreign cultures Natural environment Natural environment management spans the entire product management lifespan, from the manufacturing of a product to its remanufacturing, recycling, disposal or discarding. Several major issues should be suggested/proposed when considering natural environment management: environmental budgeting for keeping the environment clean, environmental certification with ISO 14001, detailing environmental concerns and compliance with impact assessment and workers’ implications in regard to accidents

Standardized workplace

ST name

No.

9

Labuschagne and Brent (2008), Russell and Shiang (2013); Henry and Kato (2011), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Azapagic (2004), Tseng et al. (2009), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b)

(continued )

Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Tseng et al. (2009), Baumann 11 and Genoulaz (2011), Rosen (2012), Azapagic (2004), Burke and Gaughran (2007), Henry and Kato (2011), Russell and Shiang (2013), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b)

10

Azapagic (2004), Labuschagne and Brent (2008), Russell and Shiang (2013), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Tseng et al. (2009), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b)

Labuschagne et al. (2005), Labuschagne and Brent (2008), 11 Leszczynska (2012), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Azapagic (2004), Tseng et al. (2009), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Veleva et al. (2001), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b)

Research studies



933

Table I.

Consumption of natural resources

ST12

Description

No.

5

5

Paramanathan et al. (2004), Giunipero et al. (2012), Kulatunga et al. (2013), Garbie (2015b) Paramanathan et al. (2004), Giunipero et al. (2012), Kulatunga et al. (2013), Garbie (2015b)

Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Veleva et al. (2001), Azapagic 13 (2004), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Weiser et al. (2008), Glavic and Lukman (2007), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Tseng et al. (2009), Bi (2011), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b, 2016b)

Glavic and Lukman (2007) Weiser et al. (2008), Baumann and 13 Genoulaz (2011), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Rosen (2012), Azapagic (2004), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Tseng et al. (2009), Bi (2011), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b, 2016b)

Research studies

934

Wise resource use has become one of the most important strategic and tactical success factors regarding not only economic but also environmental issues. It is increasingly recognized that resources must be reserved or conserved as part of an environmental capital investment plan which includes a renewable energy focus, and approaches to recycle water and solid waste ST13 Preventing pollution Pollution is a well-known issue, and it is important to eliminate and climate change it in communities. Manufacturing enterprises are considered impactors the main source of air, water and land pollution. Eliminating impactors on climate change conveys strategic and tactical success factors indicating environmental sustainability and consists dangerous input, dangerous output and dangerous waste ST14 Drivers and motivators Sustainability drivers and motivators are numerous and within enterprises include important considerations such as customer requirements, the potential to use sustainability as an advertising tool ST15 Understanding With respect to the barriers of sustainability, many barriers barriers within exist in relation to implementing sustainability, including lack of awareness of concepts, analyses and assessments enterprises Notes: ST, strategic and tactical factor; CEO, chief executive officer

ST name

Table I.

ST code


JMTM 28,7

PM4

PM3

PM2

PM1

PM code

The importance of increasing an enterprise’s competitiveness represents a big challenge for NICs through traditional and/or non-traditional values achieved such as minimizing product costs and associated prices, increasing quality control and decreasing manufacturing Profitability is one of the biggest challenges regarding performance. Profitability is totally different than profit (revenue minus expenses). It is mainly based on revenue (output quantity multiplied by unit price) divided by expenses (input quantity multiply unit cost). Therefore, it is defined as productivity multiplied by contribution factor which equals price divided by cost. Thus, productivity is considered a major factor of profitability Analyzing productivity in NICs is not clear and illustrates a deficiency. Productivity analysis is used to measure the efficiency of a production/manufacturing activity, resource utilization and profitability. Four dimensions are used to identify productivity: time, quantity, quality and cost. The first and second ones represent effectiveness and the third and fourth ones represent technical, operating, production and economic efficiency. Therefore, productivity is a combination of both effectiveness and efficiency. The index of productivity equals output obtained divided by input expended. In the end, productivity is a function of effectiveness divided by the function of efficiency Market share generally is defined as the percentage of a particular enterprise earned with respect to its own specified sector in terms of a market’s total sales over a specified time period. Market share is estimated by taking the manufacturing enterprise’s sales over the period and dividing it by the total sales of the industry over the same period. This index is used to give a general idea of the size of a company in relation to its market and its competitors. It represents a big challenge in NICs and in emerging or growing markets, especially international ones, which have high competition between them. Local markets are protected sometimes by governmental regulations

Competitiveness

Market share

Productivity

Profitability

Description

PM name

Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a)

Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a, 2016b)

3

3

3

9

No.

(continued )

Hicks and Matthews (2010), Dai and Blackburst (2012), Huertas et al. (2013), Herron and Braiden (2006), Genaidy et al. (2010), Tseng et al. (2009), Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a) Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a, 2016b)

Research studies



935

Table II. Summary of expected performance measures (PMs) and outcomes factors

PM9

PM8

PM7

PM6

Environmental risks

PM5

Description

9

No.

Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a, b, 2015b)

Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a, b, 2015b)

(continued )

5

Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Veleva et al. (2001), 17 Azapagic (2004), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Weiser et al. (2008), Glavic and Lukman (2007), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Tseng et al. (2009), Bi (2011), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b, 2016b)

Azapagic (2004), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Tseng et al. (2009), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Rosen (2012), Bi (2011), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b, 2016b)

Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Tseng et al. (2009), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Rosen (2012), Azapagic (2004), Russell and Shiang (2013), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b)

Research studies

936

Environmental risks are investigated in terms of the effect of a specific set of material use, recycling, waste reduction and pollution prevention on a manufacturing enterprise. To eliminate environmental risks, procedures related to environmental management that aim to minimize waste and pollution should be employed as opportunities for improving sustainability. Specific environmental manufacturing practices include reducing the use of dangerous raw materials and recycling solid waste Natural resources Natural resources include products of mining and oil and gas extraction, arable land, water, soil, plants and animals. The consumption of natural resources is one of the most important performance measures of manufacturing enterprises. In NICs, consumption of natural resources is associated with social inequity as consumption is a major source of social conflict Minimizing consumption of natural resources represents a big challenge because they often are a major source of income Pollution Air, water and land pollution will be considered in this section. Pollution is a general term and a common concept in global societies. It is important to consider pollution not only as a product of specific cities and countries but also as a general concern of industrial estates and manufacturing enterprises, which are considered the main sources of pollution Customer Marketing, the protection of private entities, access to essential satisfaction services, corruption and fair trade are issues associated with customers and businesses in NICs. Achieving satisfactory outcomes in all or some of them is considered one of the main challenges of NICs Societal Societal commitment and/or corporate social responsibility are commitment considered important services to society. It is an especially important consideration for NICs because of the especially urgent needs of NICs’ communities. Therefore, the degree of the provision of services and/or donations offered to society is the measure of societal commitment, especially in private manufacturing enterprises

PM name

Table II.

PM code


JMTM 28,7

PM name

Description

Employees’ rights Human rights are generally known as social expectations of industrial organization. Therefore, human rights measures include eliminating discrimination among workers and increasing the number of workers’ unions PM11 Remanufacturing Remanufacturing and recycling in NICs is one of the most important and recycling performance measures as they have emerged and achieved growing popularity during the past few years as a sustainable technique to deal with used products/components. The remanufacturing process mainly focuses on products and their components. Remanufacturing also restores products or components to a new appearance. The remanufacturing process steps often consist of inspection, cleaning, disassembly, testing, reprocessing and reassembly. Therefore, the performance measure of remanufacturing and recycling is based on the number of parts or components that can be replaced per product and the percentage (%) of total consumption of recycled parts Note: NIC, newly industrialized country

PM10

PM code

No.

Azapagic (2004), Labuschagne and Brent (2008), 10 Russell and Shiang (2013), Baumann and Genoulaz (2011), Tseng et al. (2009), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Garbie (2014a, 2015a, b) Azapagic (2004), Pham et al. (2008), Bi (2011), Sherehiy 20 et al. (2007), Garbie (2013a, b, 2014a, b, 2015b), Thomas et al. (2012), Hasan et al. (2012), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Veleva et al. (2001), Ijomah et al. (2007), Tseng et al. (2009), Alimoradi et al. (2011), Bi (2011), Corominas et al. (2012), Cao and Folan (2012), Garetti and Taisch (2012), Harraz and Galal (2011)

Research studies



937

Table II.

JMTM 28,7

profitability and market share are considered very important PMs for manufacturing firms in NICs, although they are not mentioned extensively in research papers in terms of S/SD. Figure 1 is used to illustrate and summarize main and sub-main challenges regarding implementing S/SD in manufacturing enterprises in one diagram in terms of ST challenges as a result of analysis of them. Also, Figure 2 is used to collect and analyze main and sub-main challenges toward conducting S/SD with respect to PMs.

938


4. Research methodology This section aims to illustrate the building of logical models to present the challenges toward implementing sustainability strategies both STs and PMs which are extracted from previous sections (Sections 2 and 3). This section is also divided into two main subsections. The first subsection illustrates how to model and present STs and PMs through ISM (Subsection 4.1). The second subsection shows how to model STs with respect to PMs (Subsection 4.2). 4.1 ISM As the main objective of this paper is analyzing and investigating the applicability of implementing S/SD strategies by identifying the major challenges of conducting it, ISM was used and modeled to conduct this analysis. The ISM methodology has been used to impose order and direction of the complexity of relationships among elements of implementation. The ISM is interpretive as the judgment of the group decides whether the challenges are related or not and how they are related if they do (Haleem et al., 2012; Singh and Kant, 2008). The ISM is structural as to the basis of relationship; an overall structure is extracted from the complex set of variables (elements) (Singh and Kant, 2008). The ISM is considered a modeling technique for specific relationships, and the overall structure is portrayed as Literacy and awareness of sustainability

Globalization and international issues

Government ICT

Managers

Designing and reconfiguration of systems

Innovative products

SCM

Process

NP

Emerging markets

Liquidity in organizational management

Product cost

RS

S

Competitive manufacturing strategies

SP

Response

Quality

PD Business models

System design

OW

LR

Standardized workplaces

C

RM

Energy MC

Academic Public

Continuous performance evaluation

Lighting L

No. of accidents Noise

RC

Layout

Productivity

HR appraisal

Air conditioning

SO

A

DC

No. of absent days

Challenges of implementing sustainability in terms of strategic and tactic factors (STs) in manufacturing enterprises regarding newly industrialized countries (NICs) Promotion

Fair trading

Child labor Corruption Association Discrimination Bonus and benefits .. Follow-up the procedures of human rights

Figure 1. Main and sub-main challenges regarding strategic and tactical challenges (STs)

Environmental Budget

Private life

Environmental compliance Foreign cultures

Follow-up the procedures of customers and business projects

Natural environmental management

DI

Recycled water

Marketing

Water P.

DO Recycled solid wastes

Useful using of resources

Renewable energy

Air P. Land P.

DW

Preventing pollution and dangerous

NR

CR

LP

BS

PV

EP

Drivers and motivations due to implementing S/SD

Uncertainty in implementation (cost and time)

High turnover

Unclear objectives Low support Lack of funding

Understanding barriers due to implementing S/SD

Notes: SCM, supply chain management; ICT, information and communication technology; MC, mass customization; NP, new products; PD, product development; RS, resource status; S, staffing; SP, strategic planning; LR, leadership; OW, organizing work; SO, structure organization; Dc, diversity culture; RM, remanufacturing; C, complexity; L, lean; A, agility; RC, recycling; DI, dangerous inputs; DO, dangerous outputs; DW, dangerous wastes, CR customers’ requirements; LP, limitations in existing processes; BS, benefits of implementing S/SD; NR, shortage of natural resources; PV, public value and social cimmitment; EP, environmental priorities

Enterprise competitiveness

Price

Product cost

Production efficiency

Co2

Land, water

Oil and gas

Land-fill

Growing markets

Technical efficiency

Expenses

Emerging market


Consumption of natural resources

Environmental risks

Market share

Operation efficiency

Revenue

Quality control

Response

Productivity

Profitability

Dangerous wastes Domestic markets

Economic efficiency International markets

No clear water

Soil Mining

939

Plants, animals

Dangerous materials

Challenges in terms of measuring the expected performance in manufacturing enterprises regarding newly industrialized countries (NICs)


Air

Marketing corruption

Pollution (air, liquid, solid wastes)

Inspection

Gifts

Private life protection

Customer satisfaction

Essential services

Testing

Figure 2. Main challenges regarding performance measures (PMs)

Cleaning

Donations

Reassembly

Services

Societal commitment

Reprocessing

Disassembly

Discrimination

Liquid Solid wastes

Fair trading

Employees rights

Remanufacturing and recycling

a graphical model. Based on these concepts, several steps have been used to implement ISM, such as the following, and all of the steps will be illustrated in Figure 3. 4.1.1 ISM for ST challenges. The following steps are used to implement ISM for STs to illustrate which challenges are most dominant. Step 1: identify the most challenging “ST factors,” (ST1-ST15) which are relevant to the implementation/practice of S/SD strategies (Section 1). Step 2: express a contextual relationship between ST factors with respect to pairs of elements (Table III). Step 3: build a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of critical success factors which indicates a pair-wise relationship between elements of the implementation (Table III). Academicians and some industrialists as a group of experts were selected and consulted in identifying the contextual relationships among the challenges of implementing sustainability. Four common symbols have been frequently used to denote the direction of the relationship between critical success factors (i and j): (1) V: element i will help achieve element j. (2) A: element j will help achieve element i.

No Academicians

Stakeholders (academicians and Industrialists)

Industrialists

Identify the challenges for implementing S/SD strategy

Express contextual relationship between challenges through structural selfinteraction matrix (SSIM)

Identify initial reachability matrix

Partition of reachability matrix and levels of challenges

Check is contextual relationship consistency

Construct the ISM model Yes

Figure 3. Steps in ISM model

JMTM 28,7


940

Table III. Structural selfinteraction matrix (SSIM) for STs

I

Factor number, j 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Challenge description

1 Literacy of sustainability with commitment from stakeholders 2 Globalization and international issues 3 Innovative products design 4 Reconfiguration of manufacturing enterprises 5 Lack of accountability 6 Liquidity in organization management 7 Competitive manufacturing strategies 8 Standardized workplace 9 Follow-up procedures of human rights 10 Follow-up procedures of customers and business issues 11 Natural environmentally management 12 Useful using of resources 13 Preventing pollution and dangerousness 14 Drivers and motivation within enterprises 15 Understanding barriers within enterprises

V V V V V V V V A V V V V A X V A V A A A A V V V V A

X A A V A A A V V V V V

O V V V O V A A O A V

O V V V O V O O O A

V V V V O V V A O

V O O V O O O X

V O O O V X A

V V O A O A

O V A V O

A A O X O O X V V V

(3) X: elements i and j will help achieve each other. (4) O: elements i and j are unrelated. Step 4: build or develop a reachability matrix from the SSIM and checking the matrix for transitivity. The SSIM has been converted into a binary matrix, called the initial reachability matrix by substituting V, A, X and O by 1 and 0 as per given case (Table IV ). The substitution of 1s and 0s are as per the following rules: •

If (i, j) in the SSIM is V, the (i, j) in the reachability becomes 1 and ( j, i) becomes 0.

•

If (i, j) in the SSIM is A, the (i, j) in the reachability becomes 0 and ( j, i) becomes 1.

•

If (i, j) in the SSIM is X, the (i, j) in the reachability becomes 1 and ( j, i) becomes 1.

•

If (i, j) in the SSIM is O, the (i, j) in the reachability becomes 0 and ( j, i) becomes 0.

No. Challenge description

Table IV. Initial reachability matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Literacy of sustainability with commitment Globalization and international issues Innovative products design Reconfiguration of manufacturing enterprises Lack of accountability Liquidity in organization management Competitive manufacturing strategies Standardized workplace Follow-up procedures of human rights Follow-up procedures of customers issues Natural environmentally management Useful using of resources Preventing pollution and dangerousness Drivers and motivations within enterprises Understanding barriers within enterprises Dependence power Note: DP, driving power

Factor number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DP Rank 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5

1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 7

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 8

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 9

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 10

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6

1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 10

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 9

13 9 9 7 10 3 7 4 5 4 4 5 6 7 8

I III III V II IX V VIII VII VIII VIII VII VI V IV


Step 5: partition the reachability matrix into different levels. From the initial reachability matrix (Table IV ), the antecedent set for each element and its reachability can be determined. The element itself and the other elements will consist of the reachability set which can be achieved. Also, the element itself and the other elements which help in achieving it will consist of the antecedent set. So, the top level of the ISM hierarchy will be formed due to the intersection of reachability and antecedent sets. It is worth noting that the top-level element in the ISM hierarchy does not help in achieving the level of any element’s upper level. After the highest-level element is determined, it will be separated out from the previous elements. The same procedures can be repeated to find other elements in the levels indicated in Tables V and VI. These levels are used in building the final model. There are four categories to classify challenges “ST factors” based on their driving power and dependence power as shown in Table IV and Figure 2. The cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification is called MICMAC and is used to analyze and investigate ST challenges and cluster them into four main categories: autonomous factors, dependent factors, linkage factors and independent factors (Figure 2). Dependence power is No.

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection

level

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 2, 6, 9 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 5, 7, 8, 11 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 9, 10, 14, 15 9, 11, 14, 15 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15

1, 2, 7 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 15 1, 4, 5, 8 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15

1 2, 3, 14, 15 2, 3, 4 3, 4 5 6 7, 9 8 7, 9 9, 10 11 12 13 2, 14 2, 15

IV I II III IV IV III IV III III IV IV IV III III

No.

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection

Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1 2, 3, 14, 15 2, 3, 4 3, 4 5 6 7, 9 8 7, 9 9, 10 11 12 13 2, 14 2, 15

1, 2, 7 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 15 1, 4, 5, 8 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15

1 2, 3, 14, 15 2, 3, 4 3, 4 5 6 7, 9 8 7, 9 9, 10 11 12 13 2, 14 2, 15

X VI VII VI IX VI V III II VII I VI V I II


941

Table V. Partition of reachability matrix

Table VI. Levels of STs

JMTM 28,7


942

represented by the x-axis and driving power is on the y-axis for each critical success factor (Figure 2). Each category is characterized by its own specifications as follows. Step 6: draw and develop the digraph and ISM model. After formulating the levels and partitions, the ISM model is developed from the final reachability matrix (Table VI) by constructing digraph using nodes or vertices and lines of edges (Figure 5). It can be noticed from Figure 5 that if there is a relationship between factors i and j, this is presented by an arrow which points from i to j. This graph is called as an initial directed graph initial digraph (Singh and Kant, 2008) and after removing transitivity from digraph, the digraph is converted into the ISM. The ISM developed for the current problem is illustrated in Figure 6. The ST challenges were identified and/or determined by using references surveyed from a literature review and the perspectives of academicians and industrialists. The ISM was used to develop the hierarchical structure of ST success challenges for analyzing and investigating which challenges are more dominant than others. The results (Figures 4-6), based on the driving power and driven power, show that factor literacy and awareness of S/SD is represented by the highest driving power of 13, and a dependence power of three emerged as the most important factor of STs. Using strategy of reconfiguration, a lack of accountability level and standardized workplace are driven by literacy and awareness of sustainability, globalization and Independent factors have strong power but dependence power is weak. They are illustrated by the northwest corner (fourth quadrant). They greatly affect other factors; five challenges are in the fourth quadrant (1, 8, 9, 11, 14)

Linkage factors have strong driving and dependence power and are illustrated in the northeast corner (third quadrant). They are very strong and their actions affect others and themselves. Unfortunately, only one challenge is in the third quadrant (15)

Independent 15 14 1

13 12

Linkage 11

Driving Power

11

14

10

15

9

9 8

8

13

7 6

6

12

7 4

2

10

5

3

Dependent 5

4 3 2 1 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Autonomous

Dependence Power

Figure 4. Cluster of challenges regarding STs

Autonomous factors have weak driving and dependence power and they are illustrated in the southwest corner (first quadrant). Six challenges are in this quadrant (4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13)

Dependent factors: have weak driving power but strong dependent power and are illustrated in the southeast corner (second quadrant). They are always affected by other challenge factors. Three challenges are in the second quadrant (2, 3, 5)


11 13 6

15

12

9

3 4

1

10 5

943

14

Figure 5. Digraph depicting the relationship among the challenges of STs

8

2

7


11. Natural environmentally management

13. Preventing pollution and dangerousness

6. Liquidity in organizational management

3. Innovative products design

12. Useful using of resources

9. Follow-up procedures of human rights

4. Reconfiguration of manufacturing enterprises

1. Literacy of sustainability/sustainable development with commitment from stakeholders

15. Understanding barriers within enterprises

10. Follow-up procedures of customers and business issues

5. Lack of accountability

2. Globalization and international issues

14. Drivers and motivations within enterprises

8. Standardized workplace

7. Competitive manufacturing strategies

international issues and competitive strategies, respectively. Innovative products design is driven by reconfiguration. Lack of accountability drives two other STs: human rights and customers and businesses issues. Also, standardized workplace lead toward achieving drivers and motivation to implement S/SD. Liquidity in organizational management is driven by following up the changes in innovative products design. Wise use of resources is driven by four STS: innovative products design, understanding barriers, liquidity in organizational management and business issues. Drivers and motivation factors drive the challenge of understanding of barriers to implement sustainability which drives the prevention of pollution for implementing sustainability besides useful using of resources. Finally, natural environment management is driven by prevention of pollution and dangerous. 4.1.2 ISM for PMs. It is necessary to repeat the whole conducted procedures in the ISM for PMs as shown in Tables VII-X and Figures 7-9. The ISM for the PMs is proposed based on the final reachability matrix in Table X with five levels (I, II, III, IV and V ) by constructing digraph using nodes or vertices and lines as shown in Figure 8 as previously explained in Figures 5 and 6. The digraph of the PMs is illustrated in Figure 8 and the corresponding ISM is developed in Figure 9. Regarding the expected PM and outcome challenges, the ISM was used to develop the hierarchical structure to analyze and investigate the PMs regarding implementing S/SD. Figures 7-9 illustrate the degree of importance for each PM based on driving and driven power.

Figure 6. ISM-based model for STs

JMTM 28,7

944


Table VII. Structural selfinteraction matrix (SSIM) for PMs

Table VIII. Initial reachability matrix for PMs

Table IX. Partition of reachability matrix for PMs

Performance number, j 8 7 6 5

I

Performance description

11

10

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Enterprise’s competitiveness Profitability Productivity Market share Environmental risks Consumption natural resources Pollution (air, liquid and solid waste) Customer’s satisfaction Societal commitment Employee’s rights Remanufacturing and recycling

A A A A A A A O O V

A V A A V O V O X

O O X V V O V X

No.

Performance description

1

2

3

Performance number 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

DP

Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Enterprise’s competitiveness Profitability Productivity Market share Environmental risks Consumption natural resources Pollution (air, liquid and solid waste) Customer’s satisfaction Societal commitment Employee’s rights Remanufacturing and recycling Driven power

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 7

0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 7

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 7

0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

3 5 7 5 3 5 6 4 4 6 8

VI IV II IV VI IV III V V III I

No.

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection

Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1, 4, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 5, 9 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 1, 4, 8, 9 3, 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 2, 3, 4, 6, 11 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 5, 6, 7, 11 6, 7, 11 3, 6, 7, 11 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 10, 11

1, 4, 8 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 7, 9 2, 4, 5 6, 7 3, 6, 7 1, 4, 8, 9 3, 8, 9, 10 9, 10 11

I II I I III IV III II I II V

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4

X O V X O O O

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3

X O X O A X

0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4

O A A O A

1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 7

O O O O

4

3

2

O X V

A X

A

An increase using reconfiguration and recycling as a performance outcome achieved an 8 out of 11 as a driving power and a 2 as a dependent one, and it emerged as the most important PM challenge. Increasing remanufacturing and recycling drives the elimination/reduction of the consumption of natural resources and pollution, which drives two other PMs: eliminate/reduce environmental risks and productivity. Productivity leads to increase in profitability and


No.

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection

Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1, 4, 8 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 7, 9 2, 4, 5 6, 7 3, 6, 7 1, 4, 8, 9 3, 8, 9, 10 9, 10 11

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 2, 3, 4, 6, 11 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 5, 6, 7, 11 6, 7, 11 3, 6, 7, 11 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 10, 11

1, 4, 8 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 7, 9 2, 4, 5 6, 7 3, 6, 7 1, 4, 8, 9 3, 8, 9, 10 9, 10 11

I II I I III IV III II I II V


945 Table X. Levels of PMs

Linkage factors: only one factor is in third quadrant (3)

Independent factors: four factors are in the fourth quadrant (7, 10, 11) Independent 11 10 9

Dependent 11

8

3

7

Driving Power

7

6 6

5 4

10 2

4

8

9

5

3

Dependent

1

2 1 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Autonomous

Dependence Power Autonomous factors: four challenges regarding performance measures are in this quadrant (2, 5, 6, 8)

Dependent factors: three factors are in the second quadrant (1, 4, 9)

market share, customer satisfaction, societal commitment and employees rights. Market share and customer satisfaction lead to increase in the enterprise’ competiveness. The ISM models highlights literacy and awareness of sustainability, globalization and international issues and competitive strategies and the maximum use of remanufacturing and recycling over other ST- and PM-associated challenges, respectively. 4.2 IRP for ST challenges of PMs The IRP always uses two different types of elements: one type of element is to be ranked and the other is used as a reference to provide a basis for ranking (Haleem et al., 2012).

Figure 7. Cluster of challenges regarding PMs

JMTM 28,7

Figure 10 describes the steps of implementing IRP in terms of STs and PMs. According to the opinion of academicians and industrialists regarding the 15 suggested types of ST factors and 11 types of expected PMs and outcomes, a cross-section matrix will be developed (Table XI). In the cross-interaction matrix, two numbers – “0” and “1” – show 1

946


2

4

8

Figure 8. Digraph depicting the relationship among the challenges of PMs

9

10

3

5

6

7 11

1. Enterprise’s competitiveness

2. Profitability

4. Market share

8. Customers’ satisfaction

3. Productivity

10. Employee’s rights

5. Environmental risks

6. Consumption natural resources

Figure 9. ISM-based model for PMs

9. Societal commitment

7. Pollution

11. Remanufacturing and recycling

No

Yes Check is contextual relationship consistency

Academicians

Stakeholders (academicians and Industrialists)

Figure 10. Steps in IRP model

Industrialists

Identify the expected performance and measure outcomesfor implementing sustainability

Express contextual relationship between STs and PMs by using “0” and “1” (Crosssection matrix)

Interpret the intersections of “0” and “1” in another matrix “Interpretive matrix”

Identify the paired comparison between STs in terms of dominance regarding PMs

Identify the dominating intersection matrix

Construct the interpretive raking modelling (IRM) model STs for actions with respect to PMs


ST/PM ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 ST8 ST9 ST10 ST11 ST12 ST13 ST14 ST15

PM1

PM2

PM3

PM4

PM5

PM6

PM7

PM8

PM9

PM10

PM11

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

the relationship between each ST challenge and PM or its outcome. The number “0” defines its absence and the number “1” indicates the presence of a relationship. The cross-section matrix (Table XI) is considered another cross-intersection interpretive matrix by contextual interpreting and converting all interactions in Table XI with entry number “1” only as shown in Table XII. The pair-wise comparisons are conducted after that, and the interpretive matrix is used to conduct a comparison between the ST challenges regarding the expected PMs. This means that each ST challenge is compared with other ST challenges related to PM1-PM11. The philosophy of dominating and dominated interactions between STs (ST1-ST15) regarding PMs is recorded (Table XIII). All interactions of dominating are grouped and summarized into a dominating matrix (Table XIV). The dominance matrix will be used to summarize the dominating interactions (Table XV) based on the number of PMs which each ST challenge dominates (D) or is dominated (B) by in relation to other ST challenges. The final result of dominance for ranking an ST in Table XV is estimated by using (D) and (B) terms as D-B (Haleem et al., 2012). Ranking of ST challenges having the highest positive (D-B) in the dominance matrix is ranked as a “1” followed by lower numbers and so on. The interpretive ranking model depicts the ranking of ST challenges with respect to their importance regarding achieving the expected PMs (Figure 11). The challenges between STs and PMs are compared through an IRP. Figure 11 illustrates the IRP model to show the ranking of STs with respect to PMs. Figure 11 shows that ST14 “Drivers and motivators within enterprises” received the highest ranking score by applying IRP. This clearly means that motivators and encouragements must exist inside manufacturing enterprises for implementing sustainability. The descending order of the ranking of STs according to IRP based on Table XV and Figure 11 helps in understanding barriers and challenges for implementing sustainability, literacy and awareness of sustainability, continuous performance evaluation, competitive manufacturing strategies, follow-up on human rights procedures, wise use of resources, natural environment management, innovative products design, preventing pollution and climate change, follow-up on customer and business practice issues, standardized workplaces, reconfiguration of manufacturing enterprises, liquidity of organizational management and globalization and international issues. Literacy and awareness of sustainability, globalization and international issues, and competitive strategies and use of remanufacturing and recycling have emerged as key driving factors for STs and PMs in the ISM models, respectively. Drivers and barriers to implementing sustainability received the highest rank in the IRP model.


947

Table XI. Cross-section matrix

0

Globalization enhances competitiveness

Innovation increases competitiveness 0

0

Liquidity enhances competitiveness

Strategies enhances competitiveness

0

0

ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

ST6

ST7

ST8

ST9

Table XII. Interpretive matrix

PM1

0

0

Strategies increases profitability

0

0

Market share is affected by HRs

0

0

0

0

Strategies reduces CNR

0

0

0

Strategies increases productivity Workplace effects on productivity

0

0

Performance assesses CNR

0

0

0

Innovation reduces CNR

Liquidity increases productivity

0

PM7

0

0

0

0

Performance assesses pollution

0

0

Globalization effects on pollution

Awareness Awareness reduces CNR reduces pollution

PM6

0

Performance assesses environmental risks 0

Reconfiguration increases productivity 0

Innovation increases market share 0

0

Innovation increases profitability Reconfiguration increases profitability 0

Awareness reduces environmental risks 0

Awareness effects on market share 0

PM5

PM4

0

Awareness increases productivity

PM3

0

0

PM2

Customers’ satisfaction is affected by HRs

0

0

Performance assesses customers’ satisfaction Liquidity effects on customers’ satisfaction

0

0

0

Performance monitors the employees’ rights 0

0

(continued )

0

Liquidity encourages using of R&C Strategies increases using of R&C 0

0

0

0

0

Awareness increases using R&C

0

Globalization increases employees’ right 0

PM11

PM10

Workplace effects on employees’ rights Employees’ Societal commitment rights is is affected by affected by HRs HRs

0

0

0

0

0

0

Awareness effects on societal commitment 0

0

0

PM9

PM8

948

ST/ PM


JMTM 28,7

0

D&M improves profitability

Understanding B&C increases profitability

ST14 D&M enhances competitiveness

ST15 Understanding B&C helps to enhance competitiveness

Profitability is enhanced by useful using of RE 0

Profitability is affected by customers’ issues 0

0

0

PM2

PM1

ST13 PPD enhances competitiveness

ST12

ST11

ST10

ST/ PM

Understanding B&C increases productivity

0

0

0

0

0

PM3

PM5

0

D&M enhances market share

0

0

PPD reduces environmental risks D&M reduces environmental risks

0 Market share is affected by customers’ issues 0 Environmental risks are reduced by using EM 0 0

PM4

0

CNR is enhanced by using EM

Customers’ satisfaction is enhanced by customers’ issues 0

PM8

R&C are enhanced by useful using of RE 0

0

Employees’ rights is affected by B&C

0

0

D&M encourages using R&C

R&C are adopted by using EM

0

0

0

0

0

0

PM11

PM10

PM9

0 0 0 CNR is enhanced by useful using of RE 0 0 0 PPD eliminates pollution D&M D&M reduces D&M enhances 0 encourages pollution customers’ issues reduction of CNR 0 0 0 Societal commitment is recognized by B&C

0

PM7

0

PM6



949

Table XII.

JMTM 28,7


950

Table XIII. Interpretive logic knowledge base

Paired comparison of STSF in terms of dominance

Performance measures for which the dominance holds good

Paired comparison of STSF in terms of dominance

Performance measures for which the dominance holds good

ST1 dominating ST2 ST1 dominating ST3 ST1 dominating ST4 ST1 dominating ST5 ST1 dominating ST6 ST1 dominating ST7 ST1 dominating ST8 ST1 dominating ST9 ST1 dominating ST10 ST1 dominating ST2 ST1 dominating ST11 ST1 dominating ST12 ST1 dominating ST13 ST1 dominating ST14 ST1 dominating ST15 ST2 dominating ST3 ST2 dominating ST5 ST2 dominating ST6 ST2 dominating ST7 ST2 dominating ST8 ST2 dominating ST9 ST2 dominating ST13 ST2 dominating ST14 ST2 dominating ST15 ST3 dominating ST4 ST3 dominating ST5 ST3 dominating ST6 ST3 dominating ST7 ST3 dominating ST9 ST3 dominating ST10 ST3 dominating ST11 ST3 dominating ST12 ST3 dominating ST13 ST3 dominating ST14 ST3 dominating ST15 ST4 dominating ST6 ST4 dominating ST7

PM7 PM4, PM6 PM3 PM5, PM6, PM7 PM3 PM3, PM6, PM11 PM3 PM4, PM9 PM4 PM7 PM5, PM6, PM11 PM6, PM11 PM5, PM7 PM4, PM5, PM6, PM7, PM11 PM1 PM7 PM7, PM10 PM1 PM1 PM10 PM10 PM1, PM7 PM1, PM7 PM1, PM10 PM2 PM6 PM1 PM1, PM2, PM6 PM2, PM4 PM6 PM7 PM2, PM6 PM1 PM1, PM2, PM4, PM6 PM1, PM2 PM3 PM2, PM3

ST4 dominating ST8 ST4 dominating ST10 ST4 dominating ST12 ST4 dominating ST14 ST4 dominating ST15 ST5 dominating ST7 ST5 dominating ST8 ST5 dominating ST9 ST5 dominating ST10 ST5 dominating ST11 ST5 dominating ST12 ST5 dominating ST13 ST5 dominating ST14 ST5 dominating ST15 ST6 dominating ST7 ST6 dominating ST8 ST6 dominating ST13 ST6 dominating ST14 ST6 dominating ST15 ST7 dominating ST8 ST7 dominating ST11 ST7 dominating ST12 ST7 dominating ST14 ST7 dominating ST15 ST8 dominating ST9 ST8 dominating ST15 ST9 dominating ST10 ST9 dominating ST14 ST9 dominating ST15 ST10 dominating ST14 ST10 dominating ST15 ST11 dominating ST12 ST11 dominating ST14 ST12 dominating ST14 ST13 dominating ST14 ST13 dominating ST15 ST14 dominating ST15

PM3 PM2 PM2 PM2 PM2, PM3 PM6 PM10 PM8, PM10 PM8 PM5, PM6 PM6 PM5, PM7 PM5, MP6, PM7 PM8, PM10 PM1, PM3 PM3 PM1 PM1 PM1, PM3 PM3 PM6, PM11 PM2, PM6, PM11 PM1, PM2, PM6, PM11 PM1, PM2, PM3 PM10 PM3, PM10 PM4, PM8 PM4 PM8, PM10 PM2, PM4 PM2, PM8 PM6, PM11 PM5, PM6, PM11 PM2, PM6, PM11 PM1, PM5, PM7 PM1 PM1, PM2

5. Theoretical and practical implications This paper investigated and attempted to evaluate challenges of sustainability implementation through ranking them in terms of driving and driven factors to identify the most common critical challenges. This analysis and investigation presented and discussed the sustainability challenges with respect to implementation and practicing for building a comprehensive logic sustainability models to be applied in different sectors of industries and/or different manufacturing enterprises theoretically and practically. 5.1 Theoretical significance The present paper is an attempt to analyze and build sustainable logic models to describe several challenges faced industrial/manufacturing companies regarding implementing sustainability in a systemic way starting from the most dominant and key factors to the least ones based on the comprehensive review of most of the published works. Using the logic

ST15

ST10 ST11 ST12 ST13 ST14

ST9

ST8

ST6 ST7

ST4 ST5

ST2 ST3

ST1

Dominating/ being dominated

2, 3, 7, 10 5, 6, 8, 10

1, 10, 4, 6 1, 2, 3

2 5, 6, 7, 8, 10

7, 10 –

3

3, 10

– 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 1 1, 6, 11

4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 1, 7, 10 1, 4, 6

ST4

1, 3 1, 6, 11

2, 3 –

1 1, 2, 4

3, 4, 9, 11

ST5

2, 3 5, 7, 8, 10 1, 3 –

– 2, 6, 11

7, 10 1, 2, 4, 6

4, 5, 7, 9

ST7

2 5, 6, 7, 8, 10

4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 7, 10 2, 4, 6

ST6

ST9

ST10

ST11

ST12

ST13

ST14

ST15

4, 8, 9, 10 2, 4, 8 5, 6, 11 2, 6, 11 – 1, 2, 4, 6, 11 1, 2, 3, 8, 10

4, 9 4 5, 6, 11 6, 11 5, 7 1, 2 –

8, 9, 10 8 5, 6, 11 2, 6, 11 5, 7 – 3, 8, 10

4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 3, 5, 6, 7, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 3, 4, 7, 9 3, 4, 5, 7, 3, 4, 6, 9, 3, 9 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 11 11 9 11 11 1, 7 1, 7 1, 7, 10 1, 7, 10 1, 7, 10 10 10 7 4 1, 2, 6 1, 6 1, 2, 4 1, 4 2, 4, 6 1, 2, 4, 4, 6 6 2 2, 3 3 2, 3 3 2, 3 3 2, 3 5, 6, 7, 8 5, 6, 7 5, 6, 7, 10 7, 8, 10 5, 7, 8, 6, 8, 10 8, 10 5, 6, 7 10 1 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 3 1, 2, 3, 6, 3 6, 11 1, 2, 6, 11 1, 2, 3, 6, 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 11 11 – 3 3, 10 3, 10 3, 10 3, 10 3, 10 3

ST8

1, 2, 3, 6, 3, 10 3, 10 3, 10 3, 10 10 4, 8, 9, 10 4, 8, 9, 10 4, 8, 9, 4, 8, 9, 10 4, 8, 9 4, 8, 9, 10 4, 8, 9, 10 4, 8, 9, 10 – 9, 10 4, 8, 9, 10 4, 8, 9, 10 10 2, 4, 8 2, 4, 8 2, 4, 8 2, 4, 8 2, 4, 5, 8 2, 4, 8 4, 8 2, 4, 8 2, 4, 8 – 2, 4, 8 2, 4, 8 5, 6, 11 5, 6, 11 5, 6, 11 5, 6, 11 6, 11 5, 6, 11 5, 6 5, 6, 11 5, 6, 11 5, 6, 11 – 5 2, 6, 11 2, 6, 11 2, 6, 11 6, 11 2, 5, 7, 11 2, 6, 11 2, 6, 11 2, 6, 11 2, 6, 11 6, 11 2, 6, 11 – 1, 5, 7 1, 5, 7 1, 5, 7 1, 5, 7 1, 5, 6, 7 1, 5, 7 5, 7 1, 5, 7 1, 5, 7 1, 5, 7 1, 7 1, 5, 7 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 5, 7, 11 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 7 1, 4, 5 7, 11 7, 11 11 7, 11 7, 11 7, 11 7, 11 6, 7, 11 7 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 2, 3, 8, 1, 8, 10 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 2, 8, 10 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 1, 2, 8, 10 1, 2, 3, 8, 1, 2, 3, 8, 1, 2, 3, 8, 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 10 10 10 10

3, 10

1, 3 1, 2, 3, 11

3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 – 1, 2, 4, 6

–

ST3

2, 3 5, 7, 8, 10 1, 3 1, 3 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 2, 3, 11

ST2

ST1



951

Table XIV. Dominating interaction matrix

Table XV. Dominance matrix

ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 ST8 ST9 ST10 ST11 ST12 ST13 ST14 ST15 B

952

0 4 3 1 5 2 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 7 4 48

6 0 4 4 4 2 5 2 4 3 3 3 3 8 4 55

1 2 0 2 5 2 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 44

6 3 3 0 5 1 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 6 3 47

4 1 3 2 0 2 4 2 3 5 2 4 4 7 5 48

6 2 3 1 5 0 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 7 3 48

4 2 4 2 4 2 0 2 4 2 3 3 2 7 5 46

6 2 1 1 4 1 4 0 4 3 3 3 3 7 4 46

5 2 3 2 3 2 5 1 0 3 3 3 3 7 5 47

6 3 2 1 4 2 5 2 2 0 3 2 3 6 5 46

4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 0 3 2 4 5 43

5 3 2 1 4 2 2 2 4 3 1 0 3 3 5 40

5 1 3 2 3 1 5 2 4 3 3 3 0 5 5 45

2 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 0 4 30

6 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 0 31

66 30 40 24 54 24 49 29 50 39 39 40 39 79 62 664

18 −25 −4 −23 6 −24 3 −17 3 −7 −4 0 −6 49 31

III XIII VII XI IV XII V X V IX VII VI VIII I II

ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 ST8 ST9 ST10 ST11 ST12 ST13 ST14 ST15 No. of cases dominating (D) D-B Rank of dominating


JMTM 28,7

ST14: drivers and motivations within enterprises

ST15: understanding barriers within enterprises


ST1: literacy of sustainability with commitment from Stakeholders

953 ST5: lack of accountability

ST7: competitive manufacturing strategies


ST9: follow-up procedures of human rights

ST12: useful using of resources

ST11: natural environmentally management

ST3: innovative products design

ST13: preventing pollution and dangerous

ST10: follow-up procedures of customers and business

ST8: standardized workplaces

ST4: reconfiguration manufacturing enterprises

ST6: liquidity of organizational management

ST2: globalization and international issues

modeling techniques such as ISM and IRP was presented to examine the contextual relationship among the STs and PMs individually “first phase,” to clarify and identify the most and least dominant factors, and to rank STs with respect to the PMs “second phase.” The modeling techniques recognize the importance of sustainability challenges, assessing the most and least dominant factors. The evaluation of sustainability challenges was suggested and illustrated through the most and least dominant factors. 5.2 Practical implications Most manufacturing companies are keen to investigate extremely sustainability challenges. Although this paper has a goal to provide a comprehensive framework to analyze,

Figure 11. Interpretive ranking model of STs for actions regarding PMs

JMTM 28,7


954

investigate and model sustainability challenges for industrial/manufacturing companies in different industries sectors, most of the STs and PMs were identified from academicians. Most of the industrial/manufacturing companies participated in the discussion; unfortunately, all are not familiar with the S/SD as a whole. They see S/SD from very narrow scope like climate change, environmental and energy issues only based on what they heard from media. Most of them are not fully interested to join with academicians to progress the work. This study will help manufacturing/industrial companies to analyze and investigate the challenges toward implementing S/SD. 6. Conclusions and recommendation for further work This paper was used to describe and implement interpretive logic techniques, ISM and IRP, for implementing sustainability in manufacturing enterprises. ISM was used to identify the key factors for critical practicing issue. The most successful ST approaches of a total of 15 factors and expected PMs were the 11 evaluations that were assigned and which emerged from experts, including academicians and industrialists in two hierarchical structures. Each separated model highlights the driving factors (either STs or PMs) and the factors behind that drive. Literacy and an awareness of sustainability, globalization and international issues and competitive strategies still played important roles and the key factors regarding implementing sustainability, while the remanufacturing and recycling processes represented key factors with respect to PMs. Regarding the IRP, motivations and drivers for understanding the barriers faced by manufacturing enterprises when implementing sustainability ranked the highest STs against PMs. This means that literacy and an awareness of sustainability with an understanding of motivations and drivers besides more deeply recognized barriers of implementing sustainability are more important to be considered as a strategic planning. Other STs and PMs are considered operational challenges. Although these are considered the major challenges facing most NICs when implementing sustainability, other challenges face these countries include population growth that occurs out of sync with economic growth; unnecessary urbanization; increasing poverty levels; socioeconomic inequity; lack of democratization and transparency; weak governing institutions; a surge in commodity prices and a failure to adopt and/or implement more effective macro-economic policies. These challenges may not directly or explicitly affect the adoption of S/SD practices but implicitly affect the challenges previously mentioned in the text. The author intends to extend this work to create a roadmap for implementing sustainability strategies and verifying/validating the roadmap through more real-life case studies not only in small and medium manufacturing enterprises but also in big manufacturing companies, which take into consideration these challenges with participating from a huge number of manufacturing companies.

References Abdallah, T., Diabat, A. and Levi, D.S. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain design: a closed-loop formulation and sensitivity analysis”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 120-133. Abdi, M.R. and Labib, A.W. (2003), “A design strategy for reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMSs) using analytical hierarchical process (AHP): a case study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 2273-2299. Abdi, M.R. and Labib, A.W. (2004), “Feasibility study of the tactical design justification for reconfigurable manufacturing systems using the fuzzy analytical hierarchical process”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 15, pp. 3055-3076.

Accenture and United Nations Global Compact (2010), “A new era of sustainability: UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study 2010”, New York, NY. Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2012), “Sustainable supply management: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, pp. 168-182. Alimoradi, A., Yussuf, R.M. and Zulkifli, N. (2011), “A hybrid model for remanufacturing facility location problem in a closed-loop supply chain”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 16-23. Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2005), “Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-471. Asif, M. and Muneer, T. (2007), “Energy supply, its demand and security issues for developed and emerging economies”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 1388-1413.


Azapagic, A. (2004), “Developing a framework for sustainable development indictors for the mining and minerals industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, pp. 639-662. Baumann, E.C. and Genoulaz, V.B. (2011), “A framework for sustainable performance assessment of supply chain management practices”, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, October 23-26, pp. 98-103. Bi, Z. (2011), “Revisiting system paradigms from the viewpoint of manufacturing sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 3, pp. 1323-1340. Birkin, F., Cashman, A., Koh, S.C.L. and Liu, Z. (2009), “New sustainable business models in China”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 64-77. Borchardt, M., Sellitto, M.A., Pereira, G.M. and Gomes, L.P. (2012), “Eco-design case studies furniture companies using the analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practices, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 330-340. Burke, S. and Gaughran, W.F. (2007), “Developing a framework for sustainability management in engineering SMEs”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23, pp. 696-703. Cao, H. and Folan, P. (2012), “Product life cycle: the evolution of a paradigm and literature review from 1950-2009”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 641-662. Chou, D.C. and Chou, A.Y. (2012), “Awareness of green IT and its value model”, Computer Standards and Interfaces, Vol. 34, pp. 447-451. Corominas, A., Lusa, A. and Olivella, J. (2012), “A manufacturing and remanufacturing aggregate planning model considering a non-linear supply function of recovered products”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 194-204. Dai, J. and Blackburst, J. (2012), “A four-phase AHP-QFD approach for supplier assessment: a sustainability perspective”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 19, pp. 5474-5490. Davidson, C.I., Hendrickson, C.T., Matthews, H.S., Bridges, M.W., Allen, D.T., Murphy, C.F., Allenby, B.R., Crittenden, J.C. and Austin, S. (2010), “Preparing future engineers for challenges of the 21st century: sustainable engineering”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 698-701. Du, W.D., Pan, S.L. and Zuo, M. (2012), “How to balance sustainability and profitability in technology organizations: an ambidextrous perspective”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 366-385. Epstein, M., Elkington, J. and Leonard, H. (2008), Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CA. Fornasiero, R., Zangiacomi, A. and Sorlini, M. (2012), “A cost evaluation approach for trucks maintenance planning”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 171-182. Gao, Y., Liu, Z., Hu, D., Zhang, L. and Gu, G. (2010), “Selection of green product design scheme based on multi-attribute decision-making method”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 227-291.


955

JMTM 28,7

Garbie, I.H. (2012a), “Design for complexity: a global perspective through industrial enterprises analyst and designer”, The International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 279-307. Garbie, I.H. (2012b), “Concepts and measurements of industrial complexity: a state-of-the-art survey”, The International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 42-83.

956

Garbie, I.H. (2013a), “DFSME: design for sustainable manufacturing enterprises (an economic viewpoint)”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 479-503. Garbie, I.H. (2013b), “DFMER: design for manufacturing enterprises reconfiguration considering globalization issues”, The International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 484-516.


Garbie, I.H (2014a), “An analytical technique to model and assess sustainable development index in manufacturing enterprises”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 16, pp. 4876-4915. Garbie, I.H. (2014b), “A methodology for the reconfiguration process in manufacturing systems”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 891-915. Garbie, I.H. (2014c), “Performance analysis and measurement of reconfigurable manufacturing systems”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 934-957. Garbie, I.H. (2015a), “Integrating sustainability assessments in the manufacturing enterprises”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 343-368. Garbie, I.H. (2015b), “Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation: an analytical modeling and empirical investigation”, International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 333-362. Garbie, I.H. (2015c), “Sustainability optimization in manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26, pp. 504-509. Garbie, I.H. (2016a), “Sustainable development index on macro-level industrial estates and specified sectors”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 384-421. Garbie, I.H. (2016b), “Sustainability in small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises: an empirical study”, The Journal Engineering Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 42-57. Garbie, I.H. (2017a), “Incorporating sustainability/sustainable development concepts in teaching industrial systems design courses”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 8, pp. 417-423. Garbie, I.H. (2017b), “A non-conventional competitive manufacturing strategy for sustainable industrial enterprises”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 131-159. Garetti, M. and Taisch, M. (2012), “Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 83-104. Genaidy, A.M., Rinder, M.M., Sequeira, R. and Rehim, A.A. (2010), “The role of human-at-work systems in business sustainability: perspectives based on expert and qualified production workers in a manufacturing enterprise”, Ergonomics, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 559-585. George, R.D. (2006), “Information technology, globalization and ethics”, Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 8, pp. 29-40. Giunipero, L., Hooker, R.E. and Denslow, D. (2012), “Purchasing and supply management sustainability: drivers and barriers”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18, pp. 258-269. Godichaud, M., Tchangani, A., Peres, F. and Lung, B. (2012), “Sustainable management of end-of-life systems”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 216-236. Glavic, P. and Lukman, R. (2007), “Review of sustainability terms and their definitions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, pp. 1875-1885. Goncalves, R.J., Popplewell, K. and Grilo, A. (2012), “The future of internet based industrial enterprises”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 63, pp. 731-738.

Haleem, A., Qadri, S.M.A. and Kumar, S. (2012), “Analysis of critical factors of world-class manufacturing practices: an application of interpretive structural modelling and interpretive ranking process”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 10/11, pp. 722-734. Harraz, N.A. and Galal, N.M. (2011), “Design of sustainable end-of-life vehicle recovery network in Egypt”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 211-219. Hasna, A.M. (2010), “Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 258-276. Hasan, M.A., Sarkis, J. and Shankar, R. (2012), “Agility and production flow layouts: an analytical decision analysis”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 62, pp. 898-907. Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J. and Alting, L. (2005), “From life cycle assessment to sustainable production: status and perspectives”, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 535-554.


Henry, M. and Kato, Y. (2011), “An assessment framework based on social perspectives and analytic hierarchy process: a case study on sustainability in the Japanese concrete industry”, Journal of Engineering Technology Management, Vol. 28, pp. 300-316. Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M. (2006), “A methodology for developing sustainable quantifiable productivity improvement in manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 104, pp. 143-153. Hicks, B.J. and Matthews, J. (2010), “The barriers to realizing sustainable process improvement: a root cause analysis of paradigms for manufacturing systems improvement”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 585-602. Hu, G. and Bidanda, B. (2009), “Modeling sustainable product lifecycle decision support systems”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122, pp. 366-375. Huertas, L.A., Rosamond, E.L, Conway, P.P. and West, A.A. (2013), “Sustainable production in the UK: a tool to support print circuit assembly (PCA) manufacturing”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 346-364. Ijomah, W.I., McMahon, C.A., Hammond, G.P. and Newman, S.T. (2007), “Development of design for remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing”, Robotics and ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23, pp. 712-719. Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Dillon, O.W. and Jawahir, I.S. (2010), “Sustainable manufacturing: modelling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 144-152. Jung, K.S. and Hwang, H. (2011), “Competition and cooperation in a remanufacturing system with take-back requirement”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 22, pp. 427-433. Koren, Y. (2010), The Global Manufacturing Revolution-Product-Process-Business Integration and Reconfigurable Systems, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Kulatunga, A.K., Jayatilaka, P.R. and Jayawickrama, M. (2013), “Drivers and barriers to implement sustainable manufacturing concepts in Sri Lankan manufacturing sector”, Proceedings of the 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Berlin, September 23-25. Kusiak, A. (2009), “Innovation: a data-driven approach”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122, pp. 440-448. Labuschagne, C. and Brent, A.C. (2008), “An industry perspective of the completeness and relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology management in the manufacturing sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, pp. 253-262. Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C. and Erck, R.P. (2005), “Assessing the sustainability performances of Industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp. 373-385. Lee, C., Leem, C.S. and Hwang, I. (2011), “PDM and ERP information methodology using digital manufacturing to support global manufacturing”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 53 Nos 1/4, pp. 399-409. Lee, D.-H., Dong, M. and Bian, W. (2010), “The design of sustainable logistics network under uncertainty”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 159-166.


957

JMTM 28,7


958

Lee, G.H. (1997), “Reconfigurability consideration design of components and manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 376-386. Leszczynska, A. (2012), “Towards shareholders’ value: an analysis of sustainability reports”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 6, pp. 911-928. Liu, S. and Young, R.I.M. (2007), “An exploration of key information models and their relationships in global manufacturing decision support”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B ( Journal of Engineering Manufacture), Vol. 221 No. B4, pp. 711-724. Liu, S., Leat, M. and Smith, M.H. (2011), “State-of-the-art sustainability analysis methodologies for efficient decision support in green production operations”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 236-250. Liu, W. and Liang, M. (2008), “Multi-objective design optimization of reconfigurable machine tools: a modified fuzzy-Chebshev programming approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1587-1618. Lozano, R. (2012), “Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 25, pp. 14-26. Matta, A., Tomasella, M., Clerici, M. and Sacconi, S. (2008), “Optimal reconfiguration policy to react to product changes”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 2651-2673. Melo, M., Bueno, L. and Compello, S. (2012), “Industry energy efficiency analysis in Northeast Brazil: proposal of methodology and case studies”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 428-443. Molina, A., Rodriguez, C.A., Ahuett, H., Cortes, J.A., Ramirez, M., Jimenez, G. and Martinez, S. (2005), “Next-generation manufacturing systems: key research issues in developing and integrating reconfigurable and intelligent machines”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 525-536. Nagurney, A. and Nagurney, L. (2010), “Sustainable supply chain network design: a multicriteria perspective”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 189-197. Nakhle, C. (2007), “Do high oil prices justify an increase in taxation in a mature oil province? The case of the UK continental shelf”, Energy Policy, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 4305-4318. Nassehi, A., Newman, S.T. and Allen, R.D. (2006), “STEP-NC compliant process planning as an enabler for adaptive global manufacturing”, Robotics and Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 456-467. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami, M.R. (2009), “Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 9, pp. 57-64. Niinimaki, K. and Hassi, L. (2011), “Emerging design strategies in sustainable production and consumption of textiles and clothing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, pp. 1876-1883. Obrien, C. (1999), “Sustainable production – a new paradigm for a new millennium”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vols 60/61, pp. 1-7. Palvia, P.C., Palvia, S.C.J. and Whitworth, J.E. (2002), “Global information technology: a meta-analysis of key issues”, Information and Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 403-414. Paramanathan, S., Farrukh, C., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2004), “Implementing industrial sustainability: the research issues in technology management”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 527-537. Pardo, R.J.H., Bhamra, T. and Bhamra, R. (2012), “Sustainable product service systems in small and medium enterprises (SMEs): opportunities in the leather manufacturing industry”, Sustainability, Vol. 4, pp. 175-192. Parry, G. and Roehrich, J. (2013), “Automotive enterprises transformation: build to order as a sustainable and innovative strategy for the automotive industry?”, Journal of Enterprise Transformation, Vol. 3, pp. 33-52. Pham, D.T. and Thomas, A.J. (2012), “Fit manufacturing: a framework for sustainability”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 103-123.

Pham, D.T., Pham, P.T.N. and Thomas, A. (2008), “Integrated production machines and systems-beyond lean manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 695-711. Ramani, K., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W.Z., Zhao, F., Sutherlan, J., Handwerker, C., Choi, J.-K., Kim, H. and Thurston, D. (2010), “Integrated sustainable life cycle design: a review”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 132, pp. 1-15. Rosen, M.A. (2012), “Engineering sustainability: a technical approach to sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 4, pp. 2270-2292. Rosen, M.A. and Kishawy, H.A. (2012), “Sustainable manufacturing and design: concepts, practices and needs”, Sustainability, Vol. 4, pp. 154-174.


Russell, D.A. and Shiang, D.L. (2013), “Thinking about more sustainable products: using an efficient tool for sustainability education, innovation, and project management to encourage sustainability thinking in a multinational corporation”, ACS Sustainable Chemical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 2-7. Sadorsky, P. (2009), “Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economics”, Energy Economics, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 4021-4028. Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. and Layer, J.K. (2007), “A review of enterprise agility: concepts, frameworks, and attributes”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37, pp. 445-460. Singh, M.D. and Kant, R. (2008), “Knowledge management barriers: an interpretive structural modelling approach”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 144-150. Stechel, E., Wood-Black, F., Garant, R.J. and Abraham, M.A. (2009), “Overcoming non-technical barriers to the implementation of sustainable solutions in industry”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 43 No. 12, pp. 4221-4226. Stevens, P. (1995), “The determination of oil prices 1945-95”, Energy Policy, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 861-870. Thomas, A., Francis, M., John, E. and Davies, A. (2012), “Identifying the characteristics for achieving sustainable manufacturing companies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 426-440. Tseng, M.-L, Divinagracia, L. and Divinagracia, R. (2009), “Evaluating firm’s sustainable production indicators in uncertainty”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57, pp. 1393-1403. Veleva, V. and Ellenbecker, M. (2001), “Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 519-549. Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T. and Grumbley, C. (2001), “Indictors of sustainable production”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 447-452. Vinodh, S. and Rajanayagam, D. (2010), “CAD and DFM: enablers of sustainable product design”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 292-298. Vinodh, S. and Rathod, G. (2010), “Integration of ECQFD and LCA for sustainable product design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, pp. 833-842. Weiser, C.R., Vijayaraghavan, A. and Dornfeld, D. (2008), “Metrics for sustainable manufacturing”, Proceedings of the 2008 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, Evanston, IL, October 7-10, pp. 1-9. Wu, Z. and Pagell, M. (2011), “Balancing priorities: decision –making in sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29, pp. 577-590. Yan, W., Chen, C.-H. and Chang, W. (2009), “An investigation into sustainable product conceptualization using a design knowledge hierarchy and Hopfield network”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56, pp. 1617-1626. Yip, G.S., Biscarri, J.G. and Monti, J.A. (2000), “The role of the internationalization process in the performance of newly internationalization firms”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 10-34.


959

JMTM 28,7


960

Further reading Agustiady, T and Badiru, A.B. (2013), Sustainability – Utilizing Lean Six Sigma Techniques, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p. 18. Aldanondo, M. and Vareilles, E. (2008), “Configuration for mass customization: how to extend product configuration towards requirements and process configuration”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 521-535. Egbue, O. (2012), “Assessment of social impacts of lithium for electric vehicle batteries”, Proceedings of the 2012 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, Orlando, FL, May 18-22. Garbie, I.H. (2015d), “Sustainability awareness in industrial organizations”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26, pp. 64-69. Helander, M.G. and Jiao, J. (2002), “Research on e-product development (ePD) for mass customization”, Technovation, Vol. 22, pp. 717-724. Metta, H. and Badurdeen, F. (2012), “Integrating sustainable product and supply chain design: modeling issues and challenges”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 438-446. About the author Dr Ibrahim Garbie is currently an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering-Industrial Engineering program at Helwan University in Egypt. Dr Garbie received his PhD in Industrial Engineering from University of Houston, Texas, USA in 2003. He also received his MSc in Manufacturing Engineering and BSc in Mechanical Engineering with a concentration in Production Engineering from Helwan University in Egypt in 1991 and 1996, respectively. He has been a Visiting Professor in several universities and participated in several national/international educational development programs in many capacities such as a consultant and research investigator. His research interests encompass manufacturing processes and economics, manufacturing/production systems design, competitive manufacturing strategies (complexity analysis, lean production, and agile systems), reconfiguration and sustainability/sustainable development of manufacturing enterprises and engineering education. He has authored more than 65 articles in well-regarded international peer reviewed archival journals, conferences, technical reports and book chapters. Dr Garbie has been a frequent speaker at international conferences with more than 50 papers to his credit and an invited speaker for special events. His most recent authored book, Sustainability in Manufacturing Enterprises, has been published by Springer in 2016. Dr Garbie is a Senior Member of the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE). Dr Ibrahim Garbie can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

Identifying challenges facing manufacturing ...

Identifying challenges facing manufacturing ...

Suggest Documents

Facing the Challenges - Unesco

Facing the Challenges - Unesco

Identifying the UK's manufacturing challenges as a ... - Ingenta Connect

TRANSITIONAL CHALLENGES FACING STAFF ...

Challenges Facing Distributed Teams

MEDITERRANEAN WATERSCAPES. IDENTIFYING CHALLENGES ...

SIMULATION ATTACKS MANUFACTURING CHALLENGES

Identifying Enablers of E-Manufacturing

Facing Animals in Research: Identifying technologies ...

Export constraints facing Lesotho-based manufacturing enterprises

Understanding the Challenges Facing our First Responders ...

CHALLENGES FACING ENTREPRENEURS IN NIGERIA Introduction

Challenges Facing Asian International Graduate ... - WordPress.com

127 DATA PROTECTION: THE CHALLENGES FACING SOCIAL ...

Challenges facing sterilization and depyrogenation of ...

challenges facing change management theories and research

Addressing the Complex Challenges Facing Today's Acquisition ...

The challenges facing sustainable and adaptive groundwater ...

Toward overcoming the challenges facing biomedical ...

Challenges facing sterilization and depyrogenation of ...

Facing Current Quantification Challenges in Protein Microarrays

Individual and institutional challenges facing ... - Academic Journals

Materials Challenges Facing Electrical Energy Storage - CiteSeerX

Challenges Facing Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC ...